4 Ways COVID-19 Will Change Our World

Our world seems tossed about like an ocean liner on a raging sea. Where are we heading and who’s steering the ship?

It seems we’ve found our captains and they’re promising at least four ways they will use COVID-19 to change our world.

Continue reading below or visit the original post at globalchangenewsandblogs.com

Follow the original post at globalchangenewsandblogs.com

On September 27, 2015, world leaders met in New York to sign an ambitious social covenant to change our world. The covenant is called, “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

Most people know it as “the New World Order.”

Agenda 2030 is a plan of action involving all countries and all stakeholders taking “bold and transformative steps” to “shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path” by 2030.

Suddenly, we have COVID-19 and bold and transformative steps are changing our world at a rapid pace.

Here are four ways COVID-19 will change our world according to the July 2020 United Nations policy brief and other global policy influencers.

1 Wealth Redistribution

Wealth will flow from richer nations to poorer nations as investments targeting worldwide income inequality. Photo by Dazzle Jam on Pexels.com

The third item in Agenda 2030 addresses income inequality. It states, “We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries . . . we resolve also to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasizes inequality will be the central feature of both short-term stimulus packages and long-term policy changes in post-COVID global recovery. Guterres insists policy changes will be instrumental in “accelerating progress towards universal health care.”

2 Worldwide Digitization

Investments will flow into Southeast Asia and other developing countries to bring the entire world into the digital age. Photo by Tyler Lastovich on Pexels.com

Why is there a coin shortage and some businesses refuse to accept cash? Why are we talking about contact tracing chips and mandatory COVID-19 vaccines?

The fifteenth item in Agenda 2030 promises to bring the entire world into the digital age: “The spread of information and communications technology and global interconnectedness has great potential to accelerate human progress, to bridge the digital divide and to develop knowledge societies, as does scientific and technological innovation across areas as diverse as medicine and energy.”

The July UN policy brief announces plans to bridge the digital divide across Southeast Asia “to ensure people and communities are not left behind in an increasingly digital world, where services and support are increasingly based on digital awareness, literacy and access.”

A report published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) last week discusses the effects of digitization in India. Researchers report a surge in mobile money transfers- and the surge in mobile money transfers was enhanced by a targeted intervention program giving incentives for businesses to adopt a new, mobile payment economic model.

Is America being coerced to go cashless?

3 Green New Deals for Everybody

Green Energy investments will be a priority in COVID-19 economic recovery schemes. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

One of Agenda 2030’s top priorities is managing Earth’s natural resources. “We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.”

Guterres sees COVID-19 as an opportunity “to embed long-term sustainability and inclusivity” in economic recovery plans throughout Southeast Asia. He also projects “scaling up green energy investments in decarbonizing economies.”

Sandrine Dixson-Declève, Club of Rome co-president, also wants to stop carbon-based investments. She recently said, “I’m convinced that going back to business as usual and bailing out high carbon-producing industries and hard-to-abate sectors (like the aviation sector, car manufactures, and the fossil fuel industry) is not the right path forward. The only path to follow is to stop investing in stranded assets- such as infrastructure that uses fossil fuel reserves- particularly coal, and instead, move on to building the decarbonized infrastructure that we need to meet our climate neutrality goals in Europe and the Paris Climate Agreement goals globally.”

4 Redefining Human Rights

Expect major social changes in the name of human rights. Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

It’s no secret the United Nations uses human rights issues to catalyze social changes.

Virtually every progressive change which claims to be grounded in human rights can be linked to the UN, including those linked to high-profile sports (such as the Washington Redskins name change), non-normative sexuality, borderless migration, and justification for abortion.

“Upholding human rights,” says Guterres, “remains an important bedrock.” As nations rebuild, the Secretary-general says the post-COVID recovery needs to include “respecting and fulfilling fundamental human rights and protecting civic space.”

COVID-19 brings healthcare to the forefront of human rights discussions, and it appears primed to be exploited. Guterres insists “a stronger rights-based approach needs to be integrated in national emergency and health emergency protocols.”

That announcement is particularly troubling when taken in the context of the development of worldwide vaccines. Will there be a vaccine mandate in order to get a healthcare passport to return to work or to engage in otherwise normal activities?

Agenda 2030 “envisions a world free of poverty, hunger, disease, and want, where all life can thrive.” How far will they go to force us to live disease-free?

Doug Carter writes about cultural issues from a biblical perspective. Join him live at 9:00 pm EST at pjnet.tv the first Monday of every month. You can also connect with him on Twitter or Parler.

