The Trump-Warren Alliance? A Curious Front Forms Over Banning Former Lawmakers from Lobbying

Well, we asked for bipartisanship. It seems to have arrived with a vengeance. It is rare to see Donald Trump, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all campaigning on the same issue, but last night the former president added his voice to the call for a lifetime ban on former lawmakers (and cabinet members) working as lobbyists. This alliance is notable not only because it is uncommon but because it is pushing a reform that is likely unconstitutional.

I have been a long critic of the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms. The promise of receiving windfall salaries from industry groups and lobby shops presents an obvious and powerful corrupting influence in Washington.

The question is how to combat it.

Last night, after announcing his candidacy for the presidency in 2024, Trump declared that he wants a lifetime ban on former lawmakers becoming lobbyists. It is clearly a popular call for someone who runs as an outsider pledging to “drain the swamp.”

While not mentioning them, Trump joined earlier calls from Warren and AOC to enact this ban. Sen. Ted Cruz has also called for such a ban, even uttering the unprecedented words “I agree with AOC.”

The problem is that such a ban is presumptively unconstitutional.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is called lobbying. In United States v. Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President in 1974, the D.C. Circuit noted that “[l]obbying is of course a pejorative term…another name for it is petitioning for the redress of grievances. It is under the express protection of the First Amendment.”

As the Supreme Court has stressed, “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment [is] a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984). The Court has also held that lobbying is protected under First Amendment activity. F.T.C. v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass’n, 493 U.S. 411, 426 (1990) (“It is, of course, clear that the association’s efforts . . . to lobby District officials to enact favorable legislation . . . were activities that were fully protected by the First Amendment.”)

This has been tried before. In Brinkman v. Budish, a federal court reviewed an Ohio law barring  members of the state legislature from doing any uncompensated lobbying for a year after leaving office. It found the law to be unconstitutional. That was a law that only imposed a one-year ban.

The fact is that such a law would not likely halt the corrupt use of jobs or contracts to influence legislation. Hunter Biden is an example of the more common tactic of giving windfall payments to the siblings or spouses or children of powerful politicians.  It also does not impact staff members and executive branch officials who regularly take such jobs.

Moreover, if Congress could impose such a ban on members, how about other professions like judges or reporters? Where is the limiting principles for the power to ban citizens from certain jobs or constitutional activities?

While many of us have called for greater bipartisan efforts in Congress, this may not be the most promising start. Indeed, there are a host of other areas ripe for reforms, including the ability of members to hold investments in areas of legislative action.

As it stands, the bipartisan move could be as commendable as it is unconstitutional.

104 thoughts on “The Trump-Warren Alliance? A Curious Front Forms Over Banning Former Lawmakers from Lobbying”

  1. Agreed it’s a conundrum, Turley. While this ban may be unconstitutional, acting like the Constitution could see into the future enough to predict how much lobbying would affect the practice of government is also naive. In fact, the degree to which the corporate lobby writ large exposed a gigantic weakness in the Constitution is perhaps one of the greatest lessons of the last hundred years or so…

    So I’m for the ban. Much more so than for term limits. If Publishers Clearing House could limit its employees from winning the jackpot back in the day, well then so can government do the equivalent.

  2. I’m not sure why this article is even here? Over the past 2 years, we’ve watched the Biden admin and/or democrats implement many unconstitutional laws under the guise of emergency powers, which are still in play. Half of the US almost got fired for not taking the clot shot, many people DID get fired.

    Why write an article about 1 thing that you consider unconstitutional and ignore 500 other events that have happened in the past 2 years?

    Curious. Blinders? or intentional?

  3. “The promise of receiving windfall salaries from industry groups and lobby shops presents an obvious and powerful corrupting influence in Washington.”

    If there were a *complete* separation between state and economics, there would be no need to worry about “windfall salaries” and corruption.

  4. “Soliciting is statuatory in this county–malfeasance without a permit. Why havent you been down’t City Hall with your references?!”

  5. The Second Amendment says that gun rights “shall not be infringed”, but Congress still finds plenty of ways to justify infringement. But when it comes to themselves making a fortune manipulating the system, all of a sudden their First Amendment rights are absolute and sacrosanct.

