East Coast Quakes and the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6

Items lie on the floor of a grocery store after an earthquake on Sunday, August 9, 2020 in North Carolina.

East Coast Quakes: What to Know About the Tremors Below

By Meteorologist Dominic Ramunni Nationwide PUBLISHED 7:13 PM ET Aug. 11, 2020 PUBLISHED 7:13 PM EDT Aug. 11, 2020

People across the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic were shaken, literally, on a Sunday morning as a magnitude 5.1 earthquake struck in North Carolina on August 9, 2020.

Centered in Sparta, NC, the tremor knocked groceries off shelves and left many wondering just when the next big one could strike.

Fault Lines

Compared to the West Coast, there are far fewer fault lines in the East. This is why earthquakes in the East are relatively uncommon and weaker in magnitude.

That said, earthquakes still occur in the East.

According to Spectrum News Meteorologist Matthew East, “Earthquakes have occurred in every eastern U.S. state, and a majority of states have recorded damaging earthquakes. However, they are pretty rare. For instance, the Sparta earthquake Sunday was the strongest in North Carolina in over 100 years.”

While nowhere near to the extent of the West Coast, damaging earthquakes can and do affect much of the eastern half of the country.

For example, across the Tennesse River Valley lies the New Madrid Fault Line. While much smaller in size than those found farther west, the fault has managed to produce several earthquakes over magnitude 7.0 in the last couple hundred years.

In 1886, an estimated magnitude 7.0 struck Charleston, South Carolina along a previously unknown seismic zone. Nearly the entire town had to be rebuilt.


The eastern half of the U.S. has its own set of vulnerabilities from earthquakes.

Seismic waves actually travel farther in the East as opposed to the West Coast. This is because the rocks that make up the East are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years older than in the West.

These older rocks have had much more time to bond together with other rocks under the tremendous pressure of Earth’s crust. This allows seismic energy to transfer between rocks more efficiently during an earthquake, causing the shaking to be felt much further.

This is why, during the latest quake in North Carolina, impacts were felt not just across the state, but reports of shaking came as far as Atlanta, Georgia, nearly 300 miles away.

Reports of shaking from different earthquakes of similar magnitude.

Quakes in the East can also be more damaging to infrastructure than in the West. This is generally due to the older buildings found east. Architects in the early-to-mid 1900s simply were not accounting for earthquakes in their designs for cities along the East Coast.

When a magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck Virginia in 2011, not only were numerous historical monuments in Washington, D.C. damaged, shaking was reported up and down the East Coast with tremors even reported in Canada.


There is no way to accurately predict when or where an earthquake may strike.

Some quakes will have a smaller earthquake precede the primary one. This is called a foreshock.

The problem is though, it’s difficult to say whether the foreshock is in fact a foreshock and not the primary earthquake. Only time will tell the difference.

The United State Geological Survey (USGS) is experimenting with early warning detection systems in the West Coast.

While this system cannot predict earthquakes before they occur, they can provide warning up to tens of seconds in advance that shaking is imminent. This could provide just enough time to find a secure location before the tremors begin.

Much like hurricanes, tornadoes, or snowstorms, earthquakes are a natural occuring phenomenon that we can prepare for.

The USGS provides an abundance of resources on how to best stay safe when the earth starts to quake.

The Pakistani Nuclear Horn Grows: Daniel 8

Pakistan Demonstrates New Nuclear-Capable Howitzer From China

During the Pakistan Day parade, Pakistan’s military displayed multi-dimensional capabilities and highlighted major inductions, including the Chinese-made SH-15 self-propelled howitzer, according to reports.

According to the Daily Pakistan article, the modern artillery is mounted on 6×6 Shaanxi truck chassis with an armoured cabin in the front and one 155 mm gun-howitzer in the rear. According to the study, the SH-15 is a supreme’shoot and scoot’ artillery weapon for the use of nuclear shells.

Because it is lighter than a tracked howitzer and can be deployed more easily in the mountainous region, the Pakistan Army bought the wheeled self-propelled howitzer as part of a massive initiative to modernise its artillery units.

With normal ammunition, the armament system has a maximum range of 20 kilometres and 53 kilometres with a rocket-assisted artillery projectile.

The Pakistani army has roughly 500 tracked self-propelled howitzers, including 200 M109A2, 115 M109A5, 123 M109L, and 203mm 60 M110/M110A2 howitzers built in the United States.

