Saturday, October 21, 2017

Russian Uranium Courtesy of Clinton and Obama

Bill Clinton sought State’s permission to meet with Russian nuclear official during Obama uranium decision

October 19, 2017 - 07:56 PM EDT
By John Solomon and Alison Spann 14,898
As he prepared to collect a $500,000 payday in Moscow in 2010, Bill Clinton sought clearance from the State Department to meet with a key board director of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom — which at the time needed the Obama administration’s approval for a controversial uranium deal, government records show.
Arkady Dvorkovich, a top aide to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and one of the highest-ranking government officials to serve on Rosatom’s board of supervisors, was listed on a May 14, 2010, email as one of 15 Russians the former president wanted to meet during a late June 2010 trip, the documents show.
“In the context of a possible trip to Russia at the end of June, WJC is being asked to see the business/government folks below. Would State have concerns about WJC seeing any of these folks,” Clinton Foundation foreign policy adviser Amitabh Desai wrote the State Department on May 14, 2010, using the former president’s initials and forwarding the list of names to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team.
The email went to two of Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisers, Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills.
The approval question, however, sat inside State for nearly two weeks without an answer, prompting Desai to make multiple pleas for a decision.
“Dear Jake, we urgently need feedback on this. Thanks, Ami,” the former president’s aide wrote in early June.
Sullivan finally responded on June 7, 2010, asking a fellow State official “What’s the deal w this?”
The documents don’t indicate what decision the State Department finally made. But current and former aides to both Clintons told The Hill on Thursday the request to meet the various Russians came from other people, and the ex-president’s aides and State decided in the end not to hold any of the meetings with the Russians on the list.
Bill Clinton instead got together with Vladimir Putin at the Russian leader’s private homestead.
“Requests of this type were run by the State Department as a matter of course. This was yet another one of those instances. Ultimately, President Clinton did not meet with these people,” Angel Urena, the official spokesperson for the former president, told The Hill.
Aides to the ex-president, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation said Bill Clinton did not have any conversations about Rosatom or the Uranium One deal while in Russia, and that no one connected to the deal was involved in the trip.
A spokesman for Secretary Clinton said Thursday the continued focus on the Uranium One deal smacked of partisan politics aimed at benefiting Donald Trump.
“At every turn this storyline has been debunked on the merits. Its roots are with a project shepherded by Steve Bannon, which should tell you all you need to know,” said Nick Merrill. “This latest iteration is simply more of the right doing Trump’s bidding for him to distract from his own Russia problems, which are real and a grave threat to our national security.”
Current and former Clinton aides told The Hill that the list of proposed business executives the former president planned to meet raised some sensitivities after Bill Clinton’s speaker bureau got the invite for the lucrative speech.
Hillary Clinton had just returned from Moscow and there were concerns about the appearance of her husband meeting with officials so soon after.
In addition, two of the Russians on the former president’s list had pending business that would be intersecting with State.
The first was Dvorkovich, who was a chief deputy to Medvedev and one of the Russian nuclear power industry’s cheerleaders. He also sat on the supervisory board of Rosatom, the state owned atomic energy company that was in the midst of buying a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One
The deal required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an intergovernmental panel represented by 14 departments and offices that approve transactions and investments by foreign companies for national security purposes. Approval meant that control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium production would be shifting to the Russian-owned Rosatom’s control.
CFIUS approved the transaction in October 2010, saying there was no national security concerns. Hillary Clinton has said she did not intervene in the matter and instead delegated the decision to a lower official, who said he got no pressure from the secretary on any CFIUS matters. Any one of the participating offices and departments could have sought to block the deal by requesting intervention by the president.
The Hill reported earlier this week that the FBI had uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were engaged in a massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approved the deal, raising new questions in Congress and drawing attention from President Trump. Uranium “is the real Russia story,” he told reporters, accusing news media of ignoring the new developments reported in The Hill.
The second person on the list that caught attention was Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg.
Two days after Hillary Clinton’s visit to Russia, Vekselberg was named by Medvedev to oversee a new technology investment project called Skolkovo, designed to be Russia’s new Silicon Valley, according to media reports.
Hillary Clinton had directly discussed the Skolkovo project with Medvedev, and her State Department was whipping up support for it among U.S. companies, creating the potential appearance for a conflict. She even attended a major event with the Russians in 2010 to promote the project.
“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” she was quoted as saying at the time.
A third issue that emerged was Renaissance Capital, a Russian bank that actually paid the $500,000 speaking fee to the former president for his 90-minute June 29, 2010, speech, one of the largest one-day fees Bill Clinton ever earned.
Renaissance Capital had ties with the Kremlin and was talking up the Uranium One purchase in 2010, giving it an encouraging investment rating in Russia right at the time the U.S. was considering approval of the uranium sale, according to reports in The New York Times in 2015.
The Hill was alerted to Bill Clinton’s attempted meeting with Dvorkovich from a nonpolitical source involved in the FBI investigation into Russian nuclear corruption. The Hill then scoured through thousands of pages of documents released under Freedom of Information Act requests over the past four years and located the Bill Clinton emails in a batch delivered to the conservative group Citizens United.
The head of that group, David Bossie, said Thursday the documents forced into the public by federal lawsuits continue to shed light on new questions arising from Hillary Clinton’s time at State, and that Citizens United still gets documents released almost every month.
“Citizens United continues to unearth important information about the relationship between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation through our ongoing investigations and litigation,” he said.
A source familiar with that FBI investigation says an undercover informant that Congress is currently trying to interview possesses new information about what Russian nuclear officials were doing to try to win approval of the Uranium One deal.
The importance of CFIUS’s approval was highlighted in Rosatom’s annual 2010 report that listed Dvorkovich as one of its supervisor board directors. The report crowed the U.S. approval was one of its most “striking events” of the year and allowed Russia to begin “uranium mining in the United States.”
The head of Rosatom boasted in the report that the Uranium One deal was part of a larger Putin strategy to strengthen “Russia’s prestige as a leader of the world nuclear industry.”
Inside the Clintons' inner circle, there also was a debate in 2010.
A close associate of Bill Clinton who was directly involved in the Moscow trip and spoke on condition of anonymity, described to The Hill the circumstances surrounding how Bill Clinton landed a $500,000 speaking gig in Russia and then came up with the list of Russians he wanted to meet.
The friend said Hillary Clinton had just returned in late March 2010 from an official trip to Moscow where she met with both Putin and Medvedev. The president’s speaker’s bureau had just received an offer from Renaissance Capital to pay the former president $500,000 for a single speech in Russia.
Documents show Bill Clinton’s personal lawyer on April 5, 2010, sent a conflict of interest review to the State Department asking for permission to give the speech in late June, and it was approved two days later.
The Clinton friend said the former president’s office then began assembling a list of requests to meet with Russian business and government executives whom he could meet on the trip. One of the goals of the trip was to try to help a Clinton family relative “grow investments in their business with Russian oligarchs and other businesses,” the friend told The Hill.
“It was one of the untold stories of the Russia trip. People have focused on Uranium One and the speaking fees, but opening up a business spigot for the family business was one only us insiders knew about,” the friend said.
Conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose 2015 collaboration with The New York Times first raised questions about the Uranium One deal and Clinton donations, said Thursday the new emails were “stunning they add a level of granularity we didn’t have before."
“We knew of some sort of transactions in which the Clintons received funds and Russia received approvals, and the question has always been how and if those two events are connected,” he said. “I think this provides further evidence the two may be connected.”

