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

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.

Explosives Launched From Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Suspected explosive found in south, apparently launched from Gaza | The Times of Israel

By Judah Ari Gross

Police detonated in a controlled blast on Monday a suspected explosive device that was apparently launched into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip by balloon.

The device, believed to be the warhead of a rocket-propelled grenade, was found earlier on Monday in a brush-covered field in the Eshkol region. It was not immediately clear when the explosive landed in Israel.

A police sapper was called to the scene to remove the device.

“During the sapper’s inspection, he found that it was an explosive device, and it was neutralized,” the police said in a statement.

A suspected rocket-propelled grenade warhead, apparently flown into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip with a balloon, that was found in the Eshkol region on July 27, 2020. (Eshkol region)

A video released by police showed the detonation of the suspected warhead.

The practice of launching balloon-borne explosive devices from the Gaza Strip has waxed and waned over the past two years.

In recent weeks, there have been relatively few cases of small bombs and incendiary devices being flown into Israel from the enclave as the Israeli government and Gaza-ruling Hamas terror group have reportedly been negotiating a long-term ceasefire.

Riverkeeper is Missing the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

In Its Attack on Indian Point, Riverkeeper Misses the Point – River Journal Online – News for Tarrytown, Sleepy Hollow, Irvington, Ossining, & Briarcliff Manor

3 days ago

In Its Attack on Indian Point, Riverkeeper Misses the Point

To the Editor,

In his recent letter “Looking Past Indian Point, Riverkeeper Takes a Pass on Gas” [June 2020], Richard Webster [of Riverkeeper] paints a picture of energy in New York that bears no resemblance to reality.  

Nearly every statement he makes in defending the closure of Indian Point, including deactivation of Reactor 2 in April, is incorrect. 

Contrary to Webster’s claim, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) did not say in its 2017 deactivation assessment of Indian Point that New York had enough replacement power to avoid new gas-fired generation.  


Rather, NYISO concluded that additional power plants would be needed in a few short years to maintain system reliability. The only reason they might not be needed immediately is because existing fossil–fuel plants in the region have capacity to burn more gas in the meantime.  

Furthermore, the new power plants that Webster claims do not need to be built—CPV [Competitive Power Ventures] and Cricket Valley—have been built and are now operating. Whether burned in new plants or old ones, gas is replacing Indian Point. 

Webster goes on to write that enough “clean energy and efficiency” has already been installed to replace Reactor 2.  


However, renewable energy and efficiency measures implemented prior to Reactor 2’s deactivation were not sitting in a lockbox, waiting to replace nuclear power. They had been put to good use reducing the need for fossil fuels. Redeeming them now to “replace” Indian Point means that those benefits are forfeited and more fossil fuels get burned.  

Webster then asserts that all of Indian Point’s power will be rapidly replaced by “demand reduction, additional transmission, and new renewables.”  

However, more carbon-free electricity was lost by closing one half of Indian Point than annually produced by wind and solar in the entire state.  

Likewise, transmission does not replace generation, and reductions in demand caused by a pandemic are not conditions to bank on for the future.  


Recently NYISO found that to achieve goals of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), including the electrification of vehicles and heating systems, demand for electricity in the next twenty years could increase 40%. Moreover, the CLCPA requires that all electricity by 2040 be carbon-free. Clearly, New York cannot afford to lose any carbon-free energy if those goals are to be met. 

By pushing to close Indian Point, Riverkeeper has hindered critical progress on climate change and forced dirty fossil–fuel power plants in the metropolitan area—including those like Ravenswood in Environmental Justice communities—to operate longer than necessary.  

Rather than shutting down Reactor 3 next year, New York should examine the mistake made in April, keep Indian Point running, and focus on the real crises our state and planet face. 

Keith Schue

Leonard Rodberg

Keith Schue is an electrical engineer.  

Leonard Rodberg, Ph.D. is a physicist and Professor Emeritus of Urban Studies of Queens College/CUNY. Both are technical advisors for New York Energy and Climate Advocates. 

Trump Is About To Declare Martial Law (Revelation 18)

Trump’s ‘law and order’ is starting to look like martial law

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

(CNN) — The strange and frightening images of unidentified military-looking men taking protesters off the streets of Portland, Oregon, and into unmarked vans may be headed to a city near you if that city is, as President Donald Trump declared Monday, run by “liberal Democrats.”

This is sketchy stuff. And it’s not a good look for a country that’s supposed to be an open society. And it’s particularly distressing that the President is openly threatening cities based on the political affiliations of their leaders.

The teams of masked authorities seen in Portland dressed up for war like special forces apparently belong to the Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection Unit.

They’re trained for drug missions, but with Trump demanding “law and order” and disagreeing with local authorities, they’ve been dispatched to American streets.

Speaking Monday at the White House, Trump suggested more federal agents will soon be headed to more American cities.

What sort of federal presence will this be?

Responding to a question about a report that said he will send federal troops to certain cities, Trump said “well it depends on what your definition of troops is. We’re sending law enforcement.”

“We’re not going to let New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore and all of these, Oakland is a mess. We’re not going to let this happen in our country. All run by liberal Democrats,” Trump said.

If he follows through with this threat, it’s not yet clear what kind of agents would be dispatched.

So let’s focus on Portland example from over the weekend.

The fact that DHS would deploy its own warriors into American streets without much discussion and without a clear mandate (they’re vaguely supposed to be protecting federal buildings?) is dark-of-night dystopian stuff.

Meanwhile, the militarized response has led to more violent levels of protest in Portland, where racial justice and anti-police brutality demonstrations have lasted more than 50 days. A police association office was set on fire Saturday.

The atmosphere has not been helped by the efforts of federal agents, according to Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who called the administration’s actions “abhorrent.”

“People are being literally scooped off the street into unmarked vans, rental cars,” Wheeler told CNN on Sunday.

“Apparently, they are being denied probable cause, and they’re denied due process. They don’t even know who’s pulling them into the vans.”

Related: Protests in Portland have carried on for more than 50 days. Here’s how they started.

Both Wheeler and Oregon’s governor have demanded the federal authorities leave. A US attorney has demanded an investigation by DHS of the tactics. And multiple House committee chairs are also calling for an immediate watchdog investigation.

Trump defended the actions and said the agents are trying to help Portland, not hurt it. See the Portland mayor’s interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

Action overseen by acting officials

Further complicating things is the fact that DHS, as CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez and Geneva Sands write, is mostly run by temporary appointees the Trump administration has used to skirt the confirmation process:

In the last three years, DHS has rolled out some of the most stringent immigration policies, and most recently, deployed personnel to respond to protests, some of them violent, after George Floyd’s death — nearly all under leadership that hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate.

“The President has fired or forced out nearly every Senate confirmed leader in DHS. Those remaining are neither accountable to Congress nor empowered to push back against unreasonable political pressure,” said Carrie Cordero, a senior fellow at Center for a New American Security and CNN legal analyst.

Of 27 top roles at DHS, 10 are filled in an acting capacity. The three main immigration agencies under the department — Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and US Citizenship and Immigration Services — have been helmed by acting officials for more than a year.

The pattern

Unconfirmed officials. Unidentified agents. Unmarked cars. The mark of the Trump administration is not any one distressing or unprecedented practice, but a cascade of them that compound and turn into the scene in Portland.

Or the clearing of protesters from Lafayette Park across from the White House last month by military-looking authorities so that Trump could walk across the street to post for a photo-op in front of a church.

Or flying military helicopters low over protesters as if they’re insurgents.

Or Trump’s comparison of Chicago, where summer violence has cost many lives this year, to “war zones” and Afghanistan.

Or his insistence, contra the facts, that his Democratic political opponents want to abolish local police.

His election strategy is built around making it appear the country is unstable and that only a strongman can solve it. But Americans aren’t generally supposed to endorse strongman tactics.

The Deception of the Iranian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:4)

Iran may have enough uranium for a nuclear weapon. Don't panic. - Vox

When Iran Says It Doesn’t Have Nukes and Never Intends to, Maybe We Should Believe It


Though I often disagree with Yossi Melman’s analysis on Israeli security issues, he nevertheless manages to produce reporting that is independent of the group-think that afflicts many, if not most Israeli journalists. He’s done that in his most recent piece analyzing Iran’s nuclear program and intentions.  Despite his loyalty to the State and its security interests, he is willing to expose the fallibility of the official line concerning Iran.  Here is an example:

Israel and the United States have been waging a covert and overt rearguard battle to disrupt and delay Iran’s nuclear program for decades. The toolbox used in this war, according to different reports, has included blowing up facilities and equipment, assassinating scientists, cyberwarfare, diplomacy, and sanctions that are badly hurting the Iranian economy. Yet despite all the difficulties in its path, Iran has not really been deterred and has continued to pursue its nuclear program, adjusting its pace to the circumstances.

Yet perhaps it’s time to change the [consensus] conception that Iran aspires to assemble nuclear weapons at all costs. A glance at the history of nuclear weapons manufacture shows that all 11 countries that wished to build bombs did so within three to 10 years. These include the five major powers; Israel (according to foreign reports); India; Pakistan; and North Korea. Two countries, South Africa and Ukraine, voluntarily dismantled their nuclear weapons. It’s hard to work out why Iran, which has extensive scientific knowhow, which surreptitiously obtained nuclear technology, and whose scientists and universities are at quite a high level, has faced difficulties in building a bomb in 30 years.

Maybe it’s time to infer that Iran could have assembled nuclear bombs long ago, but is not doing so – for its own reasons.

Though he may seem to be stating the obvious, it can’t be repeated enough for the sake of the Iran hawks: you can’t stop a country that is hellbent on developing a nuclear capability.  Unless of course, you’re prepared to invade it and overthrow the ruling regime.  You couldn’t even destroy the nuclear program if you attacked it militarily. This would force delays, but where there is a will there will always be a way.  Damage can be repaired. Murdered scientists can be replaced.

But anyone who claims Iran has a weapon, is intending to produce one, or is determined to use one is not only wrong, but likely to produce the very war that all profess not to want.

The only way to really stop such a program would be to re-engage with Iran, to recognize its legitimate role and interests in the region, to cease the unending vitriol spewing forth from Sunni regimes, the U.S. and Israel.  This would convince Iran that it didn’t need such weaponry to defend itself.  Of course, this is the opposite of what these players are doing.  Hence Iran will continue to perfect its nuclear program, short of producing an actual weapon.  As Melman writes:

…We must also acknowledge that Iran wants to become a nuclear threshold state, and for now is still extremely mixed over whether to build a nuclear bomb.

The second-half of this statement is actually wrong.  Iran is not “mixed” at all over whether to build a bomb.  Not only has the Grand Ayatollah issued a fatwa against such weaponry, Iran has repeatedly said it would not do so, and has not done so.  Furthermore, anti-Iran “experts” have been falsely predicting Iran’s imminent acquisition of a bomb for 35 years.

What may be true, is that Iran wants to be in a position, if it is attacked and existentially threatened, to be able to assemble such a weapon in a limited period of time. This is precisely what Israel actually did in 1967, when it produced its first nuclear weapon as a Doomsday device in the event that it fared badly in the Six-Day War.

The Powerful Russian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Russian president Vladimir Putin and defence minister Sergei Shoigu attend the 'Russia Navy Day' parade in St. PetersburgRussian president Vladimir Putin and defence minister Sergei Shoigu attend the ‘Russia Navy Day’ parade in St. Petersburg ( EPA )

Putin says Russia to get new hypersonic nuclear weapons

Newly developed military technologies ‘have no equals in the world’, strongman president says

Vincent Wood @wood_vincent

Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s navy will be equipped with hypersonic nuclear strike weapons and underwater drones – implying the country was drawing close to deploying the technologies.

The Russian premier has repeatedly spoken of his wish to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons that can be targeted anywhere on the planet.

While western experts have questioned just how advanced Moscow’s military developments are, the nation’s defence ministry has said the weaponry is now in its final testing phase.

The weapons include the Poseidon underwater nuclear drone, designed to be carried by submarines, and the Tsirkon (Zircon) hypersonic cruise missile, which can be deployed on surface ships.

The manoeuvrability of hypersonic missiles, which travel at five times the speed of sound, make them difficult to trace and intercept.

Speaking in St Petersburg at an annual naval event, Mr Putin said the fleet would be bolstered by 40 new vessels in the coming year.

And while he did not make clear when the military would receive its new hypersonic weapons, he suggested that day was drawing closer.

“The widespread deployment of advanced digital technologies that have no equals in the world, including hypersonic strike systems and underwater drones, will give the fleet unique advantages and increased combat capabilities,” Mr Putin said.

In a separate statement published through Russian news agencies, the defence ministry added that testing was underway for its Belgorod submarines, the first with the capacity to carry Poseidon drones.

The Kremlin announced its first regiment of Avangard hypersonic missiles was put into service two days after Christmas 2019.

