And Then There Were Ten . . .

And Then There Were Ten . . .
Vol: 44 Issue: 31 Tuesday, May 31, 2005

In a dramatic broadcast last week, French President Jacques Chirac told his countrymen; “The first consequence of voting ‘no’ will be that Europe stops in its tracks.”

As it happens, the first consequence of voting ‘no’ fell on the French Prime Minister, who Chirac immediately fired and replaced with Dominique DeVillepin.

DeVillepin came to global prominence as the French Foreign Minister during the run-up to the ’03 Gulf War. It was DeVillepin who privately assured Colin Powell that France would back the US before publicly doublecrossing Powell by threatening a UN veto of a war resolution.

(In France, doublecrossing the US works wonders for political careers. DeVillipin was a career diplomat, being appointed to each government post he’s held, including his new one as French prime minister.)

The second consequence of the ‘no’ vote by France was a drop in the value of the euro, which fell to a seven month low on the news. (The euro dipped even further when Chirac announced DeVillepin’s appointment)

Derek Halpenny, senior currency economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi was quoted in the Financial Times noting the effect of the French referendum on Dutch opinion polls.

The Dutch opposition to ratification has hardened, which he says, “places more significant doubts on the future direction of the EU with 25 members rather than the initial 15.”

A snap poll yesterday showed the Dutch “no” camp had been strengthened by the French outcome, with 59 percent now planning to reject the constitution. The Maurice de Hond institute, which conducted the poll, noted, “The chance of a majority voting for the constitution in the Netherlands has become very slim.”

The referendum will be the first in the Netherlands in more than 200 years. The polls indicate a growing disconnect between public opinion and that of elected politicians. Almost 60% of the public opposes ratification.

But the constitutional is supported by 80% of Dutch parliamentarians. And the Dutch referendum isn’t binding — it is merely ‘consultative’. That means that the Netherlands is free to ignore the referendum’s results if it so chooses.

In the UK, Tony Blair is calling on his countrymen to ‘reflect’ on the French rejection, saying the vote has raised ‘profound questions’ about the future of Europe.

“But I think that underneath all this there is a more profound question, which is about the future of Europe and, in particular, the future of the European economy and how we deal with the modern questions of globalization and technological change.”

Blair’s questions become even more profound in light of the fact that Blair takes over the EU’s rotating presidency July 1st. That means it will be up to Blair to sort out what comes next for the EU.


Most European newspapers reflect the sentiments of today’s headline in the UK’s Scotsman; “Dutch Voters Set to Deliver Death Blow To EU Treaty.”

As noted, that isn’t necessarily true, as the Dutch government can choose to ignore the results of the referendum if it goes badly, although it says it will ‘consider’ the results if the turnout exceeds 30% of eligible voters.

I’m not sure exactly what that means — and neither does anybody else.

What the vote did was further establish the existence of two Europes — Donald Rumsfeld’s famous ‘Old Europe’ and the ‘New Europe’ emerging from the old Soviet bloc. Noted Polish commentator Krzystof Bobinski, “a lot of the smaller member states are saying, ‘Why should France take the decision for everyone?’ “

The EU could survive without a constitution, operating under the authority of the Nice Treaty concluded in December 2000.

But that would most likely speed up a French-German proposal of ‘Core Europe’ — an alliance of EU nations bound together and sufficiently unified to constitute a real force in the world, with a clear place on the global stage and a definite role as a counterweight to American global dominance.

The Bible predicts the emergence in the last days of a ten-nation confederacy that will arise from the old Roman Empire.

The prophet Daniel had a vision of four great beasts; a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, a winged leopard with four heads and;

“a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.” (Daniel 7:4-7)

History identifies the first four beasts as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander’s Greek Empire and the Roman Empire. The ten horns correspond with the ten toes on Nebuchadnezzar’s image, recorded in Daniel Chapter 2.

Daniel interpreted the two legs of iron of the king’s image as a ‘fourth kingdom’ out of which would arise an inferior incarnation symbolized by the images feet and toes.

“And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.” (Daniel 2:41)

Daniel also identifies the time frame in which this final confederation of ten kings would rule, saying;

“And in the days of THESE kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

So the confederation of ten kings will rule until the Lord returns to set up the Millennial Kingdom. That seems pretty cut and dried. But, as skeptics are fond of pointing out, the EU has enlarged to over 25 ‘kingdoms’ so far and counting. The WEU has 28 members, although only ten of them hold ‘full member’ status.

John describes the same ten kings in Revelation 17, identifying them as a ‘beast’ with seven heads and ten horns, upon which “Mystery Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” is carried.

Staying with the ‘woman’ John notes, ” here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.” (Revelation 17:9).

There is only one city of the ancient world that is specifically known as the City on Seven Hills. If you don’t believe me, “Google” the following phrase, “city on seven hills”. It is one of the traditional titles for the city of Rome. Rome has been known by that title since before the time of Christ.

It was revealed to John that the “ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings” and, strengthening Daniel’s identification of them as ruling until the Lord’s return, John continues, “which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.” (Revelation 17:12)

The French vote may well have the domino effect now being predicted by the Europlanners for the greater EU, but the disintegration of the EU would leave the Western European Union unchallenged as Europe’s collective representative.

The Western European Union, you’ll recall, consists of ten full members, six associate members, five observers and seven associate partners. And, as WEU’s website notes at the bottom of the ‘delegations’ page;

“Following a decision taken on 14 June 2001, the Secretary-General stated during the 1352nd meeting of the Council of Western European Union on 28 June 2001 that, with regard to the period from 1 January 2002, the Member States deemed it unnecessary, in present and foreseeable circumstances, to make any formal change to the statuses of non-full members.”

In other words, no matter who else may join the WEU, full membership in the WEU will always be limited to the original TEN.

The point is this: whether the EU implodes or not, the TEN are already in place.

And it is during the days of THESE kings that the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed.

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” (Romans 13:11)


Vol: 44 Issue: 30 Monday, May 30, 2005

French voters dealt Jacques Chirac and the proposed EU constitution what analysts fear may be a death blow, with almost fifty-five percent of EU voters voting to reject it.

The French ‘No’ could doom the treaty, since all 25 members of the EU must ratify it in order for it to take effect. Some EU countries sought approval by referendum, others by parliamentary vote.

France was the tenth country to hold its ratification vote. The first nine members, Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, had all voted ‘yes’.

The French vote now shifts the spotlight to the Dutch vote due on Wednesday. As in the case with France, all the opinion polls suggest that the rejectionists in that country are also leading. The French rejection reflects a growing mistrust of new European institutions across Europe.

Previous EU proposals have been rejected by some constituent countries without dooming the entire union — the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 resulted in a compromise deal in which the Danes were allowed to opt out of monetary union in exchange for ratification.

No such remedy is envisioned for the French. A member state can’t exactly reject the foundational document of the European Union and remain a member.

France’s rejection advances the old ‘Core Europe’ plan — a ‘fast-track’ European Union in which the rejectionists are left behind to work out their difficulties with an eye toward rejoining later.

Another plan under discussion would leave the constitution behind, reverting back to the old model in which France and Germany took the lead through executive and judicial institutions.

President Jacques Chirac, who had predicted France’s isolation in Europe if the constitution was rejected, tried to put his best face on when addressing his nation, but he couldn’t hide his disappointment, saying in a televised statement;

“The decision of France inevitably creates a difficult situation for the defense of our interests in Europe. . . I will tell you in the very next days my decisions regarding the government and its priorities.”

For Chirac, the no vote was a personal defeat. Chirac had assumed that through the constitution, France could promote a stronger, more unified Europe that could project not only economic but also political power around the world.

He repeatedly spoke of a “multipolar world,” with Europe as one of the poles capable of counterbalancing the United States.

After the vote, there were calls among some of the most extreme opponents of the constitution for him to resign.

Among the rejected provisions envisioned by the Constitution were the elimination of the rotating six-month presidency, the creation of an official five-year term EU presidency, enshrine a list of basic rights, and delineated what functions would remain with member states and which functions would be governed from EU headquarters in Brussels.


