The Quakes Preceding the Sixth Seal: Revelation 6:12

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.

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

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.

Trouble with the Pakistani Nuclear Horn: Daniel 9

A shopkeeper tunes a television screen to watch the speech of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, at his shop in Islamabad, Pakistan, March 31, 2022.
A shopkeeper tunes a television screen to watch the speech of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, at his shop in Islamabad, Pakistan, March 31, 2022. REUTERS/Akhtar Soomro

Imran Khan’s Undemocratic Action Deepens Pakistan’s Political Crisis

Prime Minister Imran Khan dissolved Pakistan’s National Assembly to avoid a no confidence vote. The move has severe consequences for the country’s democracy. 

Blog Post by Zahid Hussain, Guest Blogger

April 5, 2022 12:16 pm (EST)

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government has been floundering, but the speed at which it unraveled in the face of the opposition’s no confidence move on Sunday surprised even the most seasoned analysts. Not only have coalition partners of Khan’s party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) joined the opposition camp, but Khan’s own party has imploded. Facing the humiliation of being voted out, the prime minister took an unprecedented step by dissolving the National Assembly, which is Pakistan’s lower house of Parliament, and calling for early elections.

Just minutes before the vote, the Speaker of the National Assembly abruptly rejected the opposition’s no confidence motion as illegal on the basis of what he described as a “foreign conspiracy,” preventing the vote that would decide whether Khan remained in office. But the National Assembly cannot be dissolved during no confidence proceedings against the prime minister, possibly making Khan’s move a blatant violation of Pakistan’s constitution.  With many of Khan’s allies joining the opposition, the prime minister lost the confidence of the house. Dissolving the National Assembly was a last-ditch attempt to escape his imminent ouster, but the move has inevitably plunged the country into a constitutional crisis. On Sunday, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the matter, and is undergoing hearings at the time of writing. While awaiting the court ruling, Pakistan remains in political uncertainty.

Was there a “foreign conspiracy” to oust Imran Khan?

The speaker of the National Assembly’s charge of foreign interference in Pakistan’s internal political matters—which is his reason for rejecting the no confidence motion—is built around a cable from a Pakistani diplomat, based on his conversations with senior-level U.S. State Department officials. Earlier this year, addressing a public rally in Islamabad, Khan brandished a paper saying that it contained evidence of a “foreign-funded conspiracy” to topple his government. He claimed that he was being punished for pursuing an “independent foreign policy” and not succumbing to foreign diktat. Although the contents of the letter were later made public, there is little evidence to substantiate the government’s claims that the no confidence motion was sponsored by foreign forces.

More likely, the government purposely exaggerated an informal conversation between a former Pakistani ambassador in Washington and an American diplomat to build a narrative that paints the opposition’s democratic move as a foreign conspiracy.

How did Pakistan get here? 

Khan’s fall from grace marks the end of Pakistan’s experiment with a “hybrid rule” with the military actively backing the civilian administration. His journey from being a sporting hero to occupying the corridors of power is largely owed to Pakistan’s powerful military. Khan was projected by his supporters as the last best hope.

It is not surprising that Khan’s government survived for so long despite a very thin majority: he was supported by the military in the 2018 elections, and a coalition of disparate groups was built to provide his party enough parliamentary support to form the government. Even with the military’s support, his government struggled, largely due to Khan’s limited understanding of statecraft.

To Khan, it is either the misrule of previous regimes or mafias that were responsible for the country’s predicament. Khan’s frustration seems to have arisen with the collapse of his government’s ‘anti-corruption’ drive that had mainly targeted opposition leaders. He blamed both the judiciary and media for failures of governance.

Self-righteousness and the politics of religiosity did not help him deal with the worsening political crises. And as the crisis evolved, Khan’s government became increasingly authoritarian with an overreliance on the security establishment’s support and under-reliance on Parliament. Its contempt for elected institutions was evident. 

A perception that the military leadership had distanced itself from the government gave a further boost to the opposition, resulting in a major shift in the country’s political scene when two main opposition parties—the PML-N and PPP—aligned against the government.

This led to a shift in loyalties that has long eroded democracy in Pakistan. Pakistan’s military is often considered the determiner of national security and foreign policy, and its role became more pronounced under the Khan government. On various occasions, the military leadership has been involved in sorting out problems with other countries arising from some impulsive decisions taken by the prime minister.

But the military’s recent decision to keep itself out of the unfolding power struggle has changed Pakistan’s traditional political dynamics. In fact, the military’s decision to refrain from politics can be interpreted as a political decision in and of itself.  While the military may have pulled back from supporting the Khan government, it is not necessarily completely out of the political game.

What could happen next? 

