I have been reading a lot lately about militant feminism and the related attacks not only on scientific fact, but on women who choose to be ladies and the men who celebrate them.

There is a belief among many women, especially on college campuses, that there is no biological difference between men and women, and society ought to be adjusted accordingly. These women argue, among many other points, that women tend towards motherhood, housekeeping, romantic comedies, and general femininity not because of an inherent God-given predisposition, but because of outdated social norms. This day and age, they say, only an unmotivated, sexually oppressed twit would raise children or stay home from work.

This dangerous assault on femininity does not stop here. With a focus on progressive women’s action comes a blatant attempt to undermine men in general, and gentlemen in particular. In the feminists’ worldview, a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle: who needs ‘em? Men, in the media, Hollywood, and television, are more and more often portrayed as dim, beer-swilling rednecks who add little to society but a laugh track. This emasculating of men sullies their image in the minds of young boys who would become fathers, and young girls hoping to find Mister Right. The message here is, girls, if you want children, do it yourself, and leave the men out of it. Again, who needs ‘em?

If you want a sneak preview of this odious lifestyle in pervasive use, just take a trip to secular Europe, or even Canada. In countries like Germany and France, the very idea of having children at all is so unfashionable, that the population has ceased to replace itself. Approximately one baby is born in Europe to every heterosexual couple. And that’s just the people who are raising babies! Europe’s population only increases due to the unabated immigration from the middle east (another topic entirely).

The overwhelming scientific evidence today shows that men and women are created very differently, and that’s the way God wanted it. If you take one of these figures out of a family, for instance, the children will lose either their masculine or feminine role model. This can be very damaging to children who will need to go outside the house for their life instruction. This should scare you. Statistics point frighteningly to the relationship between single-parent (or same-sex parent) households and such social horrors as teen pregnancy in young girls, and a life of crime for boys.

We must be willing to stand up and fight for our way of life. The future of our free society depends on the nuclear family unit and the upstanding men and women who will emerge from those households.

My wife, a faculty member at a local public school, let me know that the President’s speech to students yesterday was very tastefully done. I have not read, nor did I see the speech in its entirety. What I do know is this: The President is not the parent of any public school student, nor is he a qualified instructor of anything pertinent to anything. That he would circumvent parental responsibility in preaching the value of education from his ivory pulpit is insulting to our children, and I don’t like it.

What is certainly most disturbing about the revelation that the speech was propaganda-free is the thought of millions of children, many hearing the President for the first time, may stop and think, "Hey, this guy knows what he’s talking about." I do not want my child to hear a speech written by a highly paid policy geek and deduce that henceforth, President Barack Hussein Obama is worth listening to. He is not. Whatever his message yesterday, this President’s actual aims almost never escape his mouth, and I fear that there are few teachers and parents who can capably present the comparison between what this politician says, and what he does. His access to your children is now absolutely unfettered, and in some cases mandatory. That should scare you.

Many will argue that this message is a great thrill for school age children who, if they see the President on television, know that he is speaking only to the adults with the right to vote. What’s the big deal? The big deal is that the President of the United States, while in symbolism very important to our nation, is a politician, with personal aims and responsibilities beyond our imaginations. This particular President feels deeply that my beloved country is flawed so badly that nearly everything we do must be changed in order to save us from ourselves. He cannot convince the majority of adults that this is the case so he must alert the children – the future. In order to do that he must gain their trust. If yesterday’s speech was not laden with his political ideologies, then certainly it was only a step in the process. Our kids have not heard the last of this.

The other day I shot an e-mail to a self-described liberal friend of mine asking simply, "are you following the health care debate?" He responded rather refreshingly, though not unexpectedly. My friend is very intelligent, good-humored, and never shies from debate, thus my reason for approaching him rather than one of my other friends, whose reactions always seem to include the words, "silly conservatives." This liberal friend – we’ll call him Donald – responded, "I have.  And I think they have failed to address something:  Is it the RIGHT of every American to have health care?  That question has not been answered yet."

The thing that is understood even by many tree-hugging, corporation-loathing Americans like Donald is this: some things are guaranteed by the Constitution and others must be attained through trading something of value, like money, goods, or services. Access to medical care and/or the insurance to make the cost of medical care more palatable, is a luxury never guaranteed by God, and thus, never provided by the Framers.

In a country where the Entitlement Mentality is growing, fueled by empty promises from the left but still overpowered by a responsible majority, bleeding heart politicians will forever lament the unfair state of this or that. Health care is just another "right" that cannot be guaranteed to some unless it is taken from others. Americans wishing to obtain medical care or health insurance must part with their own money to attain it, or else suffer the consequences of their own decisions. The Donalds of our country are beginning to see the light.