France was one of the founding members of the 1948 Benelux Coal and Steel Community, which grew into the European Common Market which grew into the European Community which ultimately became the European Union.

The rejection of the constitution by French voters is therefore doubly stinging.

The EU has always been overwhelmingly dominated by the French. In Brussels, the working language of the EU was French. English was rejected out of French concerns that using English would discriminate against ‘other’ languages (‘other’ languages, of course, means ‘French’).

European heads of state and government will head to Brussels on June 16 to try and figure out what to do next. On July 1, the UK assumes its turn as head of the EU’s six-month rotating presidency.

If the Dutch follow the French lead and reject the treaty as well, it is probable that the UK’s Tony Blair will use Britain’s bully pulpit to declare the process dead in the water.

That way, Blair can avoid a defeat similar to Chirac’s by canceling the UK’s constitutional referendum scheduled for next year.

Article IV-443-4 of the constitution outlines the process, should it be rejected by any member state:

“If, two years after the signature of the treaty amending this Treaty, four-fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.”

The two years will be up in October, 2006. That’s how long the Euro-planners have to pick up the pieces.


Today’s Omega Letter is a wee bit late . . . my friend, Captain John Kurek (USMC -Ret.) and I went to the town square at 8 a.m. for the lowering of the flag to half-mast in honor of those veterans of past wars who gave all their tomorrows for our today. Thank you to all our veterans. I pray we continue to be worthy of their sacrifice. And may God continue to bless America.

White House Shifts Support to Abbas

White House Shifts Support to Abbas
Vol: 44 Issue: 28 Saturday, May 28, 2005

After meeting at the White House with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, President Bush gave a speech in which he called on Israel to freeze all construction in the West Bank, dismantle unauthorized West Bank outposts and avoid permanent changes in Jerusalem.

President Bush was evidently impressed by the performance of Palestinian security forces now working in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Despite Israeli complaints, US envoy Lt. Gen. William Ward filed a positive assessment of PA efforts to put a stop to terror attacks against Israeli targets.

Ward reported to the President that Abbas was instituting reforms and required additional Israeli confidence-building measures, including the release of Palestinian prisoners.

According to news accounts, President Bush believes Abbas is genuinely committed to peace. So much so that he accepted a PA request to ‘monitor’ the evacuation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza because, according to a US official;

“Abbas is concerned that Israel will use the withdrawal to launch a massive military operation against Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip.”

The White House isn’t planning to send an ‘observer’ — it is planning to send The Observer — Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. That is about as high-ranking an official as the US could send, apart from Dick Cheney or the president himself.

The president, announcing $50 million for Palestinian infrastructure, said he intended to help create a Palestinian state with territorial contiguity and a link between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“A state of scattered territories will not work,” Bush said. “There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza.”

For the first time, Bush said the United States would not accept any changes in the 1949 armistice lines without agreement by Israel and the Palestinians.

The president did not refer to his statement in April 2005 that called on Palestinians to accept the Israeli presence developed in the West Bank over the last 35 years.

“Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to,” Bush said.

Israeli officials appeared stunned by Bush’s reference to the 1949 armistice lines, which does not include the West Bank, Gaza Strip and much of Jerusalem. Some of the officials said the White House signaled its determination to press Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

(Here is a link to a map of the 1949 armistice lines).

“It’s a collapse of or at least a harsh blow in U.S.-Israeli relations,” Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said.

“What we saw yesterday must worry us. There is even a U.S. withdrawal from [United Nations Security Council resolution] 242, which talks about ‘defensible borders.'”


The White House’s abrupt about face is made all the more baffling when one takes into account Mahmoud Abbas’ record so far. And it is even more baffling given his plans for the future.

According to Geo-Strategy Direct, a subscription intelligence website operated by the Washington Times’ investigative reporter Bill Gertz, Abbas has been quietly laying the groundwork for a campaign of violence designed to undermine U.S. support for Israel and suspend Bush administration efforts to achieve reform and transparency in the Palestinian Authority.

Abbas let his cards slip during his White House meeting where he reportedly stressed that the PA would not compromise on its demand for the so-called ‘right of return for Palestinians to what is now Israel.

The ‘Right of Return’ would stipulate that those Arabs who fled their homes in advance of the 1948 Arab invasion be given back their lands and property, together with full Israeli citizenship for themselves and their dependants.

Israel estimates that the “Right of Return” would require it to absorb an influx of several million Arabs into its population. Because Israel is a democracy, the newly absorbed Arab voters could outnumber Jewish voters and could vote Israel out of existence as a Jewish state, destroying it without firing a shot.

Abbas adviser Bassam Abu Sharif articulated the PA’s position, saying, “The tasks facing the members of Palestinian organizations, especially Fatah and Hamas and the organizations whose representatives form the majority of the PLO leadership, focus first and foremost on resisting the occupation and establishing a state on Palestinian lands occupied in 1967.”

“Resisting the occupation” and ‘establishing a state on Palestinian lands “occupied” in 1967. . .” If there is a dime’s worth of difference between Arafat’s position and that of Abbas, I can’t detect it.

Let’s have a little pop quiz on geography. The ‘Palestinian’ lands ‘occupied’ by Israel in 1967 can be located on the 1948 armistice map. Locate the West Bank. (It’s colored orange.) What country did the 1949 Armistice Agreement give the West Bank to?

Now look to your left and locate the Gaza Strip. It’s colored in red. Now look down to the legend. Hmmm. Orange belongs to Jordan. Red belongs to Egypt. Now locate the ‘occupied Palestinian lands’ that Abbas is referring to.

Having some trouble?

That’s because there was no such thing as ‘Palestinian’ lands. Here is a map of what was called “Palestine” following the British defeat of the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1917.

If there is such a place as ‘Palestinian Lands’ historically, it includes all of Jordan, part of Syria, all of Lebanon and parts of both Egypt and Iraq.

For 500 years prior to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, ‘Palestine’ (then called ‘Southern Syria) was a minor province of no particular importance. Jerusalem was of such little importance that it wasn’t even a territorial capital.

The name, ‘Palestine’ isn’t even an Arab word. ‘Palestine’ is from the Greek “Palaistina” which is derived from the Hebrew “Pleshet” which means, “Land of the Philistines” and historically, referred to a a small coastal strip north east of Egypt, also called “Philistia.”

In the 2nd century BC, the Romans renamed it “Syria Palaestina”.

The modern name, “Palestine” was revived when the British were given their mandate following World War I. Until 1967, the Arabs used the term ‘Palestinian’ to describe the JEWS.

The maps are there. Take a look at them again. There is no such thing as an Arab ‘Palestinian people’. There never was.

The ‘Palestinian people’ were created in a single day in 1967 by Yasser Arafat. He created them out of the expatriate Jordanians and Egyptians left behind after Egypt and Jordan were defeated by Israel.

The White House knows all this. It isn’t a secret. Neither is it revised history. The maps existed long before the ‘Palestinian people’ did. What has Abbas done to inspire such confidence that the White House would modify its position?

Apart from public assurances, Abbas has failed to arrest Palestinian terrorists, refused to dismantle terrorist cells or seize weapons from those identified as having attacked Israel.

Over the past eight months, Palestinian children have been learning from new school textbooks that demonize Jews and deem the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a legitimate historical source.

The new textbooks remove all Jewish and Israeli references found in previous editions. This includes the changing of the name of Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem.

PA officials said Abbas wants immediate U.S. endorsement of Palestinian positions regarding statehood. “We will ask Bush for a clear American position over the implementation of the roadmap after the withdrawal from Gaza,” Abbas said before leaving for Washington.

“We want two basic issues. We want him to give us political support and economic support that was promised by Congress because our people are in dire need of it.” Abbas got both.

Bush not only promised to keep up the pressure to force Israel to accept an enemy state within its territorial boundaries. He also agreed to a fifty million dollar grant for the Palestinian Authority.

So far, Congress has given $200 million in US tax dollars to the PA. Arafat stole ALL of it, not to mention hundreds of millions more from other donor countries.

