Palin's Deceptions

When I was Living There...

2009-07-12T08:43:00.000-07:00

On July 9th, Levi Johnston gave a press conference in his lawyer's office in Alaska.

He states clearly and explicitly that he was living with the Palins before she was selected as McCain's running mate. What? BEFORE late August 2008? Why would he be living there then?

1. He's lying. Palin's spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, has already released a statement claiming this.

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skills," Palin family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

The Palins have steadfastly denied that Levi ever "lived" with them, though it's been reported in numerous publications, including People magazine, which has over the months tended to be quite favorable to Palin.

2. He's telling the truth. So why would he have been living with the Palins prior to August 2008? Because they liked Levi and were cool about Levi and Bristol's relationship and openly allowed their daughter's boyfriend to spend the night? OR Because Levi and Bristol were jointly caring for a child who was not born on December 27, 2008?

Since Levi began going public in spring of 2009, thing just have not added up. There have been lots of little slip-ups. Sherry Johnston described to People magazine on (or around) January 5th how Levi and Bristol had spent their first "weeks" as parents. Only problem was that, as of January 5th, Tripp supposedly was barely a week old, had not even been home from the hospital a full week, and simultaenously the Anchorage Daily News was reporting that Levi was not even IN Wasilla.

When Levi was describing to Larry King how they told Sarah that Bristol was pregnant, he very clearly slips up and starts to say she was sixteen... then quickly corrects it to say "eighteen." Except she was neither, IF the Tripp pregnancy was "as reported." If Tripp was born December 27th 2008, and Levi stayed with the Palins to care for him, Bristol would have been 17 when she got pregnant. Here's the video... watch to around the four minute point. Look at Levi's eyes when he makes the slip up. He knows exactly what he said.

It's been stated in numerous places that Levi was actively involved with the Palins after the campaign right up until after Tripp's birth in late December. But then other places, Levi has stated that things started to fall apart "right after the campaign." And when Sarah Palin was interviewed in her home by Matt Lauer on November 11th, he asks her point blank about Levi and Bristol's plans. She won't even answer the question and is so cold to the topic that it's as if a door has slammed. It's more than clear that things were already off - way off - between Bristol and Levi as of that point. Yet ... he lived there - in December - prior to Tripp's birth?

Things that make you go HMMMM...

How to Lie with Statistics: Response to Progressive Alaska Part 2

2009-07-07T13:27:00.000-07:00

With Sarah Palin's resignation, the direction of this blog has taken a temporary detour. It has been impossible over the last five days to keep the focus on "Babygate," and ignore the larger implications of her resignation and the "hoopla" surrounding it. And I don't think anyone wants me to.

Is Sarah Palin still a viable national entity? I do not believe so. Her history of quitting is quite striking: she quit as mayor of Wasilla to run for Lt. Governor of Alaska (a race she lost.) She quit a major Alaskan appointment, that of chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Although a great deal has been made of this "protest" resignation, the reasoning is eerily similar to her resignation as governor. She could be more effective from outside of the commission than actually on it. But numerous people in Alaska have put a more mundane spin on this resignation. The job was reportedly a real full-time job with real full-time work. She was expected to produce, not just be a figurehead; she just was not up to it.

And now - with a year and a half left as governor she quit for reasons that she stated as mostly personal: things like adults being mean to Trig. (Whether her stated reasons are all there are is of course open for question, but for now let's take her at her word.)

But that still leaves us with the initial question of this blog, and as I said in the "Sarah Quits; We Won't" post several days ago, I do not intend to let this issue slide. I believe that there still is enough of a chance that Palin might emerge on the national stage that the truth about Trig's birth must come to light, once and for all. I still believe that the elements of the Republican Party that gave us Sarah Palin and kept her on the ticket (while - I strongly suspect - becoming aware at some point in the campaign that she had faked the pregnancy) must be held accountable.

I am continuing now with the multi-part post I began last week, before the resignation, in which I am attempting to consider a very long post written by Lee Tompkins, a labor and delivery nurse, last January, and reprinted several weeks ago by the blog Progressive Alaska.

I have received some criticism for doing this, including a comment from someone I respect, accusing me of doing nothing but "addressing nonsense arguments from a moron first posted months ago." But I disagree. These "nonsense arguments" form the basis of why some very reasonable people, who I do not think ARE morons, and who do not support Gov. Palin in general are still not on board with the idea that she faked a pregnancy, duping both Alaskans and the American people. And the topic of today's post - the Down Syndrome "proof" that Trig must be Sarah's - is one of the cornerstones of this.

__________________

Here's the link to Part 1 in case I have new readers who have not seen it.

This is the second part of my very long post, addressing the points raised in Lee Tompkins' article. In this installment, I intend to (try to) debunk one of the most persistent (and incorrect) assumptions in this whole issue: that Trig's Down Syndrome virtually proves that Sarah is his mother. I do apologize for all the math and numbers here, and realize that at times it's difficult to follow. But the problem is that this statistical proof is cited so often without anyone even understanding the numbers, that they only way to reasonably confront it is with the calculators on the desk.

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a Down's pregnancy in a 44-year old woman is 25 times greater than that of a teenager. Of course, overall more Down's babies are born in the younger age groups but that is reflective of the greater numbers of pregnancies occurring in younger women than older women. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

The writer's opinion here is clear. This statistic (i.e, that Sarah had a 25 times greater chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome) alone should virtually prove to us that Trig must be Sarah's.

This "proof" of Trig's parentage has haunted those of us searching for the truth since day one. Often people who appear to know virtually nothing about the "Who's Your Mommy?" controversy (except perhaps that there is one), all can unfailingly summon this one "fact": Trig MUST be Sarah's because older women have babies with Down Syndrome. I've seen it a thousand times in comments on blogs, gotten hundreds of emails that say the same thing. Trig has Down Syndrome; this proves Trig is Sarah's. Case closed.

What is the reality?

It IS more likely, much more likely in fact, that a woman over 40, on a given pregnancy, will conceive a child with Down Syndrome than a woman less than 20. No dispute. But every year in the U.S. about 300 babies with Down Syndrome are born to women under 20. Not a huge number, but not insignificant either. This is about the same number as babies born deaf to women under 20 (who have no family history of deafness.) Would we disbelieve the story if we are told that a teen mother would have a deaf child?

Furthermore, those who repeat this statistical argument ignore another, equally powerful one in the opposite direction, one that I have never heard confronted head-on, with real numbers, regarding this situation, and that is that Sarah Palin, at 43, had a far FAR lower chance of ever having a baby at all.

Natural fertility drops sharply after age 40, a fact that is now nearly lost in the perception of the general public. Every week, it seems, yet another celebrity well into her forties has a baby. Several in the last few years (Geena Davis and Nancy Grace to name two) have been quite near, even at, fifty. But many - probably the majority - of these women have had these babies with fertility assistance: injections to stimulate ovulation, hormonal support after conception to compensate for a body that is really too old to be having children, and in many (perhaps most) cases where the mother is over 42 or 43, the use of donor eggs. However, these private details are typically not made public, so the public knows only that a baby has been born. They have no realistic clue just how difficult and expensive it was to achieve that.

In addition, women are routinely counseled to stay on contraceptives into their late forties, yet are only rarely advised by their physicians as to how low their actual chances of becoming pregnant are. Because of this, the erroneous perceptions that older mothers conceive often and easily and that pregnancy after forty is likely are firmly ensconced into our national consciousness. (This is much to the dismay and sad disappointment of many women in their late thirties and early forties, who have delayed childbearing and are now discovering that the effects that aging has on fertility often cannot be overcome even with help.)

In reality, what are the chances that a 43 year old woman, who is presumably practicing some sort of contraception and who is not "trying" to get pregnant, in fact will get pregnant at all and then carry that child to near term? The odds are actually extremely poor.

Women who are over 40 face a double whammy: fertility drops every year, and simultaneously rates of miscarriage rise.

Consider the following:
1. At age 40, a woman who is demonstrably fertile still only has a 1 in 20 chance (5%) of getting pregnant in any given cycle. A teen has a 20-30% chance of getting pregnant in a given cycle. And that's age 40. Sarah Palin was 3 1/2 years older than this.
2. At age 40, even using in vitro fertilization, (involving medical assistance with precise timing and hormonal support) the pregnancy rate per cycle is only 10%.
3. The chances of a woman over 40 who is trying to get pregnant via in vitro using her own "old" eggs is one/sixth of that of getting pregnant with younger "donor" eggs. In fact, most clinics will not even use the eggs of women over 40 because the failure rate is so unacceptably high.
4. 50% of pregnancies in women 42-43 years of age end in miscarriage, compared with only 10% for women less than 30.
5. By age 40, 33% of previously fertile couples are infertile, and this rises to 90% by age 45. At age 43 1/2 (the age at which Sarah Palin is alleged to have become pregnant) the chances of her even still being fertile at all were only about 1 in 3. Read that again. Statistics tell us that Sarah Palin had a 66% chance of not being able to get pregnant at all.

Plus - the Palins have been clear that the pregnancy was unexpected, that their baby-having days were over, and that they were not trying to have a child. This can only mean one thing: some sort of family planning method was being used. This would have cut Sarah Palin's already-low chances of becoming pregnant much farther. Oral contraceptives are 95% plus successful in preventing pregnancy. Even condoms are supposedly 85-90% effective in preventing pregnancy if used correctly.

So let's whip out the calculators here. For this little calculation, I am going to ignore the issue of contraception. We can't know what sort of birth control anyone in this equation was using or how consistently and rigorously it was used. So, to simplify things, I am going to, using statistics, attempt to answer the following question. If you have a 43 year old woman and a 17 year old woman who are both "letting nature take its course" (i.e., both sexually active and neither using contraceptives) , what are the relative chances that, in a given single month, each will get pregnant and carry the baby to term?

In a given monthly cycle, at age 40, a fertile woman has a 5% (1 in 20) chance of conceiving. I could not find a comparable statistic for a 43 year old, so we'll use 5% while stipulating that the actual number is certainly lower for a 43 year old. However, don't forget that this is a fertile woman. By age 43, 2/3rds of previously fertile woman are infertile. This reduces that ACTUAL monthly chances of conceiving for a 43 year old to 5% x .33 or 1.66%. A random sexually active 43 year old woman not practicing contraception has only a 1 in 60 chance of getting pregnant each month.

A 17 year old has a 20-30% chance of conceiving per month. For simplicity, let's split that down the middle and say 25%. A random sexually active 17 year old woman not practicing contraception has a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant per month.

In other words - the seventeen year old's chances of getting pregnant in a given month are 15 times higher.

But that's not the end of the story because now, the much higher rates of miscarriage come into play.

The 43 year old has at least a 50% of chance of miscarrying the baby. This cuts the success rate in half, to .8%. The chance that a 43 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is less than 1 in 100.

The 17 year old, meanwhile, has a 7% chance of miscarriage. (Sources cite numbers any where from 5% to 10% - I am splitting the difference.) This gives us a successful pregnancy rate per month for the 17 year old of 23%. The chance that a 17 year old woman will get pregnant in a single month and carry the child to term is 23 in 100.

.8% for the 43 year old versus 23% for the 17 year old. 29 times more likely. Ironically, quite close to the often quoted statistic that Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in the older mother. So read that again. Understand what it really says. Yes, Down Syndrome is 25 times more likely in an older mother, but SUCCESSFUL PREGNANCY is 29 times more likely in the younger mother.

And don't forget, this result is for women NOT using contraceptives (Palin almost certainly was) plus this result was obtained using fertility rates for 40 year olds ( Palin was 43.) Both of these factors would reduce this already - low number even farther in this specific case.

Younger women can have babies with Down Syndrome, though it's rare. Older women can have babies with no medical assistance or support, though it's rare. But what the statistics do show is that those who USE Down Syndrome rates to argue that Trig must be Sarah's are totally missing the other bus: We could just as easily use overall fertility rates to argue that Trig must be Bristol's.

So return to the paragraph I quoted from Lee Tompkins article to start this post, now rewritten:

A couple of Google searches and it's not difficult to figure out that the likelihood of a pregnancy carried to term in a 17-year old woman is 29 times greater than that of a 43 year old. That statistic alone should be convincing enough, but it is probably not.

Feels funny when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it?

Now, to be explicitly clear: statistics are merely a guideline. Statistics do not prove anything either way. Trig has Down Syndrome. This in no way proves he is Sarah's. Trig exists. This in no way proves he is Bristol's (or any other younger mother's.)

And that's what needs to be taken away from this post.

PART 3 COMING SOON

Going Out on a Limb Here

2009-07-06T06:09:00.000-07:00

Like most of us who have followed Sarah Palin's rise (and now fall) over the last ten months (joining our colleagues in Alaska who have been watching more or less in horror for two additional years) the events of the last seventy two hours have taken our breath away. My good friend at Mudflats tried to post a summary of all that has happened, and ended up concluding:

Between the news of Palin’s resignation, the reaction of the mainstream media, the blogosphere, the Tweets, the Facebook updates, the threats of legal action against bloggers and the press, the statements from attorneys, and all the rest, I don’t think a single person on the face of the Earth could do a real wrap-up.

She's right of course.

But I am going out on a limb here. Something doesn't add up for me. I know that yesterday I was in there with the rest of them talking about Housegate and IRS and FBI and, to make it clear, I think there is some sort of investigation on-going. Rumors are rarely complete fabrications (where there's smoke, there's either fire or smoke, so it's usually something) and the rumors of a financial investigation into Palin have been so loud and so persistent coming from Wasilla that it's hard for me to believe personally that there is not something there.

But that having been said, again, somethin' just ain't right. Palin assured us that she had been planning this for weeks, but if that was the case, why did Todd leave town for the fishing season and then have to fly home to be there on Friday? (Sarah says this in her speech, though that line is not in the official transcript.) Why did Sarah "Tweet" as recently as 3:53 PM on June 29:

I dont support Waxman-Markey bill; I'll work w/AK Senators & others to address concerns, lacks flexibility needed to protect enviro & develp

and at 10:59 AM on Jul 1:

Congratulations to Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan as he is sworn in today! I look forward to working with him.

Does this sound to you like someone who is on the verge of resgining? It doesn't really to me.

