Saturday, May 9, 2009

Ho! Ho! Ho!

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

OK, rant over.

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

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

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

But the second photo was a bit more troublesome.



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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what we know:

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

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

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



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



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

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



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

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

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

Except, not so fast.

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



It's clearly dated 2007.

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




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

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

Here's the wreath from the Lorenzo Benet book:



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



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



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

So - what can we conclude?

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

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

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

Stay tuned...

445 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 445 of 445
Lilybart said...

Quiet1: if I believed that Palin was no longer a threat to me, I wouldn't care whose baby that was.

But this site has proved to me that Palin did not give birth to Trig. Proved it with photos and the mysterious lack of photos.

I don't know who did, but I will keep participating until this threat is neutralized!

Lilybart said...

Amy1, thanks for that great list!!

another oddity I found....I saw a photo of newborn trig...he didn't look obviously like he had DS with his eyes half closed. So how on earth could Willow have known right away as claimed, that the baby had DS??

midnightcajun said...

On the topic of nursing Trig, I think we were all misled by two things: 1) Sarah constantly talked about nursing Trig and breast pumps, and 2) Bristol's bolster at the Convention looked like it belonged to a nursing mom .

I don't believe anyone breast fed that baby. DS babies are hard to nurse even for a mother with the time to devote to it. That description doesn't fit either a governor or a teenager who is pretending she isn't her baby's mom. The Palins talk about breast pumps so much it's creepy. I think it's just a smoke screen; they're always walking around clutching bottles. Bristol claims she only breast fed Tripp for one month (although we have no way of knowing she did even that). Any woman with the determination to breast feed a "hidden' DS baby for five months (especially a premature one!) would have fed a normal baby she openly acknowledges as hers for much longer.

Plus, while it's possible to get pregnant while nursing, it's far less likely. I think B's weird appearance at the RNC was to make her look more pregnant than she really was. Compare it to the way she looks to the picture of her at the governor's picnic just weeks before. Sarah had spent six weeks faking a pregnancy; I'm sure it occurred to her to "augment" Bristol's appearance. That dress she wore was obviously chosen deliberately to make her look as big as possible.

Plus, as someone said, nursing mothers leak. It's embarrassing and scary. I can't believe someone in the public eye as much as Sarah, or who was pretending she didn't have a baby like Bristol, would have risked that. It's all just part of the Palin Ubermother nonsense.

sjk from the belly of the plane said...

tubal ligation...hmm...methinks that is something to consider....

sg said...

Diana:

Thanks for your detailed timeline. Your hard work in putting it together is much appreciated! Do you have a link to it?

One item though struck me as perhaps being out of sequence:

5-29-2007 Tuesday- Juneau John McCain's VP advance man Arthur Culvahouse has been spotted in Juneau, Alaska. May 2007!!!!

Are you sure you didn't get the year wrong? Shouldn't it be 2008 instead of 2007?

Here's what I recall seeing, posted on a blog on 5/29/2008:

http://tinyurl.com/culvahouse-in-juneau

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin To Meet With McCain VP Search Team
Posted by Kevin
Published: May 29, 2008 - 1:32 AM

"A tipster sent us word that John McCain's VP advance man Arthur Culvahouse has been spotted in Juneau, Alaska. There's only one reason he would be there - to meet with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin about the Vice President position."


Also, Culvahouse, in his recent National Press Club speech (on CSPAN), said that he didn't get involved in the VP vetting until after McCain won the nomination (3/2008 ?).

Eileen said...

Diana and midnightcajun: yes, and yes. Thanks for timeline sequence of the Republican power brokers pulling strings to have Palin get MSM coverage and line her up as "the chosen one" Shame on you McCain for many reasons.
Just like the drumming for the war, laying down the fake reasons and talking points. Then when someone who is authentic, qualified and proven they have Joe Public's interest at heart versus big moneys interest...they swift boat him. Makes you kinda worry about the President's safety in the long run. I want this scammer and clan to go back to being fish slimmers.
I live here and I remember the press about this college kid's-draft palin site or I love sarah site-before McCain reached down and dragged her to center stage!
Connect the dots-even Ice Classic deserves a look at. Jeez. Alaska needs to wake-up. The big boys still run the show, even from outside. Investigative journalists-grow some. I think men who make up so many of the power positions won't touch this story with a ten foot pole because it involves taboo subjects like mom, apple pie versus working mom, female reproductive organs and all that mystery jazz and portrayed as patriotic Annie Oakley.

