Ambrose Evans-Pritchard gives the microphone on Ukraine to the weak sisters and has-beens Henry Kissinger and Eric Cantor

Dr Kissinger said the war must not be allowed to drag on for much longer, and came close to calling on the West to bully Ukraine into accepting negotiations on terms that fall very far short of its current war aims. “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante. Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself,” he said. ... Mr Cantor said the US was in danger of overplaying its hand. “We have got to have multilateral support. We are already being accused of weaponising the world’s reserve currency. Even allies and friends are starting to ask, if you are using it in this way, we too could one day be subject to these sanctions,” he said.

More.

A return to the status quo ante would mean pretending Russia's war crimes against Ukrainian civilians never happened. Kissinger only vainly imagines that that clock can be turned back now. Putin must go, and Russia must pay. Anything less means the West stands for nothing important.

As for Eric Cantor, the clock ticks on but only money continues to matter to him. He was never serious about repealing Obamacare and stopping illegal immigration or amnesty for illegals while he was in office. He was wisely toppled while at the height of his powers in the US House by his fellow Republicans in a primary (VA-7), for crying out loud.

It's characteristic of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard to showcase Cantor's hand-wringing. He's done a lot of that in his own writing over the years. He ends this one worried about a European oil shock later this year.

Things like that happen when the false promise of libertarian cooperation with despots for energy comes a cropper. Europe has only itself to blame.

Rush Limbaugh from the opener: "They’re all snakes, and you can’t trust anything that they do"

Here.

You mean like this guy? You know, the guy who read a story about a snake at every campaign rally in 2016? Takes one to know one, right Rush?

What unites some Christians and libertarians is radically unconservative: belief in human change for the better

Here's Christian libertarian economist David Brat, Cantor-killer:

"Preach the gospel and change hearts and souls. If we make all of the people good, markets will be good. Markets are made up of people. Supply and Demand are curves, but they are also people. Nothing else. If markets are bad, which they are, that means people are bad, which they are. Want good markets? Change the people. If there are not nervous twitches in the pews when we preach, then we are not doing our jobs."

--------------------------------------------------------

Conservatives generally haven't believed human nature changes for the better, but it is central to the Catholic doctrine of grace that grace infuses the baptized and changes them, and the belief is central also to the doctrine of some protestants.

These were called Schwaermer by Luther, "enthusiasts".

In politics we called them ideologues.

The problem with free-market ideology in our time isn't about the tax code, it's about patriotism

Free-marketeers in our time want to wipe away the favors of the tax code, many of which go to the middle class in the form of credits and deductions, and to end the taxes on capital which they say deprive the middle of opportunity. 

That seems to be the upshot of the libertarian attempt to co-opt the meaning of the Dave Brat victory over Eric Cantor as expressed by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street urinal, for one. Central to that thesis is poo-poo-ing the importance of the immigration stance of Eric Cantor, which was attacked by Brat with the support of anti-amnesty conservatives, especially Laura Ingraham, and complaining about "the insane complexity of taxes".

What the kerfuffle shows is that Dave Brat is a mighty conflicted person, as are all libertarians, some more some less, a condition they share with liberals, and that he may end up being worse than the man he now replaces. Brat spent much of the campaign talking about closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, but opposed more immigration because Americans are having massive trouble finding work. The better angels of his nature, all Christian, were at work there. But to his free-market self, there should be no reason why citizenship shouldn't be free. Why should there be a law restricting it to those born here? The federal government has no role "making my life work", he has said. See how well your life works when there's no army to stop an invasion, and there's no will to create one. Just ask Arizona.

Immigration is an issue which ought to direct the attention of the American right toward the bigger picture of what has happened to this country since the Reagan revolution slashed taxes, but hasn't because the right is now obsessed with principles over people. It has become as "ideologized" as any leftist camp. In fact the political discussion on the right deliberately obscures how libertarianism has already impoverished the many and rewarded the few. Some of its adherents today actually foresee an American future more starkly drawn that way, as did Ayn Rand. It isn't capitalism which is to blame for all the income inequality, it's libertarianism.

With the permanently lower tax regime in the US since Reagan also came a headlong plunge into global free trade which has created vast middle classes abroad where there were none before, at the expense of our own. The anchor manufacturing industries of the middle class in this country were exported to places where labor was cheaper, leaving the hollowed out shell of a service industry economy behind to pick up the pieces here.

Where's the patriotism, I'd like to know? Neither side wants to touch the trade argument, mostly because they are all profiting from the new status quo while we are fed a bunch of lies about who are the real conservatives. The answer is none of them are. They've all betrayed us and joined the global investor class where borders no longer matter.

To be a conservative in our time is to be for families with children here, for good jobs here, and for tax and trade policies which prop up those things here and put Americans first, not foreigners and disloyal Americans and disloyal American businesses.

