Posted on 01/04/2016 10:33:31 AM PST by ObozoMustGo2012
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas.) on Monday slammed the protesters who have taken over a federal building in rural Oregon, urging them to lay down their arms.
“Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds,†Cruz told reporters at campaign event in Iowa, according to NBC News.
“But we don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence on others,†he said. “And so it is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.†Cruz said he is praying for everyone involved in the dispute, particularly law enforcement officials who “are risking their lives.â€
The protesters, led by two sons of the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, say they are taking a stand against a prison sentence for two landowners convicted of arson on federal property.
They’re also part of a group that frequently protests against federal government's management of Western lands. They protesters have told media outlets that they plan to stay on the refuge for years.
The standoff has put Republican presidential candidates on the spot, with some of them having expressed support in a similar dispute in 2014 between Bundy and the government over unpaid grazing fees.
The support for Bundy eroded when he began making racially charged statements in interviews.
Up until Monday, most of the GOP's White House contenders had refrained from speaking out on the Oregon dispute, but that is beginning to change.
Like Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) condemned the takeover at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, though he told an Iowa radio station that he sympathizes with the movement to shrink federal land holdings.
“You’ve got to follow the law. You cannot be lawless,†Rubio told KBUR in an interview highlighted by Buzzfeed. “We live in a republic. There are ways to change the laws of this country and the policies. And if we get frustrated with it, that’s why we have elections, that’s why we have people we can hold accountable.â€
Rubio lent some credit to the stated goals of the occupation, reported by local media to involve a small group of armed men with very few local residents. The group is objecting to federal land control and ownership and pushing for the federal land to be given to states or individuals.
“I agree that there is too much federal control over land, especially out in the western part of the United States. There are states, for example, like Nevada that are dominated by the federal government in terms of land holding, and we should fix it,†Rubio said, adding that it shouldn’t be done “in a way that is outside the law.â€
Among the 2016 hopefuls, Cruz has been one of the most vocal advocates for reducing federal land ownership, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
Cruz led the charge against the Bureau of Land Management’s claims over property around the Red River in Texas, saying he wants to “protect landowners from federal overreach.â€
Rubio has been less vocal about federal land ownership, but his energy policy platform calls for more local and state control over federal property for oil and natural gas drilling or other uses.
Land management is a major political issue in Western states. Nationwide, the federal government owns and manages nearly 630 million acres, with most located west of the Mississippi River.
Cruz and Rubio have increasingly clashed in recent weeks, with both seeking to overtake Donald Trump in polls of the Republican race.
While Rubio is seeking to gain ground in New Hampshire, the first primary state, Cruz has taken the lead in Iowa, which will hold its caucuses on Feb. 1.
Start by taking a look at the YEARS of problems these ranchers have had to put up with that is all designed to push them off the land. The government OWNS far too much of America’s land and taxes us outrageously to take care of it. The Sierra Club, the World Wildlife bunch of nuts, the EPA, and all other outfits preaching confiscation through “conservation hooey, should all be thrown out on their butts. And we should get out of the UN which pushes One World Order agendas.
“Cruz should be criticizing the judge. It’s worse than double jeopardy.”
It is, but double jeopardy has been eroding for some time, and under both parties and with the blessings and support of the (try not to laugh at these titles) Supreme Court Justices appointed by both Republican and Democrat presidents. The thing that is consistent is that the federals, like Brezhnev’s USSR, never give up what they take.
I would like to see Cruz’s thoughts on the jurisprudence, although I don’t like his comments as they stand on this. Our system right now is a travesty.
Interesting conspiracy theory.
Two questions:
(1) What is wrong with the Club for Growth, exactly?
(2) What should we make of the fact that Donald Trump put his finger in Hillary and Bill Clinton's pie for years?
Bonus question: Was George W. Bush the establishment candidate in 2000?
No, no candidate is going to advocate for violence in this or any other case. However, this and other cases like it provide an excellent context in which to address a number of issues like federal government ownership and overregulation of the West, overzealous prosecutors, activist judges, etc., and the anger that federal government overreach espouses among the population. All of these candidates are making comments that pander to conservatives, but how many of them have EVER done a damned thing about it?
I agree with everything you said. Cruz has DENIED the RIGHT to self defense clearly written in the Second Amendment. HA! Some constitutional genius he is, he just showed his true colors.He is YELLOW, in the face of Fed overreach and tyranny.
Astute politicians would look into grievances and accordingly make changes to said laws if need be, and possibly commute sentences to less severe that were misapplied.
Of course it was, because the Boston Tea Partiers were denied their legal right to vote for or against the Tea Act.
It is not clear the Founding Fathers agreed with the Tea Party vandalism. And the Red Coats were defended by a Founding Father in the Boston Massacre.
The real catalyst for rebellion and separation came when collective punishment and denial of basic human rights were applied on Boston. So let’s be a little more honest with our history. We has some hot headed Founders but most were even keeled and deliberate.
Cruz shouldn’t have commented. He’s propping up the left that these are terrorists and need to surrender.
All they’re doing is occupying an empty federal bldg, if the government wants to turn that into an armed conflict, we’re in serious trouble with or without this situation.
Sorry, but armed or not, theirs is not a leftist cause and even a naked hunger strike chained to fence posts wouldn’t garner a bit of support from the media.
"The man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
This may not be the right hill but it is coming soon. I hope we have the wisdom to recognize it and the testicular fortitude to finally put a stop to it.
This may not be the right hill but it is coming soon. I hope we have the wisdom to recognize it and the testicular fortitude to finally put a stop to it.
What he can say is that it’s obviously time for the Federal government to step back from violating people’s rights with such venality that some Americans feel their only recourse is to take up arms.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Ben Franklin
American Statesman
“The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. “
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer
“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States
Obviously, that was some time ago when courts and judges had not been brainwashed by the Liberals. Today you would probably be arrested for discharging a firearm on federal property, since they are claiming ownership of all water, streams, rivers,lakes, estuaries, and even ponds built by farmers down to the last mud-puddle.
[[But if the “Law†is outside the law, what recourse do you have?]]
Exactly- this is why our founding fathers felt it was so important for people to bear arms- to prevent a government from overstepping it’s bounds- and to use force if necessary- Cruz is wrong on this-
No Internet back then. The Government had almost total control of information. Which is why the NWO Occupation Government wants to shut down sites like these.
Cruz is right again.
This isn’t the fight or hill to die on, this is no Bundy ranch situation and its no wonder the militia’s themselves aren’t rallying and flooding in to this situation.
This will all just fade away as it should.
Watch and learn from a credible patriot in his own backyard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARpBS6O14FE
I agree.
He has acknowledged that they are committing a crime. Probably because they are.
And what they have done is very interesting: there was a legitimate protest over a very real problem - the legal harassment of the Hammonds.
The Bundys - whose situation was and is very different from the Hammonds' - hijacked that protest and used it as a springboard for the armed occupation of a federal facility.
The Bundys are trying to rally ill-informed supporters to their banner in order to foment violence.
Cruz and other clear heads are trying to defuse the situation by describing it accurately.
None of these are causes I would support armed rebellion for. I may support handing land to the states from Fed govt but again - not something I care to see people die over. Livelihoods maybe at stake but not lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.