Once enough endangered species and enough generic environments like wetlands are under federal protection, the US government will have total veto power over every bit of land use in the US.

Another outrageous statement by Matt Giwer you are ready to dismiss. But was it not the slippery slope that rode on a wave a patriotism to protect the national symbol the Bald Eagle? And did not the snail darter follow? And the spotted owl?

Are their really any questions as to the slippery slope of laws? And the law that was passed in a patriotic cause overnight became a tool of nature-hugging activists to block progress. Is there any question regarding the rule of tyranny that any law passed in a good cause will be perverted to causes the people do not support?

Do we blame activists alone? They are what the United Nations folks NGOs, Non-Governmental Organizations. They receive funding from governments. They are put on government committees. When the UN wants to impose some odd-ball idea it simply invokes one or more of those groups and designates them as speakers for the people. The US is no different.

When the government wants to take control of land it gives one or more of those groups some kind of superior status ­ almost if people had voted for them. The National Wildlife Federation is one example. Most of its funding is in the form of contributions from people whose only confrontation with wildlife is in their home ­ and they try to kill it.

They also get grants from the government. They also pay their national directors six figure salaries based upon their ability to raise funds, of which they get a share as a bonus.

When you look at their legal disclosures on the amounts they contribute, anyone with a spare $100,000 a year should be able to buy their pet legislation regardless of its impact upon the country.

They are also political contributors.

These groups work hand in glove with the government buying the legislation they want, using that legislation to list as accomplishment to raise more funds and, completely the cycle of life, increasing their contributions the next year based upon the increase in funds they have raised. Diogenes would need more than a lamp these days.

The other side of the coin is that builders must create their own lobbying groups and make their own contributions to buy legislation favorable to them. Unlike the voter who will usually pick the least corrupt the winner in these battles is always the most corrupt.

Yes, of course there may be an occasional deal that gets exposed to the voters and there is some kind of public outcry that stops it. They are few, they are far between and after it has died down the same deal passes into law buried a thousand pages deep in totally unrelated legislation. Regardless of what the people ­ those stupid voters ­ want they system never changes.

The problem with this system is that there are a limited number of interests which can be milked in this manner. When a few hundred acres here, a thousand acres there are declared wetlands a few home owners may take is seriously but that best that can come of that is the legal cost of jailing a man who fills in a West Nile Fever mosquito swamp and the resulting bad publicity.

So the only way to increase the take is to increase the stakes. Now for example we have a frog with red legs on the endangered species list. It has no other distinguishing feature. Also it does not live in a desert or swamp or off in the mountains some place. It lives on prime, fertile California real estate. In fact it lives on five million acres of prime real estate. That is one and one half times the size of Massachusetts.

Now any rational person ­ which includes the voters ­ is going to ask just how a frog with such a huge range on fertile land can possibly endangered. Do not bother asking as neither the government nor the liberal media have any interest in intelligent questions. Intelligent questions could expose the entire scam.

Not that it matters but the NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, is fronting this scam for the for the US Fish and Wildlife Service [sic] of the government. And the demand of all involved is a cessation of all development. I presume none of my readers have ever voted for that organization. But it is doing us all the favor of speaking for all of us. Perhaps some day like the unions we will be required by law to pay them dues.

Now stakes are drastically increased. Not just a local developer in South Carolina and some local economic losses. This involves literally hundreds of developers, tens of thousands of people directly in the construction business, the companies that supply them, dozes of mortgage bankers and real estate agencies. Now that is a group that can and must raise millions in contributions to continue to earn a living.

Consider the comparison to the state of Massachusetts. With power like this all the development in an entire state can be held hostage to a suitably lucrative political arrangement. Can that happen?

When it comes to the myth of air quality entire states have been and still are. Major city are. Ten of millions of people acting under penalty of fines and prison time to do things they would not do voluntarily.

Every action by the government is carried out under the threat of force and violence. That is why they carry guns.

