This is a three-part article with some very intriguing and interesting facts about the gold reserves that are no longer in Fort Knox. Like the thefts that befell the ancient Egyptian tombs for their gold cashes, Fort Knox’s bullion was plundered and carted off to Rothschild vaults decades ago.
The Great Gold Robbery of 1933
It’s been 75 years since the federal government, on the spurious grounds of fighting the Great Depression, ordered the confiscation of all monetary gold from Americans, permitting trivial amounts for ornamental or industrial use. This happens to be one of the episodes Kevin Gutzman and I describe in detail in our new book, Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush. From the point of view of the typical American classroom, on the other hand, the incident may as well not have occurred.
A key piece of legislation in this story is the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, which Congress passed on March 9 without having read it and after only the most trivial debate. House Minority Leader Bertrand H. Snell (R-NY) generously conceded that it was “entirely out of the ordinary” to pass legislation that “is not even in print at the time it is offered.” He urged his colleagues to pass it all the same: “The house is burning down, and the President of the United States says this is the way to put out the fire. [Applause.] And to me at this time there is only one answer to this question, and that is to give the President what he demands and says is necessary to meet the situation.”
Among other things, the act retroactively approved the president’s closing of private banks throughout the country for several days the previous week, an act for which he had not bothered to provide a legal justification. It gave the secretary of the Treasury the power to require all individuals and corporations to hand over all their gold coin, gold bullion, or gold certificates if in his judgment “such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United States.”
The Emergency Banking Act reached back in time to amend the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which had originally been intended to criminalize economic intercourse between American citizens and declared enemies of the United States. One provision of the act granted the president the power to regulate and even prohibit “under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe … any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency … by any person within the United States.” In 1918, the act was amended to extend its provisions two years beyond the conclusion of hostilities, and to allow the president to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” even the “hoarding” of gold by an American.
After those two years elapsed, people generally assumed that the Trading with the Enemy Act had passed into desuetude. But the Supreme Court later explained that the act’s provisions were not limited merely to World War I and the two years that followed — it “stood ready to meet additional wars and additional enemies” and could be called into service once again under those circumstances. (Little did anyone suspect in 1917 that these “additional enemies” would turn out to be the American people themselves.) As amended by the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act no longer said that simply “during time of war” could the president prohibit the export of gold or take action against “hoarding” (i.e., holding on to one’s money). Now these actions could be taken during time of war or “during any other period of national emergency declared by the President.”
A month later, claiming authority from the Emergency Banking Act and its amendment to the Trading with the Enemy Act, the president ordered all individuals and corporations in America to hand over their gold holdings to the federal government in exchange for an equivalent amount of paper currency. The paper currency they were receiving in exchange for the gold had always been redeemable in gold in the past, so few saw anything amiss in this coerced transaction, and most trusted the government’s assurances that this was somehow necessary in order to combat the Depression. Only later would they discover that they weren’t getting that gold back, and that the paper dollars they were being given in exchange would be devalued. Soon only foreign governments and central banks would be able to convert dollars into gold — and even that link to gold would be severed in 1971.
On June 5, 1933, at the behest of the president, Congress took the next step, passing a joint resolution making it illegal to “require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby.” Any provision in a private or public contract promising payment in gold was thereby nullified. Payment could be made in whatever the government declared to be legal tender, and gold could not be used even as a yardstick for determining how much paper money would be owed.
For the next six months President Roosevelt pursued an erratic monetary course. Every day a new gold price was declared, on a basis no one could figure out. Private lending in effect came to a halt, with the value of the dollar in constant flux amid the prospect of ongoing devaluation. As Senator Carter Glass (D-VA) put it, “No man outside of a lunatic asylum will loan his money today on a farm mortgage.” And thus the government could triumphantly announce that since the private sector was cruelly depriving Americans of credit, it would have to step in and provide relief.
Meanwhile, Senator William Borah was assuring his countrymen that when it came to the nation’s monetary system, “there is no limitation upon the power of Congress. It is not circumscribed in any respect whatever. It is given full and plenary power to deal with that subject; and therefore it is the same as if there were no Constitution whatever.” Borah also tried to argue that “when an individual takes an obligation payable in gold” he does so “with the full understanding that the Government may change its monetary policy at any time and that he must accept whatever the Congress says at a particular time shall constitute money.”
