• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The day before Minnesota passed H.F. 585 in 1993, I was asked to
assist parents’ rights activists there who were trying to stop this
“sexual orientation” bill introduced by a small clique of Democratic
legislators.

Too late.

But not too late to kill the pedophile privileges which would
take effect in the Democrats’ “sexual orientation” bill. The
Minnesota’s statute spelled out special rights for “sexual or
affectional orientation” and “age,” jettisoning the God-given rights of
parents for the state-given rights of pedophiles. While pedophiles are
stealthily included under any new “sexual orientation” law (see
the American Psychiatric Association listing of myriad sexual
orientations) “affectional” is well known as a term for pedophiles
(child molesters) within the sexuality field.

In The Journal of Paedophilia, Dr. John Money, of Johns Hopkins
University, a pedophile advocate and pediatric professor emeritus,
defined “affectional” for his upper-air child molester readers. Says
John:

    affectional paedophilia in layman’s terms … (is) the straight
    forward affectional attraction to children … a paedophilic attraction
    to children … an overflowing of parental pairbonding into erotic pair
    bonding. … (T)he affectional relationship, in male paedophilia at
    least, is …erotic or lover-lover pairbonding … a combination of
    affectionate love as well as the lust factor. …

To their credit, once so informed about the true definition,
Minnesota legislators immediately excised all “affectional” references
in the legislation.

Unfortunately, as we slosh about in our post-Kinsey revolutionary
sexual sewer, all professions and political parties host their share of
closeted sexual psychopaths. Hastings Wyman reports that “The
Democratic Party has embraced gay and lesbian America as a major
constituency in its coalition of key voter groups. The Republican Party
has mostly abandoned its past homophobia and has exhibited — albeit
cautiously — a friendly face to gay people” (Capital Letters, Oct. 19,
2000).

With our children’s futures depending on the character of these
gay-friendly officials and political operatives, parents need to be on
the look out for which party platform is perhaps pedophile
(“affectional”) friendly — the Democratic, Republican or Reform
parties?

A Reform Party campaign staffer confirmed to this writer that their
platform seeks no “rights” on the basis of age or orientation, etc. No
loopholes there for sexual subversives to barrel through. The
Republican Platform opposes “discrimination based on sex, race, age,
religion, creed, disability or national origin.” No sexual orientation
privileges — yet.

But, closet pedophiles never go away. And they are
baaack, listed as “Civil, Human, and Constitutional Rights” in
the Minnesota Democratic Party platform. This Minnesota platform
opposes discrimination “against anyone on the basis of race, creed, and
here they go again: “sexual or affectional orientation” or
age.”

Their website reads, “Democrats Leading Us Into The Future! Moving
Toward Democratic Victories!” But just who will enjoy the “victories”
toward which this Democratic party would move us? The national
Democratic Party platform says victory would include ending
“discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, ethnicity,
disability, and sexual orientation” while helping out “gay and lesbian
families.”

We’ll come back to “gay and lesbian families” later but the “age” and
“sexual orientation” designations should warn vigilant citizens that
“affectional” pedophile advocates, seeking to legitimize the group once
known as child molesters, are well placed in the big welcoming
Democratic Tent. Bill Clinton’s recent federal “sexual orientation”
legislation protects all “orientations” which would include
“affectional” pedophiles, pederasts, sadists, zoophiles, coprophiles,
necrophiles, and the like.

And, yes, child molesters do have a perfidious influence in the
highest offices in our land. The covert political power of such sexual
subversives often determines who is hired and fired, who gets scientific
funding, whose story is reported or spiked, what laws are passed or
locked in committee and whether police, prosecutors or judges find ways
to aid predators or their victims.

So, especially when “age” is tied to “sexual orientation” as a
protected class, parents beware! The camel’s pedophile nose is well
under the political party tent. Observe the “progressive” Netherlands.

The 1993 Journal of Paedophilia reported, “The Netherlands Changes
Its Age of Consent Law,” lowering it to age 12. Dutch pedophile Jan
Schuijer explained how his group worked legislatively to end the age of
consent. Schuijer writes,

    We were lobbying … (with) the gay rights movement (and) …
    Mrs. Wille Swildens-Rozendaal of the Labor Party … behind the scenes.
    … (A) weak spot is … child protection agencies are entitled to make
    complaints. … The Dutch public … angrily objected to the
    (age-of-consent) bill that was announced in 1985. … Although radical
    legislative reform cannot be expected at the moment, a certain
    normalization, step by step, as regards the thinking on paedophilia …
    is achieved by the new law.

Similarly “lobbying behind the scenes” in the USA, a secret
cadre of pedophile political operatives and legislators are working
“step by step” to legally wrest children from their parents for personal
pleasure and often to profit the thriving child sex industry.

In 1993, Democrat Mark Kramer, homosexual member of the Oregon
Legislative Assembly, introduced a bill that would have allowed the
state to take children from competent parents to award them to
non-familial adults. The Oregon legislation did not require that parents
be unfit, and would give children to anyone

    who has maintained an ongoing personal relationship with
    substantial continuity for at least one year, through interaction,
    companionship, interplay and mutuality. … (Anyone) who has established
    emotional ties creating a child-parent relationship with a child may
    petition or file a motion for intervention with the court having
    jurisdiction over the custody, placement, guardianship or wardship of
    that child. …”

Those “gay and lesbian families” slated for state “support” in the
Democratic Party platform are created in various ways. Legislators (like
Oregon’s Kramer and Minnesota ‘s Clark, Bishop, Reding, Oathoff,
Skoglund and many other state legislators as well) would give custody
to persons who gave “interaction, companionship, interplay and
mutuality” to the children — whatever that means. Thus a judge could
award children to pedophiles who create “gay and lesbian families” for a
brief or extended period.

Does this wake up a few American parents out there? The Minnesota
Democratic Party supports the aggressive actions by Clinton, national
Democratic Party leaders and the Justice Department to try to force the
Boy Scouts to sanction homosexual scout leaders. These actions should
send a clear signal to parents of little boys.

As in the Netherlands, closeted sexually deviant bureaucrats, judges,
legislators and other civic officials can only attain their “rights” by
merging these within a legitimate American political party. And the
political party that sanctions “sexual orientation” inevitably sanctions
bi/homosexuals, transvestites, zoophiles, necrophiles and all other
sexual pathologies too diverse to mention here, including the most
treacherous of them all, pedophiles and pederasts.

So, when you cast your ballots Nov. 7, consider the pedophiles
working within the tolerant Democratic Party to legalize “affectional
and sexual orientation” and consider the “right” of any “age” child to
jettison their biological parents to form a “gay and lesbian family”
with adults who had displayed “companionship, interplay and mutuality”
– for a year.

Impossible? Just remember, you read it here first.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.