You cant label something as a fact then proceed to say "I think". (ii) is poorly defended. You set out to outline Chomsky's long and engaging political life just so that you can say that it influenced his linguistic theory. Chomsky himself have said many times that there is no clear correlation between his linguistic work and political activism. This is not new. He has been asked this in a lot of talks.
with this said, there were attempts at bridging the creativity exhibited by linguistic behavior and that of political freedom, such as in his "Language and Freedom" book, but this happen way after he established his theory.
Labeling (ii) as a fact was a bit of joke, but not overtly marked, which may lead to misunderstanding, so you are correct.
My gripe is not against Chomsky, the person, but against Chomsky-ism (although he does have a very aggressive, know-it-all tone when discussing many subjects, that I find at odds with scientific humility). This is common: A pioneer comes up with a new way of thinking, then it is accepted as dogma by the community. Although one may think otherwise, this is also very common in science. Scientific revolutions usually don't happen with paradigm shifts but through the demise of old age of the new theory's opponents.
What's shocking is that a field like linguistics, which some may argue is more scientifically rigorous than its sister humanities disciplines, operated on what, to me, are speculative assumptions for close to 40 years.
with this said, there were attempts at bridging the creativity exhibited by linguistic behavior and that of political freedom, such as in his "Language and Freedom" book, but this happen way after he established his theory.