Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support Chairman Frank's HR 2267. While not perfect these bills will take a step toward liberty by restoring the right of Americans to decide for them whether or not to gamble online.     

#####

     

Rich Muny

Rich Muny, an engineer, lives with his wife in northern Kentucky.  A long-time limited government conservative, Rich became active in grassroots Internet poker advocacy efforts while also becoming a prolific blogger on conservative-libertarian political issues.  These efforts led to his being named to the board of directors of the million-member Poker Players Alliance in 2007.   Rich is also a columnist for BigGovernment.com: http://biggovernment.com/rmuny

Follow Rich on Facebook: www.facebook.com/rich.muny 

As the president of Americans for Tax Reform, author of Leave Us Alone, and long-time conservative activist, Grover Norquist has been an active warrior for conservatism since his Harvard days in the 1970s.  True to the title of his latest book, Norquist’s brand of conservatism is one where the federal government simply stays out of the lives of the American people to the maximum degree possible.    

Norquist is opposed on principle to government interference in the lives of Americans.  It does not matter if that interference comes from the left or the right -- big government is big government.  He would much rather protect our values from big government than entrust big government with them.  While this appeals to almost all conservatives -- in fact, that’s why many conservatives ARE conservatives -- this has recently gotten him into a public spat with someone within the movement who prefers more government to address social issues.    

Norquist and I recently sat down to discuss the spat, issues of excessive taxation, big government, the online poker issue, and the future of the conservative movement.  

 
Grover Norquist and Rich Muny at CPAC 2010 

Rich Muny: The GOP platform still calls for the party to support banning and prohibiting online poker.  Censoring the Internet right now probably isn’t a popular thing.  Do you think that’s a position the GOP should rethink in terms of its party platform and leave it to individual legislators to decide what they want to do?   

Grover Norquist: Yes.  Look, if people want to play poker, they should be able to play poker.  If you think it’s bad for somebody to play poker, you should go tell them that, but you shouldn’t use the state to go interfere with somebody else’s decision if they want to play poker or not.  There are millions of people who do play poker online and it’s not a good idea to interfere with how people nonviolently interact with other people.    

It’s entirely possible that it cost the Republican Party one House seat in [former Iowa Rep. Jim] Leach’s seat, who was defeated, having been the lead sponsor of that bill [the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act].  So, I think it’s not good politics.  It’s not good policy, but it’s also not good politics to run around telling people how to run their lives.  That’s something Democrats should do.  It’s not something Republicans should do.    

Rich Muny: It’s been noted by some that you have a libertarian streak regarding social issues.  Tom McClusky, Vice President for Government Affairs of the Family Research Council, recently noted your support for online poker players and your libertarian leanings on some social issues.  Do you feel the broader conservative movement is now moving away from big government regarding social issues and back to limited government across the board, with emphasis on fiscal issues, as it was back when Sen. Barry Goldwater was the conservative standard bearer?     

Grover Norquist: I’m a little surprised by McClusky’s article, he wrote a little essay attacking me, because it didn’t make any sense and it didn’t mesh with reality.  He says I’m not pro-life and quotes an article where when asked if I’m pro-life I said “yes”.  He said I was demeaning the pro-lifers when that wasn’t true.  So, I can’t speak for him other than to say he made no effort to talk to me and/or get reality-based thought into his essay.    

In point of fact, the point I’ve made in my book Leave Us Alone is that this silly idea that there are three legs to the stool of conservatism: social conservatism, economic conservatism, and foreign policy -- that misses what happens.  What happens in the modern Republican Party from Goldwater through today, and what’s becoming more true as we move forward?  The modern center-right movement is made up of people who, on their great moving issue, want to be left alone.    

Now, what does that mean?  That means, for gun owners, leave my guns alone.  Now, is that a social issue?  No, it’s a leave me alone issue.  Taxpayers: leave my money alone.  Businessmen: leave my business alone.  Homeowners and property owners: leave my property alone.  Pro-parents: leave my kids alone.  Home schooling:  the most radical pro-traditional values, pro-family movement in the country is the home schooler movement.  Now, is that a social issue? Is it an economic issue?  It’s just a freedom issue.  It’s my home, you get off the lawn!    

In ’78, ’79, and ’80, the traditional values movement got organized.  Why?  Because Jimmy Carter was going after Christian schools, trying to take away their tax status, and after Christian radio stations with the FCC.  They wanted to be LEFT ALONE to raise their own families and run their own lives. So, the traditional values conservatives recognize that the state is a threat to their ability to raise their kids, raise their families, and educate their children as they see fit.  So, there isn’t this conflict that some like to see.    

Now, there’s an odd whining that one hears.  “Oh no.  How come the Tea Party people are all talking about economics?”  Well, what’s changed in the last three years?  There’s been an assault of massive spending, a series of tax increases, and massive regulatory regimes.  People are reacting to Obama’s assaults on the liberties of the American people, largely financial in terms of their business lives.  When government gets big, it threatens everybody everywhere.    

So, people are reacting to what Obama’s doing.  We’re all talking about government taking over health care, government taking over the energy sector, and government taking over the banks. What does one expect us to be talking about?  That’s the assault that’s taking place.    

So, I think that people whose main concern is practicing their faith and raising their kids want to be left alone to do that.  I think people whose main concern is their business world, and by main concern I mean the thing they vote on….  Somebody can have twenty concerns in life.  The question is, “what are you voting on?”    

Rich Muny: As a follow-up, one of the top vote getters in the Liberty and Freedom section of the GOP’s America Speaking Out site is a submission in favor of poker rights.  It was made by 2004 WSOP Champion and Poker Players Alliance Board Member Greg Raymer, whom you met at this year’s CPAC convention.     

Grover Norquist: The one with the crazy glasses?  He’s a great American.  

  
Greg Raymer at CPAC, diligently signing
autographs as folks in line wait for their turn 

Rich Muny: Absolutely.  He’s a great guy and a great American.

Modern conservatives seem to be focusing on this “leave us alone” embrace of limited government ideals and not so much on using big government to push social issues.  In fact, it seems many conservatives are far more interested in what goes with their own families and businesses than what goes on in their neighbors’ homes and bedrooms.  As you said a moment ago, they simply wish to be left alone.    

Do you feel they realize big government in one area invites big government for all areas, and do you believe the conservative movement will be able to stay focused on limiting the power of the federal government if it regains power?    

Grover Norquist: I think the Tea Party movement has certainly made it clear that people see larger government per se as a threat.  Now, people can look at the blob coming down towards the city and fear for different things, but everybody knows that when the blob hits the city, everybody gets whacked.  When the government gets big enough and has more power, how they wield that power will be bad for everybody in the country, but clearly and obviously will be bad for everybody in the center-right coalition.    

This government is so big that runs public schools.  What do you think they’re going to do?  Do you think they’ll let you have control over the education of your child?  No, they’re not going to.  In the public school, teachers’ unions fight against school choice.  They fight against home schooling.    

The most important socially conservative traditional values parental rights victory around is home schooling and school choice.  I’m on the board of the parental rights organization Campaign to Fight for the Parental Rights Amendment, which says parents have the right to raise their own children.   That is a leave us alone to be parents movement, which is central.  It’s one of the most important traditional values, socially conservative movements and institutions in the country.  I think it’s a central battleground.  Who gets to raise kids, the state or parents?  Parents should.    

Rich Muny: Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky claimed that you are supporting taxes in supporting online poker rights.  How do you respond, especially given that his organization has repeatedly sought laws banning the untaxed offshore online poker sites that currently serve millions of American poker players every day?     

Grover Norquist: That makes no sense.  I don’t support increasing taxes.    

Rich Muny: Americans for Tax Reform has been the leader in the fight against excessive taxation and government growth since its inception in 1985.  How is the fight going today and how do you see it progressing over the next few years?    

Grover Norquist: Well, we came together in 1985 at the request of President Reagan.  Our goal was to help pass the Tax Reform Act of 1986, taking the top federal income tax rate down from 50% to 28%.  During that campaign, I created the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which Reagan endorsed in the ‘86 election, asking all candidates to sign a pledge never to raise taxes and never to allow income tax rates to creep back up again.  That worked well. The first year we got 100 House members and twenty Senators to take the pledge.    

In 1988, all the Republican presidential candidates except for Senator Dole took it.  When Dole won the Iowa race but then was asked in the New Hampshire debate if he would take the pledge, Pete DuPont handed him the pledge.  Dole recoiled like a vampire being shown the cross.  At that point, frankly, New Hampshire was the one state where everybody would know what the Taxpayer Protection Pledge was, because that’s where I got the idea from.  New Hampshire had the Tax Pledge which meant, in New Hampshire, no sales tax and no income tax at the state level.  It was there where tax pledges had meaning at the state level.    

I grew up in Massachusetts.  Having watched, I said, “we should do that at the national level.”  Now, later, people know what the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is nationally, but at that point the one place where people did know about it was New Hampshire.  So, Dole lost the New Hampshire primary and went on to lose an election he has been winning before that.    

So, Bush won the primary because of the pledge and Dole lost because he refused to take the pledge.  Then, Bush said, “read my lips…,” took the pledge at the national level, and won the general.  Two years later, he broke the pledge and lost a perfectly good presidency.  You know, he did a pretty good job except for the tax increase.    

So, that really strengthened the pledge.  Going into ’92 and ’94, that’s when I started getting about 95% of all the Republicans running nationally to take the pledge.    

This year, I think, every Republican who might possibly win in the general in the House has taken the pledge.  There are one or two we haven’t gotten to who might yet win a primary, but there aren’t any we don’t think we won’t have.    

I’ve got everyone running for the Senate now, with the exception of Mike Castle of Delaware, who has not been a pledge signer as a House member -- one of the few -- and John Hoeven of North Dakota.  Otherwise, all the Republicans who could win in November in the Senate have taken the pledge.    

We have more governors taking the pledge this time around than ever before.  All the Republican candidates in Florida, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, California, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania have taken the pledge.  We’re doing very well with governors, which is a very strong statement to make at a time when the economy is poor and revenues are not just flowing in.  It was pretty easy for somebody to take the pledge in 1998 as a governor.  It’s tougher this time around.  What they are really announcing is, “I am going to be cutting spending, guys.”  That’s what that says.  That’s a pretty tough comment.    

So, the pledge is going well.  It’s stronger than it has been for a long time, particularly at the state level.  That’s the big shift.  Since ’92 and ’94, we’ve gotten most or all House and Senate candidates at the national level.  This time around, we’re doing very well with governors as well.    

Rich Muny: Are any Democrats signing the pledge?  How about those in Republican districts?     

Grover Norquist: We don’t get too many pledge takers from Democrats.  I mean, this is the issue that separates Republicans and Democrats more than any other.  Sen. Ben Nelson from NE signed the pledge, but broke it when he voted for health care which included tax increases.  A couple of House incumbents have taken the pledge as well.    

This is the big difference between the two parties, more than abortion or guns.  A whole bunch of people vote pro-gun and pro-life, or promise to, but there are almost no Democrats who run as anti-tax increasers.    

Rich Muny: You’re on the NRA Board of Directors.  I’m a Life Member myself.  Can you comment on your feelings on the two big gun rights Supreme Court cases, McDonald vs. Chicago and the Heller case in D.C.?     

Grover Norquist: Over the last decade, political support for the Second Amendment has grown.  I have a Wall Street Journal front page article from 1993 that was all about how attacking gun rights was a popular position to take.  Since then, the vote on the Brady Bill, the vote on the assault weapons ban, the pro-gun movement, the number of people with concealed carry permits, the number of people who are for or against gun control -- all moved in the right direction.  We got 60 votes in the Senate saying that you cannot sue gun manufacturers out of existence – a very important win.    

But we’re always worried about the courts.  You know, two 5-4 decisions.  The Supreme Court has said -- a 5-4 decision for the self-evident, that’s scary in itself -- the Second Amendment means what the Second Amendment says.  The government can’t regulate your right to own a gun.  That’s progress.    

Rich Muny: What’s your forecast for November?  Do you think the GOP takes a chamber of Congress or even both?     

Grover Norquist: Right now it looks like the Republicans will capture the House, strengthen in the Senate, and pick up quite a number of governors.  It looks like a very good year for Republicans.    

I do not see what could change that.  Obviously, the world is an uncertain place, but if Democrats have some secret plan, some October surprise… If the Democrats knew that they were going to bring X number of dollars in from the unions and flood the zone, that’s the sort of information they would have told Stupak and Obey when they were begging them to stay and run for reelection.  And yet Obey and Stupak and Biden’s son, who’s a statewide elected official in Delaware, all of them looked at the best information Democrat consultants had.  They had the best arguments for how and why the Democrats could do well in November, and they decided not to run.    

I see generally conservative Republican taxpayer polling.  I talk to conservative Republican taxpayer pro-gun owner institutions. I think we’re doing well.  But the Democrats, when they sit in their bunkers and look at their information, they run for their lives!  I don’t know what’s in the polling they’re looking at, but it doesn’t sound cheerful for them.    

I don’t see what turns it around.  The vice president’s son can’t be convinced that the wind might turn to his back.  He has the best information available to somebody on the left, the best promises.  You know, the president is willing to do X for you, and still says to himself, “okay, and I still don’t think it will work.”    

Rich Muny: Now that you’ve had time to reflect and observe, has your opinion on the banking and auto industry bailouts changed at all?  Has it turned out better or worse than you had imagined at the time?     

Grover Norquist: It’s still a stupid idea.    

Rich Muny: I thank you for your time.  Most appreciated.     

Grover Norquist: You’ve got it.    

#####

     

Proposed NBC/Comcast Merger Proving Problematic for Family Groups

 

A possible merger between NBC Universal and Comcast could mean readily available adult-themed content on the television airwaves.

 

Family advocate groups sent a joint letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Parents Television Council, the American Family Association, CitizenLink were among the organizations that asked the FCC to determine whether Comcast meets the character prerequisites required by applicants requesting a broadcast license.

 

"By offering adult subscription channels and services, including its pay-per-view and on demand networks, Comcast is able to distribute hardcore pornographic material – routinely marketed as "adult entertainment" – to its 23.5 million cable subscribers," stated the letter.

 

"In fact, Comcast is one of the 'most far-reaching distributors of porn' in the communities it serves. In addition to the pay-per-view and on-demand material, there is also a significant amount of adult-themed and pornographic programming available and widely distributed via Comcast's traditional cable programming packages, as well as on Comcast-owned networks like E! and FEARnet."

 

Dan Isett, director of public policy for the Parents Television Council and the person who spear-headed the coalition letter, asked for two concessions from the FCC prior to a merger approval.

 

"One concession is that Comcast disclose the revenue generated from the distribution of pornographic material," said Isett. "The second asks for Comcast to make a commitment not be broadcast such material on the public airwaves."

 

The FCC will hold a hearing next month on the proposed merger. Comcast officials say they expect a decision later this year.

 

#####

     

Prior to the 2006 passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, media coverage of the online poker issue tended to be inaccurate (articles often claimed that online poker is clearly unlawful in the U.S. when it is at worst somewhat grey) and biased in favor of the viewpoints of those seeking a prohibition.  This may have led some Americans to support passing a prohibition, as the lack of a pro-poker side of the public debate could have been construed as a lack of its legitimacy, or even of its existence.  It certainly made it difficult for politicians to support our right to play.

This was not a new problem.  For over a century, anti-poker types had a virtual monopoly on media access.  This was due in part to the fact that leaders of evangelical churches could easily spread anti-gaming messages through congregations.  This also coincided with the ascendancy of the Progressive Era.  During that era (the era that also brought us Prohibition), many believed big government could be good government, giving poker prohibitionists even more media and popular support.  Without a people’s media like the Internet, those who supported poker and gaming rights simply had no outlet.  Politicians did not hear from poker rights advocates, so it appeared that few supported this position.

Fortunately, we now have the Internet.  This has enabled us to get out our side of the story.  Many of us post to sites like Two Plus Two, write for online magazines and blogs, post comments when we see pro- and anti-gaming online articles, use social networking sites like Digg and Twitter, and post letters to write to Congress.  This hard work has helped lay the foundation for national writers who may have otherwise assumed such an article would not attract a sufficient number of readers to write in support of our issues.  The Poker Players Alliance is working in parallel with all of this, ensuring that all media have our side of the story, making sure media have people with whom to speak to answer any questions they may have, and staying active on social networks.....

Click here to read the rest of the article at TwoPlusTwo.com

     

On the heels of the huge GOP victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) decided to stand up to the Obama administration with one of the strongest weapons at his disposal — he halted Senate votes on Treasury Department nominees.

As there are a number of areas where the conservative movement takes issues with administration objectives, this is a target-rich environment.  A strong stand here could show America what the Republican Party stands for and what the party will fight for.  So, is Kyl standing up for improvements in the health care bill, reduced federal spending, or limits on federal power?  No, he is not.  Sadly, Sen. Kyl is wasting this powerful, one-shot weapon to register his dissatisfaction with the administration’s granting of a delay in implementing Internet poker and gaming-related financial regulations — a delay that was requested by his fellow Republicans.

The law for which Kyl pushed with so much vigor for so many years is fatally flawed.  Despite a decade of trying, beginning with his attempt to add a national online poker and gaming prohibition to the Crime Prevention Act of 1995, Kyl found himself unable to pass an online gaming prohibition through Congress.  In 2006, he settled for a law prohibiting money from going from U.S. financial transactions to sites offering “unlawful Internet gambling.” To move this through the Senate, Kyl had this bill tacked on to the must-pass SAFE Port Act in the middle of the night just as the 2006 Congressional term was coming to a close.  Thus, the Senate never even voted on this as a free-standing bill.

(more…)

Prohibition, touted as “The Noble Experiment” in its time, criminalized the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of alcohol.  While the law did many things, there was one thing it could not accomplish.  It could not stop Americans from drinking.  As our country approaches the 76^th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, it’s time to look back and see how it impacts policymaking today.

Some wish for America to try a new prohibition – with Internet poker the target of misguided efforts.  Laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) have made Americans less free in their own homes, but have not stopped Americans from playing poker.  Like Prohibition, however, the policies of this prohibition are fundamentally flawed and pose a threat to safety.

Prohibition advocates of the early twentieth century sought to eliminate what they believed to be a negative attribute of society.  However, regardless of one’s view on alcohol consumption or Internet poker, it is undeniable that Americans will seek out ways to continue proscribed activities. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.  As a nation founded on liberty, it’s in our DNA.

(more…)

Many conservative politicians, radio hosts, and pundits have repeatedly stated their shared belief that the Republican Party “lost its way” prior to the 2008 election.  In their minds, the entire conservative movement believed in limited government and low spending and was simply corrupted by absolute power.  They may be surprised to learn that this is not the case at all.  The fact that party leadership turned its back on limited government and low spending was entirely predictable.  In fact, it should have been expected.

The conservative movement is not homogeneous.  Rather, the movement consists of fiscal conservatives, limited government conservatives, libertarians, pro-business conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and others.  When Democrats control government, these disparate conservative groups share many common goals. They all wish to reduce the power of government and they all wish to reduce taxes and spending.  As a result, they usually form a very effective alliance while out of power.

We saw this in 1993 and 1994.  Conservatives rallied around core beliefs like limited government, term limits, Second Amendment rights, and low taxes.  Party leadership rolled out the Contract with America to universal conservative acclaim.  Conservatives all rallied around statements like, “guns don’t kill people…people kill people,” while GOP candidates gladly signed term limit pledges and Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  United, the GOP won control of the House and the Senate in 1994, and later won the presidency in 2000.

(more…)

Click here to Digg

Click here to Twitter

The all new Poker Players Alliance letter to President Obama is up on the PPA website. It focuses on the actions of Obama's DoJ against online poker players and demands that these actions stop. It takes just 60 seconds to send, so please send it now and please have your friends and family sent letters as well.

  Click Here to Digg 

Click here to Twitter

by RICH MUNY

Continuing financial problems at Focus on the Family have resulted in more job cutbacks within the social conservative organization. The group recently announced a new round of layoffs, this latest one affecting 75 employees. This is expected to bring the number of employees down to 860 employees, from a high of about 1400 in 2002. However, the organization apparently still has plenty of cash to fund an expensive Washington lobbying effort, including a major Focus initiative to try to stop adults from playing online poker in their own homes with their own money.

Focus on the Family typically utilizes a two-pronged approach to achieving its goals. The first prong is the group's ministry.  The ministry assists people in choosing of their own free will the path Focus recommends.  The second prong is Focus' Congressional and state lobbying, where Focus seeks laws restricting behaviors the group deems immoral, thus using the power of the state to achieve its ends. Sadly, the fact that Focus is laying employees off while doubling-down on lobbying shows a disturbing shift in the direction of the organization.  It seems the group now prefers forcing the changes they seek through the power of the federal government over encouraging people to choose the appropriate path.

Regarding the latest round of layoffs, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger said, "Managers are meeting with their employees, praying with employees. We want to make sure that even after this process, they have a transition package and that's not just about money, but helping them find a new job." This is somewhat kind of Focus, perhaps, but I imagine it’s cold comfort to the families of the laid-off employees who know those salaries are now going to Washington lobbying. One wonders how many would have voluntarily given up their jobs to ensure that Focus had sufficient funding to continue their all-encompassing fight against poker players.  As poker players are showing no signs of giving up, one wonders how many years and how much donated money Focus is planning to put into this fight.

Anyone who believes Focus on the Family should focus on ministering to those in need while keeping the lobbying -- especially on issues like online poker -- on the back burner during lean times like these ought to write to Focus now. Let them know that you want your money to go to ministering and that you will not donate if they plan to use the bulk of your money on Capitol Hill lobbying. You can contact them at http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14190.