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 July 31, 2014

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.

There are at least four active earthquake faults in the United States that are at risk for major quakes. The Ramapo fault runs right under New York City; in 1884 there was a 5.2 earthquake in Brooklyn.

A map of operating Nuclear Reactors prepared by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission shows that there are nuclear power plants located in the regions that are most at risk for quakes. There are four nuclear reactors located near the New Madrid Fault alone. There are two nuclear reactors at Indian Point just north of New York City and the Ramapo fault.

“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.

Trump is Helping the Saudi Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Is the Trump Administration Helping the Saudis Build a Bomb?

The crown prince can’t be trusted with a bone saw, let alone nuclear weapons.

By Doug BandowApril 18, 2019

President Donald Trump went dancing with the Saudi royals in Riyadh, where he tried to sell America’s principles in exchange for a mess of weapons contracts. Since then, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has become Saudi Arabia’s lead PR counsel in America. The Pentagon is the Saudi regime’s premier armorer.

Now Energy Secretary Rick Perry is acting as chief nuclear procurer for the Saudis. “By ramming through the sale of as much as $80 billion in nuclear power plants,” The New York Times warned recently, “the Trump administration would provide sensitive knowhow and materials to a government whose de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has suggested that he may eventually want a nuclear weapon as a hedge against Iran and has shown little concern for what the rest of the world thinks.”

Obviously, Trump has not endorsed a Saudi nuclear weapon. However, his administration’s ongoing attempt to provide the Kingdom with nuclear technology raises serious questions about U.S. policy.

America’s relationship with Riyadh has long been fraught with tension, inconsistency, and hypocrisy. The faux friendship revolves around oil, the lifeblood of the Western economy. However, the fracking revolution turned the U.S. into an energy super-supplier, and other hydrocarbon sources have since emerged. And if Washington stopped routinely sanctioning other governments for not following its dictates, oil producers such as Iran, Russia, and Venezuela would be supplying international markets, further reducing Riyadh’s importance.

American officials like to promote the Saudis’ antediluvian absolute monarchy as the foundation for Middle East stability. Alas, the price is unrivaled repression. Despite the crown prince’s reputation as a social reformer, he so far has not relaxed the Kingdom’s totalitarian political or religious controls one bit.

And that brutality has not guaranteed stability. Saudi Arabia looks brittle, an artificial, antiquated governing structure held together by tyranny and bribery. In time, it will likely lose to demands for justice, equality, and democracy, which have doomed a host of other corrupt, brutal, Mideast dictatorships, most recently Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir.

Outside of the country, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) has pursued a wild and reckless strategy of regional domination. Even Senator Lindsey Graham, perhaps the United States’ most war-happy lawmaker, has called MbS “crazy,” “dangerous,” and a “wrecking ball.”

The KSA has backed radical Islamists in Syria, subsidized the al-Sisi dictatorship in Egypt, kidnapped Lebanon’s prime minister, used troops to sustain Bahrain’s dictatorial Sunni monarchy, isolated Qatar, kidnapped and murdered Saudi critics in foreign nations, invaded Yemen, intensified the Mideast’s long-running sectarian conflict, and promoted General Khalifa Haftar’s attack on Libya’s internationally recognized government. MbS is even willing to court war with Iran if he believes it’s necessary for regional domination.

Moreover, the Saudi royals are not Westerners in different dress. They have poured $100 billion into the promotion of intolerant fundamentalist Wahhabism around the world, including in Yemen, where a Saudi-Emirati coalition has allied with radical jihadists against the Houthis, who had opposed al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Nuclear weapons would further embolden MbS. Currently there is no active nuclear program. Nevertheless, suspicions about Riyadh’s intentions are legion. A decade ago, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz told U.S. officials that if Iran acquired a nuke, “we will get nuclear weapons.” Last year, MbS said, “If Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

Nevertheless, the Trump administration is pushing the sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. And no one seems to know what safeguards will be imposed and whether MbS will abide by those limits. “There’s a legitimate question over whether such a government could be trusted with nuclear energy and the potential weaponization of it,” worries Senator Marco Rubio. Senator Jeff Merkley agrees: “The last thing America should do is inadvertently help develop nuclear weapons for a bad actor on the world stage.” The two are pushing legislation that would give Congress the final say over any sale.

