Too often when we look at an issue, especially a political one, we are short-sighted. We only notice the things we are inclined to notice. When Black Friday and the resulting carnage happened, I was outraged at an overreaching government and a trampling of freedom. Those are the things that resonate with me. I thought of the people Americans who are no longer able to play their favorite game online simply because Big Brother had a problem with it. What I didn’t think about, however, is employment and the ability to provide for families.

For whatever reason, when I think of online poker players, I don’t think of professionals. When I think of poker pros, I think of a small, select group of people who travel around the world playing in tournaments – people like Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson. There are a lot more people playing online poker professionally than I thought, though.

According to the Poker Players Alliance, there are 50,000 Americans who play online poker full-time as either their only job or as a major source of income. That is 50,000 people who are now out of work because the Justice Department thinks people shouldn’t be able to spend their money on a website if they are doing so to play cards. The unemployment rate in the U.S. is at 9.1% (which is a kind estimate) and instead of finding ways to create jobs, this government is finding ways to do away with the jobs we already had.

On Saturday, Fox News ram a story that did a great job putting a name and face on the online poker players affected by Black Friday. The story profiled a man named Brian Mogelefsky, who used to own a mortgage company and was hurt by the bursting of the real estate bubble. He then decided to live his dream job, playing poker online full-time. It allowed him to make money to support his family while getting to spend time with his wife and kids. As a poker pro, he was on pace to bring in almost $90,000 this year before Black Friday happened. Now he is unemployed.

The government didn’t just take away a popular hobby; they took away the perfectly legal profession of Brian Mogelefsky and 50,000 other Americans. As a result, some online poker pros have decided to move to Canada and play there. Imagine, people leaving America to go to Canada for jobs! Mogelefsky won’t do that, though, because he loves the community where his family lives. When you think of what the government did, it helps to think of people like Mogelefsky, who took part in a legitimate business only to have their profession destroyed by an intrusive government. Even if you’re not a poker player, we can’t stand for that.

When people talk about the U.S. government cracking down on online gambling – whether it’s Black Friday, UIGEA, or whatever – you hear a lot of blame go around. The blame used to be aimed squarely at Republicans, saying that social conservatives were blocking the industry because they are morally opposed to gambling. But now that the White House and half of Congress is Democratic, it’s hard to make that case. It’s harder still when you point out that Eric Holder’s Justice Department is the one going after online gambling. Holder, of course, is one of the most liberal U.S. Attorneys General in history and his iron-fisted control of the few conservatives remaining in the DOJ has been a source of controversy.

So if it’s not Republicans, what’s the problem? The problem is big government, progressivism or whatever you want to call it. It’s a problem with both major parties. Both sides want a big government to dictate how things happen in America for the “greater good.” If Republicans opposed online gambling on moral grounds, Democrats oppose it because they don’t trust an industry they aren’t regulating. They also don’t want people to pay for something that they aren’t taxing, because the government isn’t getting their cut. It’s the same reason bootlegging liquor is illegal. There’s nothing about moonshine that makes it more immoral or dangerous than Jack Daniels, but it is illegal to make and sell because it is not regulated or taxed. If you’re not paying off Uncle Sam, he doesn’t want you doing it. Don’t forget that it was during the “Progressive Era” that Prohibition was passed.

This brings us to a problem: Both parties support big government controlling your lives. They differ on how they want to run your lives and on what they want to outlaw, but in both cases, they think they know what is best and you should let them make the decision. Are the Democrats who support online gambling regulation doing so because they want you to have more freedom or because they want the tax money? Does it even matter?

Those who favor freedom to play at online casinos in the U.S. without risk of government action support one of two changes. One is to support the federal government regulating the industry. If they regulate it, you can do it without risk of your account being frozen. The other option – the one I support – is to have the government back off entirely, say the industry is legal and leave it alone.

There are few industries that have benefited from government regulation. Generally they make things more expensive, inefficient and complicated. I promise you this: If the federal government regulates online gambling, the industry won’t be the same. The casinos will make less money, due to high taxes. The customers will see smaller prize pools for tournaments and less generous bonuses. The government might even cap the rate of return, as some European governments do.

So what’s the answer? That depends on if you support Option A (government regulation) or Option B (government leaving the industry alone). If you want Option A, support Democrats like Barney Frank and big government Republicans like John Campbell who want to regulate the industry. If you favor Option B, look to libertarians and small-government Republicans (such as those with Tea Party backing). Those who favor small government oppose the feds telling you how you can and can’t spend your money, regardless of whether they agree with gambling. In either case, it is important to focus on individuals and throw those old stereotypes away.

