Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Think your cousin's cute? Relax
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


I'd always thought marrying a blood relative as close as a cousin was immoral, and certainly risky if you plan to have kids. Conventional wisdom says only primitive people who live in isolated places marry cousins. It leads to stupid children. But that's a myth.

It's the sort of myth that leads to stupid laws. Half the states in America have banned cousin marriage, but there's no good reason for it. You can marry your cousin and have perfectly intelligent kids.

Take Albert Einstein -- was he intelligent enough for you? His parents were cousins, and he married his cousin. So did Charles Darwin and Queen Victoria. Worldwide, 20 percent of all married couples are cousins.

A lot of "experts," politicians and clergymen, are dead set against cousin marriage, and they've convinced a lot of people, including many lawmakers, that marrying a cousin is a bad thing to do.

As with many of our laws, there is little reason for the ban. The laws date back hundreds of years to a time when the Catholic Church campaigned against cousin marriages, because in the Bible, in Leviticus, it says, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin."

But a cousin isn't terribly "near." Just ask Brian and Caren Wagner. Brian's dad and Caren's mom are brother and sister, so Brian and Caren spent a lot of time together at family functions. Eventually, they fell in love and decided to marry. This did not go over well with either of their parents.

"There was a phone call from my mother, to Brian's father, of, 'What are we gonna do about this?'" Caren told me.

But Brian's father, Dennis, knew their options were limited. "We said, 'Well, we've got a couple of choices. Either we can say no, we don't want this to happen' -- which, you know it wasn't our choice if this is what they were going to do. They're both over 21. I said, hey, we're not gonna lose you."

The parents blessed the marriage. Then Caren and Brian decided to have kids. They'd heard stories about birth defects and worried that their kids would be stupid. But they had kids anyway -- two sons -- each of whom went on to be at the top of his class in school.

That confounds the conventional wisdom. Novels like James Dickey's "Deliverance" and movies like "Brighton Beach Memoirs" reinforce the notion that cousin marriage will produce retarded children. ("You'll have a baby with nine heads!") But a study funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors revealed that assumptions about cousin marriage are unfounded. The risks of birth defects or mental retardation are 2 or 3 percent higher among married cousins, but other parental risk factors are higher. Age, for example, increases the risk much more: There's a 6 to 8 percent chance that a woman over 40 will give birth to a child with birth defects.

It would be ridiculous, however, to prohibit middle-aged women from having children. It's equally wrong to prohibit cousins from marrying. There are risks and challenges in any marriage, but it should not be for politicians to decide such intimate matters as whether you get to marry the person you love. Love, marriage and procreation are personal choices better not left to "experts" who are often repeating myths.

There is one real risk, however, to cousin marriage. Pat Bradfield, Caren Wagner's mother, had a warning about divorce: "You could divorce your husband," she told Caren, "but you can't divorce the whole family. Your father-in-law and your mother-in-law would still be your uncle and aunt."

Now that's expert advice worth considering.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
I wonder what brought this up?

Mr. Stossel..
like Jimmy Carter, I can't help but wonder if you ran out of things to write about. Do you have eyes for a cousin perhaps?

The latest fad...
This is simply the latest fad, following polygamy, that is meant to innur us to Third World practices and have us more accepting of Third World immigration.

Sometimes, I think he likes to shock
No reason, just "why not?"

He probably keeps a list of 'shockers' in a notebook and pulls one out when things get tense (with Israel) or when he feels like it.

Anyway, interesting but not something I am considering...

My cuzin: Got 'R Done!
Whooo-weee! Me n' mah cuzin got hitched n' hadda gaggle o' young 'uns, an' they kin cipher 2 an' 2 faster'n a june-bug kin chase after a light bulb! I tell you whut! Ain't nuthin' wrong with 'at!

Wedded Cousins
While Mr Stossel is correct about the effects of cousin marrying on the mental faculties of their progeny being negligible, there is a consideration that does need to be observed.

