Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reaction To Online Gaming Bill Vehement And Outraged
Poker News ^ | October 02, 2006 | Earl Burton

Posted on 10/02/2006 4:29:47 AM PDT by baystaterebel

Reaction to the online gaming legislation passed in a late night pre-recess session in Congress has been one of outrage as poker lobbying organizations and support groups prepare for the future.

Late Friday evening, Congress was able to link a bill regarding online gaming to the latest bill regarding American port security. This bill, which was enacted to prevent another situation such as the Dubai scenario earlier this year (which would have awarded security rights for several coastal cities to a Muslim country), was virtually guaranteed to pass through the Senate. It was with this bill that Senator Bill Frist, Senator Jon Kyl and others were able to stake their online gaming bandwagon on.

(Excerpt) Read more at pokernews.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
An absolute joke. What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder. The explosion of poker of late is directly related to internet poker.

A staunch Republican I am but it seems the party is taking a cue from the democrats here. Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers I have no idea what they hope to accomplish.

1 posted on 10/02/2006 4:29:48 AM PDT by baystaterebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CSM; jmc813; Phantom Lord; doubled; Graycliff; Tallguy; Lexington Green; ThinkDifferent; ...

Poker Ping!

Freepmail me if you want on the Poker Ping list.

2 posted on 10/02/2006 4:33:10 AM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
They want you to look over here and ignore the fact that they pulled the part tht would have mandated security checks for ALL port workers.

The union thugs would have none of it! Workers with serious criminal records, mob connections, etc. Nope, can't check them out! Just make sure a company like Dubai Ports World who WOULD have demanded port worker background checks doesn't get anywhere near our mob infested longshoreman union workers.

3 posted on 10/02/2006 4:33:27 AM PDT by OldFriend (Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? President Karzai 9/26/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder.

The casino industry probably lobbied for it.

4 posted on 10/02/2006 4:34:16 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
The Republicans squashed a move to require every cargo container to be inspected as well as removed funding for rail and transit security for American citizens.

Democrat talking points right there....

5 posted on 10/02/2006 4:34:20 AM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

Spend and Tax Congress vs. Gambling on the Internet

Which one do you think destroys more families?


6 posted on 10/02/2006 4:35:25 AM PDT by Stallone (Dealing with Democrats IS the War on Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
The online gaming legislation added to the port security bill is very difficult to enforce. While it doesn't outright state that online gaming is illegal, it does outlaw the payment of gaming implements through banks and credit card companies in the United States. It does not address, however, the multitude of online payment systems (such as NeTeller) that exist or what can occur through them.

Isn't this basically the Status Quo?

7 posted on 10/02/2006 4:35:40 AM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
poker lobbying organizations..

A card game needs lobbyists? There is a connection to Port Security? I'm going back to bed, this makes no sense.

8 posted on 10/02/2006 4:36:38 AM PDT by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stallone
Spend and Tax Congress vs. Gambling on the Internet Which one do you think destroys more families?

Although I am not a huge fan of Internet Gambling...I would have to think that the government can do a lot more damage to many more people than Online Gambling.

9 posted on 10/02/2006 4:38:41 AM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

This is so blantantly special interest legislation it's disgusting. There is no shame when it comes to pandering.


10 posted on 10/02/2006 4:42:14 AM PDT by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

Look to the World Trade Organization for the reason behind this. The US was allowing domestic Internet gambling but locking out foreign-based games. Many countries cried foul and won their case before the WTO. What was up in the air was sanctions against the US and the leading penalty under consideration was suspending Intellectual Property rights. The choice was open up gambling completely or shut it down completely. Congress chose the latter course of action.


11 posted on 10/02/2006 4:47:02 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Treaty Fetishism: "[The] belief that a piece of paper will alter the behavior of thugs." R. Lowry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; Gabz

More nanny non-sense.

I wish these a$$holes would do something that made sense, for a change. What a bunch of theiving crooks.


12 posted on 10/02/2006 4:48:42 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
In some states with some banks it is. Here in Maine I have a Bank of America account that will not allow me to transfer funds directly to Poker Stars, Full Tilt, yadda yadda yadda. I have a Netteller account which the government cannot stop me from depositing or withdrawing. The concern is to what length the government may go to pursue an individual to enforce this legislation, if at all.

