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
MichaelA 1059pm - It all starts with the sentiments of the people. To dismiss these is climbing a mountain of hubris and folly for sentiments long held and assembled ultimately give rise to actions (also see BarryP's 650am).
Gentlemen, you miss my point. I am highlighting the sentiments, not the likelihood of occurrence.
George Rebane The recent DoS attack on Typepad has made reading and commenting tough on RR and countless other blogs on that service. In this interval I have had a chance to put some serious effort into one of my... Continue reading
Posted 2 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
13
George Rebane TypePad has been under the most intense ‘denial of service’ attack for the last few days, and therefore RR has not been available for either reading for comment. They claim to be making some headway in “stabilizing” their... Continue reading
Posted 3 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
What the progressives don’t want to even acknowledge is that there are Americans of good will who do agree that the Constitution’s Art 4, Sec 3, Clause 2 “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” construed nothing to allow the federal government to retain title to and control of lands after such lands had been divided into the several states. That is the point of opposing the federal usurpation referred to herein. By stubbornly continuing to cite an obviously misconstrued law from the court decisions handed down over the years is the same as arguments made against the Civil Rights Act and Women’s Suffrage before they became law. The opponents of both were full of themselves claiming that the existing Constitution and US Code fully supported ‘separate but equal’ and denied voting suffrage to women. It has always been those who had the courage to point out the injustice of existing laws who have dared forge progress in our social order. To teach that codified law is indelibly chiseled in stone and should not be opposed regardless the circumstances hearkens back to the same justifications used by those scoundrels who followed ‘legal orders’ and committed perfectly ‘legal’ atrocities against their fellow countrymen. That the Left is the champion of such social code of behavior is another one of their many hypocrisies which strikes fear into the heart of the rest of us should they get complete control of the state and again walk the dreadful path of their collectivist forebears.
Image
George Rebane As Christmas is the promise, Easter is the fulfillment. Oblivion vanquished, rejoice! Continue reading
Posted 4 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
Walt 352pm - Thanks Walt, have fixed the link in the post.
FYI, I call your kind attention to the 19apr14 update of 'A Takeaway from Bundy Ranch'. http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2014/04/a-takeaway-from-bundy-ranch.html
I am not a journalist. http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2007/12/i-am-not-a-jour.html
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 6 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
26
Image
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 7 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 Apr 15, 2014 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. http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause Perhaps it’s again time to lapse into name calling ;-)
Image
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 Apr 13, 2014 at Rebane's Ruminations
262
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
62