I'll say one thing TE, you got the RP's attention at least!

obg

I will follow up with Mr. Paul and Mr. Frank suggesting that they challenge FOF and other enemies of freedom with footing the enormous, ongoing costs associated with enforcing the UIGEA...


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

My letter to FOF...

In an editorial about H.R. 5767, you claim that "The problem isn't that bankers don't have the technology to do it, but that they don't have the desire to do it. Fortunately, FRC does.".

You are half right with the statement in that banks do not have the desire to do it. Banks are in the business to buy and sell money, simple as that, not act as law enforcement for what others feel is right and wrong. Banks should not spend the considerable man hours and large cost to implement software for something they should have nothing to do with.

If you feel strongly enough about this bill, which you stated you have a desire to enforce, I challenge you to step up and offer to fund the setup costs and day to day costs of the tens of thousands of financial institutions in this country to enforce this law.

I strongly suspect you will read that and laugh, which is exactly my point. Why should financial institutions have to pay millions of dollars, just like your organization will never do to enforce this law.

Focus on the Family wishes for others to have to bear the burden to enforce this bill as it is much easier to sit back, determine what is right or wrong, get laws pass, disappear and make others foot the bill.

Thank you,

-Joseph XXXXX

My comment on FRC:

This comment is related to this: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA08D45

My frustration lies with groups claiming to represent the interests of Christianity and family while simultaneously dispensing misinformation to support their cause. If the truth doesn't help your cause you need to reevaluate your position.

The UIGEA was not passed because it was "overwhelmingly popular", but rather because it was nested in must pass Port Security legislation. This is common knowledge.

In my family we call this lying by omission and our children are taught that it is wrong.

Although a similar bill passed the House easily, the UIGEA was never independently voted on. You can point to this statement and accuse me of splitting hairs but given the controversy surrounding the passing of this bill it is clear to me that the omission is intentional, dishonest and intended to overstate the popularity of what is widely regarded as a poorly written misguided law.

FRC wants to do what the banks don't? Really? I am certain you mean that FRC wants the BANKS to do what they do not. FRC has no more desire to fund the enforcement of vaguely written US legislation than anybody else does, so unless your planning on kicking up the money to lift the burden from the banks you ought to be a little less judgmental of their position.

The unfortunate individuals with gambling problems deserve a law that affects their problem. The UIGEA specifically provides EXEMPTIONS for lotteries, horse racing, and fantasy sports!! How does this help? It is clear that this law is not intended to prevent problem gambling and representing it as such is disingenuous.

I urge FRC to support H.R. 5767. Giving banks the power of determining the legality of transactions and blocking transactions IS a threat to our freedom.

Please research this before blindly jumping on board just because it appears at face value to be the moral side of the issue. Doing the wrong thing in the name of morality has been the thorn in the side of faith based groups all too often, and in my opinion undermines our credibility and our desire to share our beliefs . Christianity should avoid hypocrisy like the plague, and the UIGEA is riddled with hypocrisy.

I will be impressed if this post makes your website, and thoroughly unimpressed if it doesn't!

More info for the readers:

Washington, DC—House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and senior Financial Services Committee member Ron Paul (R-TX) have introduced legislation to prohibit the federal government from issuing regulations called for in the called for in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The legislation, H.R. 5767, will forbid the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.

“These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact,” said Rep. Frank.

“The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet. The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own,” said Rep. Paul.

Specifically, at issue is the fact that the regulations, like the underlying legislation, fail to define the term “unlawful internet gambling,” leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws, court decisions and inconsistent Department of Justice interpretation, when determining whether to process a transaction. Furthermore, some of the information needed to make this determination would likely be unavailable to banks, either because customers or financial institutions in foreign jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to provide it. At the hearing, the regulators themselves admitted that there are substantial problems in crafting regulations to implement the UIGEA that does not have a substantial adverse effect on the efficiency of the nation’s payment system.

Chairman Frank and Congressman Paul opposed the UIGEA, and the two have been working on legislation, H.R. 2046 that would license and regulate online gaming. However, it was clear at the hearing that the regulations are unworkable for the financial services industry, and this bill would, therefore prohibit their implementation.

On Wednesday, April 2, the DIMP Subcommittee held a hearing “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefit?” to examine the regulations issued last year by the Federal Reserve and Treasury on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which garnered more than 200 comment letters.

