+++UPDATE April 29, 2011: Please note that we have now been given the opportunity to publish a response to Megan Carpentier at "The Guardian" and to explain our position regarding the investigation of Sarah Palin's pregnancy. My statements below which expressed disappointment about "The Guardian" are therefore not up-to-date any more, as we have afterwards been treated in a very decent and fair way by the editors+++
A new day, a new disappointment: In a fact-free, nonsensical hitpiece, another liberal media outlet underperforms and smears the "Trig Truthers", just for the sake of it. In the "Comment is free" section of The Guardian, hothead Megan Carpentier (American citizen), executive editor at Raw Story, claims to have discovered what really drives the "Trig Truthers": The are "a dedicated group of (mostly) men", and they are driven by "creepy misogyny."
Trig birthers? In the stubbly nether regions of the internet untouched by Occam's razor, a dedicated group of (mostly) men seeks to prove that the Palin family drama is more soap operatic than the family has already acknowledged. That is, they seek to convince the rest of the world that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Sarah Palin wasn't really pregnant in 2007 and 2008, and did not give birth to her son Trig three years ago. Many of them believe Palin's pregnancy was a ruse designed to shield her teenage daughter, Bristol, from the consequences of a teenage pregnancy – conveniently ignoring the fact that Bristol's actual teenage pregnancy culminated in a live full-term birth a mere eight months after her brother Trig was born. Oh, those mysterious lady parts! How do they ever work?
A "group of (mostly) men?" No, Megan, nothing could be further from the truth! What about doing a little bit of research before publishing such false claims? Is this too much to ask? Within the core "Trig Truther movement", especially what started as the Palin Deception research team and still exists as an even larger research team for Politicalgates today, I am the only male among about ten members. In the "history" of the investigations into Palin's pregnancy, there were only very, very few men who showed interest in the subject matter. About 90% of the readers, supporter and donors are women. It's the women who understand best that Sarah Palin's pregnancy story is a load of bullcrap and I have often deferred to their wider experience in the matter.
It's actually pure coincidence that it's now mostly male bloggers who write about the pregnancy. But hey, why do a bit of research, if it's so easy to shoot out "opinion pieces" in this wonderful pundit media culture, where anyone can shout at each other, fact free? I am always disgusted when outlets like Fox News attack the "enemy" with made up claims. But the left now proves that they can do it just as well, which is a huge disappointment, but when it comes to politics should not be a real surprise.
Megan Carpentier mindlessly rants on in her Guardian piece:
No one is asking for the results of President Obama's prostate exams or his urological records, even if a bunch of nutjobs don't feel that they've seen enough of his birth certificate. No one ran around in 1984 asking to see Geraldine Ferraro's gynaecological records, and it definitely didn't come up during then Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency, even if there were plenty of jabs about her supposed cankles and gossip about the supposed state of her marriage. No, somehow, Sarah Palin has inspired a bunch of nominally liberal men to spend a heck of a lot of time speculating about her female organs, and now they want the records – and let's not kid ourselves about the headlines they'd write if they got them. Gynaecological records aren't just an account of what one's uterus has done, after all – they're also a regular look into one's vagina.
Yes, Palin's most vociferous opponents want to look into her vagina – with a guide, of course, because it's all mysterious and scary. Sarah Palin, apparently, couldn't have just gotten pregnant the way the rest of the world does and she couldn't have delivered a baby the way the rest of the women of the world do. She couldn't have had and recognised a few Braxton Hicks contractions after bearing four children, and gotten on a plane to have the birth of her fifth, special-needs child in her hometown, and had it all be perfectly above board. Nope, it has to be something more mysterious, more nefarious, more … gross. What she's done with her vagina just has to disqualify her from office.