Consider the following:

1. Todd himself was not back in Wasilla until Thursday night. Here it is in Palin's own words: "And I'm thankful that Todd flew in last night from commercial fishing grounds in Bristol Bay to stand by my side, as always."
2. Meghan Stapleton, Palin's poodle, who has been at her side almost continually for months was not even in Alaska on Friday. She was in New York.
3. Sarah had just hired a new press secretary in the past month, long time friend (and author of great reads "Why Men Hate Going to Church" and "How Women Help Men Find God") David Murrow. Snark aside, reading Murrow's info, he seems like a pretty straight-forward up-front nice guy. How bizarre, even cruel, that she'd bring someone new on if she were seriously contemplating leaving within weeks. Murrow posted to his own social networking site on Wednesday that he was "contemplating life's ironies."
4. Family members got no notice until the night before. According to People magazine, Todd called his father on Thursday night, and asked him if he could be at the Palin's home for a press conference on Friday, but even he was not told - the night before - that Sarah was resigning. Jim Palin declined, stating he had another commitment (which appears to be "fishing" from the People article, but hey, this is Alaska).
5. Senator Mark Begich who met with her on Wednesday for 45 minutes has stated she gave no indication whatsoever.
6. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor who will be taking over for her on July 26th, was not informed until Wednesday evening. Again, if this was in the works for weeks, how bizarre it would be for him not to be in the inner circle.

All of these things tell me one consistent story. The decision was abrupt, very abrupt. I am speculating that there was a "trigger" of some sort, and that trigger was sudden and very recent. Her closest inner circle, even her family members, were in the dark until the final hour. And I - and many others - have observed that at the news conference, she appeared ragged, disjointed, almost frantic. She gasped. Her speech delivery, which is never the best, was positively scary.

And at least once, she reminded us that she was being truthful. What? Who had suggested that she wasn't being truthful?

So why? What is it?

There are rumors of a fight between Bristol and Sarah in the previous week over Bristol's unwillingness to continue to do publicity "tours." Is this code for unwillingness to continue the charade about Babygate?

Fellow blogger Celtic Diva had finally raised the $5000.00 plus dollars required by the state for "photocopying costs" associated with receiving Palin's emails and has turned in the official request. A lot of people (myself included) have wondered if there is something in those emails that will be the nail in the coffin, even though, interestingly, Ms. Diva herself doubts that that is the case.

And last - but I don't think least - Levi Johnston is in New York, in the final stages of negotiating a book deal. I have been assured privately that once the deal is inked new information will be made available. I do not know what that information is, but I can make some real good guesses - and so can all of you.

I think this might be a very big week.

**UPDATE**

Tweet, tweet! I've succumbed to calls to join Twitter and have now linked it in my sidebar on the right hand of the page.

The username is palinsdeception

Thanks for those who've urged me to do this and to readers like Mel, who pointed to the NYT op-ed I just referenced in my second official "tweet."

Some Musings for a Sunday Morning

2009-07-05T06:57:00.001-07:00

It just gets more and more interesting. Yesterday, Gov. Palin's legal counsel released a sharply worded statement denying that the Palins were under federal investigation for criminal wrongdoing. I am sure of few of this blog's readers are wondering if I know anything about this.

Here's my answer:

I have over the months developed numerous contacts in Alaska. Over the past 6-8 weeks, I have heard a very consistent story. Palin was under investigation, and it had nothing to do with "babygate." It was big, it was federal, and it was financial. Is this true, or is it a rumor, spread from one source, designed to harm the Palins? I don't know. I will, however, add the following comments.

1. I have received many tips during the time I have been running the blog and website. Some have been worth following up, most have been nonsense. But three separate contacts stand out, and that is why, IF this turns out to be something to do with the building of the house, I will not be at all surprised. These three were all surprisingly similar. They were all Wasilla/Palmer/"Valley" residents. I know they are not the same person three times, since in all cases, the people were not only willing but EAGER to provide me with all personal information, name, address, phone number, where they worked. Hell, they would have given me shoe size if I asked, I suspect. All three checked out. And all three told me basically the same thing. They could not help me with the baby story, but what I needed to look at were the issues surrounding the building of the house. At least one of these tips came in before the election in November.

Here's a quote from an email in February. "Forget Trig. The house will put her in jail."

In each case, I thanked the person for the information, but told them that the baby story was my focus, and that I felt I did not have the time, financial resources, or geographic ability to look into this. I referred them, in each case, to someone in Alaska that I felt could help them. If anything came of any of these people, I do not know.

But I can say, with absolute certainly, that long before June 2009, Wasilla residents were willing to go on record - with their real names and phone numbers and personal info - that there were irregularities, and serious ones, about the building of the Palins' house in 2002. Whether they were lying, I do not know. Whether they were wrong, I do not know. But this issue is not some fantasy, created by pajama clad bloggers, after Palin's resignation two days ago.

And this, going on record with a real name, is something I have never been able to get anyone in Wasilla who knows anything about the baby to do.

2. However, the rumors that I have heard have all consistently said that the investigation is federal. Irregularities with building materials and permits in Wasilla would not be federal, it would be state, as far as I can see, though I am not a lawyer or an accountant and perhaps there is something I do not understand. The F.B.I. has released a statement saying that they are not investigating Palin. This, theoretically, would leave the I.R.S. True? Not true? I don't know, and I want to make it clear that I do not, but that's the bottom line. If it IS federal, and the FBI is not involved, then the only plausible alternative is I.R.S.

Here's a second musing for Sunday morning:

I find it beyond curious that after nearly ten months of myself and others stating, with various degrees of certainty, that Palin's birth story was bogus, not one person has ever even been threatened with any sort of legal action. (There were rumors that Palin threatened the Anchorage Daily News with a lawsuit in January, but as far as I know that was never confirmed, and she certainly never had her legal counsel release any sort of public statement on the matter.) Numerous people have gone so far as to call Sarah Palin a liar openly.

And for those who say that it's because the birth story is below Palin's radar, I say, that's a load of horse hooey. Palin has referred to it in interviews numerous times. It is very clear that these stories have bothered her a great deal.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel. You can't just "sue for libel," and state that the other party is lying. You have to prove it. The Palins would be forced to produce a birth certificate, medical records, and probably a DNA test. The defense would be able to subpoena Cathy Baldwin Johnson (YAY!), the flight attendants on the airplane, possibly school records for both Bristol and Willow, any and all previously unreleased photos and video from the conference in Texas... lots and lots and lots of wonderful things.

Perhaps all of the rumors about criminal investigation and Housegate are false. Maybe Sarah Palin did resign as governor simply because, as she said, the negative media scrutiny had pushed her family over the edge and she believes that because of it she can no longer be effective for Alaska.

But sue anyone over "Babygate?" I'm waiting.

Palin quits. We won't.

2009-07-04T06:38:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's unexpected and bizarre announcement that she is resigning her office as Governor of Alaska has raised many questions. Is she quitting because she can make more money in the private sector? Is she quitting because - unable to take the heat from pajama clad bloggers - she is fleeing the kitchen? Could it be Levi's book deal? Or - as some have indicated - is she is quitting ahead of a looming legal scandal.

Our loyal readers have been abuzz pondering these questions. And they've had one for us, too: Does Sarah's resignation mean the search for the truth behind Trig Palin's birth is over?

The answer to that question is a resounding "No!"

Here's why: Covering criminal scandals is squarely in the media's comfort zone. After all, shady accounting and redirected funds - should that be the case - are far easier to question and report on than gestational and birth issues. They involve adults doing bad things, not children manipulated and victimized by power-hungry parents.

I and many others are convinced that elements of the mainstream media either have known or strongly suspected the truth about Trig's birth all along and have become strange bedfellows with conservative elements of the GOP who also know the truth.

The media and even some Republicans will likely both breathe a sigh of relief if the current rumor turns out to be true. Criminal activity will be the death knell of their rising-star-turned-party-embarrassment. She will be done, without their having to wade into that other scandal - the one I'm convinced they know about but are too squeamish to reveal.

But as Sarah weakens, I'm convinced that those who feared her will become more bold, more willing to tell what they know about her claims of birthing Trig. If they do, at some point the media will no longer be able to ignore it. And I think it will prove to be a far bigger scandal that even the one we're hearing rumors about now.

Criminal activity is one thing; passing off someone else's baby as yours for political gain is something else. If it can be proven that Sarah did not give birth to Trig, then the question will then be "What did the GOP know and when did they know it?"

That's a whopper of a question, and the answer might not only irreparably tarnish Sarah Palin, but also destroy the careers of those who selected her and glibly reassured the nation that she had the experience, character and temperament to lead.

If that's the case, the rumored criminal charges may be the tip of the iceberg; the really damaging part may be what's beneath the surface, that thing they're still refusing to see: Babygate.

That's why we won't quit, even if Sarah has.

Palin Resigns

2009-07-03T12:49:00.001-07:00

It is surreal. She's resigning.

I am watching Palin's speech. She is hanging on by the ragged edge. She's babbling, gasping, rambling, making no sense whatsoever. I've been watching Palin for ten months. She has never sounded more unhinged to me.

"The world apparently needs more Trigs." is among some of the more bizarre things she said.

Now we've switched from the basketball analogy to the football field. No hockey analogy yet.

Updates will follow.

I think the iceberg is about to hit.

**UPDATE**

Here's Sarah Palin's official announcement from the governor's Web site, from which she also gleaned much of her speech.

Here is the press release.

**UPDATE II**

Meg Stapleton weighs in and all I can say is, with friends like these does Sarah really needs enemies? This makes two rambling, bizarre explanations of Sarah's decision.

**UPDATE III**
The videos are now uploaded to YouTube

Pulling A Palin: My Response to Progressive Alaska Part One

2009-06-29T13:26:00.000-07:00

Over the week or so, I will post on this blog a multi part series. Today's installment is the first.

In January, Alaskan Blogger Celtic Diva published a "guest post" by a Labor and Delivery nurse named Lee Tompkins entitled The Birth of a Conspiracy; Delivering the Real Issue. Several days ago, a second Alaskan blog, Progressive Alaska, reprinted this post in toto. The theme of this post was simple: both the original writer and Phil at Progressive Alaska believe that the focus on Palin's birth story should be squarely on what they consider the "real issue," which is the very poor judgment she showed in traveling while allegedly in labor with Trig. They believe that Palin's terrible choices so endangered her child that on that basis alone she should be disqualified from any serious consideration for public office.

Both believe Sarah Palin's birth story, specifically that Trig was born to Sarah on April 18, 2008, after a trip back from Texas that I have chosen to call "The Wild Ride." (For those who don't know, I based that moniker on a quaint Disney theme park ride, Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, still operational at Disneyland (and, according to Wikipedia, one of the few remaining attractions that was present at the 1955 opening) but removed from Disney World in 1998. The concept of the ride was based on Kenneth Grahame's children's book The Wind in the Willows, from which Disney had made a cartoon in 1949.)

While Phil at Progressive Alaska obviously continues to take this position (he reprinted this post barely a week ago) i.e., that Trig is Sarah's and was born April 18, 2009, from private conversation with Celtic Diva (again, original source of the post last January though she did not write it), while she may be unsure of the whole truth regarding Trig's birth, she now personally entertains at least some doubts that it occurred as Palin reported. Would she, today, late June 2009, post Ms. Tompkins' guest blog? I don't know but I intend to ask her.

Most of Palin's supporters will not intelligently debate the evidence at all. Their tactics are few - but very consistent - whenever the pregnancy story is discussed. It takes only a moment for a reasonable-sounding authoritative voice, without citing any specifics, to label a theory like ours "irresponsible, incorrect, poorly researched, sensationalistic," or - simply - "bad." It takes much longer to refute these charges. Points, often boring ones, must be made individually. Specific examples, requiring serious research into dates, times, places, and statements, must be discussed. Obstetric minutiae is of little interest to most people, and actually unpleasant to discuss for many.

These are some of the favorite tactics used:
1. Their favorite red herring is Obama's birth certificate. "There's the real story," we are assured solemnly. There may be a story there. I don't know - I haven't looked into it at all. But what I do know is that regardless of where, when, or to whom Barack Obama was born, it's got nothing to do with Sarah Palin.
2. A tactic of "redirection" is employed whenever specific obstetrical facets are considered. Everyone seems to know someone that "never looked pregnant with a fifth child," or whose water broke and she didn't go into labor. All that tells us is that it is "possible" that some aspects of Sarah Palin's story might be true based on others' similar experiences. It does not prove that they are.
3. They simply refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Shown documented photographs from unimpeachable sources, these folks simply allege (with no proof whatsoever) that the documentation is wrong or suspect and then, because they cannot "verify" the source of the evidence, they will not discuss anything further.
4. The last bastion: Sarah's story is true because Sarah wouldn't lie.

When one (or all) of the four tactics above are employed, it's impossible to have an honest debate with a legitimate exchange of ideas. With Ms. Tompkins post, I can. I can debate her reasoning with my own. What I intend to do here is to go through Ms. Tompkins' post point by point and do my best to, if not refute each one, then at least put forth why I think the real evidence indicates something different: specifically, that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008. I intend to quote large sections (indicated by blocks) of the original post, though not all of it, just because of length considerations.

Let me say categorically that I think the widely disseminated rumor that Sarah Palin is not the mother of her child Trig is totally false, although I know many well-informed and well-educated people who believe otherwise, and I certainly understand their theory.

I'm going to spend some time discussing the reasons why I think the Palin faked pregnancy story is not true, but first I think it is of interest to comment on why this story has really caught hold of the imagination of many.

... the general public disliked Sarah Palin and when the bizarre circumstances of the birth of her child Trig became generally known, the public wanted to believe that she was capable of faking a pregnancy in order to bolster her standing as a "family values" candidate by avoiding the baggage of a daughter who was about to become an unwed teenage mother. Avoiding that didn't quite work out for Palin as it turned out, but that didn't stop a vocal minority of conspiracy theorists to believe Palin capable of such chicanery earlier. The public wanted to believe the worst of Sarah Palin.

I've stated this before, but I will repeat it for the purposes of this post. I have done more than anyone regarding "Babygate," and while I can't speak for others, I can certainly speak for myself. My initial interest in the story had nothing to do with wanting to "believe the worst" about or discrediting Gov. Palin. I'd never heard of her. I was an Obama supporter and doubt that anything could have made me vote for the Republican ticket but I certainly did not dislike Sarah Palin on any sort of visceral level. In fact when I first heard that a mother of five had been chosen, I was rather thrilled and very very happy for her. I was eager to learn more about her.

In an ironic sense, I set out to defend her, feeling that she specifically and women in general are not well-served when such an unlikely and implausible childbirth story is disseminated. My initial interest stemmed from my desire to set the record straight. Some dim-witted young male reporter who probably barely understood how babies get in much less how they get out, I assumed, had gotten his facts wrong. No experienced mother, having had four prior births, would fly ten hours at 35 weeks while leaking amniotic fluid. Ludicrous. Crazy. Didn't happen.

