Two Centuries Before The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

The worst earthquake in Massachusetts history 260 years ago

It happened before, and it could happen again.

By Hilary Sargent @lilsarg Staff | 11.19.15 | 5:53 AM

On November 18, 1755, Massachusetts experienced its largest recorded earthquake.

The earthquake occurred in the waters off Cape Ann, and was felt within seconds in Boston, and as far away as Nova Scotia, the Chesapeake Bay, and upstate New York, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Seismologists have since estimated the quake to have been between 6.0 and 6.3 on the Richter scale, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.

While there were no fatalities, the damage was extensive.

According to the USGS, approximately 100 chimneys and roofs collapsed, and over a thousand were damaged.

The worst damage occurred north of Boston, but the city was not unscathed.

A 1755 report in The Philadelphia Gazette described the quake’s impact on Boston:

“There was at first a rumbling noise like low thunder, which was immediately followed with such a violent shaking of the earth and buildings, as threw every into the greatest amazement, expecting every moment to be buried in the ruins of their houses. In a word, the instances of damage done to our houses and chimnies are so many, that it would be endless to recount them.”

The quake sent the grasshopper weathervane atop Faneuil Hall tumbling to the ground, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.

An account of the earthquake, published in The Pennsylvania Gazette on December 4, 1755.

The earthquake struck at 4:30 in the morning, and the shaking lasted “near four minutes,” according to an entry John Adams, then 20, wrote in his diary that day.

The brief diary entry described the damage he witnessed.

“I was then at my Fathers in Braintree, and awoke out of my sleep in the midst of it,” he wrote. “The house seemed to rock and reel and crack as if it would fall in ruins about us. 7 Chimnies were shatter’d by it within one mile of my Fathers house.”

The shaking was so intense that the crew of one ship off the Boston coast became convinced the vessel had run aground, and did not learn about the earthquake until they reached land, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.

In 1832, a writer for the Hampshire (Northampton) Gazette wrote about one woman’s memories from the quake upon her death.

“It was between 4 and 5 in the morning, and the moon shone brightly. She and the rest of the family were suddenly awaked from sleep by a noise like that of the trampling of many horses; the house trembled and the pewter rattled on the shelves. They all sprang out of bed, and the affrightted children clung to their parents. “I cannot help you dear children,” said the good mother, “we must look to God for help.

The Cape Ann earthquake came just 17 days after an earthquake estimated to have been 8.5-9.0 on the Richter scale struck in Lisbon, Portugal, killing at least 60,000 and causing untold damage.

There was no shortage of people sure they knew the impretus for the Cape Ann earthquake.

According to many ministers in and around Boston, “God’s wrath had brought this earthquake upon Boston,” according to the Massachusetts Historical Society.

In “Verses Occasioned by the Earthquakes in the Month of November, 1755,” Jeremiah Newland, a Taunton resident who was active in religious activities in the Colony, wrote that the earthquake was a reminder of the importance of obedience to God.

“It is becaufe we broke thy Laws,

that thou didst shake the Earth.

O what a Day the Scriptures say,

the EARTHQUAKE doth foretell;

O turn to God; lest by his Rod,

he cast thee down to Hell.”

Boston Pastor Jonathan Mayhew warned in a sermon that the 1755 earthquakes in Massachusetts and Portugal were “judgments of heaven, at least as intimations of God’s righteous displeasure, and warnings from him.”

There were some, though, who attempted to put forth a scientific explanation for the earthquake.

Well, sort of.

In a lecture delivered just a week after the earthquake, Harvard mathematics professor John Winthrop said the quake was the result of a reaction between “vapors” and “the heat within the bowels of the earth.” But even Winthrop made sure to state that his scientific theory “does not in the least detract from the majesty … of God.”

It has been 260 years since the Cape Ann earthquake. Some experts, including Boston College seismologist John Ebel, think New England could be due for another significant quake.

In a recent Boston Globe report, Ebel said the New England region “can expect a 4 to 5 magnitude quake every decade, a 5 to 6 every century, and a magnitude 6 or above every thousand years.”

If the Cape Ann earthquake occurred today, “the City of Boston could sustain billions of dollars of earthquake damage, with many thousands injured or killed,” according to a 1997 study by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Even High Schoolers Trample Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11:2)

High schoolers from Gaza border towns march to Jerusalem

Over 100 students left the Shaar HaNegev Regional Council high school on Sunday morning to make their way to Jerusalem as part of a march to raise awareness for the ongoing high tensions on the Gaza border.

The students—sophomores, juniors and seniors—will walk to the capital, some 90 kilometers away, over the course of five days. The teenagers, who will be joined by their peers from other areas of the country, will walk about 15 kilometers on Sunday and spend the night at Kibbutz Ruhama, which is in the Shaar HaNegev Regional Council and under constant rocket fire threat.  The students are expected to get to the Knesset in Jerusalem on Thursday.

This is the biggest protest since the “March of Return” campaign began in late March and brought with it a new threat to their communities: arson terrorism in the form of balloons and kites being flown across the border from the strip into Israel, with an incendiary or explosive device tied to them.