And that's really what Trig birtherism comes down to: misogyny. They can't just oppose her positions or personally dislike her (not that any of the Trig birthers apparently know her personally). No, her very femaleness and what they consider her subversion of it must disqualify her from office. And no firsthand accounts or doctor's statements are going to change their minds that the highly improbable fantasy is more compelling than the mundane truth – not without being able to put their grubby little hands on her private gynaecological records. Though, like Obama birthers, they probably wouldn't be satisfied with those alone, either – unless they found something else in them with which to demonise her.
Fortunately, some other liberal websites support us against such misdirected claims. Jason Easley of Politicususa today published a post titled "Debunking The Myth That The Trig Truthers Are Misogynists" . He writes:
This website has extensively covered Sarah Palin’s political movements for years, and in my experience the Trig Truthers are not all men. In fact, most of the people who have expressed doubts about Palin’s pregnancy story to us over the years have been women. I am not sure where the author of Guardian UK piece was getting her information. If one spends any time talking to the people who follow Sarah Palin closely, you will see that women make up a sizable part of this group.
It follows then that if the people who are interested in Babygate aren’t a bunch of men, the cries of misogyny fall apart. I believe it is unfair to paint with such a broad brush a label a group of people as misogynistic because they have questions about the most implausible birth story since Jesus was born. The story surrounding Sarah Palin’s fifth pregnancy captures so many imaginations because it is weird, and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
On April 14, Sarah Jones recently referenced Babygate in her article, “Is Sarah Palin Finally Over?” Sarah made reference to the Business Insider piece on the Babygate story.
From the Business Insider piece to The New Yorker, the mainstream media is starting to ask questions about Trig’s birth and unless Amy Davidson of The New Yorker is a misogynist, I don’t think misogyny is the reason why these questions are being asked.
Davidson wrote that she believes that Trig is Palin’s son, but the story surrounding the birth shows a level of “reckless narcissism,” that is important because it reveals a great deal about Sarah Palin’s character. I think the story of Trig’s birth is relevant not because of any conspiracy, but because the story itself and the way that Palin has handled it reveal just as much about Sarah Palin as whether or not she actually gave birth to the child.
The reason why this doesn’t compare to the right’s Obama birtherism is that Obama has not behaved oddly. We have seen the birth certificate. We have seen the birth notices in the newspapers. Obama hasn’t told conflicting or inconsistent stories about where he was born.
Unlike Obama, through her erratic behavior Sarah Palin herself has raised questions. The Babygaters are infatuated with a conspiracy theory for the same reason people are still talking about the JFK assassination today. Babygate is a conspiracy theory, but Sarah Palin’s own behavior has kept the theory alive.
The Babygaters aren’t a part of a misogynistic plot to destroy Sarah Palin.
In February, Sarah Jones published an article that asked whether Babygate was a conspiracy or an act of child endangerment by Sarah Palin.
Politically the story is relevant, because if we accept Trig Palin’s birth story as true then Sarah Palin reckless endangered the life of her unborn child. This possibility is more damaging to the myth of Sarah Palin as adoring mother of the year material than any conspiracy theory ever could be.
She also insulted Kim Chatman, who has a hundred times more guts than Megan Carpentier could ever muster, as a troll, after Kim Chatman had tweeted her:
Kim Chatman, Air Force veteran with fifteen years of service, who Kathleen and I met last year in Ramstein, Germany, filed the successful ethics complaint against Sarah Palin's first legal defense fund, the "Alaska Fund Trust", which caused Sarah Palin huge embarrassment and cost her more than $300,000 in illegal fundraising. Kim Chatman saw Sarah Palin in person in Alaska in March 2008 at an event, after Sarah Palin had announced her pregnancy. Kim immediately realized that Sarah Palin wasn't pregnant - and she isn't silent about it. Is she guilty of misogyny as well? Or is she just guilty of saying what it is that she saw? Does that make her a troll?