Share this:

Truth, Reality, and Sounds of Silence

The image of this well, a lonely structure standing resolute among the smokey ruins, and the sad, desperate emotions of The Sound of Silence, capture the cry of my restless heart. Truth and reality are like silent raindrops falling in a well of silence while the world around me burns.

I see what’s happening and I can’t stay silent. But who’s listening?

Where are the voices of those who dare disturb the sound of silence?

The world is burning because evil people are hell-bent on destroying biblical values and building a global kingdom. What we’re witnessing is “a tragedy of the commons,” and guess who’s responsible for it: the United Nations. Their plans aren’t hidden- but they aren’t openly discussed, either.

I’m talking about the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It’s an agenda created by heads of state around the world and held together by the values of humanism. Signed on September 27, 2015, Agenda 2030 aims to consolidate world power into a global government.

Humanism, a philosophy who’s motto is ‘Good without God,” is a lie that seduces the weak-minded. Have you ever wondered how the world eventually becomes of one mind and gives its authority and power to the beast? This is it. Humanism is no different than the same philosophical lie Satan used to seduced Eve in the Garden of Eden. The end result is mankind replaces God and determines for himself Good and Evil. Why else would UNESCO, the UN organization responsible for bringing Agenda 2030 to reality, say things like “Humanism must be globalized,” and “we must give people the values and understanding they need?”

What happens if those values aren’t your values? Knowing what you know now, if you were standing as Eve in the Garden of Eden, would you eat of the forbidden fruit? Because that’s what’s being put in front of each and everyone of us by the United Nations.

Why isn’t the media talking about this? Why is the media silent? Here’s the answer: UNESCO and their partners in its Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy (GAPMIL) are committed to building a humanist world and they recognize the power of media and information to do just that.

Censorship of conservative views will get worse.

Will you stand with me and dare disturb the sound of silence?

Come join me live at 9:00 pm EST on #PJNET.tv at pjnet.tv the first Monday of every month. You can also connect with me on Twitter or Parler.

Is the US Heading for Universal Basic Income?

On Tuesday, House Democrats Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced the Emergency Money for the People Act. The plan would give $2,000 per month to Americans over the age of 16 who make less than $130,000 per year. Families with qualifying children would receive an additional $500 per child.

If passed, these payments would last at least six months and until unemployment falls to pre-COVID-19 levels.

The Beginning of Unconditional Basic Income?

Could this mark the beginning of a permanent, unconditional basic income for all adults? No doubt, most people need this money. Our economy is turned upside down and people are desperate for security. The guaranteed money sounds nice, but it may come at a devasting price.

The Emergency Money for the People Act looks suspiciously like an idea called Universal Basic Income (UBI) which has been tossed around for a few years. UBI is an emerging plan which provides an unconditional, guaranteed payment for living expenses to all people. Under the plan, all qualifying adults get a set amount of money; those who earn more will be taxed proportionately to help fund the program.

Some advocates claim a universal, unconditional basic income would eliminate poverty and provide a safety net for workers who recently lost their jobs. Others say it is needed in an era where machines are increasingly displacing human workers. In Finland, the program is hailed for reducing stress levels.

Critics of UBI say the program encourages people to work less, thereby contributing less taxes into the new welfare program.

Worldwide Universal Basic Income Tests

Universal basic income is already being tested in areas of Britain, Finland, Netherlands, Kenya, Canada, and even the United States.

Scotland’s Citizen’s Basic Income for residents living in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, and North Ayrshire was slated to begin in March 2020. According to a report last week, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced the plan for a basic income for Scots was “strengthened ‘immeasurably’ by the coronavirus outbreak.”

In the US, universal basic income has a well-documented following in Silicon Valley. The idea caught the admiration of Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg pitched the idea during Harvard’s spring 2017 commencement ceremony, saying:

“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”[1]

A Hidden Agenda?

What alarms me about the bill for a basic income is the idea can be traced to the UN’s 2015 resolution called “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

My concern lies in the manner in which the UN wants to lower the standard of living for all Westerners until we reach what they determine are “sustainable levels” of production and consumption.

To reach “sustainable levels,” our current standard of living must drop tremendously. The quickest way to reach such a “sustainable” target is by a collapse in world economy.

If the economy collapses, world leaders can build a new economy- hence the name, “Sustainable Development.”

In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, world leaders affirmed their commitment to “combat inequalities within and among countries,” and “create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth and shared prosperity.”[2] I think migration without borders and wealth redistribution are two of the ways they’re attempting to accomplish their “inclusive” and “shared prosperity” goals.

