Connect with us

Featured Columnists

A Disquisition on Greed in Politics, Part 1: Diagnosing Greed in Politics

Samuel McLure



By Sam McLure
Alabama Political Reporter


“One who is greedy stirs up strife . . .”




“The World is One Big Whorehouse”

Greed in politics. Everyone knows it’s there. A reporter’s favorite hobby is exposing a politician’s hypocritical greed. Yet, tracing the ways of greed in politics is like tracking a snake in a boulder field. Its trail is elusive, and the more you hunt it, the more it seems to hunts you. In fact, greed, like lust, seeks to daily corrupt all of our motives and actions.

The Apostle Paul zoned-in on the severity of greed, when he said that those whose lives are marked by it cannot “inherit the Kingdom of God.”  John Owen, that political firebrand of the English Parliament explained that, “[t]here is nothing that the Scripture doth more severely condemn, nor denounce more inevitable punishment unto” than greed.

When the wild man of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, spoke on greed, he held no punches: “The world is one big whorehouse, completely submerged in greed,” where the “big thieves hang the little thieves.” Jesus himself reserved his harshest words for the political rulers of his day, the Pharisees, who loved to look polished on the outside, yet “inside [were] full of greed and wickedness.”

Diagnosing or identifying greed-in-action is a daunting task. “Greed nowadays has come to be viewed as talented, smart, careful stewardship,” and this has led as well to “sin in general [being] dressed up to look like virtue and not vice.”

David Mathis, from Desiring God ministries, defines greed as “our inordinate desire, our excessive love, for wealth and possessions, for money and the things money can buy — and even for self-esteem, security, status, and power.”

While the accumulation or possession of material wealth, power, and prestige are never condemned in Scripture, what is condemned is obsession with them, and willingness to violate the rights of others to get more.  Rev. Jeph Guinan of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church explains that, “greed is never satisfied and always afraid.  The one thing the person with lots of money and power wants is more money and power. And, the one thing the person with lots of money and power is afraid of is, losing their money and power. They will do anything to anyone to avoid such loss. Those in power will manipulate the system to any end in order to maintain AND GROW their power and financial status.”


Greed in Politics is No Surprise

It comes as no surprise then, that greed is present in politics. Because greed, in varying degrees, is present in every person’s heart, and must there be personally combatted, the most difficult question of government is thus how to restrain greed in politics. To this end, the founders of our peculiar American government proposed a Constitution that, if adhered to, would present the most effective vehicle, conceived by man, to restrain greed in politics.

George Washington, skeptical that the Constitution could do just that, restrain greed in politics, lamented that if the American people “would not do what the Constitution called on them to do, the government would be at an end, and must then assume another form.” What would lead a political leader to fail to do what the Constitution called on them to do? What would lead them to violate the bounds of the Constitution, set in party by the 10th Amendment, to gain more power, money, or prestige?

In short, the answers is greed.


Four Principles of Greed Politics

In the 1840’s U.S. Senator Calhoun observed realities in government that are still true today:

“I have no doubt from what I daily see that our whole system is rapidly becoming a mere money-making concern to those who have the control of it.” And that “every feeling of patriotism is rapidly sinking into a universal spirit of [greed].”

Calhoun went on to observe that both parties are fundamentally at odds, not over social issues of justice, mercy, and equity, but over control of the government’s tax revenue:

“The Federal Government is no longer under the control of the people, but of a combination of active politicians who are banded together under the name of Democrats or Whigs. And whose exclusive object is to obtain the control of the honors and emoluments of the government. They have the control of the almost entire press of the country and constitute of vast majority of Congress and of all the functionaries of the Federal Government. With them a regard for principle or this or that line of policy is a mere pretext. They’re perfectly indifferent to either and their whole effort is to make up on both sides such issues as they may think for the time the most popular, regardless of truth or consequences.”

Let’s pause to highlight several of Calhoun’s observations. As far back as 1845, one of America’s greatest political minds[1] observed four principles of greed in politics that are still true today:

  • Interests of greed, “business interests,” have hijacked the whole political system;
  • The labels of the two dominant parties (Democrat and Republican, today) are really just manipulative mantles worn by this band of “active politicians” who are voraciously seeking benefit and control of the tax revenue;
  • This cohort of greedy “active politicians” are so powerful as to control most of the Government and the media; and
  • Most importantly, this cohort of greedy snakes manipulates the populous with social issues, in order to gain favor and stay in power.

These four observations of greed in politics are just as true today as they were in 1845.


“The Most Dangerous Power Known To Man”

Rep. David Crocket observed in the 1830’s that “the power of collecting and distributing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power known to man.”  Crocket was notable in resisting the urge of the Federal Government to dispense with tax revenue in a manner that surpassed those powers delegated to them by the States – no matter how virtuous the cause may present.

