mr mahs

Unmanned aerial drones similar to ones used in the war on Iraq could be patrolling the U.S. border by the end of the year to help stem illegal immigration and increase security, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Thursday. "We are very serious in looking at UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) for both border applications, land and sea," Ridge told the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. Predators and other remote-controlled aircraft can watch over a potential target and fly for hundreds of miles with cameras, sensors, communications equipment or missiles. Support has grown for the unmanned aircraft since their success during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spy cameras aboard a drone allowed U.S. commanders to watch the capture of Palestinian hijacking suspect Abul Abbas and oversee the rescue of Army prisoner-of-war Pfc. Jessica Lynch. They also foiled an Iraqi ambush on U.S. and British troops. In November, an unmanned Predator drone killed suspected al-Qaida operatives in Yemen. Several Western congressmen have endorsed the use of the unmanned vehicles over the U.S.-Mexico border, including Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. "Helicopters are great but are phenomenally expensive," Shadegg said. "I think UAV would be key." The Coast Guard is looking at new UAV technology that they can launch from their ships, allowing them to extend their patrols for hundreds of miles, Ridge said. But "where you have wide open spaces, it's a lot easier for us to take a look at some of the technology that is presently employed by the Department of Defense," Ridge said.

We dropped the ball.. But I don't know if you are implying the BUSH administration was responsible if so here you go my freind.... Clinton’s own admission that he could have extradited Osama bin Laden from Sudan - but he didn’t because he felt bin Laden was not a threat! If you don’t believe this, read his verbatim comments from our exclusive tape recording! A senior CIA officer goes on record to reveal that Bill Clinton helped Saddam Hussein by allowing him to illegally sell oil - and make billions to stay in power. Clinton adviser Dick Morris says that Clinton was warned about the terrorist bombings against American troops at the Khobar Towers - and he ignored the warning! The FBI and CIA could have easily foiled the 9-11 attacks - but were negligent as two known terrorist gained entry into the U.S. with the CIA’s full knowledge. They would later participate in the 9-11 attacks. FBI agent Coleen Rowley says the FBI could have prevented 9-11, but refused to get a search warrant on one of the 9-11 terrorists. NewsMax broke the story that Bill Clinton tied the hands of the CIA and FBI - hear from agents on the inside who broke the story on NewsMax and reveal what really happened. Bill Clinton refused to require driver’s licenses to expire at the time of expiring visas. If he had done this, one of the 9-11 terrorists would have been arrested or deported. The 1996 Clinton-Gore airline safety commission set the stage for 9-11. Why Clinton’s adviser Dick Morris says Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinksy helped Osama bin Laden survive and plot 9-11 Read Bill Clinton’s shocking statements about America’s guilt in 9-11 - he even blamed America for 9-11 and cited our treatment of the Indians and Muslims during the Crusades! Heres the kicker... A secret 1994 terrorism report warned of suicidal hijackings - and Bill Clinton ignored it.

:laugh: You guys are reaching.. In Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl openly attacked the Tucson city council for passing a resolution opposing the Patriot Act. Kyl claimed that such "resolutions expressing doubts" about the Patriot Act represent "less than one-half of one percent of all incorporated municipalities in the United States." Yeah, The patriot act will def be rescinded lol It's this type of appeasment of the immigration promblem that got us in trouble in the first place... The country is safer now but you guys don't see it-- CRAZY.... Thank GOD we have John Ashcroft....

oooh god- your cruel bro...

