What has prompted Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., to
shout for Attorney General Janet Reno’s resignation
over her handling of Waco now, instead of six years ago, is
beyond me. Granted, Lott wasn’t the Senate majority leader six years
ago, but he was one of several Republicans in both Houses who could have
done a lot more to sack Reno in 1993 than they did.

That’s because shortly after the Waco debacle, Reno — for whatever
it’s worth — was the only top U.S. official to stand up and take
responsibility for what happened there. If ever there was a perfect
time to get rid of her, that was it. But where was Lott then? In fact,
where were most other Republicans (and Democrats) then? Other than the
stereotypical grumbling about how Waco was mishandled, nobody did
anything to these criminals in the Clinton administration except give
them a big, fat pass.

Having said that, I think it’s important to note that Lott — and
others — should not be satisfied with just sacking Reno over Waco
anyway. If they get any resignations at all, it’s important to
point out that Reno is not the only one who is guilty here.

Sen. Lott, if you need a short list of people to hold liable for Waco
and especially the resulting cover-up of what really happened there,
check out a piece
I wrote several days ago. That’ll get you started.

In the meantime, though, Sen. Lott and those like him ought to
consider resigning themselves.

Besides the Waco tragedy, Sen. Lott, you’ve allowed the most criminal
president in U.S. history to flaunt the law, ignore the Constitution,
sell our nuclear secrets to foreign interests, compromise our national
security, lie to you, lie to the American people, lie in a court of law,
and — of course — steal your FBI files. And let’s not forget Randy
Weaver, either.

Sen. Lott, you and those like you did little to stop this criminal
administration in the past, so what right have you to call for anyone’s
resignation now, if you’re not prepared to step down as well?
Being hypocritical does not a righteous man make.

Lawmakers like you, Sen. Lott, are not guilty by an act of
commission — you are guilty by omission.

And yes, I’ve heard all the GOP arguments as to why they could never
do anything except impeach an easily impeachable president. His
impeachment has meant nothing because he’s still around and still
breaking the law every chance he gets.

Republicans like Lott whine that the GOP “couldn’t get their message
out,” “didn’t have the resources to fight,” and “couldn’t match
Clinton’s political expertise.” This last argument is the worst farce
of all; without a similar “feel” for politics, most of our
“professional” lawmakers would never have been able to stay in
Washington, D.C., for so many years. Besides, are conservatives to
believe that the Republicans couldn’t put their hands on one single
politically creative genius
to counter Clinton’s lying mouth? Are
conservatives to believe that only Democrats, Socialists, Marxist
Leftists and Communists in politics these days have any creative talent
for spinning yarns (or telling the truth in a believable manner)?

If that’s the case, then conservatives are in worse trouble than I

Mr. Lott, you have no business asking Janet Reno to resign — six
years after the Waco incident — if you’re not prepared to take a hike
with her.

And you can take most of your so-called “conservative” Republican
friends with you. They too, are guilty by acts of omission. The
reaction of the Democrats to Waco — now and then — speaks for itself.

FCC helps leftist candidates

In a 4-1 ruling Wednesday, the FCC has again sided with
leftist activists and will now require broadcasters to sell cumbersome
blocks of ad time to political candidates.

Leaders at “People for the American Way” and “Media Access Center” —
both misnomers — have convinced FCC officials that privately owned
radio and television stations aren’t fair when it comes to offering ad
time to politicians.

According to the ruling — yes, ruling (this wasn’t passed
like a law is supposed to be passed) — broadcasters will have to start
offering political candidates odd blocks of time, perhaps 3-, 4-, or
5-minute slots, instead of the traditional 30-second or 60-second

Arrogantly, the FCC claimed that the new rules “would not be overly
burdensome” to broadcasters — as if anyone in the FCC has ever owned,
much less operated, a broadcasting station.

The fact is, these new regulations are going to be burdensome,
because A) politicians usually pay less for ads anyway, so if stations
have to give them more time this represents a potentially huge loss of
revenue; and B) traditional ads (30-second and 60-second) are much
easier to program, thus allowing the station more flexibility to provide
programming. And after all, commercial broadcasters are in their
profession to A) make money, and B) provide content — not political

But hey, as far as the Republicans are concerned, government is no
longer too intrusive or too big. You can tell they believe that because
A) not one single government agency has been eliminated since the GOP
took power in 1994; B) all federal agencies receive more money — not
less — than they did in 1994; and C) they will do nothing to prevent
agencies like the FCC from making their own rules that have the same
force of law as a bill signed into law by the normal process.

The one dissenting FCC commissioner vote, from Harold
Furchtgott-Roth, was the only one that made sense. He said the decision
“elevates federal candidates to a status that is not just on a par with,
but superior to, commercial advertisers.” Duh.

If this decision were not going to help leftists and socialist
Democrats, you can bet these two groups would never have bothered to
file complaints. Obviously freedom of speech means their speech

Clinton wants to buy guns

All you pro-gun control supporters out there hang onto your Communist
Party membership cards: your president wants to spend your money
to (gasp!) buy guns!

Yes, that’s right — Clinton wants to spend taxpayer money to buy
$14 million to be exact.

Actually, it’s a federally subsidized (meaning you’re paying
for it) gun buyback program. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is going to administer the program, and you ought to
hear the HUD director trying to justify this statism.

HUD director Andrew Cuomo, in an interview, said, “While you are
working on reducing the sale of guns to people who shouldn’t have them,
you also have to do something about reducing the number of guns that are
currently in circulation.”

Really? Why, pray tell, is that, Mr. Cuomo? Honest people who
legally own weapons don’t threaten your precious housing projects and
urban toilets; only criminals do. Shouldn’t you be more interested in
offering a thousand bucks to every wanted felon who turns himself in and
promises not to commit any more crimes? That would be about as
effective as this scandalous buyback program.

Furthermore, Cuomo is lying — the Clinton administration is
not actively enforcing current gun laws. Recent studies show that
overall gun prosecutions by the Clintonites are down some 46 percent
since the felon in chief took office. Not only that, what exactly does
a Leftist like Cuomo mean when he says he wants to reduce the “number of
guns to people that shouldn’t have them?” Why didn’t he just say,
“criminals who shouldn’t have them”?

Maybe that’s because leftist socialists like Cuomo and Clinton
believe nobody should own a gun.

This “initiative” falls under the same category as having the FCC
write burdensome regulations for the nation’s broadcasters. Who has
given either Clinton or HUD the authority to do this? Where does this
power come from? What gives any federal agency the right to spend
taxpayer money on politically motivated initiatives? Did Congress
approve this? More importantly, will they step up and stop this?

I doubt it.

But hey — maybe we shouldn’t worry. Maybe the Republicans will hold
a “hearing” and “look into this.” Yeah — that’ll fix those
darned socialists.

I can’t wait.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.