Listening to the people working on Capitol Hill and those in the administrative branch propose new programs kind of makes those of us who have actually read the Constitution think that either they are incredibly ignorant or are intentionally trying to subvert our Constitutional form of government. Because, really, it almost has to be one or the other. There just do not seem to be any other possibilities.

Federal law (5 USC 3331) requires that, "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

So, one would think that more than just a small handful of those in government would have honor enough to at least attempt to "support and defend" and operate as if they were showing "true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution. Which means, of course, that they would tend to not support those functions not authorized to the federal government by the Constitution. And, they most certainly would not support things like gun laws, which are explicitly forbidden to the federal government.

Well folks, as it turns out, we may have located part of the problem. It's the lack of quality of the people we allow to work in government. Or, their lack of quality training might be a nicer way of putting it.

They are sophomores in the way of the Constitution. Which means, they know not and know not that they know not.

But heck, let's not take my word for it. Let's explore some of the research done by professionals.

A poll found that only 5 percent of Americans can correctly answer 10 rudimentary questions about the Constitution. This study is billed as "the first-ever comprehensive survey of constitutional knowledge." The poll was commissioned by the National Constitution Center at the start of Constitution Week 1997, September 17-23.

As reported, more than half of those polled do not even know the number of US Senators and only 23% knew how many representatives there are; only 6% can name all four rights guaranteed by the First Amendment; 1 out of 6 believe that the Constitution establishes America as a Christian nation; and 84% incorrectly believe that the Constitution states that "all men are created equal." <http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/news/8b1.asp>

A 1998 study by Luntz Research showed that 59% of 13-to 17-year-olds identified Larry, Moe and Curly while only 41 percent correctly cited the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

More recently, a study, sponsored by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, tested seniors in 55 top colleges and universities, including Harvard and Princeton. They found that nearly 80% of seniors received a D or F on the 34 question (high-school level) American history test. They report that over a third of the students didn't even know that the Constitution established the division of powers in the federal government, let alone understood what powers were given to the federal government and what powers it does not have. Worse yet, they found that while 78% of the universities required history classes, none of the 55 schools required American history.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni study brings this all into prospective nicely. None of the 55 universities studied required study in American government, yet those 55 universities happen to be the ones attended by the bulk of those in government service.

So, it looks as though there is very credible evidence allowing us to surmise that we are loosing our rights (and our Constitutional form of limited government) because of the incompetence of those in government. Simply put, they do not know what they are doing, or what they should and should not be doing.

What's the fix, then? How shall we, the sovereign citizens, direct our public servants?

One quick fix would be to demand that every person in government service be required to pass a day-long comprehensive test on our Constitutional form of government before being allowed to enter government service and each year thereafter. Such a test would be easy to construct because 90% of the answers should be available in the Federalist Papers and the remaining 10% based on the most recent Supreme Court opinions on federalism.

Otherwise, they will all just keep on doing what they are doing -- to the detriment of our personal liberty and our Constitutional form of government.

There have been a lot of names floated around for the Republican Vice President. Most would be very depressing choices.

The names of two very liberal women were forced into play by the liberal media. They were rejected quickly. Then there's that Republican Senator with the habit of introducing positively atrocious bills. He was trounced in his bid for the presidency but the liberal media still keep referring to him as someone to watch. And, let's not forget the RINO General with the lackluster accomplishments. Again, the liberals in the media keep throwing his hat in the ring but real conservatives quickly kick it back out.

Then, they started floating the names of Governors, the latest being that of Oklahoma governor Frank Keating. For those who would like to see an authoritarian law-enforcement type as the nation's chief executive, Keating would be the one. We happen to think we already have quite enough strict laws, however, and are not willing to take a chance on getting even more "crack- downs" in operation. Besides, one governor on the ticket at a time is probably enough.

What Bush needs in a running mate is someone who is non-threatening and easy going enough that people can get to know and like him, yet quick and forceful enough to put the liberals in their place. The vice presidential candidate should be a campaigning professional who knows how to schedule time and release information effectively, but still appears approachable and friendly to the voters. The candidate should be a person people can joke around with from time to time as well as trust to have the courage to defend his convictions.

On top of all that, the ideal vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket should also be a good family person, pro-life and have a strong conservative history.

That seems like a hard row to hoe, especially after listening to all the names that have already been thrown out and summarily rejected. As I said, the list of trial balloons floated so far was getting very depressing.

Then, along comes Republican pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick writing in last Wednesday's Internet issue of National Review. Suddenly, there is hope. Fitzpatrick's "trial balloon" is so obvious none of us who know the proposed candidate had ever considered it. She titled her piece: "There is a prime veep pick who has been hiding in plain view." And, sure enough, there is. <http://www.nationalreview.com/vice/vice070500.html>

Some people only remember Jim Bunning as a hot pitcher for the Detroit Tigers and Philadelphia Phillies. However, he has had quite a successful life between baseball and national politics.

