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.
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.
Heh-heh. Well put, and exactly right, of course.
Whenever someone comes along outside the political parties and their machines like Black Lives Matter or the Bundy’s or whoever, the politicians try to speak to their issues and say they care. Dems for the racial protest, Reps for the Western land issues.
Action doesn’t follow. The cop in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson hasn’t faced civil rights charges yet even though the protestors want that.
Martin Luther King upset JFK’s apple cart by forcing the race issue with the Birmingham protests in 1963.
Kennedy and the Dems were forced by the weight of King’s actions leading to the dogs, water cannon from Bull Connor’s police.
The Kennedy-Johnson Democrats had to start doing something about racial issues instead of talking about racial issues.
Republicans and the GOPe, ‘beltway conservatives’ desperately want to control and contain this situation.
They want to talk about the Hammond’s case and express sympathy.
But they don’t want to take any meaningful action to stop the people out West losing their land and the use of their land to the federal behemoth.......
24 hour notice, then drone strike these low-life punks and thugs.
This administration is itching for a violent confrontation especially with “white extremists” and we should be careful not to hand it to them on a silver platter. All those government agencies bought tons of ammo for a reason. When the socialists are in power, they have shown an eagerness to turn their weapons on the people. I still have the image of Janet Reno/Clinton torching women and children with tanks in Waco seared into my mind. This administration is far more evil and highly motivated to prove they are tough on anyone except actual criminals and terrorists. And its the perfect “crisis” to push for more gun confiscation and regulations.
A peaceful settlement in favor of the Hammonds would be far preferable to an armed confrontation.
“Why not sooner rather than later?”
Because the pain is not acute enough and general enough just yet. The American revolution would have been a failed rebellion if it had been attempted ten years earlier.
In 1905, the Russian protesters were just shot down in the streets. By 1917, the Tsar was forced to step down.
The time is not ripe.
Ping to Travis McGee because interested in his thoughts on the principles here.
Of course it was, because the Boston Tea Partiers were denied their legal right to vote for or against the Tea Act.
Cruz suffers normalcy bias from living too comfortably. I do believe a Cruz presidency could reverse a lot of this, even more than Reagan, but his stand on this really scares me.
Well, I think Cruz is in a difficult position. If he says, stand your ground and fight, he will be accused of advocating violence. If he says nothing, he doesn’t care. And saying stand down makes him look weak. Three bad choices. Which one do you choose?
IMHO, stand down is the best of the bad choices. For one thing, the powers that be in Washington are looking for any excuse to unleash a whole lot of hurt on all of us. An armed insurrection would give them that excuse. For another, are we sure all peaceful, legal remedies have been exhausted? Do these two guys have a right to appeal? If so, it may be prudent to wait till everything else has been tried and has failed before we go the armed insurrection route.
I think civil war is coming and it’s inevitable. But it’s not something to rush into without careful consideration of the pros and cons and an effective strategy. Do these protesters have a clear plan of action?
You ever hear about the Whiskey Rebellion and how George Washington marched the U.S. Army into western Pennsylvania to crush it?
They want to talk about the Hammond’s case and express sympathy.
But they don’t want to take any meaningful action to stop the people out West losing their land and the use of their land to the federal behemoth.......
Because one side armed up I am guess it is harder for govt Republicans to show open support. If these protestors showed up unarmed and chained themselves in the building and did non violent (aka unarmed) disobedience it would garner a whole lot of sympathy. I don’t get why non violent disobedience is frowned upon by the right these days for our causes - it is a Christian aka Conservative invention we should take back from the leftists. The leftists - if you recall - were the ones arguing for armed uprisings in the 60s and 70s.
But there are questions here beyond the potential False Flag, like the terms of the lease and contractual obligations they had to follow.
Example: Was there a no burn order in effect? Did the burn they did escape their land? Were they poaching as has been alleged and was the burn used to cover evidence?
Bottom line is if you act on your land then that`s one thing, it is YOUR land. But you don`t have the right to act unilaterally on behalf of other`s land, even land held by the BLM, which by rights is our land.
LOL. Campaigns are good. They show who is able to lead and who is just phoning it in. It also shows who has imagination, and who is unable to think out of the box.
Now stand back and watch what Trump does. I wouldn’t be surprised if he flies out there to meet with the ranchers. And then proposes a pardon for the ranchers that are headed to prison today. All while calling out dear leader as a weakling and a fool.
This is the argument that I don't understand.
The minimum sentencing law was passed by our duly elected representatives and signed by the President. Just the way the Constitution prescribes.
Since when do we support "black-robed tyrants" ignoring the laws and deciding on their own what the right sentence should be?
If the shooting starts, people will rally. There will not be another Waco or Ruby Ridge in America where it all just goes away after a few stupid hearing.
If it is to have a bloodbath, to what ends?
How does that help?
What will further occupation of the facility accomplish?
The issues will fade into the background and the occupation will become the news item.
Time to stand down, the point has been made.
Either some good will come of this, or not. If not, then there will be another opportunity to engage in conflict.
Our Founding Fathers did not “stand down” to defend liberty!!!
_________________________________________
To equate our Founding Fathers with these Bundy baffoons is an insult.
“The back story is.....
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??”
Officially, it is the correction of an illegal sentence. I don’t like it either, but that is what the game called law will say that it is.
So you would describe it as a legal action then?
In this case, the standoff is not a winning strategy. Cruz is right. There is a way to win, but this particular time, this ain’t it.
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.