The allure of controlling ill-gotten tax revenue of government was exponentially magnified with the facade-passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (not to mention its surreptitious implementation) and the shadowy Federal Reserve the same year.  1913 was the culmination of four generations of work by the Greed Party; 1913 was the year that these “active politicians” could avail themselves of virtually unlimited money and power from the “whole system,” driving it deeper into a “mere money-making concern.”


The Puppet Show

This essay began with a quote from an ancient Middle-Eastern ruler, Solomon, “A greedy man stirs up strife.” What Calhoun and others have observed is that the conflict between the two-party system, the Republicans and the Democrats, is a farce – a puppet show. The Greed Party “stirs up strife,” in order to gain the advantage of the tax revenue. 

Certainly there are a few people in positions of power within the Republican Party who genuinely care about “x, y, z” issue; and certainly there are a few people in power within the Democratic Party who genuinely care about “a, b, c” issue.  However, the far more powerful force behind both parties is the same: the Greed Party.  The Greed Party pulls the social-issue strings of both parties like a puppet master.

The great trap of the Greed Party is that whatever noble goal is attained by a Republican politician or a Democratic politician, only serves to fuel the Greed Party’s cupidity. Many politicos have theorized that the Republican Party’s “Conservative” brand – including the pro-life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty platform – was created by the Greed Party in order to garner enough votes to gain control of the tax revenue. The same criticism can be levied against the Democratic Party’s “Progressive” brand – including criminal justice reform, drug-policy reform, and civil rights initiatives.

What must emerge is a solution, not within the system, but without the system.  A third party must emerge whose strings are not pulled by the Greed Party. A third party must emerge whose fight for political good is not directed at opposition to the Republicans or to the Democrats, but rather directly at the serpentine Greed Party itself.


For the Noble of Heart in Politics

Scottish preacher, John Knox, observed that “You are working against your king just as much if you allow him to be a tyrant as if you oppose him.” For the noble of heart in politics, for those not ensnared in the trappings of the Greed Party, for those to whom it is not too late, I challenge you to consider this – Do you want you blood, sweat, and tears to be played like a puppet master for the fulfillment of the Greed Party’s own selfish ambitions?  Is your work within the two-party system allowing your government to continue to be a tyrant?

The maxim that “A greedy man stirs up strife” is only half the proverb. The second half presents the stark contrast for us to consider today, “the one who trusts in Jehovah will be enriched.”  True riches do not come from creating strife and profiting from it. True riches come from the peace of apply Jehovah’s wisdom.


In Parts II and III we plan to examples of greed in Alabama politics, and potential solutions.

[1] I say this with complete repudiation of his grotesque promotion of the American slave trade.  I lament that he did not equally spend his intellect on eradication of this enterprise. There are no more heroes, but Christ. To quote any man, is to risk “guilt by association.” I hope the reader will be generation with that judgment here.


Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | Greed is threatening the daycare bill again

Josh Moon



By Josh Moon
Alabama Political Reporter

It is happening again.

In the bowels of the Alabama State House, where the rancid sausage of state government is put together, the men are scheming again.

Scheming to kill, or severely weaken, the daycare licensing bill.


The same people are involved: Sen. Larry Stutts, the Alabama Eagle Forum and Sen. Shay Shelnutt.

For the last several days, Rep. Pebblin Warren and other advocates for the daycare bill have been meeting with that group of malcontents, listening to their insane demands and trying to come up with some way to placate this group who will apparently go to the mat to prevent churches from spending the money to properly care for and protect defenseless children.

The bill is expected to be on the Senate floor Thursday, but its fate is, at this point, unknown. Which is, quite honestly, astonishing.

Even for this group, the blatant bending to the almighty dollar in this instance is breathtaking.

In case you’ve forgotten what’s being proposed here, let me provide a quick refresher: Warren’s bill would force church-affiliated daycares to mostly follow the same rules and regulations as non-church daycares.

That’s it.

There’s nothing sneaky. No one wants to force the church daycares to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

There’s a specific provision within the bill that makes it clear that the guidelines being imposed relate entirely to the safety of the children and that the state will not get involved with curriculum.

But that’s not really a problem. And this small band of malcontents know it.

This is about money.

That’s what it’s always about in Alabama. Even when the people chasing that dollar routinely invoke the name of a man who warned repeatedly of the dangers of valuing money over people.

These daycares churn out a profit for the churches. And because they’re not beholden to the same guidelines as non-church daycares, they can often churn out a huge profit.

The math is pretty easy. If a church daycare and a non-church daycare each have 20 kids enrolled, but the non-church daycare is required to employ four, trained workers to watch those kids, while the church daycare employs just Bill, a guy who had a few hours to kill today, guess which one makes more money.

But you know, that’s not really a fair example. Because it makes Bill sound semi-competent. And in some cases, the employees, and the administrators, of these “church daycares” are anything but competent, respectable people.

You might recall that we had this debate last year. This same group of people managed to kill the daycare bill.

Less than two months after they did so, a 5-year-old child in Mobile was dead.

Because the “church daycare” he attended didn’t run a basic background check on the person driving the daycare van. Had it, it would have learned that its employee had a long criminal record.

Instead, the child was left to suffocate and die in scorching hot van and his small, lifeless body was dumped in some random front yard.

See, that’s the sort of thing that licensing prevents.

It also prevents the unintentional poisoning of children (yep, that happened), the burning of children by workers smoking cigarettes too close to them (happened), the near death of dozens of children from extreme food poisoning (happened) and the deaths of children in a fire-trap daycare (happened).

We all know what the right thing is here. And in moments when they’re not beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists, Alabama’s lawmakers let you know that they also know what’s right.

Gov. Kay Ivey did so last August, shortly after the death of the 5-year-old in Mobile. When asked if all church daycares should be regulated, Ivey said she “strongly believes” that all daycares should be licensed by the state.

But that was before campaign season. Before the church-backed lobbying groups and PACs got involved.

These days, Ivey is less forceful. Sources told APR that Ivey told a group of lawmakers that she would take no position on the bill.

When I asked her office directly what her position is, “strongly believes” all daycares should be state licensed morphed into … some other words.

Governor Ivey remains in favor of improved guidelines for day care facilities in Alabama,” the statement from her office read. “She believes more must be done to protect our children and that it is essential we have quality day care staff, rendering quality service.”

It is essential.

Unfortunately, with our weak state leadership — from the governor’s office on down — bending to the call of money, thousands of Alabama are unlikely to experience that essential service.

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | Active shooter on campus! Wasp spray may save us

Joey Kennedy



By Joey Kennedy
Alabama Political Reporter

I spent 90 minutes Tuesday afternoon in UAB’s Heritage Hall learning how to respond to an active shooter on campus.

You know, some deranged individual out to cause as much mayhem has he can, shooting and killing and shooting. And killing.

Yeah, it’s sad. But it’s today’s reality.


I teach English at UAB. I’ve been doing this for 18 years. I love it.

My first semester of teaching was September 2001. Two weeks into the semester, terrorists flew passenger jets into the Trade Towers in New York, into the Pentagon in Washington, into the ground in Pennsylvania.

I truly had no idea what I was doing, in front of my class at UAB that first semester in 2001. And two weeks into it, I had 9/11.

I didn’t count absences on that Sept. 11. We coped. We endured. We hurt. We still hurt.

In the 18 years I’ve been a part-time English teacher at UAB, we’ve endured many horrible shootings, many terror attacks.

Columbine happened two years before I started teaching. But since then, there have been so many shootings. Too many shootings to list, too many shootings to name.

But not so many that some can’t be named. Like the 2007 massacre on the campus of Virginia Tech University, where a senior student shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others.

Some of these shootings are too close to home, like the 2010 catastrophe at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where 44-year-old biology professor Amy Bishop killed the chairman of the biology department and others.

And more school shootings, many other school shootings, too many other school shootings, including the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012. Twenty 6- and 7-year-old children died that day, as well as six members of the school’s staff.

Since Sandy Hook, there are yet other shootings – not just school shootings, either, though there have been plenty of those. In Charleston at a church. In Orlando at a nightclub. In Las Vegas at a concert.

And, yet, Congress, dominated by NRA Republicans, refuses to act. Refuses to do what it can to make us more safe.

Then, on Valentine’s Day, in Parkland, Fla., a few weeks ago, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, 17 students and adults were gunned down. Others were injured.

A few weeks ago. The students there aren’t staying quiet. They’ve started the #NeverAgain movement, and on March 24 in Birmingham, there will be a rally at Railroad Park and a march through Birmingham to encourage – implore – our political leaders to do something.


So here I am, an English instructor at UAB, for 18 years now, sitting in a classroom to receive instruction on how to respond to an active shooter on campus. There’s even a pamphlet: “UAB Police Active Shooter Guide.”

A pamphlet.

It’s where we are, as a nation, where we are today. I praise UAB officials and campus police for offering the class. When I received the message from the dean that the classes were available, I wanted to cry. Hell, I did cry.

How did we get here? Where, instead of teaching the Rhetorical Triangle, I’m worrying about barricading a door or making sure my students evacuate the building before being gunned down by a nut.

What stunned me before my active shooter class even started was that, since 2014, UAB Police officials have conducted nearly 200 such active shooter response classes.

This was my first.

And I learned that wasp spray might be my best weapon. We were told that even trained officers, police officers who go to shooting ranges, work under stressful conditions, patrol and police in the real world, miss 70 percent to 80 percent of the time they fire their weapons.

So, we’re told, that distracting the shooter may be our best option, if we can’t high-tail-it out of our building to a safer place.

Barricade the doors with chairs and desks and filing cabinets. But if the shooter gets in, distract him by throwing stuff at him. Swarm him. Maybe, I decided, I would carry the wasp spray and have it handy if the shooter looked my way. Hornet poison certainly will hurt, if you aim it right.

And an AR-15 will kill, even if you aim it wrong.

Yet, I mainly want to teach my students how to negotiate a college essay or convince them that Ernest Hemingway, the bastard that he was, is the best short story writer of the 20th century.

I want to encourage my students to read and enjoy words. I want them to appreciate Kate Chopin’s “The Awakening,” especially when Edna takes off her clothes and swims deep into the Gulf of Mexico to claim her independence.

I want my students to celebrate a good semester, to rejoice and appreciate their A or B or C.

I don’t want to keep wasp spray in my book bag. But I guess I will.

Because this is now. And, frankly, now sucks.

Joey Kennedy, a Pulitzer Prize winner, writes this column every week for Alabama Political Reporter. Email: [email protected]

Continue Reading

Featured Columnists

Opinion | Montgomery reappoints disgraced judge, needs new leadership

Josh Moon



By Josh Moon

Alabama Political Reporter

Former Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard shouldn’t go to prison.

Nope. His sentence should be commuted and he should be returned to his lofty position atop the Alabama House, because the things he did, while illegal, were not things that he invented and he wasn’t alone in doing those things.


Lots of lawmakers before him were using their offices for personal gain. Lots of lawmakers were involved in the schemes, or schemes very similar, for which Hubbard was convicted of 12 felonies.

So, set the man free and let him reign over the Legislature once again.

That’s stupid, right?

No one believes that the above argument — that others were doing it, so what’s the big deal? — is an argument that holds any real weight with adults, right? It’s an elementary schooler’s argument, right?

Well, apparently y’all haven’t met the Montgomery City Council and Mayor Todd Strange.

Because if their friends were jumping off bridges, they would be right with them.

On Tuesday, despite vocal disagreement from numerous citizens — and not a single citizen speaking in favor of it — the council accepted the mayor’s reappointment of Judge Lester Hayes to the Montgomery Municipal Court.

If you’re unfamiliar with Hayes, you should be aware that he’s quite unique in Alabama, a state that goes to great lengths to never, ever punish or even investigate most judges. Hayes was not only investigated, he was removed from the bench in 2016.

That decision by the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) followed a number of complaints filed against him over his continued jailing of indigent defendants, and also because of his use of a private probation company contracted with the City of Montgomery to extract pennies from the penniless.

The JIC called the findings against Hayes — that he violated TEN! different canons of judicial ethics — “very troubling” and “serious.”

And they were.

Because in addition to violating those canons, Hayes also blatantly violated Alabama law when he locked up poor people without offering them a chance to explain their situation or present evidence of indigency.

And he continued to do this, over and over, despite complaints from attorneys in town, despite threats of lawsuits from the Southern Poverty Law Center, despite the pleas of poor people and despite his responsibility to know and uphold the laws of this state.

And Hayes stopped this practice, not out of some deep concern for the people of Montgomery or out of a crisis of conscience, but because he and the city courts were sued on three separate occasions in federal court.

And to prove there was zero remorse on his part, Hayes illegally took a legal job with the City of Montgomery and was later forced by the JIC to repay the city his salary.  

But on Tuesday, none of that mattered to the mayor and seven of the Montgomery City Council members who voted to reappoint Hayes to the bench. (Only councilman Tracy Larkin voted against Hayes.)

Their childlike reasoning: Hayes wasn’t the only judge to lock up poor people, and he didn’t start the practice.

For normal adults, such a statement would be the start of a process to remove all of the judges who violated the laws so blatantly. Because while the council spoke at great length of how such practices were common in Alabama and in other cities, it is more common that such practices are uncommon.

Thousands of American cities have managed to conduct business without operating debtors’ prisons. They either never had them, recognizing their cruelty and uselessness, or they voluntarily stopped them without court intervention.

But Montgomery is apparently led by a different group of people.

That group was unconcerned that Hayes had admitted in legal filings to treating the citizens that the council are supposed to represent unfairly and cruelly. That group of city leaders apparently believe it’s OK if judges get caught up in an illegal conspiracy to improperly jail citizens. That leadership group accepted a juvenile excuse and ignored their constituents.

So maybe Les Hayes isn’t the real problem here.

Maybe Montgomery needs new leadership.

Continue Reading






A Disquisition on Greed in Politics, Part 1: Diagnosing Greed in Politics

by Samuel McLure Read Time: 8 min