Feb. 23, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
24:25
EPISODE 402: NATIONAL DIVORCE IS NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION
On today’s can’t miss episode of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec explains exactly why national divorce is NOT a viable solution for the United States. Poso then dives deep into the philosophy of populism and precisely what ‘America First’ means. Poso also gives a crucial update on the George Allen Kelly murder case, providing details on the case; while the mainstream media serves up an agenda, Poso provides the FACTS - all this and more on today’s Human Events Daily! Here’s your ...
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard tonight's edition of Human Events Daily, powered by Turning Point USA.
Today is February 23rd, 2023.
Anno Domini.
Why national divorce is not a viable option for the United States?
This question has been out there and the answer is no, obviously.
We're also going into what does it mean to be America first?
I've heard a lot of people questioning that.
I'm going to lay it out for you.
And finally, an update on the Arizona rancher who has been charged with murder.
All these stories ahead, Human Events Daily.
Folks, the Poso Daily Brief is completely free, and it is available to you right now to sign up for one email directly to your inbox every single day.
We're not going to inundate you with these things.
They are, again, completely free to sign up.
HumanEvents.com slash Poso.
You will get access to the Poso Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You won't be doom-scrolling across social media all day long on Twitter, Telegram, Getter, Truth, etc.
You can have a one-stop shop to find out what's on my mind, what's going into the show, and even stories that don't quite make it into the show.
show, the Poso Daily Brief, humanevents.com/poso.
Steve Bautista: So Steve, you've laid out the numbers here.
If this hypothetical were to happen and Marjorie Taylor Greene were to get her wish and these states were to secede, what are some of the practical real world impacts it would have on those states?
Yeah, they would have huge sort of deficits, economic deficits.
They wouldn't have money for their projects.
They wouldn't have new bridges.
They wouldn't have federal installations in their districts.
They wouldn't have food stamps and they wouldn't have Medicaid to help cushion their residents against pretty extreme poverty.
It would be a really tough and stupid economic decision.
And again, the whole irony of this is you've got Republicans who oppose kind of almost every kind of federal spending, who are the biggest beneficiaries of the federal spending that they oppose.
- So in summary, a terrible idea for everyone involved.
- And a hypocritical one.
- Let's knock it off.
- Terrible idea for everyone in those red states.
- I've tried this already.
- So there's been this question of national divorce.
And it's come up time and time again.
It's getting another moment in the limelight right now.
And I just got to I just got to come out and say, I mean, this is a silly idea.
This is never going to happen.
This is not viable.
It is not possible.
And I really don't think that we should be spending that much time talking about it.
I think that people might be saying it for for good reasons and well-meaning reasons, but it's also not going to happen.
This idea of people moving, by the way, from red states to blue states, that's completely different.
And if that's your definition of a national divorce, like I've seen some people say, then OK, I'm willing to hear you out.
Obviously, I'm also seeing those demographic shifts within the United States.
So, of course, we can see that people, yes, obviously are moving from blue states to red states right now.
We're also seeing red states to blue states.
So you're seeing the mass exodus from California to places like Texas and Montana and Arizona right now.
We also saw in 2020 a mass exodus from the Northeastern states, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, down to Florida.
Of course, we saw this again and again.
So, those states become bluer, the states with the recipients of, you know, if it's blue to red, then the red states become redder.
If people are leaving California, then those states become bluer.
So, we see this again and again.
We see these trends.
But that's not what national divorce means.
If people are talking about actually seceding from the United States, from the U.S.
government and becoming a second country, which, again, we saw this in 1860.
This was already been tried once, asked and answered, you would say in court.
It did not go well.
Right.
It was it was not allowed to occur.
So, number one, this would lead to a massive war and be very clear about that.
It would lead to a massive, cataclysmic war.
Friend against friend.
Family member against family, or sibling against sibling, father against son, the whole nine yards.
Millions would die in a national divorce.
And that's just the truth.
Plus, that doesn't even get into what China, Russia, Iran, Mexico, the cartels would do if all those people were getting involved.
Imagine how fast the cartels would take over the Southwest and Southern California.
In a second, in a heartbeat, they'd be coming up.
Then who's going to fight them?
The Southern Army, the Union Army, right?
It doesn't, you know, you can't even begin to think of the permutations here.
Not only that, because I heard MSNBC, by the way, just they're they're framing it in terms of of, you know, the numbers of food stamps and economic assistance, et cetera, et cetera, because that's the whole world to them is social programs.
OK, ask me this question.
Where do blue cities get their food?
If there's a breakdown here, where are the blue cities getting their food?