By the way, one of the things that Kim Chatman has never mentioned so far in public is that she drove around in Alaska with a "NO2PALIN" license plate. At Easter, last year, somebody shot a bullet at the driver's side sliding door window of the car while she was driving. Her children were in the car. There is a trooper report backing this information up. The trooper concerned was shocked that such an incident happened. Talk about guts. Kim Chatman knows what it means to take on Sarah Palin. Megan Carpentier? Well she knows how to use the word "vagina" with great effect, that's at least something:
The person Megan Carpentier is talking about is Matt Seaton, who is the editor of the "Comment is free" page at the Guardian. And now I would like to talk about an area of particular personal disappointment, although I realize that this should all be considered to be "business", and "personal feelings" should better be put aside.
Matt Seaton also praised Megan Carpentier's article on twitter:
So here is my little "personal story." After I published the leaked excerpts of "America by Heart" at Palingates at the end of 2010, Matt Seaton contacted me, because he was interested in our work, and we had a very polite and instructive phone conversation over skype, as well as a brief email exchange. Matt Seaton was genuinely interested in our work and in our conversation even suggested that I could write a piece for the "comment is free" page at the Guardian.
I sent him detailed information about what we are actually doing, for example in an email from November 23, 2010 after I had the conversation with him:
many thanks for the very pleasant conversation!
As I explained, we regard Palingates as a new type of blog - a
political blog, but also an investigative blog, in which the readers
take part and are strongly encouraged to take the initiative. For
example, we published several investigative guest posts (for example
about SarahPAC) which received great attention:
Our readers have lots of room to comment as well (ALWAYS unmoderated
comments), and are encouraged to do so. We have no strict commenting
rules. We had several posts which received 2000-3000 comments, also
very recently, which is not surprising, as people feel the need not
just to comment on certain posts, but also to connect and communicate
with other readers. Palingates is not just a blog, but a community of
I promised that I would give you examples for interesting posts, and here we go:
One of our most important topics is "babygate", Sarah Palin's faked
pregnancy - and in public also the most controversial topic, as it's
considered to be a "taboo" subject in the media:
Here is our collection of posts about "Troopergate", and especially
the first post in the list about Palin's "vindictive streak" is very
Here is our most recent post about the SarahPAC filings, a brilliant
post by a guest poster:
Here are our posts about the connection of the Morlock family to the
Here are our posts about the crimes of Todd Palin's half-sister Diana
Palin, VERY interesting, but largely ignored in the media:
One of our recent posts - Todd Palin as a bully:
Todd – „airport incident“ in Valdez, Alaska:
Sarah Palin's "motor home road trip lie" - Andrew Sullivan picked this
up in several posts, but it was also largely ignored in the media:
Sarah Palin and Curtis Menard Jr.:
One of the political scandals which raises many unanswered questions,
and which was never discussed outside Palingates, as far as I can see
(which is NOT justified!): Sarah Palin and her close connection to oil
and gas explorers in Giddings, Texas.
Another political scandal about which we have written extensively:
"Dairygate", a local AK scandal, but very significant:
Sarah Palin and her extreme religious background - two posts I would
All posts regarding religion:
Another political scandal: Sarah Palin's legal defense fund:
Oh yes, one more thing: Palingates is dedicated to FACTUAL research
and reporting. We do NOT report "rumors" or other facts which are not
100% confirmed by reliable sources. This is the main reason why we
have never contacted by a lawyer - apart from the Christopher Goff
from Harper Collins (in 2009 and 2010) for putting up pages of Palin's
unpublished books. However, we reacted to these letters both times and
took several pages down, leaving only "non-substantial" excerpts on
the site. This seemed to satisfy Harper Collins.
I will think about good topics for commentaries and will contact you again soon!
