Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Who's not your mama?

(Note - this post has been updated twice ... scroll to the bottom.)

If a picture is worth a thousand words then this graphic is worth ten thousand.

Amidst all the discussion over who Trig's mother may be, some of our readers have stepped forward to gently remind us that a crucial message may be lost in the debate - the one message upon which this blog was founded. That message: Given the evidence, it is highly, highly suspect that Sarah Palin gave birth to the Trig Palin.

So to prove that we are still on message, we would like to halt the debate over who Trig's mother is and observe a moment of silence as we reflect upon who is not. The debate, we are sure, will resume. And that is fine just so long as we don't lose sight of the original message.

A special thanks to long-time reader and contributor Way of Peace for this awesome graphic.

Update: In response to many requests, Way of Peace has provided an alternate graphic. Let us know what you think. (Remember, click on them to make them bigger.)

Second update: In response to many MORE requests, we've also prepared one with the "Nail in the Coffin" photo. (Also, I re-read my post on this photo just this morning. If you are new to the blog and have never seen it, you should read it. If you are not new, but have not looked at this in awhile, you need to read this post again - if I do say so myself.

A candidate to the second highest office in the United States lied about being pregnant. I strongly suspect she must have had help in maintaining the deception. The MSM's failure to pick up this story in December, after the discovery of this photo, is nothing short of a criminal failure to the American people.)

Friday, August 14, 2009

The Cornerstone - Questions and Answers

One question that has come up repeatedly in comments is the idea that Bristol was breastfeeding and some sort of forced weaning could have accounted for that amount of enormous breast change she evinced OR she was padded so heavily to hide any leakage.

Here's my read on that. This is something I feel very confident discussing since I worked as a lactation consultant for fifteen years and also nursed four children of my own.

Considering the number of bottles you see around Trig (there seems to be one in virtually every photograph) I doubt very much if he was breastfeeding as of August 2008. Someone, however, may have been pumping breast milk and bottle feeding it to him. This is not uncommon for Down Syndrome babies, who typically have a very hard time learning to nurse, and often seem to "forget how" between feedings.

Could that lactating mom have been Bristol? Possibly but more importantly, could that account for the enormous bust we see on the night of September 3, 2008? Here's my answer: I doubt it. When mothers who are nursing stop abruptly, breasts do swell and leak, but most importantly become very sore and tender.

I foolishly once separated myself from my 2 1/2 year old nursing toddler for about 40 hours. I should have known better since I was already a Lactation Consultant, but you know what they say about shoemaker's kids. I had to go to a funeral, it was two flights each way, then driving in cars, then mom is crying, and the idea of doing all that with a 2 1/2 year old was daunting. He'll be fine, I reassured myself. And he's not nursing that much. No problem.

Well, HE was fine. I, however, was not. By the time I got back home, about 40 hours after I left, I ached so badly that I could barely lift my arms to drive the car. The least jounce of the country road was excruciating. I had tried to express milk, most notably in an airport restroom stall (didn't want to shock anyone by trying to do it into a sink) but with limited success. (And this was all the more ludicrous since I rented electric breast pumps in conjunction with my LC practice so I had any equipment I could have desired to take with me already in my house.)

Contrast again these pictures, this one of Bristol taken on (or around) August 24,

Then this one, taken around September 1,

with this one taken on September 3rd.

There is no way that weaning, no matter how forced or abrupt could account for a change in breast size of this magnitude. Furthermore, I have watched every video I can find of this night. Bristol moves easily and naturally, waves at people, hands Trig to her mother then takes him back again with ease. She seems happy and comfortable. There is NO sign of any extreme discomfort. Believe me if your breasts had suddenly turned into hot tender rocks, you wouldn't be waving to the crowd with a smile on your face.

What about padding? Your typical breast pad, worn by most new mothers to prevent leaking, is about three inches across and is made of very absorbent material. They are small, discrete and effective. It's called "leaking," not "rupture." Unless they padded her with bath towels, there is no plausible way to account for this amount of sheer "mass."

The question of the dates.

Numerous people have suggested that Bristol was padded or enhanced in some way to make her look MORE pregnant. Here's the problem with that line of thinking.

Bristol Palin appeared in public on Sunday February 8th, 2009. While she definitely looked as if she might have had a baby "recently," it's hard to imagine her being less than ten days "post partum." So let's assume just for the sake of conversation, that Bristol Palin had actually given birth to Tripp on January 30th.

Why lie about this being her due date? January 30th was still too close to April 18th to allow Bristol to be the mother of both children. If this was her real actual due date there would have been no reason to lie about it.

