Final chapter closed on this King County corruption - too bad it was never blown open and investigated

Two King County DOT whistle blowers have won their Federal Lawsuit this week against several of King County Executive Ron Sims' managers in DOT. They were accused of retaliating against them, because they attempted to expose corruption and wrongdoing in DOT 7 years ago.

In 2002, King County DOT was requested to grant a Transportation Concurrency Certificate to Quadrant Homes for a development named Redmond Ridge East. This came after years of investigation into wrongdoing by DOT under Ron Sims for other development projects named Redmond Ridge and Trilogy. With no vehicle capacity left on area roads, primarily Novelty Hill Road, that certificate was initially denied. But just weeks later, without any explanation or justification, KCDOT reversed their decision and invented road capacity out of thin air for Quadrant.

After that decision, five King County DOT employees, including the supervisor of the TFDM group, which was responsible for building the county's road traffic model, said no way. They went through their management, then through the Ombudsman, and even to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office alleging wrongdoing, including illegal acts being committed in KCDOT's Concurrency Group to assist Quadrant in obtaining a certificate wrongfully.

Not long afterward the alleged retaliation began by DOT Director Linda Dougherty and manager Jennifer Lindwall. First poor performance reviews, then threats of layoff, and finally, demotion for the supervisor and significant reduction in pay.

The development would eventually receive a recommendation to deny from King County Hearing Examiner Stafford Smith, and a recommendation to rescind the ill-gotten Transportation Concurrency Certificate. Remarkably, the King County Council approved Redmond Ridge East in 2005 anyway.

Now 4 years later and hundreds of thousands of dollars in the plaintiff's legal fees, a jury has determined that the defendants Linda Dougherty and Jennifer Lindwall did retaliate against Ho-Chuan Chen and Hossein Barahimi.

The awards in the case are trivial. Perhaps because US District Court Judge Marcia Pechman ruled against allowing any issues related to the Redmond Ridge East corruption to be heard by the jury. Remarkably, Pechman, then a King County Superior Court judge, ruled on the very first challenge to Redmond Ridge and Trilogy, ruling with the county and developer in a case that would eventually take years to be overturned by the State Supreme Court, only to have the Supreme Court unanimously rule in 2005 to allow an ancient illegal act by the county in 1989, that the courts refused to address, finally excuse a decade of county wrongdoing under Executive Gary Locke and Executive Ron Sims.

Will Douherty, Lindwall and Sue Osterhoubt (also sued by Barahimi in 2007 and found guilty of retaliation) be fired for misusing their office and punishing employees for attempting to expose corruption and wrongdoing in DOT? Not likely. This is the way King County has operated under Ron Sims, and I'm sure their guilt will be ignored by Sims for what turned out to be "his" greater good.

Will Ho-Chuan Chen be restored to the position he previously held so that he can return to the road modeling group to be a much-needed watchdog of the shenanigans that go on regularly in KCDOT, since NO ONE has been there to stop the county's endless efforts to assist developers in avoiding road impact fees and other mitigation?

Will anyone now demand that these individuals, along with their boss Executive Ron Sims, be required to reimburse King County the millions of dollars spent on their defense funded by King County taxpayers, as well as the damages to be paid to Chen and Barahimi, including all of the plaintiff's legal costs?

This lawsuit closes the chapter on this sickening corruption that has left taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in unfunded infrastructure. And with a media that has all but ignored it, and citizen opponents who have surrendered to the corruption in this county, Ron Sims can now be congratulated on his promotion to the Obama administration where he can take this stench with him.

Finally, I'd like to personally thank Ho-Chuan Chen and Hossein Barahimi for doing the right thing. Their integrity and honesty will never be rewarded as it should, but they can stand up with pride and know that while they may be surrounded by corrupt individuals in their employment, that they have the respect of the few of us out here that understand the courage it took for them to stand up to Ron Sims and his puppets in King County leadership.

