This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on December 2, 2008 10:11 PM. The previous post in this blog was Portland's next tax. The next post in this blog is Gone to the 'dogs. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Sarah Palin's fake pregnancy belly

The bloggers who have set out to prove that Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig Palin have broken their latest find, and they were right -- it's a humdinger. It's a photo of Palin on March 26 of this year -- 23 days before Trig's birth -- in which she cannot possibly be that close to delivering a six-pound baby boy.

Here is the photo, which appears on a Flickr page of the mother of the child who's posing with Palin. The photo was taken at an event at a museum in Juneau. The date has been verified beyond any question. It's March 26:

There is no way that a six-pound baby came out of that belly 23 days later:

Particularly curious is the abrupt change in the abdomen in the two weeks after March 26. Here is a screenshot from a documentary video of Palin shot on April 8 (or within two days of that date) by the Israeli filmmaker Elan Frank. Compare this screenshot with the photo above. Look at how much change took place over that two weeks:

And then here Palin is on April 13 -- five days or less after the video shoot, and five days before Trig was born:

The March 26 photo is the smoking gun. There really is no chance that there's a baby in there who will be born 23 days later at six pounds birth weight. And there really is no chance that the child grew so suddenly over the following two weeks.

The sleuths who uncovered this latest photo are right. On top of all the other evidence that the Palins are lying about Trig's parentage, it's quite conclusive. Sarah Palin is not the mother.

Comments (235)

Jack please stop. You are officially in the loony bin. To say thiese photos even come close to "proof" of your ridiculous theory is just insane. You are unhinged. I can't believe that you don't understand how this obsession is destroying your credibility.

The March 26 photo is absolutely conclusive. There is no way there's a baby in there who's going to be born in 23 days and weigh six pounds. It's just not possible.

Sarah forgot to wear one of her big scarves that day, and that mistake is going to cost her now. Even wearing her heavy winter coat indoors for hours wasn't enough to hide the truth from the camera.

Why, at this point, does it matter? I guess if I squint I can see how it might be seen as important, but it hardly seems urgent.

Then move on.

In case you haven't noticed, Caribou Barbie is the new Face Of The Republican Party. If she's got some sort of serious personality disorder, that's news in my book.

BTW, "worried about jack" is Rob Kremer, who thinks he's the master of the anonymous ad hominem attack. Of course, like his good buddy Robert Canfield, he's wrong.

"Caribou Barbie is the new Face Of The Republican Party"

Sure, for the moment. But that hardly seems likely to last until the next election cycle ramps up. And if it does... well, they're welcome to her IMHO. Good luck with that. :-)

I dunno. I just have a hard time seeing how this is constructive in any sense of the word. Maybe it's clear to you, but I don't get it.

The people of the United States -- and particularly the people of Alaska -- should want to know about the abnormal psychology of the governor of Alaska. And about the profound lack of curiosity that infects the mainstream media.

Bristol is still due any day now, isn't she? Is she still keeping the baby? Or will there be a very quiet adoption? I'm betting on the latter.

I never really cared about Bristol's problems. I don't think she's pregnant now. At last report, she was supposedly due on December 18.

But the March 26 photo clinches it. Whoever gave birth to Trig Palin, it wasn't Sarah Palin.

I can't buy it Jack.
That photo is a frontal shot with the coat in the way.
It's hard to tell the size and projection.
Then it's compared to one where she is sitting down and another where there is a profile?

Some may find all of this suspicious but
a conclusive case?

Not for me.

And I'm still caught in the family discussion and conspiracy that would have had to take place.
It's too far fetched for me.

"Ben," if I showed you a video of the baby emerging from Bristol Palin's birth canal, you'd still tell me Sarah Palin is the mother. Because your politics are so far to the right, you are blind to many realities.

Look at the picture, "Ben." There is no baby in there who's going be born in three weeks and weigh six pounds.

Deal with it.

Any woman who has ever been pregnant will look at that photo with a very skeptical eye.

Why this story remains significant? The McCain campaign and the Republican Party are either incredibly stupid or liars or both.

Jack's point about the mainstream media is also well taken. Unfortunately I think this story will remain obscured by complicity.

Confirmation bias run amok. You're dead wrong, Jack. You want badly to believe this is true, you've invested a lot into it being true, and it's affecting your judgment.

When Bristol gives birth on schedule, disproving the "She's Trig's mother" stuff, you'll claim Trig was somebody else's kid. Whose?

I see a lot of parallels with the 9/11 truth movement: "The smoking gun is the molten steel. You tell me how it's possible molten steel was reported at ground zero". "The smoking gun is this picture that shows her with a big but apparently not huge belly. You tell me how a six pound baby came out of that". Disconfirming evidence, like the pregnancy of Bristol since March? It's like the cultists who think the world is going to end and march up to the top of the mountain. Whoops, the world didn't end. Wait! I'll bet we were saved because of our faith! Wait! I'll bet it wasn't Bristol who had the kid, but some other secret mother who needed to be anonymous! Onward with the sleuthing! Nevermind the reality that she's just a dumbass who thought she was invincible and wanted to give birth in her hometown.

Hope you took my pick of Denver this past week.

When Bristol gives birth on schedule, disproving the "She's Trig's mother" stuff, you'll claim Trig was somebody else's kid. Whose?

I don't know whose kid Trig Palin is, and I don't much care.

But I do know whose kid he isn't.

And the March 26 photo proves beyond a doubt that Sarah Palin is not his mother.

I took Atlanta and got 5 instead of your 7.

Can you concoct a story for me where it makes sense for Sarah to go through all that? Any potential motive?

The picture is hardly conclusive.

And Denver would have gotten you nine, but good luck getting another five this week to try to make up for going against the math ;)

wheres Bristols stud now????????? Smoking weed & HIDING.

Can you concoct a story for me where it makes sense for Sarah to go through all that? Any potential motive?

Actually, with that compelling a photo, the burden of proof shifts to you.

Prove that she was pregnant. So far, we have her word, her family's word, and a weaselly letter from her crony small-town physician. (No actual medical records, no birth certificate.) That will not overcome the photo -- and there is much more proof that she's lying than just the photo.

As for football, if I had gone "with the math" every week, I'd be far behind where I am now in the pool. "The math" has been quite helpful, and I am grateful for it. But it has its limits -- serious limits. There's still an art involved.

Wow, I love multi-tasking blog comments. They just seem more civil.
The football stuff takes the edge off: "Rob Kremer is a hopeless idiot hiding behind a stupid anonymous name. Packers by 6."
This could be a whole new kind of blogging - what chess is to checkers. Everybody has to argue 5 different points AT ONCE:
"Sarah Palin couldn't be pregnant because she is a Fem-Bot from the Austion Powers movies. Steelers by 5. 9/11 was an inside job and...let's see, did I miss something...oh yeah, Rob Kremer, is a genius."

Notice that the photo with the child allows the viewer to see two folds of pant fabric that crease along the top of the thigh. If there was an extension of belly, that line would not be there because the fabric would be filled out.

I'd buy that photo with the child as an "after" photo since Palin's infamous abs look a wee bit soft. She has claimed that her abs are so strong they kept her from looking pregnant, which makes them fair to notice, IMO.

Remember that not only was her staff shocked to learn she claimed to be pregnant, but mere hours before her alleged delivery a plane full of flight attendants and passengers was utterly unaware that she was ready to pop.

I dunno what happened as far as Trig's conception or birth but I do know that Sarah Palin has an unusually difficult time keeping her stories straight and not acting imperious. The woman seems absolutely outraged that anyone should dare question anything related to her esteemed self and family.

But it has its limits -- serious limits.

What do you think these limits are? Seriously, why not make a truckload gambling on football if you think Vegas' lines are badly off? They aren't.

I don't find the photo compelling. It's a picture of her with a big belly from a distance. You can't come up with a single reasonable explanation for why she would fake it. Again, your logic sounds a lot like other bad arguments: "Prove Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Many of his family members say he was. He should be able to come up with some birth records, hospital medical records, some photographs, anything. Why hasn't he? Prove the copied birth certificate with the missing seal isn't a fake". Same stuff, different side of the aisle.

As much as you seek to dismiss it, it does make a difference that you can't come up with a reasonable story for what happened. Yours is that some mystery woman who Sarah was deeply indebted to needed to have Trig without people knowing and that Palin orchestrated this whole pregnancy suit wearing thing with nobody ever finding out or leaking the information, even given the gigantic monetary reward that would come with any information like that. Mine is that she's a woman shows less than average and wanted to have her baby in her hometown. In your world, your story stands much more reason to mine. The vast majority of people, for good reason, don't see it that way.

Looks like she has a little extra something below the baby too. It isn't moose antlers.

That photo contains about as much conclusive evidence that Sarah Palin has a penis than that she wasn't pregnant.

Notice how the flag pin has some stripes left off? That represents the parts of the country that are un-American.

The vast majority of people, for good reason, don't see it that way.

I doubt that, sincerely.

you can't come up with a reasonable story for what happened.

Maybe it was Bristol's baby -- maybe it was someone else's. But it wasn't Sarah Palin's.

she's a woman shows less than average

No -- with 23 days to go, no woman would show that little. None. As in none. Not one.

She faked it.

I don't get the weird outfit either. Can't somebody buy her some nicer clothes?

"Can you concoct a story for me where it makes sense ...?"

Ask not what events can give sense (of consciousness) to you, ask what sense you can give to events. So the answer is: NO, there is no assembled 'story' which can make sensibility in you.

Can a dog, pig, or chimp, get any sense of what is said when someone speaks the Gettysburg Address? So the answer is: NO, there is no sense saying "conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all humankind are created equal," and there is no sense saying "government is of the people, by the people, and for the people," speaking to a dog, pig, or chimp, or person lacking mental vocabulary. (Test yourself using this original material you never heard before: Every thought/idea is a word, and every word is a thought/idea; conscious thought consists of words, and without a word for it you cannot think a thought. So review the definition of 'vocabulary.')

Of course you speak the truth, Jack, that SP was not pregnant in 2008. If the photo is conclusive for you, that's fine. Better than 'fine,' it is marvelous. You know such truth by what you know, of yourself, and deniers cannot take that away from you nor make you think yourself false. Also, you cannot bring truth in them who have none of their own.

Your time is better spent thinking less about what truth you have, and thinking more about what falseness or fraud others have filling the location of what truth they lack.

Really, the surer judgment of a person's character is evidenced in enemies and opponents, more revealed than in friends and partners. It's somewhat a badge of honor that the ones who diss and deride me here are like LIARS. It's a statement of truth's strength that LIARS himself denies to speak with me or millions of others; (just as you saw, Jack, when Kremer on the KXL LIARS radio hung up and ran away from my phone call).

There is much to see in the words of those who deny the truth that Palin is not pregnant in the photo.

They deny that Bush was not elected.
They deny that airlines sold no tickets to 19 fictitious hijackers; they deny that the Nine-Eleven Op mastermind and perpetrator is Papa Bush.
They deny that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
They deny that the anthrax murderers are Pentagon militarists wasting taxpayers' money.
They deny that the economic collapse is premeditated and done on purpose.
They deny that Earth's oil is nearly gone.
They deny that we cause an unstable climate crisis.
They deny reality.

All of that and much much more (of LIARS) is seen in the words that deny Palin is not pregnant.

For you the photo is conclusive; for me the birthdate is conclusive; for both the truth is the same. One difference is I say she was not pregnant in 2008 while there is yet a month of the year unfinished. But she is not pregnant in the first 11 months nor gets pregnant in the 12th; she has been sterile for 6 years; her horoscope is the picture I see by which I conclude this.

Truth is, she is another one of LIARS, (like Kremer).

Oh, and UCLA to upset USC, Saturday.

That's all they got? Lame.

The initial entertainment value of watching zealots chase their tail is beginning to wear thin.

Wouldn't be a proper left-leaning thread without Tensky spouting from the extreme left.

UCLA to upset USC? Are you kidding? I'm an OSU fan, who put in his reservation for Rose Bowl tickets with the university before the Civil War, and I don't want to see that happen. Backing into the Granddaddy of Them All the way that Ohio State backs into the BCS every year is an embarrassment - they should have earned the Rose Bowl.

Getting back onto the topic at hand, as someone who comes from a traditionally republican family I see *no one* buying into Palin. They all think she's a joke, and she is why they voted Obama.

She might be the new face of the GOP for the mouth-breathing knuckledraggers that gave Bush four more years, but not to anyone who actually cares about this country.

Mmmm, I was expecting something, er, bigger? I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone, but the pix don't hold up for me. She's bending over ever so slightly, and optics in cameras play strange tricks. If these are digital shots, they would never be allowed in court because they are too easy to manipulate. This might be the "Sixth Sense" syndrome at work, Jack, people see what they *want* to see.

oh Jack--not the livestock!

Sarah Palin has a penis???
wow! now that's news!

The rest of the photos - same place and same outfit - say they were taken 3/2007. How do you reconcile that?

