Steemit’s Potential to Help Realize the UN Goal of Eliminating Global Poverty

Steemit is a young social media network built upon blockchain technology which has the potential to help the world realize the top United Nations Sustainable Development goal.

Even in its infancy, Steemit is already empowering people all over the world to monetize their creative abilities, such as writing, art, photography, music, and video.  Imagine getting paid to post content and comment on your Facebook and Instagram posts.  That’s the power of Steemit.

But will Steemit just fade away into oblivion like many other promising startups? Should we invest more into the platform or just take our profits while we can?

Just what is the potential of Steemit?

Stephen Kendal recently released an interview with Titus Frost  in which he predicted the Steemit blockchain platform could grow into a “$500 Billion or more social media powerhouse.”

This may be sound generous, but blockchain technology will revolutionize life as we know it.  Let me show you 3 reasons why I think Steemit is just getting started and why Kendal could easily be correct.

First, blockchain will soon be a routine part of our lives.

Beyond what we experience here on Steemit, blockchain technology is being developed or discussed for revolutionizing digital rights, contracts, and patents; electronic voting in both government and corporate settings; and supply chains for commodities and other trade interests.

Businesses worldwide are starting to take cryptocurrencies. People will need them, and they can earn them- lots of them- on Steemit.

Central Banks around the world also realize the old centralized way of doing business will be replaced by a decentralized system, and they are preparing for this transition.

Second, the UN is on a mission to end global poverty.

The number 1 UN Sustainable Development goal is to end global poverty.

From the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development:

“Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere.”

Could this be possible? The details of this ambitious plan at first glance seem improbable:

1a. “By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day.”

A more recent report by the UN says that more than 700 million people continue to live on less than $1.90 per day.

1b. “By 2030, reduce at least by half of the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.”

The UN is advocating something called “Universal Basic Income (UBI)” or “Global Basic Income (GBI)”. This is an idea in which each and every citizen of a nation is given a basic sum of money sufficient to live above the national poverty line.

Where will this money come from? Thin air? Why not? Blockchain-enabled cryptocurrency is built upon trust, which is what most currencies are based upon anyway.

1c. “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.”

1d. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.”

Blockchain-enabled cryptocurrencies seem to be a great fit for enabling this to happen.

Third, blockchain infrastructure is being built all over the world.

1. In July 2016, the UN declared internet access a basic human right.

These rights are to be extended to everyone on the planet, which has a current population of some 7.4 billion people. Moreover, the UN projects worldwide population to grow steadily until around 2050, reaching a peak estimated between 8.5-9.5 billion people, depending on who you ask.

2. Access to Blockchain Technology

As indicated by point 1d above, many people around the world still don’t have access to the tools needed to participate in a world of cryptocurrency.

The fact is, people from all over the world are still in need of this technology.  Even in America where I live, although it looks like nearly every teenager and adult has some sort of computer device, there’s a huge potential for participatory growth.

I’m amazed at the number of primary (high school) and secondary (college) students who have to rely on computers at school because they either have no computer at home, no cell phone, or no data.

But there are efforts to build this critical piece of blockchain infrastructure.

Former president Obama had a plan where he gave away free cell phones to targeted groups, and now President Trump recently announced a plan to invest in high-speed internet access to rural Americans.

3. Security

The decentralized characteristic which is attractive to so many users also makes it vulnerable to corruption. An in-depth analysis by the European Parliamentary Research Service titled, “How Blockchain Technology Could Change our Lives,” warns that blockchain “platforms could evolve into oligarchies by autonomous organizations.” Further, it would be difficult for law enforcement officials to track the unlawful actions of these organizations.

Of course this entails the development of security measures that do not currently exist. All of this has to be figured out, indicating that the world is not yet ready to jump headfirst into blockchain.

However, if organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), UN, Central Banks, and international corporations are taking cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology seriously, shouldn’t we all?

An alternative version of this article appears on Steemit.