    1. Trump’s advisors probably told him that it was a safe bet because Clarence would strike it down.

  6. For all of their flaws—as if the rest of us don’t have any—there is an old-school sincerity about Warren and AOC. Yes, it is true, they are not saints when it comes to money, but they are light years away from the ravenous greed the permeates Washington. Perhaps a second-best solution to the revolving door lobbying issue could be a law that requires every former member of Congress and every former, high-ranking federal official to post on a central website his current and past federal employers, his current and past lobbying-related employers, his current and past lobbying clients, the current and past targets of his lobbying. and his current and past lobbying income.

  7. I believe that when people with classified info access leave govt service, they sign papers to the effect that they agree never to talk about what they did with anyone, ever (or approx. that). That’s what my dad said, anyway; he took some good stories to his grave.

    I think, in a similar vein, you can require Congresspeople to sign/agree (at beginning of service time) that as a condition of being seated in Congress, they agree never to use the information or connections they will develop in Congress in any way for further financial gain,outside of Congress.

    This way, it would be a “voluntary” agreement, and people who don’t sign don;t get seated.

    1. The constitution dictates the sole requirements to be a congress person.
      You can not add additional conditions without changing the constitution.

      I completely share the desire to quash what is obviously massive corruption.

      But there is only one constitutional way to do so.
      And only one way that actually works – and that is to limit the power of government.

      The more economic power you give government – the more economic actors will seek to rent that power.
      Even with limited government – constant vigilance will be required.

      The less you limit government the more reasons there are to seek to rent government power.

    1. There is only one thing that can be done – disempower government.

      To the extent you cede power to government, one way or the other someone will find a way to corruptly rent that power.

  8. According to the constitution speech is an enumerated right. Also by SCOTUS precedent, money is speech. Paying a person to speak to your govt has to be a constitutionally protected right. Also protected by SCOTUS precedent is a right to earn a living. Or rather, the government cannot prevent you from making a living.

    This is simple stuff.

    1. Iowan2…me thinks it’s simply more of the same…it’s not who you, it’s who you blow. Current VP is the number one shining example of that.

  9. the fix is to put all federal policy makers both elected and non-elected; along Fed LEO under ucmj (or subset of) .

  10. Why not prohibit the talking of any compensation in exchange for services rendered in seeking redress from the government. Prohibiting employment as a lobbyist is not the same as prohibiting someone from lobbying. Alternatively charge a tax of 50% of gross receipts to engage in lobbying for profit. We regularly regulate and even prohibit persons from conducting commercial as opposed to personal private activities on public property.

  11. (and speaking of “alliances” and bipartisanship, -look at this graphic,
    Notice that Republicans flipped at least 21 House seats- Democrats flipped 10? Flipping is much more difficult than simply competing, because you are competing in an area previously held/controlled by the other party. I would call that at least a modest gain, if not a modest “wave.” After all, there are so many more Democrats than Republicans in this country.
    Looks like the true “alliances” are between Democrats and media.

    1. –And just LOOK at this same graphic again ( –the absolutely-stunning geographical area that represents Republican/conservative America, vis-a-vis the small coastal density of “blue” Democrat America. I am forever thankful of the prescience of our founding fathers for giving us two senators per state. If the House fell under the same rules, we would likely have 85-90 Republican members vs. 10-15 Democrats, based on this graphic map. How is it that these coastal interests can control the vastness of America?

      1. Better to think of them as Americans instead of “liberal vs conservative”. Like our Founding Fathers up until Abraham Lincoln, perhaps adopt a disposition of listening. Let us dedicate ourselves to reach out to each other face to face instead of online, break bread together, accompany each other, journey together, be the Good Samaritan for strangers. The constant “liberal vs conservative” trope we see on this forum, as a microcosm of our nation today, is what has made our national public square implode. We can not continue this way.

        that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
        – Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

        1. Excellent points. If everyone would turn off media for a month it would go a long way toward those goals, too.

          1. If everyone would just listen to what our media sprays us with and grasp how bat$hit crazy much of it is.

            1. Completely agree. How do folks who watch/listen/read today’s media not recognize how out of touch they are compared with their own audience’s daily lives, or at least what’s left of their audience. Seems media already knows they only preach to their own choirs…they simply don’t care to reach out to anyone who disagrees with their tightly-scripted narrative.

              1. My take on the 2022 election cycle:

                People have not yet endured enough failure.

                I am libertarian – not utilitarian – but classical liberalism is an ideology that has the advantage that it works, and it scales, meaning that even partial adoption of classical liberalism results in improved standard of living.

                Put differently – classical liberalism and utilitarianism are compatible.

                But just as classical liberalism works even if only partly adopted, modern progressivism fails – even if only partly adopted.

                The US is going the way of the EU and even worse – South america.

                Almost no one advocates for the far right military junta’s that governed much of south american and still come and go.
                But unarguably ALL of them have outperformed south american socialism.

                While the left is blind to the bloodshed and death that resulted from 20th century socialism,
                they are also blind to the poverty and despair caused by leftist regimes when they managed to avoid being bloody.

                Today Republicans have a small check on the left wing nuts running the country.

                I am not honestly sure that is a good outcome.
                I am not sure we would not have been better off for democrats to retain the house.

                I do not mean that democrats would govern well – in fact I mean the exact opposite.

                It is quite clear from polling that on every single one of voters top 10 issues save for abortion – that voters support Republican policies more than democrats – in many cases by as much as 80%.
                And yet a very large portion of those voters, still voted for democrats.
                Apparently the possibility of another Trump mean tweet is so terrifying they would prefer recession, and chaos.

                Sometimes people learn from history.
                Sometimes people learn by making history.

                We appear to be past learning from history.

                I would be happy to be wrong. I would be happy if left wing nut nonsense worked.
                But it does not – so I guess we are going to learn that again the hard way.

                1. “…so I guess we are going to learn that again the hard way.”

                  I’m not confident any leftist today would learn even that lesson, hard way or not. Logic, reason and empathy for their fellow humans who simply disagree with them have been rooted out of their humanity for all practical purposes. Remember, these are the same people who will feign shock and surprise when the the battle begins and believe until their dying breath they have the absolute right to prevent others from seeing, hearing, speaking, and in general, living their lives as free people who just happen to disagree with them. To them, free people are always doing so “wrongly”, you know, despite Leftists suggestions and efforts to corral them into servitude “for their own good”.

                  I do not look forward to the next shooting war, the war that will eventually have to happen because free people ALWAYS fight back and never ‘fight fair’ when they do. I have to believe it will be a war of attrition where the ones doing the killing of innocents reach the point where they ask themselves, “What the hell am I doing, following so-called ‘leaders’ who will not fight along-side me?” Only those people, and those who already cherished the rights for everyone to be free from tyranny, will remain. At least for a period of time until the next doofus thinks he has the right to dictate and control other people’s freedoms.

                  1. If you are correct and they have sufficient power – we will drift into some US permutation of the USSR or CCP under Mao.

                    Or alternately we will have a real civil war – with violence and guns and fighting.

                    I do not beleive the violence at the BLM riots was justified.
                    I do not beleive the substantially less significant violence on J6 was justified.

                    But eventually violence is justified. Violence is the means to preserve liberty when all us fails. If possible we must avoid that – because revolutions even when justified, frequently lead to bad outcomes
                    The US revolution was relatively unique.
                    The french revolution is more normal.

        2. Estovir: Really nice words and thought(s) -but they have little if anything to do with my constant words against MEDIA SLANT, -not “liberal vs conservative.” Media’s misrepresentation of reality out there is what polarizes people; –in real life, they often know very little about each other/their neighbors, -and I am certain they would help each other in emergencies

          1. (in other words, I speak to media’s role in misrepresenting the country and its sentiments–not the reality that we would all do better, (in your words, by direct talking and learning from each other) -without media attempting to manipulate our realities.) I have said this in many other posts.

            1. here is a beautiful story from Prosperity, South Carolina, that is applicable. Hear in the words of a SC Family Physician and a new medical school graduate, the importance of connecting with people.

              As for your wise and true comment about the news media, I have stated many times on here: unplug.

              1. Estovir…….If Washington, especially the Left, would turn back to America’s cherished values of the past, goodness would follow, like children in summer chasing the ice cream man!
                Thank you for that.wonderful, lovely little film…….showing us the way things SHOULD be.
                As part of the elderly group in America. I am finding it harder and harder to have a dialogue with those younger than I…… one truly listens anymore and when they speak, their speech is so accelerated and choppy that it’s impossible to navigate and understand. IMO, this is the result of the Smart Phone culture. I don’t own one and do not care to own one.
                Unless it’s an emergency, I think texting is a crass way to communicate with one’s fellow humans……
                Smoke signals would be an improvement, more civil…..and how! 🙂

                1. Nice post, Cindy, and you reminded me of when I was young, we would climb up the cherry trees in our yard, shake the trees or pick cherries and throw them on the ground below us, then gather them up and sell them to passing cars for 25 cents a quart. Guess what we did with the money? Chased the ice cream truck!

