More Comes Out On Saturday's Fed Provocateur

The story we've seen is that at the Justice for J6 rally last Saturday, some of the very few ordinary citizens in attendance spotted a suspicious-looking man who appeared to be carrying a gun. They reported him to police, and since absolutely nothing else was going on other than hundreds of FBI, police, and reporters waiting for something to happen, the police in riot gear detained him, and the episode was fully documented.

In the view above, the man is dressed in black, with a black bandana style mask covering much of his face a la Antifa. He appears to have identified himself with a badge, surrendered his weapon, and given little other direct information as to what he was doing. According to the RedState blog,

Now the word is out where this guy was from. He is a 27 year old CBP officer from New Jersey. So yes, he was a federal agent. Fed on Fed arrest. He was allegedly detained for possessing a gun on the grounds of the Capitol but he was not prosecuted after they found out he was a police officer.

According to Fox News,

Generally, under federal law, law enforcement officers are given reciprocity to legally carry their weapons in other states, even those with restrictive gun laws. But the law has an exemption for government property or military bases where it is illegal to carry a gun, like the U.S. Capitol.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington said prosecutors were "not moving forward with charges" but did not provide additional information about the decision.

Two law enforcement officials said the officer was not at the rally in any official capacity. The officials could not discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity. The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general was also notified of his arrest.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it was aware of the arrest and was "fully cooperating with the investigation."

Something's hinky. New Jersey is more than 100 miles from DC. There were across-the-board recommendations to stay away from Saturday's rally, which just about everyone but reporters, police, and undercover feds followed. But one federal officer from New Jersey decides to attend in an "unofficial capacity" with a weapon, dressed like Antifa. Once he's caught, his agency mumbles something about integrity, but the US attorney decides not to prosecute. But they'll cooperate with any investigation that sorta maybe takes place.

Here are some thoughts I have.

• The most innocuous explanation is this guy is a junior wannabe who goes to DC from New Jersey on his own dime dressed as an Antifa, hoping he can incite an assault on the Capitol and then become a big hero by stopping it. Or maybe incite an assault on the Capitol and get a bunch of people clubbed and shot to prove how bad Trump is. Or something.
• But anyone with any kind of law enforcement experience knows you basically act within your training and policy, and any deviation must either be approved by your superiors or you're held accountable. For him to freelance this would be a career-ending move. Worse, it could land him in the slammer. Not many cops are that dumb. Maybe there are more federal agents who are.
• Who else knew about it? His supervisor? But if his supervisor cooked it up independently, that would also be a career-ending move that would risk prosecution. Everyone at that level must have had some assurance that if anything went wrong, it would all be made right. And so far, the US attorney says no prosecution.
• So I've got to think someone ordered something like this from much higher up, but it was badly bungled by our boy from New Jersey. My little daemon tells me the whole frammis is basically a great grand-nephew of the Watergate burglary fiasco, sloppily planned by a bunch of incompetents and bungled by amateurs.

I have a theory that just crossing a state border into New Jersey lowers your IQ by 30 points. My wife scolds me about this, but this may confirm my view.

Who placed the call to get this going? My money's on Pelosi.

Pray Tell Me, Sir, Whose Dog Are You?

Alexander Pope had this couplet engraved on the collar of a puppy he presented to Frederick, Prince of Wales in the 1730s:

I am his highness’s dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?

The implication is, of course, that everyone has a master for whom he must roll over and do tricks.

One of the questions that I almost never heard addressed in my years studying in English departments was how writers must actually get money The assumption seems to have been that the act of producing metaphors was so inherently valuable that they all essentially lived F Scott Fitzgerald style lives. This was in the 1960s and 70s. There may be other, post-modern interpretations now, but I doubt if the actual business of writing ever gets much attention.

My wife and I were late adopters of cable, and for many years, we had only a simple tube TV with a rabbit ear antenna, which meant that much of watching was limited to PBS and the News Hour. Republican thought was represented by David Gergen and then David Brooks. Gergen seems to have made his living as some sort of professional intimate to presidents, but Brooks has always written a column, supplemented by being a talking head.

Thus Brooks has always needed someone to write for in order to earn a living, or as Samuel Johnson would have characterzed it, a Patron. The need to see something other than the cringing phony Brooks on TV was a major factor that drove my wife and me to cable.