Here's more background from the PI:
Redmond Ridge East hits roadblock over 'tainted' traffic study

And here is Dori Monson's interview on 4/13 with Chen and Barahimi (Starts at 5 minutes):
Monson Show

Tyranny of the Majority

Alexis de Tocqueville was a famous political and cultural writer about American democracy in the 1830s. Among his writings about Democracy in 1835, were the warnings of the "tyranny of the majority" leading to a despotic government. De Tocqueville wrote, "A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority." As such, when a majority is given the power to control the entire government apparatus, the ability of the minority to participate in the government, or even to influence the majority, can be easily ignored by the majority, at the doom of the nation.

I believe that the prophecy of the tyranny of the majority that de Tocqueville described over a century and a half ago has begun, with only members of the Democrat Party, yes, the party in power, now able to defend America from the outcome de Tocqueville warned of.

De Tocqueville wrote:

"If republican principles are to perish in America, they can yield only after a laborious social process, often interrupted and as often resumed, they will have many apparent revivals and will not become totally extinct until an entirely new people have succeeded to those who now exist. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."

"It is my opinion, however, that by changing their administrative forms as often as they do, the inhabitants of the United States compromise the stability of their government. It may be apprehended that men perpetually thwarted in their designs by the mutability of legislation will learn to look on the republic as an inconvenient form of society, the evil resulting from the instability of the secondary enactments might then raise a doubt as to the nature of the fundamental principles of the Constitution and indirectly bring about a revolution; but this epoch is still very remote."

"It may be foreseen even now that when the Americans lose their republican institutions they will speedily arrive at a despotic government."

Progressive social changes that would alter our basic American principles and values of liberty, freedom and individual pursuit of success? Only a remote possibility of our republic succumbing to those who would ignore or destroy the Constitution? America falling into the grips of a despotic government, where we fall under a despotic majority acting in unison against the principles this nation was founded upon?

174 years after de Tocqueville wrote the words, we're here folks.

Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocqueville

Housing collapse nowhere near done yet!

There's a great graph that the New York Times had done reflecting home values adjusted for inflation going back 100 years. It shows the booms and the busts, such as the 35% loss of home values in the Great Depression, as well as the booms in 1970s and 1980s. The one constant is that home prices always return to about 110% of historical norm.

Home Values thru 2006

The current credit bubble and housing boom started with a steep increase in home values in 1997, not long after government loosening of credit and the fed pressures to lower interest rates. Starting in 1997, homes increased from 110% of historical value to about 205% of value in 2006. Then the bubble started to burst. Since 2006, values have dropped 40% (value loss plus inflation loss) to about 155% of the historical norm. See the curve now:

Home Values thru Today

The downward slope of the curve is very steep right now and could do one of three things. It could start to level out, continue to plummet to the norm, or in the case of entering a depression, values drop well below the historical norm before it bottoms out. Home values across America are losing about 1% of value a month, on top of the value being lost due to inflation that is beginning to increase rapidly.

If you are hoping things will turn around soon and are making financial decisions based on that hope, this is information you need to be aware of.

Obama deficit to equal 2000 federal budget

From the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Briefing Book

Obama budget to increase spending up from $2.983 Trillion under Bush to $3.938 Trillion this fiscal year. Will decline to $3.552 Trillion next fiscal year, down $714 Billion, but stimulus new spending remains! Obama budget forecast to increase to $3.856 Trillion by end of first term. That is a 29% increase in size of government, assuming no additional spending.

TOTAL federal spending in 2000 was $1.79 trillion.

Total estimated 2009 DEFICIT according to Obama’s budget blueprint will be $1.75 trillion.

How much trouble are Social Security and Medicare really in?

You won't believe it, but it's all here at
OASDI and HI Annual Income Excluding Interest, Cost, and Balance in Current Dollars

According to the Government, they look at three different scenarios based on cost trends. "OASDI" is Social Security, and "HI" in Medicare Part A. Medicare Part D, Prescription drugs, isn't even included here.