This was my original premise and it had nothing to do with Sarah Palin at all. It was only after I understood that this WAS her story and she WAS sticking to it, that my B.S. meter went off the chart.

....the evidence very strongly suggests is that Palin was guilty of recklessly endangering the life of her unborn child, which to me is far worse than faking a pregnancy, to protect her political ambition and perhaps the reputation of her daughter. It's just not as sexy of a story, not one the public could latch onto with such fervor. Discussing ruptured membranes ain't exactly something to talk about at the dinner table. And since "life imitates art more than art imitates life" it's highly doubtful the Desperate Housewives' writers will be opening next season with one of the wives flying transcontinentally with preterm premature rupture of membranes.

The public couldn't understand why anyone would do anything other than take the greatest of care and every absolute precaution with the health of a special needs child, whose parent should have been their greatest advocate and protector.

The faked pregnancy theory was easier to believe. And so it was born...

I agree, I think recklessly endangering a child would be worse than faking a pregnancy. Much worse in fact. Where we differ is that I don't think Palin actually did that.

I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. Whether she would have been motivated to avoid this by concern for her child (hopefully) or fear of criticism and embarrassment doesn't really matter in the end. What matters is that the consequences of giving birth under such circumstances probably would have been career-ending.

I do not think she would have taken this risk. More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.

We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable. She would had to have guessed, getting on the airplane, that there was a very fair chance she'd have the baby in the air.

She should have known that the odds were against her, and if she did not, any credible doctor would have made it immediately, explicitly, abundantly clear. Several different versions of how much contact she had with her doctor and when that contact occurred on that day have circulated. But if Sarah Palin had been pregnant and had been leaking amniotic fluid, no doctor in the world would have ever told her it was alright even to consider getting on an airplane. Any physician would have made it clear that, if you're leaking amniotic fluid, you have a very high chance of having the baby before you get back to Alaska, certainly BETTER THAN 50/50. That information would have stopped Palin cold. Let's be reasonable. It would stop anyone.

The primary risk she would never take is to her own public image. She cares about what people think - very much. No professional woman - and certainly not the narcissistic governor of Alaska - would have risked for a second the absolutely appalling level of scrutiny and social embarrassment that would have resulted if she had given birth on the airplane... and that is if things came out well. If her preterm baby had been harmed by the choice, she could have been charged with child endangerment and prosecuted!

I have personally seen a baby born after two hours of membrane rupture and one - yes you're reading right - ONE contraction. Palin had boasted, prior to April 18th, about how easy her birth had been with Piper six years earlier, reminding people that after Piper had been born, she'd gone back to work the next day. Sarah Palin may not know the ins and outs of African politics, but she's a practical-minded woman who had given birth four times. She knows where babies come from and just exactly what is involved in getting them out. Do THAT on an airplane? Never. Not in a million years did she chance it.

I have never looked at a map and checked proximity of the hotel where Palin was staying in Texas to a hospital, but in a large urban area, surely she could not have been more than, say, ten minutes away from a good hospital where she could have gone in a hurry. I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)

But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. Risked the public criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing hundreds of other passengers. And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.

Would she ever have been able to overcome the eye rolling and snickers? I don't think so. "Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. She's that Governor that had a baby in first class. YUCK YUCK YUCK. Good thing it wasn't coach. HAR HAR HAR." "Didjya hear the one about the Governor that had the baby..." And on and on and on. Millions of people who had never heard of Sarah Palin would have, all at once, and not in a good way. "Pulling a Palin" (or something comparable) probably would have become - for generations - a synonym for: stupidest choice imaginable.

My "comeback" to Ms. Tompkins is that I believe that the faked pregnancy theory (which of course means she was never actually at risk for having a baby on the plane) is in fact far more plausible than suggesting that she risked the incredible level of scrutiny and criticism, possibly career ending, that she would have come under if she'd given birth somewhere over Canada.

And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?

So that her child could be born in Alaska.

This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

Having a baby on an airplane would almost certainly have ended Sarah Palin's political career, just due to the embarrassment and the criticism she would have come under for inconveniencing the other passengers. If the baby had come to harm, it would definitely had ended her career and might have opened her up to prosecution. If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take.

PART 2 COMING SOON.

Wonkette

2009-06-27T04:28:00.001-07:00

Although many others who blog about issues concerning Sarah Palin have mentioned this already, I sure cannot let it pass.

The political blog, Wonkette, yesterday, while jumping with both feet onto the Desecration of Holy Child Special Needs Trig bandwagon, casually called him Bristol Palin's son.

Yes, that's right. "See that photoshop up there of Governor Palin with Bristol Palin’s child, Trig? "

Not one of the comments (and there are many) have yet called them on it. They've not bothered to "correct" it. Not even, an "Oops, our bad. It was just a typo. LOL."

Nothing.

Good Grief

2009-06-25T10:38:00.000-07:00

That's all I can say.

Sarah Palin's (big) mouth (a.k.a. Meghan Stapleton) is at it again, releasing a statement today that can only be considered more stupid than her last statement - and that one was pretty dumb. I did not do a blog post here on the statement released several days ago, but several other bloggers did, for example, here, so I recommend you take a gander.

However, today's statement was so ridiculous that I cannot let it pass. I just can't. I'm helpless in the face of the sheer stupidity. (And remember - this person gets paid for saying things like this. She probably sits around and thinks and after, oh, two or three hours of thinking she comes up with something profound. Like this one.)

Several days ago this caricature appeared on the Internet.

The original source for this apparently was a blog called "Crooks and Liars." Now this looks like David Letterman to me, and the tags on the what I *think* is the original posting of the cartoon SAY "David Letterman." However, according to numerous people this is NOT David Letterman cradled tenderly in Gov. Palin's arms, but Eddie Burke, a conservative Alaska radio talk "personality."

It doesn't matter who it is supposed to be. The fact is that it's a political cartoon and it's damn funny.

(Update: I have just figured out the sequence here. The original posting was this cartoon shown above. No objections or comments came from the Palin camp at that time. Then, an Alaskan Blogger, Celtic Diva, as part of a fundraiser, created a spoof of the cartoon, in which she did used a photoshopped photo in which the face of Eddie Burke was used. The original image was David Letterman and it was a cartoon; the image that Miss Meg issued a statement regarding was the photo.)

But not to Meghan the Mouth. She posted the following statement to Sarah Palin's Facebook page:

Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.

Now, we digress to a bit of etymology. "Desecration" comes to us from Latin, as so many of our best words do. It comes from "de," which means to do the opposite of, and "secrare," which means to make holy. (Sacred comes from this same Latin word, of course, though that word comes to English via a slightly different path.)

ONLY a religiously recognized holy image or place can be desecrated. Surely she misspoke. Surely in the heat of the moment she said "desecrate" when she really meant "change" or "photoshopped," right? But no, because Ms. Stapleton actually continues this analogy of holiness when, in the same paragraph, she uses the word "iconic." An icon is also a religious picture of a holy person.

So there we have it: an iconic representation of "mother and child" has been desecrated. Don't they burn people at the stake for that? Maybe in Alaska.

If this weren't all so sad, it would be hilarious. Obviously, having failed to keep herself in the public's eye any longer via the Willow/Bristol/David Letterman brouhaha, Sarah Palin is turning to another "offense," this one involving another child, Trig.

Oh, excuse me. The special needs child Trig. And we know that he is special needs child Trig because they tell us he is special needs child Trig three times in three paragraphs.

"The idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling." No it's not. This is a political spoof and a funny one. Trig is not in the cartoon or the photo. Trig's clothes might be, but Trig is not. Whether you are talking about the original cartoon or the subsequent photo, someone else's head is on a baby's body being held by a Sarah Palin.

But again we have the pious stand: Babies and children are off limits.

Well, they might be now, but they weren't when Sarah Palin needed to use her seventeen year old daughter to prove that she, Sarah, had to be Trig's mother, instead of, oh, releasing a birth certificate. They weren't the countless times Sarah Palin trit-trotted onto a stage in spike heels, carrying a five month old (oh, excuse me, special needs five month old) like a sack of (special needs) potatoes then passing him off like a (special needs) football.

But that, I guess, was then and this is now. And now, given the opportunity to rile the rabble with yet another imagined slur to yet another Palin child, (this one special needs - Did we mention that?) into the fray they go.

Good Grief.

The Diminishment of Sarah Palin

2009-06-23T08:07:00.000-07:00

There's no questioning that life for Sarah Palin must feel very much like a pressure cooker.

Politicians of any stripe feel the heat, but for scandal-plagued Alaskan governor that heat must be intense. Eighteen ethics charges have led to a huge legal debt. The party that once treated her as a rising star seems rather less enamored with her today. Her repeated efforts to keep herself in the news about anything but state business has raised mounting criticism in Alaska. Her public feud with the Johnstons and subsequent revelations have tarnished the holier-than-thou family image she sought to project on the campaign trail. And then, of course, there are the ongoing questions about her claim that she gave birth to Trig.

For Sarah Palin, the heat must be intense. Perched on the cusp of her political future, she looks down to see wolves snapping at her heels. The fact that she's been throwing them red meat since the beginning is of no consequence. The truth is that this seems to be getting to her.

Some of our readers and researchers have observed both on the blog and over at Team Truther that the stress seems to be showing in Sarah's physical appearance. In this June 17 groundbreaking ceremony at Goose Creek Prison, she looks alarmingly thin:

Even more alarming is this screen shot captured by fellow blogger Enneologic, which highlights Sarah's nearly skeletal hands:

Some could argue that Sarah's marked weight loss could be just a symptom of the vanity she displayed on the campaign trail. Thin is in, after all. But she's always been svelte, and her appearance has gone far beyond that.

There have been hints and whispers that something else is looming, something big, something that has her more worried than ever. We've heard nothing verifiable of what this may be. And besides, from the beginning our focus has been squarely on seeking the truth about Sarah's claims to be the birth mother of Trig.

And that is where it will remain, because even if Sarah is physically diminishing, among her base she looms larger than life. And that's reason enough for us to continue with this quest.

An Interesting Slip?

2009-06-18T05:44:00.000-07:00

I had wanted to make this blog post before announcing our new discussion board "Team Truther," but I did not get to it. Please read the post below this one as well, if you have not - on the announcing of our new board.

---------------

In the last 2-3 days, there have been two comments made by players in this drama to press that have been noticed as - perhaps - being indicative of what we believe the "real story," may be, specifically that Bristol Palin is the mother of both Trig Palin and Tripp Johnston.

One comment, I believe, is NOT significant, but the other may be. First, let's talk about Levi's comment, as quoted in the Daily Beast, that his "boys" were going to be "so mad" when they saw the new clothing he'd acquired in Los Angeles. While it's easy to jump on this, and say, "Boys! He said 'boys'!", I believe that in this context Levi is referring to "male friends." My daughters frequently say that they are doing somthing with "my girls," to mean that they are socializing that evening with an all-female group. (Not large groups of granddaughters that I am somehow unaware of!) Infants and toddlers are not going to be "mad" about parental clothing choices, and I find the idea that he was talking about babies when he said this implausible.

The second comment, however, is, I think, far more worthy of comment. Buried deep in the transcript of Sarah Palin's interview with Wolf Blitzer is the following sentence, regarding the identity of the daughter that David Letterman's joke referred to: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her young family.

"Family." That word choice is very very interesting.

Long Long Ago and Far Far Away, I was a student. I studied, not medicine or science (areas of endeavor that would ultimately have helped me in what I ended up doing professionally) but history and linguistics. Linguistics is, as we always tried to explain to other tipsy undergrads in bars, the study of "Language" with a capital "L" NOT languages, with a small "l." Although as an adult, I have never done anything with my linguistics degree professionally, nuances of language and grammar have always fascinated me.

To a native speaker of English, I believe "family" in this context implies more than one child. It's a collective noun that implies a group. Now, if someone says, "John and Sue are starting a family," we all know that this means they are having their first baby, because they are having the FIRST member of what might become a group.

But when someone is staying home, taking care of a "young family," this means children. If she had ONE baby, I believe a native English speaker would say, "at home with her baby." The natural way for Gov. Palin to have expressed this would have been: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of her new baby. Or even: It wasn't my older daughter, who's in college and taking care of Tripp.

Of course - this proves nothing. Those of us who doubt Palin's birth tale need no more proof; those who think she walks on water will find this - at best - an insignificant slip of the tongue, and at worst we'll get the typical comments: "Oh, I say 'family' all the time when I mean one child." Yeah, right. And I'm sure you say this to your friend who is nine months pregnant with her fifth eight pound child and who doesn't look pregnant at all! Amazing.

A nail in the coffin? Probably not. An interesting slip o' the tongue to file away? Definitely.

Team Truther

2009-06-17T18:14:00.001-07:00

Team Truther? What's that?

A new and, we hope, exciting evolution of PalinDeception.com.

The facts are well-known: I am Audrey, a mother of six, childbirth educator and author, lactation consultant married to a physician. I started this website in September 2008 when I found the birth story told by Alaskan Governor and former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin completely unbelievable. I doubted the story from day one and have never wavered from this.

It was obvious from the beginning that I was not alone in finding this story utterly ludicrous. What began as a website raising questions about Palin’s dubious birth story quickly developed such a strong following that a blog was added to keep up with all the developments surrounding the controversy. The blog exploded with readers, with several of my posts receiving more than 500 comments. Over the subsequent months, a group of loyal and dedicated volunteers joined me to form a research team. Although a few people have had to leave the group due to other commitments, etc, the core of the research team (which is now eight people) has remained strikingly constant since November.

Now, more than nine months later, even more is required. Our loyal readers have in many ways become part of the research team. Again and again, they compile information and raise even more questions as the story unfolds. That is why we have decided to add a discussion forum, which we have called "Team Truther."

Team Truther may seem like a curious name since “truther” is generally considered a negative slur. It - along with its childish permutation "Troofer" - is used to disparage those of us who feel the American people are OWED (and I do not use that word lightly) a realistic and accurate explanation for the striking, even bizarre, inconsistencies in Palin's birth story. But if you're not a Truther, what are you? A Liar? (Yeah, that works for me.)

We are devoted to the continued pursuit of exposing Sarah Palin’s claim that the birth of Trig Palin occurred as she has claimed, and on the Palin Deception blog, we’ve limited discussion to topics directly related to this. And while the main focus of Team Truther WILL remain the issue of Trig’s birth, we will allow more latitude for discussion of other Palin-related issues. The rules will be more relaxed, too. We will aim for less moderation on the board than what exists on the blog – which has been the target of anti-truther spammers and Palinites.