So why is Brooks suddenly off the reservation?

On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks said that the “underlying issue” in President Joe Biden’s underwater approval rating is Jimmy Carter-esque “incompetence.”

Brooks said that coronavirus is one issue bringing down Biden’s approval numbers, even though that’s not really President Biden’s fault.

He continued, “I think the border’s a strong one. I think pulling out of Afghanistan the way they did, not the pullout itself, but the way it was done. I think a lot of Americans were embarrassed and felt a little ashamed. But the underlying issue is Jimmy Carter. The underlying issue is incompetence. I thought these guys were the pros. I thought they were the experts. But in case after case, they don’t seem to be as professional as I thought they were.”

Brooks later discussed the nuclear submarine deal with Australia and stated that while it’s a good deal, “why not call France? … We didn’t call our allies before the Afghan pullout.”

Brooks does not write a comma, not a semicolon, that he's not told to write. His whole career has been an exercise in flaunting his single elite undergraduate credential to lend the appearance of thoughtful reflection to whatever bromide his Patron approves.

Looks like even the New York Times is off the reservation.

Why Is The Reconciliation Package A Cliffhanger?

My mother, who had a career in government after starting with the Republican National Committee, told me at a fairly early age that there are, or at least should be, no surprises at the policy level. (She fancied herself a lizard person.) Legislative leaders have the votes wrapped up well before actual votes take place. That's why parties have whips. Of course, she started her career in Washington when Lyndon Johnson was president, so this may have affected her outlook.

So I'm amazed at the story that's been developing over Democrat disorder over the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, said to be the centerpiece of Biden's program, except that I'm increasingly convinced that Speaker Pelosi is the one who's running things. If there are questions about Biden's competence, I think they apply as well to Pelosi, who's actually giving the orders. As of this morning,

President Biden's two major economic agenda items hang in the balance this week as Democrats continue "intense discussions" on their $3.5 trillion spending plan and some Republicans are warning that their support for the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill could evaporate after Democrats "linked" it with reconciliation.

"It's gotten completely off the rails," Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan told Fox News. . . . "We've worked for quite some time to negotiate a bipartisan infrastructure bill, which did not include any of this additional spending. We've got the president to commit to it. We've got the Senate to pass it," Hogan said. "And then the House is now saying if we can't jam through our $3 and a half trillion of other stuff that we took out of this compromise bill, that they're not going to do it."

Last week, President Biden was supposed to have brought the two senate Democrat holdouts, Sens Manchin and Sinema, on board. But Manchin didn't change his public position, and over the weekend, it came out that Sinema not only didn't come around, but she gave Biden an ultimatum. (Can you imagine LBJ getting an ultimatum?)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) delivered a tough message to President Biden at a private meeting Wednesday, Playbook reports: If the House delays its scheduled Sept. 27 vote on the bipartisan infrastructure plan — or if the vote fails — she won’t be backing a reconciliation bill.

“Progressives think if they band together and threaten to kill the infrastructure bill, it will convince moderate members to go along with the larger reconciliation package. But multiple sources — including a senior Democratic aide and several in the centrist camp — tell us the left is misreading their colleagues.”

At this stage, it looks less and less likely that either bill will be passed this fall. The status of any putative agreement between Pelosi and moderate House Democrats to vote on the smaller infrastucture bill separately from the $3.5 trillion package on September 27 seems increasingly unclear, given the stated intent of House progressives to defeat the smaller bill if it isn't linked to the big one.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal told Politico that the majority of her coalition, which comprises 96 members, has privately shared it is prepared to thwart the infrastructure bill in protest unless it is a package deal with the Democrat-spearheaded measure.

“Even if there were Republicans that come along” to support the Senate infrastructure in the House, Jayapal said, “we will have more individuals, more Democrats who are going to vote it down without the reconciliation bill.”

In fact, it almost looks as if Sen Manchin is in the position of brokering a solution:

Manchin reportedly told workers at a Procter & Gamble facility in Martinsburg, West Virginia, that he wanted to pause all negotiations on the $3.5 trillion bill until 2022.

. . . Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the House Majority Whip, said Sunday that Democrats might need to spend more time hashing out the differences between the party’s different wings.

