Jan. 26, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
25:13
EPISODE 378: WHO KILLED ROSANNE BOYLAND?
It is critical that you watch today’s episode of Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec gives a hard hitting update on Rosanne Boyland, a January 6th protestor who was allegedly beaten to death by Officer Lila Morris revealed by body cam footage just released. Also on the show, Poso dives deep into the latest Project Veritas drop that outlines Pfizer’s devious intentions of creating viruses in order to manufacture vaccines. All that plus an update on the latest out of Ukraine and the possibility ...
We've got an interesting show for all of you today.
There's a lot of details.
There's a lot of news.
And so please subscribe.
Please go and sign up.
It's totally free.
HumanEvents.com slash Poso.
The Poso Daily Brief.
You can read what I read.
You can follow along.
Because we're going to have a lot of details today.
There's a lot to pack in here in just a short show.
So I want you to have the time to go over this.
You might need to listen to this show one or two times for it to make sense.
And then make sure that you go sign up for the Poso Daily Brief, humanevents.com slash poso.
Let's get into it.
You know what?
I want to do the right thing for the American people, and to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.
If Russia and the United States actually got together, and got along, and don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear country, and so are they.
There's no upside.
We're a very powerful nuclear country, and so are they.
I've been briefed, and I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it.
Nuclear holocaust would be like no other.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily, powered by Turning Point USA.
Today is January 26, 2023.
Anno Domini.
That was President Donald John Trump all the way back in 2017 explaining That it is not in anyone's interest for us to go to war with a nuclear power.
You know, I love hearing people talk about warfare today and they compare everything to World War II.
Oh, it's like World War II.
Oh, that's like World War II.
Oh, this, you know, it's just like World War II.
Here's a little problem.
Here's a little problem.
In World War II, nobody had nuclear weapons, except Antarctica, but that's a different story.
Today, We face nuclear nations.
There are multiple nuclear nations on the face of the planet.
United States, Russia, UK, France, Israel's got a couple.
You really mean to tell me that Iran doesn't have a couple of nukes by now?
Come on.
Cut the crap.
We know they have a few hot ones.
And then of course, Pakistan has nukes, but Pakistan has told the Saudis that they are theirs to use.
They're Sunni allies.
They're theirs to use if needed.
And of course, India is working on this.
They have nuclear plants.
At some point, they'll have nuclear weapons of their own.
Japan, more than likely, will have nuclear weapons of their own.
In short order.
It's just gonna happen, folks.
I'm just telling you.
This is how it's gonna work.
So, when you're dealing with a rubric, when you're dealing with someone who has the ability to annihilate the entire world, you have to put that first and foremost.
It's kind of like that It's kind of like that meme of the midwits, right?
Where it's a bell curve.
And I know I get in trouble when I talk about bell curves.
That at the lower end, it's like, they have nukes.
In the middle of the bell curve, around your sort of 100 to 115er IQ, it's, well, if we can use the containment theory of international relations and reduce aggression by the figurative machining of the decision-making process of the Kremendesk And at the higher end of the bell curve, it's, they have nukes.
They can kill us all.
You know, I'd love to ask Greta Thunberg, what is the carbon footprint of nuclear annihilation?
They've never explained this to us.
Would it, you know, technically it would be carbon zero, but it would be neutral because it would, you'd wipe out everybody.
So because you're killed off all of humanity, which of course is what the depopulationists want, then you would achieve carbon neutral.
You'd be net zero.
So the issue really, though, boys and girls, usually really is this.
What is the limiting principle?
What's the limiting principle here?
And.
It's actually an interesting point, and limiting principle is something that that Ben Shapiro brings up a lot, and I don't always cite it because it doesn't necessarily make sense domestically, but I think internationally it does, because what is the limiting principle?
And of course, I've brought this up on Twitter and a few other places where I've said, well, that's exactly right.
Lindsey Graham, Lady Lindsey, why don't we give our nuclear codes to the Ukrainians?
We can just give those to Zelensky.
Look, they fired all the corrupt people.
Ladies and gentlemen, congratulations.
Ukraine is no longer corrupt at all.
Why?
Because we fired all those Ukraine corrupt people.
They're gone.
So don't you worry.
Just hand over your nukes, hand over your tanks.
And by the way, we've got the headline here from Zero Hedge.
So nice.
Ukraine pivots to F-16 fighter jets hours after security tanks.
I'm here.
Hours after both Washington and Berlin confirmed they would be providing Western-made heavy battle tanks for Ukraine.