                    1. Cindy Bragg: Your comments are generally succinct and often reveal a wry humor, so I would surmise you’ve got little to worry about as you get older …Bet you can spit a cherry pit farther than I can.

                    1. It takes two to Mango. Were you ever hit with one? Ha, what a mess (if they were ripe)!
                      My brother pelted the girls with those little crab apples with his slingshot!

                  1. Lin…there’s no “reply” button on your other comments below so I’ll reply here.
                    Thank you for your kind words……and I enjoy your comments. But, though I may seem like a cherry seed spittin’ Granny, and rightfully so, I must say that spitting and watching others spit, makes me physically ill, believe it or not. It’s the reason I can’t watch an Astros game on a large tv screen……All of that spitting..yuck LOL… Southern girl takes over when I see it.

                2. Smoke signals indeed. Ive expressed on this forum (the only forum where I comment on the internet) many times my rejection of social media, texting and smart phones. I often think of throwing mine into the James River if not for GPS. I rarely use it otherwise, preferring instead eye to eye conversations and live phone calls. Agreed: the kids aren’t alright. However they did not fall from trees nor the sky.

                  The Catholic Calendar had an applicable reading in the Catholic Lectionary recently which drives home my point:

                  You must say what is consistent with sound doctrine,
                  namely, that older men should be temperate, dignified,
                  self-controlled, sound in faith, love, and endurance…..

                  Urge the younger men, similarly, to control themselves,
                  showing yourself as a model of good deeds in every respect,
                  with integrity in your teaching, dignity, and sound speech
                  that cannot be criticized,
                  so that the opponent will be put to shame
                  without anything bad to say about us.

                  – Titus 2

                  I have stated in the past that the Left are pagans, lost, empty, and self-absorbed. Conservatives say they are about God, the Bible, religious or traditional ways. However you don’t need me to list the names of Republicans / conservatives who should have a millstone placed around their necks. Meaning, from my vantage point, conservatives have served as scandals (stumbling block) for nonbelievers. Christians are called to be evangelists, more so in deed than words. Recall Anita Bryant, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell Senior and Junior (the latter recently admitting to having a pool-boy to please his wife), Paul and Jan Crouch of Trinity Broadcast Network infamy who were sued by their granddaughter Brittany Crouch Koper, modern day prosperity gospel types, and of course Roman Catholic bishops hiding pedophile priests. The hypocrisy does not fall far from the tree, e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene (husband filed for divorce), Matt Gaetz (prostitutes and cocaine), Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, etc

                  If we all focused on living in deeds by words we preached, our return on investment will be similar to that of Jesus Christ investing in 12 idiots who all betrayed Him in the end. Christianity grew anyways. It does not grow today, rather diminishes, because of Christians.

                  If we want the Left to be converted, we must give them a reason in our example.

                  “We are not called to be successful, but faithful.”
                  ― Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta

                  Cindy, I think you and are on the same page as to following the same Lord. Though you have 20 years on me, I have believed in these principles since I was a child. I used to lead bible studies in my home when I was in high school. Im also a terrific hypocrite, so there ya go.

                  Let us pray for one another. Oremus!

                  1. Estovir….well, as one hypocrite to another..LOL!! You’re exactly right about leading by example. As far as our Christianity….As I’ve said before, my father was an ordained Minister of Music all of my life…so as a child, and teen, I was at church all the time, I often envied kids whose families came to church only on Sunday morning. They got to watch all the great Sunday night TV shows (Ed Sullivan, Disney, etc) while I was at church. Now of course, looking back, I’m so grateful for my years as a staffer’s kid, with all of the spiritually rich rewards I received……and the appreciation for disciplne.

      2. A person who owns 100 acres has the same vote as one who owns 0 acres. It is a distraction to focus on landmass, which is why cartograms are so much better as representations of political views than land maps.

        States, counties, … in US are not red or blue. They are varying shades of purple.

        Look at these purple maps and cartograms and think about how the visual influences your interpretation:

        1. I’m not sure what your point is, buddy. In case you didn’t understand the first one, here’s another political CARTOGRAM for you,
          In its accompanying text, it states, “While these graphics inform us of the geographical distribution of votes, they are misleading as the area mapped is the land surface, and not the number of votes.” I previously used the same or similar in a previous post a few days ago, which I know you read, because you provided the exact same hyperlink, which cannot be opened. I’m so flattered that you follow my posts so carefully.
          In that same post, I joked about the geographical area’s visual dissonance (politically) and the need for Red States to make more babies! Remember, Anonymous??? That was what I said and is precisely the point I was/am making.
          Thanks anyway, have a nice evening.


          1. The Newman link opens fine for me. Must be a problem with your browser.

            Your own link says “The cartograms here are based on the Gastner-Newman algorithm,” and guess what: I gave you a link to Mark Newman’s election cartograms, of Gastner-Newman. Newman’s maps are more revealing, because he maps at the county level, not just the House district level. He and others provide many other revealing cartograms here: Glad that you recognize that Monteux agrees with me: the standard maps “are misleading as the area mapped is the land surface, and not the number of votes.” Yet you keep focusing on land surface.

            1. Dear, dear Anonymous: Why do you try to make a point that is not a point? (and certainly not my point). To save face? Did you read what I said–that in my post(s), I was precisely and exquisitely noting that because of comparatively lower populations in Red states, that they needed to “make more babies?” Those were my exact words several days ago. Why would I make that remark if I were not referring to prospective voting? . Are you not comprehending? Go back and read my original post.
              Second, the geographic (not political cartographic) maps show that the vast Midwest region is solidly Red–my exact point. _And the political cartographic map is not much better for you.
              You cannot deny this, using either measurement/criterion. Please move on, OK? Thanks.

            2. And no map tells the real political story: The one where urban dwellers vote for urban issues mostly and rural vote their own interests, too. But within the past generation or so that story changed to: Team Blue (and sadly, way too many on Team Red) want’s absolute control over everyone (first-ever demand for experimental vaccines injected into the entire population as just the most recent example), compared to Team America where everyone is allowed to live as they wish without interference from Central-Planners in “Far Far Away”, as the story goes.

          2. No there are not “misleading” this is more left wing nut nonsense.

            Something that conveys information different from what you wish is not “misleading”

            A graph shows whatever it shows. Unless it is constructed inaccurately it is not misleading.

            A different graph shows something different – it is not misleading either.

            They are each different ways of examining something.

        2. A person who owns 100 acres has the same vote as one who owns 0 acres. It is a distraction to focus on landmass,

          Except, deciding representation in the US does use land mass, as one factor. Each State is equal in the Senate, ignoring population. Because States are the political unit, that is the “United” states. ALL power rests with the States, or the People. except the few, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government

          1. She was talking about representation in the House, not the Senate, and the Senate ALSO ignores land mass, since states are not determined by size.

            1. When creating the Constitution, the founders recognized the differences in areas and populations. They recognized State sovereignty and provided each state with equal representation in the Senate, providing two Senators. The important thing was for the States to have equal representation in the Senate.

              You should have known all that, but you like to argue. You aim to end federalism. You want to pick this nation apart until it no longer exists, and your brand of leftism prevails. You seek to fracture this nation apart, racially or otherwise. Formerly it was character over color (good), and now it is color over character (bad), fracture, destroy and fracture again. You seek to end everything that interferes with your goal, including religion because only the state can act as your God and the rule of law.

        3. A person who has 100 acres does have the same vote as someone who owns 0.

          But they are not equal in any other way. While land is only one of many factors that determine the societal benefit of each of us, it is still one.

          We are not equal in any other way but before the law.

          We can be sympathetic to the homeless drug addict living on the streets of LA,
          but that sympathy does not alter the FACT that he does not contribute. He does nothing that raises our standard of living.
          He does nothing that makes life better for others.

          Conversely most people who own property make significant contributions. Their actions raise the standard of living for all of us.

          Property ownership is not the sole factor determining ones value to others – but it is a significant one.

        4. What is new – different graphs show different things.

          One is not more accurate than another – though it may be more accurate in communicating some SPECIFIC information.

        5. I would note that a property based graph is extremely relevant to who should decide how property is managed.

          Homeless people in LA should not be deciding how farmers in Nebraska manage their farms.

  12. “…..and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Constitution does not say the right to petition the government over someone else’s grievances.

    1. Well, but, then, there is the idea of speaking for the voiceless. Like the mouse in Dumbo speaking up. Both Dumbo and his mother were voiceless. And, the idea of “I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees because the trees have no voices.” I know those are just storybook examples, but the concept should carry some weight.

  13. (Until further educated about the potential weakness of my position), I don’t believe I have a problem with lobbying–on either end of Congressional service. –Would rather see more emphasis on disclosure and recusal than prohibition.

    1. We can thank lobbying for 28% credit card interest rates, unaffordable insurance, and poisoned food. It’s all about money and power instead of what’s good for the people.

  14. No, Constitutionally you can’t stop “petitioning for redress”, but I wonder if you couldn’t make not doing so contingent on keeping those cushy retirement benefits?

    1. Interesting—so in other words, politicians lobbying for others would not be considered retired, but still actively using their political clout…

  15. Is there a 14th amendment argument (equal protection) to be made against the power a lobbyist has in the exercise of their 1st amendment rights compared with that of an individual citizen?

          1. False equivalency. Straight from the ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ school of thought. It appeals to a staggering weakness in western thought by maintaining a false either/or dynamic. People *with guns* kill people. Money *with government backing* is the culprit.

            1. Nope perfectly correct.

              And guns do not kill people – people do.
              Not only is that literally correct, but it is also historically correct.

              While it is true that SOMETIMES restrictive gun laws have diminished gun violence.
              They have never diminished violence generally.

              Alot is made of the difference between overal rates of violence in the US than other developed countries.
              But the fact is that within ethnic and/or racial groups rates of violence are close to homogenous accross the world regardless of gun or other laws.

              Asians are the least violent – with some variation in specific asian ethnicities. They are less violent in China, Taiwan, Japan, and the US
              With no consequrntial differences in rates of violence.

              Cacasians are the next least violent group – again there are some variations with specific sub groups, but througout the world within that ethnic variation rates of violence are fairly uniform.

              Hispanics are the next least violent group – and again – in south america, in the US the rates of violence are very similar for hsipanics.

              Then we have blacks which are twice as violent as whites. That is true in the US, it is True in UK, it is true in Africa.

              You can fairly accurately calculate the violent crime rate in nearly any country in the world – without knowing anything about its laws,
              just by knowing the ethnic and racial mix of the country.

              Only idiots on the left think that guns are somehow demon possessed and cause otherwise peacefully people to become violent.

              I find it odd that those on the left claim to “follow science” – yet on issue after issue they believe complete and total nonsense that is not supported by actual real world data.

            2. People – without guns kill people.

              150,000 years ago there were no guns. Life expectancy for humans was about 23yrs.
              The most common cause of death was violence.

              Slowly humans are becoming less prone to resort to violence.
              And those who choose to be violent will reach for a gun if one is available.
              Just as those seeking to defend themselves will reach for a gun.

              But when there are no guns, they reach for knives or other weapons.

            3. “Money *with government backing* is the culprit.”

              Nonsense. You do not understand money at all.

              Money is a means – not an end. Power is an end in itself.

              The left accuses the police of systemic racism – lets presume for an instant that is true – are the police engaging in racism – the abuse of government power over money ?

              The actually racist jim crow laws in the south – were inarguably economically idiotic. Jim crow made the south as a whole poorer and even the very few people who might have benefited in the short term, were financially worse off in the long run.
              Everyone benefits when more of us prosper.

              according to EJI at least 4500 lynchings occurred in the south over about a century – those were certainly about power – there was little or no money involved.

              Dick Chenney shot a shooting partner in the face – and the partner apologized – it is harder to think of a better example of power, but no money involved.

              Absolutely everything government does is about POWER. But much of it has little or nothing to do with money.
              In fact often we waste money – solely over issues of power.

              The US is assisting Ukraine in thwarting Russia.
              How is it that the US is going to profit from this ?

              Absolutely defense contractors will benefit financially.
              And there may be some corruption involved,
              But do you really believe the primary reason we are aiding Ukraine is so defense contractors make money ?

Leave a Reply