NROG CONFIRMATION: GAMBLING LEGISLATION DEAD THROUGH ELECTIONS

[nrog]

We reported it a week ago and are happy to confirm today that it is still true. NROG received confirmation TODAY (9/25) that there is NO gambling legislation in the DOD bill and Sen Frist has no intention of acting on this legislation before elections. A source very close to Frist also told NROG today that the Senator may attempt to try something during the lame duck session but "..it doesn't look like this bill is going anywhere this year."

Press release here: http://www.saveonlinegaming.co...NROG_FRIST_092506.doc


We urge you all to join our fight today. Thousands of you have done so already but if we need to march into battle this November to stop Congress agian we will need tens of thousands more. NROG pledges to finally take this issue to the American people using mass media. We now have some time...please join us. www.saveonlinegaming.com


Jay Bailey
National Right for Online Gaming (NROG)

[StarnetGypsy]

Great work Jay!

Thanks for everything.

All the best.


Kurt

[JC]

You shouldn't be declaring victory until the session is over.

Maybe you are being bs'ed by the staffers who want the calls to slow down?

I don't know. I hope yo uare right but I see no benefit of declaring it dead.

[nrog]

JC...please stop posting this message. If you read the press release it makes very clear this IS NOT over. NROG still believes we all need to be active. November's lame duck session is right around the corner. DO NOT LET YOUR GUARD DOWN!

[Mr Memory]

Hopefully, there'll be a Demo-controlled HOR after the elections . . . one small step in curtailing control-all-outlets rule (a good
idea, whomever's in power).
Know that won't change the lame-duck composition of either chamber, but it would likely dampen the imagined
omniscence of the present majority.

[buddyboy]

that's the thing, people read headlines not the whole story.

they read: GAMBLING LEGISLATION DEAD THROUGH ELECTIONS

and stop.

Headline should have read: GAMBLING LEGISLATION FIGHT IS NOT OVER

[The Actuary]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Hopefully, there'll be a Demo-controlled HOR after the elections </end quote></div>

Odds are currently close to 3/2 against which is pretty staggering to me.

[StarnetGypsy]

Actuary ..

Dan Balz of the Washington Post is putting it at 75% in favor of Dems:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2006090200975.html


I'm equally staggered w/you however that Americans would vote to maintain the status quo. I was at the VA Hospital in Seattle the other day talking w/some WWII, Korean, and Nam Vets, and to the man they were also riled that people complain all the time about this an that, but then still vote for the guy they're complaining about. We're Vets, and want this crap to end, on all fronts ...

The way I see it though, is that whenever our political system leans too far one direction or the other, we somehow manage to swing the pendulum the other way.

If ever there was a time ....

p.s. fwiw guys, Jays actual PR Headline read more cautiously than his post to us who are in favor of the bill failing:

"NROG Confirms Internet Gambling Legislation Dead...For Now"

[skyweasel]

I don't know why Dems would be less likely to ban gambling than republicans. But I certainly don't care for the current republican leadership on many other fronts anyway. But the dems are so weak and fractured right now, that is why the reps maintain control... that and Diebold [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Mr Memory]

Amazingly, 3/2 GOP, at Tradesports, in an absurdly thin market.

Extrapolated man-to-man Pinny line is +/-/114, which makes more sense, given 43's ability to scare the shit out of the
moronic soccer moms, next month.

[JC]

NROG,

What do you make of this article? I sure hope it's outdated even though it came out an hour ago.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill.../092606/gambling.html


Internet gambling bill revived in DoD measure
By Patrick O'Connor and Roxana Tiron
Controversial language to curb illegal gambling on the Internet snuck back into the defense authorization bill over the weekend.

While the language in the bill was not finalized as of press time last night, the insertion of the Internet gaming language could be a big win for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

But that potential victory hung in the balance on Monday as House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) continued his threats to postpone a vote on the overarching bill until negotiators from both chambers include unrelated measures on immigration and court security.