Ten of millions of average people, state and local governments elected by voters to act for them not for any government all under the control of government bureaucrats all because there is no one for Diogenes to find these days.

Of course if the people did not want it they could vote the bastards out, right? I know I heard that in grade school although they used the most polite rascals instead of bastards. But for the life of me I have yet to find one example of it other than the WWII vets in a town in the south who took up guns and threw them out.

The two party system is too deeply entrenched in this country in law and in fact for a third party to advance. The effort to get on the ballot is very high in the states and that is the way the two parties want it. What would it really cost to add a few more names to a ballot?

The media will not give them serious coverage even when there would be good sound bites from Pat Buchanan or from their darling Ralph Nader. Where even the Government's Federal Elections Commission requires only 5% of the vote for public funds, the bi-partisan, emphasis on the bi ­ Republican and Democrat, put the requirement at 15% standing in media conducted polls for participation. But since the media gives negligible coverage it would be rather impossible for their polls to show percentages different from their coverage.

This system to rule every important aspect of our lives and extract money for doing it is not something the ruling parties wish to give up. Rephrase that, rather it is something they are not going to give up and if you do gain public recognition and by some miracle have a perfect set of tax returns, maybe you stepped on a frog with red legs, filled in a mud hole in your backyard, did not properly dispose of motor oil when you changed it, threw an old TV or rechargable batteries from your Walkman into a dumpster, or were some other kind of federal felon.

And they will come with guns on their hips with every intention of using them if you refuse to come quietly.

The endangered specie in this entire exercise is the free man. Certainly the idea of free has changed drastically over the decades. With pollution it started with air and water and came down to cadmium in landfills at such levels that it is likely in the earth at such levels naturally. The fraction in a landfill is so small that if evenly distributed a research laboratory would be hard pressed to find a trace of it.

The free man is no longer endangered but already vanished when it comes to animals, plants and certainly soon to include things visible only under a microscope. Some weed, something that keeps you awake at night with its noise, some junk fish that even the usual predators won't eat is the excuse the government uses to control your behavior.

These are all beasts and weeds that should the government take it into its head to eradicate we would hear of it needing billions of dollars so you know it is all a scam. But when some of them have had the courtesy to go extinct and get out of the way, there is the government ready to reintroduce it.

The US Park Service has taken it into its head to reintroduce wolves and buffalo into Yellowstone National Park. Wolves kill livestock outside the park and wandering buffalo carry diseases that are deadly to livestock. But don't you dare kill any of them unless you like the food in federal prisons. And that includes a requirement they were trying to kill you if you claim self defense. And do not dare go after any who have killed people as they are protected unless caught in the act.

Rock Creek Park is in Washington, DC. I read once a recounting from 1912 with the remark, 'the night was so quite all one could hear was occasional new motorcar and the baying of the wolves in Rock Creek Park.

Dear Congressrat,

Please demonstrate your dedication to nature and reintroduce wolves to Rock Creek Park first. I regret you have to ignore this letter as I could not afford to include a contribution

A Citizen

More and more in the western states there are rebellions. They are getting louder and meaner. It is no longer a matter of shooting revenooers which is an honorable, gentlemanly occupation but keeping all the government service people under control and on their toes. What people in the west know from horrible experience is the truth of the statement, I'm from the government and here to help you.

In one place a century old road washed out. It can not be replaced. You have to understand there is this endangered fish ... How far is it from your tool shed needs replacing but there is an endangered weed? If the weed is ridiculous, when did the fish become sensible?

The present trend is to keep roads out of government lands in the west to protect the lands. Protect the lands for who? Rather for which animals because if humans cannot get into them they are not being protected for humans.

Maybe they are being protected for backpackers and protected from the horrors disabled Americans would reek upon the land. Have you ever seen the damage wheelchairs can do to the landscape? Those crutch tips can crush the red legs of a frog.