Like other populist leaders, Khan will not accept defeat easily. He called upon his supporters to take to the streets to protest the vote in Parliament.  He tried to mobilize  mass support by resorting to religious slogans and depicting the unfolding power struggle as a conflict between “good and evil.” This show of strength during the Parliament session was a desperate move to pressure elected lawmakers, reminiscent of how former U.S. President Donald Trump incited his supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol to prevent the peaceful transition of power after his electoral defeat in January 2021.

What we witnessed in the National Assembly on April 3 in Pakistan was a mockery of democracy. Whatever the Supreme Court rules, there is little hope of it strengthening Pakistan’s democratic political process. With persisting unresolved political issues, the role of the security establishment is likely to be strengthened.

Zahid Hussain is an award-winning author and journalist. He is the author of No-Win War: Paradox of US-Pakistan relations in Afghanistan’s shadowThe Scorpion’s Tail and Frontline Pakistan.

Hamas stopped Islamic Jihad Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Rockets launched toward Israel from Gaza City, on May 18, 2021.
MAHMUD HAMS / AFPRockets launched toward Israel from Gaza City, on May 18, 2021.

Report: Hamas stopped Islamic Jihad from firing rockets into Israel

i24NEWSApril 04, 2022, 11:04 PMlatest revision April 05, 2022, 12:47 AM

Hamas does not want to be dragged into a conflict by PIJ, according to the report

Hamas, the militant group in control of Gaza, prevented the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from firing rockets toward Israel, Kan broadcaster reported Monday. 

The report came shortly after three PIJ operatives were killed in West Bank clashes with Israeli security forces.

According to Palestinian sources via Kan, Hamas was clear that it is not currently interested in fighting with Israel. 

Clashes last May in Jerusalem spiraled into a conflict between Israel and Hamas, leading to an 11-day war. 

Hamas does not want to be dragged into a conflict by PIJ, according to the report, noting that any war between Hamas and Israel would be on Hamas’ terms. 

The group reportedly pressured PIJ not to respond, preventing possible rockets. 

After Israeli troops killed three Islamic Jihad militants on Saturday, reports say that PIJ has been eager to respond. 

Israeli forces intercepted “a terrorist cell on its way to an attack and stopped the car in which they were traveling between Jenin and Tulkarem,” Israel’s police said in a statement. PIJ confirmed the three deaths. 

“We mourn the death of our three hero fighters,” the armed wing of the Islamist movement said.

A security crackdown was recently implemented amid an ongoing terror wave that has taken the lives of 11 Israelis in one week.

Babylon the Great Will NOT Have a Nuclear War Against Russia


Russia-Ukraine War: Kremlin Rejects Possibility Of Using Nuclear Weapons Against Ukraine

Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyanskiy rejected the possibility of Moscow using nuclear weapons.

Written By

Ajeet Kumar

Image: AP/Shutterstock

Amid the speculations that Russia could use nuclear weapons against its neighbouring country, Ukraine, Russia’s First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyanskiy rejected the possibility and said that Moscow would use them if the existence of the state came under threat.

According to a report by news agency Sputnik, Polyanskiy, during a meeting of the UN Disarmament Commission, dismissed all the allegations and speculation of Russia encouraging the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

“Contrary to speculations voiced today, Russia’s use of nuclear potential is possible only in response to the use of nuclear and other types of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against it and/or its allies or in the event of aggression against our country with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat,” the Russian news agency quoted Polyanskiy as saying at a meeting of the UN on Monday. 

“These criteria can in no way be applied to the scenario currently unfolding in Ukraine. Moreover, Russia firmly adheres to the principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it must not be unleashed,” added Polyanskiy.

Earlier on February 28, Moscow had sparked a global alarm after Russian President Vladimir Putin placed the country’s strategic nuclear forces on high alert.

Reacting to Putin’s command of nuclear weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had earlier said that the country has a concept of domestic security which states that the conditions in Moscow could resort to its nuclear weaponry.

“We have a concept of domestic security, and it’s public. You can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used,” Peskov said as cited by CNN.

“So, if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used in accordance with our,” he added.

Polyanskiy said that the claims about the alleged possibility of Moscow using nuclear weapons in Ukraine have “no rational basis”.

Russia initiated a full-fledged war against Ukraine nearly two days after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree recognising the independence of breakaway regions Donetsk and Luhansk. Putin’s action came despite the West’s repetitive warning.

On February 24, the Russian troops started a military operation against Ukraine. Since then, it has been bombarding several cities in Ukraine, resulting in the killing of thousands of civilians. On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appealed to his Russian counterpart to end the war immediately but added that he would not let the Russian forces take a single piece of Ukrainian land.

