Anti-Trust Law and Lawlessness

Thomas Sowell / Townhall Columnist

 

We all make mistakes and some of us learn from them. What is even better is to learn from other people's mistakes, where they pay for those mistakes while we learn free of charge.

Many Americans who say that we should learn from other people, especially Europeans, mean that we should imitate what they did.

That may make those who talk this way feel superior to other Americans. But let us never forget that the most disastrous ideologies of the 20th century -- Communism, Fascism and Nazism -- all originated in Europe. So did both World Wars.

More recently, Europe has been belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values, and which often promote hatred toward Western people.

Maybe that is a mistake that we can think about when Congress finally decides to do something about our open borders and our immigration laws that we refuse to enforce.

European anti-trust regulators are giving us another free lesson in confused thinking by filing anti-trust charges against Google, on grounds that its searching facilities give preferential treatment to Google's own searching services over other competing searching services.

The European Union's commissioner for competition explained the basis for the complaint against Google: "We have a focus on a certain conduct, a certain behavior which, if our doubts are going to be proven, we would like to change because we believe that it hampers competition."

Some of us think laws should be clear-cut statements of what you can and cannot do. Indicting people under laws that can lead to fines in the billions of dollars over what "we believe" or what international bureaucrats have "doubts" about is not really law. It is an exercise of arbitrary power, based on whatever subjective notions are in vogue among government bureaucrats.

The history of American anti-trust law shows too many similar vague and confused notions masquerading as law. The idea that the accused must prove their innocence, under the "rebuttable presumptions" of the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, was a forerunner of the same mindset under later "disparate impact" theories in civil rights law.

What such fancy words boil down to is that very little evidence is required to shift the burden of proof to the accused, in defiance of centuries-old legal traditions that the accuser has the burden of proof in criminal cases and the plaintiffs have the burden of proof in civil cases. Otherwise, any fact or theory that sounds plausible to legal authorities is enough to force the accused to prove a negative or lose the case.

White House Still Refusing to Force Release of Americans As Part of Iranian Nuclear Deal

Katie Pavlich / Townhall Tipsheet

 

Speaking from the White House Monday, press secretary Josh Earnest reiterated the Obama administration's position not to require the release of three American hostages being held by the Iranian regime as part of ongoing nuclear negotiations.

"Why not use this moment of leverage that you have with the Iranians to push for not just the release of [Washington Post reporter] Jason Rezaian, but of course there are four Americans held prisoner in Iran, why not use this leverage as you did with the Cuba deal to get Alan Gross released too? To get these Americans released," ABC's Jon Karl asked.

"There are three Americans that are currently held in Iran and one other American whose whereabouts are still unknown and could be Iran. The United States does on a regular basis raise the case of these individuals with our Iranian counterparts and I know that Secretary Kerry is meeting with his Iranian counterpart in New York today principally to talk about the current, ongoing nuclear negotiations. As in the past, he has taken the opportunity at those kinds of visits to reiterate our significant concerns about the treatment and well being of those American citizens and to ask for their immediate release," Earnest said. "What we have said is we are focused on the nuclear issue in the context of these ongoing negotiations. The concern is simply this, that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is a top priority because the long list of concerns we have with Iranian behavior would be made only worse if Iran had a nuclear weapon so when it comes to these specific U.S. citizens, it would be only harder to negotiate their release if we were talking to a nuclear armed Iran."

"We continue to inform our Iranian counterparts of the need to release these American citizens being unjustly held in their country," he said.

For weeks the White House has insisted the Iranians holding Americans hostage and the country's support of terrorism around the world should be dealt with separately from nuclear negotiations.

Meanwhile, debate over amendments to the Iranian deal has officially started on Capitol Hill. Republicans and Democrats have expressed deep. bipartisan skepticism of the current deal between the White House and Iran over the country's nuclear program.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard commander: Saudi Arabia “following in the footsteps of Israel and the Zionists”
 

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

If you’re an Islamic supremacist, anyone who dares oppose you is a Zionist, even if he is actually another Jew-hating Islamic supremacist. “Iran Revolutionary Guard chief: Saudi Arabia following in footsteps of Israel,” Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett): Saudi Arabia is a betrayer who is “following in the footsteps of Israel […]

Read in browser »

 

PHOTO: First ‘Official’ Birth Certificate and Newborn Photo For ISIS

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

The image above was tweeted early Sunday by the anti-Islamic State Syrian activist Abu Ward Al-Raqqawi, along with a message in English: “This child will be risk to you not just to us.”

While Obama reassures us that ISIS is a JV team or that the Islamic State is not a state, let me assure you they are. They have conquered a land mass in the Middle East larger than the UK, and comparable land in Africa. They have their own passports, their own money and …. their own birth certificate.

A message to the world.

The picture: a newborn child next to a gun, a hand grenade and an Islamic State (ISIS) birth certificate.

“PHOTO: First ‘Official’ Birth Certificate For ISIS,” by Sam Prince, Heavy, April 26, 2015...

Read the whole entry »

     

• Email to a friend • Article Search •

Op-ed: 
History Will Prove the Haters Wrong 
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media cprworldwidemedia.net
“You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.” 
- Former President George W. Bush's words that the pending Iranian nuclear deal would be bad for the U.S. long-term

Thank you George W. Bush for saying what needed to be said and needed to be said by a person of influence...by a person who garners respect and honor.