Very good letter and you stated the above very nicely

Can someone tell me what the chances are of legislation like this making its way to passage? Not trying to be the wet blanket but don't all these politicians introduce bills for this and that which never get anywhere? What's to say something happens here? Barney Frank already introduced legislation to overturn UIGEA and it hasn't gotten anywhere.

Just trying to figure it out, thanks.

Great letters Ubercuber and Uglyowl!

A+

I have thought about this for a while. It is scary what has happened in this country over the past few years. I not only worry about the future I worry about the present.

The churches should have their tax exempt status revoked. They are no longer religious and have moved into the political advocacy realm. There should also be joint and several liability for all church members for any sexual abuse by clergy.

Sounds pretty bad doesn't it, until you take them one by one:

1. Profitable industry: There is a positive return received on an investment after all charges have been paid

2. Greedy: Having a keen desire for anything, in this case money

3. Private: I don't know if they mean not controlled by the government or shareholders.

These three items show zero cause that the industry needs to be outlawed. Religion would even fall into these categories

I wonder since they using "private" as a negative attribute, they are arguing that a government controlled industry would be better for society?


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

Worth the read, I did not know most of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

They are using private in the sense that nobody knows that one is gambling in the privacy of ones home. It is similar to the successful arguement for the elimination of blue laws against what happens between consenting adults.

This crap has to end. And all of the politicians associated with it need to be taken down. Period.

That's a bit extreme. The 'foes of fun' are only a small segment of the christian movement. Most of us are quite normal. ;]

If FOF has tax exempt status, it should definitely be revoked. They've just become the bomb throwing nut cases that give the rest of us a bad name.

And I'm sure you're joking about making church members liable for perv clergy. People abusing their positions of authority and power for sex happens a lot. (Teachers banging their underage students seems to be pretty popular these days too). It just shocks us a lot more when it comes from someone in the church.

I would not have responded unless you had thrown teachers under the bus.

"The Christian movement" definitely has very deep problems that go farther than the foes of fun. It could be argued that a large portion are not really Christians and are just using religion to advance their horrible agenda.

Secondly, the percentage of religious wrongdoing per capita, far outweighs what teachers are doing. Please do not show outrage that someone called to task a group and then turn around and do the same thing.

A good number of Americans are outraged that religion has been hijacked by people pushing their non-core religious agenda. Religion at it's core is a great thing, but that core has become harder to find these days.

My letter to FoF (www.focusonthefamily.com/contact):

Dear Sir/Madam,

I read the April 18th CitizenLink alert concerning Internet poker with some interest. The main thing that caught my attention was FoF’s willingness to greatly exaggerate the data regarding addiction rates relating to this activity. In fact, it’s exaggerated to the degree that the truthfulness of FoF’s statements could legitimately be called into question. It seems that if Internet poker were so obviously wrong, FoF would be able to argue against it with the truth.

FoF’s statements on Internet poker tend to imply that a large percentage of participants become addicted. However, the UK Gambling Prevalence Study has shown this to be below 1% for all Internet gaming. For games of skill like poker, one would imagine this would be even lower, as such games require a lot of thought and attention. Also, FoF frequently states that minors can play online. However, this assertion has been shown to be clearly false at two Congressional hearings on the matter.

FoF describes legislation seeking to regulate this industry as “dangerous”. However, unlike UIGEA (which does nothing at all for the rare person with a gambling problem), these bills provide for industry-funded programs for treatment of compulsive gamblers.

FoF also stated that UIGEA was passed simply to help the federal government enforce existing state bans on Internet gaming. However, only a handful of states have such laws, and only two have substantial penalties for playing. That’s why banks are not eager to enforce UIGEA, and that’s why neither the Treasury Dept. nor the Federal Reserve has been able to determine what state and federal law requires. UIGEA is a badly flawed bill that ought to be opposed by all conservatives on the grounds that it places excessive regulation on our nation’s financial institutions.

Yesterday’s action alert may scare 70 year olds, but many young people are poker enthusiasts who know the truth about the actual (low) rates of addiction. And, many have been reacting negatively to fundamentalist Christians as a result of this. They have referred to fundamentalist Christians as “Christanazis”, “nutty fundies”, and all sorts of other things on the Internet and other places. There is a lot of anger, to be honest. This would be fine if it were in defense of the truth and of the Bible, but this fight is about neither. In my opinion, the lies and the deceit FoF is willing to use to fight Internet poker do not represent a good witness. In fact, while it’s not my place to judge, I think FoF may be sinning by causing people to see Christianity in a negative light. And, unlike Internet poker issues, the Bible does command Christians to be good witnesses of the faith.

