Wanna Know how SNEAKY Bush IS About the BILL - Check this out!

[WagerWitch]

YAHOO NEWS

I'm so angry I could spit...

Bush to sign security, Internet bill

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush gets a chance to promote fellow Republicans as America's tough-on-terror protectors with a bill passed by the GOP-controlled Congress that aims to enhance port security and close a loophole in anti-terror defenses.

Quoted straight off the Yahoo Page:

Bush also was set to sign into law an unrelated provision the bill contains that seeks to put teeth into laws that forbid most online gambling.

But the president was not planning to mention the Internet gaming provision during Friday's White House signing ceremony, which was expected to draw lawmakers from both parties.



Instead, Bush's remarks were to focus on the multiple ways the legislation could reduce the likelihood that terrorists could sneak a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons device into the country in one of the 11 million shipping containers that enter the country each year, many without any inspection.

Congress approved the bill two weeks ago, one of its last acts before lawmakers left to campaign for the Nov. 7 midterm elections in which national security, the war in
Iraq and terrorism are expected to be major factors.

The administration has spent about $10 billion to enhance security at the nation's ports since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. About 65 percent of cargo, that considered most high-risk, is screened for nuclear or radiological materials. The
Homeland Security Department aims to increase that number to 80 percent by the end of the year and to almost 100 percent by the end of 2007.

The issue became a particular priority for Congress after a fight in February over a buyout that put a Dubai company in control of some operations at six U.S. ports. The outcry led the Dubai company, DP World, to promise it would sell the U.S. operations to an American company. The sale is pending.

Democrats favored the bill, but said it failed to address rail and mass transit, other areas considered highly vulnerable to terrorist attack. The bill was approved on a 409-2 vote in the House, and by a voice vote in the Senate.

The legislation approves $400 million a year over five years for risk-based grants for training and exercises at ports. It requires the nation's 22 largest ports, which handle 98 percent of all cargo entering the country, to install radiation detectors by the end of next year.

Pilot programs would be established at three foreign ports to test technology for nonintrusive cargo inspections. Currently only one foreign port, Hong Kong, scans all U.S.-bound cargo for nuclear materials.

Background checks and credentials will be required for workers at the nation's 361 ports, and the Homeland Security Department would set up protocols for resuming operations after an attack or incident. It is feared that a terrorist attack, such as a nuclear device set off by remote control, could cripple the entire economy as well as cause massive casualties.

Preferential cargo processing is offered to importers who meet certain security requirements.

The Internet gambling provision tackles the difficult task of enforcing bans by prohibiting players from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to settle their online wagers.

The measure's supporters include the National Football League as well as conservative and antigambling groups. Some banking groups have lobbied against it.

Federal officials have made recent arrests involving offshore companies operating Internet gambling sites. The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, although many of its customers live in the U.S.

___

The text of the bill, H.R. 4954, may be found at THOMAS (Library of Congress)

[WagerWitch]

As I said - How much do you think he paid for "FOLEY-GATE" ???

Hmmm...

How much do you think he threatened the media.


NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT AMERICA TO KNOW.

Sigh - urggle - I can't believe this.

[Auditor]

Your right, they don't want the public to realize what they're doing. We did all we could do to get the word out. The casinos could have done something...anything publicly. If just one of them ran an ad campaign to rally the millions of US online players against this bill being signed, it would have made a difference. The president would not be signing this bill today.









New Video!
YouTube - Senator Frist and The Online Gambling Ban, (Mr. Bill)

Last push to get the word out!


Sign - Lets continue to get the message out!
Legalize Online Gambling Now Petition


Please, view and rate to increase exposure.
US Congress Betrays America, Video - YOUTUBE
Truth behind Online Gambling Ban - YOUTUBE
Senator Frist and The Online Gambling Ban, (Mr. Bill) - YOUTUBE


Get media contacts to spread the word.
The Association of Professional Casino Webmasters


If we do nothing we WILL lose our rights...

Anthony, Auditing Director - APCW.org

[sdaddy]

I was equally disturbed by the press conference held by the Congressional delegation outside the White House after the signing ceremony, shown later on C-SPAN. They were all patting themselves on the back about what a wonderful, bipartisan bill they had worked hard to put together to make America safe. Of course, there was once again NO MENTION of the internet gambling provision that was slipped in at the eleventh hour before passage. As far as I'm concerned, they're just as complicit as Sen. Frist in the sleazy tactics that allowed this bill to pass.

