America Overdue For The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

New Study: America Overdue For Major Earthquake … In States You Didn’t Suspect

Written by: Daniel Jennings Current Events

Most Americans have a reasonable chance of experiencing a destructive earthquake within the next 50 years, the US Geological Survey (USGS) has concluded.

The survey’s new National Seismic Hazard Map show that the risk of earthquakes in parts of the country — such as the Midwest, Oregon and the Rocky Mountains — is far higher than previously thought. All total, Americans in one-third of the country saw their risk for an earthquake increase.

“I worry that we will wake up one morning and see earthquake damage in our country that is as bad as that has occurred in some developing nations that have experienced large earthquakes,” Carl Hedde, a risk management expert at insurer Munich Reinsurance America, said of the map in The Wall Street Journal. “Beyond building collapse, a large amount of our infrastructure could be immediately damaged. Our roads, bridges and energy transmission systems can be severely impacted.”

Among the findings:

  • The earthquake danger in parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois and South Carolina is as high as that in Los Angeles.
  • 42 of the 50 states have a reasonable chance of experiencing a damaging earthquake in the next 50 years.
  • Parts of 16 states have the highest risk of a quake: Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky and South Carolina

“We know the hazard has increased for small and moderate size earthquakes,” USGS scientist William Ellsworth told The Journal. “We don’t know as well how much the hazard has increased for large earthquakes. Our suspicion is it has but we are working on understanding this.”

Frightening Results From New Study

The USGS used new computer modeling technology and data collected from recent quakes such as the one that struck Washington, D.C. in 2011 to produce the new maps. The maps show that many Americans who thought they were safe from earthquakes are not.

New Relocation Manual Helps Average Americans Get Out Of Harms Way Before The Coming Crisis

Some of the survey’s other disturbing findings include:

    • The earthquake danger in Oklahoma, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Virginia, New York and parts of New England is higher than previously thought.
    • Some major metropolitan areas, including Memphis, Salt Lake City, Seattle, St. Louis and Charleston, have a higher risk of earthquakes than previously thought. One of the nation’s most dangerous faults, the New Madrid fault, runs right through St. Louis and Missouri. It is the nation’s second most active fault. On Dec. 16, 1811, the New Madrid Fault was the site of the most powerful series of earthquakes in American history.

“Obviously the building codes throughout the central U.S. do not generally take earthquake risk or the risk of a large earthquake into account,” USGS Seismologist Elizabeth Cochran told The Journal. Her take: Earthquake damage in the central US could be far greater than in places like California, because structures in some locations are not built to withstand quakes.

Others agree.

“Earthquakes are quite rare in many places but when they happen they cause very intense damage because people have not prepared,” Mark Petersen, the project chief for the USGS’s National Seismic Hazard Map, told The Journal.

This new map should be a wakeup call for Americans.

The Iraqi Constitution is with the Antichrist

Iraqi Constitution: a contract with the people Baghdad has not honored

Paul Davis

The recent ruling of the Iraq Federal Supreme Court that secession violates the Constitution is in and of itself a worthless exercise. If a constitution is considered a contract between the government and the people, then it can be argued that the Iraqi government has violated a number of articles and has rendered the constitution null and void.

Following the referendum, the first thing Baghdad did was to invade and capture Kirkuk. The justification was that Kirkuk was a disputed territory and therefore not part of the Kurdish region.

While in fact true, it is only true because the central government failed to implement Article 140 which would have forced a referendum in Kirkuk and the other disputed territories on who should represent them. With a majority Kurdish council and governor, there was little doubt as to which way the vote would have gone in Kirkuk.

Failure to implement Article 140 within the contractually-obligated time – by the end of 2007 – was a first step in voiding the contract.

The court that ruled on the secession question is itself a violation of the constitution. Article 92 called for a new court to be designated by a vote in the Iraq Parliament, constituting a free and independent court whose makeup and authority would “be determined by a two-thirds majority vote.”

Since this vote never happened, the sitting court is from the Saddam era, and its chief justice is a member and open supporter of the Dawa party. By allowing this court to continue to function and review the law and pass judgments, the constitution is once again violated.