“Analysts say Beijing gave this cutting-edge military system to Pakistan as part of a Sino-Pak plot to confront Indian K-9 Vajra howitzers,” according to the Daily Pakistan report.

The Pakistan Day parade featured a fly-past by freshly entered Chinese Chengdu J-10 (J-10C) fighter jets for the first time, in addition to the Chinese state-of-the-art howitzer.

Biden Gives Russia More Nukes

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during their meeting in Qingdao, China, Saturday, June 9, 2018.

Biden administration may allow Russia to buy Iran’s excess enriched uranium under new nuclear deal

By Paul Best | Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Biden administration is considering allowing Russia to buy Iran’s excess enriched uranium under the terms of a new nuclear deal, U.S. officials said this week.

Under the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPO) in 2015, Russia agreed to buy Iran’s excess uranium so that the regime could not build a nuclear weapon, a role that may be revived in the new deal.

“Would it be a practical role for Russia to play the same role that it did in the JCPOA prior to the decision to withdraw from it, essentially to accept and to pay for the highly enriched uranium to get it out of Iran’s hands so that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon? I think that’s a role we’d be willing to entertain. Yes,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Wednesday. 

Former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, second right, listens to head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi while visiting an exhibition of Iran's new nuclear achievements in Tehran, Iran, in 2021. 

Former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, second right, listens to head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi while visiting an exhibition of Iran’s new nuclear achievements in Tehran, Iran, in 2021.  (Iranian Presidency Office/AP)

White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan also said this week that Russia’s role in purchasing Iran’s excess uranium was a “key part of how we ensured that Iran’s nuclear program was in a box.”

“Now, we don’t have to rely on any given country for any particular element of the deal, but that is a role that Russia played in the past — a practical role that didn’t have necessarily political significance but did have that practical significance,” Sullivan said.

Terms of the new nuclear deal were near completion earlier this month before Russia threw a wrench in the negotiations, demanding that Russia’s trade with Iran is unaffected by Western sanctions over the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine. 

This file photo released Nov. 5, 2019, by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, shows centrifuge machines in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran. 

This file photo released Nov. 5, 2019, by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, shows centrifuge machines in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.  (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran via AP, File))

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against Russia’s role in the new deal. 

“The Iranian nuclear deal would give Iran a pathway to a nuclear weapon and billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Russia is leading the negotiations and would benefit from any new agreement,” Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., tweeted this week. “The US should stop attempting to resurrect this bad deal.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, shakes hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during their meeting in Qingdao, China, Saturday, June 9, 2018. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

“I don’t think Russia is at the table in a legitimate or honest way. I think they are looking at ways to get around the sanctions,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told Fox News’s Bret Baier. “I think we have to be very careful in not negotiating against ourselves, especially with what Russia is doing against Ukraine.” 

The Antichrist Forms His Own Government

Shameful for Iraq to be left without a government: Sadr


Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr speaking at a press conference in Najaf, Iraq, on November 18, 2021. Photo: AP

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – The tripartite alliance will be expecting an “honorable stand” from Iraq’s independent MPs on Saturday’s parliamentary session, according to a statement from the leader of the Sadrist Movement on Friday, adding that “it is shameful for Iraq and its people to be left without a government.”

The Iraqi parliament is set to elect a president of the republic on Saturday, with the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)’s Reber Ahmed competing against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)’s Barham Salih. Concerns regarding the session not being able to meet the legal quorum have been raised, as the Coordination Framework intends on boycotting the parliamentary meeting.

“We are waiting for the independent MPs, and we hope from them, and even the national opposition, an honorable stand for the sake of their people,” read the statement from influential Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Sadr, one of the key players of the Save the Homeland Alliance, urged the independent MPs to attend Saturday’s session and prove their independence by abstaining from the vote, instead of proving the opposite by not attending at all. If the independent MPs decide to boycott the session and the legal quorum is not met, Sadr fears that “it may be the end of Parliament.”

There is no constitutional or legal clause that permits any side to dissolve the parliament, aside from the mechanisms articulated in article 64 of the constitution, which requires an absolute majority to carry out that procedure.

