Biden Team Builds Election 'Superstructure' Against Trump?; Green New Deal 2 in the Works

Hey, welcome to Crossroads. Folks, A Green New Deal Part 2 is now in the works by the same old actors as before, but this one of course has many of the same traits as the last one. You might remember back when AOC proposed the Green New Deal the first time, right? And she was saying we have to get rid of farting cows, and I'm actually not exaggerating, that was actually in the original document, and tear down and retrofit all the buildings and get rid of fossil fuels and so on and so on, and everybody laughed about it. We thought it was the funniest thing in the world because we're like, you know, this would never happen, it's utterly insane, and everybody laughed about it. And then we saw that the Democrats started actually pushing all of it. Not only them, in fact, but even globally there were similar pushes to this. In fact, even in parts of like Australia and New Zealand, they're trying to put monitors on the faces of cows that will tax the farmers whenever the cow burps or farts. It sounds far out, but this is what some of these folks apparently believe in. But folks, guess what? AOC and her pals, they're now rolling out phase two of that big plan. PJ Media said this, Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other squad members, the far left of the Democrat party, have recycled some old ideas from the 1970s. I'd say maybe taken from like more like the the early 1800s and like, you know, Karl Marx more so. But regardless, they took ideas from the 1970s, gussied them up with climate change, mumbo-jumbo, and presto, another federal program that's the same as other federal programs that have failed time and time again to do anything but separate citizens from their hard-earned money. And they say, quote, in these difficult times, we must boldly in these difficult times, we must move forward boldly to address the systemic and existential crisis facing us today. And that includes urgently combating climate change and making sure every American has a safe and decent place to call home. Bernie Sanders said at a press conference with the Capitol building, making a splendid backdrop. Now, briefly, folks, briefly, right, the existential crisis facing us today, I would say, frankly, that the existential crisis is the fact that these woke, corrupt systems are destroying Western civilization. I'd say the fact that over and over again, the system these people try to promote has destroyed civilization after civilization, that it has led to genocide and famine and tyranny over and over and over again. And for some reason, these folks still seem to think it's a great idea. I'd say that pattern recognition is one of the core tenets, the core foundations of basic human logic. And for some reason, people who seem to believe in socialism lack that ability of pattern recognition, right? But regardless, folks, regardless, a place for every American to live, a decent place to call home. Frankly, I wish they'd stop destroying the decency of our homes. But regardless, this is what they're saying, right? And they continue saying it is unacceptable that on a single given day in America, over 650,000 people are homeless. Look, I have an idea, call me crazy, but maybe instead of giving free houses and free food and so on to like, 7 million illegal aliens, they could actually give houses to homeless instead. Or maybe they should treat American homeless people with at least like similar decency as they do to illegal aliens. I don't know why, for example, that they're forcing out like veteran services to house illegal immigrants. I don't know, for example, why they're letting them into like, you know, poor neighborhoods all across the United States. I don't know why they're buying up hotel rooms for them. But again, they're doing that. They could actually model the same thing. Maybe they deport the illegal aliens and offer the same services they were getting to the allegedly 650,000 homeless people. I'll say personally, though, I don't think that solves anything. I don't think subsidizing a problem fixes a problem. And frankly, I'd say that's the biggest gap in this whole narrative, frankly. They think that if you have a fire and you pour enough money on it, magically the fire is going to go out instead of burning up all that money. If a person's homeless, oftentimes, and there's some exceptions to this, but oftentimes it's caused by poor decisions they have made. If you want to fix your situation, you have to fix the problems that caused it. And if you don't fix the problems that caused it, it's going to repeat itself no matter how much money you pour onto it. And we've seen that over and over again, frankly. If people don't want to change themselves, they're not going to change. And you can pour all the money you want into the problem. It's not going to fix the individual and the problems they have that led to the outcome they're experiencing. And if you try to eliminate failure by subsidizing it, failure doesn't go away. All you do is subsidize failing lifestyles, failing habits, and failing systems. That is one of the core flaws in socialism over and over again. But regardless, Bernie Sanders, who lacks pattern recognition on understanding the history of socialism, says it is unacceptable that in the richest country in the history of the world, people are choosing between paying rent and putting food on the table. I would add on that that one of the reasons we have to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table is because of the high competition for housing caused mostly by mass illegal immigration. It is recognized as being the main cause of rising house prices in Canada. Why do we not recognize that here in the United States? Why can't we talk about it here? In