Groups like Al Qaeda may very well be using online casinos to raise money for their global Jihad, but does banning online gambling really hurt them. The answer to this question is absolutely not, it actually help them.
The way it helps them is easy to understand. Most of the money spent on online gambling was going to publicly owned British operators, but the online gabling ban passed by the American Congress put a stop to that.
Out of fear of repercussions, as soon as the law was signed these companies sold off all operations dealing with the USA, but online gambling is still going on, so now who is getting the money.
The problem with the Gambling ban is that it does not stop people from gambling online it only stops legitimate operations from getting the money and less reputable ones start getting rich.
It is these small casinos that before went mostly unnoticed, that will now be bringing in the billions that will still be wagered online.
It is also these casinos that have the best chance of being a front for AL Qaeda.
Some so called experts will tell you that this is not true and that it was thru owning shares in these publicly traded online casinos that terrorists were making money, but if they were buying shares of online casinos I am sure they are buying shares of Microsoft and Google. So why not ban them as well?
But once again the American people seem to be getting lied to by their elected Government officials, and it is time that we the people fight back against the government.
It is time we as a nation start to question and demand answers that make sense from them, after all they work for us, don’t they?
If you are tired of all the lies, then there is something you can do.
Jim Nickogoski the creator of the http:www.myspace.com/angryonlinegambler has started a web page to help fight against the Online Gambling Ban, the page also offers an online petition so you can tell the government you do not agree and you demand they reverse this unfair and unjust law.
The only real way for the government to ensure that money made from online gambling is not going to fund terrorism is to work together with the online casinos to regulate the industry with licensing so you really know who is getting your money. Only then can we be sure none of our money is going to the people killing out troops and threatening the American way of life.
So make your voice herd, write letters to senators, congressmen and even the President. Tell them you disagree with the law and ask them for real proof that this law is really what is best for us.
In the end I am sure the law will be reversed, maybe one day the government will learn what most Americans already know a ban on something never works, even if the government showed proof that online casinos are run by terrorists people would still play in them, just because they are not supposed to be it is just human nature.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label president. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label president. Tampilkan semua postingan
Rabu, 08 Juni 2011
Jumat, 05 Maret 2010
Beware The Danger Of Keeping Candidate Faith On The Down-Low
Much ado is being made over Governor Romney's recent address about his Mormon faith. And, much more ado should be made.
The American people are perceived as being so politically saavy that the faith of a candidate for President, or a candidate for any other public office, has little or no bearing on their electability. Platform and politics over prayer. Spin over spirit. Facts over faith. The voting public needs to reconsider its position in the next round of elections, especially as it votes for the next Commander-In-Chief of the United States. The vote should not be political, the vote should be prayerful which means it will require faith.
If Governor Romney's potential Presidency will not be influenced by his faith then, what will it be influenced by? Every person has faith at his or her core, even if it is anti-faith. Everyone's lifestyle has its basis in some personal belief system, otherwise known as faith. But one who claims a particular brand of faith privately, who is not also willing to confess it publicly, either to their glory or to their shame, must give an account of exactly what belief system will be employed in the rapid-fire mode of Presidential decision-making should they be elected.
What a candidate knows, as defined by education, experience, and intellect, is important. But, a candidate's beliefs, as evidenced by their faith, shapes the value system which will serve as the foundation for their ability to govern. Every candidate should have a basic level of integrity within their composition that demands singularity of purpose. Any candidate who implies that their choices will not be influenced by their faith is deceived about what faith really is, and as a result, not worthy of a vote. According to the old adage, stand for something or fall for anything. It is unacceptable for candidates to have a private life of faith and a public life as a political candidate. Inevitably, what is practiced and believed in secret, will come to light. A candidate's personal belief system will be tested and demonstrated on a national level once they are elected. Therefore, every candidate's faith must be the foundation upon which their candidacy rests. If this is not the case, they are not fit to run the concession stand at the Friday night football game let alone a country.
The voting public deserves to know what every candidate believes. The faith question must be answered by anyone who wants to see their name up in lights in November 2008. The faith declaration must be made, honestly and openly, by every candidate. Spin-free. Why? Because candidates are not robots despite the fact that they, at times, seem to be. Candidates are human, just like the people who will be voting. No amount of compartmentalization will prevent them from ultimately responding out of their humanness; this will be particularly true in times of challenge. In the times of personal or national crisis that are certain to follow the next Presidential election, the incumbent will not persevere because of what they know or how much experience they have had. Their university, their party, and even their constituents will be unable to see them through. The only force that any candidate can and will instinctively rely upon in times of tragedy and crisis will be the force of their faith, what they believe, their ideology. Faith, then, should not be just another issue in the next Presidential election, it must be the issue that decides the next Presidential election.
The American people are perceived as being so politically saavy that the faith of a candidate for President, or a candidate for any other public office, has little or no bearing on their electability. Platform and politics over prayer. Spin over spirit. Facts over faith. The voting public needs to reconsider its position in the next round of elections, especially as it votes for the next Commander-In-Chief of the United States. The vote should not be political, the vote should be prayerful which means it will require faith.
If Governor Romney's potential Presidency will not be influenced by his faith then, what will it be influenced by? Every person has faith at his or her core, even if it is anti-faith. Everyone's lifestyle has its basis in some personal belief system, otherwise known as faith. But one who claims a particular brand of faith privately, who is not also willing to confess it publicly, either to their glory or to their shame, must give an account of exactly what belief system will be employed in the rapid-fire mode of Presidential decision-making should they be elected.
What a candidate knows, as defined by education, experience, and intellect, is important. But, a candidate's beliefs, as evidenced by their faith, shapes the value system which will serve as the foundation for their ability to govern. Every candidate should have a basic level of integrity within their composition that demands singularity of purpose. Any candidate who implies that their choices will not be influenced by their faith is deceived about what faith really is, and as a result, not worthy of a vote. According to the old adage, stand for something or fall for anything. It is unacceptable for candidates to have a private life of faith and a public life as a political candidate. Inevitably, what is practiced and believed in secret, will come to light. A candidate's personal belief system will be tested and demonstrated on a national level once they are elected. Therefore, every candidate's faith must be the foundation upon which their candidacy rests. If this is not the case, they are not fit to run the concession stand at the Friday night football game let alone a country.
The voting public deserves to know what every candidate believes. The faith question must be answered by anyone who wants to see their name up in lights in November 2008. The faith declaration must be made, honestly and openly, by every candidate. Spin-free. Why? Because candidates are not robots despite the fact that they, at times, seem to be. Candidates are human, just like the people who will be voting. No amount of compartmentalization will prevent them from ultimately responding out of their humanness; this will be particularly true in times of challenge. In the times of personal or national crisis that are certain to follow the next Presidential election, the incumbent will not persevere because of what they know or how much experience they have had. Their university, their party, and even their constituents will be unable to see them through. The only force that any candidate can and will instinctively rely upon in times of tragedy and crisis will be the force of their faith, what they believe, their ideology. Faith, then, should not be just another issue in the next Presidential election, it must be the issue that decides the next Presidential election.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)