According to Article 64 of the 2005 Iraqi constitution, “The Council of Representatives [parliament] may be dissolved by an absolute majority of the number of its members, or upon the request of one-third of its members by the Prime Minister with the consent of the President of the Republic.”

“So let the government and the opposition stand together to build a free and independent homeland with prestige, sovereignty and dignity, without occupation, normalization or terrorism,” added Sadr, stressing that the upcoming government will not be the same as its predecessors.

The tripartite alliance between the Sadrist Movement, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), and the Sunni Sovereignty Alliance on Wednesday announced their nomination for the Iraqi presidency, selecting the KDP’s Reber Ahmed.

The alliance led by the Coordination Framework, which also includes the PUK, consists of over 100 MPs who persist in pushing for a government based on political consensus. This approach has been repeatedly opposed by the Sadrist bloc, who seek the formation of a majority government with their allies in the tripartite alliance.

Iraq held early elections on October 10. The vote was called in response to mass protests in the country beginning in October 2019, caused by widespread dissatisfaction with Iraq’s politicians and endemic corruption in the country.

By Chenar Chalak

Updated at 9:33 am

Antichrist’s nominees for Iraq’s president and PM enjoy political patronage but no experience

A file picture shows Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr attending a news conference in Najaf, Iraq. (Reuters)

Sadr’s nominees for Iraq’s president and PM enjoy political patronage but no experience

Moqtada al-Sadr, leader of the Sadrist movement, has nominated Riber Ahmed, the Kurdistan region’s interior minister, for the position of president of the republic and Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr, one of his cousins  to be the next prime minister.

Thursday 24/03/2022

A file picture shows Iraqi Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr attending a news conference in Najaf, Iraq. (Reuters)

Partisan and personal loyalties have decided the fate of Iraq’s presidency and premiership, despite all previous vows by populist leader Moqtada al-Sadr to base his nominations for leadership posts on the national interest only.

Instead, Iraq seems to be moving away from a system of political quotas to one based on the accommodation of various players, if not indeed, plain nepotism.

Sadr chose to nominate Riber Ahmed, the Kurdistan region’s interior minister and director of the office of party leader Massoud Barzani, for the position of president of the republic. He has also nominated Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr, one of his cousins, to serve as the country’s prime minister.

Iraqi political analysts said that Sadr, who had claimed to be motivated by a desire to free himself from the yoke of the pro-Iranian Shia Coordination Framework, has fallen under the control of Massoud Barzani and accepted his conditions. These included endorsing the latter’s nominee for the presidency of Iraq, despite the fact that the candidate is virtually unknown to most Iraqis. Moreover, Ahmed will have a hard time filling the shoes of a figure of the stature, connections and overall record of the incumbent Barham Salih.

Analysts said that by agreeing to be swayed by the game of political accommodation and by choosing a relative with no political record nor experience as nominee for prime minister, Sadr has shown he is no different from the rest of the political players who have assumed leadership positions in the country since the 2003 US invasion.  His opposition to quotas, nepotism and his advocacy of the “national majority” now ring hollow, they add.

Three days before the appointment of a new president for Iraq, the tripartite alliance (the Sunni Sovereignty Alliance, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Sadrists) announced the formation of the largest bloc in parliament under the banner of “Saving the Country”. The new alliance officially announced the nomination of Riber Ahmed for president and Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr as prime minister.

Sadr released a statement in which he considered this tripartite choice “a unique and important achievement to save the homeland,” hoping for “the formation of a national majority government without delay.”

Next Saturday, the Iraqi parliament is expected to hold a session to elect a new president.  The decision has been postponed repeatedly as a result of Barzani’s bid to ensure the selection of his own candidate. This comes despite the failure of his first choice, Hoshyar Zebari, over charges of corruption and nepotism stemming from his time as finance minister in 2016.

Iraqi analysts said Sadr’s submitting to Barzani’s wishes over the presidential nominee is likely to undermine his reputation among the general public and the youth protest movement in particular. It shows him as no different from traditional figures dedicated to working within the quota and nepotism system. From that perspective, observers do not rule out seeing Sadr set out to place his supporters from the Peace Brigades in state institutions.

It will not enhance his credibility, they say, to have chosen a cousin with no experience to head the government, instead of an independent Iraqi figure who could deal effectively with the economic crisis and be able to distance the government from the pressures of Iran and its militias.