 

 

 

Universal Basic Income: the UN’s Latest Wealth Redistribution Scheme

A recent wave of worldwide economic experiments called “universal basic income” seems to be ushering in a new era of wealth redistribution.

What is Universal Basic Income?

Universal basic income is an emerging plan to provide a guaranteed payment for living expenses to all people.

Under the plan, everyone would get a set amount of money, including children, workers, and non-workers.  Those workers who earn more will be taxed proportionately to help fund the program.

Individuals are not tested to see if it is needed, and no one is required to work to earn it.  The payments would be modest, but enough to enable recipients to live a frugal, yet decent lifestyle.

In other words, it is a massive wealth redistribution scheme.

Advocates claim a universal basic income would eliminate poverty and provide a safety net for workers who have 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.

But critics are quick to point out that people would be encouraged to work less, thereby contributing less taxes into the new welfare program.

Where is it Today?

Universal basic income is already being tested in areas of Britain, Finland, Netherlands, Kenya, Canada, and even the United States.  Next on the list is Scotland, where residents living in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, and North Ayrshire are slated to start receiving a regular sum of money.

Under the Scotland proposal, pensioners would get £150, working adults would get £100, and children would get £50 per week.

Who Promotes it?

In the US, universal basic income has a well-documented following in Silicon Valley.  The idea has caught the admiration of Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.  Zuckerberg actually 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]

However, the idea itself seems to be compatible with the UN’s 2015 resolution called “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

There, 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]

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

What You Need to Know That Proponents Won’t Tell You

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

It is quite apparent that this progressive scheme is being pushed by the same progressive lawmakers and public figures that insist on inviting mass immigration.  Imagine the drain on wealth that would occur.

A Biblical Perspective

Biblical wisdom indicates universal basic income, as a form of socialism, is a bad idea.

David Jones, an ethics professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary says, “In Scripture, Christians are not called to pursue economic equality.  Rather, believers are called to promote economic justice.”[5]

Nevertheless, some people will argue that socialism was advocated in the Bible, specifically in Acts 4:32-35:

All the believers were one in heart and mind.  No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.  And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them.  For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

However, notes Jones, in context Acts 4:32-35 refers to providing resources in an emergency.  The sharing of resources in this context just talks about what happened for a unique period; it doesn’t give this as a model for living.  Notice that it was from time to time that people sold things they had.[6]

Jesus’ parable of the talents is a great reminder that people are expected to multiply their talents and abilities for economic gain, not squander them.

Paul also reminded his audiences that he worked to support himself.  He didn’t demand others share with him and he insisted that each should work for his own needs:

“If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat . . .” and “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.  Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread . . . and if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15

Let God bless those whom He wishes, and let us not steal rightfully-earned wages from others.  Nor let us not encourage one another to eat the bread of idleness, but rather encourage one another to live wisely.

Despite the good intentions we read from its advocates, we must remember that the UN’s universal basic income wealth redistribution scheme inherently forsakes biblical wisdom.

 

[1] Adapted from Mark Zuckerberg’s spring 2017 commencement address at Harvard University.

[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.

[5] David W. Jones, “Socialism, Communism, and the Early Church”, available online at http://intersectproject.org/faith-and-economics/david-jones-socialism-communism-and-the-early-church/  Last accessed on 29 December 2017.

[6] Ibid.

Globalist Professor: Reverse Biblical Perspective of Humanity to Save the Planet; America Will Decline in the Process

A prominent Sustainable Development icon calls for a “total reversal of the biblical perspective on humanity,” and says that by 2052 Americans will have less wealth than they have today.

Jorgen Randers, professor emeritus of climate strategy at the BI Norwegian Business School and Executive Committee member of The Club of Rome, has written extensively on sustainability issues over the last forty-five years.  His most notable works include The Limits to Growth (1972, 1992, and 2004), 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years (2012), and Reinventing Prosperity (2016).  Much of his work on sustainability is echoed in various United Nations world development goals.

