Liberal New York Times celebrates $4.00 gas and death to the SUV!!!

I told you liberals are happy with $4.00 gas prices! No, you will never here a liberal politician say it. No, they will say things like we need to conserve fuel, lessen our dependency on oil by finding alternative fuel sources, but here is a piece from the New York Times that confirms my assumptions that liberals are happy with $4.00 gas because of “global warming.”

The New York Times says $4.00 gas is good for the global warmers because the SUV era is coming to an end.

“It’s hard to convince most Americans that there is a silver lining to $4-a-gallon gasoline. But General Motors provided a nugget of good news when it announced that it would shutter much of its production of pickups and sport utility vehicles…”

“A nugget of good news?” Do these liberals ever take into consideration how many jobs were lost at GM in this “nugget of good news?” Of course that doesn’t matter, after all we are trying to save a world from the gas guzzling SUV that is causing “global warming.”

The Times goes on to tell us higher gas prices can take as much of 15% of the income from rural families where pickup trucks are a necessity more than a way of life. It also tells us higher gas prices is the cause of rising food prices and hurting the economy but then in the very next paragraph:

“Still Americans’ response to rising gasoline prices makes an excellent case for a gas tax. It proves that drivers will change their behavior in response to high fuel prices. And even if Detroit doesn’t buy global warming, drivers can help persuade it to embrace fuel efficiency. They don’t even have to know that the Honda Civic emits less than half the 13 tons of greenhouse gases spewed by the Ford F-150.”

Finally…a liberal proves my theory taxes are used to influence behavior. Now doesn’t that sound like freedom?

More importantly though, this liberal is basically saying the hell with the economy, the hell with rising food prices; we need higher fuel prices to prevent “global warming.”

Here is an article from a 1993 New York Times. You might be surprised what it has to say about climate change.

See if you can guess the publication these quotes about Iraq came from: "For that reason, the American liberation tasted sweetest to the Shiites, who for the first time were able to worship freely." Believe it or not the New York Times!

New York Times' "Hit Job" on John McCain

Looks like the media infatuation with the “Maverick” has come to an end. This is what happens when you become the republican front-runner.

The front-page story of today’s New York Times contains a story about an alleged affair John McCain had with a lobbyist about eight years ago. Now this story has very little details or evidence other than reports from several unnamed former aids claiming to have kept the lobbyist Vicki Iseman, away from McCain. It is a real "hit job" by the New York Times and a despicable attack.

Leave it to the New York Times to bring up an alleged affair and scandal that happened eight years ago, has already been investigated and cleared McCain of any wrongdoing.

If you are a frequent reader here, then you know I am no fan of John McCain. However, I feel attacks like this are always unwarranted and unjustified, but if the Times is going to run such front page stories then where is the story on Huma Abedin?

If you google Huma Abedin you will find numerous stories suggesting Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin have been engaged in a long-term lesbian relationship. These stories are just as well sourced as the McCain lobbyist story. So, where is the front-page story at the Times on Huma and Hillary?

Personally I could care less about either one of these stories. Who John McCain did or didn’t have an affair with eight years ago is not going to effect the way he leads this country, the same for Hillary. How about we get back to the issues that matter.

Perhaps the Times should investigate voting records instead of life in the bedrooms of republican candidates…just a thought.