A young boy went up to his father and asked him, "Dad, what is the

difference between 'potentially' and 'realistically'?"

The father thought for a moment, then answered, Go ask your mother if she

would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. Then ask your sister if

she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars, and then, ask your

brother if he'd sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. Come back and

tell me what you learn from that."

So the boy went to his mother and asked, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt for

a million dollars?" The mother replied, "Of course, I would!

We could really use that money to fix up the house and send you kids to a

great university!"

The boy then went to his sister and asked, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt

for a million dollars?" The girl replied, "Oh, good heavens! I LOVE Brad

Pitt and I would sleep with him in a heartbeat. Are you nuts?"

The boy then went to his brother and asked, "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt

for a million dollars?" "Of course," the brother replied. "Do you know how

much a million bucks would buy?"

The boy pondered the answers for a few days and then went back to his dad.

His father asked him, Did you find out the difference between 'potentially'

and 'realistically'?

The boy replied, "Yes, 'Potentially' you and I are sitting on three million

dollars, but 'realistically' we're living with two hookers and a future

congressman."
++++++++++++++++++++++
When Israel decides it acts, unlike most nations. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is The Christmas Season; a time to reflect, a time to be positive, to give gifts and be cheerful. Democrats, liberals, assorted anti-Trumpers and various fascist like nut cases do not seem to have gotten into the spirit or embraced the message. .

They:

a) Are attacking our First Lady for her Christmas decorations.

b) They are giddy over Flynn's guilty plea because they believe it moves them one step closer to being able to impeach Trump.

c) They are distraught over the fact a tax bill may be passed which will increase the deficit and without their input.

They are repetitively relying upon a government agencies' static prediction which has seldom, if ever, been accurate.

Of course they have chosen to be anything but obstructionists and where were they when they allowed Obama to add $8 trillion to the deficit, more than all prior presidents combined? (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for Gen. Flynn, the Special Counsel and FBI are almost as dangerous to our freedom as Russia because the special counsel, using the FBI "gum shoe" interrogation techniques, seems comfortable asking questions foreign to the reason for his appointment and then getting plea deals on matters unrelated. This is previously how Ass't. Atty. Gen.,Fitzgerald, nailed Scooter Libby.

Special Counsel Mueller has wide latitude and apparently believes the questioning of Flynn was in keeping with the "Russian Collusion" matter and/or is seeking to nail Trump's Son In Law, then Trump. We know Trump often lies and thus, could be guilty of some obscure law pertaining to an incoming president's activity during the period shortly after being elected and even before.

It is fairly obvious the "Russian Collusion" dossier was bought and paid for by Clinton and was full of tripe but is being used by Mueller to help bring impeachment charges against Trump to serve as a balm to reduce the Democrat's pain from losing the election, which they still cannot accept.

Time will tell, but certainly the Democrats' collective mouths are watering over Flynn and it takes attention away from Sen. Franken and their oldest Representative in The House, Conyers' sexual harassment charges. Both of whom refuse to resign(See 3 below.)

While on the subject I believe if legitimate whistle blowers were given the same respect given their accused this would go a long way towards reducing these sordid occurrences.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, I submit you should read some relevant and other interesting articles in the Dec. 4, issue of The Weekly Standard Magazine:

a) It's A Day Late, and It's A Dollar Short: Linda Tripp revisits the Clinton sex scandals, p 8

b)Good Luck Doing The Right Thing: The cultural contradictions of modern liberalism, p 10

c) The Man With Trumps Peace Plan: Meet Jason Greenblatt, p 17

d) The Ultimate In Deregulation: Kill the CFPB, p20
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1) Reports: Israeli aircraft struck an Iranian base outside Damascus

By YASSER OKBI/MAARIV,ANNA AHRONHEIM

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has repeatedly warned of Iranian entrenchment in the war-torn country. Israeli aircraft attacked an Iranian base outside Damascus according to Sky News.

According to foreign media reports, the Israeli fire was carried out from Lebanese airspace. The reports said that in response anti aircraft missiles were fired on the plane.

In the past, Israel has reportedly carried out attacks against Syrian convoys and installations, in order to prevent Syria from transferring sophisticated weapons to Iran's local proxy Hezbollah.