Only Piper and Willow are untouchable. I remember the ktuu tv story about the slashed buses too-shocking-spill the beans on that one too somebody in Wasilla. All this retouching of images with a wink wink as you send the kids off to campaign for teen most of the time 'abstinence' or patriotic glory overseas after vandalism of this level makes me see blue.

Come on someone, knock her out of contention for anything but a Fox babbling head.

Eileen said...

Oh, sometimes I've seen debate about what the white thing that is between skinny Bristol and her gal pal in the skiff shot of June 10, 2007. Bristol has black tee and carhartts.
I just looked at a link here that goes to a cropped and compared to the camo dress official preggers shot.
The white thing between the future co-conspirer gal (hey, the teen girls know the goods and aren't talking on the record so shame on them) I believe is a PERSON sitting whose head/arms are not shown. their shirt has folds across front design.

There is a scuffed metal/silver stand, black steering wheel and a wrinkled fabric with a scene on it and words. I do not believe it is the raised motor-unless they cover it with a printed canvas cover-would be unusual for working boat. Looks just like any Alaskan aluminum boat if no plywood housing is built on it.

This reminds me of that Calvin Klein jeans featuring Brooke Shields 70s campaign...(shoulda, woulda, coulda) NOT let anything get between you and your designer duds. Yeah, no regrets. And Watergate started with pals of Joe the Plumber messin' around. Palingate's downfall will be roudy teenagers.
Quiet1: funny, the first dud went dah and couldn't figure out why wifey kept the flannel pjs on... OR...am I one lucky fella that she keeps her beauty queen figure even when eight months pregnant! Wake Up American.

onething said...

Diana said,

"I think that Trig could easily look like a 3 month old infant in the April and May photos if we consider he was very likely born prematurely with a low birth weight."

But you have misunderstood what I was saying, and I already stated that a truly premature baby could look like a newborn two or three months later.

I was responding to the idea that the camo dress shows Bristol pregnant 3-4 months along on Sept. 14. I even think it is a bit of a stretch to put on that weight at 3 months. But if she was 3 months along then Trig would be full term in mid March. If he were born earlier in Feb or Jan then he might not look like a newborn on April 18. I have no argument with him being born a month or more premature. But in that case the camo dress probably doesn't show a pregnancy.

But maybe a one month old could pass for a newborn, so he could have been born, say Feb 1, 6 weeks early, and then when he should have been one month old, shown as a newborn.

onething said...

Unless Willow just happened to have been exposed to a DS baby, perhaps a school friend's sibling, then it is quite unlikely that story is true.

B said...

Hysterectomy or tied tubes were reasons we considered for Sarah not releasing her health history.

I believe Bristol wore an empathy belly type device at the RNC to look 5 mos. pregnant, when she was actually 3-4 months along. I see what the commenter means about the weird padding at the shoulders and upper back. I don't think that device is intended to go under such a tight and thus revealing dress.

I wish Levi would go on and sell his book for advance money so Wasillans would start telling us the truth without worrying about Levi and Sherry.

wayofpeace said...

thanks DIANA for the timeline, easy to see how the whole things was orchestrated....

the MOST telling: sp's announcement of her 'pregnancy' the day after JM's wins nomination.

also, i found insightful the comment as to the GOP's self-preservation instinct will try to keep SP's HOAX PREGNANCY from being exposed: it would be a nail in their own coffin as well.

i also found tube-legation a REAL possibility. wow, wouldn't that be the straw that would bring the whole house of cards down!

onething said...

Then, too, Todd could have had a vasectomy, also.

midnightcajun said...

The problem with Palin's birth story is that she frequently contradicts herself, making two statements that can not both be true.