Further, Agenda 2030 insists by 2030 “all people must enjoy a basic standard of living, including through social protection systems.”[3]

In 2017, the UN published an article which addressed how to combat income inequalities. On UNESCO’s Inclusive Policy Lab website, Universal Basic Income was hailed as the solution: “What if this idea, suggesting a flat income given to every citizen regardless of employment or social status, was part of the solution to today’s inequalities?”

Universal Basic Income and the New Socialist Economic System

The UN’s Agenda 2030 lays the framework for a worldwide socialist economic system. It insists sustainable economic growth is essential for prosperity, and “this will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”[4]

Shared wealth on that scale is socialism, which makes Universal Basic Income a key part of a new socialist economic system.

But for a new socialist economic system to emerge, the existing capitalist system must fail.

Could the Emergency Money for the People Act be a way for Universal Basic Income to emerge like a phoenix out of the ashes of a failed capitalist system? Are we watching the transition from capitalism to socialism?

[1] “Mark Zuckerberg’s Commencement Address at Harvard,” The Harvard Gazette. Delivered at Harvard’s 366th Commencement on May 25, 2017. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/05/mark-zuckerbergs-speech-as-written-for-harvards-class-of-2017/ (April 15, 2020)

[2] Agenda 2030: The 2030 Plan for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on September 25, 2015, 3,4.

[3] Ibid., 7.

[4] Ibid., 8.

Are Democrats Secretly Advancing a Global Government?

Are Democrats secretly advancing a global government?

By now most know Democrat Rep. James Clyburn told caucus members the Coronavirus bill was “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

Does anyone know what the “Democrat vision” is?

Clyburn’s comments preceded Nancy Pelosi’s controversial add-ons to the bill. Some of the add-ons include questionable funding for foreign nations. Why were non-virus-related items attached?

The Vision: Plans to Transform our World

It seems the Democrats’ vision and Pelosi’s pork-funding follow an already-established plan signed by Barack Obama, along with more than 150 other world leaders, called Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Signed on September 27, 2015, “Sustainable Development,” or simply, “Agenda 2030,” is a plan of action for all citizens to change the way we think, live, and produce and consume goods and services:

“All countries and all stakeholders,” it says, “acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan . . . we are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.”

The Vision: The 15-year Timeline

The White House press release announcing Obama’s signing of Agenda 2030 included a narrow timeline. “The adoption of the 2030 Agenda . . . sets out a global development vision for the next 15 years.”

If these bold and transformative steps are urgent, and the target date of 2030 is now only ten years away, when are “all countries and all stakeholders” going to get started?

Perhaps we already have.

Maybe this “global development vision” is the explanation behind the radical policies which are already transforming how we live.

Climate, Population, and Resource Preservation

Sustainable development is a unique worldview based upon the relationship between climate, population, and use of the world’s resources.

The idea driving sustainable development is to create a sustainable future- one in which humanity can survive well into the future.

This, of course assumes several things:

First, sustainable development assumes unless we change how we live, the world could come to an end. Since most people don’t want to change, policies must be adopted to force us to change our beliefs and our habits.

Second, sustainable development assumes mankind’s production and consumption habits are unsustainable. Therefore, the world’s economic models must change to conform to sustainable models.

This means citizens of wealthy nations must learn to live at a much lower standard of living and take other measures to reduce their “carbon footprint.”

What better time to transform to a sustainable economic model than after a global economic collapse?

Third, sustainable development aims to create a sustainable world ethic and make everyone live by a set of common rights.

This third idea is a hurdle since America was built upon the premise “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights . . .”

What happens when a secular world who despises the thought of a Creator joins forces to create a sustainable set of rights?

See where this is headed? You cannot have “sustainable development” and make America- or any other nation- great again.

But it gets worse.

The Underlying Issue: Reversing Biblical Order

One of the leading figures of the Sustainable Development movement is former executive council member of the Club of Rome, Jorgen Randers. During an address before the 2012 Sustainability Conference at Cambridge University, Randers bluntly explains the real goal behind sustainable development is to reverse biblical thinking:

“If I could persuade you of one thing, it should be this: the world is small and fragile, and humanity is huge, dangerous and powerful. This is a total reversal of the biblical perspective on humanity, and the way in which man has thought during most of his presence on Earth. But this is the perspective we need to take if sustainability emerges or, at least, that the world as we know it survives for a couple of hundred more years.”[1]

It couldn’t be clearer. The vision for sustainable development is an anti-biblical approach to solving the world’s problems.

