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
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Nathan Tabor :: Townhall.com Columnist
The world according to Gore
by Nathan Tabor
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?


Hollywood praises Al Gore for revealing what the media elite consider to be inconvenient truths. But the fact is, at some point, Mr. Gore needs to face a few inconvenient truths of his own.

For instance, how could a man who once considered abortion to be arguably the taking of a human life turn around and court the favor of pro-abortion forces during his last ill-fated Presidential campaign? The inconvenient truth in that instance was that Gore was a flip-flopper who flipped to the side that fails to recognize the truth that an unborn child is a person who deserves legal protection.

Among environmental activists—those who wear their allegiance to green on their sleeves—Gore has achieved superhero status. And yet his own household habits indicate he is not an energy-saver.

During a global warming hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, presented Gore with a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge.” That’s the type of pledge you would think that Gore would be eager to sign onto. However, the former Vice-President refused to take the pledge. In other words, he simply could not commit to consuming no more energy than the average American household.

For the record, Gore is no slouch when it comes to energy use. He’s a big-time user. It’s been reported that his electricity usage is 20 times higher than that of the average American household.

Senator Inhofe tried to appeal to Gore’s sense of environmental chivalry, telling him, “There are hundreds of thousands of people who adore you and would follow your example by reducing their energy usage if you did. Don’t give us the run-around on carbon offsets or the gimmicks the wealthy do.”

The energy ethics pledge that Inhofe presented to Gore is quite straightforward. It states, “As a believer that human-caused global warming is a moral, ethical, and spiritual issue facing our survival; that home energy use is a key component of overall energy use; that reducing my fossil fuel-based home energy usage will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions; and that leaders on moral issues should lead by example; I pledge to consume no more energy for use in my residence than the average American household by March 21, 2008.”

Inhofe did not ask Gore to be some kind of super-saver, besting the energy savings rate of typical Americans. He simply requested that Gore be average in his energy usage. Just average.

And Gore declined the opportunity.

I would never use the word hypocrite lightly. After all, we’re all sinners, as far as Mother Nature is concerned. There have probably been times in my life when I myself might have failed the noble aim of the Personal Energy Ethics Pledge.

However, can one really point the finger at SUV-driving, high heating bill Americans, when you yourself are using 20 times more than your fair share of energy?

The truth can certainly be inconvenient—especially to a man busy casting himself as a latter-day messiah.

Earth to Gore: the position’s already been filled. Thanks anyway.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Nathan Tabor organizes and educates Christians on their role in Politics.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Nathan Tabor's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
2ND thoughts

Gore maybe right about global warming, but for the wrong reasons.

Google: The Horizon Project.

There are planets that are currently emitting more energy than the sun.

If Gore knows about this Project, maybe the reason he wouldn't sign the "pledge" is because he knows the real reason for GW.

He's worse than a hypacrite ...
He's also a liar!

Please take the time to watch this well done, made UK documentary:

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans. ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467

Click on the link ...
In my previous post! It will send you right to the full-length 1hour and 14 minute documentary! Trust me...it is well worth your time!

Inhofe Rocks
Inhofe is a GREAT senator. His competition for "greatest senator" is limited, pretty much, to his fellow Oklahoman, Tom Coburn!

What's big, yellow, hot...
...and has a bunch of planets circling around it?

I wonder how the brilliant Algore missed this possibility:

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=259542253407130

Albore is NOT
a hypocrite. He is a crook and should be in jail for fraud and abuse of office.

okay...
Yesterday, I listened to the radio while eating luch out at a restaurant. I KNEW that if I had a salad and pizza, I would dirty TWO plates. Soooo, I saved a few carbon credits by eating off of the same plate. You know, so the big bad dishwasher might not have had to run an extra load. THEN, I heard that John Travolta was also thrwoing his GW ideas around. I thought I might play the Lottery. Maybe I'll win enough money to own a couple of Gulf Streams myself!

