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.