The Fight for Election Integrity Continues -- Audits, Criminal Investigations, Legislative Reform

a reply to: tanstaafl

EO1110. 5 months before his killed.

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: tanstaafl

EO1110. 5 months before his killed.

What do you think think this well known executive order did, or was intended to do?

Pretty sure you are confused about this, as it wasn't at all controversial.

The president already had the authority to issue silver certificates, and used this EO to delegate that authority to the Treasury Secretary for a few years.

Is there something more sinister you think this EO did or was intended to do?

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: xuenchen

Then what was the purpose of Executive Order 1110 which gave the US the ability to create its own money backed by silver. This would have decreased their power and gave it back to the people. Do your research

That EO did not do as you claim.

It delegated the president's existing authority to the treasury secretary for the last few years that we were issuing silver certificates.

Nothing else.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Invented because you can’t prove them wrong. Read the 1984 Grace Commission report.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and

(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy’s order gave the Treasury the power “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes.

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Invented because you can’t prove them wrong. Read the 1984 Grace Commission report.

In case you aren't aware, we are in 2022 now.

Not 1984.

And the actual quote is

"100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments".

'Transfer payments' are payments to states, social security, military pensions, welfare, etc. Basically everything that gets automatically budgeted for cash payments every year without any interaction from congress.

And the grace commission quote was only referring to personal income taxes, not all federal revenue, which is MUCH larger, primarily due to corporate taxes and social security contributions.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It did what I said it did when he said Kennedy gave more power to the federal reserve. And he was wrong.

originally posted by: network dude
amazingly enough, as proven with your previous thread, election integrity is the last thing the left seems to be interested in. What should be a bi partisan push for transparency, turned into a left vs. right rumble with lies and leftie talking points, against a search for truth.

But well done sticking around on this topic. It's hugely important, and like so many topics, if left alone for a few minutes, will fall into the memory hole. Kudos for your work!

If illegals voted for republicans the democrats would demand photo ids, finger prints, retina scans, and blood samples.

Very honestly, it looks like republicans actually want each eligible voter to have one vote. Simple. It also seems like democrats want anyone who can push a button at least one vote whether they are citizens or not, living or not, human or not. How can democrats stand the hypocrisy? Seriously, how can they stand their own stench?

As a US citizen I cant go vote in any other nations Presidential election. Why on Earth would any foreign national be allowed to vote in ours?

If that isn't disenfranchising American citizens of their rights please tell me what is...

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
That report lead to a 1993 congressional hearing that then stated the 40%. It’s in copies of the congressional texts

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and

(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

You are confused.

Presidents have no power to alter laws passed by Congress with any executive order.

Ever.

This EO simply delegates an authority given to the president specifically, to the president's treasury secretary.

That is allowed.

The authority to issue silver certificates as needed for the last few years that we were offering silver certificates.

Nothing else.

It expired in 1968, and was completely retracted later by Reagan as part of his federal cleanup efforts.

So killing Kennedy didn't stop it anyway.

Kennedy was killed by democrats upset that JFK was acting like a Republican, and didn't want Johnson to have to wait until the next election cycle.

Johnson didn't even retract this EO.

Because it wasn't even controversial at the time.

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
That report lead to a 1993 congressional hearing that then stated the 40%. It’s in copies of the congressional texts

I know what it says.

You are missing or ignoring several extremely important words in it.

1 - They are discussing only one type of revenue, not all revenue.

2 - They are discussing BOTH interest payments AND the MUCH, MUCH, MUCH larger TRANSFER PAYMENTS.

COMBINED.

3 - They discussed this decades ago, BEFORE the 96 Republicans forced MAJOR changes, and before the disaster that was obama.


Go look up the current numbers yourself.

