Log in

No account? Create an account
Sarah Palin's Baby May Actually Be Teen Daughter's Child 
31st-Aug-2008 05:04 pm
Go Obey Your Husband You Stupid Republic

Someone in this picture is 6 months pregnant...
Bristol Palin Pregnancy: Is VP Sarah Palin’s 5th Child Really Her Daughters? (Photos)

There are news reports suggesting that abstinence-only, pro-life, Republican VP hopeful Sarah Palin's 4 month old son may in fact be her teenage daughter Bristol's child. Suspicions began during her pregnancy when her lack of a baby bump was cause for scrutiny in pictures - while Bristol clearly has... something going on. People were really surprised when she announced her pregnancy. People are even more surprised that the hospital she claims to have given birth in has no such thing on their announcements page for that day.

Bristol Palin left school for 5 months before the baby was born with a case of 'mono', and her mother didn't announce that she was pregnant until 8 months into the alleged pregnancy. She returned to work 3 days after allegedly giving birth. Friends of Bristol's have suggested that she actually did look pregnant. Let me be clear in my own speculation here - this is not what I imagine a seven month pregnant woman should look like. This is more in line with the later stages of pregnancy looks like, as Palin does in the picture I just linked to.

There's a piece about this on DKos wherein ArcXIX calls her a liar outright. There's an iReport on CNN.com with multiple links in it (some of which I used in this post already) and lots of links in the threads. I personally believe all of this, and further believe that the photo taken during the VP announcement was staged on purpose. Why isn't the alleged father of this child holding his own special needs infant son at such an important occasion? Also, I agree with many of you - Mr. Palin looks like a total power bottom.

You decide:
Six months pregnant: Photo 1, Photo 2
Seven months pregnant: Photo 1, Photo 2

So - what say you? Are you buying this or do you think she's telling the truth? If it's true, this blows yet another HUGE hole in the abstinence only argument. Which for me really matters. Also, I rather enjoy someone who is so completely self righteous and deluded getting exposed for being a liar when you get right down to it.

Ah, hypocrisy - schadenfreude be thy name...
1st-Sep-2008 12:24 am (UTC) - Re: Bwah!
I'm not surprised. McCain's dislike of "gooks" is documented, not to mention that a little old-fashioned prejudice on the McCains' part is possible. Sure, they'll adopt the little brown-skinned orphan, but . . . y'know, they don't have to be so public about it. Why not just quietly accept her into the family . . .

Yes, I grew up hearing a lot of people say this kind of thing. :P That's why I say it's possible. I think what pissed McCain off was that his opposition found a way to smear him that he wasn't prepared to handle.
1st-Sep-2008 12:53 am (UTC) - Re: Bwah!
I think that he wouldn't have ever adopted the baby on his own -- Cindy jokes that she surprised McCain with it by just bringing the baby home.

He probably "allowed" the adoption because it was better than risking losing access to her money.

On the other hand, I don't see his sons, Jack and John, either, so I'm probably just making shit up.
This page was loaded Aug 19th 2019, 9:05 pm GMT.