If that's too complicated for you, maybe you shouldn't be in office.  

Sen. Rand Paul learns nothing from Cantor loss, joins immigration amnesty fanatics lead by Grover Norquist

Libertarians of a feather quack together.

Story here:

A top Paul aide confirmed the alliance of Mr. Paul and Mr. Norquist on immigration reform, after The Times received a copy of an email sent to Republicans, Democrats, independents and others thought to be open to some kind of reform.

Cantor's opponent Brat won without money, especially Tea Party money, and was outspent 20-1

The Hill reports here that Cantor spent over $1 million on the primary and that Tea Party groups did not fund Brat at all:

Brat defeated Cantor, a six-term incumbent, despite having no experience in elected office and being outspent by nearly 20-to-1. ... Unlike elections in Mississippi and Kentucky, major conservative and Tea Party groups did not flood Cantor’s district with money and rallies. ... Cantor spent more than $1 million on the primary and attacked Brat for serving on an advisory board for former Gov. Tim Kaine at a time when the Democrat was pushing tax increases.

USA Today story about Tea Party defeating Cantor is total crap

The story here quotes some law professor who claims the Tea Party strongly supported Brat when no major Tea Party group supported Brat at all:

"Brat ran an aggressive campaign with strong Tea Party support and perhaps some voters felt that Cantor was not doing enough for those in his home district," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who resides in Cantor's district.

No major Tea Party groups played a role in Eric Cantor's defeat: they were caught by surprise at leadership dinner

Cantor's defeat had to do with his immigration amnesty activism, and the Tea Party is soft on the issue, which is why it didn't endorse Brat.

Reported here:

It was supposed to be a casual dinner of tea party and conservative movement leaders at the Virginia home of ForAmerica chairman Brent Bozell to talk about upcoming races in 2014.

But while the group was still nibbling on cheese and crackers, Tea Party Patriots President Jenny Beth Martin checked the early returns in Tuesday’s GOP primary pitting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor against a little-known challenger. ...

One of the most stunning aspects of Mr. Brat’s victory was that none of the major tea party groups apparently played a role. Most are currently focused on the runoff hundreds of miles away in Mississippi pitting incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran against state Sen. Chris McDaniel. Talk show hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin helped to rally the troops in Virginia, Ms. Martin said. ...

Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks for America, which did not endorse Mr. Brat, said that Mr. Cantor’s defeat proves the rules of politics are changing. Some grassroots leaders in Virginia, he said, have more Facebook contacts than some county Republican leaders.

Best News Since 2011: Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses in primary

The weenie is out!

But the seat may well go Democrat as a result. The question is, to which Democrat. The Republican winner, Brat, is perceived by some voters as someone who isn't really sure what he is. One thing's for sure: Cantor was ousted over his immigration squishiness. Radio host Laura Ingraham helped lead the charge against him on this issue and succeeded. Importantly, she noted today on the program that the Tea Party had abandoned Brat, meaning Brat is not a victory for the Tea Party. The Tea Party has been co-opted by open borders libertarians who secretly supported Cantor with their indifference.

The danger now is that Cantor will help broker a bad immigration deal with Obama, bad for Republicans and bad for the country, on his way out the door. 

Sink Sunk In FL 13 By Libertarian Spoiler In Low Turnout Special Election Where Fixing ObamaCare Got No Traction

Flashback to November 2010 when Eric Cantor already said he wanted to keep the good parts of ObamaCare and not repeal the thing outright. Eric Cantor never saw the Republican blowout in 2010 as a resounding verdict against ObamaCare, even though the Republican sweep of the House was history making. Newsmax reported Cantor's remarks here.

Today, repeal of ObamaCare is much more appealing than keeping it as is, by almost 2:1 in December polling by Gallup, here. Those who want to scale it back or expand it somehow to fix it are evenly divided in the polling data and together represent 40% of those polled. The polling overall, however, is negative on ObamaCare by 52% to 37%.

The narrowly won Florida 13 District seat this week by a Republican was a test of the Democrat strategy of running on a platform of fixing ObamaCare. It didn't work.

Politico reports here:

Democrats had hoped that defeating Jolly would show that they could beat the GOP’s anti-Obamacare offensive. Sink had embraced the national Democratic Party’s “fix it, don’t repeal it” mantra, which candidates across the country are expected to adopt this year.

Election results at 10 News WTSP here show that a libertarian spoiled the race for the Democrat Alex Sink. Usually libertarians ruin elections for Republicans, not Democrats. The libertarian strongly supported marriage equality and liberalization of marijuana laws.

Turnout was low in the narrowly Republican majority district where older voters weren't particularly engaged by ObamaCare, as reported separately, here.

