Executive Order 11110 can mean anything they want it to mean.
Executive Order 11110 was signed by President Kennedy on June 4, 1963. This was a minor, procedural change to Executive Order 10289, which was signed by President Truman on September 17, 1951. Truman’s order provided for the performance of certain functions of the President by the Secretary of the Treasury and Kennedy’s order amended this slightly. These are extremely dull and bureaucratic documents, with little significance to the scope of history and no connection to President Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963. But that hasn’t stopped conspiracy theorists from making wild and counter-factual claims.
The most popular story is that somehow Kennedy was removing power from the Federal Reserve by delegating more responsibilities to the Treasury Secretary, but there was no net loss of power here on the part of the Fed; he was simple removing duties from his desk and passing them on to someone else. The claim that JFK was making money interest free with this act is simply a lie, as is the claim that he tried to warn us about the Deep State. There is simply no basis in fact to any of this and only those who completely ignore the actual documents in question can pretend that they have anything to do with a conspiracy.
__________________
Return to the complete list of 55 reasons to accept that Oswald acted alone.
nomagicbullets 
I find your work to be shoddy at best, but here on EO 11110 you’re so far off that its worth mentioning. No this wasn’t a “minor procedural change.” Actually historically this was rather significant. Now one can quibble about the nuances here of what this actually means to the scope of what happened all those years ago. But this executive order was signed because there was a shortage of silver in the industrial markets. The U.S. strategic reserves of silver were dwindling. Kennedy signed this EO in response to the industrial and mints demands for silver. Which would basically allow for an interm period the issuance of silver certificates by the treasury. This was to actually remove silver from the monitary system, in favor of the gold backed federal reserve notes. Which in 1964 silver was removed completely from the minting of coins entirely. Yes any dimes or quarters minted prior to 1964 were made of silver, and do have a slightly higher market value. Something any competent coin collector could tell you.
Calling this EO “extremely dull,” and with little significance to the scope of history. Just shows your overall ignorance to the significance of historical events. And makes me question your entire motivation for creating a website that you claim is interested in the “truth” of history.
LikeLike
Sorry to hear you don’t appreciate my work, Jake, but I don’t think you are correct here.
I wrote this piece responding to the conspiracy theorist lie that I commonly hear (i.e. JFK was taking power away from the Federal Reserve, so the Fed killed him, or were part of the vast group of people who allegedly killed him). Clearly, this EO did not take power away from the Fed (even your description confirms that) and therefore this is an example of a lie that conspiracy theorists tell.
As to your specific description, let’s look at how Wikipedia describes EX 11110:
“This executive order amended Executive Order 10289 (dated September 17, 1951) by delegating to the Secretary of the Treasury the president’s authority to issue silver certificates under the Thomas Amendment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended by the Gold Reserve Act. The order allowed the Secretary to issue silver certificates, if any were needed, during the transition period under President Kennedy’s plan to eliminate Silver Certificates and use Federal Reserve Notes.”
I know, Wikipedia can be wrong (very wrong sometimes, when people deliberately mess with it) but this synopsis seems very reasonable to me. The main point of the order was to delegate power to the Secretary of the Treasury. Yes, this was a transitional period in the history of US money, but EO 11110 was not the blueprint for those chances; it was just an auxiliary piece of the plan. I make no claim to be an expert on monetary issues. Not at all. I couldn’t tell you anything of substance about the Thomas Amendment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended by the Gold Reserve Act, but I am confident that the changes you described are the result of that legislation; not EO 11110.
If you still disagree, please quote from EO 11110 to explain how I am wrong, because I see nothing in this short document that is historically significant.
LikeLike