The PalinDeception.com website AND blog are not going anywhere. The blog will of course still accept comments, and will remain the best place for longer, fully-researched posts on this issue. But this new discussion board, we hope, will become the go-to source for breaking developments on the case. The discussion board is a supplement for those who want to discuss things more in depth, offer up their own topics for discussion or even blog a little if they choose. Several of my researchers are eager to write their own blog posts, and they will bring new voices and points of view to our shared research.

Team Truther will have guidelines, however, and we expect contributors to honor them if we are to have the kind of open dialogue we would like to see take place.

In addition, I have made the decision to open a Cafe Press store, which will sell humorous merchandise - sweatshirts, mugs, hats, and the ever-popular canine T-shirts (I don't know how my dogs have survived without them) - related to our search. My out-of-pocket expenses related to this endeavor are now significant. Suggestions that I am funded by the DNC, President Obama, or, alternately, other Republicans who want to get rid of Palin, are all false. I am funded by myself. Period. I have resisted taking "donations," but think that a Cafe Press store (where I get a small commission) and the customer gets a T-shirt "feels" a bit different. (I pray that NO ONE will interpret this as criticism in any way of some fellow bloggers who have put up PayPal buttons, because none is intended! This is just what I personally feel more comfortable with.) The decision to open this store was not taken lightly, but my hope is that the sale of merchandise will begin to help me recoup a small percentage of my actual expenses.

To those readers both new and old, thank you for your support. We look forward to your participation in the new forum.

Sarah's Selective Outrage

2009-06-15T12:54:00.000-07:00

Does anyone really believe Sarah Palin’s latest display of motherly indignation in the wake of Letterman’s admittedly unfunny comment directed at her daughter?

If they do, then they either a.) have short memories or b.) really don’t know much about Sarah Palin. Probably both.

It’s hard to top blogger Shannyn Moore’s assessment of Palin’s hypocrisy on what has become the Alaskan governor's latest Tour d'Outrage.

However, it's important to point out that, during the campaign, one SNL skit went so far as to suggest that Todd was "doing" the daughters. This SNL skit was far FAR more offensive than Letterman’s bad joke about Willow. Sarah's response? Boycott SNL advertisers? Media blitz? Whip the base into a foaming frenzy? No, actually, she appeared on the show one month later. Oh yeah, I think we all remember her Weekend Update with Seth Green.

But why is it that I REALLY want to get a vomit bag when Sarah drones on endlessly about protecting the young woman of America from exploitation? It's because this is the woman who, in late August, when confronted with ever-more-insistent demands for some proof, any proof at all that she herself had given birth to Trig four months earlier, "outed" her own minor child's pregnancy. She put 17 year old Bristol on a national stage in an ugly and ill-fitting dress, accompanied by a young man that her father reportedly had wanted his daughter to dump so much that he had offered to buy her a car. Instead of producing a birth certificate or a doctor, Sarah Palin made her daughter a walking punchline. How do you spell "exploit?" B - R - I - S - T - O - L

You gotta love these Palin family values. THEY are the joke. Or maybe not. Because they're not funny. And she's arguably done more damage to her children than any comedian ever could. You have to imagine that behind the scenes, her kids have expressed outrage at how they're privacy and dignity have been sacrificed for their mother's political gain. Unfortunately, when they complain, Sarah doesn't listen.

Which is why no one else should listen to her either.

New Section of Website Opening

2009-06-11T18:06:00.001-07:00

As I mentioned several days ago, I have been working on linked "calendar" pages on the website proper. These pages, one per date for which we have news, events, pictures or video, will be accessible through a straightforward "calendar" interface.

The initial group of pages have been uploaded. More will be added daily.

In general, I will be working to update the website. The initial goal for this endeavor was that the website would be an online repository, easy to use, of all material we could locate on this topic. I have fallen dreadfully short of that goal as this blog has become the core of the endeavor and the website has languished.

But - as I said - we are moving to correct that. New material, whether it's already existing data that is scattered all over this blog and the Internet (just what I hoped to avoid by STARTING the website in the first place) OR new material that we actually prepare de novo for the website, will be added regularly. We will begin moving aggressively towards my goal of making palindeception.com a truly usable archive for this information.

To access the new pages, simply go to the main page of the website, and click on the "Palin Pregnancy Photos" link.

A Bit of a New Direction

2009-06-09T03:57:00.000-07:00

Almost exactly nine months ago, I woke up one morning very pissed off. Something as plain as the hand in front of my eyes was being ignored by the main stream media to a degree I could not fathom.

And - since it occurred to me this morning - that nine months (rather incredibly) is the length of the average pregnancy, I thought it might be interesting to reflect this morning, on just how this "pregnancy" has gone.

Let's return to September 13, 2008, the day I launched the website. (The blog came a few days later.) It had been almost two weeks since John McCain had announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, and the initial hysterical joy over the announcement, even among the loyal base, was beginning to erode just a bit. The Charles Gibson interview on the 11th, while not the catastrophe that the Couric interview on September 24th would become, had certainly not not been a smashing success, either. Palin came across as vague, uninformed, and rather ineffective. She was noted most often for saying "Charlie" a lot. A real lot.

In other venues, questions about Palin's ethics, mostly vis a vis "Troopergate" (but including other issues as well) continued to dog the campaign. And of course, what has now been called "Babygate," simply would not die.

As I have said previously, my initial interest in the story had nothing to do with Palin or her politics. As a long time childbirth educator and author, I had always had a "pet peeve:" media misrepresentation of childbirth. Overall, books, movies and TV shows present birth in one of two ways: either impossibly sanitary and easy or staggeringly dangerous. Babies either fall out or die; in birth fiction, there seems often to be no middle ground, and believing either extreme does not help women have happy safe births.

My initial assumption upon hearing Palin's story of Trig's birth was that some male reporter had simply gotten the facts wrong because, of course, no experienced mother of four would get on an airplane, leaking amniotic fluid, eight months pregnant. Just didn't happen. Period.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: birth is not a tidy process. The Governor of Alaska did not risk having to lie down in the middle of an airplane aisle, rip off her panty hose, spread her legs, and push a baby out in a puddle of blood, mucous, amniotic fluid, and, quite possibly, either her own excrement or the baby's. If she were in fact leaking amniotic fluid, she knew before she got on the airplane to fly a total of more than eight hours, that this was a very real possibility. And it is because no one would confront her with this graphic and basic reality back in early September we are here today.

To this day, the only truly concrete statement from either of the Palins as to why Sarah made this choice has come from Todd: "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas." Good Lord. Which is more absurd, that anyone ever believed this lame explanation or that people apparently still do?

I knew as soon as I realized that Palin was sticking by this nonsensical version of events that there was a lie somewhere. I have never once wavered from that conviction in nine months. I wasn't sure exactly what, where, or why, but I knew it was a lie. I also could never put together in my mind why so few other people - smart people who, while perhaps not knowing quite as much about childbirth as I do, but who nevertheless have a good basic understanding - did not come out and say, unequivocally and simply, "This birth story does not pass any sort of credible scrutiny. We have a right to ask why. And these questions have nothing to do with Palin's daughter."

Nine months is a long time. Women who became pregnant when I started this website and blog are now having their babies. When I chose to begin collating the information about Palin's pregnancy (and initially, my endeavor was to be nothing more than a repository of documents, photos, and facts that at the time were spread all over the Internet) I did not dream it would be necessary even up until the point of the election, some seven weeks later. The idea that I would still be thinking about Sarah Palin's uterus nine MONTHS later would have nauseated me.

My good friend Gryphen at Immoral Minority said to me recently: Audrey, you don't have to prove anything else. You have proved that Sarah Palin was never pregnant. The problem now is getting people to listen. While I am not 100% sure he is right, I know in my heart that it's close.

So where are we going from here? First, look to this blog for much more frequent and probably shorter posts. When I started the blog, Trig Palin (based on his announced birth date) was approximately four and half months old. Now, he is 15 months old. Although I know there is still information out there for us to find, the plain fact is that it is becoming increasingly difficult. PD posts, while still mostly focusing on the central question of "Babygate," will begin delving into other areas of comment and research direction, often directly related to Palin's overall credibility. After all the blog is called "Palin Deceptions."

Secondly, we are revamping the website, something that has fallen horribly by the wayside as this blog has become the core of the endeavor. Very soon, we are opening a new area of the site, which will, in easy-to-use "calendar" fashion, have clickable links to many many days of Palin's late "pregnancy" with the associated photos. I still find myself astonished when I look at some of the photos, that she has gotten away with absurd lie for so long. When the photos - event after event of photos - are viewed in sequence it becomes laughable.

Look also for posts from others - members of the wonderful research team that have done so much to bring this story to the fore - as well as possibly "guest" posts by long time readers.

And... just as a closing statement... I know many readers have been curious about statements made on other blogs about icebergs and huge revelations and waves crashing onto the shore. (Well, maybe not waves...) Regardless, IS this story going to be over soon?

I think it may be. I think this baby is going to be born soon, and then we can all send a shower gift, and go home.

Bristol Palin: Homeschooler?

2009-05-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

The Palins have certainly given the phrase “school choice” new meaning over the past few years. Since Sarah Palin was elected governor in 2006, her children have attended schools in Wasilla, Juneau, Anchorage, and Michigan. They have also been kept out of school for considerable periods of time, for example, during last fall's campaign, leading to a situation where seven year old Piper actually stated on camera to Matt Lauer that she was having a hard time catching up.

In several private conversations I have had with reporters and others in Alaska, I have been told that Gov. Palin had come under considerable, though mostly under the radar, scrutiny (even some criticism) regarding how inconsistently her children attended school, and how glibly they were moved from place to place. Track, for example, attended most of his senior year in Michigan, allegedly to play on a more prominent hockey team, but when his hockey prospects dimmed he was, in March of his senior year, brought back to Wasilla where he finished the year at Wasilla High School. Having shepherded six children through high school I cannot fathom a teen changing schools three quarters of the way through his senior year, but maybe that's just me being too picky or something.

Exact details concerning the whereabouts of Bristol Palin, however, have been harder to pin down. In particular, Bristol’s attendance during the 2007-08 school year has been questioned on this site and on others. This school year, of course, is the focus of our interest. Why?

1. Someone had to be pregnant with Trig Palin during most of what would have been the 2007 - 2008 school year. If it were not Sarah Palin, it had to be someone else. Period.
2. Photographs of Bristol Palin taken in September of 2007 when compared to June of 2007 show physical changes which are consistent with pregnancy. Does this prove she WAS pregnant? No. Does it suggest that she could have been? Yes.
3. "Something" appears to have happened in Bristol Palin's life during the summer of 2007. She went from being openly in school in the spring of 2007, attending First Family events (albeit reluctantly), posting frequently on social networking sites, working at a coffee shop in early summer of that year, to... as far as we can tell... dropping almost totally out of sight by early fall. She was photographed in Juneau in mid September 2007, then no other photograph of her exists until late April of 2008. ONE family photograph (containing Bristol) released by the Palin family to the media of "Christmas 2007" has been shown to actually have been taken Christmas 2006.
4. Rumors that Bristol Palin WAS pregnant were circulating in Alaska as early as December of 2007, long before Trig was allegedly born in April of 2008.

So obviously Bristol's school attendance during the fall of 2007 is of considerable interest to those of us who are trying to get solid answers to this mystery. Imagine our surprise, then, when out of the blue two days ago comes a totally new, previously unheard of revelation from Levi Johnston to GQ Magazine: he and Bristol, at some point during this 2007 - 2008 school year, homeschooled TOGETHER at the Palin home.

My initial response: Huh?

Her attendance during that year at both Wasilla and Anchorage West has been extensively questioned based on conflicting reports, and spotty information. Of course, neither school will (or should) give any information about a minor student "on the record." So what is known must be pieced together from media reports, which often contradict each other. Wasilla High Assistant Principal Mark Okeson told the media in September that Bristol had transferred to Anchorage “midyear”, though he admitted: “I never heard the story why.” This certainly makes it sound as if she attended Wasilla until Christmas 2007 and then left. The National Enquirer reported that Sarah banished Bristol to live with her Aunt Heather in Anchorage after learning of her pregnancy. And Kyle Hopkins at the Anchorage Daily News, speaking with Heather Bruce shortly after Sarah’s nomination, confirmed from Bristol's own aunt that Bristol attended Anchorage West “in the spring." Bristol's attendance was also confirmed by a private source who has stated to me that Bristol, a friend of her child's, attended Anchorage West in January and February, leaving some time before mid-March 2008.

Yet, the details surrounding the transition from Wasilla to Anchorage remain fuzzy. If Tripp was born at or close to full term in late December, 2008, Bristol could not have known about her pregnancy prior to either very late April or early May of 2008. Anchorage West's LAST day of school in 2008 was May 16th. So it is absurd to suggest that she lived with Heather Bruce AND went to school at any point during her pregnancy with Tripp. She didn't. If it is true that she lived with Heather Bruce while pregnant AND she attended school, it MUST refer to a prior pregnancy.

We do know from Sarah Palin’s interview with Alaska Magazine that, as of fall 2007, the plan at that point had been for Bristol to stay in Wasilla to finish out her high school career. If so, it would be understandable. Not many teenagers appreciate being taken away from friends, favorite teachers, and social events right in the middle of high school.

But, there may have been another option, and, based on Levi's recent statement to GQ, one that may well have been utilized by the Palins. In an article published by the Boston Herald on September 2, 2008, WHS principal Dwight Probasco stated that, while Levi did play for the Wasilla Warriors hockey team during the 2007-08 season, he was not attending classes that year--instead, he was homeschooled via the Mat-Su Correspondence Study School. Here's the exact quote:

Principal Dwight Probasco explained Levi’s decision to drop out: “School might have interfered with Levi’s moose-hunting, so he did a home school course. He continued to play on the ice hockey team, even though he stopped coming to classes two years ago. I understand he is now out of work.”

And now, a new article in GQ magazine not only confirms that Levi was homeschooling during that school year, but appears to impart some additional information that we had not heard before. Referring to Levi at that time:

“The previous year [this has to refer to 2007-2008] he’d been in a homeschool scenario. Alaska boasts the most lax homeschooling rules of any state in the union, in the sense that they have literally almost no rules. Levi was doing his learning online, through a Brigham Young University program. Unsupervised, at the Palins’ house, where Bristol Palin was homeschooling, too.”

The timeline for Bristol's homeschooling is--what a surprise--unclear. It is generally accepted, though, that she began attending Anchorage West at some point in 2008, so this article appears to be referring to the months prior to that. Read that again. This article is now strongly suggesting that Bristol was NOT in fact attending Wasilla High in the fall of 2007, but was "homeschooling."

