Scarlet Woman Foiled By Russia

Former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden announced this morning that he had “clear evidence” that the 2016 US election was rigged by Russian hackers in favor of Donald Trump.
“I have received confirmation through Guccifer 2.0 that malware was used in the electronic voting machines that lead to the victory of Donald Trump” Snowden told an internet conference in Berlin, speaking via a video link from Russia, where he has been living as a fugitive.
“ We aren’t surprised that the elections were rigged. Instead, we are surprised that they were rigged in favor of Donald Trump ” – Edward Snowden
“Elections are always rigged”
Surprisingly enough, Edward Snowden honestly admits that voter fraud is common in every election and in every part of the world.
“Democracy is a beautiful illusion and the power brokers of the world are intent in keeping our faith in this system alive. It is why it is important to keep the belief of a truly democratic system, when in fact, we are being ruled by the 1% of this world,” he bluntly said during the one hour and a half video conference.
“The truth is that sometimes the people actually get who they actually voted for, if the establishment has decided they approve of that choice. Voter manipulation is a combination of the coercion of the major media groups and electronic voting fraud,” he explained.
Divide and conquer
The former NSA contractor claims the election fraud was done by tampering with the software of voting machines to add malicious code altering vote totals to favor a particular candidate.
“When you see that the election is divided 51/49, it just clearly shows the election results are biased. Statistically talking, it is impossible to have such a tight election with over 100 million voters. The malware’s algorithm secretly rigs an election to sway the result 51/49 to a specified side, it is clearly a divide and conquer strategy to create the illusion of a division within the population, and this algorithm has pretty much been used around the world in every election for the past 20 years or so,” he explained.
“What is most surprising about this election, according to my information, is that the electronic voting machines were clearly rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor, but Russian hackers cunningly used this to their advantage and inverted the process towards Donald Trump in the last moments leading to his election,” he added.
Proof of fraud in Wisconsin
Academics Against Voter Fraud (AAVF), an independent organization that surveys electronic voting machine data, presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.
The independent organization also found 720 dead people in the state of Wisconsin alone that were officially registered voters, although all votes were found to have gone towards the Democratic party nominee.

Preparing For The Sixth Seal (Rev 6)

Preparing for the Great New York Earthquake
by Mike MullerShare
New York Quakes New York Quakes Fault lines and known temblors in the New York City region between 1677-2004. The nuclear power plant at Indian Point is indicated by a Pe.
Most New Yorkers probably view the idea of a major earthquake hitting New York City as a plot device for a second-rate disaster movie. In a city where people worry about so much — stock market crashes, flooding, a terrorist attack — earthquakes, at least, do not have to be on the agenda.
A recent report by leading seismologists associated with Columbia University, though, may change that. The report concludes a serious quake is likely to hit the area.
The implication of this finding has yet to be examined. Although earthquakes are uncommon in the area relative to other parts of the world like California and Japan, the size and density of New York City puts it at a higher risk of damage. The type of earthquake most likely to occur here would mean that even a fairly small event could have a big impact.
The issue with earthquakes in this region is that they tend to be shallow and close to the surface,” explains Leonardo Seeber, a coauthor of the report. “That means objects at the surface are closer to the source. And that means even small earthquakes can be damaging.”
The past two decades have seen an increase in discussions about how to deal with earthquakes here. The most recent debate has revolved around the Indian Point nuclear power plant, in Buchanan, N.Y., a 30-mile drive north of the Bronx, and whether its nuclear reactors could withstand an earthquake. Closer to home, the city adopted new codes for its buildings even before the Lamont report, and the Port Authority and other agencies have retrofitted some buildings. Is this enough or does more need to be done? On the other hand, is the risk of an earthquake remote enough that public resources would be better spent addressing more immediate — and more likely — concerns?

