We really are due for the sixth seal: Revelation 6:12

Opinion/Al Southwick: Could an earthquake really rock New England? We are 265 years overdue

On Nov. 8, a 3.6 magnitude earthquake struck Buzzard’s Bay off the coast of New Bedford. Reverberations were felt up to 100 miles away, across Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and parts of Connecticut and New York. News outlets scrambled to interview local residents who felt the ground shake their homes. Seismologists explained that New England earthquakes, while uncommon and usually minor, are by no means unheard of.

The last bad one we had took place on Nov. 18, 1755, a date long remembered.

It’s sometimes called the Boston Earthquake and sometimes the Cape Ann Earthquake. Its epicenter is thought to have been in the Atlantic Ocean about 25 miles east of Gloucester. Estimates say that it would have registered between 6.0 and 6.3 on the modern Richter scale. It was an occasion to remember as chronicled by John E. Ebel, director of the Weston observatory of Boston College:

“At about 4:30 in the morning on 18 November, 1755, a strong earthquake rocked the New England area. Observers reported damage to chimneys, brick buildings and stone walls in coastal communities from Portland, Maine to south of Boston … Chimneys were also damaged as far away as Springfield, Massachusetts, and New Haven, Connecticut. The earthquake was felt at Halifax, Nova Scotia to the northeast, Lake Champlain to the northwest, and Winyah, South Carolina to the southwest. The crew of a ship in deep water about 70 leagues east of Boston thought it had run aground and only realized it had felt an earthquake after it arrived at Boston later that same day.

“The 1755 earthquake rocked Boston, with the shaking lasting more than a minute. According to contemporary reports, as many as 1,500 chimneys were shattered or thrown down in part, the gable ends of about 15 brick buildings were broken out, and some church steeples ended up tilted due to the shaking. Falling chimney bricks created holes in the roofs of some houses. Some streets, particularly those on manmade ground along the water, were so covered with bricks and debris that passage by horse-drawn carriage was impossible. Many homes lost china and glassware that was thrown from shelves and shattered. A distiller’s cistern filled with liquor broke apart and lost its contents.”

We don’t have many details of the earthquake’s impact here, there being no newspaper in Worcester County at that time. We do know that one man, Christian Angel, working in a “silver” mine in Sterling, was buried alive when the ground shook. He is the only known fatality in these parts. We can assume that, if the quake shook down chimneys in Springfield and New Haven, it did even more damage hereabouts. We can imagine the cries of alarm and the feeling of panic as trees swayed violently, fields and meadows trembled underfoot and pottery fell off shelves and crashed below.

The Boston Earthquake was an aftershock from the gigantic Lisbon Earthquake that had leveled Lisbon, Portugal, a few days before. That cataclysm, estimated as an 8 or 9 on the modern Richter scale, was the most devastating natural catastrophe to hit western Europe since Roman times. The first shock struck on Nov. 1, at about 9 in the morning.

According to one account: ”Suddenly the city began to shudder violently, its tall medieval spires waving like a cornfield in the breeze … In the ancient cathedral, the Basilica de Santa Maria, the nave rocked and the massive chandeliers began swinging crazily. . . . Then came a second, even more powerful shock. And with it, the ornate façade of every great building in the square … broke away and cascaded forward.”

Until that moment, Lisbon had been one of the leading cities in western Europe, right up there with London and Paris. With 250,000 people, it was a center of culture, financial activity and exploration. Within minutes it was reduced to smoky, dusty rubble punctuated by human groans and screams. An estimated 60,000 to 100,000 lost their lives.

Since then, New England has been mildly shaken by quakes from time to time. One series of tremors on March 1, 1925, was felt throughout Worcester County, from Fitchburg to Worcester, and caused a lot of speculation.

What if another quake like that in 1755 hit New England today? What would happen? That question was studied 15 years ago by the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency. Its report is sobering:

“The occurrence of a Richter magnitude 6.25 earthquake off Cape Ann, Massachusetts … would cause damage in the range of 2 to 10 billion dollars … in the Boston metropolitan area (within Route 128) due to ground shaking, with significant additional losses due to secondary effects such as soil liquefaction failures, fires and economic interruptions. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of major and minor injuries would be expected … Thousands of people could be displaced from their homes … Additional damage may also be experienced outside the 128 area, especially closer to the earthquake epicenter.”

So even if we don’t worry much about volcanoes, we know that hurricanes and tornadoes are always possible. As for earthquakes, they may not happen in this century or even in this millennium, but it is sobering to think that if the tectonic plates under Boston and Gloucester shift again, we could see a repeat of 1755.

