Biden and the Global Gender Crisis



Femi Fani-Kayode recently described a Biden victory as an Obama/Hilary Clinton victory, as well as the return of (possibly) forceful projection of the gay culture all over the world. The Obama Government threatened Nigeria with official sanctions, when the National Assembly passed a law against same-sex marriage. The Obama government also refused to sell arms to Nigeria to fight Boko Haram. It also discouraged other countries from selling arms to Nigeria; even as thousands were being slaughtered every day. The argument, then, was that the Nigerian government was not respecting the human rights of the terrorists! But let us not digress too much from today’s business.

The Obama Presidency stood out in its promotion of gay relationships under the LGTBQ+ movement. This is an umbrella movement for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender, “Queer” and others. While, Bisexuals are people who are sexually attracted to both men and women, Transgender are those whose sense of personal identity and gender do not correspond with their presumed sex at birth. Then you have Pansexuals, who could be sexually attracted to animals, little children, or whatever caught their fancy. The Polysexual, Agender, Bi-gender, Ecosexual, Intersex, Androgynous, Gender Fluid, Non-Binary, Gender Queer, Transspecies, Transaging, Transable and the Ecosexual are also there.

The Ecosexual are people whose sexual desires are directed towards the earth itself. They may use sex toys inspired by the earth, and they believe that ‘having sex with the earth’ helps to heal it from natural disasters. Polysexuals, are sexually attracted to more than one gender, while Agenda do not identify themselves as belonging to any particular gender. The Bi-gender, on the other hand, are sexually attracted to two “genders” outside the well-known categories of “men” and women. Thus, the acronym for all these tendencies is sometimes written as LGBTQIA, where “queer” refers to non-straight people making up the LGBTQ+ universe. The Obama Presidency was quietly creating a world in which all these groups would freely exercise their ‘rights.’

Some people in whom male and feminine characteristics combined due to birth defects caused by mutation, or inappropriate medication, and who could be helped by surgery, were discouraged from doing so by promoters of the LGBTQ+ agenda. Reason? “Such people should be identified as Intersex and allowed their rights.” And, believe it or not, the LGBGTQ+ movement has a well mapped out agenda, is well-funded and is being pursued with great singleness of purpose. As same-sex marriage is being promoted, every sort of sexual orientation is being encouraged and protected under civil and minority rights. People’s understanding of who they are, their beliefs and their values of right and wrong are being changed through veiled campaigns.

Can we, as human beings, simply make a declaration about gender and it will be so? Can someone wake up one day, declare himself a camel and then demand that we accept his new identity and allow him to graze in the public park; or in his neighbour’s garden? Does a deliberate campaigned that emphasizes the right of everyone to do what pleases him not rest on a fundamental distortion of the very concept of freedom? Right now, they are using sophisticated public relations and marketing tools to progressively make the average person shrug his shoulders and say of aberrant things: “Oh, it’s alright, since we all have the right to do what we like.” The effort in this regard is quietly changing government policies all over the world and promoting “license” as freedom. The adoption of children by gay couples, the distortion of the concepts of “mother” and “father,” and much more are part of the mix.

Get humanity to redefine what it means to be human, and what makes a human being male or female, and you will get a wrong definition of “human” rights. Wrong notions of right and wrong, correct and incorrect beliefs and so on will then follow. The new ideas, teachings and practices that are being spread under the LGBTQ+ umbrella are raising doubts and creating confusion in the minds of people about the concepts of male, female, right, wrong, and much more. It is a way of making people forget that “right’ and “wrong” cannot depend on human opinion. Also, a global leadership elite that is making human opinions and personal preferences the basis for everything cannot be on the right path.

Why are world leaders, especially of the nations classified as “developed,” desperate to “level humanity” and deny any core values? Why are many “globally significant” individuals working towards the globalisation of all manner of lifestyles and values pyramid with a controlling few at the top holding sway with skewed values? Why are most world figures speaking of freedoms and rights, but not of knowledge and true humanity? Why are they talking of making people happy but saying nothing about the true meaning of happiness? Why is much funding and orchestrated media support being given to every endeavor that promotes the protection of all manner of rights, without any attention to whether the rights in question are adding positive values to our humanity. Why are many people who are seeking political office in many advanced nations now desperate to prove that they have no strong views on anything? Why is there a growing insistence that LGBTQ+ be allowed in the military service of many nations, as well as the progressive inclusion of LGBTQ+ history and themes in public education?