Wow. Bristol Palin - popular, athletic, good student, missed all of her friends at Wasilla High SO much while in Juneau the previous spring that she decided to... home school? IN Wasilla? What's wrong with this picture?

And adding gasoline to the intrigue fire is a quote from Gov. Palin herself, in August of 2007, where she states specifically to interviewer Armstrong Williams that, the previous day, Bristol (and her siblings) had been registered for school. In fact, what Gov. Palin specifically says is, "Four kids, four different schools." No mention of homeschooling here whatsoever. (Forgive the digression, but I must point out another curious fact: the fourth kid can only be Track, and since he had graduated from high school the previous spring, this has to refer to registering for community college or some other higher education source. Yet... within a month he's changed his mind and has enlisted in the military. It's been suggested many places that Track's enlistment decision was abrupt, and motivated, at least in part, by something other than pure patriotism. This certainly seems to confirm that his mother, in August of 2007, had no clue he was about to enlist.)

Something just ain't right here, folks. Homeschooling is one of the button issues of the religious right. If Palin had homeschooled any of her children for any time at all, don't you think it would have been used during the campaign? Good grief, they used everything else they could find. But no... homeschool prior to the fall of 2008 was never mentioned once that I can find in connection with the Palin family.

I have suspected for a long time that Bristol Palin did not attend school in the fall of 2007, but have not been able to prove it. Does this chance comment from Levi Johnston (just keep talking, kid) provide conclusive proof? No. Does it bring us one step closer? I think so.

Ho! Ho! Ho!

2009-05-09T06:01:00.000-07:00

As I have stated many times, it has always been my preference to focus on Gov. Palin's behavior and appearance regarding the "Who's Your Mommy? And What Does She Do?" conspiracy. I was - like so many other mothers - disgusted by Palin's behavior regarding her children during the campaign, first quite specifically her choosing to use the announcement of Bristol's then-current pregnancy as the direct - and sole - proof that Bristol could NOT be Trig's mother, meaning that Sarah then had to be, and second, the way she paraded and displayed the children like so many stage props. There's one video in particular in which she carries a rather inert Trig out on stage like a big stuffed doll, strides briskly around with him, then hands him off like a football. I literally cried when I saw it. (I can't find the link at the moment, but if I do I will update this post to include it.)

OK, rant over.

Anyway... I really have not wanted to focus on Palin's children but it has been inevitable that the children - in particular Bristol - had to be brought into the dialogue for the simple reason that Bristol was (and really continues to be) Sarah's only proof that she - and not Bristol - gave birth to Trig. No birth certificate, no doctor's statement, no happy family in the hospital photos, nothing. Just Bristol. (Oh, and "Sarah wouldn't lie." I guess we can't forget that.)

So Bristol's whereabouts, behavior, and appearance are regrettably "fair game." And recently, two discoveries have opened yet more legitimate queries into just where Bristol Palin was and what she was doing - and how she "looked" - in the fall of 2007.

When the rumors first hit the Internet the last few days of August, 2008 that Palin had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol, two photos were widely shown in which Bristol Palin purportedly had a "baby bump." The first, in which Bristol is wearing a green sweater, was taken at the Palin's home in Wasilla. I have felt confident dating this to 2006, based on the fact that we discovered another photo from the same shoot in which Todd is wearing a campaign button.

But the second photo was a bit more troublesome.

People said many different things about this photo. One of the first was that it was from February of 2008. (I always thought that was most unlikely unless Alaska is a whole lot warmer than I have been led to believe.) Fairly early on, a correspondent identified this photo as having been taken in Juneau - and sometime in the summer or early fall, as the mountain in the background - according to him - typically has snow on it by late September. That seemed reasonable, and from this we could date the picture with more accuracy. It had to be the summer / early fall of 2007. Why? In summer of 2006, Palin was not yet governor; by summer of 2008, Trig was born and he is not in the photo.

I have always been bothered by this photo because - frankly - I never thought that the person in the photo that HAD to be Bristol looked much like other photos available of her. And of course the reason we are looking at this photo is the alleged "baby bump." Is there one? Possibly, though it did not look much different than the picture I felt dated from 2006. What bothered me more - a lot more - was how different and frankly "fatter" her face looked! But all in all, it's hard to tell, and you can't deny that she does look "full" in the middle.

I never felt confident saying anything with any certainty, however, because dates just did not add up in my mind. Operating from the assumption that Trig was really "due" in mid May 2008 and born a month early, if this photo was taken "before the end of the September" whoever is pregnant here could only have been 4-6 weeks - at the most - too early to show no matter who it is.

But one rumor that has persisted since the onset of this investigation was that Trig was born much earlier than announced. People have based this on numerous (and frankly very divergent) "evidence," not the least being that Trig - from the very beginning of his public debut in September looked much older and larger than you would expect a baby who, on Sept 1, was 4 1/2 months old and had been born prematurely. Other researchers have found clear evidence of a jar of baby food for much older babies (nine months plus) in a photograph of Sarah's desk from August on 2008 when Trig would have been barely four months old. Numerous people have commented that Trig looked much older than his supposed nine months in a recent promotional video Sarah did for the Special Olympics.

And of course as was revealed on this blog several weeks ago - we have clear evidence that Bristol Palin's presence was "scrubbed" almost entirely from MySpace beginning approximately July 1, 2007. Why? We had our suspicions but could prove nothing.

However, with the discovery of some additional photos which clearly show that Bristol Palin experienced rather striking physical changes between June of 2007 and September of 2007 PLUS our discovery that the Palin family may have intentionally released a "Christmas 2007" photo which was actually from Christmas 2006, it's hard not to have our suspicion alert level go to orange, if not red.

Here's what we know:

Several weeks ago, an alert blog reader provided us with this link. Apparently, these photos have been available all along but languished, undiscovered, on a UK photo website. Here's the link and here's another. (For this second link, you need to enter the site and you can search either on photographer's name (Andrew Testa) or "Palin.")

These links were critical because it allowed us to date - absolutely - that the photo of the Palin family on the balcony was taken on September 13th (or 14th - there seems to be a bit of confusion about the date, but a one day discrepancy is not an issue.) We already had suspected this because Palin's agenda, released under a FOIA request, indicated that official family portraits had been taken in Juneau on these dates, but we could not prove that THIS photo was taken then. Now we could.

One thing that is striking about these photos is that Bristol clearly shows signs of a weight gain, both in her face and in her body, when you contrast these shots with ones taken of her only three months earlier, on June 10, 2007.

She is slim hipped, lean through the face, completely flat in the belly, and frankly not very large on top. And three months later - we have this:

This is another photograph that we recently ran across. It was - we think - supposed to have been the "official Palin family holiday portrait for Christmas 2007" and it was obviously taken the same day as all the other photos in September. It was released for use in the Alaska Business Journal's December issue, but I still have not been able to determine if it ever appeared on the state website, or any where else for that matter. It could have been - but considering the fact that we have never seen this photo before now, my guess is that sometime between when it was released to the Alaska Business Journal and Christmas, the Palins changed their mind about using it. Hmmm. Wonder why....

Want another comparison between June 10 and September 14? Here it is:

And this brings me to the second interesting little tidbit that my ever vigilant helpers discovered. One of the things that has always struck us is the complete dearth of any photos of Bristol Palin between (now we know) September 14, 2007 and April 25, 2008 (when she posed in a candid shot with Mercede Johnston before Mercede attended the prom at Burchell High School.)

Bristol supposedly went with her mother to New York City in October of 2007. She is mentioned briefly on the state of Alaska website as having attended a license plate art ceremony (now there's some fun!) in early January, 2008, and again - according to travel reimbursement forms Palin filed, Bristol was also supposed to have attended an American Heart Association event in Fairbanks in mid February, 2008 though no photos of Bristol that we can locate seem to exist for any of these. (Queries to the Heart Association about this event have been met with a surprisingly, even shocking amount of obfuscation and stonewalling. More on this in a future post.) But other than that, the public record is amazingly silent on the whereabouts of Bristol Palin between September 2007 and April 2008.

One "sole" official photo seemed to exist, this Palin family photo released in the Kaylene Johnson biography of Palin, and dated to Christmas 2007. Here - naysayers have claimed - HERE is a photo of Bristol. Nothing to see here. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, you Trig Truthers you.

Except, not so fast.

Here's the picture released in Kaylene Johnson's book:

It's clearly dated 2007.

But here's a picture released in another Palin biography, Lorenzo Benet's Trailblazer.

It's dated 2006. Every person in the photo is wearing the same clothes, so it's reasonable to assume it's from the same year. But which year is it? Who's wrong? Kaylene Johnson or Lorenzo Benet? How to know?

Conveniently, every year at the Governor's Mansion in Juneau, the Governor of Alaska hosts an open house. Many high quality and reliably dated pictures are available of this event from mainstream media for both years. Careful analysis of the photos have shown that the decorations - specifically ornaments on the wreath visible behind the Palin family - are consistent with 2006 NOT 2007. It's not easy to see in the photo released in the Benet book, but when you really look, the conclusion is obvious.

Here's the wreath from the Lorenzo Benet book:

Here's the wreath from Christmas 2006, according to the official state of Alaska website:

Here's the wreath from Christmas 2007, again from the official state site:

It's obvious that the wreath in the photos from both the Kaylene Johnson book and Lorenzo Benet book is from 2006. A "typo" on Kaylene Johnson's part? An OOPS on the Palin family's part? Whatever the answer, this photograph is not from 2007. It's from 2006. Yet another "possible" sighting of Bristol from the time period in question is proved false.

So - what can we conclude?

1. In spite of rigorous efforts to locate one, not a single piece of photographic evidence exists of Bristol Palin from mid September 2007 until April 2008. This is a girl who had many friends with social networking pages. This is the daughter of the governor of Alaska, who prior to this time, had required her daughter to attend numerous "First Family" events.

2. Photographs that do exist show a striking amount of physical change in Bristol Palin during the early months of the time when "someone" would have been pregnant with Trig.

3. The one photograph ever released "officially" by Palin which purported to show her daughter in December of 2007 was misdated. By whom, we do not know.

Stay tuned...

Good Morning Chuckle

2009-05-09T05:20:00.000-07:00

My email box is filled with queries about the recently revealed "Christmas - 2007" photograph of the Palin family, which was actually taken in September 2007. A post about this photograph (putting it into a context) is the works.

Meanwhile, just so you can spit YOUR coffee all over YOUR computer screen (you were warned - best to put the cup down now) I'd like to share the following letter. It was written by "Sarah Stelfox" hailing from Alberta, in a "letter to the editor" response to Vanity Fair's recent article on Sarah Palin.

I completely disagree with James Wolcott's description of Sarah Palin as "Margaret Thatcher with moose antlers," a term that is unfair to Ms. Thatcher, in particular, and moose in general. On second thought, I may have to allow the moose bit - for two reasons. Number one: Here in the Canadian Foothills, moose have a regrettable tendency to wander along the roadside, and when a car approaches, they panic, leave the shoulder, and run straight down the center of the road, oblivious to the fact that the car is both faster and stronger than they are. Number two: Although moose often have long legs and an impressive rack, their communication skills leave a lot to be desired, which makes them well suited to a solitary life in the bush, but somewhat awkward in urban settings, where logic and complete sentences are required.

Thank you Sarah Stelfox. We could not have said it better.

Enough is Enough

2009-05-07T09:46:00.000-07:00

The Palin Deception website began seven and a half months ago, and the blog only very shortly after the site. Since the very beginning of my efforts to document the bizarre inconsistencies, troubling anomalies, and reasonable questions about Sarah Palin's alleged pregnancy (as well as the outright lies told by her directly,) I have attempted to rely heavily on the considerable photographic evidence available that she was never pregnant. To that end, on this blog and website, we have published literally scores of photographs in which her appearance is completely inconsistent with a forty-four year old woman five, six, seven, eight months pregnant with her fifth child. By and large, the main stream media has ignored this evidence.

This is made all the more ironic because the "Sarah Palin had Trig because Sarah Palin wouldn't lie" contingent has chosen to use a single "conclusive" photograph repeatedly to prove that Palin WAS pregnant, in spite of the fact that everyone must recognize logically that it is easy to appear pregnant if you are NOT (think of how many times it has been done convincingly on film and in theater) but it is nearly impossible to NOT look pregnant if you definitely are.

This photograph was allegedly taken on April 13, 2008, five days prior to Trig's birth. The problems with this photograph have been discussed in the past, in numerous posts on this blog, (here and here) but I will summarize the strongest points again.
1. The photo was released nowhere until after her VP nomination in late August.
2. The photo was released anonymously on Flickr in low resolution by one "Erik99559" to an account that was created solely to release this photo (and one other taken simultaneously.) Andrea Gusty (the reporter also shown in the photo,) in January did state publicly that the photo was taken with her camera, but she never explained who Erik is or was, why this photo was released only to Flickr, or why this was done anonymously four and a half months after the photo was taken. It also doesn't explain why, quietly, some time in the last six weeks, the account and photos just disappeared.
3. The photo was taken by a camera whose date was intentionally altered.
4. The photo was altered after it was uploaded to Flickr to lower the resolution.

Yet this single photo has been viewed as absolute proof positive that Palin was pregnant, and anyone who questions it is a "truther," "nut-job," "left wing looney" or worse. (Believe me, much worse - you should see my mail.)

Today, yet another photo has surfaced which - in my opinion - shows conclusively that Sarah Palin was faking a pregnancy in April of 2008, and frankly doing a fairly crappy job of it. This photo was taken on April 8, 2008 - exactly five days prior to the photo with Andrea Gusty in which she is conspicuously (even largely) pregnant and ten days prior to the announced birth date of Trig Palin. No, it's not terribly clear, and all we have is a photo of a photo, but in my opinion it's clear enough.

It was taken by a teacher, of a chance encounter between two students with Gov. Palin on a set of stairs of the capitol building in Juneau. Again, we see the floppy print scarf, tied in a full way, (again also begging the question why she continued to wear scarves - something she had claimed she did to HIDE her pregnant condition prior to March - AFTER the pregnancy was announced.) And again, careful examination shows the bulky scarf looking "poochey," but the LINE of the scarf on the left side of the photo (Palin's right), thanks to a clear side shot here, as it falls down against her body is completely, utterly straight. Contrast also the hand position. In the April 8th photo, her hand (clutching the two Blackberries,) rests almost flat against her abdomen. In the Gusty photo, she can barely clasp her hands in front of her.

