In your last article you wrongly claim that I failed to answer the question about Comey throwing the election. Now, will you acknowledge I did answer the question using James Comey’s own words? He thought the appearance of bias would delegitimize Clinton’s presidency. The motivation for a person to appear unbiased is usually rooted in bias. If Comey thought Trump would have had a chance in the election, he probably would not have done it. He acknowledges that himself and we can see by Comey’s actions since Trump was elected president that he took actions solely for the purpose of derailing the Trump presidency.
Fine, political bias from our intelligence community probably started earlier than that with John Brennan and James Clapper (under the direction of then President Obama). I have already cited many irregularities on Comey’s part, but let’s stay focused like a laser beam on Comey’s misinterpretation of the law regarding intent: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues INTENDED to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were EXTREMELY CARELESS in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information.” Nowhere in 18 U.S.C 793 (f) of the Espionage Act which governs “grossly negligent” handling of classified information does it state that a defendant must have intended to break the law in order to be charge or found guilty.
There Zano goes again, ranting about everything except the evidence. He never challenges a fact, context, or inference that I’ve made on any subject. Zano characterizes my perspective as another “fictional scandal” since Republican investigations never (not once ever) find anything of relevance. Of course, Zano’s definition of relevance precludes facts that counter his position. Zano changes the subject to Bush’s illegal War, and then, presenting no evidence, he accuse Trump of “rampant”, not merely ordinary run of the mill authoritarianism. Then Zano goes on to praise my timeline as proving his own point, if he actually has any.
This is in response to Zano’s last political brain fart. When I speak of “objective facts” it is in the context of how a narrative is developed. Coincidently, the purpose of my argument is not to necessarily establish the truth or falseness of a particular narrative, but to establish the “where, why, and how” the narrative was created. Some narratives are built upon the accumulation of facts, while other narratives are first created (independent of fact) and then facts are sought to support the already accepted narrative. I believe the main media covered scandal: Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election is an attempt to support an accepted narrative. Meanwhile, Officials in the FBI and DOJ used their positions to shield Hillary Clinton from indictment is a scandal based on objective facts. After the election these same officials used their positions to delegitimize the Trump presidency.
George Orwell once said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” And Orwell’s nose was much smaller than yours, Zano. Let’s start with the objective facts driving the ‘FBI-wrongdoing’ narrative, as opposed to whatever you’ve been doing. My friend Mick tends to seek facts to support his assumptions, and then he goes on a weekly diatribe that makes Trump’s latest Fox & Friends interview sound like a Dalai Lama tweet.
Every time a political debate ensues, Mick Zano immediately breaks it down to a D vs R dichotomy. There he goes again, “Republicans are nothing but [insert derogatory adjective followed by pithy comment here].” He feels the GOP has become such a mess he wants to move beyond his usual array of insults to outright ignoring them. These bouts of avoidance should only be interrupted for some rotten vegetable lobbing. Bravo, Zano, Bravo. What if I told you both parties are flip sides of the same coin? Or, in this case, a wooden nickel.
Someone needs to put Zano back in his place and that someone is me! He’s starting to get a little too smug in his old age and sometimes he needs reminded he’s not a Jedi yet. This is a rebuttal of sorts to his feature: A Review Of Ken Wilber’s ‘Trump And A Post-Truth World’: Or, How I Stopped Evolving And Learned To Love The Trump. First off, Wilber is correct in his assessment of the problem. Post-modernism has promoted an individualistic pluralism that assumes that all values are self-constructed and relative; therefore the only true value is tolerance. But there is no way to come to a consensus on any given disputed moral issue. Every individual is free to do whatever they want so long as they stay clear of the legal restraints. The problem? A nation without virtue, rots from within. Also, a blog without merit sews only Discord. Snap. For a crash course in virtue-rot I refer to Exhibit A: Mick Zano’s undergraduate studies. Kidding, Zano (sort of).
Zano’s recent reflections on our decade-plus debate showed some rare insights. What next, funny jokes? The causes of our nation’s polarization are many, but there’s more than meets the eye when it comes to our political divisions. I’ve recently come to the conclusion the ultra-powerful people in the world do prosper by keeping our nation divided. They do this by keeping us all focused on superficial controversies meant as a distraction from the deeper, more ominous issues threatening our sovereignty. I’ve come to believe there are international bankers who have infiltrated, compromised, and ultimately control both parties as well as every corner of the political landscape. Yes, I’m going to go a tad Rothschild/Illuminati here. Not too much, though, just a teaspoon PRN. But isn’t this the lesson from the 2004 presidential campaign? If you recall both John Kerry (D) and George W. Bush (R) had both been bum-fuck initiated into the same secret society, Skull and Bones, at Yale University. Doesn’t Skull and Bones imply piracy? Maybe there isn’t so much separating Democrats v Republicans, but the fallout does allow these international pirates to claim their booty and threaten our national sovereignty. Please don’t add a booty joke, Zano …I’m asking nicely.