The Patriots Main Page 
         Contact Us 
    
"The doorway to freedom is framed with muskets." - Charlton Heston

 Links: Americans for Prosperity    Kansans for Judicial Accountability
          Flint Hills Center for Public Policy   Gun Owners of America

by Mass Resistance

On November 21 the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) released what it calls a "Groundbreaking Report on Health Disparities Based on Sexual Orientation".  As the DPH press release describes:

"The report revealed significant disparities among people who identified as homosexual or bisexual in the areas of access to care, self-reported health status, anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, smoking, binge drinking, illicit drug use, sexual assault victimization, intimate partner violence, disability, obesity, asthma and heart disease . . . Lesbians were 2.2 times more likely than heterosexual women to be obese."

Read entire DPH press release.

Read the Department of Public Health report HERE

In other words, the DPH is forced to admit what everyone has known for a long time. Unfortunately, the extremely destructive nature of homosexual behavior - both medical and psychological - is usually not only suppressed, but is considered completely off-limits for discussion. But ultimately, some of the truth gets out, even in Massachusetts.

The "good" news, according to the report is that . . .

"Gay/lesbian/homosexuals and bisexuals were more likely than heterosexuals to have been ever tested for HIV than their straight/heterosexual counterparts. In addition, gay/homosexual men were less likely to be obese or overweight compared to straight/heterosexual men [probably due to weight loss from AIDS or other diseases?]. They were also more likely to obtain lifetime colorectal cancer screening and to report recent condom use."

Interestingly, the Massachusetts DPH is probably the most pro-homosexual public health department in America. It's run by DPH Commissioner John Auerbach, who is "married" to another man. In 2007, Auerbach appeared at a homosexual "youth" event telling the kids that he'd make sure there's enough HIV testing available for everyone there. In 2005, the Massachusetts DPH helped create the notorious Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, which depicted homosexual sex acts and listed places kids can hook up with homosexual adults.

How will the report's findings be used?

What does the DPH say the report hopes to accomplish? Unfortunately, this really exposes how politicized the public health profession has become. The report recommends:

"Specific interventions should be developed to work with the bisexual population in these areas. Health officials also hope that the report will stimulate further study on ways to reduce and eliminate health disparities faced by gay, lesbian and bisexual people."

But they are ignoring the root of the problem. The obvious way to "reduce and eliminate" these health disparities would be to discourage homosexual behavior, and help those currently involved in it to leave that horribly addictive and dangerous lifestyle.  (Instead, we'll probably see more of "encourage condom use and HIV testing" types of pseudo-remedies.)

Unfortunately, common sense won't be found even in medical circles these days. But the raw facts will continue to show up. 

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. {Christian Newswire} -- New footage released today from an undercover camera inside an abortion clinic in Bloomington shows Planned Parenthood staff deliberately violating the state's mandatory reporting laws for sexual abuse.

The footage shows Lila Rose, a UCLA student journalist and president of right-to-life advocacy group Live Action, posing as a 13-year-old girl. In an appointment with a Planned Parenthood nurse, Rose says she has been impregnated by a 31-year-old man, a clear case of child molestation under Indiana state law.

On tape, the nurse acknowledges her responsibility to report the abuse, but assures Rose she will not.  The nurse says, "I am supposed to report to Child Protective Services," but tells Rose, "Okay, I didn't hear the age [of the 31-year-old].  I don't want to know the age."

She then instructs Rose how to obtain a secret abortion by crossing state lines in order to avoid Indiana's parental consent law.  The nurse also coaches Rose to cover for the 31-year-old man by saying he is only 14.  She says, "You've seen him around, you know he's 14, he's in your grade and whatever.  You know what I mean."

Rose said she and other students in Live Action recorded the video over the summer in a multi-state investigation of the abortion industry.  Rose described the undercover audit, called The Mona Lisa Project, as "demonstrating the routine lawlessness of abortion providers at Planned Parenthood." Rose noted, "Today's video release is only a sample from many hours of similarly disturbing footage."

Planned Parenthood, a tax-exempt nonprofit, made over $100 million in profits last year and has a billion- dollar budget, nearly a third of which comes from taxpayers through government funding. Jackie Stollar, student president of a Live Action chapter in Oregon, accompanied Rose on the investigation. "In a repeated pattern, Planned Parenthood has violated the public trust.  It should have its government funding revoked," she said.

"The Mona Lisa Project demonstrates how quickly the abortion industry's disrespect for unborn children becomes disregard for all humans," Rose explained. "Planned Parenthood offers no solutions for the victim of statutory rape--they give her an abortion and a bag of condoms and send her straight back into the arms of the abuser."

The video is available online at http://www.metacafe.com/channels/LiveActionFilms/.  For more information, visit www.LiveActionFilms.org.  For interview or special media requests for copies of footage and documentation, please contact lilarose@liveactionfilms.org.

by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)

“The Capitol Visitor Center is designed to tell the history and purpose of our nation's Capitol, but it fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. While the Architect of the Capitol has pledged to include some references to faith, more needs to be done. You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. The millions of visitors that will visit the CVC each year should get a true portrayal of the motivations and inspirations of those who have served in Congress since its establishment.

“The current CVC displays are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems. This is a clear departure from acknowledging that Americans’ rights ‘are endowed by their Creator’ and stem from ‘a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.’ Instead, the CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government. Visitors will enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is an intentional misrepresentation of our nation’s real history, and an offensive refusal to honor America's God-given blessings. As George Washington stated clearly in his first inaugural address:

‘It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge.’

“The fundamental principles of the freedom we enjoy in this country stem from our Founding Fathers’ beliefs in a higher power, beliefs put forth in the Declaration of Independence and manifest throughout our Constitution,” said Senator DeMint. “If we cease to acknowledge this fact, we may cease to enjoy some of the freedoms we take for granted. We must not censor historical references to God for the sake of political correctness. And we must truthfully represent the limited form of government the Constitution lays out so that our ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’  So help us God.”

 The Rutherford Institute 
   Already in many public schools, traditional Christmas carols have been removed from musical programs; angels and even Santa Claus have been banned as too religious; and no one can wear anything red or green because they're Christmas colors. Groups like the American Humanist Association have also gotten on the bandwagon to eliminate the day. Ripping off lyrics from "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town," this group is running ads that proclaim, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."

With political correctness being so pervasive, especially at this time of year, is it any wonder that for many the true meaning of Christmas has been lost? Yet Christmas is not just for religious people. As the angels proclaimed at Christ's birth, "Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, good will toward all men."

The Christmas story of the birth of the baby Jesus reminds us that there is something more important than merely receiving material gifts. After all, isn't the true meaning of Christmas about giving and helping the needy? Isn't that what we should be teaching our children? Rather than trudging from one store to the next in an endless pursuit of the "perfect gift," why can't Christmas be a season of reflection and joy? Why can't it be a day to share our blessings with those who are less fortunate?

Here at The Rutherford Institute, we believe that the gift of freedom is the greatest gift we could offer our loved ones, not only at Christmas but throughout the year. That's why we have some of the best legal minds in the country working on our cases. And they're willing to donate their time and expertise because they believe, as we do, that our freedoms must be protected at all costs.

On behalf of the staff, we wish you and your loved ones a Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year!

by Lt. Col. Mark Murphy

I learned a big lesson on service Aug. 4, 2008, when Eielson had the rare honor of hosting President Bush on a refueling stop as he traveled to Asia .

It was an event Eielson will never forget -- a hangar full of Airmen and Soldiers getting to see the Commander in Chief up close, and perhaps even shaking his hand. An incredible amount of effort goes into presidential travel because of all of the logistics, security, protocol, etc ... so it was remarkable to see Air Force One land at Eielson on time at precisely 4:30 p.m.--however, when he left less than two hours later, the President was 15 minutes behind schedule.

That's a big slip for something so tightly choreographed, but very few people know why it happened. Here's why. 

On Dec. 10, 2006, our son, Shawn, was a paratrooper deployed on the outskirts of Baghdad . He was supposed to spend the night in camp, but when a fellow soldier became ill Shawn volunteered to take his place on a nighttime patrol--in the convoy's most exposed position as turret gunner in the lead Humvee. He was killed instantly with two other soldiers when an IED ripped through their vehicle.

I was thinking about that as my family and I sat in the audience listening to the President's speech, looking at the turret on the up-armored Humvee the explosive ordnance disposal flight had put at the edge of the stage as a static display.

When the speech was over and the President was working the crowd line, I felt a tap on my shoulder and turned to see a White House staff member. She asked me and my wife to come with her, because the President wanted to meet us.  Stunned, we grabbed our two sons that were with us and followed her back into a conference room. It was a shock to go from a crowded, noisy hangar, past all of those security people, to find ourselves suddenly alone in a quiet room.

The only thing we could hear was a cell phone vibrating, and noticed that it was coming from the jacket Senator Stevens left on a chair. We didn't answer.

A short time later, the Secret Service opened the door and President Bush walked in. I thought we might get to shake his hand as he went through. But instead, he walked up to my wife with his arms wide, pulled her in for a hug and a kiss, and said, "I wish I could heal the hole in your heart." He then grabbed me for a hug, as well as each of our sons. Then he turned and said, "Everybody out."

A few seconds later, the four of us were completely alone behind closed doors with the President of the United States and not a Secret Service agent in sight.

He said, "Come on, let's sit down and talk." He pulled up a chair at the side of the room, and we sat down next to him. He looked a little tired from his trip, and he noticed that his shoes were scuffed up from leaning over concrete barriers to shake hands and pose for photos. He slumped down the chair, completely relaxed, smiled, and suddenly was no longer the President - he was just a guy with a job, sitting around talking with us like a family member at a barbeque.

For the next 15 or 20 minutes, he talked with us about our son, Iraq , his family, faith, convictions, and shared his feelings about nearing the end of his presidency.  He asked each of our teenaged sons what they wanted to do in life and counseled them to set goals, stick to their convictions, and not worry about being the "cool" guy.  He said that he'd taken a lot of heat during his tenure and was under a lot of pressure to do what's politically expedient, but was proud to say that he never sold his soul.  Sometimes he laughed, and at others he teared up.  He said that what he'll miss most after leaving office will be his role as Commander in Chief.

One of the somber moments was when he thanked us for the opportunity to meet, because he feels a heavy responsibility knowing that our son died because of a decision he made. He was incredibly humble, full of warmth, and completely without pretense. We were seeing the man his family sees. We couldn't believe how long he was talking to us, but he seemed to be in no hurry whatsoever. In the end, he thanked us again for the visit and for the opportunity to get off his feet for a few minutes. He then said, "Let's get some pictures." The doors flew open, Secret Service and the White House photographer came in, and suddenly he was the President again. We posed for individual pictures as he gave each of us one of his coins, and then he posed for family pictures. A few more thank yous, a few more hugs, and he was gone.

The remarkable thing about the whole event was that he didn't have to see us at all. If he wanted to do more, he could've just given a quick handshake and said, "Thanks for your sacrifice." But he didn't, he put everything and everyone in his life on hold to meet privately with the family of a Private First Class who gave his life in the service of his country.

What an incredible lesson on service. If the President of the United States is willing to drop everything on his plate to visit with a family, surely the rest of us can do it. No one is above serving another person, and no one is so lofty that he or she can't treat others with dignity and respect.

We often think of service in terms of sacrificing ourselves for someone in a position above us, but how often do we remember that serving someone below us can be much more important? If you're in a leadership capacity, take a good look at how you're treating your people, and remember that your role involves serving the people you rely on every day.

 

---

Lt. Col. Mark Murphy is deputy commander of the 354th Maintenance Group.

 

 

by Kathleen Gilbert 

HARRIS CO., Texas, November 27, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Texas appellate court has upheld its ruling that affirms the personhood of an unborn child who was murdered along with its mother.

Jacob Eguia, who was convicted of the capital murders of a woman and her nearly eight months gestation unborn child, challenged the court's ruling on several points.  He argued that finding him guilty of the unborn child's death violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution, which bars giving preference by law to a religion.

In the Texas Penal Code, as the court noted, “‘Person’ means an individual," and "individual" may refer to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until  birth”; and “‘death’ includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.”

According to the court's published opinion, Eguia complained that "the State’s definition of 'individual' 'has the effect of endorsing religion as it is based solely upon a religious belief that life begins at conception.'"

Justice Elsa Alcala concluded that, because a statute does not violate the Establishment Clause when serving a secular purpose, "the definition of 'individual' serves the State’s legitimate secular interest in protecting unborn children from the criminal acts of others."

The court also cited precedent to affirm that, "a statute is not automatically rendered unconstitutional simply because it advances ideals that harmonize with religious ideals."

In addition, Eguia argued that under such a statute abortion practitioners would also be guilty of murder, but the court noted that earlier legislation had already "narrowed the class of murderers who may be charged by specifically excluding 'conduct committed by the mother of an unborn child' and 'a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician ... with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure.'"

To view the court document in full, go to: http://www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp...

See related LifeSiteNews.com articles:

Top Texas Court Upholds Double Murder Conviction in Deaths of Unborn Twins
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021302.html

Texas Court to Prosecute Woman for Delivery of Cocaine to her Unborn Child
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/sep/04090907.html

by Mass Resistance

When the Legislature goes back into session in January, Planned Parenthood and its homosexual / sex-ed coalition are poised to re-file its bill to make "comprehensive health education" (which includes homosexuality, abortion, and other radical issues) a mandatory part of the curriculum for the public schools.

The goal is to make "health education" a legal state requirement for graduation from Massachusetts public schools, and even for passing to higher grade levels. It would also base the required teaching of "comprehensive health" issues throughout grades K-12 on the infamous "Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework", which includes extremely offensive and controversial mandates on homosexuality, abortion counseling, intrusive psychological issues, sex education, and other topics. Currently, that framework is optional, and practically all schools ignore it.

The Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum

How the bill would mandate the Health Curriculum in the schools

"It will mandate that public schools teach kids that abortion, premarital sex, birth control and homosexual behavior are okay," said Linda Thayer, of Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) in the Catholic newspaper The Anchor. "This violates our freedom of religion and conscience. It's a train wreck coming down the pike because it will force us to surrender our rights as parents to people who have an economic and political agenda."

In 2005, Planned Parenthood announced their intention, as the "cornerstone" of their new 5-year plan, to require sex-ed and homosexuality in every public school in Massachusetts. This bill was filed in the 2005-2006 Legislative session, and again in the 2007-2008 session. Both times it started out with huge support among legislators. But both times it got killed in the Education Committee after a tidal wave of public outrage coordinated by MassResistance and other pro-family groups.

 

In their first attempt, in 2005, the bill was filed as H1641. The public hearing for the bill before the Education committee took place on January 31, 2006. Planned Parenthood and the homosexual lobby planned a slick presentation. But over 400 angry citizens jammed into the public hearing room from across the state. Testimony lasted until after 9:00 pm. After that, the bill quietly died.

In 2007 they tried a second attempt; the bill was filed as H597. They really made a push this time. They re-worded the text of the bill to make it more subtle (though just as effective). They got 67 co-sponsors in the Legislature. To pass this bill, they organized a coalition of dozens of groups from across Massachusetts, called Care for Youth - so it would like it was a broad-based effort. They did huge lobbying.

The morning of the bill's May 29, 2007 public hearing before Education Committee, Planned Parenthood put on a slick press conference at the Grand Staircase of the State House. That afternoon in the public hearing, they had dozens of "expert" panels testifying for the need for sex education. Many of the state's major homosexual activists were also there to push hard. The odious "KnowThyNeighbor" homosexual "husband-and-husband" team was there trying to intimidate parents by taking their pictures at close range.

MassResistance report (with photos) on May 29, 2007 public hearing for bill H597.

Planned Parenthood's "Care for Youth" coalition, at morning press conference.

But it didn't work. The tidal wave of outrage again overwhelmed the Education Committee, with relentless pressure. And although the bill's sponsors tried hard to revive it near the end of the session, it again died in committee.

So they're re-filing the bill again for the new session in January. The phony "Care for Youth Coalition" website has announced that they're coming back again, even harder. As Linda Thayer observed, "Nearly half the coalition members pushing the bill are promoters and enablers of abortion, birth control, homosexual sex and sex outside of marriage, all forces emboldened by recent electoral victories."

Coalition's announcement about re-filing the bill.

The Coalition members: Ever-expanding list of left-wing groups. Here are a few of the people on this esteemed "coalition." Are these the groups you want helping decide on what your kids are taught in school?

Gloucester High School Health Center
Greater Boston PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays)
Harvard Students for Choice
Keshet, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts
National Organization for Women - Massachusetts Chapter
Our Bodies Ourselves
Physicians for Reproductive Health and Choice
Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts
Wellesley Women for Choice
Complete list of Care for Youth Coalition from website.

And they're using the same tactics of misrepresentations and outright lies to push their agenda. They tell people that this is all "age-appropriate" and that it's all part of a "healthy" package that includes of nutrition, mental health, safety, substance abuse violence prevention, and other buzz-words. As their website says,

"Research shows that medically accurate, age-appropriate health education is essential in preventing the health problems affecting today's youth. Comprehensive health education includes important topics such as: nutrition, mental health, safety, reproduction and sexuality, substance abuse and violence prevention."

Underneath all the slick talk it's still the same outrageous radical bill that it was when they first filed it two years ago.

{Snopes denies the truth of this article's claim  for 500 tons of Uranium being  shipped  to Canada from Iraq despite MSNBC having published it and truthorfiction having confirmed its accuracy. CNN reported a similar story in July 2007 on the shipment of Uranium to Canada. This is one of several instances where Snopes has been caught playing politics rather than making a  factual determination. - Ed.} 

by Anonymous

On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP) released a story titled: Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq. The opening paragraph is as follows: The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans. 

See anything wrong with this picture? We have been hearing from the far-left for more than five years how, Bush lied. Somehow, that slogan loses its credibility now that 550 metric tons of Saddam's yellowcake, used for nuclear weapon enrichment, has been discovered and shipped to Canada for its new use as nuclear energy. 

It appears that American troops found the 550 metric tons of uranium in 2003  after invading Iraq. They had to sit on this information and the uranium itself, for fear of terrorists attempting to steal it. It was guarded and kept safe by our military in a 23,000-acre site with large sand beams surrounding the site.  

This is vindication for the Bush administration, having been attacked mercilessly by the liberal media and the far-left pundits on the blogosphere. Now that it is proven that President Bush did not lie about Saddam's nuclear ambitions, one would think the mainstream media would report the story. Once the AP released the story, the mainstream media should have picked it up and broadcast it worldwide. 

This never happened, due in large part I believe, to the fact that the mainstream media would have to admit they were wrong about Bush's war motives all alon g. Thankfully, the AP got it right when it said,   The removal of 550 metric tons of yellowcake the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. 

Closing the book on Saddam's nuclear legacy. Did Saddam have a nuclear legacy after all? I thought Bush lied. As it turns out, the people who lied were Joe Wilson and his wife. 

Valerie Plame engaged in a clear case of nepotism and convinced the CIA to send her husband on a fact finding mission in February 2002, seeking to determine if Saddam Hussein attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger. The CIA and British intelligence believed Saddam contacted Niger for that
purpose but needed proof. 

During his trip to Niger, Wilson actually interviewed the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Ma yaki.  Mayaki told Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in 'expanding commercial relations' for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. 

Wilson chose to overlook Mayaki's remarks and reported to the CIA that there was no evidence of Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger. However, with British intelligence insisting the claim was true, President Bush used that same claim in his State of the Union address in January of 2003. Outraged by Bush's insistence that the claim was true, Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in the summer of 2003 slamming Bush. Wilson did this in spite of the fact that Mayaki said Saddam did try to buy the yellowcake from Niger. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence disagreed with Wilson and supported Mayaki's claim. This meant nothing to Wilson who was opposed to the Iraq war and thus had ulterior motives in covering up the prime minister's statements. 

It was a simple tactic really.  If the far-left and their friends in the media could prove Bush lied about Hussein wanting to purchase yellowcake from Niger, it would undermine President Bush's credibility and give them more cause for asking what other lies he may have told.  Yet, the real lie came from Wilson, who interpreted his own meaning from the prime minister's statements and concluded all by himself that the claim of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake was 'unequivocally wrong.'  Curiously, the CIA sat on this information and did not inform the CIA Director, who sided with Bush on the yellowcake claim.

This was made public in a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in July 2004.  Valerie Plame also engaged in her own lie campaign by spreading the notion that the Bush administration outed her as a CIA agent. Never mind that it was Richard Armitage -- no friend of the Bush administration --who leaked Plame's identity to the press. Never mind that Plame had not been in the field as a CIA agent in some six years. 

The truth is, due to their opposition to the war, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, the mainstream media and their left-wing friends on the blogosphere engaged in a propaganda campaign to undermine the Bush administration. Now that Saddam's uranium has been made public and is no longer a threat to the world, do you think these aforementioned parties will apologize and admit they were wrong? Don't count on it.  The rest of the American people should hear the truth about Saddam's uranium. It is up to you and me to inform them every chance we get. 

As far as the anti-war crowd is concerned, the next time they say that, 'Bush lied,' we should tell them to, 'Have the yellowcake and eat it too.' 

by NewsMax.com

[Editor's Note: See "Washington Post Admits Bias for Obama, Against McCain, Palin." © 2008 Newsmax. ]

The mainstream media's support for Barack Obama's presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.  Last week, Time magazine's Mark Halperin called the media's performance during the campaign simply "disgusting."

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war."

He added, "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."

According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time's political site "The Page," zeroed in on two New York Time's articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

"The story about Cindy McCain was vicious," Halperin said. "It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light.  It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her."

But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is."

Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama's presidential campaign.  "You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories.  He was new."

Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1.  The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing.  McCain kept his promise to do so.

During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect.

Columnist David Limbaugh noted: "Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama's shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations."

Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama's "obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage."

Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias.  The Washington Post's ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.