Well, President Obama in a speech five days before the election said that they were “five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Well, he’s right, but not in the way that he intended. I believe that Obama wants to fundamentally transform America by doing away with the private sector, capitalism and basically democracy. He wants to shift a rather centrist nation far to the left. However, what he has done is transformed the nation by shifting it to the right.

As the government has tried to grab as much power as possible and grow as large as possible, there has been rebellion among the American people. Equally as important, though, is how it has affected the Republican Party. The Republican Party as it existed in 2008 was more liberal than the Democratic Party in the days of President John F. Kennedy. As a result of the current administration’s policies, though, Republican voters have learned that now we need conservativism more than ever and that big government, high taxes, and high spending policies can’t be accepted, whether it’s coming from a Democrat or a Progressive Republican, such as George W. Bush, John McCain and Charlie Crist. As a result, McCain and Crist are likely to lose in the primaries for their senate seats.

But what about president? At last weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Ron Paul won the straw poll for presidential preference. Paul, who is a Republican with very Libertarian ideology, won 31% of the vote, with Mitt Romney (a centrist) coming in second with 22%. Romney had won the straw poll in each of the last 3 years. Sarah Palin received 7%.

No one knows if Paul will run for the Republican nomination. He did in 2008 and didn’t get nearly as many votes in the primary as Romney or McCain. Times have changed, though, and his anti-spending message resonates now more than ever.

So what does this mean for online gambling? If Paul was elected president, it would be a good thing for the online gambling community in America as well as anyone who wants an expansion of brick and mortar casinos. Paul is co-sponsor of Barney Frank’s bill in the House that would overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

Like the issues of spending and regulation, there has been a public shift in sentiment regarding gambling as well. States like Alabama that have traditionally been against gambling, either online or in casinos, are starting to come around, according to recent polls. As the economy continues to struggle and many states are facing budget deficits, adding revenue from gambling makes sense now more than ever. It would also lead to an increase of jobs, something that is badly needed, since 9.7% of the country is still unemployed according to the White House (and a much larger number according to many economists).

Before anyone gets too excited, I should point out that Ron Paul has always been considered unelectable in a national election. Though times have changed, maybe they haven’t changed enough for a man like Paul to sit in the Oval Office. However, his surge in popularity shows a shift in attitude in America, which is just as important. With Americans demanding less regulation, more freedom for private business, and a balancing of the state and federal checkbooks, online gambling legislation could be a safer bet now than ever.

Online gamblers and casino operators, watch out. China is coming after you. On the official website of the Ministry of Public Security, the government stated that they will “concentrate on investigating major and important cases of online gambling, knock out domestic and foreign groups that organize online gambling, and severely punish the criminal elements.”

If you’re involved in gambling in any way that relates to China and that statement doesn’t scare you, then you must not know much about the country. The Chinese government has a way of crushing all opposition and when they say phrases like “severely punish,” they mean it. This is the country that responds to protests by running over the protestors with tanks. It’s the country that controlled a population that wasn’t particularly keen on Communism by starving millions of people to death. Mao may be long gone and China may be seen as much kinder and gentler than in Mao’s day, but that’s only because anything would seem kinder and gentler in comparison.

Traditional gambling was banned in China after the Communist takeover in 1949 because the government didn’t want people to have control over their own money. If you could make and spend your own money, you are less reliant on the government. China, of course, continues to allow a state-run lottery, as is often the case in countries that ban gambling. In the absence of a legal way to gamble within Chinese borders, internet gambling has become more popular. In light of that development, China intends to go after those who gamble online as well as the financial institutions used and the online casinos who operate the games.

A fight for control of the internet is nothing new. When Google brought their popular search engine to the country, it was with the stipulation that the government controlled what information could be accessed. It has long been the policy of China, and all Communist governments for that matter, to control the flow of information, because that is the easiest way to crush an uprising.

When last year’s protests of a disputed election in Iran were publicized thanks to social networking sites like Twitter, China took note. China currently blocks the use of Twitter, Flickr, Youtube and Facebook. After Google accused the Chinese government of hacking into their Gmail service to retrieve information on human rights activists, it is likely that Google has seen the end of its days in China as well.

If you live in China, I doubt you have the ability to read this page. If you are in any way involved with online gambling in China, though, heed their warning. When China says someone will be punished, they mean business.

Gambling law in Alabama may soon change. The state has traditionally been against gambling, but recent events have some people, the residents as well as politicians, reconsidering their position. Electronic bingo machines, which are currently illegal, have sprung up across the state, but so far nothing has been done about it. Governor Robert Riley was frustrated with the fact that the city police and attorney general seemed to look the other way. In response, he formed a Task Force on Illegal Gambling last year.