Assessing the Risk

The report by scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University at summarizes decades of information on earthquakes in the area gleaned from a network of seismic instruments, studies of earthquakes from previous centuries through archival material like newspaper accounts and examination of fault lines.
The city can expect a magnitude 5 quake, which is strong enough to cause damage, once every 100 years, according to the report. (Magnitude is a measure of the energy released at the source of an earthquake.) The scientists also calculate that a magnitude 6, which is 10 times larger, has a 7 percent chance of happening once every 50 years and a magnitude 7 quake, 100 times larger, a 1.5 percent chance. Nobody knows the last time New York experienced quakes as large as a 6 or 7, although if once occurred it must have taken place before 1677, since geologists have reviewed data as far back as that year.
The last magnitude 5 earthquake in New York City hit in 1884, and it occurred off the coast of Rockaway Beach. Similar earthquakes occurred in 1737 and 1783.
By the time of the 1884 quake, New York was already a world class city, according to Kenneth Jackson, editor of The Encyclopedia of New York City.”In Manhattan,” Jackson said, “New York would have been characterized by very dense development. There was very little grass.”
A number of 8 to 10 story buildings graced the city, and “in world terms, that’s enormous,” according to Jackson. The city already boasted the world’s most extensive transportation network, with trolleys, elevated trains and the Brooklyn Bridge, and the best water system in the country. Thomas Edison had opened the Pearl Street power plant two years earlier.
All of this infrastructure withstood the quake fairly well. A number of chimneys crumbled and windows broke, but not much other damage occurred. Indeed, the New York Times reported that people on the Brooklyn Bridge could not tell the rumble was caused by anything more than the cable car that ran along the span.

Risks at Indian Point

As dense as the city was then though, New York has grown up and out in the 124 years since. Also, today’s metropolis poses some hazards few, if any people imagined in 1884.
In one of their major findings, the Lamont scientists identified a new fault line less than a mile from Indian Point. That is in addition to the already identified Ramapo fault a couple of miles from the plant. This is seen as significant because earthquakes occur at faults and are the most powerful near them.
This does not represent the first time people have raised concerns about earthquakes near Indian Point. A couple of years after the licenses were approved for Indian Point 2 in 1973 and Indian Point 3 in 1975, the state appealed to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel over seismic issues. The appeal was dismissed in 1976, but Michael Farrar, one of three members on the panel, dissented from his colleagues.
He thought the commission had not required the plant to be able to withstand the vibration that could occur during an earthquake. “I believe that an effort should be made to ascertain the maximum effective acceleration in some other, rational, manner,” Farrar wrote in his dissenting opinion. (Acceleration measures how quickly ground shaking speeds up.)
Con Edison, the plants’ operator at the time, agreed to set up seismic monitoring instruments in the area and develop geologic surveys. The Lamont study was able to locate the new fault line as a result of those instruments.
Ironically, though, while scientists can use the data to issue reports — the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot use it to determine whether the plant should have its license renewed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission only considers the threat of earthquakes or terrorism during initial licensing hearings and does not revisit the issue during relicensing.
Lynn Sykes, lead author of the Lamont report who was also involved in the Indian Point licensing hearings, disputes that policy. The new information, he said, should be considered — “especially when considering a 20 year license renewal.”
The state agrees. Last year, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began reaching out to other attorneys general to help convince the commission to include these risks during the hearings.
Cuomo and the state Department of Environmental Conservation delivered a 312-page petition to the commission that included reasons why earthquakes posed a risk to the power plants. The petition raised three major concerns regarding Indian Point:
  • The seismic analysis for Indian Point plants 2 and 3 did not consider decommissioned Indian Point 1. The state is worried that something could fall from that plant and damage the others.
  • The plant operators have not updated the facilities to address 20 years of new seismic data in the area.
  • The state contends that Entergy, the plant’s operator, has not been forthcoming. “It is not possible to verify either what improvements have been made to [Indian Point] or even to determine what improvements applicant alleges have been implemented,” the petition stated.
A spokesperson for Entergy told the New York Times that the plants are safe from earthquakes and are designed to withstand a magnitude 6 quake.
Lamont’s Sykes thinks the spokesperson must have been mistaken. “He seems to have confused the magnitude scale with intensity scale,” Sykes suggests. He points out that the plants are designed to withstand an event on the intensity scale of VII, which equals a magnitude of 5 or slightly higher in the region. (Intensity measures the effects on people and structures.) A magnitude 6 quake, in Sykes opinion, would indeed cause damage to the plant.
The two reactors at Indian Point generate about 10 percent of the state’s electricity. Since that power is sent out into a grid, it isn’t known how much the plant provides for New York City. Any abrupt closing of the plant — either because of damage or a withdrawal of the operating license — would require an “unprecedented level of cooperation among government leaders and agencies,” to replace its capacity, according to a 2006 report by the National Academies’ National Research Council, a private, nonprofit institution chartered by Congress.
Entergy’s Indian Point Energy Center, a three-unit nuclear power plant north of New York City, lies within two miles of the Ramapo Seismic Zone.
Beyond the loss of electricity, activists worry about possible threats to human health and safety from any earthquake at Indian Point. Some local officials have raised concerns that radioactive elements at the plant, such as tritium and strontium, could leak through fractures in bedrock and into the Hudson River. An earthquake could create larger fractures and, so they worry, greater leaks.
In 2007, an earthquake hit the area surrounding Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world’s largest. The International Atomic Energy Agency determined “there was no significant damage to the parts of the plant important to safety,” from the quake. According to the agency, “The four reactors in operation at the time in the seven-unit complex shut down safely and there was a very small radioactive release well below public health and environmental safety limits.” The plant, however, remains closed.

