Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: From their own website:  The 1976 state law establishing the Permanent Fund (AS 37.13), states that the Fund was created:
to provide a means of conserving a portion of the state's revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans
to maintain safety of principal while maximizing total return
to be a savings device managed to allow maximum use of disposable income for purposes designated by law.

I think that's pretty clear insofar as it's purpose.    To conserve for the benefit of all generations of Alaskans.    Using the principal to produce earning to fund government (like Norway did for example) is certainly one way the fund, using a POMV payment model, would provide benefit to all generations of Alaskan's, not just the individuals who happen to live in Alaska for a year, then get a dividend that second year.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: Hmm...I too worked in DOC prior to Department level status when it was still an entity of H&SS under Helen Bierne thru to it's morphing into a Department. It has grown a lot. More staff, more inmates, more institutions. As with any entity that gets large, especially government, "Murphy's Law" at all levels kicks in all the much harder. Kevin Brew and Gerald Tamura commented. These people have "seen this elephant" during long careers and no doubt could speak at length.Time will tell how Dean Williams as Commissioner will work out. But one word of caution to him: Don't be the type of Commissioner that places the staff in the position of becoming more concerned of the "figurative knife" in the back from administration rather than being able to concentrate on their job. It has happened all too often.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: If you think Trump isn't going to turn around and blow smoke up your ass the moment he's elected, you're being played.
Example Output:
Yes