Dear Friend, This just in: the black “leadership” has spoken and war is not the answer. Though some 70% of Americans supported the war against Iraq, you didn’t find a corresponding pro-American outcry from the black community. And it’s no wonder. The reason that most blacks didn’t support the war is that most of their leaders were against it. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus, and a cornucopia of embittered black church leaders and a slew of civil rights degenerates came out vocally and vengefully against the war. Let us run down the latest from this group of bedraggled misfits that masquerade as leaders: Jesse Jackson wrote an open letter to Saddam Hussein indicating that his opposition to the war has grown after Colin Powell’s presentation to the U.N. earlier in February. Jackson was a part of several large antiwar protests in recent months. That’s right – Jesse Jackson, the man who called New York City “Hymietown” and Jews “Hymies,” the adulterer minister, the lover of Palestine and hater of Israel. Louis Farrakhan, speaking in Baghdad this past July, reportedly said “the Muslim American people are praying to the almighty God to grant victory to Iraq [in the war].” Farrakhan recently wrote an open letter to President Bush, in which he wrote, “May Allah … guide you.” If Farrakhan was referring to the god that he serves, then I must assert that I hope “Allah” is the last one guiding our President. And does Farrakhan really believe that President Bush is going to take advice from a known anti-Semite who once called Hitler a “great man,” a minister who has referred to Judaism as a “gutter religion” and Jews as the “blue-eyed devil?” Next up on this list of civil rights leftovers is Al Sharpton. He and Jesse Jackson are together again, frequenting the antiwar/anti-American protests of recent months. Sharpton is mounting his presidential run and thus is making an attempt to be on his best behavior, but it’s hard to forget his past: the Tawana Brawley hoax, the reference to a Jewish man as a “white interloper” and Jews as “diamond merchants,” the history of race-baiting that is only outdone by the men previously mentioned. For the sake of brevity, I’ll mention only one last collection of enraged black leaders. As reported by FinalCall.com, on February 8, in Detroit, Michigan, black clergy and black leaders from across the county united to denounce the war and send a message to President Bush. Among the gems of this event were those uttered by Dr. Charles Adams, pastor of Hartford Memorial Baptist Church, Rev. Marcia Louise Dyson (wife of hatemonger Professor Michael Eric Dyson, who was also in attendance at the event), and Rev. Fr. James A. Forbes Jr. Adams proclaimed “It is insanity, injustice and indecency to start a war in Iraq when we haven’t finished in Afghanistan, we haven’t cleaned up drugs in America and now we want to attack postage stamp-sized Iraq.” It may come as news to Dr. Adams that there was no “out-of-the-blue” start to the war – it was a necessary and appropriate response to repeated violations of U.N. Mandates following the Gulf War. Mrs. Dyson declared that “We cannot say that we are against terrorism in other countries when terrorism exists right here in America.” If Reverend Dyson finds democracy and freedom so troubling then perhaps she would be happier living with all the privileges and immunities Saddam had granted to the good people of Baghdad. Finally we have the words of Rev. Dr. Forbes: “If being a good American means ignoring the value of life, then we have a problem. If being a good American means we can flex our muscles to say, [America] can do whatever and ignore the sensibilities of men like Nelson Mandela, then we have a problem.” How could the Rev. Forbes have claim to care about the value of life, when he called on the United States government to hazard the lives of Americans be letting Saddam Hussein off the hook? And last time I checked, Nelson Mandela was a communist – an inherent enemy of the American republic. If our country had been founded on the sensibilities of Mandela then America would be the disaster that is South Africa. It is amazing, but all too predictable, that the black leadership could be so united against America. As we’ve seen here, most of these “leaders” are ministers no less. These people are supposedly called by God – implying a respect for human dignity – and yet they have no qualms at all in opposing a regime that secured safety for its people by liberating those oppressed by a brutal dictator. Of course this united voice of the black leadership, reflected in an utter lack of pro-American support from the black community, should come to us as no shock. We have long known that the majority of the so-called black civil rights leaders and black preachers are communist-socialist pigs who hate America and hate Israel passionately, despise President Bush, and can’t stand the melting of their once widespread power since 9-11.