Shaking the Streets

A quake near Indian Point would clearly have repercussions for New York City. But what if an earthquake hit one of the five boroughs?
In 2003, public and private officials, under the banner of the New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation, released a study of what would happen if a quake hit the metropolitan area today. Much of the report focused on building damage in Manhattan. It used the location of the 1884 quake, off the coast of Rockaway Beach, as its modern muse.
If a quake so serious that it is expected to occur once every 2,500 years took place off Rockaway, the consortium estimated it would cause $11.5 billion in damage to buildings in Manhattan. About half of that would result from damage to residential buildings. Even a moderate magnitude 5 earthquake would create an estimated 88,000 tons of debris (10,000 truckloads), which is 136 times the garbage cleared in Manhattan on an average day, they found.
The report does not estimate possible death and injury for New York City alone. But it said that, in the tri-state area as a whole, a magnitude 5 quake could result in a couple of dozen deaths, and a magnitude 7 would kill more than 6,500 people.
Ultimately, the consortium decided retrofitting all of the city’s buildings to prepare them for an earthquake would be “impractical and economically unrealistic,” and stressed the importance of identifying the most vulnerable areas of the city.
Unreinforced brick buildings, which are the most common type of building in Manhattan, are the most vulnerable to earthquakes because they do not absorb motion as well as more flexible wood and steel buildings. Structures built on soft soil are more also prone to risk since it amplifies ground shaking and has the potential to liquefy during a quake.
This makes the Upper East Side the most vulnerable area of Manhattan, according to the consortium report. Because of the soil type, the ground there during a magnitude 7 quake would shake at twice the acceleration of that in the Financial District. Chinatown faces considerable greater risk for the same reasons.
The city’s Office of Emergency Management agency does offer safety tips for earthquakes. It advises people to identify safe places in their homes, where they can stay until the shaking stops, The agency recommends hiding under heavy furniture and away from windows and other objects that could fall.
A special unit called New York Task Force 1 is trained to find victims trapped in rubble. The Office of Emergency Management holds annual training events for the unit.
The Buildings Department created its first seismic code in 1995. More recently, the city and state have adopted the International Building Code (which ironically is a national standard) and all its earthquake standards. The “international” code requires that buildings be prepared for the 2,500-year worst-case scenario.

Transportation Disruptions

With the state’s adoption of stricter codes in 2003, the Port Authority went back and assessed its facilities that were built before the adoption of the code, including bridges, bus terminals and the approaches to its tunnels. The authority decided it did not have to replace any of this and that retrofitting it could be done at a reasonable cost.
The authority first focused on the approaches to bridges and tunnels because they are rigid and cannot sway with the earth’s movement. It is upgrading the approaches to the George Washington Bridge and Lincoln Tunnel so they will be prepared for a worst-case scenario. The approaches to the Port Authority Bus Terminal on 42nd Street are being prepared to withstand two thirds of a worst-case scenario.
The terminal itself was retrofitted in 2007. Fifteen 80-foot tall supports were added to the outside of the structure.
A number of the city’s bridges could be easily retrofitted as well “in an economical and practical manner,” according to a study of three bridges by the consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff. Those bridges include the 102nd Street Bridge in Queens, and the 145th Street and Macombs Dam bridges, which span the Harlem River. To upgrade the 155th Street Viaduct, the city will strengthen its foundation and strengthen its steel columns and floor beams.
The city plans upgrades for the viaduct and the Madison Avenue bridge in 2010. The 2008 10-year capital strategy for the city includes $596 million for the seismic retrofitting of the four East River bridges, which is planned to begin in 2013. But that commitment has fluctuated over the years. In 2004, it was $833 million.
For its part, New York City Transit generally is not considering retrofitting its above ground or underground structures, according to a report presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2004. New facilities, like the Second Avenue Subway and the Fulton Transit Center will be built to new, tougher standards.
Underground infrastructure, such as subway tunnels, electricity systems and sewers are generally safer from earthquakes than above ground facilities. But secondary effects from quakes, like falling debris and liquefied soil, could damage these structures.
Age and location — as with buildings — also add to vulnerability. “This stuff was laid years ago,” said Rae Zimmerman, professor of planning and public administration at New York University. “A lot of our transit infrastructure and water pipes are not flexible and a lot of the city is on sandy soil.” Most of Lower Manhattan, for example, is made up of such soil.
She also stresses the need for redundancy, where if one pipe or track went down, there would be another way to go. “The subway is beautiful in that respect,” she said. “During 9/11, they were able to avoid broken tracks.”