Now that he has the president’s ear, Abbas is reportedly planning to launch a fresh uprising against Israel. Geo-Strategy direct reports that Abbas hopes Israel will respond with “terrorist force and organized fire.”

According to the plan, the Israeli response would lead to massive Western pressure on Israel that would isolate the country and embarrass the United States. As a result, the Israeli people and American Jews would protest Sharon’s policies.

Gertz quotes Abbas advisor Abu Sharif who contends that an uprising represents, for the Palestinian side, a no-lose proposition. It would bolster the Palestinian stand, reverse the pro-Israeli policies of the United States and strengthen Abbas. As Palestinian violence rages back home, Abbas could be tough with the US.

Abbas was expected to delay any uprising until at least after the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, sources said. At the same time, he would not stop the escalation of Fatah and Hamas attacks on Israeli communities and military outposts in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

If this were any country except Israel, the entire farce would never have gotten off the ground. Were Israel not a Jewish state, the world would instantly reject the PA claims as historically and transparently invalid. Anybody with access to an atlas knows there has never been an Arab Palestine.

A hundred years ago, ‘Palestine’ was Southern Syria. For the next forty years, ‘Palestinians’ were Jews — Arab residents vehemently rejected the label of ‘Palestinian’ and insisted they were citizens of Southern Syria.

Thirty-eight years ago, following the defeat of Jordan and Egypt, an Egyptian-born Arab named Yasser Arafat invented the ‘Palestinian’ people.

The modern ‘Palestinian people’ have no unique language, no unique culture, no unique history and cannot be found identified anywhere in any historical records that date earlier than the mid 1960’s.

But somehow, we find one Mahmoud Abbas, ‘president’ of the ‘Palestinian people’, meeting at the White House with President George Bush to discuss creating a ‘Palestinian State’ on what is both historical and modern Israel.

And nobody seems to have a problem with it — except the Jews of Israel.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

The BetaMax Dilemma

The BetaMax Dilemma
Vol: 44 Issue: 27 Friday, May 27, 2005

The British government is preparing to launch a national identification plan, issuing a biometric passport to every citizen over the age of sixteen. Each citizen’s details will be stored in a single, centralized database.

Citizens will be fingerprinted, photographed and biometric features, like iris scans and facial recognition points, will be included in the citizen’s file.

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff is reportedly in consultation with his British counterparts in an effort to standardize the microchip technology used in British national ID cards to those used by the United States.

Chertoff says the goal is to ensure compatibility when screening terrorists. As Chertoff explained;

“It would be very bad if we all invested huge amounts of money in biometric systems and they didn’t work with each other. Hopefully, we are not going to do VHS and Betamax with our chips. I was one of the ones who bought Betamax, and that’s now in the garbage.”

Interesting analogy. I bought a Betamax VCR when they first came out, too. It had a much clearer picture, the tapes were smaller . . . I thought it was superior in every way. But pretty soon, all the video rental stores were renting VHS tapes.

Nobody ever developed an adaptor. It takes a VHS VCR to read a VHS format tape. It didn’t matter that Betamax was superior — what mattered was being able to read the information in the format it was presented in. That’s what makes his analogy so interesting.

Chertoff’s efforts to standardize the technology would make it possible for American officials to read all the information on a British chip as easily as it can read US chips, and vice-versa, setting the stage for a global ID system.

Chertoff is also floating what he calls the ‘Trusted Traveler’ scheme, similar to that worked out with the Netherlands. A pilot program is scheduled to begin between the US and the Netherlands, allowing Dutch visitors to use a Trusted Traveler card to enter the US without being subjected to further questioning or screening.

Under the ‘Trusted Traveler’ scheme, visitors forward their details to the US embassy to be vetted. If successful, they would receive a document allowing “fast-tracking” through the US immigration system.

Chertoff said compatibility and the checking system was intended purely to track down “terrorists and criminals” and the main aim was to provide a “fair and reasonable system”.

“When we screen based on names, we’re screening on the most primitive and least technological basis of identification – it’s the most susceptible to misspelling, or people changing their identity, or fraud,” he said.


Although the Department of Homeland Security and the administration both deny it, America is also developing a national ID system that mirrors the British plan. The only difference between the two is that the Brits openly call theirs a national identification system.

The United States calls their system the ‘Real ID Act’. The bill mandates that state driver’s licenses must include “the incorporation of specified data, a common machine-readable technology, and certain anti-fraud security features,” as determined by the secretary of homeland security.

Potential “specified data” could include retina scans and biometric data, according to the congressional summary.

The administration says it isn’t a national ID card because states can refuse to participate. But if a state opts out, then they lose federal money and federal agencies won’t accept that state’s driver’s license as identification.

So, if your state opts out, then you won’t be able to use your driver’s license as identification at airports, federally-chartered banks, etc. You couldn’t use your driver’s license as identification to enter a federal office building in your own state.

It would create the ridiculous situation in which you would be legally allowed to drive in another state, but your driver’s license wouldn’t be acceptable to identify you as the holder.

In the final analysis, there isn’t much difference between Britain’s national identification system and America’s Real ID Act. Both would create a kind of domestic ‘passport’ that citizens would be required to present on demand, and both would be linked to a massive central database containing your life’s history.

And without it, one would be excluded from normal society.

There are some sound arguments in favor of a national id system. It would at least make a dent in illegal immigration. Without a secure national system capable of telling citizen from noncitizen, U.S. employers routinely are let off the hook when job applicants show them any number of easily obtained fake identity papers or valid identity cards that offer no proof of citizenship.

A national ID scheme would reduce the instances of identity theft. It would allow the feds to identify and track criminals who take up residences in a different state.

The national ID plan has so many pros and cons that it could be the inspiration for the Proverb, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12)

It SEEMS like a good idea. But it is only a good idea if one trusts the government. And even if one DOES trust the government NOW, what about some future government? In the hands of a despot, the Real ID could be a powerful weapon of control.

Revoke someone’s ‘Real ID’ and a person’s hometown becomes his prison. Without it, one cannot travel, open a bank account, or work at any job that has federal connections. A despotic government could introduce pretty much any policy it wanted and silence its critics with a keystroke.

Expanded into a global ID system, as Chertoff wants, and whoever controls the global system could control the global population.

This state of the art global identification scheme wasn’t even possible a decade ago. Today, it is in development. It is naive to imagine that it won’t be fully implemented in the near future. (Betamax was better than VHS. Who would have thought 25 years ago that VHS would become the standard?)

But the Bible anticipated the development of a standardized global identification system two thousand years ago.

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.”

Not only did the Apostle John anticipate the system, he explained how it would be used by the antichrist to control the population.

“And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” (Revelation 13:16-17)

The Real ID isn’t the mark of the Beast. Neither is the UK’s national ID scheme. But the ‘conditioning’ process necessary to implement the eventual introduction of a Mark as a requirement of citizenship in his new world order is an accomplished fact.

The antichrist has not yet made his appearance on the scene, but when he does, he will find the system already operating smoothly. Which is why God inspired Solomon to issue an identical warning, not once, but twice.

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:18, Proverbs 16:25)

Lessons from Athens

Lessons from Athens
Vol: 44 Issue: 26 Thursday, May 26, 2005

When asked his opinion, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill famously replied, “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all those others that have been tried.”

Nowhere is the truth of Churchill’s statement more evident than in the non-existent state of Palestine. After years of pressure from the United States, the EU and Israel, the Palestinian Authority finally gave in and allowed the first free elections since the mid-1990’s.

The elections were carefully monitored by every busybody organization on the planet from Amnesty International to the Global Committee to Save the Whales, and was pronounced free and fair.

The Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace democracy represented a break between the PA and the rest of the governments of the Arab Middle East and was widely hailed as a ‘breakthrough for democracy’.

It was everything that the White House hoped for. One person, one vote, every Palestinian casting their ballot for the candidate that most closely mirrored his or her own views. After years of non-stop violence, at last, the Palestinians had a say in their own future.

