Minnesota Goes After Online Gambling

Minnesota is not considered a conservative state by any means, having elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura its governor and Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken as a senator (give or take fifty votes). Yet, when it comes to the Internet, Minnesota is making a move that will bring the ACLU knocking faster than you can say, “yah, sure.”

Today, state officials from the Department of Public Safety have aimed their sights on an area which they believe threatens the safety of their citizens. Child porn, drug dealers, gangs? Nope something even more insidious -- Internet gambling. Yep, the full force and power of the state government of Minnesota is rallying to protect us all from the scourge that is online gambling.

According to a news report in the Star-Tribune, the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division has instructed 11 national and regional telephone and Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access by all Minnesota-based computers to nearly 200 online gambling websites.

The article quotes John Willems, the director of the agency instituting the crackdown, as saying, "We are putting site operators and Minnesota online gamblers on notice and in advance. State residents with online escrow accounts should be aware that access to their accounts may be jeopardized and their funds in peril."

According to the article, Willems does not know how much Internet wagering is going on in Minnesota either in the amount of dollars or the number of players, but believes that the amount of gambling going on in his state over the Internet “is fairly large.”

What has motivated this decision? That can be deduced fairly easily as Willems notes that the Canterbury Park in Shakopee has said that its casino-style games have been hurt. Once again, protection of the local state gambling operation, and not any issue of law or morality, carries the day. This is a near replay of the efforts in Kentucky to protect their online gambling site, TwinSpires.com, by attempting to seize the domain names of gambling sites used by residents of that state.

Here, the state of Minnesota is not trying to seize the websites – a wise move as the Kentucky appellate court halted the seizures there ruling that the state misapplied its seizure laws. Instead, the state agency sent notices to ISPs ordering them to block their sites to Minnesota residents. But the move would have the same effect -- probibiting what is otherwise legal conduct.

The state is apparently relying on a 1961 federal law that gives states the authority to control illegal gambling, yet how that gives them the right to interfere with free speech and violate interstate commerce is another question. One I hope will be answered in favor of online gambling.

To me, it's a basic Republican position to want as little governmental intervention in our lives as possible. I should be free to decide how I want to spend my free time and my money, without unnecessary governmental interference. Poker is not a crime and should not be treated like one. The citizens of Minnesota, like those of Kentucky, do not need their government to act as their babysitter. And they certainly don't need their states interfering with their free speech rights for the sole purpose of protectionism. This is just censorship, plain and simple, and as a Republican I don't need the government stepping in to stop every form of communication they don't agree with. While I'm not often on the side of the ACLU, I'm looking forward to their weighing in on this issue.

In the meantime, the Poker Players Alliance has already issued a statement objecting to the Minnesota’s anti-online gambling efforts, writing:

Matt Werden, the Minnesota state director of the Poker Players Alliance, the leading poker grassroots advocacy group with more than one million members nationwide, and more than 21,000 in Minnesota, today issued the following statement following the press announcement by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that they are attempting to block citizens from accessing any commercial gambling sites, including online poker sites.

This isn't simply a heavy-handed tactic by the government; this is a clear misrepresentation of federal law, as well as Minnesota law, used in an unprecedented way to try and censor the Internet. I don't know what U.S. Code they're reading, but it is not illegal to play this great American pastime online, and we're calling their bluff.

The fact is, online poker is not illegal, it's not criminal, and it cannot be forcibly blocked by a state authority looking to score some political points. What are they going to do when this fails, ban poker books and burn our players at the stake?

We see headlines like this coming from communist China but never expect that it could happen here in Minnesota. The good news is groups like the Poker Players Alliance are here to protect the rights of poker players and set the record straight when government reaches too far. But this is more than just protecting poker – this is about keeping the internet free of censorship and ensuring that law abiding citizens can enjoy a game of Texas Hold 'Em in the comfort of their own home, whether it's online or with a group of friends.

The PPA will take any action necessary to make sure our members and the general public are aware of these oppressive and illegal actions, and to make sure the game of poker – in all its forms – is protected in the state of Minnesota."

Obama's Foreign Policy -- I'm Sorry, So Sorry

We all remember Michelle Obama’s statement in early 2008 that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” I am sorry to say that after fewer than one hundred days into her husband’s administration, I am not proud of my country. At least, not proud of the America that Obama and his administration represent.

In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).

Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.

And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation. Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.

Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S.

I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America. Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.

I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012.

For Once, Words Fail Me

Tea Party and the Liberals

The conservative's attempt to show that they can rally people to their cause was not a rousing success this past Tax Day. The nationwide tea parties were a sparsely attended affair in most locales. Still, the thought behind the protests -- a retro, grassroots effort to speak out about unnecessary and excessive government spending and taxation -- was a noble one.

Traditionally, it has been the left that galvanizes its supporters to sing songs and carry signs (to paraphrase The Buffalo Springfield) while the people on the right has been relegated to "silent" status. The right stay at home and watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh, but seldom march or chant. So it was refreshing to see an effort to unite and inspire that group not to sit and grumble, but to make their voices heard.

At least that was my take on it. The always reliably anti-Republican militant Janeane Garofalo had a different take. Speaking to the like-minded Keith Olbermann -- friend to Conservatives everywhere -- Garofalo maligned and slandered the Tea Party protesters in the most vicious way possible.

"Let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks."

Garofalo then continued her tirade equating conservatives with "average white power activists," and accused Republicans of having a serious mental deficiency.

And, in case her racism charge against the protesters -- who were, mind you, carrying signs saying "Stop Big Government" and "Taxation is Piracy" -- she continued. "Again, this is about racism. It could be any issue, any port in the storm. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House."

It is disturbing enough that this woman holds such irrational thoughts, but the fact that she was given a national platform to spew them, while been egged on gleefully by her conspiratorial pal, is even worse. Liberals like these do not debate issues -- they just make unfounded, hateful allegations knowing they won't be challenged. Indeed, Olbermann brought Garofalo on precisely because she wouldn't discuss the issues raised by the protesters, but would turn the debate into an open attack on everyone who dared to come out and speak their minds against the president's budget.

It's ironic, I suppose, that the same liberals who wouldn't say a cross word against real evil in the world -- excoriating Bush for using phrases such as the axis of evil against totalitarian regimes that deny their citizens basic rights -- have no trouble at all calling their fellow Americans the most vile things possible.

The protesters were motivated by the economic changes they see in America, not by racism or any other evil motive. They object to liberal efforts to move this country towards vastly increased governmental expansion, greater government spending and greater burden on a smaller number of taxpayers.

Garofalo and Olbermann owe them an apology.

Obama in Europe

President Obama's first trip to Europe has been hailed -- as pretty much everything he does -- as an enormous success. The media applauded his humility and conciliatory approach. They cheered the end of the age of arrogance, the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.

Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.

He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.

This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.

Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?

Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.

Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.

Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.

France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.

And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.

After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."

Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.

So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.

I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.

When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.

Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.

I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.