United States Says No To Poker

Anyone up for a game of poker? The United States government answer is no. Online internet poker is not only allowed in just about every country in the world but most governments sponsor or regulate online poker and other games.
The United States has lost numerous suits brought against it through the World Trade Organization that accuses the United States of discriminating against online gambling offered by other countries.
The United States argument is that they can refuse products or services that are not socially accepted in society. The WTO ruled that the United States allows online betting on horse racing within the United States but is blocking other forms of regulated gambling outside of the United States.
Sounds like protectionism. This is the same government that lets you go down to your local 7-11 and buy a $20.00 scratch off ticket and has lotto's that finance almost every state government with mind boggling odds. What is the government really afraid of?
Sad to say it seems Republicans are leading this movement.
Being a Republican I just don't get it. I grew up learning that being a Republican meant less government in your life but this is the same party that comes into your house and tells you that you cannot play poker online with money you yourself have earned. A little off the subject but isn't this the same party that has tried to censor broadcast stations for content they deem could be offensive to the public? Talk about Government intruding into your personal life.
Poker unlike other forms of gambling is mostly a game of skill. Those that know the game more or less in the long run win the money. Sooner or later the United States Government will regulate and make it legal to gamble online and when they do the benefits of increased taxes will put smiles on their faces.
Until then you can gamble online under a set of murky laws put in place by the government or you can legally buy as many $20.00 scratch off tickets as you want or get online and do a little bet of horse racing.
Both of these make enormous sums of money for the government but to tell you the truth are just bad bets. If your good at poker then your odds have greatly increased but until the government here does the right thing your out of luck.

Illegal Immigrants Get Free Pass

Here is another example of what is going wrong in our society. Police in San Francisco will no longer impound cars of first time drivers pulled over without a license. The reason being is that most unlicensed drives are illegal immigrants. Its a little bit more then bizarre to me.
Instead of making it more difficult for illegals to live here we are actually accommodating them which encourages and raises the hopes of these immigrants to stay here illegally.
Most unlicensed illegal immigrants also don't have car insurance. Does that mean the police will also ignore no insurance also? Also what will happen when these drivers hit someone and injure them with no insurance? Someone's going to have to pay and it probably won't be the driver without insurance.
What is more absurd is that a unlicensed driver gets another free pass if he isn't stopped again in six months. A driver gets stopped today for no license and gets stopped again after six months they let the driver go again. So the city loses money in license fees, ticket fees and more then likely there is no insurance involved. I guess San Francisco is doing well enough not to need these fees.
Carol Grifford, public relations manager for AAA Carolinas said “unlicensed drivers are among the greatest safety threats on the highways” with 807 fatal accidents just in South Carolina between 2001-2005 to have involved unlicensed drivers.
Here are some examples of the tragedy of unlicensed illegals driving:

52 year old Williamstown woman killed

5 year old boy killed by illegal, no license

Ulicensed illegal kills three

Here is a excellent article from a police officers viewpoint on the unbelievable problems he's had in trying to get unlicensed illegals off the street. Police Officers View
I'm just not against illegals driving without a license (even though arresting illegals for driving without a license would be a good tool to combat illegal immigration) but anyone driving without a license. We say one thing in wanting to curb illegal immigration but we say another thing when we accommodate and encourage them.

Why you should be able to defend youself with a gun in Chicago

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge on the 27 year old gun ban in Chicago. It's about time. The gun ban was put into effect to curb urban violence which it has failed miserably to do.
I know liberals will see this as a tired old cliche but it is as true as ever. The gun ban only keeps hand guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. If you follow that logic then gun violence is not committed by law abiding citizens that should be able to own a gun.
Study after study has shown that licensed gun owners commit a miniscule amount of gun violence compared with unlicensed gun owners. Could it be again that registered gun owners are law abiding citizens?
Actually I think this whole gun control issue should be a liberal cause in favor of “freedom of choice”. If I choose to have a hand gun that should be my right. I'm not hurting anyone unless I'm threatened with bodily harm.
This whole insane idea of withholding handguns from law abiding citizens must really embolden criminals. They know there is little chance a private citizen can defend him or herself.
Let those people without violent criminal records have handguns and those that are caught with a unregistered gun or commit a crime with a gun get stiff jail time. No plea bargain. Example: robbing a gas station with a gun, two years for the robbery and 10 years for using a gun in commission of a crime. No plea bargain. It shouldn't be a crime just to own a gun that's in a private home laying in a drawer.
I wonder how many of those against handgun ownership would change their minds if they lived in some of the most drug, crime ridden parts of Chicago?

Polanski you can run but you can't hide

I found a interesting twist to the whole Roman Polanski melodrama. His mother died in a Nazi concentration camp and though Polanski is no Nazi criminal he is nevertheless a criminal that pleaded guilty to sodomy and rape of a 13 year old girl. To those that say let bygones be bygones since 32 years have passed for Polanski I wonder if those same people would say the same thing towards a Nazi criminal that was caught 32 years after world war II ended?
Consider the comment by the French Foreign Minister in defense of Polanski “A man of such talent, recognized in the entire world....all this just isn't nice”. What isn't nice is this man gave a 13 year old alcohol and slipped her drugs then raped and sodomized the girl while she pleaded with him to stop.
What if this man was not a world renowned film Director? Say he was a unemployed bum? Would the French Foreign Minister still announce that the whole episode “isn't nice”?
Polanski struck a plea deal which would have put him in jail for only 42 days. He decided to not do the 42 days and fled the country. He escaped punishment of raping a 13 year old girl and continued directing movies and living in a rich and famous lifestyle. He acted like he was untouchable because of that fame and money and it seems a lot of people agree with him that yes, he should be left alone.
Criminals always must know that they can't just run away from the legal system and after so many years all is forgiven. If that was the case it would diminish our whole legal system, not make the system a solid respected structure.
Polanski you can run but you can't hide. You should have done your 42 days. Now here's hoping its 42 days and much longer for the evading justice charges.

Rape case on Notre Dame Campus?

I came across a interesting article concerning two Notre Dame students in the South Bend Tribune Aug 28th 2009. Patrick Augustyn age 20 was accused of raping an intoxicated female student in his room. Maybe he did or maybe he didn't but just by reading the story in the South Bend Tribune I found it ridicules he was ever arrested. I'm not trying to make light of rape but just basing my opinion on what was in the newspaper story. You decide.
Police were called to investigate a partially dressed intoxicated female student sleeping in the hall of a men's dorm. The shirt she was wearing happened to belong to Augustyn. Hmmm. When the police found Augustyn in his room he admitted the two had met at a party and “hooked up”. I would guess that they were both drinking and “hooking up” and having sex I think is not too uncommon for young people especially when alcohol is involved.
Oh oh the intoxicated female student who had a alcohol content of .13 said she doesn't remember much of what went on that night and would never have consented to have sex with him. She probably doesn't remember much of what went on that night but then again if I was found passed out half naked in a dorm hall I think I would have said the same thing. I don't remember much.
So I guess if Augustyn didn't freely admit he had sex with her then everything would have been ok since she didn't remember anything. I wonder why then he freely admitted to having sex with her if he knew it was rape.
What I have never understood is when you have two people of opposite sexes drinking only one person is held responsible for their actions. The Man. I understand if she was passed out and he forced herself on her. Yes I see that as rape but if she gets so drunk and consents to sex then later says she would have never have consented to sex I don't see that as the same thing. I guess I just see it as a responsibility issue. I like most people have done a lot of things that I have regretted after drinking.
I also don't know too many rapists who give their victims a shirt after raping them.
His plea deadline date is set for Oct. 23 and tentative trial date Jan,. 25th.