The way it was done is underhanded. What Frist and the G.O.P. hope to gain from this is lost on me. All it has done is pissed off a big swath of potential voters. Nanny State Republicans on Parade.
13 posted on 10/02/2006 4:49:51 AM PDT by baystaterebel (http://omphalosgazer.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 383rr
What a bunch of theiving crooks.

They've certainly robbed many of us of an education.

14 posted on 10/02/2006 4:50:21 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

I agree with your assessment.

Plus, I'm thinking they mught not have been able to tax off shore winnings. I would appreciate someone who KNOWS for SURE whether the U.S. has/had the ability to tax off shore winnings to comment on this.


15 posted on 10/02/2006 4:53:01 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

"What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder."

Are you kidding? It is the casinos who, short-sightedly I'll admit, want this. They think you won't come to the casino if you can play poker at home in your underwear.

There has been no outcry from the actual on-line gamblers, not that I've seen. And hey, I've been one! I'm wondering if this will change now. Of course, I hate calling my reps, since they are all stinking dems. But I must say, it's not the dems driving this legislation, not so far as I am aware.


16 posted on 10/02/2006 4:55:26 AM PDT by jocon307 (The Silent Majority - silent no longer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

""Are you kidding? It is the casinos who, short-sightedly I'll admit, want this. They think you won't come to the casino if you can play poker at home in your underwear.""

As a matter of fact thats what I am doing right now lol!


17 posted on 10/02/2006 5:03:55 AM PDT by baystaterebel (http://omphalosgazer.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
I have a Netteller account which the government cannot stop me from depositing or withdrawing. The concern is to what length the government may go to pursue an individual to enforce this legislation, if at all.

I don't think anything will change. This was all just fluff.

18 posted on 10/02/2006 5:03:58 AM PDT by frogjerk (REUTERS: We give smoke and mirrors a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
Subtle ways of reigning in the Internet.

Look for more stern measures to quell some of the rancor before the 08 election cycle. Hillary Clinton needs it. John McCain needs it. John Kerry needs it. Some others need it. They saw what happened to Kerry in 04.

Watch for amendments being sneaked into various bills in 07.

The Foley IM/Email fiasco presents a perfect opportunity for the Legislators to add more legislation to 'restrict' Internet actions.

McCain already tried [and failed] to slip some restrictions in during this Congressional session.
19 posted on 10/02/2006 5:06:55 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Haven't heard that. Got any links? I think that you have the real reason right there.


20 posted on 10/02/2006 5:07:16 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers

I am what you might call a "bible thumper," and my objection to gambling, in general, is the damage that it truly does cause in families and neighborhoods. If it were possible to restrict the damage to individuals, I'd readily fall back on my normal argument "live and let live."

Nonetheless, I do NOT support restrictions on gambling. Because the damage to families and neighborhoods is real and is measurable, I see no reason to assume that governments cannot be involved in this issue and regulate it with legislation.

I allow for gambling for the same reason I allow for alcohol consumption:

1. There is a fallacy in catering to the addict rather than to the majority capable of moderation.

2. There is a fallacy in government attempting to regulate that which is amazingly simple to engage in whether government objects or not. Government couldn't really control Uncle Jake making whiskey in his garage and selling it to his neighbors. Nor can government control those who run numbers and play poker. It's insane to regulate that which you can't control.

1 & 2 above do not mean government has no interest in TRYING to do so, if they so desire.

21 posted on 10/02/2006 5:18:46 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny

It has been my understanding that if you are a U.S. citizen, every dollar you acquire, by whatever means, onshore or offshore, is reportable and taxable as income excluding only certain tax-deferred investments and profits from real estate sales up to a cap.

So, it's not illegal to have an offshore accout; it's illegal to have one and fail to report your interest income. If you go to Monaco and win $1M, that's not illegal, but you must report it when you file your taxes. The local government will take their pound of flesh at the point of payment; reporting to the IRS is your job.

Now, you could always return via Grand Cayman, land in the U.S. sans capital, and leave some unnamed bank in Grand Cayman with a hefty new, numbered interest-earning account, but -- technically, at least -- you still have to report everything. Some things are nearly impossible for then to discover if you DON'T report them, BUT, if you don't report them and they DO discover them...you're TOAST.

But, then, I think you implied that you're somewhat of a gambler... ;-)


22 posted on 10/02/2006 5:22:10 AM PDT by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23; Iowa Granny

Pretty much what HKMk23 wrote. Your winnings are taxable, but you can write off your losses. IRS has no way of knowing what your losses are. Unless you get audited, you can show what ever losses you need to (I am NOT advocating committing fraud here.) You need to keep records of your losses or the IRS won't accept them under audit.