The gloves are coming off boys... The boys in PARIS are starting to feel the heat.. The G8 will be very interesting I still can't fathom how anyone in the world can take economic advice from France who's economy is in the toilet... France and the United States proclaimed a new start after their feud over Iraq today but Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, made clear that Paris was not forgiven and President Chirac could expect a bumpy ride when he meets President Bush next week. On the French side, M Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, his Foreign Minister, showed that for all the talk of reconciliation, Paris would still stand up against the American-centred view of the world at the summit of the G8 group of nations in France on June 1. General Powell, on his first visit to Paris since the UN battle over Iraq, welcomed France's vote, along with those of Russia and Germany, for the Security Council resolution lifting sanctions today and endorsing the US-led administration of Iraq. This, he said, was a first step on the path back to better relations. "Does that mean that the disagreements of the past are forgotten? No, it wasn't a very pleasant time," he said. "We have to work our way through that." He added: "Let's not paper it over. Let's not pretend it didn't happen". Asked if he continued to believe that France should be punished for opposing the United States, he said it was "appropriate to draw conclusions and consequences follow". General Powell, who first spoke of punishing France last month, singled out plans by the US Defence Department to downgrade military cooperation with Paris. M de Villepin, who was hosting a session of Foreign Ministers from Britain Russia, Germany and the other members of the G8 group, cast the UN vote as a gesture of fence-mending after the feud among allies. "The war has taken place. Now it is time to restore the unity of the international community," said Mr de Villepin. M Chirac's aides said that, with war and peace no longer the issue, Paris was more ready to compromise with Washington. However, M de Villepin skirmished publicly with General Powell today. For France, the New York vote meant that "the UN is back" after America's go-it-alone war and that the world organisation was conferring legitimacy on post-war Iraq, he said. The chaos in Iraq and the past week's terrorist attacks had proved France right in its belief that only the United Nations could ensure peace and that the war would breed more violence by Islamic extremists, he said. Taking a swipe back at his French colleague, General Powell said: "We are not achieving new legitimacy with this resolution that did not exist in the past." Today's Franco-American exchanges, made in separate news conferences, reflected the gulf still separating Paris and Washington despite France's attempts to sweeten the atmosphere ahead of the G8 summit in the Alpine spa town of Evian. Over the past two days, M Chirac and M de Villepin have again set out the French view that the world needs a "multi-polar" system, code for the idea that American power must be balanced by that of Europe, China and other centres. While economic stagnation and the Iraq aftermath will set the tone at Evian, M Chirac has used his prerogative as host to set an agenda loaded with themes that do not inspire enthusiasm from Mr Bush. These range from sustainable development and the environment to ways of softening the impact of globalisation on the developing world. In his pose as apostle for "humane globalisation", M Chirac has been busy wooing leaders of the anti-capitalist movement who want to turn the Evian summit into a jamboree of protest. Although some hardliners want to restage protests of the type seen in Seattle in 2000 and Genoa in 2001, the mainstream "alternative-globalisation" movement sees France as something of an ally, especially since its opposition to the Anglo-American war in Iraq. The protestors are to be corralled at Annemasse, 20 miles down Lake Geneva from Evian, and some 6,000 security police from France, Switzerland and Germany have been assigned to keep the peace. M Chirac took another crack at the Americans today, telling a conference on drugs that the world's worst example was now Afghanistan, which has become the main supplier of heroin to Europe since the US invasion ended the Taleban regime there

Our policies??? OH you mean supporting Isreal the only democratic country in the cess pool Middle east.. Right.... it would better to see another holocaust..

:laugh: You are cracking up sweetie...