The PA held its first municipal elections on May 5. The Palestinian voters gave one third of the seats on the municipal governments to . . . Hamas!

Yes, the same Hamas that carried out more than 500 attacks against Israel since September 2000. The same Hamas that killed 390 people, mostly Israeli civilians, and wounded more than 2,100 others. In free and fair elections, about a third of Palestinian voters indicated their preference for terrorists to lead them. Inconvenient.

It was so inconvenient to Mahmoud Abbas’ losing Fatah Party, that he is planning to postpone the parliamentary elections scheduled in July until he can ‘shore up’ his base.

Since neither Israel nor the United States is happy with the prospect of Hamas taking over the Palestinian Authority, they plan to look the other way. Evidently, ‘democracy’ is only the best form of government if the ‘right’ people win.

In Iraq, the United States, having droned on and on about democracy, took a victory lap after most of Iraqi voters turned out at the polls and elected a legitimate Iraqi government. But most of Iraq’s Sunni population boycotted the elections, which meant most of the seats went to Iraq’s Shi’ia and Kurdish candidates, leaving the Sunnis under-represented in government.

This was also inconvenient, since, ideally, a ‘democracy’ is supposed to ensure that all voices are represented. The architects of Middle Eastern democracy in Washington DC never anticipated what would happen if one group boycotted the election, got no votes, and then cried, “No fair!”.

Declared then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, “For the government to be representative and for the government to be effective, the transitional national assembly would certainly have to take into account the ethnic mix.”

Therefore, adjustments must be made in the newly elected parliament and the new government “to ensure adequate Sunni representation.”

Considering that a democracy functions on the principle that it represents the interests of the VOTERS and the voters had already spoken, making ‘adjustments’ to the new government sort of sends a mixed message, doesn’t it?

Lebanon, newly freed from Syrian control, is planning to hold free, democratic elections in the near future as well. Washington is in talks with Lebanon, seeking ways to ensure ‘free, fair and democratic elections’ — in which Hezbollah doesn’t win — as analysts say they would — if the elections were held today.


The word “democracy” comes from two Greek words meaning, ‘people’ and ‘power’. A more accurate rendering would be, “the power of the people to do what they see fit.”

Democracy isn’t a new concept — it was invented by the ancient Greeks. The city-state of Athens, 5th century Athens to be precise, is the inventor and first practitioner of democracy.

Athens was a democracy from 508 to 267 BC, two hundred and forty-one years — the longest-lived democracy which has yet existed. The great historian Thucydides placed the blame for the Athenian collapse on the people who chose their leaders unwisely.

Not all democracies are benign. Imperial Rome, despite its worship of Caesar, was a democracy. Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany through the democratic process. He was legitimately elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933 through Germany’s democratic process.

Historically, democracies have not lasted long. Imperial Rome’s democracy caused its collapse — historian Edward Gibbon described it as ‘bread and circuses’. To maintain power, Caesar bought votes by ingratiating himself to the people with government handouts and by entertaining them in the coliseums.

When the people discovered they had the power to vote themselves welfare out of the Roman treasury, Imperial Rome soon spent itself out of existence.

Democracy functions according to the principle that the laws of the land reflect the will of the people. No law can exist without the consent of the governed, and the governed, through their representatives, have the authority to create law as they see fit.

As such, democracies do not function under the rule of law; they are a law unto themselves.

The Athenian democracy survived 241 years before finally collapsing. Historians blame Athen’s fall on the people’s preference for leaders who promised rewards, played on superstitions, and otherwise appealed to baser instincts in order to gain power.

Unlike the Romans, Athenian democracy championed free speech. Many Greek notables were horrified by the freedom of speech in Athens, which permitted the comic poets to make scurrilous attacks on public figures.

Others assailed democracy more insidiously by pointing out its weaknesses in practice. The Assembly was called ‘fickle’ and ‘bloodthirsty’. Athenian politicians came from the educated and wealthy classes, and were the inventors of class warfare as a political tactic.

The Founding Fathers, drawing lessons from the history of the world’s great democracies, crafted the US as a Constitutional Republic and NOT a democracy. As we’ve seen, democracies don’t operate under the rule of law — the rule of law is as fluid as popular opinion. Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to.

If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic?

According to Founder Noah Webster: “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.” (Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 6.)

“Blackstone’s Commentaries” have been the traditional final legal authority for Supreme Court decisions since Independence. Blackstone explained the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic was the source of its authority to govern:

“To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the Divine. . . . If any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it we are bound to transgress that human law. . . .”(Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Philadelphia: Robert Bell, 1771), Vol. I, pp. 42.)

Washington is trying export ‘democracy’ to the Middle East. So far, democracy has put Hamas in power in the Palestinian Authority. It threatens to put Hezbollah in power in Lebanon. It created an imbalance of power in Iraq that could ultimately result in civil war.

And efforts to tinker with the results of the election to correct the ‘ethnic imbalance’ is seen by its opponents as evidence of the corrupt nature of Western democracy.

America’s democracy, at 229 years old, looks very much like Thucydides Athens. The principles of class warfare, buying votes by promising entitlements, playing on superstitions and otherwise playing ‘to the baser instincts’ of the population have been elevated to a form of governing called ‘partisanship’.

No matter what one side proposes, the other side accuses them of playing ‘partisan politics’ by employing one of the Athenian principles outlined in the previous sentence.

The ideological divide that destroyed Athenian democracy was the consequence of free speech taken to its ultimate limit. Rumor-mongering and false accusations destroyed the Athenians by destroying confidence in the system.

Ideological warfare at home resulted in Athenian defeat on the battlefield.

Does anybody else see a pattern here? The acclaimed 19th century philosopher Georges Santayana famously observed that, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. George Bernard Shaw paraphrased; “One thing man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history.”

America was founded as a Constitutional Republic and bound itself to Divine Law by placing limits on the ‘rule of the people’. Progressive liberalism has systematically whittled away at the foundations of the American rule of law until the ‘rule of law’ has become whatever the people will it to be.

You needn’t take my word for it. Neither is it my opinion. It is a fact, provable by a backward reading of the history of the past generation.

It is also provable by a forward reading of history of the LAST generation, recorded by the Apostle Paul in this second letter to Timothy.

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2nd Timothy 3:1-5)

That this is the last generation — the one of which Jesus was speaking when He said, “this generation shall not pass until ALL be fulfilled” — there can be no doubt.

America’s decline in power and prestige is directly related to its declining relationship with its Founder. Everybody preaches it, (usually to raise money) until it sounds like ‘fire and brimstone’ white noise, but it IS demonstrably true.

It’s been said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. There is no reason to believe that the trend will suddenly reverse itself. Past history shows that trend is a mirror image of Athens and Rome as their democracies began to implode.

Future history says the same thing. Human government has exhausted pretty much all its options. There is only one option left.

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2nd Thesslonians 2:3-4)

“And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” (Luke 21:28)

The “Nuclear Option”

The “Nuclear Option”
Vol: 44 Issue: 25 Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Fourteen US Senators, seven moderate Republicans and seven Democrats, reached a last-minute compromise that averted the application of the so-called ‘nuclear option’ by the Republican-controlled majority.

That’s the way that most news services reported the deal. Incidentally, it was also the first time I ever heard the word ‘moderate’ applied by the mainstream media to describe a Republican senator.

The San Jose Mercury-News reported the story under the tongue-in-cheek headline; “High-Minded Centrists Discovered in Senate.”

The Mercury-News story contained, to give it credit, an honest effort on the part of the paper to balance the story, but one can’t describe color if one is blind to begin with.

The report began by repeating the Left’s revision of Senate history:

“Seven moderate Democrats and seven moderate Republicans have backed the Senate away from the “nuclear” brink with a deal on appeals court judges nominated by President Bush. Three will be approved and two will be rejected by filibuster.

The deal scuttles a plan by the Republican leadership in the Senate to eliminate filibusters on judicial candidates. The filibuster is a longstanding practice in the Senate that enables a minority of 41 senators to delay a vote indefinitely.”

