The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

Historic Earthquakes

Near New York City, New York

1884 08 10 19:07 UTC

Magnitude 5.5

Intensity VII

This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.

Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.

The Antichrist Forbids US Instruction

Baghdad ( Influential Iraqi Shia cleric and militant leader Muqtada al-Sadr has told a security member it is religiously impermissible to get training by U.S. security instructors.

Answering faith-related inquiries on his online portal, Sadr was asked by a man, who identified himself as Ahmed al-Iraqi, a member of “Iraqi internal security services”, whether it was permissible to get training by U.S. troops.

“We get training on the use of arms and the detection of explosives, but, sir, we are trained by the occupier coalition forces in Iraq,” read the inquiry.

“I am not pleased with that, but it is our commanders’ orders,” the agent added. “Be noted that I do not sympathize, eat, talk or jab with them, is that still considered an assistance to occupiers?”.

Sadr answered that “this is forbidden, and if you may, get a religious exception (edict) to do it”.

The authenticity of the inquiry and the identity of the asker could not be verified.

Sadr has been a central player in the political and militancy scene in Iraq, and had for some time, following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, been branded an enemy to the United States, being an ardent opponent to foreign military presence in the country.

A U.S.-led alliance had backed Iraqi forces in their fight against Islamic State militants since their emergence in 2014 and until the group’s defeat last year’s end. While Iraqi officials were quoted saying it was expected that coalition troops would draw down their numbers after IS defeat, coalition officials said they were keeping a few thousand troops for training purposes.

The End of the Iran Deal

Mar. 23, 2018, 11:43 AM

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, arrives at Trump Tower for a meeting with President-elect Donald Trump in New York. Dec. 2, 2016.
Associated Press

Newly appointed national security advisor John Bolton is perhaps the most hawkish, and potentially “dangerous,” person that will be in President Donald Trump’s administration.

Bolton, who served as the US ambassador to the UN under former President George W. Bush, tried to distance himself from his previous comments after the announcement of the new position — but if the past is any indication, he will likely continue to be a major defense hawk.

Especially when it comes to Iran.

Bolton has long expressed a firm belief that military action is needed to contain Iran and prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons, as well as keep its influence in the region in check. In 2008, Bolton suggested that the US should conduct airstrikes in Iran as retaliation for them aiding insurgents in Iraq.

“I think the Iranians need to look very carefully at what risk they would run if they were to escalate,” Bolton said at the time, when asked what the Iranian response would be to the proposed airstrikes. “So this is not provocative or preemptive, this is entirely responsive on our part.”

Bolton also made his disdain for the Iran nuclear deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, public when it was still being put together.

In March of 2015, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” In it, he stated that “America and the West were guilty of inattention when they should have been vigilant,” and that “failing to act in the past is no excuse for making the same mistakes now.”

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required,” Bolton wrote.

When the Iran deal was signed and Trump took office, Bolton said that the incoming president should “abrogate the Iran nuclear deal in his first days in office.” He also wrote an article in the National Review in August 2017 titled “How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.”

The article was, according to Bolton, originally a game plan for Trump that Bolton had drawn up and given to former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.

Among Bolton’s suggestions were ending “all visas for Iranians, including so called ‘scholarly,’ student, sports, or other exchanges;” demanding payment from Iran for terrorism “including 9/11;” provide “assistance” to minority and activist groups, as well as labor unions in Iran; and to “actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.”

Trump shares a similar view with Bolton when is comes to the Iran deal, as does incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The president said when he fired Rex Tillerson earlier this month that he dismissed the secretary of state at least in part over a disagreement on how best to proceed with the Iran deal.

However, Trump campaigned on a platform of non-intervention in 2016, making some feel that Bolton’s appointment would be tantamount to a betrayal of his base.

Establishing the Pakistani Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:8)

National Security Advisor


John Bolton

Media interviews with Bolton – named NSA yesterday – from the recent past suggest that while he believes Pakistan does need to be dealt with firmly, the US needs to strike a delicate balance in the matter and leave the heavy lifting to China.

That’s because Bolton – a former US ambassador to the UN – believes that Pakistan, a nuclear weapons state, is perpetually teetering on the brink of embracing Islamic extremism and terror. And pushing it too hard could well lead to it becoming “a terrorist country with nuclear weapons”, or as Bolton described it last August to, “Iran or North Korea on steroids”.

Bolton’s interview with Breitbart took place right after Trump announced his administration’s new policy on Afghanistan, which entailed putting pressure on Pakistan to end what Trump described as “safe havens to agents of chaos and terror”.

Bolton said he believes the US goal should be preventing the Taliban from taking back control and a key ally in the fulfilment of that goal, whether anyone likes it or not, is Pakistan.

“…it’s clear the President wants to pressure Pakistan more. Well, I agree with that, and I think Obama didn’t pressure them enough… But there’s a real problem with simply saying, ‘By God, we’re going to squeeze Pakistan until they finally push the Taliban, the Haqqani network, Gulbuddin Hekmati out of the privileged sanctuaries they’ve had in Pakistan, push them back into Afghanistan, and stop supplying them, stop giving them weapons, stop giving them money’ “, said Bolton to Breitbart.

Bolton said the problem with such an approach is that it might lead to a situation where anti-US sentiment fuels popular support for Islamist radicals and the Taliban.

“If you push too hard, this government in Pakistan is fragile. It has been since the partition of British India …The military in Pakistan itself is at risk, increasingly, of being infiltrated through the officer ranks by radical Islamists. Many people believe the intelligence services unit already is heavily dominated by Islamists,” he explained.

If radicals take over the Pakistan government completely, it’s “the ultimate risk” said Bolton.

“…if Pakistani Taliban or other radicals took control of that country, it wouldn’t just be another base to launch terrorist operations against us or Western Europe. It would be a terrorist country with nuclear weapons, so it would be Iran or North Korea on steroids right now,” he warned.

Too much pressure on Pakistan could backfire, Bolton wrote last August in The Wall Street Journal.

Putting too much pressure on Pakistan risks further destabilizing the already volatile country, tipping it into the hands of domestic radical Islamicists, who grow stronger by the day. In this unstable environment, blunt pressure by the U.S.—and, by inference, India — could backfire,” said the the now NSA in a column for the Journal.

Here’s where China can step in and should be pressured to, the new NSA said.

“China’s influence is, in some ways, greater than ours” in Pakistan because “there wouldn’t be a Pakistani nuclear weapons program without China.”

China is the key to keeping the house of cards from collapsing in Pakistan, Bolton said in his Journal column from August.

“If American pressure were enough to compel Pakistan to act decisively against the terrorists within its borders, that would have happened long ago. What President Trump needs is a China component to his nascent South Asia policy, holding Beijing accountable for the misdeeds that helped create the current strategic danger,” wrote Bolton.

The new US NSA has expressed similar views before last year as well. Following the finding and killing of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden in Rawalpindi in 2011, there was a lot of opposition in the US Congress about continuing aid to Pakistan. Many in the US believed that Pakistan has been shielding bin Laden.

“There are few recipients of foreign aid that attract more opposition in Congress than Pakistan,” said Bolton on Fox News in 2013.

But cutting off aid to Pakistan isn’t the answer, Bolton said. The larger issue, he explained, is preventing terrorists from wresting control of the country’s 60 to 100 nuclear weapons that could deploy to the U.S.

“You also have to weigh … [that] if we didn’t support this (Pakistan) government, the government could fall to Pakistani radicals,” he said, adding that’s the reason aid to Pakistan should continue.

“There are times you have to grit your teeth,” and pay, he said.