I really hate to see what would happen if there is another terrorist attack in this country... The ACLU claims we are bending civil rights by racial profiling but time and time again it is camel jockeys that are constantly trying to destroy my beloved country... FBI: NYC Cabbie Sought to Buy Explosives The FBI (search) arrested a New York cab driver after he allegedly tried to buy enough explosives "to blow up a mountain," scoped out bridges in Miami and lied to agents about his activities. Sayed Abdul Malike, 43, was ordered held without bail Wednesday at an arraignment in federal court. Malike was arrested Tuesday following an investigation by a terrorism task force, though prosecutors made no allegations of terrorism in the charges. He was charged with making false statements and drug possession, and could face up to six years in prison if convicted. His defense attorney Heidi Cesare declined to comment. The investigation of Malike, a legal U.S. resident from Afghanistan, began in March when a store owner in Queens reported that the defendant was seeking information on how to make a bomb. Later that month, Malike traveled to Miami, where he took a sightseeing trip around the port, according to court documents. A tourist boat captain later reported that the defendant, while shooting video, asked about "the infrastructure of bridges ... and about how close the boat could get to the bridges and cruise ships." Malike was later lured into a series of meetings with an undercover agent posing as an illegal explosives supplier. The defendant was "evasive about his plans," the complaint said. But when asked how much explosives he needed, he replied "that he was looking for enough to blow up a mountain," the complaint said. The agent offered Malike a supply of C-4 explosives (search) for $10,000. But the defendant said "he hadn't yet obtained the finances, and that he could not store them in his apartment," the complaint said. Malike also allegedly wanted to buy bulletproof vests, night vision goggles (search) and Valium. Authorities said he was arrested after buying 100 Valium pills for $150. During questioning, Malike "repeatedly lied" about his trip to Florida, and denied ever trying to obtain explosives, the complaint said.

Who? Please elaborate..

What's more important then revenge for 3k of our own citizens and trying to prevent another 911??

Stop the killing = Results.. Let see if these lunatics in HAMAS can realise peace is around the corner only cooperation is needed. President George W Bush spoke to Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian prime minister for the first time yesterday, urging him to curb terrorism and promising "concrete steps" from Israel if he was successful. George W Bush insists he will put pressure on Israel After a series of suicide bombings by Palestinian terrorists determined to derail the long-awaited "road map" peace plan, the two leaders spoke for 15 minutes. Mr Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, told Mr Bush that "he was committed to reform, peace and to ending all acts of terror" during a "friendly and hopeful" conversation, said the White House. The call took place on the day that Ariel Sharon, the Israeli premier, had been due to visit the White House but postponed his trip because of the recent attacks. Mr Bush told Mr Abbas that Mr Sharon would have to take "concrete steps" in accordance with the "road map", the American-drafted peace plan published on May 1, the day after Mr Abbas became prime minister. But five suicide bombings in 48 hours, clearly timed to coincide with Mr Sharon's first meeting with Mr Abbas after he took office, have shaken hopes in Washington that swift progress can be achieved. White House officials have said that Mr Abbas has honourable intentions but doubts remain over how much control he has over the militant Palestinian groups. There are also fears that Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian president, has retained too much power and could work to undermine him. The seven-page road map envisages Israel and a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace by 2005. Mr Bush has insisted he will pressurise Israel to make concessions but only after the Palestinians have proved their willingness to take effective security measures. He faces domestic pressure from Jewish groups and evangelical Christians. Gary Bauer, a leading Christian conservative, and more than 20 others wrote to Mr Bush this week imploring him to support Israel.

