This is George Rebane's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following George Rebane's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
George Rebane
Naturalized Citizen, Entrepreneur, Professional Engineer and Systems Scientist formally trained in Physics, Complex Dynamic Systems, and Computer Science.
Interests: music, history, friends, community, science/cosmology, future of man, avid reader, camping/canoeing, and family, philosophy, politics, investing, flying, shooting
Recent Activity
George Rebane The Union’s new publisher, Jim Hemig, gave us his understanding of today’s media landscape. In his 18apr14 op-ed he compared “the difference between a journalist and a blogger.” His point was that a journalist, especially if he works... Continue reading
Posted yesterday at Rebane's Ruminations
George Rebane Mexico City, 6 May 2024 – Mexico’s president Juan Carlos Echeverria announced in his Cinco de Mayo celebration speech in San Diego that Mexican forces that have staged over the last six months along Mexico’s northern border would... Continue reading
Posted 2 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
George Rebane Today there have been many observances and rembrances of the explosion at the 2013 Boston Marathon that killed three, injured over 260, and blew the limbs off 16 of them. People were gathered at these planned events to... Continue reading
Posted 4 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
BillT 101pm – A well-chosen and apt comparison Mr Tozer.
GaryS 932am - According to my lights the land should revert to the state which then will dispose of it according to its laws. Thoughts?
Stevenfrisch 751pm – I think you’re limiting ‘disposing’ to transfer of ownership. I use the word in its general concept of utilizing the land. People were able to utilize public lands at will, but not transfer ownership since no individual owned the land that he utilized. You are correct in that only Congress could affect transfer of ownership (which it failed to do properly when a territory became a state, thereby giving rise to today’s troubles).
A major interpretation of Article IV has been that when a US territory becomes a state, then all the federal (not privately owned and not federally set aside as for military reservations and naval bases) lands within the boundaries of that territory shall become the property of the state for it to dispose of under its laws. If that were not the intended case, then the drawing of state boundaries would be a cynical exercise since the state would have no jurisdiction over major parts of the real estate within said boundaries (see map above for what silly season looks like today). When the Constitution was drawn up and the states east of Appalachia were sovereign within their borders, this was not a point of contention. It was still not a point of contention when lands east of the Mississippi became states – there was no huge residual ownership of such states’ territory by the feds because people immediately moved in, settled, and filed claims with their states for private ownership. The problems really started when large tracts of western lands were acquired and remained as US territories for a generation or more before becoming states. At that time there was no constitutional question as to ownership, and the feds could and did hold ‘land rushes’ to attract people into regions with the offer of ‘free land’ to begin populating future states. It was at that point, especially in the trans-Rockies semi-desert and mountainous regions hostile to large populations, that federal bureaus like BLM somehow retained ‘ownership’ of lands within the borders of new states. But nobody cared then, because the land could be disposed of at will by the residents of the states for ranching, homesteading, mining, forestry, … by just establishing primacy and without federal government interference. It is only recently that our overreaching government has started to devote its attention to the use of America’s wide open spaces, and perversely exercising it legacy prerogatives in a pernicious manner that corresponds to its general desire to impede liberty in every corner open to bureaucratic penetration.
Stevenfrisch 240pm – You misunderstand, and start your argument with the assumption that today’s attributed public lands are the public lands intended in the Constitution. With that a priori, the rest of the case for the disposal of such ascribed lands is indeed as easy as you make it. But that is not the point I have made, nor the point that has been made by the many who have come before me. My contention is that these ‘public lands’ have been usurped by the federal government from the states and the people. As your citation - The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 – points out, it only gives Congress authority over lands that are considered public by the Constitutional provisions which precede the Property Clause; and therein lies the rub.!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause Perhaps it’s again time to lapse into name calling ;-)
George Rebane When tyrannies make the laws, all opponents of tyranny are then seen and treated as criminals. The ownership and control of our public lands is a mess, both legally and constitutionally. Save for military bases (an arguably constitutional... Continue reading
Posted 6 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
Yes, in 1775 most people considered the ones who rushed out to meet the redcoats at Lexington to be bat shit crazy. Weren’t the redcoats the government’s lawfully constituted army also coming to enforce the law of the land? And then …
Legal arguments aside, the govt's handling of the Bundy ranch affair definitely hearkens back to Ruby Ridge and Waco. Sanitizing the media from a site of contention between the private citizen and govt guns is a sure fire admission that what will go on there is extra-legal, and govt goons want no prying eyes of liberty loving citizens to complicate their version of the after-action report.
MichaelA 1215AM – Ahh yes, now RR is a hotbed of Fifth Column comedy. As always, thanks for checking in and the contribution.
JoeK 753am - Joe your logic (or comprehension?) is a little lax again. I didn't focus on Team Obama. Setting up the 'bail in' legislation for SIFIs is an IMF led international undertaking by the several governments so afflicted. But if you wanted to assign guilt to governments, then by all means we can do so. The SIFIs investment policies directly correspond to 1) the artificial mangling of interest rates by central banks to hide the true price of money from the financial markets (remember, prices convey information), and 2) the back room guarantees of government rescues given to them to encourage lending to favored constituencies that cannot or will not pay back their loans (i.e. to assume unwarranted risk). No financial institution becomes too big to fail without an intimate relationship with and backing by a corrupt government. Capitalists in regulated markets cannot become behemoths without a government gun having their backs to hold off the more efficient competitors. Wherever you see a very big corporation, no matter the country, you can bet the ranch that government corruption abetted its growth and now continues to maintain it. Socialists of all stripes have had trouble understanding that relationship, and today their blinders are strapped on more tightly than ever.
Simple contention held by about half of Americans: If the opposition had not vigorously opposed Obama's objectives and policies, then we would have been on the doorstep of USSR-type governance. And Obama's supporters have behaved just like the party faithful in the old country, screaming that those who oppose the road to big government socialism are themselves totalitarians (just add to the 'fascist' label of the old to now also being cleverly called 'Stalinist'). It is simply amazing how the principles taught in Alinsky's 'Rules for Revolution' are being exercised by Team Obama and his local minions across the country - in this case, accuse your opposition of doing exactly what you are doing.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2014 on Who is that man? at Rebane's Ruminations
PaulE 1128pm - We can compare presidents all day long, however equating Bush2's sins to those of Obama illustrates not only your own place in the ideological spectrum, but also the increasingly wide gap between the country's left/right poles. Given the structure and operation of our federal government, attributing everything that happens on a given watch to the discretionary powers of any president is naive. In comparing Obama's tenure to other presidents, we should focus on what legislation, executive orders, department directives, appointments, foreign/domestic policy initiatives, etc that the chief executive personally promised and then prosecuted. If one blames the actions of the Fed or SCOTUS or an opposite party dominated recalcitrant Congress on a sitting president says only that he missed some critical civics classes in high school.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2014 on Who is that man? at Rebane's Ruminations
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. - Sir Walter Scott George Rebane Remember those banks and other financial institutions that were ‘too big to fail’? Well, the IMF has confirmed that the world... Continue reading
Posted Apr 10, 2014 at Rebane's Ruminations
It used to amaze me when self-declared independents or middle-roaders or decline-to-staters always denigrated the Right when the Left was criticized. Since then I've learned that all those self-declared labels were simply cover-ups and camouflage for a pronounced list to port while giving the picture of being even-handed and above it all.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2014 on Who is that man? at Rebane's Ruminations
KeenO 259pm - Well said.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2014 on Who is that man? at Rebane's Ruminations
In case my sentiments about Islam have somehow been misplaced, apropos to this piece on a conservetarian credo it would do well to welcome back one of my favorite Brits.
Toggle Commented Apr 8, 2014 on A Conservetarian Credo at Rebane's Ruminations
"... with the whole world full of fools, there is none who thinks himself one, or even suspects it." Gracian #201 George Rebane The news comes pouring in daily of Obamacare’s manifest incorrigible faults and the stream of palliative executive... Continue reading
Posted Apr 8, 2014 at Rebane's Ruminations
George Rebane RR, in its long suffering and dedicated effort to continue the posting of announcements of public import, your attention is invited to the following two. Con-Con or the Constitutional Convention as called for in Article 5 has become... Continue reading
Posted Apr 7, 2014 at Rebane's Ruminations
Both Mozilla Firefox and IE bring up an alert window when you try to sign in to comment on this blog. The alert advises that you are attempting to go to an insecure URL. I have a support ticket started... Continue reading
Posted Apr 5, 2014 at Rebane's Ruminations
Now here's a crowd that regularly examines the future with blinders tightly strapped over their eyes, and their brains permanently in 'What difference does it make?' mode.
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2014 on Forecasting by Crowds at Rebane's Ruminations
JoeK 922am - A sad but no doubt accurate reply Joe. Yes, any posting of one's credo should anticipate pushback from the 'other mindeds'. That is one of the prime reasons to so reveal your beliefs, so you can evaluate the critiques and perhaps even learn something from those who sing in a different chorus. However, I feel that the real reason why you and yours don't want to disclose the tenets of your social and political beliefs is that they would expose what all of you have been denying since the American Socialist Party folded its tent in the late 1940s. If you feel that posting your credo on RR would be too painful, why don't one or more of you pick a more insulated leftwing blog and make it available there? But my long confirmed feeling is that you folks don't want any accredited (signed with your real name) copies of such a credo posted anywhere. Perhaps I err.
stevenfrisch 558pm - Baseball, hmmm. Wish I knew more about the teams. Jo Ann and I are baseball fans only during the league championships and the World Series. Maybe you could contribute a knowledgeable byline that would set the stage for all the follow-on agreement ;-) But then again, the purpose of these pages is a lively debate, but I suppose baseball's also good for some serious disagreement along perhaps different lines than politics.