I Am The Lorax! I Speak for the ... Kids?

Iris Somberg — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:27:00 GMT

You'd think that in producing a remake of Dr. Seuss's "The Lorax," Universal Pictures had fulfilled its liberal propaganda obligations for at least this fiscal quarter. After all, "The Lorax" is an environmentalist classic.

Alas, "Mr. Wells' 4^th Grade Class" of Brookline, Mass., wasn't satisfied, and thousands of left-wing zealots agreed, signing on to the kids' change.org petition. The petition went after Universal Pictures because the movie trailer and website didn't preach enough about the environment.

Wells wrote that the website needed to be improved and a "Lorax Tips" button needed to be added with environmental tips. Wells had his little activists post the petition and a video where the children state "their" concerns. One student decried in the video, "It can inspire more people to treat the Earth with the same care and respect you give a child." Left to Wells and other left-wing activists, that "care and respect" too often means using children to promote an agenda.

The petition has made its way around the blogosphere. Huffington Post Green encouraged readers to sign the petition. (Change.org and Huffington Post are both part of the liberal echo-chamber funded by left-wing financier George Soros.)

Universal Pictures has already changed the film's website with the addition of "Go Green!" tips link in the shape of a Truffula seed, which is "what the kids wanted." (The Truffula is the fictitious tree the Dr. Suess' story revolves around.) There, visitors "get tips from the Lorax on how to be more friendly to the environment!"

"The Lorax Project" asks visitors to join the cause. There is a pledge, a printable certificate and a list of actions to help the environment. There is also a Lorax letter factory where people can go send green e-cards to their friends, letting them know orange (the color of the Lorax) is the new green.

No word on whether Universal will acquiesce to some of the petition's other suggestions to "make Dr. Seuss proud," like handing out tree seeds after movie showings. Simply remaking "The Lorax" should be enough to make the greenies happy. Instead, they ask for green in print and TV advertisements, and the movie credits.

Obama to Call for Increased Domestic Oil and Gas, says Journal

Julia A. Seymour — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:11:00 GMT

According to the Jan. 24, Wall Street Journal, President Barack Obama will focus part of his State of the Union address on energy security and the "benefits of increased U.S. oil and gas production."

This is almost laughable given Obama's many anti-energy decisions in the past three years as president. As recently as Jan. 18, his administration rejected TransCanada's bid to extend the Keystone pipeline by "linking the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico." The $7 billion Keystone XL project would have created thousands to tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S., and boosted American energy security.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, the rejection will cost more than jobs. IER president Tom Pyle said in a press release, "Since his original delay, President Obama has now ensured that American consumers to spend nearly $5 billion on overseas oil when we could be developing and utilizing our own vast resources in North America. With more than 1.7 trillion barrels of recoverable oil under our soil, we have enough oil to fuel our present needs for the next 250 years."

The liberal news media have given Obama a pass while he presided over huge increases in the cost of gasoline, from $1.84 the day he was inaugurated to $3.38 on Jan. 24. He instituted a drilling moratorium on deep water and shallow drilling that lasted six months following the Deepwater Horizon spill. There are now fears that pump prices may reach $5-a-gallon in some places, according to a Jan. 16 CNN.com story.

"After two federal courts said the moratorium was illegal, the Obama administration instead moved to a de facto moratorium, by issuing no permits, while speeding up the permitting process for wind farms," The Heritage Foundation wrote back in December 2010.

The Obama administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, has also waged war against the coal industry, while the broadcast networks ignored it. While at the same time, the administration has promoted huge subsidies for "green" energy for companies including Solyndra which have proven to be huge failures and massive wastes of taxpayer dollars.

National news outlets have often sided with the left when it comes to energy issues. They've berated oil executives, promoted calls for windfall profits taxation of oil companies, made accusations of price gouging and spread conspiracy theories about oil and gas. They rarely cover the coal industry except when accidents occur.

In 2008, the Business & Media Institute also found that despite a change in public attitudes toward nuclear power, broadcast news outlets were persistently silent on the topic years after stoking fears of nukes. Recently, the media have begun to go after hydraulic fracturing, a method used to release natural gas from rocks deep underground.

Washington Post Highlights Assisted Suicide on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Paul Wilson — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:35:00 GMT

On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Washington Post Magazine attacked conservative pro-life values on another front - by profiling the new "public face of American assisted suicide," Lawrence Egbert.

On January 22, the Washington Post Magazine's Manuel Roig-Franzia wrote a long profile of Lawrence Egbert, the former director of the Final Exit Network, who by his own admission has been present at 100 peoples' suicides, and "was responsible for signing off on all suicides" for the Final Exit Network.