Recently, Israeli officials have said that the IDF would not allow Iran to establish a military foothold within 40 Kilometers of the border.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has told Israel that Moscow has agreed to expand a buffer zone along the Israeli-Syrian border, where Iranian and Hezbollah forces will not be allowed to enter. The statement attributed to an Israeli diplomatic official by London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, said Russia had refused the Israeli request for a 40 kilometers (25 miles) buffer zone, but expressed willingness to extend a 10-15 kilometer off-limits zone.

In September the BBC news agency reported that Iran had established a military base at a Syrian army site south of the capital of Damascus. According to the report, which is based on a western intelligence source, the base is some 50 kilometers north of Israel’s Golan Heights and has several buildings which likely house soldiers and military vehicles.

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has repeatedly warned of Iranian entrenchment in the war-torn country, saying in mid-November that Israel “will simply not allow for Shiite consolidation and Iranian entrenchment in Syria nor will we allow Syria to become a forward operating base against the State of Israel.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) When Democrats Backed Tax Cuts

In 2001, Bush won support from a dozen of them in the Senate and 28 in the House.

By Kimberley A. Strassel

Democrats have a lot to say about the Republican tax-reform plan, including that it is a “middle class con job” and is going to cost the GOP its congressional majorities. That’s quite the bold claim, coming from the party that is in fact in uncharted tax-politics territory.

Americans have short political memories, which means it is no longer possible to remember a world in which Democrats didn’t hate tax cuts. And in the mainstream media—which shares the left’s penchant for class warfare—it’s also no longer possible to read an analysis that doesn’t assume Democrats are on the right side of history, that these tax cuts are “unpopular,” and that this reform holds grave political risks for Republicans.

Based on what? Democrats certainly have no modern evidence of these propositions, since they’ve never uniformly opposed tax cuts. In fact, it’s been 16 years since the party even engaged in a big tax brawl, during George W. Bush’s first year as president. What’s striking is just how many Democrats enthusiastically signed on to Mr. Bush’s tax bill, and just how far off the political rails the party has gone in the intervening years.

While the Bush tax package was hardly as sweeping as today’s reform, it contained similar provisions. It cut marginal rates across the board, even knocking nearly 5 points off the top marginal rate for the 1%. It cut capital-gains taxes and lowered the estate tax to zero in 2010, before the reductions expired. These are all cuts that House and Senate Democrats today uniformly decry as giveaways to the rich and powerful.

Yet back then, nobody doubted some Democrats would support the legislation. Republicans barely commanded a Senate majority, with just 50 Senate votes, yet the tax-cut train rolled unswervingly on. Ultimately, 12 Senate Democrats voted yes. Some of these were moderate Democrats, a species that is now all but extinct— John Breaux of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota. But the ayes also included Dianne Feinstein from California and Bob Torricelli from New Jersey.

Also notable were the two Senate Democrats who voted “present” and the five who skipped the vote—presumably not wanting to upset their progressive base but equally fearing retribution from nonideological tax-cut-loving Americans. In the end, only 31 Democrats voted against the cuts. In the House, 28 Democrats supported the bill, from states that included New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Twenty-nine House Democrats didn’t vote.

Some in the press are making the laughable argument that these “yes” votes were responsible for the 2002 Senate defeats of Georgia’s Max Cleland and Missouri’s Jean Carnahan. In reality, those races hinged on Mr. Cleland’s national-security views and Mrs. Carnahan’s inexperience. The more illustrative cases are Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Johnson, Democrats who used their tax-cut votes to hold their seats narrowly in what was otherwise a rocking year for Republicans. To the extent their votes were used against them, it was only by other Democrats who tried purging the party of moderates.

Polls show that significant majorities of Americans love the idea of tax reform in general. These are more reliable indicators of public sentiment than the recent spate of media polls that show opposition to these specific Republican plans—and that reflect a lot of bogus analysis and scare tactics. What will matter to Republicans is the money Americans will ultimately find in their pockets, and the boost tax reform will give the economy and wages and jobs. Nor should they underestimate the delight many voters will experience from a vastly simplified tax process.