“Sometimes, you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal,” he said.

“It may be $3.5 [trillion]. It may be close to that, or it may be closer to something else,” suggested they may change the spending levels for the mammoth legislation.

But I can think of two problems with any delay. First, the talk we're starting to hear from Manchin and Clyburn suggests that a delay would come to allow renegotiation for a lower total in the $3.5 trillion package, which would amount to a defeat for the progressives, and for that matter Pelosi-Biden. Second, a delay into 2022 as Manchin proposes would push the vote closer to the election, already assumed to be bad for Democrats. What assurance can they give that the new negotiation wouldn't last through September-October 2022, the worst possible outcome?

And of course, the need to delay the package would simply illustrate the incompetence of Pelosi in particular, who can't control her own caucus.

I kept thinking over the weekend about the image of Pelosi tearing up her copy of Trump's State of the Union address. You can see in her face her confidence that she's the one in charge. The real problem in 2021 isn't in fact Biden. He takes his orders from Pelosi.

Whence The Narrative?

It's plain that the QAnon Trump conspiracy theory of the January 6 Capitol demonstration has been collapsing for months, and news reports on the Justice for J6 rally in Washington yesterday indicate that it was attended by roughly 400 people who were at least not clearly identifiable as FBI or provocateurs, although of even the presumptive ordinary citizens, it's hard to know how many of those were also agents of some sort.

A fascinating episode was captured in the video at this tweet, wherein Capitol police in full Star Wars Trooper regalia surround an individual dressed as an Antifa type, complete with black bandana mask, only to discover that he's undercover -- and not just undercover, but given his outfit, clearly a government provocateur. Without arresting him or cuffing him, they escort him from the scene, at that point to keep reporters away.

And that was the big event of the afternoon. From occasional remarks by conservative YouTubers, especially after the FBI-led "conspiracy" to kidnap Gov Whitmer, they're contacted now and then by people who make crudely transparent attempts to bring them into something or other, but they're not hard to identify and shoo away.

The big event that turned Bill Clinton's presidency around following debacles with Hillarycare, Mogadishu, and Waco was the Oklahoma City bombing, a legitimate conspiracy among right-wing paramilitary types. Clinton was able to perfect a strategy of triangulation, portraying himself as the safe and sane middle between extremes. In retrospect, Clinton was sometimes successful as a moderate, especially in comparison to Biden.

I think the agenda behind the Justice for J6 event, which Trump correctly labeled a "setup", was to portray Trump supporters and Republicans in the same light as the Oklahoma City bombers, complete, it would seem, with black-clad provocateurs to make sure something like that might take place. Biden's handlers could then turn him into some sort of moderate uniter a la Clinton. The simple problem is that Biden isn't Clinton.

The actual result looks more like a good plot for an Austin Powers sequel. As an Aristotelian, I look for causes. Who thought this woulld be a good idea? Who had the juice to put all those agents in bermudas and sunglasses on the job?

I don't think either Biden or his handlers are capable of this; right now, they're in heads-down mode trying to solve their daily humiliations. The strategic thinker here is Speaker Pelosi, who's been trying to gain traction with January 6 since it took place, first impeaching a lame duck Trump days from his leaving office, then trying to gin up a House investigation.

Her strategy is pretty clearly to try to portray Republicans -- or at least, Republicans who aren't Lynne Cheney -- as domestic terrorists. She's trying to do this with an extremely slim House majority and a tied Senate, with every likelihood that with the next election, she'll lose the Speakership. As of now, she's calling the shots. I think it's reasonable to assume that if she called Gen Milley to give him orders, she's done the same with Director Wray and Attorney General Garland.

It reminds me a little of Winston Churchill, who late in World War II evaluated the option of trying to assassinate Hitler. Together with his generals, he decided the problem with that would be the Germans might replace Hitler with someone competent. Best to keep Hitler in place.

Same with Pelosi.

FDA Panel Rejects COVID Boosters

Via the New York Post:

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel voted against green-lighting COVID-19 booster shots Friday for most people — throwing up a major hurdle for President Biden’s plan to dole out a third dose to most Americans.

But the independent panel, which reviewed a 23-page FDA briefing document highlighting recent studies, recommended emergency use of a third dose for Americans over age 65 and those at high risk of severe infection.