By the way, German battle tanks on Ukrainian soil.
Boy, I can't think of anything that that references.
Reversing course on prior policy after intense inter-NATO debate, Ukraine said it is now pushing hard for fourth-generation fighter jets.
If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk.
If you give him a glass of milk, he's going to ask to use the bathroom.
It's like the old kid story.
We all get taught this when we're little, and yet here we are in international relations.
So what is the limiting principle?
Go ahead.
Lady Lindsay, you should be arguing for aircraft carriers for Ukraine, submarines, nuclear tipped Trident missiles, couple of tanks.
I'm going to say, by the way, Producer Angelo, and I'm going to have to put him on blast here for a minute.
So producer Angelo, he's like, he's like, Jack, I had this great idea.
All right.
We're going to do a whole segment on what the Abrams does and what it would, you know, how it's going to change the battle space.
When it's going to, I said, look, I said, producer Angelo, it's a tank.
They're big, they run over stuff and they blow up stuff at a distance.
That's what they do.
I think everybody gets that.
It's like when you're, when you're talking about, uh, you know, when you're talking about your friend's cousin, you say, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
She's great.
She's built like a tank.
Everybody knows what you mean.
Literally, everybody knows what you mean.
You don't need to do a whole segment on it.
I hope so, at this point, that everybody knows what that means.
But, you know, I digress.
I digress.
So yes, tanks are big and heavy.
They run over stuff and they blow up stuff.
Interestingly enough, though, because of drone warfare and precision targeting that we have now, this has become a real problem for the use of tanks on the battlefield and on the front lines, as we've seen so far.
This is a reason, of course, by the way, that Ukraine is also asking for F-16 fighters because they, I won't necessarily say that Russia has air superiority here, but they realize that they are lacking an air component to all of this.
And that if you don't have an air component that could defend against these precision drones, then guess what?
Your $20 million tank just got taken out by a $15,000 suicide drone out of Iran.
One of these Shahads that, you know, they call them the Doritos.
Because that's all they do.
They're just little kamikaze drones and they smash into it.
And it's basically, it's basically like driving around in a steel coffin.
Because before you're able to get anywhere, if those things are in play, you're done for.
The same thing on the Russian side.
They were trying to use the Bayraktars out of Turkey for this.
But the real issue, of course, is that you will need tanks at some point, because you need ground.
You need a ground component in order to hold and maintain territory.
As the Russians found out in Kharkov, when they were, you know, essentially they had the National Guardsmen and policemen who had been called up and they got just pretty much wiped out right before the new changeover happened.
That's why Russia pulled back from, well, first of all, they lost Kharkov, then they pulled back from Kherson.
I love, by the way, there's some people who haven't even taken the time to try to learn how to pronounce any of these things.
And if your tank advantage is decimated at that point, then guess what that brings us back to?
World War One.
The horrors of trench warfare.
And that's what we're seeing right now play out on battlefield after battlefield across Eastern and Southern Ukraine.
But the real question for us is this.
Are we going to sit down and pretend that this is some kind of video game where we're like, Oh, spawn tanks, spawn tanks, spawn nukes.
We're going to have more nukes.
It's going to be great.
No.
We understand that there's going to be American contractors, American citizens that are going to be sent in to maintain the American tanks.
There's going to be NATO citizens that are sent in from Germany or Poland or wherever else in order to facilitate the maintenance and resupply of these tanks.
So that's putting them in harm's way.
And we also understand that we are in a dangerous game of escalation.
As far as I can tell, there's only one world leader that's actually coming out and saying we should make a deal for peace.
Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating COVID?
Well, that's not what we say to the public.
No.
Don't tell anyone that's going to happen.
We're exploring, like, you know how the virus keeps mutating?
Yeah.
Well, one of the things we're exploring is, like, why don't we just mutate it ourselves so we can preemptively develop new vaccines, right?
So we have to do that.
If we're going to do that, though, there's a risk of, like, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating the virus.
It's almost like, it's almost like everything we thought was true and then some.
It doesn't create something like, you know, it goes everywhere.
Something crazy.
It's the way that the virus started and moved on.
To be honest, it makes no sense if this virus popped out of nowhere.
Yeah, I know.
It's almost like everything we thought was true and then some.
So Project Veritas changed the world last night with this video that came out, which is some of the best journalism that we've seen in a generation.
I mean, James O'Keefe is the modern day Upton Sinclair.
If you don't know who Upton Sinclair is, then you need to go back and read.
But that's who James O'Keefe is.
