Still More Sarah Palin Birth Hoax Evidence?
Take a look at this photograph. A close look. As a layperson, does this look like a one-month premature baby less than 24 hours after its birth? Of course it doesn’t, which is the view of a neonatologist.
The baby is Trig Palin, who was being held in the arms of Sarah Palin’s mother.
If you’re sick of the whole business of why Palin continues to be evasive about her alleged pregnancy and Trig’s birth, you have plenty of company and certainly don’t want to click on the links in this post.
But if you believe, as I do, this story deserves to have legs, then click away. This is because the former half-term governor turned author and reality show princess not only has not gone away, but seems poised to launch a bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, and the fitness of a person for higher office, let alone any office, is highly suspect.
43 Responses to “Still More Sarah Palin Birth Hoax Evidence?”
Wow…still can’t let go of this can you? You just took a hardcore blue district and you want to play “attack the handicapped baby”?
Any you think this is a good idea because why? Please don’t let your hatred of Palin get in the way of common sense….of course that is like asking a rabid dog to sit and roll-over.
What goes into or comes out of a woman’s parts really isn’t any of anyone’s business. Michael Reagan just wrote the only truly right-on piece he ever has, likely in his whole life, it’s from yesterday’s TMV posts, and it deals with how crappy it is that our society is still hung up on the idea of “illegitimate” children. This story line is, at it’s base, mysoginistic, and panty sniffing, and gross.
We already know she’s not fit to be president. We know she’s lied about a thousand things that really do matter, and really go into whether or not she belongs anywhere near the White House. Whether or not Trip is biologically her child is not one of them.
ETA: why do you think this is your business? I really don’t get it.
ShannonLeee and roro80:
You either believe that Palin has something to hide or you believe that it is her right to hide that something because other considerations like Trip’s handicap trump questions about her fitness for higher office.
For what it is worth, and that will be little or nothing in your books, I was relentless in my criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2008 primary season for refusing to address her husband’s philandering and what role that he might play in her administration.
Had Mrs. Clinton stayed in Scarsdale, I would not have given a rat’s rectum. As someone who might become president, it was very much my business. The situation is very much the same here.
Here’s another example that is somewhat comparable: The spitstorm that I and other bloggers with investigative bents experienced when we pursued the John Edwards love child story because it was unfair to his terminally ill wife. Had John Edwards dropped out of the race and gone home to North Carolina, I again would not have given a rat’s rectum.
Finally, I will spare you the agony of reading my lengthy exposition on whether there was a birth hoax by quoting the concluding graf:
“I do lean strongly toward there having been a hoax, and in the end it comes down to this for me: If Sarah Palin was the mother of Trig and her own narcissism aside, she would not have acted recklessly by bypassing hospitals in Texas, Seattle and Anchorage with neo-natal units capable of delivering premature babies. She simply would not have endangered Trig’s life.”
You either believe that Palin has something to hide or you believe that it is her right to hide that something because other considerations like Trip’s handicap trump questions about her fitness for higher office.
No, actually, I don’t. I believe exactly what I said I believe, which is that it’s none of your business whether or not the kid is hers, and it has no bearing whatsoever on her fitness for office. At all. Saying that a woman is unfit for power because of what she does or does not do with her genitalia is one of the oldest forms sexism, Shaun, and it’s not changed in thousands of years. Why you think this is any different is really beyond me.
That you are consistent in digging into issues that are none of your business and have no bearing on what kind of job the woman would do and would never ever be an issue with a male pol, when it is the life of a progressive woman vs a conservative one is hardly conforting, Shaun.
Again: no, the ladybits of women that you don’t know doesn’t become any more your business because they have ambition to power.
BTW, whether or not Trip has a disability has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
roro80:
Ergo I also should have laid off of Mrs. Clinton because it might hurt Bill’s fee fees and Mr. Edwards because it might hurt Elizabeth’s fee fees. Correct?
T A B L O I D
O B S E S S I O N
…and that’s not at all the logical conclusion.
I don’t know what a “fee fee” is, but it’s none of your business how the victim of cheating reacts to her powerful husband’s philandering. She is under no obligation to open up to you about it, Scarsdale or not. In the case of Mr Edwards, it was his bad, and his cancer-stricken wife wanted to go public with the information, so while trying to slut-shame the (single) woman with whom he had the affair would have been a bad idea, criticizing him for being a jerk is fair. Don’t you see the difference?
I do not endorse going after her, but I will caveat that if she plays the game, she can’t be surprised when the ball lands at her feet. The way she did not hold back on Obama in 2008, his wife, and to a certain extent his children (imagine them hearing that their father is “pal-ing around with terrorists”), opens her up to the same sick game that the media feeds on.
Is it childish? Absolutely. But when have politicians proven themselves to act like adults?
Well, DLS, for once we agree. Palin’s got a thousand things that we might legitimately criticize her for. Every time she opens her mouth a lie comes out. Trying to dig around in her womb for a soap-opera style conspiracy is just fodder for the Daily Star.
The double standard here is positively Himalayan.
Palin could put an end to the speculation and hoax theories in one fell swoop by releasing Trip’s birth certificate, short form, long form or any form. She has not and will not.
Wait? Doesn’t that scenario seem familiar? And didn’t the guy that Mrs. Clinton went after in 2008 put an end to another bunch of speculation — and collapse an entire political movement in one fell swoop — by . . .
Oh, and roro80: Fee fees are feelings, and I apologize for hurting yours.
Yes, it does seem familiar, and it was stupid then too. Racist instead of sexist in that case, but hey, idiocy with a base of bigotry is fun either way! I thought you agreed it was stupid and racist. Or perhaps you thought it proper for the absolute racist nuts on the right to go after Obama for being illegitimate, not a real American? Big Trump fan, are you? You and some of our favorite TMV righties/birthers have a BBQ and work it through?
My “fee fees” are not hurt, Shaun. But cute of you to assume so, and the fake apology is even cuter. I could just pinch your cheeks.
Also an age-old sexist tactic: acting like legitimate criticism of long-used sexist memes is just thin skin or, um, “hurt fee fees”. Extra points for using infantilizing language.
roro80:
So Palin, as a presidential candidate in waiting, has no obligation to put an end to speculation and hoax theories while Obama, who felt an obligation and had a lot of other stuff going on like taking out Osama bin Laden, really shouldn’t have bothered to do so.
Nice shovel you’ve got there. It’s making a very nice hole.
Um, yes. Palin has no obligation, and neither did Obama. Shaun, did you forget the 4 years preceding the big reveal? Of course Obama had no obligation to stroke the egos and conspiracy theories of the racist jerks clammoring for his birth certificate. Do you think I am so fickle and whimsical in my views that I would suddenly pretend to have thought the long form certificate to be important all along? Do you think that just because he was bullied into bowing to the whims of an idiot that that makes Trump any less a racist jerk? No! The big question is: why in the world do you suddenly think it proper?
What gets me is, if this is a hoax, people are getting onto her for purposely adopting a child with a disability. Healthy infants have a long waiting list, but those with disabilities are very hard to place.
So even if it is a hoax, it’s an amazingly noble one.
roro80:
Well, after many exchanges in comment threads, I think I have your measure. You are a sensible and deep thinking person who happens to agree with me much if not most of the time. Yes, that Wilson Valdez is quite the man.
But we can disagree without you taking it personally. You believe that Palin and Obama have no obligation. I believe that Palin does and Obama’s obligation was met when he released his short-form birth certificate in 2009.
But Obama believed that he needed to get rid of a relentless distraction. He was not bullied; he made the kind of decision that great leaders of his measure have to make.
Palin, on the other hand, seems to relish the distraction, while it goes without saying that the leadership qualities of a woman who uses a handicapped child as a stage prop and quick her job as governor because she wanted to get rich are sorely lacking.
Professor:
Please recall that Palin cemented her position as a mama grizzly in the hearts of many supporters precisely because she claimed to have toughed it out after her water broke and was determined to have Trip back home in Alaska.
If this was false but Trip’s story was one of altruism on Palin’s part, I would be humbled, as well as agree any plea that the identity of the birth mother not be pursued.
But the story almost surely is not one of altruism, because Palin — ever looking out for Number One — would have long ago cashed in on that altruism by going public and quite possibly winning over some hard-hearted skeptics.
Despite the similarities of the two situations (which I can scarcely believe you think are actually in your favor in this case), one big difference here: being president does, in fact, require birth in the US. If for some reason the racist Birthers were correct, Obama would not, in fact, be a legitimate president. For Palin, there’s no rule against raising your grandson as your son to protect your daughter. So, given that there’s no rule against doing what she’s accused of doing, and given that there is no correlation between the issue and whether or not she’d be a good president, and given that any information that might possibly be gleaned from the situation about her honesty with the American people is moot considering we already all know she’s a liar about just about everything, and considering that the sort of lie she’s accused of telling is a totally logical extention of the BS slut-shaming culture we live in — given all these things, this little crusade you’ve got going on seems like sexism qua sexism, and nothing else.
But we can disagree without you taking it personally.
Sorry, Shaun, but when you police the wombs of women in power, you contribute to a culture where my womb is public property, just like when men on the right try to legislate against my right to choose. You may think that’s not a personal issue, but you would be wrong.
Also this? “You are a sensible and deep thinking person…Yes, that Wilson Valdez is quite the man.” Screw you dude. I’m out.
Shaun, I agree with roro that Pres. Obama was not obligated to prove that he was born in the U.S., and that Sarah Palin is not obligated to prove that Trig is her biological son.
So the demands for Palin and Obama to prove, in the one case, the legitimacy of her son’s birth, and in the other, the legitimacy of his birth citizenship status are equally inappropriate.
*However,* having said that, there IS a significant difference between the two cases in that Obama’s birth status touched on a constitutional issue. That doesn’t mean the demands to prove his birth status were legitimate — they were not legitimate, because they were not based on any actual objective evidence that he was NOT born in Hawaii. The whole thing was a made up controversy. But if Obama felt obligated to produce his birth certificate (once, not ten million times over and over), one could argue that it was a reasonable thing to do to end the accusations that he was not constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
However, in the case of Sarah Palin and her son, Trig, their biological connection has no constitutional implications whatsoever. If he is or isn’t her biological son, it’s irrelevant. If he isn’t, and she lied, it’s also irrelevant, because it’s not an issue relevant to anyone but her and her family. Women have lied about childbirth and paternity and maternity issues for all of human history, and for good reason. Now, Palin may not have those kinds of reasons to lie about whether she gave birth to Trig, but the point is, a woman lying (if she did) about whether a child is hers or someone else’s, or whether she was ever pregnant in the first place is totally and absolutely none of anyone’s business outside the people that woman chooses to inform.
I can understand why this controversy has legs, and I don’t believe that anyone who pursues it is necessarily doing so for sexist or other ignoble reasons, but nevertheless, the issue of whether Sarah Palin is or is not Trig Palin’s biological mother STILL IS none of our business.
Kathy
ETA: I just saw Roro’s comment saying much the same thing as I did about Obama’s birth status being a constitutional issue. I published my comment before seeing or reading hers.
Kathy:
You are correct that the matter of Trig’s lineage is not a constitutional issue.
It is an issue of truthfulness, trustworthiness and therefore suitability for office. Palin could, as I have said over and over, dispense with those issues but does not want to do so.
Does that not pique your curiosity as she positions herself for the Republican nomination?
Point of relevancy…..how many here who assign any credibility to the OP author’s views are contemplating registering to vote in the Republican primary?
It is evident, based on some of the comments here and on other Palin birth hoax posts, that how a person views this is often gender driven. That is, women are far more likely to defend the silence of a fellow woman even if they don’t care for her or her politics.
That noted, I have shopped the story to five health-care professionals whom I know: An OB-GYN, a pediatrician, a critical care nurse, a nurse practitioner and a psychologist.
All are women. None believe Palin.
Um, wow. WOW.
Wow!
That’s the same line that the birthers gave for demanding that Pres. Obama produce his birth certificate, and it’s no more legitimate when the line is directed at Sarah Palin to prove her son is biologically hers as it was when directed at Obama to prove he was born in the U.S. What kind of an argument is that, Shaun, to say that Palin “could … dispense with those issues but does not want to do so,” when the issue you are asking her to dispense with is not an issue you *should* be asking her to dispense with, because it’s irrelevant to her public life and is none of your or anyone’s business? That’s not an argument, to say that Palin could stop questions she shouldn’t be asked in the first place by answering them. That’s a form of blackmail, in my view.
Does it not pique my curiosity that Sarah Palin refuses to answer a queston that she shouldn’t be asked in the first place? No, it doesn’t, Shaun. I don’t attribute nefarious motives to Palin’s refusal to answer a question simply and solely because of the refusal itself. I look to the legitimacy of the question first, before judging the legitimacy of the refusal to answer it. What is the question she is refusing to answer? If it’s a question that has a valid connection to her political ambitions, then if she refuses to answer it, I don’t accept that refusal. But if it’s a question that does not have a valid connection to her political ambitions, then I don’t tell myself that she’s refusing to answer it because she’s trying to hide something. I tell myself she’s refusing to answer the question because it’s an inappropriate, irrelevant question.
Kathy
I’m not sure I understand what this question means. It *seems* like you’re suggesting that those of us who don’t agree with Shaun on the subject of this post should consider registering to vote in the Republican primary, but that doesn’t make any sense, so I must be misunderstanding.
Kathy
Shaun, as I suggested above, I don’t necessarily think it was sexist on your part to be saying that Sarah Palin should provide evidence to show that Trig is her biological son. I think it’s an inappropriate request and I disagree with it, but I did not think it was necessarily motivated by sexism. I thought there was a reasonable doubt on that point, and I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
But THIS comment, of which I have quoted the beginning part, is pretty undeniably and blatantly sexist. Breathtakingly so, actually. You don’t seem like a writer or a person who thinks of women in such demeaning ways, Shaun. But I can’t read this comment any other way.
Kathy
Kathy:
It’s so pat, isn’t it.
Palin has never, to my knowledge, said that circumstances of Trip’s birth or lineage are none of anyone’s business, so you, roro80 and others are making that argument in her stead.
Palin has used her family like a cudgel. To lash back at the press when it suits her and to use them to enrich herself when it suits her.
She did not have to write in her books about where her children were conceived. After all, that was a private matter. She did not have to spin an elaborate story about her water breaking in Texas. After all, that was a private matter. She did not have to engage in a highly-public feud with Levi Johnston. After all, that was a private matter. She did not have to do a TV reality show because after all, her life is a private matter.
She could have dissuaded Bristol from going on that lucrative abstinence tour, but she wanted her to. She could have dissuaded Bristol from going on “Dancing With the Stars,” but she wanted her to. She could have dissuaded Bristol from getting her own TV reality show, but she wanted her to. All strikes against the privacy mantra even some of her detractors sing.
The more public Palin’s family was the more dough she would make and the more attention that would accrue to her.
No, Kathy, Palin is not concerned about her family’s privacy. She is not concerned in the least about their privacy, which takes what you believe to be an “inappropriate and irrelevant” question and makes it all the more relevant because it so out of character.
Finally, Kathy, there is nothing more tiresome than someone like yourself taking the sexism arrow from your quiver and shooting away because that is such a . . . uh, convenient weapon, and the target reliably slinks off in shame.
It is not sexist, let alone breathtakingly sexist, to state the obvious:
Some women feel aggrieved about people like myself questioning Palin because as women they would feel aggrieved if they were so questioned. What is inaccurate, let alone sexist, about that?
Unlike many bloggers, I try to shop stories that run as deep and are as sensitive as this one to people who are far more expert than I am. I did not leave four decades of expert contacts behind when I left the newspaper business. In this instance, these people all happened to be women, none of whom happen to be political. What is inaccurate, let alone sexist, about that?
Shaun, I don’t understand your logic here. Palin has refused to answer the question, has dismissed it in various ways, etc. I don’t know if she has ever used the precise words, “It’s none of your business,” but if she hasn’t, you are saying that means she thinks it IS our business? Or that objectively it’s our business because she hasn’t specifically said it’s not? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Actually, I agree with you on that. But that still doesn’t mean this particular question we are discussing is our business, or that Palin is obligated to answer it.
Really, my feeling about this has more to do with me than with her. I despise Sarah Palin, in almost every way it’s possible to despise someone. But that doesn’t mean that an inappropriate question somehow becomes an appropriate question. If I were running for office, I would not want to be asked a highly personal question that was not in any way relevant to my public life — a question that people were asking entirely for reasons of prurient curiosity, and not because they truly needed to know or had a right to know. So that being the case, I don’t want to support demands made of Sarah Palin that SHE answer such a question. It’s a “That which is hateful to you, do not do to others” type of issue for me.
Now, see, the *abstinence* issue is absolutely and unquestionably in my view an appropriate issue to be taking up with her. I mean, the hypocrisy of her pushing abstinence-only programs in public schools, and then pressuring her daughter not to say publicly that abstinence doesn’t work when clearly in her own family, it didn’t work. That is a public issue, Shaun. But whether Trig came out of Sarah Palin’s womb or someone else’s does NOT have that kind of public connection — at least not any that I can see.
Well, Shaun, all I can say to this is that I respectfully disagree. I don’t agree with you that the appropriateness or relevancy of a question directed at Sarah Palin hinges on whether Sarah Palin has shown concern for her family’s privacy in general, and/or in other situations. The question is either appropriate and relevant, or it is not.
Kathy
Actually, there is nothing either inaccurate OR sexist about that statement. But that is not the statement you made.
Kathy
Some women feel aggrieved about people like myself questioning Palin because as women they would feel aggrieved if they were so questioned. What is inaccurate, let alone sexist, about that?
Because this sort of reproductive womb policing has been used to shame women in deeply hurtful, fundamentally unfair ways for the length of recorded history? It’s been sexist for literally as long as there has been human society, so, um, it’s still sexist now. I’ve explained upthread, and you chose to ignore it, so I’m going to guess you’ll ignore it again.
And sorry, it’s not that we *would* feel aggreived *if* people we didn’t know policed our bodies, it’s that we *do* feel aggreived *when* they do. They do it to me for the same reason that you do it to Sarah Palin: because they think they have some authority over me, some right to know, some notion that because they’re “curious” (ooh!), and I have the audacity to lead a life which occasionally takes me outside my front door, that means that it’s somehow ok. They do not, and it is not ok.
roro80:
Like I told Kathy, it’s so pat. First I’m sexist and then I’m a member of the womb police.
I know that being aggrieved at the mere thought of people trying to have authority over you is a constant in your life. It pops up regularly in your posts. After all, it’s still very much a man’s world.
But I try very hard, admittedly with only limited success sometimes, to try to understand where women who are offended by my posts are coming from. Perhaps you and Kathy might try even a little bit to understand that where I am coming from is not predicated on knuckle-dragging misogynism, let alone my trying to control your lives. Hell, I have trouble enough trying to control my own.
By the way, do you think that the infant in the photograph was a one-month premature and had been out in the world for less than 24 hours?
Pardon? Those two things are not opposites. They’re both sexist. What are you saying?
Shaun, first, if you are policing wombs – and you are – that is a sexist action. It’s pat because it’s not complicated. It’s not controversial. It’s not subjective.
Second, if this is “trying very hard”, yikes. If you don’t understand where I’m coming from, you’re really not paying attention. If you feel I’ve been unclear as to why this is objectively offensive, by all means let me know what about my position is unclear to you. Ask a question. Messing up is only natural and human, but you’ve doubled down on this issue so many times now, it’s really hard to think you are “trying”.
It would be a lot easier to entertain the possibility that you are not perpetuating misogyny if you would, you know, stop perpetuating misogyny. I don’t really care if you or any other person who feels they’re owed access to women’s reproductive information really has “hate” in their hearts. The story you are writing here is among the very most classically oppressive narratives ever devised to hold women back. Again, I’ve explained this twice now, and you seem unwilling to even acknowledge it. I don’t really think you want to be part of that sort of historical legacy, but if you don’t, you need to stop being part of it.
How about you try even a little bit to understand where Roro and I are coming from? Especially since I told you I didn’t think your post itself was necessarily sexist. I gave you the benefit of a reasonable doubt that existed in my mind. Understanding goes both ways, you know.
Kathy
Roro — and Palin is postponing her announcement of being a candidate for President (performer for more fame and fortune).
She could be waiting and hoping more Republicans make mistakes.
Well Kathy, I find myself at the same impasse that others who try to engage you often eventually find themselves. If they only tried to understand you like you’re trying to understand them. (Sigh.)
I, for my part, have go elsewhere. I have enjoyed these dialogues, as fractured as some of them have been.
Have a good day.
Your edit: By the way, do you think that the infant in the photograph was a one-month premature and had been out in the world for less than 24 hours?
How is it even possible that you could miss the point so so badly such as to ask me this question? Un-friggin-believable.
I believe Palin indeed faked Trig’s pregnancy, but I don’t believe that is the story most injurious to her reputation and candidacy. The tale of her waiting 20+ hours to obtain obstetrical care for the pending, potentially problematic delivery of her Down Syndrome baby, passing by multiple hospitals with neonatal units to fly from Texas to Alaska, hiding her labor from the flight attendants, to have him delivered by a family practitioner in a smalltown hospital unequiped for birth complications is EVEN WORSE! I’d rather have a president who faked a preganancy to protect her daughter’s reputation than one who shows such poor judgment and recklessness.
I hope her critics and challengers reject the TrigHoax rumor and tear apart her claims of leadership skill based on the implausible story she has told.
And, by the way, I strongly hope Palin is the GOP candidate for president in 2012.
Shaun,
And I find myself in the same impasse with you as I do with SteveinCH, whose style you are obviously trying to mimic: You live in a house with no mirrors — or perhaps a magic mirror that only reflects back what you want to see.
If you cannot overcome my arguments, and/or get me to agree with you on a matter that touches your sense of masculine self-regard, you tell me you simply cannot conquer the impassable obstacle of my failure to recognize the truth and forcefulness of your points. And then you say “Have a nice day.” LOL.
And btw, trying to understand the other person’s point of view is actually a sign of strength, not weakness. You should try it sometime.
Kathy
Thank you so much, Shaun!
To me, this is much more than just faking a pregnancy. It’s a hoax played on the American people for political and monetary gains.
That baby Palin calls Tri-G, diagnosed with Down Syndrome aka Trisomy-G aka Tri-G, has made the Palins millionaires. But it must have been so stressful on that baby during the two month campaign trail as well as that two week book tour travelling all over the country.
That baby enticed pro-lifer voters during that last presidential campaign for the win. How much money was generated because of that lie? Susan B. Anthony group helped with Palin’s PAC. Palin collects $100K for her speeches, even to groups that help children with special needs. And that advocate for special needs former governor slashed half of Alaska Special Olympics monies in 2008 during her partial term in office.
Anyway, in one speech not too long ago, Palin said on video that baby was born in Anchorage. But the wild ride story goes all the way to Palmer. A slip of the tongue? I never believed that wild ride story at all the first time I watched that interview on video because I experienced amino fluid leakage with two pregnancies while in my 20s.
Please keep up the good work.
Thanks, again!
I side with most posters here, including Kathy and roro, in calling this first, a spurious attack on a leading Republican, and second, quite honestly as relevant as whether President Obama was a good student in school. As well, like many of the posters here, I am no fan of Sarah Palin.
I’ll leave it at this: there is far more out there to damn Sarah Palin with, much of it relevant, unlike this.
The question here goes straight to character and credibility. Any ends justifying the means sympathy is well intended I’m sure, but in this case I believe it is an undeserved sympathy. If Palin wasn’t an aspiring prez or an actual VP I wouldn’t care a bit and would say it’s her own families business. Period. But if she is going to promote herself as credible leader of the free world, then she’d damn well be telling the truth about this. AFAIC John Edwards is a lying scumball who betrayed not only his wife, but all democrats. I would view Palin in no better light if it turned out she was lying about this as well.