If anyone has gotten this far (and it will be interesting to see if that's the case) welcome. It's valid for anyone reading this site - and this blog - to wonder why I am doing this.
A week ago - two weeks ago - the thought of doing a website like this would not have crossed my mind. Actually, I am a fairly apolitical person - I've never campaigned for a candidate in any race, Republican or Democrat. I tend to think that they are all uniformly disappointing and out of touch.
But the very first day - when I heard the brief news blurb about how Gov. Palin had traveled twelve plus hours supposedly with ruptured membranes with her fifth child, I could not believe it. My first thought was that it probably was not true... just another media story written by someone who doesn't really understand basic biology or childbirth - because, after all, no one really would do that. Then when the story persisted, my opinion changed to: was she effing nuts? Something is really wrong with this picture.
In my labor coaching and childbirth experience, I have personally seen one (fifth) baby born after two hours or so of "leaking" amniotic fluid followed by ONE contraction. And while this is admittedly an extreme example, I've seen MANY third, fourth, fifth or more (I worked for awhile among the Amish community) babies deliver after just an hour or two of "active labor." It's NOT uncommon. And the moment that amniotic sac ruptures (whether it's a "leak" or something more dramatic) believe me the clock starts clicking. The whole story just "bugged" me on some level... and this was long before I'd seen any references to the "baby swap." Then, when THAT hit the Internet, I had an "aha!" moment.
And then - just as quickly - the story is gone, evaporated in the face of the announcement that the daughter in question is pregnant now. And the spin put on it is that to pursue it any further is just (take your pick) a)tasteless, b)cruel, c)disrespectful, d)picking on families, or e) all of the above.
The mainstream media's total reluctance to revisit this in any sort of thorough, honest, or deliberate way is flabbergasting to me. When I first conceived of doing this website, I scoured the Internet. "Surely," I told myself, "there's something obvious out there I'm missing. Some website that I have just overlooked. Some interview with a credible source in Alaska who was willing go on record and say, 'Hey, this whole thing is just nuts. I know for a fact that Sarah Palin had that baby and this is why...'" But, in fact, there's nothing but the same two proofs over and over: a couple of photos in which Gov. Palin appears pregnant and the fact that Bristol Palin is allegedly pregnant now, backed up of course by the PC mantra that any additional questioning is somehow picking on Bristol.
It's a bit like this. Assume for discussion's sake that there was a convenience store robbery in a community, and five people identified John Smith as the robber. Duly, the police would interview Mr. Smith. But Mr. Smith looks at the police and says, "Oh no, officers. I could not have committed this crime. I was home watching TV." Now, assume that the officers simply walked away from Mr. Smith's house, saying... "Who knew? Guess we were wrong. He was home watching TV." And not only do they not pursue Mr. Smith any longer, they begin attacking and attempting to discredit the witnesses!
Obviously, this is a ridiculous scenario, right? But it's exactly what we have here. We have "witnesses" in the form of lots of little niggling details that do not add up about this pregnancy and birth. The photo evidence that Gov. Palin showed no signs of pregnancy until seven months, that no one in her life even suspected she was pregnant, her daughter's alleged "disappearance" from public for months, the fact that there were rumors in Alaska BEFORE the birth that Gov. Palin was NOT pregnant, yet nothing was done to counteract the rumors, and most of all, one implausible choice after another at the time of the birth. These are our "witnesses."
And now what do we have? The functional equivalent of "home watching TV:" The Palin family's announcement that their daughter is now pregnant. And the press has walked away, saying "Who knew? Guess we were wrong."
What? That's it? Ridiculous, right?
And that's why I'm doing this.
No Time for Tuckerman
-
Time. It is precious, they say. It flies, they say. And former Republican
Party Chair, former Dunleavy Chief of Staff, and now former University of
Alaska ...
1 year ago
4 comments:
The media has fallen into the trap it laid for itself and is now floundering in all the politically correct netting. They were afraid to vet Obama for fear of looking racist. HIllary charged sexism and they backed off, so in an effort to look even-handed and non-sexist they are playing softball with Palin.
And of course, everyone has agreed that the kids are off limits, and Palin is conveniently hiding behind hers here. Well, unless it's convenient to exploit them. She didn't seem to mind mugging it up with her Soldier Boy son, but that knocked up daughter? Well, that's a whole other story, isn't it?
Prediction: There will be a "miscarriage" 5 to 10 days before the election. Unlikely that Bristol is pregnant now.