You see while the government encourages predatory lawyers and greedy disabled to use the courts to scam honest people that same government is violating its own handicapped access laws. Consistency would demand one or the other to be the position. But if stuck with consistency you have to give up cash contributions from one group or the other. With inconsistency money pours in from all sides.

Where is the free man in all of this? The man who was free to do as he wished as long as he did not harm others is long gone. What is left of freedom is at the very untender mercies of the dishonesty of the political system in the US.

Some might suggest politics has always been corrupt and that is quite correct. It used to be something serious with which we could all agree. A bribe to overlook cockroaches in a restaurant or the fire code in an apartment building and yes, we all agree.

But how many agree overlooking the lack of a ramp so a wheelchair bound person can get up a stair without assistance is a serious matter? It is becoming like prohibition again, bribes to overlook onerous and ridiculous laws are encouraged. With it will come overlooking the serious laws but then old time corruption is hard to eliminate when new time corruption is being deliberately created.

And this disabled American law was promoted as a cure for discrimination against the handicapped. The term discrimination was used to link it with discrimination against Blacks,

As Abe Lincoln said, you can declare a stallion to be a cow but you can't make it give milk. Today the government and can declare the majority to be a minority without flinching.

still called Negros when the laws were passed. And that expanded to other minorities such as the female majority of the US population.

Today's government is a master of legally declaring one thing to be another thing. The liberals applauded when it legally declared non-assault weapons to be assault weapons. When it declares frogs which can not possibly be endangered to be endangered it does so with a pious smile that would look presumptuous on a Pope.

It is the trend we are looking at. It is a trend that is acellerating rather than slowing down. When the next insanity is proposed remember this article. Look to the organizations and the money and the politician behind it.

Naming names is always fun but then I do not have a complete list of US politicians. Lets take Senator Ted Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquidic. Why should a man from a rich family like the Kennedys care about money? Because they were nearly broke as little as twenty years ago.

Broke? Since the rum runner why made the family's fortune died the fortune has simply been divided among the children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. With no one replenishing the wealth eventually the divided estate is barely worth a new car.

But as Ted Kennedy gained Senate seniority, the family fortunes increased. Very well paying jobs seem to flow to an otherwise talentless family. Even the lackluster George magazine got every deference and bit of free promotion wherever possible. But with the death of JFK Jr., George who?

Did Senator Kennedy's fortunes create Kennedy family talent? Or simply make what was available more salable? Or is the Senator restoring the family fortune?

Lets look at the record. You may know TV now has captioning for the "hearing impaired." He was the main sponsor of that bill requiring the capability in every TV and in every broadcast station. At the time there were about 200,000 people in the US who actually needed or cared about it for their own needs. (Hearing impaired does not mean completely deaf that being very rare these days.) Not one chip maker had risked a penny on making the needed chips.

Enter Ted Kennedy and there is the requirement. Follow the money trail from the windfall to the chip manufacturers to the Kennedy family. Also consider the inclusion of the companies who provide the closed captioning of interest to only 200,000 but tax deductible advertising to millions who could not care in the least.

Now why would anyone really care about this example? Lets say the chips add $5 to the cost of a TV. It benefits 200,000 people. Eventually 200,000,000 TVs will be sold with that chip. The imputed economic value of that chip is $5,000 dollars as 1,999 chips that are never used are sold.

And as to the tax deduction value, find the cost per minute of advertising and divide by 12 for the cost of the 5 second announcement. (Close captioning provided by ....) Nicely, ER recently set a record of $1.2 million per minute making the tax deduction worth $100,000 per show. OK, a couple hundred thousand is the usual price. If you have a newer TV turn on the feature and you estimate how little it costs to actually create the closed captioning. I admit it is a bit of a talent to convert fifty words to "I love you, Jane.

Remember it is only your money and "good" tax deductions that increase your purchase costs and your taxes. And it is just one more way the anti-Diogeneans are ripping off your money. Don't worry about it. A penny here, a penny there and it will never be real money no matter how many tens of thousands of them there are ­ so they would have you believe.