“A long-standing practice” is a bit of a stretch when applying the history of the filibuster to judicial nominees.

The only time in American history that the filibuster has been successfully used to block a judicial nominee was the 1968 filibuster blocking President Lyndon Johnson’s appointment of Associate Justice Abe Fortas as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Abe Fortas was, at the time, a close advisor to President Johnson. In those days, a justice was paid $39,500. Fortas was able to bring in extra cash through a ‘foundation’ set up by Wolfson. Wolfson paid Fortas a ‘fee’ amounting to $20,000 a year, for which Fortas was required to attend a single annual meeting.

In return, Fortas lobbied the administration on behalf of Wolfson’s two companies, both of which were under federal investigation. Ultimately, Johnson withdrew his nomination of Fortas, and Fortas later resigned to avoid impeachment.

To read the liberal press, like the Washington Post or the LA Times, Fortas is an example of the GOP using a filibuster to block a judicial nominee.

The filibuster that blocked Fortas’ nomination was bi-partisan. His nomination was blocked by twenty-four Republicans and nineteen Democrats. Despite Fortas’ credentials as a reliably liberal Democrat, back then, some Democrats still put what was best for America ahead of what was best for liberal America.

Senate Democrats say 12 nominations have been filibustered in the Senate to 2000, with Fortas being the only nomination that wasn’t subsequently confirmed.

No matter how you spin it, that is one successful judicial filibuster, 37 years ago, out of more than 200 years of Senate history.

Since coming to office, ten of Bush’s 45 judicial appointees (more than 20%) have been denied by filibuster, requiring a unconstitutional super majority vote.

The Democrats called the threatened closing of the filibuster option by the GOP “an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition and unwritten rules.”

Notes columnist Charles Krauthammer; “This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. You surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.”


The word ‘filibuster’ comes from a Dutch word meaning, ‘pirate’. A ‘filibuster’ is a parliamentary procedure that the minority can use to block sending a nominee to the floor for a vote. A filibuster deadlock requires a 60% majority vote to overcome.

A filibuster is one of the few times in which a super-majority is required by the Senate. Barring the invocation of a filibuster, all that is required for judicial nominees is a simple majority of 51-49.

In the event of a tie, the Vice President can cast a tie-breaking vote, making a 51-50 majority vote a possibility.

The alleged ‘nuclear option’ that was avoided by the fourteen ‘centrist’ senators would have resulted in a Senate rules change that would eliminate the need for a super-majority and would return to the Constitutionally-mandated simple majority.

The reason that the Republicans call it the ‘Constitutional option’ while the Democrats (and the mainstream press) prefer the term ‘nuclear option’ is because if the Senate majority exercises that option, the Democrats pledged to shut down the government.

The seven so-called ‘moderate’ Republicans broke ranks with their party to join with the seven ‘moderate’ Democrats (who did not) to come up with the ‘compromise’ deal. (The exact same offer was made last week by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and was rejected by the Senate majority as ‘tepid’.)

The ‘compromise’ worked out means that the Democrats won’t block three of Bush’s nominations (that they previously said were unacceptably biased), in exchange for blocking two others.

In reality, it was all arbitrary procedure — there were no heart-felt moral convictions at work here. The deal proves that the Dems weren’t blocking the now-acceptable justices out of conviction, but for the express purpose of obstructing the administration.

What was unacceptable to the Democrats was the risk of losing the ability to govern from the minority, not the suitability of the justices themselves.

The four-year-long fight was instead about Senate Democrats finding creative new ways to continue to wield the power the voters took away from them in 2000.

Whether justices Owens, Pryor or Brown will be good for the country or not is evidently irrelevant.

Priscilla Owens’ nomination was filibustered for four years. Others have also waited years for the up or down vote denied them by the Senate Democrats.

If they were bad appointments before, what about the nominees has changed to make them acceptable? If they are now suddenly acceptable, then why block them in the first place?

What about this deal suddenly makes bad nominees good, or good nominees bad? The answer is fairly obvious. What is good for the country is secondary to what is good for the Democrats — which appears to be the only consideration that matters.

“But He, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.” (Luke 11:17)

“Wherefore, Contend With One Another Over These Words”

“Wherefore, Contend With One Another Over These Words”
Vol: 44 Issue: 24 Tuesday, May 24, 2005

From time to time, there are periodic eruptions in the forums from new members or guests who believe that it is their mission in life to correct our allegedly mistaken views on doctrinal issues like eternal security or a pre-Trib Rapture.

The Omega Letter was designed to be a private fellowship of like-minded believers who can expect consistent and prayerful teaching on the deeper points of doctrine.

One can find many different ministries that claim a number of doctrines that aren’t shared by the Omega Letter.

There are Catholic ministries, Pentecostal ministries, Baptist, Methodist, non-denominational, ministries that believe in a pre-Trib Rapture, as well as those who believe in pre-wrath, mid-Trib, post-Trib — there is even a mainstream doctrine that denies there will ever be either a Rapture or a Tribulation Period.

I don’t enter into debates with believers who take a different view. It is my contention that doctrinal differences within the Church are deliberate.

The Genesis story of the tower of Babel is instructive in more ways than simply providing the answer to the question of where all the different races and languages came from.

In that story, the men of Babel, hoping to avoid another flood, decide to build “a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven.” (Genesis 11:4)

The narrative goes on;

“And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Genesis 11:5-7)

Clearly, God knew that the men of Babel could NOT build a tower that reaches to heaven. Just as clearly, God knew that there ARE restraints on men, and there ARE some things that men cannot do, even if they imagine they can.

It is true now, and it was even more true then.

But, without the confounding of languages, the people WERE one, in that they had a single king who sought, by his own effort, to bring all the people of the earth together under a single banner in an expressed effort to thwart the purposes of God.

So God confused their languages, not because He couldn’t ‘put down’ a man-made effort to usurp His authority, but out of mercy, to prevent the necessity of having to punish them all.

In confusing their languages, God separated mankind into individual nations, preventing the rise of a global dictator like Nimrod who was determined to bring the whole world under a single, rebellious dictatorship.

In the beginning, the Church was one under Jesus Christ. To ensure that one man didn’t take over and begin dictating his own terms after the Lord ascended, Jesus left the Church under the care of twelve apostles.

Three hundred years later, one apostle was elevated by men to become the titular head of a single united, Christian Church, under the authority of a single man heading a single denomination.

The consequence of that effort is known to history as the ‘Dark Ages’.

Once the Church became ‘one’ under the papacy, there truly was ‘nothing restrained from them’ spiritually. The Popes of the Dark Ages appointed and removed kings from their thrones. History is filled with the accounts of the Papal wars and inquisitions.

Under the power of the papacy, the power over heaven and hell was taken from Jesus and given to the papal Church. The papal Church claimed the power to forgive sins or retain them, and made keeping Church doctrine a condition of salvation.

At its extreme, the papal Church began SELLING free passes to heaven, known as ‘plenary indulgences’, turning salvation into a commodity to be bought and sold.

It took a millennia for the power of the papacy to be broken by the Reformation, which resulted in the Church being separated into denominations, like the world was separated into individual nations at Babel.

The various denominations hold differing doctrinal views that keeps them separated into individual church groups, or denominations, preventing the rise of another superchurch.


According to the Book of the Revelation, in the last days, spiritual Babel will rise again, under the headship of a single man, energized by Satan, and known to Christians as the antichrist.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. . . and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” (Revelation 13:7a, 15b)

During the Church Age, no such leader could ever deceive the entire believing church. There are too many minor points of doctrine that divide us for any one man to unify us under a single banner of united Christianity.

The proof is the Omega Letter. Our fellowship are all professing believers, all saved by grace through faith, all witnesses to the saving power of Christ, and all expecting to spend eternity in heaven.

Despite all that, the doctrinal differences that exist between us on a single point, the timing of the Rapture, is enough to divide us into two camps. From what I can read, there will be no compromise.