One of the first actions of the task force was to raid three establishments believed to be housing illegal gambling, which include Country Crossing, VictoryLand and the White Hall Entertainment Center. However, since they did not have a warrant, a judge ordered that the raid be halted. VictoryLand then filed a restraining order. Since then, a warrant has been issued to search the establishments and in response, the businesses have closed indefinitely to avoid being raided.

And that’s where things get tricky. If the businesses are indeed running illegal gambling operations, Riley is well within his rights by going after them, though many in the gambling community see him as an evil anti-gambling activist. The attempted raids and subsequent closings, however, have stirred up controversy in the state and now it seems that the people don’t even agree with the gambling ban anymore.

Once a strong anti-gambling voice, the people of Alabama have seen their state, like the rest of the country, mired in a bad recession. Jobs are scarce and with those businesses shut down, the economy is hurting even more and countless workers are wondering if they still have jobs. As a result, a recent poll by the Christian Coalition shows that 2/3 of the people of Alabama are opposed to Riley’s gambling raids and a poll by the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama found that 72% of the people are in favor of regulated gambling in the state and only 25% want gambling outlawed.

In response, Riley’s popularity in the state is falling and state Representative Marcel Black introduced a bill that would allow the voters to decide whether or not to legalize gambling. At this time, shutting down illegal gambling is perfectly constitutional, but doing so could hurt Riley. With thousands of jobs at stake, no one wants to be the guy who made the unemployment situation in Alabama even worse. For that reason, it may be best to let the people vote and see what they decide. In the meantime, do nothing. It may turn Riley’s stomach to turn a blind eye to illegal activity, no matter how harmless, but it may be what’s best for the state, his reputation and that of his party.

Back in 2007, Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed a deal with the Seminole tribe that would have allowed blackjack and other table games in their casinos in exchange for the state getting a cut. The deal was later shot down by the state House and then a second deal was also scrapped. In that situation, most people would give up, say they gave it the old college try and move on. Crist, however, is still fighting for a deal. The question is, why?

I don’t want to sound cynical, but I usually don’t think that politicians make decisions based on what’s best for the people. I think they make decisions based on what’s best for them, which includes covering their butts when they make a mistake. Such may be the case here.

Though I stated it before, it’s worth reiterating that Crist is fighting for money he’s already spent. You see, governors have control over the budget of their state and they allocated funds for each department within the state based on revenue from many sources, mostly taxes. In this year’s education budget for the state of Florida, $433 million comes from revenue brought in by the deal with the Seminole tribe over their blackjack tables. Since earlier this month the House voted down that deal for the second time, that $433 million doesn’t exist.

Folks, if it’s bad financial strategy for an individual to spend money they don’t have, it’s equally bad (or worse) for a state to do that. In fact, many of America’s problems stem from the fact that the federal government is doing exactly that. Now it seems that Charlie Crist, the Florida governor who wants to represent the state in the Senate, has done that as well.

To save face, Crist needs to get a deal done so he doesn’t have to explain why he had to cut $433 million from the education budget. Considering he’s already trailing Marco Rubio in the polls for the Republican primary, that would be a mistake from which it would be nearly impossible to recover. And that’s why Crist is fighting so hard for a deal.

Thus far, Gambling Review has published roughly 7 million stories (or at least it seems that way) about the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and Representative Barney Frank’s attempts to overturn it. Frank thus far has been less than successful. In 2008, Frank introduced a bill in the House that would have repealed UIGEA and was defeated, despite having a Democratic majority in the House. Once President Obama and the new Congress were sworn in back in January, Frank introduced a new bill to repeal UIGEA. The bill so far has 60 co-sponsors, though many are not confident that Frank will succeed his second time around. For various reasons, not the least of which is skyrocketing unemployment and an administration focused on passing healthcare reform, flooring of the bill has been delayed.

In the meantime, some representatives would like to stall. Though UIGEA was passed in 2006, regulations for the law weren’t passed until 2008 and the implementation of the law isn’t set until December 1, 2009. Who says Congress doesn’t get things done quickly? Now a group of representatives, led by Frank and Republican Peter King, have sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking for the implementation of UIGEA to be delayed. Their reason is that with the economy still in a deep recession, now is not a good time to place more burdens on the financial institutions.

It will be interesting to see if Bernake and Geithner listen to the request. After all, both have claimed time and again that the recession is over, despite all evidence to the contrary. Therefore, agreeing to delay the implementation of UIGEA on the basis that the recession, which they say is over, is putting too much of a burden on the financial industry would seem to be an admission that they are lying, or at least wrong, about the economy. For that reason, like the passage of Frank’s bill, I think this attempt will fail.