Senator Lauch Faircloth
317 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Mr. Faircloth,

Greetings to you from one of your constituents in Four Oaks, North Carolina (or, as we have been affectively referring to it since hurricane Fran came through, "Three Oaks and a stump").

I have always believed that representative government functions best in an environment of clear communication between the elected officials and the electorate, so I would like to communicate to you you my opinion of some things said by our illustrious Attorney General.

During a 60 Minutes interview concerning the BATF disaster in Waco, Texas, Janet Reno stated that:

"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible Studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of those may qualify (a person as a cultist) but certainly more than one would cause us to strongly look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference. Waco was one of those situations that qualified under our definition of people being at risk that necessitates government action to save them."

Can you believe that? The highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer in the land thinks that a person who "has a strong belief in the Second Amendment" is a cultist? I'm sure that you will agree that her statement makes it absolutely clear that she is unfit to hold ANY public office, especially one of such grave importance as Attorney General. A person with such a limited intelligence that she cannot grasp a concept as simple as the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states (in part) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", or the equally simple concept of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states (in part) that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated", poses a serious threat to the Constitutional rights of all Americans. The fact that she has been unwilling to prosecute Bill Clinton and Albert Gore for their various illegal activities shows her blatant dereliction of duty in upholding the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Given her high disregard the duties demanded of her by her position, I would like to know why she is still in office? What is being done by yourself or your colleagues to remove her from the position of Attorney General? Is anyone considering charges against her for dereliction of duty?

Sincerely,

John Morales

Click here for Lauch Faircloth's response.