Individuals in Congress become corrupted in the process of getting elected. Raising $3 to $5 million dollars to campaign for office obligates the candidates to a host of major contributors for special favors. Post election contributions and running for re-election compounds the indebtedness.

Fulfilling these obligations to special interests is the start of their malfeasance. It becomes a way of life for many office holders, so that self rewarding maneuvers soon follow. The longer some careerists are in office the more blatant these self rewarding actions are. Many members of Congress make favorable arrangements: to benefit their family, for companies in which they own stock, and to enhance the value of real estate they own. Here are just a couple of examples out of the thousands of known and unknown unethical, sweetheart deals.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) oversaw a substantial 'no bid' contract that went to her husband's firm, Financial Leasing Services.

18 Members of the House Financial Services Committee and Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) voted to provide federal government rescue funds to firms in which they own stock.

Senator Dodd's (D-Conn.) wife is a member of Javelin Pharmaceuticals Board of Directors, where she received almost $150,000 in earnings and stock options. She earned another approximately $200,000 in 2008 from two other corporations.

Do you believe that most problems in government are caused by Congressional members of the opposing party?

Do you overlook the misdeeds of the Congressmen you voted for?

Do you rationalize the improprieties of your party's politicians by saying, "the other political party's politicians do it too?"

Do you accept Congress' failures as "that's the way it is?"

Are you going to re-elect the incumbents?

Americans give Congress a 14% approval rating. Voting against the incumbents in the next election will dramatically improve our government and the approval rating of Congress.

By: A. Woodrow
Author, How to Make Your Vote Count
Founder, Democracy Conservator Foundation
"Preserving our democratic representative government through smart voting."
http://www.DemocracyConservator.org

The Democracy Conservator Foundation welcomes comments and suggestions on how to improve our message and more effective methods to reach Americans.

Today, it's popular in Washington, DC to cite statistics about a high unemployment rate in this community or that city in order to justify the passage of a massive spending bill, which President Obama has attempted to sell as a jobs bill. Of course, this is how politics is played at the national or even at the state and local level. But, the real question comes down to this: what actually works and what doesn't?

We do know, for example, that raising corporate income taxes doesn't create jobs. In recent years, Michigan increased its corporate income taxes and, now, that state has become the basket case in the Central part of the US, especially in Detroit, Michigan. About a year ago, Fortune Magazine actually wrote a story about the many senior partners of major consulting firms, which were flying each week to Motown early on Monday morning from the US East Coast and then staying all week, on what it called "the Distress Bus."

So, from this example, we quickly learn that raising corporate taxes is a loser -- plain and simple. If your state chooses to raise its corporate taxes, then individual companies will begin to investigate other jurisdictions -- think "low tax" states or "No tax" states.

Certainly not all companies view it as patriotic to pay "higher taxes" just for the privilege of staying in a given state, like Michigan.

On the other hand, how does a state or a country for that matter actually generate a substantial number of jobs that can really make a difference in its society, you might logically ask. Simple. Dramatically cut corporate tax rates and, then, watch the job creation miracle unfold. As a reader, you may want some evidence to support this conclusion and, so, I ask you "What about Ireland?"

Today, Ireland offers one of the most beneficial corporate tax rates in the world at 12.5%, which is the lowest among all EU member states. This rate compares quite favorably to the 39.5% US corporate tax rate (Source: Deloitte & Touche, 2008). In fact, only Japan among the major economies of the world at 41% has a higher corporate tax rate than our country.

So, what happened in Ireland, you might ask? In Ireland, tax rates were cut, both for businesses and individuals, plus the country's fiscal and monetary house was cleaned up. In addition, US companies (which make up the largest foreign investment group in Europe) especially liked the fact that Irish workers spoke English, although a different version of the language. Ireland also believed in free trade and fought against protectionist policies, such as high tariffs. Plus, John Bruton as the leader of Ireland's Fine Gael Party was the Finance Minister, when Ireland dramatically cut its corporate tax rates and, in the process, helped to create the Celtic Tiger economy. He also served as Prime Minister from 1994-97, during which time he guided the country to a period of great prosperity.

For a quick comparison, Canada's per capita gross domestic product used to be two and a half times Ireland's. But, today, Ireland long ago passed Canada's GDP.