So here are some hard facts that you're not being told. You could call this the real crisis behind the crisis.

Under the estimates from the Social Security Administration done last year, Medicare is today already spending more than it is taking in. Social Security, under the "intermediate" estimate of costs, will be in the red in 2017, and the combined programs will be underfunded as early as 2015.

Under the worst-case scenario of high costs (and I have to wonder whether recession or depression will hasten us in this direction), these programs will be underfunded as soon as 2011. In fact, under this scenario, less than $50 billion in surpluses are left before SSI, that surplus-maker that has provided more than $2 trillion to the Treasury to fund other government programs and reduce deficits, will itself be in the red.

What happens when Social Security and Medicare require additional funds to make payments? Do we just fire up more printing presses? Does China continue to lend us the money to grow our debt?

But here is the real frightening point, if it can be scarier. The government appears to use the Low Cost scenario when they estimate our unfunded obligations out the next 75 years. As if $54 trillion doesn't sound bad enough out through 2085, how does $414 trillion sound in the Intermediate Cost scenario?

Oh, you're not worried enough yet? The high cost scenario shows a shortfall in unfunded obligations of.... wait for it.... $1.1 QUADRILLION (thousands of trillions) out to 2085.

Now every time reform of Social Security and Medicare have come up, which political party has absolutely refused to address it? But if reforming Social Security or Medicare is the 3rd rail of politics, then is it already too late to save ourselves from ourselves?

The United States is Bankrupt!

Jerome R. Corsi of WorldnetDaily did an article entitled, "Federal obligations exceed world GDP - Does $65.5 trillion terrify anyone yet?. This article describes the absolute reality of collapse of the American government. I can't say anymore about it, but you can read the article, and then review the 2008 Financial Report of the United States provided by the US Treasury.

The table below is extracted directly from the US Treasury Report looking out the infinite horizon. Look down at the lower-right total obligation for Social Security, Medicare, and Disability Insurance. Yes, that reads $101.9 TRILLION more in outlays than projected revenues.


The table below shows where we stand right now, looking out only 75 years, but including all federal government obligations, including social program entitlements from the table above. Yes, you're seeing $65.5 TRILLION dollars (the amount of money we're going to need in current dollars, added to the expected revenues for the next 75 years, to cover the federal obligation for all the promises our government has made for the next 75 years.)


Below is the link to the report from ShadowStats.com, as referenced in the Corsi article. You can read the US Government's dirty little secret for yourself.
December 2008 - GAAP-Based 2008 Federal Deficit

Perhaps this explains why the Democrats appear to have lost all sense of responsibility? I mean, after all, why bother to be fiscally responsible when the fuse is lit and it can't be extinguished? Republicans have engaged - again - and are fighting to stop the waste and the acceleration to our collapse, but are they doing it because they think they can stop it, or simply so they will have some power before things come crashing down around us all?

Have the Chinese and other foreign investors in America's debt figured out what is happening? What can they do? If they stop throwing good money after bad it will only hasten the destruction of the world economy and civilization as we know it. But if they keep throwing money into our spending insanity, don't they only prolong the agony and worsen the collapse?

China announced last week its intention to continue to buy US Treasury bonds even though it knows the dollar will depreciate because such investments remain its "only option" in a perilous world. But is this "only option" a decision based on confidence in the dollar, or a decision driven by desperation to keep the global economy from collapsing?

Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission, speaking at the Global Association of Risk Management’s 10th Annual Risk Management Convention, said: "We hate you guys. Once you start issuing $1 trillion - $2 trillion . . . we know the dollar is going to depreciate, so we hate you guys but there is nothing much we can do."

God help us all.

Stimulus? The rape is complete

Too late to fight it. Not enough time to read it. Every single senate Democrat and all but 7 Democrats in the House voted for it. 90 minutes of debate and the taxpayer is now on the hook for $787 Billion to grow government and give government more control. Boy, we're glad they pushed it through with less than a day for anyone to see it, so Pelosi could head off to the Vatican. Without a single member of Congress physically capable of reading the final bill, and even with the help of three Republicans who couldn't possibly of read the bill, it is now law.