Going along with Barzani’s demands to nominate a figure without political experience to head the country is also likely to damage Iraq’s image abroad and dash the hopes of regional powers that Sadr would guide Iraq onto the path of neutrality.

Former Kurdish MP, Bistun Faeq, said: “the position of president requires the nomination of a well-known figure at the level of Iraq in general and that of the Kurdish people in particular.”

He described the nomination of Riber as  “surprising to the Kurds first, because the majority of them do not know anything about him except that he assumed the portfolio of the ministry of the interior of the region within the last ministerial cabinet.”

It is not known whether the new parliamentary alliance has already secured the majority that will allow it to ensure the approval of the Kurdish candidate for the presidency nor whether it would rely on independent MPs. These have sent signals saying that they would not give Sadr a blank cheque and that they wanted to play the role of a “partner” in choosing the government.

Qais al-Khazali, the leader of the Shia Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq faction, which is affiliated with the Shia Coordination Framework, accused the Sadrist Current of trying “to seize the Shia’s share of the government ministries.”

Khazali said in a televised statement, “There is a feeling of anxiety among the Shia segment of the population, in general and fear of losing their rights.”

Republicans Worry About New Obama-Biden Deal

Republicans sound alarm on potential Biden move to pull Iran’s IRGC from terror list

 Lynn Crosbie

March 23, 2022

Republican lawmakers and former top Trump-era officials are sounding the alarm on a potential move by the Biden administration to remove Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps from the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list as part of efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal.

Two sources familiar with ongoing deliberations told Fox News last week that the administration is considering removing the regime’s powerful military faction from the list. Axios had first reported the consideration, which it said could come in return for a commitment from Iran to deescalate in the region.

Tehran has been demanding such a concession for months as talks continue in Vienna on how to bring Iran and the U.S. back into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The sources told Fox that such a move is under consideration but no decision has been made. Officials have noted that there’d still be other sanctions in place on the IRGC if the FTO designation was lifted.

A senior administration official told Fox last week: “We don’t have a deal yet, and we’re not going to discuss anonymous speculation. We’re consulting with allies and partners, including Israel as we negotiate.”

The official said that President Biden “will make a decision on whether to re-enter the deal based on what’s in the best interest of American security.”

“And let’s be clear – President [Donald] Trump’s approach has been a clear failure and made the U.S., Israel and our other partners in the region less safe. Not only has Iran’s nuclear program advanced dramatically, but their behavior in the region and beyond has gotten more aggressive,” the official said.

The Trump administration designated the IRGC in 2019, with Trump saying the IRGC “actively participates in, finances, and promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft.”  

“The IRGC is the Iranian government’s primary means of directing and implementing its global terrorist campaign,” Trump said.

As a result, the prospect is drawing concern not only from Israel but also from former Trump officials and Republican lawmakers. More than 80 Republicans wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken to express opposition “to any move to legitimize the IRGC’s reckless, destabilizing, and antisemitic actions throughout the Middle East.”

“The IRGC continues to actively participate in acts of terror and destabilizing actions in the region—particularly against one of our closest allies, Israel. It is also a chief supporter and enabler of other FTOs and insurgent groups in the region. These organizations include, but are not limited to: Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthi insurgency,” they wrote. “The IRGC’s actions have led to decades of instability and conflict across the Middle East and the group is responsible for countless deaths, including more than 600 U.S. troops during the occupation of Iraq.” 

The Republicans, led by Rep. Scott Franklin, R-Fla., argued that delisting the IRGC would give them greater freedom and bolster their financial resources.

Meanwhile, in a statement to Axios, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser Robert O’Brien and former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe said that removing the IRGC would be a “dangerous capitulation and a denial of the basic reality that the IRGC’s core mission is to spread terror.”

“Removing the IRGC from the list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) would be a colossal mistake,” Nathan Sales, a former State Department counterterrorism coordinator who was part of the effort to list the IRGC in 2019, told Fox News earlier this week.

“The IRGC has perpetrated terrorism around the world and has the blood of hundreds of Americans on its hands,” Sales said. “Delisting the group would make it harder to prosecute its operatives and supporters, and harder to keep them from entering our country.”

The IRGC listing is one of a number of concerns Republicans have voiced about the potential deal. Included among those concerns is that it will take pressure of the regime in Tehran, and that it could end up helping Russia dodge sanctions on its invasion of Ukraine.

