And why no interview with the head of the BLM.. Who IS the head of the BLM anyway? Is this another entity where they have ultimate power and no one who's EVER held accountable? Time to expose the wizard!

the most striking difference is a private company could not take action against another private citizen in this way. AS well, public agencies should also have to respect due process and law enforcement should be separate from those agencies. Instead, each agency has its own law enforcement and this recent use shows us how powerful. If dumpy little BLM can reek this much havoc over the public, we are doomed. I fully expect to see National Park Rangers training as snipers soon-(they probably already are!)

More and more of so -called public land is restricted or off -limits to the public, for reclamation, breeding seasons, no motorized vehicles, permits requird etc. It 's hardly public if the public can 't use it

You do not understand the whole picture. He has been fighting this for 20 years in the courts and the courts are stacked against him..all other ranchers have been run out..he's the last man standing. Read and watch the videos of him explaining the whole story. Are you for or against freedom? What happened with the BLM is NOT freedom...it's brute thuggery. And "these militia guys" did NOT put their women and children on the front lines. Good grief, where are you getting your info? Harry Reid? Watch the footage. I'm also against eminent domain. (Starting to understand why we have the 2nd amendment yet? Our founders KNEW these things would happen if the majority got complacent about upholding freedom....and here we are.)

I don't think you understand the whole history of the BUndy controversy. It has been mis-reported in multiple places in the press.
1. Bundy's held property rights en perpetuity for both water and grazing on those lands.
2. In violation of 5th Amendment, the dept of interior, ie BLM, those property rights were removed from the Bundy's with vague promises never fulfilled. In fact, a similar case was ruled on differently than this case but the basics were the same. They removed the value of the rights by charging grazing fees and eventually limiting the ranchers to the point of not having any real rights at all. 50 ranchers went out of business because of this. Bundy fought.
3.They used these illegal rights to charge the owners for exercising rights that were already theirs. there is strong precedent against the BLM's actions in the courts.
4. They then used the endangered species act in specious ways to further hamstring Mr. Bundy. That is when he said he would pay his fees to Nevada not to the BLM.
5. I have not read about the Canadian pipeline case. Is this Keystone you're talking about? I don't like Eminent Domain either. Look how Kelo turned out. All those homes razed and people displaced for absolutely nothing. what a waste. Immoral.
rmcd, maybe you could post something on the issue you have brought up?

Um. "...put their women...on the front lines..."??!

It is not as if we are little puppets, rmcd. Had I been there, no one would have 'put me on the front lines'. I would have walked up to the front on mine own little two feet.

Thinking tactically, there have been times in the past when I felt that a pending confrontation needed to be defused and I put my fingers in my pockets (palms clearly visible) and strolled up and began chatting with the aggressive parties. It is more difficult to maintain toxic testosterone levels with a smiling, polite woman chatting amiably with you. I think that if the situation had become explicitly dangerous that everyone would have dived to protect the children, but that 'women and children' in the front lines may have contributed materially to keeping the situation cool and not letting anyone pull the trigger. You will note that in the confrontations between the Russians and the Estonians in the late 1980's, women and children were also present.

One of the realizations that my reading these lists has brought home to me is the degree to which we live in a hodgepodge of laws. Many of the local laws that have been passed would not survive contact with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but there is no easy touchstone to use to qualify a law for existence within that structure. Per my exchange with MikeMarrota yesterday, there is apparently no functional scientific division between 'disobeying a bad law because you are a patriot' and 'disobeying a good law because you are a nutcase'...but that does not mean that we cannot all make as best a judgement on this as we are personally able.

And I do not think you will find many folks on this list who will defend eminent domain!

Jan, hands in pockets

In my opinion, your statement "If you are mad about a law try to change it" amounts to a recommendation of futilely banging one's head against a wall. I've long suspected that the laws and regulations are not affected by the people's will, and a recent study proves this true. See http://rt.com/usa/us-democracy-oligarchy... and/or http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambe...

Yeah, I did too.