Mr. Nolte, your analysis is correct about the liberal attitude on display here (my apologies for using labels like "liberal," but the distinctions are clear enough that it is reasonable to do this). My summary is (1) they quote conservatives saying non-racist things, but then throw in the "reluctance" and "questions continue" deception to keep the innuendo of racism going, and (2) they all but say, "Cain got what he has because he got liberal-style help because he's black," implying he's proof that liberalism is better than conservatism.

This all reminds me of the old joke about the man who woke up one day and thought he was dead. Encouraged by his family to see a psychiatrist, the man denied all proofs he was offered that he wasn't dead. Finally, the psychiatrist got the man to agree that dead men don't bleed, so the he pricked the man's finger, and he bled. The man looked at his finger and said, "What do you know--dead men do bleed!"

Revising the joke: Political liberals woke up one day and decided that Tea Partiers were racist. Encouraged by conservatives to supply proof, they have failed. In the past (as I recall) liberals have insisted that Tea Partiers would oppose the presidency of a black man because they're allegedly racists. And now we see clear evidence that many Tea Partiers are supporting a black man for president. The liberal response, in effect: "What do you know--racists *can* support a black man for president!"

(Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not making fun of all people with liberal slants on any issues, only of people like these media types who don't care about truth when it comes to criticizing the Tea Party and promoting their own views.)

I couldn't bring myself to watch the "comedy" sketch, but as for the "news report," I am less bothered by their bias in calling him a pizza man than by their bias in insisting that *nobody* won because Cain won, and that nobody was a *big* winner even though Cain, as reported by him on that video, got twice as many votes as the next guy. Why don't these "journalists" just say, "Before we give you the facts, we need to poison the well with some lies first"?

I have to agree with several people who have posted already: What are you talking about???

You say: "Yet when judges actually strike down a law as unconstitutional, they are frequently derided as “activists” by people who ordinarily think of themselves as advocates for smaller government."

You say: "Too often in cases that involve the government, judges ignore evidence, invent facts, and accept implausible explanations for government regulations."

You say: "If we expect judges to engage the Constitution, proponents of limited government need to stop accusing any judge who strikes down a law on constitutional grounds of 'legislating from the bench.' "

You have not offered a single piece of evidence for any of the claims or implied claims of these three statements. My impressions (on the first and third item) are that conservatives have called judges "activists" when they really are activists--putting their own ideas into the Constitution or ignoring it entirely. And then others, seeing that the term "activist" gets some traction, have picked it up and now use it to refer to any judge who doesn't let them get their way (taking all meaning from the word). I question whether the problem you are alleging (of conservatives misapplying the label) is really that common. Please write articles that provide evidence for what you claim.

I'm not sure whether a balanced budget amendment is entirely a bad idea, but I can agree with the sentiment that if unbalanced budgets are outlawed, then only law-abiding politicians will balance budgets.

Maybe I'm just reiterating what Libertyinfinite said above, but: I do not believe that the thrust of American patriotism has been anti-authority or anti-government, it is anti-tyranny—both tyranny of the king and tyranny of the masses. That requires a proper balance of government authority. The means to stabilize the government is then not the government itself, but a written constitution and the vigilance of the people. It is fair to call this attitude "suspicion" of government in the sense of not being convinced that government is the solution to everything.

I think the following comparison of statistics is also sobering:
The number of abortions in the U.S. since 1973, as of 2006-2007, according to the Guttmacher Institute, is over
45,669,050 (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html).
The population of California according to the April 1, 2010 census, is:
37,253,956 (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php).
In other words, if we increased the population of the most populous state in the union by 1/5, it would still be smaller than the number of abortions since Roe v. Wade.

Small side question: Clicking on Bill's name above brings up his previous installments in this series, namely parts 1, 2, 3, 5, and now 6. Was there a 4 somewhere?

God is both loving and just. Jesus said to pray for justice, but he also said to love our enemies (Luke 18:7-8, Luke 6:35). I pray for both the defeat of evil people and for the saving of their souls while they still have the chance. And by the way, it doesn't matter whether terrorists accept the prayers of Christians; it matters that God does.

Just by the fact of being involved in a communication medium with limited air time, a government-sponsored organization like NPR will judge what content is important enough to use and what is unimportant. That means necessarily that one perspective is promoted and another demoted. So the favored perspective is the government-promoted perspective. But to have a government-promoted perspective from a supposedly non-partisan entity (regardless of the amount of money involved) seems to violate the principle of freedom of speech. Public media should be an open forum, and if it can't be that, then it shouldn't exist.

Thank you for the article, but I have to correct one statement: "...you become a Christian by making a statement that you believe in Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior. You then try to live a life consistent with that statement."

In fact, you become a Christian not by making a statement, but only by believing in Jesus Christ, accepting him as your Savior. Making a statement that you believe is part of living out your Christianity.