Search This Blog

Friday, February 24, 2012

Fred's Babygate book




When is Fred's Babygate book going to be published? It is real or was it just a myth?

And is Brad Scharlott Fred?

I would be very disappointed if this book does not come to fruition.

79 comments:

  1. I thought people over at Politicalgates were saying Fred seemed to have zero credibility? I mean, what could possibly be said that hasn't been said? There's no hard facts. There's no qualified sources. There's rumor and numerous theories. There's Sherry W saying very few people in Wasilla, if any don't believe Trig is a blood relation in the Palin family.

    Unless the mother comes forward, this story will never break. And I wouldn't hold your breath because most adoptions are private. I strongly doubt Trig's birth mother knows her son is Trig Palin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If "Fred" is Brad, he has zero credibility with me. He started off great with his paper, but now has really let his ego get in the way. Fancies himself an expert but went off the rails. He hasn't done his homework. Just like Palin. He's no longer an asset in the fight to reveal the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gryphen seems to have really dropped the ball on this one. He hyped Fred to the max, and then he went totally silent, refusing to answer any questions about Fred's book. WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gryphen was "Fred"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that conjecture or fact? How do you know?

      Delete
    2. Nope. But he was certainly led down the path. He had no idea who he was dealing with. After he was warned, I suspect he had some second thoughts. But because he's not talking, nobody will ever know.

      Delete
  5. Brad is not Fred, though he may be doing a book if Fred's isn't going to be released.

    Gryphen is not Fred, but he is the one who could answer your questions.

    The best answer I ever heard was that Fred is two people: a Trig Truther who wrote the book and a front man who would be the official author, who has written books before that have been published. I don't buy the zero-credibility thing--that should have been resolved before he got the contract.

    But no one who knows is talking. Sucks, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. silly gibberish stuff from orr you post there.

      Delete
    2. Floyd is absolutely correct.

      Delete
  7. I know who Fred is, and who he is associated with. His real name is actually Fred. He has associations with some interesting characters, who I assume are the roadblock in his publishing effort. Their (her) history is sordid, indeed. Oh, that and his wife doesn't want any publicity. She's the smart one.

    The story is dark and deep. I don't think anyone will ever see that book and Gryphen was taken for a fool. He was not the only one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "their" above (her) is the person "helping" Fred with the book. She's the one that Floyd is asking you all to drop your hero worship about. She no longer runs a blog. And yes, I have all the proof anyone needs of her shady character and the reason this book will never get to print.

      Delete
    2. Audrey is the only one I can think of who no longer runs a blog but reached hero worship status with the trig truthers.

      Delete
    3. I really should have been doing laundry, but these posts really piqued my interest, so I've been googling away instead.

      Compare the comment by annie393 at http://www.babble.com/mom/work-family/sarah-palin-family-values-mommy-wars/ with the introduction to Fred's book at http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2011/09/allow-me-to-present-introduction-to-new.html. Granted, the facts don't change. But each and every point in the introduction was covered in the comment, with the wording slightly (deliberately?) changed. It's pretty easy to figure out who annieb393 is. I have a very uneducated guess who Fred is, but I think it's far-fetched.

      I can't say as I trust Floyd implicitly. He commented on Gryphen's blog on 10/24/11, "You will always have my support." But several of Floyd's posts at niafs.blogspot.com show that's simply not true.

      I found this tidbit at IM on 09/23/11 VERY interesting: "... the attacks on Fred's book will also be coming from those that many of you believe ONLY want the truth about Sarah Palin to reach the widest audience imaginable.

      But some have an agenda focused solely on their OWN personal desire for fame and recognition, and will jealously and aggressively attack anybody who they feel is taking the limelight away from them."

      Now ask yourself, who mentions in nearly every blog post, and many blog comments, that his book isn't getting the recognition he feels it deserves, and who seems to be the only one willing to share some dirt on "The Wild Ride"?

      Delete
    4. Like WHAT dirt in the Wild Ride?

