Saturday, February 17, 2018

No, It’s Not Cowardly to Be Conservative on Gun Rights

No, It’s Not Cowardly to Be Conservative on Gun Rights
Defending the Second Amendment takes courage, gun-control advocates’ claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
By David French 

Journalists Were Co-Conspirators in the Trump-Russia Collusion Hoax

RUSH: Something else, that if the shooting hadn’t happened today, that I would have led with today. There’s a great piece at The Federalist today by Lee Smith. I’ve got some pull quotes from it. But the primary point of his piece is, why isn’t the media covering the exculpatory things that have been uncovered about the Steele dossier and Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia? Why aren’t they reporting it? Why aren’t they reporting that it was Hillary Clinton opposition research? Everybody thinks they’re not reporting it because it’s liberal bias.
In Smith’s view, that’s not the reason. It’s something far worse. Everything that we have learned, that Steele has been lying to the FBI and talking to the media, that Steele never went to Russia to talk to his sources, that FBI never talked to Steele’s sources, that this dossier was nothing more than a political opposition document paid for by Hillary Clinton with a couple of cutouts, the mainstream media is not reporting it, as I’ve pointed out over and over again.
People that watch CNN, MSNBC, read the New York Times, Washington Post do not know what I’m talking about here because they have never heard this. Why? Lee Smith’s opinion is not that it’s bias. It is that the media was used to further this conspiracy, that the media conspired with Hillary, the media conspired with the FBI, the media conspired with the intelligence community to report and push this fake news. And he cites evidence. It’s a long piece. We will link to it at so you can read it quickly yourself.
But it’s right on the money. The reason the media can’t report this is because they made it all happen. They were coconspirators in the effort to bring down Trump. They were not innocent bystanders simply reporting what was leaked to them. Now, you might think, “Rush, we’ve known this all along.” Making myself perhaps not as clear as I should. It’s not that they were happy to accept leaks and publish the leaks. It is that they were actually conspiring with the Clinton campaign, the DOJ, under Obama and the FBI to run lies, to publish lies.
And he names the names of prominent journalists at the Washington Post, the New York Times, and who did this, and he cites the examples of their stories and the headlines. He says they were willing participants. They were active co-conspirators, and, as such, they can’t report on this because it would require them to report on their role in it.
RUSH: There’s a piece posted today at the website The Federalist and it’s by Lee Smith, who writes primarily at a website called Tablet. And he has a…
I mean, the piece is comprehensive as it can be. It’s entitled, “The Media Stopped Reporting The Russia Collusion Story Because They Helped Create It.” I’ll just share with you some salient paragraphs here to whet your appetite about this. There is a theory that’s been bandied about that one of the reasons journalism is in such trouble is the internet, and the internet has led to the rise of a bunch of young, inexperienced journalists — bloggers and so forth — who simply haven’t lived long enough.
They don’t have enough life experience, historical experience to bring a full-fledged context to any story and that they have blown it up and have caused major problems in the image and perception of journalism at large. Near the end of this piece, Lee Smith writes, “This Isn’t the 27-Year-Olds’ Fault. I’ve argued over the last year that the phony collusion narrative,” Trump colluding with Putin to steal the election, “is a symptom of the structural problems with the press.
“The rise of the Internet, then social media, and gross corporate mismanagement damaged traditional media institutions. As newspapers and magazines around the country went bankrupt when ownership couldn’t figure out how to make money off the new digital advertising model, an entire generation of journalistic experience, expertise, and ethics was lost. It was replaced, as one Obama White House official famously explained, by 27-year-olds who ‘literally know nothing.'”
“But,” according to Lee Smith, “the first vehicles of the Russiagate campaign were not bloggers or recent [graduates of journalism school] lacking wisdom or guidance…” They’re not the problem here. The problem is “journalists at the top of their profession — editors-in-chief, columnists, specialists in precisely the subjects that the dossier alleges to treat: foreign policy and national security. They didn’t get fooled” by anybody or anything. “They volunteered…” This is key. “They volunteered their reputations to perpetrate a hoax on the American public.”
I’m so happy to see somebody else use the word “hoax” to describe this!
He goes on to say that that the media, gigantic media figures — New York Times, Washington Post — colluded with Steele, colluded with Hillary. They conspired. They created this false narrative. They created the hoax. The media joined at the hip with Hillary and Steele and the DOJ and the FBI and the intelligence community. “That’s why, after a year of thousands of furious allegations, all of which concerning Trump are unsubstantiated, the press will not report the real scandal, in which it plays a leading role.
“When the reckoning comes, Russiagate is likely to be seen not as a symptom of the collapse of the American press, but as one of the causes for it.” Well, that’s the conclusion. What comes before is examples, excerpts, documentation of the press — and he names the names — who actually conspired to push a hoax, a story that they knew was not true, all for the express purpose of getting Donald Trump. That’s why they can’t report on the story now. They can’t report on how it’s blowing up, because they are the reason.
Another excerpt: “Now Russiagate was no longer part of a political campaign directed at Trump, it was a disinformation operation pointed at the American public,” and this is the real point here. The hoax has been on the American public. Now Russiagate was no longer part of a political campaign directed at Trump, it was a disinformation operation pointed at the American public, as the pre-election media offensive resonated more fully with the dossier now in the open.
“You see, said the press: everything we published about Trump and Putin is really true — there’s a document proving it,” the dossier. “What the press corps neglected to add is that they’d been reporting talking points from the same opposition research since before the election, and were now showcasing ‘evidence’ to prove it was all true,” and they were cycling BS. “The reason the media will not report on the scandal now unfolding before the country … is not because the press is partisan.
“No, it is because the press has played an active role in the Trump-Russia collusion story since its inception. It helped birth it.” Now, you might say, “Rush, that’s no big deal. We all knew that.” Yeah. Okay. Some of us might have suspected. I mean, we knew what the media was up to. But this piece accuses actual collusion, not a bunch of like-minded people on the sidelines who happened to simply report what the Clintons wanted to report because they were on the same wavelength.
This was active, participatory conspiring to knowingly lie to the American people before the election and after.

