ACTION

When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his run for the presidency he had limited support but one of his donors was none other than Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson.  That should come as no surprise.  After all, Graham is the chief sponsor of Adelson's legislation to outlaw is competition -- state regulated online gaming. 

New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada have all exercised their power under federalism to legalize online gaming for their residents.  Other states like Illinois and Georgia sell lottery tickets online.  Adelson views this as competition for his brick and mortar casino empire.  His lobbyist, according to the Washington Post, drafted legislation to override state law and the bill was introduced by Sen. Graham.

After conservative groups and conservative champions like Mick Mulvaney noted that the bill trampled on the Constitution, was an example of cronyism and would ultimately promote efforts to regulate the Internet, the bill seemed dead.  Then Graham insert language into a major spending bill that just passed the Senate.  

The Daily Surge notes:  

Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson has found a way to ban internet gaming by using his friends in Washington to bury a provision into an appropriations bill that will ban internet gaming and gambling so that his casino can increase his profit margin.  Adelson is using his close friends in Washington to sneak a provision in an appropriations report to short circuit the legislative process, because he can’t get Congress to agree to passing his legislation through the traditional legislative process. This provision can be called the “Adelson Earmark.”

Last year, Sen. Linsey Graham (R-SC) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced versions of the so called “Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) at the behest of Adelson.  It was reported that a lobbyist the Las Vegas Sands, Adelson’s casino, employed wrote the bill for Sen. Graham and Rep. Chaffetz.  According to The Hill, “draft legislation to ban online gambling was obtained by The Hill last year. The document’s metadata revealed that a lobbyist for Las Vegas Sands wrote the bill.”

This bill is an attempt to rewrite a federal law, the Federal Wire Act of 1961, to ban most forms of online gaming and gambling that is legal in some states.  A hearing was held on March 25, 2015 where opponents of the bill raised the issue that this new legislation would violate federalism.  Traditionally the states retain the police powers to regulate activities with a state’s borders. The new law is unnecessary, because states are perfectly capable of policing themselves and either allowing or not allowing online gaming and gambling.

According to the Online Poker Report the bill does the following:

The Department of Justice’s current position on the Wire Act as it applies to online gambling is that the Wire Act only applies to online sports betting.

The use of the term “restoration” in RAWA’s title is a misnomer, as the original Wire Act, passed in 1961, could not (and did not) speak to the use of the Internet as a wagering medium.

To better appreciate what an actual “restoration” of the Wire Act would resemble, refer to Michelle Minton’s recently-published paper that articulates the original legislative intent of the Wire Act.

The bill received a chilly reception from Capitol Hill because it was a naked attempt to favor one gambling interest over another.  The motivation of casino magnate Adelson was not to protect consumers of online gambling and gaming from harm – he wanted to keep the gambling and gaming within the confines of his brick and mortar casino.

News broke on April 26, 2016 on Gambling Compliance that the Senate Report on the CJS Appropriations bill contains language that is a back door attempt to pass RAWA.

One paragraph in a 141-page Senate spending bill endorses the prohibition of Internet gambling, but it is unclear whether the language will boost efforts to overturn the historic 2011 opinion which opened the door for states to legalize online wagering.

The provision is buried on Page 59 of Senate Report 114-239 of the “Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2017” (CJS Approps) and states the following:

Internet Gambling.—Since 1961, the Wire Act has prohibited nearly all forms of gambling over interstate wires, including the Internet. However, beginning in 2011, certain States began to permit Internet gambling. The Committee notes that the Wire Act did not change in 2011. The Committee also notes that the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that ‘‘criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe.’’ Abramski v. U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2274 (2014) (internal citation omitted).

If RAWA was to become law, then the regulated gambling and gaming industry in the United States would be banned.  The federal law would overturn the decisions of many states to allow this type of activity.

Because the full House and Senate has no appetite to pass RAWA, here is how the proponents of the bill will attempt to use insider influence to get this bill buried in either the CJS Approps measure or a Continuing Resolution at the end of the year.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee Chaired by Texas Rep. John Culberson will be holding a mark-up on the bill next week.  Culberson should reject this crony giveaway to a billionaire.  