Leading the fight against the Islamic State (IS) as well as the attack on Kirkuk were private militias, which are prohibited by Article 9, paragraph B of the constitution. It clearly prohibits “militias or any armed forces” which are not under the control of the government.

An attempt to circumvent this prohibition was by claiming the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), also known as the Shia Hashd al-Shaabi militia, were under control of the central government.

This lie was exposed recently when Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his militia out of Kirkuk. If he still had control, then the force was not under the command of the central government. The contract is once again broken.

Finally, the constitution in Article 4 declares Kurdish as one of the two official languages of Iraq. Following the Kirkuk invasion, Kurdish was removed, and only Arabic was spoken in press conferences and news releases. There are other indications there were violations of Article 4, such as when Kurdish education was stopped.

The contract was and is once again violated.

While there are numerous other violations, these are the most egregious. Arguing the point of Iraqi sovereignty misses the point that Iraq is not a functioning country.

The government has lost legitimacy through the violation of its own laws. The existence of IS does not give any country a pass on acting against the welfare of all its people.

If Iraq wants to reestablish itself as a legitimate country, it needs to come up with a new contract between itself and its people.

The first part of any contract is offer and acceptance. With this understood, Baghdad may make the offer but Kurdistan does not now need to accept.

Paul Davis is a retired US Army military intelligence officer. He has been a consultant to the American intelligence community specializing in the Middle East with a concentration on Kurdish affairs. Currently, he is the President of the consulting firm JANUS Think in Washington D.C.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Kurdistan24.

Editing by Nadia Riva

The Iranian Global Nuclear Threat (Daniel 8)

Image result for busher nuclear platn

Is Iran a Threat to Global Peace?

Nov 14, 2017 Sri Lanka Guardian Columnists, Feature, Mohamed Shareef Asees
Only three countries: USA, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are not happy about Iran’s nuclear program. But the rest of the world agreed that nuclear is important for Iran’s energy production and it is no harm to any country.

by Dr. Mohamed Shareef Asees


( November 14, 2017, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The aim of this article is to explore the Iran’s nuclear program and its consequences throughout the world. Iran one of the nuclear power countries in the Middle East, which has brought very grave concern to the US. From the US point of view, possessing nuclear is a threat to the global peace. But from Iran’s point of view, having peaceful nuclear technology is important for its own energy production and other development activities. Iran’s nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the “Atoms for Peace program”. The participation of the United States and Western European Governments in Iran’s nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the reign of the last Shah of Iran. Following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off. In 1981, Iranian diplomats and officials concluded that the country’s nuclear development should continue. Negotiations took place with France and with Argentina in the early 1980s, and agreements were reached.

In the 1990s, Russia formed a joint research organization with Iran, providing Iran with Russian nuclear experts and technical information. In early 2000s, the revelation of Iran’s nuclear program raised concerns that it might be intended for non-peaceful uses. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) launched an investigation in 2003 and concluded that Iran’s nuclear program was not a threat to any country and it purely used it for its own energy productions. According to Iran’s Supreme Leader’s fatwa (Religious explanation), the use of nuclear weapons and all other types of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is haram or prohibited in Islam. Furthermore creating and keeping these weapons are sins, useless, costly, harmful and dangerous, posing a serious threat to the entire humanity. In fact, it was referred by the former US president Barak Obama on several occasions, including in his speech in September 2013 at the United Nations Office.

Iran’s first nuclear power plant, the “Bushehr” was completed with major assistance from the Russian government and officially opened on 12th September 2011. The Russian engineering contractor predicted that the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant would reach full capacity by the end of 2020. Iran has also announced that it is working on a new 360 Megawatt Darkhovin Nuclear Power Plant, and that it will seek more medium-sized nuclear power plants and uranium mines in the future. It shows that Iran is very transparent with regards to its nuclear program with other countries. In January 2016, all nuclear related sanctions got lifted in Iran due to the agreement with five veto power countries together with Germany (P5+1). However the rhetoric between the USA and Iran continues over the nuclear agreement. The above examples show that the nuclear program was initially promoted by the US in 1952. However, due to the Iranian revolution and the fall of Shah, US became disappointed with Iran and began to accuse for its nuclear program with Russia and other European countries. Further, Iran was labeled as one of the greatest threats to the world peace and the US continues to tarnish Iran’s image in the international arena.


Global peace is an idea of a world without violence, where nations try to beat peace with each other. World peace could mean equal human rights, technology, and free education for everyone. A report in May 2017 on the Global Peace Index, found that if the world had been 25% more peaceful in the previous year, the global economy would have had an additional amount of $2 trillion. This amount would have covered 2% of the GDP per year required to avoid the worst effects of global warming. According to the UN report there are 194 member countries in the UNO; out of these over 100 countries have conflicts either domestically or internationally. Most of these conflicts have been identified in the Middle East and Africa. There are 13 countries in the Middle East, where most of them have conflicts. Out of all Iran is the only country which does not promote any direct or indirect violence in this region. Iran is well-known for being a neutral and peaceful country during war times. It is reported that during the First World War (1914-1919) and the Second World War (1939-1945) Iran kept a neutral position and decided not to support any countries. Further during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) Iran did not carry-out any offensive attack against Iraq rather it defended for eight years. The above examples show that there is no single evidence to show that Iran is a threat to the global peace. It is reported that Iran did not promote any form of direct or violence in the past three hundred years. Having nuclear is very important and constructive to Iran rather destructive.

It has been 38 years since the Iranian revolution took place, since then the US has been accusing its nuclear experiments and imposing economic sanctions from time to time just to weaken its economy and minimize its nuclear technology. However, Iran manages to continue its nuclear program and economic developments despite with so many challenges. The last economic sanction which was imposed on Iran in 2006 was very heavy and affected Iran’s economy. In 2015 Iran was succeeded and signed an agreement with P5+1 known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). According to JCPOA-UN Resolution 2231, Iran agreed to reduce its nuclear program, in return P5+1 country decided to check every three months by IAEA. According to the IAEA last three reports and UN general Secretary Speech, it show that Iran has committed to this agreement and has been following it. However, the newly elected US President Donald Trump (January, 2017) is not happy with this agreement and Iran’s commitment to that.

The US president has been a frequent critic of the Iran nuclear pact. Mr. Trump recently called it “one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen”, stating that Iran had “violated so many different elements”. It shows that US does not want to allow Iran to work on the nuclear program further and he wants to keep it fully under their control. From the US point of view Iran cannot have the nuclear technology, but other permanent members and other supporters of US can have it. The Trump’s nuclear theory is that, those who support US can survive and enjoy the nuclear freedom while those who oppose, will be perished by the US.

The European Union was very critical over Iran’s nuclear deal until 2015. However, after the nuclear agreement which was signed in Vienna, the European Union began to do some trade activities with Iran. The current move of US towards Iran has disturbed some EU member countries while High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, UK, Germany, France, Italy and many other EU countries have supported JCPOA and Iran.

Only three countries: USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel are not happy about Iran’s nuclear program. But the rest of the world agreed that nuclear is important for Iran’s energy production and it is not harm to any country. Officials in several countries have voiced support for Iran over its nuclear program. These include Iraq, Algeria and Indonesia, etc. Turkey has expressed support for Iran’s right to a nuclear program for peaceful energy production and along with Egypt has urged for a peaceful solution to the standoff. From Russia’s point of view there is no objective evidence that Iran is seeking for nuclear weapons. According to a 2008 global poll of Arab public opinion, the Arab public does not appear to see Iran as a major threat and does not support international pressure to force Iran to curtail the program. The above examples show that most of the countries are with Iran for its nuclear program except the above mentioned three countries.

From Iran’s point of view nuclear technology is very important for its own energy production and other activities. Meanwhile, it has been continuously arguing that it never ever had challenged the world peace at any occasions in the past. Further it argues that US is not fair with Iran although it had supported to develop the nuclear program long ago (1951). If US want to destroy the nuclear program and promote peace it should reduce all nuclear related weapons belonging to every country in the world. There should be a common rule for all countries where every country is equal in front of International law. The unipolar system and double-standard policy of US shows that US is seeking more power (world hegemony) to be one man rule in the world.