Baltimore has one of the worst crime rates in all of the United States. Out of more than 10,000 cities in America, Baltimore ranks number five in murders, behind only New Orleans, Richmond, St. Louis and Detroit. Trying to get that cesspool in order, authorities cracked down hard last night on the scourge of…wait for it… online gambling.

Monday night, 11 bank accounts located in five countries were seized and 10 Internet domains were seized. The most famous seized domain was DoylesRoom.com, the online poker room sponsored by Doyle Brunson. Doyle recently announced that he was terminating his relationship with the company out of fear that something like this would happen.

On Monday, a federal grand jury agreed to indict two gambling business that owned the domains, ThrillX Systems and K23 Group Financial Services. The indictments were part of a two-year federal investigation. During that time period, almost 500 people were murdered in Baltimore, but more importantly to the feds, a lot of people played Texas hold’em online.

During a two-year sting operation by the Homeland Security Investigations (HIS), which is a division of ICE, the feds set up a fake payment processing business called Linwood Payment Solutions. Using that fake organizations, they processed $33 million in transactions between the indicted companies and residents in Maryland.

Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein defended the operating by saying that “it is illegal for Internet gambling enterprises to do business in Maryland, regardless of where the website operator is located.” The sting operation was just part of an effort to make sure people don’t spend their money playing poker when instead they should be going to a Ravens game or something.

HSI investigates a wide range of crime, most of it involving immigration and trafficking. They primarily deal with human smuggling, drug smuggling, gun running and human rights violations, but they also deal with cybercrime, which is what the online gambling businesses fall under. HSI’s mission is to investigate immigrations and customs crimes that threaten America’s national security, but I guess they were able to make an exception for gambling operators. Or maybe they see poker as being as much of a threat to America as the MS-13 gang from Guatemala.

Here are the 10 Internet gambling domains that were seized in the case:

Bookmaker.com

2Betsdi.com

Funtimebingo.com

Goldenarchcasino.com

Trupoker.com

Betmaker.com

Betgrandesports.com

Doylesroom.com

Betehorse.com

Beted.com

If you are a gambler in Spain who likes smoking, you’re going to have to go outside to smoke. That is, as long as the smoking isn’t banned outside as well. On Sunday, Spain passed a new anti-smoking law that will make it illegal to smoke in any non-residential buildings. That includes restaurants, bars, workplaces, casinos and more. The new law even bans smoking in some outdoor locations, such as locations in close proximity to playgrounds, schools or hospitals.

Back in 2006, Spain passed a law that banned smoking in the workplace, but it came with an exception that allowed the owners of bars and restaurants to choose whether or not to allow smoking. Given the choice, almost all of them chose to allow it. The government saw that as a problem. It seems that they only wanted the bar and restaurant owners to choose if they made the right choice. Since they made the wrong choice, the government is now choosing for them.

Spain is known for their smoke-filled tapas bars, their cigarette-friendly pubs and more, but the new law will change all of that. Not only that, but casinos aren’t exempt either. Smoke has long been associated with casinos, whether it’s an elegant woman in a cocktail dress taking a cigarette out of her case or a high roller puffing on his cigar. Both as a stress-reliever and a habit, smoking has long been a favorite activity of casino gamblers, second only to drinking.

At least casino patrons in Spain can still drink – at least, for now. The reason for the ban, as is often the case with overreaching government, is protecting the people from themselves. No matter how many times the government tells people that smoking is dangerous, people still do it. As a result, some people get lung cancer and die. The government cited smoking-related deaths as the reason for passing the strict anti-smoking law. Once someone points out that alcohol can cause liver damage, among other problems, it’s only a matter of time before casino patrons can’t have a cocktail while they play craps, either.

The owners of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation breathed a sigh of relief on Wednesday, when the Nevada Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling against them that would have cost the company $58.6 million.

The court case involved a dispute between a Hong Kong businessman, Richard Suen. The Chinese national sued the company, claiming he was entitled to a fee for helping arrange for them to obtain a gambling license in Macau. To help them, Suen set up meetings between Las Vegas Sands executives and government officials in Beijing.