Friday, October 20, 2017

South Korea About to Become a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8:8)

An expert at a leading Seoul-based think tank says South Korea should advance its capacity to make pre-emptive strikes, adding to opposition party calls to bring nuclear weapons back to check the North's belligerence.
South Korea “needs to actively pursue ... various pre-emptive strike capabilities,” Choi Kang, vice president of research at the independent think-tank Asan Institute for Policy Studies said Thursday, the Korea Herald reports.
Choi bemoaned South Korea's “insufficient defense capabilities,” pointing to the pace at which Pyongyang's nuclear and missile development programs are advancing. “Redeployment of tactical nuclear arms along with deployment of strategic assets," would produce "meaningful" results, he said.
The U.S. maintained a cache of nuclear weapons in South Korea until 1991. During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Trump voiced support for the redeployment of U.S. nukes on the peninsula, CNN reports, and in September Senator John McCain said their redeployment was something Washington should consider.
South Korea's government officially favors non-proliferation and denuclearization and has dismissed the idea of a redeployment.
In August, however, President Moon Jae-in called for an overhaul of military spending that would better equip Seoul to check Pyongyang's threats, boost its retaliatory capability, and enable it to take offensive action against the North.
Choi's comments come amid growing domestic clamor for more militarization.
The leader of the conservative Liberty Korea Party, South Korea's main opposition party, has said Seoul needs to break Pyongyang's “nuclear monopoly” and pursue a “nuclear balance of power” with the North. “Only by deploying tactical [nuclear] weapons on South Korean territory can we negotiate with North Korea on an equal footing,” party leader Hong Joon-pyo told CNN Thursday.
In September South Korean protesters clashed with thousands of police as the U.S. missile defense system known as THAAD was deployed in a village 135miles south of Seoul.

The Sixth Seal Is Overdue (Revelation 6:12)

Image result for new jersey earthquake 
Is New Jersey overdue for major earthquake?
Devin Loring, @DevinLoring
17 hours ago
One of the most noticeable earthquakes in New Jersey measured a 5.30 on the Richter scale — a moderate quake – and was felt throughout Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
But that was in 1783, before colossal bridges connected New Jersey and New York, and cities were pre-skyscraper and modern infrastructure.
What would happen if New Jersey was rocked by a strong, or even moderate, earthquake today?
New Jersey may well soon find out. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said 10 years ago that we’re due for at least a moderate earthquake.
The region is not really well prepared for any level of shaking,” said Vadim Levin, an associate professor in the earth and planetary sciences department at Rutgers University. “The population density is so extremely high. … Look at earthquake-related disasters. They don’t link to the large size of earthquakes, but the confluence of how close they are to people.”
There are earthquakes in Jersey?
It has been over 200 years since New Jersey experienced that historic quake in 1783, and almost 100 years since Asbury Park experienced a quake – in 1927 – that toppled chimneys and knocked items off shelves
That means New Jersey is overdue for an earthquake, at least according to a brochure published by the NJDEP, in 2005.
The agency’s data indicates that intense quakes are likely to happen in New Jersey every 100 years or less.
“Long overdue for how long, that’s the question,” said Levin. “Once in ten generations is very difficult to study. That’s the biggest challenge (because) we live inside a stable plate.”
A “stable plate,” describes New Jersey’s tectonics. Here, the Earth’s crust “fits together and doesn’t deform very much,” Levin said.
Despite the stability of New Jersey’s crust, earthquakes are felt throughout New Jersey frequently.
In fact, earlier this month, a light earthquake was very noticeable to residents in and around Morristown. It was felt as far south as Jackson, and as far north as Suffern, New York.

The big one

Researchers don’t really understand why earthquakes happen on the East Coast, especially because in New Jersey, small earthquakes happen over a diffuse area and do not form an easily identifiable zone of action, Levin said.
“What makes us slightly more nervous these days is the recent Virginia earthquake,” Levin said. “That event was rather large, there was serious damage, and of course, no prior history of such events recorded.”
In 2011, the 5.8 magnitude earthquake in Virginia was felt from Georgia to Maine, in Michigan and Illinois, and in Canada according to the United States Geological Survey.
“That (2011 earthquake) damaged a nuclear power plant — not severely, only to the extent that it had to shut down operations,” said Arthur Lerner-Lam, deputy director of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University.
It points out the issue of fragility on our infrastructure,” Lerner-Lam said. “The resiliency or vulnerability of our bridges, tunnels, power lines, pipelines, is a very important feature of the overall vulnerability of the metropolitan region.”
What makes East Coast quakes all the more unpredictable is that quakes here differ from those on the West Coast, where they are more frequent. Because the earth on the East Coast has different properties than the west, shakes from quakes are transmitted farther here than they are in California, Levin said.
Getting protection
Standard homeowner, renter, and business insurance policies typically do not cover earthquake damage, according to the Insurance Information Institute.
Only 7 percent of homeowners that responded to an Institute survey in 2014 said they had earthquake insurance.
Only about 2 percent of homeowners in the Northeast have earthquake coverage, the survey revealed.
Levin said he declines to have earthquake coverage, saying hurricanes and flooding are a much greater risk in New Jersey.
“If an event is extremely unlikely, how much money is worth investing in safeguarding from it?” Levin said.
Although there is no reliable way to predict a major earthquake, let’s just say experts don’t think whole cities will crumble or be consumed by the ocean, as depicted by Hollywood.
“I’m planning to take my class to see ‘San Andreas.’ Oh my God, that’s such overkill,” Levin said.
Devin Loring; ;

The Obvious Source of Chaos: Iran (Daniel 8:4)