By the way, all this Bill does is limit the way one funds their account and cashes winnings.


23 posted on 10/02/2006 5:31:01 AM PDT by gate2wire (Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
I could be wrong about this, but I believe that if you earn money off-shore, and leave it completely off-shore, then it's not taxed. It's only taxed when you access it, or bring it into the country.

IIRC, that's how the Kenedys and Soros manage to have huge amounts of money available, but don't actually pay taxes on it. Sort of like a consumption tax. They don't pay taxes on it until they actually use it.

Mark

24 posted on 10/02/2006 5:35:43 AM PDT by MarkL (When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated.

I've suspected that online gambling rackets are run by spam gangs and other kinds of gangs, including those who support crime including terrorism. I do not doubt the onlinegambling/terrorism connection one bit. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1711933/posts?page=34#33 for a discussion of that "connection."


25 posted on 10/02/2006 5:37:27 AM PDT by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

The casinos, the Indians, and the state lotteries all lobbied hard for this, they think it will reign in the competition. I specialize in football and blackjack, make a nice side income there. Main reason there is no outcry of opposition is this law is useless. My sports bets are with a local guy, technically illegal, blackjack in person. If I were interested in the online services, it would take about ten minutes to transfer some money and set up an account this law wouldn't touch.

Actually nobody really thinks this bill will do anything except give some Congresscritters a campaign boost on the "values" right. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) thought he needed it, the RNC thinks they need Leach to win to keep the majority, and they are probably right. All in all, a good move tactically, has no real effect on any gambler with more than three brain cells still rattling around.

If this sounds a bit cynical, well it is, but that is how the "great game" of politics is played. Not really that much different from gambling, online or not.


26 posted on 10/02/2006 5:39:18 AM PDT by barkeep (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theo

"I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated."

If I want to legally bet on a football game, I would have to fly to Vegas or drive 3 hours to Atlantic City. Why can't I go on-line and bet with a LEGAL British Book?


27 posted on 10/02/2006 5:41:17 AM PDT by gate2wire (Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: barkeep

"Actually nobody really thinks this bill will do anything except give some Congresscritters a campaign boost on the "values" right."


"Congress has grappled with this issue for ten years, and during that time we've watched this shadow industry explode," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee). "For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws."


http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/todaysnews/newsview.asp?recno=66786&subsec=1


28 posted on 10/02/2006 5:43:21 AM PDT by gate2wire (Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gate2wire

"If I want to legally bet on a football game, I would have to fly to Vegas or drive 3 hours to Atlantic City."

Vegas only, you can't bet on Sports in Atlantic City, only horse racing.


29 posted on 10/02/2006 5:47:26 AM PDT by jocon307 (The Silent Majority - silent no longer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

I stand corrected.


30 posted on 10/02/2006 5:48:08 AM PDT by gate2wire (Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: redgolum; Iowa Granny
The offshore connection ... a Google search should turn up dozens more articles: The Web: WTO's gambling deadline missed.

It is the logical reason why there would be enough support to pass the measure. I'm puzzled that this doesn't seem to come up in public statements from either side. Do the republicans prefer the bible thumper tag to being painted as caving to the WTO? Are there special interests that will throw their online operations under the bus in order to save their bricks and mortar operations from international electronic competition? Plenty of meat for a real journalist. Too bad they don't make those anymore.

31 posted on 10/02/2006 5:57:43 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Treaty Fetishism: "[The] belief that a piece of paper will alter the behavior of thugs." R. Lowry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel

Pubbies just lost the poker vote -- that's millions of voters


32 posted on 10/02/2006 6:00:25 AM PDT by Lexington Green (Are we as free as we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Thanks.

I don't like gambling, but honestly if someone wants to waste the money that is OK. This whole fight against Internet gambling doesn't make much sense to me.

If the argument is that it is bad for society, then state lottos (which suck up a lot more of the "poor" money than online sites) would logically be the first thing to be focused on. I don't have the stats, but I suspect that there are a lot more problem gamblers at casinos than online.

Funny though, the DNC isn't screaming either. This is from both sides.
33 posted on 10/02/2006 6:02:36 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I suspect that this is part of the effort to track fund transfers out of the US for terror related purposes.


