Unfortunately, blame can't just be put on Johnson.
Trump was scheming with the GOPe behind the scenes as well.
Michael Tracey
@mtracey
Trump strategized with Lindsey Graham and other GOP Senators to pass Ukraine funding, the Wall Street Journal reports, which led to the adoption of Trump's fake "loan" proposal in the final legislation. "Payback is contingent on defeating Russia."
Per Graham, Trump looks forward to extracting Ukraine's vast natural resources -- an extension of his prior philosophy to "take the oil" from Iraq and Syria.
"Trump's stance was key" in assuring the passage of the bill, according to the WSJ, as were the "religious convictions" of Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump's emissary in the House.
Just before the bill was passed, Trump dined with Polish President Duda in NYC, at Trump's invitation. Duda was in the US on a lobbying tour to press for Ukraine funding. The next day, Trump wrote his Truth Social post declaring Ukraine a vital "US national security interest."
And so -- there you have it. Now we have at least another couple years of war in Ukraine underwritten by the US taxpayer, at Trump's personal behest.
The AlwaysTrump contingent kept telling me that Trump's position on Ukraine was clear and strong, and Ron DeSantis' was weak and vacillating. They never bothered to actually read Trump's statement on Ukraine -- he did have a strong statement, he said he'd strongly fund Ukraine -- and just attributed to him the position they wanted him to have, and then clubbed Ron DeSantis over the head with a position they claimed to be Trump's but never, ever was.
Trump benefits from the same effect that Obama noted -- "I am a blank screen upon which people can project their wishes."
I was never strongly against funding Ukraine. I don't know how we got into this weird position of agreeing with the hard left's position on Russia before they suddenly reversed themselves and all declared, "We have ALWAYS been against Eastasia."
But I did want such funding, which I do not particularly care for, at least tied to something I do care about, US border security.
But nope.
Voters are tiring of the Uniparty's singular focus on the integrity of Ukraine's borders.
Nolte tells us about a Heritage USA poll.
With a margin of error of 3.1 points, between April 2-4, the Heritage Foundation polled 1,000 swing voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. The questions focused on the ongoing funding of Ukraine versus securing our own border and found that a majority have soured on Ukraine and want our border secure.
When asked, "Is it more important to secure [America's southern] border or to provide funding to Ukraine," only 11 percent of swing voters sided with Ukraine. In comparison, 50 percent said they wanted our border secured.
"In thinking about U.S. border security and the situation in Ukraine," read the next question, "which of the following is the best approach?" A clear majority of 54 percent chose "spending more money to secure the U.S. border than to help Ukraine."
Only 23 percent chose "spending an equal amount" on both Ukraine and our border. Even fewer, just ten percent, said more money should be spent defending Ukraine's border over our own.
When asked if the $113 billion the U.S. has already sent to Ukraine is "too much, too little, or about the right amount of aid," 56 percent said it was either "far" (31 percent) or "somewhat" (25 percent) "too much." But only 12 percent said the $113 billion was "far" (3 percent) or "somewhat" (9 percent) "too little." Those who said the $113 billion was "about the right amount" totaled just 16 percent.
The next question asked if those surveyed would "favor or oppose" a proposal that provided "funding for Ukraine but no funding to secure the southern border." A whopping 75 percent either "somewhat" (25 percent) or "strongly" (50 percent) opposed putting Ukraine's security above our own (which is what Democrats, the corporate media, and establishment Republicans want). On the flip side, only 17 percent said they "strongly" (5 percent) or "somewhat" (12 percent) support putting Ukraine's security above our own.
A Democrat voted for the Ukraine funding with this benediction: "Die, MAGA, die."
A New York Democratic congressional candidate celebrated the House passing a $60 billion bill to fund Ukraine while hoping for the death of the MAGA movement, a message posted to X shows.
"Slava Ukraine," New York congressional candidate Nate McMurray posted to X Saturday afternoon.
"Die MAGA die. You lose," he added of former President Trump's supporters and those who agree with the "Make America Great Again" platform.
McMurray's tweet followed the US House passing a bill Saturday that provides $60 billion to Ukraine amid the nation's ongoing war against Russia. The aid package passed 311 to 112, with more Republicans voting against the bill, at 112, than Republicans who voted for it, at 101.
Columbia pro-Hamas protesters drove dirty Jews off parts of the campus they occupied. (Irony.)
NBC says don't worry, physically ejecting Jews from a campus they paid to be at (and actually earned their place to be admitted to) is just some more "mostly peaceful" protesting of the sort we saw in the Summer of Love.
In case you were worried that global warming may harm the Greatest Victims in the world, the LGBT Stasi, I am afraid I must confirm your deepest fears: Global warming will harm "gay couples" the most.
A new study out of UCLA says same-sex couples are at greater "risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change" than straight couples.
These effects include "wildfires, floods, smoke-filled skies, and drought," according to a report from KQED.
Same-sex couples disproportionately live in coastal regions and cities, which are more vulnerable to such disasters. They're also more likely "to live in areas with poor infrastructure, worse-built environments."
Washington DC, which rates high for "climate risks" such as heat waves, floods, and "dangerously strong winds," has the greatest proportion of gay couples in the U.S.
San Francisco ranks second, and also faces a high climate change risk. According to KQED report, the city's Leather & LGBTQ Cultural District flooded 22 years ago, "swamping" the entire area. The closest supermarket, Rainbow Grocery, also got flooded.
Second look at Global Warming?