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.
Thank you for stating the FACTS so succinctly!
[[I am looking forward to his expanding on this bald dismissal of the very means by which this country was founded. He has to elaborate on what he said.]]
Agreed- whether people vote for this man or not may very well hinge on his answer- I find it frightening that he thinks the second amendment isn’t meant for standing up for our constitutional rights
If it can be turned into a jobs and land mismanagement issue it can have wide support.
Moll, not with your call to arms at this time, HOWEVER, you are correct. Jim totally nailed this one.
Awesome job, Jim.
“(1) What is wrong with the Club for Growth, exactly?”
They are a bunch of open border, free traitor LOBBYISTS! Their founder Stephen Moore along with Cesar Conda (rubio’s chief of staff and mentor to Paul Ryan) and Grover Norquist, with Hewitt’s help destroyed prop. 187 in Calif. and have led the push for amnesty and cheap foreign labor ever since. They HATED Duncan Hunter and took him out in 2008.
that was my reading of it too, but yet again we see people around the country jumping to conclusions with headlines.
Cruz needs to step up here. So does Trump. They need to address JUST these issues. Perhaps they are waiting to see how the 'so-called standoff' unfolds.
(BTW I call it 'so-called standoff' because apparently the participants are freely entering and exiting the Refuge for supplies. Some 'stand off'.
John Adams defended those soldiers because he insisted on the rule of law - and that trial occurred three years before the Tea Party.
The catalyst for separation is arguably when the UK government deputed English soldiers to forcibly disarm English subjects in April 1775.
At that point it became clear that the UK government would never respect the rights of the colonists, but would impose whatever laws they wanted by force without even pretending to seek consent.
Check out my new tagline.
These people’s case went all the route up to the Supreme court who refused to hear it. There is no other recourse within the law. YEARS of abuse by numerous federal agencies have done nothing for the people, but have augmented the ILLEGAL possession of property by the Federal Government to the extent that they can’t even take care of what they have acquired by hook, crook, and confiscation. WHEN is a good time? WHEN is enough enough?
Yep, false flag for me too.
Trump is the ony one left with any brains or guts.
Remember the Muslim stance Cruz took: Cruz: Carson's stance on Muslim presidents unconstitutional
Cruz lost support at the time. Cruz may see a similar loss of support here, especially if Trump plays his cards right (i.e. A Bump for Trump).
As far as the Rooster's advice, it's great advice. Let's hope/pray it doesn't come to a fight, but if it does, let's make damn sure the Patriots involved win!
[[Cruz didn’t “slam†the protestors, he merely asked them to stand down and pursue other tactics. What a dishonest journalist.]]
He did more than that - he told them they had no right to do what they are doing
As I understand this it's some wood building in the boondocks that having a big shootout over would be stupid.
Everybody has got time.
As far as I know, they haven't taken over any buildings, not even obscure out-of-the-way ones where those occupying the buildings aren't doing any harm to anyone else. These protestors with the Bundy's are engaged in peaceful protest on federal lands, lands that they should have every right to use. Their cause is legitimate. How can those ranchers be given a longer sentence after they served their sentence?
Instead, BLM block streets, make it impossible to have safe access to buildings while they get police protection as they bully their way around cities. When they're so inclined, they burn down cities, at great cost to people who live and work there. Isn't it the BLM protestors that should be told to stop their uncivil protests?
Haven't heard Cruz say anything about those protestors, have we?
So free trade and immigration are anti-freedom, and government control of trade and Soviet-style border controls are pro-freedom.
I think I understand your perspective now.
So that is why talk of armed occupations (be they left or right wing) leave me cold. I won't discount it but please convince me why potential armed force against the authorities is acceptable.
The principle is the same., DEFENDING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS over GOVERNMENT TYRANNY!
The Hammonds are not even taking up arms. Even though it sounds unjust to order them back to prison, we don't truly know the whole story. If the Hammonds are not willing to fight, then why are the outsiders willing to fight? Is it perhaps because they're spoil’n for a fight?
If these guyz feel this is there hill, then let it be there hill. I don't think it's wrong of Ted Cruz to ask them to lay down their arms.
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.