More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
RP Siegel

RP Siegel

Posted: November 26, 2010 11:55 AM

Cross-posted on Triple Pundit.

Now that the Tea Party has landed on our planet and in our country, like some kind of alien advanced strike force in preparation for a takeover, they are beginning to look around to see how they might rearrange things to better suit their peculiar perspective.

We'd be wise to carefully observe these folks, in an effort to understand how they think, or even, where they are coming from, since we've been told that they represent the future of America.

One member of a Virginia-based subgroup called the Virginia Campaign for Liberty, Donna Holt took aim at the UN's Agenda 21, an initiative which started in 1992. She told an assembled group of supporters this past summer that the Agenda, "...outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a completely managed society, dictating the process to be used for industry, agriculture, housing development, and especially education. It's an all-encompassing plan to rule from an all-powerful central government." She went on to explain to an absolutely horrified audience that the name for this policy is "Sustainable Development" and that it seeks to abolish private property and prepare children for global citizenship, ultimately aiming to reduce the population.

What Agenda 21, which is also known as the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is really is a set of international sustainability guidelines. It's difficult to know which of the Declaration's twenty-seven principles these newcomers find so threatening. Perhaps it is #1 which states that, "Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature." Or the one that says, "The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations." Hard to find anything wrong with that, either. Perhaps it's the one that says, "States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem." I admit that it is difficult to see the inherent evil here. Perhaps other examples might prove instructive.

Another one of these newcomers is a Colorado man named Dan Maes who was running for governor. Maes directed his righteous indignation at bicycles. He referred to his opponent John Hickenlooper's bike sharing policy as an attempt "convert Denver into a United Nations community."

"This is all very well-disguised," he told a group of supporters, "but it will be exposed." Okay. I can hardly wait.

A Florida-base web site that calls itself the "Home of Patriotic Resistance," urged its readers to oppose a bill that would require homeowners to responsibly maintain their septic tanks.

Up in Maine, an effort to avoid overcrowding of Highway1 along the mid-coastal area before it became a problem was referred to by Tea-Bagger David Andreasen as "centralized planning for the de-industrialization of large segments of Maine, and the relocation and isolation of the population into human habitation zones, along certain corridors over a span of 20 years."

Okay, I agree, these examples don't exactly elicit a battle cry from me, either. In fact, the things that they are so strenuously objecting to, all seem perfectly reasonable to me. But there does seem to be an emerging underlying theme here.

Perhaps one more example will clarify. This one is from Tea Party commentator Henry Lamb. Lamb says that, "If the word 'freedom' is to have any meaning at all, it must mean that people are free to live wherever they choose, and free to use their property as they choose." He then goes on to decry the emergence, first of zoning laws, then later of planning, "which gave the government the right to control the use of land," in the interest of the common good.

I think by now the pattern should be clear. These people have somehow come to see any kind of social consciousness as a gateway drug to socialism. They worship at the altar of narrow self-interest and have come to regard selfishness and irresponsibility as a defining characteristic of the American way of life.

This point is driven home in another one of Lamb's columns in which he praises author Beverly Eakman, who in her recent book, A Common Sense Platform for the 21st Century. "takes direct aim at the nation's education system for training generations of people to focus on the collective rather than the individual."

So it turns out that the problem all along was with those kindergarten teachers who told us that we needed to share with the other kids. Didn't they realize how un-American that was?

Of course, what these people don't see is that they have all been had by a secretive cabal of industrial billionaires who have recruited their aid in winning the recent election, in order to further weaken the already crumbling authority of the US government over corporate power, for fear that the few remaining regulations or offices not already filled with corporate shills, could potentially put a drag on their gargantuan profits. Ironically, the Tea Partiers will get absolutely nothing out of the deal, except the perverse satisfaction that a mob of beer-sodden, adrenalin-gorged sports fans gets after having rooted for the winning team.

RP Siegel is co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails. Despite the fact that he rides a bicycle and occasionally shares things with his friends and neighbors, he still considers himself an American.

 
 
 

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RPSiegel

Cross-posted on Triple Pundit. Now that the Tea Party has landed on our planet and in our country, like some kind of alien advanced strike force in preparation for a takeover, they are beginning to l...
Cross-posted on Triple Pundit. Now that the Tea Party has landed on our planet and in our country, like some kind of alien advanced strike force in preparation for a takeover, they are beginning to l...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 280
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kori77
05:49 PM on 11/29/2010
Bravo. Great column.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
04:05 PM on 11/29/2010
Me, I don't understand such thinking. If it doesn't cost you much of anything and will often, in fact, save you money, then why wig out over an environmentally-friendly policy?

Why? Because it is less harmful to the planet than you want to be? I mean, what do you have against your kids? They're the ones who are going to inherit the damage you do!!!
12:06 PM on 11/29/2010
I guess the tea party-ers only see their rights (as defined to them by a suitable powerful corporate entity) and not those of others.

So the fight for air that won't make you asthmatic etc....is evil.

The fight for water that is clean and won't slowly poison you...is evil. Just buy Poland Spring won't you!

The very idea of preserving the earth for future generations for all people....is a global conspiracy.

Reminds me of a dog chained to a post or fence. It has very little territory of its own, and sees anyone even passing by at a distance as a possible threat and growls and barks.

So if you look closely, the post the dog is chained ti is the wedge issue of the day, and owner of the post is the corporate entity / special interest trying to influence policy. The tea party-ers willingly let themselves be leashed for a promise of security and become a pack of barking dogs for hire.
11:29 AM on 11/29/2010
What the heck. Let 'em go at it. America is facing the end of its influence and world status anyway.

What the USA does may not matter much in the future.
11:26 AM on 11/29/2010
I made a harmless comment about the opposition to Agenda 21 having nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with national sovereignty, but it was deleted.

What gives?

Anyways, the only reason people oppose this is because the UN will never represent US interests. If the people want environmental regulations they should appeal to local and Federal government, not rely on some unaccountable international body.
11:57 AM on 11/29/2010
Nevermind, it wasn't deleted, lol. :D
10:54 AM on 11/29/2010
Agenda 21, yawn......

Old skewl collectivism, new clothes.
10:53 AM on 11/29/2010
Opposition to Agenda 21 has nothing to do with opposition to environmentalism or conservation, it is more about avoiding centralization of power and maintaining sovereignty.

If the citizens of the US want the government to take action they should appeal to local or Federal, not succumb to an international body. Obviously the UN agenda will not represent US interests.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lance Manling
04:34 PM on 11/29/2010
Aaron-You may like this website link: http://www.paralyzingprecautionprinciple.com/

It talks about Agenda 21, sustainable development and the precautionary principle.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kori77
06:01 PM on 11/29/2010
Wall Street and the corporatists out there are not for any form of decentralization. They want to keep people in their control. The UN isn't perfect, but it's one of the few venues for talking about global issues. We might hid behind borders and have different cultures, but at the end of the day it's money that makes the world go round, and Wall Street know's no border or laws. We live on one planet, sometimes we need to talk as one. You can't however have unity without diversity and I am not in favor of any form of one world government. We should in fact decentralize and have thriving local economies with a small amount of global trade. Check out www.livingeconomiesforum.org
10:42 AM on 11/29/2010
These people are not aliens. They are Americans with a point of view. Something a free republic has always protected. Funny how this progressive can call peaceful Americans aliens, but considers it racist to call illegal immigrants, aliens.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivabeach
10:37 AM on 11/29/2010
the concept of having pure unfettered unregulated freedoms is simply that. A concept. As the population continues to grow both in the United States and of the world that concept will quickly disappear. You have the right to do what you want to do on your property, but you do not have the right to do anything that affects your neighbors. That is one small example of why we have regulations
11:23 AM on 11/29/2010
Everybody that supports free markets also supports property rights. If someone pollutes your property, waterways or air then they are financially liable.

Only under corporatism can they get away with pollution, the state is protecting them.
11:25 AM on 11/29/2010
Nope. In America, our rights come from our creator. No govt can take them away.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shivabeach
04:34 PM on 11/29/2010
I know that was sarcasm lol
09:59 AM on 11/29/2010
These people such uneducated, business-controlled fools. Weep for America.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sysaphean
10:26 AM on 11/29/2010
The people of this country have obviously got Stockholm Syndrome. That can be the only explanation for their jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
09:54 AM on 11/29/2010
I bet I could find some not-so-enlighten people on the liberal side and quote them to make the movement look stupid.
With all the socialist states in Europe bankrupt, what is it exactly we are trying to move toward. As I see it, some of the ideas are good, but they do not work when implemented by government. To top it all off, that is not what this country was founded on. it is not a perfect society and there will never be one no matter how hard we try. just because you give individuals the right to choose how to run their lives does not mean they will always choose badly. we need to shoot down consumerism, which would go a long way toward people giving back without the forced hand of government. sustainability is good, but the market forces, shortages of coal for instance, will also force the change to another fuel. if we don't burn it, then it will be sold to china or somewhere else. Are you going to ban coal mining, then what is next. it will never end until we are all in a neat little box of laws.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sysaphean
10:24 AM on 11/29/2010
Number one, all European countries aren't bankrupt. Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, and others are just fine. Much of Ireland's problems stem from incompetent Bankers, not Socialism.

Private Banking and Corporate interests have done more to harm people and their future than the governments of these countries ever dreamed.

As far as your remark that we will "never have a perfect society" , funny, I thought that the World is what we, the people, chose to make it. We certainly won't have a better society by bowing down to the Banksters, the corporations, and to shadowy industry special interests, whose only concern is themselves and their never ending lust for power and greed.
11:30 AM on 11/29/2010
All of Europe is in trouble. Their socialist utopia is one big domino, ready to fall.
12:44 PM on 11/29/2010
if I recall the TPers really came out of the bailouts....pretty sure they are not for them. Limited government means you don't allow special interest groups to have laws written in their favor resulting in crony capitalism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JayMonaco
10:38 AM on 11/29/2010
"All the socialist states in Europe" are not bankrupt. They're actually not even close. Germany is probably the most socialistic and also the most powerful and economically strong.

I stopped reading once I got to that part since I figured that, if you had that much so wrong, nothing else you said would be accurate.
12:45 PM on 11/29/2010
the ones that are not broke are bailing out the ones that are which will result in all of them being broke.
09:11 PM on 11/28/2010
Oh, dear God, these are the people running the Congress?

Ouch.

Just when I thought I didn't need that Canadian visa any longer.

explosive-cargo.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
exkoolaiddrinker
08:49 PM on 11/28/2010
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510, may be the
most dangerous bill in the history of the US.
"If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public's right to grow,
own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the
cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products
of one's choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law
or, if you like, the will of God." It is similar to what India faced
with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510
extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food." ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit
from it, but Monsanto's Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create -- without judicial review -- if it passes.

S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food
supplements, food AND FARMING.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sysaphean
10:34 AM on 11/29/2010
I read the bill, and I don't see where Dr. Chopra, or you are coming to this conclusion that it would be illegal to grow food for oneself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
purplet
07:28 PM on 11/29/2010
you havent studied the Monsanto lawsuits against farmers-
you want to see where this could go study what they are doing to farmers-
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
purplet
07:34 PM on 11/29/2010
take a look at Clarence Thomas background- he was a lawyer for Monsanto- Rumsfeld was part of a Pharma company connected to Monsanto-
The person who wrote the report on RBGH - for Monsanto was hired a government position and her new job was to review the report she wrote for Monsanto-
very few people seem to be aware of how ruthless Monsanto is and how connected- I would recommend you look into it-
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JUSTIANA RIGHT
11:10 AM on 11/29/2010
He is right. It is dangerous. Look up Codex Alimentarius. apparently, this plan has been in the works since the formation of the World Trade Organization For God's Sakes, do your homeowrk. they are set to vote on this monstrosity TODAY.

Even Europe is shaking it's heads, wondering what happened to America.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/29/923787/-Death-of-American-dream,-60-million-no-sick-leave,-132-million-no-dental,-59-million-without-medical
NoBlueDogs
FIGHT Offshoring!!!
06:53 PM on 11/28/2010
At what point do we realize that America needs to split in two?

We cannot live with Tea Party America. They will drag us all down. If you assume Social Darwinism as a foundation you can predict everything they stand for. Social Darwinism: You need know nothing else about Conservatism but that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JayMonaco
10:40 AM on 11/29/2010
I agree with you. Carve into regional groups of affiliated states with a broader economic and military unity coast-to-coast. It's the only way that anything can effectively be done.
11:24 AM on 11/29/2010
The last time some states tried to secede your precious Federal government killed 600,000 Americans.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:23 PM on 11/28/2010
They think they understand enlightened selfishness, but they really need to learn enlightened generosity.
10:53 AM on 11/29/2010
Generosity, enlightened or otherwise, will never, ever, occur to people who feel that others are trying to use force (of government or otherwise) to take from them.

Ask someone nicely for a slice of their pizza and they may share (or not). Ask for it with an "or else", and generosity is not what will come to mind.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
12:32 PM on 11/29/2010
If your are enlightened about paying your taxes to the democracy. If you don't want to pay taxes, leave our democracy.