Roig-Franzia began his piece by examining Egbert's suicide apparatus - while describing Egbert as a normal individual who was "slightly built, genial and energetic retired anesthesiologist with a snowy goatee" and "an 84-year-old doctor, who formerly served as a campus Unitarian Universalist Minister and has taught as an assistant visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University."

Roig-Franzia highlighted the suffering of some the people Egbert helped to commit suicide, noting of one victim that the "gum tissue deteriorated, exposing sharp bones that sliced his tongue; a hole the size of a quarter formed under his chin." Roig-Franzia wrote of another person Egbert killed: "Eating became an exercise in choking and spitting." However, others who qualified for death in Egbert's eyes were merely chronically depressed.

The profile highlighted Egbert's apparent self-doubt about his vocation, declaring that his "zeal is tempered by self doubt." Egbert did nothing to assuage the unease he created, noting "I could be part of a slippery slope to us becoming like Nazis - the Final Exit Network, and me as an individual." Despite Egbert's seeming unease about his work, the piece also noted two instances where Egbert screamed at opponents of his work.

Ironically, the piece ended with the admission that Egbert wants to choose a natural death for himself: "He hopes his body can be an example of a human being who died "a natural death," a death without extended suffering. A death without a hood."

Like his predecessor Dr. Kevorkian, Egbert refuses to choose the same death he "assists" others in procuring.

Roig-Franzia's profile did not spare readers the macabre details of assisted suicide, quoting Egbert: "In the final seconds before his patients lose consciousness and die, the words they utter sound like Donald Duck." When Roig-Franzia told Egbert that the hoods used to commit suicide made him "uncomfortable," Egbert responded: "I hope so."

Roig-Franzia acknowledged that assisted suicide was shrouded in controversy. His piece briefly touched on Egbert's legal troubles. Egbert was acquitted in one of his legal cases - but faces several other legal challenges. The piece talked about a "grieving but satisfied family member" of one of the men he killed, although it conceded that "Egbert began accumulating family members who felt aggrieved."

The piece mentioned Egbert's liberalism, noting that his wife was an anti-war activist who had been arrested more than 200 times. But the Post didn't mention that Egbert is on the board of the Maryland ACLU, which received $785,500 from liberal bankroller George Soros from 2000-2009.

Bizarre fascination with death - at both the beginning and end of life - is a hallmark of the left. George Soros' mother was part of the Hemlock Society - and Soros offered to help her commit suicide. Soros boasted about his funding of "The Project on Death in America" in his book "The Philanthropy of George Soros," declaring: "The Project on Death in America was perhaps our most successful domestic program."

Despite Soros' efforts, however, assisted suicide is only legal in a few states. By raising the issue of assisted suicide by profiling one of its foremost practitioners, the Washington Post Magazine seems to be trying to spark debate over whether or not to decriminalize the "right to die."

The piece, not coincidentally, was timed with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and published a day before the March for Life. By profiling the lifestyle of the new "public face of American assisted suicide" on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Washington Post Magazine exhibited a bizarre fascination with death - and could not have chosen a more callous time to show it.

Number One Priority? Obama's Actually Had 12 of Those Since Taking Office

Dan Gainor — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:31:00 GMT

In December, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declared that ensuring "middle-class Americans don't have their taxes go up on January 1^st" was the president's "number one priority." Perhaps it was, but what Carney failed to mention was that it was just one of up to 12 "number one priorities" declared by the president since taking office - many of them often conflicting or overlapping.

That's certainly not the media spin on every one of those "number one priority" items either. Network journalists have either mentioned or quoted Obama having a "number one priority" 26 times since he took office - from the economy, to healthcare, to national security. Not once have they pointed out that he often has multiple such priorities at the same time. In, fact, in his three years as president, ABC, CBS and NBC have only mentioned five of the 12 "number one priorities." And only the economy was mentioned by all three networks.

Obama started off 2010 with a bold statement about the state of the economy. "One in 10 Americans still can't find work. That's why creating jobs has to be our number one priority in 2010." Network journalists dutifully repeated the claim, citing it as the president's top priority 50 percent of the times (13 out of 26) times they discussed them. ABC mentioned it seven times.

In February, 2010, Obama reminded everyone that jobs had been in number one priority in 2009, not 2010. Responding to CBS anchor Katie Couric's question about whether he wished he had waited on healthcare reform, Obama said: "No, because keep in mind jobs were my number one priority last year."

Of course, shortly before that, on Jan. 26, he told ABC's "Good Morning America" something slightly different. "Here's what I said, was that our number one priority was stopping the economic contraction." Obama went on to discuss jobs, but as a secondary item.

