2. What is your opinion of the ACLU?

My questions pertain to your position on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). Ron Paul opposed this act and has cosponsored two pieces of legislation in opposition to it – H.R. 2046 and H.R. 5767. In fact, Ron Paul is a very passionate supporter of this liberty.

You’ve made a number of anti-gaming statements, and the Constitution Party platform is hostile to gaming rights. As a poker player, I’m curious about your stand on the issue, and I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions.

My questions:

1.) Do you believe the federal government should restrict American adults from playing poker on the Internet? If so, how would you enforce it?

2.) UIGEA deputized banks to enforce online gaming laws. In effect, this turned banks into the Internet poker police. UIGEA requires banks to research and interpret every city, state and federal gaming law to determine applicability of laws for types of gaming, geographic locations, etc. It also requires them to snoop through all sorts of transactions to verify that Americans aren’t daring to play online poker in their own homes with their own money. Do you support this enforcement approach?

3.) If your reply to (1) is “I’d just keep the federal government out of this”, then how would you address the issue that the Internet is, by definition, interstate (and international, for that matter)? Would you support simply repealing all pertinent federal legislation, thereby leaving it to the states to determine how to enforce their gaming laws? I should mention the fact that not one state gaming law authorizes the federal government to enforce it.

4.) Internet gaming is completely legal throughout the EU. Is the EU freer than America?

5.) Do you support federal censorship of the Internet in general?

6.) Do you support the Ron Paul online gaming bills (HR 2046 and HR 2610)?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. There are millions of poker players in America. In fact, over one million of them have joined the Poker Players Alliance to stand up for their rights. So, this is a real issue, and I’ll certainly be happy to share your reply with the membership, of course.

Kind regards,

TE

He’ll answerwith “Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan”–you know that.

Is there any hope of this changing anytime soon?

Or to ask it another way . . . Would you participate in a series of debates with those candidates that are on the ballot in enough states that they could be elected President and will you actively work to make that happen?

I think it’s a legitimate question to ask a CP candidate, although Trent is probably correct in what the answer would be.

You are also correct that it would be a question we could ask Bob Barr. I suspect his answer would be the same.

I’m glad the Baldwin campaign contacted us. I’m hoping we get Nader, McKinney and Barr as well, and having one will give us added credibility in getting the others.

It was the most expensive blowjob in American history.

While Richard’s attempt to put Rev. Baldwin on the spot — presumably hoping to elicit some sort of awkward, anti-libertarian response from the pastor — might be considered amusing, it’s really too clever by a half. He should probably be directing that question at his own candidate.

Kudos to Paulie, G.E. and IPR for getting the interview with Baldwin.

More fundamentally, what part of the Constitution
authorizes limitations on the number of immigrants?