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is carrying water for casino-owning billionaire Sheldon Adelson, has announced he will be hosting a press conference tomorrow with former Rep. J.C. Watts (who is also a paid lobbyist for Adelson) and a handful of conservative organizations to push for his nationwide ban on states legalizing online gaming for their residents.  Nearly 25 conservative and liberty-minded groups have come out in opposition to the Chaffetz bill.  This afternoon, the American Conservative Union (ACU) blasted the groups that are selling out constitutional principles.  ACU Executive Director Dan Schneider issued the following statement reminding social conservatives that support for the Constitution must take precedent over their opposition to gambling:

Social conservatives all understand that gambling harms some people.  The only question for us is if the heavy hand of the Federal government should be brought to bear in this instance or whether the 10th Amendment to the Constitution should permit states to exercise their police authority.  

It is deceitful to imply that any bill in Congress would or could ban online gambling. There are already many gambling opportunities which are legal and widely available, but left untouched by the Restoration of America's Wire Act. Fan Dual and Draft Kings are just two examples. Similarly, people have been legally allowed to bet on horse racing for many years, and that wouldn't change under this bill.

As strong supporters of the 10th Amendment, the American Conservative Union does not see the kind of broad-based harm to justify Federal intrusion into the rights of states to govern themselves.  We must never forget that when we grow the power of the Federal government to limit people's freedoms, we also empower it to mandate other aspects of our lives.  From the Little Sisters of the Poor to those who wish to feed the hungry in their communities, Americans are now required to violate their conscience precisely because we have failed to reign in the Federal behemoth.  

Moreover, it does not make sense to allow some types of online betting while prohibiting others.  It’s not Congress’ job to pick winners and losers.  Using the Federal government to target certain competitors may be very good for the profits of some favored businesses, but it is by no means an appropriate way to set policy.

Those who are supporting the latest efforts to bring the Federal government into this arena ignore the inevitable results: gambling will continue online both domestically and on sites run by operators in the Caribbean, China, and Russia.  The Web has become a place where many vices flourish but banning certain US companies from this space cedes market dominance to foreign countries and dubious sites. 

Although we understand the substantial downsides to irresponsible gambling, it is not a proper use of the Federal government to preserve the profits and success of a single company’s business plan. 

Conservatives recognize and understand that each state should set its own policies under the rights guaranteed by 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Conservatives trust the states to know what is right for each state.  Furthermore, conservatives trust our fellow Americans to understand that all people should be treated equally under the law with favoritism toward none. 

Schneider is spot on.  The Tenth Amendment empowers states to make their own decisions.  Conservatives and libertarians don't have to agree with those decisions but should respect them.  They should also oppose any and all efforts to gut the Bill of Rights -- especially to please a crony businessman who just wants to eliminate one form of competition for his billion dollar empire.  

Members of Congress are attempting to use a 1960s-era law governing organized crime and sports betting to regulate one of the Internet-age's favorite pastimes: online gambling. New analysis by Competitive Enterprise Institute consumer policy expert Michelle Minton delves into the history of the “Federal Wire Act” and why it was never meant to apply to online poker in the 21st century.

“Anyone concerned about over-criminalization or federal government encroachment on states rights should beware of this campaign aimed at eliminating online gambling," said Minton, author of “The Original Intent of the Wire Act and Its Implications for State-based Legalization of Internet Gambling,” published by the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"Because anti-gambling lawmakers have repeatedly failed to pass a stand-alone federal ban on Internet gambling, they are now attempting to stop states from legalizing and regulating that activity," said Minton. 

“Back in 1961, Robert Kennedy wanted to cut off the mafia’s profit stream, especially its most profitable activity, their gambling racket,” Minton added. "This is clearly a different goal than what lawmakers are trying to curb today."

President Obama's Department of Justice stated in a 13-page memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel that the Wire Act only applies to sports gambling. In response, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) have wrongly accused the Obama administration of re-writing the law, and they seek to pass a new law extending federal regulatory reach.

As Minton notes, before Members of Congress trample on the Bill of Rights, they should at least have a basic understanding of the history of the issue at hand.  Thanks to the Minton report, they now do. The last thing Congress needs to do is to trample on the Tenth Amendment to protect the profits of a Las Vegas billionaire.  

So, I painted over my speakers and web cam with silver paint it looks unique, bought my own web cam with a built in speaker so I choose when it's hooked up...Granted I know that when it is someone is watching but hey some security is better then none...Also a few good programs for one's computer to add more anonymity are the following

peer block 

privoxy

Private Internet Access (Paid Subscription) At seven dollars a month this is way worth it, though there might be better VPN's out there aside from building one's own this VPN is the best as far as price and value and the speed is pretty good.(VPN is a Virtual Private Network) I will say that this program dose not have port forwarding and that is pretty much the only complaint I have about this program. I recommend connecting to the swiss connection for the most security if you do decide to get this.

