Daily Kos: Palin is NOT the mother of Trig?

Daily Kos is at it again. (UPDATED 9/2: This post has completely disappeared from KOS now that it has been proven false since Palin's daughter is 5 months pregnant.) Now, they are attacking a 17 year old girl. They are accusing Governor Palin of covering up her daughter's pregnancy and claiming it as her own. Are they living in a Soap Opera Fantasy? At the very least, they are accusing her of being irresponsible with HER own body when she traveled from Texas to Alaska when her water was supposedly broke. I thought the Obamabots were the party of HER body, HER choose? While at the time same time, somewhere a 17 year old has to have midriff examined like she was Britney Spears.

Let's dive into ARCIXI blatant accusation:

Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.

Does this comment leave any doubt that he is flat out saying Trig is not her son? No, it is being presented as a cold hard fact when all it is is circumstantial evidence. The only way for Palin to prove it to these Obamabots is to have a picture of Trig coming out of her own vaginal canal because DNA wouldn't be sufficient. In their mind, DNA could be fabricated or the lab could have been paid off. Better yet, the picture wouldn't be proof either because it could be photoshopped or there would be no way to prove it was Trig. So this is a lose-lose situation any way it goes.

"It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised," said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. "When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child."

Every woman carries differently and differently with each individual pregnancy. Any mother can tell you that. Yes, maybe I was a big fat whale at 5 months but that doesn't mean every other pregnant woman to ever exist was one too.

Palin said she's not aiming to take any time off from her job as governor, assuming all goes well with the pregnancy.

I'm not sure what this one is suppose to mean. Other women take little time off their job due to pregnancy. Isn't this one of the fabrications of the FMLA policy, that women are forced back into their jobs after just days of giving birth because they can't afford to take time off work? According to the libtoids, women are doing this all the time. In my personal experience, I was back to my job with my baby in my arms within just a couple of days. I worked part time and from home with no difficulty. I see no issue with her not taking time off as job as governor. I'm sure she just wanted to make sure the voters got what they paid for.

Eight months pregnant. A 6.2 pound fetus. No one notices a visible trace. By the third trimester, a perfectly fit woman not wearing anything less than a space suit should be easily spotted as pregnant. Not in Sarah's case.

Apparently this diarist has never heard of teens giving birth at 9 months and no one knowing about it? But alas, I don't believe anything in his diary except that is the wet dream of a leftoid robot. Yes, ARCIXI, I'm calling YOU a liar.

Check out these pictures of Sarah Palin during pregnancy:
March 15th:

Does this look like a woman who isn't pregnant? I hate to have to make these comments. But yes, her butt and back side look bigger which both happen during pregnancy. ARCIXI conveniently only shows pictures that support his cause.

Mind you, this is what she looked like BEFORE she got pregnant - she is obviously very thin & fit. Quite a difference from the picture above in my opinion.

Now to even more disgusting stuff.

The final point of interest is that Trig Palin has been diagnosed with Down's syndrome (aka trisomy 21). This is an interesting point, as chances of having offspring with Down's Syndrome increases from under 1% to 3% after a mother reaches the age of 40. However, 80% of the cases of Down's Syndrome are in mother's under the age of 35, through sheer quantities of births in this age group.
80% are in mothers under the age of 35. According to his own link, "An annual occurence of Down syndrome of about 9% is seen in women 35 years of age or older, but about 25% of babies with Down syndrome are born to women in this age group." So 75% of babies born with Down Syndrome are born to women less than 35. Not 80%. This could be true but he is also forgetting the fact that most women have their babies under the age of 35. This doesn't prove or disprove anything.

If you 20 year old, you have a 1 in 1529 chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome - which works out to very very low percent. If you are 44, you have a 1 in 35 chance of having a baby with Down Syndrome. 1 in 44 or 1 in 1529. Which one is more likely. There are more births in the Under 35 age category so of course, it is going to be a higher percentage of all babies with Down Syndrome born to that age category. The experts have worked this all out but apparently ARCIXI didn't want to mention this since it doesn't fit into his/her nice little lie. BTW, he/she is also using statistics from a UK, not US site.