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Iran is at the centre of many of the problems in the Middle East, including during the ongoing confrontations in Kirkuk, said the director of the CIA. Despite acknowledging Iran’s influence on Baghdad, a goal of the US is to see the survival of the current Iraqi government, according to the intelligence chief.
  “The president has come to view the threat from Iran is at the centre of so much of the turmoil that bogs us down in lots of places in the Middle East,” said CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking at the National Security Summit put on by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) on Thursday.
With a long list of transgressions, Iran has influence with many groups, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen, and Shiite militias, said Pompeo. “You can see the impact that they’re having today in northern Iraq. The threat that they pose to US forces. We had an incident last week.”
A US soldier was killed in Iraq by an Iranian-designed roadside bomb earlier this month.
A senior member of Iran's Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Velayati, rejected that the Islamic Republic assisted Baghdad in their takeover of Kirkuk from Kurdish forces.
"Iran has no role in the Kirkuk operation," Iran's Tasnim news reported Velayati as telling reporters after meeting with a French diplomat in Tehran on Tuesday.
When interviewer Juan C. Zarate raised reports that Iranian Quds’ commander Qassem Soleimani was in Kirkuk this week, Pompeo interjected, “I’m aware of that.”
A senior member of Iran's Expediency Council, Ali Akbar Velayati, rejected that the Islamic Republic assisted Baghdad in their takeover of Kirkuk.
"Iran has no role in the Kirkuk operation," Iran's Tasnim news reported Velayati as telling reporters after meeting with a French diplomat in Tehran on Tuesday.
Iran's perceived role in Iraq is a part of its adventurism in the Middle East, a threat Pompeo said is of concern aside from the nuclear threat. The JCPOA nuclear deal has not curtailed this aggression, he said, and now the US needs to reconfigure its relations with Iran, Gulf states, and Israel to address this threat.
Pushing back against these non-nuclear activities is something President Donald Trump is keen on doing, Pompeo asserted, adding that there is “global consensus” over the need for this push-back against Iran.
As ISIS is defeated in Iraq and Syria, the US needs to shift focus to a post-ISIS Middle East, which for Trump is an unconditional commitment to defeating the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, said Pompeo.
He emphasized that non-state and first-world order problems, such as the situation in northern Iraq, aren't being ignored “from the intelligence perspective.”
“We are well-positioned to deliver information” to senior US officials, said the CIA head when asked about the recent events like those in Kirkuk, which he called “challenging” and “complex.”
Pompeo iterated the need for intelligence relationships surviving “bad diplomatic relations.”
“We have to be there every day even if there are disputes,” he said.
His role, as the US intelligence chief, is to deliver to the president an understanding of the situation so Trump can develop his policies in Iraq and Syria.
In Syria, that policy is to push back against Iran and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said Pompeo.
And in Iraq, it is to “ensure that the Abadi government in Iraq is successful.”

Big Pharma Supported the Antichrist

Followers of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr chant anti-government slogans and waved Iraqi flags during a protest in Basra on March 19, 2012. (Nabil al-Jurani/AP)
In the first years following the defeat of Saddam Hussein, there were few dark corners of battle-scarred Iraq less hospitable to Americans than the country’s ministry of health.
The walls of the ministry, headquartered in a dilapidated high-rise in eastern Baghdad, were covered with hundreds of photos of scowling Shiite clerics. Banners proclaimed “Death to America and Israel” and “we must destroy the occupiers.” Death squads commandeered the ministry’s ambulances for missions to hunt Sunnis. Assault rifles were stacked in offices. The morgues were used for torture. Everywhere flapped the flag of the Jaysh al-Mahdim, also known as the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia controlled by the radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The government office was so thoroughly infested that in 2007 Gen. David Petraeus, then in command of U.S. forces in Iraq, admitted Sadrists had “effectively hijacked the Ministry of Health.”
And yet at the same time, American and international pharmaceutical companies were regularly doing business with it.
A lawsuit that has just hit the federal court system claims that these drug giants were not only filling purchasing orders but offering substantial kickbacks and free medication, all while knowing they were in business with a group of terrorists engaged in violence against U.S. interests and Americans. Such payments, the lawsuit claims, were violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
The 203-page suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of 108 plaintiffs, seeks to hold the corporations responsible for the deaths and injuries of U.S. service members between 2005 and 2009.
The corporate defendants include subsidiaries of the largest medical brands in the world: AstraZeneca, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Roche. The businesses “obtained lucrative contracts from that ministry by making corrupt payments to the terrorists who ran it,” the complaint argues. “Those payments aided and abetted terrorism in Iraq by directly financing an Iran-backed, Hezbollah-trained militia that killed or injured thousands of Americans.”
The complaint is heading into uncharted legal territory. Last year, Congress expanded the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act to allow for such suits. The updated statute specifies that the violence must have been committed by a group specifically designated by the secretary of state as a “foreign terrorist organization.” The Mahdi Army was not so designated, but Hezbollah was and still is.
The lawsuit claims a corrupt relationship between Big Pharma and Iraq stretches back to Saddam Hussein’s iron rule.
The fall of the Hussein regime created a scramble within the country between sects vying for a foothold in the new government. By early 2004, Sadrists had grabbed key positions in the ministry’s bureaucracy. “Sunnis and secular technocrats alike were purged in what one percipient witness describes as a widespread ‘occupational cleansing,'” the lawsuit says. “Doctors who exhibited insufficient loyalty to the Sadrists were killed or forced to flee.”
One Iraqi hospital worker told CBS News in 2006 that more than 80 percent of the original health care staff in one Iraqi hospital had been removed and replaced with Sadr loyalists.
“It’s going to get worse because there is no control and no accountability,” the worker told the network. “No one can stop them.”
A year later, Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert, testified at a congressional hearing that Sadrists were attempting to segregate the health care system by gender, “with doctors treating only patients of the same gender.”
At the same time, there was a great amount of money at stake in the post-Hussein Iraq for companies. The lawsuit points to one study showing that between 2006 to 2011, the “Iraqi pharmaceutical market experience a 17 % compound annual growth rate — making it the fastest-growing market in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.”
In 2004, the ministry’s Sadrist leaders “implemented a requirement that medical goods suppliers seeking” contracts with the ministry pay a religious tax “worth at least one-fifth the contract’s value.” One way companies paid the tax, according to the lawsuit, was by offering the ministry “free goods,” or “additional batches of in-kind drugs and equipment, free of charge, on top of the quantities for which MOH had actually paid.”
These extras, in turn, were sold by Sadrists on Iraq’s black market at a considerable markup. The Mahdi Army, in fact, became known among U.S. government personnel as the “Pill Army.” The cleric often paid his fighters in medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, which they either resold or ingested as intoxicants, the lawsuit says. These included antipsychotic drugs, birth control medication and cancer drugs.
Both the bribes and resales provided a cash flow feeding “directly into Jaysh al-Mahdi’s coffers and helped the militia buy weapons, training, and logistical support for its terrorist attacks,” the lawsuit claims, attacks that “likely killed more than 500 Americans and wounded thousands more.”
In 2011, Johnson & Johnson entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice to pay $70 million to resolve allegations of unlawful payments in a number of countries, including Iraq. General Electric resolved allegations leveled by the Securities and Exchange Commission involving Iraq kickbacks with a $23 million payment in 2010.
Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Roche have yet to publicly comment on the lawsuit. A spokesperson with General Electric told the Financial Times the company was reviewing the lawsuit. A Pfizer representative denied any wrongdoing to the Times as well.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

The Approaching Nuclear Holocaust (Revelation 8)