      Delete
    5. I think they mean Fred's book, "The Wild Ride."

      Delete
  8. Does Sadie still run her blog...? Oh, how the plot thickens, especially when there are 12 redacted pages in the Palin emails from Levi Johnston.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Audrey is the only one who has attained hero status with the bloggers/commenters. I have some issues with her and I could let my conspiracy thoughts run wild. She was very adamant about NOT trying to go the route of reporting CBJ and MATSU, claiming HIPAA, HIPAA HiPAA...but in retrospect we wasted time by NOT doing more reporting. I know she scared me off and I waited too long. Statutes of limitations ran out. I am not saying Audrey is a double agent, but I am saying in the whole sordidness of this mess, I would not be surprised by anything anymore. If I get flamed for posting this, I get flamed. It is just curious with all the remarkable work she did, she was so adamant about shutting down the one avenue I am 100% convinced could have cracked this case wide open early.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Audrey was clear about what she was and wasn't willing to look at. I never felt she was saying, "Don't go there." Instead it was, "I'm not going there." Everyone was free to do what s/he thought best, just not in comments to her blog. I'm not a perfect judge of character, but I found Audrey's posts very factual and clearly written, and very real on issues of childbirth and nursing.

    Please help me out: I can't imagine how any association of Audrey's or Fred's would affect credibility on Babygate. I do recall Patrick's supporters suggesting that Audrey should have turned her blog over to him because of something from her past that hurt her credibility. But unless it goes to her veracity, I don't get it.

    If Fred has decided against being the front man, I hope Audrey or whoever will find another front person, or give her text to Brad to get it published. Please, please, please. Worst case it doesn't sell well. But if it isn't published, it doesn't sell at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, she did say "don't go there, don't bother going there, don't go there." She never said "I don't have the time or willingness to go there, but yes, please, if someone is please go there".
      Sad really, but it is was it is. We blew it.

      Delete
    2. I remember that her 'out of bounds' was discussion of possible incest. Given that the speculation involved minors, that was wise. Had she permitted that speculation, the entire blog might be down by now.The over-proscribed HIPAA warnings came from the comments section as I recall it.

      Delete
    3. Audrey ran an erotica-oriented website and wanted to be extremely careful to avoid any mentions of incest in case people came after her OTHER site and marked it as child porn, which it wasn't. It was just a fun adults type of site. But info about this other site wasn't hard to find out so the "Palinistas" probably threatened her about exposing that, plus her physician husband didn't need to have his wife's name outed as a porn friendly publisher. Sad, though, as her site was very detailed and useful.

      Delete
  11. Hi all - No, I'm not Fred.

    Here's my latest: UPDATED: Anatomy of a birth hoax: Palin's transition from flat belly to beach ball roundness in just six weeks in 2008

    http://scharlottsbeacon.blogspot.com/2012/02/anatomy-of-hoax-palins-steps-from-flat.html

    Brad

    ReplyDelete
  12. We certainly do not recall anyone suggesting that Audrey hand over Palin Deceptions to Patrick. We also certainly had absolutely no desire to take it over.

    After we left the PD research team we had no thought to blog on our own. We did however continue to pass on anything that we found interesting.

    Shortly afterwards Patrick was asked by Regina to take care of Palingates while she visited Australia and his regular blogging took off from there. We now have our own blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Kathleen.

      Maybe I am thinking of comments by Patrick's detractor Morgan rather than by his supporters. 3.5 years of reading comments and it all melds together in my mind. But I do recall that that story, even if untrue, suggested something unseemly in Audrey's background, despite her credential of being married to a Republican physician, that was being held over her head.

      Thanks for clarifying this. I am very grateful to you and Patrick for your Babygate work and your Politicalgates blog.

      Delete
    2. Isn't it interesting that her physician husband is a Republican? Did you also know that he has had more than one malpractice suit, including one death of a child? That set him back a pretty penny, too. His medical license in various states has been revoked. At this point, I'm not sure he's even practicing anywhere, given his past; Never mind the fact that he is involved deeply in his wife and family's porn outfit (family-ABCDwebkate). That can't look good for a pediatric specialist now, can it?

      Delete
  13. http://www.fredericklane.com/index.php/contact-fred

    Here's your Fred. The clean, neat, proudly publicly acknowledged information regarding his law business and book history. The rest is not so easily discovered, but certainly able to be discovered with some deep digging and some knowledge of his associates. Several (many) people know exactly who he and his co-author are and what they do outside of the clean, tidy public realm.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A quick check of Amazon and Mr. Lane's books shows the comments from a fan of his regarding his book on internet porn.

    Indispensible primer on adult entertainment industry.
    By A Customer

    This review is from: Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age (Paperback)

    Obscene Profits is the first book to pick up when researching about or doing business with the adult entertainment industry. Mr. Lane seems to have an insider's point of view coupled with an academician's intellect...which makes for engaging reading. For those fascinated by the biggest moneymaking sector on the Internet, this is a must-read.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I guess I just don't understand the need for such secrecy as to who Fred is, who the co-author is, and why the book has never been published. Can someone clue me in?

    Sheesh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me neither, but I've learned more here today than I have figured out in the last 6 months. If the "author" is the problem, with his credibility inhibiting publication, publish it anonymously or find another front man or give it to Brad or to Floyd or to Bree or to Patrick to publish, and ask for a share of profits. Never published = no profit and a disservice to the Babygate community, who have been counting on the book to take the story to a wider audience. Sheesh, indeed.

      Delete
    2. If you think any book being coalesced is any sort of service to the "Babygate community", you are deluded. The ones doing (or previously doing) this book are out to line their own pockets only. They could not care one whit less about any "community" who might or might not be rallying around them.

      Many people know the reasons why Fred's cohort no longer has a blog. It's fairly easy to find if you are willing to dig into the seamier sections of the internet. Unfortunately for the "authors", who have much in common, their past will taint any hopes of publishing anything with credibility. Ever. Pseudonyms will only get you so far.

      Delete
    3. Can we dispense with the cloak and dagger stuff please? If you have links share them so the rest of us who either lack the skills or time to sleuth can get up to speed here.

      Sheesh

      Delete
    4. Why not google "Bethany Burke", speaking of pseudonyms.

      Delete
    5. http://herwoodshed.com/home.html Perhaps this will give you an idea of the people who want their past kept from view on a book they want to have credibility.

      Delete
    6. So are you saying that Bethany Burke is Audrey?

      Sheesh

      Delete
    7. Ask Stacy McCain. He knows.

      Delete
    8. Links about the FRED anonymous talks about:
      http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/15/vermont-schools-to-celebrate-islamic-feast/

      http://libraries.vermont.gov/sites/libraries/files/prb/108prb.htm

      Delete
  16. @AnonymousFeb 24, 2012 04:43 PM. You say, "I have all the proof anyone needs of her shady character and the reason this book will never get to print."

    I need it. Since you have it, please reveal it. Please.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If this is true, what or where is the link or narrative that proves this to be true? "Many people know" is not good enough proof for me, and I don't know how to research it.

    There must be some clear way to establish the link, if indeed this is true. I am of the "innocent until proved guilty" persuasion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Okay, I googled everything, and I can see what the allegation is, but where is the proof that all those pseudonyms, the many sites, the email address, the phone number shared by all of them, and the circumcision book are actually Audrey? "Innocent until there's proof" seems only fair to me. What if it's just a smear? Like the birth circumstances of John McCain's lovely black daughter, who Cindy adopted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if Audrey/Bethany and Fred run a totally legal website for people with a spanking fetish to read spanking stories, that does not go to their truthfulness. In fact, it might bring more attention to the book since the media loves to report on such things.

      To the extent they fear The Wild Ride would out them as behind The Woodshed, then I understand why they might not publish, but that's not new news--why even write the book in the first place?

      And why not contract with Brad--or any of us--now to be the official author and front man with an agreement to share profits? You say it is all about money: no publish=no profit.

      Delete
  19. Sorry, this Anonymous, that should have been "They say." You did not say it was all about money.

    ReplyDelete
  20. B: You are a prince. That is how people SHOULD react: "So what? It doesn't change the SP facts." But would they? I confess I am taken aback by this. On the other hand, I bet the folks who pay money to read those stories are the same RW fundies who are SP's "base." Which is some kind of poetic justice, I guess.

    Here is Max Blumenthal talking about this very thing. See Section 7, "Party of Family Values Revealed as the Largest Walk-In Closet." At 00:28:00, he discusses homophobia, with a little riff on a "spankmaster" at 00:31:10.

    This whole hour-long video is VERY worthwhile, giving us background info on the folks who brought us the Sarah Palin Show, and keep it going right up to the present moment.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I see some interesting things on the page of the fellow Floyd Orr has fingered - Frederick S. Lane, author of "Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age". For example, his taking a serious interest in Palin could be explained by his professional interests overlapping the case of the unfortunate college student who guessed Palin's password, revealed some info about her, and got sent to prison for a year for his trouble. See Wikipedia article on "Sarah Palin email hack."

    As to what is so scandalous in Fred's background that he dare not publish his book, as Floyd Orr asserts, I can only speculate. Perhaps he has been convicted of something or other, although this seems unlikely given his current position as Chair of the School Board in his town (asserted on the Amazon page of the Obscene Profits book). Or maybe his detailed knowledge of the big business of internet porn comes from a too-close perspective as a participant-observer - either himself directly and/or his alleged Palinospheric co-author.

    In any case, the wires are heating up over at Politicalgates with new info re the details of Babygate and the suppression of the inquiry of the Anchorage Daily News, from the recent release of redacted emails, which I am not following.

    One last note - Frederick Lane is scheduled to appear in Anchorage TONIGHT - Alaska Society for Education in Technology, Anchorage, AK, 27 February 2012. Keynote address on the issues discussed in Cybertraps for the Young.

    http://www.fredericklane.com/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish to retract the phrasing "Floyd Orr has fingered" - Floyd found this stuff out but kept it under his hat, it was "Anonymous" who put it all out where we can see it.

      On the basis of the available evidence I have seen, it is reasonable to conclude that Fred relinquished his law license after being very sloppy with money entrusted to him, and that both Fred and Audrey have made money from the business of providing sexually oriented entertainment to adults.

      Of course, my cable provider is ready to sell me pay per view porn on my own tv at the press of a button - as are most hotels. The money man financing Newt Gingrich's campaign gets his cash from casino customers. Collectively speaking, the power elite, the military industrial congressional financial corporate media complex, is a conspiracy to milk, shear, and slaughter the sheeple, metaphorically speaking - except that the "slaughter" of men, women, and children, including Afghani shepherds, is literal and concrete, and carried out by Americans who are spoken of as "defending our freedom."

      Delete
    2. I agree. I don't understand A & F didn't factor all this in before making the effort to write the book, but I do understand more now than I did before.

      Very sorry about your mother-in-law.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very nice work. You are certainly very close.

      And yes, do not go to the Wasteland site unless you have a very strong stomach for extreme hardcore.

      Legal? Sure. Lending to good credibility? I think not.

      Delete
  23. To the helpful anon, is the Bethany Burke on this video, the Audrey of Palin's Deceptions?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqvCuHfZLMc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. affirmative. See? It's all out there. For anyone to find. There's plenty more, but you get the gist now, yes? Who would want to be associated with this group? And maintain their credibility? But there is worse. Really.

      Delete
    2. But how do you KNOW the Bethany in the video is Audrey? And what is worse?

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon12:57: I hope you will report back your impressions of Mr Lane if you are attending. I was hoping someone would. He was debarred, I see:

    http://libraries.vermont.gov/sites/libraries/files/prb/42prb.txt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now THIS does go to his credibility. He surrendered his law license after being caught using the bank account of an organization for which he was treasurer as if the money were his own, "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation." The Wild Ride would suffer from being a book written by a person with a history of dishonesty.

      I suppose "Audrey" may fear that if she gives the manuscript to someone else to publish as her or his own work, Palin's attorneys may still "out" her in some way as the source of the manuscript. Though if she is appearing on videos as Bethany Burke, you'd think her clients as a pregnancy and lactation consultant would already know and not care about her other line of work.

      So, a book written and discarded. I had such hopes for it. But even if Audrey were an ax murderer, she still did a great service in starting a factual and literate Babygate blog, when the Alaskans like Jeanne and Shannyn were denying the obvious.

      Delete
    2. Assuming there really is a book worth publishing, with additional information, and it's by Audrey, I think Audrey should publish it and hold a press conference and tell her story, frame it. Reminding potential readers that the hoax info stands on its own.

      Then she could write an autobiography that tells us lesser mortals how she built her empire and kept all the balls in the air. Makes me tired just to think about it.

      Delete
    3. I'm perplexed as to why someone would go to the time, effort and expense to draft an extensive manuscript, ready it for publishing knowing that their unsavory past (and present) is readily available to those who are adept at sleuthing (the babygate community). And not only that but the very same person who suspended her own blog because of these presumed threats to out her sordid side work. Sorry...just doesnt make sense.

      Sheesh

      Delete
    4. @Sheesh. I agree. It doesn't make sense to write the book and then back down because of something you knew at the start.

      Delete
    5. It doesn't make sense to you because you are only privy to the basic facts. Much like the Sarah Palin story. Bethany Burke isn't her real name, either. It's a convoluted, intricate web with several people involved; this is why they are so secretive. Stacy McCain found out. Anyone can. But when you think you are better and smarter than other people, if you think you are invincible, if you think you can stay hidden because you are a successful scam artist, then you move forward regardless of your past. However, one's past nearly always catches up with them, and the people who have gotten caught in their web go down with them. {see: Sarah Palin}

      Delete
    6. I don't understand. Is there more than the "basic facts" that we now know? I didn't discover any "scam" aspects, only "pay to view," which seems straightforward and legal, even if the subject matter is not to my taste. I do wish A had not caved to blackmail -- that only delayed things, as it always does with blackmail. Agree that that this makes things difficult re exposing the hoax, but the hoax facts stand on their own no matter who brings them to light.

      Delete
    7. Here we go again. If I knew more than the basic facts, I would understand both that Audrey/Bethany/Anne is a scam artist and why she wrote a book she couldn't publish.

      Would someone please tell me what more I need to know?

      And is there any suggestion at all that Audrey, as we know this person, fudged the Babygate facts or worked against their becoming known to more people and to the media?

      I'm not being facetious. I'd appreciate being informed.

      Delete
    8. Thank you "B" for expressing my exact thoughts. I would like to be informed, don't understand the need for all this secrecy. Just share the info without the innuendo so we can all get up to speed.

      Sheesh

      Delete
    9. Anon6:05 -- "convoluted intricate web"? Why are you saying this if you do not intende to explain it. "when you think you are better and smarter than other people, are invincible,etc."? Are you privy to the thoughts of other people? Could we just stick to observable behavior or facts, please.

      What other people have been "caught in their web"? Not the babygate bloggers, surely: they (including me) have been interested in data and ideas put forth (from whatever source) and the whole point of the blogging is to evaluate those ideas, confirm or disprove them. Doesn't matter if an ax-murderer suggests something: it stands or falls on its own merits as either true or false info. And surely you are not suggesting that Sarah Palin is "going down with them (=Audrey et al.?)." Neither Audrey nor Palin seem to be going down at all, over these 3 years, although it has always seemed at any moment that Palin's implosion would be imminent. Iceberg! Iceberg!! But so far it has not been. And the Audrey info, while saddening in the extreme, will not in the end affect the validity of the info about Palin -- because info about Palin is about Palin, not about Audrey or any other messenger.

      I sure wish you would do whatever is best with your info. I bet you know what that is. I do not. But come on over to the side that just wants things to get all aired out so we can leave the bad behind and proceed. All the secrets that have come out so far are less horrible once they sit out in the sun for a moment, while we reflect, as Mistah Charlie said, that we have purveyors of porn in most of our own homes these days, in the form of the cable folks on tv and internet.

      I just hate the riddles. What are you trying to say? Could you say it clearly? Or is the aim just to play a game?

      Delete
  27. I still do not see the part where Bethany is shown to be Audrey. Without that, you could say that **anyone** is Bethany, and it would be difficult for that person to clear his/her name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "without that YOU could say that *anyone" is Bethany"... The information is available in the internet if *you* are willing to do the leg work.

      Delete
    2. I'm normally a pretty good searcher, and I'm willing to do leg work, but I just saw one too many sleazoid pages. I don't want to search this. The idea of this lucrative industry devoted to this, and that our Audrey is part of it, is very saddening for me. I respect everyone's right to do what they want in private, but this is an unwelcome surprise.

      I never saw Audrey, so the Bethany that is in the video doesn't confirm the connection for me. I'm still on the fence, thinking this could be an effective smear by someone who was threatened by Audrey's blog. It's only fair -- isn't it? -- to want proof before believing something like this?

      Delete
  28. Hoo. I see I should have read to the end of the thread before bothering to add the above now superfluous note.

    I started down these paths in August 2009 when Stacy McCain and Socratic Gadfly put up their posts, but frankly McCain's frightening brand of racist thuggery and his comments crew sent me off with the shakes. It sure looked like on-line 'blackmail' at the time but when Audrey closed up shop I gathered it was about her family. And the fact that the blog wasn't dismantled meant something. I thought it was an insistence that the evidence was not being disowned, negated and removed. So what to make of that?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes, nancydrew, I had that same experience: I read a little and then stopped. Now I went back and read more, but I still don't see the moment or document where the connection is made. And that makes me wonder whether it's true.

    If someone intended to announce on the web that I was Bethany, it might stop me even if I was not Bethany. It would be hard to disprove, take much time and resources, and probably still linger as an allegation. So I would cave.

    And if I WAS Bethany, with such an extensive empire, surely we must entertain the idea that one would not cave to blackmail and would instead go public oneself. Perhaps using the opportunity to be a spokesperson explaining the phenomenon to the public in some fashion. With such a huge list of enterprises, and having done this for so many years, surely the thought of being outed had occurred to Bethany once or twice. And surely she had some plan apart from caving -- because caving just means you will be outed later. Which is what has happened -- IF this is true.

    And IF it is true, I can't imagine any of us would just accept such an allegation without being sure. Without seeing the clear proof. And I have yet to learn what fact or document shows that Audrey is Bethany. I'm not denying it. I'm just not accepting it until the proof is clear. And yes, I know that if I kept reading on the McCain site I might learn more, if it is there. But I'm not going to do that. Can't we just learn the unassailable proof without wading through that septic tank, each of us reinventing the wheel for ourselves in that bad neighborhood?

    Don't know what to make of the site still being up. Sounds like a negotiated deal. I wonder what the details are there, too. And I wonder about the "much worse" from an earlier poster, Anon4:06.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm deleting the comments that have links to pornography sites. While I favor free speech and let 99.9% of all comments through here, comments with links to porn sites will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  31. To delete that info is antithetical to revealing who these people really are. This is not about promoting their porn sites, but many will not accept that they are associated without proof of information. I encourage those who seek the truth about these opportunists to go elsewhere...and on your own...you will find the facts. Start with asking Jesse at Immoral Minority. If he censors you, create your own blog site...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anyone with Google can find this stuff. If these are the people that are supposed to expose babygate, I see the problem. The whole babygate community will be tarred as a plot by some revolting pornographers out to get Sarah Palin's children. This smears the whole babygate community. Very disappointing to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect they hoped that nobody would post their names in the same place so as not to connect them. Stupid. Fraud will always be found. "Audrey/Bethany/Anne" is a fraud. Not because of her porn industry. The truth will out.

      Delete
  33. Yeah, if those two are the authors, it's a big problem.

    Fred Lane lost his Vermont bar membership due to criminal activity (embezzling funds). Audrey/Bethany/Ann is involved in producing and marketing porn. I can't believe two such internet-savvy people would believe, for one moment, that their "secrets" (not!) wouldn't be revealed.

    That makes it difficult for me to believe they dropped the book because...OH NOES!...someone might spill the beans about them. Gotta be some other reason.

    I'm disappointed that the book apparently won't come out (for whatever reason). I'm also very disappointed that Gryphen hyped the book so much and then...nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't bother asking Jesse about it either. He won't answer. He won't post any questions about it in his comments section. He got caught up in it all. Now? *crickets*

      Delete
  34. Anyone on twitter? Check this out! @SpankinTruth

    HAHAHAH!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous says:

    "Audrey/Bethany/Anne" is a fraud.
    Not because of her porn industry.
    The truth will out.

    Merely using pseudonyms is not fraud. If Palin paid her to stop blogging and to stop a book from coming out, that could be fraud, but I doubt she would have bothered to write the book.

    So I ask:
    Why do you call her a fraud?
    How does that affect the veracity of her blog posts?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I know who you could start with, Mr. Santorum. http://tinyurl.com/7npd437

    ReplyDelete
  37. So I just read all these comments. I have now seen the connections in the innertubes among Audrey, annieb393, Bethany Burke, Anne Briggs. The link to Fred's disbarrment.

    Things that still make no sense to me are:
    -- I have not seen anyone reveal what the "much worse" part is.
    -- I don't understand why the presumably already written "Fred" book can't be revealed in some way, or at least whatever new info it contained: after all, the bad news about Fred/Audrey is out, but not whatever the SP hoax info the book contained.
    -- Floyd keeps saying there is something re blog-site-owners' backgrounds that explains no further action. I don't understand that, either. If it's anything like the Audrey/Fred info, it seems likely this would be "ho-hum" news to all but the principals, if revealed, and should not prevent exposing the Palin Hoax.
    -- Ditto Floyd's insistence on "blog wars" -- which term seems a great exaggeration until/unless some concrete data to support it emerges, and perhaps not even then.
    -- Why is Shailey's book and her account of Todd's participation in prostitution, incl across state lines, getting no legs -- neither on our blogs, nor MSM, nor via law enforcement folks.
    -- I don't understand why Dunn was reportedly so offended by a call from Shailey.
    -- Why the seemingly already written ADN article reported by cajunboy for Nov 2008 publication has never leaked? Why we no longer hear from cajunboy, who clearly had the straight scoop way back then.
    --I do understand that the MSN has blacklisted coverage of Palin's pregnancy hoax, but I don't understand why EVERYONE is obeying it: cajunboy, the writer(s) of that 08 ADN article, the Alaska news folks (IM, Shannon, Mudflats), and others. I can understand Schmidt's and Wallace's limited revelations, because they want to keep working, maybe write about it later, as Schmidt said he would. Is the prohibition so powerful that NO ONE will leak anything?
    -- What happened to Me Again, the possibly interesting commenter?

    Is it too late? Are we all sick of this hoax? Will it remain unrevealed during this election in order to show how the GOP likes to work an election? Will it never be revealed?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Given what we now know about PimpDaddy Todd and his prostitution ring, I'm wondering if these porn site operators ever crossed paths with PimpDaddy to obtain material for their sites, if you get my drift.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.