MY ex GF " oh god , yes yes yes......

The only trouble I see is you do not have a bikini photo.

I know a secret na na na boo boo

That reminds me of a funny story.....My daughters old girl scout leader works in a pharmacy hadnt seen her in a couple years. Iwalked to the counter and asked her were she kept the realy big condoms at I cant find them over there

Abstinance only eh?

Ball And Chain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cf6k4yJyv0

meow

ouch what a crash this was.
On Monday, the Dow slipped 7.01, or 0.1 percent, to 7,216.97
at least it held the gainsfrom the previouse 4 days eh? and then ANOTHER SURGE.

6 days thank you Obama despite the republican stonewalling you saved capitalism.

**** Cheney: "I guess my general sense of where we are with respect to Iraq and at the end of now, what, nearly six years, is that we've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do...."

What has **** Cheney really accomplished in Iraq?

An estimated 4 million Iraqis, out of 27 million, have been displaced from their homes, that is, made homeless. Some 2.7 million are internally displaced inside Iraq. A couple hundred thousand are cooling their heels in Jordan. And perhaps a million are quickly running out of money and often living in squalid conditions in Syria. Cheney's war has left about 15% of Iraqis homeless inside the country or abroad. That would be like 45 million American thrown out of their homes.





It is controversial how many Iraqis died as a result of the 2003 invasion and its aftermath. But it seems to me that a million extra dead, beyond what you would have expected from a year 2000 baseline, is entirely plausible. The toll is certainly in the hundreds of thousands. Cheney did not kill them all. The Lancet study suggested that the US was directly responsible for a third of all violent deaths since 2003. That would be as much as 300,000 that we killed. The rest, we only set in train their deaths by our invasion.


Baghdad has been turned from a mixed city, about half of its population Shiite and the other half Sunni in 2003, into a Shiite city where the Sunni population may be as little as ten to fifteen percent. From a Sunni point of view, Cheney's war has resulted in a Shiite (and Iranian) take-over of the Iraqi capital, long a symbol of pan-Arabism and anti-imperialism.


In the Iraqi elections, Shiite fundamentalist parties closely allied with Iran came to power. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the leading party in parliament, was formed by Iraqi expatriates at the behest of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1982 in Tehran. The Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party is the oldest ideological Shiite party working for an Islamic state. It helped form Hizbullah in Beirut in the early 1980s. It has supplied both prime ministers elected since 2005. Fundamentalist Shiites shaped the constitution, which forbids the civil legislature to pass legislation that contravenes Islamic law. Dissidents have accused the new Iraqi government of being an Iranian puppet.


Arab-Kurdish violence is spiking in the north, endangering the Obama withdrawal plan and, indeed, the whole of Iraq, not to mention Syria, Turkey and Iran.


Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women have been widowed by the war and its effects, leaving most without a means of support. Iraqi widows often lack access to clean water and electricity. Aljazeera English has video.





$32 billion were wasted on Iraq reconstruction, and most of it cannot even be traced. I repeat, Cheney gave away $32 bn. to anonymous cronies in such a way that we can't even be sure who stole it, exactly. And you are angry at AIG about $400 mn. in bonuses! We are talking about $32 billion given out in brown paper bags.


Political power is being fragmented in Iraq with big spikes in the murder rate in some provinces that may reflect faction-fighting and vendettas in which the Iraqi military is loathe to get involved.


The Iraqi economy is devastated, and the new government's bureaucracy and infighting have made it difficult to attract investors.


The Bush-Cheney invasion helped further destabilize the Eastern Mediterranean, setting in play Kurdish nationalism and terrifying Turkey.
Cheney avoids mentioning all the human suffering he has caused, on a cosmic scale, and focuses on procedural matters like elections (which he confuses with democracy-- given 2000 in this country, you can understand why). Or he lies, as when he says that Iran's influence in Iraq has been blocked. Another lie is that there was that the US was fighting "al-Qaeda" in Iraq as opposed to just Iraqis. He and Bush even claim that they made Iraqi womens' lives better.

The real question is whether anyone will have the gumption to put Cheney on trial for treason and crimes against humanity.