PARIS — Dozens of experts and former senior officials from around the world met in the French capital last week to discuss the threat of nuclear proliferation, something they believe is ignored despite the dire situation and — according to some — worse than it was during the Cold War.
The Iran deal, the risk posed by North Korea and the ever-present potential that the two atomic powers India and Pakistan will go to war were deemed the most pressing threats at the 10th anniversary conference of the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe.
But they were not seen as the most dangerous. That distinction belonged to the deteriorating ties between United States and Russia, which possess more nuclear weapons than every other country combined, several times over. (The US and Russia each have approximately 7,000 warheads. France, with the next largest stockpile, has about 300, according to the Federation of American Scientists.)
The Luxembourg Forum, led by Russian Jewish magnate Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor, was founded a decade ago and meets each year in world capitals to discuss how best to advance its cause of nuclear disarmament. The group, made up of experts in the field of nuclear physics, diplomacy and security, met on October 9 and 10 in Paris’s Four Seasons hotel.
These experts — many of the former officials from the US, Russia, Israel, the UK and South Korea — warned that unlike during the Cold War, when the threat of nuclear war was immediate and apparent, world leaders and their constituents are less cognizant of the risk today and do not have the mechanisms in place to prevent such a conflict.
In particular, William Perry, who served as US secretary of defense under Bill Clinton and held a number of security-related positions in the decades prior, stressed that today there was a significant threat of nations “blundering” into nuclear war.
“Have we forgotten the Cuban missile crisis?” Perry rhetorically asked the conference.
The former defense secretary recalled a number of near misses between the US and Russia during the Cold War, when human or machine error nearly set off nuclear war.
We could have the same number of casualties as all of World War II, only these would happen in six hours instead of six years
He warned that today the same could happen again between the US and Russia, India and Pakistan, or North and South Korea.
“We could have the same number of casualties as all of World War II, only these would happen in six hours instead of six years,” he said.
Comments reportedly made by US President Donald Trump about dramatically increasing the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal also raised concerns about the status of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a decades-old international agreement meant to curb the development, testing and use of nuclear bombs.
Yet the meeting in Paris was overshadowed by discussion over the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, ahead of US President Donald Trump’s decision last Friday to not recertify it, a move that potentially imperils the agreement.

This recertification process is required by a provision in a 2015 US law according to which the president needs to inform Congress every three months if the Islamic Republic is adhering to the terms of the agreement in exchange for broad international relief from oil, trade and financial sanctions. By refusing to do so, Trump allows the US to pass new sanctions on Iran, though there have not yet been moves to do so.
The international forum was unanimously opposed to dissolving the deal, with some members acting thoroughly flabbergasted by the notion, seeing no value whatsoever in scrapping it.
“No one pays and all gain” from the JCPOA, said Hans Blix, the former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Association.
Tony Blair, who spoke on the first day of the conference, acknowledged that there was some legitimate criticism of the deal, but said the “sensible thing to do” was to uphold it.
Kantor, who is also president of the European Jewish Congress, similarly argued in favor of the agreement, saying that scrapping it would be “unforgivable.”
Trump says he believes that the US can renegotiate the deal to make it last longer and give the IAEA easier access to Iranian military sites. But not everyone shares that belief.
“It is a fallacy that a better agreement can be negotiated. It is a misunderstanding on the part of the president,” Perry said.
Speaking to The Times of Israel on the sidelines of the conference, former Israeli national security adviser Uzi Arad said that he suspects the overwhelming support for the deal is not necessarily because of its merits, but due to the drawn-out fight for it.
After such an extended battle for the JCPOA, its proponents now have to stand behind it fully, even if it’s not necessarily optimal, Arad said.
The ongoing spat between the United States and North Korea — or, more specifically, US President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un — was another frequent topic of conversation at the two-day conference.
Perry said he was “appalled” by the level of discourse between the two heads of state, with Trump derisively referring to Un as “rocket man,” and Un firing back by calling Trump a “dotard.”

There was general consensus that the tension between North Korea and the US needed to be resolved diplomatically, due to the tremendous potential cost of life that would come from a military exchange. There was, however, disagreement over what the terms and goals of these talks should be.
Some advocated an exchange in which North Korea would halt all nuclear and ballistic missile tests, after which the US would stop sanctions. But James Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued against this “all or nothing” approach in favor of a “less for less” model, under which Pyongyang would scale down its tests and military exercises and the US would decrease the sanctions proportionally.
Most of the attendees saw Beijing, North Korea’s main trading partner, as being the key to these negotiations.
Turn off the gas for three months, make it hurt. Then turn it back on, and they’ll come to the negotiating table
Byungki Kim, a South Korean professor of international relations, said if China were to put pressure on the country, it would force them to enter talks with the United States.
“Turn off the gas for three months, make it hurt. Then turn it back on, and they’ll come to the negotiating table,” Kim told the Forum.
However, the lone Chinese representative — Zhenqiang Pan, an analyst with no official government — said that the general view in his country is that the conflict is between the US and North Korea so China does not have direct responsibility for it.
“China can be a mediator. It has some leverage [over North Korea], but it’s limited,” Pan said.

In India and Pakistan, two nuclear armed nations engaged in an extended, simmering conflict over territorial and ethnic disputes, the Luxembourg Forum saw the most feasible chance for atomic warfare.
The two countries have maintained tense relations for decades. This comes, in part, from both nations claiming the Kashmir region as their own, as well as from differences in the countries’ religions — Pakistan is majority Muslim, while India is majority Hindu.
Perry, the former US defense secretary, showed the forum a video that his foundation produced about a scenario in which the two countries fire atomic weapons at one another.
In the animated video, a group of Pakistani terrorists carry out an attack in India, prompting an Indian army retaliation. The military exchanges escalate quickly, culminating in the launching of nuclear weapons.
While the Forum was unanimous in identifying India and Pakistan as being likely locations of a future nuclear war, no specific proposals were made to disarm the two countries or resolve the conflict between them.
At the close of the conference, the delegates set to work writing a document with their proposals.
Once this document is prepared, it will be published by the Luxembourg Forum and the attendees are meant to present the findings to their home countries.

The Ramapo Fault Line of the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)


A Look at the Tri-State’s Active Fault Line

Monday, March 14, 2011
The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast that occasionally makes local headlines when minor tremors cause rock the Tri-State region. It begins in Pennsylvania, crosses the Delaware River and continues through Hunterdon, Somerset, Morris, Passaic and Bergen counties before crossing the Hudson River near Indian Point nuclear facility.
In the past, it has generated occasional activity that generated a 2.6 magnitude quake in New Jersey’s Peakpack/Gladstone area and 3.0 magnitude quake in Mendham.
But the New Jersey-New York region is relatively seismically stable according to Dr. Dave Robinson, Professor of Geography at Rutgers. Although it does have activity.
“There is occasional seismic activity in New Jersey,” said Robinson. “There have been a few quakes locally that have been felt and done a little bit of damage over the time since colonial settlement — some chimneys knocked down in Manhattan with a quake back in the 18th century, but nothing of a significant magnitude.”
Robinson said the Ramapo has on occasion registered a measurable quake but has not caused damage: “The Ramapo fault is associated with geological activities back 200 million years ago, but it’s still a little creaky now and again,” he said.
“More recently, in the 1970s and early 1980s, earthquake risk along the Ramapo Fault received attention because of its proximity to Indian Point,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.
Historically, critics of the Indian Point Nuclear facility in Westchester County, New York, did cite its proximity to the Ramapo fault line as a significant risk.
In 1884, according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website, the  Ramapo Fault was blamed for a 5.5 quake that toppled chimneys in New York City and New Jersey that was felt from Maine to Virginia.
“Subsequent investigations have shown the 1884 Earthquake epicenter was actually located in Brooklyn, New York, at least 25 miles from the Ramapo Fault,” according to the New Jersey Geological Survey website.

