Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for week of 4/16

Barney Frank says he needs to hear more from us (Barney Frank article), so let's continue last week's action plan.

Please participate...we can make a difference. Thanks.

Reply from my congressman:

April 9, 2007

Thank you for your continued correspondence about legislation related to Internet gambling that passed in the 109th Congress. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you know, H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act signed into law as part of a larger bill package on October 13, 2006. The internet gambling provisions will prevent the use of credit cards and fund transfers for unlawful internet gambling and block financial transactions associated with illegal gambling.

While many Americans have the misimpression that internet gambling is legal because of the easy access to online casinos based offshore, it is not. The new provisions do not change the law, but rather provide new enforcement tools to help law enforcement and financial services companies crack down on this already illegal activity, This legislation received endorsements from the religious community, family groups, financial services groups and all the major professional sports organizations.

American dollars account for half of the $12 billion bet worldwide on the internet. FBI and Justice Department experts have warned that internet gambling websites are vulnerable to being used for money, laundering, drug trafficking and terrorist financing, As a member of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, my colleagues and I have taken a particular interest in this issue. I have serious concerns about terrorist financing and the possibility of terrorists laundering money through unregulated, offshore online casinos.

House Financial services Chairman Barney Frank [MA-04] has expressed an interest in reprieving this issue. As a member of the Committee, I will take your support for a repeal of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act into consideration should the issue come up again.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on internet gambling. Also, you can sign up for the _____ District�s E-Mail Newsletter by visiting my website at http://__________.house.gov/emailsignup.aspx.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx

My reply:

April 13, 2007
The Honorable **** ****
United States House of Representatives
**** **** House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman ****:

I thank you for your April 9th letter where you responded to my request that you work to restore the right of Americans to play Internet poker and other casino games in the privacy of their own homes by cosponsoring Barney Frank�s upcoming Internet gambling legislation. I�d like to share with you my humble opinion on the matter.

By way of introduction, I�m an engineer with one of the area�s larger employers. After a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion, and I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side to playing in a smoky casino in *****. I happen to be skilled enough at the game to win significantly more than I lose, but that�s not really the point. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It�s an honorable game.

As a conservative Republican, I share some of your concerns about online gambling. However, it�s not obvious that federal laws restricting our freedoms and liberties will solve these issues. After all, online gambling will continue internationally. In fact, the WTO has recently ruled the U.S. violated international trade law by prosecuting online gambling cases. As such, I urge you to support legalization with regulation. A regulated Internet gambling environment will facilitate age verification and collection of federal and state taxes. It will also reduce any potential vulnerability of gambling websites to being used for money laundering, drug trafficking, or terrorist financing. With regulation, potential problems can be controlled without taking freedoms from Americans. After all, Russians and Eastern Europeans can gamble online; it seems the U.S. should trust its citizens at least as much as Russia trusts theirs, right?

You mentioned the endorsements H.R. 4411 received from the religious community, family groups, financial services groups and all major professional sports organizations. I hope you�ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our district (or even the majority of Republicans in our district). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that so many so-called religious folks are willing to give away our freedoms, especially in pursuit of a goal not even defined in the Bible. As for financial services groups, some credit card issuers may like UIGEA (due only to the risk of losing players refusing to pay up), but I don�t believe banks wish to be the enforcers of UIGEA. As a result, I think you�ll find financial services groups to be net losers as a result of UIGEA. Finally, I believe the concerns of the major professional sports organizations relate only to sports betting. A regulated online gaming environment can address that concern.

Online gaming will continue to exist with or without the participation of the United States. We�re losing our opportunity to control the games via regulation as well as the opportunities for U.S. companies to operate the games both domestically and internationally. This is costing America jobs and tax revenue.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

...know that they play by just two rules: 1) Get elected; and, 2) Stay elected. They don�t give a rat�s about �placing a burden on banks,� any more than they care about same regarding the PATRIOT Act, or about making employers collect taxes and police immigration rules. Banks and corporations don�t vote. Nor do pols give an eff what folks do in Russia. Politicians respond only to what affects their survival under the Two Rules. The hot buttons here, then, are:

-- Looming AMERICAN JOB LOSSES. Other WTO members will levy trade sanctions against America for failure to comply with the recently upheld WTO ruling. Under WTO rules, a member may close its markets to others only if the product or service at issue is illegal at home. Under the 1978 U.S. Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), 18 states allow interstate betting on the ponies. The Department of Justice says the IHA violates, and does not effectively repeal, the 1961 Wire Act. Yet, the WTO arbitration panel noted:

It is striking that the Department of Justice has not, apparently, ever initiated a criminal prosecution under the measures at issue of a pari-mutual wagering supplier in the United States.

And the U.S refuses to repeal the IHA. Having thus failed to comply with the WTO order to practice what we preach, we are now fair game for retaliation. And we will surely see it, especially from the EU, which has much more clout than tiny Antigua. Thousands of U.S. workers, in industries far afield from gaming, could be laid off when American products and services are banned from overseas markets.

-- Pissing off tens of millions of VOTERS who enjoy poker and sports betting.

--- Americans wager perhaps $10 billion a year with offshore sports books. .

--- Some 23 million Americans play casino games online.

--- According to a Harrah�s survey, 25% of the adult U.S. population visited a casino in 2005 (averaging 6 visits a year). That is 52.8 million VOTERS favorably disposed toward gambling).

--- $100 million was wagered on last year's NFL playoffs alone; on the Super Bowl, up to $400 million.

--- This year's March Madness may have generated up to $7 billion in wagers.

--- Legal, B&M books took but a small fraction of the sports action described, and IUGEA simply pushed a lot of Internet betting underground�to local bookies, and not-so-trustworthy Internet operators. And there are still work-arounds for the truly determined.

Since politicians claim they can close the U.S. market to offshore gaming sites to �protect the public morals and prevent disorder,� even repeal of the IHA would seem insufficient to bring the U.S. into compliance with the WTO order. If gambling threatens public morals, the government has not a right--but a duty--to stamp out all casinos, slot parlors, bingo parlors, dog tracks, horse tracks, and state lotteries. At minimum, the feds could, and should, withhold �federal funds� from states that run lotteries and license private casinos and such�just as they withhold funds from states that don�t follow other Washington dictates.

The pols won�t do that, of course, but when it comes to repeal of IUGEA, the specter of American jobs lost to trade sanctions could provide the necessary political cover to lawmakers from Bible-thumping districts.

So don�t try to talk about personal liberty to legislators when you urge them to support repeal of IUGEA. You get their attention only with points geared to their two Golden Rules, e.g., 1) THE SPECTER OF LOST AMERICAN JOBS, and 2) MILLIONS OF PISSED OFF VOTERS WHO ENJOY�OR DID ENJOY�THEIR FAVORITE FORM OF GAMBLING.

Whether or not you agree with me, please follow The Engineer�s lead, and contact key legislators and committees to urge repeal of IUGEA. Like him, I am trying to enlist support from groups outside the BJ community, and hope you will do likewise.

DB

Representative Barney Frank
2252 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20151

Subject: Repeal of IUGEA

Dear Congressman Frank:

The purpose of this letter is to express my strong support of your efforts to repeal the IUGEA. Beyond that, having read your comments in opposition to HR4411, I need not waste time �preaching to the choir.� Let me instead offer these thoughts and approaches for securing support from your otherwise reluctant colleagues:

� Ask your legislative director to review the recent Information Week article, aptly titled Gambling gone wild: U.S. crackdown sparks offshore boom. The article cites academic and other gaming business experts. The clear message is that those who seek to �protect the public morals� by supporting IUGEA, and by arresting offshore gaming site executives under the Wire Act, are �shooting themselves in the foot.� The URL for the article is

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=198700819

Your LD can summarize for you some expert opinion to show that if online gambling was a �problem� to some of your colleagues, IUGEA made it �worse.� It is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences.

� JOBS-JOBS-JOBS. If colleagues like Rep. Bachus need a rationale (read: political cover) to reverse course on IUGEA, consider that we now face the specter of American job losses. Other WTO members will levy trade sanctions against America for failure to comply with the recently upheld WTO ruling that declared the U.S. ban on Internet gaming illegal. Under WTO rules, a member may close its markets to others only if the product or service at issue is illegal at home. But, the 1978 U.S. Interstate Horseracing Act allows 18 states to accept interstate betting on the ponies. The Department of Justice says the IHA violates, and does not effectively repeal, the 1961 Wire Act. Yet, the WTO arbitration panel noted:

It is striking that the Department of Justice has not, apparently, ever initiated a criminal prosecution under the measures at issue of a pari-mutual wagering supplier in the United States.

Having thus failed to comply with the WTO order to practice what we preach, we are fair game for retaliation. And we will surely see it, especially from the EU, which has much more clout than tiny Antigua. Thousands of U.S. workers, in industries far afield from gaming, could be laid off when American products and services are banned from overseas markets.

� Finally, there is the widespread popularity of gambling as a popular form of entertainment and recreation (read Lots of voters). For example:

� Some 23 million Americans play casino games online.

� According to a Harrah�s survey, 25% of the adult U.S. population visited a casino in 2005 (averaging 6 visits a year). That is 52.8 million VOTERS favorably disposed toward gambling.

� $100 million was wagered on last year's NFL playoffs alone; on the Super Bowl, up to $400 million.

� This year's NCAA March Madness may have generated up to $7 billion in wagers.

� Americans may wager perhaps $10 billion a year with offshore sports books.

Legal venues took but a small fraction of the bets described, and, as the IW article notes, IUGEA simply pushed a lot of Internet betting underground�to local bookies, and shady Internet operators.

My friends and I know you need a lot of support, and will continue to write key legislators and committees, and to seek common cause with others to support your good efforts to repeal IUGEA.

Sincerely,

DB
[Phone no]

A few years back I was planning a major assault on some French casinos with the assistance of a very wealthy individual whom needed special treatment (the raid never actually happened, a silly GBV scheme which was found wanting at the execution stage). I tried to send mail asking whether they catered for high-rollers. I didn't know what the French for high-roller was, so I used Babelfish's Altavista.
I got very a confused and indignant response. It turns out that the word Babelfish gave me for high-roller actually translates into English as "large projectile". I later found out from someone who could actually speak the language that my inquiry had apparently been interpreted as "Is your casino hiding weapons of mass destruction?".

Yeah..criminals and liars like the Clintons are much better.

Social Security Change for 2008
You've got to read this all the way through to the bottom.

I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2008.
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!

KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue !!

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..

For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA..! ZILCH...

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan . The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK "!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to:

Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us

Then sit back.....

And see how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people CAN you send this to?

Better yet......

How many people WILL you send this to ?

Engineer,

I'm not into online gaming and have other endeavors that take up my time, hence my lack of response to your threads both here and on Greenchip.

I would like to say, for whatever my opininon counts however, that I applaud your efforts, and I hope others join you in your cause, and that you are successful.

You know this to be true because Rush said so.

Pathetic.

There is hope, however. Expanded stem cell research may make brain cell implantation possible. This would obviate the need for proximity to an AM radio to garner "thoughts".