According to one medical text I consulted, the shortest recorded time between birth and ovulation is 27 days. The mean time is 70 days (so more than two months) for non nursing women and 190 days (more than six months) for nursing moms. However, most texts I looked at agreed anything less than six weeks for a non nursing mom is pretty rare. Just for discussion, let's assume that a baby was born on April 18th, and then the mom ovulated 42 days later. That would have given a due date of Feb 21st. (Yes, there are reports of babies being born much closer than that... but in those cases, the second baby is premature.)

But we know for a fact that Bristol was not pregnant on Feb 7th, and was out and about in public. Furthermore, journalist John Ziegler states he saw Bristol in the Palin home on January 7th and states she was post partum. I believe he would know the difference between "post partum" and nine months pregnant and ready to pop. I also believe that while some journalists have shown themselves willing to not see things or just not ask the right questions, I find it difficult to believe that Ziegler would actually lie about something like that. The consequences of blatantly putting forth an untruth for a journalist would be career-ending. So therefore I tend to believe that John Ziegler did see Bristol on Janaury 7th, and to his eye she was not pregnant at that point.

So, I believe it's implausible that they padded Bristol to make her look MORE pregnant, just as it was unnecessary that they lie about the second birth date. If she was due to deliver any time before Feb 1, they did not need to. Why take the risk, either risk? Any birth before about the 15th of February would have "proved" that Bristol could not be the mother of both children.

One other comment mentioned these three additional shots of Bristol, all from during the campaign. I left them out of the first post primarily because of length but will add them here.

They are:

This was taken when Sarah visited a Wal-Mart on October 14th.

This was taken the following Saturday, October 18th.

This was taken the morning of the election, November 4th.

Again, I don't feel that they show a very solid "progression" of pregnancy, but that is my opinion alone, and I will be the first to concede that this proves nothing.

I don't know what to tell people about this mystery. I think I've made it clear that my jury is out on this whole issue. I am NOT saying that Bristol Palin's pregnancy in late 2008 was faked. I am NOT saying even that it was not exactly as reported.

I am saying that photographic evidence shows a pregnancy that does not appear to progress normally. Photographic evidence shows unequivocally that her bustline was padded at an event where there would be no plausible or rationale reason to do so. Common sense screams that something is wrong with the whole way the birth was presented.

It all makes my head hurt.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

The Cornerstone Part 2

In this section of this major post I will go over the primary evidence that makes me wonder if Bristol Palin's pregnancy during the campaign in the fall of 2008 was "as reported." I wish to be very clear that I am totally baffled by this.

As I said in my previous post, some of the evidence that points to everything being exactly as represented is very compelling. Yet, there is more - presented here - that just makes you go "Whoa!"

(Most every picture in this post can be made larger by clicking on it.)

Evidence which raises questions concerning whether Bristol Palin was actually pregnant, commencing in late spring 2008 and culminating with the birth of Tripp Johnston on December 27, 2008.

1. The open secret: One of the first "proofs" that Bristol was pregnant was an article published within 48 hours of the announcement that Palin was going to be the running mate that took a sort of "happy-go-lucky" spin on the Bristol pregnancy. Purporting to have interviewed several "locals" in Wasilla, the pregnancy was termed "an open secret." But there is in fact considerable evidence that the "open secret" was not all that open and was a lot more of a secret than has been put forth with that casual ("It's no big deal.") announcement.

First, we have the teens' MySpace and Facebook pages. Many pages are private, but many are not. (Or at least were not months ago – some have since gone private.) My research assistants have poured over the comments on scores of pages. There is not a single mention of Bristol being pregnant anywhere. If the secret was really nothing to fuss over, if the couple was openly together, if at least one set of parents were "happy" about the news, the absence of any mention regarding this open secret concerning the impending parenthood of these two popular kids seems impossible to explain.

Some kids in Bristol's circle have literally thousands of comments on their MySpace pages in 2-3 years. Many girls have babies, and chatter about baby showers and pregnancies, while maybe not exactly commonplace, is also not rare either. Levi's sister, Mercede, also was a very popular young lady. Yet not even a mention by the soon-to-be auntie that her brother, someone she is close enough to to have his name tattooed on her wrist, was going to be a daddy? Nope. Not a one.

This would make sense if the Palin family had asked the Johnston family to keep the news quiet, but, to repeat, the newspaper article published on takes the diametrically opposite position: that the news was an "open secret," and no big deal. This group of kids regularly posts photographs of themselves engaged in blatantly illegal behavior. In the past, Levi's relationships with other girls had been discussed, in sometimes "TMI" detail. In the face of this, the absence of a single acknowledgment or comment from a single Wasilla teen of the Levi / Bristol relationship OR pregnancy seems odd to say the least.

Second, I have in my possession emails which prove that an ADN reporter was still looking into the questions concerning Trig's origins in July 2008. The timing of this has always been significant to me, because it is well before Sarah Palin was picked as VP nominee, yet nearly three months after Trig's birth. There's no evidence whatsoever that the ADN reporter who was actively looking for information about the birth story in Wasilla ever heard that Bristol was pregnant, even though by mid-July she would have been four months. Certainly, when the story broke in September, ADN made no reference to the fact that they had already had the information.

Third, former ADN editor Michael Carey gave an interview with PBS on September 2nd. This is not some pajama-clad blogger in his parents' basement. This is a well-connected former editor of the Anchorage Daily News who had been sent by the ADN to Minnesota to cover the convention. He's asked point blank about Bristol being pregnant and he's very matter of fact.

Had HE ever heard that Bristol Palin was pregnant? No, Carey had not heard that Bristol was pregnant as of September 1 at all. But he had heard that Sarah had faked a pregnancy to cover for Bristol the previous spring. And he'd heard it LONG before the news broke on the Internet, at this point about four or five days previously.

I think his comments are so important that I am going to include them here verbatim.

MICHAEL CAREY: Well, I'm not there; I'm here. And I have not -- I'll give you an example of how this took people by surprise. On Friday, I went into work and started working on this particular story about the -- about Palin becoming vice president. But in the middle of the afternoon, the editor, Pat Doherty, said, would you like to go to Minneapolis? I said, yes. That's about what I knew at that point and none of us knew that Bristol Palin was pregnant. We didn't know anything.

I mean, I think there have been in the Daily News and some other reporting sort of the thought that, oh, yeah, this was common knowledge among certain people in Wasilla. People have said that, that being the governor's hometown. But I don't think that -- in a newsroom, as interested and gossip and good stories as ours, I did not hear this. I heard the other story, which is the fake pregnancy story. And maybe you want to go on to that at some point.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that --

MICHAEL CAREY: The other part of the soap opera.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that seems to have been what smoked out the Bristol Palin story, the attempt to put the first story to rest that came. Tell us more about the first one, which I guess was highlighted on the Daily Kos website.

MICHAEL CAREY: Yeah, that's been -- that story has been around for quite a while. I first heard it when a lawyer who I like very much and is a very smart guy presented this to me as the absolute truth.

RAY SUAREZ: That is, that Governor Palin was not pregnant?

MICHAEL CAREY: No, and that the whole thing was faked because she was covering up for her daughter who was pregnant. And the daughter was having the child and Sarah claimed it was her child and faked the pregnancy so as not to embarrass the daughter and not to create I guess political backlash for some kind of conservative values concern.
He is calling seriously into question the idea that it was "common knowledge." He specifically states that he does NOT think it was common knowledge based on the fact that, in their newsroom, he never heard it.

2. Bristol's appearance raises questions. Before I continue I need to say categorically that I am not happy that I am having to sit here, analyzing the potentially pregnant body of a 17-18 year old girl. Bristol Palin is younger than my own daughters and I find this very distasteful. But … I believe that it is precisely this emotion that the Palins had hoped to engender by "throwing Bristol under the bus," i.e., that reporters would be just too squeamish to ask the hard questions about and to take a good long look at the physiology of a pregnant minor.

First, Bristol's bust on the night of 9/3/2008 was padded or enhanced in some way. Analysis of many high quality photographs show this unequivocally, and she's padded so heavily that it borders on the ludicrous. Whoever dressed that MINOR, that CHILD that night should be put in prison. I mean that quite literally.

Contrast to this picture, which at first glance seems like a shot of John McCain, with Gov. Palin and Piper. Yes, but look at the background. It's a perfect profile shot of Bristol, emerging from behind Levi's body. Her bust is literally larger than her head. There is no way, based on other photographs of her, that this can be natural.

She is not only much larger that night than she was just ten days earlier (in spite of having a windbreaker on in this picture,

it's clear that the bust is not there), in several shots it appears as if the padding has slipped and that she is actually lopsided.

My experience with my own pregnancies and the pregnancies of countless other women is that bust size typically increases early in pregnancy ("bigger boobs" is often the first sign of pregnancy women report, far earlier than any discernable "tummy") and then stays more or less consistent until quite late. Photographs of Bristol from July (when she would have been 17-18 weeks pregnant)

and late August (only ten days prior to the RNC - see above) show no evidence of a bust anywhere close to the size on 9/3. Photographs of her from later in pregnancy (we don't have many but we have a few) also show that "bolster bosom" is gone.

Why would you pad/enhance the bust of a young woman who is genuinely pregnant? It is what it is. If she's really pregnant, why would it even occur to anyone to make her look more pregnant? If Bristol pregnancy was "as reported" on September 5th, in due time, the baby would be born, the veracity of the Palin/McCain's statements to the press would be born out. But putting any sort of padding or artificial enhancer on her at all can only have one goal: to give the appearance of something that is not true. So what would that be?

Second, we have very few photographs / screen shots of Bristol Palin during the campaign. She does not appear to have traveled with campaign nearly as extensively as Willow, Piper, and Trig, but she was present on at least a couple of occasions. In one brief sequence filmed, we believe, around the 15th of October, Bristol is shown some time apart on the same day. The size and shape of Bristol's pregnancy appears to change between the time of the two shots. In addition, the motion of her body as she deplanes seems odd. Pregnant women in their seventh months go down stairs slowly, leaning back slightly, protecting their bellies. Bristol bounces down the stairs. (Watch for the very brief clip beginning around the :35 point.)

Watch the motion of the belly as she moves. I cannot say that it appears natural, though it's hard to put my finger on just exactly what is "wrong."

Now look at the screen grab of her as she gets back off the bus to get on the plane.

To my eye, the belly seems to have increased in size – rather significantly. Although I do not know who far apart in time these two shots were taken, it hardly matters if it's half an hour or three hours. Based on Bristol's clothes, I believe it is the same day.

Third, in one additional quick shot of Bristol that is available, she is shown walking into church services on December 10th.

She would have been in her ninth month of pregnancy, approximaly two weeks prior to Tripp's birth. Look at the screen grab carefully. It appears as if she could push the vest, which does not appear to be a maternity jacket, closed easily.

She is certainly NO bigger than she was in this shot,

two months earlier, and may be smaller which defies all laws of pregnancy physiology. (Can that vest be pushed closed? I don't think so.)

She does not move like a pregnant woman. Pregnant women have a very distinctive "gait" due to connective tissue in the pelvis softening and loosening in response to late pregnancy hormones. This has nothing to do with age or the number of children a woman has had, though in subsequent pregnancies, the effect is usually apparent sooner. But not Bristol. She's really hoofin' it over the icy path, and when she sees the cameras she almost starts to run. Contrast her gait with some of the people (who presumably are not pregnant) walking into church ahead of the Palins. They walk gingerly and catiously over the ice. In my opinion, Bristol Palin does not appear as if she is nine months pregnant here, two weeks away from giving birth.

3. The announcement of the birth itself was handled to a way that can only be termed bizarre.

First, on Monday December 29th, People Magazine broke the story on the website: According to Bristol's great aunt, (so it would be the great great aunt of the child) the child had been born in Alaska. The aunt lives in Washington state and had learned of this by email. Initial reports had several different weights and dates, but finally consensus seemed to agree on 12/27. Numerous other news outlets, including the Anchorage Daily News followed suit on the announcement by quoting the People source. As far as I can tell, to this day, not a single media source ever verified the information in Alaska independently.

Read this again: The news that Tripp Palin was born came from a great-great aunt who had learned of it via email, had never seen the child, who lived in another state, and who had been cold-called by a national publication, which then posted it on their website. No hospital was ever named as his place of birth. No happy fellow Wasilla resident ever mentioned anywhere that "Bristol Palin had her baby the same day as me, and isn't that cool?" Hospital staff are bound by privacy regulations, but other patients are not. Not one word ever leaked to the press that Bristol had given birth, even though Palins and Johnstons and other of Bristol's friends should have been trouping in and out of the hospital for 1-2 days. But no one was ever spotted by anyone.

Second, then the Governor's Office refused to give an unequivocal statement on the birth for another 48 hours. Citing "privacy" they would not confirm or deny that the birth had even taken place. Privacy? PRIVACY???? Good God! This is coming from the woman who told about six billion people that her seventeen year old daughter was pregnant in the first place, instead of, oh, having her doctor give a news conference or releasing a birth certificate on September 1st. It's an absurd hypocritical construct, and she should have been called on it on the spot. Instead, everyone in the press just sort of hung around, dumbfounded.

Tripp's birth was – as I said – the Cornerstone of Sarah's "I'm Trig's mom" campaign. This was her BIG PROOF. This should have been a HUGE moment for her on a HUGE day. She's vindicated! And then the baby is born, and they won't even discuss it?

Critics will point out that it was Bristol's baby and she WAS entitled to privacy. There's no dispute there when it comes to personal details of the birth and photographs of the child: It's Bristol's call. But considering just how much was riding on this for Sarah, the fact that she did not give a personal simple statement to the press as new grandmother standing in the hall of a hospital, (even if the baby was never shown) is odd at best.

Sarah could have done this on her own, regardless of Bristol's wishes. Even if Bristol did not want her baby shown, would it even have occurred to Bristol to tell her mother she could not stand in the hall of the hospital, and pronounced herself, "Happy, tired, and proud."? Considering how on many other occasions Sarah has behaved like the pitbull she calls herself – on steroids - Palin's keeping herself completely out of the public eye in the days after Tripp's birth was very inconsistent with her general behavior. At least with Trig's birth, we got Chuck and Sally Heath in the hall of Mat-Su hospital holding a baby. With Tripp we got nothing.

4. No one outside the family has ever come forward to say they saw the baby prior to the Greta Van Sustern interview on February 18th, almost seven weeks after the birth.

Initially the explanation was that no photos could be taken because Bristol was negotiating with several publications for "first photos." But like so many other stories, this one was just dropped. Was this nothing but a delaying tactic? No publication appears to ever have gotten the touted "first photos." Bristol was possibly paid something by People for the photos of her and Tripp connected with her graduation… almost five months later… but the fantastic price tags that had been used to explain why there were no early photos of Tripp with either Sarah or Bristol, well, that story just faded into oblivion.

John Ziegler, who did an interview with Sarah Palin on January 7, would not confirm that he had seen (or even heard) a newborn in the house. He stated that he saw Bristol, and mentions specifically that she was post-partum, but when asked by me point blank if he ever saw a baby, would not say he had. I have always personally found it inexplicable that Sarah didn't at least show the baby to Ziegler that day, and possibly have a photo taken of her holding her new grandson, even if they chose not show the baby's face.

5. There was a significant discrepancy that has never been followed up concerning Levi Johnston's whereabouts in the days after the birth. The Anchorage Daily News reported on January 5th that Levi's lack of either high school diploma or GED rendered him ineligible for the electrician's apprentice job he had, and that he had quit and according to his father, that evening (Monday night, i.e., January 5th) was flying back from the North Slope. But according to Levi's mother he had spent the entire first week plus after Tripp's birth on 12/27 at the Palin home taking care of newborn Tripp. So where WAS Levi? With Tripp and Bristol? Or at work hundreds of miles outside of Wasilla? Seems like the ADN placed him, with eyewitnesses, on the North Slope. So... what's the real truth here? (Of course, all this indicates is that Levi was not in Wasilla the first week in January, 2009. Since in other places, it's already been alleged that things were off between Levi and Bristol before the birth, it's entirely possible that the "lie" is that Levi was actively involved with the baby, at the Palin's home, after the child was born. However, what that still leaves us with is that a whole lotta fibbin' is going on somewhere.)

5. Levi seems to have a curious lack of photographs of himself with Tripp. When asked for one, on March 16th (more than 2 1/2 months after the birth announcement) as he sat in front of his house in his truck if he had a photo of Tripp, he produced an ultrasound.

When on the Tyra Banks show in April to discuss presumably his relationship with Bristol and his son, one of the photos provided to the Tyra Banks show was of Levi holding, not Tripp, but Trig the previous spring (almost a year earlier.) No photo of Levi, with Bristol and Tripp has ever been released, even though according to the official "line," the young couple's breakup did not occur until well over a month after the baby was born.

6. It is inexplicable to me that Sarah Palin, given her family values philosophies, has never chosen to do any sort of informative, positive media event on the fact that she and her daughter had babies less than a year apart, with both of them having made difficult decisions. Ladies' Home Journal, Good Housekeeping, or one of the Christian family publications would have been thrilled to have the opportunity to do a sit-down with Bristol and Sarah jointly. So what's the problem? Sarah has never shied away from publicity (she certainly used Trig relentlessly during the campaign), and Bristol has shown herself open to media as well: she agreed to the GSV interview on Feb. 15, and did interviews and appearances for Candies in April. The silence is deafening.

There are other discrepancies as well. Sarah's own demeanor towards Levi was very very cold in an interview less than two weeks after the election, even though the official line is that everything was fine between the young couple and with the families until after the birth. In several interviews, Sherry Johnston as well as her son, can't seem to get basic details straight. You get the sense with Sherry on numerous occasions that she's talking about a baby... but not the baby that was supposedly born on December 27. She tries to do time frames, and she never quite gets it right. And Levi, how old WAS Bristol when she got pregnant? 16 no uhh 18. (If Tripp's pregnancy was as reported, she would have been 17.)

All in all, what's the old saying? "A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." I think that so many people have told so many lies for so long that I wonder if anyone knows the truth.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy, like the one Sarah presented to the world in early 2008, does not add up. Unlike Sarah's, which I am sure was not "as presented" I honestly do not know what to conclude about Bristol's. Photographic evidence, prior to the announcement of the pregnancy, seems to indicate she WAS pregnant. It also shows clear indication of obfuscation: bolster bust on the night of September 3, 2008. Palin's behavior around the time of the "birth," seems inexplicably disinterested in what should have been a huge event for her, yet there is a baby who appears to be the right age for having been born around the end of 2008.

You decide. It's all I can say.

The Cornerstone Part 1

It's been a busy few weeks as this blog and many others have followed the resignation of Sarah Palin from the governorship of Alaska. At times, inevitably, we've strayed from the central purpose of this blog and website, which is to document, analyze and archive the considerable extant evidence that Ex-Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy in spring of 2008.

But all pendulums swing back. I have numerous posts in the "in the works," but something I read yesterday made me put aside all the other things I am working on and write this. On another site, I ran across a reference to this blog, and, specifically, a reference to me. Audrey, it was claimed, is a "nutbar." And why? Because apparently, according to this individual, I have continued to pursue the baby story even though the birth of Tripp Johnston PROVES that Bristol Palin cannot be Trig's mother. And that, in turn, PROVES that Sarah must be.

It occurred to me that this really is the cornerstone of everything. Just as Bristol's pregnancy during the campaign "proved" that Sarah is Trig's mother, now Tripp's existence proves the same thing. I'd like to use this post to look at this "cornerstone" in great depth. Before I even start, though, I do want to apologize for the length of this post. It's quite long, with a good deal of embedded video and pictures. Although the final section is the most critical, I have made the decision to split it into two sections. The second section will be published tomorrow.

The premise, that the existence of Tripp Johnston proves that Sarah must be Trig's mother, is absurd. Just off the bat, this statement ignores three other possibilities.

First, Bristol always was (and I believe remains) the most likely possibility for the "other mother" for numerous reasons that have been discussed extensively elsewhere. However, I have never taken the position that Bristol was the only option and I still don't.

Second, numerous people have commented that Trig Palin appeared older than 4 ½ months at the RNC in September 2008. I am not willing to go "on record" saying I agree with this, but I certainly do not disagree. In photos of him from the RNC, he does look large and mature for a 4 ½ month old baby, born five weeks early, particularly given that – in general – Down Syndrome babies have poorer muscle tone and slower development than non Down Syndrome babies.

I was struck by this again when watching the video that Sarah Palin did for the Special Olympics some time last January: Trig, to me and many others, looks older than nine months.

This opens the possibility that Trig Palin was born earlier than announced. If true, this would allow Bristol to be mother to both children.

Third, the possibility must be considered that the entire pregnancy during the campaign was not "as reported" and it is on this possibility that I wish to focus this post. I believe that while there certainly is "proof" that Bristol was pregnant during the campaign and now has a child named Tripp Johnston in her care, I also think that a careful analysis of the evidence raises valid questions and, shall we say, curiosities. I know – I can hear the screams from here. Holey MOLEY! Now she thinks Bristol's pregnancy was faked? She's gone off the deep end.

Frankly, I don't know what to think. But in my thought process the other day, as I realized that Tripp Johnston's birth date and existence is the "cornerstone" of the "Trig is Sarah's" camp, I decided to take another look – a long look – at all the evidence, pro and con, regarding Bristol's pregnancy which allegedly culminated in the birth of Tripp Johnston on 12/27.

The initial response among many of my readers regarding the pregnancy, after all, was a great deal of skepticism. Many wrote to me asserting that it was faked, a position that, at the time, I did NOT agree with (thought I believed it was not as far along as it was stated.) Once Tripp showed up, we simply buried everything that was wrong with the "Bristol is pregnant" story from the beginning. We ignored the discrepancies with the birth story, the extremely fortuitous timing, everything that had been bothering a lot of us all along.

While there certainly is evidence – very hard to ignore evidence – that Bristol was pregnant and had a baby, there is also evidence to the contrary that is just plain puzzling and does not add up.

I am going to list the evidence – as I see it. As I have said so often in the past, you will need to decide. Is Audrey really the "nutbar" she has been made out to be, or just might there be something here?

Evidence which supports Bristol being pregnant, commencing in spring 2008 and culminating with the birth of Tripp Johnston on December 27, 2008.

1. There is a baby, who has been presented to the media on numerous occasions as Tripp Johnston. He appears to be the correct age (more or less) for having been born on 12/27/08. This is obviously very compelling. However, it must be pointed out that it is possible to obtain a baby other ways, first (legally and permanently) via adoption and second, via borrowing a child on numerous occasions. Both scenarios would be very risky in terms of being exposed. But either one is POSSIBLE, and that is a fact.
2. Photographs of Bristol Palin, taken on the day that John McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate show an appearance consistent with her being in early pregnancy, though in many photographs she is covered with a baby blanket so it's difficult to ascertain accurately. (Of course, just the fact that they covered her would also tend to prove the point.) As no announcement had yet been made, this is very persuasive.

3. Levi Johnston has appeared in photographs taken in 2009 with a baby who appears to be the same baby that Bristol has appeared with on numerous occasions.
Just last week he has confirmed the outlines of the timing of Bristol's pregnancy with the Anchorage Press. If one is going to allege that there has been any fraud regarding Bristol's pregnancy, Levi Johnston is in on the deception and is actively maintaining it at this point.

4. Photographs of Bristol taken mid- February, 2009 show a midsection consistent with a "post partum" appearance.

5. A Washington Times blogger reported seeing Bristol Palin poolside on the day after the election, appearing quite pregnant. The blogger, someone whose other work shows no great interest in, support for, or dislike of Sarah Palin, mentioned it seemingly randomly. This non-scripted sighting of Bristol is very credible. It's hard to imagine a teen agreeing to appear at a pool wearing only a t-shirt in some sort of pregnancy "appliance."

Evidence which I believe is "inconclusive" in supporting the pregnancy.

Numerous people in Wasilla reported knowing that Bristol was pregnant. But the dating in and of itself is more problematic. If one is going to use "people in Wasilla knew Bristol was pregnant" (more on this below) as proof of the reported Tripp pregnancy, it's hard to justify picking and choosing among the reports that she was pregnant much earlier, reports that would disprove the Tripp pregnancy.

In fact, reports, in Wasilla, of Bristol being pregnant go back into 2007. One rumor was posted publicly to the Internet on April 8, 2008, and outlines the story exactly: Bristol was pregnant and not in school, Sarah was not pregnant, Sarah was faking to cover for her daughter. Based on a due date of 12/27, there is no way that that pregnancy could have been known in Wasilla as early as early April.

Sue Williams, a Wasilla caterer, reported to the press that Bristol was pregnant before it was announced by the McCain campaign, so I believe she must be taken seriously. The problem is that her dates do not jibe with what was later claimed (i.e, a pregnancy that could not be known publicly prior to May, 2008.) In fact, her "dating" corresponds exactly to the reddit report, above: she claimed to have heard that Bristol was pregnant in early April (and it was, at this point, not whispers from adults but being bandied about by a middle-schooler.) She makes a point of saying that this meant that Bristol and Sarah were pregnant simultaneously, and she asserts that as of the RNC, Bristol was late in her third trimester and almost ready to deliver. Obviously, that did not turn out to be true.

Sarah Palin herself mentioned the "Bristol is pregnant" rumors to Bill McAllister, then a KTUU reporter and later her press secretary, before March 2008. She denied them, but she did know about them and talk about them to someone else.

Coming tomorrow: The evidence that raises questions about Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

Link Submissions

I'm going to be putting up a links list in the sidebar of the Palin's Deceptions blog today. Since this blog began, a number of our readers have become inspired to start their own Web sites and blogs. The latest is Amy1's very creative contribution.

If you would like your Web site included in the Links List please email Morgan at

Include your Web site/Blog name and its URL.

PD Moderator

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Go Ahead. Make my Day

The title, as I am sure you all know, is not mine. It belongs to Harry Callahan (a.k.a. Dirty Harry) and is from the 1983 film Sudden Impact. It's probably one of the most famous single movie quotes ever.

"Go ahead. Make my day."

Approximately five days ago, Gryphen on his Immoral Minority blog reported that he'd been told by a source in Wasilla that Sarah and Todd Palin were splitting up. He also reported several other pieces of info, including:
1. Sarah Palin had purchased property in Montana.
2. Sarah Palin had pitched her wedding ring into a lake.

Within hours, Dennis Zaki had stated that he was able to confirm Gryphen's information (at least the splitsville part) with a former Palin staffer.

Within a few hours more, Gryphen had received a letter from Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein, which threatened to sue him and asked him (oh so politely) if he'd rather be served papers at home or at the "kindergarten where he works." Since school is not even in session it was a ludicrous question asked for one reason only: to threaten and intimidate him.

Since then, numerous right-wing fundamentalist blogs have delighted in republishing Gryphen's private information. Not only that, but at least one has contained explicit allegations (claiming first hand knowledge) that Gryphen is a pedophile, warnings to parents to keep their children away from "this demon," and (helpfully) providing the blog's readers with the email addresses of many of Gryphen's fellow teachers so that they, too, could be contacted and presumably warned about the MONSTER in their MIDST.

This is all incredibly disgusting. Sarah Palin drew far more attention to the story by squawking about it than Gryphen ever could have. And, somewhat lost in the entire shuffle is of course, the fact no suit has been filed.

Palin has threatened to sue bloggers before. One, Shannyn Moore responded by standing in front of Palin's office in Anchorage, with a group of reporters and said, "Ok, so sue me." I'm sure you're all waiting with baited breath to find out what happened that time. Yup, you guessed right. No suit that time either.

But at least these guys got threatened. But what I find even more interesting are the issues she's never even threatened to sue over. Is there a pattern there? I think so.

There've been a couple of these. National Enquirer claimed during the campaign that they'd watched a video of 15 year old Bristol smoking pot and laughing about her mother being the future governor. They made very explicit statements about Track's involvement with drugs as well. These were not only fairly serious allegations, involving illegal behavior, (which divorce is not) but also involved two of Mama Grizzly's cubs. Threats to sue the National Enquirer? Not a mention. Could it be... gasp... that there really IS a video tape? That the info about Track was accurate?

Ditto for allegations that Sarah OR Todd OR both have had affairs. That's not gonna play too hot with the family values crowd, but again not a whisper of legal action. Another gasp. Maybe there really were some affairs?

And then, we have the elephant in the room: The topic we have come to call Babygate. The allegations that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy in the spring of 2008 and did not give birth to Trig Palin on April 18, 2008.

Unlike the stories about Bristol smoking weed and Sarah and/or Todd looking for a little strange, (neither of which I believe Ex. Gov. Palin has ever mentioned or addressed) she's mentioned the allegations about Trig many times. She's brought the "answer" up in interviews even when no one asked the question. I have made very strong statements. I and others have accused her flat out of being a liar. Yet neither I nor numerous other bloggers who have looked at the discrepancies in her story has ever been threatened in any way.

Even her fans have noticed this. On numerous boards and forums that support Sarah Palin, many people have wondered and commented. "Why doesn't she sue?" "It's time to sue." "Why doesn't she do something about these crazies?" "Why doesn't Sarah DO something about this?"

Ummm, let this crazy give you a little clue. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If Gov. Palin sues someone concerning allegations that her pregnancy was not "as reported," the burden of proof is on her (as plaintiff), not on the defendant. She would have to prove she gave birth to Trig. And just saying, "Trig is mine because I say he's mine and I wouldn't lie" might be a closer for Team Sarah, but it isn't going to cut it with a judge.

The defendant would have the right to subpoena just about anyone he wanted for depositions. Sarah and Todd for starters, but the list might soon be long (and most impressive.) Use your imagination. Who would you like to talk to? Cathy Baldwin-Johnson? Definitely. Andrea Gusty? Oh yeah. Flight attendants on the two four hour flights she took from Texas back to Alaska with her water leaking the whole time? You betchya.

In addition, she'd have to produce medical records and, of course, produce a certified copy of an official state birth certificate. Maybe even a DNA test. And, as I have been saying for months, she either can't or won't produce any of this.

For starters, does anyone here really think that Dr. Baldwin-Johnson will risk her medical license by lying under oath? So far, she probably (probably) has only skirted the edge of medical ethics issues. But if she's subpoenaed, she's going to fold like a K-Mart lawn chair. Palin knows that...

So, in the words of that great sage, Harry Callahan, "Go ahead. Make my day."

Saturday, August 1, 2009

No Todd Left Behind

I had a post prepared for today updating all this blog's readers on an interesting new discovery regarding Willow Palin (via photographic evidence, she's been finally and almost certainly disproved as a possibility for Trig's mother) plus some updates on some other things we've been working on. And I will come back to that. But the breaking news is just too hot to ignore.

About four hours ago, on Alaska blog Immoral Minority, the news comes: Sarah and Todd Palin plan to split. The Alaska Report follows suit.

I too have sources in Alaska. Over the last week, I have also heard rumors of things not being quite right at the Palin abode. I have said from the moment of her resignation that things did not add up, like really didn't add up, like nine plus nine equaling twelve million... something along those lines.

Palin's speech announcing her plans to resign was sloppy and rushed. Quit if it's all too much, fine, but quit in a way that preserves at least some chance of a future. Her horribly-written, terribly-delivered, gasping, incoherent (and that's a compliment) dishonest speech on July 3rd pounded nails in her own coffin. From the inside. Something more than being a lame duck governor was up. Big time.

Her speech in Fairbanks on the 26th was better, but not by much, and then, absurdly, bizarrely, she drove off and left Todd standing. Todd managed to joke about it with reporters ("No car for Todd.") but I know I certainly have never left my husband standing on a street corner by accident. I lose sunglasses from time to time, but hubby?

And then - in spite of having well in excess of 100,000 followers on Twitter - she has not set up her new EX Governor account - in what, five days? The adoring faithful over on Team Sarah are losing their minds. What does it take to set up a Twitter account? Five minutes? No one wastes this kind of political capital. She's been announced as a no-show at a Republican Woman's event at the Reagan Library, and now - as has been the strategy in the past - Poodle Stapleton denies that she ever agreed to attend in the first place.

No car for Todd indeed.

But does this have anything to do with the central theme of this website and blog?

It might.

Stay tuned.