Social Conservative Blasts Online Casinos
In yet one more illustration of just how out of touch he is with the mainstream of American society, Chad Hills has released a lengthy attack piece on Barney Frank, the congressmen that voted in favour of the recently passed Payments Systems Protection Act and online casinos in general.
Chad Hills is someone that may not be known to the average American, but is definitely known to people in online gambling. He is a member of Reverend Dobson’s Focus on the Family and apparently has enough pull in that organization to have risen to a level of some prominence. He is currently the gambling analyst for that particular organization and for this reason is in charge of the operation that the organization has to get online gambling permanently banned in the United States. Considering the importance of this particular issue to social conservatives, it really shows the faith that Dobson has in Hills.
According to critics of the man however, Hills is out of touch with how things actually work in the United States. For example, on the website that he has for these attacks, Hills says that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA for short) allows financial institutions to block any payments that they deem would go to gambling interests that are offshore. In other words, Hills maintains that the bill gives financial institutions the permission to do this at their own discretion. The actual truth of the matter is quite different however, as the UIGEA forces them to actually block anything going to any offshore gambling institution regardless of any other factors that may be involved. This, according to critics, is strike one against the man.
Hills is also very critical of Democratic Representative Barney Frank, the man that heads the House Committee on Financial Services as well as the man that is responsible for pushing this legislation through. He claims that Mr. Frank is only interested in pandering and does not really care what happens to people so long as the gambling interest is satisfied. If this were true, critics point out, Frank would have tried to push through a bill that would make online gambling completely legal no matter what. The bill is instead an attempt to get the government to define unlawful internet gambling and in the process allow the government to regulate the industry. This is strike two against the man.
Finally, Hills will also argue that this bill represents legalized exploitation of children in homes. Of course, critics also disagree with this, pointing out that online gambling is already available to children not only from the casinos of the online world but also the stock traders. The real way to curtail this type of availability is for the government to step in and regulate how things work and that of course is something that Hills’ conservative viewpoint shudders at. Since his facts are completely wrong however, this would be strike three against the man.
Three strikes against his argument show that it makes very little sense.