Matt Seaton replied to my email on the same day and said:
wow, that's very helpful -- thanks for taking so much trouble (and for your nice mention of the Guardian in your post today)
enjoyed talking to you too; will do my homework and we'll speak again soon
Well, why is this relevant now? Because it proves that Matt Seaton was extremely well informed about the fact that the following claim by Megan Carpentier in the Guardian article was just a pure invention and deliberate smear, as we "Trig Truthers" have always covered a HUGE variety of issues regarding Sarah Palin:
For Trig birthers don't believe that Palin's minimal governing experience, divisive political persona or her array of deeply conservative policy positions on everything from drilling to abortion to equal pay to healthcare should inspire their opposition to her. Rather, they believe that what did – or, in their ill-informed opinion, did not – once emerge from her mysterious and hidden womb should make the rest of us nervous enough to disavow her.
Matt Seaton knew that this claim was wrong. Moreover if he had done his "homework" as he said, theny his section of the Guardian wouldn't have resorted to publishing such "cracking" pieces. It seems that things really are going downhill in the liberal media. Perhaps it takes the meaning of the word "liberal" too literally?
I wrote an email to Matt Seaton today and expressed my disappointment. I reminded him that McCain's former campaign manager Steve Schmidt is on the record saying that Palin's book "Going Rogue" contains "not 70%, but 100% fiction."
Matt Seaton, Megan Carpentier, Jason Linkins, Justin Elliott and other liberal journalists have put their reputation on the line for a proven serial liar, who refuses to show any evidence for her pregnancy (and also once lied about having provided the birth certificate). They can now only hope that they are not proven wrong. That's not a situation I would choose to be in as a professional journalist.
In any case, and very conveniently: President Obama released his long form birth certificate!
Here is a screenshot of the beautiful thing, please click to enlarge (download the PDF here):
So, Sarah Palin - now is the best moment to release Trig's birth certificate and some records to back it up! Come on, don't be shy! After all, weren't you yesterday, on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record show, fully supporting Donald Trump's birther efforts to "expose" Obama?
Henry Blodget from "Business Insider" thinks the same:
The second theory is that vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin staged an elaborate hoax in which she lied to the country and pretended to be the biological mother of her son, Trig.
President Obama, we are happy to report, has now complied with our document request, releasing the original document on which his Hawaii birth certificate is based. (Thank you! The country appreciates this commitment to transparency.)
So now we renew our request to Sarah Palin: Please release medical records that show the circumstances of Trig's birth, including his parentage.
In the interview with Greta Van Susteren, Sarah Palin backs Trump's birther efforts again and says that the "birthers" are just people who are "curious about the background of the President and his associations." So why doesn't the same apply to the "Babygaters?"
Here is the relevant part from the interview:
Sarah Palin said in the interview:
I think the media is loving this, because they want to make to make birthers, as they call people who are just curious about the president of the United States and his background and his associations and his consistency with what he says today versus what he said in both the memoirs that he wrote or Bill Ayers or whomever wrote.
The media is loving the fact that some curious Americans are actually asking the questions, and they're trying to make those curious Americans sound kind of crazy.
So the media is loving this issue, and they're perpetuating the issue and trying to make it sound really worse than it is.
We "Babygaters" are just curious Americans (and a handful of Europeans) who are actually asking questions, and parts of the media are now trying to make those curious Americans sound kind of crazy.
It is good to know that Sarah Palin is now actually on "our side", and large parts of the liberal media are against us.
It's a crazy world these days. ;-)
"Babygate" has been covered in more detail in previous posts. You can find all this information here:
Read all posts at Politicalgates about Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy with Trig - CLICK HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE AND HERE.
Download the research paper regarding Sarah Palin's faked pregnancy and the role of the media, written by Brad Scharlott, Associate Professor for Journalism at Northern Kentucky University - CLICK HERE.
Brad Scharlott's revised version of the paper has also been published by "Business Insider."
Read the old post at Palingates about the faked pregnancy with the pictures still intact in hardcopy HERE.
Read the old posts at Palingates online HERE (useful also for watching the video clips which were published with the posts).
In addition, please don't hesitate to watch the excellent video-documentaries about "babygate" which our reader Lidia17 created - HERE, HERE and HERE.
We break the "Spiral of Silence" - Read the details about the "biggest hoax in American political history!"