RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/biden-housing-scheme-could-ignite-another-2008-mortgage-crisis/

Politicians in Washington have very short memories, so they repeat the same mistakes over and over.

It was only 17 years ago that the “subprime” mortgage crisis torpedoed the economy and sent the financial markets into the biggest tailspin since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs. One of the matches that lit that bonfire was Freddie Mac and its cousin, Fannie Mae, offering generous, taxpayer-guaranteed mortgage insurance to risky borrowers on loans with low down payments.

It all blew up in the faces of the taxpayers even though the Washington experts said the chances of these mortgages going bust and taxpayers taking a loss was less than one in a thousand.

The biggest taxpayer bailouts went not to the Wall Street banks and investment companies but to Fannie and Freddie.

Here we go again. The latest scheme by the Biden administration is to encourage families to borrow more money by using the equity in their home as collateral. Home equity loans are often very risky. If prices fall, home equity can become negative. There is nearly $18 trillion in home equity, and it’s one of the largest sources of savings and ownership for American families.

Now the Biden administration wants to encourage Americans to borrow even more at a time when credit card and auto debts are at an all-time high. If homes fall in value, families could slip underwater and default — just like during the subprime crisis.

As The Wall Street Journal points out, the other “likely losers” from this scam “would be taxpayers.” The evidence is indisputable from 2008 that the mortgages that ended in default were low-down-payment and low-equity loans.

Why in the world would President Joe Biden want to go down this dangerous road again?

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/06/13/when-will-the-ministry-of-truth-shut-down-the-lyin-biden-ads/

President Joe Biden’s reelection ad campaign contains a boatload of misinformation and disinformation. Will the censors shut it down? Will the media alert their readers and viewers to the falsehoods? We all know the answers to those questions.

The political left is obsessed with shutting down any speech that doesn’t agree with its narrative. And it has successes to show for it. The Twitter files are the preeminent example. There exists a censorship-industrial complex, “a state-sponsored system targeting ‘disinformation,’” says journalist Matt Taibbi, who had access to the Twitter files, that strike “at the essence of the right to free speech.”

Hardly two years ago, and just a little more than a year into one of the worst administrations in U.S. history, the Biden White House created a Disinformation Governance Board. Its mission was to do the “critical work across several administrations” of addressing “disinformation that threatens the security of our country,” which meant punishing speech the Democrats don’t want the public to hear.

It didn’t last long. In less than four months it was dissolved. Turns out that people didn’t trust it. Many instinctively knew that it’s real mission was to censor political opponents and the free expression of private citizens who don’t hold the “correct” opinions and beliefs.

It would have also been good cover for the Democrats’ incessant lying, recently manifesting itself in the Biden campaign ads. Following is some of the inflammatory, and intentionally misleading, content from those ads, followed by the facts.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-myth-that-biden-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-prosecutions-of-trump/

The five criminal and civil prosecutions of former President Donald Trump all prompt heated denials from Democrats that President Joe Biden and Democrat operatives had a role in any of them.

But Biden has long let it be known that he was frustrated with his own Department of Justice’s federal prosecutors for their tardiness in indicting Trump.

Biden was upset because any delay might mean that his rival Trump would not be in federal court during the 2024 election cycle. And that would mean he could not be tagged as a “convicted felon” by the November election while being kept off the campaign trail.

Politico has long prided itself on its supposed insider knowledge of the workings of the Biden administration. Note that it was reported earlier this February that a frustrated Joe Biden “has grumbled to aides and advisers that had (Attorney General Merrick) Garland moved sooner in his investigation into former President Donald Trump’s election interference, a trial may already be underway or even have concluded…”

If there was any doubt about the Biden administration’s effort to force Trump into court before November, Politico further dispelled it — even as it blamed Trump for Biden’s anger at Garland: “That trial still could take place before the election and much of the delay is owed not to Garland but to deliberate resistance put up by the former president and his team.”

Note in passing how a presidential candidate’s legal right to oppose a politicized indictment months before an election by his opponent’s federal attorneys is smeared by Politico as “deliberate resistance.”

https://tomklingenstein.com/americans-must-criticize-our-corrupt-courts/

In the wake of his conviction in a New York court, President Trump has complained that the process was rigged against him, that the whole proceeding was a corrupt effort to persecute him with a view to influencing the 2024 presidential election. In response, many of his opponents have criticized him for undermining public confidence in our system of criminal justice and thus harming our democracy—a criticism that has been magnified by many in the media.

These critics, however, are missing the point and undermining a principle that is in fact essential to preserving our republic: namely, that criticism of the justice system when it errs or overreaches is necessary to preserving freedom under the rule of law.

Those who founded our nation were aware of this necessity.

Alexander Hamilton, representing the defendant in the famous libel case People v. Croswell, warned that “the most dangerous, the most sure, the most fatal of tyrannies” operated “by selecting and sacrificing single individuals, under the mask and forms of law, by dependent and partial tribunals.”

“Against such measures,” Hamilton continued, “we ought to keep a vigilant eye and take a manly stand. Whenever they arise, we ought to resist, and resist till we have hurled the demagogues and tyrants from their imagined thrones.” No sensible American would look back on these remarks and think that, by them, Hamilton was undermining democracy.

Hamilton’s great rival, Thomas Jefferson, acted on a similar view. As president, Jefferson pardoned publishers who had been convicted under the Sedition Act of 1798. Jefferson’s course of action here was inseparable from his belief that the Act was unconstitutional and that the courts of the United States had made themselves party to serious injustices by convicting defendants under it. Indeed, the pardoning power is included in the United States Constitution, and in many state constitutions, and is used routinely, precisely because prosecutors and courts can make mistakes and sometimes even willfully abuse their power over the lives and liberties of citizens.