On Oct. 26, 1985, Mother Teresa addressed the United Nations. Her main point was how important it is that we love one another. One part struck me as I again meditated on this great speech. She offered, "Abortion has become the greatest destroyer of peace. We are afraid of Nuclears because it is touching us but we are not afraid to kill an innocent child - that little unborn child. By destroying the unborn child we are destroying the presence of God. We have destroyed love".

I admit I cannot see how any problem is solved by killing an unborn child. So many solutions are out there for women who have been duped into thinking it is their right to kill. Women's rights advocates seem to accept that all the future women who have been killed are acceptable. Well over 51 million future tax payers, possible cures found for diseases, great minds with solutions for world peace  have been killed in the U.S. alone since Roe/Wade. America has been asleep to the horror just as much Germany was during the holocaust. We have a presidential election coming up. The Democrats are determined to not only continue, but totally entrench abortion rights through Supreme Court appointments. From 1 to 5 appointments will most likely be made during the next President's time in office. Such appointments will rule through most of our lives. We have become so politically correct that we cannot even speak out against abortion, as it might be seen as judgmental. I beg all to consider what Mother Teresa tried so hard to make us understand.

When you go into that voting box do not worry about how Trump can be as president. He has a record of surrounding himself with people who have know how. I honestly believe he will have God's help. Worry more about the vast amount of money taken from our enemies who will expect a repayment. Worry more about the lies and deceptions that got Hillary where she is and what Mother Teresa called the destruction of love and the destroyer of peace through acceptance of selling baby parts and expanding a woman's right to choose. Wake up to just what it is she is choosing and love her through bringing her baby to life.

Sincerely,

Annette Corrigan

Jackson Township

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; the band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light, and somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout; but there is no joy in Mudville --- mighty Comey has struck out.

In the most bewildering of news conferences, the Director of the FBI James Comey expounded at length about Hillary Clinton's mishandling of government top secret documents. Comey described it as “reckless“ and “extremely careless.”

He concluded: “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Turns out there is no lack of “unreasonable” prosecutors.

Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, responded, “It would be unreasonable for a prosecutor not to go forward with it, an almost abdication of duty.”

Giuliani hammered home his point by using Comey's “extremely careless.” He noted that gross negligence as defined in Black's Law Dictionary includes the very words, “extreme carelessness.” So then, according to Comey, Hillary is guilty of “gross negligence,” a felony offense.

“I don't know how he [Comey] is ever going to be able to charge anybody in the CIA or the FBI who is extremely careless with top secret information if he isn't charging Hillary Clinton,” said Giuliani.

Another “unreasonable” prosecutor is James Kallstrom, a 20-year veteran of the FBI the last four of which were as bureau chief. He called Comey's decision “nonsensical.”

“I've talked to about 15 agents,” said Kallstrom. “They are worried about the reputation of the agency they love. It's not Comey's right to sully that reputation.”

Former U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales also took issue with Comey. “To say that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case means that if anyone dare (sic) disagree, you're unreasonable.” Gonzales found that “very troubling.”

To give Hillary a pass on the felony charge of gross negligence, Comey used the straw-man argument. A straw-man is a diversion. It constructs an irrelevant argument that is favorable to his client yet has nothing to do with the real issue.

To wit: Comey said that “intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

The straw-man is that Hillary's intentions have nothing to do with gross negligence; they are irrelevant. To be innocent of an uncharged crime is as immaterial as the price of tea in China.

The statute defining gross negligence does not require criminal intent. Implicit in the word “negligence” is the absence of intent. Hillary is guilty as inadvertently charged by Comey.

Is Hillary also guilty of making top secret documents vulnerable to enemy hacking? Comey said, yes: “It is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.”

WikiLeaks announced that it hacked Hillary's server and had her e-mails. Are we to believe that Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and even ISIS, did not also gain entry to her e-mails?

In fact, according to Bob Gourley, chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2005 to 2008, it already happened. “I have no doubt in my mind that this thing [e-mail server] was penetrated by multiple foreign powers,” said Gourley.

Comey was called before a Congressional Oversight Committee to explain his decision not to recommend prosecution. He cited the statute defining gross negligence. It reads, “a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause . . . grave injury.”

Hillary's decision to use a private, non-secured server may have exposed U.S. foreign counterintelligence agents and the nation, itself, to “grave injury.”

For all of Comey's forthright appearance before the Oversight Committee, many continue to believe he erred badly.

In addition, Comey overlooked Hillary's lies to questions posed by the FBI interrogators---a felony. Comey demanded all her e-mails. In response, Hillary had 33,000 e-mails expertly scrubbed from her hard-drive — a felony. In case you're not keeping count, that's three.

In light of all this, Comey found it unreasonable to recommend prosecution for Hillary.

Does this not present a tableau that reeks of corruption: Bill's “chance” airport meeting with Lynch and their 39-minute private conversation, Hillary's escape from all legal consequences, and Comey's judicial betrayal of the American people, the FBI, and himself?

But it is a Pyrrhic victory for the Clintons. Comey's no indictment recommendation has ignited a firestorm of indignation. Enough is enough. Slick Willie and Crooked Hillary will not skate by on this one.

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA

It may seem like a trivial matter, but it's significant because of the insight it yields on the Right-wing mentality.

Lately a lot of voices on the Right are refusing to use the word "Democratic".  Instead they use only "Democrat".

This seems to have started with Joe McCarthy and it's been revived today.  (Rush Limbaugh is so insistent on not saying "Democratic" that he even referred to the ADA as "Americans for Democrat Action".  That's not their name!)  The producers of the new CBS show "Brain Dead" have noticed this-- it features a character who won't say "Democratic".

Apparently this is supposed to be some sort of insult, but it's hard to see where the insult is.  When "Democrat" refers to a person, then the term is correct.  But when modifying a Party, a policy, etc., the adjective form should be used, as in "Democratic Party", "Democratic policies".  To use the noun form where the adjective is called for is not an insult, it's merely bad grammar.  Instead of insulting Democrats, it's insulting their old elementary school teachers.

This is an immature thing.  And by modeling bad grammar, they're normalizing it among regular people who may not have a snotty intent.  Perhaps the poor lambs find it confusing that the noun form and the adjective form of Republican is the same, while these forms are different for Democrat and Democratic.  Perhaps they resent that Democrats have something they don't:  an extra two-letter syllable.  It can't be that they're just too lazy to utter that.

For a long time they've been busting President Obama's chops for not saying the magic words, "Radical Islamic Terrorism", as if doing so would make it vanish.  Well, they refuse to say "Democratic" and it's just silly and childish.  I challenge them to grow up and make that disappear.

Sincerely,

Stephen Van Eck

Rushville, PA