And this is why they hate James O'Keefe, and this is why they shut down Project Veritas, and this is why they do everything they can to keep those in power to maintain the status quo.
And then along comes James O'Keefe and subverts the entire thing.
Now the mainstream media, by the way, is deleting all their articles about this.
MSN had something up, Daily Mail had something up.
It's all been taken down.
Media is right there.
It's all been taken down.
Because what this has done, what this video has done, is it's provided us a roadmap into what I call the missing link in the COVID-19 story.
What do I mean by that?
So, I think by now, we can conclude that COVID-19 emerged from a program within the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Shi Zhang Li, the bat lady, was working on this.
The NIH used a cutout organization called EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak in order to send strains of humanized mice and this technology to the Wuhan Institute where they were clearly using recombinant and serial testing with these animals involved with what eventually became COVID-19 that leaked out of that lab inadvertently.
But we were told all along in the now infamous debates between Dr. Fauci and Senator Rand Paul that it wasn't gain of function, it wasn't gain of function, it wasn't gain of function.
If it wasn't gain of function, then what was it?
It's clearly gaining function.
Well, now we've got two pieces of the puzzle.
Let me break down what they are.
First, they're not calling it gain of function.
They're calling it directed evolution.
Directed evolution.
You see, that's called a loophole, boys and girls.
That's called a euphemism, which is what the left loves to do.
Papering over something, changing the words, using the power of linguistics, using linguistic tools in order to fool you.
Directed evolution is obviously the same thing as gain of function.
Just under different terms.
But what do we also see?
This is Pfizer.
This is not the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
And so the question then becomes, comes for us, why was it that Fauci was lying so much To cover up the Wuhan Institute.
Wouldn't it be easy to just say, hey, this is some crazy CCP experiment and we need to get to the bottom of this because of national security and we need to understand that as President Trump told us, China owes us something like $10 trillion because of the damages they did to our population and to our economy by letting this thing out and then sending out their planes internationally after they had shut down travel domestically.
This was a deliberate operation.
I don't believe that it leaked out of that lab on purpose.
I believe it was a leak.
But once it came out, the CCP, the Politburo, Xi Jinping himself sat back and said, why should we be the only ones who take the hit?
The whole world should take this.
The whole, if we're going to go down, we're taking all of you with us.
And that's exactly what happened.
And they knew it.
And they knew it from the start.
And so why would Fauci cover for them?
And now we have the answer for that.
And that's part two.
Part two is the answer of why did Fauci come with them?
Because we're doing it too.
Because you got American companies, friends of Fauci, potentially, I don't necessarily go there personally, but potentially we've heard financial investees of Dr. Fauci who are also involved in these types of experiments.
And they're playing word games and mind games and all other games they want to play with you.
But the truth is playing for us all to see now.
And I have a simple question.
You know, there's things that are complicated, but I'm a simple man.
My family's Polish, right?
What can I say?
We're not complicated.
We believe in God.
We want things to be right.
We defend our family.
We defend our language.
We defend our culture.
That's pretty much it.
But now I have a question.
Directed evolution.
So let me put it this way.
And I'm going to be speaking.
To members of the new COVID Select Committee later tonight.
Who was directing the evolution of COVID-19?
Who in China gave the orders for this evolution to take place?
Who guided this direction?
And what direction were they trying to take it in?
Was it purely political?
Was it militaristic?
By any chance?
Was there a potential for use, dual use, of COVID-19 as a military weapon?
A biological weapon?
I don't know.
But you know what?
I'm gonna find out.
Because I want subpoenas.
And I don't want just subpoenas of American companies.
I want subpoenas of the intelligence community.
And I want to go into the NSA and I want to go into their database and I want intercepts.
And we're talking top secret SCI information here.
What did we know?
And when did we know it?
And guess what?
If you don't turn them over to the COVID select committee, then good luck getting funding next year out of the new budget.
Don't tell me for a second that the NSA doesn't know what was going on up there.
Tell you a dirty little secret.
They know.
The information's out there.
And this committee is going to find it.
And it's going to haul people up.
I don't care if we have to go... And by the way, I'm not even worried about the directors of these agencies.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No.
Because I'm a prior Intel officer.
I know how the Intel cycle works.
We're not even going to call the directors.
We're going to call the analysts.
We're going to call the collectors.
We're going to call the people that listen to the phone calls.
We're going to have you testify.
It'll be behind closed doors.
Sure.
It'll be, it'll be classified.
It'll be, it'll be, um, in a skiff, whatever.