What was the secret of Ireland's success? The Irish miracle was the result of a dramatic policy revolution that emphasized "real" results in creating jobs. And, that's how one person, with a good idea, can positively transform a society, whether that country is Ireland or America. It's about following a vision for creating higher-paying jobs in a global information and services economy, which boosts training and education, moderates wage increases with the help and cooperation of organized labor and slashes corporate tax rates, among other factors leading to that nation's success.

By: Jim Armstrong
James O. Armstrong, who is President of NowWhatJobs.net, Inc., http://www.nowwhatjobs.net, also serves as the Editor of NowWhatJobs.net. In addition, he is the author of "Now What: Discovering Your New Life And Career After 50" and the president of James Armstrong & Associates, Inc., which is a media representation firm based in Suburban Chicago.

When Alberto Gonzales fired a couple of U.S. Attorneys the left went nuts calling his actions politically motivated and demanding an investigation into the firings be held. When Barack Obama fired an inspector general, a position that is above politics, the media didn't even report it. I'm guessing this is the first time you've heard of it.

Let's start from the beginning. Before being fired Gerald Walpin was the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service. As the Inspector General he oversaw AmeriCorps. During this time AmeriCorps gave an $850,000 grant to a Sacramento based organization called St. Hope. The organization is run by Kevin Johnson, a former NBA basketball player and the mayor of Sacramento. Not surprisingly Johnson is also a well-known Obama supporter. When the organization received the grant they wrote the rules, and there were only three of them.

They were:

- Providing one-on-one tutoring to [Sacramento] elementary and high school students

- Managing the redevelopment of one building a year in the Oak Park [the Sacramento neighborhood in which St. HOPE operates,

- Coordinating logistics, public relations, and marketing for the Guild Theater and Art Gallery events, as well as hands-on workshops, guest artist lectures, and art exhibitions for Sacramento High School for the Arts and PS7 Elementary School [in Sacramento] Furthermore the grant funds could not be used to "pay all or part of the salaries of its employees or the costs associated with its administrative or management structure." Put simply if the funds were being used on an activity not listed in the above three goals, they were being misused. The California State Commission caught some irregularities and notified the office of irregularities at St. Hope. That sparked the investigation by the Inspector General.

The two investigators on the case were Jeffrey Morales and Wendy Wingers. The agents spent a great deal of time investigating the allegations. They made five trips out to Sacramento and conducted 26 interviews. However, Johnson refused to be interviewed. The investigators inquired twice and both times were told that Johnson's schedule was too jam packed. You'd think Johnson would have liked to speak to the investigators to clear his organizations name, but he refused. On September 24, 2008 St. Hope was officially suspended from any federal procurement or nonprocurement activities. The suspension detailed six violations of the organization:

- Using AmeriCorps members to recruit students for St. HOPE Academy

- Using AmeriCorps members for political activities in connection with the Sacramento Board of Education election

- Taking grant-funded AmeriCorps members to New York to promote the expansion of St. HOPE operations in Harlem -Assigning grant-funded AmeriCorps members to perform services "personally benefiting...Johnson," such as "driving [him] to personal appointments, washing [his] car, and running personal errands

- "Supplementing staff salaries by converting grant funds designated for AmeriCorps members," by enrolling two St. HOPE Academy employees "into the AmeriCorps program for the 2004-2005 grant year" without changing their duties, thereby improperly using grant funds so that one St. HOPE employee's "salary was then paid through the AmeriCorps program," plus she "received an [AmeriCorps] living allowance and an education award," and the other employee's salary, which was not paid from the grant, "was supplemented by both an AmeriCorps living allowance and an education award

- Improperly using AmeriCorps "members to perform non-AmeriCorps clerical and other services" that "were outside the scope of the grant and therefore were impermissible" for "the benefit of St. HOPE" But that wasn't the end. The U.S. Attorney in Sacramento declined to file criminal charges against the organization or Johnson. It should be noted that when this investigation began Johnson wasn't the mayor of Sacramento. As a matter of fact when the suspension to St. Hope was handed down he wasn't even the mayor, he was elected in December 2008. Clearly Johnson wanted all of this to go away. It would be terrible if the newly elected mayor of Sacramento was slapped with criminal charges only five months into his tenure. So there was a settlement.