Look above again at the Gusty photo. Try to picture what would happen to a scarf as it draped down her body if she were wearing one. (If any of you female readers are pregnant, similar to Sarah's build and close to delivery, by all means put on a jacket and scarf, have a photo of yourself taken at the same angle and we'll happily publish it for comparison!) Now look again at the April 8th photo. There is no doubt at all. In the Gusty photo, for a TV interview, she is wearing some sort of device or prosthetic to mimic a pregnant appearance. She goes out of her way to appear pregnant, largely so. On April 8th, quickly dashing up the stairs of the capitol, she relies on a floppy orange print scarf tied in a bulky fashion, and while moving quickly from place to place, the distracting floppiness and shape of the scarf did exactly what it was supposed to - mask the fact that there's nothing underneath. But - oh no - here are some pesky students who want a photo and, with no good reason to say no, she says yes. Bad idea. Because there's no six pound baby under that scarf. Not even close. As one very sharp blog reader said once, "Scarves hide hickeys. Not pregnancies."

So when is the charade going to stop? When will the main stream media put a stop to this "emperor's new clothes" charade? When will someone say, "Enough is enough?"

Pregnant with Piper? You betchya...!

2009-04-28T14:43:00.000-07:00

Since the beginning of the controversy regarding Gov. Sarah Palin's pregnancy, one aspect that has been commented on continually is that her appearance last spring did not mesh with expectations of a "normal" pregnancy.

At the time of the announcement, March 5th, 2008, the news that she was expecting was regarded with utter astonishment. Although Palin claimed at the time that she had to announce the pregnancy when she did because "people were beginning to notice," and that her clothes were getting "snugger and snugger," in fact the only person who has ever stated this IS Gov. Palin. (Even the article in which Palin is quoted as saying her clothes were getting tighter has as its main theme the fact that no one - not even her staffers - suspected she was pregnant.)

And a quick digression: I have always wondered, after reading this explanation for the public acknowledgment of a pregnancy that was allegedly already in its seventh month, if no one had EVER "noticed" her clothes getting tight, at what point would Palin have announced it? It's a fair question. Or would she have just showed up with a baby one day? She seems to be implying exactly that.)

Not one person has ever come forward and stated that they even suspected Gov. Palin to be pregnant prior to March 5th, at which point she would have been – based on her own announced due date – approximately 29 weeks pregnant with her fifth child. Not one staffer, not one journalist, no one. One sole journalist, Cherie Shirrey of KTVA, within 48 hours of the controversy erupting in August, jumped to Palin's defense and claimed that she had seen Palin numerous times for interviews and "in the studio" prior to Trig's birth (implying that it was between the time of the announcement – March 5th – and the birth six weeks later) and that Palin was definitely pregnant. Here's the blog post I did about this last December. However, Palin's daily schedule (obtained under a FOIA request) for the two months prior to Trig's birth in fact shows not a single visit to this TV station's studio. I have personally written Ms. Shirrey asking her to corroborate her statement. I have inquired about the dates of these interviews, topics covered, and why no video or stills are available of any of these interviews. I have received no answer.

After the announcement of her nomination on August 29th, one photo had appeared of Gov. Palin pregnant with a previous child (prior to the alleged pregnancy with Trig in 2008.)

This photo was provided by her parents to the news media as part of a large group of family photos that were released very shortly (within a day or two) after her VP pick. Although in a couple of places it has been suggested that this is not actually Palin at all (based on the fact that frankly the woman in the photo does not seem to look much like Sarah Palin does now) neither the Palin family nor the McCain campaign retracted the photo or ever stated it was not she. This photo has been shown widely, specifically to cast doubt on whether she is Trig's mother, and has been effective in doing so. I believe that if they had been able to retract the photo by claiming that it was someone else and had been released by mistake, that they would have done so.

Her hairstyle and general appearance actually are consistent with other photos we have of her from the late eighties into the early nineties. This comparison below shows Palin, I believe, looking very much similar to the photo of her late in pregnancy.

(And, no, I have no clue at all why she is wearing a crown, so don't bother to ask.)

Although rumored to be of her late in her pregnancy with Track (in 1989), as far as I can determine that's never been confirmed. However, based on hairstyle, my guess is that the photo is either from Track's pregnancy or Bristol's pregnancy two years later (1991.) Willow was born in mid-summer, 1995, and based on the surroundings, I do not believe this to be a mid summer scene.

Regardless of the exact year, however, one thing is clear. Gov. Palin is not only pregnant, she is in this photo I would say larger than average, particularly so if this might be her first pregnancy. In precise medical terms, she's huge. This evidence of her being of certainly "normal" size (and then some) in a prior pregnancy has been largely ignored by those who support Palin. They feel comfortable ignoring this photo for one reason: we do not know "how pregnant" Palin is here. She could hypothetically be one day away from giving birth at full term, a point she never reached with Trig, who was allegedly born at 35 weeks. Palin might be, it's suggested, one of those women who just gets really big "right at the end." The picture therefore is worthless for comparison purposes, it's claimed.

And – again – whenever this is discussed, the same group of "she got big right at the end" naysayers also serenade us with plausible tales of how they themselves, (or their wives, sisters, co-workers, what have you) never looked pregnant either. Every one of these people seems to know LOTS of 110 pound women who never looked pregnant and then, miraculously, gave birth to healthy seven, eight, even nine pound children. I am sure there are exceptions to every rule, but in fact, in nearly thirty years of working with pregnant women, I have never met one who looked significantly less pregnant on a subsequent pregnancy (unless there was a very good physiological reason, such as a single pregnancy following twins) than she did on an earlier one. It just doesn't work that way. I know, you know it, Governor Sarah Palin knows it, and deep down, every Palin supporter who tries to feed us this line of bullpuckey knows it too.

Since September, I have been hoping that additional photos of Palin from a prior pregnancy would become available which would shed some additional light on this issue. Was her pregnancy with Piper, for example, as magically free of any of those pesky physical changes as her pregnancy with Trig apparently was?

I can say now that it was not. Additional photos have been found, though regrettably they are not of the best quality. We have located two photographs of her taken in late November/early December, 2000, during her pregnancy with Piper. Both are from the archives of the Frontiersman, the local newspaper for the Mat-Su Valley.

Originals are not available. We have the photos in three separate formats, copies made from microfiche (microfiche provided by the University of Alaska), Xerox copies made from the actual extant physical copies of the paper (in person at the Frontiersman offices), and digital photographs of the physical copies of the paper (also taken in person at the Frontiersman offices.) None of these methods are ideal. Yet, in both, in spite of the fuzziness of the copies, I believe she definitely looks pregnant.

Piper was born on March 22, 2001, according to this article on her projected due date. The first week of December, therefore, Sarah Palin would have been around 25 weeks pregnant. She looks, well, normal. At twenty five weeks into her fourth pregnancy. This is, fortuitously, exactly the same point of pregnancy she would have been at when these famous "Super Tuesday" photos were taken in Juneau.

Unlike many other photos of her taken in late winter / early spring 2008, where Palin seems to be determined to hide behind winter coats, trench coats, huge (and notably unattractive) floppy print scarves, tables, podiums, mannish black blazers, and her own children, these two shots are remarkably clear. She is slim-hipped and flat-chested, and, in my opinion, she shows utterly no signs of pregnancy whatsoever.

Here are the two photos. The first, dated December 1, 2000 would have been taken sometime in the prior week, so let's say between November 24th and November 30th.

The second, dated December 5, 2000, again could have been taken any point in the prior week: between November 30th and December 4th. In this second photo, Palin is holding something – I presume a coat – draped over her left arm. Here's our original:

Here's one we sharpened to try to bring up some contrast between what she is wearing and what she is holding.

Closely examining the photo shows a slightly greenish cast to the fabric in a few places. However, as the fabric falls between her body and that of the other woman it is impossible to differentiate between what she is holding and her dark clothing, due to the fact that newspaper "half tones" scan at 85 dpi, which is a very low resolution photograph to work from.

In spite of the drawbacks of these two photos, the fullness of Palin's shape – in both photos - is impossible to deny.

Palin's supporters – the "Sarah Palin had Trig because Sarah Palin would never lie" posse – have also stated that the reason Palin never looked pregnant with Trig is that in 2007-2008 she was "in the public eye" and "did not let herself go." These photos of her pregnant with Piper demonstrate this is false. Palin was in the public eye (she was mayor of Wasilla) and was also very fit (running competitively around this point in her life). How she looked with Piper in 2000-2001 should be a very good guide to how we might have expected her to look with a fifth pregnancy several years later.

Why she didn't is anyone's guess. Mine is that she was not pregnant.

MySpace Part Three

2009-04-18T09:45:00.000-07:00

It has always been my preference to focus on the evidence that Sarah Palin was not pregnant in March and April of 2008, and let the question of the identity of Trig Palin’s biological mother play second fiddle. But, in spite of our preference to leave the Palin daughters out of the equation, we have not been able to avoid that completely. Bristol Palin was named nationally as Trig's mother in numerous places as early as August 29, 2008, and she was brought into the game by her own mother on September 1, when Sarah Palin chose to "prove" that she WAS Trig's mother, not by providing Trig's birth certificate or a clear statement by her physician, but by stating that her daughter was then five months pregnant, thus precluding Bristol's having given birth previously in mid-April.

Bristol Palin is by no means the only possibility for Trig Palin's birth mother. However, the persistence of the rumors that she was pregnant dating to before Trig's birth, coupled with the complete lack of photographs of her from the time period, makes it difficult not to continue to consider her the most likely "other mother."

Since September, numerous people have been looking to social networking websites, like MySpace for additional info about "Life and Times at Wasilla High." As we've stated previously, MySpace has NOT provided us concrete proof about this issue, specifically who Trig's mother is OR whether Bristol Palin was pregnant. But the MySpace comments do give a glimpse into the lives of Bristol, Levi and their circle of friends. And what we can see does indicate that something "changed" as early as July 2007 and that something was amiss during the winter of 2007-2008.

A number of the comments already published here have been suspicious, but none have been conclusive. For example, we’ve seen that Bristol made a series of interesting comments to her friend Johnny in the spring of 2007, including one stating that Gov. Palin had confronted her about possibly being pregnant. Other comments made to her girlfriends also merit attention:

June 22, 2007 9:40 PM
Hey, call me NOW!!

June 25, 2007 1:33 AM
:( now im a mother duck for that baby!

(Note from Audrey: This curious comment is discussed in more detail at the very end of this post.)

June 25, 2007 1:50 AM
ha ha im a slut. but sounds good…what number?

Without context, however, these comments can be interpreted in numerous ways. And, during this same period, other examples show Bristol to be happy and social, engaging in typical summertime activities. This makes it all the more strange when, in late June 2007, she suddenly disappears from MySpace, and is mentioned by name only once after that, even by her good friends.

Please be clear that we have no evidence that as of late June 2007, she actually did stop using MySpace abruptly. It's possible that she could have. Perhaps she became bored with MySpace. Perhaps her computer broke. Perhaps her friends just stopped talking both ABOUT her and TO her as of that date. But it's also quite possible (even probable) that she continued to use MySpace for months after this… and then at some point between late June 2007 and late August 2008, for reasons that we do not know at a point in time we cannot pinpoint, a decision was made to remove Bristol's page from the site, as well as delete any and all comments she made to friends, and apparently either to delete (or asked to be deleted) comments others made about her between themselves.

Because of this, our conclusions are drawn as much from what's NOT there as from what is.

What does our research show post-June 2007? One of the only comments that directly references Bristol after that time (and the only one that uses her name) has already been published, from September 2007, in which one girl (Kaila) is joking with Jenny Jo, who is a good friend of Levi’s off-and-on girlfriend Lanesia, because Jenny Jo had threatened to beat Bristol up for Lanesia.

9/28/2007 Kaila to Jenny Jo:
haha, you were gonna fight Bristol for Lanesia.. idk, it was freakin hilarious though. you were getttin ready to take on like 394083 people yourself. haha..funny ass shit. call me tonight bia.

Is this because Levi and Bristol’s relationship has just been discovered? The problem with this comment is that it references something that happened earlier, "you were gonna fight…" but there is no date context. Was this something that happened the previous night or three months earlier? We don't know.

In any case, by January 2008, Lanesia had moved on to a different relationship, indicating that Bristol and Levi most likely became “official” sometime in either the summer or the fall of 2007.

Although she had a new boyfriend, one specific comment shows that Lanesia might still have harbored some residual feelings for Levi. In late January 2008, there is a burst of chatter that may be significant, though it's inconclusive at the same time. First, messages are left between a young man named Tylor to our old friend Jenny Jo.

In the first, Tylor asks Jenny Jo: "Who do you want to beat up?" (indicating that Jenny Jo has told Tylor that she's angry with someone) and the second – in response to something Jenny Jo then said back to Tylor that we cannot see – "THEY F***ED?"

Is Tylor a newcomer to some gossip? Does the gossip even have anything at all to do with Bristol Palin? The next couple of exchanges certainly indicate the strong possibility that Levi and Bristol are involved. Tylor immediately posts to Rachelle (the sister of Johnny – who has been identified as Bristol's boyfriend prior to Levi) "ARE YOU SERIOUS"

Again, why do we think this has anything to do with Bristol? Because just a couple hours later, Lanesia then posts back to Rachelle:

yea i heard and #### no never again she messed that up to many times and i aint one to talk shit about a girl and go be tight with them but no im not she totally messed up by Fn my Xbf

These exchanges indicate that something surprising was revealed in late January 2008. Lanesia's "yea I heard" can only mean there is new information which involved a girl who was "fn" Lanesia's "xbf," and from our research, the only ex-boyfriend of Lanesia was Levi Johnston. And, although Levi had been linked with several other girls in 2005 and 2006, from 2007 on, the only two girls mentioned in conjunction with Levi were Lanesia herself and Bristol Palin. It would be easy to say that "new shocking" info would be that Bristol was pregnant. Yet – two of the comments specifically mention just sexual activity – as if that might be the "new" thing, which then becomes hard to explain in the context of someone wanting to beat Bristol up FOR Lanesia at least four months earlier.

And then… in this sequence… nothing more.

We can only come back to what was said before: For a popular girl who had an active social life and many friends, and who had been a regular MySpace user, the complete absence of any mention of Bristol through this time period is astonishing. It's important to reiterate that the only comments we can link to her (with the one exception of the comment from September 2007, which makes reference to her being "beat up") do not contain her name.

For example, in April 2008, 8 days before Trig’s official birthdate, an older Wasilla teen named Dannie, someone not closely connected to the primary social group, makes this curious comment on a friend’s MySpace:

April 10, 2008 12:03 AM
…i want to tell you something kinda funny so when you call remind me about the governor’s kid…

Something to do with Bristol?