. . . The FDA is not bound to follow the advice of the independent advisory panel but has followed its guidance so far on COVID-19 vaccinations.

Overall, the panel voted 16-2 not to recommend a third dose for people 16 years and up while unanimously green-lighting it for people 65 years and older.

This decision clearly undermines the current COVID narrative. and the mainstream media now appears to be backing off boosters, which Dr Fauci had been assiduously promoting. Via CNN,

Indeed, even the FDA's official briefing paper before the meeting expressed skepticism. "Overall," agency officials noted, "data indicate that currently US-licensed or authorized COVID-19 vaccines still afford protection against severe COVID-19 disease and death." The agency also stated that it's unclear whether an additional shot might increase the risk of myocarditis, which has been reported, particularly in young men, following the second Pfizer and Moderna shots.

Part of the disagreement arose because President Joe Biden had announced that Americans could get a booster as soon as Sept. 20, a date Fauci and colleagues had suggested to him as practical and optimal in one of their frequent meetings just days before — though he cautioned that boosters would need CDC and FDA approval.

As far as I can see, this is the first case of overt disagreement on The Science from within the public health establishment. The same people have been able to finesse disagreements over the lab leak theory of COVID, pushing any serious investigation into the background. This will be much less easy with official non-endorsement of boosters. And since boosters have been part of Biden's public agenda for vaccine mandates, this will also make that agenda harder to sell.

Alex Berenson cimmented via Substack,

Make no mistake, this is a huge loss for the Biden administration and for Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who was desperately pimping boosters as recently as two days ago, when he told Reuters that they were needed for everyone to stop a rise not just in infections but in “mildly to moderately symptomatic disease.”

Fauci is correct that the original two-dose regimen is now failing to prevent symptomatic disease.

. . . Which raises the question - if you are under 65, not at high risk for severe Covid, and have not yet been vaccinated, why on earth would you be? Putting side effects and long-term risks aside, you now know that vaccines are likely to do little more than delay your risk of infection for a few months. What’s the point?

In recent weeks, I keep remembering Stein's Law: That which cannot continue must stop.

Who's Pulling The Strings?

It's been pretty much conventonal wisdom that President Biden is a puppet, and someone else is pulling the strings. Over the past couple of weeks, I've become convinced it's Cruella De Vil, better known as Speaker Pelosi. What clinched it was the report fromm Bob Woodward's new book, Peril. According to the New York Post,

A transcript of a call [between Gen Mark Milley and Speaker] Pelosi two days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, obtained by the “Peril” authors, has her ranting at Milley about Trump’s access to nuclear weapons.

“If they couldn’t even stop him from an assault on the Capitol, who even knows what else he may do? And is there anybody in charge at the White House who was doing anything but kissing his fat butt all over this? …

“He’s crazy. You know he’s crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time. So don’t say you don’t know what his state of mind is.”

Milley reportedly responded: “Madam Speaker. I agree with you on everything.”

The Army, of course, reports to the president as commander in chief, not to the House speaker. The call suggests, though, that Pelosi was giving Milley implicit orders, which included disregarding the authority of the president and defense secretary on the basis that the president was crazy, and the defense secretary was presumably kissing the president's butt. Under at least some circumstances, this would be cause for removal and potentially court martial.

But this also suggests Speaker Pelosi's view of her implicit authority, especially with a man of weak character now in the White House. The difficulty is that the Speaker's actual authority extends only so far, and even if Biden is in her pocket, the Senate is effectively tied, Sen Manchin is less easily bullied, and Manchin's own leader, Sen Schumer, has been keeping a very low profile.

The leverage Manchin has, which nobody has mentioned, is that senators can switch parties. In 2001, Sen James Jeffords, a Republican, became an independent and caucused with the Democrats, which switched the balance of power in the Senate. Cleary the potential exists for Manchin to do the same, which would halt the entire Democrat legislative agenda. Biden, in the Senate in 2001, must clearly be aware of this. Bullying Manchin is not an option.

Thus we see in Axios,

President Biden failed to persuade Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to agree to spending $3.5 trillion on the Democrats' budget reconciliation package during their Oval Office meeting on Wednesday, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.