Setting Priorities

“On the policy side, earthquakes are a low priority,” said Guy Nordenson, a civil engineer who was a major proponent of the city’s original seismic code, “and I think that’s a good thing.” He believes there are more important risks, such as dealing with the effects of climate change.
“There are many hazards, and any of these hazards can be as devastating, if not more so, than earthquakes,” agreed Mohamed Ettouney, who was also involved in writing the 1995 seismic code.
In fact, a recent field called multi-hazard engineering has emerged. It looks at the most efficient and economical way to prepare for hazards rather than preparing for all at once or addressing one hazard after the other. For example, while addressing one danger (say terrorism) identified as a priority, it makes sense to consider other threats that the government could prepare for at the same time (like earthquakes).
Scientists from Lamont-Doherty are also not urging anybody to rush to action in panic. Their report is meant to be a first step in a process that lays out potential hazards from earthquakes so that governments and businesses can make informed decisions about how to reduce risk.
“We now have a 300-year catalog of earthquakes that has been well calibrated” to estimate their size and location, said Sykes. “We also now have a 34-year study of data culled from Lamont’s network of seismic instruments.”
“Earthquake risk is not the highest priority in New York City, nor is dog-poop free sidewalks,” Seeber recently commented. But, he added, both deserve appropriately rational responses.

Clinton’s Recount Begins (Revelation 17)

Nov 25, 2016 12:45 PM EST
The Green Party’s Jill Stein has officially requested a recount in Wisconsin, where Donald Trump currently holds a lead of 27,257 votes over Hillary Clinton.
Jill Stein raises $4 million for 3-state recount effort
The Wisconsin Elections Commission announced that it received Stein’s petition Friday.
“The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States,” Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Michael Haas said in a statement. The state will be working to complete the recount by the federal deadline of Dec. 13.
What happens next?
The recount is expected to begin late next week, after the Stein campaign pays the recount fee, which is still be calculated.
Early estimates suggest the cost of the recount could reach the $1 million range, and Stein’s campaign will have to pay for it under Wisconsin’s rules. If the margin had been under 0.5 percent, the state would pay for the recount, but the current margin of 27,257 is just under one percent — the tally currently stands at 1,409,467 for Mr. Trump and 1,382,210 for Clinton. Money won’t be a problem — Stein has so far raised over $5 million for recount efforts in three states including Wisconsin, and she has now specifically set aside $2.5 million for that effort.
Haas noted in the commission’s statement that the last statewide recount was in 2011 after the Supreme Court election, and that cost over half a million dollars. That election had about 1.5 million votes, roughly half as many as the 2016 presidential election in Wisconsin.
Over 100 reporting units from across the state have been randomly selected for audits of their voting equipment — this has already begun. All ballots will be examined to determine voter intent before being retabulated, the statement said. And the canvassers will also examine poll lists, absentee ballots and provisional ballots as part of the recount.
Should the candidates disagree with the result of the recount, they are able to appeal in circuit court within five days of the completion of the recount. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have yet to weigh in on the effort.
Stein is seeking recounts in three states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Michigan has not yet been called, and it’s the closest of the three states. If the three states were to move into Clinton’s column, she would win, with 278 electoral votes, but this seems very unlikely. It’s rare that recounts change the result of a race.
Wisconsin, worth 10 electoral votes, has never held a presidential recount, but the effort isn’t without precedent. In 2004, the Green Party did succeed in obtaining a recount in Ohio in the presidential race. The New York Times noted at the time that the statewide recount of Ohio’s 88 counties resulted in a net difference of 285 votes, meaning that George W. Bush beat John Kerry in Ohio by 118,457 votes, instead of 118,775. The recount concluded on Dec. 28, 2004, nearly two months after the election took place.
CBS News’ Steve Chaggaris contributed to this report.

Russia Expands The Nuclear Triad

Russia has successfully tested Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) for its revamped Soviet era ‘nuclear trains’ program.
The missile advancement comes as Kremlin deploys nuclear-capable missiles along the Polish border.
Tests on missiles for the Barguzin “railway-based combat rocket system” were carried out at the Plesetsk cosmodrome two weeks ago, the Interfax news agency reports.
“They were fully successful,” the agency reported quoting an unnamed military source, “paving the way for further flight tests.”
The mobile weapons platform, made up of several train carriages designed to conceal the launchers of six Yars or Yars-M thermonuclear ICBMs and their command units, are expected to enter service between 2018 and 2020.
Lieutenant-General Sergai Karakayev, who commands Russia’s strategic missile forces, said the Barguzin would be superior to the Soviet-era Molodets nuclear trains in accuracy and range.
He expects them to be in service until 2040.
The Soviet Union had 12 Molodets trains in total, each of which were equipped with three nuclear missiles. Known by the Nato designation Scalpel, they were disposed of between 2003 and 2005.
Russia’s latest advancement in its nuclear weapons technology comes as a senior MP announced the deployment of nuclear-capable missiles to the Kaliningrad exclave.
Moscow will deploy S-400 surface-to-air missiles and nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to the exclave, which borders Poland and Lithuania.

Can The Scarlet Woman Still Win?

Can Clinton Win? Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania Recounts Sought; Republican Electors Encouraged To Jump Ship
Green Party presidential Jill Stein says she will seek recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a move that could snatch the election victory from Donald Trump. Stein is pictured here at a Chicago rally, Sept. 8, 2016. Photo: Jim Young/Reuters
There’s less than a month to go before the Electoral College meets Dec. 19 to finalize the presidential election results, and still all the votes have yet to be counted and state results still may come under challenge. Further, a campaign is underway to encourage Republican electors to reject the results of the popular vote and vote for someone else.
In the latest twist on the seemingly neverending 2016 election saga, Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein said Tuesday she will seek recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
“After a divisive and painful presidential race, reported hacks into voter and party databases and individual email accounts were causing many [Americans] to wonder if our election results are reliable,” Stein said in the statement. “These concerns need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified.”
jill stein
Green Party presidential Jill Stein says she will seek recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, a move that could snatch the election victory from Donald Trump. Stein is pictured here at a Chicago rally, Sept. 8, 2016. Photo: Jim Young/Reuters
Unofficial election results indicate Republican Donald Trump won 290 electoral votes to 232 for Democrat Hillary Clinton, although Clinton won the popular vote with 64.2 million to 62.2 million for Trump. If the results in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are reversed, Trump would lose 30 electoral votes, leaving him 10 shy of the 270 needed to secure the presidency. Michigan’s 16 votes have yet to be awarded to either candidate.
“Avengers” director Joss Whedon and actress Debra Messing are among the high-profile backers of a growing “audit the vote” movement, the Hill reported.
Whedon urged his followers on Twitter to demand recounts.
Trump railed during the campaign that if he lost, that would mean the election had been “rigged,” an idea scoffed at by election officials nationwide.
Researchers at the University of Michigan’s Center for Computer Security and Society contacted the Clinton campaign last week, saying they had found evidence the results in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked, New York magazine reported.
Electors in a number of states report getting thousands of emails, letters and telephone calls, urging them to switch their votes when the Electoral College’s 538 electors meet in their state capitals. Twenty-eight states require their electors to abide by the popular vote but 22 do not, although party rules do require them to vote for the winning candidate or face fines.
“I fully intend to vote for Donald Trump,” Jim Skaggs of Bowling Green, Ky., one of that state’s eight electors, told USA Today. Skaggs said he doesn’t like Trump but even though he’s not bound by law, he thinks it’s his “duty” to go along with the popular vote in his state.
P. Bret Chiafalo of Everett, Wash., told Politico the campaign amounts to a “hail Mary.” He said they are encouraging GOP electors to vote for another Republican instead of Trump.
So-called faithless electors are uncommon. The last time one turned up was in 2004 when a Minnesota elector voted for John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards instead of the Democratic presidential nominee. And the last time there was more than one faithless elector was 1872 when Horace Greeley died the day after the election.
Nonetheless, as of late Wednesday, more than 4.6 million people have signed a petition urging Republican electors to jump ship and offering to pay whatever fines are imposed.