BTW, anyone who thinks O'Reilly is conservative either doesn't watch him or is so left wing that anyone who isn't far left must seem conservative. Conservatives don't consider O'Reilly conservative.

Good point, Brad. O'Reilly addresses this in his books "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The No Spin Zone". In one of the two (I can't remember which), he lays out all of his chief positions and challenges the reader to label him as liberal or conservative based on that. The point is, it can't be done.

I would also like to point out that O'Reilly was calling Bush to task for the Ken Lay/Enron connection LONG before any other major media had picked it up.

Any sovereign nation ultimately reserves the right to do what it wants with the land it controls.

There is a difference between a National Bank/Banking system and a Central Bank and its' banking system.

And this would be...?

The US government was authorized to borrow money under the original Constitution.

There were two national banks, the first from 1791-1811 and the second from 1816-1836. The war of 1812 was financed without a national bank, and the problems associated with that financing was one of the motivations for creating the central bank. Most banks in the 19th century issued bank notes, which although not the official currency of the US were essentially "fiat money".

Madine,

Sorry for responding 1 day later, but I am trying to run a business and try to spend evenings with my children or reading (books).

You may be right about any sovereign nation being able to use its' land the way it wants, but not all have "property taxes" and there was a time in the US that there was no such thing as "property tax" or income tax - the ability to do something does not necessarily justify it, so I don't understand your response. One must ask oneself why these things came into existence, who brought them into existence, if they are necessary, if there are other ways to accomplish the same goals, if they are benefical or detrimental to the public, if they allow concentration and corruption of power, etc.

A National Bank is one of many that is allowed to issue credit. A Cental Bank is one with an exclusive Monopoly on the issuance of credit (Read Plank 5 again - it does call for a National Bank, but one that has a Monopoly - like the FED). Also, borrowing money is not the same thing as issuing fiat money - from what I can gather from your short response, you believe the 2 are the same thing. Fiat money is paper currency not backed by a hard asset such as gold, but backed by a future promise to pay (an IOU). Fiat money represents work that still needs to be done - "honest" money, such as gold coin, represents work that has already been done. I can borrow gold, print/coin money representative of the amount of gold and still not have fiat currency, but be in debt. Debt should not be confused with fiat currency.

The bank notes isued in the 19th century were, in many cases, backed by the gold (or hard assets) of a depositor and fractional reserves were not employed anywhere near the way they are today, if at all.

I am not really sure what your responses are supposed to mean. They point out minor errors, but they do not address the point. Do you believe the central banking system of today handles monetary policy in a way that is the most beneficial to the people - why/why not? Do you feel the US is practicing communism - why/why not? Is that a system that has more flaws than other systems or less - why/why not? Are there any other systems of economics (Austrian Theory for example) or government that may serve the public better - what are they and why would they be better or worse?

My point was to get people talking and learning about issues that have importance instead of smoke and mirrors issues and I guess I got at least one person to start doing that with me. For that I thank you Madine and am willing to learn/listen to what you have to say. I do believe that my overall concerns are valid and true even if I got a few specifics (working from memory here) wrong - the US has become a communist country and most people don't even know it and would not admit it if they did...

Madine,

Sorry for responding 1 day later, but I am trying to run a business and try to spend evenings with my children or reading (books).

You may be right about any sovereign nation being able to use its' land the way it wants, but not all have "property taxes" and there was a time in the US that there was no such thing as "property tax" or income tax - the ability to do something does not necessarily justify it, so I don't understand your response. One must ask oneself why these things came into existence, who brought them into existence, if they are necessary, if there are other ways to accomplish the same goals, if they are benefical or detrimental to the public, if they allow concentration and corruption of power, etc.

A National Bank is one of many that is allowed to issue credit. A Cental Bank is one with an exclusive Monopoly on the issuance of credit (Read Plank 5 again - it does call for a National Bank, but one that has a Monopoly - like the FED). Also, borrowing money is not the same thing as issuing fiat money - from what I can gather from your short response, you believe the 2 are the same thing. Fiat money is paper currency not backed by a hard asset such as gold, but backed by a future promise to pay (an IOU). Fiat money represents work that still needs to be done - "honest" money, such as gold coin, represents work that has already been done. I can borrow gold, print/coin money representative of the amount of gold and still not have fiat currency, but be in debt. Debt should not be confused with fiat currency.

The bank notes isued in the 19th century were, in many cases, backed by the gold (or hard assets) of a depositor and fractional reserves were not employed anywhere near the way they are today, if at all.

I am not really sure what your responses are supposed to mean. They point out minor errors, but they do not address the point. Do you believe the central banking system of today handles monetary policy in a way that is the most beneficial to the people - why/why not? Do you feel the US is practicing communism - why/why not? Is that a system that has more flaws than other systems or less - why/why not? Are there any other systems of economics (Austrian Theory for example) or government that may serve the public better - what are they and why would they be better or worse?

My point was to get people talking and learning about issues that have importance instead of smoke and mirrors issues and I guess I got at least one person to start doing that with me. For that I thank you Madine and am willing to learn/listen to what you have to say. I do believe that my overall concerns are valid and true even if I got a few specifics (working from memory here) wrong - the US has become a communist country and most people don't even know it and would not admit it if they did...

The point about sovereignty is that if you say, "The government owns X because the government has the ultimate authority regarding X", it is not possible to own anything if you are under the authority of the government.

There is a big gap between what is theoretically possible and what is likely to actually happen. Theoretically, I'm sure the government could declare grass an endangered plant and confiscate all our homes. I don't expect that to happen though.

Does the government control all banks? What is the difference between a bank under govnernment control and a bank not under government control?

What is the important difference between income tax, property tax, and sales/excise tax?

Madine,

"Ownership" can't be confused with authority - they are not the same. The poorest peasant in the most totalitarian society can still have "ownership" over some things - the peasant may have to own them in secret, but will still find a way to keep at least a few things out of the prying eyes of government.

Who controls the banking system and what the difference between public and private control is are irrelevant questions until you ask what type of system they are running - one that uses fiat money or sound money, one that monopolizes credit or deregulates credit. There are central banks that the Fed is beholden to as well - like the Bank of International Settlements. If the Fed is the bankers bank, then the BIS is the central bankers central bank.

I am not sure what answer you are looking for with your last question, but there are many differences and many similarities. Tax is tax - tax is the (forced) transference of labor from the individual to the state via a system of currency or trade, with the labor transferred being used, in theory, to the benefit of the individuals that make up the state. The differences exist only in the semantics of collection, distribution, etc.

As the Communist bloc continues to diminish, the forces of conservatism in the world are getting ever stronger. The USA, the UK (in a practical if not a party-nominal sense) and Australia are all 'enjoying' arguably their most conservative governments in recent history. The media too are increasingly in the hands of fewer individuals, each with greater influence, and the vast majority of whom are open and fervent adherents of conservative thinking.

I have lost count of the number of times recently that I have opened 'the Australian' (one of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd. stable) to find the letters page made up largely of liberal viewpoints but the opinion page opposite dominated by conservative ones.

So, I have just one question of those conservatives who - like Mr. Card - continue to express concern about a supposed liberal bias in certain aspects of the media. People, the scales seem to be tipping ever further in your favour, yet you are still unhappy. What will it take before you are comfortable with the range of opinion expressed within the media - will there be no rest until the last voice of liberal 'dissent' is silenced? Because that, my friends, is not conservatism; it is fascism.