Why this matters is because it's a warning to us - a chance to see the potential for dishonesty with this woman. If given the power she is seeking, imagine the damage she could do by lying with that kind of straight face. I think this is very serious. Extremely.


It's not just the other photos. Although a comment below the photo in question mentions meeting Palin a few months before being chosen by McCain, the photo itself is listed as having been taken March 27, 2007.

The "smoking belly" photo looks like she has a half rack of Alaska Amber on board, but no evidence of advanced pregnancy. I feel relieved you passed on my NO upset over Tampa. They came up short kinda like Palin's ruse.

I'm not convinced that the pregnancy was faked either, but the evidence is mounting against Sarah. Also, she could just release the birth records to put all this behind her. But she hasn't, which is a little odd.

Ultimately though I don't think it matters. The people that support Sarah support her no matter what, so even if it's proven that she faked the pregnancy. She'll just claim it's because she loves her child, and the right wing Christians will continue to support her.

But it is interesting.

"left-leaning thread without Tensky spouting from the extreme left."

I hate to break it to you but webblogging about corrupt capitalists politicians like Palin are not on the "to do" list of the extreme left.

When the extreme left talks about the destruction of the bourgeoisie we are not talking about Donald Trump but rather the pathetic american middle class. (And this includes the shallow consumerist "progressives" of PDX.) The extreme left does not want to *FIX* the US economy. Many of us are quietly celebrating its collapse.

This never gets any less entertaining. I thought that the WTC7 stuff was good, but it has nothing on this.

Jack, if she is not pregnant in that picture, how do you explain how much fatter she is tahn in this one?:


Twinky-binge? Sarah Palin was regarded as one of the most athletic candidates ever to run for National office. Her work-out habits were well known. But she is looking downright slovenly by comparison in that 'smoking gun' photo.

Jeez...after all the build up, I was hoping for something actually compelling. Not a photo that only seems to further prove she WAS pregnant.

My comment with links has been held for moderation by the blog software, but the assertion that "The date has been verified beyond any question" is not correct. Check the metadata on other photos in that flickr user's photoset, and you'll see that this and all the other photos of Palin seem to have been taken on March 27, 2007. It appears that this one photo has had one of its three timestamps changed with an EXIF editor, but the person doing so was not very thorough.

The museum in the photo is the State museum. It has some really great collections of Alaska's history. If you're in town, look me up and I'll show you around! Additionally, there is an open house at the Governor's mansion on December 9, with the family (assuming Bristol won't be there) and all. We're in the lull after the tourists and before the legislators get into town. Perfect time to visit (and the clearest it's been here in months).

Sarah Palin signs my checks.

No -- with 23 days to go, no woman would show that little. None. As in none. Not one.

True enough, and keep in mind this was allegedly her FIFTH pregnancy. My wife is 7 months into her second pregnancy right now, and it's amazing how much larger she has appeared at every point in this pregnancy than she did in her first. Apparently this is the norm--it is easiest to hide your first pregnancy, but after that it's much more difficult because your body is more accustomed to it. It is inconceivable to me that Palin was 8 months pregnant in that photo.

Thanks for keeping me amused on a crummy day... All I can contribute is that a friend of mine met her during the campaign, and he described her as "pretty hot with a tight body, really thin". I have known women who are athletes, who are thin, and in great shape who were able to keep their pregnancies 'un obvious' until very, very late in the pregnancy.

And was Rob Kremer really "hiding" or was he simply posting under a funny name? I don't think he's one to hide, but what do I know?

"I hate to break it to you but webblogging about corrupt capitalists politicians like Palin are not on the "to do" list of the extreme left."

Didn't say that it was.

However, it's undeniable that this topic, and it's discussion is definitely in the wheelhouse of the left, if so just marginally. However, Tensky is known for posting stuff from much farther left in his continuing crusade against all things Lars Larson.

Not denigrating it, nor supporting it. Just commenting on it. Myself, I'm much more into laughing at the idiots that Palin surrounds herself with, that have her doing a stand-up in front of turkeys being slaughtered while saying that businesses wish the government would get out of their way; while the biggest businesses in the land are asking for bailouts and oversight. You can't make up how stupid that is.

What we have here is a perfect opportunity to band together and demand to see two original birth certificates.

Trig Palin's and Barak Obama's.

Of course there is an extreme difference in the potential consequences.

I'm not to sure what would Palin critics like to see happen if Trig is shown to NOT be Sarah's. Fired as Governor?

And if Obama is shown to be foreign born?

Retroactivly change the constitution?
Or, welcome President Biden?

Or just ignore the Obama birth certificate?

Which certificate is more important? Palin's or Obama's.

From my far right veiwpoint I see neither worth pursuing. But with so many people
drawing conclusions it would be forward progress to actually have some.

Tensky, nice list.

"And if Obama is shown to be foreign born?"

Then it wouldn't mean a damn thing, because his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, which means - according to both current and contemporary law - any child of hers would be a natural-born citizen of the US no matter where he was born.


Palin is fat in this photo. Given that she's stick thin in real life, she's either pregnant in this photo or on a serious binge. The fact that she's leaning forward and hunched over, with a large heavy coat, explains why she looks smaller than the profile shot two weeks later. Plus, she's wearing maternity pants. No woman in her right mind would wear maternity pants if she isn't pregnant.

Looking at the close up, I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that she's NOT pregnant.

Palin is a strange one for sure so maybe she was wearing some form of tummy-hiding, control top girdle or such? That picture does not prove anything.
Go Bears!

I have no idea what that is under Palin's shirt, but it's no baby. And this is coming from a very petite mother of five children who knows what a belly that far along looks like.

Jack, you know that I'm especially intrigued by that Elan documentary screen shot. Unless Trig was made of play-doh and laying in a transverse position that's not a pregnant belly in that shot, either.

People keep asking why this matters. I'll tell you why. Because if Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy then she also likely faked a birth certificate, insurance claims and convinced her doctor to put out a false statement to the media about her medical history.

As long as this woman is still politically viable - and as long as there are right wing nut cases she will be - we need to work to get the truth OUT.

Thanks, Jack, for being part of that effort.

I was a little troubled by the "It's 2007" argument, until I saw this video:
March 27, 2008
Same clothes, same girl standing behind her, same boy standing behind her, same jewelry, etc.
Also, Palin signed Alaska Bill 259 in March 2008, wearing the same clothes as in the photo, at the same museum.
The date on the photos on Flickr is clearly a mistake. Somebody probably didn't set the date right because of the leap year.


If he was born in Kenya, and his parents were Legally Married [which on the Preponderance of Evidence they were, his father's first "Marriage" being a Tribal, or Village, Marriage, which was not Legally Recognized] due to the age of his mother he would NOT have been a US Citizen. The Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1401. Sec. 301 (g) [Effective November 14, 1986] does not apply, nor does Title III, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409].

Unless he has taken the Oath of Allegiance as a Naturalized Citizen since he was 18 years old, and if he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be a US Citizen, period. The issue of whether or not he was Natural Born under Article II of the Constitution of the United States would cease to matter and he would need to be Deported as an Illegal Alien.


I was born overseas by American parents and I was always told I couldn't be president. Later I took some comfort knowing that Lars Larson, who I believe comes from Taiwan, could not be president either.
To be fair, I never really thought I had a shot, but after this last president, I might be in play after all.
So let me know if your opinion is rock solid. This could change everything for me.
P.S. Don't tell Lars.

You're not serious! You all have to be putting us on. As if these photos were any eveidence at all. My wife is built the same as Palin. Our neighbors did not know she was pregnant until I put a "it's a boy" sign in the front room window. Only in the last few weeks did she show at all. Conclusive proof that Palin was pregnant. Makes as much sense as your proof does.

Ben, as the moderator of this blog continues to remind us, the issue is not what federal statutes say; it's what the language of the US Constitution means with its requirement that the President be a "natural born" citizen. The Congress doesn't interpret the constitution; the Supreme Court does.

I swear to God. I see the face of the blessed virgin on her belly in that picture

Gov. Palin is leaning over (probably in order to get closer to the child's level) in the March 26th photo. As she leans over, her bosom protudes over her baby bump, thereby making the bump look smaller.

Contrast the March 26th photo with the vid-cap from April 8, where she is seated (not standing) and wearing blue on black (not as "slimming" as gray on black). She's also pushing on her belly, thereby making it look more pronounced.

you'll see that this and all the other photos of Palin seem to have been taken on March 27, 2007.

No, the date on the camera was set improperly. Sarah Palin was not at the museum on 3/27/07. She most definitely was there, wearing the same clothes and with a group of children, on 3/26/08, which is the date the photographer entered on her Flickr page.

I think the fact that the National Enquirer has not come forth with any breaking news (when it could be a real money generating story) says as much to me as anything. There is just nothing out there.

Please, please, PLEASE keep posting this kind of stuff!

It's interesting that the same true believes who think Palin wasn't really pregnant (and regardless, that it is such a bombshell) were quite silent when John Edwards was being accused (and ultimately proven to be the father) of an illegitimate little boy with his mistress / campaign exec, paying her hush money to keep quiet, and doing it all while his wife was going through chemo.

Wow, plaidtothebone, so your wife's build includes an obvious rectangular pad under her shirt? Well, that makes two peculiarly built pregnant women in this world. One in Alaska and the other in...Fantasyland?

I agree with MachineShedFred that you are grossly over estimating the importance of Palin to the Republican Party. She's a sorry joke in my book; and I don't know anyone that takes her seriously. Not to mention the various scandals and questions about her honesty have made her all but unelectable outside of Alaska. Don't be surprised to see her all but vanish from public sight within the next 60-90 days.

Answer to butch (8:39 am Dec 3, 2008), when he said, "Jack, if she is not pregnant in that picture, how do you explain how much fatter she is tahn in this one?: http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2008/10/09/sarah-palin-bang-bang-trim/ Twinky-binge?"
No, there were news reports circulating before that 10/9/08 photo you posted, butch, saying she was subsisting on diet Dr. Pepper and Slim-Fast, presumably to fit into some of the more swank couture clothes the RNC bought for her.

According to what she looks like in your picture, butch, it seems like she managed to lose quite a bit of weight between the end of August and the 9th of October. Her face, her hands and wrists, her waist...all look gaunt compared to the March 26th picture.

Yeah, I'd say she was (relatively, for her) fat, not pregnant in the March 26th picture, and that she was patting a rubberized pregnancy form in the April 8th video. You can actually hear the funny bouncy sound as she pats her "tummy", like she was patting an exercise ball rather than a pregnant tummy.

Also, there ARE pictures of Sarah Palin pregnant with her 3rd child Willow (see http://i33.tinypic.com/mt70d4.jpg which compares pregnancy #3 with pregnancy #5, same stage/month) -- her belly was ENORMOUSLY pregnant, quite a far cry from what's been pictured in this Trig controversy.

And Mike, you would be wrong.

I'm from North Carolina and never trusted John Edwards as far as I could throw him. He lied about his motives for running for Senate and many of my fellow moderate-to-liberal friends had him pegged for a greasy - if not well-groomed fraud from the get-go.

But the same kind of radar that went up over Edwards, who was justifiably busted over having a baby-mama on the side when his wife was puking her guts out from chemo saw the same red flags with Palin and her baby story.

Some things are really obvious, UNLESS you are a blind partisan. I take it that you, being anti-Edwards, are pro-Palin. Am I right? If I am, then perhaps you are just the pot calling the kettle black.

"Same girl behind her"?

You mean the one in the blue T-shirt with cartoon characters over a white long-sleeve shirt with long black hair in the photo? Who looks to be about nine years old and asian* in the photo? Yeah, she looks just like the girl with the long black hair in the video, aside from the video girl being about six years older and in high school, wearing different clothes, and white. [boggle]

Does Sarah Palin burn her clothes after each wearing, or is it maybe possible she happened to wear the same outfit and accessories on two different days?

Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that the photo timestamps are off by a year throughout the flickr photoset. Explain that, please.

[*: Or Native American, or Pacific Islander, or somethin'. Not caucasian anyway.]

And may I just add that I never imagined I'd find myself defending Sarah Palin. What the hell is up with that?

Hi Prof Jack. Like "Worried About Jack" I am so far right that (insert your favorite metaphor here). I like to read you and comment here because you are eclectic, intelligent, and often charming. When you 'outed' Worried, it was not an attack.
Dear Prof, you seem to be really sounding shrill.



Morgan, You are the one of the few who held that opinion AFTER the rumors started but BEFORE he got busted.

A person can be anti-Edwards, anti-Obama, anti-Palin, etc. On the other hand, one can also disagree with a person's politics but not bite off on the latest tin foil hat theory about that person. It's called "having a good bullshit detector." You don't have to like Palin (I don't), but you need not suspend common sense, either. You go down that path and you invite the equally inappropriate attacks on Obama's citizenship, whether Biden had botox injections, whether Hillary is really a man ... okay, I made up that last one, but you can blame it on the pantsuits.

