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.
But if the “Law” is outside the law, what recourse do you have? We have tyranny in the White House and tyranny in the courts, to say nothing of all the unelected tyrants in the bureaucracy. It’s about time to water that tree Jefferson spoke of.
I am more concerned by the absolute nature of Cruz’s comments than the particulars of these rancher cases. If he cannot see an implied right to the use of force in the Second Amendment, or the warning that one intends to exercise the right of self defense or defense of others in the First Amendment, then he far from the legal authority that people like to think he is. If he cannot see those basics of natural law, he is as blind as the ones who see homosexual couplings as marriage are delusional.
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.
This does not play into their hands. Every inch that this escalates, every second that this continues, risks waking a sleeping giant. At some point, to get our liberty back, we all know it’s going to take applying 2A. Why not sooner rather than later?
Uh oh. There you go thinking things through rationally again.
Because this is too coincidental, stinks of False Flag operations.
On the particulars of this showboat situation I agree with you.
at age 19, I successfully defended myself against an over zealous prosecutor on a double jeopardy charge once. I defended myself successfully in the initial case too. The judge agreed that I was being tried twice for the same offense and dismissed the case. At about the same age, I successfully defended myself against a hunting without a license charge as well. I was shooting cans by a creek. the cop accused me of hunting without a license. I fought him in court and I got the cop to admit that I had no game on my possession and that I was not, at any time, observed hunting by anyone. Case dismissed. I really should have gone to law school. The tree of liberty can go a while longer without watering IMO.
The feds have done much worse, so why only consider the battle on the front page? Why does it matter that THIS PARTICULAR grievance doesn’t rise to meet your threshold for support? The mere fact that the feds control billions of acres for no other reason than the desire for power should have you primed and ready to march.
Ted Cruz can go pound sand.
This standoff has brought the issue of BLM overreach and judicial tyranny to the forefront. In that way these protesters have made their point. I knew nothing about this issue until they took over the “federal building” which I understand is more like an abandoned clubhouse.
They have made their point and at this time a stand down and retreat would not be a surrender. If anyone gets hurt in this standoff, then whatever they hope to accomplish will be lost. At this point the only crime that has been committed is trespassing. If it gets bloody then all bets are off.
We have every constitutional right to stand against the unconstitutional tyranny of the feds. The only "terrorists" in this and similar scenarios is the federal government who illegally and unconstitutionally hold state lands. Unconstitutional federal acts are acts of tyranny.
Art I, Sec 8, Cl 17 of the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the feds may hold land in a state IF
1) the purpose for the land is for NEEDFUL federal buildings like forts or dock-yards and
2) the feds purchased the land after the state legislature consents
Most federal lands do not meet this test and should, therefore, transfer back to the states either willingly or by state commandeering the lands.
“Feel good†National Parks, for instance, are unconstitutional. Notice that unconstitutional federal acts, like National Parks, no matter how good it feels at the time, can turn ugly at any time, because tyranny never remains benign.
Government by nature is not a benign agent. Government is at its core is an agent of force. That is why the federal government must be ruled and limited by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
And if a state tries to beg off on it's ownership of its land, that gives the feds NO right to act unconstitutionally in taking that land. State land belong to wither the state or the people of that or other states.
Was the Boston Tea Party a good thing?
You know what? In the fight for freedom, you fight even if you’re not sure you’re going to win. Freedom is more valuable than life itself.
Yes he is.
Disperse ye rebels.
If Trump agrees with Cruz, then Cruz is just parroting Trump's sage analysis.
If Trump disagrees with Cruz, then Cruz is an establishment puppet.
At least we know something.
But if the “Law†is outside the law, what recourse do you have? We have tyranny in the White House and tyranny in the courts, to say nothing of all the unelected tyrants in the bureaucracy. It’s about time to water that tree Jefferson spoke of.
There is non-violent resistance - it does work. It’s not only something that NAACP types should only use after all. If anything the power of armed resistance should be a last resort kind of thing.
Two men served their time. Some judge comes along and said he doesn't think their prison time was adequate...so back they go.
What the hell kind of law is that??
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.