After that comment, there is nothing more to be found in MySpace about any of the Palins until the end of August. The pregnancy that was announced by the Palin campaign on September 1, 2008 was said to be an “open secret” in Wasilla. Really? Because in spite of the fact that many of the teens’ MySpace profiles were used extensively between April-August 2008, neither Mercede nor any other person makes even one mention of Bristol or the pregnancy. Not one.

Mercede's MySpace page was public until midafternoon on September 1, 2008. We have screen shots of the entire thing. She is so close to her older brother Levi that she had posted several pictures of them together, in which she calls him "her best friend" in the world. She has had his name tattooed on her wrist. Yet not one post about this exciting "open secret" that her dear brother was to become a father, which would make her a new auntie? No.

Numerous comments exist on many girls' pages in which pregnancies, showers, and babies are discussed, in some cases with great excitement and positive feelings. But regarding Bristol, Levi and the Tripp pregnancy... well, it doesn't seem to exist. The only thing we do have is a photograph of Bristol and Mercede together from April 25, 2008 in which Mercede refers to Bristol as her sister-in-law. This is after Trig's birth but before it is plausible that it was known that she was pregnant with Tripp.

Then, the morning of August 29, 2008 arrives, and with it, John McCain’s announcement of his running mate.

On that day, there is an occasional comment along the lines of --hey, did you see who got picked?--but generally nothing more than that. But on the afternoon of the 29th, Dannie (the one who had heard something "kinda funny" about the governor’s kid) does have a specific question, and she poses it to another Wasilla teen, Zach, again someone not tightly connected to the primary group. Because Zach's MySpace profile is private, we cannot see the initial question to him, but his answer is this:

August 29, 2008 3:39 PM
I know who started it. Tylor [last name deleted by PD]
I think that’s how you spell his name

There is no context surrounding this remark to aid interpretation. All we know is that Zach says that Tylor started “it”. Because Zach identifies Tylor by his first and last name, we know for sure that this is the same Tylor who was involved in the exchanges regarding the surprising news back in January.

Fast forward a bit to September 3, the day of Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention. Not only is the Palin/Johnston pregnancy an “open secret” in Wasilla, it’s now the most famous pregnancy in the entire United States. The governor of Alaska is on the ticket; her oldest daughter has been outed as a pregnant unwed teen on the national news; said daughter and her hockey star fiance are being seen all over the world. That should warrant quite a few MySpace comments. No need to keep it on the down-low anymore. Right? Or at least a couple of comments? Actually: zero.

Well, maybe just one, a cryptic question--asked by a girl named Kelci of Kaila (the same Kaila who was involved in the exchange with Jenny Jo about beating up Bristol a year earlier):

September 3, 2008 6:06 PM
bp?

Kaila's answer is not known because Kelci's profile is private, but, after receiving a response, she comments back to Kaila

September 4, 2008 6:02 PM
mmmmm gotcha. that’s what I figured but I wasn’t fasho
whadddup?

For the uninitiated, "fasho" in teen speak means "for sure." So Kelci is saying, "That's what I thought [about whatever it is they were talking about concerning "bp"] but I wasn't sure."

But what could it be? If we're to believe that Bristol’s pregnancy is an "open secret" in Wasilla, and that Levi and Bristol are an established, even engaged, couple, why is it that the only possible mention of it at this point (OR throughout the entire previous summer OR during the entire following campaign) is this one girl who dares use only initials? Hmmm.

And what could this girl be asking? We believe she is a relative of Kaila (though we can't confirm that 100%); she also lives in the Wasilla area, and she is friends with many of the same people as Kaila. So she wouldn’t be confirming simply that Bristol is pregnant, because everyone already knows that, right?

So what are my conclusions?

1. Bristol Palin was "scrubbed" from MySpace as of an arbitrary date. This date seems to be around July 1, 2007, though the date the scrubbing was actually done is completely unknown. Numerous comments from before this date existed as of September 1, 2008 (though many have since been removed) including one fairly troublesome one about her mother questioning whether or not she was pregnant. Only one comment exists which mentions her by name after that date, and NO comments from her.

2. There was chatter about something surprising, even shocking, in late January 2008 that involved Levi Johnston, and in all probability, Bristol Palin. This was far too early for her to have been pregnant with Tripp. However, considering earlier comments, it seems too late to have been simply that the two young people were in a relationship.

3. There is not a single mention of Bristol, Levi, or Bristol's pregnancy throughout the entire summer of 2008, even though it was supposed to have been an "open secret" in Wasilla. A single comment, mentioning Bristol only by using her initials, strongly suggests on September 3rd that there is something more going on than just the supposed "open secret. " It was something that there was gossip about, something that some young people in Wasilla (who should have been connected with the group) were unaware of. Something about Tripp's pregnancy was not "as presented" on September 1, 2008, though what exactly that is is completely unclear. Dates? Who the father might be?

The MySpace information is confusing, at time contradictory, and terribly incomplete. Yet, overall, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the timelines of neither the Trig nor the Tripp pregnancies seem plausible based on what is being said (and not said) among teenagers in Wasilla.

-------------

PS. Those who have read this far (!) will probably note that no comment has been made about a curious post from late June, 2007, in which Bristol states:

:( now im a mother duck for that baby!

(For those who don't know, the ":( " is a "frowny face" indicating unhappiness.)

This comment has caused quite a bit of private debate and discussion among those affiliated with this blog. Certainly, it is hard to say it is not significant: it is the second to last thing still available from Bristol on MySpace (only her "now I'm a slut" comment came later, by a couple of minutes) AND – good grief! - it mentions a baby!

But what does it mean? It has been suggested that she is being forced to gestate a child, like a mother duck sitting on eggs. Several of the Palin Deception researchers subscribe to this theory, and find it extremely significant.

It has also been suggested that, in spite of the timing, it has nothing to do with Bristol being pregnant or not pregnant. I for one find the use of the phrase "that baby" to indicate that she is talking about something separate from her, possibly a child (Piper, who was five at the time?) she was being forced to babysit for. (And ducklings follow mother ducks around constantly.)

If Bristol Palin had said, ":( now im a mother duck for THIS baby!" I would be saying that I found it highly indicative of pregnancy. But the use of the word "that" to me means she is talking about something she is not happy about, something she has actual disdain for. Most teenaged women who become pregnant and decide to keep the baby tend to be excited about it (naively perhaps, but still excited.) The negative tone of this comment indicates to me that she is talking about something else. I do not know what.

But I am presenting both sets of thoughts here, and the reader needs to decide for himself on this one.

A Welcome and an Explanation

2009-04-11T19:50:00.000-07:00

Over the last 48-72 hours, literally thousands of new readers have visited this blog. Hopefully a few are coming back to see what else is new. I've been so swamped the past few days answering emails, checking out all the places that have linked to us, etc, that I am still working on the third MySpace post. It will come soon. My goal is Monday at the latest.

I'd like to take this opportunity to make a post which will review for new readers some of the most informative posts from the blog from the last seven months. (Has it really been that long? I don't even want to think about that!)

First, though, I am a bit troubled how we've been presented in some of the articles that have linked to us over the past few days. It's ironic that after months of focusing on the question of whether Sarah Palin gave birth to Trig Palin now almost a year ago, the post that brought the blog the most publicity was one that was - in fact - atypical for us.

The decision to bring the teen MySpace material into the dialogue was a difficult one. Obviously, if there was anything absolutely conclusive regarding the motherhood of Trig on MySpace I would have used it long ago, but because there is not, I had been sitting on this information. Most of the material presented I have had available since October. Even now I used only the most minimal material, and only quotes that directly spoke to Bristol and Levi's relationship and Sarah's credibility. These Wasilla teens were not some random kids my helpers pulled off of MySpace just because they lived in the same town; these teens were Bristol's close circle of friends, and frankly I used about 1% of the material we have.

It has always been the goal of my blog to prove that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy last spring and to leave the question of whom exactly Trig's mother really is to the "clean-up" crew. Over the last six months, I believe I have shown more than adequate proof of this, as follows:
1. I have shown photographs of her less than four weeks before allegedly giving birth to a six pound child in which there are no signs of pregnancy. Click here to read "The Nail in the Coffin," originally published in December.
2. I have shown photographs of her going from barely visibly pregnant to huge in four days. Click here to read "Some New Photo Evidence," published in October.
3. I have shown a screen shot of her approximately ten days prior to Trig's birth in which the shape of her belly is square.
4. I have demonstrated that, on countless fronts, she has told lies about the pregnancy. Read "Spin, Baby, Spin" from September and "Spin, Spin, We Almost Become Dizzy" from December to start. There are numerous more posts on the blog that go into other issues.
5. We have torn apart the "statement" given by the McCain campaign, allegedly from her doctor, that was passed off to the press as her medical records. Here's "The Purloined Letter" from February.
6. I have analyzed the story she told about her trip from Texas to Alaska, supposedly after showing clear signs of being in labor, and, I believe proved conclusively that it is medically absurd. Please visit the website proper for this discussion.
7. I have raised very valid questions about the Palin's failure to release a certificate which, in my opinion, basically proves that he was not born on April 18th, 2008 (regardless of who his mother is.)

I have done all of this - and more (a lot more!) - and still the mainstream media has refused to pick up the story.

I never wanted to "go after" Bristol, in spite of the fact that she was brought into the dialogue by Sarah Palin. Gov. Palin and the McCain campaign announced on September 1st that Bristol was pregnant, making her the most notorious pregnant teen in the world. (Read here: "Bristol Palin: Under the Bus.") They did it because it was the only way they could "prove" that Sarah WAS Trig's mother... tell us that Bristol could not be. The only thing more absurd than their doing it was the fact that the MSM let them get away with it.

However, lately, I believe that Bristol, along with Mercede and Levi Johnston, have brought themselves into the debate. Bristol was not honest with Greta Van Susteren about several things. Levi and Mercede appeared on the Tyra Banks show and provided the program with numerous photographs. One was a previously unseen photograph of Levi cuddling a newborn, Mercede hovering nearby. I'm sure most viewers assumed it was Levi and Tripp. I'm sure the producer assumed the same. It wasn't. It was Levi and Trig, and the photo was taken almost a year ago. You think that was not a shot across the bow to the Palins?

So why keep doing this? Because while Sarah Palin is history, she is history that still matters. I want an answer as to why a dimbulb who considers "What books do you read?" a trick question was nominated for Vice President of the United States. Newsweek just this week goes in depth about her selection process. She was "vetted" mostly on the Internet, according to Newsweek, and McCain talked to her for the first time on the phone only four days before he made his decision. A woman who stuffed a square pillow under her shirt and pretended to be pregnant (so as to avoid some really pointed questions about her own parenting and family values philosophies) less than one year later was presented to America as a credible vice presidential candidate, one seventy-two year old cancer survivor's heartbeat away from the presidency.

More will be coming on this blog soon. We won't be rehashing old material. But, I did want to draw our new readers' attention to blog posts that give a clear idea of what we've been doing and saying for seven months now.

I feel very badly for Bristol Palin, and would have preferred to just leave her alone. Forever. I get no pleasure whatsoever (I believe one columnist used the word "glee") out of publishing material that damages a young mother's reputation. I don't care who Trig's mom is and honestly I wish I had never heard of Bristol. But I care very much that Sarah Palin might have been vice president, and for that reason I continue to pursue this story.

My Space Part 2

2009-04-08T14:55:00.000-07:00

I need to provide a quick update. This week, National Enquirer ran an article about a former boyfriend of Bristol Palin's, and named him. Several other teens involved in this story have also been named in national media. We have reconsidered our decision NOT to "name names." We are using teens' real names in our posts. However, we are not using any last names, nor are we linking to the actual MySpace pages.

Please note that at the end of this post, there is a .pdf attachment which contains screen shots of the comments used in this post as well as the documentation that we used to prove that the redacted MySpace account that we have identifed as Bristol's was in fact hers.

-------------

What ARE the most critical points learned from our extensive MySpace analysis?

1. Bristol Palin began dating beginning when she was 15 or 16. There are strong indications that she was sexually active. Statements that were made to the press (including one from Levi himself) during the campaign that Levi and Bristol had dated for three years or "since freshman year" are no where borne out according to MySpace. If they had dated for three years as of September, 2008, that would have meant their relationship went back to September 2005. In fact, there is no evidence at all that Bristol and Levi dated prior to June 2007. This appears to be a complete fabrication, designed to show the young couple as stable and committed, when in fact they were neither.

2. In the spring of 2007, when Bristol would have been 16 ½ years old, Sarah Palin overheard a telephone conversation between Bristol and a young man named Johnny. Johnny is someone who appears to have been a very good friend -- Bristol commented to him frequently (and usually innocuously) during the time she was in Juneau, often signing her name with a heart. Johnny has been identified multiple places (including just this week in National Enquirer) as Bristol Palin’s boyfriend prior to Levi.

On this occasion, the phone conversation between Johnny and Bristol that Gov. Palin overheard led her to confront Bristol about whether or not she was pregnant. Even if Bristol was NOT pregnant at that time, it surely had to indicate that Gov. Palin suspected her daughter was sexually active. This would make her purported “surprise” at the news Bristol WAS allegedly pregnant with Tripp (a full year later) disingenuous at best.

5/14/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
ha ha, my mom was asking me who I was on the phone with last night, and she said she heard everything I was saying.. now she thinks im pregnant…ahaha call me later if you'd like

Then there was these further exchanges between Bristol and Johnny.

5/17/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
haha, sorry I still had my phone taken away, but I got it back today, so you can call whenever (heart)

5/20/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
if you don’t call me tonight im gonna freak out.

5/27/2007 Bristol to Johnny:
I waited for you to call me last night.

It’s also very interesting to note that these three comments all come within days of the phone call that Palin overheard which led her to wonder if Bristol was pregnant.

Levi Johnston and Johnny were close friends. The National Enquirer mentions this. In their article, they claim that “Levi and Johnny had a big blowup during their sophomore year in high school when Levi and Bristol hooked up while she was still with Johnny.” Our research actually shows something a bit different.

First, there is no indication that anything started between Levi and Bristol “during their sophomore year.” During the second half of Bristol’s sophomore year, she was attending Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, and, as late as May 20th (after school ended) she was sending notes to Johnny along the lines of what was quoted above: “If you don’t call me tonight I will freak out.” However, there is some indication that Bristol and Levi began dating in June of that year. Bristol makes one comment to Levi that makes it clear that Levi had left clothing at Bristol’s house. Hmmm. Perhaps they were swimming.

