There may not be a shred of evidence for the existence of other universes, but there is also not a shred of actual evidence for the existence of God. That's why faith is different from reason. All religious belief rests on faith. Now, it may be a "rational" faith i.e. creation requires a creator and may not be at war with science: religious people are not stupid or irrational, contrary to what their critics say. But, the fact is that inferring the existence of God because there is a universe is not proof or evidence God exists. We should all be able to acknowledge this point, just as we acknowledge that any scientific theory for which no evidence has been advanced is recognized as nothing more than an hypothesis or an opinion.

The feminist movement long ago recognized that biological differences between the sexes prevent the achievement of the absolute equality of the sexes. Even with abortion-on-demand, those differences - being facts of reality - remain. Feminists refuse to face that fact. Hence, their utterly utilitarian and unprincipled embrace of abortion. It is not about rights (they deny everyone else the right to choose in every other context if it means "inequality" for women), it is about convenience.

To point 20, I would add, "and must learn English and assimilate." I would disagree that we are a Christian (or even Judeo-Christian) nation. It is more accurate to say that we are a nation in which the majority of people are Christians. It is an important difference: culturally, Christianity will have an impact indirectly or directly. Politically, though, the Founders were very explicit that the political principles on which the nation were founded were derived from rational, universal principles and not in any way founded on Christian religious principles. Ample documentary evidence backs this up. Yes, they recognized the value and importance of morality and religion, but they were not fundamentalists and made statements that many in the social conservative part of the small government movement would seriously object to. That is just a fact.

Sexual differentiation is present in every species in the animal world, especially in most of the primate species to whom we are closely related. In most - but not all cases - the male dominates. The angry blogger who made the lioness example should note that the lion dominates and is served by the lionesses. Just saying. Regarding women being better suited for the information age, a common theme, I would dispute it. Men dominate all the hard sciences, technology, engineering, many of the highest paid parts of medicine, to say nothing of entrepreneurship, construction, industrial work, and all physical, dangerous jobs. It has been a highly regulatory state, and a feminized school system that has attacked the fields men are good at. Those are, incidentally, the jobs that bring the highest economic value. Women are strong in law, the life sciences, some fields of medicine, teaching and mostly adminstrative roles. If that is what is meant by "administration", with the exception of law and medicine, this is just glorified secretarial work, and national wealth cannot be built upon it.

The FDR quote might be useful for fighting the Democrats on this issue and should be taken advantage of. However, FDR created the political and legal legitimacy of the welfare state - and especially the notion that the government should manage the economy to help people - thereby overturning our other American tradition of limited, constitutional government. That should be kept in mind. Until we completely and openly reject the assumption that government should be involved in solving people's problems - whether broadly in the economy or narrowly with food stamps et al - the problem will persist.

Conservatives would to well to face the issue head on and stake out a principled stand for cut-backs and dismantling the regulatory welfare state. This will mean some - perhaps a lot - of electoral defeat, for the immediate future. However, by accepting this and refusing to support any spending increases or additional regulation, at least they will ensure that the liberals totally own the mess. Things may well crash, severely, but then at least there will be a group ready to step forward, with actual solutions, untainted by all of this.

The major problem remains that a majority of immigrants are now coming from a single (adjacent) country and are not assimilating. Moreover, the amount spent on securing the border and the effectiveness of such measures varies. The net zero migration Mr. Jacoby cites is quite recent: for at least a decade, despite the measures he says have been taken, the border remained porous. Assimilation, English-only, and rebalancing towards advanced (European and some Asian) countries is required.

A "dull thud thud" is the sound made when Andrea Dworkin goes for a walk. If you've ever seen her, you'll know what I mean.

This is a perceptive column. Man cannot live by bread alone. What he chooses to believe, philosophy or religion or both, determines what he will be. A society that inculcates an amoral relativism in which the main point is to "tolerate" everything and never establish standards, has no spiritual (in any sense) or moral core on which to fall back. So, the kids opt for the certainties afforded by some ideologies. Students in the similarly relativist and amoral Weimar Germany became enthusiastic supporters of the Nazis for just that reason. Remember, no one ever rose a barricade in defense of a "maybe."

Culture matters. We have not fought the culture war and slogans about God and family and motherhood et al, however valid or true, cannot make progress without a rigorous intellectual defense. To the extent we've let the left define themselves as the defender of intellect, we have lost this battle. We will win it only when we really challenge them.