Master letter thread

[TheEngineer]

My letter to Bush:


May 18, 2007

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask for your leadership in ensuring that the Executive branch departments responsible for drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 use due care, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow. Also, the Poker Players Alliance was formed to advocate for the right to play poker online. The PPA, chaired by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, now has 500,000 members!

However, the UIGEA is law, and the Executive branch is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – ensure that the regulations address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in Attorney General Gonzales’ last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked him for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your departments as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as the UIGEA regulations are drafted. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you explain what #2 would do? I highly doubt internet gambling regulations are what AG is spending much time on right now. Do they even care what people say?

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyl is taking the time to badger Gonzales about these requirements via letters to Bush and by actually asking during Gonzales' last Senate hearings. It's easy to write to our friends. Our opponents should hear from us as well, I think. Anyway, something to discuss. I sent mine earlier. Here they are:

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

May 15, 2007

The Honorable Alberto Gonzalez
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear General Gonzales:

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask you use care when drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow.

However, the UIGEA is law, and your department is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – write regulations that address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying your department for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in your last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked you for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your department as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as you draft the UIGEA regulations. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

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

May 15, 2007

The Honorable Henry Paulson
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

On behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans, I am writing to ask you use care when drafting the regulations to implement the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, so as not to exceed the specific requirements of the Act.

Many Americans oppose the UIGEA in its current form. It “passed” the Senate not by a majority vote on its merits, but by being sneaked into the Safe Ports Act, where it was safe from debate and discussion. As a result, reform measures like HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, have already been introduced, and others are sure to follow.

However, the UIGEA is law, and your department is tasked with enforcing it as written. As such, I humbly ask that you to just that – write regulations that address the legislation as written. I understand that some who advocate restricting the rights of Americans to choose to play poker online have been lobbying your department for regulations that are well beyond the scope and authority of UIGEA. For example, although recent court decisions have defined the scope of the Wire Act of 1961 as covering wagering on only sporting events and races, in Attorney General Gonzales’ last Senate appearance Sen. Jon Kyl specifically asked him for regulations affecting all Internet gambling, even Internet poker. It seems that if Congress wanted to outlaw Internet poker, they would have passed an act that did so. They did not. I urge you to resist the efforts of individual politicians who would use your department as a “back-door” means of creating laws that they were unable to create legislatively.

Internet poker is not illegal under any federal law. I ask you to keep this in mind as you draft the UIGEA regulations. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

My WTO letter.

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

The Honorable xxxx yyyy
United States House of Representatives
0000 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxxxx:

As a Republican constituent and voter in your district, I am writing to express my objection to the United States’ withdrawal from the gaming sector (Article 21) of the GATS agreement. This unprecedented withdrawal, made in response to our loss to Antigua in a dispute heard by the WTO over Internet gambling access, will have far-reaching ramifications for the U.S. While the federal government seems to feel there is some driving national interest in legislating the moral beliefs of a few on all Americans by preventing us from playing poker online, the fact is that we need the WTO now more than ever. We have many trade disputes worldwide. We need access to markets and other trade controls. We need the WTO to deal effectively with China. Should we sacrifice this to satisfy the very few social conservatives who, despite the lack of even a single negative reference to gambling in the Bible, feel they have to tell OTHERS not to play poker in their OWN homes on their OWN computers?

I think not. Please ask President Bush to rescind this withdrawal from GATS. We made the commitment, so we should stick to it. The word of the U.S. should be our bond.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

Post deleted by TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

The Honorable xxxx xxxxx
United States House of Representatives
xxxx Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1704

Dear Congressman xxxxx,

The Republican Party is divided. No real surprise, given that big government social conservative CINOs have totally abandoned any pretense of limited government. After all, it’s been more than a decade since President Clinton announced that the era of big government is over. Too bad Bush has resurrected it from the dead. Under Bush, government has grown far bigger and far more intrusive. It spends more, it regulates us more, and it reaches more deeply into our daily lives than it did pre-1994. This is driven by a new brand of conservatism; one that believes big government can be used for conservative ends. It is a conservatism that ridicules Barry Goldwater while embracing Roosevelt (and I don’t mean TR). These guys have more in common with Ted Kennedy than with Ronald Reagan.

Under the guise of promoting conservatism, the "new" Republican Party is hard at work giving the federal government unprecedented power to legislate behavior. Look at the recent online poker "ban", where banks and ISPs are required to monitor American citizens at their homes for activities deemed inappropriate by the all-powerful federal government. It’s really the business of the federal government to concern themselves with people playing cards in their own homes? Look at most of Bush's initiatives. And now we have amnesty for illegal aliens. Of course Republicans are in open revolt.

Perhaps the social conservatives and liberals who believe big government is wonderful should form a new pro-government party. They can jointly spend like drunken sailors on programs like No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, and the prescription drug program. The limited government (i.e., true) conservatives and pro-business folks can then take back the Republican Party. We’ll give rights back to Americans while enforcing our immigration laws (we're doing the reverse now). We’ll be pro-life, as our commitment is to respect the value of all individuals, and we’ll continue to keep government out of the lives of individuals. The funny thing is that this approach will result in improved morality and values. You see, our morals don’t come from Washington.

