I still remember their shouts of "Down With the Establishment." Sure, that was many years ago and most of their drug soaked minds didn't have much idea why they were saying that, anyway. Apparently, though, some of the more avid pinkos in the "flower children" set really meant it.

Today, we address part of that group as either journalists or teachers. We pounded on journalists enough for a while, so let's move over to the group who have never yet even had a job. Today, we address some of those in that group as "professor."

Follow the teaching establishment's own statistics. When the hippy movement graduated college and stuck around the campuses to become teachers, something very important happened: The scholastic ability of our children began a steady decline and the kids started being indoctrinated with communist/socialist/fascist ideology.

I have a test I like to give to the nay-sayers in the education community. The test was graded by my eighth grade home-room teacher. I received an 83 on it back in 1954.

About four years ago I had a conversation with a few education students at a local college watering hole that was just a nice walk from my home. The conversation began because some of them wanted to read a paper I wrote titled "State of the Union." As I remember, their far-left professor was so incensed about my providing that paper that she even hinted that I should be arrested. The fact that everything was documented apparently did not matter.

Along the way, the discussion turned to the decline of standards in education. I had proof, I said. And, as sometimes happens, we made a few bets: Ten of them, including two teacher/professors, would take the test. None would match the score I received as a mediocre student in junior high.

The highest score was a 74, by a girl who was home schooled and then working on her master's degree. The liberal professor got 46%, which was about typical for the rest of the group. Three weeks later, I gave that test to another group, many from the law school. Same dismal results.

Back in 1954, it was mandatory that every child pass that test before being promoted to high school. Today, college students cannot pass it.

What happened?

Right. "Down with the establishment!" The far left took over the "education" of our children. Indoctrination is more like it.

A while back, the Heritage Foundation published a Backgrounder paper (#801) by Jeanne Allen titled "A Businessman's Guide to the Education Reform Debate."(1) Part of the paper describes the results of a National Assessment of Education Progress survey of students. Most interesting to me was what the 17 year olds did not know -- and the misinformation taught them.

For instance, 47 percent believe that Karl Marx's rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is from the U.S. Constitution. Now, how in the world would they ever learn something like that? Apparently, American kids are not only taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and that society has zero tolerance for everything the socialists do not like, but they are also being taught communism.

The report shows that almost 60 percent of high school seniors were unable to understand and summarize relatively complicated reading material. Almost 94 percent of high school seniors were unable to solve multi-step math problems or use basic algebra. Over 50 percent of high school seniors were unable to understand specific government structures and functions -- 43 percent did not know that presidential candidates are nominated by party conventions.

That was the 17 year olds. Over one-quarter of all 13 year-olds were unable to add, subtract, multiply, and divide using whole numbers or solve one-step math problems. And, 68 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century -- 26 percent believed it occurred before 1800.

This means that neither the 13 year olds or the 17 year olds in government schools would have any chance whatsoever of passing the test we all had to pass before attending high school.

Most parents are starting to realize there is a major problem with government schools. In a recent Lou Harris poll sponsored by the Ford Foundation and Washington Mutual, nearly three-quarters of respondents agreed "the unions are a roadblock to removing incompetent teachers."

Fewer than 20% of the 2,501 adults polled thought teachers in their communities were highly qualified -- and more than one-third thought teachers nationally are only minimally competent or unqualified -- 89% support removing unskilled teachers. They found that the vast majority of people polled cited improving teacher quality as the key to reform.

Now that both the problem and the cause are defined, what do we do about it?

1. http://zeus.townhall.com/heritage/library/archives/backgrounder

What would your reaction be if bureaucrats in the federal-government conspired to give away control of one of our states to the United Nations? And no, we're not necessarily talking about a big state, like California, Texas, Alaska, or New York, either. Just one of the medium states -- like maybe Pennsylvania or Colorado.

The basic take-over would not include anything as brash as a blue-helmeted UN Army invasion of the state. That's not necessary. Nor would the UN necessarily get into the actual day to day operation of the state. Rather, the socialists in power at the United Nations would only write regulations and directives -- you know, laws -- as to how the land and infrastructure of the affected state would be allowed to be used.

