
Accurate.




President Joe Biden faced continued backlash for controversial remarks that he made on Wednesday about Americans who purchase firearms as a safeguard against a tyrannical government, with critics noting that Biden’s remarks counter the narrative that Democrats and the media have pushed about the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.
“The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own,” Biden said. “You couldn’t buy a cannon. [Those who] say the blood of the, the blood of patriots, you know, and all this stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government.”
“Well, the tree of liberty is not [watered with] the blood of patriots, what’s happened is that there never been, if you want, if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons,” Biden continued. “The point is that there’s always been the ability to limit, rationally limit, the type of weapon that can be owned, and who can own it.”
Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald responded to a tweet that showed Biden’s remarks from Wednesday next to remarks that he made earlier this year when responding to the riot. Biden said regarding the riot, “Our democracy is under unprecedented assault.”
“You cannot believe both of these things to be true simultaneously,” journalist Drew Holden wrote.
“Precisely,” Greenwald responded. “Biden’s mockery of the citizenry – you think you can threaten the US Govt with guns? You need F-15s and nukes for that – shows how moronic is the depiction of a few hundred MAGA protesters as a threat to the stability of history’s most militarized and armed government.”
Editor’s note: You could absolutely buy a cannon in that day and age. Biden is, again, a liar.
The axis of liberal media outlets and their allied activist groups— CNN, NBC News, The Washington Post, Media Matters — are in an angry uproar over a recent report questioning the foreknowledge and involvement of the FBI in the January 6 Capitol riot. As soon as that new report was published on Monday, a consensus instantly emerged in these liberal media precincts that this is an unhinged, ignorant and insane conspiracy theory that deserves no consideration.
The original report, published by Revolver News and then amplified by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, documented ample evidence of FBI infiltration of the three key groups at the center of the 1/6 investigation — the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and the Three Percenters — and noted how many alleged riot leaders from these groups have not yet been indicted. While low-level protesters have been aggressively charged with major felonies and held without bail, many of the alleged plot leaders have thus far been shielded from charges.
The implications of these facts are obvious. It seems extremely likely that the FBI had numerous ways to know of any organized plots regarding the January 6 riot (just as the U.S. intelligence community, by its own admission, had ample advanced clues of the 9/11 attack but, according to their excuse, tragically failed to “connect the dots”). There is no doubt that the FBI has infiltrated at least some if not all of these groups — which it has been warning for years pose a grave national security threat — with informants and/or undercover spies. It is known that Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio has served as an FBI informant in the past, and the disrupted 2020 plot by Three Percenters members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) was shaped and driven by what The Wall Street Journal reportedwere the FBI’s “undercover agents and confidential informants.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York revealed to the House Oversight Committee and the Reform Committee Tuesday that the conservative social media site Parler sent warnings about its users’ violence to the FBI more than 50 times leading up to the January 6 attacks on the Capitol.
Maloney, the Democratic chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee, presented research into why the response was so slow to requests for aid from the Capitol Police on January 6. “The threats, I would say, were everywhere,” Maloney said. “The system was blinking red.”
Maloney questioned FBI Director Christopher A. Wray about the bureau’s lack of a response to several intelligence alerts pre-riots, particularly dozens of warnings from Parler.
The “Committee has obtained docs showing that…Parler sent the FBI evidence of planned violence in DC on January 6. Parler referred this content to the FBI for investigation over 50 times,” Maloney said. The content allegedly included “specific threats of violence being planned at the Capitol.”
The husband of Ashli Babbitt has gone on television to push forward the effort to learn the name of the police officer who fatally shot his wife during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
“Somebody up in D.C. knows,” Babbitt said Monday night on the Fox New Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “I think a lot of people know, but nobody is telling us. And the silence is deafening … I never expected to lose my wife to political violence.”
Babbitt, an Air Force veteran, was fatally shot as she attempted to climb through the broken window of a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, just off the House floor.
In April, the Justice Department announced that it would not seek charges against the officer who shot Babbitt, 35, following a “thorough investigation” by the Metropolitan Police Department. The department said the officer fired a service pistol, hitting Babbitt in the left shoulder, but no further information was released to the family.
Of all the questions asked, words spoken, and ink spilled on the so-called “Capitol Siege” of January 6, 2021, none hold the key to the entire event quite like what Sen. Amy Klobuchar asked of Christopher Wray.
The Democrat from Minnesota asked the Trump-appointed FBI Director: Did the federal government infiltrate any of the so-called “militia” organizations claimed to be responsible for planning and executing the Capitol Siege?
The full segment is available on YouTube.
Christopher Wray is able to uncomfortably weasel his way out of answering the question directly, partially because Klobuchar does him the courtesy of not asking him the question directly. Klobuchar instead asks the FBI director if he wishes he had infiltrated the militia organizations allegedly involved in 1/6 — assuming from the outset that there was in fact no infiltration, thereby providing the FBI director an easy way to avoid addressing the question one way or another.
Revolver News is willing to address the matter directly in the following three questions:

You must be logged in to post a comment.