At the time Mr Putin said the development of the technology meant the West was “playing catch-up”, adding: “Not a single country possesses hypersonic weapons, let alone continental-range hypersonic weapons.”

Additional reporting by agencies

Trump Is Hoping For The Impossible From China (Daniel 7)

Trump Wants China on Board With New Arms Control Pact

Obama’s New START arms treaty limited Russian and American nukes. Now, U.S. officials want to rope in Beijing.

Jack DetschJuly 23, 2020, 5:24 PM

U.S. President Donald Trump attends a state dinner at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, on Nov. 9, 2017. Thomas Peter – Pool/Getty Images

With the clock ticking to extend the Obama-era New START agreement that sets limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the Trump administration is favoring a fresh arms control deal that includes China over a straight-ahead reauthorization of the agreement, officials said.

The Trump administration fears that China will more than double its nuclear arsenal over the next decade, senior defense officials said, as it is likely to move away from its traditional “minimum deterrence” approach toward a full array of nuclear-armed bombers, submarines, and ballistic missiles.

“Extending New START at this point would probably be the easy thing to do, but it may not be the right thing to do,” a senior defense official told Foreign Policy on a press call this week. “Getting China involved in some sort of an arms control framework is what’s needed today in order to stave off a potential three-way arms race in the future.”

“Why not agree to some restraint today instead of spending all the money [to] build up your nuclear capabilities,” the senior defense official added. “At the end of the day you’re no better off because now you’ve forced Russia and the United States to build up its capabilities.”

But China has been reluctant to come to the table, failing to appear for talks arranged last month by State Department arms control envoy Marshall Billingslea. Some experts fear that by seeking to expand the scope of the talks, the Trump administration is seeking to blow up a third major arms-control treaty.

Last year, the Trump administration pulled out of the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that slashed the number of midrange missiles held by both Russia and the United States. Earlier this year, at the urging of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, the United States ditched the Open Skies Treaty that allows 35 nations to conduct unarmed overflights to survey one another’s weapons stockpiles.

At a time of heightened international tensions, some arms control experts wonder about the wisdom of trying to rope in China rather than renew the deal with Russia, America’s major nuclear rival.

“Is holding New START hostage the way to get China to come to the table and give up something?” said Pranay Vaddi, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former State Department official. “What incentive does China have to stay a smaller nuclear power relative to the U.S.?”

Billingslea, the arms control negotiator, said in May that the United States would be prepared to spend Russia and China “into oblivion” to win an arms race, despite Democrats in Congress hinting at shrinking Pentagon budgets in the future as the coronavirus pandemic has taken a toll on the U.S. economy.

But Washington acknowledged that Moscow remains in compliance with the 2010 New START deal in a report to Congress earlier this year. Though the treaty sets limits on each country’s long-range nuclear weapons, administration officials concerned with the rise of China appeared to openly question the utility of a bilateral pact that doesn’t include Beijing. 

“Whether or not New START is extended or not, we believe that the real problem facing the United States is the growth of China,” the senior defense official said. “Even if it is extended, you’re dealing with a Russia-U.S. problem,” the official added, making the case that the current treaty would not address China’s growing nuclear arsenal.   

The seeming solidification of the U.S. approach toward China comes as the Trump administration is still adding new officials, amid anger from Congress over perceived administration stonewalling of transparency requirements. 

It also comes as Esper, the Pentagon chief, has made a point of checking on U.S. nuclear forces amid the spread of the coronavirus pandemic, which forced the Defense Department to institute a stop-movement order for all American troops earlier this year.

On Wednesday, Esper visited Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, home to the Pentagon’s B-2 bomber fleet, for a classified update on the impact of COVID-19 on American nuclear forces. While the B-2 is set to be retired as the Air Force fields sufficient B-21 stealth bombers to replace it, the Pentagon plans to spend nearly $1.4 billion to upgrade the 1980s-era bomber with modernized digital displays, a second senior defense official said. The Air Force plans to deliver the first operational B-21s by the middle of this decade, the official said, with the first flight planned for the fall of 2022.

Meanwhile, the United States is hoping to use the New START negotiations to make the case to China that it can rise as a responsible great power.

“We would argue that China has a responsibility, even under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to negotiate in good faith and they just haven’t done so up until today,” the first senior defense official said. “Whether that’s persuasive to the Chinese, we’ll have to see.”

Jack Detsch is Foreign Policy’s Pentagon and national security reporter. Twitter: @JackDetsch