From the Foundation for Economic Infomation:

New Harvard Data (Accidentally) Reveal How Lockdowns Crushed the Working Class While Leaving Elites Unscathed
The picture painted is one of working-class destruction.

A new data analysis from Harvard University, Brown University, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation calculates how different employment levels have been impacted during the pandemic to date. The findings reveal that government lockdown orders devastated workers at the bottom of the financial food chain but left the upper-tier actually better off.

The analysis examined employment levels in January 2020, before the coronavirus spread widely and before lockdown orders and other restrictions on the economy were implemented. It compared them to employment figures from March 31, 2021.

The picture painted by this comparison is one of working-class destruction.

Employment for lower-wage workers, defined as earning less than $27,000 annually, declined by a whopping 23.6 percent over the time period. Employment for middle-wage workers, defined as earning from $27,000 to $60,000, declined by a modest 4.5 percent. However, employment for high-wage workers, defined as earning more than $60,000, actually increased 2.4 percent over the measured time period despite the country’s economic turmoil.

This was the whole point of the lockdown.

The point was anti-Trump politicians and bureaucracy to crush the shit out of the Trump democraphic.

Look at Michigan.  Michigan went for Trump in 2016.  With what Trump did for the auto industry, Trump should have won Michigan by a larger margin.

But Democrat and Trump-hater, Governor Gretchen Whitmer imposed some of the most inane, capricious, and tyrannical lockdown requirements of any governor in the country, and Biden won Michigan in 2020.

Fauci lied.  The other scientists lied.  Everyone lied to crush the fuck out of the Trump demographic, to break them and take their money, as retribution for 2016, and to undermine Trump for 2020.

This was a purposeful and malicious act.

Look at Florida.  DeSantis was a Trump supporter.  Once he realized that the information he was given was bullshit, he did his own thing and Florida did better than most states in both death rate and minimizing economic damage.

The states lead by anti-Tump politicians got the same bullshit info and pushed it harder and harder and suffered worse economically because the point wasn’t to save lives, it was to hurt the working-class Trump demographic that couldn’t Zoom from their living rooms and keet getting paid.

This was absolute economic warfare pushed by an elite class that figured out how to hurt the working class while getting rich because that is exactly what the elites had been doing for years.

This conclusion is inescapable and Harvard admitted to it.  They aren’t even afraid to say it because they assume everyone who voted for Trump and lost their job during the lockdowns is too stupid to read something published by Harvard.

This is Harvard demonstrating how effective their plan was.  They got richer, Trump voters got poorer, non-Trump working-class people became more dependent on government handouts favored by the Left, and Biden won.  Victories all around.  This is a Lefits after-action report on a successful mission.

Trump’s biggest blunder was not taking Fauci and everyone pushing lockdowns and mandates and firing them (or, better yet, tossing them out of helicopters over the Potomac) in yearly June 2020.

For when I get elected:

For the military or federal law enforcement to get authorization for funding for new weapons or platforms, all obsolete transferable weapons must be sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program for supplemental funding.

If the Army wants a new machinegun, every pre-1986 M60, M1919, every generation of M16 below the M16A3, etc., must be liquidated from inventory to the CMP for civilian sale.

They want a new submachine gun/PDW, every pre-1986 Thompson, grease gun, MP5, etc, must be liquidated from inventory to the CMP for civilian sale.

If they want in with the new, they must have more out with the old.

Same for ammo.

Any ammo older than 10 years must be liquidated from the arsenal to get restocking of new ammo.

Just think of how much supplementary money the DOD and DOJ will get for new guns and equipment.  That’s the ticket, because once some bureaucracy sticks that opium needle of new tax money into its arm, it will never be able to give it up.

As seen on the Twitter:

Democrats are Communists, while real Americans seek to emulate the Viet Cong. https://t.co/nDIBb8VWfB

— Seth Masket (@smotus) June 16, 2021

The most insidious misreading of the 2nd is the idea the Founders meant to have an armed citizenry so they could overthrow the “free State” the 2nd aims to protect. What’s the point of the Constitution if you provided an out for violent revolution when voting doesn’t go your way?