In short, there is very little to suggest Democrats benefit politically from sitting out this tax debate—beyond their saying so. And they’ve certainly done themselves no favors from a policy perspective. Had they been willing to negotiate, they likely could have spared their high-tax states the new limits that are coming on state and local tax deductions. They might have limited cuts to, or bracket expansions of, the top personal rate—given that President Trump is himself squishy on that issue. They might have increased the tax penalty on companies that are repatriating money from overseas. They might have killed a provision that will finally allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—included to court the vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski. Instead, they’ve got bupkus.

It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats are working so hard to recast the tax narrative in their favor. Republican fortunes aside, the question is whether a modern, progressive Democratic Party just committed an epic policy and political blunder—one they’ll have to live with for a decade.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)The Media’s Flynn-sanity

Diplomacy after the election is not the same as collusion before the election.

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn on Friday pleaded guilty to lying about a non-crime. Even Adam Schiff, the House Democrat most determined to ride the Russia collusion story to bigger and better things, acknowledged that conferring with a representative of Russia about the incoming administration’s Russia policy is not illegal or improper.

These discussions concerned a United Nations Security Council vote on Israel (in effect the Trump team was asking Moscow for a favor on behalf of a U.S. ally, Israel). The discussions concerned Russia’s response to President Obama’s lame-duck sanctions for Russian meddling in the U.S. election.

Such talks, we learn from Robert Mueller’s investigation, were directed by a “very senior member” of the transition team. Why shouldn’t that be President-elect Donald Trump or somebody directly conversant with his views—a k a Jared Kushner ? Voters may remember Mr. Trump saying during the campaign that he wanted improved relations with Russia. He would be doing nothing illegal here.

Then why make Mr. Flynn plead guilty to a crime related to a non-crime, unless Bob Mueller thinks he’s enlisting Mr. Flynn’s cooperation in pursuit of real crimes? Well, Mr. Mueller’s job is to get to the bottom of the Russia question, and it doesn’t help to have people lying about even things that are non-crimes. What’s more, as Mr. Flynn would have known better than most, Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was a prime target for U.S. surveillance. American voters will remember that Obama officials illegally leaked contents of some of these conversations to the press during the transition. Lying about these very same conversations to the FBI wouldn’t seem to have made much sense for Mr. Flynn. But if a key witness and former high-ranking official persists in a disproven and unnecessary lie, how do you not charge him?

Let’s recall a couple of things. For president, the American people elected a reality TV star and brand manager who came with a bundle of impulses but not deep knowledge of anything other than building large structures.

His plans/hopes with respect to Russia may have been unrealistic, but an incoming administration is elected to follow its own policies, not those of its predecessor. Second, unless he was completely unconversant with political reality, Mr. Trump understood by then that Democrats had settled on a story of Russia collusion to excuse Hillary Clinton’s loss and to discredit the incoming president.

Unfortunately, what we learned on Friday about all this was microscopic in relation to the magnitude of air time devoted to hyping events. The scandal has reached “inside the gates of the White House,” blared multiple news outlets. Uh-huh. Mr. Flynn worked there for 24 days, and none of this is evidence of any presumed conspiracy between the Kremlin and the campaign to put Mr. Trump in the White House. Wasn’t that the original question? The crime the media are trying to make out of these events is the crime of having diplomatic relations with Russia.

The talents that outfit somebody to be on TV are not necessarily talents that lend themselves to instantaneous dissection of breaking news. Inevitably, time is filled up with prejudices and tropes because, you know, time must be filled up.

This is sad but par for the course. Take James Comey, the retired FBI head. He could fill in a great deal of important information. He knows a lot about a lot of things that would be useful to hear, including about the Trump dossier and a Russian role in sparking his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter. Instead of shedding light, he drops Bible verses on Twitter. A man who knows so many vital truths and won’t tell them might do better to say nothing at all.

Anything is possible, including some conspiratorial quid pro quo between somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin. If Mr. Putin really wanted Mr. Trump’s election, then the two were certainly working toward compatible ends—at least to the extent that Mr. Trump, in some part of his brain, really did want to be president. When it comes to working toward compatible ends, though, this also appears to be true of Russian intelligence and the Clinton campaign and, quite possibly, Russian intelligence and the FBI in some instances.

At the same time, we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and, by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality. After the Trump election, the direction of causation in the ensuing Russia scandal in my judgment seems fairly clear. The media and bureaucracy reject Mr. Trump not because they got wind of Russia. They were determined to reject Mr. Trump and Russia was handy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++