Although Iran’s peaceful nuclear technology is never ever threatened the world peace, Every time US accuse its nuclear program and impose economic sanctions just to weaken this country and perish its nuclear program. The US have created more conflicts in the world compared to other countries: Conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and they created terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida and ISIS according to the Donald Trump Speech during his campaign. The crisis in the region including in those countries are rooted in occupation, illegal military intervention and hegemonic designs of the United States

If Korea is Nuclear, Why Not Iran?

Iran Questions the Nuclear Deal as North Korea Defies the West

Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of the Islamic Republic’s flagship Kayhan newspaper, is appointed directly by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; both Iranians and outside analysts often read his comments to gain insight into the Supreme Leader’s thinking. In the excerpted remarks—covered by various Iranian newspapers—Shariatmadari offers an analysis of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the so-called Iran nuclear deal. Always a critic of the JCPOA and any nuclear agreement, Shariatmadari has doubled down on his opposition as debate about the agreement’s recertification, inspections, and Iran’s other activities increases at the International Atomic Energy Agency and in Western capitals.

In the accompanying excerpts, Shariatmadari cites North Korea’s increasing nuclear defiance and compares the power of North Korea unfavorably to Iran. The Iran-Iraq War (1980- 1988) was a formative period for the Islamic Republic and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Shariatmadari—embracing the widespread Iranian belief that the Iraqi invasion was an American-initiated plot from the start—argues that even when Iran was in such disarray, the “arrogant powers” were unable to make inroads against the Islamic Republic and, therefore, with Iran many times more powerful now, the United States would be hard-pressed to extract any penalty on Iran, even if Iran walked away from the deal. Therefore, he suggests, it is not in Iran’s interest to agree to any renegotiation of the agreement, let alone abide by its commitments, given that Iran has gotten nothing from the nuclear deal (sanctions relief notwithstanding).

This does not mean that Iran is preparing to walk away from the JCPOA, but it does suggest that the North Korea example looms large over at least some quarters of Iranian thinking as it does with American policymakers, albeit to the opposite ends. While some non-proliferation experts see the JCPOA as a means to prevent “another North Korea,” some Iranian hardliners close to Khamenei ask themselves why Iran should be constrained by a nuclear agreement when North Korea, a country with a smaller population and weaker economy, managed to defy the West. The true resonance of this argument will likely emerge among a broader array of Iranian policymakers should more active debate turn toward constraining Iran’s ballistic missile development.

The Threat of Trump’s Nuclear Strike

Don’t Count on the Cabinet to Stop a Trump-Ordered Nuclear Strike

November 14, 2017
Zack Stanton/POLITICO

Stop counting on Secretary of Defense James Mattis or Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to stop a nuclear war if Donald Trump wants one, says Bill Perry. They couldn’t.

Perry, who served as secretary of defense for President Bill Clinton, is a 90-year-old arm-waving apostle of doom—“the possibility of an apocalypse thrust itself upon me,” he told me in an interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast. He says nuclear war has “become more probable in the last year, partly because of President Trump,” and partly due to events beyond the president’s control. He thinks Trump doesn’t understand the North Koreans, and doesn’t understand what his rhetoric is doing.

That the president and his Cabinet secretaries are so often putting out conflicting messages makes the situation worse. And though Perry subscribes to the idea that Mattis and Tillerson are a “stabilizing influence,” he said that with this president, “I’m not really comfortable with anybody.”

While bills by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to restrict first use of nuclear weapons have stalled in Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) is set to put some muscle behind his very public anxiety about Trump’s leadership. On Tuesday, Corker will hold a committee hearing on nuclear authorization—the first on the topic since Gerald Ford was president—prompted by concerns he’s heard from members both on and off the committee over letting one person, and this person in particular, have the unfettered ability to launch a nuclear war.

Perry knows Mattis well—while Perry was defense secretary in the 1990s, Mattis worked for him directly, and they both ended up at Stanford University in recent years. The two still talk, and Perry thinks Mattis understands the nuclear threat well—he just doesn’t think Mattis would necessarily be able to do anything if Trump decided to go ahead with a strike.