— Greg Tinkle (@jgt1960) June 17, 2021

This is a point I have made before and I will make it again.

This is the text of the Second Amendemnt:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is the only place in the Constitution does the phrase “free state” appears.

Everywhere else in the Constitution, the Constitution refers to the United States as the United States.

The United States and “a free state” are fundamentally not the same thing.  They are two different concepts.  The United States is a country.  A free state is the idea of a free nation.

They can and should, and arguably are right now (though seemingly less every day), be the same thing.

The Second Amendment doesn’t exist to protect the United States.  It exists to protect a free state.  It exists not as a defense of our nation under all conditions but to protect the idea of a free state in the event that the United States stops being a free state.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that Trump was truly the despotic second coming of Hitler that the Left said he was.  Would a Hitlerian Trump America be a free state?

No, of course not.

In such as case, in which Reichsführer Pence is having Blacks, Mexicans, and Gays sent to concentration camps, would the right to keep and bear arms be more beneficial in the hands of citizens to protect the United States Government or in the hands of citizens to fight Pence’s Protection Squadron?

And that is exactly the point.

To give the American citizenry the ability to engage in violent revolution when the United States stops being a free state and to reinstitute a free state.

The reason guys like Greg don’t ever see it this way is that when it’s Reichsführer Harris having General Honore and Director Chipman put every Trump voter with an AR on a cattle car headed east, that’s not tyranny according to him so the 2nd Amendment Veto doesn’t apply.

He says “What’s the point of the Constitution if you provided an out for violent revolution when voting doesn’t go your way?”

So let me ask this specifically.

How about this hypothecial?

Let’s say that the Republicans won the 2020 election, taking both the Executive and Legislative branched entirely through abject fraud.

The bureaucrats who run Federal Law Enforcement and the Military are loyal to the Trump.

First, our Constitution has no prevision for what to do in this event, and even if the Supreme Court tried to come up with some remedy, who would enforce the Judicial ruling?

So going into 2022 the message is: “We cheated and won, and since we’re in power, we’re going to do it again and again and there is nothing you can do to stop us.  America now has the same sort of elections as Iran, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc.”

Would that be sufficient justification or “violent revolution when voting doesn’t go your way?”

Again, this is the reason Greg doesn’t like this argument.

One, just about everything the Left says was a Trump conspiracy turned out to be true.

Two, just about everything the Left says the Right does that is bad, is what they actually do, which in this case was the accusation that Trump stole the 2016 election with cheating.

So if we find out that the aforementioned hypothetical actually happened and the Democrats were the beneficiaries, Greg’s answer is “no, it’s not justified” because it’s his side that arms are turned against.

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant and principled men that gave Americans the ability to resist tyranny regardless of party.

Modern political bifurcations means that principle is gone and only one side suports the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny because the other side wants tyranny and sees the Second Amendment as a threat to itself.

So here is a simple rule of thumb:

As expected, some people in Social Media were not happy about by my Juneteenth meme. While mostly chose the ban button, a couple made comments and this one in particular is an old tired explanation sans explanation.

And then… Inspiration!

Hell, I believe this would more valid than all the BS they keep selling.

As seen on the internet:

This is the ugly truth.

I don’t think anyone in our military or in politics has actually considered what an asymmetric civil war would look like.

We keep seeing platitudes like “what will your AR-15 do against a tank/F-22/Reaper?”

In the past, I’ve mentioned how the answer to that is armed civilians won’t attack the tank or F-22 in head-on battle like it’s WWII.

The more effective method of combat is to kill the ground crew that does F-22 maintenance or the refueling crew that keeps an M1 Abrams from being a 60 paperweight.  In very short order, every heavy weapons platform the military has, tanks, planes, helicopters, etc., will be uselss due to parts breakages and being out of fuel.

But that is still fighting with a certain level of honor and dignity, i.e., still attacking uniformed troops, even if you are attacking maintenance and support units.

Reality is much, much uglier.

Nearly every soldier in the military has social media.

When some pilot kills somebody’s kids, or grandkids, or nieces/nephews, siblings, etc., do they think that the civilian population won’t return the favor?

What happens to the morale of some Woke battalion commander when he finds out that the Trumpers he’s preparing to assault have doxxed him, and murdered his wife, kids, parents, siblings, fishing buddies, and family pets?

When after some military brass or politician talks tough on Twitter and the kid they have in college out of state ends up swinging from an overpass?

Why should we fight an organized military force when we can send every soldier AWOL rushing home to protect their loved ones.

I have said before that I don’t believe in proportional response.

You want to murder my children, I will return the favor in spades.

What I would give to watch one person in a mask sit before Congress and testify:

“Look, if you kick things off with us, very quickly the entire effort of the US Military and Federal Law Enforcement will be used as bodyguards for the extended families of politicians and bureaucrats until the troops and LEOs run home to protect their families because if we can’t take out your tanks and drones with our AR-15s, we’ll take out your families.  Just read up on the history of how the IRA or Mexican Cartels became so feared so fast and then extrapolate that to 70 million Trump supporters.”

I honestly don’t think that any of the talk tough Leftists really, truly understand just how ugly a new American civil war will get, and if they did, they would shut the fuck up and beg for forgiveness.

And here we have another episode of “I am a Gun Owner But…”

I’m a combat veteran and I like my guns. I would also like stronger gun laws | Column (tampabay.com)

I wanted to buy a gun. I should be more specific. I wanted to buy a Taurus TX-22 to add to my ever-growing collection of firearms.
When I went to a local sporting goods store to pick up the pistol I had ordered, the clerk asked me to fill out the paperwork for the standard background check. While he was running that through the system, I browsed the store, finding an additional $200 in merchandise — which I may or may not have needed. After 30 minutes, I walked out with my new prized possession.

You, a citizen of the United States of America while trying to exercise you rights to acquire a legal product and your Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was required to submit to a background check to prove you were innocent from sin and crimes. That he has been told upfront by the Powers That Be that he is Guilty till proven Innocent does not face him or bother him. In fact, the rest of the article is the gentleman explaining why he supports more of that. However, if I were to demand a background check before he could enter or purchase an item from a store I own, he would throw a hissy fit and probably accuse me of being racist.

The toughest thing I did that day was decide on which brand of insect repellent to buy.

Anything with Deet over 50% concentration. There, I just save you a stroke.

The federal background check — the safeguard that ensures I am not a convicted felon or a domestic abuser with a restraining order — was a breeze, as it has been every time I’ve gone through it

You just said you wasted 30 minutes waiting to prove you are not a felon, a mental defective or a wife abuser. I do not call that a breeze.

That’s why I am perplexed that updating our federal background check laws has been so difficult.

He actually wants to waste more of his time and ours and to make sure we are still considered Felons till we prove otherwise! So wonderful of him!

The U.S. Senate is about to debate the issue, and as a gun enthusiast, a father, a combat veteran and an NRA-certified pistol instructor, I implore them to pass a bill to make the system work better.

And what bill would that be? It is not like I don’t trust you, but you just begged to inflict more restrictions upon your fellow Americans so, no we don’t trust you.

Not many things find approval on both sides of the political aisle these days, but an expanded background check policy does.

Ah! Back again with this silliness. Let’s see if he has something new to say.

Nine out of ten Americans, including most veterans and law enforcement, support background checks. The reason is simple: Background checks keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and therefore, save lives.

I am really don’t care to give credence to those numbers. Those stats have always been found suspicious once we delve into how they were sampled and if I may remind Mr. McFarlin one more time, the Bill of Rights are not to be subjected or interpreted according to the latest popularity contest.  I do recall one time in our history where a majority of Americans  supported having people with his skin color to be kept in chains and force them to do work.

States that require background checks on all gun sales have lower rates of homicide, suicide, and gun trafficking.

I believe you may want to revise those numbers, specially after the Covid vacation. Specially Illinois with all its restrictions

 Since the inception of the current law in 1994, more than 3.5 million sales have been denied, successfully keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

And once again I will have to ask the question I have been asking since I started blogging: Where are the 3.5 million prosecutions for the violation of the Federal Background Check laws? Or are you are also telling me that you are in full accord to let Felons walk the streets freely after they tried to illegally acquire a dangerous weapon? You are OK with the Federal government failing to incarcerate dangerous criminals? Damn, that is nice to know.