So you're not getting any of those because you've been disconnected from the breadbasket.
So if you're disconnected from the breadbasket, you're not getting any food.
You're going to try to import it.
Or what's more likely going to happen is you're going to have people coming out of the cities and then attacking people who do have the food, which again is what is going to be one of the many things that leads to war.
At the end of the day, the U.S.
economy is too integrated to allow this to ever be broken into two countries.
This continent, for better or worse, Only really makes sense from an economic perspective if one government is running it.
And the only way that you could have multiple governments running it would go back to the status that we had in the U.S.
prior to the Revolutionary War, where you had multiple empires carving up the North American landmass for themselves.
So prior to the Revolutionary War, remember, you had the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, The French Empire, right?
So Louisiana Purchase, we all remember that.
And then what else up in Alaska?
That's right, the Russian Empire.
So that would be the status of the United States.
Otherwise, only you would have China involved and so many other things involved.
But I want to say something else that I've noticed for the people, and I said this before, so I'm not targeting anyone directly, but I've noticed something.
It seems to me that a national divorce is like the most Gen X thing that I've ever heard because it seems like all the people that are seriously talking about national divorce are from Gen X. And isn't that the Gen X answer for everything?
Let's just get divorced.
Irreconcilable differences.
Let's just split up and hope that the kids are going to be okay anyway.
Let's hope we'll have two Christmases.
Yay, kids.
You'll be super happy about that.
Two houses, two Christmases, et cetera, et cetera.
It's, it's, It doesn't work.
Obviously, it hasn't been great for the children of divorce.
I mean, you could look at study after study that shows that, but at the same time, it doesn't work on a national scale either.
This is a nation state we are talking about.
This isn't a game.
These aren't numbers.
This isn't a chess piece.
These are countries.
The same idea of people talk about, uh, you know, foreign policy, like it's a Piers Morgan, the idiot talking about, Oh, Russia is just a big bully.
We got to go with, these are complicated national and international issues.
You can't reduce them.
To Harry Potter talk like that witch on the jury down in Georgia.
I'm sorry.
Stop trying to reduce everything to Harry Potter.
And for Gen X, stop acting like divorce is the only answer to every question.
Come on, Gen X!
Look, folks, thanks to your support, Patriot Mobile has emerged as one of the leaders in the parallel economy, and they have big news.
Patriot Mobile now offers service to all three major networks.
And what does that mean?
That if you're with one of the big three, and you like their service, but you hate their values, you can access them with Patriot Mobile.
They also offer a performance guarantee.
If you're not happy with your coverage, you can switch between the three major carriers for free.
Patriot Mobile, America's only Chris conservative wireless provider, offers nationwide coverage on the best 4G and 5G networks.
So you get the same great service while supporting a company that fights to preserve our God-given rights and freedoms.
In 2023, resolve to stop supporting companies that hate you.
Patriot Mobile's 100% U.S.-based customer service team makes switching easy.
American workers are losing jobs because of a law designed to help the job market.
The H-1B visa bill was written in 1990.
It lets companies recruit foreign talent for emerging engineering and scientific jobs.
But loopholes allow for outsourcing of American jobs to foreign workers, often at lower pay.
Bill Whitaker spoke to some Americans displaced by H-1B visa workers for Sunday's 60 Minutes.
They say they were asked to train workers Who would take their jobs.
It wasn't called training your replacement.
It was called knowledge transfer.
Craig D'Angelo worked for Northeast Utilities, now called Eversource, and was one of 220 IT workers replaced by H-1B visa employees.
D'Angelo says his replacement, a worker from India, told him he was making half D'Angelo's salary with no benefits.
I didn't get laid off for lack of work.
I got laid off because somebody cheaper could do my job.
So there's been a discussion lately that I've gotten involved in online and I've just seen a lot of questions asked and a lot of rhetoric thrown around about America first.
A lot of people like to use this phrase because it was popularized under President Trump.
Trump movement is the most popular Uh, movement in politics today, the MAGA movement and America first has been this huge moniker of the movement.
But I think a lot of people don't actually understand what America first means.
And so I'd like to go back to basics for just a minute here to explain to people what America first means.
And if you saw that clip talking about workers in tech and workers at Disney, which include workers at Disney, Having to train their own replacements thanks to the H-1B immigrant worker program.
And it's very clear.
America First is a set definition of policies.
It is trade, immigration, and foreign policy.
That's it.
Now there are other issues that are out there that are very important, they're important to me, they're important to so many people, but that's not the definition of America First.
So, what does it mean in terms of trade?