GOP Seeks to Stop the Iranian Horn on Babylonian Soil

Republicans seek to stop Biden from allowing Iranian terrorists to enter US

 April 4, 2022

Republicans seek to stop Biden from allowing Iranian terrorists to enter US

President Joe Biden (r) and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (AP)

Congressional Republicans are spearheading a legislative effort to bar the Biden administration from lifting terrorism sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as part of a new nuclear agreement with Tehran, according to a copy of a new bill obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.

Reps. Brian Mast (R., Fla.) and Scott Perry (R., Pa.) introduced on Monday the Preventing Terror Sympathizers from Appeasing Terrorists Act, a bill that would block the White House from delisting the IRGC from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list without congressional approval.

The bill was designed to stop the Biden administration from delisting the IRGC as part of a package of concessions to Iran written into the new nuclear accord, which is nearing completion and likely to include a provision that waives key sanctions on the IRGC, potentially allowing Iranian terrorists to more easily enter the United States, as the Free Beacon first reported on Friday.

Sanctions on the IRGC—which were first imposed by the Trump administration as part of its “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran—remain one of the final sticking points in talks. Iran is pressing the Biden administration to nix this designation, even as the IRGC actively plots the assassination of top Trump administration officials and wages attacks on U.S. forces in the region.

The administration’s bid to remove these sanctions is fueling opposition to the deal from both Democratic and Republican foreign policy leaders, who worry such a concession will embolden Iran’s global terrorism and spy operations. Carveouts in the deal that provide Russia with billions-of-dollars in revenue have also generated outrage among lawmakers.

The Mast-Perry bill is one of several pieces of legislation meant to force the Biden administration into consulting with Congress on the deal.

While the White House is required under a 2015 law to present any deal with Iran to Congress for approval, it has becoming increasingly clear the administration will bypass this law. A separate piece of bipartisan legislation introduced in the House last week and first reported by the Free Beacon would require the Biden administration to disclose how sanctions relief for Iran will boost the IRGC’s capabilities.

“Not only is President Biden blatantly circumventing the Constitution he swore to defend, but he’s also putting Americans at risk in an effort to appease terrorists,” Mast told the Free Beacon. “Since the president refuses to uphold his oath of office, we’re introducing this bill to prohibit him from making executive decisions when it comes to national security such as delisting known terrorist organizations.”

Language in the Mast-Perry bill states that the IRGC’s terrorism designation “may not be revoked or rescinded, except by a joint resolution of Congress.” While the House remains under narrow Democratic control, mounting opposition to the new accord on both sides of the aisle is likely to give the legislation a chance at passing.

The bill, which is co-sponsored by Reps. Mary Miller (R., Ill.) and Jeff Van Drew (R., N.J.), has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) for further consideration.

The Free Beacon reported last week that Democratic and Republican HFAC members emerged from a recent classified briefing on the deal with increasing skepticism. The possible removal of the IRGC’s terror designation is among the top concerns, according to congressional sources familiar with the matter.

A Republican-authored policy analysis circulating on Capitol Hill discloses that the removal of sanctions on the IRGC could “allow Iranian nationals linked to terrorism to enter and stay in the United States,” according to a copy of that memo.

“Removing the IRGC from the Foreign Terrorist Organization list is a non-nuclear related concession to Iran which would reward terrorist blackmail, allow Iranian nationals linked to terrorism to enter and stay in the United States, weaken law enforcement’s ability to go after those providing support or resources to the IRGC, and make it harder to hold those outside U.S. soil criminally accountable for helping the IRGC,” the analysis states.

Perry, an HFAC member, said the Biden administration’s focus on reaching a new nuclear deal endangers U.S. national security.

“When it comes to protecting Americans, President Biden just never fails to fail,” Perry said. “That’s why we need to ensure he can’t invite further aggression from terrorists through his inherent if not willful weakness.”

“It’s hard to believe you have to hammer home to a U.S. president that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a foreign terrorist organization responsible for murdering Americans, but here we are,” he said.

The Obama-Iran nuclear deal is dead. And it is a good thing

The Iran nuclear deal is dead. And it is a good thing, writes Jeff Jacoby

Russia has been trying to use the nuclear talks to dilute sanctions against it

By Jeff Jacoby Issue Date: April 10, 2022 Updated: April 03, 2022 10:58 IST

Former US president Barack Obama never submitted his 2015 Iran nuclear deal to the senate for ratification as a treaty. Had he done so, it would have been rejected. A majority of senators opposed the agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. The public frowned on it, too. A Pew poll that fall found that only one in five of those surveyed backed the treaty.