She's a MAN, Baby!

When I said "same girl behind her" I was talking about the girl in the video standing behind Palin in the video from March 2008, and the photo from the same Flickr set (above) which you believe is from March "2007."
(see http://flickr.com/photos/65036937@N00/2417646314/in/set-72157604567129173/)

""Same girl behind her"?

You mean the one in the blue T-shirt with cartoon characters over a white long-sleeve shirt with long black hair in the photo? Who looks to be about nine years old and asian* in the photo? Yeah, she looks just like the girl with the long black hair in the video, aside from the video girl being about six years older and in high school, wearing different clothes, and white. [boggle]"

"You can't make up how stupid that [Sorry Failin] is."

Fred is cred! No, you can't make up so stupid, however much you stage her in it. Sorry-Failin stupid is only born that way.

Ditto congenital LIARS. Born that way. Such truth is what makes the horoscope bizness so useful -- everybody has one. Draw the picture, see the conclusion. LIARS is 3/6/1959 (+/-) and even in farflung Formosa there is no hiding from his fibber's fate. (btw, what's Kremer, Virgo? ... O'Reilly is.)

Also note, perception skills are trainable and reproducible, so second opinions by other astrologers see the same thing -- LIARS (and stupid) is congenital. Or you can look it up [*] in the 2000-yr-old Stargazer Training Manual. (How DID those 3 Magi(cians) from Iraq? Iran? India? know when and where the baby was born who they brought their presents for? I guarantee you they were NOT reading newspaper birth announcements, and none of them skywatchers -- then or now, get fooled by false-claimed pregnancy. See: Zeitgeist: The Movie.)

With the great interactive entertainment of this post and thread, we don't need no stinkin' LIARS radio.

[* For LIARS, read: "bicorporeal sign," with configuration positions "in precession and setting;" and read "Saturn, in familiarity with Mercury, in dishonorable positions;" and read "Jupiter allied with Mars in the opposite (of honorable) positions;" and culminating, read Venus "joined with Mercury, in the contrary (to honorable) position" saying "LIARS".]

P.S.4 Ben, also list:
They deny Osama is CIA-made.
They deny Osama is dead.


Now that is more interesting. Good call. I suppose it may be that the camera's data was off by almost exactly a year. Strange that the one photo's timestamp is edited, though.

Tell ya what. In this photo there's a newspaper on the counter. I don't recognize the masthead, but the layout and photo should be pretty easy to identify from a set of contemporary papers. If someone can ID that, it'd be even more clear the camera data was off.

Mike (the other one)

Let me reiterate that I was not among a few people who didn't care for the very smarmy, well-coiffed Edwards. He was a complete and total narcissist who couldn't even carry his own state when he ran with Kerry.

Lookit, per your "tin foil hat" comment the Palin thing hardly deserves that distinction. I can only surmise by your dismissive attitude that you've not really looked into this. If you had, a few things might stand out as suspicious, chiefly among them Sarah's flight from Texas to Alaska, or what Audrey sometimes refers to as "Mr. Toad's Wild Ride."

If we're to believe Sarah Palin, the we must suspend any notion of logic to do so. Because according to her, even though she knew her water broke, her doctor told her she could just stay where she was for EIGHT more hours.

Here's what's wrong with that: When your water breaks there's a risk of cord compression and infection. The risk of the latter increases the danger for a Down's baby because they are infection prone anyway. (As an aside, Palin claims to have found at via amnio at 13 weeks that her kid was DS. Amnios aren't done until at least the 16th week. But whatever, right?)

So after eight hours, a very pregnant Sarah hops on the plane, her pregnancy undetected by flight attendant to begin her commercial, connecting flight back to Anchorage. When she lands, does she go to that city's state-of-the-heart hospital with its NICU in case the high risk birth needs extra TLC?


She hops in a car and drives to a podunk hospital in the middle of Frog's Ass, Alaska or whatever little jerkwater town Mat Su General is in - a community hospital with no neonatal intensive care unit.

Now, you can think this is a tin foil theory all you want. But Mike, if your wife was pregnant with a Down's baby and her water broke what the hell would you do?

Just asking....

"'Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!'"

Sail on, Ahab Bogdanski! The Mighty Pequod will catch her someday!

Seriously, dude, this is "conspiracy theory" scarry. Take a deep breath and let go....

Either she likes drama, or Sarah Palin is too stupid to realize that she could clear it all up by releasing pertinent birth or medical records.

Her Mattsu doctor vanished shortly after the brouhaha began; has she ever resurfaced, working anywhere else?

The combination of a seeming unwillingness to submit simple proof and the disappearance of key figures, photos and website content suggests that something is going on.

In this photo there's a newspaper on the counter. I don't recognize the masthead, but the layout and photo should be pretty easy to identify from a set of contemporary papers. If someone can ID that, it'd be even more clear the camera data was off.

CSI Wasilla! Could this possibly be more entertaining?

Thanks to all the ad hominem "You're crazy" people for your comments. Whenever I get that noise from the tighty righties, I know I'm hitting them hard and precisely where it hurts, and they have nothing substantive to fight back with.

The date of the photo is conclusive. There are numerous photos and video of Sarah Palin in that exact room, in that exact outfit, with a bunch of children on March 26, 2008. It's not even worth talking about the date.

She's not pregnant.

Here is another website that is also collecting information on the question of who is Trig Palin's mother:



You're absolutely right ... you are hitting the Repubs right in the gut, because we all just love Sarah Palin and want her to be the next Prez. Please, stick on this topic for the next couple of years so the Right can regroup from this year's disaster of an election and start making gains again without anyone's criticism. Yeah, that's a great strategy.


What would I do? I'd make sure my wife, with her four prior pregnancies, was comfortable with her decision, taking whatever meds were prescribed, following doctor's orders, etc.

I've followed enough of the Left-side version of the story ala Jack's Blog to know at least what you think you know. Funny how (1) none of us know what medical advice she got, (2) the specific circumstances surrounding her "water breaking" in Texas, and (3) the majority of the posters on this topic are, ahem, incapable of being pregnant in the first place. I'm dismissive because when you pull away the politics, this is as much of a story as the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Bristol's baby is due in about two weeks. Any idea how soon we'll see any photos and what the little bairn will be dubbed? If the kids wait long enough to tie the knot, maybe the child will be old enough to act as ring-bearer or flower girl.

My neighbor reminded me that odd names are apparently a family tradition. Palin's sister's autistic 13-year-old is named Karcher, a distinctly Dickensonian-sounding invention that brings to mind unsavory, aging family retainers.

Now that you have all had a chance to blow all kinds of irrelevant smoke around, look at the March 26 photo. Could a woman in that shape give birth to a six-pound boy 23 days later? The answer is clearly no.

Find an OB-GYN who will say otherwise, and I'll listen.

But you can't.

She faked it.

I have known women who are athletes, who are thin, and in great shape who were able to keep their pregnancies 'un obvious' until very, very late in the pregnancy.

True. But three weeks to go, and about to deliver a six-pounder? Not in this photo.

I always did think this was somewhat of a crazy conspiracy theory, but I would be the last to judge anyone who posts here. At least, not until after there is conclusive proof one way or another. It seems like a no-win situation either way.

If Palin was not really pregnant, then our faith in the entire political system is completely destroyed. If she was really pregnant then many here will be exposed as simple boorish rogues posting spurious messages to hurt innocent others. I am not sure that I want to know the truth.

She doesn't look at all the way every pregnant woman I've seen at the same stage looked - large and small. There's nothing there but possibly fat and what looks like poor muscle tone. that's a lax, not a turgid, belly carried high as most are. Most telling . . . even in the shot taken after the video was made her breasts are practically nonexistent. That's NOT the way it works, folks.

Please, please, PLEASE keep posting this kind of stuff!

No doubt, without American Idol on TV, this stuff is priceless!

I almost forgot........Washington over Baltimore

Jack, you started all of this, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Go Seahawks!

"...a plane full of flight attendants and passengers was utterly unaware that she was ready to pop."

Just out of curiosity, are there records of when she was on an airplane during the months she was supposedly pregnant? A lot of physicians strongly recommend that women avoid air travel during the first trimester. Increased likelihood of miscarriage.

I'm right there with you, Jack, even though, at this point, several of my friends just shake their heads and say, "give it up already" whenever I bring up the fake pregnancy issue.

I'm so very glad Audrey is staying on task, and that you are keeping the issue alive on your blog, too.

Sometimes the truth is ugly. But you still need to face it. I don't want a person with a psychological disorder making decisions that affect my personal safety and well-being.

"... to believe Sarah Palin, the we must suspend any notion of logic ...."

There is NO chance to believe or disbelieve Sorry Failin herself and actual, since she never testified to, nor attested in, her (the) story; (she passed the neonate around for Show and Tell, but she never once said aloud, "he is my baby, I birthed him").

All we have ever heard is massmedia presenting her in accompaniment, with glitz & glamour, T & A, porny innuendo in allusion, and all of her imagined status amounting to the same rationale as for a magician's Lovely Assistant on stage: None. To believe massmedia's myth and fiction, we must suspend 'logic' a k a the truth of reality. AND, because creating fiction requires LIARS censoring facts, what we have never heard is massmedia presenting evidence in proof of not-pregnant, such as Jack has plainly laid out here -- for instance, on Kremer's massmedia programming when Jack reports Palin was not pregnant, Kremer interrupts and cuts him off and calls Jack 'stupid' and 'unhinged' and 'just insane,' since Kremer is NOT going to (let any mind) consider it, and is only going to censor it.

To recap: It is massmind media only where people's so-called 'thought' comes from; Palin never said of herself; only massmedia LIARS said, and said false, and muted all else to be said; and it is believing massmedia which requires one to lose all native common sense, suspend logic, be irrational, grow unreasonable, stay retarded in infancy mentality, etc.

(Since) "... Palin was not really pregnant, then our faith in the entire political system is completely destroyed."

I beg to differ, saying: seeing in reality Palin was not pregnant, thus faith in the entire massmedia 'system' is completely destroyed. Essentially, massmedia IS our 'political system' (and vice versa, like synonyms), and massmedia IS many people's entire sense of politics ... although such bamboozled people are fewer and fewer as the internet develops and refines -- which explains where Obama's massive majority 'youth vote' came from. (YouthTube?) Also, more and more young adult 'heads of household' are NOT payTV subscribers these days, (they can't afford the money or the time for it).

The perceptive difference between massmedia and 'political system' is easy to understand by an analogy, in hindsight. When knowledge developed that the Earth was round and orbited the Sun, many people said, 'our faith in the entire Church system is completely destroyed.' I'd rather say of it, 'faith in the Flat Earth communication system is completely destroyed,' and incidently making vaporware of the Church-politics system was a different consequent 'collateral damage.'

"... my friends just shake their heads and say, "give it up already" whenever I bring up the fake pregnancy ...."

Tell them to give it up living in TV storyville. And get new friends. Real ones.

I listed (upstream) several aspects of reality in plain sight, (as easy to see as the NOT pregnant Sorry Failin photo), which come in view as soon as we smash the TV bubble.

In all seriousness, why isn't the MSM picking up on this theory, if it really has legs? Or did they suddenly grow a conscience?

LOL, Nice, so who is the real mother...???

Mike (the other one)

You're completely missing the point. When you say you'd make sure your wife was following doctor's orders you need to consider that no doctor would give her the kind of instructions that Sarah Palin's doctor's gave her.

We know what medical advice Sarah got because she laid it out in an interview that she gave the Alaska Daily News. I transcribed that interview on Audrey's Web site, and if you could take your head out of your ass for five minutes and actually, say, READ what Sarah herself said then something might kick-start that brain of yours to really think about how impossible her claims are.

No doctor - I repeat no doctor - would advise a woman whose water had broken, whether that breakage was a leak or a flood - to wait eight hours before starting a two hour plus trip to the hospital. Such advice carries not only a risk to the baby, but to the doctor who could be sued for malpractice if something went wrong.

No, I'm not a doctor. But I don't think one always needs to be to realize a story like this is suspect. Imagine another scenario. Imagine a friend of yours is having left side chest pain, left side arm pain and jaw pain - all symptoms of a heart attack. Imagine you wanted to rush him to the hospital, which you would. Imagine he told you he'd spoken to his doctor and the doctor said he could just wait another ten hours before seeking treatment. You'd surely think that was unbelievable, right?

Well, the story of the advice Sarah says her doctor gave her is JUST as unbelievable. If nothing else, the doctor would have advised Sarah to get to a hospital in Texas to make sure the cord wasn't compressed, as this can easily happen once the cushion of amniotic fluid diminishes and the baby "drops" into the birth position. If that cord is between the cervix and the baby's head, then the baby's blood supply is cut off and it dies. That and infection are the two biggest risks an infant faces when the water breaks prior to active labor.

Per the majority of posters being unable to address the topic of pregnancy because they can't get pregnant, that statement is just, well....stupid. Sorry, but you don't have to be a woman to have a basic knowledge of biology although as the mother of five kids it certainly helps my understanding in this matter.

You complain about the left wing conspiracy theories or whatever, but as stymied as you are at what you may see as our persistence, we who are following this are just as stymied at the herd mentality of right-wing Palinites who are willing to believe anything she says. I suppose you are one of those guys who thinks God speaks through her. If you are, then this whole conversation is pointless anyway because you True Believers aren't really capable of original thought anyway. You're far too busy believing what they are told to believe.

You're talking about my pick as the flaw that could end our species. We - for the most part - go along with what we are told. It's not just deeply irritating - it could be the single biggest factor in our demise.
I know brilliant people who get to the edge of topics far greater than this one - topics that really do take courage even to contemplate - and they often just fold under completely and start reciting whatever magic story was fed them as a kid.
I tell you it's scary.
Just look at the level of emotional distress in these comments. It's not because of the situation in Alaska - it has nothing to do with that. The distress happens when somebody challenges the world view we're being force fed with a spoon. It's the same outrage they felt when someone suggested that the world was round, instead of flat.
This is much smaller. Whether one woman's stomach is round or flat, and people are incensed.
We like to think we have an open mind that's like when they roll open the roof on a stadium. But open minds are not our natural state. Minds open and shut quickly like the shutters of a camera.

Regarding the proof that the picture was taken on 26 March 2008, please look at the description (and the comment!) of this picture - every information you will need regarding the date, you will there...links to the photo and video evidence, and the statement of the flickr-user "surfdaf" herself that the picture was taken on 26 March 2008!

Here is the link:



Sorry, there was a typo in my post:

"every information you will need regarding the date, you will find there..."


Nice blog, and thank you, Jack. The most blatant result of Palin's story/baby is that a huge number of people are looking at HER. This is what she wants.

This also pleases: Dick Cheney and George Bush, who still have plundering to do before January 20; Karl Rove, who still has to find a good hiding place; thousands of media employees who don't want to buy a dictionary or thesaurus; and multitudes of people who love violence. It honestly doesn't matter whether this bizarre woman did or did not give birth to that little boy. Only to people who understand that pathological liars should not be allowed to have power.

Mother of seven, laughing at her silly suits.

I find it fascinating that this topic gets more posts than all the rest... combined?

And let's not forget:

THAT was how Sarah Palin looked like on 14th March 2008, just about two weeks earlier than our "nail in the coffin picture":


There, the belly is as flat as an ironing board!



It's amazing how everybody is failing to address the most interesting question raised by these pictures.

Whose chastity belt key is Sarah wearing around her neck?

Jack, why won't the National Enquirer run with this if it is so conclusive? Is it the Lawsuit to follow.

There we have it, folks. It's not in the National Enquirer, so it can't be true. End of enquiry.

Allan L, ask John Edwards about the National Enquirer. If it was even remotely true it would be on the front page today.

"Meg," whoever you are, keep talking. Psychology students all over America are looking for term paper topics, and your performance is perfect for them.

My only concern about this post is that Palin is being kept in the public eye instead of sinking back into obscurity, where she belongs. I suspect that this is the reason Tina Fey said she is not going to do any more Palin caricatures. We, on the other hand, are continuing to feed the monster, so to speak.

Palin is being kept in the public
eye instead of sinking back into obscurity

Sarah Palin won't leave the stage until she's forced off. She just spent a big chunk of time on the Georgia Senate campaign, for which she's drawing flak back home. Don't blame me for the continued spotlight. It's going to be there regardless of her fake pregnancy scandal.

Two interesting things about conspiracy theories: 1) they always involve people the theorist doesn't like, never someone they do; and 2) when the theory is de-bunked (as the Palin one will be in a couple of weeks), the conspiracy theorist is convinced that that is proof that the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought!

even remotely true

a riveting concept

I expressed a concern, which said "we" not "you" :-)

I'm not sure the pregnancy issue will bring her down. The shallow thinkers and people with short attention spans, who are her fanatical followers, will continue to support her. They ignore facts, just as W's supporters did/do.

when the theory is de-bunked (as the Palin one will be in a couple of weeks)

If Bristol Palin has a baby in the next two weeks -- I put the odds on that at about 1,000 to 1 -- it won't prove that Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother.

I don't know whose baby he is, but it isn't Sarah Palin. Look at the March 26 photo. There is no fetus in there that is going to deliver in 23 days at over six pounds.

I'm not sure the pregnancy issue will bring her down.

Actually, it might help her in some ways.

It's the lying problem that she has that is going to be the real problem. For a lot of us, it already is.

From Gov Palin's point of view, what would be the point of the charade? At the time of the various 'obvious baby bump' photos she had no idea about being on any national stage. Why would she put so much energy into a bizarre issue?

I have no idea why she did it. But it's quite clear that she did.

I've been pregnant 3 times.
She's pregnant.

She is guilty (of lying). She did it (the fakery) because it was Kevin's love child (from another women) via an affair (to remember) after much drinking because he was distraught (because his wife, Gov Palin, was sleeping around with his best friend)

"From Gov Palin's point of view, what would be the point of the charade?"

The point is that she thinks she has been "chosen" and will stoop to anything to fulfill the destiny she thinks God has planned for her, including faking a pregnancy suggestive of parthenogenisis or divine intervention.

If you like conspiracy theories, you'll love this one.

If your net worth has plummeted because of the financial crisis and you are "Godless" consider yourself lucky because you won't be a victim of the financial pogrom the radical Evangelicals are planning. Or, consider that these people have already succeeded.

Both Elizabeth Dole ("Godless Americans") and Sarah Palin were speaking in code to their Spiritual Warriors. Fortunately there were not enough of them to carry the election of their candidates, in 2008.



(because his wife, Gov Palin, was sleeping around with his best friend)

I had heard that also... common knowledge up in Alaska.

Make sense. Husband finds out wife is cheating with his best friend. Goes on a bender. Gets another women preggers. Blames his cheating wife (or in Clinton's case, his ugly wife). Wife fixes problem with fake pregnancy.

Fits perfectly.

Bill McDonald, I completely agree with you.

The lack of natural curiosity and backbone among the majority of the populace is exactly what leads us to situations similar to the one we find ourselves in with this economy.

People are afraid to question because they either a.) don't want to have to follow up on what they may find because they are lazy or b.) are afraid of being laughed out of the popular crowd.

Basically, the majority of society is scared and lazy. It is a lot more convenient to just believe what we are told. But as you point out, it is also a lot more dangerous.

"Two interesting things about conspiracy theories: 1) they always involve people the theorist doesn't like, never someone they do; and 2) when the theory is de-bunked (as the Palin one will be in a couple of weeks), the conspiracy theorist is convinced that that is proof that the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought!"

I don't think you can make any of these statements with any degree of certainty, Bob W.

I personally know that Audrey had no real opinion on Palin until she heard the interview about the trip from Texas to Alaska prior to Trig's "birth." Given her background, the story was just so completely preposterous that it raised all kinds of red flags that prompted her investigation. Audrey is not a conservative or a liberal. If anything, I'd peg her along the lines of a moderate libertarian. I consider myself much the same, but as the mother of five find so much of what Palin said completely unbelievable.

And the story does matter because this woman was within reach of the second highest office in the land. If she'd made it, she'd have been but one metastasized melanoma away from running the whole show. I don't care how much you love Sarah; in your heart of hearts you have to know that would have been a huge disaster. She simply wasn't qualified. And if she lied about this pregnancy, faked a birth certificate, defrauded her insurance and prompted her physician to release a false statement to the country then she's worse than unqualified - she's a criminal.

Call me crazy if you want, but I have higher standards for someone who runs under the banner of "Country First." And I still think we need to know whether or not she lied about Trig.

It would be so easy for her to just put all this to rest. All she has to do is release her medical records like everyone else did. Not a lawyerly worded statement like the one she put out, but the actual RECORDS.

Per your second statement, if dates are correct then Bristol needs to drop a full term kid at the end of this month or the beginning of next. If she does, then we who are suspicious will certainly have to rethink things.

If she doesn't, I wonder if people like you will have the balls to finally start asking questions yourself.

That's also why this can be seen in a bigger context. If people keep getting hammered by truths that are upsetting to them, perhaps they'll get used to it and demand our leaders empty out the Big File where they keep all the secrets.
I haven't really jumped into the Sarah pregnancy thing, but it is totally relevant. I mean this woman could have been one old heartbeat from running the country. Certainly, people have a right to investigate who she was. Just because disaster was avoided doesn't mean it ends. We have to know how this even came close to happening. Pulling a VP out of thin air weeks before an election and engaging in the standard marketing game that got us into Iraq, etc...Damn right this investigation has value so people know what nearly happened to them while they were sleeping.

Baloney, Jack.

First off, she's clearly stooping over a little to be photographed with her face closer to the Tlingit girl. Her jacket drapes off her shoulders and is barely pushed out by her left breast. The angle of her body tells us nothing in this photograph.

She was pregnant. Period.

You want proof? Here it is: the Alaska Podcast dated February 20th, 2008 (so shot either January or February).


Pay close attention the following reel times:
4:26-27 - There's clearly a slight, distinct baby bump pressing into her rain jacket.

6:36+ - As she clasps her hands and talks in her office not ONCE does her rain jacket drape straight down off her breasts. There's always an angle out over her abdomen suggesting something protruding under.

Add to that the fact that an eyewitness to the event photographed commented on the flickr page that she is experience with ob/gyn, heard Palin was pregnant and never suspected otherwise during the event.

She was pregnant, though admittedly I hope for the baby's sake her coffee was decaf.


How does a video shot in February refute a photo from March 26 that shows that she could not have delivered a six-pound baby on April 18? No wonder you voted Republican.

And one other thing. If you read Scott Sloan's second comment (scroll down a ways - Scott is the person interviewing Palin) he definitively answers that Palin might have taken a sip of her coffee, but she didn't drink it.

Again, consistent with her being pregnant and her known fitness/health habits.

Yes indeed, Bill. And the fact that she was pulled out of thin air and so hastily foisted upon the voters is even more reason for us to continue to dig into this matter.

If nothing else, perhaps the potential outcome of this story will be a sobering lesson to any future candidate who tries to foist some ideological figurehead upon the public without properly vetting him or her first.

Can you imagine what would have happened if McCain had won and this story turned out to be true, and Palin was exposed as a liar and a fraud? The distraction amid the real serious business of this nation would have only added to our woes.

To Scrootaype. I really can't believe you are seriously stating that the podcast is "proof," especially since the "bump" in the March 28 photograph is clearly long, rectangular, fake and smaller than the one in the podcast and that Palin mysteriously turns up huge eighteen days later. And then there's Jack's screen grab of the Elan documentary. The only way that is a baby if it is made of silly putty and lying sideways.

And just out of curiosity, why don't you think she released her medical records??

Keep trying, "Scrootape." She ain't seven months and one week pregnant on March 26. Look at the photo.

The point is that her belly was larger in February than in the laughable "smoking gun" image you are touting where she's clearly stooping and visual perspective is distorted. Did you even look at the video?

So even more remarkably, she made her uterus and unborn fetus SHRINK after February, THEN made it bigger by April.

Yeah, right. And Clintonites in the Obama Cabinet deliver on the promise of change.

I've watched the video many times. She's stomping around the streets of Juneau, drinking coffee, at high speed, in spiked high heels, supposedly six months pregnant. In a pig's eye.

She's not five months pregnant in that video, any more than she is seven months and one week pregnant in the March 26 photo. Absolutely not.

Concerned that a potential President is a liar?

I'd be curious to find out whether there has been a President since Carter who did not lie about important stuff while in office. I remember vividly hearing Reagan say in a Saturday radio chat that he had lied and would do it again.

And given what we, the electorate, seem to reward in terms of votes and elections, we deserve every liar we get.

Maybe I'm missing something, here. If the conspiracy theory is right, what difference does it make? Aren't there plenty of other lies that are easily documentable that would be far more relevant?

For me, it's all about relevance. If we collectively believe when someone puts their hand on a Bible and legally swears to tell the truth that they (then) will, it logically follows that we don't expect people who don't do that sort of swearing to tell the truth.

They--and probably all of we--lie. Sad, but true, isn't it?

And when we vote for someone we know has lied (not admitting it publicly, of course) aren't we in a real sense approving of "our liar"?

It seems clear that being caught in a lie is not even a particularly difficult hurdle to jump for a political candidate.

Whatever, Jack. You didn't stop the screen at the times I suggested.

The show host and producer confirmed in comments she didn't actually drink the coffee. So, no you didn't really watch the video.

The majority of the footage to watch her jacket is actually in her office towards the end, which you don't even mention much less try to lazily dismiss.

So I question that you watched it.
And you have no response to the comment that she's stooping in the "smoking gun" photo, her abdomen size can't be determined by the angle of her body, and she's wearing dark gray and black - colors every woman wears to distort body size appearance.

Why not a more form-fitting outfit? Ever? Like the one she wore at the Convention?

Oh, and what about the eyewitness when the photograph was taken with obstetrics experience not question the common knowledge she was pregnant at that Flickr page?

I'd say the photo falls FAR from meeting burden of proof.

Um Scrootaype, your blind side is showing. Your inability to resist evoking your disdain for Obama explains your obvious comprehension issues.

I watched the whole video and saw a woman in a full-cut jacket walking on icy streets in heels discussing how she likes to "thrash her guts out." Hmmmm. Of course, if this appeals to you then you must have been thrilled by how she let her water leak for eight hours before flying from Texas to Alaska, where she bypassed a major medical center to instead deliver at a small community hospital with no NICU that was an additional hour away.

If that is her baby she's he most reckless pro-lifer I've ever seen

The full on shot from March is not distorted. I can see this because I am a photographer. There's no roundness above or below that pad, only wrinkled fabric. And the pad under her shirt is quite visible. There are other shots of her from that same time, taken from the side that reveal a much smaller profile than the one she suddenly displayed eighteen days later when she went she let photographers shoot her suddenly-enormous belly.

The discrepancies simply do not make sense. Unless, of course, you are a member of Team Palin, where I hear they practically worship Sarah and even write pad love poetry to her.

Perhaps you'd feel more at home over there? Everyone on the team seems to think alike. Methinks you'd fit right in.

Ray, felons don't get to hold office. If Sarah lied about this pregnancy, falsified a birth certificate and committed insurance fraud then the lies aren't just an issue of lax morality, but of criminal behavior.

I've heard this argument before and am always curious as to why people think that because all politicians lie it negates the need to ever seek the truth.

Could that kind of defeatist attitude be why we have so many crooks in office today?

I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just genuinely curious about why people think this way.

My disdain for Obama coloring my view? Hardly... but Jack's perspective isn't colored by his disdainful accusation that a perfect stranger with contrary evidence voted Republican?

Whatever. This issue is smoking gun proof of fake pregnancy. And the fact is, there's no smoking gun.

Pad under her shirt? Whatever.. it could easily be a pregnancy brace strap.

Or Image Google "pregnancy support" and take a look for yourself.

The "pad" has the same width and position as the top strap of many support devices.

You're a photographer, so you'd also observe that the Palin photo was done by an amateur with a not-so-top notch camera. It's a lower-res image that distorts when blown up. Again, this is not smoking gun proof.

The rest of your post amounts to argumentum ad hominem, so I'll ignore it.

Wow! 134 comments, is that a record?

Scrootaype, your arguments get flimsier and flimsier.

The pregnancy braces are worn low to support a sagging belly. That pad - which you obviously now concede is there - is positioned right under her breasts. Also, the braces are taut spandex or lycra. They are flat. Whatever that thing is, it is padded. There's a ridge on the top and the bottom. The fabric is loose above and below. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Per photography, a good photographer can tell a lot about a photo, even if it is taken by an amateur as regards light, angle, etc. This photograph is straight on and the shot is of good enough quality and resolution to allow for examination at a larger size.

Sarah is leaning in, not over, and in a manner that inadvertently accentuated the mysterious pad that - peeking above the top of her closed coat - would lend the illusion of a bump.

She said in later interviews that she often wore scarves to camouflage her "pregnancy." Too bad she forgot to wear one that day, huh?

OK, Jack. You seem pretty sure (and, as offensive as I find this topic, it hasn't hurt your blog's readership based on the number of comments), so here's my proposal: dinner at the Ringside. If Palin's daughter gives birth to a kid this month or early next month, then you buy dinner at the Ringside for me and the Mrs. If she doesn't, I'll buy for you and Mrs. Bojack. And, to make it interesting, if you win, I'll admit that this is the weirdest thing I ever saw, and that Gov. Palin is clearly a wack-job and unfit to be President, but if I win, you admit that your postings were grossly unfair and that personal attacks like this are the reason that the only people who run for office now-adays are power-hungry meglomaniacs and knuckleheads who can't find work elsewhere because no one wants to read this kind of crap about themselves. Since it's a "1000-1" shot, I should ask for odds, but I'll even bet you straight up. Deal?


Bob, what does Bristol's reproductive history/future have to do with this issue, exactly?

Hopefully gets me dinner at the Ringside Allan. Beyond that, I don't really see an "issue", just a bunch of conspiracy theory BS.


This seems a stretch though if true indeed is a whopper. Some women just don't show as much late in pregnancy as others. I photographed one recently who was due in 2 weeks and it was a challenge to get that big baby belly profile shot even. In the photo here were looking straight on and the subject in question is hunched over somewhat. Hardly conclusive to me.

I don't think of myself as defeatist. (of course)

Critical, yes. But not defeatist.

But we're chasing the wrong quarry.

When Carter held his first press conference as President, he pledged "I won't lie to you." The Press Corp laughed. . . clearly a joke.

The thing is, as long as we have "those lyin' politicians" to point to, we can continue to overlook just how these liars got to where they are.

I suppose you could distill my position down to this: "As long as we, as a society, place so little value on speaking the truth, we are going to continue on the same endless B-ticket ride. The names will change, and sometimes the party affiliation, but we will still elect liars who will then be much better targets."

Telling the truth doesn't matter to most of us. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Our politics reflect that. From the time Jefferson and Adams hired people to spread scurrilous stories about the other candidate to be the second President, lies routinely surround the "seat of power."

So if this is the background--and I would joyfully embrace some evidence to the contrary--what real difference does it make that some politician is caught in some lie.

There's surely remorse at getting caught, but the idea that someone involved in our government would choose to *not lie*, to always tell the truth, seems a bit naive. . . doesn't it?

Haven't we come to the "sophisticated place" where we knowingly say to one another "to survive in this world, you just gotta lie, but don't be stupid about it and don't get caught too blatantly and whatever you do, don't lie under oath. . ."

Why does it matter that Palin, or Clinton, or Biden, or Packwood, or Bush, or Stevens or Goldschmidt or (fill in the blank) tell a lie if we agree with their politics?

Some lies are more important than others, to be sure. But isn't that more a matter of the status of the liar, and about how much the people we don't like, like them?


One of the aphorisms of management over the last few decades has been "you can tell the importance of a project by the steam its detractors produce: The relationship is direct and inverse.

(well, actually the bumper sticker version is much catchier, but I con't remember it right now. . .)

There's quite a nugget of truth behind this observation. People who value an organization will save their hottest fights with others for the issues that matter the least. That way they take the gloves off without fear of really breaking anything too important.

Is this why we are sparring about whether Sarah Palin lied about being pregnant, instead of whether she lied about her role in pressuring some employees to fire others for (her) personal reasons?

Yeah, there's the felony thing.

But honestly, do you really care more about an entirely inconsequential lie that represents perjury or a mammoth lie delivered when the President happened to be under oath? For all the stuff Bill Clinton did as president, why are his lies about his relationships with a nondescript young woman(en) the important ones? I heard some apparently smart people say that it was Clinton's failure to stay out from being under oath that was his problem. . .

And think what we might ask if we could get Bush under oath!

So I guess it comes down to:
"why do we care about a lie by a politician?" Is it because we think they would or wouldn't lie under oath, if we got the chance to grill them, rather than being a commitmemt to truth?

If you are for truthfulness and against lying the importance of the lie wouldn't be the big determining factor, would it? If you were dedicated to truth, then any lie would be a problem, with no regard as to the potential consequences of the lie.

If this is the case, then doesn't it follow that we really don't object to the lying as much as to the caught liars' inability to successfully play the "ring around the witness box" game?

If I'm right then isn't talking about any particular lie pretty much pointless?

Frankly, Sarah Palin's ability or inability to lie concerns me far, far less than her apparent absence of a clue to what living within the Global Community is all about.

So it feels to me less like cynicism and more like relevancy.

Does that explain it for you?

It somewhat explains it, Roy. Or at least it explains your perspective on it. And perspectives being like opinions yours is just as valid as mine, I suppose.

But I disagree that talking about any particular lie is pointless. For me, it's a matter not just of the lie but of the degree to which you're willing to take it when you're clearly under fire.

Case in point: Bill Clinton.

It never bothered me that he got a little head in the Oval Office. I mean, really, who cares. Ken Starr was daft to go after him. But where Clinton lost me was when he and his operative instituted the "nuts and sluts" defense. They were willing to vilify Monica Lewinsky - destroy her, in fact - by painting her as some deranged stalker. It's a good thing she saved that dress.

Later, we were treated to Clinton's classic "that depends on your definition of 'is.'"

I mean, really. The man should have just thrown his hands in the air and said, "Guilty! I had an intern go down on me. My bad."

Things would have gone so much easier for him, as they would have for John Edwards if those men would have just realized the gig was up.

Same with Sarah Palin, especially if the due date for Bristol comes and goes with no baby. At some point, she's going to have to say, "You know what, folks. You think I lied. Did I? You betcha!"

When people don't eventually do that - when they persist and persist and refuse to provide proof that could easily exonerate them (medical records) then they don't just look shady, they look arrogant.

Remember, these people are supposed to be serving us. The notion that they can enjoy power without answering to the people when faced with an egregious lie...well, that's the straw that breaks my camel's back.


PS I am really enjoying debating you folks. You're all very interesting.

I'm with you most of the way, Morgan. Or perhaps all the way and then some.

I'm not so sure Clinton would have gotten off so lightly if he had owned up. There's been a lot of lies flowed by us since then, and it seems so small now, but at that point the conventional wisdom was that if a President were to be distinctly "un-Presidential" with an intern he would be booted for sure.

Perhaps the conventional wisdom was wrong, but given the evidence I wouldn't bet against it.

And this cuts right to my point:

People end up making a big deal about the lies the other side make, while overlooking the lies of their guys.

Isn't this evidence that truth doesn't matter nearly as much as does getting enough of us on the politician's side? If you are popular enough with the public you can pretty much lie with impunity (as long as you can avoid the "under oath" thing)?

It would seem that Oliver North didn't suffer much from his admitted lies--even under oath. So even the "lying under oath" might not be a disqualifier anymore.

And taking a look at the putrid political ads each election: Some of them are so demonstrably full of mendacity it almost hurts to think they are--at least in some situations--effective.

Who are these people who would vote for a presidential candidate who would sign off on these ads? I'm afraid "these" are us. . .

Given all that I have seen about Sarah Palin, I would oppose any attempt to put her into the halls of power even if it does turn out she had never whispered a lie about anyone's pregnancy.

And if it does turn out she lied--this would not be the biggest factor in my judgment that she would be a danger to the civilized world should she be turned lose as President Palin. . .

Doesn't that make the story about her pregnancy irrelevant vis a vis her being the back-up for President? Those who like her wouldn't oppose her even if she lied, and I wouldn't support her even if she didn't lie.

Wow, Jack, the LIARS-loving losers are bumping bojack's traffic, imagining some shouted FURY of fools can substitute for their total lack of facts.

This latest bent commentary -- 'oh, faggedaboutit, Palin shmalin, ya' seen one lie, ya' seen 'em all; show's over, go on about your isolated apolitical bubble-headed life ... until the Blackbush gestapo murders you among the thirty million' (and praying name-calling hurts you, Jack) -- is a real testament of the idiotic inability, or antisocial apathy for judging the degree of difference between Clinton's private-affair lie, and LIARS Bush's murderous lies of atrocity for killing millionS of human souls and destroying the lives of tens of millions more.

Unborn kids and grandkids owe fifty years of taxes already spent on LIARS violent militarism, yet the barbaric bubbleheads go on oblivious, in pretense. The one thing I can imagine that might ever touch them is to catch their own kid come home tossed out the cargo bay in a cardboard box.

But, hey, ya' seen one lie, ya' seen 'em all.

Until you see your kid dead. Or your brother. Or you sister. Or your father, or your MOMMA. FOR NOTHING !

So what can they do to you, Jack, for offering the platform where they fully demonstrate why the vast majority of folks -- all the normal people, despise them ... huh? stop appearing here? Crawl back into their cockroach corner? This would not be a bad thing.

My favorite (stolen) line this week: All the haters may want to familiarize yourselves with the nearest exits, usually right in back of you.

If Palin's daughter gives birth to a kid this month or early next month, then you buy dinner at the Ringside for me and the Mrs.

Why would I do that? Even if Bristol Palin has a baby tomorrow, it doesn't mean that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's baby. Look at the photo. I don't know whose baby it is, nor do I care, other than it's clear that it isn't Sarah Palin's.

I photographed one recently who was due in 2 weeks and it was a challenge to get that big baby belly profile shot even.

Did it suddenly pop out to five times its size over the next two weeks? Because look at the photo sequence. Sarah Palin's belly was nothing for seven months and a week, and then it absolutely exploded over the next two weeks.

Not credible.

And you have no response to the comment that she's stooping in the "smoking gun" photo, her abdomen size can't be determined by the angle of her body, and she's wearing dark gray and black - colors every woman wears to distort body size appearance.

Why not a more form-fitting outfit? Ever? Like the one she wore at the Convention?

Oh, and what about the eyewitness when the photograph was taken with obstetrics experience not question the common knowledge she was pregnant at that Flickr page?

This is some of the weakest rhetoric I have ever read. "Scrootaype," or "Deeds," whoever you are, I hope you come up with better arguments than these when you represent your real estate developer clients.

She wore all the big clothes and blanket-sized scarves because she was hiding the fact that she wasn't pregnant. And on this one day, she left the scarf in the SUV. Big mistake.

And are you saying that because the Flickr page doesn't question her pregnancy, that means she wasn't pregnant? Wow.

Finally, she ain't stooping over much.

The camera doesn't lie. Sarah Palin does.

"And taking a look at the putrid political ads each election: Some of them are so demonstrably full of mendacity it almost hurts to think they are--at least in some situations--effective.

Who are these people who would vote for a presidential candidate who would sign off on these ads? I'm afraid "these" are us. . ."

Not necessarily. I live in North Carolina, and this election season we were Ground Zero for the most notorious political ad campaign since Willie Horton - the Godless Kay Hagan Ad.

Our incumbent GOP senator, Elizabeth Dole, ran an ad attempting to tie Hagan to an atheist pac. At the end of the ad was a picture of Hagan with a voiceover proclaiming "There is no God." That voiceover sounded a LOT like Kay Hagan. But it wasn't. Kay Hagan is a Christian, a Sunday School leader and would never say such a thing. She even sued to pull the ad.

The ad was part of an effort to rally the rabid right base N.C. is known for. But in this case it backfired. Elizabeth Dole lost. Now, some may say this was due to Obama's coattails, but I don't think so. The rural county I live is uber conservative. Every GOP candidate - including McCain - won here. EXCEPT for Liddy Dole. She lost, and in covering the election that night I was told over and over again it was because of that Godless ad. It turned a lot of people off, including the conservative Christians it was designed to woo.

I agree that the Palin birth scandal is only one part of what disqualifies her from office, and if it turns out that she did lie it wouldn't even be the biggest factor. Her scary stance on cultural issues, her ignorance of foreign policy, her lack of political acumen and judgement when she steps away from her handlers...all these things are more important in the big picture. The woman is simply not fit to lead, and anyone who thinks she is delusional.

But the lie - if that's what it is - could have involved a criminal act or acts, and needs to be exposed to eventually remove the Sarah Palin threat once and for all.

You people are deranged haters and absolutely insane.


Taken on
March 27, 2007 at 12.42pm PDT

Date and Time (Original): 2007:03:27 12:42:43
Date and Time (Digitized): 2007:03:27 12:42:43

Silly statements. I bet you are all 911 truther nuts too. And sleep in a grassy knoll.

I never realized what haters and lunatics liberals were till this year!! May God have mercy on your souls.

Yeah, the fact that the picture was taken in 2007 and not 2008 is apparently irrelevant...

Maybe Sarah had another baby in 2007...

Jack -you're an idiot... this is means nothing. Any woman who has been pregnant, or knows others who have been, knows that you can look absolutely huge in one article of clothing, and hide it pretty well in another. Plus the photos are quite different. One is from the front with a jacket and with her leaning forward, causing her belly to go back, not forward - the others are sitting and a profile.. You can't compare. And I know when I was pregnant, one day I didn't look pregnant and the next I "popped" and was huge. The better the stomach muscles, the less you show until the end. I didn't show until my 7th month... GET A LIFE!

From someone who was actually within 3 feet of Gov. Palin in 2008. I really feel sorry for you and your kind. So much hate!

"These internet rumors are very bizarre. We worked with Governer Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd."

Cherie Shirey, Alaska TV reporter

Every time one of you liberal lunatics rail against Governor Palin, it just confirms that she is what this country needs. She must be doing something right. This blog is pathetic. Maybe it will be sucked into a black hole along with all the tin foil hats of people who think Trig isn't Governor Palin's child. Unbelievable.

I am the mother of six.

Your photographic smoking gun is nothing more than a water squirter with dry ice. The photo means NOTHING.

It is two dimensions. If the baby was having a low-fluid production day or week (it easily happens) the uterus will appear to be smaller. Clothing, posture, growth spurts, and position of th e baby in the uterus are all factors.

If the baby is face-out (posterior position), the tummy will appear smaller because the largest and roundest part of the baby (back and butt) isn't bulging out---rather, it is pressing IN on the mother, leaving only the arms and legs to create the belly at that moment. That's where "back labor" comes from, BTW.

These are facts every mother who has birthed more than once or twice knows. I am sorry to read an esteemed (?) professor isn't capable of grasping these simple facts of biology.

I'm a bit confused. I went to the flickr page link where this photo is found. I clicked on the "more properties" link to see more information about the photo. It has the "date and time original" listed as 3-27-2007. How do you conclude that this photo was taken in 2008?

did anyone say or think that this could be proof of a virgin mary type birth? Perhaps the lord knocked her up a week before.

You guys just seem to miss the obvious sometimes.

Chris Snethen | December 2, 2008 11:13 PM said "Bristol is still due any day now, isn't she? Is she still keeping the baby? Or will there be a very quiet adoption? I'm betting on the latter."

Chris, what difference does it make as long as the baby is not killed??

Boy are you batshit crazy, the elections over scrote! Go back to doing something productive.

Pretty clear to me she's lying. Very strange.

saltydog, I already posted that. They don't care. It says plain and simple when the photo was taken.

The photo was taken in 2007.

How Jack could have missed that is his story to tell.

Your evidence that Sarah Palin was not pregnant in 2008 is a photo that turns out to have been taken in 2007. Jack, are you seriously a professor of law? God help the students that cross your path.

The most comical post in this thread is the one where you accuse "Ben" of being so blinded by his ideology that video of the baby passing through Bristol's birth canal would be unconvincing.

Psychiatrists call this projection, you a-hole.

Glad to see this is how academics who shape future legal minds spend their off time. There are a variety of medications that could help your delusions

OK so I guess that once the post count reaches 140 or so, the repetition becomes overwhelming. Do you folks with the potty mouth even look higher up before you cut loose with your malodorous and false garbage?

LTC8K6 and others -- the pictures were taken on March 26, 2008. Take a look at the video link that Jack provided in the comments. Aren't you aware that digital cameras don't always have the right date and the people who own them don't bother to fix them (or don't know how)? But here's the funniest part -- obviously a number of people DO think that SP doesn't look pregnant in the photo -- because they are busy arguing that the photo is from 2007, as if that explains the fact that she doesn't look pregnant.

Who cares? I want the _real_ skinny on how the cholesterol-based aliens from Veil Nebula, the ones who _really_ did 9/11 and the JFK hit, kidnapped Elvis for his secret deep fried penut butter & jelly sandwich recipe. You just know that Jack has that one figured out.


Let this die until 2012, after she gets the republican nomination. Please, for the love of God, let it go until October of 2012. Then we can unleash this to cause MAXIMUM damage.

Personal attacks -- the right wing answer to everything...

Those of you that are upset by this, please stop reading.

Obsessing over circumstantial evidence is an important role for blogs because one never knows when one of these obsessions will blossom into a critical mass of evidence.

When the majority of a political party thinks a pathological liar would make a great president, it's worth examining every statement for truthfulness.

Personally, I think one of the best pieces of evidence for Jack's thesis, Palin's water breaking at the governor's conference, while probably a gross exaggeration or lie, was likely motivated by a desire to appear tough and dedicated rather than to cover a bogus pregnancy.

Man, I bet you feel like a genius...coming up with a moronic theory about Palin. Loser.

"But here's the funniest part -- obviously a number of people DO think that SP doesn't look pregnant in the photo -- because they are busy arguing that the photo is from 2007, as if that explains the fact that she doesn't look pregnant."

Actually Joanie, I don't think the photo is conclusive one way or the other, given the angle and posture. Maybe pregnant, maybe not, I can't tell from that pic. Obviously others here have stronger opinions on that subject.

But the date on the photos metadata did seem to be a big obvious problem with using the photo for anything, so I spoke to that. Later I was convinced by other photographic evidence in the flickr photoset and elsewhere that the actual photo date is the same as the linked video date, which seems very likely to be from 2008. Looks like the EXIF data is wrong because the camera's own date was not correct. At this point it would be nice if people would read that discussion so they don't post chasing the same wild goose I did, but it was a genuine issue that needed to be addressed.

You are missing the best picture out there.
Go to http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/v-gallery/story/345168.html?/news/alaska/v-enlarge/story/345168-a345519-t3.html

It is a high resolution, dated (3/14/08), newspaper photo of Sarah with her coat open. She is wearing dark cloths and her midsection isn't clear until the image is lightened. Then, her tummy is VERY clear. You can judge the state yourself.

This is so funny. I've never seen a group of people so worked up over an individual before. Do you go to bed at night thinking of Sarah, unable to sleep due to the incessant loathing?

You know, that picture in the museum is a frontal shot, and there's no way to tell how far her belly really protrudes. Obviously, she's slightly hunched over to pose with the girl, and her tummy still sticks out past her breasts. Not all women gain a hundred pounds from pregnancy. When my wife was pregnant with our daughter she gained a whole 25 pounds, and less than a week after the birth she was back into a size 4. She never needed any maternity clothes the entire time, and we were hiking on Mt. Hood the afternoon before the evening she went into labor.

You know folks, it's not just Jack and others who hew to the left that think that things seem fishy with this. Andrew Sullivan has been blogging extensively about this for weeks. Things don't add up here and part of the reason why they don't is due to the Palin's not being forthcoming with any concrete evidence to verify that Sarah is Trig's mom. Maybe she is, maybe not.

Oh yeah, Sullivan is a conservative, so you can't just dismiss him as a nutjob, etc. Happy reading...


"the March 26 photo is the smoking gun."

Well, SOMETHING or SOMEONE is "smoking," and it isn't a gun.

I guess eyewitnesses, hospital staff and a statement from Palin's personal physician aren't enough for some people.

There will never be enough - again, for some people.

What a strange and sick column. First of all, bravo on the photo shopping of the picture with her belly and her blurry hands, thats not obvious at all. I love how its men saying "there's no way a baby came out of that belly." Speaking as a woman who has kept herself in great shape let me enlighten you. Im 8 months pregnant and most people have no clue. My baby is already 7 pounds and is healthy as a horse, but like other women (take a look at nicole kidman pregnant, please find the bump) we don't show as much. She looks just as pregnant as I do. Unless you have a uterus and have been pregnant and have a clue what your talking about, don't write these dumb columns. You need to join Andrew Sullivan in the loony bin. Women with strong stomach muscles don't show much, that's just how that is. Psychos, leave that poor woman and her down syndrome kid alone already, you guys are such weird leeches.

Well Said Nancy!! Leave it alone Jack.

The photo is from 2008, not 2007. Here's video to prove it:


People, people, for the love of God, it's "you're" not "your." If you're going to talk smack, please do try to use proper grammar.


Clue us in, Jack, with what your 'ping' can detail about the single source of this morning's lone 5 a.m. assailant howling for two hours under a dozen different aliases in his or her lunatic anguish.

Sorry Failin was not pregnant in 2008.

Sorry Failin was not pregnant in 2008.

And that truth bites sponge holes in the brains of those who discover it means they went with, believed in, fell and died for LIARS.

Meanwhile, (during my own 5 a.m., and on), in judicious 'circuit riding' there is found this especially comprehensive truth-telling, conveying the greatest mental grief in its acknowledgment.

IS THIS SINKING IN WITH ANYBODY?, Ruppert et al., Dec 3, 2008.

I make 50:50 odds that Pakistan and India will exchange nuclear weapons within the next two months. Where it goes from there is anyone's guess. ... The dieoff begins; and whether it becomes first apparent this way or some other makes no difference.

... after a lifetime of effort and dedication I have distilled the problem down to this: Somewhere in between 2 and four billion people are going to have to die. The question is whether it will happen haphazardly and in a way that might end all life, or whether mankind will collectively admit and recognize the problem.

And should it somehow manage to admit the problem, will it then try to find a way to achieve a better outcome, according to a new set of values which have not yet been defined? Values and beliefs which are being fought over at this very second?

Things are out of control because an epoch is ending and a new era of life is dawning. It's going to be very messy..., but then most of the good things in life are.

What you need are open eyes and flexibility.

1. Get out of debt as much as possible.
2. Start saving.
3. Stay liquid.
4. Thoroughly evaluate and maximize opportunities within 5-10 miles of where you live. Make friends.
5. Do not panic.

What we all need now are options...

I find that my reaction to all this is that every day I and my dawg Rags seek to cause as many smiles as possible, to invest time in friends as much as possible, and to live as much as possible. We, as human beings, "are at our best when things are worst." As Siddhartha might have said... "Life sucks but it is very good."

Which-all coulda shoulda woulda been mighty easier to dismiss and ignore if Ruppert's fulfilled prediction 'batting average' was under .100 instead of above .900

The photo proves nothing. I have an aunt who at certain angles did not look pregnant in photos. If we had not been with her when the pictures were taken, we would not have believed she was as big as she was by looking at the pictures.

Joanie, the video just shows that Sarah wore the same or similar outfit 1 year later.

The photo was taken in 2007, period.

I note that the link to the picture data no longer works.

As a mother of six, I can tell you that pregnancy size differs greatly with different babies. Gained 45 lbs. with first and only 17 lbs. with fifth. The latter child much smaller (still) than other five. In addition, baby "drops" in last couple of weeks (rather uncomfortable) and, as is the norm, puts on a chunk of weight. Can be a notable difference between eight- and nine-month appearances.

Let's say it's true. Her daughter had the child and, to protect her teenage daughter, she has agreed to take on the role of mother. Since she is loyal to her daughter and doesn't want her to suffer and also wants to keep her family life private... sorry, I don't see the down side of this so-called hoax. If it were a hoax I would only admire her more for her steadfast defence of her daughter. That's love. What on earth is wrong with that?

Why not just take her at her word? Her daughter is having a baby, right? So why would she lie? What would there be to gain for her? Obviously she's not ashamed of her childs baby, so what's the motivation for the lie?

Think of the risk involved of being found out! She would be the laughing stock of the political world, why would she do that? The answer is that there is no answer and that Trig is her own child...

You're a freak.

That's an awful short high school student with Sarah...

The event in the video is with a group of high school students...

Keep at it, Jack. Sarah Palin used Trig, a baby with Down's Syndrome, to highlight her "prolife" record. In doing so, she made the question of whether she is really Trig's mother a valid one. I am still waiting for the supposedly liberal MSM to write about the facts surrounding this story.

Yeah, keep at it. I hope it is true and she gets away with it. That ought to keep the rabid mouths foaming...

LTC8K6: So are you saying that SP does or doesn't look pregnant in this picture? Because you are wrong about the date, sorry.


Yeah, I thought that too. But there's another photo in the flickr set taken a few minutes before the one in question according to the EXIF data, that shows Palin at the desk with the same teenagers behind her as the ones in the video. The color balance is way different between the flickr still and the video so it's not completely obvious at first glance, but if you can examine it I think you'll see what I mean,, especially if you look at the clothing of the boy on the right side of the still frame. Further, the date on the video seems pretty solid and verifiable. So it looks like the still camera's date was set wrong by the user.

It's amazing how many people became obstetricians overnight when this non-issue came to light. And those on the left wonder why they're often referred to as "loony." This illustrates it perfectly.


You libtards are hilarious. :)

By the way, can we get an injunction against the Obama kids from moving into the White House until paternity is established? I see no reason for tax payers to pay to support the consequences of what may have been one or more extramerital affairs by Michelle Obama.

I'm just sayin', if Trig's parentage has to be proven, then so should Malia's and Sasha's.

Cripes, you left-wing nutjobs just don't quit, do you? Is it any wonder why I left the Democratic party after it has been taken over by scum like you, Ayers, Wright, Soros, Jackson, and Sharpton? Trying to prove that Sarah Palin didn't actually give birth to Trig officially puts you at the level of Goebbels. Well done!

Oh and you can tell that looney lefty lawyer task force that they can leave Juneau now. I know they're cheesed off they didn't find anything, but that's life!

I just think it's all very interesting. Especially with Bristol Palin being pulled out of school for mono but yet they said she just went to another school. Why? I had a friend in high school who had mono and she was just staying home and got her home work and kept up with her work and didn't go to another school. She came back when her mono was cleared. And to those who don't like talking about the subject there's lots of other stuff to talk about on the internet if you don't like it. There's no need for personal insults and personally attacking people. Not everyone interested in this is a liberal. I'm not a liberal (still on the left however) and this interest's me. It says a lot about Sarah Palin not only as a politician but as a mother and an adult figure. Why not just release the baby's birth record? Why throw the daughter under the bus like that? Nobody cares if she is pregnant. Even if they didn't want to release the birth record they could have her obgyn dr make a statement or something. Even people who worked for Palin were surprised and they were around her a lot. And I think it's important as long as Sarah Palin is being promoted as the new face of the republican party. She's 42/43 and was having a kid and didn't tell anybody? As someone who was so pro-life like she is and wanting to force women to have babies who aren't ready for them or wanting them I find it amazing she wasn't going around and telling everyone that she was having a baby at her age.

Oh and I find it really humerous that someone would leave a political party because of rightwing talking points. I find it hard to believe you Kilroy was actually ever a democrat. Like all these "democrats" who were Hillary Clinton supporters went to support McCain because of Sarah Palin who is 100% opposite of Hillary Clinton. Please you're such a liar.


I'll take a regular moron over a "libtard" any day. This is stuff you can't make up.

Emily, get your facts straight. Palin didn't try to hide her pregnancy from ANYONE. It was well known by all around her. Furthermore, her OBGYN indeed did make a statement, but the whackos on the left, including yourself, refuse to believe it. What a croc you all are.

Emily, do you think Obama should release his birth certificate?

these photos, and yes, i've looked at nearly every single link provided in the article and comments, are NOT at all conclusive.

Pictures are subjective and up to interpretation. I, personally, see no evidence that she is not pregnant. the frontal angle and the 2 dimensional nature of photographs eliminates any chance we have of seeing "how much she sticks out" and anyone who argues otherwise is silly.

"Palin didn't try to hide her pregnancy from ANYONE ...."

You got that backwards. Sorry Failin DID try LIARS bluff getting up in EVERYone's face to show she was -- when in truth (as she knew) she was NOT pregnant.

It flatly fooled you and you blinked ... mygawd! she's breathless beautiful. You dropped dead.

The ignorance is worse than that these dimwits swallow the poison of massmedia LIARS -- they PAY to hear LIARS!

Now if we do NOT raise socialism among Detroit's automakers in order to ransom them from hostage to capitalist thieves, and so if US car sales disappear then their TV advertising payments disappear, too. To make up for the lost revenue, (lest TVmassmedia disappear bankrupted), I suppose the ignorants would each day pay MORE to hear LIARS propaganda catapulted on them.

More poison LIARS soup:

Ignoring evidence to the contrary, Wash. Times uncritically quoted claim that Obama's birth certificate has "clearly been altered," MediaMatters.ORG, Dec 5, 2008.

In its December 5 article ... The Washington Times reported that Obama "tried to resolve questions over his citizenship during his campaign by circulating a copy of a 'Certification of Live Birth' from the state of Hawaii showing he was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu." The Times then wrote: " 'It's clearly been altered,' said Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg in published ads that he sponsored nationwide, including in The Washington Times." However, the article's author, Tom Ramstack, did not note that, in fact, the Obama campaign reportedly provided the original document to FactCheck.org, whose staff reported in an August 21 article that they "have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate" and wrote that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." Nor did Ramstack note, as Media Matters for America has noted, that the Hawaii Department of Health released a statement on October 31 by Health Department director Chiyome Fukino, in which Fukino confirmed that "the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." In addition, a Hawaii Health Department official also reportedly confirmed to PolitiFact.com that the birth certificate Obama's campaign posted on the Fight the Smears website is valid, proving he was born in the state of Hawaii.

Media Matters has also noted that the right-wing website WorldNetDaily reported in an August 23 article that a "WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic." The WND article further stated that "at least part of Berg's lawsuit" claiming Obama is not a natural-born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to be president "relies on discredited claims."

I'll give you proof that Sarah's the mom, if you give me proof that Barack was born in Hawaii. This is so ridiculous! Get a life people!

Holy crap!

Tenkswatawa is the PERFECT example of a raving far left whacko lunatic. Raving diatribes that are incomprehensible and dripping with hate, not to mention horrible grammar.

By the way, Trig was born April 18th. Bristol is now 8 months pregnant. So you geniuses are claiming she got pregnant the same month she gave birth?! Classic.

Bristol is now 8 months pregnant.


It is mindboggling that some many people here still think that this picture was taken in 2007 and not in 2008.

The is no doubt whatsoever that this picture was taken at the 26 March 2008.

These pictures (taken by the flickr-user "surfdaf") were found on www.flickr.com. The exact location is:


To be more precise: that WAS the original location, because today, after having received more than 4,000 views, the user "surfdaf" made the picture private. Here is a screenshot how the page with the original picture looked like before the picture appeared on the "palin deception" blog, in his original state:


This picture was posted on flickr on the 15th April 2008, before Trig was even born and before Sarah Palin became a national celebrity. It sat there and hardly received any views before it was discovered a few days ago by the "palindeception" blog.

There are three other pictures in conjunction with it:




The pictures were taken on 26th March 2008 at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau.

At this event, Sarah Palin signed House Bill 259 into law during a ceremony at the Alaska State Museum in Juneau.

Here is a press report regarding this event:


The TV news-channel KTVF also made a TV-report about this event on 26 March 2008 – you can clearly see that Sarah is wearing the same clothes, and you can also recognise some of the pupils in the background of this video, which are also included in the photos from the 26 March 2008:


Finally, the flickr-user „surfdaf“ herself has confirmed that she took the picture on the 26 March 2008 – see in the comments below, and also in the comments here:



For the proof of the location, please look at this link:


On this webpage, in the section “American Period”, you can see the exact glass cabinets which are visible in the pictures on flickr.

In the background of the flickr-pictures taken by "surfdaf", you can clearly see Mrs. Mindy Rowland, legislative deputy director, who is also included in the press report mentioned above, and shown in the picture in the press report standing next to Sarah Palin!!

This event was also mentioned in a press release of Governor Sarah Palin:


To conclude the dating of the picture it should also be noted that the flickr-user „surfdaf“ herself states in the tags that it was taken on 26 March 2008. Also, the user included the picture in the album “Southeast Alaska 3/2008”.

Finally, the flickr-user “surfdaf” mentions herself in the comments below the picture:

“we met Sarah Palin a couple of months before the McPalin fiasco . . .”

It is therefore proven without any doubt that these pictures were indeed taken on the 26 March 2008.

In all the external blogs where the pictures is being discussed, for example Andrew Sullivan and Cajun Boy in the City, accepted that the date of the picture is not in question at all.

See here:





gimmie and Sarah and Trig a break.

Next to all the other strange details connected to this case, I would like to raise the question why Sarah Palin has done NOTHING to defend herself (and also to defend her daughter Bristol, who is rumoured to be the mother of Trig). In this report of the Anchorage Daily News it is stated that Sarah Palin knew about the rumours that her daughter Bristol was pregnant even BEFORE Sarah publicly announced the pregnancy with Trig in March 2008:


Would the self-proclaimed "Pitbull with lipstick" Sarah Palin defend her children if she could, would she sue other people for libel who were spreading lies about her private life? YOU BETCHA!

And still, although Andrew Sullivan virtually begged the McCain/Palin campaign for evidence that Sarah is the mother of Trig and although he even had a meeting with them about it, he received NOTHING, not even a birth certificate.

Doesn't this strike you as odd...?


Well, Sarah Palin is one of those Christian Liars who believe that as long as you believe that Jesus is your Savior, you can do or say anything.

YES, TRIG is Bristol's Baby.

Where is Levi Johnson?

Did you see how he kissed TRIG at the Republican Convention?

Well, still not married to Bristol Palin, what are they waiting for? For the baby to go to College.

But what we need is for SARAH PALIN to go away to Alaska and stay there.

In America I support your right to voice your idea, but you showed no class with this subject.

Let's see -- we're totally overwhelmed with arguments against the fake pregnancy hypothesis, to wit:

Shut up
No class
Whack job
Holy crap!
Get a life

Those are the most trenchant ones. I guess that settles it, then.

you showed no class with this subject.

When you come up with a "class" way to accuse someone of faking a pregnancy, let me know.

You have clearly never been pregnant. Some women don't show much ever. Some women don't show for months and then suddenly POP. Some women show early in one pregnancy and late in another. And in any event, poorly-lit frontal pictures tell you exactly nothing about how much the woman in the picture is showing. You'd need a side shot for that, and one with much better lighting than any of your silly dim amateur snapshots. You are exposing your ignorance, not to mention your lunacy. News flash: the Republicans LOST. The election is OVER. She clearly didn't fake the baby's birth -- but even if she did, who cares? Change the subject, already!

Yes, Trig wasn't Sarah's son, and Obama's not really a US citizen, and 9/11 was an inside job, and the Queen of England is a lizard-like shape-shifting space alien.


even if she did, who cares?

Misrepresentation of the parentage of a child is a serious matter in which many people would take an interest.

Hey geniuses:

Palin is a very tall woman. Look how she is bending down with a long coat to the child.

She clearly is Pregnant with Trig.

To those saying "why not release medical records and set the record straight? Refusal to do so must be an admission of guilt" I say "not at all."

This is an ill-considered claim of many Right-wingers we have heard time and time again. But once you start releasing records to satisfy every claim against you, you have stepped over the line toward a loss of personal liberty.

"Why shouldn't all people just give the media (or bloggers) permission to view their medical records, birth certificates, Driver's license applications, tax returns, etc.?" Wouldn't that prove their innocence?

For many of us, the right to privacy, to be spared "fishing trips" by others into our personal lives, is critical. This is, after all, one of the pillars upon which Bush/Cheney have wrongly imprisoned so many people.

The argument goes "if you are not willing to give everyone complete access to all documentation about you, then you must have something to hide."

This would be a state I am unwilling to live within. I'm no libertarian, to be sure! But no government or political party has the right to unlimited access to my personal records.

Further, to protect this right, any "persons"--whether corporate or human--have no ethical or moral right to publicly accuse me of having done something wrong on the basis of my refusal to produce any documentation. (Beyond the "normal rights, limitations, limits to libel/slander prosecution, etc.)

This, right of course, is limited. There are situations in which personal records should be accessible. This is what the whole "warrant" and "subpoena" processes are for. If a party with a legitimate standing can persuade a judge there is enough evidence to warrant this intrusion into the privacy of another, then they get the warrant etc.

But we are not talking about any crime, here.

Sure, Sarah Palin is a "public person" now, and legally there are a lot of protections she has traded for that stance. I would imagine this was a trade she made when running for election as governor of Alaska.

Private or public, there are a whole lot of "I won't stand for it" characteristics of politicians which are not written into law anywhere but which are nonetheless considered to be total blocks. Should anyone who wants be ethically or morally permitted to insist on access to this sort of information?

J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy are gone but the "campaign to identified Un-Americans" was just toned down, not eliminated.

Could a Jew, a Muslim, an atheist be elected president in 2012? The uproar over Our President-Elect's middle name and the whisper smear campaign "that he's really one of those Rag-head hate-Americans terrorist Muslims" claims "no."

ALthough our Constitution is very clear about who may or may not be eligible for election, this is a case where some piece of information which ought to be irrelevant but, alas, would not be.

We should make it a bit more difficult for those small-minded members of the majority to conduct this sort of "fishing trip." We may not be able to keep all the "Talk Show" people from digging something up, but we don't have to make it easier for them.

A big part of my enthusiasm about Barak Obama (other than the part that is "not anyone even tangentially associated with the neo-con Republicans") comes from the way in which our President-Elect handled the many slaps, slams and low-blows done to him.

Having won the election, therefore, I am not willing to go "wrasslin' with the pigs." Let them root about in the mud until even those who are the most unwilling to see can't help but be sickened by the smell.

Leave what's-her-name alone. Who knows, maybe this is therapeutic for her, to help cushion the blow that the election rout must have been. In two years the seats of every member of the House and 1/3 of the Senate will be filled by election.

Maybe when we get there, people even on the middle-to-near-far-Right will have to admit that the Democrats have not been as vindictive as they feared. Even if they don't say anything publicly, that might help raise the tone of the next set of candidates.

"Getting Sarah" isn't worth all that.

I agree with Jack: that photo is conclusive.

Conclusive evidence that she was pregnant at the time. No way the normally smoking-hot Palin would have such a puffy midsection if there wasn't a little guy in there. Also, in the picture, she's bent over very slightly (to better embrace the small child), which would move her belly in (a tad) and change the projection slightly as well.

Jack Bog -

I worked with a woman who was pregnant at the same time I was. When I was 5 months along I had to be in maternity clothes, not just elastic waistbands. By delivery time, I looked like a carthorse. She, however, did not inform anyone she was pregnant until she was 8 months along, and left two weeks later to have the baby. We were all stunned. She was also a very petite woman, who you would expect to show like a watermelon going through a snake.

Also, I lived in Anchorage 18 years ago (my second child was born there), and my best friend and realtor, who has lived there all her life, served on a board with Governor Palin, and spoke to her about 3 days after she got the news that Trig would have Down's when she was still in shock about the news.

Furthermore, she said the delivery of Trig made news and headlines in Alaska, and there were photographs on the front page of the paper showing the grandparents bringing ALL the children, including Bristol, to the hospital to see their new baby brother shortly after he was born.

You need to find a new hobby.

OK......You made me come forward.

I am the one that had the baby.

No problem.

I'm sure Sarah Palin would have no problem submitting some DNA swabs from her and Trig to prove that she is the Mother. What harm would that do?

Afterall, she has nothing to hide. Or does she?

holy crap youre famous Jack


The Economy is in the tank, we live in a city with financial issues out the arse, and leadership that's just not getting it done. We finally, after 8 painful years, have a national leader who I have a strong belief in and this is what we choose to focus on? Let's face it, Palin's an idiot! In September she's on with Couric and exposes just how dumb and unsophisticated she, and apparently her handlers, were/are, and now we are supposed to accept that she is somehow on the verge of being the mastermind of a political scandal the likes of which have not been see? Come on, I think she probably could get a little credit for polishing her act on the campaign trail, on second thought that would be giving too much credit. The point being, this is the type of wild ass accusations that take people who are middle of the road Dems/Repubs who vote for people not ideology, and turn them away from party affiliation. Regardless of whether it is a rightie making ridiculous claims about a president elects birth place or, as in this case, ignorant claims that someone lied about being pregnant.

As a side note, my wife, my best friends wife, my wife's best friend and my partners wife all had babies within about 6-7 months of each other. all were of reasonably similar build and not one of them presented the same across the terms of pregnancy. My wife, got huge. My best friend's wife, eh, so so. My wife's friend, huge. My partners wife, barely could tell until the end. Funny thing is, my best friends wife has struggled to lose her post pregnancy weight. My wife's friend has gone back to just above pre-pregnancy weight. My wife just announced to me that she has gotten there after 5 years( I think she looks fabulous before, during and after) and my partners wife? Don't know,haven't seen her they got a divorce.

Funny thing about the human body, not everyone reacts the same even if all the condition are the same. By the way, I love how the one blog has photos of pregnant women at 33 weeks in side profile with arched back....very conclusive evidence indeed.

Your friendly local PDXMIke

there were photographs on the front page of the paper showing the grandparents bringing ALL the children, including Bristol, to the hospital to see their new baby brother shortly after he was born.

That is absolutely, 100 percent certainly, not true. No such photos exist.

I just don't see any convincing proof that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby.

Still I am bothered by the fact that she waited so long, after her water broke, to get to a hospital.

I used to be concerned that she went to Texas when she was due, until I realized that Trig was born early.

There's the rub. As others have noted, Palin not only waited to catch a flight back to Alaska, but on reaching Anchorage Palin drove off to Wasilla, when she could have gone to an Anchorage hospital.

I would think it would have been especially important to birth Trig in the better equiped hospital, given that he was both premature and downs syndrome.

Here is where I part company with all of you. A normal person wouldn't do this, but I don't think that Palin is normal, and this is no more than a possibility. She may not believe in abortion, but that is not to say she wouldn't place the matter in the "hands of god", by exposing Trig to mortality risks.

Morgan. From what I have read, amnio's are done in the 13th week, but anything earalier than 15 increases the risk of miscarriage and a foot defect.

Still, the 13th week isn't all that early, but why do it and take the risk if you would never abort the fetus should it have downs. I suppose that Palin may have considered abortion, even if she eventually ruled it out.

Then again, an early amnio fits in with my theory that she was giving her God a chance to decide if the child should be born.

Irregardless of what the media would like to make out of this ridiculous discussion... I myself, made it until about 8 1/2 mos before I started showing, on my firstborn. I was still wearing size 14-16 jeans up until 1 1/2 mos before my 9lb 1oz son was born. As for the leaking amniotic fluid? Well, my fourth pregnancy I had been leaking for a while before I went into my final appt and the Dr discovered the leak and told me to go to hospital to be induced. I'm not saying that letting something like that is a good idea, I'm just saying that it's possible to exist and function in a normal world, while your amniotic fluid is leaking. Surely journalists can find something more intersting to report than trying to debate the circumstances of Sara Palins' pregnancy.

The truth must lie in the Certificate of Birth.

Worked for Barack Hussein Obama.. should work here.

Richard, I somehow missed your comment about the amnio and if you're still kicking around here I'd like to address it. Amnios are done between the 16th and 20th week because before then the level of amniotic fluid is too low for the test to safely be done. The risk to the baby is just too high before the 16th week, and the procedure is considered experimental before then.

My theory is that Bristol was pregnant and hidden away for political reasons until she gave birth to the baby her parents made her agree to quietly give up for adoption. The potential adoptive parents or agency may have insisted on an amnio, and then got cold feet when it came back positive for Down's. With no one willing to adopt a Down's baby, the decision was made to keep the baby and pass it off as Sarah and Todd's. The child would need lifetime care; perhaps making sure their grandchild had insurance was the motivation.

If that was the case, then it was a noble thing to do. But Sarah is a political animal first and foremost and the ruse was likely just her attempt to keep the taint of criticism at bay.

So how's that working out for you, Sarah?

I think the picture is proof positive. Anyone who wants to believe that science fiction produced by Granny Palin after seeing this picture is truly in lala land.

One thing that has not been considered by anyone, to my knowledge is this.....Everyone is assuming that the baby was born WHEN Granny Palin said it was born.

I have always suspected that the daughter had already given birth just prior to the time when Granny Palin announced her pregnancy...that he was indeed premature & was hospitalized until time to announce his birth....after he had gained enough weight to be sure that he would survive. When he was ready to be released from the hospital in April, then Granny released her own delivery story that has kept you guessing all these months.

So if the daughter was pregnant when they made the announcement it would be about three months after the birth of Trig not one month as we have been led to believe.

Did daughter marry the redneck boyfriend yet? Has anyone seen any pictures of her lately. She should be in the last stages of pregnancy if she was preganant.

I don't necessarily find this a smoking gun, but even Sarah Palin, notoriously not terribly smart, would figure out (after four of her own pregnancies) that if she were going to fake a pregnancy, some padding would be required. She might even be bright enough to figure out that some intermediary stage between "skinny as a rail" and "thar she blows!" would be advisable, which accounts for the minescule tummy she does show in this picture, and the squared-off pad that is obvious.

I don't know why she hasn't figured out that adopting a special needs child could be a political advantage, but then none of the story makes sense. Certainly her story of prematurely leaking amniotic fluid in a high risk FIFTH pregnancy and consequence avoidance of medical care makes a particle of sense, unless she were in fact trying to jeopardize the baby's safety. Oh, unconsciously, of course. I personally wouldn't rule out homicide since I don't trust Christians, or prolifers, but I don't necessarily think she she consciously thought that her best bet was to try to get the baby infected or dead. After all... that might also mean she's infected, and from all accounts she's far too fond of herself to risk anything like that. The sheer idiocy of "wanting the baby born in Alaska" is breathtaking in its stupidity. She wanted him born in Alaska so much she risked that he wouldn't survive birth? She bypassed the ONLY Level 3 NICU in Alaska to go to a small, backwater hospital that doesn't even do twins? Really? No MD who valued her license would authorize such idiocy.

I tend to think that whoever Trig's mother is, went into labor a little earlier than expected. The middle-of-the-night phone call was to discuss the situation with the doctor, and to figure out how far along in labor the real mother was, which would translate to how fast Sarah had to get back to Alaska to make things fit. (She had to get her keynote speech in. Remember, it's All About Sarah!) She got to Mat-Su Regional and Trig's birth is announced. Are there any photos of her, in the hospital bed, holding Trig, surrounded by her family? I haven't seen any. Admittedly I haven't spent time looking, but you'd think a few would be out there, because I have read quite a bit about how Sarah couldn't be the birth mother.

Bristol may or may not be the baby's mother, but I'm also wondering about Track, who was given his choice of the armed forces or jail. Could the baby be one of his girlfriends'? Is it possible that they really are prolife enough to adopt Track's baby if his girlfriend threatened abortion? She might threaten legal action if confidentiality were violated, which might explain why Sarah hasn't taken the obvious course of action and authorized the release of medical records.

As far as that goes, confidentiality explains why nothing has been said by the hospital staff. The nurses there know who gave birth to that baby. They'd certainly remember if the governor were their patient or not. And if they talked about it, they're liable to lose their jobs and receive a huge personal fine. It depends on how rigorously enforced confidentiality is at that hospital. (I know at ours, coworkers of mine, on a unit where I worked, did not realize that I was the patient in room 22, because of the rule that nobody talks about their patients with coworkers unless there is a medical need to do so.)

Lots of interesting questions, and the most interesting thing to me is that Sarah Palin obviously is untrustworthy. Nobody is stepping forward to say, "I know her, and I know her integrity, and she would not participate in that kind of deception." Which I guess is a sort of reverse smoking gun.

Biden lies about his first wife being killed by a drunk driver. The driver wasn't drunk. All politicians lie.

Clicky Web Analytics