Less than two weeks before that, on Jan. 14, NBC's Matt Lauer told viewers that the Haitian earthquake filled that role. Speaking to NBC anchor Brian Williams, he added, "And, Brian, the president reiterated that the number one priority is getting out there and saving lives and getting supplies and medical assistance to people in need."

But jobs were still at the top of Obama's plans in 2011, according to ABC's David Wright. "At the White House, creating jobs is now the number one priority because the president knows keeping his job may depend on it," he told viewers Aug. 31.

But if jobs had been a "number one priority" all along, it wasn't alone. When Osama bin Laden was finally tracked down, that too became a "number one priority" … for 2009 and every day since. Vice President Joe Biden spoke to the troops at Fort Campbell, Ky., on May 6, 2011 about bin Laden. He told them Obama "decided, when he got into office, because of the fight you all were in from the beginning, that the number one priority was to get Osama bin Laden."

So that "number one priority" lasted from Jan. 20, 2009, to May, 2011. In that time, it conflicted with eight other similar "number one" administration priorities from responding to the BP oil spill to "thinking about you and your families each and every day."

Not only did Obama's "number one priorities" often conflict or overlap, but what journalists claimed were the priorities were different still. On Dec. 6, 2009, when jobs, the economy and jobs, or Osama bin Laden were supposedly the priority, New York magazine's John Heilman told Chris Matthews it was healthcare reform. Matthews asked Heilmann, "What's his number one priority right now?" Heilmann was clear: "Well, I think if health care fails, his presidency in ruins."

He wasn't alone. ABC's George Stephanopoulos made the same claim when speaking about healthcare to Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, saying, "both you and President Obama have really said that the number one priority has to be to get costs under control."

Sometimes, those priorities just get entirely confusing. In one Jan. 5, 2012, press conference, Press Secretary Jay Carney mentioned two separate "number one priorities" within a few minutes. Those included the amorphous idea of facing challenges head on and the more typical "doing everything he can within his power to help the American people, to grow the economy and to create jobs."

Obama nears the end of his first term as president having averaged four "number one priorities" each year.

Two Broadcast Networks Ignore Soft Recall of Chevy Volts

Julia A. Seymour — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:00:00 GMT

In November 2011 it became public knowledge that the Chevy Volt could possibly catch fire weeks after a serious accident. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened its investigation into the matter on Nov. 25. Now General Motors is trying to recall all of the Volts for "enhancements," all while attempting to avoid the word recall. ABC and NBC are also avoiding the topic.

On Jan. 5 Associated Press reported that GM "will ask Volt owners to return the cars to dealers for structural modifications." NPR reported that "GM is fixing the cars under a customer service campaign. That's kind of like a recall, but it comes without the bad publicity or the federal scrutiny of a safety recall."

GM certainly isn't getting much scrutiny from the mainstream news media over the recall of the heavily subsidized autos. Two of the three broadcast networks have so far avoided sharing this story about the Volt, a gas-electric plug-in hybrid vehicle that they have hyped since January 2007.

Many network stories have touted the gas mileage of the vehicle, some even claimed the Volt could go hundreds of miles without gas. Yes, but only if you stop to charge it roughly every 35-40 miles (depending on driving conditions) since the car switches to its gasoline motor after the initial electric charge runs out. That could take four hours, according to one CBS report.

Neither ABC, nor NBC have mentioned GM's decision to fix the roughly 8,000 Chevy Volts by reinforcing the area around the batteryes since that news came out Jan. 5, 2012. Only CBS mentioned it on the "Evening News" that night and again on CBS "Morning News" Jan. 6, according to a Nexis search.

In 2009, Chevy had billed the car "as the great green hope" according to NBC's Phil LeBeau who didn't dispute it back then, although he did note that the $40,000 price tag was "a little steep." He predicted that "a lot of people will be interested in this car" if gas prices are high when it gets rolled out. Two years later, after the car became available to the public, CBS's Chris Wragge spoke of "tremendous demand" for the Volt and the Nissan Leaf. But AP noted in its Jan. 5, 2012 story that GM sold only 7,671 Volts in 2011 - falling short of its goal of 10,000.

In 2009 and 2010, network favoritism for electric vehicles was obvious. While declaring Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) "dying," the networks celebrated the popularity of hybrids. But Edmunds.com showed that over that time the SUV market share grew or remained stable while the hybrid market share declined. In July 2010 alone, SUVs outsold hybrids 4 to 1. Yet the Business & Media Institute found that ABC, CBS and NBC aired nearly twice as many stories about the Volt (42) as they aired on the top five selling SUVs combined (24).

Ironically, in April 2011, the networks reported the first ever safety ratings for electric cars. The Volt and its main competitor, the all-electric Nissan Leaf, got "the highest safety rating possible" for front, side and rear impact crashes and rollovers.

AP reported that the first Volt fire took place in June at a crash test site, three weeks after testing the car. Both the NHTSA and GM say that no fires have happened following "real-world" accidents.

A year before the Volt was ever talked about, the media was promoting conspiracy theories about the death of electric vehicles. PBS examined the death of the electric car from the Michael Moore-like lens of filmmaker Chris Paine's movie "Who killed the Electric Car?" According to Paine, foul play killed the electric car, not the mileage and refueling limitations. Even with tax incentives for electric vehicles, demand just wasn't there.

99 Percent? Top 25 Occupy Wall Street Backers Worth $4 Billion

Paul Wilson — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:17:00 GMT

Occupy Wall Street attacks income inequality and the richest 1 percent, adopting as its slogan ''we are the 99 percent.'' In October, its protesters staged a ''millionaires march'' in New York City, parading to the homes of wealthy citizens such as Rupert Murdoch and David Koch. But only some riches bother the Occupiers, who have ignored the massive wealth of celebrities in their own ranks.

The top 25 richest celebrities supporting Occupy Wall Street, according to the website Celebrity Net Worth, possess a combined net worth just over $4 billion.

While JP Morgan and Chase banker Jamie Dimon (worth $200 million) was one of the targets of the ''millionaires march,'' he has a net worth less than five of the celebrities supporting OWS.

That's not surprising. Many of the celebrities supporting Occupy Wall Street seem to be oblivious to the amount of wealth they possess.

Comedienne Roseanne Barr, (worth $80 million), was quoted quite literally calling for the heads of wealthy, declaring: ''I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty. I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million. And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded.''

Barr inadvertently called for the heads of 13 celebrities supporting the Occupy Wall Street who make more than $100 million from singer Miley Cyrus to writer Stephen King.

Sometime singer Yoko Ono (#1 on the list, at $500 million) is a descendant of a prominent Japanese banking family. Her late husband John Lennon wrote 'Imagine' in a Park Avenue penthouse. She threw in her support for the movement, saying 'John is sending his smile to Occupy Wall Street.'

Former actress and fitness guru Jane Fonda (worth $120 million), who famously supported communism during the Vietnam War, attacked the wealthy when she threw her support to the Occupiers. ''Any country that has a very, very small narrow layer, of very rich powerful privileged people and no middle class and the rest are just really struggling and some of them not making it, is a country that's not going to be stable.''

Ranked No. 14 was former Vice President Al Gore (worth $100 million), who is better known for his climate change activism and his patronage of private jets. He has also supported Occupy Wall Street, calling it a ''true grassroots movement pointing out the flaws in our system.''

Even those on the list who didn't make the $100 million mark, still have extensive wealth. Liberal actor Alec Baldwin (worth $65 million), a spokesman for Capital One Bank, inveighed against ''the bailouts the US government gives major corporations every day' and 'the excessive fees forced on customers by certain banks'' on the Huffington Post.

Wealthy Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore (worth $50 million) was further down the list but still had enough money when he paid a million dollars for a luxury car and bought a 10,000 square foot vacation home. On Oct. 25, Moore was brazen enough to deny that he was a member of the 1 percent on CNN's ''Piers Morgan Tonight.'' (He was later forced to admit that he was a member of the 1 percent.)

Discredited former CBS anchor Dan Rather (worth $70 million) decried the influence of ''big money'' in American society, even in news reporting, saying: ''we are living in an age when big money owns everything, including the news.''

(He may have been referencing liberal donor George Soros' massive funding of journalism.)

Some celebrities supporting the Occupy movement do not seem to have a firm grasp of what the movement is about. Rapper Jay-Z (worth $450 million) got in trouble for trying to sell T-shirts to Occupiers without ''sharing'' the proceeds. Rapper Kanye West, worth $70 million, showed up to the Occupy Wall Street Movement wearing gold chains.

The attempts of these celebrities to rationalize their own wealth while protesting the wealth of others is astonishing.

Here is a list of the 25 richest (26 thanks to a tie) celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million

2. Jay-Z - $450 million

3. David Letterman - $400 million

(tie) Stephen King - $400 million

5. Russell Simmons - $325 million

6. Sean Lennon - $200 million

7. Mike Myers - $175 million

8. George Clooney - $160 million.

9. Brad Pitt - $150 million

(tie) Don King - $150 million

11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million

12. Jane Fonda - $120 million

(tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million

14. Al Gore - $100 million

15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million

(tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million

17. Kanye West - $70 million

(tie) Dan Rather - $70 million

19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million

(tie) Matt Damon - $65 million

21. Tom Morello - $60 million

(tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million

23. Katy Perry - $55 million

24. Michael Moore - $50 million

(tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

(tie) Zack de la Rocha - $50 million