Sustainable Development is Blasphemy

Christians beware:  calling for a reversal of the biblical perspective of humanity for the sake of creating a sustainable future for the world is full-blown blasphemy. Blasphemy definition

Blasphemy, as used in the Bible, is understood as switching what God calls right for what is wrong, is a reproach against God, strips away God’s authority, and exchanges the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25).

Christian prophecy warns us of a coming blasphemous antichrist figure to rule the world:  

“And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.  Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.  It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.  And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.” – Revelation 13:5-7

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast.  These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.  These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.” – Revelation 17:12-14

For 2,000 years, this biblical prophecy has prompted Christians to ask, “How could the world be so deceived that it would let the antichrist rise to power?”

The answer may just be “through ‘sustainable development.’”  Consider these bone-chilling words from Randers:

“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 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.”[1]

Sustainable Development is Bad News for Americans

The premise of Sustainable Development is that the world’s resources are limited and being quickly depleted by people of the rich nations such as the United States. The great fear is that unless urgent action is taken now, there won’t be enough resources available for future generations.  Hence, we must “save the planet.”

The chart below illustrates the perceived likelihood of over-consumption of the world’s resources from each region of the world:

Chart showing Ecological Footprint by global regions
Ecological Footprint by Region showing a justification for wanting to lower the standard of production and consumption in all areas above the one-Earth level back down to “sustainable levels.” YouTube screenshot taken from “What is Ecological Overshoot?” by the Global Footprint Network.

For globalists, the logical conclusion from this chart is that North Americans are consuming much more than their “fair share” of the world’s resources.  The solution to this perceived “North American” problem is to lower the standard of living for Americans via wealth redistribution schemes such as taxation, trade agreements, and immigration policies.  Other schemes, as Randers explains in his 2052, include population reduction via the empowerment of women, access to free contraceptives, abortion on demand, and education for all.

Are Democrats and Some Republicans Complicit with Oppressing Americans’ Wealth?

In a 2012 article entitled, “8 Ways the World Will Change by 2052,” Randers predicts:

“As long as you are not a citizen of the United States, you will be richer in 2052 than you are today.”[2]

“As long as you are not a citizen of the United States, you will be richer in 2052 than you are today.” – Jorgen Randers, 2012.

It is no coincidence that all Democrats and even some Republicans voted against the recent tax reform bill that would reduce the tax burden for so many Americans.

While this one bill doesn’t prove there’s a conspiracy to oppress Americans’ wealth, a closer look at America’s foreign policy agreements reveals Americans should be greatly concerned, not only about their wealth, but also about their rights.

Agenda 2030 is Binding upon Americans

On September 25, 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted a new social resolution called “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”  The preamble for Agenda 2030 claims it is binding upon “all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership.”

The Agenda 2030 resolution was signed by then-President Barack Obama, and is now an official part of the US Global Development Policy.

Everyone’s Rights are at Stake

Sustainable Development treaties based on Agenda 2030 and its successors could eventually replace the United States Constitution as our governing Social Contract.  If this happens, everyone’s rights are at stake.

In America, our founders resolutely affirmed in the Declaration of Independence that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The blasphemy against God in the name of Sustainable Development means the rejection of our Creator as the source of the rights of all of humanity.

According to Article 29, sections 2 and 3 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our rights would come from the UN, not our Creator:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The UN is already using American schools to teach its principles and purposes of sustainable development. Through its education branch, UNESCO, the UN is actively replacing the deeply-held beliefs of our children and giving them a new set of values:

“Education must be transformative and bring shared values to life . . . Technological solutions, political regulation or financial instruments alone cannot achieve sustainable development.  It requires transforming the way people think and act . . . Deeply entrenched beliefs take time to change.  But young people are open to new perspectives, and schools are ideally positioned to convey them.” – UNESCO, Global Education First Initiative, priority #3, Foster Global Citizenship.

What Will Become of America?

The battle lines between Sustainable Development and Christianity are taking shape now.  American patriots holding traditional American values have already been branded “Deplorable,” Agenda 2030 has been signed, and now the 2016 Democratic Platform sounds like reflection of Agenda 2030.