On the DS for instance, she says right after the 18 April "birth," when a reporter asks her if Trig might be "special," that "you can't tell by looking at him" but tests indicated he might be. It's only later that she comes out with the story that Willow saw him in the hospital and knew right away he had DS by the way he looked. Both of these "facts" cannot be true. My suspicion is that the Willow story is the fabrication, since its obvious purpose is to allow Sarah to trot out her sappy "but we'll love him just the same" line. I understand that DS is at times so unapparent that it isn't diagnosed until DAYS after a birth. Whenever he was born, I suspect that's what happened with Trig. The wild ride story is also full of contradictions. It would be interesting to juxtaposition all of these "can't both be true" lies, including the "I never showed" line vs. the staged Gusty photo.

I've been pondering why Sarah keeps claiming she never told even her family she was pregnant until she told the press in early March. It's just so weird. Finally, it dawned on me! Sometimes we focus so much on Sarah's public persona that we forget there is a personal component to all of this. This lie is for the consumption of her parents and her close friends. The only way she can explain never having told ANY of these people (who think they're close to her) that she was pregnant until March is if she keeps claiming even her kids didn't know. So this lie tells us that even some of the people who are very close to Sarah don't know the truth about Trig.

The one lie I can't figure out is her claim she didn't tell Todd. I can see not telling him at first about Bristol, especially if Sarah was pushing for her to get an abortion. But why now tell the world that she has a lousy relationship with her husband? Anyone got an answer?

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

An ongoing subject that's made me go Hmmmmm from the get-go, but that I haven't posted about here: The disclosure in People that BP reportedly breast-fed TriPP for "a month," along with SP's repeated references to breast pumps. But did anyone, in the herds of staffers, friends, family, etc., surrounding SP, ever hear the unmistakable noise that even battery-operated breast pumps make? Did SP excuse herself for prolonged periods after TriG's birth in a bathroom, or behind a closed office door? Did anyone ever see the milk stored in a fridge or freezer? Remember, there's no logo on breast milk!

Harping on breast pumps is another way--just like the reference to amniotic fluid--to make almost all men, and many women, change the subject. TMI, right?

My own husband, though squeamish about other women's personal stories, supported me 100% while I breastfed our three sons, especially when our toddler #1 refused to wean when #2 was on the way. (Our ob/gyn finally admitted that she had never cared for a nursing, pregnant patient, nor one who eventually tandem nursed). As all of you know, breastfeeding an infant takes time, and in most cases, precludes regular trips to the gym, tanning bed, or television studios...

So if Bristol gave birth to TriG and bottle-fed him formula, she would have been much more likely to conceive shortly after his birth. Remember, the only source of the "fact" that BP was "five months' pregnant" at the RNC came from the McCain campaign. No family member, no doctor, just the campaign staff.

Even when lactating like a Holstein, I never needed more than washable or disposable nursing pads to keep from leaking through my clothing. I think BP's RNC "padding" had more to do with the calendar than with whether she may have been nursing (or pumping) even on a part-time basis.

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

Forgot to mention: tubal ligation would be an integral part of SP's health records, and one that would completely blow the fake-pregnancy story to hell. Any surgical procedure would stick out like a sore thumb from the medical files on a generally healthy person.

WV: radecl. That's me!

LisanTX said...

Remember when Greta VS hosted Todd at the Annual Correspondents Dinner when SP decided not to attend? Here is a link to a picture that I hadn't seen before that is apropos to this blog.

Check out Todd's line of vision--he's looking at the backdrop for "Care" which appears to be a pregnant woman! See the graphic of a yellow baby inside an orange woman? Just the perfect picture, what with him being the caregiver for Trig (and Tripp)!!!

http://tinyurl.com/oouy9s

Below is a link to the blog (where I found a link to the above picture) on which it was stated that the pictures of Greta and Todd "represent visual evidence, above and beyond the connectivity and comraderie between media and government, of ethical collapse."

Ethical collapse sounds right.

http://tinyurl.com/psoy6w

wayofpeace said...

on HUFFPOST:

In an yet-to-be released interview with GQ, Levi Johnston, the ex-boyfriend of teen mom Bristol Palin (and father to her son, Tripp) reveals even more details about the dynamics of his relationship with Bristol and her family.

Johnston told GQ that Todd Palin, on multiple occasions, offered to buy his daughter a car if she would break up him.

mdlw56 said...

I have a real hard time with the Willow theory, Dangerous.

Putting all the photos together, I see Willow going through puberty, maturing into a young lady. Yet, I see Bristol gaining weight, even in her face, twice, shortly before Trig was born, and during the campaign, shortly before Tripp was born. (Sorry, I believe that photo with Bristol in that green sweater was taken only a couple of months prior to the 09/07 photos. Because Piper looks older in that photo than the photos of 12/06 where she still had some of that baby fat.) Normally, Bristol is thin, like her father. Willow is more like her mother. Bristol is the only one that gained a substantial amount of weight including her face, twice, from 12-08-06 to present.

Well, that's how it looks to me.

What I find really disturbing about the whole situation is a young lady having two pregnancies; the second to cover up the first.

Audrey and team...great job! Keep up the good work!!!

Diana said...

sg...said
Regarding timeline: 5-29-2007 Tuesday- Juneau John McCain's VP advance man Arthur Culvahouse has been spotted in Juneau, Alaska. May 2007!!!!

Are you sure you didn't get the year wrong? Shouldn't it be 2008 instead of 2007?
-----------------------------------
Thanks for catching that error in the timeline. With the original timeline running over 20 pages sometimes it gets confusing and makes my eyes cross. It is indeed 2008! I appreciate a second pair of eyes! It helps alot!
----------------------------------
Eileen said: "Come on someone, knock her out of contention for anything but a Fox babbling head"

....I love that visual, thanks for the laugh!

NY tabloid chick said...

I think the Johnstons had been sending signals to the P family via media comments all along. I also believe the release of SP's incomplete medical history was necessitated by what it contained, which I believe was evidence that SP was unable to have children (i.e. hysterectomy, sterilization) at the time of the Trig pregnancy.
When Sherry, through a lawyer or representative, said those oxy pills were originally prescribed to her for pain after a hysterectomy, I was curious as to why she'd give out what I consider to be too much information (it doesn't matter why she had a scrip for them; it only matters that she was distributing them) for the legal issue.
Now that we're revisiting the issue here, and based upon many Johnston comments/photos etc since then, I think Sherry's hysterectomy talk was yet another message to SP... as in, 'I know YOU had one and can't be the mother of Trig... and I'm willing to let the information out.'
I'm really annoyed but not surprised that the Johnstons will cave in here for a bit of cash and some time with Tripp.

ProChoiceGrandma said...

Do we have any adoption or health insurance experts that can answer these 2 questions:

1. If you adopt a special needs child, is that child eligible for health insurance coverage at the usual rate for a child born into the family, or would the health insurance company say it is a pre-existing condition and charge higher rates or even refuse coverage for the adopted special needs child?

2. Or, is a grandchild with special needs still eligible for coverage under your health insurance if the grandchild was born to your minor daughter?

Sarah faked her pregnancy with Trig. If Trig was not eligible for coverage because he was born to Bristol and had DS, but he is covered under Sarah’s health insurance as a child born to Sarah, then it seems to me that Sarah committed a fraud upon the insurance company. I don’t know what company provides the health insurance to Alaskan government officials, but I would think that company could and SHOULD demand conclusive evidence of Trig’s birth, not just take Sarah’s verbal assurance. Is it a state or federal criminal offense to commit fraud upon an insurance company?

However, let me qualify this by stating that I do not feel insurance was the ONLY reason she faked the pregnancy.

patstevens said...

to Pro-Choice Grandma:

I'm not a health insurance expert, but have a little knowledge on the subject of insurance.

It would be against public policy to charge higher rates for a baby born with disabilities, even if an adoption were involved.

