Jennifer Granholm sure doesn't look too upset over the impact of the shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline on gasoline and other energy supplies.  The national security issues?  Fuhgeddaboudit.  Don't you realize it's good for you to learn to get along without fossil fuels?  Did you realize that if you drive an electric car, this wouldn't be a problem?

Watch as a reporter's question on whether the shutdown would "speed up" the transition to green energy yields utterly inappropriate (and chilling, if you think about it) smiles from Granholm:

Twitter video screen grab.

Absolutely ghoulish. Never let a crisis go to waste!

White House reporter eagerly asks Energy Secretary Granholm how these gas shortages due to the Colonial pipeline will help the administration push people toward accepting renewable energy. pic.twitter.com/2EYiHvtVdP

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 11, 2021

Sacrifices are going to have to be made, and it's the little people who must make them.  Don't expect Granholm to take the bus to work or swear off private jets.

And don't call what's going on a "gasoline shortage"!  That's too reminiscent of Jimmy Carter.  Call it a "supply crunch"!  She's got her glasses on to show how concerned and well informed she is, but the smiles still sneak through:

Twitter video screen grab.

Energy Sec. Jennifer Granholm says that the current gasoline situation is a "supply crunch," not a "gasoline shortage." pic.twitter.com/KL6PX9FIqf

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 11, 2021

The New York Times is doing everything it can to minimize the political fallout for Biden of this fiasco — even going full Orwell and denying the reality of gasoline shortages supply crunches:

Colonial Pipeline, a vital U.S. fuel artery that was shut down by a cyberattack, said it hoped to restore most operations by the end of the week. Since the shutdown, there have been no long lines or major price hikes for gas.

Here’s what to know. https://t.co/kX58tBAd78

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 11, 2021

If you follow the link on this tweet, you'll observe that the Times edited out this embarrassing counterfactual bit of propaganda from the story (without acknowledging the change).  They certainly have nothing to fear from the Twitter "fact-checkers."

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.