Over a dozen years ago, Jim Bunning won the Congressional election for Kentucky's Fourth District and easily beat all comers in every election thereafter. In the last election cycle, Jim Bunning decided to run for the U.S. Senate, where he is today.

Jim Bunning is not just a likeable and friendly guy, he is well respected by all who know him because he is also very conscientious. He is not just a pro-life candidate, either. Jim and Mary Bunning have nine children and 33 grandchildren. Nor is Jim Bunning just a common, garden variety conservative, as are many who were proposed for the veep position. A little research shows that Bunning has consistently received good scores from all of the conservative rating groups.

What else can we ask for in a vice presidential candidate? Jim Bunning has strong name recognition, both from baseball and his years in Congress. His credentials are impeccable. Mary Bunning is one of the worlds finest political campaigners. Bunning will lock in Kentucky, Tennessee, most of Ohio, Indiana and Michigan and a big chunk of Pennsylvania for the Republican ticket. And, that's if he just stands there. When Jim and Mary Bunning get in the campaign mode and people get to know them, the goodwill will flow.

There's a downside, though. Jim Bunning still looks like the professional athlete he was. He's tall and built rather good. G.W. Bush may look a bit smallish standing next to Senator Bunning.

Talking with friends and neighbors who know Jim Bunning brings unanimous agreement. This is Great news! We all agree: Let's put this baseball Hall of Famer in the political Hall of Fame, too.

The big question is, if asked, would Jim Bunning accept?

This is a letter written for a friend who wishes to remain anonymous for the moment. The letter has been sent and is copied here (with only very minor changes) with permission.

This letter is presented here simply because there are a whole lot of us throughout the country who feel exactly the same, as evidenced by only 48% of the registered voters even bothering to vote.

So you think I should get more involved in politics, and start out by making a hefty contribution to your reelection campaign, eh? Well, let us explore that possibility just a little before you visit our town again.

I have read the Constitution, Senator. As you probably already know, the document was written by gentlemen farmers like myself and I feel a strong attachment to it. But, one problem is that, unlike many of the fugitives from literacy in official government positions, I find the text easy to understand.

In fact, because of the large number of federal government farming and land use regulations, I studied the Constitution in depth. Did you know that the words "farm" and "agriculture" are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution? That's really no surprise, either. Many of the authors of the Constitution were farmers. They were not about to give the federal government authority to interfere in their personal business.

So, here I sit, Senator, checkbook in hand. But I'm not going to start writing until you produce a satisfactory explanation of exactly where federal agents get the authority to regulate anything I do on my land. Either show me where the Constitution allows these federal fugitives from reason the power to regulate agriculture or tell them to get the hell away from us. Do one or the other and I will start writing. Maintain the status quo and my checkbook returns to the drawer.

In your stump speech, you also mentioned education. I had to agree with most of what you said about education. Our public school system is a mess. Our children do not learn half of what we did when we attended the local public school. But the difference between you and I, Senator, is that I understand what the underlying problem is and you do not. Besides the fact that many of the teachers are ignorant liberals and could not even pass the test we passed to graduate from junior high school, they spend too much time teaching feel-good things and not enough on the core curriculum necessary to function properly in society. What we have is liberals teaching liberalism when they should be restricted to teaching reading, writing, mathematics and history.

Teachers demand more money and smaller class sizes, but neither are the real problem. One major problem is federal rules and regulations. There was no problem with what kids learned before the federal government stuck its nose in the public school system. The government you represent caused many of the problems.

So, while you're rummaging through your Washington Senate office looking for the Constitutional authority to regulate agriculture, you might also pass along the Constitutional article that gives the federal government authority to interfere in the public school system. I cannot seem to locate any authority for that in my copy of the Constitution.

Oh, and by the way, the same thing goes for two other programs you proposed: medication and retirement.

We have known each other for many years. In fact, we were even in the same high school American History and government classes together. So, I know that you learned how the federal government is supposed to operate. What am I to think, then, when you introduce me as an old friend before making your speech and then go ahead and propose a series of programs that are not even close to being Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government?

That embarrassed me, Senator. It also surprised many people in the room -- those who are our age and had the same training back then at the City High School. You are supposed to represent us in that Constitutionally limited government we all learned about way back then. But, as we saw last night, you seem to be involved in some other form of government -- an unlimited form of government that evidently has assumed carte blanche to do as it pleases.

So, for the moment, my checkbook will remain closed. Because, I think we deserve an explanation, Senator. Actually, many of us think we deserve an explanation. We know that this year your opponent is fierce and this will be a close election. We also know that you probably cannot pull off this election without the full support of our little association. That makes the timeliness of your explanation imperative.

It is also time for you to "dance with the ones who brung 'ya" to that Senate position. We need freedom, not more federally controlled programs interfering in our lives. Your job, as we see it, is to insure that our freedom is protected.