It means trade deals that benefit the American people.
Trade deals that benefit the people of East Palestine, the people of the Rust Belt, are bad trade deals like NAFTA, are bad trade deals like this China most favorite status of the World Trade Organization, That's what created the Rust Belt.
The Rust Belt used to be known as the Steel Belt.
People don't even know that anymore.
Immigration.
Yes, illegal immigration needs to be stopped and illegal immigrants should be deported.
That's number one.
Number two, when you look at these guest worker programs, the H-1B program, when you look at the agricultural programs, even the J-1 visa that is rife with corruption, that's the summer worker program.
All of these programs All of them are harmful to the American worker and the American family.
Why?
Because they create deflationary pressure on wages.
How many times do I have to keep saying that?
If someone is willing to come from another country and work for less, then that has an effect on all wages.
And also you have companies like we saw here in the clip, that are more than willing to lay off their current workforce in order to bring in people from other countries that are willing to do the job for less than them.
It's really as simple as that.
It's a number scheme.
And if you wonder why real wages stay low in this country, and that family formation is put off, and birth rates are down, and homeownership is down, and all of these indicators of economic well-being are down, it's because you're importing foreign workers Well, I think this week it's pretty easy to see the difference there.
Hundreds of billions of dollars spent overseas.
you're willing to do so at the detriment of the workers of the people who were born here first.
It's as simple as that.
On foreign policy, well, I think this week it's pretty easy to see the difference there.
Hundreds of billions of dollars spent overseas.
We're told about Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, whatever the latest, you know, current thing is that we have to go and spend money on off in the world.
While our trains can't even run properly here at home.
While our own Navy can't Look at the UK.
They have this giant flagship, the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier, supposed to be in the NATO flagship.
They haven't even got it out of port.
The thing essentially malfunctioned.
They couldn't get it out of Portsmouth Harbor.
They had to drag it back and they have it towed back in the biggest ship the UK Navy has ever made in the history of the British Navy.
And they couldn't even get it out of port.
It has actually spent more time tied up to the dock since it's been quote unquote launched than actually active.
A study just came out.
So what's going on?
Why are we so focused on spending money overseas than actually building, growing, and maintaining the processes we have here at home?
This is one of the necessary precepts of America First.
Now people come to me and say, well POSO, but hold on, what about, you know, what about the second amendment?
What about pro-life?
What about freedom of speech?
What about all this?
I love all those things.
I've always loved all those things.
People know who I am.
I'm a conservative Catholic.
I'm, I am as pro-life as they come.
Uh, the second amendment.
Yeah.
I'm a veteran, proud gun owner, et cetera, et cetera.
I am all of those things in addition to being America first.
And this is what I'm trying to explain to everybody that to be America first is a specific set of ideas, ideologies, principles that are centered around improving The lives of the American people.
You notice most of what I talked about is economics just there.
Money sent overseas, workers brought from overseas, invade the world, invite the world.
Right?
That's the old policy.
That's George W. Bush.
That's Romney.
That's McCain.
That's Paul Ryan.
And so when I hear people continually pushing this stuff and calling it, well, this is America first as well.
America first to, you know, TOO.
No, it's not.
You're just going back to the old conservative ink and acting like it's also America First, but America First has a set definition and that's what we're explaining to you today.
So it's simple.
Either say you are what you are or don't lie to us and say that you're something else.
Simple as that.
Stand up for what you believe, but don't lie.
Don't lie to the America First Movement and don't lie to the American people because they've been lied too much to over the years by so many people claiming that, oh, we're just here to help.
No.
You've been ripping them off and you people have been getting rich off of the backs of the American worker and the people of East Palestine for too long.
There was no forensic reconstruction of the scene.
There was a radio on the deceased and a cell phone on the deceased.
There were no forensic investigations of those items.
And there were no witnesses other than Mr. Kelly and his wife, who had consistent statements.
Eight nevertheless jumped the gun and decided to charge premeditated first-degree murder of Mr. Kelly.
This essentially lit a match over a very intense political powder keg And predictably, there was an explosion.
The case of George Allen Kelly and the deceased illegal immigrant down in Santa Cruz County, right on the border of Arizona.
This is heating up folks.
I think actually this case is going to be, I mean, it's got the potential to be an absolute powder cake, an absolute powder cake.
And nobody's talking about this at the level they should yet, but I think it's, it's huge.
And it potentially is a case to be huge because You look at the case, right?
This is a rancher, a border rancher, a 73-year-old man who was home alone with his wife, who says that there were illegal immigrants, in his words, drug runners, crossing his ranch.