It's time for real Republicans to take the party back. Limited government is just that. There's nothing conservative about big government, regardless of how much one loves the laws it passes.

I urge you to vote for freedom. Congress does not have to legislate everything congressmen personally oppose. So-called big government conservatism isn't conservative. It's statist, and giving power to the state is a loser for freedom. Perhaps, some day, we'll have a government that leaves some decisions up to the individual.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

Dear Congressman xxxx:

I am writing in regard to this morning’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling. I was very impressed with the hearing, especially with the quality of the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” porous prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

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

Dear Senator xxxxx:

I am writing in regard to this morning’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling. I was very impressed with the hearing, especially with the quality of the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” porous prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values.

I ask you to carefully consider the facts and to support HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, when it is introduced into the Senate. It’s not about supporting gambling; rather, it is about supporting the right of adults to make their own decisions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

June 13, 2007

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
2246 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Bachus:

I’m writing in response to last Friday’s House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet gambling (June 8, 2007: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?). I was very impressed with quality of the hearing, especially with the witnesses who testified in favor of regulated Internet gambling. I felt the expert testimony of Michael Colopy of Aristotle Inc, Jon Prideaux of Asterion Payments, and Gerald Kitchen of SecureTrading Ltd. proved that Internet gambling can be regulated effectively (and has been successfully regulated in Britain). This pleased me, as I do share your concerns for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, and other issues. Fortunately, this is an issue we can effectively address with technology and regulation, rather than with a “feel good” unconstitutional prohibition. America is far better off with effective regulation than with a prohibition that relies on banks to snoop through our financial transactions and Internet service providers to snoop through our Internet usage history.

Further, I concurred completely with Radley Balko of Reason Magazine (and a regular Foxnews.com contributor) in that what Americans do in their own homes with their own money is their own business. As a limited-government conservative in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, I am distressed by the amount of government intrusion in our daily lives. I think many Americans feel the same way. In fact, it pains me to see our party acting as the agent of big government. I imagine you will consider the validity of Mr. Balko’s points relative to our freedoms and liberties, as I know you are a man who believes in these core American values regardless of your personal opinions concerning Internet poker.

Speaking of Mr. Balko, I was perplexed by your question to him concerning Ross Boatman and his biography on the FullTilt Poker web site. You seemed very concerned that, as a youth, Mr. Boatman played poker with his brother at the kitchen table, likely for pennies, baseball cards, or valueless chips used simply to keep score. Certainly you were not suggesting passing federal legislation to prevent brothers from playing poker at the kitchen table, were you? I certainly hope not, but one never knows, given recent Congressional history. Were you suggesting that Mr. Boatman was playing on the Internet with his brother when he was twelve? Certainly you understand no site ever permitted more than one player from the same IP address to play the same game, due to collusion. I assume you do, as you claim expertise in this area. Also, as Mr. Boatman is in his 40s, he would have been twelve back in the pre-Internet 1970s. Anyway, regardless of the point you were trying to make, fortunately for Mr. Boatman this was prior to the current era of big government Republicanism. As such, he was able to play poker for pennies at his kitchen table with his brother without federal intrusion.

As for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, you noted that it does not make any gambling illegal that was not already illegal. Rather, it provides legal mechanisms for enforcement of existing state and federal gambling laws. Well, Internet poker is not illegal under existing federal law. As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. It seems that if states wished to ban Internet poker, it seems they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion … especially if they wished to have the federal government enforce it.

HR 2046 provides real regulation, rather than a porous prohibition. 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?

Proponents of online gambling prohibition often mention endorsements UIGEA received from some in the religious community, some family groups, some financial services groups and some professional sports organizations. I hope you’ll consider the fact that these groups do not necessarily represent the majority of voters in our nation (or even the majority of Alabama Republicans). As for religious and family groups, there is no prohibition against gambling in the Bible, as was noted at the hearing. As a Christian, I personally find it offensive that some in the religious community are willing to give away our freedoms 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 do not 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 you mentioned relate only to sports betting. As HR 2046 permits them to opt out, this concern has been addressed.

In closing, I urge you to reconsider your strong opposition to allowing Americans to make their own decisions concerning playing poker in their own homes via the Internet. Online gambling 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

[TheEngineer]

Rep. Ron Paul's reply:

From: Paul, Rep.
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 4:57 PM


Dear [me]:

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office with your kind and supportive words and with a copy of your letter to Rep. Spencer Bachus. It is reassuring and encouraging to hear from those, such as yourself, who understand the issues and the positive impact of a pro-freedom philosophy.

Such active citizen participation, as the founders well understood, is absolutely vital to our form of government and to the preservation of the liberty they entrusted to us.

As I serve in the 110th Congress, rest assured that I shall continue to take very seriously my oath to uphold the Constitution of limited federal powers and work to make ours the freest, and hence most prosperous and tranquil society in the history of mankind.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to communicate your thoughts. I always appreciate hearing from those to whom power is vested by our Constitution, "the People of the United States."

Sincerely,

Ron Paul

[TheEngineer]

The Honorable Henry Paulson
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

I understand that some who wish to prohibit law-abiding Americans from choosing to play online poker in the privacy of their own homes have been lobbying your department for UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) regulations that would, in essence, create an Internet gaming prohibition. This concerns me greatly as a freedom-loving American and as a recreational poker player, as Congress did not ban any gaming with UIGEA. It seems anti-poker interest groups would have you disregard this fact and would use your department as a back door means of creating the prohibition they were unable to win legislatively.

As you know, UIGEA does not make Internet gaming illegal. Rather, it merely provides a means for enforcement of federal and state Internet gaming laws that were already in effect when UIGEA passed. Prohibitionists like Senator Kyl and Congressman Bachus are fond of saying this. However, what they neglect to mention is that Internet poker is not illegal under federal law (including the Wire Act of 1961, which covers only sports betting). As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet poker. Conversely, the vast majority of states permit online “games of skill” (such as the money skill games on yahoo.com and other sites that are not affected by UIGEA), and I think we can agree that professional players like Doyle Brunson are certainly skilled. Given this, I believe the UIGEA regulations should either exempt or simply neglect to mention Internet poker – if not nationwide, certainly for play in states where Internet poker is not explicitly illegal. After all, if states actually wished to ban Internet poker, they would have done so in an unambiguous fashion, especially if they wished to have the federal government take the unprecedented step of enforcing it.

As for other Internet gaming, Goldman Sachs held large positions in BetOnSports, SportingBet, and other offshore Internet gaming sites while you were CEO. Certainly they would have not held these positions during your tenure as CEO had you felt they either violated U.S. laws or were immoral. I believe you were correct to have authorized these positions and I commend you for it; Americans should have the freedom to make their own decisions with regards to online gaming.

Also, as you are undoubtedly aware, UIGEA has erected a trade barrier around the United States that purports to protect our land-based casinos, horse racing interests, and state lotteries from international competition. In fact, the WTO just ruled against the United States, again, regarding our closed gaming markets. Now your department is being asked by some to increase the height of this trade barrier even further. In fact, the controls some in Congress are suggesting, including having banks snoop through Americans’ financial transactions and having Internet service providers snoop through Americans’ Internet usage history, are more fitting for China or Iran than for America. As you are a well regarded and principled free trade advocate, I strongly urge you to support free trade in this matter by disregarding those who would have you exceed the specific UIGEA requirements.

Unfortunately, while these anti-gaming interest groups list various reasons to justify an online poker prohibition, these groups oppose effective regulations to address those concerns. On June 8, 2007, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing, entitled Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System? (available on the committee website, at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml ). The purpose of this hearing was to discuss the feasibility of H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. The hearing conclusively showed that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for underage gambling, compulsive gambling, operator integrity, homeland security concerns, integrity of sporting, tax collection, and other issues. However, rather than working toward regulation that addresses their stated concerns, the opponents of Internet gambling prefer you to restrict the freedoms of Americans well beyond what was passed by Congress with UIGEA. It seems they simply dislike gambling and wish to impose their personal opinions on others. I trust you will not allow your department to further this unworkable system, especially when effective regulation is being eschewed.

While your department is clearly compelled to enforce the Act, I ask that you enforce only that which is specifically mandated by the bill. Again, UIGEA is not an online gaming prohibition, regardless of what the anti-gaming interest groups say.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[TheEngineer]

June 29, 2007

The Honorable Susan Schwab
United States Trade Representative
600 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20508

Cc: President George Bush, Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Jim Bunning, Senator Harry Reid, and Rep. Geoff Davis

Dear Ambassador Schwab:

I am writing concerning “United States - Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services (WT/DS285)”, the WTO challenge to U.S. Internet gambling laws by Antigua and Barbuda. As you know, the WTO’s Appellate Body found that the U.S. is not in compliance with our WTO obligations with respect to allowing access to our remote gambling services market. Unfortunately, rather than trying negotiate in good faith with our fellow WTO members within the framework of our agreements, we instead decided to ignore our trading partners’ concerns by withdrawing from the gambling services sector of GATS. This has resulted in Antigua’s demand for $3.4 billion per year in compensation, to come from American intellectual property and copyrights. Additionally, the EU, Macau, India, Canada, Costa Rica and others are lining up for damages as well. It seems our action has significant potential to harm us in many areas while gaining us nothing (aside from the continuation of an unpopular prohibition).

It is very unfortunate that a quibble over a card game has led to this. Our credibility is now at stake, as our refusal to respect the rulings of the WTO has potential to harm our other trade initiatives, particularly with regards to issues of trade fairness with China and the EU. Also, if we choose to continue to disregard our obligations under the WTO, American companies will be stuck with the bill, both from Antigua as well as the repercussions from the trade concessions being sought by the EU and others. Additionally, the U.S. is a world leader in providing of gaming services, so we do need the WTO in this regard as well.

I urge you to reconsider this unprecedented move of withdrawing from the gaming sector of GATS. Instead, let’s keep our international commitments. Keeping our commitments is good for America. I ask that we renounce our withdrawal from the gaming sector of GATS and that we initiate negotiations with Antigua and Barbuda. After all, we made a commitment, and our word should be our bond.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,