Rep. Cantor Divines New Founding Principle Which Just Happens To Lead To Dream Act

Here:

"One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents."

-------------------------------------------------

Well, if anyone should know about founding principles, it's Eric Cantor:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." -- Exodus 20:5

Liberal Jonathan Turley Smells An Imperial President In Obama's 'Recess' Appointments

Because the Congress wasn't in recess:

Yet the latest recess appointments push this controversy to a new extreme. The shortest prior period for a recess appointment in recent history was a break of 10 days. In this case, Congress did not intend to take such a recess and took steps to "stay in business" to prevent any end run by the president. Under the Constitution, neither chamber of Congress can recess for more than three days without the consent of the other chamber. This winter, the House expressly declined to give consent — holding sessions every three days to prevent any recess appointments. Moreover, this session was hardly "pro forma." Just three days after going into the session in December, Congress passed the president's demand for a two-month payroll tax holiday extension. So the Obama administration was doing business with Congress on important legislation while simultaneously claiming that Congress was functionally out of session.

Yeah, but most of the House went home, leaving a skeleton crew behind to pass the payroll tax holiday extension for two months, repudiating an earlier vote in the House which called for a one year extension.

Just as bad, the skeleton crew also raised a tax on mortgages for two years to pay for the lousy two month extension. The new tax on mortgages is not just a first, but is utterly insane at a time when the Fed is doing everything it can to stimulate housing through long term interest rate interventions. A tax will only suppress home-buying.

If Republicans had any balls, they'd remove Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor for that.

It's not just an imperial presidency at work in this case, but an unrepresentative House of Representatives.

See Turley's complete remarks for USA Today here, which provide a very reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the conditions under which recess appointments may be made, i.e. when a vacancy occurs during a recess.

Obama's appointments didn't occur during a recess, and the vacancies didn't occur during one, so they're wrong. And so were George Bush's.

For Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Occupy Wall Street Anger Counts, ObamaCare Anger? Not So Much.

As quoted in the LA Times here:

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco on ABC’s “This Week,” essentially called [Rep.] Cantor a hypocrite for criticizing the Wall Street protesters while embracing the “tea party” movement.

“I didn’t hear him say anything when the tea party was out demonstrating, actually spitting on members of Congress right here in the Capitol, and he and his colleagues were putting signs in the windows encouraging them,’ Pelosi said.

Pelosi said she supported the movement’s “message.”

“I support the message to the establishment, whether it's Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” she said “We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry.”

On Third Anniversary of TARP, S&P 500 Closes at 1099.23, Same as it Did 3 Yrs. Ago

What are the chances of that?!

Spooky!

Pay attention to the hand in the following chart, and the dot under it, and the closing it signifies in small print in the upper right hand corner, which was a Friday three years ago, October 3, 2008, the end of a tumultuous week in American history on which President Bush signed the TARP legislation:

I remember this vividly, because Jim Cramer came on television the following Monday, October 6th, 2008 (after what seemed like a weeks' long freefall in the markets and sheer panic among the politicians trying to get TARP passed to save their donors' bacon on Wall Street) telling people to sell if they needed their money within five years.

Well, here we are, three years later . . . in the same place.

Do you still have your money? 25 million unemployed/underemployed don't.

You'll notice TARP, signed on this date three years ago, did nothing to stop the freefall in the markets. Obama and McCain both were for it. So were Sen. McConnell, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor. And most Democrats. The real fight against TARP was in the Republican Party, and we lost, as did they.

TARP's final cost to the taxpayer may end up as much as $37 billion, an amount similar to the paltry one House Speaker John Boehner was proud to report to great fanfare that he and the Republicans saved in the spring of this year on the budget the Democrats never passed as required by law last year.

Nor are the banks really healthy after nearly $80 billion in FDIC payouts for 396 bank failures. And let's not even talk about the housing sector, the vast repository of the wealth of the American people squandered in the "let the good times roll" of HELOCs, refinancing, and flipping.

OK, let's talk about it: household net worth, which for many is all about their homes' value, is about $7.7 trillion off peak, or back at levels last seen in . . . 1997.

As for Jim Cramer, well, telling people to sell in a panic is just stupid, as is telling people to buy in a panic. Those who kept their heads and were patient and held on and invested new sums along the way made some big money in the markets right up to August of this year.

Don't fight the Fed, as the saying goes, until the Fed stops fighting, which it just did . . . sort of.

The significance of today's market is that the S and P 500 is back where it was after all the TARP intervention, all the Federal Reserve emergency lending (massive! trillions! to foreigners too!), stimulus spending and quantitative easing has run its course.

We've declined, we're moving sideways.

I expect more of the same . . . until we decide it is important to do otherwise.