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
Friday, March 30, 2007
Jonathan Garthwaite :: Townhall.com Columnist
Nanny State, USA
by Jonathan Garthwaite
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


This week San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban plastic grocery bags from city supermarkets and drug stores. San Francisco generates an estimated 180 million plastic bags each year, and the city counsel wants them gone. Grocery shoppers will have to find an alternative within six months.

Reducing the number of nonbiodegradable plastic bags tangled in neighborhood streets and piling up in landfills for hundreds of years is a noble undertaking, but San Francisco's government imposed bag ban is one more in a series of nanny state edicts from government upon the governed.

What's a "nanny state"? If you want a dictionary definition, "A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations."

A shorter version might be: Government acting like your mommy -- like a nanny.

It happens all over the country.

San Francisco has an ordinance detailing how pet "guardians" are required to care for their dogs. Animal cruelty laws are a given but San Francisco goes a step further. Dogs in San Francisco must have clean water served in a nonspill bowl in the shade. Their food must be wholesome, palatable and sufficiently nutritious. Seems like common sense, but do we need laws to dictate the size and shape of our pets' food bowls? What's the penalty for being a lackluster dog owner? One thousand and/or up to one year in jail for a third offense.

New York City decided its citizens were too lazy to read food labels or to eat well and enacted a ban on trans fats from restaurants and vendors. Scientific research may back up assertions that trans fats are unhealthy, but so is half of everything in New York City. Are cheese fries OK to eat now? Of course not.

Cities like Washington, D.C., ban hand-held cell phones while driving when no data exists that using a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than using a hands-free unit. It's only a matter of time before the city council decides to mandate our hands be placed at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel for the sake of public safety.

City governments go from banning smoking in city buildings one day to banning smoking on the sidewalks the next. Several states are working on bans that prohibit driving while smoking if anyone under 18 is in the car. There's no question that secondhand smoke is harmful, but where is the appropriate limit for governmental intrusion into an individual's privacy? Is it really our intention to turn our already stretched-thin police departments into junior high hall monitors checking under restroom stalls for smokers?

And while you're not smoking on the sidewalks, you might also want to make sure you're not listening to an iPod when crossing the street in New York City, where some legislators are considering the need to ban earbuds. Their reason? Because three recent deaths were caused by distracted pedestrians. New York State Sen. Carl Kruger who spearheaded the effort claimed that "some type of electronic device was to blame." The iPod made me do it is the excuse of the moment, I guess.

A California assemblywoman proposed banning parents from spanking their children. The Texas governor proposed requiring all sixth-grade girls get a vaccine for the sexually transmitted HPV virus. And the list doesn't end there.

Nanny state laws and regulations are popping up all over the place. Government officials -- perhaps with too much free time -- can't stop themselves from brainstorming new and improved ways to protect us and coddle us through life.

They serve only to make government officials feel good that they are doing something about a problem and taking good care of their citizens -- like children. Shouldn't we expect more of ourselves and better from our elected officials?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jonathan Garthwaite is the editor-in-chief of Townhall.com.

Be the first to read Jonathan Garthwaite's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

It's a sad commentary...
...on how Mr. Jefferson's vision of "that governemnt which governs best, governs least."

The death of personal responsibility and the decay (and undercutting of) of parental authority are the twin culprits.

A truly sad state of affairs for what was to be a "shining city on a hill."

Cell Phones
I agree with most everything in this article, but the statement that there is no data that shows talking on cell phones in a car is more dangerous than using a handsfree device is puzzling. We've all seen idiots glued to their phones weaving all aruond and totally oblivious to other traffic. This may be only anecdotal evidence, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that yakking on a cell phone while driving isn't dangerous.

Shame
People in this country have become too stupid to care about all of this idiocy, thus the loss of so many freedoms. It seems to me it all started with mandatory seatbelt laws in the 80's. Too bad we no longer have a Constitution and judges who used to put an end to such laws as being unconstitutional.

Nanny State Strikes Again
1) Government decides whether woman may terminate unwanted pregnancy.

2) Government decides whether life support may be stopped for terminally ill patient.

3) Government decides whether Bible can be taught in lieu of science in high school biology classes.

4) Government decides whether federal money can be used to fund embryonic stem cell research.

5) Government decides not to give foreign aid grants to overseas agencies that distribute condoms.

lilly - Nanny State - Part 2

1) Government decides 1 of 3 adults that are functionally illiterate in Washington, D.C. is O.K.

2) Government decides 1 of 5 adults that are functionally illiterate in the Nation is O.K.

3) Government decides that U.S. decline of technology innovation to 7th place in the world is O.K.

4) Government decides that a loss of 40 million jobs overseas in the next 20 years is O.K.

5) Government decides that the current deficit of 50 trillion dollars (including Social Security and Medicare entitlements) is O.K.

6) Government decides that sub-primes loans leading to 2 million foreclosures is O.K.

7) Government decides that the devaluing of the dollar and 10% inflation is O.K.

8) Government decides it is O.K. for people to not be personally responsible for their own actions.

9) Government decides it is O.K. for unions to hold city, county and state governments hostage for higher wages and pension benefits.

10) Government decides it is O.K. for trial lawyers to be granted excess awards for arbitrary damages awarded by the courts.

11) Government decides that people should be granted all of the same rights regardless of sexual orientation.

12) Government decides teachers should not be fired regardless of whether they are imcomptent or not.

13) Government decides tolerance and diversity may be applied randomly at many universities with particular emphasis against Conservatives.

14) Government decides that the main stream media may discriminate as it wishes against political parties with which it disagrees.

15) Government decides that in order to increase its income it can call taxes "fees" that are not subject to voter approval.

15) Government decides heavy-handed regulations for environmental protection is O.K.

16) Government decides that wealth redistribution is O.K.

17) Government decides that diplomatic capitulation is O.K.

18) Government decides that economic protectionism is O.K.

19) Government decides that the firing of 92 federal attorneys is O.K., but the firing of 8 is not.

Lily & Sonny
Great post Sonny, tough to follow. Lily, are your really comparing a deeply philisophical, moral issue such as the 'abortion debate' to local governments treating it's citizenry like 5 year olds? I really want you to focus on this question, just this one question, holding everything else not pertinent and constant, and answering yes or no, I will enjoy reading your rationale either way you answer. Here goes: Should the NYC council or NY state legislature have the power to mandate that no one can cross a street in NYC if they are listening to an iPod? Remember, just this one question which addresses the topic of this article. Thanks in advance.

MarkJ
Its not the hand-held vs the hands-free part of the phone that's dangerous while driving...it is the distraction of the phone itself for far too many people who can't even walk and chew gum at the same time.
you know....Libs.

Too Bad
Comrade lily

1) Government decides whether woman may terminate unwanted pregnancy.

Answer: should have thought about that prior to getting pregnant.

2) Government decides whether life support may be stopped for terminally ill patient.

I don't know which side of this equation you are on but judging from the rest of your examples I would think it is against the human life continuing its own journey at its own pace and ending on its own time.

3) Government decides whether Bible can be taught in lieu of science in high school biology classes.

Again you aren't clear here, but again, judging by the low esteem you display for the sanctity of life I would guess, you don't approve of religious teachings either.

4) Government decides whether federal money can be used to fund embryonic stem cell research.
Answer:

A) Why is it you guys are so geared up for EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS?

B) Federal Money is EVERYONES money and some don't want their money used for that. There is plenty of private money for stem cell research.

5) Government decides not to give foreign aid grants to overseas agencies that distribute condoms

Again. Everyones money. Soon with the Dims raising taxes the way they are & the way they spend I wonder if you'll be excited about ANY FORM of foreign aid.

Now, back to the topic.....

Wonder if...

we'll be seeing a showdown between the 'tree huggers' and the 'no more land-fill' camps inside the eco-nutz movement anytime soon...

all I can say is:Deutschland, uber allis
and Sieg Heil, baby! (ripped off from Donald Sutherland in KELLY'S HEROES

Bemused

I posed a couple questions for Lilly on another thread, so she may be busy looking up the answers on DailyKos.

Where I live, it is against the law to sit on your front porch and drink an adult beverage. I had a police officer stop by to inform me of this soon after I moved into the neighborhood.

He was very polite and professional, and also informed me that someone had called the police about my wanton behavior. LOL. It did not take long to figure out which neighbor wanted to control her neighbors.

We have too many laws, too much government, too many people who want to use the power of the government to take from us and redistribute our money to others.

Vote Them Out in '08 !

Cell Phones v. Beer
I have been run into TWICE by idiots on cell phones but NEVER been hit by a drunk driver.

Even worse, a drunk driver (and I mean 1.5, not .08 or .05) is predictable in unpredictability -- the drunk will either be reckless and aggressive or half asleep and drifting toward the ditch. You can avoid either the same way you can avoid being stung by a nest of hornets.

But as to the idiot on the cell phone, God himself probably isn't quite sure what she will do next...

Mock cell phone bans all you want but honest research shows that talking on a cell phone is statistically like driving with a 1.2 BAC. Both were once legal but if the latter is now criminal, shouldn't the former be at least banned?

I am just asking the nanny state to be consistent.

Bemused

Imagine, if you will, an America where the New American leaders don't believe in life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. They don't believe in freedom or individual efforts or individual accomplishments. They don't believe in private property for the masses. They don't believe in mobility for the masses, choice for the masses, or wealth for the masses.

Impossible, you say.

Not on your life. Also, suppose we find ourselves law breakers by innocently following laws that had been eliminated by memorandums of understanding, executive orders, and teachers' unions.

New councils and new legislatures will surely change the way Americans live their lives and perhaps even how we are to listen to our ipods.

All of this may come about through the North American Union which we ignore at our peril. It is rapidly advancing upon us as we speak.

MarkJ, the problem is not
just with cell phones. Driving distractions like putting on mascara and make up while driving,
picking up dropped items while driving, playing a musical instrument while driving (take your mind out of the gutter on that one..it was a real musical instrument in the case I read about), locating files or some such thing from the backseat while driving, tending to a crying baby while you are driving, having kids in the backseat hitting/poking/kicking/throwing tantrums and/or items like toys at each other while you are driving, and so on. How on earth can you begin to possibly legislate every conceivable driving distraction? You can't. That is why I am opposed to legislating cell phones.

Mark J
There is already a law against the exact actions you describe. It's called Reckless Driving and cops have been giving out tickets for this for as long as drivers have existed. We don't need new laws, just observation of the old ones.

Second hand smoke is not harmful.
The article says that "there is no question that second hand smoke is harmful" and that is not accurate.

There has never been any proof that ETS is anything more than annoying.

In an article about the nanny state, you would think the author would know the difference.


Time
We must begin the fight against the Nanny State by repealing the hate-laws and hate-taxes against smokers.

smoke
I understand that there IS a question as to whether second hand smoke is harmful. Perhaps if working constantly in a smoke filled bar with second hand smoke from dozens of people constantly lighting up. But, from a person walking past you on the beach? Ccome on! Smoking can kill you, it usually takes about 40 or more years to do it. (I am a non smoker).
Next we will ban perfume since there are some who have allergies, watch out ladies, you may be next. Welcome to 1984 - time travel is possible...

Nanny State
Isn't it great that our government is taking such good care of us? Peace and prosperity rule all over the planet. There is no crime. No poverty. Everyone coexists in tolerant harmony with one another. Everybody is healthy since they regulated away the trans fats and hydrogenated oils. No trees are being killed to make paper bags anymore since they mandated plastic ones(oops, I didn't mean that since SF did the opposite). People aren't running their cars off bridges yakking on their cell phones while they are drunk. Isn't our government wonderful?


PS: Where can I find one of those non-spill dog water bowls? My dogs spill their water out of anything.

The worst part is...
most people welcome the nanny state. If you ask the average person who they feel is responsible for the basic necessities in life - they will tell you the government. Of course, the basics include things like cable TV and central air in a 3 to 4 bedroom home.

When we mention our plan to homeschool our children, you should see the look of absolute shock and disgust on the faces of most people. They honestly feel we are harming our children by NOT turning them over to the government.

Any issue that happens in life most people follow up with the quote "there should be a law". Many people also feel that "they" would do the right thing without government intervention but everyone else would not - therefore the government should be involved in every aspect of our lives.

The average American wants to live in a socialist country. They may not say those words, but listen to them speak. Better yet, they would love to have a King rule over them.

I have been fighting against seat belts
since they passed the law. Well, I do have a few *good* reasons.
Seat belts are fine, if you are a size to accomodate them. Larger or smaller size will NOT fit.
Certain heart problems can *KILL* you, if hit with an air bag or seat belt. Enlarged heart.
And, to be honest - I HATE THEM. And, almost refuse to wear them. I say almost because you never KNOW WHO will read this.
The nice officer who pulled me over one day and ticketed me and sent me to 'safety class' for not wearing one would not be mollified until I put the D*** thing on.
He also informed me that the next ticket would be $180! I politely told him, THAT was a racket.
I attended the 'safety class' because, well, if I didn't it would have been a hundred dollar fine AND a warrant for my arrest.
Such a 're-education! I learned they have these piddling laws to CATCH people like Ted Bundy. That there is NO SUCH THING as 'defensive driving' which I had been taught in school. AND, the last thing I remember was the 'instructor' telling me that the law would NOT have passed if it was not proved to save lives, thus GOOD. I said, 'Show me the proof. Show me the study.'
Now, I have NOT received another ticket since. It may be that I wear it. It may be that the 'instructor' is now a police officer in my area. I see him, he sees me. We do NOT wave.

nt250
You correctly note that there is no evidence linking secondhand smoke and disease. But the campaign to hide that fact is so successful that even the author of this column has bought the concept.

In 1998, the World Health Organization published the largest study ever done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The study reported no statistically significant association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. In fact, the only statistically significant finding in the study was the apparent PROTECTION against lung cancer of the children of smokers.

Other major studies debunked the link between secondhand smoke and other smoking-related diseases.

But that fact remains that secondhand smoke is irritating to many, therefore the disease-connection myth must be maintained to garner COMPLETE public support for smoking bans.

Even worse, studies are emerging that show that transfats may actually be HEALTHY. I haven't noticed NYC Mayor Bloomberg requesting repeal of that ban.

Why are people so willing to accept that Government knows best? For crying out loud, Government is filled with people who couldn't find (and keep) real jobs.

Of greater interest....
...would be how the local government lists their priorities. Such is the best indicator of its stability.

If they pass ordinances to govern our habits and personal preferences but crime or decay is common, it's an ineffective and narcissistic body. The people will suffer, but the "leaders" will feel oh-so-good.

But all the above is moot because this type of government is what a majority of the voters in San Fran want.

Anarchy
I'm all for anarchy at this point. We don't need no steenking government at all do we? The problem with Jefferson's arguement is that he wrote it in the early 19th century when we are just a handful of struggling states trying to get our act together.

Oh Ye of Little Faith
You folks sound like rebellious children hollering "You're not the boss of me!".

Today is Saturday; maybe you'll be going to the grocery store. When you get there, you won't have to worry that your food has been tainted, stretched, contaminated, or misrepresented. It will be what the vendor says it is. If it's packaged, all ingredients will be listed on the package in order of proportion used. Your cornmeal or flour or oatmeal won't have bugs in it. Any additives will have been exhaustively tested for safety. The meat you buy won't come from animals who dropped dead of an illness. The milk you buy won't come from a tubercular herd.

Will you be stopping by the pharmacy counter to pick up a prescribed or OTC medication? It will have been tested for efficacy and toxicity. That means a) it will do what the manufacturer says it will do and b) it won't kill you with lethal side effects. Joe Blow can't cook up some stuff in his basement and sell it, a la free market, claiming that it cures cancer and impotence and arthritis (such claims, pre-FDA, were common).

None of these benefits came about because the free market wanted to make nice. They came about because government regulation forced the issue and has the clout to lay penalties on folks who don't follow regulatory law.

Is this the Nanny State? I hope so. Because part of Nanny's job is putting a kid in the corner or giving him one upside the head when he doesn't behave himself. Of course I can't speak for you, but I derive some comfort from knowing that my bus or taxi driver actually knows how to drive, that my restaurant chef isn't a typhoid carrier, that my broker hasn't served twenty years in prison for financial fraud, and that my doctor really went to medical school. Maybe you are more up for adventures than I am, but I appreciate the work my government does to protect me.

Maybe we're not that far apart since you and I all expect our government to protect us. You see this in terms of busting t he a** of other countries (all of them if possible) while I see this protectionism extended to the home front. You see the issue as Washington protecting you by letting you keep a gun concealed in your pocket; I see it as Washington protecting me from you should you, in a fit of displeasure, take a notion to shoot me at the mall or at work or in church. I expect you might like to drive through town at 100 mph if you feel like it and have no traffic lights to impede your progress, while meanwhile talking on your cell phone; I like to cross the street in safety.




lilly

You will eventually get EVERYTHING you want and even more. The far-left liberals will see to it. They want to control EVERY facet of your life and mine. All of us will be completely regulated as they see fit. I can only hope you're in agreement with them because your happiness depends upon it.

I also hope you don't object to your taxes increasing to cover the cost of the regulations you don't object to. There might be a multitude of forms to comply with regarding all your actions to see if you comply with the regulations.

When you seek security, you give up liberty. When you lose your liberty, only then will you realize the value of it.

Statistics show
Changing the radio station or the volumn level actually causes more accidents than cell phone use.
BUT
Nanny & the professors have only just started zeroing in on Cell Phones in their research.

The odd thing about cell phones in cars is as I posted earlier, there is no significant difference between hand-held or hands-free when the figures are looked at.

That leaves only the conversation itself as a factor (I don't think the ringing of the phone causes too many accidents)...for people who can barely drive under the rules of the road the talking part while operating a machine becomes a problem.

Something unique about the conversation aspect is that most people can carry on a discussion with someone riding beside them no problem. So what is the difference? Another set of eyes watching the road as the driver prattles on.

In conclusion I submit that soon, we will all be required to have a "back-seat driver" along for the ride wherever we go. To cut down on the accidents caused by those driving alone.

It only makes sense in a Nanny-state.


The nanny state is a wuss
It focuses on "causes." A really righteous, motivated state would just bypass them and eliminate effects. Summarily execute everyone who gets fat, gets hurt, gets cancer, (special for California: gets old), changes lanes without signalling, leaves a plastic bag to decompose on a street corner, puts water out for the dog in a bowl that isn't spill-proof, or, what the he11, just pisses us off.

I can't think of a good argument against this proposal. After all, no matter how you truss up and shackle humans, they are still going to find ways to hurt themselves. In fact, let's just cut the crap and put everyone out of his misery right now.

Lilly
I think Mr. Garthwaite's point was that there is a huge difference between regulating the efficacy and toxicity of medicine and the requirement to insure your pet's water bowl is "unspillable".

Public safety is rightfully the concern of the government. It is, and should be, watched closely.

As a matter of practicality and reasonableness, legislating dog bowls' size and spillability is simply impractical and unreasonable.

plastic bags
And for the funny thing, plastic bags weighs 1/50 of what a paper bag weighs. So there will be 49 more trucks driving around in San Francisco to deliver the same number of bags.

And it ain't cell phones or makeup or anything that makes a bad driver. It is bad drivers that make bad drivers. And the only solution is for the driver to be totally isolated from everyone else in the car, with no radio or anything else that can distract the driver. No kids, nor wife/husband, no friends or helpful girlfriends, nothing!

Functional ? Plastic bag replacement
Plastic bags came into use as a environment-friendly replacement for paper bags that required cutting down forests. Now, the biodegradable bags bags San Francisco thinks should replace plastic begin degrading before they leave the suppliers' warehouse, and break before a customer gets out of the store or home.

That leaves paper & deforestation, or buying several expensive tote bags if you want to groceries home. Will SF raise taxes to pay for tote bags?

lilly
Long as you include the far right, the religious right, the social conservatives, with the far left liberals, in trying to regulate every facet of our lives, I will agree.

"The Democrats want to control our money, the Republicans our morals."
--paraphrase of Michael Badnarik, from his Constitution Class (http://www.missouriconservative.com/multimedia/constitutionclass.shtml)

lonestarblues
Badnarik is a good guy.

Seems to me the division is between those that believe we should adhere to our Constitution and have a limited Constitutional government vs. Big government statists. Big government statists are on both sides of the aisle, only differing in what they want their big government to do.

Well now
A close friend was trapped in an overturned, burning pickup truck by a seatbelt. He used his pocket knife to cut his wife's belt but did not have time to cut his own.

On the other hand;
I was rear ended by a woman who's rear end I could see behind her stearing wheel as she was turned around backwards swatting at kids in the back seat.
Saw it coming, nothing I could do but push harder on the break and brace for collision.
If she was wearing a seatbelt she would not have ruined the aluminum body of my car.

I hear they are installing video cameras in our major cities now so they can have a record of who is where, when and with whom, just like in England.
The nanny State already dictates what you can wear & eat, what kind of bug spray you can use and what kind of car you can drive with what kind of fuel.

Soon they will tell you where & when you can shop, what you are entitled to buy and who you can associate with.

lonestarblues

I KNOW the liberals will eventually control my money, but they will NEVER control my values.

I cannot help it if OTHERS choose to elect thiefs and crooks to elected office who are more concerned about helping themselves than others, but the one thing they are unable to do is to cause me to submit to their perverted sense of ethics and morals.

If they choose a certain course of action and are enticing you to join in with them, you will usually find yourself in fool's paradise no matter what side of the political spectrum you find yourself on.

Without standards, each man decides what is right in their own eyes. No nation has been able to endure a complete libetarian principle nor, as "lilly" wishes, a total governmental nanny state.

What you perceive as an imbalance in our society today is perceived as being just the opposite by others.

On the other hand, if you have pursued timeless principles which have proved to be righteous, the personal rewards far exceed anything money or your votes can buy.

I would rather be hung for the principles I believe are right than being hung because of the principles of others.

Sonny
Exactly as you say "the one thing they are unable to do is to cause me to submit to their perverted sense of ethics and morals." But I sense you find perversion only on the liberal left and not equally the religious right. The individual must be free to choose, constrained, naturally, by standards, yes, principles, yes, the rule of law, certainly not man, be he social left or religious right.

"A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom."
--Fredrich August von Hayek

Sonny
This is an example of people who should have been hung for blindly following the principles of another.
Before you discharge a firearm you glance past the target to be sure you know your bullet will do no unwanted harm.
Activists should take the same precaution with their mouth!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215084,00.html

lonestarblues

You can have von Hayek.

As for me, von Mises is more my kind of guy.

Ronald Reagan thought he was the greatest economic thinker of his day. I agree with President Reagan (another kind of guy I like).
I also agree with Reagan's conservative social and economic policies.

If you really take a close look at the current educational, social, legal, environmental and ecomonic regulations advocated by the liberals and compare them with conservative policies, there should be no doubt about where I stand on the issue of "values".

I wouldn't worry about what the "religious right" is doing or not doing. They are completely unable to articulate a Christian philosophy on issues concerning business, politics or the culture.

What do you have to worry about? They are about as influencial in public policy as a flea on the back of the emblem they use to represent themselves.

LoneStarBlues
The so-called "religious right" is a straw man created by the leftists.

No one can legislate your beliefs or values. Even if they (yes, the ubiquitous "they"!) passed a law mandating everyone believe in a certain diety, how are they going to enforce it? Mandate lie detector exams for everyone in the country? Make you watch the 700 Club every day?

I'm not religious at all; couldn't care less about anyone's precious diety. I'm not worried about the "religious right". What I worry about is the socialist left. They're the ones that kill a few million people simply to get their point across.
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.