Susan Collins (Republican - Maine)
Olympia Snowe (Republican - Maine)
Arlen Specter (Republican - Pennsylvania)

I hope that when the history of this crossroads is written about, and hopefully by historians living in an America that still exists, that the part these three played in this betrayal of all Americans is noted with all the disdain and disgust that every other Democrat will have earned who blindly supported this railroading of the American people.

What is a political party that allows those within its ranks to so willfully spit on the principles and responsibilities of the people they are elected to represent?

At least we know what to expect from the 21st century Democrat. But what these three have helped to orchestrate is beyond forgiveness.

Obama's Universal Voluntary Public Service

Al Gore spoke recently to the National Youth Scholars in Washington DC during the inauguration festivities for Barack Obama. The audience included 3,000 children - our best and the brightest - including 12 year old fourth graders from across America. His message was frightening. Please tell me this doesn't send a chill up your spine?

Gore: "Parents try to tell their kids the right thing, you know, usually. I do."

Gore: "There are some things about our world that you know that older people don't know."

What do you think Al Gore was talking about? Yes, this was out of context in a lesson he was giving on the Civil Rights movement and his suggestion that while children were being taught to understand how prejudice was wrong, many parents didn't get it until the laws were changed. I could put the whole context here, but those two quotes above accurately express that underlying message he was making to the audience.

Was Gore telling these children to ignore their parents and believe others? Maybe to believe their teachers over their parents? Or perhaps government? Was he saying that their parents can be, and are often wrong? Is he saying that a 12 year old fourth grader, properly taught by our public schools, and correctly informed of crises like Climate Change or the need for redistribution and collectivism principles should stand up to the beliefs, knowledge, reason, and experience of their parents?

Here is how Glenn Beck reacted to it this morning:

Beck: "I'm trying to think where else this has been done. Soviet Russia, Nazi, Germany, Mussolini's Italy. In fact, the Nazis took an extra step. Not only did they indoctrinate the kids and tell them you're probably right, you know but your parents don't; in fact, here's the next step: Why don't you tell us what your parents are telling you. Are we having the new Hitler youth? Is that what this is? The new Hitler youth? I'm sorry, that's so politically incorrect. The new green guard. Man your station, 12-year-olds, your parents just don't know."

Now consider President Obama's calls for a civilian security force in America funded equally to that of the military, and how Gore's urging of children to ignore the reason of their parents would play into that agenda. Is Beck onto something?

At Wesleyan University not too long ago, Obama urged graduates not to pursue the American dream of success, but to serve others. But to serve who?

"You can take your diploma, walk off this stage and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should. But I hope you don't. Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs betrays a poverty of ambition."

Obama then brought it all together. "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

And what would this Obama "security force" do exactly? Something like an ACORN for youth? Promoting the ideals of the left using any methods available?

Last July at the University of Colorado Obama said, "We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges."

Yes, he said, "we will direct"! That will be direction on the priorities of government - Obama government.

Obama's stated plan is to "set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."

And what if they refuse to serve? Will this "voluntary" service be a condition for graduation? How many of your children now are already required to perform community service to graduate Junior High or High School? Your kids get to choose today what that service is, but not whether they have to perform it or not, right? What will you do when the type of service is directed by government? What would you do if your government demanded your children to serve in such a way that you objected, but your kids were taught to ignore your objections for some greater good?

First test of Obama voters

So here we are, on the verge of the largest spending bill in the history of the United States. A 647-page list of Democrat pet-projects and handouts that will add a $1.2 trillion directly to the national debt ($825 billion plus life-time interest payments on it) at a time when there will be no increases in revenue to pay of any of it.