 In 1993, I was in elementary school, and the internet was in its infancy. Back then, no lawmaker could have predicted the robust online marketplaces that exist today.

Thank God or they would have fucked that one up too.

And, naturally, those marketplaces do now exist for guns. In fact, each year one gun-selling site offers more than 1.2 million ads for firearms that would not legally require a background check.

I keep seeing this statement made but without the juicy parts. Which site is this? I suspect he is confusing not having an automatic BGC the moment you click OK as free and unrestricted firearm commercial transaction between adults. Anyway, that is what should be anyway.

The catch is that the federal background check law is silent on sales brokered online and completed person-to-person when they are made by anyone other than a federally licensed gun dealer.

Really? If you engage in the business of selling gun without a license even if it is online, you will get a visit from the Three Letter Agency.  And I am pretty sure that I recall something or other about the Interstate Selling of Firearms without following the proper procedures.

The law was created at a time when the expectation was that sellers typically knew the buyers personally. As a law-abiding citizen, a seller was essentially vouching that the other person was also a law-abiding citizen. The law was simply not written in a way that contemplated the massive market that has emerged and enables the transfer of firearms between two strangers.

This is just such a massive load of bullshit. About my only concern in a private transaction is that the firearm is not stolen and I will want a receipt. I cannot and should not care if the seller shoots up Heroin or beats up the significant other when he sells me a a gun.  And I doubt pretty much that if I ask if a buyer is a Felon, he’d confess he is one which is why the laws put the onus on the criminal, not on the innocent party.

So, over the past three decades, states have instituted a patchwork of gun laws to try to shore up the existing federal law. But still nearly 30 states don’t require background checks on all handgun sales, including private sales arranged online and at gun shows. I’ve bought guns in Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, and each experience was relatively simple for someone like me who can pass a background check.

So what? You want the experience to be harder? More inconvenient for your fellow citizens? What are you asking for?

But why should these laws vary from state to state?

That annoying little thing called Federalism.

If anything, it makes it confusing for the gun buyer.

Which is why our goal is to REMOVE the tens of thousands of gun laws in the books and not demanding to add MORE laws. The principle is not that hard, I can’t figure out why you cannot seem to grasp it.

And why do the majority of states allow dangerous people to do an end run around the federal laws by seeking out private sellers online?

I wonder how the bad guys used to get their guns before the Internet existed. Oh yeah, the same way they do now: Stolen firearms bought in the Black Market.

Updating the federal background check law would make everything uniform. Not only would the updated law increase safety and reduce gun deaths, but it would also make it a lot simpler for gun owners like me to understand the laws across states

“I am an idiot, please Federal Government come and rescue me from myself.”
We know how this movie ends, don’t we?

 Let’s just say that I am glad that I am not on active duty anymore, moving every three years and trying to keep up with each state’s requirements.

If there only was an easy to access source of information where with a simple click of a device, he could obtain the knowledge he requires about guns in every state he lives in… Oh yes, the frigging Internet!

In the military, when it comes to firearms, we believe in training, safety, and accountability.

This last one did not have time to age, well or otherwise. From June 15 of the current year. So much for “training, safety and accountability,” right?

Stolen U.S. military guns are used in violent crimes on America’s streets – Portland Press Herald

When I am instructing my students on pistol use, I rely on those same tenets. When I am storing my guns at home, I am always conscious of what I learned in the Army.

Oh dear God, help us. Another idiot who actually thinks what he learned in the military applies in civilian life.

Now, I am asking the Senate to show some accountability themselves, by passing common sense, bipartisan background check legislation that will save lives.

And once again: The active Background Checks laws has not been enforced and MILLIONS of prohibited persons were never prosecuted for their blatant violation of Federal Law. And yet we have another “Gun Owner But…” imbecile demanding to expand the failure even more to include private sales that still they cannot prove it has an influence on street violence, but sounds good in the Narrative therefore it must be true.

Hat Tip RogerG