Complications to mental abilities are not the only concern. Back in the late 1700's and early 1800's,(6-7 generations back) my family had several lines in which there was quite a bit of intermarriage. My great-grandparents were cousins, twice or three times over (not first cousins, but other degrees of consanguinity), which led to my grandparents also being cousins. Now, we have seen two to three generations in which cancers appear to be of a heredity origin. My second cancer pathology report came back showing that it was caused by a genetic defect. My first was in all likelihood also genetic in origins as well. Many of my cousins and I have participated in several genetic studies to try and help the medical community find some answers.

The admonitions against cousin marriage are valid, just not for the reason traditionally held.

laughed out loud
hilarious....good work stossel-wonder what the gay rights advocates would say about it? kinda shows just how ridiculous all their arguments are, doesn't it...

incest
Well. What can I say about this ridiculous article? I think that the admonition against cousins marrying each other has to be taken to its fullest degree which is, EVENTUALLY, that sort of inbreeding will catch up with a family. Maybe not the first time it happens but eventually you WILL start producing offspring with extra digits and lower IQs.We can look no further than the Amish community for some serious, modern day examples of this. I know some Amish people, personally, and many of them have children with extra toes and fingers and others have some serious health related problems, some of them with horrendous congenital deformities and debilitating conditions.
My great-grandfather's first wife was his first cousin. He outlived her but only after she gave him lots of children. Then he married the woman who became my great-grandmother who produced 7 children. Today the progeny from both women gather in North Carolina for an annual family reunion. Even a stranger could wander through the crowd and point out which of the people descend from which wife.
Incest is not a joking matter.
Honest.

Oh John Boy...
It's called incest! And somewhere down the line of generations, it will show up as a negative. You would do well to reconsider Leviticus. Gosh, we all have been blessed with good-lookin' cousins'... But..... WHOA - just LOOK!! Kissin' cousins? Uh Uh - better not, John Boy. Leave that cuz alone!

It depends on the study he cites
I don't think his article is as ridiculous as some are suggesting here. I've yet to see anyone refute any of his points or the study on which he bases them. It is a good point that it's important to consider the effects over multiple generations, but anecdotal evidence about one family's reunion isn't evidence of anything, and it may well be that the study he cites does address those effect as well.

In any case, I don't think it's among the more pressing needs of our society, and I certainly don't have a personal stake in it. Still, it's consistent with his general philosphy of limited government and his frequent theme of opposing laws based on myths, and particularly regulating behavior between consenting adults. Considering about half of the states already allow this, I don't see how there's any "shock" factor involved.

As for any connection to the gay "marriage" issue, I think they're completely separate and distinct. He may be wrong if he's basing his conclusion on one study if it doesn't address other factors, but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion if the basis is solid. It's a far cry from challenging the fundamental historical definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

Marry your cousin
I believe this is a common practice in Europe. The Rothchild's incourage cousin marriage and reward it with a larger share of the family fortune [I think there was an article about this in Discover or New Scientist in the last year or so]

Most of American aversion comes from some deep religious fears and a way to make some feel superior to others living in more isolated regions where cousin intermarriage is almost unavoidable.

There is also the component of family inter rivalry in cases where sibling's children marry and then have problems. Genetically there is not much to fear but socially there is a great deal.

Incest is a figment of your imagination.
I'm so glad to see this. I've had a committed relationship with my sister for almost 10 years. I think our marriage will last because we really know each other well, and love and respect each other.

I'm sure we are not the only close related couple with this relationship. We don't think any government or church or society should be make laws about love.

Although we have been unsuccessful thus far at having children, I know that nature takes care of itself.

I have to laugh
Not at, but with y'all at all the serious discussion of this column in the posts.

I'm with Jimmy Carter and Goshawk.

Break out the banjos!

Please
This subject was covered by The Straight Dope nearly two years ago:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041001.html

Stossel is right - again. Not sure, however, what made him write about the subject. Maybe it was a question or something he read.

Too Serious?
Does anyone else think that this article is really about same-sex marriage and not "cousin marriage"? It makes it a lot funnier if you look at it that way.