The U.S. Attorney's office settled for half of the money to be returned, around $400,000. And here we are, early June and Obama has fired Walpin. And for what? A bum investigation? That can't be the case the U.S. Attorney's office settled. The only logical answer is that Johnson is a big supporter of Obama and Walpin came very close to getting criminal charges slapped on him. So why does all this matter? Why would Obama want to fire Walpin for simply getting in the hair of one of his good friends? While I think fiddling with Obama's buddies was probably reason enough for Obama to justify firing Walpin (at least in his own mind) there seems to be a little more to the story and it goes hand-in-hand with Obama's economic stimulus package.

See when St. Hope was put on the list banning them from receiving federal aid so was Johnson. The city was worried that because Johnson was on the Excluded Parties List the city wouldn't be allowed to receive federal dollars, including stimulus funds. So the city hired attorney Frederic Levy to make sure that was the case, and after five hours of work and a $20,000 plus bill, Levy determined that it was highly likely Sacramento couldn't receive stimulus dollars because of Johnson's banning. The good news for the Sacramento government was that Johnson settled, and was taken off the Excluded Parties List. But as we've seen with Obama thus far, messing with the stimulus is a no-no. He's been very critical of states that have refused stimulus dollars, couple that with Johnson being a strong supporter and it seems very likely that Obama would fire Walpin.

Okay, so Obama fired an Inspector General for political and personal reasons, why is that illegal? It's illegal because Obama made it illegal. Enter the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008. A bill introduced by Claire McCaskill of Missouri and co-sponsored by 11 other people, including Barack Obama. The act puts Inspector Generals above politics. Furthermore it requires a 30 days notice, including a written statement as to why the firing is taking place, has to be presented to Congress.

Walpin claims that the Obama administration gave him a mere one-hour to make his decision to either resign or be fired. And it wasn't until after Walpin said he wasn't going to resign that the Obama administration finally sent notification to congress with this pathetic reason, "It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general. That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general." Why doesn't Obama have full confidence in Walpin anymore? Who knows, apparently that messily one sentence is reason enough to fire a guy.

Walpin is already off of the Inspector General's website; his page is replaced by the acting IG Kenneth Bach. The Obama admin says Walpin is on paid leave and will be fired at the end of a 30 day period but that still doesn't provide us with a good reason as to why he was fired. And don't hold your breath for a reason. You could if you wanted to but my guess it you would die seven times over from suffocation before the media questions Obama about it. If they do I'm sure Robert Gibbs will have some Jedi mind trick answer up his sleeve. I guess you could say Walpin is a victim of "politics as usual."

By: Jacob Bodnar
Jacob Bodnar is the host and producer of the weekly conservative podcast, The Current Podcast. His shows and columns can be accessed at http://www.thecurrentpodcast.com

After the Iranian Elections, folks rioted and called the elections a sham, a facade, and the government folks running them corrupt. The people threw stones, bottles, and lit things on fire. The Iranian Government responded with police on motorcycles with batons, swinging at protestors as they rode by. The next day as the group protests raged on, police or military guard opened fire on them, actually shooting at the crowd, and unfortunately killing people.

If I had not witnessed those scenes with my own eyes, I would have not believed it were possible in this day and age. It reminded me of the Attila the Hun raiders on horses with swords raiding villages, then raping and pillaging. It was a very pathetic spectacle, especially for a nation that prides itself on being the once great Persian Empire. One has to ask if Iran has learned anything about common decency, democracy, or what the present period is all about?

The Iranian Government tried to play down the uprising in the World Media, calling it incidentally, but the pictures show otherwise, 10s of 1,000s of people in the streets protesting is not a little event. And for everyone there, there are 20 or more people who are also very angry, but too timid or afraid to speak out for fear of retribution from a government they obviously no longer trust.

Currently, Iran's economy is in shambles, their leader, who was supposedly re-elected although that seems to be slightly in dispute right now is taking a very hard line on the world stage right now. This can only mean one thing; more of the same problems, and an escalation of dangers from proxy terrorists fulfilling the wishes of their leadership. Please think on this.

By: Lance Winslow
Lance Winslow's Bio. Lance Winslow is also Founder of the Car Wash Guys, a cool little Franchise Company; http://www.carwashguys.com/history/founder.html/.