Further, the idea of pre-existing conditions is to prevent "moral hazard" which is the act of only buying insurance now because you know about an existing medical issue. When you have a family policy and you have another baby, that baby is not separately "underwritten" before being a covered member under the policy. There is no knowledge at the time of conception that the baby will have a disability.

I wouldn't think that insurance fraud is being committed if SP legally adopted Trig.

I don't know the answer to the first paragraph of Q2.

The Editor said...

And considering her "alleged" affair with his business partner, her holding off telling him would really put a crimp in their perfect marriage. I too thought of the Todd/vasectomy scenario, but it is far more likely that SP had a tubal ligation, given her political ambitions and the fact that Piper was six years old. Don't thell me Todd and Sarah had a "waldrobe malfunction!" Sarah would have iron-clad pregnancy prevention in place, IMHO.

wayofpeace said...

a TWO-FER at HUFFPOST:

first, Shannyn Moore:

Alaskans Honor Dead As Palin Pulls Diva Card

In January, I spoke with a member of the Alaska Joint Armed Services Committee. He was really excited about the Memorial Day commemoration being planned; The Decoration of Honor Ceremony. Alaska is only the second state to have such a service, and I was honored to be invited.
...
It was a beautiful ceremony, appreciated by the families -- touched to even be remembered after so many years, even decades for some. Many had traveled from all over the country to be recognized.

Despite several months of notice, the governor didn't commit to be at the ceremony until the morning of the event-hence her conspicuous absence in the program. Before the program went to the printers, the governor had been given a deadline.

Silence. Perhaps she was waiting for Greta's call. Governor Palin insisted she be sat on stage and demanded time for a speech. She spoke before the invocation and flag presentation as to not be "off program." It was certainly appropriate for the governor to speak at such a high level ceremony, but her high level maintenance made it difficult for those that planned it.

I talked to a Republican lawmaker earlier today and told her how honored I felt to be there. She commented on the governor's attire. The most somber occasion I have attended, and the governor wore a mini skirt. Neat. Way to comfort the families of fallen soldiers; give them tickets to the "bare legs show." One side of the auditorium was waiting for the"Basic Instinct" shot, Alaska style.

Even Sarah Palin, in full diva regalia, couldn't ruin the day. She just looked cheap.

....


AND THIS FROM Bonnie Fuller

Bristol Palin's People Magazine Cover is a Total Promotion for Teen Pregnancy!

Bristol Palin, unwed teen mom of five-month-old baby Tripp, doesn't have time anymore to pursue her dream of becoming a nurse. But the daughter of the Governor of Alaska has managed to fit a glamorous cover photo session with People magazine into her schedule.
...
She may not intend to encourage other teen girls to follow her example, but with her picture perfect looks and adorable baby son, she is absolutely now the poster girl for teen momhood.

The inside article, with dreamy full page photos, might as well be titled, "I'm 18, a mom and HOT...and you can be too!" There's not one photo of an exhausted, haggard, harried, unkempt-looking Bristol, reeling under the enormous responsibilities of raising an infant, working part-time — which she is — and hoping to somehow continue her studies. Instead, Bristol appears tanned, rested and already fitting back into her skintight jeans.

Visuals are a powerful force. And more than words, they produce visceral reactions! So while Bristol talks in the exclusive piece about how "girls need to imagine and picture their life with a screaming newborn baby," there's nothing in the People magazine spread to visually suggest that life isn't one big happy bed of roses in the Palin household, where Bristol and Tripp still reside. There's not even a dish out of place, let alone a pile of laundry or an unmade bed.

As a mom of two teen girls, I can hardly believe the fairytale crock the Palins have cooked up about unwed teen motherhood, with the help of People mag.

The Dame said...

ProChoiceGrandma, Please go back, way back to older posts and read the extensive comments discussing all kinds of insurance issues, Alaska native issues for insurance, there is so much there to read about this.

Ivyfree said...

"What I find really disturbing about the whole situation is a young lady having two pregnancies; the second to cover up the first."

Oh, I don't think she had Tripp to cover for Trig. I think she had Trig and wanted to keep him and was persuaded that it would be better for him to let her parents adopt him. I think she got pregnant because she didn't care enough about prevention to use contraception. Sort of accidentally on purpose.