Anti-biblical thinking is anti-Christian thinking, and a world government built upon anti-Christian thinking is what will eventually bring to fulfillment this horrifying biblical prophecy:“For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God are fulfilled.” (Revelation 17:17)

[1] Jorgen Randers, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, from a lecture given in the 10th Annual Distinguished Lecture Series in Sustainable Development, hosted by the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership and the Centre for Sustainable Development in the Department of Engineering on March 14, 2012. https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/resources/publication-pdfs/jorgen-randers-2052-a-global-forecast-for-the-next.pdf (April 7, 2020).

Bernie Sanders Scorns Bible’s Population Mandate

On Wednesday, Bernie Sanders scorned the Bible’s population mandate to fill the earth. 

As progressive politicians push the boundaries of taboo after taboo in their quest to build a “Sustainable” future, mainstream Americans are left wondering where they’re headed.  How morally-low can they go and what drives their thinking? 

Sanders Declares War on Humanity

For Senator Bernie Sanders, at least, nothing is more important than saving the planet from climate change.  To do that, he once suggested declaring a World War II-like scale war on humanity.[1] In his latest attack, Sanders aimed his war against humanity on the human population.

On September 4, 2019, CNN hosted a Presidential Candidate Town Hall which included Sen. Sanders.  During the event, a member of the audience identified as Martha Readyoff, a teacher from New Hampshire, was handed a microphone. “Human population growth has more than doubled in the last fifty years,” she said. “The planet cannot sustain this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians, but it is crucial to face.  Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact.[2]” 

She then asked Sen. Sanders, “Would you be courageous enough to address this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?” 

Sanders rose to his feet in response, “Well, Martha, the answer is ‘yes.’”  “The answer has everything to do with the fact that women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies, and make reproductive decisions.”

Sanders Says Americans Should Fund World Population Control

Sanders then condemned the Mexico City Agreement and suggested American taxpayer money should be used to fund abortions and population control programs around the world.  “And the Mexico City Agreement,” he said, “which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd.  So I think, especially in poor countries around the world, where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, something I very, very strongly support.[3]

I wish I could say the conversation between Sanders and Readyoff caught me by surprise.  It didn’t.  Instead, it seemed as if their dialogue was read from a script. 

The Limits to Growth

In 1972, Jorgen Randers and Dennis and Donella Meadows were commissioned by the Club of Rome to write The Limits to Growth. Referencing their computer models to predict human impacts on climate, The Limits to Growth started what is now called the Sustainable Development movement.  Dennis Meadows explained the book’s primary premise is the belief the world is overpopulated and eventually, over-population will cause over-consumption. They offered three possible outcomes:

First, the world could just do nothing and continue to live normally.

Second, they proposed a 2% shift in the way we produce goods and services.  This would entail “modifying capitalism,” and “modifying democracy,” but, they said, we must begin immediately.  That was in 1972.  Did world leaders ever begin, or was it begun silently?

Third, they proposed reducing our production and consumption habits by downplaying today’s costs in favor of tomorrow’s future. 

I believe the second and third options hold the keys to understanding a lot of our present woes- not only our woes, but the woes of citizens in other nations throughout the world.

Obama’s Agenda 2030

On September 27, 2015, President Obama signed an agreement with world leaders to create a new path of world leadership under the direction of the United Nations.  Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development vows to leave no citizen behind in its commitment to do whatever it takes to create a sustainable world order before 2030. 

Folks, as of the time of this writing, they’ve only got eleven years to reach their goal.  The next election is critical.

Advancing Towards 2030

Since the signing of Agenda 2030, capitalism, a critical enabler of the American Dream, has come to be regarded by many as a primary enemy of the environment.  We’ve also witnessed the effects of a rogue network of fake news, social media censorship, global citizenship education, manipulated search engine algorithms, character assassinations, and other propaganda tools to modify our behavior and values.  The level of exposed government corruption is unprecedented, yet convictions appear elusive.  Meanwhile, our election process is in despicable disarray, and those who make efforts to verify voters are vilified.  We’re in the midst of a social revolution, and no one is explaining it or telling us where they intend to take us.  But Jorgen Randers offers some clues.   

Socialism for Sustainability

Curiously, Randers predicted during a 2013 television interview that America would soon be a socialist nation.  He also said the U.S. would have the fastest declining economy in the world, partly because of a declining population.[4]  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a Sustainable Development advocate like Bernie Sanders almost secured the previous Democratic presidential nomination.  Nor do I think the growing socialist elements that burst onto the Congressional scene during the last election cycle are coincidences either. 

Reversing the Biblical Perspective on Humanity

Likewise, I don’t believe Sen. Sanders’ vision for America is far removed from Jorgen Randers’ vision.  On March 14, 2012, Randers articulated his vision for the future at the 10th Annual Distinguished Lecture Series in Sustainable Development at Cambridge University.  “If I could persuade you of one thing,” he began, “it should be this: the world is small and fragile and humanity is huge, dangerous and powerful.  This is a total reversal of the biblical perspective on humanity, and the way in which man has thought during most of his presence on Earth.  But this is the perspective we need to take if we’re to be sure that sustainability emerges, or, at least, that the world as we know it survives for a couple of hundred more years.[5]

What Randers admits, but what most people fail to realize, is the true purpose of the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda is to replace biblical authority.

Readyoff’s question seemed destined to be asked, aged like wine, and uncorked at the right moment.  That moment is now and a new “sustainable” world order by 2030 is the goal. 

Sanders’ Population Control vs. God’s Population Mandate

Will America embrace Sen. Sanders’ population control policy to save the planet, or will we return to our Creator and Sustainer, who gave us the population mandate,

  “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, and use it.” (Genesis 1:28)

Bernie Sanders has taken his stand to reverse the biblical perspective on humanity.  Where will you stand?

[1] The Club of Rome, “Towards a WW2-Scale Climate Mobilisation,” https://www.clubofrome.org/2016/04/28/club-of-rome-member-responds-to-bernie-sanders-climate-statements/ (September 5, 2019)

[2] CNN, “Presidential Town Hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bksQ5szyEs8 (September 4, 2019)

[3] CNN, “Presidential Town Hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bksQ5szyEs8 (September 4, 2019)

[4] Prime News 2013 06 12, “Jorgen Randers Forecast the World in 2052,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjNElUOg_Rc (September 5, 2019)

[5] The Future in Practice: The State of Sustainability Leadership, lecture by Jorgen Randers, 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years, https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/resources/publication-pdfs/jorgen-randers-2052-a-global-forecast-for-the-next.pdf  (January 5, 2019)

Commission on Unalienable Rights Must Acknowledge Differences with UN Rights

The State Department announced today the formation of the Commission on Unalienable Rights.  Secretary of State Michael Pompeo told press President Trump takes seriously the founders’ ideas of individual liberty and constitutional government.  Citing the tendency of democracies to lose sight of the “big picture,” Pompeo’s announcement comes as a beacon of hope to American conservatives and Christians.  But there is already a glaring hole in the plan.

While Pompeo hailed the Commission’s matrix of human rights experts, philosophers, activists, members of both major political parties, and independents of various beliefs, one item seemed out of place:  the Secretary said the Commission will advise on human rights based on our nation’s founding principles and the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Herein lies a problem.  According to the Declaration of Independence and numerous state constitutions, our unalienable rights come from our Creator.  Yet according to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our rights and freedoms are initially agreed upon by a democracy (Art. 29, section 2), but they are ultimately subject to United Nations’ principles and values (Art. 29, section 3).  Essentially, the United Nations intends to supersede the will of the majority if the majority disagrees with the principles of the United Nations. 

Furthermore, the United Nations has aligned itself with a neo-secular humanism called “New Humanism.”  The wide body of information about new humanism indicates religious beliefs are irrelevant- or more specifically, a threat to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development agenda.  As former Director-General of World Wildlife Federation International and Club of Rome member Jorgen Randers stated, “for sustainability to emerge, and for the planet to last a couple of hundred more years, we must have a total reversal of the biblical perspective of humanity.”

Sustainable Development, or more properly titled, “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” is an ambitious plan to gather all nations and each and every citizen into a global community with shared values and rights- rights based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The 2030 Agenda, signed by President Obama in 2015, vows to “leave no one behind” in its quest to build a new world order.

While I applaud the creation of a Commission to protect and promote the unalienable rights of Americans, I’m deeply disturbed about yet another alliance with the United Nations’ anti-biblical 2030 Agenda.  Perhaps the new Commission will recognize the “really big picture” is the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between America’s founding beliefs and the beliefs of those creating the New World Order.

Will we continue to acknowledge our rights come from our Creator, or will we be content to let the United Nations determine our rights?

Click here to let Secretary of State Pompeo know how you feel about the new Commission on Unalienable Rights.