Canada, which is to the left of America, Canada is like if San Francisco was a country, right? That's Canada. They acknowledge that the rising housing costs in Canada are being caused by mass migration. They understand that when you have a limited supply of something and you double or triple or quadruple the demand for that limited supply, the prices go up. And when you have limited numbers of houses and you flood the country with more people demanding that same pool of housing, prices are going to go up. The costs of living are going up because of these bad policies. And then we're seeing inflation because of overspending. If they want to fix this problem, you don't subsidize it. You don't tax people more and make their lives even harder. You don't dig us deeper into the trench they're digging. No. If you want to fix the problem, you make people's lives easier by taxing them less and alleviating the pressure that you've artificially placed on top of them. Maybe, again, deport the illegal immigrants or at the very least clear some of the federal policies and even local policies that restrict the building of new homes. Make it so that people can more easily construct housing if you want to fix that problem. Don't, again, restrict that. Make it so that if they pour a million dollars into building housing for homeless people, they end up building like three tiny homes for a million bucks and then they never open anyways, which is what you have in California. They'll spend a million dollars building a glorified porter potty because of all the red tape and regulations and say, look at the great job we did. We're building services for homeless people. Yeah, money well spent, right? But regardless, folks, it says here, the federal government has spent a trillion dollars on constructing and subsidizing public housing since the 1970s. That's 50 years of failure to decently house low-income people. Again, it is subsidized failure. And they say there are other ways to subsidize public housing, but the federal government is stuck simply and mindlessly throwing money at the problem. But back on this bill, Green New Deal Chapter 2, it says the bill would authorize $162 billion to $234 billion over the next 10 years to enhance and expand public housing with climate change centric policies. Maybe folks will finally get those pods to live in, right? Maybe we can finally get those nice little pods that they've been promising us. That's of course, according to Washington Examiner, it says that squad member Jamal Bowman thinks that the Green New Deal 2 for housing along with the Green New Deal for public schools will be a form of reparations. I assume that means he wants to put former people who've come from histories of slavery in those. I assume he doesn't mean Irish people or things like that. But regardless, he says, I also want to plug, we must also pass the Green New Deal for public schools because the Green New Deal for public schools working in conjunction with the Green New Deal for public housing is a form of reparations for our historically marginalized communities. Bowman said during a speech, folks, I kind of want some reparations for the money we're like sending to every corner of the face of the planet. I kind of want some reparations for like the badly spent tax dollars we have subsidizing the invasion of our country with mass illegal immigration. I would kind of like some reparations for the poorly spent tax dollars we have on issue after issue. I think that'd be great. Maybe a big old tax return and all the misappropriated funds, right? But regardless, this is what they're talking about. And also when they talk about, for example, you know, the school systems, remember the more money they've poured into it, they're not fixing the problems. They're oftentimes subsidizing the problems. Look at what happened with public education and even basic literary rates since the formation of the Department of Education. It's gone like this. You would think that the creation of the Department of Education would have made the quality of education go up. Why did it instead go down? Well, one of the reasons is, is when you subsidize a problem, you entrench the problem. You do not fix the problem. You have poor communities like Detroit and Chicago and so on like that, where they're spending like $40,000 a year on students. And we find that the quality of education is some of the worst in the country. We find literary rates are some of the worst in the country. Why is that? Why is it that despite giving almost double the amount of money to some of these areas per child, the quality of education is actually worse? Again, I'll go back to the point that just subsidizing it does not fix it. You have to fix the problem at its core. And I don't know what that may be in those cases, but frankly, we can say the way it's been being done is not working. Teachers unions having the old golden rice bowls that can't be taken away from them. Teachers who can't be fired if they do their jobs wrong. Schools that don't go out of business if they fail. If you make it private, on the other hand, if the quality of education doesn't work, parents look for a better option. And when they find a better option, they keep doing that until they find something that works. Normally the free market lets things fail. And if you don't let things fail, frankly, you're going to be subsidizing a failed system and you're going to live in a failed system. You have to let things that do not work fail. And in this case, I'd say a lot of the public school systems have in fact failed. They're being prevented from going through the process of failing and then reforming through subsidized programs like this. Rather than, of course, maybe giving parents the money to use the money elsewhere. Let them get into private schools