© 2009 Juan Cole
Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His most recent book Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) has just been published. He has appeared widely on television, radio and on op-ed pages as a commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has authored 60 journal articles. His weblog on the contemporary Middle East is Informed Comment.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/17-2

Lets just hope it dont I do not wish to see bread lines and soup kitchens. I would rather see this house of cards stand than the alternative.

Five days.......... way to go Obama........and team! He may just save capitalism from itself

Its THE UNION they are destroying america! those damn banking unions

Shadowy Group Seeks Bonuses, Golf Retreats

American intelligence experts are analyzing a new terror video from the American International Group (AIG) in which the leader of the shadowy organization demands billions of dollars from the United States.

In the four-minute tape, which surfaced over the weekend and caused deep concern among U.S. officials, a man believed to be the chairman of AIG says that if his organization is not paid its ransom, "chaos and destruction will rain down on the American economy."

"If we are not paid billions more in bonuses and corporate golf retreats, America will be made to suffer," the man threatens.

Intelligence analysts said that the man, AIG chairman Edward M. Liddy, appears to be speaking at a luxury beach resort that offers few clues as to his exact location, although there is "good intelligence" pointing to the Ritz Carlton in the Cayman Islands.

"We have some reason to believe that he and other AIG executives are there, based on a series of intercepted room service orders from the all-day dining menu," one analyst said.

Reacting to the video, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano raised the nation's terror alert level to orange, meaning "taxpayers are about to get reamed again."

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also released a response to AIG's latest demands, but intelligence experts said they would need several weeks to decipher Mr. Geithner's response.
_______



About author
Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He is performing at the 92nd St. Y on April 30 at 8 PM with special guests Judy Gold, Hendrik Hertzberg, and Jonathan Alter. For tickets, go to 92y.org.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20777

In early 1919, Germany put in place a new government to begin rebuilding the country after its crushing defeat in World War I. But the right-wing forces that had led the country into the War and lost the War conspired even before it was over to destroy the new government, the "Weimar Republic." They succeeded.

The U.S. faces a similar "Weimar Moment." The devastating collapse of the economy after eight years of Republican rule has left the leadership, policies, and ideology of the right utterly discredited. But, as was the case with Germany in 1919, Republicans do not intend to allow the new government to succeed. They will do everything they can to undermine it. If they are successful, the U.S. may yet go the way of Weimar Germany.

World War I left Germany utterly devastated. The landed aristocrats, industrial magnates, wealthy financiers, weapons makers, and the officer corps of the military that formed the locus of right wing power were completely discredited. Their failure in provoking and prosecuting the War was catastrophic, undeniable, and complete.

The economy was destroyed. Prices were at 800% of pre-war levels and rising quickly. Agriculture, pillaged for the War, lay in ruins. Social insurance payments for the War's injured, to widows and orphans, and newly unemployed soldiers were astronomical. And all this was before the cost of rebuilding was even begun.

At the same time, Germany faced massive reparations payments to the Allied victors, France and England. But Germany's foreign properties had been confiscated and its colonies turned over to the victors. The combination of these conditions, both domestic and international, made it extraordinarily difficult for the German economy to recover.

As a result of the failure of the right, the German people elected a moderately leftist government to lead the nation's rebuilding. It was named the Weimar Republic for the city in which the new post-imperial constitution was written. The new government was led by Friedrich Ebert, head of the German Socialist Party.

But the country's new parliamentary system had allowed dozens of parties to run, making it impossible for any one party to win an outright majority. Ebert's party had achieved the highest portion of votes, 38%, in the first post-War elections, held in January 1919. Ebert would have to govern by coalition.

It was at this time that the right wing made its crucial decision. Despite its shocking, naked failure over the prior decade, despite the horrific devastation it had wrought on the German people, despite the discrediting of everything they had purported to stand for, they would fight Ebert, his new government, and its plans for recovery. They would do everything they could to make sure that the new government failed.

Their strategy was two-fold: first, stoke the resentment of the population about the calamitous state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions had been created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretended to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.

And stoking resentment was easy to do. Just before the War ended, the military concocted its most sensational lie: the German army hadn't actually been defeated. It had been "stabbed in the back" by communists, traitors, and Jews. It was an easy lie to sell. It entwined an attack on an alien political ideology - liberalism- with the latent, pervasive myth of German racial superiority.

The second strategy of the right was to prevent the new government from succeeding. To begin with, success of the left would conspicuously advertise the failure of the right. Moreover, success by the left would legitimize republican government, so hated by the oligarchs of the right. Much better for the people to be ruled by the self-aggrandizing right-wing autocracy that had governed Germany for centuries.

So the rightists set out to do everything they could to make it impossible for the leftists to govern. They would use parliamentary maneuver, shifting coalitions, domination of the new mass media, legislative obstruction, staged public relations spectacles, relentless pressure by narrow but powerful interests, judicial intimidation and, eventually, outright murder of their political opponents.

Contrition for their abject failure, humility for their destructive hubris, compassion for their crippled country-those had nothing to do with it. All they possessed was a blinding, visceral hatred of the left and a masturbatory lust for the return to power.

Eventually, they succeeded. Every setback in recovery - and there would inevitably be many - was met with hysterical demonizing of the left wing government. The lie was repeated relentlessly that the government was run by communists, traitors, and Jews-the same furtive cabal that had purportedly stabbed the country in the back at the end of the War. They steadily chipped away at the efficacy and, thereby, the legitimacy of successive republican governments.

By the time of the Great Depression, Adolph Hitler's ironically named National Socialist Party had become the biggest vote getter in the nation. The Nazis had once been derided as the lunatic fringe of the far right. But the "respectable" right-wing power brokers who had started and lost the Great War anointed Hitler Chancellor in January, 1933.

He immediately suspended the constitution, abolishing most civil liberties. He outlawed opposition parties, began a massive military build-up and a relentless propaganda campaign, and set Germany and the world onto the path of the greatest destruction it would ever know.

America now faces its own "Weimar moment."

The failure of right wing policy and leadership over the past eight years, especially in matters economic, is comparable to Germany's right-wing failure in World War I. It is catastrophic, undeniable, and complete.

Consider:

According to the World Economic Forum, forty percent of the entire world's wealth has been destroyed in the recent financial collapse. In the U.S. alone, between housing and the stock market, more than $18 trillion in wealth has already been destroyed.

The private mega-banks that anchor the financial systems of the western world are bankrupt. This makes it all but impossible to jump-start the western world's economies which are heavily dependent on bank-system credit to operate.

More than 10,000 homes go into foreclosure every day. More than 20,000 people lose their job every day. And the collapse is accelerating, developing its own self-reinforcing dynamic. Job losses breed foreclosures, reducing demand, leading to more job losses and further degradation of the financial system. None of the stopgaps designed to stanch the bleeding have yet worked. There is no bottom in sight.

Meanwhile, debt has risen to astronomical levels. Reagan and Bush I quadrupled the national debt in only twelve years. Bush II doubled it again in only eight. It is now ten times higher than it was in 1980 when Reagan was elected. Total public and private debt exceeds 300% of GDP, half again higher than it was in 1929.

The government's unfunded liabilities, promises it has made to the American people but for which no payment source can be identified, now exceed $60 trillion, a literally inconceivable sum that can never, will never, be paid. Federal Reserve economist Lawrence Kotlikoff has suggested that the U.S. government is "actuarially bankrupt."

The full measure of the nation's plight is revealed in Hillary Clinton's first trip as Secretary of State. It was to China, to beg them to fund Obama's new fiscal deficits. Without loans from China, the U.S. economy cannot be revived. The significance of this cannot be overstated: the U.S. no longer exercises sovereignty over its own economic affairs. That sovereignty now resides in the hands of China, the U.S.'s greatest long-term rival.

Thanks to Republican policies of massive debt and shipping jobs abroad, the U.S. has technically become a colony of China. It exports raw materials and imports finished goods, together with the capital to make up the difference. Should the Chinese decide not to lend the trillions of dollars the U.S. is begging for, the U.S. economy will implode, plummeting onto itself in a World Trade Center-like collapse that will leave dust clouds circling the planet for decades.

Notwithstanding the destruction inflicted on the economy by Republican policies, the most devastating breakdown is in the intellectual foundation on which right wing economic ideology itself is premised. Free market doctrine, the secular religion of right-wing America, is in utter, irretrievable shambles.

One of the most lofty tenets on which free markets are premised is their claim for themselves that they are "efficient," that is, that market prices always reflect "fundamental values" of assets. But if that's true, how could the world's largest insurance company, AIG, have lost 99.5% of its market value in only 18 months? How could the world's largest bank, Citibank, have lost 98% of its value over the same period?

How could the world's largest brokerage company, Merrill Lynch, have gone bankrupt and need to be bought by Bank of America? How could the world's largest car company, General Motors, have lost 95% of its value and stand on the threshold of extinction? How could the world's largest industrial conglomerate, General Electric, have lost 85% of its value in only 18 months?

If the largest companies in the world, those at the very heart of the capitalist system itself, can lose virtually all of their value in only 18 months, what is the possible meaning of the phrases "efficient markets" and "fundamental value"?

The other core tenets of free market ideology are equally compromised. Major actors are clearly not rational - a breakdown of theological proportions admitted by no less an avatar of the cult than its pope himself, Alan Greenspan. Free markets clearly cannot, will not, regulate themselves. It is precisely their innate, irrepressible propensity for sociopathic greed and predatory fraud that has brought the whole of the world's economy to the precipice of collapse.

Free markets clearly do not align risk and reward, allocating capital to its most productive uses, as its promoters advertise. They clearly do not automatically return to equilibrium, but must be bailed out with trillions of dollars of injections from the shrinking coffers of the public to the ever-bulging coffers of a private priesthood of pillage and plunder.

And in perhaps the greatest indictment of all, one going back to its primeval roots in Adam Smith's eighteenth century opus, The Wealth of Nations, the unrestrained behavior of self-interested individuals clearly, manifestly, does not "coalesce as if by an Invisible Hand to the greatest good for the greatest number."

These are not peripheral premises that have failed. They are not tangential tenets. Efficient markets. Rational actors. Market equilibrium. Risk and reward. Self interest. These are the essential sacraments on which the entire free market system is founded. They are in tatters. And it isn't that any one of them has been discredited by the glaring, merciless force of events. All of them have been. All of them together. And all of them at the same time.

Free markets have long been the basis for a legitimate - though rightly debated - economic policy framework. But they have become little more than a robotically-recited cultural catechism, a mindless mantra mumbled to mask the looting of the nation's resources that is the true purpose of Republican economic policy as demonstrated by the staggering upward transfers of wealth that inevitably occur under Republican regimes. A more complete, conspicuous, catastrophic, and irrefutable repudiation of right wing leaders, right wing policies, and right wing ideology could not possibly be contrived.

So what is the right wing response?

They have adopted the strategy and tactics of the failed right wing plotters in Weimar Germany. First, stoke the resentment of the population about the increasingly dire state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions were created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretend to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.

Second, prevent the new government from succeeding in any meaningful endeavor. The Republicans have set all their efforts to doing everything they can to make sure the Obama administration fails. Rush Limbaugh's infamous, "I hope he fails" pronouncement is only the beginning of the fomenting of hatred from the right. As Limbaugh said, "Let's be honest. Every Republican in America is hoping for Obama's failure."

The same malignant hope oozes unadulterated from all the other Dogpatch Demagogues that rent themselves out to the Republican party to foment resentment against anything liberal: Joe the "Plumber," Rick Santelli, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and virtually every other wing-nut operative whose intellectual stock in trade has been vaporized by the collision of right-wing policies with objective reality.

Equally so for the "respectable" members of the party, the all-but-three Republican members of Congress who refused to sign on to Obama's first stimulus package and continue to grandstand against every effort toward any form of progress. Contrition for their own abject failure, humility for their destructive hubris, compassion for their crippled country-those have nothing to do with it. All they possess is a blinding, visceral hatred of the left and a masturbatory lust for the return to power.

And what else can they do? Bereft of ideas, bankrupt in ideology, architects of collapse, obstruction is all they have. If Obama is successful, it will not only advertise the full extent of their failure, it will provide a model of liberal governance that would render Republicans irrelevant for decades, much as FDR's success left them out in the political cold for an entire generation. Liberal failure is a matter of life and death for Republicans.

And it's not at all clear that the liberals won't fail. No one should underestimate the task at hand. Never before - not even during the Great Depression - has the country inherited such a daunting, intractable set of economic problems: a debt burden so crushing; inequality so vast; a loss of financial sovereignty so constricting; an intellectual edifice so bankrupt; a private economy so uncompetitive; or an opposition so callously self interested in its own recovery and so cavalierly disinterested in the nation's.

The economy has been so damaged, successful rescue requires threading a series of policy needles, each of them so complex in their own right that none could be solved by any administration of the past 50 years. This includes rehabilitating and re-regulating the nation's banking system, restructuring health care, reducing national dependence on oil, reviving manufacturing so as to reduce the trade deficit, rebuilding the nation's crumbling infrastructure, dealing with a soaring national debt, trying to resuscitate a collapsing housing market, and all the while maintaining the safety net under 77 million baby boomers entering retirement with a net worth 60% what it was only 18 months ago.

Success will require much more than luck, hard work, brilliant policy, or soaring rhetoric. It will require cooperation and contribution from every American. It is those two offerings, cooperation and contribution, that Republicans are intent on withholding, the better to ensure Obama's failure. Simply put, the Republicans hate Democrats more than they love America.

If they succeed in derailing Obama's efforts, the cost will be incalculable.

After World War I, one of the consequences of the liberal government's failure was Adolph Hitler. Hitler had a genius for exploiting the resentment of the German people for their condition. More than 80% of the Nazi party's members were unemployed. It was these legions of idle thugs who made up the ranks of Hitler's brownshirt militia, the SA. The right wing oligarchy that had set out from the beginning to destroy the Weimar Republic recognized the potency of resentment and Hitler's genius at exploiting it. It was they who sponsored Hitler's ascension to Chancellor in 1933.

Resentment and obstruction are all the right wing in America have to peddle. Their policies are utterly discredited. Their ideology - even by its own standards - is a sham. They are so bereft of leaders, their de facto leader is a former drug addicted, thrice-divorced radio talk show host. That is literally the best they can muster. But they have built a national franchise inciting the downwardly mobile to blame the government, not the right, for their problems, exactly as Hitler did in the 1920s.

The Republican propensity for fascism must not be underestimated. Witness their phony justifications for the war in Iraq, fanning the flames of nationalistic aggression, just as Hitler did with Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland in the 1930s. Consider their symbiotic embrace of corporate interests in the oil, weapons, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, finance, and other industries-the same type of corporate interests that sponsored Hitler's ascent to power. Look at their efforts to dismantle civil liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. Or their relentless, pervasive propaganda laundered through their corporate-owned right-wing media machine.

These are the classic hallmarks of fascism. The strategy is to obstruct recovery, facilitate collapse, and then incite the faux-populism of public resentment to re-install a corporatist oligarchy which has failed, but which will not abide a reduction of its privileges or a diminution of its control. It is a fetid, seditious agenda, awaiting only its own latter day mustachioed messiah for its final fulfillment.

World War I was a once-in-a-millennium upset in the architecture of global power. In four years, it shifted the center of that power from Europe to the United States. But failure now by the U.S. will shift that center once again, from the United States to China, out of the western world where it has resided for the past 500 years. The psychic shock to the billion-odd people living in western civilization, with its liberal democracies, capitalist economies, and Enlightenment ideals, will be incalculable, irretrievable.

This shift may be inevitable and only a matter of time. It is quite possible that the damage inflicted on the western world's economy by rapacious Republicans is already beyond repair. But it will be tragedy beyond measure if such a shift is consummated by the very wrecking crew that took us down the road to ruin, all the while so unctuously proclaiming "patriotism" as its crowning ideal. They are not patriots and their goal is not the revival of American power. It is the revival of their own power, even at the expense of America's. They represent a very dangerous threat to the nation's future.

Robert Freeman writes on history, economics and education. He can be reached at robertfreeman10@yahoo.com.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/15

I've been investigating this for nearly a month now, and I cannot say that I know for sure what happened in Palmer Alaska on April 18th 2008. But as a medical professional who has spent much of my life around childbearing women I can state this with confidence: Her birth story is utterly absurd, a tale of an implausible series of ridiculous choices. If you want to call it "a lie," be my guest.

No 44 year old woman, pregnant for the fifth time with a special-needs child would make the decisions she made, and no doctor would support them. She traveled out of state during the 35th week of her pregnancy. After experiencing premature rupture of membranes and some contractions, she waited nearly ten hours to give a speech then traveled nearly twelve hours more, taking two separate flights both of which had flight times of around four hours, with a layover of approximately two hours in between. Expected duration of labor for someone with Gov. Palin's history (four previous vaginal births) would be 6 hours +/- 3.6 hours. It was not only "possible" that she would give birth long before she arrived back in Alaska, it was probable. And, while it's just barely believable that she would remain at a conference and wait to give a speech she was "determined to give" (since a modern hospital was only minutes away), there's no way one can apply this same reasoning to her subsequently getting on an airplane for two separate four-hour flights.

Yet, after somehow beating the statistics on the flights, once arriving in Anchorage, she did not drive to the only hospital in the state (Providence) with a neonatal intensive care unit (six miles from the airport) where her doctor had privileges. Instead, she drove an hour to a small regional health facility (only 39 beds in the whole hospital).

By the time she arrived there, she met five high-risk obstetric criteria:
*she was 44 (anything above 40(some sources say 37 or 39)) is considered high-risk due to maternal age;
* she was carrying a known high-risk infant;
*she was considered "grand multiparous" (five or more viable pregnancies);
* she was in labor at 35-36 weeks (anything before 37 weeks is considered pre term);
* her amniotic sac had been ruptured nearly 24 hours.

Yet, the hospital that she is reported to have given birth at does no high risk obstetrics at all; even twins are not allowed to be born there. She had as her physician a family practice doctor who is reported on the hospital's web site as having done only three births in the previous two years!

None of these choices makes sense. Taken all together, it's ridiculous. And, to repeat, we're also supposed to believe that somewhere there is a doctor who went along with all this.

With this as the "starting point," then you have to start looking at all the other coincidences. Any one of these items, alone, could be easily shrugged off. Without a birth story that resembles Mr. Toad's Wild Ride more than anything else, one of two of these would be insignificant. But, all of this together? What are the chances?
* Gov. Palin never looked pregnant at all before the announcement, and even afterward people had their doubts. (One writer in the Anchorage Daily News asked facetiously one week after Gov. Palin's announcement, when she would have been around seven months, "Where is she hiding that baby? In her pocket?"), yet we have a photograph of her in her first pregnancy in which she looks... very conspicuously pregnant.
*Rumors existed before Gov. Palin announced her pregnancy on March 6th that Bristol was expecting. This has been confirmed by Palin's own spokesman. What did Palin do to counteract them? She told at least one person that it wasn't true. Wouldn’t it have been a lot more effective to appear in public – just one time - with your non-pregnant daughter?
*Bristol was removed from one school in late fall 2007, attended a second one sporadically until Christmas, but then was apparently out due to "mono" from Christmas on. (Correction: Further investigation has tracked down a credible sources that states as follows: Bristol Palin attended Wasilla High School for the fall semester, 2007. After the Christmas Holiday break she attended West High School in Anchorage for January and February 2008. She was removed from Anchorage West High School around March 1, 2008. The reason given among her friends that she had "finished early" due to taking "distance learning classes." I cannot find any "original" source for the idea that Bristol Palin had mono at any point. It was stated in the original Daily Kos blog / diary that broke the story on August 31, 2008, and seems to have been repeated widely, but the original source for this was and still is unknown to me.)
*Not one photo of the Palin family has been released from around the time of the birth, even though Palin has stated that all three of the Palin daughters were at the hospital.
*Palin's doctor, beyond some very brief (and frankly non-convincing) statements made last April in the first 2-3 days after the birth, has never once been willing to give the simplest statement to the press. Wouldn't having your doctor, perhaps accompanied by the hospital's CEO, do a press conference and announcing "Yes, I was at the birth of Trig Palin on April 18th, 2008, and Sarah Palin is Trig's biological mother." be preferable to telling the whole world that your seventeen-year-old daughter is pregnant? Wouldn't the doctor want to do that in the face of "ridiculous" "hurtful" and "insulting" rumors, and to spare Bristol the notoriety of becoming the most famous pregnant teen in America? Apparently not.
*Alaska Air officials, faced with the announcement of the birth on April 18th, made a point of stating that Sarah Palin's "stage of pregnancy" was not obvious on the flight the night before, nor were there any signs of labor or distress. They specifically called a news conference to do this.
*Gov. Palin has already been caught in numerous lies, exaggerations and "flip-flops" regarding the birth. She herself gave varying accounts in the first few days after the birth. She and her doctor put out statements concerning their interaction during the labor which contradicted each other directly. More recently, she told People Magazine (and others) that Willow spotted and asked about Trig's Down's syndrome as soon as she saw him in the hospital, which directly contradicts a statement given to the Anchorage Daily News three days after the birth which was that "you can't tell by looking" at that point that Trig has Down's.

Photos exist of a pregnant Gov. Palin that have widely touted as settling the issue as well. They do nothing of the sort. The allegation is that she faked a pregnancy. To fake a pregnancy one would have to do more than just talk; one would have to, at some point, look pregnant. Therefore, photos of her looking pregnant prove nothing. We would expect that there would be some photos of this nature. This never seems to occur to those who have turned to these photos as proof. However, curiously, these photos do show one thing: careful analysis of those that do exist from the period of 3/6 to 4/17 show an inexplicable variation in size, shape, and positioning of the pregnancy. Two photos exist taken only three days apart just ten days before the birth. In one Gov. Palin can barely get her arms and hands around her noticeably pregnant belly; in the other, she does so easily.

The announcement from the McCain campaign that Bristol is, as of September 1, five months pregnant put the brakes on the whole story, but it shouldn't have. Gov. Palin has used the fact that she gave birth to a child in April knowing that he had Down's as part and parcel of her political persona. This moves the whole issue out of the private realm, and into the public. In the face of legitimate evidence that the event did not happen the way she claims it did, the public does have the right to get some real answers. As of yet, we have not gotten them



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why am I doing this?
My husband and I are not "left wing bloggers," "conspiracy theorists," or otherwise fruitcakes. I am a childbirth labor coach, a published author in the childbirth field, and a lactation consultant; my husband is a physician who has, until this election, always voted Republican. So we're hardly coming from left field.

Shortly after the announcement of Palin's selection, rumors ran rampant on the Internet that she had not given birth to "Trig" but he was the child of her oldest daughter Bristol. Then – bang – in one fell swoop, the story was killed by the staggering announcement that Bristol was actually five months pregnant now, thus (very neatly) precluding her giving birth in mid April.

There are enough "anomalies" surrounding the pregnancy and birth last April that reasonable people can ask reasonable questions, and should be able to get answers without feeling like we're breaking some sort of national law or "picking on" a seventeen year old or a baby with Down's Syndrome. One right wing blogger suggested that there are just some things we have to accept on trust, this is one of them, and that's the end of it. Not to us. The story does matter... if she would lie about something like this, what else would she lie about?

Comment: In short, that Governor Palin, NOT her daughter, did give birth is now "proved" by two facts: the first is that Bristol Palin is currently expecting a child, and the second is that photos exist, reliably datable to March and April 2008 in which Gov. Palin definitely looks pregnant. Here is my response to both of these "proofs." First, how in the world do we know that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant now, other than the word of her parents? And she MUST be FIVE MONTHS (as of September 1, 2008) pregnant to preclude giving birth in April… if she is even 3 ½ months, it does not rule out that she could be Trig's mother. Secondly, photos exist of Sarah Palin appearing pregnant in March and April. What does this prove? Nothing. A quick internet search will reveal numerous "gag" sites which sell pregnancy suits, modeled by women all of whom … guess what? … appear very convincingly pregnant.

http://www.palindeception.com/

No one realy would care if the GOP didnt use that family for stage props.

Throw shoes at Bush the game http://www.sockandawe.com/

hmmmm pondering this Palin/Chuck Norris ticket. I think they would finish the job Bush has done in turning this country into a third world nation. ( I secretly allways wanted to wear a gourd for underwear)

Its actualy called a bratz bun got it from the bakary section at the store, fresh and soft and thicker than a hot dog bun