The blasphemous UN has aimed to supplant the authority of our Creator, transform the values of our nation, and determine our rights for us.

America, do you really want the UN to rule over your children?  Will this be the generation to witness the rise of the antichrist?

 

 

[1] Adapted from Jorgen Randers’ lecture 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.  Available online at http://cms2.unige.ch/isdd/IMG/pdf/jorgen_randers_2052_a_global_forecast_for_the_next_forty_years.pdf

[2] Jorgen Randers, “8 Ways the World Will Change by 2052.” Available online at https://www.fastcompany.com/1680127/8-ways-the-world-will-change-by-2052  Last accessed on 12/20/2017.

How Schools use “Character Education” to Brainwash Our Kids

Across America, “character education” programs mandated by law in K-12 schools are undermining the deepest threads of American culture.

What is “character education?”

According to Character.org, character education is an initiative to “help young people become responsible, caring, and contributing citizens.”

Many of the character traits taught in our public schools follow traditional social norms of mutual respect and character development, which allows its true agenda to go largely unnoticed.

img_6177
Parents should be aware that school education programs are becoming more dependent upon curriculum standards developed in conjunction with UNESCO’s Global Education First Initiative (GEFI).

GEFI has three priorities:

Priority #1: Put Every Child in School.

Priority #2: Improve the Quality of Learning.

Priority #3: Foster Global Citizenship.

Priorities #1 and #2 seem harmless enough- that is until we examine priority #3.

Perhaps by now you’re familiar with the Clinton Foundation’s annual “Global Citizen Award” or the Global Citizen Festival. But did you know that our schools are actively aligning themselves with this movement?

What is Global Citizenship?

Global citizenship involves the recognition that one is part of a larger, interconnected global community with certain shared values aimed at accomplishing the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development goals both now and in the future. The UN Agenda 2030 Plan for Sustainable Development was officially signed by President Obama in 2015 and is an official part of the US Global Development Policy.

To foster these values, GEFI uses education “to create a generation that values the common good.”

The problem is, who defines the common good?

According to GEFI, “success will require support from a wide range of stakeholders, including the highest levels of government.” Given the current state of moral affairs in our nation, is this really a good idea?

The Philosophy of Global Citizenship

By aligning itself with the UN’s Sustainable Development goals, global citizenship is based upon a mix of philosophy which includes the ethics of utilitarianism, socialism, and humanism.

Utilitarianism is concerned with the overall well-being or happiness of the greatest number of people. In utilitarian societies, like democracies, individual rights are subordinate to the rights of the majority. This presents significant challenges to the existence of the American republic, as I argue in an earlier article, “Democracies, Republics, and Human Dignity.”

Socialism advocates a “just distribution of the world’s resources and fruits of labor.” Citizens of western nations should be doubly alarmed that in the context of utilitarianism, global citizenship, and Agenda 2030, this means both an increased worldwide distribution of the wealth they generate and a reduction in individual production and consumption.

Humanism envisions a world without God. “Without God” includes the denial of a Creator which gave us any unalienable rights. Thus, to global citizens the Declaration of Independence would be deemed irrelevant, as would the US Constitution, which is built upon the principle of inherent rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Instead of individual rights endowed by a Creator, the UN will dispense rights at its own discretion, as per Article 29, sections 2 and 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What happens if your values don’t match the values of a world without God?  What happens if you want teach your children the values for citizenship in the kingdom of God rather than the anti-godly values of proper “global citizens?”

“Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.”

– Deuteronomy 11:19 (NIV)

What if you advocate unsustainable values such as having multiple children per couple, or a work ethic that generates more wealth than your neighbors all over the world and allows you to have more “stuff” than most?

The Danger of Global Citizenship

The danger of global citizenship is that it deeply undermines human dignity.  It eviscerates individual rights, parental authority to raise children with religious values, and the entire framework of the American republic.  We must stop schools from using “character education” to brainwash our kids.

 

 

Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: