Sunday, August 31, 2008

Did Sarah Palin really have that baby?

My friend Karion makes some great points on how there is a shitload of weirdness in regards to the birth of Sarah Palin's most recent child, Trig, specifically in regards to the most creeptastic aspect of all of this...her going into labor in Dallas, giving a speech, and then jumping on a commercial flight to Alaska...

--Announced pregnancy in March, 2008, when she was “about seven months pregnant.” Most women don’t announce until viability and given the risks of this ‘pregnancy,’ perhaps that is prudent. Except she is a very much a pro-lifer and, given the risks of her ‘pregnancy’ and her role as governor, some contingency plans would be needed if things went sideways, medically. Yet “[e]ven close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.” No one could believe it. Read the article.

--Before giving a speech in Texas on April 17, 2008, while she was eight months’ pregnant, she starts having contractions and leaking amniotic fluid. Again, 44 years old, high risk pregnancy, confirmed Down’s syndrome, now seeing signs of possible premature birth. She does not summon a doctor or attempt to be examined by an OBG-YN in a city with five star, advanced medical facilities that are well-equipped to handle a potential high-risk birth. She says she telephoned her family practice doctor (not an OBG-YN, a family practice doctor specializing in child abuse who, in 2002, was recommended for a national award by the then-mayor, Sara Palin) in her small Alaskan town. Who apparently gives her the go-ahead to give a speech and fly home when she’s done.

--So she freaking gives the speech and then GETS ON A PLANE? Having contractions every hour? Doesn’t tell the airline or staff? Onflight staff do not notice any signs of labor or pregnancy? Women with uneventful pregnancies don’t travel in their last months, let alone WHEN THEY ARE IN LABOR and leaking amniotic fluid.

--Gets off plane - which, by the way, stopped in Seattle, another city with five star medical facilities, lands in Anchorage (yet more five star facilities), DRIVES 45 minutes to her small town hospital, they INDUCE labor, and baby is born six hours later. Six pounds, two ounces. Pretty normal birthweight for any baby, let alone one born a month premature, given the fact that in your last month of pregnancy, your baby is gaining half a pound a week.


And to those who may question whether or not this is something that she should be called out on because it's a "personal matter," get your heads out of your asses! Lying repeatedly to the public she's been elected to serve and then going to elaborate steps to conceal her daughter's pregnancy, whether doing so was inspired by a desire to protect her daughter, or to spare herself a politically harmful public family embarrassment, says A LOT about her character. What the hell else would she be willing to lie about and cover up to save herself embarrassment from? And as for the argument that families have done this sort of thing in the past, those times were not in the 21st century in the United States of America, those were in much less progressive times, times when an unwed pregnancy could lead a young girl to be ostracized from society or even physically harmed in some cases. And their mother's were not vying to become the backup to the world's most powerful person.

I'm sorry, but if this turns out to be true, and I sincerely hope that it isn't, then this whole thing is, to me, borderline psychotic. It's psychotic enough that I wouldn't feel comfortable electing Sarah Palin to the local school board, much less to be vice-president to a 72 year-old man with a history of health problems.

There's part of me, the real cynic in me, that deep down wonders if this isn't all some elaborate scheme cooked up by Karl Rove. You know, pluck a nice, sweet, somewhat competent mom-politician, but one with glaring flaws, and add her to the ticket knowing full well that the Democrats and the press are going to launch into a feeding frenzy over her numerous issues. Then, after she has to be removed from the ticket in disgrace, the Republicans can play the "Obama hates women" card to try to pull in more sympathy votes from Hillary's death-cult of angry vaginal stooges.

Yeah, I'm that fucking jaded. But don't put it past them for a second.

UPDATE AS OF 7PM 8/31:

If Sarah Palin gave birth at Mat-Su Regional Hospital, why aren't the birth details listed on the hospital's website like every other birth (it was born April 18th)? And why isn't the family doctor/non-OBGYN, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, listed as a staff member? (Great find Karion!)

Now, others are beginning to talk about it...

Gawker

Times of London

13 comments:

twoeightnine said...

You forgot one point. Bristol Palin was removed from school for a few months during her mother's pregnancy for "mono."

http://news.spreadit.org/bristol-palin-pregnantsarah-palin-daughter-baby/

Fancy Schmancy said...

If this is true, it's more than just a little scary. It's terrifying!

Ace said...

I thought something was up when I saw the press conference/announcement.

Sahm629 said...

Hi - Actually the baby bump photo is from 2006 - read this article and on page 2, you will see a link to the Anchorage Daily News, which states the photo is from 2006.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/998402/vp_candidate_sarah_palin_pregnancy.html?cat=75

Also if you go to msg boards you will hear Alaska residents saying they know its not true b/c Bristol doesn't go to school in Anchorage, the photo is old, etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

I do not know what is ture about her baby, however, I think your evidence that the baby can't possibly be hers because he was one month premature and weighed over 6 lbs is a bunch of crap. I presonally gave birth to a baby 4.5 week premature and he weighed 7 lbs. 7 oz. Babies can still be 6 lbs, even if they are a month early.

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin exemplifies GOP values. If this is her baby, she risked it's life and safety through repeated bad judgments for nearly 24 hours or longer. The prematurely born high-risk pregnancy could have ended in disastrous results but Jesus was with her through each and every ignorant decision along the way. How dare we question her when she was the one dripping amniotic fluid through each and every tedious security check? How dare we question the judgment of a woman who claims to value the life of a fetus OVER the life of a mother? It shouldn't matter that the child could have possibly been squirted into an aisle DOA on a first class trip to Seattle. We should praise and worship her brawny vulvar muscles and hope that she applies them to noxious dictators and cracks their crazy heads like walnuts in her thighmaster gams.

Quin Browne said...

my daughter was 5 weeks early, and weighed 6lbs 8oz...

you can't always judge by birth weight...


(if she'd gone full term, she'd have been around 9lbs)

silverb said...

I think that that whoever is making the decisions (and I should be able to say McCain, but it doesn't look like he's making any decisions except to let the tail wag the dog) has lost his or her natural mind.

The overarching theme here is that person has no business accepting the nomination for vice president. Whose baby is it and how she had her baby and how many she is irrelevant. The only thing that is is whether she's a liar and we wouldn't even be having this conversation if she had had the good grace, good sense, and integrity to turn it down. And if she actually buys into the nonsense that she could actually run this country if McCain were to die in office, then I want some of that Koolaid so I can go clear this thing up in Iraq.

Obama hasn't said word one to malign Palin as a woman and has put his campaign on notice by threatening to fire anyone who attacks her family. Even if the Republican Party throws Palin under the bus, (which is not likely because many of its members seem to want to defend whomever they anoint even if that person is a poor choice) they won't be able to blame it on Obama. They'll only have themselves to blame. The more likely scenario if they gave her the boot is that they'd then put in a Lieberman or Romney, who would be looking way more palatable to all party members.

I just wonder what the Republicans would have done if Obama had a teen daughter pregnant out of wedlock. I think the Republican Convention would have looked like a charnal house with all the bloody Democrat meat being thrown to the hungry wolves.

This reminds me of when--in deep desperation-- the Republicans got Alan Keyes to run against Obama in 2004 for U.S. Senate. I guess according to them, any Negro would do (see under "Clarence Thomas"), seeing that folks are too dumb to tell the difference. As long as, of course, he was a Republican lap dog.

Again, any woman will do, as long as she tows the party line. Hillary supporters won't be able to tell the difference.

You see how well it went for Keyes.

silverb said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Mary Kate said...

so, this photo that has been reassigned a date of 2006 is very intersesting for one reason: where is track??? if this was taken in 2006, wouldnt he have attended the family photo. the only reason i feel he would not is if it was after 9/11/07-when he joined the service. I also agree that the small child is the same general age in the photos, no way was it 2 years

John said...

Wow, I'm not the only one working this...I originally started researching to see if ArcXIX was a troll...since outing trolls is my hobby. Instead, I discovered he's very legit, and put together an interesting case.

Now then, I've already posted this at Cannon's site, and will now post it here:

Joe, I need to correct Susan, because she posted an outright lie.

Susan stated "Remember, the "smoking gun" photo? It was taken in 2006. I have the REAL link to ADN. The poster at Kos photoshopped the caption and didn't put the 2006 date on it."

This is a lie, and she needs to correct herself at her site as well.

Here is the link to the original ADN article posted online showing the photograph. There is no mention of the year 2006. This is the photo that ArcXIX linked to in his diary at Kos. He didn't photoshop a damn thing.

Here is the link to the newer photo that includes the additional information (date of 2006).

Please note that the first photo was posted online before the second one. This is proven by the numerical information that is part of the URL. The first photo is the genuine release, with no mention of 2006. The second photo appears to be a "reader-submitted" photo that becomes part of the Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gallery once submitted.

There's more. Take a good look at all the photos at the photo gallery that I just linked to up above. Starting at photo 1, we have the following submissions (I will abbreviate Anchorage Daily News as ADN so I type less):

1 - AP Photo/Heath Family
2 - AP Photo/Heath Family
3 - Photo by ADN/ADN
4 - Photo by UNKNOWN/ADN
5 - Photo by UNKNOWN/ADN
6 - Photo by UNKNOWN/ADN
7 - AP Photo/Heath Family
8 - AP Photo/Heath Family
9 - AP Photo/Heath Family
10- AP Photo/Heath Family
11- Photo by UNKNOWN/ADN
12- Photo by BOB HALLINEN/ADN
13- Photo by ERIK HILL/ADN
14- Photo by STEPHEN NOWERS/ADN
15- Photo by BILL ROTH/ADN
16- Photo by MARC LESTER/ADN
17- Photo by MARC LESTER/ADN
18- Photo by MARC LESTER/ADN

Let's just zero in on Marc Lester for now on...

21- Photo by MARC LESTER/ADN
23, 24, 25 - Photo by MARC LESTER/ADN
31 and 51 - Photo by MARC LESTER/ADN

NOW PAY ATTENTION

30 - Photo by LESTER/ADN

Some of these photos are clearly "reader submitted" as evidenced by photos 4-6 (UNKNOWN). And the photo in question - the one that adds the date 2006 to the photo, is the only photo that shows LESTER instead of MARC LESTER.

Joe, whether you like it or not, something is very odd about all of this. I dare say, it is as if someone submitted the second photo, adding the date 2006, but screwing up and forgetting to show Lester's first name.

And if I'm right, someone is engaging in damage control on a supposed non-story. And that's just downright "smokey."

John Dean
SluggoJD

Anonymous said...

You all have lost your fucking minds! who gives a shit? you honestly spent hours of your life investigating whether or not birth info is on a website for a hospital in Alaska. You know your not going to to vote for McCain, why waste your time. How about you do some investigating of the "savior" of America, the man who has less experience than Palin, the man who has, lets count it up 0 legislative accomplishments, the man who's "spiritual leader" screams God Damn America. You people kill me! To actually spent one minute investigating whether or not she had a baby or the fact of her daughter being pregnant is absolutely ludacris.

Anonymous said...

You're the Gov. You have a baby. You want photos and his name on the hospital website? Does the hospital ask first? (HIPPA). Hospital: "Ms. Palin: You want your name and pic on our website" Ms. Palin: "I'll pass." Maybe???