If anyone else has any ideas they would like to add about anonymity please feel free to add your suggestions in the comments below. Thanks again. 

Person thinks she is Queen on Linkedin Group Wants to Control Internet

Yesterday, February 13, 2013, I was shocked to hear  Lyndon LaRouche state, unequivocally that "president obama" had been "indited" by a US Appeals Court, in fact the US Appeals Court for Washington DC.

I've been a professional investigator my whole working life and I've learned to take even good news with a grain of sale, because now days if something sounds too good to be true it probably is NOT true.

The use of the word "indited" by Mr. LaRouche has a definite legal definition, i.e., an indictment is a legal ruling (I'm not an attorney so I presume there are attorneys here who could explain the technical side of this better than myself) by a court or grand jury that basically makes a legal charge of, usually a criminal violation, of some law or rule where a violation of such would constitute a criminal offense.  This then often, but not always, carries a penalty of jail or fine or both.

I'm sorry to say that whoever obama is he has NOT been indited for any crime(s)... yet.

What appears to have happened here is that comments, accidental or otherwise, by Mr. LaRouche were taken in an incorrect context, sad to say.

This then has to be filled under the category of an "internet rumor."  Who knows, it may not be in the near future, but for the present we here will need to continue our push for the reinstatement of an honest and legal government.

For those who want to hear and see for themselves the actual misstatement, the website is:

http://larouchepac.com/node/25328?page=2&lid=0-0-2&relation=40

If this is the way they are going to be, I am going to have to start boycotting them.

That means no clicking on Google ads (they get paid for that)

and no more searches with their engine.

I will use this instead.

http://www.ixquick.com/

I dont put much stock in Huffington Post most of the time, but read this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html

You may or may not agree with Alex Jones, and if you dont, you probably dont know him very well or listen to his program. I know Alex, I met him personally years ago and have followed his work - whether you agree with him or not, you have to agree that censoring his opinion IS evil. It is anti - first amendment, though in this case it isnt the Government playing big brother, its the new technorati, the globally oriented info-corporations.

This is the new face of the NWO. Corporate NGO's who will assist the government to suppress the opinions they do not like or threaten their power. Wake Up.

Latest Betrayal: Obama Turning Internet over to Foreigners

Some of the technical background for this blog can be found here:

http://www.yale.edu/pclt/COMM/TCPIP.HTM

http://www.garykessler.net/library/tcpip.html#intro

Of all the many betrayals of Barak Obama, some day the one we may all regret the most under a Brave New One-World government may be his “giving away” of the internet. The information superhighway, internet, worldwide web or just the WEB as we know it may soon become a thing of the past thanks to Barak Obama’s need to prove his compliance with the rest of the world’s power structure and just how cooperative, sharing, inclusive and multi-national in thought he can be.

Understanding the nature of this betrayal comes from first understanding that the internet was from day one an American Department of Defense creation so that computers of the American military could talk to one another, easily, accurately and quickly and so that important American military information could be shared among all American military computers. The system has remained in American hands since the beginning so that no foreign power would ever have the power to disrupt it or interdict our communications. The system as it now stands canNOT be given away without giving away immense amounts of knowledge and potential control over America’s cyber-infrastructure.

Within a year, control and key management of the internet by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce may be non-existent. Could this help tyrants control all communications in their country? Could this allow Barak Obama to control all communications in this country? Remember the internet crackdown in China last year? Remember the role the web played in Iran in allowing dissidents to communicate the activities of their illegally elected president, Iran’s police and just to keep them in touch with each other? Today 90% of the most serious internet information thefts in science, industry and even the military are begun in one country: China . . . how much easier might things be for the Chinese communists if we just give away control of the system we created?

It’s a somewhat long and fascinating story, but let’s leave out 99% of the details and look at it in a nutshell . . . (First of all, Al Gore did NOT invent the internet, in reality he had little to do with it so that statement’s just as inaccurate as anything he’s said about global warming.) The information superhighway as we know it began small with a lot of scientists sharing information over the prototypical equivalents of what today we call a local area network (LAN). A few businesses were doing the same thing, but not many because the process of setting things up was labor extensive and very expensive and worked best in small areas, not for widespread large companies. The connections were hardwired and slow and they might serve a dozen or up to a couple hundred individuals in a relatively small area. The whole thing was limited by its relation to old fashioned telephone-switching techniques which were extraordinarily slow, expensive and unreliable.