Those who reject a pre-Trib Rapture argue that expecting a pre-Trib Rapture will make believers so blinded to the antichrist that when a European leader arises who confirms a peace covenant with Israel, declares himself Israel’s Messiah, and demands global worship in exchange for a Mark that, without which, they will be unable to buy or sell, that they will accept the Mark.

According to this view, because the Rapture hasn’t happened, Christians in the Tribulation will not recognize the antichrist.

Consequently, there is no fellowship between the two camps. When they come together under one roof, all the points of common agreement fall by the wayside as each side attempts to ‘convert’ the other to their point of view.

It wouldn’t matter who came along, or how charismatic he might be, there is nobody on this side of the Church Age who could get every Christian to accept his headship.

It is the doctrinal differences that divide us that prevented the rise of antichrist during the Church Age, just as the language division broke Nimrod’s power at Babel.

To many Christians, ‘ecumenism’ is a dirty word. ‘Ecumenism’ is a doctrine that seeks to set aside theological differences in an “organized attempt to bring about the cooperation and unity of all believers in Christ.”

Why is ecumenism such a dirty word? Because a single Church body, under a single banner, sets the stage for the rise of a false prophet as described in Revelation 13. That is why most non-denominational Christians oppose it.

Every ministry has its own statement of faith. Why is that? Because they are different.

The Omega Letter’s statement of faith holds to the inerrant, Divine inspiration of Scripture. We believe in salvation by grace through faith.

I personally prefer the King James Bible for preaching and teaching, but we take no dogmatic view as a ministry.

We believe in the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, eternal security, dispensationalism and a pre-Tribulational Rapture.

One can find other, sincere, honest and Christ-honoring ministries who differ with us on several points. As a consequence, there will be no evangelical ‘pope’ who can authoritatively dictate doctrine to all Christians during the Church Age.

But the Bible says such a one will exist during the Tribulation.

The Omega Letter will hold fast to its statement of faith, because, unlike our critics, we believe that God has His purposes in this age, just as He did when he confused the languages of men at Babel.

It is not our mission to convince skeptical Christians that the pre-Trib Rapture is the correct view. We believe it is the correct view, but reject any notion that the timing of the Rapture has any bearing on salvation.

We teach it because we believe it is correct, but we have no contention with those who believe otherwise. And we have no wish to engage in pointless debate, either in our publications, or within our forums.

Having taught the Rapture in 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17, the Apostle Paul didn’t conclude by saying, “Wherefore contend with one another over these words.”

Instead, he said, “Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” (1st Thessalonians 4:18)

I find little comfort in confrontation.

“The United States of Europe”

“The United States of Europe”
Vol: 44 Issue: 23 Monday, May 23, 2005

Next week, French voters will be asked in a national referendum to either approve or reject the EU’s proposed new Constitution. The French referendum will be the first in a series of similar referendums across the EU, as each nation’s voters give an up or down vote on the document.

The EU constitution is a long, rambling document about ten times the length of the US Constitution, including amendments. From what can be observed, it is about as inspiring as a phone book, attempting as it does to set out in detail the relationship between the European government and the people to be governed.

To some degree, the new constitution consolidates the numerous existing treaties and arrangements into a single document. But the new constitution also creates important new rules.

It gives new powers to the European parliament — a collection of politicians from across the EU’s spectrum, usually elected by a stunning minority of votes from their home countries — or appointed outright by their national leaders.

It confers rights on European citizens through the introduction of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Among the rights enshrined by the Charter is one that may run afoul of heavily unionized socialist France — the ‘right to work.’

In France, EU opposition is led by socialists and trade unionists who argue the new system will usher in a ‘capitalist nightmare’ of longer working hours, low taxation, and free trade.

Notes Gerald Baker of the ‘Weekly Standard’;

“The principal effect of the constitution, however, is to confirm and accelerate the central tendency of the E.U. over the last 50 years to send power to the center, to the European level, while eroding national sovereignty in everything from economic policy to foreign and defense policy. The constitution is, the German minister for European affairs said earlier this year, “the birth certificate of the United States of Europe.””


The French will be the first state to hold its referendum, and ironically enough, Europlanners are terrified that French voters will vote against accepting it.

After reluctantly agreeing to consult the people, the European Union’s leaders now have absolutely no idea what to do if the people vote “No.”

The French government, once one of the EU’s most ardent supporters, is beginning to realize that it will NOT be the leading state in the new union. With that in mind, Paris has said in no uncertain terms that, if the constitution is rejected, there will be NO renegotiation. If the constitution is rejected, it will be dead.

Germany disagrees. The Germans say the matter of what to do if the constitution is rejected is ‘undecided’ and the constitution could be rewritten and resubmitted for another vote.

The British, even less comfortable with surrendering its national sovereignty than the French, say that if the French vote ‘No’, then the whole process is over and there will be no need for Britain to hold her own referendum.

The British opposition is rooted in the exact opposite of French sentiments. The Brits fear that the EU constitution will usher in a ‘socialist nightmare’ of business rules that will result in reduced working hours, lower wages and increased taxation.

The Netherlands is also expressing some reluctance, although the debate there is more about the ambitions of France and Germany to dominate the Union than it is about the actual unification process.

There are actually two European superstates — the economic European union and the strategic and military Western European Union. The WEU is headquartered in Paris, born out of the 1948 Benelux treaty and created as Western Europe’s military and security organization by the 1954 modified Brussels Treaty.

From the WEU’s website: “But despite all the institutional changes in Europe, the Assembly of WEU is still the only European parliamentary institution that allows national parliamentarians to monitor security and defense issues. . . Against this background the Parliamentary Assembly of WEU continues to make a dedicated contribution to all issues of security and stability on the European continent.”

From the perspective of the Western European Union, the EU’s role is to provide for domestic tranquility, but the real power, that of security of defense, remains in the hands of the ten full members of the WEU.

The ten full members of the WEU are those states who are also full members of NATO. The Secretary General of the WEU is former NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana, who also serves as the European Union’s High Representative, under the authority of WEU Recommendation 666.

The members of the EU’s Political and Security Committee are also members of the WEU’s Permanent Council.

In other words, regardless of how the EU’s constitutional referendums turn out, the real power will remain where it has been all along — with the ten leaders of Western Europe’s FULL members. (

The prophet Daniel was called to interpret a dream for King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel interpreted the dream as images of four successive world empires; Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander’s Greek Empire and that of Imperial Rome. Daniel foretold the collapse of the Roman Empire after it split into two ‘legs’ — the Western Empire, headquartered in Rome, and the Eastern Empire headquartered in Constantinople. The legs of the image had ten toes that Daniel said represented a later reincarnation of the two legs of iron [Rome].

Later, Daniel had similar dreams;

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. “

“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” (Daniel 7:7-8)

Daniel sought the Lord’s counsel, saying, “Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast . . . And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came . . . ” (Daniel 7:19a, 20-21,22b)

The ‘little horn’ says Daniel, makes war with the saints and prevails against them. John described the rise of antichrist in Revelation 13:7, saying, “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.”

Currently, the European Union is perceived to be the power in Europe. The WEU, if it is considered at all, is viewed as part of the Greater EU, but in point of fact, the opposite is true.

The collapse of the EU’s constitution could mean the collapse of the EU. Politics abhors a vacuum. There is only one logical candidate to step in and pick up the pieces, and Recommendation 666 has already established the framework.

In Daniel’s day, ancient Rome was still six hundred years future. Daniel witnessed the fall of Babylon and the rise of Medo-Persia, but he was long dead before Alexander the Great conquered the known world.

Daniel predicted the defeat of Alexander’s Empire, its division among his four generals, and its replacement by the Roman legions. That is amazing in and of itself. But Daniel also foretold Rome’s rise and fall and its restoration in the last days.

Daniel foretold that the power in the last days would be invested in ten ‘kings’ but that those ten kings would subordinate themselves to an eleventh, ‘little horn’ whose power was such that he would be able to pluck out three of the original kings ‘by the roots’.

We aren’t there yet, but this is what exists as of today, May 23, 2005;

The 25-member European Union is in danger of collapse, should the constitutional referendum fail. Waiting in the wings is the 28-member Western European Alliance, headed by the ten nations of Europe who are FULL members of both the WEU and NATO.

