Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Forwarded from Critical RICE Theory 🧂💡🎣
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the end of EO 6102 which made it illegal to own gold in this country.
Executive Order 6102, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 5, 1933, made it illegal for U.S. citizens to “hoard” gold.
This order required individuals to exchange most of their gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates for U.S. dollars at a fixed price of $20.67 per ounce.
The executive order was part of the government’s efforts to combat the Great Depression, stabilize the banking system, and increase the money supply. However, it did not apply to gold jewelry or gold held by certain institutions, such as the Federal Reserve. The order remained in effect until December 31, 1974, when gold ownership was fully legalized again.
Freedom has been nothing more than an illusion.
Executive Order 6102, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 5, 1933, made it illegal for U.S. citizens to “hoard” gold.
This order required individuals to exchange most of their gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates for U.S. dollars at a fixed price of $20.67 per ounce.
The executive order was part of the government’s efforts to combat the Great Depression, stabilize the banking system, and increase the money supply. However, it did not apply to gold jewelry or gold held by certain institutions, such as the Federal Reserve. The order remained in effect until December 31, 1974, when gold ownership was fully legalized again.
Freedom has been nothing more than an illusion.
Newt Gingrich: I do not understand what the CONTRARIAN house republicans think they will gain by opposing Speaker Mike Johnson. They have no one who can get more votes.they risk crippling President Trump’s electoral win on January 6. They are in effect allies of the Democrats. I challenge them to explain what their end game is other than noise.
https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/1874052329873211687?s=46
Thomas Massie replies:
Challenge accepted.
First let me note that the “vote for Mike” camp is not trying to make the case that Mike Johnson is endowed with the qualities necessary to lead our conference. Even you have limited yourself here to procedural justifications for his speakership rather than telling us why he is a good or capable leader.
Even if Mike’s entire goal is to do everything Trump wants without debate or question (which I would argue is not healthy for the institution of Congress), he’s not going to be good at it. He already demonstrated this month that he won’t tell the President what is achievable and what is not achievable in the House, and he lacks the situational awareness himself to know what can pass and what cannot.
1. “What do we hope to gain?”
A competent Speaker who has the will and the ability to capitalize on this once in a decade opportunity. Johnson is not up for this task. Also, we want a Speaker who inspires the public and who can make our case in the media, so we can keep the majority for the second half of Trump’s term. Johnson nearly led us to the minority in what was a banner year for Trump. He is certain to lose us the majority in 2026.
2. “No one can get more votes.”
It’s somewhat ridiculous to assert that Mike Johnson is the only member of Congress electable to Speaker. He was only electable the first time because he hadn’t held any type of leadership position, nor had he ever fought for anything, so no one disliked him and everyone was tired of voting. He won by being the least objectionable candidate, and he no longer possesses that title.
3. “Risk crippling Trump’s win.”
This is argument is a scare tactic, meant to stampede the masses, plain and simple. There is no legal or parliamentary argument for nullifying the national election if a speaker is not in place on January 6th.
4. “They are allies of the democrats”
Actually it is Mike Johnson who routinely passes major legislation (Ukraine, Omnibus, FISA spying) with only a minority of republicans, and relying on most democrats. He also owes his current speakership to the democrats. Here’s the roll call for the motion to table the motion to vacate last summer. Pelosi and Jeffries teamed up to save Johnson:
clerk.house.gov/evs/2024/roll1…
In closing, the emperor has no clothes and the entire conference knows it but few will say it. The general public knows it too. Please don’t shoot the messengers
https://x.com/repthomasmassie/status/1874173000993415574?s=46
THOMAS MASSIE FOR HOUSE SPEAKER!
@TikTokNews45
https://x.com/newtgingrich/status/1874052329873211687?s=46
Thomas Massie replies:
Challenge accepted.
First let me note that the “vote for Mike” camp is not trying to make the case that Mike Johnson is endowed with the qualities necessary to lead our conference. Even you have limited yourself here to procedural justifications for his speakership rather than telling us why he is a good or capable leader.
Even if Mike’s entire goal is to do everything Trump wants without debate or question (which I would argue is not healthy for the institution of Congress), he’s not going to be good at it. He already demonstrated this month that he won’t tell the President what is achievable and what is not achievable in the House, and he lacks the situational awareness himself to know what can pass and what cannot.
1. “What do we hope to gain?”
A competent Speaker who has the will and the ability to capitalize on this once in a decade opportunity. Johnson is not up for this task. Also, we want a Speaker who inspires the public and who can make our case in the media, so we can keep the majority for the second half of Trump’s term. Johnson nearly led us to the minority in what was a banner year for Trump. He is certain to lose us the majority in 2026.
2. “No one can get more votes.”
It’s somewhat ridiculous to assert that Mike Johnson is the only member of Congress electable to Speaker. He was only electable the first time because he hadn’t held any type of leadership position, nor had he ever fought for anything, so no one disliked him and everyone was tired of voting. He won by being the least objectionable candidate, and he no longer possesses that title.
3. “Risk crippling Trump’s win.”
This is argument is a scare tactic, meant to stampede the masses, plain and simple. There is no legal or parliamentary argument for nullifying the national election if a speaker is not in place on January 6th.
4. “They are allies of the democrats”
Actually it is Mike Johnson who routinely passes major legislation (Ukraine, Omnibus, FISA spying) with only a minority of republicans, and relying on most democrats. He also owes his current speakership to the democrats. Here’s the roll call for the motion to table the motion to vacate last summer. Pelosi and Jeffries teamed up to save Johnson:
clerk.house.gov/evs/2024/roll1…
In closing, the emperor has no clothes and the entire conference knows it but few will say it. The general public knows it too. Please don’t shoot the messengers
https://x.com/repthomasmassie/status/1874173000993415574?s=46
THOMAS MASSIE FOR HOUSE SPEAKER!
@TikTokNews45
X (formerly Twitter)
Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) on X
I do not understand what the CONTRARIAN house republicans think they will gain by opposing Speaker Mike Johnson. They have no one who can get more votes.they risk crippling President Trump’s electoral win on January 6. They are in effect allies of the Democrats.…