This “battle” will cost FoF many of its other priorities, as I suspect you’ll continue to lose support while paving the way for more big government. I encourage you to look into this more deeply. Perhaps you’ll find it’s time to fold.

Respectfully yours,

"Religion at it's core is a great thing"

If by "a great thing" you mean the single most evil,deceptive,destructive force mankind has ever known,i agree.I know you were just adding that to not sound too harsh but i had to comment lol.I agree with the rest of that paragraph and also good letter on previous page Owl.

Religion is the root of all evil!

TE - You have written many great letters for us to use and get ideas from. This one may be the best ever! NH Sir!

Thanks. I appreciate that.

I realize this letter won't change anyone's mind at FoF, but I wanted push back a little.

Excellent letter, TE.

Religion is good when it preaches compassion, tolerance and hope. When religion teaches orthodoxy, judgement and supremacy, it is evil.

Joint and several liability would cause churches to monitor their priests and ministers more closely and reserve positions of leadership to those that are thoroughly vetted.

The new mega churches fail in the substance over form test for their tax status. They are huge money making enterprises, which is perfectly legal, but are not to be granted tax exemption.

Thanks Grasshopper!

HR 5767 gained 10 new cosponsors yesterday! Details are at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.05767:

Sponsor: Barney Frank

Cosponsors:

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 4/24/2008
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 4/24/2008
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 4/24/2008
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 4/24/2008
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 4/24/2008
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 4/24/2008
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 4/24/2008
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/24/2008
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 4/24/2008
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 4/10/2008
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/24/2008

The PPA member letter to Congress, at www.pokerplayersalliance.org/letter, is definitely being read -- and we're being heard. I hope we'll all continue to post this info on blogs and other media to get folks to send this letter to Congress.

Here's the Family Research Council's reply to my inquiry:

Dear Rich,

Thank you for contacting the Family Research Council and for commenting about our April 18 Washington Update story, "Strange Bedfellows." The Update story can be found on our website at this link: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA08D43#WA08D43.

I encourage you to review FRC Vice President for Government Affairs Tom McClusky's recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about bills H.R. 2046, which seeks to overturn federal and state laws in relation to Internet gambling, and H.R. 2610 which seeks to carve out an exemption for online poker. The testimony is available to read or watch on our website at this link: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=TS07K01. Mr. McClusky's testimony is an accurate and well-researched presentation, but also does well to reflect the reasons why FRC has chosen to encourage strict regulation and limits of the gambling industry, including online gambling.

The harmful effects of Internet and other forms of gambling cited by FRC in our materials are in no way exaggerated, and are the results of sound research. You may be interested in the 2002 study noted by the American Psychological Association in their "Internet Gamblers may be More Likely to Have a Serious Gambling Problem Than Other Gamblers, Study Finds" press release. You can learn more at this link: http://www.apa.org/releases/gamblingonline.html.

Your letter only cites The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007, as does Mr. McClusky's testimony. Please see the following paragraph:

"In September, the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007 was published by the National Centre for Social Research. This large, objective government study shows that Internet and electronic forms of gambling are far more addictive than traditional and social forms of gambling. Only 1-2% of Britons who play the lottery are problem gamblers. The study found that 1.7% of people who bet on horse races offline are problem gamblers, and the rate is about 3% for bingo and slot machines. But compare that with problem gambling rates for people who gamble on computers: 11% for fixed-odds betting terminals (similar to video poker or video lottery terminals in the U.S.), 12% for systems that take spread bets on outcomes ranging from sports to political races to stock prices, 6% for online betting with bookmakers, and 7.4% for other types of online betting, such as online poker. The data is unequivocal: gambling online is several times more addictive, and regulation of online gambling in Britain doesn't change this fact."

The National Council on Problem Gambling, in their statement to the House Judiciary Committee, cite a report that found that almost 600,000 youth (aged 14-22) reported gambling on the internet on a weekly basis, and that this age group also has the highest rates of gambling problems. You can find the full text of their statement at this link:
http://www.ncpgambling.org/files/pub..._statement.pdf.