“A deal that provides $90-$130 billion in sanctions relief, relieves sanctions against Iran’s worst terror and human rights offenders, and delists the IRGC does not support our national security interests,” Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said in a statement. “Worse, this deal could enable Putin to continue to build out his nuclear arsenal and benefit financially in the midst of his assault against Ukraine. The administration should walk away.”

Meanwhile, a senior Republican Senate aide told Fox News that senators are concerned that the Biden team will allow Russia to play a key role in the new nuclear deal by importing and storing Iran’s excess enriched uranium.

What Happens If Russia Strikes With A Tactical Nuclear Weapon?

Tactical Nuclear Weapons

ByMichael Rubin

Published22 hours ago

US Military B-61 nuclear weapon. Image Credit: US DOD.

Can Deterrence be Restored if Russia Uses Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Ukraine? – It was eerily quiet in Lviv, the main city in western Ukraine. At 3 am, however, night turned to day as a brilliant flash arose first over the Yavoriv Military Base, 40 miles west of Lviv and just six miles from the Polish border. Three minutes later, residents of Lviv—awakened not only by the flash but by rattling windows and a strange wind—saw another flash on their southern horizon in the direction of Stryi, just under 50 miles away.

This of course is just a scenario—a hypothetical—but one that is conceivable. While the White House projects uncertainty because they worry about Putin’s nuclear embrace, another problem looms: In the aftermath of any nuclear strike, how to stop the next one?

When the United States used nuclear weapons against Japan, Washington had little understanding of the horror of fallout and radiation. To the Truman administration, a nuclear bomb was just a quicker, more efficient way to achieve a city’s destruction without the need for all the aircraft (and risk) that a Dresden-style firebombing would cause. President Truman also justified the attack in the belief that ending the war quickly by shocking Imperial Japan with such magnitude of destruction would save lives by avoiding an amphibious assault on Japan.

When the world learned the truth about nuclear weapons, the stigma with their use grew immensely. During the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States built nuclear arsenals capable of destroying the world several times over, but successive secretaries-general and presidents (despite some close calls) refrained from deploying nuclear weapons against each other or their proxies. When, in 1969, Soviet diplomats quietly sounded out their American counterparts about Washington’s reaction should Moscow launch a limited, preemptive nuclear strike on communist China’s nascent nuclear program, American officials forcefully shot down the idea even though, in theory, the strike might be both limited and resolve both Soviet and American concerns about Mao Zedong’s ambitions. To make an exception to the nuclear stigma was simply too dangerous.

Herein lies the problem: A stigma is strongest when the stigmatized activity has little precedent. It has been more than 75 years since the last wartime nuclear detonation. Should Russia use even a small yield tactical nuclear weapon, there is little likelihood that other powers would wait another 75 years.

Consider car bombings or beheading in Iraq, for example. When they initially occurred, they were front-page news around the globe. As they became more common, newspapers buried any mention if at all deep in the paper. The only exception would be when violence reached a new scale: Christians lined up on a beach in Libya for a mass beheading or a vehicle bombing that killed more than 100 children.

The reason why so many criticized President Barack Obama’s failure to uphold his redline after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons was that it suggested that the cost for their repeated use would be minor. With every chemical weapons attack, the shock diminished. Some analysts even rationalized that it made no difference to the victims if killed by a bomb or a chlorine cloud.

Back to nuclear weapons: If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons, expect other countries to do so within a decade. Iran already has precision missiles, enriched uranium, and it has experimented with warhead design. A Russian strike on Ukraine might be a green light for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to move on Yanbu, Tel Aviv, or the Fifth Fleet Headquarters in Bahrain. Should they do so, perhaps the new stigma would be proportionality: The international community might demand Israel or the United States respond with the same yields or below. Such constraints on yield, however, would erode slowly with each use.

Deterrence has always been more fragile than some political scientists expect. A world without effective deterrence would be a far more perilous place. My colleagues Hal Brands and Kori Schake are correct that a desperate Russia is increasingly dangerous. What is at stake now, however, is far more than Ukraine. It is time for the White House to convince Putin he cannot survive even a small-scale use of nuclear weapons rather than signal that there are shades of gray in the world’s aversion to crossing the nuclear threshold.

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, co-author, and co-editor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).

WRITTEN BYMichael Rubin

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).