It is being called a Stimulus Bill, focused on jump-starting our economy. It has been written by Democrat leaders and the Obama White House, with nothing but an opportunity for Republicans to sit in a room with the president and criticize its myriad of pork-laden social-engineering and hand-outs. Many of you voted for Obama because of hope and change. And while I know your desire for change and hope for improvement of the economy is genuine, I now ask that you consider what is in this bill, and if you conclude that this is not the appropriate use of money intended to stimulate the economy, that you will immediately call on the president, this agent of change away from the earmarks, pork, and wasteful spending of the past, to veto this disaster full of liberal social spending and engineering.

Here is a summary of some of what we know is in this "Stimulus" bill.

* $335 million to prevent Sexually Transmitted Desease
* $4.19 billion for vote fraud organizations like ACORN, the Dems private "turn out the Democrat vote" machine
* $1 billion for the failing Amtrak system that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years
* $2 billion for child-care subsidies
* $50 million for "job creation"??
* $400 million for the National Endowment of the Arts
* $400 million for Global Warming research (I thought this was settled?)
* $2.4 billion for technologies to capture Carbon from the environment
* $650 million for digital TV converter boxes
* $8 billion for renewable energy
* $20 billion in business tax cuts that will likely not be used
* $6 billion for more mass transit
* $600 million for the government to buy new cars
* $7 billion to modernize federal buildings
* $150 for the Smithsonian
* $83 billion to people who don't pay any income taxes - those 40% of taxpayers who pay no income tax
* $81 billion for Medicaid - covert expansion of government health care
* $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
* $20 billion for food stamps
* $54 billion to government programs that the GAO and Congressional Budget Office classify as "ineffective" or unable to pass financial audits
* $66 billion for education, but earmarked to prohibit its use on private elementary or secondary schools
* Just $30 billion for fixing bridges and other highway projects
* Just $40 billion for worthwhile projects, such as broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects


According to the Wall Street Journal, just $90 billion of the $825 billion bill can actually be considered as stimulus for the economy. But we all know now, don't we, that any stimulus is just coincidental to the real intend of this bill, which is to spend a grotesque amount of money on pet Democrat programs?

Consider this. With $825 billion, every taxpayer in America could get a check for $6,500 to spend however they wish. How would that stimulate the economy? With interest, this bill will cost every American family $10,520 according to the Heritage Foundation.

But seriously, are any of you Obama voters outraged at the "politics as usual" that has returned to pork-laden spending bills in DC? Does anyone believe this is a economic stimulus bill, or is it really a government growth stimulus bill? Shocked at the lie of change that isn't change at all? Will any of you hold Obama accountable when he fails to veto this bill once Democrats ram it through the House and Senate?

The House just passed this right down party lines, with virtually no review or debate on its myriad of pork spending, 244 - 188.

NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THIS DEBACLE. Welcome to "change".

Policies of "change" of the Messiah

Three days into the new administration and the first actual actions by the Messiah are now more than simply words of hope and change.

His first action was to sign an Executive Order to close Guantanamo within 12 months. This decision was made despite a Pentagon briefing that 61 enemy combatants held and released from Guantanamo have reentered the War on Terror against the civilized world, and just as information was made public that Said Ali al-Shihri, suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen's capital, is now the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch. Al-Shihri was once held and released from Guantanamo into the custody of the Saudi government, under pressure from Democrats and their liberal base to prevent this government from holding enemy combatants. This first action also was made with no plan whatsoever to where the prisoners currently held in Guantanamo will go once this high-security facility outside the United States is closed. Consider the false, but repeated charges against Bush of no exit strategy in Iraq? Bush has won that war, if Obama doesn't screw it up, and exit from Iraq is being calculated in months now, and not the decades that Democrats falsely charged in the campaign. So where is Obama's exit strategy once Guantanamo is closed? Does an exit strategy matter now to his supporters, or is that a standard only applied to Bush?