During the weekend, protest leaders worked on planning the march: mapping out the route, figuring out the time it would take to reach each stop, and making sure they have the proper equipment and food.

The teens have the full support of their parents—some of whom will meet them at different stops along the way—as well as organizations and private individuals who will help with necessary equipment.

The schools themselves will not take part in the protest, as the Education Ministry cannot, by law, encourage such a march at the expense of school time. But the teachers and school principals have already told the students they have no intention of stopping them. “This is a protest that came from them, a move they initiated. We can’t stop them,” said one of the teachers. The students prepared signs and flags for the march as well as T-shirts with the slogan “Let us grow up in peace.”

“Our message is that we want change. Enough of the current security situation,” said Roei Rahaf from Kibbutz Mefalsim, a senior at the Shaar HaNegev regional high school. “Since we were born, we’ve been living from one war to the next. We want to grow up on the Gaza border in peace. The change is in the hands of the leadership in Israel, and that is why we are marching to the Knesset. This is a journey to raise awareness of what’s going on here, on the Gaza border; to tell our story, of the teenagers who deal with the difficult security situation.” Much like any modern protest, the teens will provide updates in real time on the protest’s Instagram and Facebook pages, where they will post photos and videos from the march. Meanwhile, students from the Nofei HaBsor High School at the Eshkol Regional Council protested at the entrance to the educational facility as a sign of solidarity with the marchers. Several adult protesters blocked the Kerem Shalom border crossing on Sunday morning, preventing trucks from entering the Gaza Strip.

Germany About to Become a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

How Germany should respond to America’s threat to quit the INF Treaty

OCTOBER 31, 2018 AT 8:34 AM CET

German policymakers and pundits were shocked by Donald Trump’s announcement that he intends to withdraw the United States from the INF Treaty. This step would give the US a free hand to arm itself with land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles, be it against Russia or any other potential adversary, including China (which is an even greater concern for the Americans than Russia). But in Germany, it is conventional wisdom that the treaty forms part of the bedrock of European security. Many Germans thus automatically assume that America’s departure from the treaty would undermine European security.

But with this assumption, Germans are missing three things: First, Berlin policymakers believe that existing arms-control treaties are a good thing in and of themselves. However, the INF Treaty did not eliminate the nuclear threat; it only slowed down its growth. In that way, the treaty still had some value. But Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev did not sign the treaty in 1987 to slow the danger, they wanted to eliminate it.

If both sides had complied with the treaty since then, land-based, intermediate-range nuclear weapons or their delivery systems could have been limited in Europe. Instead, Russia has built up a nuclear arsenal which allows Moscow today to quickly and massively attack the European continent. For a long time, these Russian moves respected the formal boundaries of the treaty. But the recent deployment of a mid-range cruise missile was a blatant violation.

So it is not clear why Europe would be more secure with or without a treaty, if Russia gained a military advantage in the long term. Keeping a treaty that has been violated does not add to European security.

The second German miscalculation is to forget the original context and rationale of the INF Treaty, which no longer applies today. The treaty was inspired by the so-called Harmel-report logic. It was named after Pierre Harmel, a Belgian foreign minister, who believed in a combination of deterrence and dialogue. Thus, he proposed dialogue with the Soviet Union, but from a position of military strength. First NATO, including Germany, had to equip itself with intermediate-range missiles. Arms control would then become possible only as a second step. This made the treaty possible.

But that means that Germans today should remember that a new round of arms-control talks would also require military strength as a prerequisite. To negotiate successfully, NATO must raise the risks for Russia of failed negotiations.

The third German miscalculation is to assume that Germany’s European NATO partners automatically share Germany’s stance. But there is no common position. Instead, NATO could even split over this existential question of how best to keep Europe secure. Some allies will be open to bringing more nuclear weapons to Europe to counter the Russian advantage. This would alienate other member states, especially Germany, where rearmament is anathema.

Germany’s dilemma

Any such debate within NATO about adding nuclear (or even conventional) weapons would thus place the German government in a dilemma: It would be caught between domestic audiences (against rearmament) and foreign ones (often in favor). Besides, rearmament would mean relying even more on American weapons. Given the current mood in Germany toward President Trump, this would be a non-starter.

To help NATO stay united and to keep Europe safe, Germany should, therefore, take the following four steps: First, Germany should show the Americans that it takes their concerns about Asian security seriously. Germany should occasionally send its navy into Asian waters to relieve the US in keeping sea routes open, and to show that it is prepared to share burdens.

Second, Germany should try to rescue the INF Treaty by publicly calling on Russia to demonstrate its compliance. This could slow America’s exit and provide time for negotiations. The goal should be to avoid dissolving the treaty, and instead merely to suspend it or to withdraw only from parts of it, while a new treaty is being renegotiated. This would make Germany more credible among its NATO partners.