Defying a president from his own party — face-to-face — is the strongest indication yet Manchin is serious about cutting specific programs and limiting the price tag of any potential bill to $1.5 trillion. His insistence could blow up the deal for progressives and others.

The problem for Cruella Speaker Pelosi is that she needs the support of the far-left faction of House Democrats for the full reconciliation package, and their position is currently that any reductions are non-negotiable. For Manchin to insist on substantial reductions in the package endangers its support in the House. He's effectively giving Biden, which is to say Pelosi, two bad options: get a partial infrastructure bill, requiring Pelosi to work out a compromise with the leftists, or see Manchin defect to the Republicans and lose everything.

One one hand, I'm not sure if Pelosi isn't the one suffering mental decline, because it seems as though her grip on power is loosening, while she's in denial. On the other, there's really too much in it for Manchin to back down. Apparently no amount of behind the scenes baksheesh has been sufficient to get him to do it so far; at minimum, this makes him a very important guy, effectively on a par with the House Speaker. He's not someone you can bully, and he's starting to like it that way.

Cruella is going to have a problem with this. You do not cross this lady.

Vaccine Mandates And Strategic Incompetence

On Monday, I speculated about the impact of Biden's workplace vaccine mandate on OSHA. It turns out that I underestimated the problem:

“[B]efore the first legal challenges against the mandate roll in, the Biden administration faces the more immediate conundrum of whether the chronically resource-strapped Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is up to the task of enforcing it,” Business Insider noted Tuesday.

“It’s reeling from deep staffing cuts under the Trump administration, and its fines are relatively low and often fought out in long court battles,” experts told the outlet.

The Trump cuts left just “1,798 total OSHA inspectors, federal and state, coming out to one inspector per 82,881 workers and just $3.97 budgeted per covered worker,” according to Business Insider. According to a similar report from Reuters, “OSHA now has an estimated 800 safety and compliance inspectors to cover the more than 100,000 private-sector companies affected by the new rule.”

I've also seen commentary from lawyer-YouTuber Robert Barnes that almost all current mandates lack a key provision for religious exemption. While the OSHA workplace rule will likely take some time to roll out, and lawsuits against it can't be filed until it is, other local vaccine mandates are already being challenged for lack of a religious exemption. A New York State mandate has already been rejected by a federal judge:

A federal judge temporarily blocked the state of New York on Tuesday from forcing medical workers to be vaccinated after a group of health care workers sued, saying their Constitutional rights were violated because the state's mandate disallowed religious exemptions.

But this is the same state mandate that already forced a hospital to stop delivering babies when key staff quit rather than get the shot. The lack of religious exemption isn't the only basis for lawsuits against local mandates. A group of LAPD officers filed suit against a municipal mandate:

The lawsuit, filed Saturday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claims the mandate violates the employees’ constitutional rights to privacy and due process, and asks the court to provide immediate and permanent relief from the requirement.

The six LAPD employees suing include individuals “who could not assert a medical or religious exemption” to the vaccine requirement, as well as individuals who have “experienced and recovered from COVID-19″ and have natural antibodies to fight the virus, the complaint states.

A major problem for vaccine mandates is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of protected health information, which is any information that is held by a provider regarding health care. With a few exceptions like court order or limited law enforcement, this information, which includes vaccination status, may not be disclosed without the patient's authorization.

Requiring someone to show his vaccination certificate to an airline agent, TSA, bus driver, barber, bartender, bouncer, or maitre d' is clearly a violation of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. As far as I can see, nobody in the White House, OSHA, CDC, or local health departments has thought this through. For that matter, the religious exemption is extremely broad. You don't have to prove you're a member of a designated sect to be able to claim it, because any designation from the government of which beliefs qualify constitutes an establishment of religion and is a violation of the US First Amendment.

Thus if anyone demands my vaccination certificate, I can claim it's against my religion, full stop, and anyone, especially a bouncer or whatever, risks getting into hot water for denying me service. I personally carry a copy of my certificate in my wallet and will show it when requested just to get on with my day, but not everyone feels this way. We'll likely see a proliferation of court cases well before the Biden-OSHA mandate goes into effect, if it ever does.

So if President Biden wanted to make a big show of Doing Something about COVID while making the whole effort meaningless and unenforceable, he could hardly do a better job than he has. Strategic incompetence?