Schmidt, McCain’s henchman (Rove Protégé) is relentless and without integrity – for the record:
Election Year Miscarriage Scenario, A Plot Summary:
The teenage daughter of the Governor of the State of Alaska gets pregnant. Her schoolmates say the daughter is gone for several months for a case of mononucleosis. Others state they know she is pregnant. The Governor is relatively new to politics but is very savvy and her instincts tell her this would not be a good thing for her career since the Governor does not support sex education and espouses abstinence as the best teen pregnancy prevention plan. As such, she and her family decide that it would be a complete embarrassment for 16-year-old daughter to have the child as her own. Mother will take responsibility.
The deception begins: At 7 months into the daughter’s pregnancy, Mom isn’t yet aware of her daughter’s pregnancy and is seen in public not yet “showing.” At 8 months into the daughter’s pregnancy, the Governor announces that she herself is 7 months pregnant. A month later, at her supposed 8-month pregnancy mark – the Governor travels to a Governors event in Texas, during which she starts having contractions. The Governor then flies 11 hours back to Alaska and delivers a baby in the middle of the night with slight fanfare shortly after.
Life goes on. A Presidential candidate becomes enamoured of the Governor of Alaska. Little background check is done. She is selected as the Republican VP candidate. A very suspicious story about the oldest daughter of the Governor parenting the youngest child of the Governor hits the Internet in a flurry. Pictures of the Governor at 7 months pregnant and not “showing” are questioned. The flight back from Texas is a question. Hospital records and birth certificates are not available. No one will talk. No one says, “Hey, I’m a nurse, and I held that baby when he was delivered.”
Here is where the Rovian Schmidt interventions begin:
Damage Control
The scene: the war room with Schmidt and his closest crew, sleeves are rolled up. They are anxious, but very excited – these are the types of potential campaign crisis they live for.
Question: Suppose a teen pregnancy cover-up did occur and Governor Mom took credit for the baby. How would we damage control?
What if it is revealed that teenage daughter is pregnant now?
“Well, that wouldn’t make sense… but wait, Oh, I see… Brilliant!” She could have been both pregnant before and pregnant now, but slim chance and for anyone who asks that kind of question, our pat response:
“…only the typical slimy left-winger would go there. The Governor’s baby was born in April and the daughter is 5 months pregnant now? How could that be? Bristol would have had to have gotten pregnant the week after she had the baby!! Do the math!”
We break the news that she is pregnant now (so how could she have been pregnant before?), we reveal the father’s name, etc… and that this is the quintessential “American Family Problem” that so many can relate to.
But how to fake a pregnancy at this point?
The kid will do anything they ask after going through the craziness with the baby. She knows her family will be a laughing stock if she screws this up.
HEY! WAIT A MINUTE! BETTER YET!!!! – WHAT IF SHE MISCARRIES “the pregnancy” 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE ELECTION? No more baby questions. No one would dare ask about a fake pregnancy during those "trying times.” We flood the press with video of the family and McCain’s family dressed in black for mourning services, the Governor issues a teary, brief speech, thanking the American people for their sympathy and support. Anyone who dares to question the scenario " while the family grieves over this loss which happened as a result of the "tensions and stress created by the press and the insensitive allegations of the left," will, of course, be accused of muckraking and we’ll tie it to the Obama left.
How do we handle the miscarriage?
The same way the birth was handled. Per standard practice, this will be a “need to know” project, the fewer who know the whole story, the better. Even the boss and family will think she was pregnant. Middle of the night, same doctor. After all, there will not really be a baby - all we need is the original doc to make a statement. We’ve made all these idiots (even the ones who have just heard the rumors at the hospital and want to spread those rumors) at that Podunk hospital so scared now about patient confidentiality and law suits over the real baby’s birth, they won’t talk on their death-beds to their last living relative! The boyfriend and his family will be so happy to know he doesn’t have to attend a “shot-gun” wedding and they are not going to go to court to deal with “Palin” lawyers on the potential rape charges and the “little bit” of child support we would hit them for, they’ll be taking their money and running straight to the bank.
Sound far-fetched. Well so did the Plame outing until McClellan blew it wide open. Someone needed to put this out there.
Thank you so much for creating this site, I knew there had to be other people out there that were not willing to let a public crime go by. I even wrote to the Texas newspaper that broke the story and asked if they were going to investigate into whether denying medical care to an infant during a life-threatening emergency was a crime. It might not be, what with their various religious beliefs, but shouldn't someone actually go check? If it is, shouldn't charges be filed? Surely no reasonable statute of limitations has passed, even now! You can't just ignore someone putting a baby's life in danger like that. Or else it didn't happen. We deserve to know which it is, we shouldn't be asked to just swallow these questions and move along quietly.
Post a Comment