The transfer of nuclear reactors is usually not controversial, so long as it’s accompanied by a cooperation agreement under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette insists, “We won’t allow them to bypass 123 if they want to have civilian nuclear power that includes U.S. nuclear technologies.” Legislators remain wary, however, complaining that seven permits, called “Part 810 authorizations,” have been issued to firms to provide nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia without notification to Congress. “I believe the Saudis saw an opportunity with Trump and [son-in-law Jared] Kushner to conclude this rapidly on their terms, holding out the promise of major purchases,” charges Thomas Countryman, head of the Arms Control Association.

In fact, the Saudis, in contrast to the Emiratis, want to enrich uranium, which offers a principal opportunity to divert nuclear materials for military use. And Riyadh hasn’t agreed to any weapons inspections. As a result, if the Saudis come to believe they “need” a bomb—and their criteria might broaden over time—any peacetime program could automatically be turned into one for military development.

Admittedly, America’s refusal to deal might not stop Riyadh. Prince Turki al-Faisal has pointed to China, France, Pakistan, and Russia as other options, a point that’s been echoed by administration officials. Even so, Washington should not aid, even inadvertently, another nation, especially such a repressive and aggressive power, in acquiring nuclear weapons. The consequences would be grave, including to America’s nonproliferation credentials.

Prince al-Faisal also pointedly included “our friends in Pakistan” as a nuclear power option. But Islamabad could provide more than peaceful energy. Riyadh might purchase weapons directly from the cash-strapped and unstable Pakistan government—especially since the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program. Doing so would cause an international furor, but for years, A.Q. Khan, father of the Pakistani bomb, has essentially operated a Nukes “R” Us open to the world. When confronted, Islamabad closed down Khan’s market, but with the right incentives it might be convinced to accept another client.

Six years ago, Israel’s former head of military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, claimed that Pakistan had already produced and set aside weapons for Riyadh. Gary Samore, who advised President Barack Obama on nonproliferation, observes, “I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan.”

The Trump administration’s fixation on Iran has malformed American policy towards the rest of the Mideast, including Saudi Arabia. The United States should not take sides in the bitter Sunni-Shia rivalry that lies beneath the Saudi-Iran conflict. It certainly shouldn’t treat Saudi Arabia as a permanent and trusted ally. The latter shares neither values nor interests with the United States, and is aggressively pursuing dangerous imperial ambitions.

Washington should drop its support for MbS’s irresponsible policies and be on guard against the Kingdom’s possible acquisition of nuclear weapons. A Saudi bomb would unsettle the region, guarantee a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, and encourage sectarian conflict. MbS can’t be trusted with a bone saw, let alone nukes.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

India is Stoking Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

India’s prime minister is stoking the flames of nuclear war again on a day of the National Elections. | Source: REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji/File, (2) Photo Photo by THOMAS PETER / POOL / AFP, (iii) Win McNamee/Getty Images/AFP; Edited by CCN.:

India Threatens Pakistan With ‘Mother of Nuclear Bombs’; Where’s Trump?

Ben Brown

By CCN.com: India’s prime minister Narendra Modi has threatened to wipe Pakistan out with the “mother of nuclear bombs.”

The threatening speech came, ironically, on India’s national day of peace, known as Mahavir Jayanti. Speaking in front of packed crowds, Modi said:

We have the mother of nuclear bombs. I decided to tell [Pakistan], do whatever you want to do but we will retaliate.”

Oops, he did it again. Prime Minister Modi reminded voters of the air strike on Pakistan at a campaign rally in Chhattisgarh. pic.twitter.com/kG8VZYi5az

— Brut India (@BrutIndia) April 17, 2019

“It’s Pakistan’s Turn to Weep”

Modi dialed up the military threat against Pakistan proclaiming his “new India” will act tough on terrorists.