The deliberate projection of new identities and lifestyles is now rife; especially the encouragement of heterosexuals to go into homosexual relationships, seeking and obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teachings and science, and interfering with gender distinctions. And it is so organised!

The 1987 essay titled “The Overhauling of Straight America”, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen spelt out a six-point plan for the LGBTQ+ campaign. Gays were urged to portray themselves in such a way that the world will just think of them as normal people who prefer to do certain things differently. These two men updated their thoughts in 1989 with the book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s. This book mapped out a public relations strategy for the movement, arguing that gay rights groups should adopt more sophisticated and more professional public relations techniques, to convey their message.

Many people noted this and raised their voices. Oklahoma Senator, Tom Coburn, in 2004 saw the gay agenda as a more pressing danger than terrorism. In 2005, James Dobson, Director of Focus on the Family, described the homosexual agenda as including “universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting paedophillia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies.”

To make personal opinion the basis for all decisions is to, ultimately, assault and destroy every teaching that tries to focus humanity on the Will of God. And this is going hand in hand with the legalization of gay unions, the introduction of LGBTQ+ ideas and history into the education of children, the establishment and promotion of homosexual and paedophile networks and clubs, the use of fashion, movies, television shows, popular music, novels and beauty pageantries to embed gay colours and symbols in public consciousness. This is driving a new value-agenda for humanity. Considering that the U.S. Supreme Court legalised same sex marriage in 2015, the question today is whether “God’s own country” has not been taken over by those who have actually declared war against God.

Many major institutions with global reach and muscle appear to be involved in ways no one can easily detect. Remember the story about the World Health Organization officially declaring inability to find a sexual partner a disability? It broke in 2016, but was denied later in a way that still left a peculiar taste in the mouth. Assuming such a move was made, how many people in the world would have seen it in any deeper light? Is finding everyone a sex partner of his choice more of a global emergency than higher values and questions about the meaning of life?

The CNN Town Hall Meeting of October 2019 on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer issues, organized for the nine US Democratic presidential candidates, was very revealing. Joe Biden said that Trump’s rollback of President Obama’s pro-gay health policy was a step backward “on equality” and that he would correct it once elected President. His tweet said: “We need a president who will fight to further LGBTQ+ equality – not roll back the hard-won progress we’ve already made.” He said at the CNN debate that America should “root out discrimination and homophobia,” while Cory Booker called violence against the LGBTQ+ community a “national emergency.” Pete Buttigieg said he would overhaul rules prohibiting gay men from donating blood, Elizabeth Warren, another candidate, said she was wrong in 2012, when she said: “I don’t think it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars” to pay for a transgender inmate’s gender confirmation surgery.

Yet another candidate, Kamala Harris, swore at the CNN debate that she would tackle homelessness among LGBTQ youth, while Beto O’Rourke promised to outlaw conversion therapy, to change the sexual orientation of gays, lesbians and bisexuals “everywhere” in the US if elected president. While Amy Klobuchar, declared conversion therapy illegal and said that she would recognize a third gender marker option on a federal level, candidate Julián Castro said that only nations with good records on the rights of the LGTBQ+ community would receive foreign aid if he was elected president. Then, Tom Sayer, promised to increase oversight over health care access to LGBTQ asylum seekers.
Question: “Is the hysterical optimism about a Biden Presidency really justified? Gay issues apart, will the global political and economic outlook, among other thing, really change?

Why are world leaders, especially of the nations classified as “developed,” desperate to “level humanity” and deny any core values? Why are many “globally significant” individuals working towards the globalisation of all manner of lifestyles and values pyramid with a controlling few at the top holding sway with skewed values? Why are most world figures speaking of freedoms and rights, but not of knowledge and true humanity? Why are they talking of making people happy but saying nothing about the true meaning of happiness?