Your letter states that "many have been reacting negatively to fundamentalist Christians as a result of this." If "this" refers to the stance of FRC and other pro-family organizations against gambling, we are certainly willing to accept that some people disagree with our stance, which does not necessarily need to be tied to a "fundamentalist Christian" worldview. Independent evidence from a variety of sources point to the very negative results of gambling addiction, and the propensity of the Internet, with its cloak of solitude and anonymity, to increase addiction rates. In fact, those who think that opposition to Internet gambling is coming only from a Christian minority are quite mistaken. As Mr. McClusky states in his testimony, "Every major sports association and many major financial organizations including the American Bankers Association also supported the legislation. [The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006] They were joined by the National Association of Attorneys General, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Fraternal Order of Police. These organizations are certainly not very frequently in the camp of "fundamentalist Christian," and perhaps increases your understanding of our position.

Rich, thank you for staking the time to contact us.

Sincerely,

********
FRC Correspondence

I guess there is no way that you are going to change the way they think and vice versa.
But you should remind them that they have the freedom to live their lives as they see fit and SO SHOULD YOU.
If you want to gamble and are a consenting adult they that is your right and choosing to do so.
Bottom line.

I still think that someone should get a UHaul truck and fill the damn thing with tons of those cheap plastic poker chips, drive up to the White House or Capital Building, and just dump them in protest.
Then when they ask you to clean them up you refuse and say something to the media guy like, "I have no use for these chips any longer as the Federal government has banned poker."
That would be so cool and bring more (much-needed) meida attention to this issue (which noone seems to want to talk about in the mainstream media).

I also mentioned last year that we should all get together (100s of us) and bring poker chip sets, cards, and money with us to Washington and set up 100s of poker games in an around the historic Sites of DC, and just start dealing/playing and force them to arrest us all.
It would be making a statement of how ridiculous these laws are.

*

I'll analyze this later. This is what jumps out at me:

"The harmful effects of Internet and other forms of gambling cited by FRC in our materials are in no way exaggerated, and are the results of sound research. You may be interested in the 2002 study noted by the American Psychological Association in their "Internet Gamblers may be More Likely to Have a Serious Gambling Problem Than Other Gamblers, Study Finds" press release."

• A questionnaire given to 389 people who sought free or reduced-cost dental/health care constitutes "sound research"?!?!?!? If there are so few studies that this "study" is even mentioned, it seems that, at minimum, there's a need for a comprehensive study like the one proposed by Rep. Berkley, especially before ordering banks to handle the enforcement.

"...the British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007 was published by the National Centre for Social Research. This large, objective government study shows that Internet and electronic forms of gambling are far more addictive than traditional and social forms of gambling. ...... 7.4% for other types of online betting, such as online poker. The data is unequivocal: gambling online is several times more addictive, and regulation of online gambling in Britain doesn't change this fact."

• Only 3% of participants participated in non-sports online gaming (Table 2.1). 7.4% (Table 5.4a) of 3% is only 0.22%. So, the study showed that 99.78% of Britons do not show any symptoms of problems gambling due to Internet gaming, despite it being freely available and openly advertised. Does America need a national prohibition to protect 0.22% of its citizens from themselves, at the expense of the freedoms of the remaining 99.78%?!?!?!? Should our banks comb through the financial transactions of every American to protect the vulnerable 0.22%.
• This did not show that Internet poker is addictive at all. It showed that a very small portion of the population has symptoms of problem gambling. The study doesn't show that it was caused by Internet poker or other Internet gaming. What it did show was that the introduction of Internet gaming did not increase the percentage of problem gamblers in Britain.

"The National Council on Problem Gambling, in their statement to the House Judiciary Committee, cite a report that found that almost 600,000 youth (aged 14-22) reported gambling on the internet on a weekly basis, and that this age group also has the highest rates of gambling problems."

• This is misleading, as it makes it sound like 14 year olds are gambling online. This is not the case, as was shown in several House hearing. It's even corroborated by the Annenberg Study frequently cited by Focus on the Family (Table 1). In 2006, 0% of youths 14-17 gambled online. In 2007, it was still below 1%, and there's no evidence that they actually did (it's a questionnaire....they could have played free games on Yahoo for all we know). In fact, the participants are adults, and this number does not show any problem (i.e., there is no number of "problem gamblers" cited).

"The American Bankers Association also supported the legislation."

• Past tense is appropriate here, as they no longer support this deeply flawed bill. In fact, they've spoken out strongly against it. LOL for FRC stating this.