Monday, November 21, 2011

Oops, Levi Did it Again

This week, I found a statement near the end of Levi's book Deer in the Headlights that rocked me.

First, a short review: After Tripp was born and came home, Levi went back to work on the slope. On January 5, 2009 news broke that Levi was not qualified for the apprenticeship program and he immediately resigned. Three days later he arrived back in Wasilla and Bristol met him at the door saying she was breaking up with him. He packed up and was sent away.

When was that? January 8, 2009.  Okay, now then, when Levi  talked about the second engagement and the second break up that happened in early August 2010, he said:

Only a year and a half before, Bristol and I had split up for the first time-little more than a month after Tripp was born.  ( pg 251)

Well, well well. Levi, bless your heart. You are a Trig-truther's best friend.  Once again, you've told us your son was born late in November or early in December 2008. 

Until now, all of the first string players have stuck with the story that Tripp was born December 27, 2008, in spite of slip-ups that caused thinking people to scratch their heads in confusion.  Thank you, Levi, for this first person testimony that Tripp was actually born a month or so earlier than reported. You ought to know - you were there.

When this post gets read in Wasilla, Sarah, Bristol, Todd - they are going to say you are wrong Levi. Levi is lying again.

And you will do what you what you know you do when you are embarrassed or uneasy - you'll tell yourself that you don't care (pg 257).  Poor Levi, he has so many lies to keep up with he has to lie to himself to get by.

Levi, I still have sympathy for you.  The subtitle of your book is no joke : "My Life in Sarah Palin's Crosshairs."  No joke at all.  There's nothing funny about living in Sarah Palin's crosshairs.

Levi, do you know we don't believe Sarah? She can say you lied about this, but no one who has paid attention these past three years accepts her at her word, especially about babies.  Given Sarah's history with baby due dates and lies - Track, Trig, even Willow's birthdate was moved a couple days to make the story better in one telling-  the odds she'd tell the truth about a baby's birth are about the same as the odds her youthful glow will return.

Bristol is no better. She's the born-again virgin who invited you, Levi, back into her bedroom at night and continued to charge big money by day, claiming she was being abstinent (yes, she did more than promote the idea of abstinence, she claimed to be living it).

Sadie will probably never address this variation on Tripp's birth dates, either. Levi, you must be happy that her blog is dormant. It didn't get her or you any more time with Tripp. She hasn't posted on Immoral Minority in a very long time. There's no point. She can't tell the whole truth either. It's becoming more obvious all the time.  Sadie has to know what day she and Sherrie visited the hospital and saw newborn Tripp , but she's gone along with the December 27 lie.  My guess is that the truth would hurt you, Levi. And we know she loves her  brother (the guy who's name is tattooed on her wrist) and she would sell her honesty to protect him from...

From what?  The wrath of the Palins. That's pretty certain. But why?

No use asking Levi, he doesn't read these blogs. My whole address to him is folly. If he hears about this at all, it will be from a friend. 

So, Trig-Truthers, it continues to be up to us. We need to get our heads into this one:

Why would Tripp's late November/early December birth need to be covered up?

We were told Bristol was five months pregnant on September 1, 2008.  We "wackos' know the Palins have had other  full term babies at eight months - heck, doesn't everyone know that?  Just like Track's eight month gestation is of no consequence,  who really cares if Tripp was one month older than the McCain campaign announced?

In all the excitement of announcing the birth, the fudging of the due date shouldn't have amounted to more than a footnote, so why didn't it get announced?

And the really, really, super-humongous important thing is, even with an early December  delivery,  Bristol still couldn't be the mom of a baby born April 18, 2008.  So again, why the big cover-up?

And what does it matter?  Reasonable people will argue that we shouldn't care. They will say this is a waste of time. Trolls and Palinbots and Willow and Bristol and Sarah's paid blog-commentors will say that, too.

Reasonable thinkers and/or paid by Sarah PAC-rats, we are about to hear that Levi is wrong, or mistaken, or careless, or exaggerating. Levi's ghost writers messed up. Levi didn't bother to proof read his own book.

Let's explore those possibilities because I think they are all refutable.

Why we should care/ why this isn't a waste of time:

Because this very likely is rooted in Babygate.

The word was out that Bristol and Levi had been offered $300,000 for Tripp's first pictures. That's a lot of money. But they left it on the table.

For this couple who hadn't even finished high school to be passing up what amounted to more than twice the annual salary of the Governor of Alaska - just for posing for pictures!!-- there had to be a something HUGE at risk if the actual birthdate were to be revealed.

Very likely, that "something huge" is Babygate. And Babygate might be even bigger than any of us have yet imagined. What would make you pass up $300,000 if you were Levi?

Levi is wrong, or mistaken, or careless, or exaggerating:

 If anyone thinks Levi is lying, I'd like to refer you to my previous post which was  fashioned around an argument that new parents and other family members of newborns keep track of the age of the newest family member in days, then weeks, and then one month plus whatever.

It follows, then, that Levi wasn't being clever or lazy or forgetful when he said his son was over one month (just by a bit). He was being honest and unguarded.  He was talking about a deep hurt. The details are seared into his memory.

He might have been young, but he was a father who had witnessed his son's birth, held him minutes later,  gotten up in the night with bottle feedings and changed diapers, and had reluctantly returned to a job that took him away from the new little family unit; a job that kept him many miles away for week long shifts while his thoughts were with his baby and his "babe" back in Wasilla.

I believe Levi knew how old Tripp was when the door was slammed in his face separating him from his infant son. I believe Tripp was only a "little more than a month" when Bristol told him to pack
up and move out.

One other thing says we should believe Levi over Sarah. Unlike Sarah in the Fred Meyers, saying Tripp was "two months old," (my previous post) Levi didn't just round Tripp's age to one month. Even though he wrote his book in 2011 and years had passed, he still didn't round Tripp's age to simply "one month" when he looked back at that painful event. "A little over one month" resounds with heartbreaking accuracy. I believe Levi.

Levi's ghost writers messed up. Levi didn't bother to proof read his own book.

Levi's ghost writers did mess up. They  told the truth. Levi told them the truth, and for some reason he wanted it backed off. This is going to make an entirely separate post.

For now, suffice it to say, there was no reason for the writers to be makin' stuff up. And as for Levi proofing his own book - who are we kidding?

Well, you never know what a page out of Levi's book will give us. This is not the post I intended to write, and I'm still researching the green sweater post. But since this popped up - like a deer in the headlights - I had to deal with it.  There will probably be related posts following, so please come back.

My having missed this passage about Tripp's age the first time through Levi's book serves to reinforce my philosophy that it's worthwhile to retrace our own steps - that going over the same territory another time can turn up things we haven't seen before or things we looked at that didn't register as important.

As far as who and what to believe about Tripp's birthday?  Common sense says we should believe Levi.  And if you need to dig in and make an informed decision, and not rely purely on common sense, take a look at Sarah and Bristol's history of lying.  They've given us no reason to believe them.

All of this begs the question- WHY the lie?  Babygate, most likely.

But WHAT does this reveal about Babygate?  That is the $300,000 question.

The answer must be hiding in plain site. Let's go look for it! 

PS- If you are new the The Palin Place - welcome!  If you  want to know more about Tripp's and Trig's mysterious birth accounts and have not yet read the inaugural post for this blog, and this post,  you can follow the imbedded links to read more.


Anonymous said...

Track, Trig, even Willow's birthdate was moved a couple days to make the story better in one telling

What are you talking about dude? WOW. You're starting to sound mental.
Bristol's one and only son was born Dec 27, 2008.

And this "wrath of Palins" thing is odd. People who lie about them are typically called on it in different ways. There's no "WRATH" you speak of. You act like Wasilla is hell. In my experience, Wasilla is only described as a deadend for most people. But more often than not, its residents love it.

It's very clear the more people blog about these matters, the more fiction will be written and the more ridiculous versions of things will be voiced.

This is why ignorant people shouldn't blog. IM opened the door giving these types an outlet and it appears to be too late to close it.

The coming week is going to be busy for them. The Cottles are visiting from Tx, there are two weddings after thanksgiving.

I suggest people start living their own lives. The Palins are doing a good job at living theirs. If there's one thing to learn from them, it's valuing family time and collectively denouncing petty spiteful people.

Anonymous said...

Abd btdubs,Sadie's blog never took off because she started losing respect from people who've known her a longtime. She is a lazy liar. That is pretty wellknown and old fact.

What kind of person mocks someone for a personal decision and makes the SAME decisions?

conscious at last said...

Allison: This is a wonderful post.

@ 557468643-- Hey there kiddo- I'm waving HI at ya! Since you are here, I know that Allison has struck pay dirt-- now hasn't she??

So why would the Palins need to lie about Tripp's birthdate- especially if the "fudge factor" was a matter of 6 weeks or so? (Either way, BP could not have given birth on 4/18/08 and then again in November or December if we assume she carried to full term.)

I think that whenever BP was actually due, once the McCain campaign found out, they told SP that they DID NOT want the birth to be before or around the time of the election. Indeed, it would be best if it wasn't in November at all.
WHY? They did not want ANY focus on a pregnant teenage daughter of the VP nominee giving birth- it doesn't look too good!! Also - if she gave birth before the election, would the McC team be happy and elated? -- encourages teen pegnancy. Would the McC team be distant and non-committal? -- appears cold. The birth of the child before the election would have been a threat to an already weak team.

Another issue is that if BP gave birth earlier than 12/27/08, those of us who were questioning Trig's story would be even more certain that NO CHILD was born on 4/18 to any of the Palins. It would have fueled our fires.

Also, part of this silly math might have been to cover SP's lie to the McC team that BP was barely 5 mos preggers at the end of August. "Oh she didn't tell me, I didn't know until recently, she hid it blah blah.."

Obviously, all of these lies were necessary to support the big lie-- that SP birthed Trig.

SP did not give birth to Trig or any other child in 2008. PERIOD.

B said...


Good job! I need to buy that book after all.

As you point out, Sarah had already proved loose with the facts about babies, due dates, birth dates, and even birth mothers. While you or I would have needed an enormously important reason to lie about Bristol's due date, Sarah would not.

Probably when she told the McCain people about the pregnancy she was afraid that a baby due around election day might cause them to drop her from the ticket, for fear of a non-abstinent distraction during voting. So she just moved it back a month to December and picked her favorite day, "18."

I wish, but doubt, Tripp's birth date could provide a Babygate clue.

Yellowgirl said...

Just wanted to say how happy I am you have taken up the babygate reins. I was one of the first (if not THE first) commentators at Audrey's place, and have been sad to see so many come and go (Audrey, Morgan Pics4truth, Bree, Regina). THANK YOU for being here as a voice of sanity. And wow- you are indeed finding new stuff through your retracing of steps.

Bill in Baltimore said...

Allison, keep digging. 557468643...musta hit a nerve eh?

B said...

@Yellowgirl. Did you continue to stay in touch with Morgan Pics4Truth? She did such good work!

Anonymous said...

Believe what you wish but Tripp Easten was born Dec 27th. We will never know when he was conceived and it frankly doesn't matter. There is one person who knows the truth behind all her actions and that is Bristol.

It's just entertaining that a bunch of "adults" are acting like middle schoolers on the internet, gossiping, spreading lies about people they've never met, and believing every little word because it suits their fucked up belief system.

Sad little people.

AKRNHSNC said...

Another great catch, Allison. Has anyone else ever been curious about Bristol's own birthdate? There have been things said that led me to believe that Bristol was born in '91, not '90, not to mention having seen it written in quite a few articles that were either deleted or changed to reflect the earlier birthdate which would make her an 18 year old single mother rather than a 17 year old single mother who became pregnant at the age of 16. The latter would have been more difficult for the fundies to accept necessitating the change in DOB for Bristol. It may not seem important in the overall scheme of things, it's just another lie to add to Palin's ever growing list of false statements.

AKRNHSNC said...

557468643 said...

What kind of person mocks someone for a personal decision and makes the SAME decisions?
November 21, 2011 10:40 AM

What kind of person does that? Sarah Palin does it and on quite a regular basis. She criticized our FLOTUS for wanting to educate our children regarding obesity despite having said the very same things herself in her state of the state address in 2009. Her reason for disagreeing was childish, revealing her petty, immature behavior simply because the statement came from Michelle Obama. That is why she spoke out against it, not because she disagreed with it, unless she changed her mind in less than a year in regards to childrens' health in the U.S.

So you're pretending as if you're a close friend of the family, speaking about weddings as if they are doing things like everyone else does. Except in this case, it's a bit backwards--get engaged, have a baby and then have a nice, their child will be at her parents' wedding. Sarah's so embarrassed that she hasn't even spoken about her own granddaughter indicating her own disapproval or worried about what the fundies will think possibly resulting in a drop to her PAC donations?! She might have to pay for things out of her own pocket if that should happen.

Palin is a hypocrite to the extreme when she speaks about those in gov't positions becoming wealthy while in office. She just waited until after she left office and lived off the PAC donations, even allowing her donors the privilege of paying for her family vacation. That's hypocrisy at its finest for her to complain about others politicians when she pulls a stunt like that one.

Yellowgirl said...

@B- No, I don't have any contact with Pics Morgan now. The email address she used with me is no longer valid, so I don't know how she is but hope she's lurking here. I also hope Audrey is around!

B said...

@Yellowgirl. Gryphen claims to know Audrey's thoughts, so perhaps she lurks at IM. I miss her.

B said...

557468643 said...Believe what you wish but Tripp Easten was born Dec 27th.

@String of Numbers. But when was Tripp Easton (named after the hockey equipment company) born?

Yellowgirl said...

Hey, anyone think 557468643 is a social security #? According to various sources, such a number would have been issued in California in 1952. That doesn't mean the person was born there and then, but that office issued it. (Before it became required for children under 14 for tax dependent purposes, folks often didn't get ss#s for kids right away). At any rate, interesting theory...........

Allison said...

Quick acknowledgement, these are great comments and yes, even 557 has made the Palin Place more interesting. It's great how we are challenging each other, encouraging each other, and helping find new/old paths to the truth.

I do not remember seeing different birth years for Bristol. Can anyone site a source? I love to go looking through old sources.

And Morgan Pics4truth is new to me. When was that? Can I find it somewhere now? Anybody save any of that?

Ok, must go make rolls. Tomorrow I've got miles to travel for Thanksgiving with family. Lots of family, including my 3 month old grandson. Lucky, lucky me!

Hope you all have a great Thanksgiving.

B said...

@Allison. Morgan (not Audrey's moderator)joined in at PD in the photo examination stage, probably around when Audrey paid someone to examine the Gusty picture. She then started PalinPics4Truth, using her skill in examining photos. I believe she was speculating about Bristol wearing an empathy bra/belly at the RNC when she was threatened, stopped posting, and took down her blog. I'm not aware of anyone saving her work. Haven't seen it since she quit.

Enjoy that grandbaby, Allison!

Ivyfree said...

The last thing the McCain campaign would have wanted going into the election was speculation as to exactly when Bristol was going to pop that sprog. Especially since they hadn't finished cleaning up the Internet regarding her 1991 birthdate... an 18 year old single mom is at least nominally an adult, a sixteen year old girl getting pregnant is clearly untaught and unsupervised. And that would explain the ridiculous obscurity around Tripp's date of birth.

Floyd M. Orr said...

B & Allison, can someone please explain to me the concept of Two Morgans? I have never read any particular comment from Morgan that indicates there are two of them. I have always assumed that they are one and the same: the Morgan who worked with Audrey as a researcher and moderator, the Morgan who ran her own Babygate site, and the one who occasionally comments at IM.

Duncan said...

Floyd,there are two Morgans: Morgan Rouch and Morgan Kaiser.

Floyd M. Orr said...

Thank you, Duncan. Can you tell me which one is which, as in which one comments at IM, which one was the PD moderator, and which one is the Token Hippie?

Duncan said...

Floyd, the PD moderator and "Token
Hippie" are one and the same. She comments on IM. Morgan Kaiser had the site "PalinPics4Truth" and has not been heard of since she was threatened, and took down her site.

B said...

@Floyd. Duncan is correct about the Morgans.

B said...

Wonder if Bristol's padded bustline at the RNC was an attempt to make her pregnant belly look smaller by comparison? Like one month smaller?

The choice of dress then had the unintended and unfortunate consequence of creating a sofa bolster appearance when Bristol was seated.

B said...

Attempting to minimize her pregnancy would also explain Bristol's outfit on the tarmac. The belted skirt did not emphasize her pregnancy the way a maternity dress would. Bristol could have been dressing to look 5 mos. along when she was 6 mos.

Ivyfree said...

" Morgan Kaiser had the site "PalinPics4Truth" and has not been heard of since she was threatened, and took down her site."

Unless she has adopted a nom du internet and is still online commenting- and I hope so. I hate to see people scared away.

Allison said...

Mr. Floyd Orr, I have respect for your work, both blog and book. Duncan and B are more versed than I am about the differences in Morgans and I thank them for taking care to see you got answers promptly. Hope we hear from you often.

B - That reminds me that my mother, an RN who taught classes for expectant moms 'way back when' used to tell women to pad themselves on top if they wanted to hide their pregnancy.

AKRNHSNC - You aren't alone on the birthdate thing for Bristol. And your answer to the question "what kind of person..." was perfect.

Yellowgirl, I'm happy doing this. It's a challenge to find time to put together a worthwhile post. Yet, I am compelled to do so. Sarah Palin has dumbed down and snarked up (if SP can coin new words, so can I) our national dialogue almost single-handedly. A blog is a little thing, but so is one candle in the darkness. This candle will shine brighter with every reader and commenter like you.

Ivyfree- let's hope Morgan Kaiser is helping us still. Can never have enough good minds working on this.

By email I received the work done by Morgan evaluating the Gusty photos and also the Politico article about the site being shut down due to threats. If anyone has anything to add to that, please send me an email at .

Thanks everyone for sharing information.

B said...

"my mother, an RN . . . used to tell women to pad themselves on top if they wanted to hide their pregnancy"

Really? I had never heard of it. Could be our long-sought reason for Bristol's sofa bolster, in light of your thesis that she was further along than Sarah wanted people to think. Seriously!

Ivyfree said...

Allison, I wasn't reading Morgan's blog when she was evaluating the Gusty photos, nor Politico- I still don't read Politico regularly- if you can share any of this, I'd be interested. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Thanks for considering this.

conscious at last said...


I have a VERY specific memory from Morgan Kaiser's blog. She was doing a post about BP's shape shifting while pregnant. This included an analysis of some of the convention photos, "sofa-bolster," etc. like "B." above mentions. The comments included a very angry one who threatened to sue Morgan for showing these pictures. The comment accused Morgan of violating some law. Morgan responded in a humorous but angry way-- telling this commenter that she(Morgan) had the right to say anything she wanted on her blog - it's free speech. Then Morgan called the angry, threatening commenter an "asshat." The angry commenter said that she would see Morgan in court! It was not long after this that the blog was shut down.

I just want to remind everyone that Audrey was shut down when she was looking at BP's pregnancy also. Hmmm...

Sarah Palin has a serpent's heart said...

557468643 said...

The coming week is going to be busy for them. The Cottles are visiting from Tx, there are two weddings after thanksgiving.

I thought the Palins fell out with the Cottles.

conscious at last said...

OK, I'll bite- who are the Cottles?