Pope Francis Calls for End of Sovereignty and Establishment of Global Government
JOE WOLVERTON, II J.D.
“When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.
Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”
He moved onto immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.
Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.
Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”
He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create “a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect,” and must stop what “hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations.”
And the hits just keep on coming.
Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. “The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit,” Francis said.
For our own benefit? Who benefits from global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations’ existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression?
Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.
His holiness suggested that governments around the globe should “strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests.”
“When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority that is legally and concordantly constituted and capable of facilitating its implementation,” the pope concluded.
Apparently, the pope has pondered our awful situation and found that small nation-based governments are the cause of great suffering, so the obvious solution to the problem of government is bigger government.
Pontifical politics, it seems, makes for strange bedfellows, as explained in a recent article by Steve Byas published in January in The New American:
“Of course, those who favor world government can be expected to praise the 2015 encyclical and the pope’s remarks this week, condemning ‘nationalism.’ But other positions of the Roman Catholic Church, such as opposition to abortion, are regularly belittled by many of the same globalists who are praising Francis now.”
Those people pushing for unlimited access to abortion loathe the Roman Catholic Church and its centuries-long opposition to the murder of children in utero are the very people standing with the head of that church in the fight to kill sovereignty and establish a one-world government.
That seemingly bizarre and undeniably unholy alliance should be enough to compel people to question what the underlying goal of the globalists must be.
In other words, what sort of government would the pope and pro-abortion advocates find mutually commendable? Could it be that those who are in the shadows of this scheme are pleased by the pope’s support for their sinister aim, regardless of whether he appreciates the implications of the fulfillment of their plans? Of course!
When it comes to convincing Catholics and the rest of the world that their only hope for peace, prosperity, and planetary salvation is found in the surrender of sovereignty, the hands pulling the strings believe that the only bad publicity is no publicity. They may loathe Pope Francis’ steadfast opposition to abortion, but they can hold their noses long enough to make effective use of his global influence.
What Pope Francis likely does not understand is that in the United States, the people are — were — sovereign, meaning that ultimately there is no will above the will of the people. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of all people to “alter or abolish” a government if that government ceases to perform its only legitimate function: to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.
That the entire foundation of the Anglo-American concept of self-government, liberty, and popular sovereignty is annihilated by even the theory of global government is revealed in one question: Would the UN (or whatever the global government would be called) be subject to alteration or abolition by the people of the United States of America?
There is no space for doubt. Should the pope’s plan be brought to pass, there would be no liberty as it has been understood by Englishmen and Americans for over 1,000 years.
Americans are blessed in that time yet remains for us to resist the subjugation of our military to multinational commanders, to resist the surrendering of the legislative power to supranational congresses populated with lawmakers unaccountable to the American people, to resist the eradication of state sovereignty and the protection of republican government provided thereby, and, finally, to resist the chronic disregard of constitutional principles on the part of our elected leaders.