The Rome Statute

Prophecy - Signs
Monday, January 19, 2004
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

On December 31, 2000, former president Bill Clinton issued the following official statement from Camp David. "The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court. In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries that have signed by the 31 December, 2000 deadline established in the Treaty."


Clinton's action, taken in the final hours of his presidency, won praises from the international elitists and Ivory Tower editorialists for taking his 'bold' action.

Some background: A permanent international court has been on the globalists’ wish list since the end of World War II.

In December 1948, the UN General Assembly, after adopting the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, asked the International Law Commission (ILC) to conduct a study on the establishment of an "international judicial organ," which would try persons charged with genocide.

Under the terms of this treaty, "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members" of an identifiable group is genocide, punishable by the ICC. Christians believe that only those who are Christians can be made eligible for heaven. (I am the way and the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father but by Me")

If heaven is exclusive to Christians, then it means nobody else gets to go. The argument has already been advanced that Christian theology is hateful because it proscribes other religions, causing serious mental harm to those other religious groups. Interesting, no?

In the mid-1990s with violence erupting in the former Yugoslavia, the idea for an international court gained traction.

In July 1998 in Rome, the UN convened the "United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court," to establish a permanent international tribunal to try individuals for "the most serious offenses of global concern."

Apparently, the General Assembly wearied of trying to define crimes before prosecuting them so they created the ICC to prosecute the crime of "aggression," although, 50 years later, they still haven’t defined it.

Once established, the court will claim jurisdiction over every person in the world; grant the ICC prosecutor extraordinary powers; require maximum U.S. monetary support – but minimum U.S. influence – and grant ICC officials lifetime immunity.

It will also violate national sovereignty – as happened when Slovenia, which ratified the treaty on December 31, was forced to amend its constitution, change its penal code, alter its criminal procedure code, adjust various regulations, and conform its law on police forces to adhere to the ICC before it could ratify the treaty.

In the United States, we would have to forfeit protection against double jeopardy. The ICC retains the right to review U.S. court decisions and re-try individuals if the ICC determines decisions "were not conducted independently or impartially," or were for the purpose of "shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility."

The ICC treaty also lacks the constitutional safeguards Americans cherish, like the right to confront one’s accusers; due process; trial by jury; a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and protection from cruel and unusual punishments.

On April 11, 2002, the ICC received the sixty ratifications that it needed to be established.

On Monday May 6, 2002 the Bush administration announced that the U.S. would 'unsign' the treaty signed by former President Clinton, angering those same international elitists and Ivory Tower editorialists who then made it their mission to convince America to get rid of George Bush and replace him with someone more like good ol' Bill.

It was the first time any President has ever revoked a former president's signature on a treaty or "unsigned" any kind of treaty. According to the UN Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs no one in the world has ever "unsigned" a UN treaty.

(Of course, America never had a former president like Bill Clinton, so Bush was just beginning to 'unsign' all kinds of agreements that, if allowed to stand, would have made America a UN colony.)

The globalist elite went ballistic, arguing that Bush 'damaged' the credibility of the president's signature on future treaties, saying it would lead other nations wondering if the next U.S. president would reverse the decision.

Furthermore, they argued, "Unsigning is an act of unilateral diplomatic disarmament that strips the U.S. of any ICC negotiating credibility and inhibits U.S. ability to use its seat on the U.N. Security Council to refer atrocities to the ICC." (So?)

Helps to explain why Al Gore got all the good press during Election 2000 while George Bush was pilloried as 'clueless' in foreign policy because he couldn't (at that time) name the president of Pakistan.

Of course, until Osama bin Laden and the Taliban thrust him into the limelight, there were probably only about six Americans in the whole country that had ever even heard of Pervez Musharraf.

In any case, the expansive jurisdiction claimed by the ICC would put every U.S. serviceman and woman, and even U.S. travelers especially if they are or have been public officials, at risk of being grabbed for trial by judges from Sierra Leone, Sudan, Iran, and other nations hostile to the rule of law, but make up the UN's cadre of 'international justices'.

The ICC is part and parcel of persistent plans to erase the borders of national sovereignty by globalizing governments, economies, judicial systems, peacekeeping, and so-called humanitarian escapades.

The ICC plans to prosecute charges of war crimes, genocide and other crimes that have not yet been defined, in procedures that violate every U.S. constitutional safeguard. The ICC is accountable to no one, not even to the United Nations, whose charter recognizes the sovereignty of nation-states and where we have our Security Council veto.

The prophet Daniel wrote of the rise and fall of four successive world empires with such breathtaking detail that some still argue, in spite of the historical evidence, that the Book of Daniel was a late forgery written sometime after BC 163.

Some Christians have even been persuaded by this unproven allegation, until it is pointed out to them that if it were true, then Jesus was either a liar or He wasn't really God, since He Himself made reference to Daniel as a prophet.

The four empires were those of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander the Great's Greek Empire and the Roman Empire.

Daniel also detailed how each empire would fall. Except for Rome. Daniel said the Roman Empire would not fall, but would collapse from within and, in the last days, would be revived in a somewhat different form.

Daniel said that the revived Rome would not be ruled with an iron fist, but rather, with 'iron mixed with miry clay' -- partly strong and partly weak. (Like democracy? It is our free democracy here in America that is our greatest weakness to preventing terrorism against us. The EU is ALSO a democracy, albeit somewhat different than ours. Think about it.)

Each empire rose and fell as predicted and on cue and for sixteen hundred years, the only Roman Empire was spiritual -- still headquartered in Rome, but without a physical, material, political presence.

But both Daniel and John spoke of the antichrist and HIS empire, saying it WILL be headquartered in Rome and that it WILL be a literal, physical and political empire.

In 1948, (the year Israel was reborn) the political Roman empire began to twitch when six European states entered into the Benelux Treaty. That treaty was expanded and codified into law under the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

The original Treaty of Rome signatories (ten in all) remain to this day a power apart from the greater European Union, with special status unique to them, such status being one of the reasons the expanding EU can't agree on a constitution. The original ten refuse to give up their special status or acquiesce to demands new states be afforded full membership.

We've already looked at the ICC, which came into being under its official name of the 'Rome Statute' and we've looked at what the it aims to do.

Much of the tension that exists between Washington and our so-called European 'allies' stem from Bush's refusal to turn over the keys to our kingdom to the European-inspired International Criminal Court in Belgium.

So, what are the odds this all came together by happenstance? What are the odds that the Treaty of Rome that created what even the Europeans call a 'revived Roman Empire' which then created a global criminal court called the 'Rome Statute' with the authority to try individuals for hate crimes isn't laying the groundwork for the coming government of the antichrist?

What are the odds that we're reading this incorrectly and this isn't the real McCoy?

Then factor in what Jesus said about when these things BEGIN to come to pass, then Israel's national redemption draws nigh?

The Olivet Discourse was NOT referencing the Church or the Church Age. Christians are ALREADY redeemed. The purpose of the Tribulation Period (the Time of Jacob's Trouble) is to bring about the national redemption of Israel. (See Zechariah 12:10)

At some point BEFORE the Lord appears to put an end to the war of Armageddon in the Last Day, something else happens.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18)

The King is coming! Maybe this year. Maybe today.

"Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:18)