elsewhere. Use, for example, charter schools. Maybe don't regulate everything and think a one-size-fits-all model is going to fix the whole problem. That is the problem, again, of this dictatorial, tyrannical policy of trying to manage everything from the top and not recognizing the unique situations on the ground that is one of the cornerstones of socialism. Now folks, speaking of failed systems, in other news, the corporate media are claiming former president Donald Trump plans to pre-rig the 2024 elections. Folks, he's not rigging the elections, he's pre-rigging the elections. So to fight back against this alleged threat, the Biden administration is pre-rigging the pre-rigging of the elections with a new election superstructure, they're calling it. I'll be going into this after a short word from our sponsor. Experts agree one of the best ways to protect against financial uncertainty is to diversify your portfolio. Learn how physical gold and silver can secure your retirement funds from with a gold IRA from American Hartford Gold. You can safeguard your wealth with no penalties or taxes when you transfer your current qualifying retirement accounts. Call now and our precious metals specialists will send you a free information kit, no cost or obligation. American Hartford Gold, a trusted industry leader with an A-plus from the Better Business Bureau, has a five-star rating from thousands of happy clients. Whether you are getting physical precious metals in a gold IRA or delivered to your doorstep, we offer only the highest quality gold and silver. For your peace of mind, we also offer a no fee buyback commitment, a low price guarantee, along with free shipping and free insurance. So don't wait, call the number on your screen today and secure your financial future. Hey, welcome back. Folks, the corporate media are claiming that former President Donald Trump has a big plan in the works and he's going to pre-rig the 2024 elections. So again, to fight back against this threat, the Biden administration has a big plan themselves and they're creating a full system to fight against Trump in the elections if he wins and also creating systems to pre-rig the pre-rigging to make sure he doesn't rig it. And this includes a system of so-called war games and a legal system that will try to prevent Trump from taking office if he declares victory. Because if Trump declares victory, they say it's a threat to democracy. Rolling Stone says this. They say for years, Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that if he doesn't win the 2024 presidential election, he is willing to cheat and steal it. Folks, just imagine, when have we ever seen a maybe president or former president try to steal an election? I'd say maybe we've seen some evidence of this, but remember, we're not allowed to talk about it because it's conspiracy theory unless they say it, right? But they say that since President Joe Biden's inaugural address, according to sources with intimate knowledge of this situation, maybe the Hammer guy, maybe one of those guys, right? They say Biden and his inner circle have been drawing up meticulous plans and creating a large legal network focused on war gaming a close election finish in which the president, Donald Trump, or former president, and Republican Party launched a scorched earth, big life fueled crusade. God forbid the American people elect Donald J. Trump as president because if he does, folks, it must mean the election was rigged, they say. They say over the past year, Team Biden has been conducting war games, crafting complex legal strategies, and devoting extensive resources to prepare for, as one senior Biden administration official puts it, quote, all hell breaks loose scenarios. They say the preparation, preparing to pre-rig the pre-rigging, included planning for a contingency plan if Trump actually wins, in which Biden's margin of victory, they say, is so razor thin that Trump and the GOP launch a tidal wave of legal challenges and political maneuvers to rerun his 2020 election strategy, declare victory anyways, and try to will it into existence. Now they note as well that basically Biden lawyers are getting ready for demands for recounts, they're planning for any other possibility of what Trump could allegedly try to do in order to challenge the election, and folks, I'd say, you know, aside from all of this, there is a very real chance that election officials may refuse to certify the 2024 elections. This is actually something plausible, and in fact, this is actually one of the big scare scenarios that the Republicans and the Democrats are actually raising, it's both sides. The big corporate media are pushing this though as if it was an agenda, but I'll be talking more about this only on Epic TV, because YouTube doesn't like me talking about these types of things that have to deal with uncomfortable truth, apparently. So for those of you on YouTube, Facebook, Rumble, Twitter, if you want to join me for the rest of the episode and our live Q&A, come and ask questions, click on the link in the description below this video, and not only will you get the rest of my show, you'll also get access to other great shows like Facts Matter with Roman Baumgartner, American Thought Leaders, Fallout with Dr. Robert Malone, and a lot of great other shows, including also some of the documentaries that I've done, like the Final War, the 100-year plot to defeat America. I'll show you a quick trailer for that before we jump, and again, if you'd like to watch it, click the link in the description below. But what we uncovered was yielding evidence beyond our imagination. China's strategic goal is to make sure that the U.S. has four enemies, and one of them must be a terrorist group. We are giving of our life's blood so that the Chinese Communist Party can survive and thrive.