The first big breakthrough was a method of switching called “packet- switching” which, once invented, made the server as we know it today possible and changed the whole ballgame. Today’s internet grown immensely complicated and widespread since the invention of packet-switching is just the realization of predictions that go back nearly fifty years. In a series of memos beginning in August 1962, J.C.R. Lichlider of MIT discussed the potential of a "Galactic Network" and how social interactions and educational information sharing might be enabled through networking. The Internet today certainly provides such a nationwide and global infrastructure and already interplanetary Internet communication has been seriously discussed.

Just about the time that scientists from multiple universities were seeing the tremendous potential of sharing information on more extended networks, the American military saw the immense value such systems (if expanded to a dramatically greater extent) would have for offering them strategic and tactical advantages in information gathering and sharing, not to mention virtually instantaneous speed of distribution. Beyond anything else, the American military was the driving force for creating the internet.

About that same time a huge bunch of additional technical breakthroughs were happening. More importantly, two more Americans, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf, working for the DOD (Department of Defense) in DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) up to and after 1972 conceived of, designed and oversaw the development and execution of a something called “open-arching” (pronounced “arking”) or open-architecture networking, an immense breakthrough in networking and connectivity which gave birth to the internet as we know it today and gave the whole process its “weblike” quality. Instead of the need to hardwire every single connection, the process relied on a combined 1) receiver-transmitter 2) identity recognition device 3) data storage and 4) switchboard-executing machine called a“server” which in concert with virtually unlimited other servers brought together as first a few individual networks and then a whole series of interconnected networks which thus made the information superhighway virtually unlimited in size and scope.

What made the whole thing possible was the server and . . . thanks to Kahn and Cerf’s conceptions each person or (more accurately) each computer connection onto each server was provided with a unique “identifier,” now known as its tcp/ip that could be instantaneously recognized and instantaneously communicate with others and otherwise interact through the server network. When the process went beyond the DOD and became national, the U.S. Department of Commerce was put in charge.

It wasn’t too long till the whole thing went international and soon other individual businesses, universities, groups, and countries created their own webs within the greater worldwide web. Here is the key thing to understand: ALL vital communication is based upon the abilities to send, receive, identify any and all the other parties to the communication and to make your own identity known. IP means “internet protocol”; TCP means “transmission control protocol.” A protocol in computing is a set of electronic instructions that permit these processes to occur. Not to belabor things with the overly technical, but the magic of the tcp/ip identifier is that the system’s entire “integrity” is based upon it. Ceding control over such processes here in America to foreign powers could lead to sabotage of such a nature and scope as to become cataclysmic.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration is without fanfare, surrendering control over the web to foreign powers. Without American ingenuity and investment of the American taxpayer, no internet as we know it today would exist. Our control “imperative” is via management and control over the Domain Name System (DNS) and the humongous servers that service the present internet. Global coordination of the entire internet on behalf of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce is locked into a system of internet protocol resources. Without an IP address and all these other internet protocols, a person or nation would have no access to the internet itself. Allowing foreign powers that control is definitely NOT in the best interest of the United States. For example, let’s say that China or its buddy Iran wishes to black out information on internal squabbling or the quashing of dissent within its borders, what could be simpler than to simply put the whole system on the fritz until such a time as they felt open communications offered no threat to their perceived interests? The Chinese have already demonstrated the most sophisticated national hacking capabilities of any entity in the world. Obama’s actions will certainly make it much easier for the Sino-fox to dominate the world's and America's henhouses.

Within months of Obama's taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to give “greater representation to foreign telecommunication companies” and countries. Control and management of this American invention is not only the right of America but also our responsibility. That responsibility is twofold: 1) for American’s economic and national security and 2) for the functionality of the web for the entire international community. No better nation than the United States exists to protect these twin interests. Americans developed and invented it; paid for it and the research for implementing it; we are, despite Mr. Obama’s desire for media control, the freest and most tolerant nation on earth; we gain nothing from the user fees paid to ISPs (internet service providers) which are operated by individual companies and countries all over the world; and we have no policy of censorship unlike an awful lot of other foreign powers. Additionally, the ability of U.S. intelligence to monitor financial movements as well as other communications by terrorists and terrorist organizations will become remarkably compromised if the give away is allowed to happen. As usual, the Obama agenda is not just NOT pro-American, but only pro-Obama and mysterious and virtually unfathomable (unless you, like Rajjpuut, understand his underlying Marxism) to those interested in freedom and prosperity as well as open and honest government dedicated to the best interests of the American people.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut