Protest the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act before your rights are gone!

5 March 2006

The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (IGPA) was defeated in the US Senate in 1999 amid some controversy. But, it’s back. If you are looking to protect your rights in online gambling, whether it be through online casinos where you can play in the popular Texas Hold ‘em poker tournaments, or just buying state lottery tickets online, then continue reading.

The bill intends to amend the Wire Act, whose language isn’t suited for the WWW world. Currently, as determined by the US courts, Internet gambling is not illegal if the servers are located off-shore. The amendent will prohibit all Internet gambling regardless of the location of the servers. It also aims to change the language to include things like poker. This is because the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Wire Act only pertained to online sports betting and not other gambling types like Poker, Blackjack, or even buying lottery tickets. That’s right, lottery tickets.

The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act specifically bans the ability to purchase state lottery tickets online (includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery)…because that’s much worse than walking to the corner store? Is this even necessary?

Arguments Against the Bill

Goodlatte’s site, in regards to Internet gambling, states These activities suck billions of dollars per year out of the U.S. economy, serve as a vehicle for money laundering, undermine families, and threaten the ability of states to enact and enforce their own laws. Yet doesn’t examine why the “activities” suck billions of dollars out of the economy. Could it be because the U.S. government will not allow us to gamble online with U.S. companies with U.S. servers that are, um…in the U.S.? Could it be because our government cannot tax the “activities”? If the concern is the U.S. economy, then why not allow U.S. citizens, who are proud of their freedoms, to gamble online on servers that are in the United States? Tax the activity, and now not only is the U.S. economy not losing, but actually gaining.

Goodlatte’s second-round of justifications for the bill include money laundering, family values, and threats to state laws. So let’s consider these.

  • Money Laundering. Is there a better way to prevent the money laundering than bringing the servers to the United States and regulating the activity of online gambling? The entire practice of gambling in online casinos does not need to be banned in order to prevent money laundering. This is like using a nuclear weapon to fry an egg. Regulation will legitimize the industry, spark the economy, and keep us free Americans to spend our free-time, and earned money, as we see fit.
  • Family Values. Whose family are we talking about here, Goodlatte? Because, apparently by the number of people gambling online, there are quite a few families who feel that the responsible enjoyment of things like Texas Hold ‘em, sports betting, and other forms of poker and card games isn’t reprehensible. So I gather what he’s really saying is it’s against HIS family values. Maybe Goodlatte should read his job description again. He works for us, not the other way around.
  • Threats to State Law. Well, shouldn’t these issues be handled by the state then? If you are so proud and concerned for state laws, why create a bill that will prevent a state from allowing online gambling? This is counter-intuitive, and just a tool that Goodlatte and Boucher are using to try and fog the issue. The threat to state laws is the Federal government stating no one, in any state, may gamble online. What about the states that decide to allow it? What then? If you want to protect state laws, whatever they may be, then the Federal government must not pass any legislation that prevents a state from creating and enforcing their own. This is exactly what the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is preparing to do.

History of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act first showed its ugly head in 1999 as a bill in the U.S. Senate. The bill was largely back by conservative groups like the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority. To counter these groups, Jack Abramoff was hired (by eLottery, inc) as a lobbyist to help block the bill.

Abramoff caused some controversy in how he handled his lobbying efforts. He brought in Louis Sheldon, of Traditional Values Coalition, and Ralph Reed. He funneled payments to each of these men’s organizations (Reed’s Faith and Family Alliance, and Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition) by sending checks to others, and having them write checks to the organizations. Reed and Sheldon claimed to be in the dark about the ultimate source of the funds (eLottery, Inc.).

Because of the shady past in how the bill was previously defeated, a concern is that it will pass as a sort of reactionary move. It’s important that we remain focused on the bill itself, and not the interesting strategy Abramoff utilized in having it defeated the first time.

IGPA and the WTO

It’s not just fun with acronyms. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act sets its sights on more than just the American users, it actual seeks to punish the off-shore companies that market to its citizens.

In the latter half of 2005 the World Trade Organization that the U.S. could not block gambling web sites that are not within U.S. borders. The IGPA would prevent the overseas companies from being able to legally process any credit cards, check, or wire transfers.

The World Trade Organization has given the United States until April, 2006, to adjust its legislation. If it fails to do so the U.S. will face sanctions, which it may choose over actual change.

How to Help Block the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

You can help block the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act by contacting your congressman. You can find your congressman easily through the House of Representatives web site. Tell your Congressperson that you are against the IGPA. Tell him or her that this is an issue that is important to you.

Secondly, sign our petition against the IGPA. Tell your friends to sign it. Send it to everyone you know. The petition is here: http://www.igpa.info/phpPETITION/index.php

You can also help simply by spreading the word. Not everyone who enjoys the freedom of being able to gamble online knows that the passing of this bill will end his or her’s opportunity to do so. Pass this web site on.

If this bill does end up passing, we will have to mobilize to ensure it does not make it through the Senate.

Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, online gambling, online casinos


Read Comments (0)

Cheney: Accidental Shooting Or… by Eldon Burr

5 March 2006

One thing is certain. He has lied. He claimed to have been at 90 feet when he fired his weapon. Ballistics would reveal that only a few BBs would have penetrated the victim (VERY shallow penetration= minor injuries). By the severity of the wounds you can reliably figure that Cheney was from 15-18 feet from the victim when he shot this man in the woods. This would mean that Cheney perhaps tripped and misfired his weapon- OR, if you want to go toward a more sinister route, he may have intended to shoot this 78 year old lawyer. Again, at the very least he lied about being far away. Any hunter could tell you that bird shot fired at 90 feet would not do much and would have a very wide spread(few penetrations- if any). There is also concern about the fact that police were kept at bay for many hours after the shooting- something which would land any regular citizen in jail at least for a while. This would indicate that the Vice President believes himself to be above the law. Only bad guys think things like that. If he did lie then the manly thing to do would be to admit that he lied and tell the entire truth so that he might not go to prison for as long as he should. This bothers me much more than the fact that he lied- he has no remorse for his lies. Maybe he is covering for someone else that was there and caused the accident. However noble that may be, I think honesty is pobably one of the most important attributes in a leader.

About the AuthorAmateur Blogger. Go to my blog at: http://e-manzallpupose.blogspot.com To find a place to discuss whatever you like!

Cheney


Read Comments (0)

Give Your Enemy the Keys to Your House by Scott Bianchi

5 March 2006

Everybody has an enemy, or someone they just do not like or trust. We are going to try a new exercise and give the keys to ours house, cars, and bank account numbers to our biggest enemy. Sounds like a brilliant idea, right? It must be brilliant, our government is doing just that. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/index.html

I have been critical in the past about our government and our politicians. I will continue to be as long as our country is run the same way. We are just four and a half years removed from two planes destroying two buildings, killing thousands of people, and ruining the lives of the people left behind. Those terrorists were of an Arabian background. Obviously not all people can be grouped together but there is a difference between sitting next to one on a bus and allowing our ports to be run by them.

In the article, Bush said he didn’t hear anyone complaining that England was running one of our ports. While it is understandable why we would let England run a port, I do not agree with that either. Why wouldn’t we run our own ports? Why do we need other countries running our ports if they are so important? China, a communist country, is running a dock in Los Angeles? Does that make sense to anyone either?

It amazes me what politicians come up with and how they can justify it. I am sure that most people did not know that many of our bombs and tools for defending our country are built in China as well. Yes, our government has contracted with a communist country to build weapons we need to defend ourselves in the event of a war. My question is, who is most likely to attack us besides the terrorists? My answer is, a communist country such as China.

Of course every politician that is hoping to become President in 2008 will jump all over this situation to bring light to themselves. While this is a good reason to criticize the Bush administration I think they will have other motives. As voters, we really need to begin seeing through all of this garbage. We have to make much better decisions in choosing the leaders of our country. Common sense would indicate that you would not give up control of our six biggest ports to a country that is well-known for supporting terrorism in the past.

As voters we need to regain control of the country and begin making a difference in how our country is governed. I will continue to make this plea over the coming years through many different articles. Hopefully by the next Presidential election people will be seeing things differently. If you do not like the candidates in the 2008 election you can always feel free to write my name in on the ballot, I know I could do a better job.

About the AuthorScott Bianchi operates http://www.best-internet-bargains.com . He writes on a variety of topics. If you would like to be added to his distribution list for his new articles when they are published just send an email to articles@bestinternetbargains.com .

Port Security


Read Comments (0)

« newer posts