Oooohh Lynne;
so violent. I thought us mean ole' southerners were supposed to be the violent ones.

To Lynne
Stupidity and any liberal above the age of 16 are the same.

They don't care if it's not real
The world socialists just want enough cover to expand control of our lives. The politicians gain power over all energy usage and the scientists are hired to manage that usage. The losers are everybody else. They don't need to prove anything. They just need to scare the unwashed long enough to pass a few laws. They just can't see past that to what it will bring about. Keep your powder dry.

RE: Algor
It takes a lot of energy to save the world.

Lynne
I actually feel sorry for Colmes, who I think is basically a nice guy, for a lib. He has to play devil's advocate against some very pesky facts and always be contrary to everything expressed by Hannity or guests.

Watch carefully, and you'll see Allan squirm sometimes as he has to "balance" the debate. I understand that off camera, he is actually quite thoughtful and reflective, not the manufactured shill he has to play on air. I think it's affecting his health. He looks pale and sickly to me, but maybe he's a vegetarian or something.

Cute!
isn't Al just the cutest ever?

Grow a brain
Tabor starts his vapid paragraphs inauspiciously: "Hollywood praises Al Gore for revealing what the media elite.." He's been chanting conservative talking points and phrases so long, all he has to do is let it flow. Is there something new here? Has Tabor himself thought of something? Not today.

To liberalgoodman
Grow a brain, you say? You might pass that bit of advice on to Al Gore.

Missing the point
First, why are Democrats called flip-floppers but Conservatives like Mitt Romney are allowed to change their views on subjects like abortion?

Secondly, you are missing the point of Al Gore's campaign. He is pushing the government to take action to create markets for renewable energy. Without Federal government support, the major undertaking won't materialize.

flip flopping
You are assuming that we forgive flip-floppers of any stripe? I certainly believe that a person can and should realize he is wrong and change his mind. But when that change of mind occurs in order to be a part of a campaign (Algore, Joe Lieberman come to mind) I tend to distrust it, no matter what party they belong to.

Gore THE Inventor
Well, what more can one say about the man who invented the internet!

liberalgoodparrot
Perhaps when liberals come up with a philosophy other than trashing the opposition, Mr Tabor will have something else to write about.

The inconvenient truth about BoreGore
His mind is cent-percent composed of his ego--never has he had anything original, and he never stood for anything (quoting Neal McCoy song here).

And ham-acting like a cranky 6-year-old (at nearly 59) will not change that one iota.

Lynne
LOL....I like your style doll.

I'd gladley hod your jacket for you while you roll your sleeves up and rattje Colmes' teeth.

I watched the H&C show too and was 'spittin mad' last night. It seems there is no limit to how low he will stoop to defend the defenceless.

roadmaster...I like a lot of what you have to say on the forum here but I have to disagree with you analysis of Colmes when you say "He has to play devil's advocate against some very pesky facts"

That's purely a cop-out. None of us 'has to' do anything in this life, other than dying some day. If his nonsensical spewing is nothing more than mere posturing or playing a role....he's even more despicable than I already believe him to be. I'd have more respect for him if he truly believed the crap he spews on a nightly basis.

Sonny
You said: "Gore maybe right about global warming, but for the wrong reasons."

He's not right about global warming! He claims that the earth is on the brink of disaster. Forgetting about his blaming humans and his 'solutions', that claim alone is absolutely preposterous. Is just pure fantasy and typical liberal scare tactics to make the mases thing 'they care about us'!

Please watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' if you haven't already! It's a well done documentary on the GW hoax which destroys the idea that we are on the brink of disaster, plan and simple.

There have been times in the earth's history when it was much warmer than temps are today!

Algore is a liar and a fraud with a 'planet sized' ego, and that's the only qualification he brings to the scientific table.

I hate to do this...
...but I'm going to defend Al G-g-g-g-gore. (Even saying that makes me stutter.)

Al Gore knows that one person can't make a difference. In fact, it takes somewhere around 528 or so people to make a difference.