So all in all, it would be a peaceful takeover. One which would not be immediately perceptible to many of the state's citizens.

Well . . . that is, the change would not be immediately apparent until citizens tried to change something in their neighborhoods. Then they would find they needed permission from some UN regulator. And, just think of the potential problems involved with that! For instance, some unelected bureaucrat -- maybe from Asia, Africa or South America -- would be calling the shots on what American citizens could or could not do in their own home town, or even with their own property! Heck, American citizens might even need a translator to speak to the regulator dude.

Not acceptable, you say? Right! The whole concept is ridiculous.

Well then, let's scale it down some. How about if our federal government only relinquishes domain over a few tracts -- of a few hundred-thousand acres each -- to UN control?

For instance, let's say that they start with forty-seven such tracts called "Biosphere Reserves" -- like the Great Smoky Mountains Biosphere Reserve, for instance. Then add another eighteen properties labeled "Heritage Sites." These would include places like Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, The Grand Canyon National Park, The Statue of Liberty Park, Independence Hall, and such.

Still unacceptable? Yeah, it sure seems that way. But, these are all federal properties. So, can't the federal government give them away if it wishes?

No? Well then, you had better get on the horn and tell them so. Cause it's already a done deal!

These areas are already under "protection" of the United Nations. Look for the UN and UNESCO signs. They are there to inform you that you tread on UN regulated property.

You see folks, the bipolar thinkers in Washington are not giving away whole states, like Rhode Island or Delaware, to UN and UNESCO control. No, they know they probably couldn't get away with that. But, in total area of United States land, they gave away a lot more of our country than those two States combined.

Actually, the total land mass involved in the U.S. and UNESCO Man in the Biosphere program exceeds the land mass of the State of Colorado. A considerable amount, in other words. And you didn't even notice. . . . Well, did you? Few Americans have. That was part of the plan.

If the United Nations sent an army in here, a few of us might notice. And a few million of us might become rather upset. Therefore, they used a whole mixed gobbledygook of agreements, treaties and laws to get it done. That way they can control us by bureaucratic regulation.

Anyway, don't go looking for a UN director's office in The Great Smoky Mountains or at Yellowstone, or even at Monticello or Mammoth Cave National Park. You won't find one. Such an office would be trashed in a heartbeat if Americans saw it. The UN knows that. So, everything happens stealthily. We were not supposed to notice -- that is, until later, when the flurry of UN regulations start.

If you question the reason behind the UN and UNESCO signs, you will be told that the area is simply a "registered" area to be "protected" by the UN.

Sure it is! Complete with use regulations, and a few dozen other restrictions. And that's just for starters. Why would America need some rinky-dink third world bureaucrats from wherever to protect our land anyway? The fact is, we do not. And that should be your primary hint: There is much, much more to this than what they will tell you publicly.

It's a control thing. They're the controllers. We're the controllees. That's the way of the "Third Way." And we had better start understanding that concept quickly. Because, whether you noticed or not, we are now living it.

Outrageous, isn't it! So, tell Congress. After all, we elected them.

Today, over 68% of public land -- land belonging to the people of the United States -- the land in our National Parks, Preserves and Monuments, is designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or both. Worse yet, United Nations' land designations, such as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, currently take place without the approval of Congress and with no Congressional oversight. Nor are State and local officials, or even private landowners, usually consulted.

By allowing these international land designations, the U.S. is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which the U.S. is not a party or which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify. That is, by agreeing to form UNESCO biospheres in the United States, federal bureaucrats allow a group of foreigners to make land-use regulations for our property and the federal bureaucracy uses the guns of the federal government to force the American people to obey the foreign regulations.

So, although the United Nations has no direct enforcement of land management -- they have no police here yet -- decisions in the use and operation of Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites are set in accordance with UNESCO rules and regulations. There is no treaty or agreement. Some federal bureaucrats(1) took this power upon themselves. Which means, they unlawfully gave the international community an open invitation to interfere in U.S. domestic land use decisions -- decisions which often limit the use of privately owned property, and thereby negatively impact on its value.

For instance, the actions of the World Heritage Committee in condemning a proposed mining development on privately-owned land outside the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park, a World Heritage Site, provides an example of the havoc these foreign programs can create. A member of the World Heritage Committee, Adul Wichiencharoen from Thailand (of all places), requested that a 12 million acre (18,750 square mile) buffer zone be created around the 2 million acre Yellowstone National Park. Federal bureaucrats are attempting to work that foolishness in, but the pesky people living in the area won't cooperate. One bureaucratic suggestion is that the people be removed so the weeds, bugs and wild animals can live in peace.

According to the U.S. National Committee MAB, as adopted on July 26, 1995: "The mission of the United States MAB Program is to explore, demonstrate, promote, and encourage harmonious relationships between people and their environments building on the MAB network of Biosphere Reserves and interdisciplinary research. The long-term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century. The MAB mission and long term goal will be implemented, in the United States and internationally, through public-private partnerships and linkages that sponsor and promote cooperative interdisciplinary research, experimentation, education and information exchange on options by which societies can achieve sustainability."(2)

Another mission statement is available by the Department of State.(3) Their Environmental and Scientific Affairs office also posted a page of informative links.(4)

Back in the Carter Administration there was an international agreement which many countries signed onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, as always, the American taxpayer got stuck paying big bucks for something that had zero benefit for the American public. The key word there was "agreement." It was not an international treaty. President Carter agreed to participate only in part, and implemented that part of the agreement through an executive memoranda. The administration then secured minimal program funding from Congress.

President Reagan saw the fallacy in the program and canceled the whole thing. However, federal bureaucrats did not conform and continued making more biospheres.

On April 24, 1997, Rep. Coburn offered an amendment to the National Science Foundation budget stating that: "No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used for the United States Man and Biosphere Program, or related projects." Coburn spelled out the law for the House:

"It is important that the people recognize that the Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites are under the guidance of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization also known as UNESCO. The United States withdrew from that Organization in 1984 because of gross financial mismanagement.

"Over 68 percent of our national parks, preserves, and monuments have been designated as United Nations World Heritage sites, Biosphere Reserves or both. There are currently 47 of those sites [97 actually] in the United States, covering an area the size of Colorado. Under the relative agreements, the United States is promising to manage lands in accordance with international guidelines.

"Many times local governments, [and] private property [owners] are never consulted in these management plans. This is a clear violation of private property rights. The biosphere programs, including the United States Man and Biosphere Program, have never been authorized by any Congress, never been authorized, but still received [funds] this past year and this year will receive over $700,000 of taxpayers' money. The National Science Foundation distributed more than $400,000 in grants to this unauthorized program despite the fact that the program has never had a consideration or vote in Congress and has never been approved by a body of the Congress."

That amendment easily passed, as did a number of subsequent amendments to various budget bills specifically defunding the biosphere project -- even though the project never had authorization. Yet, the biosphere reserves are still with us and third-world foreigners from UNESCO are still wandering our nation with the intent of directing our land usage.

Still today, the U.S. and UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program (MAB) seems to be chugging along like the Little Engine that Could. No matter what, it will not quit.

Legally, the Man and the Biosphere program does not exist. Yet, an American citizen can still get arrested for entering one of their many restricted zones. Congress never funded the program, and even stated in a number of bills that no money may be spent on it. Yet, the program is still in full operation.

For more on exactly what a biosphere is, as per UNESCO, and what they have planned for the American People, see the Biospheres in a Nutshell FAQ.(6)

Clearly, this is a gross misappropriation of funds. Stealing of taxpayer money, in other words. That being so, a few dozen bureaucrats should be fitted up with some prison uniforms. That's the only way this nonsense will ever be stopped.

1. http://www.euromab.org/general_information/nat_comm.html

2. http://www.euromab.org/home2.html

3. http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/fs_mab.html

4. http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/mab.html

5. http://refuges.fws.gov/specialareas/index.html#biosphere

6. http://www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell.htm

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2001 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

fron235.htm. Revised 7-16-01. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.