Ashley Judd, who doesn’t understand Alaska’s conservation efforts to protect moose and caribou has been recently beclowning herself in an advertising campaign for the moonbat group “Defenders of Wildlife”, (who should change their name to “Defenders of Predators”, because they clearly don’t care about their prey).
Tim Graham of Newsbusters remarked on the irony of it all:
Last year, Judd appeared on a panel of the Clinton Global Initiative and promoted her pro-abortion agenda. She declared to our gang at CNSNews.com that “a woman voting for McCain and Palin is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.” So let’s get this straight. According to the humanitarian ethics of Ashley Judd, Sarah Palin shouldn’t allow wolves to be shot from an airplane, but she should allow human babies to have their skulls vacuumed out and killed in a partial-birth abortion. Who here is in favor of “senseless savagery” again?
I’m not sure where Judd proclaimed that she was for partial birth abortion, but Planned Parenthood certainly is, and I suspect that someone as stridently pro abortion as Judd knew of Obama’s extreme postion on abortion before she happily voted for him. So I’m guessing she’s okay with it.
Anyhoo…you might want to visit Moonbattery for an interesting photoshop, and an awesome link to a story by someone who spent some time with Ashley on a humanitarian trip to Africa with Youth AIDs in 2005. Primadonna doesn’t even begin to cover it…
See also IOWNTHEWORLD which has a rather sick, twisted compromise for Ashley.
Actually, I like this idea, better.
Senator Collins has said that she may not vote for the final bill after it comes back from the conference committee if it returns with more pork put back into it. Never mind the fact that not nearly enough pork has been taken out, and the Congressional Budget office says that we’ll be getting out of the recession in 2009 regardless of the stimulus bill, and in fact the stimulus may actually do more harm than good. What do the Senate compromisers think of this?:
The pertinent part of the transcript via Gateway Pundit:
“I think there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush Administration, some important priorities of our party, frankly of the American people. And, the question is does it belong in the stimulus bill or does it belong in the appropriations bill. I think some of the money that we cut in the compromise to get the votes that we have was in fact spending that more appropriately should go in an appropriations bill.”
Senator Claire McCaskill
On the Obama Stimulus Bill
Meet the Press
February 8, 2009
Yep. Claire McCaskill admits that democrats are going to spend the $100 billion cut away in the senate for a compromise whether it is put back into this bill or another one.
Legal Insurrection sums it up:
So McCaskill, at least, recognizes that the “compromise” is not a real compromise. The spending “cuts” which induced Republican Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector to support the “compromise” Senate bill are a ruse. There has been no agreement by Democrats not to spend the money, only not to spend it in the “stimulus” bill.
My favorite part of the transcript:
I think there was some spending in the bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush Administration, some important priorities of our party, (oopsie! I mean) frankly of the American people.