Incest
John Stossel is right on the money with this article. It will be as difficult to refute as the arguments presented by the global warming scare-mongerers. I'm not sure what this has to do with gay marriage either. These are separate and distinct issues. Mr. Stossel is not addressing incestuous rape either. That is wrong any way you look at it. Rape is rape, whether related or unrelated. But a relationship between consenting adults (i.e., a man and a woman) is not a problem, except in the eyes of religious nuts and the woefully misinformed/ignorant. This is not deviant or aberrant behavior except in the eyes of those perpetuating ancient societal taboos passed from generation to generation. I believe this is the same crowd still thinking they will go blind if they pleasure themselves.

Think Your Cousin's Cute?
John Stossel is right on the money with this article. It will be as difficult to refute as the arguments presented by the global warming scare-mongerers. I'm not sure what this has to do with gay marriage either. These are separate and distinct issues. Mr. Stossel is not addressing incestuous rape. That is wrong any way you look at it. Rape is rape, whether related or unrelated. But a relationship between consenting adults (i.e., a man and a woman) is not a problem, except in the eyes of religious nuts and the woefully misinformed/ignorant. This is not deviant or aberrant behavior except in the eyes of those perpetuating ancient societal taboos passed from generation to generation. I believe this is the same crowd still thinking they will go blind if they pleasure themselves.

Letfreedomring--
Brother and sister is a bit too close for me to sprinkle holy water on. That brings up visions of weird stuff going on in the bathroom, bedrooms and closets when you should be studying, bathing, or just home alone while parents are away. Jealousy could lead to all sorts of family problems and being jilted at 14 after having sex with your sister could lead to murder or suicide or a combination. No, too mentally risky and immoral.

look again at all the history.
A thorough look at history will show you that Mr Stassle is right but that the "myths" also have some truth in them. The Ptolomies married siblings and it worked for eight generations so well that Cleopatra was smart and beautiful enough to play two Roman generals against each other. However in Europe, as well as in America, close marriage was used to hold empires and properties together. In other words, marriage was used to for political purposes rather than romantic. And in many cases the genetics simply did not hold up.
However I suspect the reason such marriage have been restricted in the past two centuries also has more to do with politics than genetics or romance. The Confederacy lost the Civil War. Since marriage was used to strengthen the power of the plantaion faimilies the new powers-that-be
used new marriage laws to break up the old power families.

Relaxing
STOSSEL!

amourous cousins
Has the wonderboy ever taken the time to cruise the countryside in rural Utah....I have..the "results" of this concept are quite visible. There are other concerns about raising the likelihood of some variants of cancer and other diseases...there is GOOD reason to not allow this. I have no doubt that there are "normal" offspring from a lot of these unions, but the examples he uses (Einstein for one) may actually disprove his hypothesis as Einstein probably suffered from a rare mental condition...anyone know which one?.. this population DOES have a lot of geniuses in it, but there are drawbacks to it also.

Hey now
I am glad I don't have to worry about the risk of being attracted to my cousin, especially since she is dumber than rocks and weighs like 400 pounds.

HELLO!! -- PEOPLE!!
Stossel talks about COUSINS getting married, and some of you folks jump into SIBLINGS and GAYS getting married.

IT AIN'T THE SAME THING, PEOPLE!! COME ON!!

Nowhere in Stossel's article do you see the slightest hint that he supports brothers and sisters getting married. THAT is INCEST, and that DOES have negative genetic consequences. NO ONE is arguing about that.

Jeez Louise, as soon as somebody talks about something like, say, making it legal to paint your house blue, then right away somebody complains how "Next you'll want to make murder legal!!" NOO-OOO-OOo-ooo!! We aren't talking about THAT! We're talking about THIS!!

Hey UncaAlby
No, he's not talking about siblings marrying...at least, not yet. That will be next, and why shouldn't it be, using his logic?

Introducing this practice and getting the American people to soften up to it and accept it has been in the works for years by our so-called elites, because they recognize that it is accepted throughout much of the (mostly) Third World, and our immigration policy does not allow for any discrimination as to who we let in this country and who we keep out. Middle Eastern Arabs have been marrying cousins for centuries. Might this not explain their apparent inability to form functional societies and have rational discussions without wild conspiracy theories driving everything? There are also very high incidences of otherwise rare genetic disorders in the Arab Muslim world that are kept hush-hush by the MSM but that are directly attributable to cousins marrying for too many generations.

Why must our traditions constantly be under attack? Why can't the people who come here adapt to our accepted practices and social norms?

TTSSYF
Using his logic? No, not at all. His logic is that because there is no valid reason to prohibit marriage between cousins, it should not be prohibited. He isn't suggesting that the same is true for marriage between siblings, therefore there's no logical step to repealing that prohibition.

Now his premise may be flawed if other studies actually do prove detrimental effects not addressed by the study he cites, but his logic is sound. Although pointing out Einstein is just as anecdotal as a lot of the responses people have written (how could you even know someone's parents were cousins, let alone establish a cause-effect relationship, just driving through rural Utah?), but he's not relying solely on that.

Actually, for his position to remain consistent, he'd have to support an exception for "double" first cousins - cousins whose parents are pairs of siblings. They're as close genetically as siblings are.

re: relaxing
STOSSEL!!

re: relaxing
STOSSEL!!!

- Eli

cousins
One of the reasons we have been afraid for offspring of cousins is because of stories about those "inbreed hierarchy." Now we know they all went crazy because nobility used lead dishes. Often their water was even carried in through lead pipes. How sad that they didn't know.

Melody

Hey TTSSYF
TtSsYf writes: "No, he's not talking about siblings marrying...at least, not yet. That will be next, and why shouldn't it be, using his logic?"

Not *yet*? Come on, slippery slopes do not apply to every argument. Just because I want to paint my house blue today (illegal in some jurisdictions) doesn't mean I'm going to want to murder my ex-wife tomorrow.

tTsSyF writes: "Introducing this practice and getting the American people to soften up to it and accept it has been in the works for years by our so-called elites, ..."

Well, that's news to me. This is the first I've heard anything about it. I think you've got your "conservative paranoia" running on full blast here -- you read about somebody advocating something strange and new, you hunker down into a defensive posture, and trot out "Liberal Intelligensia" argument.

Now don't get me wrong -- just because you're paranoid does NOT mean they're NOT out to get you -- but on this particular issue, I just don't see it.

Besides, it appears that the ban on cousin-marriage is only LIMITED to SOME STATES, and then only RELATIVELY recently. This does NOT appear to be some long-standing 200-year-old "American Tradition" that's suddenly under attack by a cabal of liberal socialists.

TTSSYF: "Why must our traditions constantly be under attack? Why can't the people who come here adapt to our accepted practices and social norms?"

Again -- this doesn't appear to really be any sort of "American Tradition", and it doesn't have anything to do with people who come here from elsewhere, since it appears to be rather commonplace here already. Stossel presents a lot of statistics that I simply didn't know before, and unless somebody can give me some statistics that are more valid, I have to agree with Stossel.

It's like arguing for the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, as if it was always there, when in fact it wasn't put there until 1954. You can argue for or against it, but either way, you can't argue on the basis of any sort of "Tradition."

UncaAlby
Offspring resulting from two siblings breeding doesn't always result in expressed genetic abnormalities, so, in my opinion, Stossel's argument that cousins should be allowed to marry while the prohibition against siblings marrying should remain is merely one of degree. And you can classify my position as conservative paranoia all you want, but I've read articles on this topic that date back ten years or more, to the effect that this practice is "coming to America" and "we need to get more accepting of it since it's going to be more commonplace." While it unquestionably took place in America, it was never looked upon as a good thing.

Maybe you don't mind this country becoming like the rest of the world with its tribalism (due in large part to generations of cousins marrying) and lack of rationality, but I don't, and and see no reason why we must adapt ourselves to the lowest common denominator. People who know better should do better.

I have a question for you and all those who think first cousins marrying is not big deal and that we have no right to discourage it: Would you want your children to marry their first cousins, and would you be proud to send out the wedding invitations to all of your friends, co-workers, and acquaintences? And how about if their children fall in love with their first cousins and want to get married? Would you be proud grandparents? And if not, why not?

Don't get your shorts in a knot.
First, there is no Biblical basis whatsoever for thinking cousin marriages immoral. Check it yourself, starting with the Old Testament: marriage between cousins is not among any of the things prohibited there. Indeed, before the Mosaic law was written, marriages between even closer relatives were permitted. The New Testament makes no amendment to any of the sexual laws in the Old Testament, apart from eliminating all ceremonial distinctions between what is clean and unclean.

Second, following from the first point, laws against cousin marriages derive only from the human traditions of a few of our ancestors, which were by no means universal. If God Himself does not condemn cousin marriage, why should we think more highly of the authority of human traditions that don't even have much consensus behind them?

Third, if Stossel is right and the genetic dangers of cousin marriages are grossly exaggerated, doesn't that make any consensus that may arise against cousin marriages objectively wrong, let alone the opinions of a bare majority of our states?

Fourth, what the devil does "gay marriage" or any other kind of perversity have to do with cousins marrying? Are we leftists, that we must assume permitting anyone to marry his cousin is somehow justification for permitting "marriages" between man and man, or man and goat? Are we short on valid arguments against real perversions simply because those arguments do not apply against cousin marriage?

Fifth, what logical or scientific evidence do any of you have against Stossel's claims? Anecdotal evidence is insufficient; not all possible contributing factors, such as pre-existing conditions, have been taken into account. How much more prevalent are genetic defects in cousin marriages, as compared to marriages between people who are not as closely related as first cousins? If the actual risk of genetic defects is no greater than Stossel says, there is no prudential basis for outlawing cousin marriage.

Sixth, and finally, in the absence of any sound argument against cousin marriage from religion, tradition, logic, or science, why should I be personally concerned if any of my (future) children should want to marry their cousins, or if any of their children choose to marry their cousins? In fact, wouldn't I be embracing relativism to trust my own irrational feelings arising from unsound anecdotal assertions over Stossel's testable and falsifiable claims? In the absence of any other morally adverse factors, am I not actually morally compelled to bless a marriage between any children I may have and their cousins?

If anyone cares to falsify Stossel's claims, let him prove that his statistics are insufficient (in other words, that they do not involve a large enough sampling to be valid) and/or that cousin marriages really are far more dangerous than his studies indicate. If there is any valid moral question besides the prudential one, let the critics present it, that we may see for ourselves why we should believe cousin marriage is morally wrong.

I am currently dating my cousin with the intention of getting married so this subject resonates with me. I lost my best friend of 22 years over it. He hasn’t spoken to me since the day that I told him and therein lays the real problem that one can encounter when making choices like this. My concern was telling the family which I have yet to do. I want to make sure that our relationship is solid and on track before we "go public" because if our relationship doesn’t workout it could be very damaging to the family. It adds an extra level of responsibility and consequence to our relationship.

My cousin and I didn't grow up together and were united later in life. (Ages 35 and 37) As a result we don't have that brother / sister feeling that I can imagine could make things feel potentially very strange if we had been close as young children. The benefit of my relationship with her is that we share an understanding and closeness that transcends any other relationship that I have ever had.

I see valid reasons for people not approving of cousin marriage but from my perspective they are primarily centered around the impact that it can have family and friends.

Cousin Marriages
I'm not sure if there's ever a subject that brings up more flawed thinking than one which touches on cultural changes.

There are three elements which govern our thinking; legality, morality, and cultural. Since the culture of a people determine the laws they create, and their culture is highly influenced by their common religion, this discussion boils down to the question, “It is Christian to marry your cousin?”

The Bible verse John Stossel quoted, "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin" is part of a larger text that goes on to identify which kin may not be approached, and cousins are not on the list.

A fuller reading of the Bible yields some more interesting information when we read that God actually commanded some cousin to marry. So, we find it is not prohibited, and in fact, commanded.

The New Testament is silent on cousin marriages with one exception. Both the genealogy of Joseph and Mary are listed, and lo and behold there is high evidence they are cousins!

Both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant on-line encyclopedias support the above statement. In fact it was a commonly held belief of the early Puritans that Mary and Joseph were cousins. Talk about your founding forefathers and traditional beliefs!

This might bring us to ask “Why, then would cousin marriages rate so highly in the Bible?”

The argument might be that it creates tighter cohesive bonds within extended families, political and economic gains, or even for some higher reasons not clear to us yet. In truth, I suspect “all of the above.”

John Stossel ends his article with a warning about the risk of marrying your cousin based on what happens if you divorce. While I agree with him on that, I also think that same issue becomes the strength of a cousin marriage. If the interwoven theme of God’s encouragement of cousin marriages is to be understood it may lie in that being the most desired of relationships. Could it be the degree of bonding possible? Or perhaps, there is a degree of genetic advantage the general population doesn’t understand?

Let’s look at that last statement. For centuries breeders of domestic stock have used the breeding of animal cousins to improve the characteristics of the stock. It has been only in the last centuries that closer breeding has occurred leading to the genetic defects of certain dog breeds, for instance.

Advances in genetics and DNA has led to our understanding of how and where defects can occur, and new knowledge is being formed daily.

We do know more about inherited predispositions, and more needs to be learned. My heart goes out to klee whose family is saddled with a genetic predisposition of some kind. However, it is just as likely that the disposition was introduced by one of the non-cousin marriages as for it to be enhanced through cousin marriages.

I bring this up because anyone in a cousin marriage is more sensitive to the possibility of encouraging negative DNA traits than a couple of non-related individuals. This is in contrast to unrelated couples who look positively toward creating wonder children through their mating. The whole focus on DNA (outside of the breeding profession) is on negative traits instead of positive traits.


I hesitated, at first, on commenting on TTSSYF’s inane comments because they were so lacking in reality. However I will address one statement before closing. His/her idea that cousin marriages is a “third world” tradition is so ignorant as to be laughable. The entire English Speaking world accepts cousin marriages as legal, as the USA once did. It is the law in Canada, New Zeland, England, Austrailia and elsewhere in the modern Western world.

To suggest that “the Western world has been SO successful - and SUPERIOR - because OF our SUPERIOR ideas, and cultural mores” ignores that cousin marriages were an underpinning that made us the way we were.

Neocon's dilemma: not such a problem
By this logic, Neocon's age actually ought to be more of a genetic concern than the relative "closeness" of his cousin. Of course, at her age, he and his cousin are both far less likely to have any children at all, which almost renders any genetic objections a moot point anyway. The only difficulty lies in getting the family to accept the legitimacy of their relationship.

To Neocon, the only advice I can give is: bring these articles to your family's attention and get them used to the idea before you go breaking the news to them. As for you and your girlfriend, in keeping with Stossel's last point, make sure it's going to last before you tie the knot. (That's good advice for any couple, but especially for you two. Your sweetheart can't stop being your cousin even if she stops being your wife.)

My thoughts on this subject
Folks, I think, yes, I believe, that as long as a relationship is a NON blood sibling, CONSENTUAL ADULT HUMAN one, with the two partners very much in love with each other, tis a okay with me.

Cin50

It's a question of frequency.
I just want to see Stossel's sources. What seems to be the argument is that one set of first cousins getting married and producing offspring has a minimally increased risk of birth defect. Fine.

The problem, though, is that when this is protracted out as an accepted social practice (regardless of feelings of morality or justifications made thereby), you are significantly reducing the size of the gene pool. Anything bad in there has a much higher probability of popping up.

The problem some many prohibitive laws, rules, or social mores is that breaking them once has a very low chance of causing serious, irreparable damage to someone. If a set of first cousins wants to get married and have kids, I don't really care, but making it a family tradition seems dicey.

By the way, gay marriage has nothing to do with Stossel's arguments. It delegitimizes gay rights to even mention them in the same breath, so please stop.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.