Ivyfree said...

"tubal ligation would be an integral part of SP's health records, and one that would completely blow the fake-pregnancy story to hell. "

It depends. When I had my tubal ligation, my doctor told me that he would cauterize the ends of the tubes as well as direct them away from the uterus because, he said, that is a more certain method of contraception- he said there is a failure rate (albeit low). So it's possible to get pregnant after a tubal ligation.

Susan said...

I'm gonna inject something here that goes way back and could very well be "off the wall" in the context of this blog. I happened upon the Anne Kilkenny letter again, recently. Her letter was one of the first things I read about SP. The content of the letter is on factcheck.org as well, and they clarify that most all of it is "spot on." Here's what I noticed when I read that letter again: Kilkenny says something like I know Todd and Sarah and Trig is hers.

Why? In all of the letter Kilkenny says 1)she's writing the letter to family and friends and 2) she only addresses Sarah's work history. Why add that tidbit about Trig, also too?

You all have been following this storyline way longer than me. Any thoughts on that?

Susan in MD

Lilybart said...

Not Telling Todd??

How could Todd not know unless they don't sleep together. Or even live together for God's sake.

This is what we need to do next: These Statements Cannot Both Be True:

and then collect em all
at least we will have a list for the press so in case there is any interest in this story at some time soon, we have questions ready for them to ask.

Diana said...

Great article on Levi. I really do love Rex Butler!

http://tinyurl.com/lxermw

Diana said...

Levi from his GQ photo spread!

http://tinyurl.com/6vfvev

Joe Christmas said...

Alex, if you're still there, I love the Faulkner reference (joe xmas), the absurdity, fraud, farce, affront to reason in the face of simpletons --classic Faulkner -- except this reality is stranger than fiction.
BTW, I hope SP keeps a high profile, more chance she will stick her moosecrap-laden foot in her vacuous mouth.
1 more, could we check if B actually went back to WasHigh on Jan2 as she claims in People mag?

NY tabloid chick said...

Keith Kelly, the media columnist in the New York Post, weighs in today on the Jon and Kate juggernaut and its effect on Us Weekly's sales.

Relevant (to us!) paragraph (especially that last line):

"People Managing Editor Larry Hackett has also cashed in on the craze by running a cover that featured the headline "We Might Split Up" and an on-the-record interview with Kate for its May 25 issue. That sold about 1.7 million copies, a hefty jump over its average 1.4 million weekly newsstand sales and far better than last week's Bristol Palin cover story, which apparently was a dud."

Whole story: http://tinyurl.com/lwmplr

(I thought pretty girl, cute baby, graduation cover would NOT do well so I feel a bit vindicated... and I'm hoping this is the start of SP's ride into the sunset.)

midnightcajun said...

We can make some interesting deductions from the realization that Sarah has personal reasons to keep saying she didn't tell anyone, including her own children, about the "pregnancy" until March. Obviously, her mother and close female friends would be hurt that she didn't tell them, hence the need to lie and say, "I didn't even tell my own children!"

But think about this: If Sarah told no one--not even her friends or mother--about the fake pregnancy until March, it suggests that Sarah had no intention of faking the pregnancy until then. It also suggests that Bristol's pregnancy was kept a secret even from her grandparents. In other words, up until Feb/March, Sarah thought Bristol would be giving the baby up for adoption.

So what happened in February? We have suggested several scenarios. It's possible that early testing showed Trig would have DS and a private adoption (arranged perhaps by Dr. Cathy) fell through. OR, it's possible that Trig was born very premature in January or February. If the baby almost died, and there were long vigils in the NICU, it is possible that Bristol bonded with the baby and then refused to give it up. This would force her mother to announce her "pregnancy" at a very late date and then come up with a c&b story to explain to mom and friends why she hadn't told them before.

Since Willow's boyfriend was going around telling everyone in Wasilla that Bristol was pregnant, obviously Willow knew the truth. Presumably Piper did not. One wonders if those close to Sarah have begun to suspect the truth, or if they still believe her?

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel said...

"tubal ligation would be an integral part of SP's health records, and one that would completely blow the fake-pregnancy story to hell. "

Ivyfree responded: It depends. When I had my tubal ligation, my doctor told me that he would cauterize the ends of the tubes as well as direct them away from the uterus because, he said, that is a more certain method of contraception- he said there is a failure rate (albeit low). So it's possible to get pregnant after a tubal ligation.

Mrs. B adds: Of course one CAN get pregnant after tubal ligation (or after a partner's vasectomy). But the likelihood of a woman accidentally conceiving at 43 after a tubal ligation still seems a much less likely scenario than conception by a teenage girl with an active sex life and erratic contraception, if any.

If SP in fact had had a tubal ligation and a subsequent unintended pregnancy, six years after Piper, that would have supplied her with an irresistable, sure-fire applause line, accompanied by a shrug and a "What the heck!?"

Windy City Woman said...

ProChoice Grandma,

Insurance covers whatever is negotiated between the insurance company and the person or company buying it. For instance, where I work, I have dental insurance, but a friend of mine doesn't have it where she works. Where I work, my insurance covers minor children of minor children, but not every plan covers that. Also, my plan covers adopted children, same as natural children. My plan can cover children up to age 25 (think they may have to be in school), but I don't think this is universally true. See my point? There is a lot of variation in what plans will cover. You can't ask "would insurance cover X?" as there is no universal answer. You would have to find out what Sarah's insurance would cover. I would assume that her plan would be very good, since she is an elected official. Is anyone out there an Alaska state employee who would know what the state employees' plan covers? From there we can assume that Sarah's plan is at least as good as that of regular state employees.

Windy City Woman said...

Another comment on insurance...
We cannot assume that either Sarah or the doctor committed insurance fraud, as we don't know what was claimed on insurance forms. Lying to the American people does not imply lying on insurance forms.

Windy City Woman said...

Ivyfree,
Yes, tubal ligations can fail. I know someone personally who had that happen. Also vasectomies can fail. I wonder why it would take 6 years, though. (Piper's age at Trig's conception)

Windy City Woman said...

I assume that Levi received money for those GQ pictures. Hey, why not? He has at least one child to support.

We know that Bristol graduated HS. Did Levi? Or is he still trying to finish school?

Not that I personally think there is anything wrong with it, but don't you think some people would get bent out of shape over the pictures of little naked Tripp in that CQ spread? How old does a child have to be for nude pictures to become unacceptable?

leu2500 said...

ProChoiceGrandma - this site may help answer your questions. http://www.state.ak.us/drb/ghlb/insurancebenefitsactive.shtml

Ivyfree said...

"Mrs. B adds: Of course one CAN get pregnant after tubal ligation (or after a partner's vasectomy). But the likelihood of a woman accidentally conceiving at 43 after a tubal ligation still seems a much less likely scenario than conception by a teenage girl with an active sex life and erratic contraception, if any."

Of course. I was just pointing out that having a tubal ligation would not be an insurmountable issue for SP.

Personally, I'm a believer in the Bx2 scenario, with Trig born in February (enabling Bristol to attend the famous but not-photographed Heart Association luncheon, as well as making it possible for Sarah to call Bill McAllister and say "my daughter is not pregnant.")

NoMore said...

Diana said...

Levi from his GQ photo spread!

http://tinyurl.com/6vfvev

May 28, 2009 9:03 PM

...Second pic is not Levi and Bristol - it is Levi and Mercede in his truck...

Rogue said...

I am an avid follower, although infrequent poster since I keep forgetting my google information. I do have one question. This post compares slim Bristol from June 2007 with paunch Bristol from September 2007. How about comparing that with paunch Bristol from green sweater photo in October 2006 to slim Bristol at inaugeration photos in January 2007. Does this show a pattern of yoyoing weights, or of serial pregnancy?

wv licklike. I'm not going there.

PathosVastus said...

You simply CANNOT get a definitive answer from pictures and video and conjecture.
I had my first baby at 20, my second one at 32.