Iran Prepared to "Break Out" of Deal (Daniel 8:4)

Getty Images
President Donald Trump (l) and Iran's religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (r).
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday Tehran would stick to its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers as long as the other signatories respected it, but would "shred it" if the United States pulled out, state TV reported.
Khamenei spoke five days after U.S. President Donald Trump adopted a harsh new approach to Iran by refusing to certify its compliance with the deal, reached under Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, and saying he might ultimately terminate it.
The move put Washington at odds with other parties to the accord — Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union — who say Washington cannot unilaterally cancel a multilateral accord enshrined by a U.N. resolution.
Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, welcomed their support but said it was not sufficient. "Europe must stand against practical measures (taken) by America," he said. If Trump ditched the deal, "Iran will shred it."
Khamenei also said Iran was determined to continue its disputed ballistic missile program despite the pressure from Europe and the United States to suspend it. Tehran has said it is developing missiles solely for defensive purposes.
"They must avoid interfering in our defense program, " Khamenei said. "They (Europeans) ask why does Iran have missiles? Why do you have missiles yourselves? Why do you have nuclear weapons? We do not think it is acceptable for the Europeans to join America in its bullying."

Pakistan Continues to be a Nuclear Threat (Daniel 8:8)

India is ready to tackle China's military threat (Representative image)

Washington, October 17: India is ready to tackle China's military threat and Pakistan will continue to use the nuclear threat as a deterrent but will cause more damage with sponsoring on-going acts of terrorism, said an Indian defence expert.
In a key-note address on "India's Security", Virendra Gupta, Former Director General of the Institute of Defence and Security Analysis (IDSA), observed that Pakistan's internal dynamics will continue to compel its military and politicians to portray the India bogey.
"Pakistan will continue to use nuclear threat, as a deterrent but will cause more damage with sponsoring on-going acts of terrorism," he said in his keynote address at the event organised by Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies (FIIDS), a think tank for policy analysis, awareness and advocacy for India and Indian diaspora related issues in Silicon Valley over the weekend.
Despite repeated attempts to establish a peace, India should prepare itself to tackle the state-sponsored terrorism, Gupta said as he sought a multi-fold increase in investments in intelligence to counter the terrorism by India.
Referring to the recent Doklam standoff, Gupta emphasised that today's India is far different than 1962's, both militarily and politically, especially with the new government under the leadership of Prime minister Narendra Modi, FIIDS said in a media release issued yesterday.
From his discussions with serving as well as recently retired military and civil personnel, he shared his observation that "India is ready to tackle China's military threat".
He further noted that 1962 had a great impact on India's population and media was projecting unwarranted defeatist views during the Doklam conflict.

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

America Uses Slush Funds to Support the Antichrist

The families of dozens of U.S. troops killed or injured during the war in Iraq filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against several U.S. and European pharmaceutical and medical supply companies, alleging that the corporations knowingly financed the anti-American militia Mahdi Army through bribes and kickbacks to officials at a government ministry controlled by the group.
The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against some of the biggest names in the industry — including GE Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche Holdings — claims that the companies regularly paid kickbacks to officials in Iraq’s Ministry of Health through their local agents.
In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s health care spending surged, and the Health Ministry’s budget ballooned from $16 million during Saddam Hussein’s final year in power to about $1 billion in 2004.
Western companies looking to break into the Iraq market were willing to pay kickbacks — billed as “commissions” or “free goods” — that amounted to as much as 20% of the value of a contract to ministry officials, the lawsuit alleges.
Another way the defendants allegedly made the illegal payments was by including language in the contracts promising after-sales support and other services related to the product they sold and funded those services by giving money to their local agents.
"In reality, such services were illusory and functioned merely to create a slush fund the local agents could use to pass on 'commissions to corrupt (ministry) officials,'" the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiffs charge that through the transactions the companies aided and abetted the militants, violating the U.S. anti-terrorism act.
Pfizer responded to the lawsuit in a statement, saying the company "categorically denies any wrongdoing,” while GE said in a statement it was "thoroughly reviewing the allegations.” A spokeswoman for Roche said the company had not yet been served with the lawsuit and declined comment.
Representatives from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.
“Defendants did not intend for the ‘free goods’ provided to Kadima (health ministry’s pharmaceutical importing agency) to serve any legitimate charitable or medicinal purpose,” the lawsuit alleges. “It was widely understood in Iraq that MOH (Ministry of Health) operated more like a terrorist organization than a legitimate health entity, and no rational company would have viewed MOH as a suitable object for charity.”
U.S. officials in Iraq expressed concern that the Health Ministry was beset by corruption and had become a Sadr fiefdom. News reports about pharmaceuticals flooding the black market suggested that Sadr backers were using the ministry to bankroll the Mahdi Army.
By late August 2007, a draft of an alarming U.S Embassy Baghdad report had become public that accused the ministry of “operating a pharmaceutical diversion scheme” and of being “openly under the control of the Mahdi Army.”
Months before the embassy report, the global intelligence company Stratfor — which provided advisory reports to senior executives at several of the companies named as defendants in the suit — noted in a briefing for its subscribers that U.S.-led forces in Iraq had arrested the then-deputy health minister for “selling health services and equipment in return for millions of dollars that he later funneled to Shiite militias.”
The Iraq war victims' lawsuit comes amid greater scrutiny of global brands' efforts to win favor with politicians and policymakers.
In August, Lee Jae-yong, the third-generation heir to the Samsung empire, was sentenced to five years in prison for paying nearly $8 million in bribes to win the support of South Korean President Park Geun-hye for a complex corporate deal. Wal-Mart is still dealing with the fallout of a 2012 New York Times report that it paid millions of dollars in suspect payments to government officials in Mexico to help speed up construction of stores there.
Last month, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled that a class-action lawsuit brought by a Michigan pension fund alleging that shareholders were defrauded by company executives could move forward. The City of Pontiac Employees’ Retirement System argues that Wal-Mart officials failed to properly investigate bribery claims that they were first reportedly made aware of in 2005.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs from the Washington, D.C.-based law firms of Sparacino & Andreson and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick said they spent thousands of hours investigating and analyzed hundreds of transactions between the defendants and Health Ministry between 2004 and 2013.
Ami Neiberger-Miller,  a plaintiff whose 22-year-old brother, Army Spc. Christopher Neiberger, was killed in a roadside bombing allegedly carried out by the Mahdi Army in Baghdad in August 2007, said her family wants the companies to be held accountable.
"I had always pictured by brother's killers as faceless," said Neiberger-Miller, who recalled her younger brother as funny and a good friend. "I wouldn't have thought U.S. companies would have anything to do with his death. Those funds went directly from those companies to terrorists who had a mission to kill U.S. troops like my brother. They should be held accountable. Companies should know what is done in their name.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys said the alleged bribery scheme was a continuation of how some of the companies and their affiliates named in the suit conducted business during the final years of Saddam’s rule.
Hundreds of multinational companies are alleged to have funneled more than $1.7 billion into Saddam’s regime, skirting sanctions by abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program that was designed to soften the impact on the Iraqi people by allowing the supervised sale of some Iraqi oil for food, medicine and other necessities.
In 2010, GE resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charge brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by paying almost $23 million in fines. Two GE subsidiaries were alleged to have obtained at least four medical-goods contracts between 2000 and 2003 by agreeing to “pay illegal kickbacks in the form of computer equipment, medical supplies and services” to the Kimadia, the Health Ministry’s purchasing agency, the lawsuit notes.
AstraZeneca AB, the pharmaceutical behemoth’s UK-affiliate, paid at least $162,000 in kickbacks as part of the sale of $1.7 million of drugs under the sanctions relief program, according to the Volcker Committee, the panel that investigated the alleged corruption in the Oil-for-Food program.
“We believe that the evidence will show that when Jaysh al-Mahdi seized the Iraqi Health Ministry, the defendants continued paying the same bribes they provided under Saddam — except in far greater amounts," said Ryan Sparacino, one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Russian Collusion with Hillary

