"No one should forget or underestimate the degree to which President Donald Trump empowered Russian aggression."

“President Trump at a pretty critical period withheld military assistance to Ukraine,” which was “desperate for it at that particular junction, basically to get [Ukrainian President] Volodymyr Zelensky to do him a personal favor,” former Russia adviser (and witness in the Ukraine extortion impeachment) Fiona Hill said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “Well, that sends a message to Putin that Ukraine is a plaything for him, and for himself as well, and for the United States. And that nobody’s really serious about protecting Ukraine.”

She added that this was “ultimately a sign of weakness” and that Russian President Vladimir Putin must be “quite shocked now that we’ve got some collective action together.”

Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton has also explained how his former boss enabled Putin. “It’s just not accurate to say Trump’s behavior somehow deterred the Russians,” Bolton said on Newsmax. Many have asked why Putin waited to attack Ukraine. Bolton’s answer is the most logical we’ve heard: Putin was waiting for Trump to withdraw from NATO in his second term.

Republicans have yet to break with Putin’s poodle or to account for their own betrayal of Ukraine in voting to acquit Trump for extorting Zelensky. If they had successfully reelected Trump, is there any doubt the NATO alliance would be in shambles and Ukraine left out in the cold?

But what a difference an election makes. President Biden has helped revitalize NATO — or, perhaps more accurately, has helped make it stronger than at any time since the Cold War. Instead of threatening, insulting and ignoring NATO, Biden from the start of his presidency corralled the member states, emphasized democracy as the unifying thread tying Europe to the United States, and reiterated again and again that other countries have the right to chart their own future.

In an article about the meticulous preparations Biden undertook in the weeks leading up to the invasion, the New York Times reports that American diplomats “had held hundreds of meetings with European officials” by the time Russia “began massing troops in the fall. In a striking break from practice, the C.I.A. disclosed detailed intelligence about Mr. Putin’s war plans, including so-called false-flag operations that Russia could use as a pretext to strike.” That unusual move “stripped Russia of any element of surprise.”

It takes nothing away from the Europeans — who now genuinely fear for their own security — to say that the response would not have been as robust or as fast without Biden’s planning.

Once the fighting began, the Pentagon leapt to action, arranging critical arms shipments. The day after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called his Ukrainian counterpart, the Times reports, “the White House approved another $350 million package of weapons and equipment for Ukraine that Pentagon officials said began flowing within days — lightning speed, as arms shipments go.” Now, we are considering a deal with Poland that would provide Ukraine with desperately needed aircraft.

The GOP’s belated cheering for Ukraine should not disguise the inconvenient and damning fact that until a couple of weeks ago, Republicans failed to challenge Trump’s efforts to placate and embolden Putin. They never broke with him, even after he betrayed our security interests and those of Europe. They still contemplate reelecting him. Former vice president Mike Pence now says there is no place in his party for Putin apologists. Too bad he worked for one and fought to reelect him.

Voters should take note. Given our status as the world’s only superpower and leading democracy, it is essential — and unbelievable that we must state this — that the U.S. president be an unwavering defender of democracy and unapologetic supporter of NATO. When that position is not asserted, authoritarian aggressors notice."

Jennifer Rubin

Imports of Russian petroleum into the United States is about to stop if Congress gets off their butts and passes the bill they're talking about.

Apparently there's a building swell with enough bipartisan support for it to likely withstand a potential presidential pocket veto.

The United States has only imported 1% of Russian petroleum products for our needs in the recent past, so the impact on us won't be as bad as Europe will see.

If you're not old enough to remember the oil crisis which began in October of 1973, and led to gas rationing in 1974, you should do a bit of research on that subject.

I remember it well.

At the time I was taking riding lessons near my home, but dating someone who owned a show horse and lived about 45 minutes away. Trucking the horse up to the trainer every Saturday resulted in the car needing to be filled up before being able to return home with the horse.

During that rationing period, some jobs were exempt from the rationing limits.

Twice I was tasked with taking the car down the street to fill it, presenting the letter, stating that the car owner was a traveling insurance salesman so the car could be filled up. With that letter, a full tank was guaranteed no matter what the date was, while others were limited to fill-ups on either odd or even days based on the last digit on their license plate. Other areas of the country limited the volume a driver was able to purchase.

That oil crisis resulted in the national speed limit being set at 55 to conserve fuel. It also resulted in the establishment of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the creation of the fuel economy standards.

In today's gas price inflation, drivers should be looking at ways to cut back on the amount of driving they're doing to reduce the pain at the pump.

Combine trips for errands, logistically plan your trips to prevent overlapping where you need to go. Map out your trips ahead of time to reduce the number of miles you're driving.

Start carpooling.

My dad carpooled to work for nearly the last 15 years he worked with two other men who lived near us and worked at the same plant which was 30 minutes away.

According to the Cato Institute, Chump failed at curbing illegal immigration but he was wildly successful in reducing legal immigration.

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-trump-reduced-legal-immigration-he-did-not-reduce-illegal-immigration

And claiming he did not allow as many into the country meant his deportation numbers would be lower is nothing more than another Dilbert2146 wet fart.

Chump claimed there were between 30 - 34 Million illegal immigrants in this country. IF he had reduced illegal immigration, doesn't it stand to reason that he would have had more resources and time to go after those that were already here?