The next priority of Obama has been apparently to respond to the pro-abortion forces that were among his greatest election allies. Today Obama is to sign another Executive Order that will authorize use of taxpayer money, with our without our consent, to fund training and execution of abortions overseas. In simpler terms, without congressional action, the Messiah has approved the use of my tax dollars and yours to terminate the lives of unborn human beings. No vote. No debate. Just the signature of the new agent of change and hope. I would argue that the killing of unborn children offers those children little hope, unless of course an unborn child can hope to be killed?

So just three days into a new administration we have some real actions that will result in real change. The first real actions anyone can probably cite from Obama? A prison to hold the worst of America's enemies in the War on Terror will be closed with no plan to deal with these terrorists, and pro-abortion advocates are being handed taxpayer money to promote their destruction of life worldwide.

Have pro-life, pro-national security citizens of the United States given Obama sufficient time to "make the change we can believe in"? For this American, these acts alone have ended the honeymoon.

Does your income double every 10 years?

Washington State Government spending is out of control. But that is nothing new for a government that's been dominated by Democrats for decades. I decided I wanted to understand just how quickly Democrats are exploding this government, and while you'd think that this data would be easily found on the web, it wasn't.

So for your consideration is the growth, or bloat, of this state's spending habits back to 1983. In advance I'll tell you it works out to an average biennial increase of 14.3%, or roughly 7.2% growth every year. That means a doubling of government spending every 10 years.

In Washington, the 2008 budget was 5.3 times the size of the budget in 1983. The numbers below reflect total Washington State Spending. The includes operating and capital funds both within the General Fund (unrestricted) and restricted funds the Legislature can't touch.

Biennium	Spending	Increase
	(Billions)
1983-1985	$12.96
1985-1987	15.02	15.90%
1987-1989	17.18	14.38%
1989-1991	21.41	24.62%
1991-1993	23.99	12.05%
1993-1995	29.55	23.18%
1995-1997	34.1	15.40%
1997-1999	39.4	15.54%
1999-2001	44.54	13.05%
2001-2003	49.53	11.20%
2003-2005	53.46	7.93%
2005-2007	60.52	13.21%
2007-2009	69.18	14.31%

Now if spending is doubling every 10 years, what do you think your taxes are doing every 10 years? Is your income keeping pace? Mine isn't.

How does it feel watching your nation implode?

Sorry for another rant, but these are remarkable times.

Liberals destroyed the credit markets and the banking system by undermining them with Fannie and Freddie. Their unions have destroyed Detroit and the auto industry by forcing uncompetitive salaries, benefits and pensions. Uncompetitive CAFE standards from Democrats in Congress have forced Detroit to build inferior cars that people don't want to buy, while Democrats continue to prevent America from pursuing energy independence with domestic drilling bans and pursuit of currently unattainable alternatives, all the while promoting fear and doom with their Climate Change con, even as temperatures cool and normal cyclical patterns are evident, and science dismisses the CO2 scare with known science and historical realities.

Every industry under the sun, and every Democrat government is now lining up at the trough for a handout, including even the porn industry (not to be confused with sick governments that profit selling death-sticks, alcoholic beverages, and from destroying people addicted to gambling schemes reserved for government lotteries and native American casinos).

Bush put moderating the misery of our economic troubles ahead of letting the economy crash and burn completely, by starting up the printing presses and throwing fiscal constraint and free market capitalism to the winds. But not before he was blamed for the liberals' mess and a socialist was elected to the presidency.

Now the printing presses are being geared up to be put into "trillion here and trillion there" mode so Obama, the socialists and the liberals throughout government can buy the votes to hold onto power until our economy does literally crash and burn. And it's becoming increasingly likely that Obama's new foreign policy strategy of isolation and appeasement to Iran, North Korea, China and Venezuela will get us into a good old-fashioned World War in time to hide the real cause of our total economic collapse that is coming as the direct result of liberal fiscal and foreign policy insanity.

And all the while the Pravda media gushes over the Messiah, ignores and spins the corruption and policy dangers throughout the Democrat Party, and acts as the Democrats' PR machine.

Yeah, it's an interesting time, eerily paralleling the 1930s on the eve of a decade back then of unparalleled loss of life throughout the world.

I hope I'm wrong. But one thing about being conservative is the tendency to put reality, reason, and logic above irrational belief, ignorance and unjustified optimism.

Even in crisis Gregoire can't cut a budget

For the last 4 years, Chris Gregoire and her Democrat allies in Washington have been on a spending spree. Such a spree that the biennial budget for 2007-2008 was $15 billion higher than the biennial budget of 2003-2004 that Gregoire built her first budget on. Yes, $15 billion of growth in 4 years! That is a 29.39% increase in state spending.

Now facing a $5-$7 billion deficit, Gregoire has sharpened her pencil to cut the budget, and she's holding - for now - to her "no tax" election pledge. She's already getting sued by state unions for her "drastic" cuts, and Democrats in the Legislature are already screaming. The curious thing is that Gregoire's proposed budget isn't a dime smaller than the 2007-2008 budget. It actually increases the biennial budget by over $200 million a year.

No doubt most Democrats couldn't care less about fiscal sanity, as long as they get their share of other people's money. But at some point the folks who pay the taxes that Democrats spend are going to say "no more". Then what will Democrats do?

REALITY CHECK: GREED

Liberals like to call the Bush years the Decade of Greed. By their thinking, people getting educated and working to achieve the American Dream makes them greedy if they choose to use their wealth to improve their lives and the lives of their children and family. Generally the result of education, hard work, and taking risks, the opportunity to earn more is the incentive that grows business, creates jobs, generates more taxes, and helps our economy grow. But let's talk about real greed. That would be the greed of the Obama years should he win on November 4.

The definition of the word, "greed" is simply; "the excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves." Consider all the arguments that could be spawned by this definition of greed?

Let's start with the first part; "the excessive desire for more than one needs." Who decides what is more than one needs? Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to decide. Yes, Obama and the socialists in Congress will define what is appropriate or acceptable. And as they do, so they will suppress the incentive that has made the American economy the most productive economy in the world, and America the leader of the world. Barack Obama will know what is too much, and if you dare to pursue something that one of Obama's constituency can't afford, watch out, because Obama will see to it that you can't afford it either, or he'll punish you for the right to spend your money where you wish.

But how about the second part of the definition of greed; "the excessive desire for more than one deserves." Who is going to decide what someone deserves? Yes, Obama and the socialists in Congress again. Barack and the Democrats in Congress will decide whether you deserve the fruits of your own labor, or whether the fruits of your labor should be taken from you and given to that unemployed high school dropout who refuses to seek out additional education or training.

Not to leave all the blame with the socialists in the Democrat Party; who will have given them the power to take from some to give to others? Yes, the people who vote for Obama will be the ultimate cause of the coming age of American socialism. And what is motivating a huge percentage of them? Yes, it is pure greed.

They are the portion of America that already pays little or nothing to make government work. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less then 3% of all the income taxes. Their retirement payroll deductions, often cited by the left as taxes they do pay, doesn't begin to cover the costs of their Social Security or Medicare either. They are the ones buying into Obama's class warfare argument and the socialist promise of sharing the wealth. They are just fine with the idea of being given other people's money. Therefore, it is many of the Obama supporters, that in general, demand more than they need, and certainly more than they deserve.

The left can call the Bush years the decade of greed, but if you really want to label a decade, or a group of Americans as greedy, there can be no more obvious group of Americans than supporters of Obama, or Democrats in general, who couldn't care less about any of Obama's or the Democrat's advertised policies, except one. They are waiting for their check from the government. Yes, that check paid for with other people's money.

For those paying attention, the real Decade of Greed has just begun, coinciding with the Age of Obama Socialism that could be ushered in on November 4. But it doesn't have to happen. Joe Biden tried to tie patriotism to paying more taxes, even though the targeted top 5% of taxpayers already pay more than 60% of all the income taxes. But for those that pay little or no income taxes, wouldn't it be a truly patriotic act to say no to class warfare and income redistribution? Wouldn't the real patriotic act be for those with less to take responsibility for themselves and refuse to bought with other people's money?