[Addisyn]

I am sorry to say Dubya would be signing this bill no matter who lobbied against it. This adminstration does what it wants. End of story. Checks and balances must be regained and then we would have cause to lobby and actually come out with a good result.

[WagerWitch]

I did what I could...

But What I found most AMAZING - is the TIME STAMP on my post - and on the News.

Bush technically had NOT signed the Bill Yet.

Ya think I'm nuts - check Casino Meister's time stamp.

I'm begining to realize that Conspiracy Theorists are probably not as crazy as I used to think they were.

LMAO!

Oh well - you guys - I'm so very very sorry this passed.

I'm so very sorry that no one stood up to the Government.

We have the power of voting now.

If only AMERICA KNEW what this party did.

I have until Nov 8th to keep spreading the word.

If you want something done - become political. It's our last recourse - unless one of you is a multi-Billionaire who can afford the best political attorneys in the Nation - and this is something you want to fight.

Many hugs to all -

Wager Witch
LuckyMeki
Meki

[dhayman]

I agree, Lucky. Our only real recourse here is to pay back those that took away our rights (and business, for some). I've been a life-long Republican, but not this year. Bush has faltered on a lot more than this anti-gambling bill, which hits me home directly. His creation of an unneeded war, and his horrible management of the US budget is totally irresponsible. The lying, cheating, and deception of this party is on an order of magnitude that I cannot recall in my lifetime.

I'm voting straight ticket Democrat in every imaginable category. It IS TIME FOR A CHANGE, and I think Americans will respond accordingly.

Meanwhile, now that this bill passed, it will be interesting to see where it goes, despite all the negative and rash maneuvers of many of the online gambling companies. It will take time to undo, but voting in a Democratic Congress is the first step to getting our rights back.

[Mister]

Lou Dobbs on the CNN channel will be talking about the WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS, this coming Wednesday...I imagine the subject of discussion will be about how the U.S. voting public (or the lack of it) is slowly losing its voice because of the stronger lobbyist groups that get their interests favored (above our right to pursue individual liberties) by our so-called elected politicians.

[footdr]

I am sorry to say that I failed to put the site in my favorites so I can not provide the link. I have been reading all I can find about how the gambling legislation was added but I believe it was a Washington Post article that stated the "Bush advised House republicans(doesn't mention who but I suspect KYL or Frist ) at the last hour that he wanted the Internet Gambling legislation added to the Safe Port Act.

I can believe this because #1. that might be the reason he did not draw attention to it when he signed the safe port act. In case there was alot of heat about it he could claim he had no choice but to sign the important legislation.
#2. White house press conference on the 13th . Press secretary asked what their comments were on Internet Gambling provision. Response: WE ARE FOR IT or something to that effect. END OF DISCUSSION. No other reporters asked questions regarding it

#3. with the Presidents involvement/direction it more than likely was easier to circumvent procedure, avoiding the commitee on rules

[jetset]

Footdr is right - the story appeared in the Financial Times and is mentioned in this week's Casinomeister News:

DID THE WHITE HOUSE INTERVENE IN ONLINE GAMBLING BILL?

Powerful persuasion on the eve of the vote...

If a story appearing this week in the Financial Times is accurate, the presidential signing into law of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was a slam-dunk.

The respected publication carried a story quoting unidentified lobbyists who summarised the events leading up to the presentation of the Goodlatte Bill, including the exploitation of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal as a spur to get politicians to sign up for the anti-online gambling measure.

It covers the House approval of the combined Goodlatte and Leach bills and how this stalled in the Senate before being picked up and pushed by Senators Kyl and Frist, ultimately leading to the attachment of the compromise measure to the must-pass port security bill and the early morning approval of both.

The article also carries the startling news that the attachment to the port security bill was encouraged by the White House, according to two lobbyists who told the Financial Times that this was an important element in the whole process.

The FT reports: "One day before Saturday's vote on the legislation, two lobbyists who followed the bill alleged the last-minute intervention of the White House, which encouraged Republican senators to support the legislation, gave the bill the momentum it needed to be attached to the port security bill and passed by the Senate.

"Both lobbyists contend the White House sought passage of the bill following the release of a bipartisan congressional report that documented contacts between the White House and Mr Abramoff and his partners, including contacts between the lobbyist and Karl Rove, chief political strategist for George W. Bush, president."

All of which suggests that, if this report is true the presidential signing was a mere formality.