"The Speaker will not move this bill until these critical security measures are included in it," Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday.

Conferees were still ironing out defense-related issues yesterday, but lawmakers are now fighting to include a number of non-defense items in the must-pass bill that has become a regular vehicle for pet projects.

The Internet gaming language would create an additional enforcement mechanism for federal officials to crack down on money transferred from banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions to gambling outfits overseas.

Internet gambling is already illegal in most of the country, with the major exceptions of Nevada, Indian reservations and other smaller locales where residents have voted to change the law.

The fight in Congress to enact further enforcement methods has persisted since former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff fought to defeat a bill offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) in the summer of 2000.

Goodlatte combined his language with a bill introduced by Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) that passed the House earlier this year.

The language included in the defense reauthorization bill appeared to mirror Leach's language, numerous outside lobbyists said over the weekend. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has been pushing a companion to the Leach bill, which is far narrower than Goodlatte's legislation that would, among other things, revamp the 1961 Wire Act.

Frist has been working hard to include some version of the Internet gaming language in the defense reauthorization bill in what a number of outside lobbyists see as a push to ingratiate himself with social conservatives and, more specifically, Leach, whose endorsement would be a big boost during the Iowa primary.

Frist co-hosted a field hearing on Internet gaming with Leach earlier this fall in Iow.

The Internet gaming issue is far from settled because conference negotiations do not end until all the negotiators have signed off on an agreement.

This move to include an Internet gambling curb comes after Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee's ranking Democrat, rebuffed Frist's attempts to include it in the bill because it is not related to defense policy.

K Street has been watching the back-and-forth on Internet gambling intently. Wall Street, in particular, has already priced Internet gambling stocks to reflect some of the possibility that Congress will approve the legislation.

A unit of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co, an Arlington, Va.-based investment firm, has been tracking the legislation closely as it related to various Internet gambling companies. In a report last week, the firm wrote that "failure to attach a gaming provision to the DOD authorization bill likely means that proponents have missed their last best chance to pass anti-gaming provisions...before senators head home for the final campaign stretch run."

Hastert has told negotiators that he will not move the bill unless there is authorizing language to boost the security of judges in and out of courtrooms, eases the process of deporting convicted gang members, and bars their indefinite detention.

Senate leaders promised to include the courtroom language, which was part of a larger child safety that passed the House earlier this year, on must-pass bill some time this year, a House GOP leadership aide said yesterday.

Hastert has made a bill political issue of this push following the brutal murder of the family of a federal judge in Chicago earlier this year. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has also pressed for the legislation.

On the immigration language, House leaders said they have borrowed language included in the Senate's own comprehensive immigration bill that was approved this past spring.

Senate Democrats are critical of the gang-related measure, and the American Civil Liberties Union said the measure is too broad and could negatively impact legal immigrants. A spokesman for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) refused to comment on the issue.

House leaders hope to include other border security provisions in a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. At least one Republican conferee has criticized that move.

At a National Press Club briefing yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, criticized the House's decision to enact its some immigration measures by including them in the 2007 homeland security defense appropriations bill.

"The House of Representatives doesn't think much of the bicameral system," Specter said. "The Senate and House passed bills, but somehow we can't go to conference on them. Now the House wants to take their key provisions and enact them, which would take all the leverage away from the Senate bill."

He said that the Senate has pending provision for a fence running along the southwest border, but that he is not for the "fence piecemeal."

[Juice]

It will take several years to implement the first law. Nothing will change, if this passes.

[StarnetGypsy]

JC ..

Frist sure is a persistent little sukkah, aint he? Too bad he didn't have the guts to join the military, we sure coulda used someone like him in the boonies that was that tenacious and liked to skin critters alive.

I'm sure that's the 'confidential info' TheHill is getting, just as NROG is getting a different slant on it. Hell, it's DC, and like I said to a friend about all this last night, remember what Yogi said - "It aint over till the fat lady sings".


SkyWeasel ..

