You didn’t notice this before? Any political system starts with a wide ranging basis that gradually boils down to the essence of the people concerned. Take a look at the ideas expressed by some of the political parties in Europe. ( especially Italy) Or for that matter, some of the opinions of some of the Ivy League colleges. I am not even certain the National Review is the center of the conservative thought in this country any more. It will be 20 years before we know if the Tea Party has a solid base or is just a passing fad.

I agree with Dr. O. Seems like a No-Duh: Some web sites post articles from different sources, and a magazine writes its own. Web sites are fleeting. Established print and web publishers are held accountable.

Who cares? Seems like the professor and his students wasted a lot of time on this little project. This is a little like saying the people of Idaho care less about beaches than those in California. What difference does it make? The Tea Party people believe whatever they believe and so does the National Review…that there are differences is hardly surprising. Does it make any sense to believe that all conservatives model their own, personal thinking after what the National Review writes?

Although I do not presume to know more than the authors, I view the difference in the data presented by the authors appears as an inherent difference between a developing political movement and an established political magazine.

Often, movements are extreme in their views during formation in order to induce the zeal and commitment necessary from its followers to turn that movement into something large. Provocative language, symbolism and narratives might be considered the ‘norm’ for such movements in early stages. I believe a simple look at the history of social or political movements may enlighten on this subject.

In contrast, an established political magazine with many subscribers would seem to have an incentive not to publish a relatively high number of articles that are provocative or potentially fanatic, which might have the affect of discouraging some subscribers from continuing subscription due to the polarization of such content. Instead, they will touch most, if not all, angles from their arena to some degree, but will emphasis ideologies associated with the mainline of their subscriber base to ensure that the majority maintains a subscription.

I wonder how the authors would respond to such an objection. Is there a bias in the formation of the study (i.e. were the authors out to prove that the Tea Party was not representative of mainstream conservative thought and jumped on any confirming evidence)? Clearly, every facet of the Tea Party does not represent mainstream conservative thought, but I argue that difference is not so much an ideological one that would face impasse in participation growth but a motivational or situational difference necessary to meet the varying objectives of a political movement and a political publication.

Here we go. The continued “divide and conquer” methods of the Democrat party are fatiguing. They’ve been famous for this method for many years. And, they’re still attempting that with the Republican Party. “Ooh, don’t hang out with the teaparty movement. Don’t you know that they’re a bunch of racists and homophobes!”. I’ve been to a number of Teaparty events and I can say without question that the people at those events are the absolute opposite of what the left tries to make them out to be. No hatemongers. No racists. Just people who want the government to stop taking away their freedoms.

So you think the ‘Tea Party’ is a passing phenomenon of ‘way out there’ North American grass roots politics? Think again dear hearts!

All over the western world there is a mist of rising angst. Like it or not, people no longer trust their governments. They abhor the political goals of the extreme left and fanatical greens and they are TOTALLY unimpressed by the so-called link between global warming and man-induced carbon pollution.

In the words of Tom Cruise, “Show us the money”! or in this case, (no more lies and false science), ‘Show us the evidence’. Show us before you blindly spend our hard earned wealth and prosperity on smoke and mirrors.

Don’t sign us up through United Nations conventions to protocols that will hamstring our national right to control our respective national destinies. Particularly, (we of the emerging, middle ground, New Right), repudiate so-called world systems of Justice and international Courts that have jurisdiction over national interests.

We want governments that respect our respective Constitutions. Our Constitutions were inevitably hard fought for and won against over-whelming odds and tens of thousands of decent men and women died to attain them. And so what if our Constitutions talk about God, Country and common decency? Don’t ask as to respect the rights of every new settler, ‘refugee’, border hopper etc while you trample down ours.

Are you asking for internal dissent and ultimately revolution? Every nation on earth is tied together by underlying tribal links going back generations. You cannot, must not, bring in wave upon wave of people who cannot and will not embrace our way of life and have no intention whatever of assimilating to the culture of the tribes already ensconced in the land. Unless of course you wish to repeat the horror of what we did to North American Indian society and to the Aboriginal tribal groups in Australia.

People relate to their families, communities and the hunk of territory they inhabit. Over this is the veneer of government or so-called rule of law. It is a setup of mutual toleration but there are boundaries and limitations to the agreed protocols. Do not tax beyond the capacity to pay, no taxation without representation, respect the right of free speech and a reasonable degree of latitude to freely vent and dissent.

Political correctness, by its nature restricts a natural venting of angst. Just as gas must escape from the bowel, so must a man’s right to get rid of his frustrations, say what he really means and let it all hang out, (within reasonable limits of course). Restrict this at your own peril.

Civilization, culture, learning, science etc, are veneers that sit very loosely on most of us. We respect them because we realise that in order to live peacefully alongside each other there must be some rules to govern community behaviour. But push too hard O thou of the totalitarian left and reap the whirlwind of unleashed fanaticism if you rouse the beast in all of us.

The rise of the extreme right in Nazi Germany soon extended across western and eastern Europe. It crossed the channel to England AND then leapt the Atlantic to America. Soon, right across America a web of Nazi Bunds were established.

It was later historically remarked ‘THAT EUROPE WAS SICK AND SO IT CHOSE A SICK MAN TO LEAD IT. Albeit a number of sick men.

It takes a lot to rouse the masses. Most of us simply want to be left alone. To earn a dollar, raise our families, interact in our communities and leave it to trusted, middle of the road governments to get on with the larger issues without rocking the boat too much.

Unfortunately, the waters are now angry and the boat is fast taking water and we are beginning to drown, (metaphorically speaking). We look to our leaders for direction and find none. Nor do we see the Christ speaking to the wind to calm the waters. In short, take care lest you let the ravening beast slip its chain.

A WAR BABY OF THE 1940′S