I’m not a Clive Bundy fan. After all is said and done, he did run his cattle on land that did not belong to him (it’s Easter — render to Caesar that which is Caesars’ etc). However, there is something to be said for the REACTION to the spontaneous outrage created. This is more poignant in light of government reaction to other “tragedies” which should have been labeled “terrorism”.


  1. A carefully planed spontaneous protest. Stop the boat. Get off the bus. This is not politically correct.

  2. If it's something that the Democrats wish to distance themselves from, it's something benign. If they wish to engage ranchers in Nevada, it's terrorism.

  3. I think there was more manpower chasing cows than we had available in the shoot-out where the Ambassador was killed. Well, maybe some of the cows were in the CIA.

  4. Many times the manpower to round up Bundy's cows than that which was sent to aid the consulate in Behghazi. People were available to aid in the situation in Libya but we chose not to send them.

    That has yet to be satisfactorily explained. "What does it matter?" does not cut it.

  5. Well, of course THEY label it Domestic Terrorism. This is the only event of the three that directly challenges THEIR power. The fact that "The Great and Powerful Reid" was stared down and revealed as the corrupt, puny individual behind the green curtain, predicatably results in his return to vitriolic name calling.

Comments are closed.