I got a kick out of what you said - "But the dems are so weak and fractured right now, that is why the reps maintain control."

Possibly an explanation would be this ... It's not really that they're fractured, but they all have diverse thoughts on several matters. And that is possibly also why they seem to "flip-flop" on issues. Bush I believe was quoted as saying he acts rather than thinks about things. Whereas them Dems think things through looking at all possibilities, and then act, as opposed to react?


Here's an article that was put out today by Sue Schnieder of iGaming News who is well-known in the industry since its inception, and bottom line, she says - " It will be very hard, if not impossible, to stop the market forces that have created the industry"


Editorial: A Collective Deep Breath is in Order

by Sue Schneider

If you're involved with the Internet gambling industry, please sit
down, close your eyes and take a deep breath. The industry has been in
for a wild ride since mid July when a series of actions on both the
policy and law enforcement fronts in the United States rocked our
world. With the recent actions in France, the chaos seems to be spreading.

But, having monitored and reported on this industry for the past 11
years, there is one truth that is constant: The industry has always
been a battlefield, and today is no different. And as we approach the
adolescence of this young industry, I don't expect that to change. The
I-gaming industry is not for the faint of heart.

There is a company in our business that puts forward the concept that
the Internet has created an "eighth continent" . . . obviously not in
the terrestrial sense, but in the sense of a community. There's some
merit to using that idea as a framework for looking at what we do and
how we're evolving. It also means that there will be an inherent
conflict between what happens in the cyberworld and terrestrial
governments. Until that sorts out, it will continue to be a rocky ride.

Some say it's simply protectionism on the part of the governments in
Europe, North America and Australasia that have made policy and taken
law enforcement actions against the industry over the years. That's
true in many cases, but it's also the fact that governments are
attempting to control a medium that was designed to be decentralized.

We at IGN think that it is clear that, as a commercial endeavor,
interactive gambling through the Internet is now entrenched. It will
be very hard, if not impossible, to stop the market forces that have
created the industry. And it will continue to offer opportunities for
creative entrepreneurs who offer these services. With any luck, those
entrepreneurs will continue to be scrupulous in their endeavors as
they have overwhelmingly been to date.

The new wrinkle in the past two to three years is that the capital
markets have embraced the industry. You saw well run and cash-flow
rich companies serving consumers via this medium. You're gamblers
yourselves. But, perhaps you aren't as aware of the ongoing inherent
battles and the risks they pose as you should be. Perhaps some of you
don't have the stomach for the battles that will surely play out as we
work through the upcoming decade.

The bottom line is that the I-gaming industry has a history of steady
growth in spite of the volatility, and we don't expect either of those
factors to change despite the rocks in the road. Hopefully, you
personally will make the decision if you can handle it and step aside
if you don't think you can. But, please don't let the panic that has
ensued in the past two months color what should be rational business
decisions for your company. It's just not good business!

[Juice]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Juice

It will take several years to implement the first law. Nothing will change, if this passes.</end quote></div>


My food for thought response on the RX when asked to expand on this therory.


The first law is the banking law and the key one. They are making a law to block tranactions on a system that does not have the frst thing in place to be able to do so. So, the first thing they have to do is redesign the system so it can catch transactions that the goverment does not want its people to make.

Also, there are no criminal penalties if caught letting unapproved transaction thru. Its just a law that says stop this from happening, try your best. In addition, the law makes banks in the US responsible for knowing where the money went at all times. I.E. from the US to Neteller, Netteller to your SB account and then to where ever the place of buisness you play at banks. US banks are responsible for stopping the tranactions any point in the chain. (Impossible to do.)


Who is going to lead this program? What kind of paperwork will it take to prove compliance? Who is drawing up this paperwork and who is making the rules of audit that go with it?


The US expects these banks to just do this at a drop of a hat also. Like they know all the offshore places and how everything works and can stop it nest se' pas. Its what the gov has the public at large believeing.


