The Sixth Seal Will Be On The East (Revelation 6:12)

Did You Feel It? East vs West: This image illustrates how earthquakes are felt over much larger areas in the eastern U.S. than those west of the Rocky Mountains. The map compares USGS “Did You Feel It?” data from the magnitude 5.8 earthquake on August 23, 2011 in central Virginia (green) to data from an earthquake of similar magnitude and depth in California (red). ((High resolution image)[/caption]New Evidence Shows Power of East Coast Earthquakes
Virginia Earthquake Triggered Landslides at Great Distances
Released: 11/6/2012 8:30:00 AM
“We used landslides as an example and direct physical evidence to see how far-reaching shaking from east coast earthquakes could be,” said Randall Jibson, USGS scientist and lead author of this study. “Not every earthquake will trigger landslides, but we can use landslide distributions to estimate characteristics of earthquake energy and how far regional ground shaking could occur.”
“Scientists are confirming with empirical data what more than 50 million people in the eastern U.S. experienced firsthand: this was one powerful earthquake,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “Calibrating the distance over which landslides occur may also help us reach back into the geologic record to look for evidence of past history of major earthquakes from the Virginia seismic zone.”
This study will help inform earthquake hazard and risk assessments as well as emergency preparedness, whether for landslides or other earthquake effects.
The research is being presented today at the Geological Society of America conference, and will be published in the December 2012 issue of the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America.
The USGS found that the farthest landslide from the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 245 km (150 miles) from the epicenter. This is by far the greatest landslide distance recorded from any other earthquake of similar magnitude. Previous studies of worldwide earthquakes indicated that landslides occurred no farther than 60 km (36 miles) from the epicenter of a magnitude 5.8 earthquake.
“What makes this new study so unique is that it provides direct observational evidence from the largest earthquake to occur in more than 100 years in the eastern U.S,” said Jibson. “Now that we know more about the power of East Coast earthquakes, equations that predict ground shaking might need to be revised.”
It is estimated that approximately one-third of the U.S. population could have felt last year’s earthquake in Virginia, more than any earthquake in U.S. history. About 148,000 people reported their ground-shaking experiences caused by the earthquake on the USGS “Did You Feel It?” website. Shaking reports came from southeastern Canada to Florida and as far west as Texas.
In addition to the great landslide distances recorded, the landslides from the 2011 Virginia earthquake occurred in an area 20 times larger than expected from studies of worldwide earthquakes. Scientists plotted the landslide locations that were farthest out and then calculated the area enclosed by those landslides. The observed landslides from last year’s Virginia earthquake enclose an area of about 33,400 km2, while previous studies indicated an expected area of about 1,500 km2 from an earthquake of similar magnitude.
“The landslide distances from last year’s Virginia earthquake are remarkable compared to historical landslides across the world and represent the largest distance limit ever recorded,” said Edwin Harp, USGS scientist and co-author of this study. “There are limitations to our research, but the bottom line is that we now have a better understanding of the power of East Coast earthquakes and potential damage scenarios.”
Learn more about the 2011 central Virginia earthquake.

Iraq Alliance Seeks Reconciliation With Antichrist

Al Monitor 
BAGHDAD — On Oct. 19, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr met with leaders of the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Najaf, southern Iraq, to discuss the importance of reconciliation between him and Vice President Nouri al-Maliki. Soon after, Salah Abdul Razaq, a leader of the State of Law Coalition headed by Maliki, announced Oct. 23 that Iran is playing a role in bringing Sadr and Maliki together, as the current challenges are bigger than the differences between the two parties. On Nov. 9, the head of the predominately Shiite National Alliance Ammar al-Hakim in a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei thanked Iran for its support to Iraqi politicians to unite against the internal and regional threats.
With the help of some Iraqi politicians, Iran is seeking to reunite the Shiites in the near future, to strengthen them and allow them to play a greater role in the Iraqi political process and participate in determining the future of Iraq in the post-Islamic State (IS) phase.
Since Iran believes that the differences between the leaders of the National Alliance and its main political blocs have weakened the alliance, it is currently working on achieving reconciliation between Maliki, the head of the State of Law Coalition, and Sadr, the head of the Sadrist movement, who both are a part of the National Alliance.
Ali al-Adeeb, a leader of the Islamic Dawa Party and Maliki’s close associate, spoke about attempts to achieve reconciliation between Maliki and Sadr, but he neither mentioned the exact party making such efforts nor the extent of their success.
It seems that one of the first steps taken to achieve the Maliki-Sadr reconciliation was when Sadr met with PMU leaders in Najaf, as most of the leaders who met with Sadr are close to Maliki.
In this regard, a National Alliance source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “Shiite parties were supposed to initiate a reconciliation process between the two figures before the meeting between Sadr and the PMU leaders — as per the decision the federal government took on Oct. 10 — to allow the president’s deputies back into their positions, including Maliki himself, which prompted Sadr to oppose, thus delaying the efforts of reconciliation.”
Shiite politicians are making efforts to reunite the Shiites for the post-IS phase. Some accuse the Islamic Republic of Iran of trying to further control Iraq through the Maliki-Sadr reconciliation, because it believes estrangement between the two would weaken the Shiite alliance and impede Iran’s projects in Iraq.
Hakim, the new president of the National Alliance, the largest political coalition in Iraq, will likely take it upon himself to achieve reconciliation between Maliki and Sadr. This effort may have been one of the essential tasks that allowed him to head the alliance, in light of Iran’s desire to secure a strong alliance.
Reports indicate that when Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, visited Baghdad Oct. 22 to attend the Islamic Awakening Conference, he made a proposal to Hakim, illustrating the importance of mending the relationship between Sadr and Maliki and preventing any future disputes between the two.
The first step toward the Maliki-Sadr reconciliation — albeit indirect — came on July 15, when Maliki praised the Sadrist movement’s protesters for what he described as shutting down a conspiracy that the Baathist movement had been plotting in order to penetrate the protests launched on July 31, 2015.
Speaking to Al-Monitor, member of the State of Law Coalition Saad al-Matlabi said, “The dispute between Maliki and Sadr is not personal; it is a practical dispute over the political process and the situation in Iraq.”
Mounadel al-Moussawi, a member of parliament for the Sadrist movement, also told Al-Monitor that the dispute between Sadr and Maliki was not personal. “Eliminating the disagreement is in everyone’s interest. Their dispute is over the political process, and we wish all differences would come to an end for Iraq to enter a new phase,” he said.
Before signs of reconciliation between Maliki and Sadr emerged, there were signs of understanding between their parliamentary blocs when they allied with other blocs to oust parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri.
It seems that Sadr would be stubborn during the negotiations phase, which he will resume with the National Alliance, and the 14 conditions that he presented to the alliance will be a prelude to settling the differences with Maliki.
However, some believe that reconciliation between Maliki and Sadr could be detrimental to Haider al-Abadi’s position as the head of the Iraqi government, but in fact, reconciliation can enhance the presence of Abadi in office, because Sadr requires the absence of Maliki as the head of a new Iraqi government. Although Hakim may politically disagree with Sadr and Maliki, he does not want to head a fragmented alliance. Thus, he is trying to unify the alliance to prepare it for a better performance in the upcoming elections.
In a nutshell, Sadr and Maliki will not announce a date for their reconciliation meeting, but will instead surprise everyone with news of mended ties and the start of a new chapter. If this were to happen, it would be through the National Alliance and based on an Iranian idea to strengthen the Shiite alliance in the coming period.

Antichrist Slams Trump (Revelation 13)

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has slammed President-elect Donald Trump over his “escalating statements… against Islam and Muslims,” and criticized him for not distinguishing between radical and moderate Muslims.
In written statement issued Thursday, the influential anti-U.S. cleric responded to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election saying “Even if the president changed, the (U.S.’s) hostile policies against the world will not change.”
He urged the American people “not to be affected by the radicalism of their president“, warning that they would otherwise “suffer from the international isolation because of the reckless policies which is unacceptable to every mind and every religion.”
Al-Sadr signed of his statement with “Peace be on the American people,” as well as, “You have to know that Israel will remain our first enemy.”

Trump and the Bowls of Wrath (Revelation 15)

