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.
Sunshine patriot
“... So tell me why I should have grabbed my rifle and headed off to Utah to fight and die for these men.”
I did not say you had to - BUT what I am saying, in general terms, is that there is a definite reluctance, by those who call themselves “conservatives,” to take a stand against what is fast transitioning into hard tyranny.
Just what is it that will remain to “conserve” if we keep taking a step backwards from the continued aggression of an extra-constitutional no-longer-federal but central government?
We pillory Obama over the idiocy of his gutless “red line in the sand” empty threats - and then we repeat the same frivolous garbage at each instance the tyrants of DC practically extinguish another aspect of our supposedly inalienable rights.
Perhaps this is not “the hill to die on” - BUT then just what hill will you, or any of us, be willing to die on? We all have our individual thresholds of tolerance for aggression - and THAT is the weakness that is going to eventually get us either killed or enslaved.
The truth is that what is being done to us is incrementalism ... And there is a reason for using that method of encroaching tyranny - it works. We are exactly like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water. I am of the opinion that this country will not go down with a bang but with a whimper, because of “normalcy bias” - as long as our masters can maintain our illusion of of comfort - we shall remain “comfortably numb” ... And we shall do so all the way to the point where they finally kick in our doors in the middle of the night and kill us in our beds, without us ever returning fire.
That is where this is all going. Nobody wants to fire the first shot. Nobody wants to commit to all or nothing. It sure seems that we are all frogs swimming lazily around in that pot of ever increasing discomfort, but we just keep right on readjusting our internal normalcy bias thermostat. At some point, we’ll be what’s for dinner.
So, I’ll leave you with this quote:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” - Sir Winston Churchill
Only 3 percent of the American colonists were in support of the War for Independence - the rest were either indifferent or were loyal to the British Crown.
Cruz takes the political exit. Typical career politician.
It was about 33% not 3%. Bundy is nowhere close to that.
A few points:
The Hammonds have been more than “threatened” with excessive or unjust punishment: They are now in fact back in jail for a good long time, not to mention having paid huge fines.
Having read quite a bit about this case, what the “between the lines” tells me is that the Gov’t (or perhaps the U.S. Attorney who pursued the rejailing of the Hammonds) has at least indirectly told the Hammonds to go quietly, or the entire family will be targeted by every means possible.
Rumor, and at this point that’s all I’ll call it, says that said U.S. Attorney, Amanda Marshall, is literally a mental case. She’s at the least a whacko lib Obamanista. In any event, this is something Freepers with time (which excludes me, unfortunately), and Trump for sure, should be looking into.
I accept as correct others’ assertions here that the Hammonds had appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the SC refused to hear the appeal. Therefor they and their supporters are pretty much out of legal arguments. There is no more case to make, except that in the courts of public opinion. This “standoff” was on our local TV news the day it began (almost 1000 miles away). Someone please tell the rest of us, HOW else could the ranchers make themselves this widely heard?
The Gov’t’s position is that this is NOT a case of double jeopardy: Their argument is that the original judge illegally altered the sentences. So far as I can discern, this is actually correct.
The original judge felt that the “terrorism” charges (if indeed that’s what they were) were an overreach, which is why he reduced the sentences. Given that higher courts did not support him on this, it is very likely that what we have here is a poorly written law which the Feds can easily use to throw at persons they don’t like, who have committed modest offenses. (Some would likely argue that it is a well written law [in the eyes of tyrants] designed for just such purposes!) It seems to me that what Cruz should do is couple a plea to stand down with a very public commitment to legislate such that laws against real terrorism cannot be applied to non-terrorist offenses. Cruz could also trumpet more loudly the ranchers’ real grievances.
Full disclosure before you get all worked up: I think all the Bundy boys are in long-term committed heterosexual relationships.
So the only romantic part for you will be marching around with a rifle a few hundred yards from some police cars. That will likely be all you get.
Dress warm.
They were convicted of arson, not "terrorism" - although the 1996 act under which they were convicted also includes penalties for terrorism, theft, attempted murder, murder, etc. they were tried and convicted of arson based on the testimony of a family member who was present at the scene.
It looks like buyers' remorse on the part of the prosecution, who were willing to go with the original sentencing and then changed their minds after they were criticized. It certainly isn't double jeopardy, but the prosecution look like indecisive and inconsistent idiots.
I feel bad for the Hammonds because the Bundys have hijacked their whole narrative and have made it much harder for the prosecution to back down without losing even more face - which the Bundys are counting on. The Bundys want the feds to put the Hammonds away for a long time because it helps their agenda.
Well, we know where Cuz’s patriot limits are.
The Donald has remained silent on the issue, showing more smarts than Cruz.
As a recent Japanese immigrant to America said,: —Rock and Road!—
Domestic Right WIng Terrorists are being defined further by Obama, something Cruz should not have participated in.
When Waco occurred I was one of the first to begin organizing locally. 50 men met on a Saturday in my back yard soon after that. We had plans to make the trip to Texas but before we could Reno torched the place killing women and children alike. I have been and continue to be willing to stick my neck out for my fellow patriots. With ten kids it’s harder for me than most, but I do what I can. Enjoy your day.
Let me know when you and your 50 men get to Malheur.
And let the Bundys know, since your crew well outnumbers theirs.
Cruz, Rubio and Carson rushing to be PC. Two sitting senators and where were they when the Hammonds were being persecuted and railroaded? Now they rush to get their two cents in.
I personally think the Bundy boys are being foolish with their occupation of an empty building 50 miles out in the middle of nowhere. The community does not want their help and neither do the Hammonds. Mike Vanderboegh and Stewart Rhodes have already advised them that this is not the hill to die on.
That being said Cruz and Rubio need to STFU about it as they didn’t care til they thought it was a publicity opportunity. Talk about pandering.
I lived it. Must sting knowing that you never will.
Few people can live the dream of calling a meeting of 50 people who ultimately decide to do . . . nothing.
Oh wait, that's what happens at pretty much every town council meeting ever.
So, when we think about this imaginary meeting that you claim to have had (did it take place in the Niagara Falls area?) what was the brilliant plan of action?
Was it to sneak up on the FBI in a rearguard action? Just kind of show up and charge them?
Or was it to show up with signs and march around and berate them for being horrible?
No, wait, let me guess: you had a super secret plan to rescue your hero Vern Howell using "black ops" tactics?
Do you and the gang have a reunion every year to remember that day when you all wound up doing . . . nothing?
Will you guys hold the reunion in Malheur Lake Refuge this year when you get there?
By the way, all 51 of you are needed there immediately. You need to get going.
The Bundy crew are heavily outnumbered by journalists right now - maybe 5 to 1.
Just as an aside, Malheur, from the French, translates to bad hour or bad time. Just sayin’
So what have you say Trump supporters now since Trump comes out now and basically says the same thing as Ted Cruz said concerning those guys out in Oregon ?
Trump comes out now and says we need Law and Order.
Basically saying the same thing now what Ted CRUZ said concerning the situation in Oregon.
So I guess Donald Trump is politically correct too by basically agreeing with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio by stating that we need “ Law and Order “ concerning the stand off in Oregon.
So what should I do? Switch my support to Jeb (sarcasm)
FWIW, Rand Paul, with a smarter campaign about the out-of-control banking system and emphasizing individual and states rights would've had a real opening here.
I wish Trump would have stayed out of it. They are not wrong. The Bundy boys need to go home. Its rebels without a cause at this point.
What I was and am upset about is two sitting senators who could have ostensibly been able to do something on behalf of the Hammond family while they were being persecuted by the govt now coming out agains’t the protesters. But never a peep about the Hammonds. Its just PC pandering by Rubio and Cruz. Trump is not a senator with the power to do something about federal overreach.
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.