However, more interesting, several comments indicate that while there was a grudge between Levi and Johnny, it was Levi that held the grudge as recently as May of 2008, not the other way around, which should have been the case if Bristol had dumped Johnny FOR Levi. We have several comments between Johnny and Mercede Johnston which makes it sound as if Mercede is trying to patch things up between her brother and Johnny. Johnny is obviously hoping there will be a reconciliation from the tone of the comments. Why there was a grudge that persisted until May of last year, and why Levi seems to be the angry one is completely unclear.

3. Levi Johnston had multiple girlfriends from 2005 on, including one long time serious (though “on again – off again”) relationship with a girl named Lanesia. She later expressed great unhappiness over Levi's loss.

Levi was not a lonely lad. He appears to have "dated" at least five girls, not counting Bristol Palin, from this group alone. Indications are that he was regarded as somewhat of a catch.

One comment indicates that Levi was "messing with" two girls (neither was Bristol Palin) simultaneously on one occasion. One of the girls involved denied the accusation categorically, but the fact that the accusation was made at all (and by girls who knew Levi very well) indicates that they considered it a possibility.

It is not clear from the MySpace comments when Bristol and Levi's relationship began, but it seems to be June of 2007. Lanesia was claiming in May 2007 that she and Levi were back together (and Bristol was not in Wasilla for most of late winter and spring of 2007).

There was discussion in September 2007 between two friends of Lanesia, (Kaila and Jenny Jo,) claiming that Jenny Jo at some point in the past, had planned to beat Bristol up for Lanesia. This comment, interestingly, is the ONLY comment that is visible on MySpace dated after June of 2007 that either is from Bristol Palin or mentions her by name. My speculation is that, when MySpace was "scrubbed," this comment was overlooked somehow.

9/28/2007 Kaila to Jenny Jo:
haha, you were gonna fight Bristol for Lanesia.. idk, it was freakin hilarious though. you were getttin ready to take on like 394083 people yourself. haha..funny ass shit. call me tonight bia.

4. In the interview that Greta Van Susteren did with Bristol Palin on February 17, 2009, Bristol told Ms. Susteren that she did not know any other girls who had been pregnant or had babies. This is totally false and seems like a pointless lie. Numerous girls in Bristol's circle at Wasilla had already had babies.

5. Track Palin (whose has been accused of being no slacker in the party department himself) became so worried about his sister's behavior (though the exact details are not clear) at one point that he actually "outed" her to their parents, calling her a "stoner."

4/18/2007 Bristol to Johnny
tracks little bitch ass decited to tell my parents im a stoner..hes so tight..and when I get home, im gonna kick him in the balls.

6. Levi Johnston had another MySpace account (which has also been removed) and which he did use, which was different from the one that has received so much publicity. (The one on which he claimed he was a f***ing redneck and did not want children.)

However, possibly the most critical thing the MySpace analysis shows is what's NOT there. Prior to August 29, 2008 most of Bristol Palin's presence on MySpace was deliberately removed, and the "scrubbing" appears to go back, not to spring of 2008, which would have been when Bristol's pregnancy with Tripp should have commenced (and there may well have been “chatter” that the McCain campaign did not want made public), but into the summer of 2007, a full year earlier. The last comment made from the account we know to have been Bristol's came in June 2007. Going back into 2006, Bristol used MySpace frequently, commenting often on friends' pages, in a couple of cases as many as three short and quick comments in one day. What's left from spring 2007 shows that Bristol was unhappy in Juneau and liked using MySpace to keep in contact with her Wasilla friends. Levi Johnston does not appear to have been a heavy MySpace user, but he definitely had a separate account, different from the one that contained the well-publicized comment that he did not want children – and that account is also now gone.

As has been said earlier, it's hard to recreate what was scrubbed after the fact. What's left from after June of 2007 are:
1. No comments at all from Bristol dated after June 25, 2007.
2. No MySpace page from Bristol, and the page that Levi Johnston actually seemed to use is also gone.
3. One sole comment that mentions Bristol Palin by name.
4. A few cryptic comments that we believe may refer to Bristol Palin. In one, the initials bp are used. In another, there is reference to "the governor's kid." In a third, a comment that we believe refers to Bristol talks about "you know who."

And what was Bristol's last known comment to any friend? On June 25, 2007 she wrote:

ha ha im a slut. but sounds good...what number?

bristolfinalpdf.pdf

Coming soon: What does MySpace say specifically about whether or not Bristol Palin might have been pregnant in 2007-2008?

Message. In. A. Bottle.

2009-04-06T22:26:00.001-07:00

Well, not exactly in a bottle. More like on the Tyra Banks show.

Since the beginning of the controversy about who had given birth to Trig Palin a set of pictures that were published some time prior to May 5, 2008 on Mercede Johnston's MySpace page has given those of us who have tried to solve the riddle, basically, fits. The pictures have been discussed in several other posts on this blog, here. Here's one of them, the other two (one of Mercede with Bristol and one of Mercede with Sarah) can be seen at the posts linked above.

The captions - identifying Trig as Mercede's "baby brother" and Sarah Palin as "mommy in law" could never be adequately explained through "known" relationships. Certainly, many people - myself among them - thought that the captions indicated that Trig Palin was something "special" to Mercede Johnston, something far MORE special than just the younger brother of a good friend, though just how that was remained "obscure" as the captions, while terribly intriguing, were difficult to explain.

No matter how one "sliced and diced," Trig Palin was NOT Mercede's brother unless somehow her mother (Sherrie Johnston) was also Trig's mother... and that seemed beyond credibility... or if somehow Mercede's father was also Trig's father. But it never was possible to explain why, in such a circumstance, Sarah Palin would be motivated to fake a pregnancy. If Trig were Levi's son, Trig would be Mercede's nephew, and she did not say that. If he were merely her future sister-in-law's younger brother, Mercede's enthusiasm was hard to explain.

Initially, many people thought the pictures were taken in a hospital setting. After Gov. Palin did several interviews after the election in her home, we were able to prove conclusively that the photos were in fact taken in the Palin kitchen. While interesting, this made the photos in a way more obscure, since now they could only be dated to some point "before May 5th." We know this because on May 5th, Mercede received a comment about them on her MySpace page. Other than that, they could not be dated.

Today, Mercede Johnston, Levi Johnston, and Sherrie Johnston (their mother) appeared on the Tyra Banks show. In the background, numerous still photos were shown.

Including this one:

I've got news for everyone. Mercede is wearing exactly the same outfit, down to the earrings, as the photos released last year. Her hair is identical. The baby appears to be wearing the same outfit. Levi is sitting in the same chair in the Palin kitchen.
Compare for yourself:

This is NOT a photo of Levi with Tripp Johnston, allegedly born December 27, 2008.

This is a photo of Levi Johnston cradling tenderly Trig Palin, allegedly born April 18, 2008. It was taken the same day as the photos that Mercede put up on her MySpace page, some time before May 5th 2008.

Why in the world would this photo be selected for release on the Tyra Banks show unless Mercede is trying to send us a message, loud and clear? Surely, if Tripp IS Levi's child (and Trig is the son of his ex future mother-in-law) there would be no earthly reason to release photos of Trig with Levi on a show that was supposed to be about current events, i.e., Tripp's birth and the current relationship with Tripp's mother. But.. someone in the Johnston clan selected this photo. Of Levi cuddling Trig. Now almost a year ago. Intentionally. So I... and other "anonymous bloggers..." would see it. And we have.

Mercede, message received. Thank you.

MySpace Part One

2009-04-05T21:17:00.000-07:00

First, this post has been greatly delayed as I struggled – with the assistance of the researchers who compiled all of this material for me – concerning the issue of just how much material to post – and how to present it.

Ultimately, we have made the decision not to release nearly as much information on the blog as we had originally intended. Instead, we will be posting much longer – and more detailed information – on the website proper.

We've ultimately made the following decision that both for this blog post and for the web posting of more extensive data, only Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston, and Mercede Johnston will be identified by name. (The names of all other MySpace teens (regardless of age) have been changed to completely random "fake" names). Bristol, Levi, and Mercede have voluntarily spoken to the press; thus they are now considered "fair game." There is considerable evidence that Bristol has made misleading statements to the press on more than one occasion, if not outright lied.

At this time, I plan on doing three posts concerning the MySpace material: this one, a second which discusses an overview, and a third which considers explicitly whether or not Bristol was pregnant at the time she was announced to have been pregnant (i.e., roughly early April to late December 2008.)

Is Bristol Palin Trig’s mother? This is a question which, frankly, we preferred to avoid as much as possible for months, instead focusing on the discrepancies in Sarah Palin’s implausible tale. The rumors and reports that Bristol Palin was pregnant originated well before she could possibly have been pregnant with Tripp. This is beyond dispute. If Tripp Palin was born the last week in December, 2008, Bristol would have become pregnant around the first week in April 2008. Yet Sue Williams, a Wasilla caterer who spoke to the press within hours of Palin's nomination as VP (and who is NOT a Palin supporter) claimed that Willow's eighth grade boyfriend was telling people in Wasilla early in April, prior to Trig's birth on April 18th, that Bristol was pregnant. So positive was Ms. Williams of her information that she insisted late in August that Bristol was well into her third trimester and due "soon." Sarah discussed (and denied) rumors that Bristol was pregnant with Bill McAllister (at the time a news reporter, though later he became her press secretary) at some point before she announced her own pregnancy on March 5th. In one of my earlier posts, these reports of pregnancy rumors and of her unexplained absence from school were detailed in depth. There has also been much discussion on the blog about Bristol’s absence from any events from late fall until spring, with the possible (and as yet unconfirmed) exception of an event for the American Heart Association on February 15, 2008.

The MySpace material in many cases raises as many questions as it answers. On this blog, I have tried to avoid including information that, while shocking, has no bearing on the central question of who Trig's mother is or the general credibility of the Palin family. We plan on releasing far more of the MySpace material soon on the website itself, largely in a "raw" format. Readers will be free to peruse the information and draw their own conclusions.

One of the first questions that will be asked is how we verified who any of these people are. How can we be sure? For those who are not familiar with how MySpace works, I will give a brief overview. There are two kinds of information that are available on MySpace. The first is material on pages that are public. Public means exactly that. Anyone can see and peruse the entire page. We can see photos, music choices, quotes, and other information he or she has posted identifying him or herself. For those who have never been on MySpace, someone's "front page" on MySpace is a bit like a scrapbook page that is public, created for everyone to look at.

There is no requirement on MySpace that a person use his or her real name. Often people do, but equally often they do not. When a young person posts a picture of himself and says, "My name is Joe Smith and I go to Such and So High School," it is usually easy to verify that that person is who he say he is. Sometimes, of course, the person does not use a real name, though quite often they do identify themselves accurately as to town and school, so there is an additional step that must be taken, (based on photos and friend connections) to identify that "Hot Sue" for example, is Susan Jones. In our case, for example, Mercede Johnston's MySpace handle is "Sadie."

The second way to get information about people is that we can see comments ON public pages FROM the person, even if that person's page itself is private or in some cases deleted from MySpace completely. In this case, it is often very difficult to be sure of what some comments mean, because we are only seeing half of the comments, like hearing half of a phone conversation. Sometimes you can get a very good idea of what the conversation is about; other times, you are lost.

Bristol Palin's page was deleted (or possibly made private, then later deleted) prior to her mother's pick as VP, though we do not know when. In fact, after June 2007, there is only one comment that we can find on anyone's page that mentions Bristol by name, though there are several comments that use her initials that we are sure refer to her. This is very odd, since Bristol was a popular girl who had many friends. Furthermore, according to the McCain campaign and media reports it was common knowledge that Levi and Bristol were expecting a baby in late 2008. Did this warrant a comment on NO ONE'S page? Not one person thought to mention it? Or – more likely – were comments "scrubbed" at some point? Scrubbing is very difficult to prove after the fact, unless one is watching for it prior to the scrubbing occurring. For example, we know comments that had been visible on some of the Wasilla friends' pages through November 2008, were removed in November, after the election. We can prove this easily because we have screen shots of the pages both before and after. But since no one was watching the pages of Wasilla Alaska teenagers prior to late August, 2008, the full story is very difficult to piece together. However, one oddity we noted: one young woman, a close friend of Bristol's, who we will refer to as "Fanny" normally received dozens of comments a month. Suddenly, in a period of more than a month in the Spring of 2007, absolutely none. We can verify Fanny was active on MySpace – she was leaving comments on other friends' pages but her page was scrubbed completely. Proof of anything? No. Mysterious? Very.

So, how do we know what (few) comments remain are actually from Bristol Palin? We can see that the comments come from someone named "Bristol," but how do we know for sure who this is? We can be sure it's Bristol Palin, for the following reason: comments that were made by this Bristol can be indisputably tied to known events in Bristol Palin's life, as follows:

1. On October 12th, 2006, Bristol commented on a friend's page that she would be driving in four days. This corresponds exactly to Bristol Palin's sixteenth birthday.
2. In June of 2007, Bristol made several references to working at Nordstrom's. From Sarah Palin's financial disclosure forms, we know that Bristol Palin worked at Nordstrom's at that time.
3. On one occasion, Bristol makes very negative comments about having to attend an event in Glenallen Alaska. We know from Sarah Palin's schedule that an event, which included the "First Family" occurred on that day.

Does the MySpace page material answer with any certainty whether Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig OR whether Sarah did not? No, it does not. But it gives clear glimpses into the Palin family life, and specifically into Bristol Palin, that are sharply at odds with the all American family that was portrayed to the media. This is particularly relevant coming now, as Levi Johnston has purportedly told Tyra Banks (in an interview to be shown tomorrow) that he was allowed to spend the night openly at the Palin home, even though, according to him, Gov. Palin almost certainly knew that he and Bristol were having sex. I believe that, in spite of Palin's heated denials, this is confirmed from her daughter's own MySpace comments. At one point, she jokes with Levi that he apparently left some clothes at her home.

The view of teen life in Wasilla Alaska gleaned from the fifty or so MySpace pages that our researchers have followed diligently shows a sad, disappointing, in fact, very upsetting tale. If these are the family values that the McCain campaign hoped Gov. Palin would bring to America, all I can say is "no thanks." Drug and alcohol use is detailed, even boasted about regularly, by teens as young as fourteen and fifteen. Young women who are no more than fifteen discuss who is f***ing whom with the ease of a discussion about who will pick up the pizza. Bristol Palin, presented to the country by her mother as an honor student, at age 16 does not spell the word "decided" correctly.

Coming tomorrow: Six specific things the MySpace analysis shows us.