We don't spend anywhere near 40% of federal revenue on interest payments, and NEVER have.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Election integrity is favored by neither side. Each one wants a leg up over the other because they think their way is better than the others way. Elections system is a joke and has been a joke for over 50 yrs at least. This is why it’s a poor talking point. Any intellectual knows that it’s a rigged system where you choose between the lesser of two evils. It’s become a sickness. A disease on the American People. Power should go up from the people to the states to the federal government. But instead it works opposite. The few are controlling the many. And that road leads to a very dark place. Arguing over who cheated who is what they want to keep the people distracted from the fact that both sides cheat. You want to know who wins elections? It’s whoever the better cheater is. That is a fact. The only way to get Trump elected was by cheating because Hillary was cheating. Do people not understand this? That’s why they were so pissed off for those four years because they knew he cheated because they had cheated. But it’s not what you know it’s what you can prove. So they tried to make up proof since they couldn’t find it. Their are only a select few who know where this proof is and it’s the only reason we are alive. 😉

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It did what I said it did when he said Kennedy gave more power to the federal reserve. And he was wrong.

It did not.

Quote the text that indicates this.

It doesn't exist.

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Election integrity is favored by neither side. Each one wants a leg up over the other because they think their way is better than the others way. Elections system is a joke and has been a joke for over 50 yrs at least. This is why it’s a poor talking point. Any intellectual knows that it’s a rigged system where you choose between the lesser of two evils. It’s become a sickness. A disease on the American People. Power should go up from the people to the states to the federal government. But instead it works opposite. The few are controlling the many. And that road leads to a very dark place. Arguing over who cheated who is what they want to keep the people distracted from the fact that both sides cheat. You want to know who wins elections? It’s whoever the better cheater is. That is a fact. The only way to get Trump elected was by cheating because Hillary was cheating. Do people not understand this? That’s why they were so pissed off for those four years because they knew he cheated because they had cheated. But it’s not what you know it’s what you can prove. So they tried to make up proof since they couldn’t find it. Their are only a select few who know where this proof is and it’s the only reason we are alive. 😉

Says every democrat that knows democrats have been cheating in elections for decades.

Without a single shred of evidence to back up your absurd claim.

Again.

Why lie about this?

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
That report lead to a 1993 congressional hearing that then stated the 40%. It’s in copies of the congressional texts

I was there.

What you claim is not what the corrupt reckless spending democrats said at the time.

Not even what the Republicans trying to cut the insane spending levels said at the time.

And not even close to the truth.

Maybe try reading it a little more carefully?

Or research 'transfer payments'?

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy’s order gave the Treasury the power “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury’s vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes.

The president ALREADY had that authority, he simply delegated it to his treasury secretary for the last few years that silver certificates were offered.

No president can delegate any type of authority via executive order that the president doesn't already have.

And no president can change laws using an executive order.

Though biden keeps trying to get away with doing exactly that.

Are you confused?

Or lying?

a reply to: mcsnacks77

Bwahahahaha!!!

Any intellectual knows....followed by a giant paragraph of unsubstantiated partisan gibberish.

Only a democrat would say one side is cheating so we have to cheat too.

And lets not forget that hillary was given debate questions ahead of time and gladly accepted them. Did Trump do that? Nope.

Look at is this way, if you can... When hillary was offered the debate questions in advance she was offered a golden opportunity to take that election by storm. Her biggest problem was that she was, and still is, untrustworthy. If she had walked out on that debate stage and said, "I was given tonights debate questions ahead of time. We should either use different questions or postpone this debate in order to maintain the integrity of the election process." If she had done that, hell, I would have voted for her. But she didn't. She was presented with an opportunity to either cheat or do something amazingly honest and ethical. The democrat chose to cheat.

a reply to: Vroomfondel


Excellent point.

Hillary intentionally passed on an easy opportunity to probably win the election that night.

But doubt that being honest ever even crossed her mind.

Or that of her many advisors.

Including obama and biden.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: mcsnacks77

Bwahahahaha!!!

And lets not forget that hillary was given debate questions ahead of time and gladly accepted them. Did Trump do that? Nope.

Look at is this way, if you can... When hillary was offered the debate questions in advance she was offered a golden opportunity to take that election by storm.

You've reminded me of WHY the debate commission is so angry at Republicans for demanding changes to the debate format, or keeping Republican candidates from participating.

www.politico.com...