Suen claims that the licenses would not have been possible without his help. However, the Las Vegas Sands says that because mainland China is not directly involved in Macau’s government, Suen’s meetings were not necessary to secure a license. Macau is allowed independent executive, legislative and judicial powers. Though influenced by mainland China, they enjoy a degree of autonomy. Suen stated that though the mainland doesn’t directly control government affairs in Macau, Beijing was still involved in the licensing decision. The Las Vegas Sands disagrees.

In 2008, a jury sided with Richard Suen, saying that the Sands should have paid him for arranging the meetings in Beijing. With or without Suen’s help, the Las Vegas Sands has secured three different casino resorts in Macau since earning a gambling license in 2002.

Though the lower court awarded $58.6 million to Suen, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the ruling, stating that a new trial is needed. The state Supreme Court said that the lower court should not have admitted a hearsay statement during the 2008 trial. The court ruled that, had the hearsay statement not been allowed, the jury might not have come to the conclusion that Suen had arranged for the license to be awarded. In addition, Nevada’s Supreme Court stated that the lower court made a mistake by not instructing the jury on government regulations in Macau and Mainland China.

No new trial date has been set, but although the Las Vegas Sands is pleased with the recent ruling, they can’t be too optimistic about a retrial. Aside from all of the problems they already faced in their case, since that trial there has been a major change in the company. In 2009, William Weidner resigned as president of the company. Disputes with Chairman Sheldon Adelson are believed to be a factor in his resignation. Some believe that Mr. Weidner may not cooperate in a new trial.

A recent report states that Australia’s government could begin a system of mandatory Internet filtering by 2013. Since at least 2005, the Australian government has tried to censor the Internet, all in the name of protecting society from such immoral and harmful things as pornography and online gambling. Sure, they often cite “child pornography” as an example, but the government is just using kiddie porn, something nobody would be opposed to censoring, as a means of getting their foot in the door.

From Liberal Senator Guy Barnett in 2005 to the current Labor Party, where Stephen Conroy is leading the Internet censorship offers, it has always been clear that online gambling and any sort of “adult” material – not just kiddie porn – is in the crosshairs. A close look at the films, TV shows, magazines and video games that have already been banned clearly shows that motive.

Now they are after the Internet, what most people consider the last remaining form of mass communication completely free of oversight and censorship – the last truly free form of mass communication. Previous attempts to require all Internet Service Providers (ISP) to filter and prohibit access to Refused Classification (i.e. banned) websites have been shot down, but they are still trying.

The government hopes to have a mandatory ISP blocking program in place in 2013, under the direction of the Department of Broadband. In the meantime, the government is giving $8 million in incentives to ISPs to encourage them to take part in the blocking of Refused Classification content on a voluntary basis.

Before passing a law making that content filtering mandatory, the government has asked the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) to review the proposed Internet filtering legislation. The review is expected to take at least 12 months, followed by a series of meetings with lawmakers on how best to implement the system. Recommendations would then be made in 2012, with a bill coming to Parliament by the middle of 2013.

All of this, of course, is in the name of protecting society from dangerous information on the Internet, just as they protect people from having to see Johnny Depp movies featuring “graphic” sex scenes or magazines with titles like DD Bra Busters. All of this morality seems odd coming from a country that was founded as a British penal colony.

Conroy, the Communications Minister, seems to think that people innocently surf the Web and are suddenly attacked by unwanted online casinos, pornography and more. The truth is, people only find those things if they are looking for them. While I find some pornography distasteful (really, who likes preggo midget porn?), I find censorship even more distasteful. The government wants to protect the people from the evils of the Internet, but it is more important to protect the people from the evils of the government.

Yesterday was a day when the United States spoke out as (mostly) one voice, telling the government that they want more freedom and less government control. That includes Republican Mark Kirk winning the U.S. Senate race in Illinois. Despite the overwhelming rebuke of overbearing government, however, one day prior a town in Illinois did exactly the opposite, taking away freedom in the name of “the greater good.”

The village of Frankfort banned video gambling on Monday, feeling that something as unsavory as spending money while playing a game doesn’t fit with their image. Village trustees on Monday approved an ordinance that prohibits all video gambling within the village limits.

Last year, the Illinois state legislature passed a new law that legalized gambling machines are bars, clubs and restaurants. The law allows local governments to opt out of the legalization of the gambling machines, though. Due to Frankfort’s ordinance, the people of that village will not have that privilege. Approximately 23 businesses in the village that would have been eligible for the gambling machines under state law will no longer have that opportunity.