Babylon the Great Expands Her Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

US Begins Development of New Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missile

New models will replace the ageing air-launched cruise missile that was fielded in the early 1980s with a 10-year design life.

New models will replace the ageing air-launched cruise missile that was fielded in the early 1980s with a 10-year design life.

The US government has awarded $2 million to Raytheon Technologies Corporation – which is aerospace and defence conglomerate – and tasked it with developing and making a nuclear-armed cruise missile. 

“Raytheon Missiles and Defence [of] Tucson, Arizona, has been awarded an approximately $2 billion […] contract for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) Weapon System,” the Defence Department said in a press release on 2 July.

Under the US Air Force contract, the company will produce a Long Range Standoff (LRSO) new nuclear-armed cruise missile which is projected to have a range of 1,500 miles. According to information, obtained by Bloomberg, the US Air Force seeks to buy up to 1,000 LRSO weapons to replace the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) first fielded in 1982.

State Department spokesman Ned Price speaks at the State Department in Washington, Wednesday, March 31, 2021.

© AP Photo / Carolyn KasterUS Sees China’s Accelerated Buildup of Nuclear Arms as ‘Concerning’ – State Dept.The LRSO missile is said to be carried on multiple aircraft, including the B-52 and B-21 bombers, according to recent reports. The US Defence Department earlier stated that the LRSO program seeks to develop a weapon that can penetrate and survive integrated air defence systems and prosecute strategic targets that will reach initial operational capability before the retirement of the ALCM by around 2030.

Earlier in June, Washington awarded a $3.12 billion contract to Raytheon for the production of F-15 fighter jet radar systems. In May, the company won a five-year $275 million contract to upgrade management of information from the US Earth Observing System Data and Information System. 

Notably, US State Department stated on 1 July that Washington is concerned about China’s accelerated buildup of its nuclear arsenal. 

Back in 2019, the Trump administration accused Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) by deploying a new type of cruise missile, although Moscow denied any wrongdoing. As a result, Washington withdrew from the treaty, which banned missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 km.

US’ decision also put at risk the future of New START treaty, which limits the US and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear missiles each. Nevertheless, Russia and the United States agreed to extend the New START treaty for five more years without renegotiating any of its terms in February 2021.

Iran-Backed Militia Leader Threatens Retaliation Against Babylon the Great

Iran-Backed Militia Leader Threatens Retaliation Against US

Tuesday, 06 Jul 2021 20:29 

The head of the judicial department of Iran’s armed forces has said Tuesday that “the performance of the regime in dealing with the case” of the Ukrainian passenger plane shot down over Tehran in January 2020 has been “unparalleled”.

Shokrollah Bahrami in an interview with semi-official Mehr news agency added, “The Islamic Republic in three rounds of talks and in answer to questions, responded to the Ukrainian side with honesty, openness and transparency” on legal and technical matters.

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was shot down by two missiles fired from a Revolutionary Guard missile battery as it took off from Imam Khomeini airport in Tehran on January 8, 2020. For three days Iran denied it had shot down the aircraft, but after videos emerged showing the incident, the military acknowledged the incident and insisted it was “a human error”.

Ukraine and Canada which had dozens of citizens and permanent residents on board demand that Iran hold high-level officials responsible and provide a full accounting of the incident. Iran has said it has arrested ten people but has not provided their names or positions. Ukraine has also accused Iran of manipulating information in the case file.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also called Iran’s report on the incident, “vague, misleading and superficial”. Iran says Ukraine’s and Canada’s criticism has no legal basis and are motivated by politics.

The Russian nuclear horn extends into Europe: Revelation 7

Russia deploys potential nuclear delivery vehicles in occupied Crimea

Russia deploys potential nuclear delivery vehicles in occupied Crimea

06.07.2021 15:37

“Russia is actively building the Crimean military infrastructure for its nuclear weapons, reconstructing the infrastructure of Soviet-era nuclear warhead storages. Potential nuclear delivery vehicles have already been deployed on the peninsula,” First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Emine Dzheppar said at the All-Ukrainian Forum “Ukraine 30. International Relations” on July 6, an Ukrinform correspondent reports.

She noted that Russia was trying to consolidate its rule in Crimea by turning it into a huge military base, constantly increasing the number of troops and equipment in occupied Crimea.

“Recently, the Kremlin has gone even further. Under the guise of military exercises, it closed part of the Black Sea, including in the direction of the Kerch Strait for foreign warships and state vessels for six months. In addition, the Russian president gave the Russian National Guard the right to block the waters of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. Indeed, it creates significant obstacles to international navigation, threatens the security and stability of Ukraine, in the world and in Southeastern Europe,” the First Deputy Minister emphasized.

On July 2, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law that allows the Russian National Guard to “block the territories and waters of facilities to stop attempts of illegal intrusion.”

According to the explanatory note to the law, the Russian National Guard protects, among other things, the waters of the Kerch Strait and the bridge built by Russia across it, as well as the waters of the Russian energy bridge with Crimea.

Earlier it was reported that the U.S. mission to the OSCE called on Russia to cancel its decision to block the passage of some ships in the Kerch Strait.

Earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine protested against the fact that Russia had announced the closure of part of Black Sea waters in the direction of the Kerch Strait for warships and state ships of other countries under the pretext of military exercises until October 2021ol

The Third Bowl of Wrath: Revelation 16

The Weapon That Eradicates Cities by Creating ‘Radioactive Tsunamis’

Earlier this year, Russia was spotted building up its military presence in the Arctic, where several next-gen weapons have undergone continued tests, one of which, claim Russian officials, carries a warhead of several megatons.

That weapon is the Poseidon 2M39 torpedo, designed to glide past coastal defenses at extreme depths of the ocean and then explode underwater, creating radioactive waves capable of inflicting significant damage to coastal cities and reportedly exposing many to dangerous levels radiation.

However, the aim of developing such weapons may not be to best the United States at first-strike capabilities, or spur another nuclear arms race. “I think it’s not a good first-strike weapon, and I think the development of a weapon like this shows how concerned Russia is about U.S. missile defense,” said Professor Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland, who is also a member of both the Union of Concerned Scientists Board and the American Physical Society Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction, to IE. According to Fetter, Russia’s investment in new nuclear weapons only makes sense “in response to concerns about U.S. missile defenses.”

Russia ‘hedging their bets’ on mutual vulnerability

During the cold war, the concept of mutually assured destruction served to dissuade both the United States and the now-defunct Soviet Union from sparking a nuclear war, since it was obvious such an engagement could threaten the survival of the human species. “I think the leaders of all the countries with nuclear weapons understand that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to devastating retaliation,” said Fetter to IE. “There’s nothing we could do to Russia that would prevent Russian Retaliation and our destruction, and there’s nothing Russia could do that would prevent us from retaliating. Leaders from both sides understand there’s no political or military objective that would warrant the destruction of their own country.”

However, much has changed since Russia’s modern government replaced the Soviet Union. The dissolving of 20th-century treaties has prompted Russia’s leaders — namely, President Vladimir Putin — to begin negotiations by other means: developing next-generation nuclear weapons to maintain its perceived levels of mutual vulnerability. “[T]here’s no way we could defeat a Russian attack, but they engage in worst-case analysis,” said Fetter. To him, the Russians are asking themselves: “What if the U.S. expanded those defenses in the future? Maybe they aren’t effective now, but what about 10 to 20 years from now?”

While this isn’t an attempt to provoke an American military response, like building up its ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, Russia’s Poseidon torpedo development could be construed as a reminder of the inevitable relationship the U.S. shares with it. “It’s to show us that we can’t escape our mutual nuclear hostage relationship,” said Professor Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton University, to IE. Additionally, the torpedo might be a way for Russia to cover all of its bases in the future, regardless of how this “hostage relationship” turns out. “I view the new systems as Russia hedging their bets,” said Professor Fetter. “So even if the U.S. develops highly effective missile defenses against Russia,” new systems like Poseidon would enable Russia to maintain its retaliatory capabilities. And this seems an accurate description of Putin’s position, who, in a 2018 address to the Federal Assembly of Russia, said of its forthcoming suite of next-gen weapons: They “are quiet, highly maneuverable and have hardly any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit,” presumably referring to the United States and its allies. “There is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them.”

“Back in 2000, the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty”, said Putin in the address. This treaty was signed during the cold war in 1972, and Putin said the Soviet Union (and later, Russia) saw it as “the cornerstone of the international security system.” It allowed signatories to deploy BMD systems in just one of their respective regions, with Russia basing its ballistic missiles near Moscow, and the U.S. building its system around the Grand Forks ICBM base.

Russia’s Poseidon torpedo might ‘not come online ever’

“We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the treaty,” said Putin, seemingly exasperated, in his 2018 address. “All in vain. The U.S. pulled out of the treaty in 2002,” and while Russia wanted a new compromise, “that was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected.” To Russia, this apparent futility left the country no recourse but to improve its modern strike systems. While the roots of this anxiety about U.S. ballistic missile development can be traced back to at least the 1980s and former President Ronald Reagan’s administration (for example, the “Star Wars” space laser defense program), a more recent drive involved President George W. Bush’s administration withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM in 2001. “[T]hat made Russia very concerned,” said Fetter. Since then, Russia has “been concerned about scenarios where the U.S. launches a first strike that destroys many Russian weapons, leaving them with only a small retaliatory force.”

And while “a U.S. missile defense could intercept and defeat that force,” we probably won’t develop new nuclear weapons in response to Russia’s Poseidon, said Fetter. “[W]e have a very effective deterrent in [the form of] our ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers, and Russia has no missile defense that we’re worried about.” And if the people of Russia and the United States want to keep giving the slip to nuclear war, we already have the best tool, according to Professor Harsh Mathur of Case Western Reserve University. “We’ve been in this situation before, [and] the best way out of it during the cold war was negotiating with the Soviet Union,” said Mathur to IE. The same might be accomplished with Russia, but there is much to negotiate in the wake of the U.S. pullout from older treaties. “We have almost no treaties left — if New START had not been ratified, we would be in free-fall. Both countries would be completely free to start an arms race.”

“That’s where these new weapons come in,” said Mathur. In Putin’s address, he promises that Russia’s Armed Forces and its Strategic Missile Forces will receive a new suite of next-gen weapons, including “hypersonic speed, high-precision” systems “that can hit targets at inter-continental distance”. The goal of the new weapons systems like Poseidon, to Russia, is bypassing interception boundaries as a means of restarting talks with U.S. officials, who have said since 2004 that there are no plans to create a global BMD system designed to target Russia. And this is probably a good thing, since “new technologies using nuclear weapons are potentially a destabilizing force,” added Mathur.

Although this might not be in the cards, since, while the Poseidon torpedo “is slated for deployment in 2027,” the program might never reach fruition, according to Mathur. “It’s possible that it will not come online ever,” he said. “Many weapons like this have been proposed before and never came online.” In fact, advanced U.S. weapons in development for years are sometimes canceled. Last week, the U.S. Navy ceased research and development of railguns, a futuristic weapon capable of firing projectiles approaching seven times the speed of sound with electricity. “The railgun is, for the moment, dead,” said Matthew Caris, a defense analyst from the consulting firm Avascent Group, in an AP Newsreport.

The most devastating nuclear weapons are detonated in the air

There might even be physics-based reasons for Russia’s Poseidon torpedo to be canceled before it can come online. “The most devastating effects of weapons detonated in the atmosphere are the blast and thermal effects,” explained Fetter about conventional nuclear weapon detonations. “The blast destroys buildings, and the thermal effects can ignite fires and cause a firestorm, which does most of the damage.” Unlike a traditional nuclear device, these effects wouldn’t happen with Poseidon. “When you detonate a bomb underwater to create a wave, most of the energy is lost,” explained Fetter. “Only a small part goes into generating a wave.” Of course, people on the coastline closest to the underwater detonation might be in trouble. But “this weapon’s detonation delivered in a water-borne way would not cause more damage than the detonation of weapons currently on Russian missiles.”

“This is a different way of delivering weapons, but not a more destructive way,” said Fetter. In light of this, it seems there are still plenty of opportunities to avert nuclear war by a wide margin. For now, the U.S. still has the New START treaty with Russia, which is valid for another five years. “As citizens we have an opportunity to participate in the conversation ourselves,” said Mathur, emphasizing the need for concerned non-politicians and citizen scientists to get involved and contact their representatives. It “[c]ould be that this is getting to the place where the best way to go is to negotiate,” instead of waiting for either party to hit a technological snag. Indeed, by the time Russia’s Poseidon torpedo enters service in 2027, the New START treaty “will have expired,” said Fetter. “What we need is a new treaty to replace it, which would have to address these new weapon systems. After this recent meeting with Biden and Putin, I have hopes it will lead to a negotiation of a new treaty.” And this could potentially shift international efforts away from building new nuclear weapons that may or may not be completed, and toward beginning a new chapter of peaceful dialogue amid the global community.

Israel used swarm of drones to attack outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israel used swarm of drones to attack Hamas terrorists: report

Drone swarms have been looked to as the next phase of war fighting

By Brittany De Lea| Fox News

Israel reportedly used a swarm of drones to locate and attack Hamas targets during the 11 day conflict that broke out in May.

The Israeli Defense Forces employed artificial intelligence to identify and strike targets in the Gaza Strip, according to a report from the New Scientist, which alleged it may be the first time a drone swarm has been used in combat.

Drone swarms have been characterized as the next phase of war fighting, whereby “hundreds of drones that integrate their actions using emergent behavior.”

“By exploiting the swarm’s ability to rapidly concentrate through maneuver, it becomes possible to mass effect at hundreds of points simultaneously,” as noted in a U.S. Air Force report. “The advantage this provides is the ability to conduct … a parallel attack, but at an unprecedented scale.”


As previously reported by Fox News, drone systems have been acquired by U.S. adversaries including Russia, China and Iran. The U.S. has identified that trend as a “rapidly evolving challenge.”

Not only can the technology provide enhanced surveillance capability, but it can also present precision strike capability, direct attacks using small munitions, laser designation for indirect fires and deploy chemical agents, as noted in a Department of Defense report.

Ever since a shaky ceasefire was brokered in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas on May 21, there have been several outbursts of violence.

Over the weekend, Israel launched an airstrike against Hamas in response to incendiary balloon launches.https://f5ebc277cd176c0bc9acb2a40732a186.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

The initial conflict began on May 10 and resulted in hundreds of casualties.

The Antichrist shocks followers by announcing his death is ‘nearing’: Revelation 14:10

Iraq’s Sadr shocks followers by announcing his death is ‘nearing’

The populist cleric appeared to be garnering attention before October’s election

Iraq’s populist cleric Moqtada Al Sadr told his followers on Monday he would be “killed”, words analysts said were to garner pre-election support and send a warning to Iran.

Mr Al Sadr has a huge following on the Iraqi street and has a history of making bombastic statements to shore up support against foreign intervention, specifically against US troops.

He also wields the power, through his family’s religious legacy, to encourage thousands of his followers to take to the streets.

“It seems that something will activate the Sadrist movement, which is my death or my killing. I will be a martyr and my death will revive something that has disappeared,” Mr Al Sadr told a group of clerics during a meeting.

“I’ll give you good news that my death or martyrdom is close, if God grants me success,” he said.

Mr Al Sadr portrays himself as a nationalist, fighting for the benefit of his country by leading the Mahdi army against the US presence. In recent years he also voiced concerns about Tehran’s growing influence over Iraq’s internal politics.

Many of his supporters hail from eastern Baghdad slums and share the same grievances as many Iraqis over a lack of job opportunities, poor healthcare and education.

People who claim to be Sadrists are most probably not acting in the way he would want them to, so the statement was a scolding to his followers to adhere to his commands, Sajad Jiyad, a Baghdad-based fellow at The Century Foundation, told The National.

“He is concerned for his own safety. It’s a warning to his supporters that they should be worried and prepared to defend and support him. It really is to mobilise his supporters and push them to be more passionate,” Mr Jiyad said.

As election season approaches, the cleric wants to ensure his supporters are on board and are aware of his expectations, he said.

Mr Al Sadr holds no official position in Iraqi government or politics but remains one of the most powerful figures in the politics of the country.

“He is concerned that people in Sadr City are complaining about the state it is in, with poor electricity supplies; municipality services and security are not great, water supplies are not secure,” Mr Jiyad said.

Mr Al Sadr is concerned that supporters may blame the Sadrist movement for the poor services they are getting as they control many ministries, Mr Jiyad said.

“He’s worried about it picking up momentum, so he’s making these comments about being killed or his death will galvanise people as a way to appeal emotionally to his supporters.”

Security concerns

The cleric is one of the biggest obstacles to Iran’s growing influence in Iraq as he stands at the head of a mass movement that has deep roots in the country’s largest and fastest growing demographic cohort, Nicholas Krohley, author of a book on the Sadr movement and an adviser to the Iraqi Security Forces, told The National.

“From Iran’s perspective, Mr Al Sadr is much more formidable than the protest movement, because the protesters are not organised [or armed] well enough to compete in the Iraqi political system,” Mr Krohley said.

“The danger for Mr Al Sadr is that he stands alone at the head of the Sadr movement. If Sadr is killed, there’s a very real prospect of the movement coming unravelled,” he said.

The cleric’s statement is a way of warning Iran and its proxies in Iraq that “if you kill me, you will not be killing off the Sadr movement. Instead, you will be unleashing the Mahdi Army,” said Mr Krohley.

Updated: July 5th 2021, 11:20 AM