Further information
It looks like Mac believes in evolution (RB 2-12) if my DNA has a new gene. So the FBI only conducts criminal investigations, period? I went to the FBI’s mission statement and present just a few functions below.
From the FBI mission statement (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/organization-mission-and-functions-manual-federal-bureau-investigation)
1. Investigate domestic and international terrorism.
2. Conduct counterintelligence activities …
3. Coordinate protection of US infrastructure.
4. Establish and implement quality outreach programs that will ensure FBI and community partnerships and sharing. (I think that one is nice)
5. Develop new approaches, techniques, systems, equipment and devices to improve and strengthen law enforcement…
6. Operate the FBI lab to provide expert assistance and witnesses for local courts and jurisdictions.
This sounds like a lot more than just criminal investigations. I wonder where he found the FBI man on TV stating differently? This is the latest I have read about the FBI investigation of the e-mails, by Pete Williams of MSNBC:
‘Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”
Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.” ‘
What Benghazi family members said (www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/04/what-benghazi-family-members-say-hillary-clinton-said-about-the-video/): Charles Woods states Clinton said, “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” In the same call in to a radio station he stated she said, “We’re going to go, and we’re going to take care of these people that were responsible for your son’s death.” Tyrone Woods’ mother said Clinton never mentioned the video.
Patrica Smith said that Obama, Biden, Clinton, Panetta etc. told her that the video was the cause. The other family members present (that agreed to be interviewed) were puzzled that those two remember Clinton mentioning the video. None of them recall her doing so.
And where was Obama the night of the Benghazi attack? (askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/question.php?q_id=13). If you don’t believe the three people communicating with him, I don’t know who you would believe. Trey Gowdy? Rush Limbaugh?
And I wonder if Mac actually saw Obama stating that when countries are striving for democracy they hit ‘bumps in the road’ that will cause setbacks. If Mac is saying that this means that Obama and I don’t care about the deaths in Benghazi, then shame on you Mac!
Kevin Bracken, Kelseyville
Definitions
After (still) another set of (presidential?) debates and far too many illustrations of need in “Opinion” letters, I think it is time to set some word definitions.
To start I would suggest “true” (the truth) and “false” (a lie). Too many times the issue of “proof” seems missing in favor of subjective/emotional evaluation. For example, my friend Mac seems to have his own definitions. If he does not like a statement or agree with it, or it comes from a “Dem,” it simply is a “lie.” He balances this with the concept that a “Rep” simply does not lie. Another person with opinions seems to assume any statement that may conflict with his interpretation of his Bible is wrong/a lie. Works for them, but I have troubles!
Being essentially objective, I like the idea of “proof” to substantiate statement validity and one result is that every statement probably is impossible to say is 100 percent true or false. The world exists somewhere along a continuum with 100 percent true at one end and 100 percent false at the other end. So, how much “non-truth” can we accept in a statement that we can work with as “true”? And vice-versa?
To use faith, subjectivity and emotion instead of objective proof is simply wrong no matter how hard it is to live with — particularly so when objective proof is often so hard to establish. To me, the classic conflict between Biblical creationism and Evolution is a good example. There is no way to prove the Old Testament is “wrong” or that the original “life” was not the result of a supernatural whim. On the other hand it doesn’t take a genius to figure that (unlike politics) a simple 51 percent does not determine what is true, or false.
Guff Worth, Lakeport
Opposing thought
One’s every movement or thought is controlled by an opposing movement or thought, a cautionary inhibition that was evidently integrated early in man; for inhibitory neurons have been found at the synapses of the brain. When a thought is communicated, however, the controlling cautionary caveat is not communicated; and the recipient does not, as expected, accept the thought uncritically. Instead, he adopts it as his own in a critical spirit. Missing the controlling opposition, the recipient finds the communication lacks balance and feels a strong impulse to supply it. In this way, fortunately for the human species, a plurality of possible solutions to every critical problem that faces society is evoked.
Dean Sparks, Lucerne