Almost from the outset, Iran had violated several of the restrictions imposed by the deal. It hid information from international inspectors. It test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile and declared it would accept no limitations on its missile development. Obama had pitched the deal as one that would encourage Iran to “get right with the world”, but that never came close to happening. The Islamic Republic intervened in Syria’s civil war in support of the murderous Bashar al-Assad, armed Houthi rebels in Yemen, seized two US navy vessels and humiliated their sailors, called repeatedly for the extermination of Israel, and continued to subsidise terrorist groups.

Despite that record, Joe Biden ran for president on a pledge to revive Obama’s nuclear agreement, from which the US withdrew when Donald Trump was in the White House. For months, the Biden administration has been negotiating in Vienna to strike a deal with Iran, and latest reports suggested that a return to the JCPOA was imminent.

The Wall Street Journal recently revealed that Russia, which has been a key player in the Vienna talks, was conditioning its support for a new nuclear deal on the creation of a loophole in the economic sanctions imposed by the west. Russia is demanding a written guarantee that its trade with Iran will be exempted from sanctions if the JCPOA is resurrected. But that would undermine the international financial squeeze being applied to Russia. That is a concession the Biden administration refuses to make, even to clinch an Iran deal. Meanwhile, Iran has issued a fresh reminder that it remains committed to spreading terrorism and violence across the Middle East.

On March 13, Iran fired a barrage of missiles into northern Iraq, striking near the US consulate site in Erbil. This was a deliberate violation of Iraqi sovereignty and an act of aggression against the US. Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Seth J. Frantzman observed that the consulate is not in the centre of the city, which meant that the consulate had to be specifically targeted. Tehran readily took credit for that attack. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it was meant as a message to Israel.

All this comes as participants in the Vienna negotiations have been warning that the new deal in the works would amount to a capitulation by the US. According to former state department official Gabriel Noronha, the Biden administration agreed “to lift sanctions on some of the regime’s worst terrorists and torturers”. Unable to condone such concessions, Noronha wrote on Twitter, three members of the US team chose to leave.

The response on Capitol Hill to these developments has been a rising tide of opposition to a new Iran deal. A bipartisan group of representatives wrote to the White House with a long list of concerns and questions about the proposed new agreement. Their bottom line was polite but blunt: “It is hard to envision supporting an agreement along the lines being publicly discussed.”

If Russia’s attempted extortion was not enough to put the Iran deal on the ropes, Iran’s recent missile attack should certainly have done so. If those do not do it, the rising tide of congressional opposition ought to. The first Iran deal was a disaster and the second was shaping up to be another. The JCPOA has been dead since 2018. It is in the world’s best interest that it stay that way.

The author is a politically conservative American journalist.

Pakistani Nuclear Horn is in Danger: Revelation 8

Pakistan is in danger: uncertain nuclear weapons!

Pakistan prime minister imran khan requested President Arif Alvi on sunday to dissolve Parliament. The Imran administration declared a new election in the country by halting the parliament session, prompting the opposition to raise a commotion in the chamber, calling the government’s decision illegal.

Simultaneously, the supreme court has taken notice of the overall political process. In such a circumstance, all eyes are on the pakistan army, yet it is doing nothing. According to Reuters, a time of uncertainty has begun in a nuclear-weapons-rich country with a population of 22 crores.

According to Fawad Chaudhary, minister of Information, the prime minister will continue to carry out his duties under Article 224 of the Constitution. Opposition pakistan People’s party chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, on the other side, indicated he will seek the supreme court and launch a sit-in in Parliament.

The opposition is the aggressor, and imran khan has been charged with failing to combat corruption. Imran, on the other hand, is implying, without providing evidence, that the united states is behind the plot to depose him. The united states, on the other hand, rejects this.

According to Reuters, observers believe that imran khan, who came to power in 2018 with the support of the army, is now out of the army’s shadow. Looking back at Pakistan’s history, no prime minister has served a full five-year term since the country’s independence from the british in 1947.

Powerful army generals have governed pakistan several times. More crucially, Pakistan’s nuclear-armed confrontation with neighbouring india is ongoing. In such a case, there is once again a risk of the entire country sinking into an abyss of uncertainty.

Pakistan is in an unstable situation because of high inflation, i.e. catastrophic inflation, depleting foreign reserves, and a mounting budget deficit. In the current circumstances, pakistan is forced to rely on foreign loans.

A fresh loan agreement between pakistan and the international Monetary Fund is in limbo. Aside from the economic crisis, pakistan must also deal with global pressure to interfere in neighbouring afghanistan and support the Taliban.

The present events have exacerbated the issue in such a predicament. According to Alam, paramilitary forces have also assumed control of Islamabad.