Trustee Mike Stevens stated that Frankfort is a community of families, perhaps implying that some communities are not. One can only assume he means that Frankfort is supposed to be a family-friendly community. In his mind, allowing gambling machines in bars isn’t family friendly. On the other hand, is bringing your family to a bar in the first place family-friendly?

Stevens said that gambling “doesn’t fit the character of Frankfort.” I’m not sure what character your town needs to have for people sitting at a computer playing a game to be inoffensive. Apparently, though, Frankfort doesn’t have it.

Some bar and restaurant owners weren’t too happy with the decision. Adding video gambling machines would have increased revenue at a time when extra money is needed.

People like to think of Switzerland as a neutral country whose government will let you do pretty much anything you want. There are no laws – everything is legal – and people are on the honor system to not hurt each other. This isn’t entirely accurate.

It is true that the Swiss Confederation is one of the best examples of free-market capitalism in the world. In fact, it’s ranked number 6 on the Heritage Foundation’s  Index of Economic Freedom (the United States, in comparison, is number 8). As a result, Switzerland has a thriving economy and its per-capita GDP is among the highest in the world. Economically, Switzerland is everything that every other country should want to be.

However, they do still have a government and like all governments, when they do something it’s usually not good. Such is the case with their recent decision regarding poker.

The highest court of the Swiss Confederation ruled that Texas hold’em is not a game of skill. Therefore, by law it can only be played within their casinos. That means no poker tournaments held at bars, resorts (outside the casinos), restaurants and wherever else people like to hold poker tournaments. Friendly games within your home are still okay, but in every other case, the poker game must be confined to the casinos.

The court ruling is a victory for casinos who were worried about losing business but a defeat for poker players and lovers of freedom everywhere. Switzerland, you know I love you, but you got this one wrong.

How did they come to the conclusion that Texas hold’em is a not a game of skill? According to reports, if it could be proven that mathematics, psychology and other mental tactics are more important to the game than chance (which card you are dealt), then it would be a game of skill and you could play it anywhere. After examining the evidence, the court ruled that chance was the most important aspect of Texas hold’em. It makes me wonder if they have ever played.

So the government of the Swiss Confederation has made a bad decision that takes away freedom in favor of helping big business. Welcome to the party, Switzerland. You were a little late, but there’s still room for you.

Today the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was passed in 2006 as part of the SAFE Port Act, officially takes effect. What does that mean for online gamblers in the United States?

Not much, to be honest. The law makes financial institutions responsible for blocking transactions related to “unlawful” online gambling, though it doesn’t outline what is unlawful. UIGEA does not constitute a federal ban on online gambling and no such ban exists, though some states do have a ban on the books. Players cannot be punished under UIGEA; only the financial institutions can.

A result of the law is that many online casinos, sportsbooks and poker rooms have stopped accepting American customers, afraid that they or the players won’t get paid by the banks. However, most of those online gambling sites had already made the move and left the American market. In a sense, though it was not yet in effect, players have felt the effect of UIGEA for the last 4 years. Another effect is that VISA and MasterCard block transactions to and from online gambling sites, but again, they made that move before today. In a sense, the UIGEA taking effect today only matters in a symbolic nature, because it has affected the American online gambling market since 2006.

To some, it may seem surprising that the federal government would seek to control the financial industry in such a way and take liberties away from the people, but America has moved a long way from its roots and no longer resembles the collection of free states that the Founding Fathers created. It started in the early 20^th century under Woodrow Wilson, when the government expanded its power in a time of war. The Wilson administration controlled public opinion using a propaganda machine that would later be copied by Nazi Joseph Goebbels and imprisoned anyone who spoke out against the government. Many practices, such as the banning of books and prohibition of alcohol, were done in the name of protecting the people.

In the 1930s, FDR followed in his footsteps, imprisoning political dissenters, running internment camps for German and Asian citizens, and unleashing a New Deal economic policy that prolonged the Great Depression all in the name of an expansion of government power. Again, it was for the good of the people. Now we have the Obama administration taking over the healthcare industry and the financial sector. It is, of course, for the good of the people, to save us from another recession.

In between we had Harding, Coolidge, Reagan and a few others who attempted to take control away from the government and give it back to the people. The result in each instance was great economic prosperity. That is why there is now hope for a complete repeal of UIGEA and legalization of online gambling. Massive government takeovers always leads to a backlash and right now you can see it in the Tea Party movement. That is why I wrote earlier that the Tea Party movement is the best chance we have for a repeal of UIGEA. A Congress with many pro-gambling Democrats and pro-liberty Republicans would do the gambling community well.