In 2009 Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted more control over U.S. nuclear capability and the Clintons helped him get there.
According to a bombshell report published today in TheHill the corruption surrounding the sale of Uranium One when President Obama was in the White House, which overwhelmingly and personally benefited former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, was far worse than we first knew and the FBI documented all of it. Bolding is mine:
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Under her watch at the State Department, Secretary Hillary Clinton benefited from the Russian government increasing its power inside the U.S. nuclear program and allowed it to happen. She then denied knowing anything about it on the campaign trial and resented allegations she used her position at the State Department for personal gain. Russian nuclear officials were paying her husband millions through shady back channels and by default, they were paying her too.
It should be noted that although former FBI Director James Comey declared the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server to transmit top secret information over in 2016, we heard nothing about the FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation being finished.

USA’s Fukushima At The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6) 
Recent series of Indian Point shutdowns worst in years
Ernie Garcia,
BUCHANAN — Four unplanned reactor shutdowns over a two-month period at Indian Point are the most setbacks the nuclear power plant has experienced in years.
A review of unplanned shutdowns from January 2012 to the present showed this year’s events happened within a short time frame, between May 7 and July 8, in contrast with events from other years that were more spread out, according to data released by Indian Point.
So many mishaps at the Entergy-owned plant haven’t occurred since 2009, when one of two units at the Buchanan site experienced a similar series, said plant spokesman Jerry Nappi.
Besides a May 9 transformer failure that spilled some 3,000 gallons of oil into the Hudson River, this year’s shutdowns were prompted by a May 7 steam leak, a July 8 pump motor failure and a June 15 switch yard breaker failure offsite in a Consolidated Edison substation.
If a nuclear plant has more than three unplanned shutdowns in a nine-month period, its performance indicator could be changed by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which results in additional oversight. That’s what happened with Entergy’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., after four unplanned shutdowns in 2013.
So far, Entergy said there doesn’t appear to be a pattern to the Indian Point shutdowns.
“You do want to look at these events holistically to see if there is something in common, but you also look individually to see what the causes were,” Nappi said. “A plant shutdown in and of itself is not a safety issue.”
One of the four recent Buchanan shutdowns triggered a special inspection by the NRC and calls to close the nuclear plant by environmental groups and elected officials. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has said in the past Indian Point should close, but his office did not respond to a request for comment about whether the recent shutdowns have prompted any state scrutiny.
The NRC is expected to release a quarterly report on Indian Point this month that will address the transformer failure and, by year’s end, is planning an inspection of the transformer and an analysis of transformer issues since 2007.
Besides its transformer-related inquiries, the other three shutdowns have not raised “any immediate safety concerns or crossed any thresholds that would result in additional NRC oversight,” agency spokesman Neil Sheehan wrote in an email.
The unplanned shutdowns at Indian Point and Pilgrim in Massachusetts were mostly preventable, said Paul Blanch, a former Indian Point employee with 45 years of nuclear power experience.
“For this to happen this frequently indicates a deeper problem,” he said. “I believe it’s management oversight in the maintenance of these plants.”
Nappi said the transformer that failed May 9 and caused a fire and oil spill into the Hudson was regularly monitored. Investigators determined the failure was due to faulty insulation.
“The transformer inspection and reviews were in accordance with our standards and industry expectations, yet there was no indication the transformer was going to fail,” Nappi said.
The NRC conducted a separate, but related special inspection into the May 9 incident that focused on a half-inch of water that collected in an electrical switchgear room floor. Inspectors determined a fire suppression system’s valve failed to close properly.
Inspectors noted in their report that Entergy knew about that problem since April 2011 and replaced the valve but didn’t discover the actual cause — a dysfunctional switch — until after the fire.
Indian Point’s Unit 3 was down 19 days May through July, with the transformer failure accounting for 16 days. The shutdowns didn’t cause the public any supply problems because New York’s grid can import electricity from other states and New York has an energy plan to maintain reliability, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The nuclear energy industry judges a power plant on how continuously it produces energy, which is called a capacity factor.
There were 100 nuclear plants in the United States in 2014, a record year in terms of efficiency. In January, the Nuclear Energy Institute announced the U.S. average capacity factor was 91.9 percent.
Indian Point has an above-average efficiency rate. The plant’s Unit 2 and 3 reactors were each online more than 99 percent of the time during their most recent two-year operating cycles. They are currently in the middle of other cycles.

Save the Oil (Revelation 6:6)

Oil prices jumped 1 percent on Monday as Iraqi forces entered the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, taking territory from Kurdish fighters and briefly cutting some crude output from OPEC's second-largest producer.
"We’re seeing increased geopolitical tension in the Middle East providing support in the market today, namely in Iraqi Kurdistan, and some uncertainty around Iran," said Anthony Headrick, energy market analyst at CHS Hedging LLC in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Iraq's Kurdistan briefly shut down some 350,000 barrels per day (bpd) of production from major fields Bai Hassan and Avana due to security concerns. Iraq launched the operation on Sunday as the crisis between Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) escalated. The KRG voted for independence in a Sept. 25 referendum.
Brent crude futures were up 62 cents or 1 percent at $57.79 per barrel at 11:02 a.m. (1502 GMT). U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude was up 36 cents or 0.7 percent at $51.81 per barrel.
The government said its troops had taken control of Iraq's North Oil Co, and the fields quickly resumed production. The KRG government said oil continued to flow through the export pipeline, and it would take no steps to stop it.
Still, the action unsettled the market. Some 600,000 bpd of oil is produced in the region, and Turkey has threatened to shut a KRG-operated pipeline that goes to the Turkish port of Ceyhan at Baghdad's request.
Renewed worries over U.S. sanctions against Iran also drew attention. On Friday U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday refused to certify that Tehran was complying with the accord even though international inspectors say it is.
Under U.S. law, the president must certify every 90 days that Iran is complying with the deal. Congress now has 60 days to decide whether to reimpose economic sanctions on Tehran.
During the previous round of sanctions, roughly 1 million bpd of Iranian oil was cut off. Analysts said renewed sanctions were unlikely to curtail that level of exports, yet they warned it could still be disruptive.
Cuts to U.S. drilling rigs, and an explosion overnight at an oil rig in Louisiana's Lake Pontchartrain, also boosted prices.
Oil consumption has been strong, especially in China, where the central bank governor said the economy is expected to grow 7 percent in the second half, defying widespread expectations for a slowdown.
Sources said China was offering to buy up to 5 percent of Saudi Aramco directly, a move that could give Saudi Arabia more flexibility as it plans to float the world's biggest oil producer on the stock market.
(By Julia Simon; Additional reporting by Libby George in London, Henning Gloystein in Singapore; editing by David Evans and David Gregorio)

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The Futility of Surviving the Bowls of Wrath (Revelation 15)

On September 15, 1961, millions of Americans who subscribed to Life magazine pulled the latest issue from their mailboxes and beheld something remarkable inside: a letter from President Kennedy addressed to them. But if the fact of the letter was a pleasant surprise, the glow wore off quickly: JFK’s news wasn’t good. “My Fellow Americans,” he wrote, “nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war are facts of life we cannot ignore today.”
Kennedy went on to explain that the federal government would soon begin a program “to improve the protection afforded you in your communities through civil defense.” A national survey was in the offing, one that would identify “all public buildings with fallout shelter potential,” and mark them accordingly.
In other words, the federal government was devising a way for 50 million Americans to survive a nuclear war by scurrying to the nearest basement. The National Fallout Shelter Survey and Marking Program had begun.
It’s the stuff of nostalgia now. Kennedy’s letter and the shelter program he announced happened 56 years ago. It’s a Cold War footnote, a misty memory lost in the era of bouffant hairdos and Gunsmoke.
Or perhaps not.
With North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, pointed west and President Trump’s atomic sabre-rattling, fears of nuclear war have crept slowly back into the public consciousness. If the headlines rekindle some of the old unease about air-raid sirens and mushroom clouds, they’re also an occasion to consider a singular relic of the period that, oddly enough, never left us—the fallout-shelter sign.
Dented and faded now, the Kennedy-era signs still cling to the sides of buildings across the country. “They’re an enduring symbol of the Cold War,” says popular-culture historian Bill Geerhart, who since 1999 has maintained, a meticulous chronicling of the duck-and-cover era. “They outlasted everything, including the Berlin Wall. They’re tangible artifacts of that era.” And though their original purpose has vanished, the signs still have much to say. They are the products of an ill-conceived program, designed to appease a population with little faith in that program even working.
Kennedy was privately skeptical about the value of a public shelter program. A surer way to protect Americans from a nuclear attack—which, with the Berlin crisis of 1961, looked increasingly possible—was to build reinforced-concrete blast shelters around the nation that could actually withstand an explosion. But the price tag for those was prohibitive ($200 billion by one estimate), so the feds opted for the next-best thing: shelters that would shield citizens from the radioactive particulates likely to be blowing around in the weeks after an attack. While fallout shelters would do nothing to safeguard people from an actual bomb, they would, in the words of JFK’s civil-defense chief Steuart L. Pittman, give “our presently unprotected population some form of protection.”
Americans got their first look at that protection in January of 1962, when fallout-shelter signs began appearing in 14 cities across the country. Designed by Robert W. Blakeley of the Army Corp of Engineers, the signs featured three yellow triangles inscribed in a black circle—an arresting image approved by government psychologists. As a test, Blakely had envisioned the signs put up in downtown Manhattan “when all the lights are out and people are on the street and don’t know where to go.” And since half of Americans at the time were smokers, Blakeley specified the use of yellow reflective paint to make the signs visible in the glow of a cigarette lighter. The 3M corporation (best known today as the maker of Scotch tape and Post-It notes) manufactured 400,000 shelter signs, for which Uncle Sam paid less than a penny apiece.
The signs popped up everywhere. In New York alone, the Army Corps of Engineers contracted with 38 architectural firms to inspect 105,244 large buildings. Eventually, some 19,000 of them would become shelters.
And what sorts of quarters awaited those who staggered down the stairs? Only a handful were relatively posh; Chase Manhattan Bank, for one, dropped $49,000 on “compressed” wheat biscuits in banana and chocolate flavors to stock its five-story shelter. But most citizens would find only dank, low-ceilinged basements equipped with the barest necessities: bedding, drums of potable water, medical kits and government-issue wheat crackers. And while Uncle Sam thoughtfully provided toilet paper, the toilets themselves were harder to come by. A handy tip from a government booklet advised: “Make a commode by cutting the seat out of a chair and placing the pail under it.” It’s little wonder that the medical kits also included phenobarbital to chill everybody out.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the trouble with such crude accommodations became obvious almost immediately. Mere months into the program, reports emerged of leaking water drums and shelters that had never received any supplies. In a New York Times story in June of 1963, a Harlem woman asked, “Who’d want to go down there?” referring to the fetid tenement cellar meant to serve as her shelter space. The “rats are as big as dogs,” she said. “If fallout came, I’d just run.” In fact, the untenability of the shelters was public knowledge before they had even opened. A November 1961 story on the front page of The Washington Post bemoaned that most of the designated shelters would be little more than “cold, unpleasant cellar space, with bad ventilation and even worse sanitation.”
A Long Island family sits in a 'Kidde Kokoon,' an underground bomb shelter manufactured by Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratories, in Garden City, New York, c. 1955.
A Long Island family sits in a ‘Kidde Kokoon,’ an underground bomb shelter manufactured by Walter Kidde Nuclear Laboratories, in Garden City, New York, c. 1955. (Credit: Underwood Archives/Getty Images)
Conditions were a serious problem, but location was a bigger one. Two-thirds of the fallout shelters in the U.S. were in “risk areas”—neighborhoods so close to strike targets that they’d likely never survive an attack in the first place. In New York, for example, most of the government shelters could be found in Manhattan and Brooklyn—despite the fact that a 20-megaton hydrogen bomb detonated over Midtown would leave a crater 20 stories deep and drive a firestorm all the way to the center of Long Island. Even out there, Life magazine said, occupants of a fallout shelter “might be barbequed.”
What were the feds thinking? According to Kenneth D. Rose, author of the book One Nation Underground, defense officials placed their faith in the counterforce doctrine, a game theory that held that atomic war would be waged with only military installations as targets. But that was wishful thinking. “It wouldn’t take much for the whole theory to totally go south,” Rose said. “If a bomber missed its target and hit a city by mistake, then of course the gloves would come off and both sides would concentrate on cities as well.”
The shelters’ dubious utility also hinged on the shaky bet that the Soviets would drop only one bomb on a city like New York, an assumption that Khrushchev himself later ridiculed in his memoirs. If he’d managed to get “one or two big ones” into Gotham, wrote the Soviet Premier, “there wouldn’t be much of New York left.”
And Americans knew it. Anyone who read the newspapers understood not just that an inbound ICBM would leave them only 15 minutes, if that long, to get to a fallout shelter—but also that few structures in the city would survive a strike anyway. As Steven R. David, professor of international relations at John Hopkins University, observes: “People reasoned, when faced with the prospect of nuclear war, climbing into a shelter probably wasn’t going to do that much good.”
In fact, mere weeks after the shelter program got started, The Washington Post was already reporting “a public feeling of helplessness” about civil defense. In January of 1962, Life magazine encapsulated the sentiments of many when it quoted a bank teller named Dorothy Gannaway. “An attack wouldn’t be one bomb, it would be many,” she said. “We’d die in those shelters.”
The correctives put into place after the Cuban Missile Crisis—the nonproliferation treaty and the hotline to Moscow—spelled the beginning of the end for the beleaguered shelter program. By 1971, the government decided to phase out the stocking of shelters. Eventually, it stopped keeping a list of them. Some building owners donated their shelter rations to the charity CARE, which shipped them to Africa and Bangladesh. In New York, some of the biscuits wound up with an upstate farmer, who fed them to his pigs. Looking back on the civil-defense program in 1976, The New York Times observed: “the only reminders of fallout shelters [now] are the yellow-and-black signs placed outside buildings.”
That’s where thousands remain to this day—eerie reminders of a tense past that, as recent headlines remind us, feels unwantedly familiar. “They couldn’t have come up with a more ominous symbol,” reflected Eric Green, keeper of the Civil Defense Museum website, whose personal collection of fallout-shelter artifacts includes over 140 signs. “That’s the most ominous looking sign—the black and yellow and those triangles. It looked like exactly what it meant: This is the end.”