****This is for Sassa and other conspiracy theory loons who beleive the president was responsible for the WTC attacks... ENJOY YOUR CROW..... Bill Clinton ran in 1992 saying foreign policy didn't matter, "stupid." Dick Morris says Clinton didn't think terrorism was a priority and the CIA director says he only met with him twice in eight years. The Sudanese and Mansoor Ijaz who worked for Clinton (see the Limbaugh Letter interview), documented that Clinton rejected three offers to take custody of Osama bin Laden. FBI Director Louis Freeh's op-ed on Tuesday detailed Clinton's unwillingness to investigate the Khobar Tower attacks. Now we bring you this shocker from ABC News: "[F]ederal agents seeking bin Laden had developed a plan to have a plane fly in and attack a compound in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where the terror leader was believed to have been holed up back in 1998 — three years before the devastating attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But when the plan went up the chain of command for approval, it was killed by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. 'They came to the decision that this plan was probably too dangerous, that the loss of life on the ground would have been significant,' (former FBI agent Jack) Cloonan said. 'There was concern that people around the bin Laden compound would be killed.'" This is just unbelievable, and it bears out the frustration of all those who said we shouldn't deal with international terrorists through the legal system. They aren't criminals; they're enemy combatants. Why mess with a grand jury when you could use a military tribunal? Remember that one of the reasons Clinton didn't take custody of bin Laden from the Sudanese was a perceived lack of legal evidence to hold him. Another downfall of indicting terrorists in a grand jury is that the information revealed there is sealed. You can't use it to "connect the dots." Information used in the first WTC bombing trial helped Al-Qaeda hide it's tracks (or "dots") when planning 9/11. This exposes the folly of the law the Democratic Congress passed banning the FBI and CIA from sharing information, because the FBI couldn't tell the CIA what they knew about bin Laden. The Clinton administration's grand jury procedure made it impossible for agencies to share information from things like the plot to blow up those airliners over the Pacific in the mid-90s. Never forget this, folks: the Clinton administration - and in some cases Clinton personally - chose to let bin Laden roam free.

This weasel is at it again... President Chirac is preparing to embarrass President Bush at the forthcoming G8 summit in France by laying out an agenda heavy on environmental, development and economic issues and light on the fight against terrorism. Jacques Chirac The summit at Evian on June 2 and June 3 will be the first time M Chirac and Mr Bush have met since their diplomatic war preceding military action in Iraq. However, M Chirac, as the host, is arranging the meeting on his terms. He made clear yesterday that, despite the debacle over Iraq, he is clinging to his vision of a global balance of powers, with France as an alternative to America. He said Evian's main goal would be "to build the institutions and rules of a global democracy, open and interconnected", a swipe at the American administration, which has little patience for such rhetoric. The main themes of the summit would be reviving the world economy, solidarity with poor countries, responding to pandemics such as Aids, climate change and finally the fight against terrorism. The White House would have preferred the fight against terrorism to head the list, but M Chirac is loath to let the summit become a victory lap for Mr Bush. M Chirac said the summit was a chance for "nations to show that they can and want to get along, to act together in the service of mankind". He believes many countries are suspicious of America's leadership and prefer France's emphasis on international rules and institutions. He added that the summit should offer a "message of confidence" in the world economy. The G8's members (France, America, Britain, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada and Russia) were "determined to pursue the structural reforms which improve the efficiency of our economies" and "resolved to lower taxes and social charges to free the creative energies for growth and employment". It was important to reaffirm "the principles of the responsible market economy" after so many financial scandals in Europe and America and to complete the Doha round of world trade talks. That last ambition, coupled with M Chirac's talk of Third World development, will raise smirks in Whitehall, since it is his refusal to reform Europe's common agricultural policy to the detriment of French farmers which has crippled Third World agricultural exporters trying to crack the European market. M Chirac's speech came the day before France was expected to vote in favour of a United Nations resolution lifting sanctions against Iraq. French diplomats remain baffled and exasperated at how the Americans have frozen them out since the Iraq war. But they hope the successful passing of the resolution will restore Washington's confidence in the UN. On Tuesday night anti-globalisation groups announced plans to sabotage the summit. France is to close Evian to all but the participants, but the protesters hope to harness the anti-war movement for large demonstrations as close to Evian as they can get. On the eve of the summit, 50 fires will be lit on the nearby Lake Léman to create a "lake of fire". Anarchists are planning an "anti-capitalist, anti-war" village.

Now I have heard it all from you...

FAIR and BALANCED.... PIN HEAD....

You dodging the question proves to me that you are a joke.. full of negativity with no solutions....

Please call me what ever you like....

Even the people of Belgium think this whole thing is a joke... War crimes :laugh: Where were the belgiums with their subpenas when Sdaam was torturing his citizens huh... That's why this world is a fucked up place no common sense.

This guy is a wanna be HIPPIE who was pissed when the rest of the country pissed on his parade... FUCKING LOSER:blown:

I thought so......

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: : http://www.billoreilly.com/index.jsp http://www.drudgereport.com/ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html http://www.wabcradio.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.hannity.com http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/

Look... in the U.S the president submits the budget the other parts of the government approves or rejects it. Who do you think wanted to increase miltary spending if it was written into the budget..

IN a last-ditch attempt to stop broadbased tax cuts, Democrats are again circulating their tired argument that current and prospective budget deficits will drive up interest rates. But if deficits do in fact send interest rates skyward, then why is the 10-year Treasury note trading near 31/2 percent - a 45-year low? The answer: A three-year deflationary recession, not deficits, is driving interest rates lower. As the economy turned down, deficits went up. Still, the liberals tightly link interest rates and deficits. But there is an abundance of evidence that this is a weak leak. Japan, for instance, which has much larger deficits than the United States, has a 10-year government bond with a yield of 0.59 percent. Germany, with deficits running about the same as ours (3 percent of gross domestic product), has a 10-year government note at 3.8 percent. When President Clinton and his Treasury man Robert Rubin raised taxes in 1993, the 10-year note hit bottom at 51/4 percent. Today, with large tax cuts and rising deficit forecasts on the horizon, the 10-year is near a half-century low. So, if deficits don't necessarily drive up rates, what does? The preponderance of research argues strongly that inflation or deflation expectations and anticipated real returns on investment (i.e., economic growth) are the major determinants of interest rates. While there may be a connection between deficits and rates, it's a fuzzy connection. As U.S. inflation descended from roughly 15 percent in 1980 to about zero today, long-term Treasury rates dropped from about 15 percent to 31/2 percent. During this period, as government revenues downshifted in response to disinflation, budget deficits were a recurring theme. But it was disinflation, not rising deficits, that drove interest rates lower and lower. Washington revenue estimators, who project rising deficits in response to the tax cuts now being debated in Congress, are members of a Flat Earth Society - they intend to persuade the public that the planet is not round, and that tax cuts won't change the economy. Soon they will claim Christopher Columbus did not really discover America. But of course he did, and it corroborated his view that the world is not flat. Similarly, lower tax rates that raise the after-tax return for working and investing do in fact induce behavioral changes. Investors, unburdened by lower taxation, supply more capital to businesses and the economy by saving and investing more. Workers, meanwhile, supply more labor, including overtime hours worked. And when workers and investors get busy, projected deficits from tax-rate reduction never pan out. The so-called static revenue cost of President Bush's tax-relief plan is overestimated by one-third to one-half. Credit markets are not fooled by the resulting deficit forecasts. Neither is the public. Tax cuts under JFK, Reagan, and Clinton (during his second term) all produced faster economic growth, more jobs, and higher tax revenues for Washington. Indeed, Clinton's 1997 capital-gains tax cut was the driving force for late-decade budget surpluses. Revenues in this period soared as profits accrued from stock market gains and stock options. It was a near-perfect illustration of the Laffer Curve, which says, in clear terms: Tax something more, get less of it; tax something less, get more of it. The less we penalize work and investment, the more work and investment there will be. This is Economic Behaviorism 101 - and it's a simple science that too many members of the U.S. Congress and most state governments fail to comprehend. Or do they get it? The so-called sin taxes on alcohol, beer, and tobacco suggest that liberal lawmakers just might understand the behavioral basics of taxation. In recent years, legislatures on every level have poured taxes on these products - especially tobacco, where the latest liberal mantra aims to save smokers from themselves. But doesn't this assume a behavioral change by smokers in response to the higher tax-cost of cigarettes? Sure does. So why wouldn't the same logic apply to taxes on investment? Of course it applies. If we tax investment more, we will get less investment. But if we tax investment less - including dividends, the centerpiece of the president's plan - we'll certainly get more investment. And that's exactly what the American economy thirsts for today.