The head of the EU is also the Secretary General of the WEU. He is not one of the ten ‘kings’ but is instead an eleventh ‘little’ king, given the power to exercise the authority of the original ten under the authority of WEU Recommendation 666. (See

At least three, France, Great Britain and the Netherlands, are rethinking surrendering their sovereignty to the center.

All three of these are also members of the Original Ten.

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

The Toilet Wars

The Toilet Wars
Vol: 44 Issue: 21 Saturday, May 21, 2005

It’s been a week since a ten-sentence story in Newsweek sparked a wave of rioting throughout the Muslim world that left 17 dead, scores injured and caused millions of dollars in property damages.

This is a story with so many nuances that it takes a lot of scrutiny to see them all. There’s been a little time for cooling off, and a sense of perspective is beginning to emerge from all the heated rhetoric from all sides.

Few, if any, have noted the silence of the rest of the Islamic world in reaction to the orgy of violence resulting from the Newsweek report.

There was little condemnation from the allegedly ‘moderate’ mainstream Muslim world for the behavior of their co-religionists.

The Pakistani Information Minister slammed Newsweek, saying, “They should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims.”

While I agree from a tactical perspective, because it hands a propaganda victory to the enemy, I reject his absolution of Muslims from responsibility. Evidently, I am pretty much alone in that regard.

Secretary of State Rice reacted by affirming, ”disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States. We honor the sacred books of all the world’s great religions.”

After Dr. Rice gave official US approval to Islam as a ‘great religion’, Theologian-in-chief George Bush, speaking for the United States, officially elevated the Koran to the status of the “holy” Koran.

No mention was made of the fact the Koran is the inspiration for the jihad that has claimed thousands of American lives, or of the primitive blood-lust it demands of its followers.

Instead, the official position of the United States government is that Islam is one of the ‘world’s great religions’ and that the Koran is ‘holy’.

What is the official US government position on Christianity and the Bible?

Christianity cannot be endorsed in any way, the Bible cannot be taught in public schools, and America is NOT a Christian nation.

(This is a good place to note that the CIA World Factbook cites America’s religious statistics as 52% Protestant, 24% Catholic. America’s Islamic community, according to official US government statistics, makes up ONE PERCENT of the population.)

Free Muslims Against Terrorism, an organization that represents moderate Islam, called on Muslims to ”converge on our nation’s capital for a rally against terrorism.” The rally was scheduled for May 14. Fifty people showed up.

So where were the Muslim groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations? They boycotted it. More than 70 Muslim groups were invited, but evidently, they could only find fifty moderate Muslims who oppose terrorism — in the whole country.

Added to that is the amazing willingness of American journalists to believe anything, accept any premise, provided that it paints the United States as the villain.

The Koran-flushing story has been around ever since the administration caved in to pressure to release unrepentant Islamist fighters from Guantanamo Bay to their home countries.

It’s been reported dozens of times since the first released detainees were allowed unrestricted access to an uncritical press. But nobody gave much credibility to the uncorroborated charges of terrorists who, by definition, are dedicated to destroying the US — except the anti-American media.

Newsweek’s story sparked riots in the Islamic world because it claimed the story was corroborated by government ‘sources.’ At last, evidence!

The liberal mainstream, denying any liberal bias, defended their long-held contention that the terrorists were telling the truth and the government was lying.

Newsweek Editor Mark Whittaker explained, “Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur’an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item.”

In other words, Newsweek was being completely uncritical in running it.

Uncritical’? Have YOU ever tried to flush a book down a toilet? How about even flushing one page? How big does Newsweek think the toilets ARE down there in Cuba, anyway?

The Islamic world is convinced American toilets must be as big as swimming pools, since they refuse to accept Newsweek’s tepid ‘retraction’, preferring instead to believe Newsweek was pressured into retracting the story by the administration.

So do the blindly liberal American press corps, judging by the questions tossed to White House press liaison Scott McClelland all week.

One Useful Idiot of the Islamic jihad, ABC reporter Terry Moran, asked McClelland, “With respect, who made you editor of Newsweek?”

Then he launched into his editorial, asking, “Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?”

Evidently, Moran has a really, really big toilet at HIS house, so he never considered that it was possible the administration was reacting to a false allegation.

Moran followed up with a question Osama bin Laden would have paid him millions for, if it had been necessary, (which it wasn’t); “Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is?”

Point, set and match — from the perspective of a Useful Idiot. Or somebody with a really, really efficient plumbing system.


Let’s revisit the term, “useful idiot” for a second. It was first coined by Lenin to describe the intellectuals, writers, politicians and socialist activists in the West who promoted the Bolshevik scheme of world revolution.

His successor, Josef Stalin, continued the use of the phrase to describe the liberal opposition to Joe McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Commission.

Loosely defined, a ‘useful idiot’ is any person who acts in a way which unwittingly promotes political interests which are opposed to his own political ideals.

(Moran qualifies only in that I am assuming his political ideals do not include submitting to an Islamic government or being beheaded as an infidel. In so doing, I am also making an admittedly generous assumption that Moran’s idiocy has limits.)

Liberals aren’t saying the jihadi riots are inexcusable, they’re saying the protests were justified because America is surely guilty of things just as bad.

In defense of Newsweek, David Brooks of the reliably liberal New York Times offers this conclusion; “Whatever might have been the cause of their [Newsweek’s] mistakes, liberalism had nothing to do with it.”

If it wasn’t liberal bias, then it can only mean; a) the story is true, or, b) Newsweek believed that it is possible to flush a book down a toilet, and therefore, ran the story in good faith, BELIEVING it was true.

(It seems to me that admitting to being wrong once in a while is a better defense than admitting to being stupid all the time).

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Newsweek’s willingness to believe in super-toilets if it hurts the administration blinding it to the consequences that it should have foreseen.

The Bush administration’s willingness to afford Islam an official status as a great religion based on a ‘holy’ book — even as its ‘holy’ practitioners degenerate into a blood-thirsty mob, killing and maiming and destroying in outrage over a single copy of that ‘holy’ book in the name of the ‘great’ religion it spawned.

The Useful Idiots in the media who are willing to believe anything, provided it proves their contention that America became the Great Satan when George Bush and the Republicans ‘stole’ power away from the liberal left.

Every single Muslim in America except the fifty who showed up for the rally against Islamic terrorism in Washington.

Islam itself, and the Koran that inspired the toilet-riots — and is the inspiration for the ongoing war that has already killed tens of thousands of innocents since 2001.

Oh, and American plumbing.


Since I have received not a single objection to taking Sundays off, the Omega Letter will not publish tomorrow. Thanks to you all.

“Seeing Through a Glass, Darkly”

“Seeing Through a Glass, Darkly”
Vol: 44 Issue: 20 Friday, May 20, 2005

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” (Isaiah 2:2-4)

We discussed the four rational creations of God in the last briefing, but, judging from some of your comments, I didn’t do such a bang-up job of explaining it all. I will try and clarify the murky spots.

Some of you questioned the application of the word ‘creation’ to describe them. Nobody disputes the fact that the angels were created, or man.

One member argues that Jews were not ‘created’ separately, but were selected from an already living group. Jewishness is both a spiritual and a physical manifestation, neither of which existed until God created it out by an act of His own will.

Abraham was chosen out of the land of Ur to be the father of a great nation. Abraham decided that, given his age and that of Sarah’s, that he would father this great nation through Sarah’s Egyptian slave, Hagar.

But God said that HE would create a great nation:

“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:” (Genesis 12:2)

It was by the sovereign act of God that Sarah conceived, it was the sovereign choice of God that the Abrahamic covenant would flow through the descendants of Isaac, and it was by Divine decree that his descendants would be a peculiar people, unique from all the rest of humanity.

The Abrahamic covenant resulted in a new spiritual creature, not Gentile nor angel, but children of the Promise. The Jews are genetically unique; the priestly caste of Cohanin bear the unique genetic signature of Aaron, enabling the modern Jews to positively identify the hereditary priests that are necessary to the restoration of Temple worship.

Abraham didn’t make his descendants the children of the Promise. God did, by an act of His sovereign will. Until the creation of the Jews, there were just two spiritual creations — angels and Gentile descendants of Adam.

That is the operative phrase here; ‘SPIRITUAL creation’.

Let’s define ‘creation’ for the sake of clarification as that which comes into being by the sovereign will of God.

By an act of His sovereign will, God introduced a third spiritual creation, one that had not previously existed. Jews are not Jews by choice, they are born Jews.

A Buddhist Jew is still a Jew. No matter what religion a Jew practices — or none at all — the Jew is still a Child of the Promise and has a unique spiritual standing before God.

It isn’t a question of attitude or whether or not the Jew has a ‘right relationship’ toward God. I don’t know exactly how God accomplishes His plan for the Children of the Promise, but I trust the Bible.

“And so ALL Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:” (Romans 11:26)

Angels were created with spiritual attributes unique to angels. Man was created with his own unique spiritual attributes. He became a Gentile, separated from God, with Adam’s fall.

Out of Gentile spiritual humanity, God created a third unique spiritual being, the Jew, and endowed him with spiritual attributes unique from other men.

The fourth spiritual creation is the Christian. This spiritual creation also comes into existence as the consequence of a sovereign act of God. This spiritual creature, like angels, Jews and Gentiles, has an eternal component, but unlike the Jews and the Gentiles, it is a new form of spiritual creation.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2nd Corinthians 5:17)

No matter how hard he tries, a Jew cannot become a Gentile by an act of his own will. No matter what religion he practices, (or even no religion at all), he will always be a Jew. I was born an Irish Catholic. But no matter what religion I practice, Catholicism, Christianity, Buddhist or Hindu, I will always be Irish.

But, uniquely, only the Jew who becomes a Christian is no longer a Jew. By becoming a Christian, a Jew isn’t even a Jew to other Jews. Even Israel recognizes that he becomes a ‘new creature’ in Christ and often revokes or refuses Israeli citizenship to Messianic Jews.

Equally uniquely, a Christian can never become a Gentile. Spiritually, he is already a ‘new creature’. His transformation is accomplished the sovereign act of God of forgiveness by grace through faith.

A Gentile can become a Jew, or he can become a Christian. Reversing the process by an act of man’s will is impossible, since the process itself is accomplished by God, and “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:29)

The second question revolves around the continued existence of the Gentiles in the Millennial Kingdom. More than a few of you questioned that.

We opened this briefing with Isaiah 2:4, which speaks of the ‘nations’ that will “go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob.”

Note that this is what a Gentile would say, not a Jew.

Isaiah also says He will judge between the ‘nations’ [more than one] and will settle disputes for ‘many peoples’.

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, “nor will they train for war anymore.”

Israel is but ONE nation. The Church is raptured and has received their translated bodies. The only possible explanation for the ‘nations’ is that they are Gentile nations.

Will there be Gentile survivors of the Tribulation Period who enter into the Millennial Kingdom AS Gentiles?

“And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.” (Zechariah 14:16)

“And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth His sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.” (Matthew 25:32-33)

Jesus is speaking of the destiny of nations, not individuals.

“Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:” (Matthew 25:34-35)

The sheep and goat nations will be judged as either worthy to enter the Millennial Kingdom or unworthy, based on how each nation treated Israel.

They are Gentile nations, neither Jew nor Christian. Christianity, as we understand it, ends with the conclusion of the Church Age.

When the ‘elect company’ being called out of the world as the Bride of Christ reaches its complete number, the Rapture takes place, followed by the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. There are tribulation saints, but those saints are not saved according to the Dispensation of Grace, but rather are saved according to the Dispensation of the Law.

Tribulation saints, [with the exception of the 144,000 of Revelation 7] are NOT sealed ‘with the Holy Spirit of Promise’ (Ephesians 1:13) — since the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is unique to the Church Age.

If all Tribulation believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, like the new creatures of the Church Age, there would be little point in devoting an entire chapter to describing the ‘sealing’ of the 144,000 Jews during the Tribulation.

The Tribulation saints are NOT ‘new creatures’ transformed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but remain Gentiles, saved the same way the Jewish saints of the Old Testament were – by being declared judicially righteous by God.

The Bible indicates that judicial declaration of righteousness is directly related to their treatment of the nation of Israel. It also says that the Gentile nations who enter the Millennial Kingdom will serve Israel.

Melchizedek, king of Salem, was a Gentile, but the Bible calls him the ‘priest of the most high God’ for siding with Abraham against the King of Sodom and bringing Abraham bread and wine. (Genesis 14:18).

I realize a lot of this challenges what is taught today, mainly because of a fundamental misunderstanding of Dispensational truth. Dispensationalism holds that, during different periods throughout history, God dealt with man’s salvation in different ways.

He walked with Adam ‘in the cool of the garden’ during the Age of Innocence. After the Fall, but before the Flood, God allowed man to pretty much govern according to his own will in what is called the ‘Age of Conscience’. After the Flood, God dealt with individuals one-on-one as he did from Noah until Moses.

When Moses received the Law, it introduced a new Dispensation in which God dealt with His people judicially in a corporate, rather than individual manner, setting up Judges over Israel to rule according to Divine Decree.

After the Jews failed miserably at keeping the Law, Jesus introduced a new Dispensation, the Age of Grace. The Age of Grace concludes with the Rapture of the Church and the withdrawal of the Restrainer. (2nd Thessalonians 2:7)

There is yet a final seven year period for the Age of the Law, during which God pours out His wrath against unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, called the ‘Time of Jacob’s Trouble’.

Then there is the final Dispensation, the Millennial Kingdom, in which Jews and righteous Gentiles will live under the direct reign of Jesus Christ from Jerusalem for a thousand year period.


“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15)

‘Rightly dividing the word of truth’ means that there IS a division in the word of truth. It means one cannot apply the tenets of the Age of Law to the Church Age and get any understanding of salvation by grace through faith.

One cannot apply the tenets of the Church Age to the Tribulation Period and get any clear understanding of how the Tribulation saints can be saved, or how they could later subsequently be lost by accepting the Mark of the Beast.

During the Church Age, the saints cannot be overcome by Satan — “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” does not apply in some metaphysical sense that eventually, we will die and be outside Satan’s power. In the Church Age, it means what it says. The devil cannot stand before an indwelt believer who pleads the Blood of Christ.

But during the Tribulation, “it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to OVERCOME them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:7)

Without an understanding of the division in the Word, that would appear to be a contradiction. The power ‘to overcome them doesn’t mean he has the power to kill them.

Satan has ALWAYS had that power. Over the course of human history, he has killed uncounted billions through sin. But during the Church Age, believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Whose ministry is to guide the Church in all truth.

During the Tribulation, the antichrist will be able to deceive ‘even the very elect’ and any, Jew, Gentile or Tribulation saint, who accepts his mark will be forever damned.

” . . .and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:4)

Those who worship the beast and receive his mark are not among that company.

Where, under the Dispensation of the Law, God says, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’; under the Dispensation of the Age of Grace, Jesus says, ‘turn the other cheek’.

Were it not for the understanding of Dispensationalism, one could argue that Scripture contradicts itself.

But unregenerate Gentiles are sinners. How can they enter the Millennial Kingdom? David sinned. Noah sinned. Abraham sinned. But note that, “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. . .” (James 2:23)

It is a difficult study, since the Bible doesn’t say that much about the Gentiles of the Millennial Kingdom, other than they will live in a restored ecology, will enjoy lifespans similar to those before the Flood, and that they will eventually be deceived one last time by Satan and will make war against God.

The first six Dispensations are outlined in great detail, where we are only given a shadowy look at the Millennial Kingdom. The Millennial Kingdom will be administered directly by Christ from earth. There is no real need for detail. When the time comes, those alive then can enquire directly of Him.

The Apostle Paul explains; “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1st Corinthians 13:12)