“Earlier, terrorists from Pakistan would come here and go back after conducting an attack. Pakistan would threaten us, saying it has the nuclear bomb and will press the button… In the past our people would weep, go around the world saying Pakistan did this, did that. It is now Pakistan’s turn to weep.”

Modi’s aggression is a strong statement of intent as he fights a bitter seven-part election in India. He also hinted that Indian forces could launch a ground attack:

“Shall we not kill them by entering their houses?”

Inside the India’s massive general election – the world’s largest democratic exercise https://t.co/FRkJqqFDPv pic.twitter.com/SJfvl62V24

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) April 13, 2019

India and Pakistan Nuclear Knife Edge

The two nuclear-armed nations have been locked in a tense standoff since February this year. 

Tensions flared when 40 Indians were killed in a suicide attack. An attack for which Pakistani based terrorist group JeM claimed responsibility.

India struck back with airstrikes across the controversial Line of Control. In this week’s speech, Modi boasted about the airstrikes: “Pakistan has been threatening us for a long time with its nuclear capability but the IAF called its bluff with its strikes.”

India Just Triggered a Ballistic “Space Weapon” and Pakistan Should Be Terrified https://t.co/kXE4ThXn4f

— CCN.com (@CCNMarkets) March 27, 2019

Since then, both sides have aggressively displayed their military might. Pakistan pointed a fleet of fighter jets at the border, while India went a step further, shooting down a satellite with a ballistic space missile.

Where Is the West?

Despite the intensifying threat of nuclear war in the Indian subcontinent, the global community is eerily quiet.

The US, in particular, has long played a mediator role in the region, helping to dial down aggression between India and Pakistan when tensions flared. Under Donald Trump, however, there is no such mediator.

Aside from a handful of empty statements and choking aid to Pakistan, the Trump administration has largely ignored the developing conflict.

Path to World War Three?

While global conflict might seem unlikely, there are complex ties at play here. China has positioned itself a key ally behind Pakistan, while India has close relationships with the US and Russia.

The global distribution of nuclear warheads. Source: Atomic Scientists

Military escalation between India and Pakistan has potentially huge ramifications on international relations. The US, China, and Russia could be inadvertently dragged into a conflict they could have prevented earlier.

For now, India’s threat is clear: it intends to strike Pakistani territory again:

“Those days are gone when India would give in to threats. This is a new India and it will strike terrorists well inside their hideouts across the border.”

Iran Hegemony Throughout the Middle East (Daniel 8:3)

Iran: IRGC-Affiliated Proxies From Afghanistan And Iraq Dispatched To Suppress Dissidents In Flood-Affected Areas

by Hassan MahmoudiApril 17, 2019

The U.S. terrorism label for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard formally took effect on Monday Apr.15, amid a battle between the Trump administration and some in Congress over waivers on oil and nuclear sanctions that are due to expire or be extended early next month.

The Guard’s formal designation as a “foreign terrorist organization” — the first-ever for an entire division of another government — kicked in with a notice published in the Federal Register.

The day after the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization by the US State Department, the Supreme Leader of the Mullahs, Ali Khamenei, met with members of the Revolutionary Guard and expressed his concern about the growing unrest in the country. Faced with the prospect of popular revolts, he urged the IRGC to remain on alert in the capital and the provinces.

“The IRGC is an exceptional force in the country. Whether outside the country or in the country’s towns and villages; the IRGC is on the front line to fight the enemy,” said Khamenei.

The Iranian dictator is terrified by the escalation of social dissent following the catastrophic effects of the recent floods and the astronomical rise in the cost of living, which could turn into a widespread uprising to overthrow the regime.

Following this speech, the clerical regime ruling Iran dispatched hundreds of its extraterritorial elements affiliated to the terrorist-designated Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) from Iraq and Afghanistan to the provinces of Lorestan and Khuzestan, in the west and southwest regions of the country, respectively.

Under the pretext of assisting relief distribution efforts to the flood-hit areas or preventing floods from entering towns and villages, the IRGC uses these proxy units to, in fact, create a climate of fear and suppress any potential unrest.

