Michelle Malkin » Ashley Judd: Clown in wolf guardian’s clothing

Ashley Judd: Clown in wolf guardian’s clothing

By Michelle Malkin • February 6, 2009 09:03 AM

You have no doubt read about the grisly botched abortion case in Florida where the intended murder victim was born alive, then left in a trash can to die. The details of the story involve senseless savagery. The mother’s lawsuit says the clinic staff knocked the 23-week-old baby “off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.” The mother is horrified and deeply regrets the abortion; her lawyer said: “She came face to face with a human being And that changed everything.”

You won’t see pro-choice extremist Ashley Judd appearing in ads condemning such barbarism and speaking up on behalf of women suffering post-abortion trauma. You will, however, see her in those new animal-rights ads condemning the “senseless savagery” of predator control in Alaska. To paraphrase her favorite t-shirt: THIS IS WHAT A FOOL LOOKS LIKE.

***
Ashley Judd: Clown in wolf guardian’s clothing
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Actress Ashley Judd has finally earned her Hollywood stripes and provided award-winning comic relief. With Washington poised to shove a trillion-dollar “stimulus” pork pie down our throats, we need all the distractions we can get. I give Judd’s unintentionally entertaining performance in a new Sarah Palin-bashing animal rights ad two diversionary thumbs up.

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund sponsored the YouTube video starring Judd. They’ve dubbed their campaign, launched this week, “Eye on Palin.” With all the serious, socially responsible celebrity earnestness she could muster, Judd decried aerial hunting of wolves in the GOP Alaska governor’s state. “It is time to stop Sarah Palin, and stop this senseless savagery,” Judd intoned.

Casting herself as an environmental expert, Judd attacked Palin for “casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife.” The video shows a wolf being shot, writhing in pain, with an ominous soundtrack throbbing and menacing photos of Palin flashed across the screen. “Riddled with gunshots, biting at their backs in agony, they die (pause for quiver) a brutal death,” Judd enunciates slowly as wolf squeals punctuate the video. Defenders of Wildlife assails Gov. Palin for proposing a $150 bounty for every dead wolf killed by aerial hunters. She’s cruel and bloodthirsty and she must be stopped!

It’s a compelling, black-and-white story line. But like the world Ashley Judd inhabits, this plot is make-believe.

Fact is, the policy is intended to protect other animals – moose and caribou – from overpopulation of wolves. Alaskans rely on caribou and moose for food. Not all Americans care to live on environmentally-correct starlet diets of tofu salad and Pinkberry yogurt.

Neither Palin nor the aerial hunters in those scary low-flying planes that have Judd quivering promote the program out of malice and animal insensitivity. On the contrary, they are the true, compassionate conservationists. The bounty helped state biologists collecting wolf age data and provided incentives to reduce the wolf population when wildlife management efforts had fallen behind. This is about predator control. But to liberal, gun-control zealots thousands of miles away, it’s all heartless murder.
Federal law makes specific exceptions to aerial hunting for the protection of “land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops.” Targets are not limited to wolves. And, as Alaska wildlife officials note, the process is tightly controlled and “designed to sustain wolf populations in the future.”

No matter. As Judd proclaimed, “It is time to stop Sarah Palin.” That is the true aim of left-wing lobbying groups and their allies in Hollywood. Palin is a threat not to Alaska’s wolves, but to the liberal establishment’s wolves. Defenders of Wildlife isn’t targeting the ads in states affected by these policies. They’re running the Judd-fronted ads across battleground states. It’s about electoral interests, not wildlife interests. The eco-Kabuki theater is just plain laughable.

On a deadly serious note, Judd’s selective concern for savagery is not lost on longtime observers of the activist entertainer’s political forays. A militant, pro-choice feminist, Judd lashed out at the Republican ticket during the campaign: “[A] woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” Yet, not a peep has been heard from Judd about the serial predators of Planned Parenthood who have been caught on tape urging young girls to cover up statutory rape to facilitate abortion procedures. And she won’t be starring in any YouTube ads decrying grisly late-term abortion procedures.

In a starlet’s world, “senseless savagery” only applies to the poster pet of the month.

Posted in: Animal rights wackos, Hollyweird

Printer Friendly

comments (196)

trackbacks (12)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#615012

On February 7th, 2009 at 11:21 pm, undresiege said:

Look whose back to check on how their stuff played. Don’t worry, your fellow conservatives let you skate. You people crack me up.

On February 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am, Patronedheart said:
Too bad Naomi didn’t abort.
Off to shoot some squirrels infesting my attic.

These are your words dummy. Don’t try to backtrack and spin. You said “Too bad Naomi didn’t abort.”

Own it. You’re too much of a coward to stand by your own freaken words. What, you’re worried about what the other conservatives will think about you? You forgot that you save your “nasty stuff” for youtube and Savage Nation. I could give a crap about abortion, but at least I’m not a gutless phony like you.

On February 6th, 2009 at 11:04 am, Patronedheart said:
Too bad Naomi didn’t abort.

Of course that earns a “Stay classy Patronedheart”. It’s a good thing your mom didn’t abort, because I wouldn’t have had the good laugh provided by post #191. Laughing Out Loud
#615149

On February 8th, 2009 at 9:00 am, Patronedheart said:

Well well well! Looks who’s back to see if anybody cares what they think!
By the way, if you had squirrels eating through your electric lines, causing thousands of dollars in damages to your house, I’m sure you’d be inclined to shoot a few yourself, but I digress.
While sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit, it apparently it was lost on you. I couldn’t care less what people think of what I say. I’m held to a higher accountability than that of my fellow man. But, I’ll humor you. Perhaps what I should have said is that it’s ironic that Ashley was allowed to have a life that allows her to support something denies the same right to millions of other human beings. All my other conservative friends here already realize that, and know me well enough that I would never advocate the senseless killing of babies. I have 2 children, and another on the way.
I do, however, support the God given right to hunt, no matter how it’s done. Also, my mother was too smart to make stupid decisions like:
1. Having sex out of wedlock
2. Getting pregnant out of wedlock
3. Killing a human being for the convenience of not having to take responsibility for #’s 1 and 2.
So, stuff it bozo.
#615250

On February 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am, greenLibertarian said:

It’s good that Michelle understands the need to reduce the numbers of predators that unbalance and would destroy an ecosystem. If only she would consider the need for humans, the dominant predator on this planet, to reduce their numbers also. We are destroying our habitat and other species too.
#615344

On February 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm, Salt said:

I find it interesting that the only part of my comment to which undresiege and need2voice responded to was the last, which is essentially a distraction from the topic.

No, I do not agree with abortion, even for liberals with whom I disagree. I no more own what a conservative individual says than you own everything every liberal says.

But to focus on that rather than what Gov. Palin said is the distraction. I have not seen a response that discusses how the aerial fired bullet is more “disgusting” than the one fired from the ground. Nor have I seen a response about why you cannot hunt a predator animal the same way that you would hunt a grazing one. From all that I have read, the aerial approach is the most effective.

The commenter I responded to voiced disgust over the technique and not the fact that it was killing wolves. I was curious about the difference.
#615653

On February 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am, frostrt said:

On February 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am, greenLibertarian said:
It’s good that Michelle understands the need to reduce the numbers of predators that unbalance and would destroy an ecosystem. If only she would consider the need for humans, the dominant predator on this planet, to reduce their numbers also. We are destroying our habitat and other species too.

————————————–

Yes, we shouldn’t be concerned about the murdered baby in the story MM shared; after all, it was a reduction of the population of the “dominant predator on the planet”.

You, Sir or Madam, are disgusting.