This is an article from Lawrence Kudlow a popular economist who knows what he is talking about but people choose to listen to dsome left wing liberal loon who know NOTHING about economics... IN a last-ditch attempt to stop broadbased tax cuts, Democrats are again circulating their tired argument that current and prospective budget deficits will drive up interest rates. But if deficits do in fact send interest rates skyward, then why is the 10-year Treasury note trading near 31/2 percent - a 45-year low? The answer: A three-year deflationary recession, not deficits, is driving interest rates lower. As the economy turned down, deficits went up. Still, the liberals tightly link interest rates and deficits. But there is an abundance of evidence that this is a weak leak. Japan, for instance, which has much larger deficits than the United States, has a 10-year government bond with a yield of 0.59 percent. Germany, with deficits running about the same as ours (3 percent of gross domestic product), has a 10-year government note at 3.8 percent. When President Clinton and his Treasury man Robert Rubin raised taxes in 1993, the 10-year note hit bottom at 51/4 percent. Today, with large tax cuts and rising deficit forecasts on the horizon, the 10-year is near a half-century low. So, if deficits don't necessarily drive up rates, what does? The preponderance of research argues strongly that inflation or deflation expectations and anticipated real returns on investment (i.e., economic growth) are the major determinants of interest rates. While there may be a connection between deficits and rates, it's a fuzzy connection. As U.S. inflation descended from roughly 15 percent in 1980 to about zero today, long-term Treasury rates dropped from about 15 percent to 31/2 percent. During this period, as government revenues downshifted in response to disinflation, budget deficits were a recurring theme. But it was disinflation, not rising deficits, that drove interest rates lower and lower. Washington revenue estimators, who project rising deficits in response to the tax cuts now being debated in Congress, are members of a Flat Earth Society - they intend to persuade the public that the planet is not round, and that tax cuts won't change the economy. Soon they will claim Christopher Columbus did not really discover America. But of course he did, and it corroborated his view that the world is not flat. Similarly, lower tax rates that raise the after-tax return for working and investing do in fact induce behavioral changes. Investors, unburdened by lower taxation, supply more capital to businesses and the economy by saving and investing more. Workers, meanwhile, supply more labor, including overtime hours worked. And when workers and investors get busy, projected deficits from tax-rate reduction never pan out. The so-called static revenue cost of President Bush's tax-relief plan is overestimated by one-third to one-half. Credit markets are not fooled by the resulting deficit forecasts. Neither is the public. Tax cuts under JFK, Reagan, and Clinton (during his second term) all produced faster economic growth, more jobs, and higher tax revenues for Washington. Indeed, Clinton's 1997 capital-gains tax cut was the driving force for late-decade budget surpluses. Revenues in this period soared as profits accrued from stock market gains and stock options. It was a near-perfect illustration of the Laffer Curve, which says, in clear terms: Tax something more, get less of it; tax something less, get more of it. The less we penalize work and investment, the more work and investment there will be. This is Economic Behaviorism 101 - and it's a simple science that too many members of the U.S. Congress and most state governments fail to comprehend. Or do they get it? The so-called sin taxes on alcohol, beer, and tobacco suggest that liberal lawmakers just might understand the behavioral basics of taxation. In recent years, legislatures on every level have poured taxes on these products - especially tobacco, where the latest liberal mantra aims to save smokers from themselves. But doesn't this assume a behavioral change by smokers in response to the higher tax-cost of cigarettes? Sure does. So why wouldn't the same logic apply to taxes on investment? Of course it applies. If we tax investment more, we will get less investment. But if we tax investment less - including dividends, the centerpiece of the president's plan - we'll certainly get more investment. And that's exactly what the American economy thirsts for today.