Friday, February 16, 2018

Nets Push Fake News Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill to Buy Guns

Nets Push Fake News Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill to Buy Guns

By Nicholas Fondacaro 

Fresh off their disinformation campaign in the immediate aftermath of the Parkland, Florida school shooting in which they falsely claimed there had been 18 school shootings this year, the three major network news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) moved on to another fake news topic they wanted to push on the American people: President Trump and the GOP made it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns.
The accusation that a bill designed to remove restrictions and allow the mentally ill to purchase guns was passed by the GOP and signed by President Trump had long been debunked. As the National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke wrote over a year ago, what got removed was “in layman’s terms: The rule would have allowed bureaucrats within one of our federal agencies to bar American citizens from exercising a constitutional right — and on the highly questionable grounds that to be incapable of managing one’s finances is, by definition, to be a ‘mental defective.’”
And the bill wasn’t even supported by the NRA. But it was supported by the liberal ACLU and the American Association of People with Disabilities. Yet that didn’t stop the networks from pushing lies and being appalled that the President wasn’t exploiting the situation to push gun control as their previous president did.
The President's efforts to comfort the nation tonight striking for what he didn't say,” chided White House Correspondent Peter Alexander during NBC Nightly News. “President Trump in a nearly seven-minute statement not once mentioning the word ‘Guns.’ Instead, again signaling his focus is on the mental health of shooters, not the weapons they use.” He then spewed a torrent of fake news:

Despite emphasizing mental health, the White House's newly unveiled budget would slash funding for Medicaid that covers a quarter of mental health care in the U.S. And President Trump last year revoked a hotly contested Obama-era regulation that would have made it harder for some people with mental illness to buy guns.
That lamenting for the lack of a gun control push was echoed on CBS Evening News when anchor Jeff Glor bemoaned that “President Trump did not mention gun laws when he addressed the nation today about the shooting.”
Well, Jeff, the President didn't have a lot to say today about what he actually plans to do about school shootings,” CBS’s Chip Reid whined to Glor. “But just last year, the President signed legislation reversing an Obama-era regulation that would have made it more difficult for some people with mental illness to buy guns,” Reid continued.
The report by ABC’s Senior White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega during World News Tonight was particularly vindictive. “Calling the shooter mentally disturbed, his message was clear … But shortly after taking office, President Trump blocked an Obama-era rule that made it tougher for the mentally ill to obtain guns,” she claimed.
But Vega’s lie appeared to be inadvertently exposed when Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas was describing how the shooter obtained his rifle. “Federal law bans anyone deemed by authorities as mentally ill from buying guns, but it's unclear whether any court or commission designated Cruz as mentally unfit. So, it appears he fell through the cracks,” he explained. So, is it easy for the mentally ill to buy guns or are they banned? ABC doesn’t seem to know, judging by their own reporting.
It should be noted that all three of the networks backed off and didn’t repeat the bogus claim about there being 18 school shootings since the start of the year. BUT, all of them left it out there and didn’t correct their reporting from the previous night.
The relevant portions of the transcripts are below, click expand to read:

Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)

Sharyl Attkisson Explains the Origins of the 2016 'Fake News' Narrative in TedX Talk

In a Tedx Talk at the University of Nevada a couple of weeks ago, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson revealed the origins of the "fake news" narrative that was aggressively pushed by the liberal media and Democrat politicians during the 2016 election, and how it was later flipped by President Donald Trump.
Attkisson pointed out that "fake news" in the form of tabloid journalism and false media narratives has always been around under different names.
But she noticed in 2016, there seemed to be a concerted effort by the MSM to focus America's attention on the idea of "fake news" in conservative media. That looked like a propaganda effort to Attkisson, so she did a little digging and traced the new spin to a little non-profit called "First Draft," which, she said, "appears to be the about the first to use 'fake news' in its modern context."
"On September 13, 2016, First Draft announced a partnership to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports," Attkisson explained. "The goal was supposedly to separate wheat from chaff, to prevent unproven conspiracy talk from figuring prominently in internet searches. To relegate today's version of the alien baby stories to a special internet oblivion."
She noted that a month later, then-President Obama chimed in.
"He insisted in a speech that he too thought somebody needed to step in and curate information of this wild, wild West media environment," she said, pointing out that "nobody in the public had been clamoring for any such thing."
Yet suddenly the subject of fake news was dominating headlines all over America as if the media had received "its marching orders," she recounted. "Fake news, they said, was an imminent threat to American democracy."
Attkisson, who has studied the manipulative moneyed interests behind media industry, said, "few themes arise in our environment organically." She noted that she always found it helpful to "follow the money."
"What if the whole anti-fake news campaign was an effort on somebody's part to keep us from seeing or believing certain websites and stories by controversializing them or labeling them as fake news?" Attkisson posited.
Digging deeper, she discovered that Google was one of the big donors behind First Draft's "fake news" messaging. Google's parent company, she pointed out, is owned by Eric Schmidt, who happened to be a huge Hillary Clinton supporter.
Schmidt "offered himself up as a campaign adviser and became a top multi-million donor to it. His company funded First Draft around the start of the election cycle," Attkisson said. "Not surprisingly, Hillary was soon to jump aboard the anti-fake news train and her surrogate David Brock of Media Matters privately told donors he was the one who convinced Facebook to join the effort."
Attkisson declared that "the whole thing smacked of the roll-out of a propaganda campaign," she said. Attkisson added, "But something happened that nobody expected. The anti-fake news campaign backfired. Each time advocates cried fake news, Donald Trump called them 'fake news' until he'd co-opted the term so completely that even those who [were] originally promoting it started running from it -- including the Washington Post," which she noted later backed away from using the term.
Attkisson called Trump's accomplishment a "hostile takeover" of the term and cautioned people to always be wary of "powerful interests might be trying to manipulate" their opinions.
She described two warning signs to look out for.
  1. When the media tries to shape or censor facts and opinions rather than report them.
  2.  When so many in the media are reporting the same stories, promulgating the same narratives, relying on the same sources -- even using the same phrases.
Attkisson pointed out that there's an infinite number of ways to report stories, so "when everybody's on the same page, it might be part of an organized campaign."
She warned the audience about the latest effort to quell speech through something called "media literacy," where liberal elites tell everyone else who they should trust. She said, "Media literacy advocates are busy trying to get state laws passed to require that their version of media literacy be taught public schools."
What's more, they're developing websites and partnering with universities. She warned that these people have their own agendas and want to tell you what to believe.
"When interests are working this hard to shape your opinion, their true goal just might just be to add another layer between you and the truth," Attkisson concluded.