In closing, I will mention again that federal regulators have been causing quite a lot of grief to the good people of our area. The bottom line is that if you do not make these constantly intrusive regulators disappear very, very soon, we will support someone who will.

Here's a list of felonies you're all going to love. And these felonies have hardly anything to do with the White House, either. "Hardly," of course, is the Clintonesque weasel-word in that last sentence. . . .

In this case, we have misappropriation and misapplication of public funds, misconduct in office and misfeasance. There is also an ongoing conspiracy of long duration to carry out the above. Any good lawyer could probably add a few more crimes to this list, but those will get us going for now.

Oh, and just to add a little flavor to the story, most of the conspirators, and the majority of both Houses of Congress (most of them are not directly involved in this), admit this is true.

Among the conspirators are the past and present Secretary of State, certain members of the Army and Air Force, certain employees of the EPA, and a number of management-level employees in at least twelve other federal agencies.

Many members of government don't seem to see the "crime" here. Or, at least publicly they won't admit they do. So let's define our terms enough to show them that there is clear-cut wrongdoing deserving of prosecution.

Our Barron's Law Dictionary defines misappropriation and misapplication as: "The use of funds or property for a purpose other than that for which they are intended or legally required to be used. Misapplication and misappropriation particularly apply to acts of fiduciary [one in a position of trust], including public servants as well as private trustees. The term can include the misapplication of funds intended for another purposes, e.g., the misapplication of public money. . ."

Misconduct in Office is defined as: "Corrupt misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties of the office or while acting under color of the office; includes any act or omission in breach of a duty of public concern by one who has accepted public office."

Misfeasance is "the doing of a proper act in a wrongful or injurious manner; the improper performance of an act which might have been lawfully done."

With that taken care of, now we can get to the particulars.

Back in the Carter Administration there was a big international agreement which many countries signed onto. The United States agreed, in part. And, like 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, in part, and implemented part of the agreement through an executive memoranda. The administration then secured minimal program funding from Congress.

A committee was formed, made up of members of various federal agencies, the State Department, the Army, and the Air Force.

But, Carter lost the election. Reagan became President. And this agreement was costing us big bucks. So, out it went. Funding was stopped, and the program was over.

Well, on the books -- as far as Congress knew -- the funding was stopped, anyway. In reality, little changed.

The story gets a bit foggy during the last two years of the Reagan Administration and throughout the Bush Administration. But, based on the actions of the committee running the program -- as you will see shortly -- it's obvious that they did not lack for funding.

The State Department kicked in a million dollars a year or so to keep the project going. The Army and Air Force contributed big bucks most years. So did at least thirteen federal agencies involved in the project. The committee proceeded on for thirteen continuous years that way.

Every year, Congress designated funds for specific needs of these federal agencies and departments, and every year, for thirteen years, bureaucrats from these different federal agencies and departments diverted a part of their funding to support a project that was legally canceled.

Nothing ever showed up on the federal budget, but every year the U.S. National Committee for the Man and the Biosphere Program was well funded with misappropriated and misapplied taxpayer dollars.

It still is, too; sixteen years later.

Members of the military have a shortage of fuel and ammunition with which to train. But still, the Army and the Air Force found money to help fund an illegal bureaucracy. Some of the ambassador's residencies around the world are in such disrepair that the roofs leak and the plumbing will not work. Yet the State Department poured millions of taxpayer dollars into a project that was legally canceled.

Federal agencies with mandated duties . . . err . . . well, let's just say that they had no authority to spend the money that way. Actually, it would be to our benefit if most federal agencies were totally defunded. But, that's another story.

The point is, EPA, BLM, and the rest of those agencies misappropriated money. And it ends up totaling a lot of money!

Now comes the Man and the Biosphere Committee itself, and even different offenses. Because, this was the group -- most of whom work for federal agencies and know better -- that intentionally received the misapplied and misappropriated money sixteen years in a row.

They knew they had no authorization to exist. They knew the funds they received were legally designated for other programs. Yet, they wrongfully participated in this illegal scam year after year anyway.

And the majority of Congress agreed it is wrong:

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 [94 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."

The amendment passed.

That was April 1997. On June 5, the liberals responded with a correction for the problem. Reps. Brown and Miller, both liberal Democrats from California, introduced H.R. 1801: A bill "To authorize the United States Man and the Biosphere Program."

The bill was quickly voted down and an amendment to ban the financing of biospheres was added to a few appropriations bills and passed easily.

Which means, all biosphere reserves that exist today are illegal. So too are all those UNESCO signs at the entrance to many of our parks. However, they are still there. The Man and the Biosphere Program is still operating. Bureaucrats are still wasting taxpayer's money on a project after they were told by law to stop.

So, Mister and Mrs. American Citizen, now what do we do about those bureaucrats who misappropriated all that money and wrongly bothered thousands of American families with their totally unauthorized project?

Quite obviously, prosecution is warranted.

Your responsibility, then, is to tell them so.

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

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 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu189.htm. Revised 7-8-00. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.