And so our 43rd president...a man who has always stood staunchly behind our ally Israel...had a closed-door meeting with the Republican Jewish Coalition this past Saturday night in Las Vegas...a meeting NOT televised but one transcribed by an attendee...a meeting where Bush harshly and rightfully criticized Obama by lambasting America's traitor-in-chief on foreign policy. Calling Barack HUSSEIN Obama naive about Iran; naive about his eagerness to execute a nuclear deal that was NOT only bad for American national security but a deal that showed a lack of understanding of the Iranian leadership; and naive about America's losing the war against ISIS; George W. Bush made it very clear that Obama was placing the U.S. in "retreat" around the world.

Making these remarks even more stinging is the fact that Bush rarely if ever criticizes Obama...or anyone...in public...and that in and of itself is the sign of a true leader. But even a true leader can sit back only so long and watch our beloved country being destroyed by a man who is doing everything to make sure that America is NOT only a joke on the world's stage, but also is a man who wants to demote her to a second class power through the continuation of an agenda that sells her out to the enemy.

Saying to the audience that Obama was “misreading” Iran’s intentions while at the same time too easily relaxing sanctions on Tehran, Bush also pointed out the absurdity in Obama's words that he could “snap” the sanctions back in place at any time. Most definitely NOT true as Obama knows damn well there are 'procedures' that must be followed in putting back the sanctions...'procedures' that would still afford Iran the time needed to move forward with its nuclear program all while we waste time with 'procedures.'

And Bush also went into details...after all the devil is in the details. Details like pointing out Obama's naivete in believing that the 'so-called' moderate and oh-so slick Hassan Rouhani's taking over of the Iranian presidency signaled a policy shift with the West when in reality it is NOTHING but a change in spokesperson, for while Rouhani may appear more moderate in public than his predecessors, his true intentions are more likely to be just as radical as those very same predecessors.

Details like Bush's saying that Obama's withdrawing all US troops from Iraq in 2011 was a “strategic mistake” that directly contributing to the rise of what he called the Islamic State. And Bush is one hundred percent correct for remember that while he did sign an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw our troops, he was also trying to negotiate a new 'Status of Forces Agreement' to keep U.S. forces in place past 2011...forces that would have strengthened the Iraqi military’s ability to prevent the rise of the Islamic State. And now remember that the Obama administration tried and failed to follow through on negotiating such an agreement, because if truth be told Obama did NOT want such an agreement to ever be put in place because it would mean going back on his campaign promise of ending the war and thus tarnish his 'it's all about me' legacy.

Also of note in his remarks is that Bush in referring to the Islamic State as al-Qaida’s "second act”...which indeed they are for like Bush said they may have changed their name but that murdering innocents is still their favored tactic...NEVER once did he let the word ISIL cross his lips for Bush knows well that Obama and his administration always use word ISIL when referring to the Islamic State (or as some call ISIS) is their way to give a shout-out and thumbs-up to Obama's islamic brethren and the Levant...to signal their approval of Iran's goal of wiping Israel off the map.

And you have to love when Bush called to task Obama's complete and total lack of a strategy in dealing with said Islamic State. Saying that Obama promised to degrade and destroy the Islamic State's forces but then did NOT develop a strategy to complete that mission, Bush added that,“In order to be an effective president... when you say something you have to mean it...you gotta kill 'em.” Translation: you've got to kill the enemy before the enemy kills you. It really is that simple because if you have a specific military goal and you mean it as Bush said, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’” Adding that “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed it,” proving that a change in plan will many times result in success just as it did with the troop surge in 2007...which allowed Bush to win the war that unfortunately led Obama to lose the peace. (See video analysis 'When You Say Something, You Have to Mean It': Bush 43 Rips Obama Foreign Policy' here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEbhpN5d2j

And Bush was also quite harsh...and again rightly so...when he defended his own administration’s handling of terrorists in comparison to Obama's codding of those out to kill us all. Bush in pointing out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...the man who confessed to beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl...was captured on his watch...basically 'b*tch-slapped' Obama with his words, “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they're doing it on TV,” a direct alluding to Obama's releasing GITMO detainees to kill again.

But Bush also showed his humorous side when he said that his “old friend” Vladimir Putin's domestic popularity at home comes from his control of the Russian media. "Hell, I'd be popular, too, if I owned NBC news," he said with a wink for Bush knows well that Obama is sitting where he is simply because the media is under his control...hell...they 'anointed' Obama both times before the first ballot was even cast.

And in finishing his speech, Bush touched upon his brother Jeb's potential run for the presidency saying that the Bush name can be used against him, and that the American public does NOT like family dynasties. He also said that foreign policy is going to be especially important in this presidential campaign cycle and that the test for Republicans running will be who has got the “courage” to resist isolationist tendencies...to which I will add tendencies that Rand Paul is espousing.

Lastly, in regards to Hillary, Bush said she will have to choose between running on the Obama policies or running against them. He said if she defends them she's admitting failure, but if she doesn't defend them she's blaming the president...and Bush is right on both accounts.

So in closing, one can see by his words that George W. Bush is indeed a man of honor, courage, and fortitude...a man who loves our country and loves our troops...a man who will be judged by history in a positive light much to the chagrin of the liberal left who continue to try to paint him as both a warmonger and as a stupid man. Instead, this is the man who time has proven was right about Iraq having WMDs and was and is anything but stupid.

And how I wish this man was our president now...sigh.