The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12) Earthquakes
Near New York City, New York

1884 08 10 19:07 UTC
Magnitude 5.5
Intensity VII
This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.
Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.

How Trump Will Start the Nuclear War (Revelation 15)

President Trump when asked what he meant when he said, “We’ll see” in response to a question about potentially attacking North Korea over its nuclear tests. Pete Marovich for The New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “One Finger on the Button Is Too Few” (editorial, Oct. 12):
Questions have been raised about a psychiatric diagnosis for President Trump, and about whether one can even be made in the absence of direct examination. But these are the wrong questions. The only question that must be asked now is whether Mr. Trump, with his apparent inability to control his hair-trigger rage and his absolute and unstoppable authority to order the killing of millions of people, presents an existential threat to our country and the world.
Given the abundant evidence that the answer to this question may be yes, the legislation proposed to prevent Mr. Trump from launching a first nuclear strike without a congressional declaration of war is a logical step. The Times suggests further that the secretaries of defense and state be required to approve the launch. But Mr. Trump, who often listens to no one but himself and ignores laws, could try to override Congress and his secretaries.
The only way to prevent a potential catastrophe is for Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to secretly order military commanders to check with him and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson before executing any nuclear launch order from Mr. Trump, as was done by Defense Secretary James Schlesinger when Richard Nixon was dangerously unstable at the end of his presidency.
The writer, a psychiatrist, is a co-founder of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.
To the Editor:
The Times’s understandable alarms about President Trump and nuclear weapons imply that there is no check on that raw power to order a nuclear strike. What is not widely known is that the president needs what amounts to the concurrence of his secretary of defense to launch nuclear weapons.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will be in the loop when and if President Trump contemplates ordering the use of nuclear weapons. The secretary (or his designated successor) must verify such an order, but — true — he cannot veto it. This verification is sufficient to ensure some internal deliberations and provides a check on presidential power.
Moreover, it is highly improbable that President Trump could issue an order to fire nuclear weapons without his national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, and his chief of staff, John Kelly, being aware of what is taking place.
The system in place beats any alternate scheme for sharing such a consequential decision — such as unrealistically requiring that congressional leaders be involved in time-urgent circumstances. It does ensure deliberation at the highest levels of the government. But there is no perfect solution.

The writer was executive director of the General Advisory Committee on Arms Control from 1978 to 1980.

Preparing for War with Iran

Appearing on MSNBC’s AM Joy on Sunday morning, the former chief of staff to ex-Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that hardliner Republicans in the Senate are anxious to see the Iran deal go away allowing the U.S. to engage in another war in the Middle East.
Speaking with host Joy Reid, retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said the saber-rattling at North Korea combined with President Donald Trump’s desire to back out of a nuclear deal with Iran is setting the stage for “17 more years of war.”
“The German minister said what Trump has done is make the Iran agreement into a domestic policy thing, meaning domestic politics,” host Reid suggested. “By doing that he’s assured that the new agreement will fail ultimately, and then what you have is one choice: war. The end game is to provoke Iran enough so we can go to war.”
“I think we are doing the same thing as we did in 2003, and I was very intimate with that process in Iraq,” Wilkerson replied referencing his tenure at the State Department when the U.S. attacked Iraq. “We are marching down the road to war. If you think Iraq was a bad war wait until you see Iran.”
“[Trump] said yesterday in his remarks, he said Iran is spreading global destruction and chaos,” Wilkerson continued. “Saudi Arabia is the one doing that. The bloody war in Yemen, which sad to say we are involved in, it’s the bloodiest war on the face of the Earth right now, the greatest humanitarian disaster since World War II. We are a part of that. The Saudis are far worse than Iran and we are getting ready to make that situation even worse, more profoundly destabilizing, by taking on Iran militarily.”
“If you say it’s unacceptable like Tillerson did, that Iran has a nuclear weapon, you get [rid of them] through diplomacy or war,” he added.
Addressing the so-called “Iran hawks” in the U.S. Senate, host Reid mentioned Trump warmongering of North Korea, saying, “Now we are talking about a country with nuclear weapons and ICBM’s that could, in theory, reach the United States.”
“I agree with you 100 percent,” Wilkerson replied. “I think taking our eye off that situation is dangerous. You are probably aware of the situation in Venezuela right now. 25,000 plus refugees in Columbia, already, and we have the Iranians and others moving towards that province. We have a serious situation developing in Syria.”
“I will tell every GI out there: You have had 17 straight years of war, get ready for 17 more,” he concluded, causing Reid to moan, “Oh, my God.”