Saying a loud "NO" to socialism would be the most patriotic thing any American could do on November 4.

Election day will be the real defining moment for America. On November 4 we will all know whether we are a nation of patriots, or a nation driven by the greed of those at the bottom of our society's income scale.

New video on challenge to Obama's eligibility to be president

Why is Berg trying to obtain the vaulted long-form birth certificate for Barack Obama?

The original images posted on the Internet released by the Obama campaign were highly suspicious, pulled, and discredited. Recently, FactCheck.org, which is funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $160 million school reform effort funded by and approved by, among others, Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, from 1995 until the end of 2001, posted an article claiming that they had been given access to the "short-form" birth certificate created, issued, and stamped in June 2007 by the Department of Health in Hawaii and held on file with the Obama campaign. That report is here:

It does seem like quite a coincidence that of all the investigative sources across the country, that this website, funded directly by Obama's actions with the Annenberg Foundation, is the one that has obtained, examined, and posted the conclusions related to their investigation. It is also less than comforting that the certificate was physically produced just over a year ago, albeit stamped by a government employee working within a Democrat-run administration. If the certificate is genuine, then it attests to the fact that in June 2007, when it was produced, that the Hawaii database listed Obama as born in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is this glaring shortcoming of the short-form, though, that appears to have led Berg in his lawsuit to request a certified copy of the original "vaulted" "long-form" birth certificate that the state is required by law to have on file. That form would be the original paper form produced immediately after Obama's birth in 1961, and not a newly printed certificate based on data that could easily have been manipulated within the DOH's records database.

This from the FactCheck article:

"The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response."

Note that FactCheck doesn't describe the real difference between the short and long-form documents, other than the info in them. But the long-form document is the paper form filled out at the time of birth. It is not created by printing information out of a modern database. FactCheck didn't think its readers needed to really understand the difference.

So why doesn't the Hawaii DOH offer a copy of the long-form birth certificate? Because all the data in the long-form is not included in the database? No. You can't print out a copy of the original long-form from a database unless it was scanned into it and stored in an image document type, like a PDF of JPG. But once you've scanned it, you've opened the door to manipulation of that document. And if there is no long-form document, then you have nothing to scan in the first place. Regardless, you can't store a piece of paper in a digital database. Paper is stored in a physical location. Locked up hopefully where it can exist for decades. Like in a vault.

Anyone who works with databases also knows that data is easily manipulated in a database, and that without the proper protections, Mickey Mouse could be entered into the Hawaii DOH database and given a birth date, and when a short-form certificate is requested, a certified and stamped printout could be obtained without much issue. How and from what source was Obama's birth information entered into that modern digital database? But if someone asked for a copy of the original stored paper copy of the long-form for Mickey from 1961, it would be much more difficult to come up with one if one never existed. Creating a forgery would be a real challenge, in fact.

For an office as important as President of the United States, all Berg seems to be asking is for proof beyond data entered into a modern database that this candidate, was in fact, born in the USA. And given the contradiction between family members when asked the simple question of where Obama was born, Berg's request is not unreasonable. This could all be settled if a copy of that 47 year old long-form document would be provided.

In contrast, John McCain's eligibility to be president was also challenged. Born overseas to two US citizens, McCain immediately released all the relevant information and the issue of his eligibility was put to rest. If Obama was born in Hawaii, why is he seemingly doing everything he can to avoid satisfying this basic Constitutional requirement?

If it exists, would not Barack Obama be able to request such a copy with a simple phone call or signed request if required? If it exists, why is he fighting the request? No one can doubt that the Obama campaign does not understand the difference between the short and long forms. And yet, they are content to leave these questions unanswered and rely on a document printed from a modern database one year ago.