One of the most disgusting attacks on Sarah Palin and her family was the accusation that she is not really the mother of little Trig, but that she is actually his grandmother and she (her family, her staff, her doctors, the hospital personnel, news media, and who knows who else) were covering up the pregnancy of her oldest daughter.
It wasn't just the KOSsacks and DUmmies who were involved -- allegedly respectable folks like Andrew Sullivan were repeating the story, to the point it got picked up by the Times of London. Not only that, but reliably "pro-choice" commentators like Sullivan and Alan Colmes even decided it was within their purview to question her choices regarding pre-natal care, intruding in what they always claim is a supposedly sacred space between a woman and her doctor.
Well, let's settle the pregnancy question for you right now.
Fits pretty well with this entry from a non-political blog site, dated last April.
So, can we now start getting retractions from all the liberals making such scurrilous charges? Will The Atlantic fire Andy Sullivan and FoxNews can Alan Colmes? After all, there was NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support the claims that came from the sewers of the left-wing blogosphere.
Funny -- wasn't it just a few weeks ago that we were told we couldn't "attack" the family members of the candidates, not even for the words they said in stump speeches they were giving as a surrogate for the candidate himself. Does that rule only apply to Michelle Obama -- but not Bristol Palin, whose only "misdeed" here was being her mother's daughter?
And remember -- this claim involved libeling a young woman who is not a public figure. I'm hoping to see some lawsuits fly here.
UPDATE 1: Someone at Daily Kos tries to debunk the fake story -- KOSsacks want that story deleted, but not the original libel of Sarah and Bristol Palin.
UPDATE 2: Some folks will note that the stamp on the original flickr photo is March 19, 2005, and that this means the photo is a fraud. There are some problems with this argument:
1. Palin was not pregnant in 2005.
2. Palin was not in office in 2005, and so would not have been interviewed in that location in 2005.
3. The camera in question was not released to the public until July, 2005 -- and its year setting defaults to 2005.
Best explanation -- the photo was taken March 19, 2008 (or thereabouts), and the year had not been properly reset by the user.
"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us," the Palins' statement said.
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support," the Palins said.
The Palins asked the news media to respect the young couple's privacy.
"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates," the statement concluded.
Want to bet that this doesn't satisfy the liberals, who will now demand a Taliban-style stoning of young Bristol for getting pregnant -- while those of us who are Christians will accept that the couple made a series of poor choices and are taking responsibility for them.
UPDATE 4: Bravo to the folks at Jawa Report for this gem:
Obama Camp Of Course Will Respect Bristol Palin
Lets see how "progressive" the liberals actually are. They can't condemn Bristol or the lovely Sarah when the great Barach has proudly and repeatedly described his mother "as a teenage mother, a single mother, a mother who worked, went to school and raised children at the same time."
It would be the height of hypocrisy for the leftards to make an issue of Bristol's pregnancy.
But given that the Left already attacked Bristol Palin and her mother with a completely unsupported (and now indusputably false) rumor already, I wouldn't be holding my breath for restraint now. Certainly the KOSsack commenters aren't showing much -- they are already playing the "litle slut" and "unfit mother" cards, as well as the "ignorant fundie" card. And Andrew Sullivan is still peddling the Trig is Bristol's kid story (no link -- he's lost his credibility).
Allahpundit has a great thread on the announcement from the Palins that their eldest daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Coincidentally, my daughter-in-law is at about the same point in her second pregnancy, and our second granddaughter will join our family at the end of the year. When our first granddaughter, the Little Admiral, joined us, it was in a similar situation that Bristol and her fiancť now face.
The rest is quite moving -- you really do have to read it all. Morrissey touched me for two reasons:
Now will you tell me which side is tolerant and which is intolerant?
UPDATE 6: Gee, a sensible piece on the subject in Time.
UPDATE 7: I guess the Democrat faithful aren't listening to Barack Obama on this one -- John Cobarruvias, president of Houston's Bay Area New Democrats, KOSsack and NASA employee recently suspended for 180 days for illegal campaign and fundraising activity on behalf of Democrat state representative candidate Sherrie Matula, has decided to post this little gem on his site. Apparently even Democrat elected officials like John don't care that Obama says the kids are off limits.