Did Janet Reno really say that?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

A friend sent my this (quote?) from janet Reno, supposedly made during an interview on "60 minutes". Can anyone verify this?

Subject: > Fwd: Definition of "Cultist" per J. Reno > Date: > Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:58:44 EST A Cultist is...from the mouth of Janet Reno: > > "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 these may qualify a person as a cultist but certainly more than one > of these would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family > as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." > > Janet Reno, Attny. Gen., US of A > Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994 > > Do you qualify? Are you (as defined by the US Attorney General) a threat? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Roberta Blackard (roblackard@juno.com), November 01, 1998



I was quite alarmed when I read your above quote. So I did a little research and came up with the following . . .

NEW HOAX STILL MAKING THE ROUNDS. We frequently find our Does God Exist? work having to be a debunking exercise because of the number of wild claims and meaningless charges that people make in the name of religion. Over the years, we have had people hitting hell in Siberia, Noah's Ark being found on modern Mt. Ararat, human footprints with dinosaur tracks, and days missing from the NASA space probes. Now a report is circulating that Attorney General Janet Reno declared Bible-believing Christians to be cults on 60 minutes. This claim was made over a year ago and seems to be expanding and growing. Reno has never been on 60 minutes, and the claim is totally false. Just as Madalyn O'Hair never had a suit to take all religious programming off TV and radio, Reno never appeared on 60 minutes or made a statement like the one attributed to her. We do not support any political party or organization in this periodical, but it does seem that some very irresponsible reporting is being done in an attempt to indict politicians from both political parties in the United States. Be sure to check out any claim about anyone because most of the time we find that the claims being made are not correct.

--Pulpit Helps, July, 1995, page 22

-- Louise (~~~~~@~~~~.~~~), November 01, 1998.

I have heard of/seen that same quote, but not from any source attributed to 60 Minutes. Rather from a different source - I think a speech given at Washington DNC-raiser: which would make the anti-Christian, anti-home school prejudice "politically correct" and quite popular - in front of that audience.

I will ask around, don't know what I will find.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 01, 1998.

Another rumor that went around forever was one where the President of Proctor and Gamble was on Oprah (or some such talk show) and said he was giving all of his profits to the "Church of Satan." Never happened. They finally found the couple who had started the rumor- seems they sold Amway or Shaklee, can't remember. Anyway, the rumor kept going (may still be going?)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), November 01, 1998.

Check out this link:


It has a description on many of the current hoaxes circulating - including the Janet Reno Hoax.

-- Louise (~~~~~@~~~~.~~~), November 01, 1998.

A special branch of the Illuminati circulates these rumors regularly to keep the public level of disinformation high enough to continue perpetrating their hoax.

-- a (a@a.a), November 01, 1998.

To see our attorney general, along with rep. shumer (d) New York deny justice to the murdered children at Waco, get the film"Waco: The Rules of Engagement. This shumer is the same one running against Senator D'Amato. God help us.

-- type r (sortapreparin@polly.anna), November 01, 1998.

Hmm, the Waco problem began while Bush was still president, the operation was planned with Bush guiding the planners, Clinton is sworn in and a couple days later appoints Reno. Her second day as boss, they lay this prepared plan on her desk and tell her they were told to wait till she took over so it would not look like they were trying to get 'around' Clinton. She looks it over and these seasoned agents pressure her into saying OK. They go in and it is a mess.

Yep, yep, you are right, Reno is totally at fault and no one else. Guess you are right, she tossed off that plan in two days, and the agents who testified that Bush was involved were all liars. They were probably part of the Democratic plot to make it look like Waco started on Bush's watch. Everyone knows Clinton really took over in November and Bush just wimped out. Everyone knows Waco was a Clinton appointee thing - Limbaugh has said so and that makes it true!

BTW, I have some real good land in KY to sell you - just right to plan a Y2K getaway. Course its a little wet whenever it rains and the creek floods, but you won't mind that will ya.

Look, I don't care whether or not anyone buys the lies either party tells about the other party. But this one stinks to anyone with the will to read a calendar, look up a couple of dates and listen to what has been made public without paying attention to the spin. I cannot imagine Herbert Hoover ever letting such a thing go for a week, much less a couple of months - and if children were killed when his agents went in he would have said 'too bad innocents were murdered by their insane parents' and dropped the matter.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 01, 1998.

Regarding the original post by Roberta, it appears this falls into the genre of 'urban legend' (i.e. a myth). This is really fascinating stuff. There is a excellent series of books by Jan Harold Brunvand which explores hundreds of these stories and their origins.

Among his books:

I became interested in urban legends many years ago after receiving an email containing "Mrs. Fields's Cookie Recipe". This was in the days long before 'the web' and newsgroups where the way everybody 'chatted' on the net. The newsgroup "alt.folklore.urban" has long addressed these isssues and it remains today one of the more interesting newsgroups on the Internet. There is also a sister web site at http://www.urbanlegends.com

Some of these urban legends have been around a long time, evolving as they are reiterated. For example, I discovered that the "Mrs. Fields Cookie Recipe" was not only a myth but was originally circulated in the late '50s as the "Waldorf Astoria Red Velvet Cake Recipe" Studying these urban legends is a great recreational activity and you'll learn how to recognize one the next time you see it. Search for the term "FOAF" (friend of a friend - a hallmark of an urban legend).

This certainly applies to Y2K - a topic that is absolutely ripe for the creation of similar stories. That's why it is especially important here to be able to document sources and question both credibility and motives -- we all want avoid taking the wrong action based on 'Y2K legends' (e.g. "Someone my uncle's friend knows who works in the military has a brother in the power industry who told him that all the nuke plants would meltdown just after midnight and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it...") See what I mean? This is not the kind of information you want to be making important decisions with.


-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), November 02, 1998.

Paul, Somehow I think you may mean J. Edgar, and not Herbert. Herby has enough on his resume that we don't need to increase it here.


-- Chuck, da Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 02, 1998.

The most important question remains: is Janet Reno is the right man for the job?

-- Max Dixon (Ogden, Utah USA) (Max.Dixon@gte.net), November 02, 1998.

Paul,It looks like I hit a nerve.I'm kind of unsure what your talking about but, it seems you think Bush is a wimp, reno is a victim, Both parties lie, Herbert Hoover is another heartless monster,a calendar and the 6 o'clock news will straighten it all out,the atf and the fbi made a mess, and you are a dishonest real estate agent. You apparently did not see the film I mentioned. When seeing the film, it becomes clear that the children were murdered, and not by the parents or people inside the building. There's more to this tragedy than what we saw on the news. I didn't state anything about who started the investigation. My point was; reno and shumer know the children were murdered. Anyone who sees the evidence knows it.If you see the film, you will know it. reno and shumer dropped the ball and denied those children justice by not prosecuting the perpetrators. BTW, Rush Limbaugh is a dickhead.

-- Type r (Sortaplanin@polly.anna), November 02, 1998.

Type r - yes you did hit a nerve. It is so easy for anyone to doctor a film these days that trusting one that has been prepared by anyone with an agenda is equivalent to saying you will trust anyone who says something you are predisposed to agree with. There are a great many people who have anti administration agendas - right to lifers - NRA members - 'land grant to users' ranchers - shucks make up your own list - it is practically endless. Now I am not a Clinton supporter, but I don't want to support junk arguements either. So which group arranged for making the film you are citing? This particular cause seems to have been taken up by several militia groups and by some isolationist churches. Do you trust them more than the members of congress and the Justice Dept.? If you do - then there is still one more question you have to answer - what possible motive could the govt. have had for killing a bunch of children? Now please - it was known already that members of the Waco group were in custody elsewhere - so it can't possibly have been to kill them all - that was already impossible. So please give me a logical reason that would have been compelling enough to cause sworn law officers to commit murder in cold blood, OK! And while you are at it, explain why these guys are still around - after all a book about this would sell 10,000,000 copies, make the guy rich, and guarentee him immunity when he blew the whistle on Reno and the rest of the JD. And it just takes one to blow the whistle. The only safe way would be to put them all away - hmm they seem to show up on tv for Waco remembrances every so often - the JD must be slipping.

Sorry Tr, but I really think you have been taken in.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 02, 1998.

>>So please give me a logical reason that would have been compelling enough to cause sworn law officers to commit murder in cold blood, OK!<<

Mr. Davis,

You're assuming that these "sworn law officers" knew any more about the real situation than you do....

Question: What was the original "official" reason for raiding the Waco compound? Question: If your goal is to rescue "abused children", why would you shoot blindly into the building where those children are housed? Question: How do you serve a "knock" warrant? Question: Do you know what adult doses of tear gas can do to children? Question: Are you aware that no automatic weapons were found in the rubble after the fire burned out? Question: Do you know WHY no automatic weapons were found?

Just for starters....

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), November 03, 1998.

W/O the film "footage", the verbal questions,answers, and evidence presented make a compelling arguement.What we have here at this moment are words on a screen, Thats why it's important to see the film.As one of the lawyers for the Davidians stated, when did this country start punishing children for their parents misdeeds? He was refering to the psycological warfare practiced for 2 mos.and subsequent attack by the forces outside. See the film.

-- type r (sortapreparin@polly.anna), November 03, 1998.

Thank you, Type r and Elbow Grease.

I, too, encourage everyone to see the film. Look into it with an open mind; that's all it really takes, to see what happened.

Waco, like the Oklahoma Bombing, was -is- a huge cover-up.

Paul: for "'junk' argument" you might as well say "poo-poo think," or some similar meaningless, ad hominem attack. Address the evidence.

What motive could the government have to infringe upon our liberties, to set a precedent for military/police cooperation (violation of the posse comitatus law), and generally broadcast the message that they have the right to burn people out of their homes at will? Read your history. It's like asking what motive the ocean has to wear down the shore. It's what governments DO, when they are not restrained by documents like the constitution and the bill of rights, backed up by a willingness on the part of the populace to defend these rights unto death.

The above, what used to be American History 101, is now "extremism" - that fact alone should tell us that something is terribly, terribly wrong here.


-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), November 03, 1998.

Maybe it was a large govt conspiracy, and maybe it wasn't. But we do have agencies which are run by people. People do have agendas, egos, and some will go to extremes to promote their cause. These elements are all that's neede to violate other peoples rights. The people inside Waco had their rights violated, but not exactly as planned by the law enforcement agencies involved. The agencies didn't expect such fierce resistance. The Davidians were within their rights to defend their property, as was proven in court later on. None of the survivors were convicted of any crime. -----The agents in charge could not leave, and they could not back down...But they also were not getting the job done. We saw on tv a small part of what happened on that last day. We didn't get to see what was going on around the the back of the building.And we didn't get to see the atf raise it's flag on the flag pole out front.(Where the Texas state flag was, until the fire burnt it off.) Who did the dirty business around back? We all have a right to know.

-- type r (sortapreparin@polly.anna), November 03, 1998.

Consider the taunts made by FBI agents to the children still the Ruby Ridge cabin: Several days after their mother was shot by an agent/sniper the other agents were yelled down: "Hungry? Ask your mother to make you breakfast."

Weeks of indoctrination outside a site can twist the attitude of even the most honst of those who defend our liberties. It is why I don't fear the military or National Guard - they and their leaders have NOT been indoctrinated into harming civilians. The opposite in fact - they are trained to minimize civilian deaths, and are conditioned to avoid civilan death. The whole military conditioning is to fight an organzied army who will fight back according to certain "rules" - if our military has a flaw - ther than bureacracies - its that we will fight according to the rules, even when others break them.

BUT - the semi-military arms of the "police" state now being hired ( Clinton's reduced the military infantry by over 200,000 troops, but hired and armed over 80,000 federal "policemen" in the FBI, ATF, Forest Service, INS, and several dozens of other agencies. Its these who I fear - they have been conditioned to attack "criminals" - who used to be _civilians_ until "somebody" declares them _suspects_.

Once you are labelled a _criminal_ you ARE the target. And these "state police" are conditioned and trained to attack and take out the target (_you_). Add in a "fear-factor" by propagandizing th esurvialist mentality and the fear-factor (designed to increase their fear of you) by implicating _you_ in the Y2K survialist groups with the "underground" militia movement (some of whom are armed, got to get enough truth in there so it fits) and you have created the attitude mentioned above.

The agents are now trained, armed (and by their military style arms and Special-warfare-spec ops-SWAT team paraphenalia and uniforms) and conditioned mentally to attack and fear you. This (by Reno's attacking adn investigating the Y2K groups the way she is) is the slippery way that Ruby Ridge was begun. And it ended with the chief agents responsible for these murders being promoted.

The other agents will get the message - kill survialists, kill domestic terrorists, attack fundementalist groups -> get promoted, get rewarded.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 03, 1998.

It turns out the "cultist" speech is bogus. Very, very bogus. Here are some websites talking about it:







Thanks, Ryan Thompson

-- Ryan Thompson (ragemanchoo@hotmail.com), December 26, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