Of course, you know the BLM could always attack another ranch where Tea Partiers aren't standing watch. In fact, I would bet on that being the Regime's strategy, because they're after a heckuva lot more than just Clive Bundy, and thanks to their militant police state tactics, that name has attracted far too much attention.-Me, five days ago
And.....here we go again:
Bureau of Land Management seized Texas Rancher Tommy Henderson's land and did not pay the rancher a dime for it.
Only difference between Mr. Henderson and Mr. Bundy, it would appear, is that the Texas rancher didn't physically resist, while his Nevada counterpart did. And we saw the difference in the BLM's responses.
It raises quite a few questions. Is civil disobedience and passive resistance the only way to fight back against the Obama Regime's tyrannical reflexes? How many Battles of Bundy Hill can there be before the defenders shoot first, giving the feds the propaganda narrative they so clearly seek? Or have they learned their lesson about the efficacy of quietly bleeding ranchers dry in lieu of American Tiananmens? And in the latter case, how can civil disobedience be mounted in such a way as to draw favorable public attention, particularly when the media is an arm of the White House?