Following the dispatch of Hashd al-Shaabi militants (Popular Mobilization Forces/Popular Mobilization Units) from Iraq to Ahvaz earlier in the week, the IRGC-affiliated Fars News Agency reported that another group of these vicious elements, called “al-Nojaba,” affiliated to the terrorist IRGC Quds Force, have also been dispatched to Iran.

“Convoys of Iraqi al-Nojaba member, with more than 100 light and heavy vehicles, have crossed the eastern Iranian border of Mehran to dispatch to the flood-stricken areas,” the Fars report reads in part.

Reports also indicate that another group of the IRGC-affiliated militants has been brought from Afghanistan to the town of Poledokhtar (Lorestan Province, western Iran) that was also hit by the devastating flash flood last week. This group, known to be recruited by the IRGC Quds Force have been recruited from the neighboring country of Afghanistan to fight in Syria alongside the troops of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, are called the Fatemiyoun Brigade.

The Mullah’s repressive forces have in recent days have been stationed in the flood-hit cities and towns of Khuzestan Province to intimidate and create an atmosphere of fear among the public. Police and security forces in the oil-rich city of Ahvaz have resorted to the arrest and apprehension of citizens since last Wednesday.

IRGC General Qasem Soleimani, the criminal leader of the Quds Force has gone to the flood-affected areas to monitor these repressive measures.

According to the NCRI statement, April 14, 2019, IRGC Colonel Shahin Hasan and said 24 people were arrested on ridiculous charges of “spreading flood rumors” in Khuzestan province.

Among those arrested are peaceful protesters, private aid workers, social media reporters unveiling the extent of the devastating floods, and the regular public who have rushed to the aid of their fellow compatriots in the flood-hit areas.

Professor Walid Phares, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former foreign policy aid, commented on the extraterritorial paramilitary forces affiliated to the IRGC stationed in the flood-hit areas of Iran under the pretext of aid delivery.

“While the Iranian regime sends these paramilitary forces to Ahvaz from Iraq to repress the Arab community living there, some American experts and bureaucrats still think that they are our allies. Donald Trump’s administration must immediately designate the Hashd al-Shaabi as human rights violators,” Professor Phares said.

Israel Will Trample Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

What should Israel really do about Gaza?

Opinion: Destroying Hamas is secondary to achieving regional long-term calm; Israel ought to adopt a generous policy of civil and economic incentives for Gaza civilians, and if Hamas persists in its bellicosity, we ought to produce our big stick and crush its military capability

Maj. Gen. (Res.) Yair Golan|Published:  04.16.19 , 23:32

During the Israeli election season, some political parties called for victory over Hamas and overconfidently touted their ability to achieve that goal. Even if election slogans ought to be forgotten, it is worthwhile examining this demand for victory methodically.

There are five explicit principles that govern Israel’s relationship with Hamas: the massive difference in military power; the internecine Palestinian dispute and strife; Hamas’s determination to harass Israel and not allow Israelis to enjoy periods of calm; the methods of power deployment whose effectiveness is questionable (Hamas is also frustrated); and the fact that a deployment of force often leaves to escalation. Therefore, without a policy change, a security deterioration is inevitable.

It is not in Israel’s interest to destroy Hamas but rather to bring about regional calm and decrease the potential threat from the Gaza Strip in the future. Success is dependent on Israel’s interactions with the enemy, that is, the very low probability of good voluntary cooperation and sincere friendship.

Therefore, Israel shod adopt a generous policy, as is fitting for the powerful, and if this policy does not pan out and Hamas reacts offensively, then security policy should be especially forceful. In addition, we ought to examine what steps are dependent on ourselves, as well as actors other than Hamas, that can advance Israeli interests.

A generous policy toward Hamas means improving Gaza’s infrastructure and its economic ability. A port is not necessarily vital but rather expanding Gaza’s electricity production capacity or its conveyance from Israel or Egypt and urgent treatment of water and sewer infrastructure.

Simultaneously, Israel can expand Gaza residents’ employment options even if it means opening the Israeli job market to Gazans. Several thousand Gazan laborers crossing via the Erez Crossing daily can help ensure calm on the security front.