Third, Germany should ask the US to move more air- and sea-based nuclear weapons to Europe (which are not covered by the treaty). This would reassure Germany’s eastern NATO members in particular and would sidestep a general rearmament debate. And fourth, Germany should work toward improving NATO’s missile defenses. Because today’s missiles can come from all directions, airborne sensors — on reconnaissance planes, for example — can detect the rockets at an early stage.

In general, Germany must move beyond affectations of shock and toward constructive thinking about ways to make Europe safer.

To contact the author:

Building the Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Why a nuclear-armed Australia is more likely than ever before: Expert says country’s rare natural feature makes nukes a viable deterrent to China

By Laura Hedges For Daily Mail Australia

04:54 24 Oct 2018, updated 22:57 24 Oct 2018

ANU expert says that Australia’s coastline is an ideal setting for nuclear weapons

• The country’s ‘continuous coastline’ could house short-range nuclear missiles

• The weapons could be used in defence against air and maritime forces

• But a ‘serious study’ would be crucial before a nuclear agenda is established

• A potential nuclear agenda could also cause rifts with Indonesia and the US 

• Australia has taken shelter under the US nuclear umbrella since early 2000s

Australia is ‘uniquely positioned’ for the implementation of nuclear weapons, an expert has said.

Dr Stephan Fruhling, Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University, said in a recent essay that the ‘unthinkable option’ of Australian nuclear weapons is more likely than ever before.

The country’s continuous coastline, he said, would be the ideal position for tactical, short-range nuclear weapons that could be used in defence against air and maritime forces.

Dr Stephan Fruhling, from the ANU, said in a recent essay that the ‘unthinkable option’ of Australian nuclear weapons is more likely than ever before

‘Australia could establish a maritime exclusion zone in wartime, to increase the military risk for any country planning a major attack against the continent,’ he told Late Night Live.

Australia has taken shelter under the US nuclear umbrella since the early 20th century, and has stubbornly stayed out of discussions to forbid the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the ABC reports.

US Will Lift Korean Sanctions

North Korea warns it could restart nuclear weapons development if sanctions aren’t lifted

Nov 3, 2018

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un guides the launch of a Hwasong-12 missile in this undated photo released last September. | REUTERS

North Korea has warned that it could revive its scrapped policy of building up its nuclear arsenal if the U.S. does not remove harsh economic sanctions as part of reciprocal measures Pyongyang has demanded in ongoing denuclearization talks.

In a statement released Friday, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry said Pyongyang could revert to leader Kim Jong Un’s signature policy of pyongjin, or “parallel advance,” in which the country simultaneously pursues economic and nuclear development.

“If the U.S. keeps behaving arrogant without showing any change in its stand … the DPRK may add one thing to the state line for directing all efforts to the economic construction adopted in April and as a result, the word ‘pyongjin’ (simultaneously conducting economic construction and building up nuclear forces) may appear again and the change of the line could be seriously reconsidered,” the statement said.

In April, Kim abruptly announced he was retiring the policy of pyongjin, which is also known as byungjin. That strategy had been at the center of regime propaganda and is enshrined in the charter of the ruling Workers’ Party. In his April announcement, he also said the North was adopting a “new strategic line” that focuses on rebuilding the country’s tattered economy.

By alluding to a return to its dual-track policy, Pyongyang may be attempting to throw Washington off balance ahead of key talks next week between U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a top North Korean official in the United States.

North Korea has repeatedly demanded that the U.S. roll back punishing sanctions and issue a political declaration ending the 1950-53 Korean War, which was halted in an armistice, as “corresponding measures” for what it claims are credible steps toward denuclearization. These steps have included a halt to all nuclear and missile tests as well as the dismantlement of its sole known nuclear site and a key missile-testing facility.

“The U.S. thinks that its oft-repeated ‘sanctions and pressure’ lead to ‘denuclearization.’ We cannot help laughing at such a foolish idea,” said the statement, released under the name of Kwon Jong Gun, director of the Foreign Ministry’s Institute for American Studies.

At a landmark June summit in Singapore, Kim agreed to a vaguely worded 1½-page joint statement to “work towards the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” while Trump committed to “provide security guarantees” to the regime.

But negotiations have hit a wall in the wake of that summit.

Media reports after that meeting citing anonymous U.S. intelligence officials have said that the North continues to develop its nuclear program despite its vow to work toward relinquishing its nukes.

Friday’s statement marked the first time that Pyongyang had alluded to potentially resuming weapons tests since the April policy shift. Last year, the North conducted a raft of missile launches — including two over Japan and one of a missile believed capable of striking most of the continental United States. It also conducted its most powerful nuclear test to date.

In the talks, Washington has reportedly demanded that Pyongyang disclose a full inventory of nuclear weapons and fissile materials before any U.S concessions. The North, however, has insisted that the U.S. move first on the war-ending declaration and easing of sanctions as a way of “trust-building” after years of the United States’ “hostile policy” toward it.

“Now that we gave all things possible to the U.S., things it hardly deserves, by taking proactive and good-will measures, what remains to be done is the U.S. corresponding reply,” Friday’s statement said.

“Unless there is any reply, the DPRK will not move even 1 mm, how costly it may be,” it added.