What is more important than one individual's impact is to get the government to regulate carbon limits through the law of the land and the barrel of a gun.

But this brings up an interesting point that I haven't seen explored. All the talk is about regulating carbon emissions from businesses. What about regulations on individuals and families? Do people have no individual impact? Will they be forever exempt, and if so, why? Will you pay a tax to have another child? Will you pay a tax on excess square footage? Will the homeless people get a credit?

All those questions will have to be worked out.

Just what EXACTLY is the alarmist crowd proposing?

Steve O
There is absolutely no scientific data that proves that CO2 causes global warming! Period!

Algore's big lie to the contrary is un-defensible, and he very well knows it!

The patterns he uses to try and correlate the rise in temps and the rise in atmospheric CO2 are 'conveniently' used in a deceptive way to bolster his flawed theories.

The truth is that there is a correlation between the rise in the earth's temps and the rise in CO2 levels. Algore 'conveniently' reverses the order of those two factors in an effort to fit his loony hypothesis and to defraud anyone he can. The correlating rise in CO2 levels actually occur ...AFTER ...NOT BEFORE...the rise in the earth's temperatures ....by about 200 years!

How 'inconvenient' is that 'little' fact!?

Steps 1, 2, and 3
Step 1:
The climatolotists tell us what they expect to happen if we do nothing, and to give a couple of scenarios of what they expect if we do everything and something in between.

Step 2:
The economists tell us what they expect to happen if we do the various things proposed above.

Step 3:
Politicians redistribute everyone's money.

Why does anybody say that we're ready to go to Step three? Climatologists aren't even done with step one yet. The best you can say is that there are some climatologists who believe we should continue with the questions in step one.

They'll be done with step one when they can say that sea levels will rise 17 inches over the next 100 years, plus or minus x inches, plus or minus x years, but if we do everything on some list they will only rise 16 inches.

Economists will be done with step two when they can say that saving us that extra inch will only cost us $50 trillion.

We'll know Politicans will be done with step three when guys like William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson need to get bigger freezers.



photogbill,
I'm with you brother.

It might be more accurate to say that the evidence in favor of CO2 causing global warming is very weak. Remember, you can take actual data measurements, and a scientist can use statistics to come up with incorrect conclusions. You just need one scientist do it wrong and you can have "data that shows that CO2 causes global warming."

If you are selling a mutual fund and the 4 year return is bad because you had a trough, then you measure from the bottom of the trough. You're still using math, which is a branch of science, but you're just not using science to tell the truth.

My guess is that there are experts in the field who do honestly believe that something is happening. As it turns out, their field of study is useful for others who have an agenda.

If politicians get to design a system by which they get to redistribute wealth based on something as arbitrary as carbon emissions, they will become much more powerful, and wealthier as well. Enemies of our country can use this as a way to weaken America. In fact, the whole conglomeration of anarchists, communists, and anti-American zealots have glommed on to this issue. Somehow the Left doesn't recognize their stink when they're standing next to them chanting "Death to Darth Cheney."

Steps 1, 3, 2.
Step 1:
The CLIMATOLOGITS tell us what they expect to happen if we do nothing, and they give a couple of scenarios of what they expect if we do everything and something in between.

Step 2:
The ECONOMISTS tell us what they expect to happen if we do the various things proposed above.

Step 3:
POLITICIANS redistribute everyone's money.

Why does anybody say that we're ready to go to Step three? Climatologists aren't even done with step one yet. The best you can say is that there are some climatologists who believe we should continue with the questions in step one.

They'll be done with step one when they can say that sea levels will rise 17 inches over the next 100 years, plus or minus x inches, plus or minus x years, but if we do everything on some list they will only rise 16 inches. And they will tell us why.

Economists will be done with step two when they can say that saving us that extra inch will only cost us $50 trillion.

We'll know Politicans will be done with step three when guys like William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson need to get bigger freezers.

(I apologize if this shows up twice. My first posting of this comment seems to have disappeared)

Stevo O
Sorry buddy! I guess I misunderstood the earlier points you were making. Your last couple of post cleared that confusion up. Looks like we are very much in agreement!

My apologies! :)

Global Warming

CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE MYTHS

Concerning the issue of global warming, it seems clear that various involved scientific communities do not communicate with each other. This truth was discovered over years of managing many brilliant scientists and engineers in labs and technology centers. For example, a lot of the magic used in inkjet printer cartridges was developed by my team. With a technical background in device physics, an analysis was started by "counting CO2 molecules" above each square meter of the earth’s surface. It can be determined that there are 8 X 10^25 (8 followed by 25 zeros). When in energy balance, the earth radiates 235 watts per square meter (W m^-2) into space. It can be determined that at the surface, the earth radiates at an average of 390 W m^-2. Forty of these watts radiate directly into space because nothing in the atmosphere stops them. That leaves 350 watts that can be absorbed.

About 85% of CO2 based greenhouse warming occurs when the earth emits infrared light photons at a wave length of about 15 microns and they are captured by the CO2. The energy of each of the 15 micron infrared photons is "fixed" by the laws of physics at 1.34 X 10^-20 Joules (the decimal point, 19 zeros then the 134). Therefore, the average number of photons per second per square meter emitted from the surface of the earth is 2.6 X 10^22. For these global warming photons, each CO2 molecule has an absorption cross section of about 5 X 10^-22 m^-2. What it all means is that at 100% absorption, it requires only about 2 X 10^21 molecules above each square meter to capture the photons the earth emits that account for 85% of global warming. The earth ALREADY has at least 40,000 times MORE CO2 then is required! A similar analysis for the minor green house photon emissions captured by CO2 show a similar result. Of course in the world of physics, there are other governing issues. However, it can be shown that even if CO2 concentrations doubled, warming from CO2 would be limited to about half a degree C.

So why is there such a difference in the science between scientific communities? Part of the issue is that various scientists work on different parts of the problem with different tools. For instance, Mechanical Engineers are interested in heat transfer, and so they are motivated to maintain the HITRAN data base which provides information about photon absorption. ME’s do not seem to talk about these issues outside their community except with the occasional physicist. It is the Climatologists who rely on massive, though flawed, computer models, but don't seem to talk to either physicists or mechanical engineers. Worse, is the "sloppy science" of many in assuming correlation is cause. There is clear evidence that both temperature and CO2 levels rose and fell together at least six times in the last 600,000 years. It is not clear if or which drives the other, or if both are driven by something else. What is clear to this physicist and engineer is that the earth already has a super abundance of CO2 and therefore, increasing CO2 is NOT the cause of the current warming.


This is a little off topic
but the small town of Holly, Colorado just suffered a devastating tornado a few days ago.
Today's headline in the paper was "Killer Tornado Defied Forecasters' Predictions." The article is accompanied by a meterologist in front of four separate computer monitors.
Computer models cannot accurately predict actual weather events (gasp!!!) And Al Bore thinks he can! Also, did anyone at the hearings ask Gore about the company GORE owns which is selling carbon offsets? Hmmm...more than a little conflict of interest here. Amazingly, people who claim to believe the global warming hoax still do not see through all the smoke and mirrors.

Lynne, have you read Lori Byrd's column on Rosie yet? Those posts will get you going big time (they did me!)Unbelievable ignorance. Exhibit A would be "JoJo."

Gore and class struggle
Al Gore is closer to Karl Marx than were the Clintons, and now he sees the Global Warming scam as a means to impose total state control over natural resources.
Surrendering the marketplace to Big brother in the name of those poor Penguins and Polar bears.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.foreign,pubID.11975/pub_detail.asp

DT
Well done DT and I might add, easy to follow.

But here’s something else though not related. Over the last 40 years I’ve been in and out of Las Vegas on several civil engineering projects. Each time I’ve returned someone has come up with a new scam. It turns out each time it’s a new twist on something old. Carbon Credits however, has got to be a first …. and …. the most ridiculous.

Surprised
People seem to doubt the existence of global warming. Rather than frame it as anti-Gore or liberals, trying to think about it as taking money and weapons away from terrorist.

If the government work with industry like they did in past wars, they could end the funding Americans are giving to terrorist when we fill up our gas tanks.

If we're at war on terror, our government should be leading the way to find alternatives to using oil. The by-product of using products like switch grass based ethanol would not help make us safer, it would reduce global warming

disruptive technologist and Andrew
Andrew, your starting premise is completely wrong as "disruptive" proved. CO2 does not have the physical properties that would grant it the capability to be responsible even for the very minor warming we think we've experienced over the past 150 years. Why are you Warmers going hysterical over .6dC during this time following one of the coldest periods of this current interglacial time. That slight estimated warming is less than the margin of error (.7dC) for calculating the Global Mean Temperature for one year! If you were outside on a summer afternoon and the temperature changed that much in one hour, you couldn't even feel it. Yet were supposed to dismantle our economy and way of life for that joke of an increase occurring over 150 years!! People who are promoting this nonsense should be embarrassed - you might as well hang a sign around your neck warning people that you're stupid.

Human-made CO2
Humans are responsible for less than 4% of the annual contributions to atmosperic CO2 volumes. The overwhelming remainder comes from natural sources. If we entirely eliminate our minor contribution to this relatively minor greenhouse gas the impact on the climate and global temperatures will be null and basically impossible to measure.

As "disruptive technologist" so technically pointed out in his post above, CO2's heat absorption capabilities are already very close to saturation and unless the sun's intensity increases significantly, it can only add a very minor amount of warming to the atmosphere. This isn't ideology or politics - it's science. AGW proponents ought to try using it sometime. All we ever hear them say is how the evidence supporting AGW is growing and is indisputable, but they never bother to share that evidence with us. We're supposed to believe it on faith because they're all so much smarter than us, and as al-Gore says, much more moral too.

They fell for GW, let's try this
Article I recently read:

EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant.

Jet condensation trails gradually evaporate, increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere. Since a wide variety of human activities produce water vapor, the Earth's main greenhouse gas, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to have it designated as a pollutant.

(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators.

Until now, the carbon dioxide produced during the burning of fuels has been the main concern. The extra carbon dioxide causes a manmade enhancement of the greenhouse effect. But water vapor is also produced by combustion of most fuels, as well as by industry and utilities that use water for cooling. The EPA would be able to regulate its manmade sources if it is classified as a pollutant.

EPA Director of the Department of Pollutant Decrees, Ray Donaldson, said, "Back before carbon dioxide was dangerous, we simply assumed that water vapor was also benign. But all reputable scientists now agree that the increased water vapor content of the atmosphere from such sources as burning of fuels and power plant cooling towers will also enhance the greenhouse effect, leading to potentially catastrophic warming."

If successful, the push to classify water vapor as a dangerous pollutant would impact virtually everyone. For instance, homeowners could see a wide variety of common activities that cause evaporation being regulated: watering the lawn, or using a hot tub or swimming pool.

"Right now, we are not so concerned about the water vapor exhaled by people. That is low on our list of priorities", said Mr. Donaldson. "We'll tackle that manmade source at a later time." One likely result of such regulation would be an additional tax on fuels used by cars, trucks, passenger jets, and a wide variety of industries and utilities.

Predictably, the Bush Administration has voiced opposition to any regulation of water vapor emissions. White House staffer Lew Moninsky told ecoEnquirer, "This is simply ridiculous. The EPA wants to regulate all human activity out of existence. What about the massive amounts of water vapor being evaporated from the world's oceans every second? That's OK?, but human production of small amounts of vapor isn't? If it weren't for water vapor, there would be no rainfall! Give me a break!"

"Well, of course the Administration would say that…", said Mr. Donaldson, "..they're in the pocket of 'big oil' anyway."

The EPA is rumored to have a rather extensive list of potential pollutants in addition to water vapor, and some insiders claim that all known chemical compounds are targeted for future regulation. When informed of the rumored list of chemicals, Mr. Moninsky asked, "Well, since everything is made of chemicals, I guess that means that even every molecule of your body will be subject to regulation as well, doesn't it?"

Asked for their position on the matter, Greenpolice spokesperson Rainbow Treetower stated, "Our basic policy is, if it's good for people, it's bad for the planet."



Andrew
On your post of 5:10. I recently heard/read that ethanol may have it's own set of added atmospheric pollutants that have not properly been vetted yet. Lets not rush too quickly to a cure that is worse ...or at least no better than the disease, that is assuming there is a disease.

Why do the liberals always tell us we should copy and model after Canada ...or France....or Germany....or Amsterdam when it comes to health insurance, gas prices, drug laws, gun laws, marital laws, etc........but when it comes to considering nuclear energy to help solve our energy needs....they start howling at the moon!?

The Humanity!
Aaaahhhh, the humanity...how can anyone trash the Savior of the human race for daring to be above the fray while delivering the message that we are all doomed? I am in such awe of our latest Savior that I am going to forgo eating chicken for the rest of my stay here to avoid the possibility of munching on a decendent of another of our great saviors...chicken little!

Global Warming Cause
I read once that global warming was caused by bovine flatulence. Thats cow farts to you and me.

Wrong as usual.
no more republicans writes:
"human induced climate change is occuring at an alarmingly quick rate. no one who knows what they are taling [sic] about will disagree."

Of course, that completely ignores the Heidelberg Appeal, in which over 4000 scientists put their name to their disagreement with the "human induced climate change" hysteria.
(see http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm )

But wait - he covered that too:
"any "scientist" who disagrees is bought and paid for by the energy industry"

...which is as opposed to those bought and paid for by Communist, Socialist, Marxist, and other anti-American organizations, I suppose.

I wonder if it ever occurs to the tinfoil hat crowd that the energy industry grants money for research because they're trying to police themselves before the nanny state does it for them...or in some cases because the nanny state has already done it by mandating lower pollution levels. Of course they pay for research to be done, both to help lower the pollution they cause and to give them data with which to defend themselves against lawsuits and legislation.

I suppose that the research paid for by the "legalize marijuana" crowd that shows how harmless, medically beneficial, and just all-around really cool - that's completely unbiased, right?

no more republicans
You could not possibly be more wrong, but I believe it would be next to hopeless to even begin telling you to research on YOUR OWN further into the scam; as opposed to simply falling for the typical liberal talking points of "all corporations are evil, especially those oil and gas ones" and "all scientists are bought and paid for." What a crock. Use your mind and common sense to see through the baloney. As for your comment that there is "scientifically agreed upon knowlege" there is very little REAL science to global warming hysteria, and just as many "scientifically DISagreed upon knowledge" experts out there disputing it.

no more republicans
You state that human induced climate change is occuring at an alarming rate. The current warming we are experiencing started at the end of the last ice age. Obviously all of the warming going on is not caused by human activity. If we grant that a portion of the current warming is human related and given that we have had about .6 degree of warming over the past fifty to a hundred years it appears that it doesn't take much to alarm you. Maybe you enjoy being alarmed.

No more
You sound like Rosie, the pig flatulent.

news flash
Mutant economist Follow T Money noted that the true nature of Big Al(The Grandmaster Baiter of global warming) Gore's business is not about transferring Carbon credits( unless they are in the crystalline clear form). It's all about transfreeing dollars from our bank accounts to his. Period, end of story.

Internet Tech Genius Strikes Again
The liberal agenda press enables not-so-honest Big Al Gore because he is a prominent Dem., a Rep. would never get away with it.

He got away with the 'Father of the Internet'
bull until John McCain exposed him at the big Washington press dinner 3 years ago.

The press will distort climate data to protect Gore so that he does not get his pants pulled down again.

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.