At 20, I could do anything...bounce and run and jump and whatever. I was wearing my before pregnancy jeans the day after I had the baby.

At 32, I was still bouncing around. I went to the hospital to give birth (at 9 months gestation) in pants the were not even maternity pants. I wore my winter coat zipped up. I had a May baby at 32 and there were people in my neighborhood that never even knew I was pregnant, even though I walked my dog several times a day...with my regular winter coat zipped up.

Conjecture, guessing, second guessing. Ridiculous. Don't you think Levi, at this point, would have given some indication about bra padding or fake pregnancies? He's not the brightest bulb in the pack and really seems to have an ax to grind with the Palins.

Nobody would like to see Sarah Palin caught in this lie more than me, but you've really got to get off this conjecturing about pictures bus...it's not going to work. Actual sleuthing needs to be done in Wasilla. And by now, I would think that there would be classmates or friends of friends that would have come out with specific information.

How long are you going to keep this up? This is a cold case file, until someone gets up to Wasilla and starts digging.

deb said...

Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Insider panel grills Levi on Trig parentage. Dayum! Well somebody sure is paying attention!


I am glad that Levi put that whole "affair with Sarah" story to rest. There was NEVER any evidence to suggest that and people were going a little off of the reservation with that one.

Okay so now that Levi has gone public with his statement that Trig is Sarah's baby, I can confirm that I knew Trig was not Bristol or Levi's baby for about six months now. And I know that is very confusing to those following "babygate" to digest. When I first heard that I was confused as well.

However afterward I heard another piece of information which went a long ways toward explaining what actually DID happen, and why Bristol was hidden away in Anchorage for so many months.

Levi knows this as well, but I don't think he is ready to talk about it yet. Until he, or another source in the know, explain this I cannot go any further. I am sorry, as I know how frustrating this is, but I made an agreement.

I will give you this hint, which I have mentioned in the past, the key to this mystery is in the birth dates.

So then the question remains, "Who IS Trig's biological mother?" And I have to admit that I STILL don't know. And I don't believe that the pool of people who DO know, is very large. I am not sure that even Bristol knows.

All I can say with any certainty is that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to him on April 18, 2008!

Update: I decided to address some of the questions and criticisms here because it would be lost in the flurry of comments coming in today.

Somebody asked, Midnight Cajun I believe, WHY I did not say that Bristol was not Trig's mom back when I first heard it. To be honest, I had trouble accepting it. I walked around for a while trying to fit it in with what I had come to believe about "babygate". I went back to my source at least four times before I accepted it completely.

After that I did not originally post about it because NOBODY would have believed it. You can see today how hard it is for people to accept and that is after Levi has done these interviews and you have heard hints from me these last few months alluding to that fact. If I had just come out and said it, with NO confirmation from anybody, it would have been dismissed out of hand.

Now Kathleen asked why I said back on Sept. 2, "Just ask yourself this question, "When would Sarah Palin be most likely to fake a pregnancy and then adopt her daughter's baby? When she was mostly out of the public eye as the Governor of an "off the radar" state like Alaska? Or while standing on a stage in front of millions of possible voters and camera crews?"

This was in response to Levi's statement that Sarah wanted to adopt Tripp. I was not confirming that Trig was Bristol's baby, I was asking why Sarah would want to adopt her daughter's baby right when she was being considered for a VP pick? The talk about Sarah being a possible VP pick had already started before April 2008. If it was going to be a straight up adoption how would you explain taking on an infant while running to be the Vice President of the United States? And if you were planning to fake your own pregnancy would it not have made sense to do so before the national media was watching your every move? This was one of my first attempts to get people to start thinking about the birth dates.

There is a line of logic that continues on from the above paragraph. I cannot just come out in say it because that betrays my agreement. I apologize, but I also want you to keep in mind that if I HAD simply put everything I learned on this blog back in May or June I would NEVER have learned another thing. My sources would have never trusted me again. So when I tell you I am saying as much as I can, you are just going to have to accept that or decide to walk away. Your choice.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 445 of 445   Newer› Newest»