Why does replacing food stamps with food so anger liberals?

Why does replacing food stamps with food so anger liberals?

President Trump has proposed replacing some food stamp grants withactual food.  This has curiously enraged liberals, who you would think would be delighted to see "hungry" people getting food.
The Trump administration is proposing a major shake-up in one of the country's most important "safety net" programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.  Under the proposal, most SNAP recipients would lose much of their ability to choose the food they buy with their SNAP benefits.
But if you like your supermarket, you can keep your supermarket, right?
Under the proposal, which was announced Monday, low-income Americans who receive at least $90 a month – just over 80 percent of all SNAP recipients – would get about half of their benefits in the form of a "USDA Foods package."  The package was described in the budget as consisting of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans[,] and canned fruit and vegetables." 
Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, a hunger advocacy group that also helps clients access food-assistance services, said the administration's plan left him baffled.  "They have managed to propose nearly the impossible, taking over $200 billion worth of food from low-income Americans while increasing bureaucracy and reducing choices," Berg says.
 Do you think before today that this poverty pimp has ever been concerned about the bureaucracy of any government program?
He says SNAP is efficient because it is a "free market model" that lets recipients shop at stores for their benefits.  The Trump administration's proposal, he said, "is a far more intrusive, Big Government answer.  They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?"
Extolling the free market.  Condemning big government.  Criticizing D.C. bureaucrats.  Hey, Trump finally accomplished something!  He's gotten liberals to talk like conservatives!
Douglas Greenaway, president of the National WIC Association, echoed that sentiment.  "Removing choice from SNAP flies in the face of encouraging personal responsibility," he said.  He says "the budget seems to assume that participating in SNAP is a character flaw."
He's right: participating in SNAP is a character flaw.  No one should be on SNAP for years.  Get a job!  As for removing choice discouraging personal responsibility, just the opposite.  If you want a choice of what food to buy, get a job!
Critics of the proposal said distributing that much food presents a logistical nightmare.  "Among the problems, it's going to be costly and take money out of the [SNAP] program from the administrative side.  It's going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.
And people aren't stigmatized using EBT cards in supermarkets?  They wave them around like Visa Platinum cards!
Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, called the proposal "radical and risky." 
"Marriage" between two men or two women.  Boys in girls' bathrooms.  Gutting the military.  Obamacare.  Leaving our borders unprotected.  None of these is "radical and risky."  But giving food to poor people instead of money – that's "radical and risky."
It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside.  "It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid.
I can see it now: police, responding to reports of a strange smell, enter a home to find an entire family starved to death, surrounded by dozens of boxes of unopened macaroni.  If only the instructions had contained pictograms!
If people are too dumb to cook a box of noodles, why are they voting?  Or is voting easier than cooking a box of noodles when the Democrats tell you what to do?
The startling thing about this entire discussion is that liberals are outraged that people on food stamps are being deprived of choice.  Liberals didn't care about depriving people of choice when it came to Obamacare, or gun control, or raising taxes.  They didn't care even when Michelle Obama, the cultural tsarina in charge of food tastes, tried to tell our kids what they should be eating in school.
Why such a different attitude when it comes to food stamps?
Occam's Razor states that the simplest answer is also most likely the correct one.  The simplest answer is that liberals don't care about feeding the poor.  SNAP and a hundred programs just like it are all about income redistribution, not feeding the hungry.  Any limits on transferring cash from taxpayers to those on welfare interferes with liberals' social engineering schemes.
Exit question: If you were President Trump's adviser on food policy, what foods would you advise him to distribute to people on welfare?

Thursday, February 15, 2018



Scott wrote this morning about the extraordinary email that National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote to herself at 12:15 on January 20, 2017, within minutes of when President Trump was inaugurated. It must have been her last act, more or less, before she vacated the White House. So obviously the email was important to her. But why would it be important to send an email to herself (the only person copied was one of her aides)?
If you read the email, which Scott posted along with Senator Grassley’s letter to Rice, it is obvious that it is a CYA memo. But the question is, whose A is being C’d?
Most attention, so far, has focused on the first two paragraphs of the email, which describe a meeting that occurred around two weeks earlier. The participants included Barack Obama, Joe Biden, James Comey, Sally Yates–who turns up like a bad penny whenever skulduggery is afoot–and Rice:
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”. The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
This is pure boilerplate. It represents, obviously, the company line. But Rice did not write her email to cover Barack Obama’s rear end. If she or anyone else had wanted to document the claim that Obama said to proceed “by the book,” the appropriate course would have been an official memo that copied others who were present and would have gone into the file. (My guess is that such a memo was written, but we haven’t seen it.) In my opinion, the important part of the email is not the paragraph that purports to exonerate Obama, but the paragraphs that follow:
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
The next paragraph of the email remains classified and has been redacted. The email concludes:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
Why did Susan Rice send herself an email purporting to document this part of the meeting? Because she was C’ing her own A. Rice was nervous about the fact that, at the president’s direction, she had failed to “share information fully as it relates to Russia” with President Trump’s incoming national security team. This violated longstanding American tradition. Outgoing administrations have always cooperated in the transition to a new administration, whether of the same or the opposing party, especially on matters relating to national security.
Susan Rice is far from the brightest bulb on the tree, but she was well aware that by concealing facts ostensibly relating to national security from her counterpart in the new administration–General Michael Flynn–she was, at a minimum, violating longstanding civic norms. If she actually lied to Flynn, she could have been accused of much worse. So Rice wanted to be able to retrieve her email, if she found herself in a sticky situation, and tell the world that she hid relevant facts about Russia from the new administration on Barack Obama’s orders.
What were the secrets that Obama wanted to keep from the new administration? We can easily surmise that the fact that the Steele memo was paid for by the Democratic Party; that the FBI had to some degree collaborated with Steele; that the Clinton campaign had fed some of the fake news in the dossier to Steele; and that Comey’s FBI had used Steele’s fabrications as the basis for FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were among the facts that Obama and his minions didn’t want Michael Flynn and Donald Trump to know. Susan Rice, we can infer, was told to keep these secrets, and if anyone ever asked why she had failed to disclose them to Michael Flynn and others on Trump’s team, or even lied to those people, she would have the defense that President Obama ordered her to do it.
There may be more to it than this. The redacted paragraph likely contains more information about what it was that Rice wasn’t supposed to tell the Trump team. One of these days, we will learn what was blacked out.
The fact that Michael Flynn was Susan Rice’s counterpart in the incoming administration may also be significant. We know that the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn–even Peter Strzok!–reported that they didn’t think he had lied about anything. And yet, Obama’s DOJ and Bob Mueller’s “investigation”–basically a continuation of Obama’s corrupt Department of Justice under another, less accountable name–persecuted Flynn to the point where he finally pled guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in order, as he says, to end the madness and the financial drain.
Why were the Democrats so determined to discredit General Flynn? Perhaps because they wanted to pre-empt any outrage that may otherwise have followed on revelations that the Obama administration’s National Security Advisor hid important facts from her successor during the transition, and may have lied to him about those facts, in violation of all American tradition.
CYA memos are rarely a good idea. Most often, they reveal what the author was trying to conceal. I think that is the case with regard to Susan Rice’s now-infamous email to herself.

#Russiagate: The Second Time as Farce... or Tragedy?