Perry’s heard the story of Richard Nixon’s final days in the White House, when Defense Secretary James Schlesinger supposedly told generals that any nuclear strike order from the clearly distressed president be run by him first.

But that’s not really the way it works, Perry said.

“The order can go directly from the president to the Strategic Air Command. The defense secretary is not necessarily in that loop. So, in a five- or six- or seven-minute kind of decision, the secretary of defense probably never hears about it until it’s too late. If there is time, and if he does consult the secretary, it’s advisory, just that,” Perry explained. “Whether [the president] goes with it or doesn’t go with it—[the secretary] doesn’t have the authority to stop it.”

Perry lived through two nuclear apocalypse scares. The first lasted for days, when as a consultant, he was brought by the CIA to help sort through intelligence during the Cuban missile crisis. The second lasted for a split second, when as a lower-ranking Pentagon official during Jimmy Carter’s term, he was woken by a phone call warning him that it looked as if 200 nuclear missiles were already in the air—but it was immediately explained to him that this was a computer error. The experiences were searing, and left him convinced that only good luck and a little bit of good management saved the world from ending under John F. Kennedy, and that the context of lower tensions during that 1979 computer error stopped the situation from spiraling out of hand.

Today, Perry sees worse management and higher tensions. He worries that America’s luck may have run out.

It’s not hard for him to imagine what would happen if a terrorist group acquired fissile material and then set it off in New York, Washington or another major city: The country wouldn’t rally together or easily recover, like in a disaster movie.

“If you look at 9/11, besides the 3,000 casualties, there were very significant economic and political and social consequences. There were new laws passed. There were new restrictions put on our freedoms because of that. All of those effects would probably be magnified tenfold or a hundredfold if a nuclear bomb goes off in Washington,” Perry said. “If you imagine that some sort of a law passed—10 times the Patriot Act, for example—that’s the sort of thing we would see. You might see attacks on citizens who were believed to be somehow related to or associated with the terror attack. It would be ugly.”

America is vulnerable, he said, and America would be wounded, perhaps mortally, if terrorists took advantage of that vulnerability. Once the consequences are considered, Perry said, “the terrorists would have succeeded in some sense in changing our country, in changing it in ways that are very negative.”

Perry’s been on the road, entering his 10th decade of life while playing the part of a reluctant Cassandra, but is channeling much of his energy into a free online Stanford course about nuclear terrorism—one meant to sound the alarms he can’t believe aren’t ringing. Already, 6,000 people have accessed it, and 3,000 have signed up, looking for his answers to the question, “Is the threat of nuclear terrorism real?”

I asked him whether anyone in the Trump White House has signed up.

“I don’t hear from the Trump White House,” he said.

Trump and many of his allies blame 20 years of bad negotiations for the current predicament with North Korea, stretching back to the Clinton years—when, in 1999, Perry went to Pyongyang and returned with a handshake agreement for a nuclear nonproliferation framework he believes his boss would have signed had Al Gore won the presidency.

“I think we can learn some lessons from negotiating with North Korea, but I think the Trump administration has learned a wrong lesson. They’re tough negotiators. They’ve demonstrated an inclination and a capacity to evade and cheat on treaties. So I think what we’ve learned from that is that when we negotiate with them, we ought to have strong verification. Even the Agreed Framework—which I believe they cheated on toward the end of the century—delayed their nuclear program by probably six, or seven or eight years,” Perry said. “So it was something.”

Perry acknowledges his own negotiations had problems, but says that President George W. Bush’s decision to pull away from them forced the current situation upon the world: The idea that North Korea won’t be a nuclear power is out the window, and the most that can be hoped for is to persuade the regime to scale back its missile tests. Where it seemed like Kim Jong Il wanted international respect, Kim Jong Un appears to instead prioritize the security and continuity of the regime.

“We missed our major chance to negotiate with them back at the turn of the century, but that doesn’t mean that diplomacy has no role today,” Perry said. “And when you consider the alternatives to diplomacy, it’s pretty clear we ought to be trying it.”