Its a law that has no teeth and will stop no one. In addition if they do arrest a banker or two, the system collaspes in a hurry due to simple paranoia and being afraid I am next.



You will want to read my 6A wrap up piece, under the Nevada gives up its autonomy thread on MW. I am completly upset and will be reffering to the two people whom are credited in bringing the need for the law to exist, in Lefty and Scott. A must read wrap up for any and all VOG's.



As soon as I calm down VOG, I will get to it.



I cut that down somewhat but you get the jist. I know what the truth is and there is a part of me that would love to see this pass and actually see the Feds try to enforce this.


This aint the early 6A days we are talking about and it aint a handful of hotels with men about my age running it either.

You are talking every bank, savings and loan and everything in between. From the Feds point of view, that covers from here to thy kingdom come.

I would dearly love to see them try it. They will become the laughing stock of the nation, Quickly.


I could go on and on. My 6A wrap up piece will attempt to give a reverse micro view of just how hilarious of an attmept that would be with over 5000 banks and what not out there.


Some VOG's in here went thru early 6A training and just like me know what the truth is. No offense, but we've all seen these guys. They look just like you and me. Just think in there case, they knew the buisness, and knew what to look for. Those who chose to become serious regulators did have solid working knowledge of the industry and were not all that far removed from those they started policing.

You guys remeber those days, RIGHT. Some of you were those people. They have been trying to stop you for years, TO NO AVAIL!


Now they are trying to stop the next generation. GET REAL. NEVER. MIND YOU, WE HAVE NO PLACE TO GO OR VERY FEW CHAIRS TO SIT IN NOWADAYS, WHEN I SAY THAT!!!!!!



I am just getting started folks.

[littleogre]

Ok i'm confussed did frist get the bill atached to the DOD or not?

[Alan]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mr Memory

Hopefully, there'll be a Demo-controlled HOR after the elections . . . one small step in curtailing control-all-outlets rule (a good

idea, whomever's in power).

Know that won't change the lame-duck composition of either chamber, but it would likely dampen the imagined

omniscence of the present majority.</end quote></div>

Speaker Pelosi, Chairmen Rangel, Waxman, Frank, and my personal favorite Alcee Hastings @ Intelligence Committee ---- my friend, if you really wish this on the country, you deserve what you get.

[Mr Memory]

Buddy, you know what I'm driving at -- one-party rule is no good. It wasn't any damn good under LBJ, and it isn't any good, now.
The best presidents demonstrated an ability to handle bipartisanship, and great quantities of excellent legislation has been derived
from solid, mature across-the-aisle cooperation.

Hope you're well . . .

[Alan]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mr Memory

Buddy, you know what I'm driving at -- one-party rule is no good. It wasn't any damn good under LBJ, and it isn't any good, now.

The best presidents demonstrated an ability to handle bipartisanship, and great quantities of excellent legislation has been derived

from solid, mature across-the-aisle cooperation.



Hope you're well . . .</end quote></div>

We found an area we can agree "bipartisanship ...... excellent legislation ..... from solid, mature accross-the-island cooperation" Where has across-the-island cooperation been ---why do you think Pelosi and the list of influential in-line for chairmenship idiots are going to get it done? They hve not even tried to this point.

The democratic party has been hi-jacked. Do I agree with everything the Republicans do? Hell no --not even close. But I can not get my head under the same hat that will fit Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, and Charlie Rangel. Just can not do it.

I am well --hope you are and are having a great football start both professionally and personally.

[doddster98]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Alan
The democratic party has been hi-jacked. Do I agree with everything the Republicans do? Hell no --not even close. But I can not get my head under the same hat that will fit Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, and Charlie Rangel. Just can not do it.</end quote></div>

Woody, you hit the nail on the head. Both parties have been co-opted by their respective extremes. I can only hope that this will lead to the emergence of a viable third party - personally I prefer the Libertarian party. Unfortunately, I believe we are going to see more extremism and bipartisanship before things get better.