Kathleen Parker examines the importance of "fertility" to the Palin brand.

Courtesy of the Miami Herald:

Lately, a strange shift has occurred among female politicians as they have resorted to flexing their womb-manhood. Rather than try to out-man the men, women have begun to celebrate — or exploit in some cases — their higher purpose. 

This brings us unavoidably to Sarah Palin, who reminded us recently that fertility is the ultimate trump card. 

To be fair, Jeb Bush started it. He was attempting to explain the need for immigration reform as an economic argument. That is, we need an influx of immigrants — WHO TEND TO HAVE LARGER FAMILIES — to counter native-born Americans’ low birthrates. Our current rate isn’t sufficient to keep our nation’s economic engine running competitively. 

This is a legitimate argument, most forcefully advanced by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Republican economic adviser and former director of the Congressional Budget Office under George W. Bush. Alas, Jeb Bush inartfully said we need immigrants because they are more “fertile,” which sounds an awful lot like, “Hotahmighty, those people can’t tie their shoes without getting pregnant.” 

One is permitted a certain number of verbal pratfalls in public life, a bit of latitude Palin should appreciate. But Mama Grizzly came roaring out at Bush during a speech at one of those confabs where faith-and-freedom lovers assemble to flex their moral superiority. She not only scolded the third Bush for speaking in such terms but reminded the audience of her own bona fides in the matter. 

“I say this as someone who’s kind of fertile herself.” 

As though anyone could forget. 

In an earlier speech in May at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Palin drew applause with a quip about her marital virtuosity. For Christmas, she gave husband Todd a gun, and he gave her a gun case for the four-wheeler, and … 

“He’s got the rifle; I got the rack.” 

Oh, chortle chortle. Palin is nothing if not fertile. 

Or perhaps more accurately, she is nothing if she isn’t fertile. 

This last line is the most important of Parker's article, because it speaks to the most important falsehood about Sarah Palin. That she was a forty something, still fertile female Governor, who found herself pregnant with a special needs child that she bravely decided to carry to term (Well almost).

Based on that mythology, Palin was able to attract support from Fundamentalists, pro-life groups, women, and horny old men who were amazed that she still looked so fuckable after recently giving birth.

And the whole thing was bullshit.

Sarah Palin on March 28, 2008, 3 weeks before the "birth" of her fifth child.

Which I believe I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt back in 2011.

In fact it was to prove that very fact that so many Palin blogs were launched in the first place, including my good friend Audrey's Palin's Deceptions, Regina's Palingates. and many many more.

In my opinion we did that. And with the help of Joe McGinniss we brought the story out from the shadows.

So to respond to Kathleen Parker's final point, no all evidence points to the fact that she is NOT fertile, and that same evidence indicates that, yes she IS nothing.

Now if only Kathleen Parker and her fellow journalists would, as Palin herself suggests, "get a still spine" we could finally prove that fact to the majority American people.

I think I, and others, have done the heavy lifting. So all that remains is for somebody with a larger audience to take our evidence and run with it.

Is "Babygate" about to burst onto the national stage? Could be.

The above is a flyer that Professor Scharlott made and sent to me yesterday. Of course the information that Brad is referring to came from this post I put up on Monday.

I have to say I am still fairly stunned, though quite pleased, by how much attention this post received. From Andrew Sullivan, to Henry Blodget, to my friend Joe McGinniss, it certainly seems to have reinvigorated the issue of babygate, and brought a whole new level of scrutiny to this most egregious hoax.

Which of course has been the goal all along.

Many of you have begged me to drop some sort of information bomb, that would blow Palin's political future out of the water and ultimately reveal, irrefutably, that Palin did NOT give birth to Trig Paxson Van Palin on April 18, 2008. 

However I came to the understanding long ago that such an explosive post was unlikely to ever happen, and that instead I needed to keep working around the edges of this story in the hope that ultimately there would simply be too much cumulative evidence for even the MSM to ignore.

Personally I think I have done fairly well at this. As evidenced by my Two Babies post, my Shailey Tripp interview, and numerous others, I think I have helped to move the ball forward significantly since my friend Audrey was forced off of the field almost two years ago now.

And no I am not discounting the contributions from the many other dedicated bloggers either. This has been a community effort, and it is very gratifying to see even more bloggers, journalists, and even book authors joining in to help finally get to the bottom of this intriguing, bizarre, and very troubling deception.

In my opinion we are very, very close to blowing this thing wide open, and finally getting the story the attention it has always deserved from those who have been, thus far, resistant to covering it.

After all, if Anthony Weiner's wiener can be the central story for almost two weeks now, then SURELY Sarah Palin faking a pregnancy for political gain should be front page news for at least a month, if not longer!  Don't you agree?