Online Casino Owners Say: Lose Your Money At OUR Casino (27)... Brick and Mortar Casino Owners Say: Lose Your Money At OUR Casino (26)...
NO Actual Homeless Advocates Recommend Losing Money at a Casino as a Cure for Homelessness... 
Online Gambling
Lose Your Rent Money
Become Homeless... DUH!
The ad essentially points to DraftKings and FanDuel as liars.
“We will continue to explain to Californians to not be fooled by the deceptive campaign being waged by out of state corporations who wrote this measure to boost their corporate profits and take sovereign rights from Californian Indian tribes,” No on 27 spokesman Rob Stutzman said via press release.
Online Gambling will cause more homelessness when people lose the rent money to a casino in a phone...
and...
All the TV Ads say:
Lose Your Money At MY Tribe's Casino.
~~~~~~ (~);-} ~~~~~~
and Then I Got an Email from my Brother Saying VOTE NO 26 & 27
On the November CA ballot are 2 propositions promoting huge expansions of Tribal Gambling throughout the state. Prop 26 is sponsored by 3 of the largest and most profitable Native tribes to selfishly increase their riches with no sharing with non-gaming tribes, nor contribution to any other social good. Alternately, Prop 27 was qualified for the ballot by 2 Eastern corporations that, despite contrary messages, have written the measure to assure that 90% of the projected hundreds of millions to be garnered in new profits will go to their out-of-state corporations.The first Prop 27 ad I saw literally made me sick viewing a small Indian band that had willingly sold out themselves and their entire nation for a few dollars. Fortunately, the wayward group either came to their senses or were fired by the carpetbagger promoters when they failed to gain the support of larger tribes.TV ads for the measures -- predominately for Prop 27 -- have overtaken the airways with literal non-stop messaging. To date, spending for the two gaming measures is approaching $400,000, the most ever spent for any Calif ballot proposition. Neither measure will promote the general welfare, nor will enhance any public or social good. Both measures share the same motivation -- insatiable, overwhelming Greed. Please read on for more detail.Proposition 26 & Proposition 27Vote "NO" on BothThe 2 propositions appear to be related, but their differences are beyond substantial and both are exceedingly harmful. Proposition 26 would result in "Vast Expansion of Gambling Methods within Indian Lands and will Extend to Calif Racetracks." Proposition 27 would result in "Vast Expansion of Present Methods with the New Authorization of "Online" Gambling Beyond Indian Lands with No Limitations." Progressives previously supported the establishment of Indian gaming -- in respect for Native sovereignty. Neither of the current measures, however, have measurable Indian support.Proposition 26This measure, somewhat related but unlike Proposition 27, was initiated by a small group of leaders of the largest tribes. Their motivation sprang from furthering their personal enrichment, not from either demand or need. The authorized program of permitted gaming methods at Indigenous Casino sites is constitutionally limited. Proposition 26 would remove the present standards and will permit unlimited gambling methods and selections at Casino sites expanding to Calif racetracks. Methods would include wagering on sports events, like horse racing, sports teams, auto racing, boxing, wrestling, and a host of events broadcast into Casino platforms.The institution of Indigenous Casinos has been a needed boon and supplement to mandated federal and state financial assistance that is perennially insufficient. The result of tribal-sponsored gaming has brought tremendous uplift in the political, economic, health, and social life of Indian tribes and peoples. Casino profits are shared with non-casino tribes and these efforts, though lagging, are continuing and constantly improving.There is not much to analyze about Proposition 26. While Indian casinos are thriving and producing admirable widespread improvements, tribal leaders of some of the largest casinos initiated Proposition 26 with the goal of slyly piggy-backing on the hopeful success of Proposition 27, solely due to Greed, not need for new unlimited revenue. VOTE "NO"Proposition 27Proposition 27 was put on the ballot by deceptive propaganda. Signers were told by paid signature collectors that "this new measure will raise money to end homelessness in California." Proposition 27 was not initiated, nor promoted by California Indian tribes, but by out-of-state corporations that sought to take advantage of Calif voters' universal desire to end homelessness and the compassion of state voters to lift up the plight of California's Native peoples from the violent repression of the past.The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 correctly acknowledged the sovereignty of Indigenous people and the right of tribes to operate gambling Casinos on tribal land. This Act has successfully improved the quality of life for Indian tribes and produces millions in revenues that are shared among both casino and non-casino tribes, which bureaucratic federal and state government financial assistance could never replicate.Proposition 27 would astronomically expand to unlimited types of gambling well beyond being confined to Casinos on Indian land to online phenomena available to everyone -- even minors -- with a cell phone or access to varieties of digital devices. The measure blatantly lies in many ways:
- that revenue from online gaming will uplift poorer non-casino Indian tribes. Impartial analysis shows that at least 90% of revenue from the expansion will go into the pockets of the out-of-state carpetbaggers who wrote the measure specifically for their selfish enrichment;
- that revenue from the measure will end homelessness. Besides there being little revenue to allocate, voters need only to recall that the "selling point" years ago for approving the State Lottery was the promise that revenue from the Lottery "would forever end the problem of funding education throughout the state";
- that minors will not be able to gamble online. No procedures are indicated that will weed out anyone with a digital device from "online" access.
Additionally, because Blacks, people of color, and those of lower income are lured in larger numbers to games of chance with the hope of improving their financial status, Proposition 27 would instead aggravate economic inequality. The availability of unlimited online gaming opportunities will provide increased attractions that will further worsen the already weak financial condition of marginalized people.Practically all California Indian Council tribes oppose Proposition 27 as a boondoggle that will proliferate gambling throughout California life and institutions degrading lifestyles of minors and the elderly, by which these out-of-state corporations will realize uncountable wealth with practically nothing positive accruing to California, its residents, or its many intractable issues.VOTE "NO.".....................................................................................James E VannSocial-Political-Housing ProgressiveOakland, California
.jpg)