He heard a gunshot, feared for his life, went out with his gun, his rifle, and wanted to defend his land, wanted to defend his property.
Now, that's his side.
The government has finally come in now and filed the full charges plus a memorandum of points and authorities, which under Arizona law is what they call their probable cause.
So you've got the full fact statement and their statement conflicts with his.
And I've noticed something that in partisan media, whether it's on the right or the left, that each side is only reporting the side that they want to Emphasize with the case rather than actually report on the facts as they stand.
Well, here on Human Events Daily, we're not going to do that.
We are going to report what each side is saying.
And this is what's very interesting because you really do have a he said, she said situation here.
Because the rancher is saying that the only witnesses were me and my wife.
But the state is saying that there are other witnesses, and their witnesses that came forward, listen to this, are two other, anonymous at this point, illegal immigrants, who claim that they were with the man who was shot and found on the ranch, and that they were peacefully breaking onto the land.
They're claiming they didn't fire any weapons at George Allen Kelly, And they're claiming that he opened fire on them, unprovoked, with his AK-47.
And here's what's interesting.
So I'm going to make sure that we publish these statements from both sides on the Postmillennial.
We're going to have it up on Scribd so that you guys can read each of them in full.
Because the devil's in the details, it always is.
The state is claiming That they were unarmed.
The defense is claiming that the group was armed, that they were armed with AK-47s.
Now, here's an interesting discrepancy between the two sides.
The state is saying that in his initial call, he didn't say AK-47s, he said ARs.
Okay, that's interesting, but that's also something where if you're in the heat of the moment, you might not realize exactly what someone's shooting at you with, so I can understand that.
But there's these series of phone calls that are made from George Allen Kelly to the Border Patrol Ranch Liaison there in Arizona.
Now here's the thing.
If you shoot and kill someone on your land, unprovoked, and you do so knowing that you've committed murder, I don't necessarily think the first thought in your mind is going to be calling the Border Patrol.
He claims what happened is that he heard a gunshot and then he then fired warning shots.
Calls Border Patrol.
They come out and the sheriff's deputies come out.
They don't find anything.
Then later he says he finds a body.
Calls them back.
This is at 5:23 PM.
And again, there's a series of phone calls from 2:30, 2:36, 4:23, and 5:23.
And in the 5:23 call, which is then returned at 5:35, he explains that a body has been found.
So remember, the rancher, and I think this absolutely goes to his defense, he is the one who self-reported this incident.
He is the one who self-reported what was going on.
The state is claiming that he initially said no one was armed, but they're also saying that a dispatcher put out that they were armed.
So the state's statement here has its own inconsistencies.
I'm breaking this down in real time and I apologize If you're, if it's a little confusing, if you haven't actually read these documents, but I've been going through them.
My producers have been going through them.
We're going to continue to investigate this situation and continue to look at it because there's a lot of inconsistent statements between all of this.
At the end of the day, this is going to go down to an Arizona border jury.
So we're going to see, we're going to see what comes down here because The other piece of this, by the way, and I always say, remember, I always say everyone's afforded due process.
Everyone's afforded a fair trial.
Whether you're Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, or George Allen Kelly, that's our system.
We believe in it or we don't.
So I say, show me the evidence on everyone.
Even if it's Alex Murdoch, even if HBO and Netflix are making documentaries about him, show me the evidence.
There's no bullet found.
So should a bullet be found, and maybe it will upon further investigation, but at this point, no bullet has been found, which means we don't even know what type of rifle, firearm in general, was used to kill this victim.
We also don't know if he was part of this group that was running drugs.
And for these witnesses to come forward now, obviously, they are potentially looking at ways to get into the United States.
Have they been receiving deals?
potentially from federal authorities to say, we'll guarantee you immunity if you want to come, if you want to testify, et cetera, et cetera.
So there's a lot at play here.
There really is a lot at play here.
But even then, I'm just going to say it, it points out right here in the 2.30 call, the 2.30 call from George John Kelly to Border Patrol Ranch Liaison Agent Morsell, he said, I'm being shot at and I'm shooting back. he said, I'm being shot at and I'm shooting back.
He later includes in his own statement that he was shooting over their heads warning shots.
So like any other case, there are always going to be two stories.
But there's only one set of facts.
And we need to understand that.
Because just like any other news story that's out there, there's going to be narrative, there's going to be spin.
But what's interesting about a murder case, which this is, he's been charged with first degree murder.
There's only one story that actually fits the facts.
And if you want to charge someone and convict them of murder, it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.
So the question is, is there reasonable doubt in this case?