Published 11:21 pm EST, November 10, 2016  
By Jonathan Vankin
Mushroom cloud from a hydrogen bomb, in a nuclear test carried out in 1971. (Getty)
When Donald Trump takes office as President of the United States immediately following his inauguration on January 20, 2017, he assumes one awesome responsibility that overshadows all of his other duties. Trump will take charge of the United States nuclear weapons arsenal — with enough power to end all life on planet Earth literally at his fingertips.
But Trump’s election has caused alarm around the world, as foreign policy experts and other world leaders fear that Trump, who during the presidential campaign expressed willingness to use nuclear weapons, could unleash World War 3 — perhaps a nuclear war this time.
Could Trump start a nuclear war? What would it take for him to unleash the ultimate disaster?
Here’s what you need to know.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, the quantity of nuclear weapons in the world has been declining since the mid-1980s. In 1986, as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union remained at a high level of tension, the number of nuclear weapons hit an all-time high of 70,300.
But since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s those nuclear arsenals have declined, dropping sharply throughout the ’90s and then continuing to decline — at a slower pace — as countries continued to dismantle the weapons. Currently, the FAS estimates that about 15,350 nukes exist in the world.
How many of those will be at the disposal of President Trump? According to FAS estimates, the United States currently has 1,750 deployed “strategic” nuclear weapons,” and 180 “tactical,” sometimes called “non-strategic” nuclear warheads ready to fire — total of 1,930 nuclear weapons that will be completely under Trump’s control as soon as he becomes the 45th President of the United States.
“We still have more than enough nuclear weapons to trigger a full-scale nuclear winter that would destroy food production worldwide,” Alan Robock, a Rutgers University scientist, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News. “It would be a horrible holocaust that destroys humanity.”
Strategic nuclear weapons are usually defined as bombs or warheads that can be targeted over great distances, anywhere in the world. Tactical nuclear weapons are, theoretically, fired under “battlefield” conditions against a specific enemy in combat.
Tactical weapons tend to be smaller and to carry less massive explosive power than strategic nuclear weapons. But they are also considered more dangerous to the security of the world, because they can be more easily stolen and used by unauthorized persons, such as terrorists, without being delivered by a bomber jet, or on the end of an ballistic missile, according to a 2010 U.S. Air Force report.
If President Trump started a nuclear war, he would not be violating current U.S. nuclear policy.
Since the dawn of the Cold War in the late 1940s, the United States has adopted a “first strike” policy when it comes to using nuclear weapons. In other words, the U.S. does not need to wait until its own territory or interests are attacked with nuclear weapons before unleashing a nuclear strike.
For decades, U.S. military strategists have concocted plans for starting a nuclear war — generally in response to hostilities such as a possible Russian invasion of western Europe.
President Barack Obama has not altered the current policy, but according to reports from inside his administration, the current president has pushed for the country to move to a “no first strike” policy — meaning that the U.S. would never plan to initiate a nuclear war or exchange — only to meet with resistance from his military advisers.
Advocates of “no-first-strike,” such as the prestigious Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, say that ditching the first-strike option would have the effect of creating a more sensible, and cost-effective, nuclear policy without sacrificing national security — because the U.S. nuclear arsenal is really maintained only as a deterrent anyway.
By taking away the first-strike option, the U.S. would reduce the chance of an accidental or unauthorized launch by a rogue battlefield commander, such as seen in the classic 1962 film Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, as seen in the clip above.
As president, Donald Trump will have no checks on his ability to launch a nuclear war.
Will there be any restrictions, any checks and balances, on the ability of a President Trump to start a nuclear war, or launch a nuclear first strike?
The short answer is — no. There is nothing in any U.S. law or military procedure that prevents any president from launching a nuclear strike — for any reason, according to a Brookings Institute report earlier this year.
Technically, the 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to gain congressional approval for any use of force within 60 days of starting any military action. But in the case of a nuclear war, the Brookings report said, the 60-day requirement is essentially irrelevant.
“A nuclear war could easily devastate the planet within just days or hours—long before the 60-day stipulation would be binding,” the report stated. “Even if a president had obtained congressional approval for a war that began using only conventional weapons, no provisions of the War Powers Act would require subsequent congressional action prior to nuclear escalation.
Presumably, Trump would face enormous pressure from the Pentagon and perhaps his own advisers to refrain from launching nuclear weapons. But if he decides he wants to attack anywhere in the world with a nuclear weapon, or a barrage of nuclear bombs and warheads, it’s totally up to him. All he needs to do is give the go-ahead.
And use the right codes, of course.
For Trump to launch a nuclear attack would be pretty easy, even easier than depicted in the fictional 1983 film The Dead Zone, in which an insane president launches a nuclear strike simply because he believes to do so is his “destiny.” But as seen in the clip below, the Dead Zone president portrayed by Martin Sheen must first have an adviser authorize the strike before he, himself, pushed the red button (the existence of which is also fiction).
All Trump must do is transmit those codes to his nuclear commanders.
He will also consult a special book carried around in a briefcase called The Presidential Emergency Satchel, but better known as “the football.” That book contains his numerous options for targeting a strike, and another book carried in the “football” lists top secret hidden bunkers where Trump, or any president, could take shelter and safely wait out the nuclear war he has started.
“You have to be ready anytime for any moment,” Pete Metzger, who carried the “football” for President Ronald Reagan, told CNN. “It has to happen quickly, because the time on a missile is very fast.”
The presidential aide who carries the Emergency Satchel must undergo a strict regimen of security background checks and psychological tests. But President Trump will not be required to go through any such vetting.
During the presidential campaign Trump made numerous statements regarding his views on use of nuclear weapons — statements that were seen by experts and foreign leaders as revealing Trump’s reckless and cavalier attitude toward use of the ultimate weapons.
Among those statements, Trump said he would never “rule out” using nuclear weapons, and in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has questioned why the U.S. manufactures nuclear weapons unless it intends to use them. In fact, when asked whether he would consider using nuclear weapons against targets within Europe, Trump refused to rule out that option either, saying, “Europe’s a big place.”
In an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, Trump also said he would not be opposed to North and South Korea engaging in a nuclear arms race, because, “it’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.”
John Noonan on Twitter: Donald Trump Shouldn’t Have Access to Nuclear Weapons
John Noonan, a conservative national security adviser, went on a Twitter rant Wendesday, insisting that Donald Trump should not have access to nuclear weapons.