You’re right about one thing, Zano, the immigration issue is far more involved, philosophically and historically, than our political pundits or parties tend to comment. Traditionally it was assumed and required that all legal immigrants would assimilate into our nation by truly identifying as Americans while leaving behind the racial and ethnic past. Through the assimilation of our language, traditions, laws, customs, and culture, the Irish Americans freely chose to become an American of Irish descent. That’s the difference with today’s approach to immigration, and thereby the problem.
Trump mocked the Dems as they hurled anything and everything at the supreme court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, dart board. No surprise, Zano is sticking by the liberal lies. If it wasn’t the Democratic Party, then who was it that lied to the public about Kavanaugh being a serial gang-rapist? I’m following the evidence, Zano. During prosecutor Rachel Mitchell’s closing segment, she asked, “I’ve been really impressed today because you’ve talked about norepinephrine and cortisol effects of trauma. Have you also educated yourself on the best way to get to memory and truth in terms of interviewing victims of trauma?” Dr. Ford answered, “No.” Mitchell said, “Would you believe me if I told you that there’s no study that says that this setting [the hearing] …is the best way to do that?”
- Politicization of the Justice Department. The Dems are ever more eager to use the courts, IRS, DOJ, FBI, and the CIA to defend their interests and attack their political adversaries to serve their political ends. As the evidence of corruption, strategic leaks, lies, and crimes mounts. I’ve heard no Democrat speaking out (and very few news sites reporting) about the political abuses of McCabe, Bruce and Ellies Ohr, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and others. Many Democrats have come to the defense of these people and their illegal “resistance” to the Trump presidency. Many of us who oppose the Democratic Party realize that justice must not be allowed to be a political issue.
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.