Erez Crossing

Likewise, we ought to continue the security cooperation with Egypt and improve it so that they prevent weapons, dangerous substances and terrorists into the Gaza strip via the Sinai.

We should also continue fortifying the Gaza border, above and below ground, so that even if our good intentions are met with terror and violence, the defensive response will be effective.

Do not expect the Palestinian Authority to be part of the solution. If there is anything of certainty in our region it is the scale of the inter-Palestinian discord.

And what will be if Hamas does not react cooperatively and continues to embitter the lives of residents of southern Israel? In that case, Israel should immediately cease its humanitarian efforts and engage in decisively destroying Hamas’ military capabilities. The harm to civilians will not interest Hamas, only hitting its military capability will lead the group to internalize its failure and nudge it into a change of tactics.

Such an operation will require a significant level of urban warfare, above and below ground, in Gaza. In recent decades, there has been a tendency to overstate the enemies’ abilities and understate our own. With such a phenomenon, it is understandable why the populace is so hesitant to permit the IDF to enter Palestinian cities, such as during the Second Intifada, and the great concern regarding a war in south Lebanon.

In both of the above instances, the enemies’ abilities turned out to be highly overstated, and the same is true with Hamas in Gaza, to my understanding. Moreover, only a ground invasion can reduce the threat posed by the terrorist group on Israeli civilians, as is expected of a defensive military.

Israeli leadership must prepare the nation and the international community for a new policy consisting of a fat, juicy carrot alongside a heavy stick. It is our duty toward residents of the Gaza vicinity to implement a policy of hope for an improved military and civil state of affairs; a readiness to fight and sacrifice exists and will continue to be necessary.

Yair Golan is the outgoing IDF deputy chief of staff and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. (JISS)

 

 

Antichrist bans online battle games, citing ‘negative’ influence

Iraq’s Parliament voted on Wednesday to ban popular online video games including PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds and Fortnite. (Shutterstock)

Iraq bans online battle games, citing ‘negative’ influence

• The ban came “due to the negative effects caused by some electronic games on the health, culture, and security of Iraqi society

Updated 18 April 2019

REUTERS

April 18, 2019 00:40

BAGHDAD: Iraq’s Parliament voted on Wednesday to ban popular online video games including PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds and Fortnite, citing their “negative” influence especially on the young in a country long plagued by real-life bloodshed.

Iraq held its first election in 2018 after years of devastating factional violence. Daesh militants held wide swathes of the country for three years until they were driven out in heavy fighting with US-backed forces in 2017.

Lawmakers approved a resolution that mandated the government to bar online access to the games and ban related financial transactions.

The ban came “due to the negative effects caused by some electronic games on the health, culture, and security of Iraqi society, including societal and moral threats to children and youth,” according to the text of the resolution.

Oil-rich Iraq has suffered for decades under the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein and UN sanctions, the 2003 US invasion and civil war it unleashed, and the battle against Daesh, over which Baghdad declared victory in 2017.

Corruption is rampant and basic services like power and water are lacking. Unemployment is widespread, especially among young people.

The new ban quickly drew online discontent with hundreds of Iraqi social media users criticizing lawmakers for what they said were misplaced priorities. Parliament has passed only one piece of legislation since it first convened, the 2019 federal budget law which was issued in January.

PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG), made by South Korean firm Bluehole Inc, is a survival-themed battle game that drops dozens of online players on an island where they try and eliminate each other.

North Carolina-based Epic Games’ Fortnite, with a similar premise, is seen as an industry game-changer by analysts as it signed up tens of millions of users for its last-player-standing “Battle Royale” format.

Both were launched in 2017 and have a huge global following.

Influential Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, whose political coalition won the largest number of seats in Parliament, earlier on Thursday urged Iraqi youth to shun PUBG, calling it addictive. Sadr called on the government to ban it.

“What will you gain if you killed one or two people in PUBG? It is not a game for intelligence or a military game that provides you with the correct way to fight,” he wrote in a two-page statement