Whatever, we're not going to necessarily let that out.
But when we find something, it's going to be declassified and it's all going to come out about what the CCP did, how they did it to us, and they're going to pay.
The CCP did not get the same.
We don't need to do this.
Her name was Roseanne Boyland.
Her name was Roseanne Boiland.
For those of you listening on the podcast version, what you just heard was the beating death of Roseanne Boiland, January 6, 2021.
Roseanne Boiland was part of a crowd, climbed the steps of the United States Capitol.
Capitol police responded.
Attempting to shove them off.
Attempting to push them down.
Hold them back.
The footage is choppy.
It's chaotic.
It's a chaotic environment.
It's hard to see what's going on.
And this footage that we have is censored.
But there is something that we can glean from this footage and other angles and other footage that has been seen.
There is a police officer, Capitol Police officer, who is swinging a large Wouldn't stick and crashing it down on Roseanne Boyland again and again and again.
Even after Roseanne Boyland has fallen to the ground.
And is arriving on the steps of the United States Capitol.
The officer continues to beat her again and again and again.
People are yelling for the officer to stop.
She doesn't.
She continues beating and beating and beating Roseanne Boyland.
Now, thanks to the Gateway Pundit, we found the badge number of the officer who did this.
Her name is Lila Morris, badge number 5869.
Lila Morris, badge number 5869.
Now, you really have to ask yourselves that if the races were switched here, and the genders too, by the way, a white male police officer beating a black male protester to death, as we can see on this video, would this have been national news?
Would this video have gone everywhere the way the George Floyd video did?
But instead, that's not what it was.
Because that's the narrative that we're preconditioned to believe.
That white police officers want to kill black people.
Yet instead, the races and genders are switched here.
These are both women.
The officer is black.
The protester is white.
And Officer Lila Morris continues to beat Roseanne Boyland to death as she writhes on the steps of the Capitol.
Now, I know a lot of people have covered this story already, and I certainly don't consider myself to be the first.
This isn't an exclusive, but I don't know if anyone's quite put it simply that way, that that's what happened, that you had a police officer beating a protester to death on the steps of the Capitol.
That's what we see here.
We've seen this footage.
Now, what's amazing to me though, is that the coroner came out and said, no, no, no, no, no.
The beating and the writhing, that had nothing to do with the death.
This was an overdose from amphetamines.
I said, oh, that's interesting.
Because when I look at George Floyd and I look at that video and I've studied it and I've studied every angle of all the videos, of the George Floyd case.
You can see a lot of things happening.
You can see George Floyd at one point ingesting a lethal dose of fentanyl.
You can see it in his mouth.
You can hear the police officers asking him to simply sit in the back of a car.
He refuses.
He fights them.
He's huge, by the way.
He's enormous, enormous, powerful man.
He asks to be put on the ground.
George Floyd asked to be put on the ground.
Roseanne Boylan didn't.
Roseanne Boylan was protesting, to be sure.
to be sure she was protesting, absolutely.
Derek Chauvin's knee did not stay on George Floyd's neck for nine minutes.
And whoever tells you that, the same way that the state of Minnesota's lawyer said just the other day, And the Derek Chauvin appeal is a liar.
Neil Katyal, complete liar.
Because when you see that knee from every angle, you can see that he moves it.
It's on his back, it's on his shoulder blade.
The coroner didn't come out and say that there was evidence of damage to George Floyd's neck at all, and certainly not life-threatening damage.
But what do I see in this video?
I see an officer beating A woman to death on the steps of the United States Capitol.
And I wanted to make sure that everybody knew that that's exactly what happened.
And I'm not going to flower this up and I'm not going to editorialize this with any fancy words.
I'm just going to say that's what happened.
A police officer beat a protester to death on the steps of the US Capitol the same way A police officer shot and killed a protester within the U.S.
Capitol.
Welcome to New America.
This same officer, Lila Morris, badge number 5869, was later celebrated twice.
First, by the mayor of D.C.
who told us, and I quote, she fought like hell that day.
Officer Lila Morris, badge number 5869, fought like hell.
I certainly agree, Mayor Bowser.
She did fight like hell.
Just maybe not in the way that you said.
Also, Officer Lila Morris, badge number 5869, was celebrated in a tribute at last year's Super Bowl.
She came out to fanfare.
Now, she didn't win the Lombardi, but maybe this year, maybe this year, if my Eagles are involved, she might just get A chance to win it again.
Maybe she'll find another protester to beat to death on the steps of the U.S.
