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.
“...The manager of it is married to the woman who took the Hammonds back to court...”
Ok. I still don’t see how this is supposed to force the judge to let the Hammonds off. If anything, I can see it angering the judge to where he adds as much time as he can.
All I see is that they are enjoying camping out, swapping war stories around a campfire and pestering absolutely no one. I mean, it just seems they would be hard pressed to find a more remote federal building that would impact no one by protesting at it. I don’t get it.
And some posters assert *THIS* is where the revolution should start? So what do they do if the govt doesn’t oblige them? What if the federal agent they send to deal with them is a little lady in a skirt & heels and a briefcase and not armed jack-booted thugs? Are they going to rough her up? Shoot her? What if the feds send *no one* because there is nothing of significant value at risk at that remote location? Then what?
I don’t see any point they could possibly make here. I can empathize with their plight and I don’t fault them one bit for trying to do something. But this looks like a big waste of time and effort that could be better spent elsewhere.
Just my opinion and opinions will vary.
“Was the Boston Tea Party a good thing?”
In retrospect, probably not. Same goes for the revolution. 240 years later, do we have that much more freedom to show for it than the average British subject?
It’s none of Cruz’ business. Don’t know why he mentioned it. Sounds like something a democrat would say.
Amen!
Its not a standoff. The only “crime” being committed is trespassing and perhaps breaking and entering. OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS IS LEGAL IN OREGON.
The Feds are pointedly and explicitly ignoring this, and dear leader has said its a local law enforcement issue. I’m sure the fbi etc. will be watching at a distance, but so far the response has been the correct one.
“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.”
When I read NRO, the attacks on Trump push me toward him. But when I read FreeRepublic, the attacks on Cruz by Trump supporters make me gag at the thought.
The deification of someone who talked up Obama in 2009, and the vilification of someone who has fought for constitutional government from the beginning, is making FreeRepublic feel like the religious forum - all vitriol and bitterness.
Non violent resistance means you take that land without weapons and make sure you have cameras rolling when they come and drag you off.
The situation just ended without bloodshed. The protesters did not have the support of the ranchers whom they claimed to represent nor did they have the backing of any of the militia groups in the area.
The right is fooling themselves and are too paralyzed to fight back.
When I get frustrated about the course of events in America and the world, I remind myself that we are viewing historic changes that are beyond control of you and me. Still, we do what we can.
Law? Constitution? What about that part of the Constitution that restricts that property, over which the federal government may exercise control, to erect forts, magazines, etc.?
Where is it in the Constitution that FEDGOV may confiscate from the sovereign states millions of acres of land for “National” Parks and Wildlife “Refuge”?
There is no such clause.
I vehemently disagree with Senator Cruz on this issue. This crap has got to be brought to a decisive end. And, frankly, I do not see how it could go any other way but by force of arms, as the federal government has become utterly corrupt and completely divorced from the bounds established by our Constitution. It is the federal government that is lawless, that refuses to comply with its own statutes!
I apologize, but Senator Cruz makes himself look like a fool in citing that we are a nation of laws while the government is the most egregious violator of those laws!
They were at war with Britain, these ranchers way overstepped in this case IMO.
The Feds will have to do something just to show people can’t do that unless they are from Black Lives Matter or a Muslim community.
Oh, I know that Obama calls the militias terrorists, but up until now, he has had little support in that. It makes it difficult for people to defend the Hammonds in a meaningful way with all the hysteria surrounding the armed militia terrorists supporting the terrorist arsonists.
Excellent post.
The so-called way to win is for them to file suit, which will trickle along in the court system and become moot by the time they get out of jail on this judicial crap. All that time and money wasted for nothing. I wouldn’t call that a way to win.
‘The deification of someone who talked up Obama in 2009, and the vilification of someone who has fought for constitutional government from the beginning, is making FreeRepublic feel like the religious forum - all vitriol and bitterness.’
I’ve been a Trump supporter for a while, and I haven’t met any fellow supporters who deify him. There are a couple of supporters who are very enthusiastic. I haven’t seen them cross the line into actual deification, however.
Granted, Cruz supporters have accused us of worshipping him from the beginning. From what I can gather, through direct, firsthand interactions, they do this bc it bothers us so much. They know many of us are Christians and worship God only. So an easy way to irritate us (to put it mildly) is to relentlessly accuse us of worshipping Trump.
As for attacks, yes, it is true that some Trump supporters are striking back. But this is after six or seven mos of being beaten like pinatas full of bloody hamburger meat. You’d have to be a Trump supporter to grasp how vicious it’s been.
For example. They started attacking me even before I committed to Trump. I started out for Cruz. As I listened to Trump and pondered switching over, I posted a couple of positive things about Trump. The Cruz supporters opened up with both barrels. And I wasn’t even in the Trump camp yet!
As I said, certain Trump supporters made the decision—and publicly announced it—to fight back. Before that it was mostly defense. Constantly defending ourselves and Trump from truly OTT attacks and accusations. It wears on a person after a while.
Anyway, there’s one person’s experience for you. Fwiw.
This issue has not a thing to do with the opinions of either man!
THIS HAS TO DO WITH A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL.
The federal government IN NO WAYS holds legitimate rights to hundreds of millions of acres of state lands. These lands are not being used for forts or armories or docks, etc., as is allowed by the Constitution. Their claim upon this property is flat out confiscation without compensation - IOW it is THEFT. PERIOD.
If either Trump or Cruz claim otherwise, or attempt to weasel around the core issue, then they are both LIARS!
“... Make the Government respond with force. They have backed down every time.”
Tell that to the Branch Dravidians and Randy Weaver.
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.