After all, is that not how they address each one of the nonsense programs that comes under scrutiny? Only a few pennies per taxpayer. They never want you to realize that it is only a few pennies for each of hundreds of thousands of programs.

And then when it comes to the real programs that take a really big bite out of your income like social security they always want you to focus on the guaranteed aspect of it rather than on the fact that if you invest the same money in the stock market you can take a raise on retirement at 65 rather than no more than $1,200 a month by law. By US law and by the laws of all of the states, a retirement investment plan like social security would be criminal.

If anyone doubts the above, the investment is 7% from you and 7% from your employer for 14% investment per year for 45 years. Even if only your 7% bank interest would do better for everyone. Nothing is worse than Social Security. Nothing can be legally as bad as Social Security. But that is your government at work. You tolerate your government taking 80% of your "investment" in your retirement away from you. Do not blame me for being the messenger.

And remember the Libertarian Party candidate is excluded from the debates to tell you that simple truth. Do you care really? Were you taught how to calculate annuities in grade school as I was in the 1950s and have you ever done it on 14% or even 7% of your income? Why not? Do not argue with me about the percentages until you have run the calculations with your percentages.

No matter what the government would have you believe, when it borrows from the Social Security trust fund it means that the general tax revenues will have to repay that trust fund. And as it borrows at a rate that is also criminal you should expect to be ripped off.

And then the bloated bureaucracy of the system is taken off of the top of your "voluntary contributions" to your retirement. As if that were not enough, since when is disability also considered retirement? And as it took until 1995 for being a common drunk to cease being considered a disability one has to ask just what else might be considered a disability. And knowing the government we have to ask just how common drunks are still being covered despite the exclusion.

And if anyone really wanted to save social security, retirement age would simply be moved back one month per year until things were in balance. It is that simple. But if that were done the spread for the rip-off would not be there. Keep in mind that at today's average income the average Social Security payment should be about $30,000 a year at the minimum.

But is not at least some part of the Social Security thing being debated by the candidates? The last time I read the US Constitution, the President can not do a thing to change Social Security but sign of veto bills that come before him. His job is to see that it is administered properly according to the law, nothing more.

This is but one more example of the fake choice we have in elections. Please read Article II of the US Constitution. Any campaign based upon anything not contained there is a faked, false, faux campaign. The only independent action of a president is in the matter of foreign affairs, the ability to sign bills into law or veto them and to make nominations. That is it. "I will fix Social Security" is not now nor has it ever been nor has anything similar ever been within the powers of a president.

How can one make a choice in a presidential election when in fact such campaigns are not conducted upon any valid criteria for the selection of a president? Of these the most honest is Pat Buchanan who comes closest to running on the powers of a president. No president can "fix" social security, no president can dispose of the budget. No president can do anything that is the basis of the current campaign discussions.

That both ruling parties have agreed to campaign upon non-presidential powers and to make the real presidential powers off-limits in debates should be a rather large hint to anyone who ever bothered to read the US Constitution. But there are not many of us who have done that. And of those who have most have been taught it does not mean what is says so they did not pay attention to it.

Where is the free man with a free choice without a choice? With all of that no citizen has ever for a federal judge which of course leaves Congress both Senators and Representatives. Representatives being elected by local districts, meaning the people on the other side of the street might be voting for someone else, do tend to campaign upon local issues. Senators, being elected by state tend to include presidential powers in their campaigns.

But as both are exclusively of the two parties or affliated with the two parties nationally we are still not talking choice here. One does not get a party nomination without being a party loyalist and therefore one does not see the light of day without parroting the lead of the behind the scenes rules of the party.

Of course one can always hope that the rebellious young will rectify things in time. But reality is against it. One can not be a lifelong hidden rebel while benefiting from not being a rebel. If in the system long enough and one becomes the system. The old people die off, the younger have to take over. They can not change but their part of it at any time. The system that evolves in the changing generations becomes more and more the person who might have been a reformer.