The more we learn about #Russiagate, or what we might now call #Dossiergate, the more the whole affair comes to resemble a Ken Kesey novel.
Indeed, the more one considers all the players in this unbelievably bizarre saga, including Sid "Vicious" Blumenthal,  Cody "The Hatchet" Shearer, James "Reinhold Niebuhr" Comey, text-messaging "Pyramus"  Peter Strzok and "Thisbe" Lisa Page, Andrew "The Vanisher" McCabe, Mark "Big Leaks" Warner, Christopher "Get Smart" Steele, Adam "Mendacity" Schiff, and Bruce and Nellie "Ratched" Ohr, not to mention the half-dozen or so other nameless people who mysteriously disappeared from the DOJ in recent days, the more it seems the only sane person in the entire demented charade -- taking the Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) role in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" -- is  Devin Nunes.
Want to know why there are so many redactions in all those FBI/DOJ documents, the ones whose contents you can't make heads or tails of while the indelible ink spills off the pages and stains your best flokati rug black forever?  It's only 1% security but 99% humiliation.  Forget "sources and methods." They are so ashamed of themselves they don't dare tell the truth.  They should put a shroud over the Hoover Building and do penance until the next millennium.  It's that embarrassing.  (And maybe they should change the name of the building while they're at it.  No more Robert E. Lee?  No more J. Edgar Hoover. Fair's fair.)
Consider the latest entry in this ship of fools.  We learn today from Lee Smith -- who is actually doing some journalistic work, as opposed to the NYT, WaPo, and all the networks squared -- of a fellow named Adam Waldman.
A release last week of texts showed that Christopher Steele, the former British spy whose memos regarding the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia are referred to as the Steele dossier, reached out to Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, through a Russian-linked Washington, D.C.,  lobbyist named Adam Waldman. Among Waldman’s clients is Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a text dated Mar. 16, 2017, Waldman texted Warner, “Chris Steele asked me to call you.”
In 2009, Waldman filed papers with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registering himself as an agent for Deripaska in order to provide “legal advice on issues involving his U.S. visa as well as commercial transactions” at a retainer of $40,000 a month. In 2010, Waldman additionally registered as an agent for Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, “gathering information and providing advice and analysis as it relates to the U.S. policy towards the visa status of Oleg Deripaska,” including meetings with U.S. policymakers. Based on the information in his FARA filings, Waldman has received at least $2.36 million for his work with Deripaska.
As the man said, "When they say it's not about the money, it's about the money." But that's not all we know of Waldman.  He also has close ties to, wait for it, Cher.  And his wife, a former girlfriend of George Hamilton's before she left him for Waldman, is in the "blood as makeup" business. (I know -- it sounds like a joke but it isn't.) From the New York Post Nov. 15, 2016 - "The hottest new beauty trend is your blood":
Still, the results are enough to keep Sturm’s [Mrs. Waldman's] global clients, who include Hollywood producers, models and actors, flying to Germany to have their blood drawn, as well as for more traditional facials and injections.
“They come [to Europe] and combine it with a bike tour through France or a boat in Capri,” Sturm says. “Lots of celebrities are posting about it.”
Cher, for instance, is a close personal friend — Sturm and her husband were married at the singer’s house — and a massive fan of the MC1 cream and Sturm’s pricey line of additional products. Huntington-Whiteley and fiancĂ© Statham use the cream, as well as Sturm’s entire line of products, which includes anti-inflammatory, anti-aging, blood-free products such as serums ($350) and face creams ($215). Huntington-Whiteley regularly Instagrams and Snapchats her routine.
Sturm’s Hollywood prevalence is partly thanks to her husband, Adam Waldman, a lawyer who counts Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as clients, and who has turned his contacts into Sturm customers. “All of them” are fans of the cream and the line, he tells The Post.
Yes, this seems like a live version of Marx's famous remark about history repeating itself  "the second time as farce."  But the problem is it's on the edge of reverting to tragedy. It's the Eighteenth Brumaire in reverse.  So many people are on the brink of being humiliated -- the Democratic Party, the Department of Justice, the FBI and, most of all, the mainstream media -- that they will not take it even close to lying down and certainly not with a laugh.  Not a single one of them appears to have anything close to the self-knowledge required or the faintest sense of humor. They're going to fight to the bitter end -- all of ours.
And now it seems that Michael Flynn, the one supposed "admitted" liar actually inthe Trump administration, may have been hung out to dry by Mueller. After all this time, we're learning maybe Flynn didn't lie after all.  How much more creepy can it get?
We are closer than we have been in our country to an all-out cultural civil war. In fact, we're already living in one.  Let's pray it doesn't escalate even more.  The entire nauseating, disingenuous Russia investigation, instigated from the start by sleazy hypocrites who had been appeasing the Soviet Union and then Russia itself for decades, is one of the great disgraces of American history.  It is partisanship at the level of mental illness and has nothing whatsoever to do with what it purports to be about.  Russia has been up to mischief since the czars' Okhrana and anyone with an IQ in the proverbial triple digits knows that. This investigation was about hate and vengeance against fellow Americans, smearing your opponent by any means necessary, not Russkies, and it has created more divisiveness than anything since the actual Civil War.  But in this instance, I am more skeptical that it can be repaired.