Online Gamblers Know that Politians Don't Mean What They Say

There were statements made by politicos recently that had serious direct ramifications to the gambling rights community. One avowal was made by the current President of the United States, George W. Bush. The other assertion was by one of the final three contenders for the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In his State of the Union, President Bush claimed, "The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks—special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto," said Bush to applause from both sides of the aisle.

The "To Bet a Man Square Massacre" was a result of the so-called Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, a pork barrel favor to conservative traitor Bill "Jesus" Frist attached to the completely unrelated Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006.   

Knowing that respecting the democratic process would mean defeat, Frist was able to circumvent debate and discussion by waiting until midnight on the final night before Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections.

Could there possibly be a better (if not bettor) example of as Bush said "special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate"?  What the President failed to mention is he signed the bill.

More recently, Democratic President hopeful Hillary Clinton sat down with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News in what appeared to be more of a courtship between forbidden lovers than a no-spin interview.

In response to how she would control spiraling oil prices, Clinton answered, "Nine of the 13 biggest oil-producing countries that are in OPEC are also members of the WTO. I would file complaints."

The direct implication that statement has on online gambling is that the United States deemed the World Trade Organization irrelevant when the international body rightfully ruled that the US unfairly targeted offshore websites by passing the anti-gambling rights act while making an exemption for US firms that offer off-track betting on horse racing.  

In his two-part love fest with Clinton, O'Reilly opted to follow up with scripted softballs instead of challenging Clinton's courting of the WTO.

Would it not make imperative that Clinton insist we honor the WTO rulings against America before appealing to them for assistance against OPEC? Why should OPEC respect a ruling against them anymore than the US has?

O'Quixote opted not to derail his dalliance with Clinton. He sidestepped asking her what say she about the obvious conundrum. Get a room you two.

Frankly the chances of a potential President Clinton making good to the WTO is about the same as Bush refusing to sign Frist's earmarks.

If politicians on either side of the aisle actually practiced what come out of their big mouths, the right to gamble would never have been infringed on to begin with.

The author Joe Duffy is CEO of OffshoreInsiders.com and widely accepted as one of the all-time great sports handicappers of all-time.