34 posted on 10/02/2006 6:02:45 AM PDT by OldFriend (Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? President Karzai 9/26/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
I think the real fear is that on-line gambling might be cutting into the state lottery funds.

Can't have private companies competing with the state monopolies now can we ....
?
35 posted on 10/02/2006 6:04:13 AM PDT by THEUPMAN (####### comment deleted by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barkeep

You cannot be serious. Party Poker is going to ban US players. That is the biggest site down more then 50% on the Londan Exchange. Many of the smaller sites have already begun banning US players.

Between the Democrats in Washington state and the Republicans in D.C.

I choose none of the above.


36 posted on 10/02/2006 6:04:57 AM PDT by Iwentsouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Great points, and pretty much what I believe also.

I don't gamble (grew up the son of a farmer, a $500 bet is pretty small change compared to that gamble), but I know a quite a few who do as a source of entertainment. Much like I enjoy a good crafted beer or fine whiskey on occasion.

Both have the possibility of abuse to the determent of society, and hence why there is some regulation. But in the end banning either one is a bit of over reaction.


37 posted on 10/02/2006 6:07:03 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BallyBill

"poker lobbying organizations.."

And then there's this from the item..."poker player's rights organization"

What's that about? I see a new protected class.


38 posted on 10/02/2006 6:07:33 AM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
""The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Clarence Thomas

39 posted on 10/02/2006 6:10:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iowa Granny
It's all about the taxes, period.

Heck, gambling via the 'options' and 'futures' markets has been a given for many, many years. The difference is the govt can monitor that activity much easier and ensure that they 'get their cut'.

40 posted on 10/02/2006 6:14:35 AM PDT by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stockstrader
Heck, gambling via the 'options' and 'futures' markets has been a given for many, many years. The difference is the govt can monitor that activity much easier and ensure that they 'get their cut'.

It's as much of a potential mechanism for money laundering as onling gambling sites. This his how Hillary laundered the illegal campaign contributions from Tyson, but I don't recall anyone proposing banning commodity futures trading over it.

41 posted on 10/02/2006 6:18:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

And you can do that same 'commodities' gambling ONLINE too! The difference is the govt wants to be able to 'get their cut'.


42 posted on 10/02/2006 6:21:08 AM PDT by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MarkL
...if you earn money off-shore, and leave it completely off-shore, then it's not taxed. It's only taxed when you access it, or bring it into the country.

You may be right, but my understanding is that you are still under obligation to report it.

43 posted on 10/02/2006 6:22:53 AM PDT by HKMk23 (PRO-LIFE: Because a Person's a Person, no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lexington Green
Pubbies just lost the poker vote -- that's millions of voters

Count me as one of them. Frankly, I've had it with the Republicans at this point.

44 posted on 10/02/2006 7:10:14 AM PDT by jpl (Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gate2wire; HKMk23

Thank you. Your explainations/comments seem reasonable. I really appreciate your insite.


45 posted on 10/02/2006 7:10:27 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stockstrader
The difference is the govt can monitor that activity much easier and ensure that they 'get their cut'

That was my initial take on it.

46 posted on 10/02/2006 7:20:24 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Few credit cards and banks allow their cards to be used for online gaming...so alot of companies have popped up to fill the void...You pay them and they pay the casino. Of course, it costs you more.


47 posted on 10/02/2006 7:23:29 AM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: baystaterebel
I posted this on a few other threads when this came out, but this is going to blow up in the GOP's face big-time. They have just ticked off millions of people who really were not excited about voting one way or the other. The outrage on this is just starting... wait a few weeks and see what happens when more people figure out what's going on. Forget Foley, this may be the issue that costs them both the house and senate.
48 posted on 10/02/2006 7:25:44 AM PDT by MMcC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
I don't gamble (grew up the son of a farmer, a $500 bet is pretty small change compared to that gamble),

BINGO! (opps! that's gambling, too, isn't it?)

I am the 5th generation of my family to farm in this community. Our 3 adult sons are farming with us, and our grandchildren's 4-H projects represent the 7th generation to farm here.

The risks at the poker table at the local casino seem small compared to the risks we've taken in the last 40 years to build this operation.

49 posted on 10/02/2006 7:28:05 AM PDT by Iowa Granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins
1 & 2 above do not mean government has no interest in TRYING to do so, if they so desire.

The politicians have an interest in creating the perception that they can indeed control it. The beltway bureaucrats have an interest in getting the money and authority to pursue the attempt.

50 posted on 10/02/2006 7:32:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson