Brad Scharlott gives Sarah Palin the chance to put the Babygate question to rest for good. Did she take it?

This was from the conversation that Brad and Laura had on her blog yesterday:

LN: People probably wonder why bloggers don’t go to Palin directly and pose their questions. And perhaps snorting, “Oh right, like she’d answer me” isn’t a good enough answer. Instead, I asked Rebecca Mansour many times on Twitter to respond to my blog posts. And I invited her, many times, to do an interview with me. It was only fair. And she was predictably mute. You, on the other hand, went directly to Sarah. Tell us about that, Brad. 

BS: I’ve revised my original Babygate paper as a magazine article. A couple of weeks ago I sent that to Sarah Palin’s Wasilla address, and she received it on August 15, according to the USPS tracking service. In a cover letter I asked her to respond to the article, and I also asked six specific questions that stem from it, such as whether she was truly pregnant in 2008 and whether she wore a fake pregnancy belly when Andrea Gusty interviewed her. I told her I planned to publish the article within a month, and I promised her I would include her response with it. Of course, she has not responded. So what can we concluded from that? 

LN: One, she’s too big for us. And I can honestly understand that (although word has it that she is afraid of me.) There are a lot of demands on her time. Why? I have no idea. But there are. Two, why add fuel to the fire? To respond to you and/or me, or any blogger, lends credence to what we are saying. She’s hoping we’ll go away. Three, like I said in an earlier comment. We use subjects and verbs. And we use them in agreement. I think Anon on Gryphen's blog is right: that scares her. 

BS: Well, if she did NOT perpetrate a hoax, there would be an extremely important reason to respond to my letter and article. In that cover letter, I wrote: “As you may recall from your journalism studies in college, you are considered a ‘public figure/official’ for First Amendment purposes, in light of NY Times v. Sullivan. By providing you this opportunity to respond to my paper, I trust I am demonstrating beyond any doubt that my article bears no ‘actual malice’ towards you.” Since I was forewarning her that I plan to publish the article, by NOT responding she essentially forfeits any conceivable opportunity to sue for defamation. That is not the same as admitting she is guilty, of course, but could you imagine an innocent high-level politician ignoring an article that made such sensational allegations of wrongdoing? After all, I’m not just any crackpot. Palin knows my paper in April made news around the world.

You know one of the reasons that has been offered up as to WHY Palin does not simply produce the birth certificate and do away with all of this speculation, is because IT WORKS FOR HER!

The argument is that because people keep bringing up this issue that it makes THEM seem like lunatics, and by refusing to shut them down Palin appears above it all and is essentially taking the high road. (In fact Palin often brings up the "conspiracy" about Trig's birth in her speeches. It ALWAYS gets a laugh and a smattering of applause from the audience.)

Now this theory was all but rammed down my throat by a good friend who wanted desperately for me to drop the subject. (I won't out them here, but I am sure most of you can figure it out.) But of course I never did, because I never bought into that theory. Nor did I believe that keeping the investigation into babygate alive was actually helping her.

Oh sure it gave her a laugh line or two for a speech, but does anybody really believe it helped to sustain her popularity?

But for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it did. Let's assume that much of Sarah Palin's ability to garner sympathy and appear relevant stemmed from the fact that her supporters felt she was persecuted by these "crazy" liberals who had the gall to suggest that she would fake the birth of her own child.

However the Sarah Palin of today is significantly less popular than the Sarah Palin of two years ago. We are currently witnessed the crumbling of her political aspirations, the desertion of many of her past supporters, and the dimming of her relevancy to the media.

Yet the investigation, and number or people discussing babygate, is now larger than ever.

Even an author as well known as Joe McGinnis has publicly addressed it, and there is a book coming out whose sole purpose is to introduce the topic to an even wider audience.  So even if the argument could have been made two years ago that the subject of babygate was helping Sarah Palin in some way, that argument certainly could NOT be made today.

But you know what might help Sarah Palin at this point?  Producing proof that Trig is her biological son.

Imagine how much attention it would garner if Palin were to suddenly come out and show the world that the crazies were wrong all along, and that she was just playing them for a bunch of fools. Think of how she could play up how her family was victimized by these horrible people who went after her precious children so aggressively all to prove something that her evidence now demonstrated to be false.

Hell her smiling face would be all OVER the news, her potential political career would be revitalized, and the donations would come pouring in.

Not only that but imagine her joy at embarrassing Joe McGinniss, Professor Scharlott, Laura Novak, and Andrew Sullivan. Not to mention squashing the reputation of a certain pain-in-the-ass Alaskan blogger.

Yep, if ever there were a time to finally shut all of us up for good, this would be it.

So what do you say Sarah? Are you ready to finally put us all in our place?

Laura Novak and Professor Scharlott discuss the difficulties of getting the "babygate" story into the mainstream media.

Courtesy of Laura Novak's blog:

LN: Anyway, I know that in this time since we’ve worked together, you’ve re-written your paper and pushed it out into the world a few more times. Tell us where you are with all of that. 

BS: I’ve rewritten it in magazine format. The original format was as an academic research paper, but it was in truth always more of a journalistic expose than a theoretical paper. The theory part, about the spiral of silence, was only the last five pages; the first 20 pages was an expose of Babygate. So in rewriting it, I have made its form true to its overriding original purpose: to expose the shortcomings of the press in covering Babygate, which necessitated exposing Babygate itself. 

LN: They go hand in hand don’t they? And I can say having read all the versions that you make an excellent case for both. Your writing is tight and sophisticated. And it’s also evolved as you’ve worked through the story. Explain what your goal was with that. 

BS: The rewrite is shorter, bolder, and much more forceful than the earlier paper. In the original paper, I avoided any mention of Gryphen’s “Tale of Two Trigs” theory. In the rewrite, I include that stuff. And I think the multiple Trigs idea has probably spooked some magazines from accepting the article. That does not surprise me. In April, I would not even mention in radio interviews the possibility of different babies being shown as Trig at different times. I did not have a strong sense then that that part of the story was almost certainly true and crucial to understanding what happened. But now I do feel that way. 

LN: And yet, the editors you’ve submitted to are still not biting. What kinds of things are they saying? 

BS: Here is part of a nice rejection note I got from a British publication: “Thank you for your interesting read. I am sorry but I am not sure that it is something we would take on as I would need to start from scratch to satisfy myself of all sources etc. and I am not 100% sure that even this would get to the bottom. What is needed is a whistleblower. Her daughter's doctor – or something.” The online editor of a different publication, one in the U.S., indicated he definitely would use my article, in fact would feature it, based on seeing my original paper. After I sent the revision, he decided he’d better check with his publisher, who said no. 

LN: How did you react when you heard back from both these editors? 

BS: Their reactions did not surprise me. If you haven’t really familiarized yourself with the facts surrounding the hoax, it does sound a bit surreal. 

LN: In your paper you are very critical of the press for being timid and easily manipulated by Palin. Now you sound sympathetic to those who will not accept your revised article for publication. Aren’t you being inconsistent? 

BS: Well, I need to draw a distinction. It was the press corps covering Palin in 2008 that deserves the most criticism. There were red flags back then that a hoax had probably happened. When the McCain campaign responded to the fake-birth rumors by throwing Bristol under the bus and claiming she was five months pregnant – and thus could not be Trig’s mother – the journalists’ bullshit sirens should have been blaring. (As it turns out, since more than one baby has almost certainly been displayed as Trig at different times, there’s no telling what relation Bristol has to the current “normal ears” Trig with Down syndrome.) As for current editors who are encountering much of this Babygate stuff for the first time, I can understand how they might find my revised paper on the very edge of believability, despite all the evidence I present. 

LN: So isn’t this a Catch-22: Many editors find the Babygate saga unbelievable because no one in the mainstream press has written about it, but no one in the mainstream press will write about it for fear that people will find it unbelievable? 

BS: Yep. That sums it up nicely.

There is much more and I do encourage you to to click the link at the top and read the rest at Laura's blog.

As most of you who have been visiting here at IM know all too well, this problem with being taken seriously by the MSM  is one of the most frustrating parts of this campaign to reveal, what may in fact be, one of the most amazing political hoaxes of all time.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the efforts of Brad and Laura to find a way to present the evidence in the most palatable way possible so that newspapers and periodicals will find it impossible to resist.

 I would also like all of you to know that they are not alone in their struggle to get the truth about this perplexing mystery out to the public.  Fred and his researchers have also been working their fingers to the bone trying to craft a book that will be difficult, if not impossible, for the MSM to ignore.

And toward that end they have started to carefully comb through Palin's recent email dump and discovered some very interesting inconsistencies. As many of you know, contrary to what Palin supporters and journalists at large seemed to think, there were things to discover in those emails.

I personally was able to find some very interesting emails myself which demonstrated Sarah's lack of compassion, proved she orchestrated fake letters to the editor, and convinced at least one holdout that she most likely faked her last pregnancy.

Fred and his researchers have dug even deeper, and hope to bring out some information that will impress even jaded "babygate" experts like us.

And if that was not enough to wake you up this morning, I also have a potential lead that may finally answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the "babygate" saga.

Stay tuned.

No longer a conspiracy theory, "Babygate" is real! And the pictures of Sarah Palin from March 26, 2008 prove it! Update!

My good friend Audrey once referred to this picture as "The Nail in the Coffin." Because in her mind and the mind of many others, it proved without a doubt that Palin could simply NOT have been 32 weeks pregnant when the photo was taken.

But for some reason it never quite proved enough for some people.

Perhaps these pictures taken on the very same day, as Palin was leaving the museum, will finally convert the unbelievers.

(Click the thumbnails to see the high resolution images.)

This was written as a description below the photographs:

March 26, 2008, Juneau, Alaska, USA: In April 2011, Professor Bradford Scharlott at Northern Kentucky University wrote an academic paper stating that the "conspiracy theory" suggesting Palin is not Trig's mother is likely true and the American media is pathetic for not pursuing the story more aggressively. Scharlott walks through all of the evidence supporting the theory in the article, suggesting Trig is actually Palin's grandson. The article discusses photos of Palin in what is said to have been a late-stage pregnancy, the leisurely 20-hour trip home that Palin took after she supposedly went into labor in Texas, the refusal of the hospital where Trig was supposedly born to even confirm that he was born there (let alone who was the mother), strange statements from Palin's doctor and the McCain campaign, and so on. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin exits the Alaska State Museum with her husband Todd after a bill signing ceremony. Palin announced 3-weeks prior that she was 7-months pregnant with her fifth child.

And the photos were further authenticated during a discussion with the AP photographer Brian Wallace on July 31, 2011.

Here is a close up of Palin's supposedly seven month pregnant belly.

And as if that were not enough, let us not forget that only a little over two weeks later that THIS is what Sarah Palin managed to look like on a KTUU broadcast on April 13, 2008.

Here is the video of the interview to allow further scrutiny.



(I need to give a HUGE hat tip to Laura Novak who made the initial call to Polaris images and got the information that we needed to purchase these images.  Thank you Laura.)

Update: There are apparently a couple of visitors who are being purposefully obtuse and asking how these pictures prove anything, as if they were the sum total of the evidence available to prove that Sarah Palin did not give birth.  Of course they could not be more incorrect.

Let me provide just a few examples and the rest you can find using a tool I like to call "Google."

1) The Sarah Palin pregnancy. What are the odds?

And for those who are looking for an eyewitness Palin's lack of a pregnant belly.

2) Exclusive! My interview with Shailey Tripp.

And for those brave souls who REALLY want to find out how convoluted this fraud was.

3) A Tale of Two Babies by Sarah Palin.

The National Examiner tackles Babygate. Finally!

The reporters from the National Examiner are only the latest to finally get fed up enough with this obvious fraud to finally decide to put it out there in print so that Americans can see for themselves how stupid Sarah Palin considers all of them to be. 

Interestingly enough NE is somewhat late in boarding this particular bandwagon, on which Andrew Sullivan is the senior member, though he is now somewhat less lonely having recently been joined by the likes of Laura Novak, Sarah Jones of Politicususa, Henry Blodget of the Business Insider, and even author Joe McGinniss.

And let's not forget the soon to be completed book dedicated to babygate which I have learned is right on schedule, and which, after some tidying up of loose ends and a careful vetting by the lawyers, will soon be delivered to the publishers.

Personally I am just glad that the bloggers are not the only ones doing the heavy lifting these days. After all of these years of ridicule and ostracizing from the so-called "mainstream media," it certainly feels good to blog about the research and discoveries being made on this topic by ACTUAL journalists.

Because I don't know about all of you, but I could use a nap!

Picture time!

Somebody sent me a link to Laura Novak's recent post, and I saw this very cute recent picture of Tripp and Trig being uber cute.



 Some have already mentioned that they think Trig favors Sarah, but considering what we know about the faked pregnancy that seems rather unlikely. What is very evident however is that Trig is STILL not wearing his glasses or hearing aids like he is supposed to and his crossed eyes appear to have gotten worse.

By the way seeing the boys side by side like this makes the argument that both are the offspring of a Levi and Bristol very hard to swallow.  They are both cute kids, but to me there does not appear to be a great deal of similarities between the two of them. Even putting aside the facial features that are the result of Down syndrome.

However I really DO see a striking resemblance between Tripp and Levi as a child.

Levi was a cute kid, and so is Tripp.

Others have suggested that Tripp favors his mother, which is somewhat harder to determine since she has so dramatically altered her looks as illustrated in these pictures of her arriving at Fox and Friends on June 26th.








Nice Gestapo boots Bristol!

It looks like Bristol changed her clothes before she did her softball interview, as you can see for yourself below. (This by the way is the segment where Bristol accidentally told the truth about whether or not her mother knew if she was running for President.)



Listening to Bristol bash Levi sounds even uglier now that Mercede has told us that virtually everything she says is a bunch of bullshit.

Professor Brad Scharlott and Laura Novak continue their fascinating conversation over on Laura's blog.

Courtesy of Laura's blog:

LN: But let’s get back to the question of harm. What is the harm, Palin supporters ask, even if she did fake the birth of Trig?

BS: I would say that a pathology of fear has enveloped much of Alaska, especially the Wasilla area, over this issue. You have to remember that Sarah Palin is demonstrably ruthless, unethical, and vengeful – it’s good to keep in mind her campaign to destroy the career of Mike Wooten, her former brother-in-law. Plus, in the space of four weeks in late 2008 and early 2009, fires in Wasilla damaged Palin’s church and caused the death of a former neonatal nurse, Dar Miller. The church fire was due to arson; the cause of the fire at Miller’s home was not determined. Some people speculated that adoption records perished in the church fire, but I can find no confirmation of that.

There’s no evidence linking the Palins to those fires. But several Alaskans have told me that Wasilla residents fear they may suffer similar fates if they cross the Palins. Certainly Alaskans have good reason to fear they may lose their jobs if they anger Sarah Palin, as safety commissioner Walter Monaghan did when he refused to fire Mike Wooten. She may not be in power now, but many of her loyal appointees are.

LN: And I might add here that I know first hand about people who talk, and then clam up, because they know that people are whispering about them. I know about people in government putting pressure on reporters not to report. About newspaper reporters who were talking to me one day, and then shutting down the conversation the next.

BS: And then there are stories of people who know too much or said the wrong thing about the Palins, who then suffered vandalism or worse, such as the documented case of a car window being shot out while children were inside – the apparent reason: an anti-Palin personalized license place.

I would further argue, Laura, that this pathology of fear has spawned a pathology of deceit. You recently noted how all the reporters, editors and columnists at the Alaska Daily News have seemingly been told to sing from the same hymnal concerning the fake birth question – contradicting earlier actions by ADN staff – even though the newspaper provides no documentary evidence to support the claim that Palin birthed Trig. And as I’ve noted before, former ADN reporter Wes Loy, who famously wrote that Palin “simply does not look pregnant,” for some reason decided to recant, despite evidence I provided that directly contradicts his alleged change of heart.

I am reminded of the fall of Saddam Hussein. After the liberation of Iraq, Iraqis came forward to say how terrible it had been to live in a society where saying anything negative about Saddam could have fatal consequences, and that therefore they were careful, even before their own children, to never to speak too freely. Alaska is not Iraq, of course, but I am sure there are people in Alaska who likewise are afraid to say what they know about the Palins and who dissemble in front of their children, lest loose lips lead to horrible consequences.

Considering what I know about Sarah Palin I have NO problem with the Professor comparing her to Saddam Hussein, if we are talking about the heavy handed way they treat their subordinates and the fear that Palin was instilled in a handful of people living in Wasilla. But I must reiterate that I have NO evidence that either Todd or Sarah did anybody any physical harm.

Cause them to be fired, or damage their reputations? Yes. Cause them to lose their lives or suffer significant injury? No.

Having made that one point, I direct you to click the link and read the rest of this interesting back and forth conversation.  You might even see a name or two that you recognize.

Laura Novak continues to educate MSM reporters about REAL journalism. This week she attempts to do that with the ADN. Yeah good luck with that, Laura!

From Laura's blog:

In the past month, I have attempted eight times to talk to the reporters, writers and editors at the Anchorage Daily News about the paper’s coverage of Trig Palin’s maternity.

I was shut down or refused 7 times. The other effort resulted in an off-the-record phone call. In all cases, the party-line was toed: The editors and reporters are “intelligent” and they thoroughly investigated claims that the then-governor did not give birth to Trig Palin. And they came away satisfied that she, in fact, did so.

What was it specifically that allowed them to arrive at that conclusion?

No one said, other than the fact that reporter Lisa Demer talked to Mrs. Palin’s doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson and it was “clear” that it was Mrs. Palin’s baby. And that to suggest otherwise is “ridiculous.”

Collectively, the answer was that to pursue this matter was akin to the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories and that people are simply going to believe what they are going to believe.

All right, then tell me what Dr. Baldwin-Johnson said and I’ll believe you.

But by then, the answers to my inquiry were getting shorter and decidedly snippier.

So I searched – again - for a story that the Daily News might have written that I might have missed that might have made it all “clear.” And I couldn’t find one.

Laura Novak does the best she can with what essentially makes little, or no, sense.

Go ahead and read the rest of the article, and then come back and tell us what you think is the reason that the ADN did such an incredibly poor job of following up on a story that could have meant a Pulitzer Prize for the journalsit who broke it on the national stage.

Laura Novak and Professor Scharlott have very interesting conversation about Sarah Palin's photograph with reporter Andrea Gusty taken on April 13, 2008.

From Laura's blog:

LN: As I wrote in the previous post, I tried to contact everyone involved in these photos with the exception of the unidentified cameraman in the white shirt, and Mrs. Palin herself. Dan Carpenter and Gusty didn’t respond to my multiple and repeated requests. Bill McAllister and I went back and forth on four sets of emails until he outlined requirements for me that I would not meet. So, here we are.

BS: Can you tell us what those requirements were?

LN: I cannot. I assured him that our emails were private and confidential, and I have to honor that.
BS: Okay, so let’s get down to facts. The Gusty photo, which the McCain campaign people pointed to as definitive evidence that Palin had truly been pregnant, did a marvelous job of silencing most critics who claimed Palin faked the birth.

When questions about its authenticity arose, two “investigators” (graduate students, I imagine) of FactCheck.org, an offshoot of the Annenberg School of Communication, looked into the matter by calling Andrea Gusty. And Gusty told them that the picture was real, not “Photoshopped”, that she thought she had the only copy of it (implying it was taken with her camera), that she was surprised to see it on the Internet and that she had no idea how it got there. What do you think of the investigation conducted by FactCheck, Laura?

LN: If this is fact checking, then tell me anything you want, Brad, and I’ll tell the world that you told me and therefore, it is true. Apparently they did not ask why the picture was taken in the first place, whether anyone else had access to her camera, or whether Palin’s pregnancy had advanced dramatically in the previous month, as publicly available photos would suggest.

Gusty did say she saw the baby a week later, which she said she took as proof that Mrs. Palin gave birth to it. And perhaps at the time, it was enough proof. But I wonder how they all feel now in retrospect.

Laura and Brad continue to discuss the possible reasons for the picture having been taken, the possibility that it was staged, and some of the inconsistencies within the photograph itself.

I have never been particularly good with photographic analysis so I will leave that discussion to them, and if you click the link above you can enjoy their conversation for yourself.

There ARE a few things which I can add to this topic however. The first would be to provide this video of a newscast that Gusty produced to address the speculation surrounding this video, back in 2009.



I can also reveal that I was able to track down a source with inside knowledge of what happened that day.

What I learned was that the cameraman with the rumpled shirt is named Scott Favorite. That Gusty brought the newly released book Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned the Political Establishment Upside Down, and got Sarah to sign it for her. And that Gusty was a BIG fan of the Governor, and treated her more like a celebrity than a local politician.

My source also said that the date, April 13, 2008, is accurate.

Laura Novak revisits my "Tale of Two Babies" post.

Laura bravely wades into perhaps the most controversial story I have ever posted on IM, and discusses the strange "Trig Palin" ear malformation with her friend the neonatologist.

From Laura's blog:

LN: You mentioned the “ear.” Perhaps nothing rocked the Palin-watching blogosphere quite like Gryphen’s Tale of Two Babies post in February of last year.

His discovery of Trig as a newborn with a deformed ear was stunning. I believe this is a tight shot from this photo at the baby shower (same occasion as the right hand photo above.)

And as Gryphen pointed out, the deformed ear is also visible close-up on the Sadie-in-the-kitchen photo.

But the discovery but it led to further speculation that the infant with a cauliflower ear could not possibly be the same baby presented to the world at the Republican National Convention and then later at the presidential debate.

In fact, following that amazing post, the Internet began collectively calling the baby, Ruffles. What’s your initial response?

DOC: I'm not sure what I can add to that excellent Gryphen post other than agree with the general principle that the “ruffled ear” is unlikely to ever look normal.

At first glance, I thought the hole in front of the ear was a preauricular pit which occurs in up to 1% of newborns. It's not particularly associated with Down syndrome and usually doesn't cause any serious problems, besides getting infected.

But then I looked at a close-up of the ear and thought that the hole in front of the ear may actually be the ear canal itself, because it's way too big to be a preauricular pit, which are tiny. What I don’t see is any evidence of a “tragus”. That’s the piece of cartilage that sits in front of the ear canal opening, partially covering it.

LN: I know that you and I both want to delve further into this, but for now, you agree with the assessment of the doctors Gryphen interviewed?

DOC: Yes. There's no way that these small, low set, posteriorly rotated and deformed ears in picture #1 could look relatively normal several months later. But I’m not an ENT and I’d really like to hear what one would say before I’d definitively call these different babies.

My first response to this VERY complimentary article is, "Aww shucks, tweren't nothing."

However my second response is to say thank you Laura, and thank your doctor friend too, for being courageous enough to give this bizarre twist in Sarah Palin's crazy pregnancy and birth story another look.

I have to say that it took me over ten months to determine that I had done enough preparation, and had enough evidence, to present this story.  And EVEN THEN I had to be convinced that it could withstand the scrutiny which we all knew would come once it was posted.

I had hoped that once it was out it would catch fire and have a real impact on the pregnancy story.

But other than the duo "coincidences" of Todd Palin dropping out of the Iron Dog the day the story broke, and Meg Stapleton SUDDENLY quitting as Palin's spokesperson two days later, there really wasn't that much of a response.    But hey, those two incidences don't MEAN anything, now do they?

I had high hopes that Andrew Sullivan might take the ball and run with it, but he was just never sure enough about the subject to take that risk.  I have to say I really could not blame him, it really IS one of the craziest aspects to the whole babygate mess.

So once again I want to thank Laura Novak for looking at this story again with fresh eyes, because even thought I have every confidence that whoever looks at this evidence will reach essentially the same conclusion that I reached, it is nice to have that validated by other people trained to look at evidence with a skeptic's eye.

And before I end this post I should add that we had tried repeatedly to find NEW pictures of "ruffled ear" baby in order to do follow up posts, and were unable to do so.

That is until today.

THIS picture is from Frank Bailey's book, Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin.

Notice anything?

Now the only thing new that we can learn from these pictures is that, since they were taken sometime in May, Palin continued to present THIS baby as Trig at least few more times in public.

It is also my opinion that, since the baby in this picture appears plumper than in the previous photographs, that this was probably a few weeks after the pictures taken at the baby shower and in Palin's kitchen. 

So then the million dollar question remains.  Just when DID Sarah swap the baby pictured above....

....for THIS baby?

Just another example of how Sarah Palin's ridiculous birth story hurts working mothers. Even those working for Fox News.

Currently Megyn Kelly, another of Fox's blond bimbo-ish talk show hosts, is on maternity leave.

You would imagine that those who espouse the "conservative family values" point of view would find that admirable.  But apparently you would be wrong.

Here is Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher and Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace acting like neanderthals on the subject.



Yeah, how proud am I of MY gender right about now?

Thankfully I am a REAL pro-family progressive, and not one of these knuckle draggers who only give lip service to the idea of sacrificing for their families.

However leave it up to the brilliant Sarah Jones, of Politicususa, to quickly recognize just who it is that reinforces this type of antiquated thinking from conservative males:

A side note while I point out just one more reason women have problems with women like “conservative” Sarah Palin; Palin told the media that she gave a speech after going into labor (or breaking water) and then flew home ten hours before driving another two to her preferred hospital. Three days later, she arrived at work with her new baby and men all over the country said, “Atta gal!”

They praise her now as the “ideal wife”, as if she had no help with her child, as if taking a 3 day old infant with health problems to work is a viable idea, as if motherhood weren’t really, actually, very time consuming and physically draining. All of this leaves women like Megyn Kelly even more vulnerable to criticism for taking some time off before and after giving birth. This is “Mama Grizzly” feminism: Selling the unrealistic notion that women can and should do it all at the same time, no less, and look great while they’re doing it.

So you see it is not JUST that the pregnancy hoax gave Sarah Palin pro-life credibility that she did not deserve, and put her on the short list of possible John McCain VP candidates, it ALSO reinforces a negative stereotype that working women use their children as an excuse to get out of work whereas men do not.

(And we all know that if MEN had to give birth, they would demand SIX months off from work, as well as a trophy for their accomplishment, and probably a holiday named after them just to top it off.)

In truth Sarah Palin has done more to set back the Women's Movement in this country, than Hooters, Baywatch, and Hustler magazine combined.

And I would also like to point out that is REAL women like Sarah Jones and Laura Novak, female journalists who are willing to address the Palin faked pregnancy head on, that should make feminists and working women proud of their gender.  NOT the phony, hypocrisy ridden, Sarah Palin.

Trig Palin may be the fastest gestating fetus in the history of humankind.

So Sarah Palin went from having virtually NO stomach, to having, what appears to be, a beach ball under her top in only five days.  WHAT an amazing woman!

No wonder some in the GOP want to tap her to be the next President of the United States. Just imagine how quickly she could give birth to an army of hard ass, take no prisoner Alaskans, ready to be sent over into Iran if they were to start some shit!

Do you know that the average gestation period for a mouse is 21 days, for a hamster it is 16 days, and for an opossum it is only 13 days.  Yet no where else in the world of mammalian gestation does pregnancy only last five days, EXCEPT apparently in the wilds of Wasilla.

But hey I know what you are saying, "Gryphen that is NOT fair!  That picture of Sarah is from Elan Frank's video and it might just be distorted in some way." 

Really?

Well here check that out for yourself. (Start video at the 4:25 mark.) Do you STILL think it's distorted?

But okay just to satisfy those who are still desperately clinging to the idea that Palin DID give birth to little Trig Paxson Van Palin (Yes, that means you Frank Bailey!), let's take a look at the gestation from March 14 to April 13, exactly 30 days apart.

(By the way science fans, it takes a rabbit 32 days to make a little baby bunny, and you know how fast they like to "pop them out.") 

As you can see Palin went from "What, you can't be pregnant?" to "Wow! That's quite a gut you have there!" Even if you are NOT a believer in "babygate' Doesn't that strike you as just a bit peculiar?

Now I am going to assume that most of you reading here are in fact human. 

Then I am going to go out a little further on a limb and suggest you may have been around a pregnant woman or two. 

And I am further assuming that there may even be a FEW of you who have had the "pleasure" of pushing a tiny human out of your body your own darn self. (Yes ladies I know, excruciating pain, buckets of disgusting amniotic fluid, screams of agony, I have been there. That is why I put the word "pleasure" in parentheses.)

It is to that last group to whom I wish to pose this question:

"How in the hell does a woman, any woman, grow a belly THAT big in only 30 days?"

Go ahead, I await your answer.

How are you doing?

Got anything?

Nothing?

Well here perhaps Brad Scharlott and Laura Novak can offer you a possible clue.


Psst!  Here's a hint:

And by the way, if ANY of you are dead certain that Palin DID give birth to Trig, Laura Novak is quite interested in talking to you.  Just send her an e-mail.

I mean, after all, isn't it time to FINALLY clear this up once and for all?

Journalist Laura Novak interviews a neonatal specialist concerning the true age of the Trig Palin held by Chuck and Sally Heath only hours after his "birth."

LN: No reason to dance around here, Doc, what do you see?

DOC: This baby looks to be about 1-2 months old and doesn’t look premature. Premature babies don’t have a lot of subcutaneous fat. This baby is chubby. He has epicanthal folds, flat nasal bridge and a recessed chin, which are suggestive of Down syndrome. Down syndrome babies can be chubby, but if they’re premature, it’s not so prominent.

And that is the way this amazing interview starts off.  To read more, and who doesn't want to read more, head on over to  Laura's blog:

I have to say that Laura is doing an incredible job of getting new and relevant information about a mystery that I think many of us felt had been picked over pretty thoroughly.

I for one can hardly wait to read what Laura Novak, Sarah Palin pregnancy sleuth extraordinaire, uncovers for us next.  Pin and needles, that's what I'm on, pins and needles!

Laura Novak tries to get a straight answer out of ADN editor Pat Dougherty.

From Laura's blog:

In keeping with the spirit of interviewing other journalists and experts for my blog, I contacted Patrick Dougherty, Senior Vice President and Editor of the Anchorage Daily News.

I invited him to have an email “sit down” to discuss this story that will not die. I wanted to further the story that his newspaper was working on two years ago that prompted the testy email exchange between him and Mrs. Palin about why the theories on Trig Palin’s birth would not go away. I saw this as an opportunity to explain how and why newspapers might view, and treat, information differently from bloggers.

Mr. Dougherty graciously declined my invitation. He said that the story of persistent rumors does not interest him any more than President Obama’s birth certificate conspiracy. I pressed the point that his paper was closer to the Palin story due to his earlier efforts to lay it to rest. And of course due the Anchorage Daily News’ geographical proximity and role as the paper of record for Alaska and its government.

Still, he declined my offer. Our emails have been pleasant and polite. And I accepted his answer.

Don't despair, Laura WAS able to get at least one answer out of Dougherty, and put to rest a myth that I for one thought was a cold hard fact, as well as getting some rather interesting information from Dougherty's blog page.

So go ahead and click the link at the top to read the entire post, and learn a little something new about the brief moment in history when the Anchorage Daily News actually tried to do their job.

Laura Novak questions Professor Scharlott concerning Sarah Palin's pillow shaped "pregnant" abdomen.

LN: But let’s be honest: Couldn’t Palin’s appearance easily be explained by the way the black shirt folded under her bust and under her belly?

BS: Well, Laura, perhaps you should watch the video here: ‪Elan Frank Interviews Sarah Palin-April 2008 part 1. (Go to about 0:27 for the belly thump.) As you can see, the camera pans up and down from her face to her midsection, and you can see the black shirt is hugging her body – there are no odd folds creating an illusion.

LN: The shadows on the sides. They can be shadows, right? Not necessarily the contours of a SQUARE PILLOW! I’m sorry. I’m shouting again.

BS: Well, actually, Frank was using professional lighting equipment to ensure there would be no distracting shadows.

Sadly for me, I’ve never experienced a pregnancy up close and personal. My wife and I have adopted two children, but we have not had children biologically. So I have no good sense of what shape an eight-month pregnant lady’s belly may take. But I sense you are not comfortable with the square pillow shape. Why is that?

LN: Because I simply do not want to believe that this woman – any woman – shoved a square pillow under her shirt. I do not want to believe anyone could so smugly mug for the camera and thump a pillow. It’s abnormal beyond reason. It would be insane.

Insane?  You said it Laura! And welcome to my world.

You can read the rest of the interview by clicking here.

I do have one quibble with Professor Scharlott over this interview.  At one point he makes this statement:

I have no idea who deserves credit for first brightening this segment of the video, but for at least a few years folks have known that if you lighten a screen grab from this part, what you see looks remarkably like a square pillow where Sarah’s stomach should be.

That would be my dear friend, and the person who will also deserve the lion's share of the credit when this story breaks nationally, Audrey from Palin's Deceptions.  Who first lightened the photo here.

An important thing to keep in mind as this babygate story starts getting more and more mainstream media attention is that some of the best researchers and bloggers on this topic have now gone silent, like Audrey and Bree Palin. And believe me not a day goes by that I don't miss visiting their blogs, or talking to them on the phone, or sharing gossip and tips back and forth through e-mail.

However mark my words, when this story finally gets the national attention that it deserves I will make damn sure that the credit is spread around to ALL of the people who worked so hard to bring this story to light.

Laura Novak interviews doctor who dissects the infamous CBJ doctor's note and talks about the strangeness surrounding the newborn Trig.

The interview is VERY interesting, and touches on a number of bizarre things about the pregnancy, the note, and little Trig. 

Here was my favorite part:

LN: So, what, if anything, leaves any doubt or questions in your mind about this letter?

DOC: It’s a rather bland, routine medical letter as it should be. I have no idea why the “FP” at the end of FAAFP is in different color. Not sure it means anything. The three things that strike me as unusual or suspicious are Dr. CBJ resigning from active status at the hospital shortly after Trig’s birth, the amniocentesis, and the fact that Trig’s birth date is not given.

LN: Let’s talk soon about the photos of the alleged newborn Trig. I have some thoughts about them but more importantly I’d love it if you could offer your own perspective as someone who has specialized in the care of high-risk and medically fragile newborns and children.

DOC: I assume you’re talking about the photos of him being held by friends and family, looking chubby and pink? I don’t see any jaundice in those pictures, nor do I see the normal “plethora” (or ruddiness) that most babies have in the first day or two of life. He also looks too chubby for a newly born baby; at least a few weeks old, but definitely not a new 6lb, 35 weeker. That looks more like one of those babies they use on soap operas who is 1-2 months old playing a newborn.

LN: Thank you, Doc! That comment alone should get everyone’s juices flowing. I’ll try to pull together the photos and we’ll dissect them.

I don't know about all of you, but that last part pretty much guarantees I will be gong back to read the next update.