The general rule (to which there are occasional exceptions) that no senator should ever be listened to on anything holds here: the power of Congress over money is in fact very limited. It has the power to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”
Coining money simply refers to the process of taking a precious metal, converting it into coins, and stamping those coins with an indication of their metal content. The power to regulate the value of money does not involve a power to dilute the value of money by inflation, an absurd and self-serving rendering. Regulation of the value of money is a power of declaration and comparison, whereby some monetary standard is compared to other coins in circulation and an exchange rate for these various kinds of currency established according to the amounts of precious metals (with due allowance for the distinct values of different precious metals) in each. In other words, if Congress were to declare by statute what the prevailing market exchange rate between gold and silver was, and thus to “regulate” gold and silver coins vis-à-vis one another — or, more precisely, vis-à-vis the Spanish silver dollar that constituted the American monetary standard — then it would be properly exercising its constitutional power, which consists of nothing more than this.
That is why this power appears in the same clause with the power to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures,” which involves the measurement of fixed standards in order to assure uniformity throughout the nation. That power does not give Congress the power to declare that one-tenth of a pound shall now be declared a pound, but to take an already-existing standard and codify it. Every single monetary statute enacted from the ratification of the Constitution until the 1930s understood the congressional power to regulate the “value” of money not in the sense of declaring money to possess some arbitrary value that suits the whims of politicians or central bankers, but in the sense of establishing the relative values of gold and silver coins in terms of the ever-shifting relative values of those metals on the free market. (Needless to say, the market is perfectly capable of doing this on its own.)
Moreover, the “dollar” was not an arbitrary term at the time the Constitution was drafted. In the late 18th century, everyone knew what the “dollar” referred to: the silver Spanish milled dollar, which was in widespread use in the United States. The Constitution twice refers to the dollar — in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (a clause that everyone understood to involve a tax on the import of slaves), and in the Seventh Amendment (which protected the right to a jury trial in civil cases involving at least twenty dollars). If the dollar had been something that Congress could manipulate at will, or if “dollar” had been merely a generic term to refer to whatever Congress should arbitrarily choose to recognize as currency, the South would never have accepted that clause — or the Constitution itself. Congress might have manipulated the dollar so as to make the tax on slave imports prohibitively expensive. It could also have effectively abolished trial by jury in civil cases by making twenty “dollars” an astronomically high amount of money.
The Court never pronounced upon the constitutionality of the gold seizure (for reasons we speculate on in our book), the legality of which it simply took for granted. The cases it chose to hear involved the cancellation of gold clauses in public and private contracts. Known as the Gold Clause Cases, Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States were argued in January 1935 and decided the following month. In each case Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the opinion for the Court; Justice McReynolds composed a single dissent that he applied to all three.
The Court declared in the first two cases that the federal government had been entitled to cancel all private contracts in gold. The perpetuation of gold clauses would have amounted to the “attempted frustration” of “the constitutional power of the Congress over the monetary system of the country…. [T]hese clauses interfere with the exertion of the power granted to the Congress.” Not a stitch of evidence existed for any aspect of this argument.
Perry, the third case, involved a man who had purchased in gold a US bond that was payable in gold, and was seeking payment either in gold or in the equivalent in paper currency. Since the government intended to pay in depreciated dollars, he believed he was receiving far less than he was entitled to under the terms of the bond. The bond’s face value was $10,000 in gold. In the inflated dollars of post-gold-standard America, it would have taken nearly $17,000 in paper currency in order to satisfy what the government had contracted to pay him.
The Court declared that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to his gold, since the government had an obligation to live up to its promises. But in not paying him his gold, the government wasn’t really wronging him, since gold was now illegal to hold. In other words, if the government paid him in gold, it would then have to confiscate that gold from him anyway since holding gold was against the law.
Speaking for the minority, Justice McReynolds declared:
Just men regard repudiation and spoliation of citizens by their sovereign with abhorrence; but we are asked to affirm that the Constitution has granted power to accomplish both. No definite delegation of such a power exists; and we cannot believe that the farseeing framers, who labored with hope of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty, intended that the expected government should have authority to annihilate its own obligations and destroy the very rights which they were endeavoring to protect. Not only is there no permission for such actions; they are inhibited. And no plenitude of words can conform them to our charter.
To the argument that the bondholders had suffered no damage in being denied payment in gold since it was now illegal for people to own gold, the dissent replied: “Obligations cannot be legally avoided by prohibiting the creditor from receiving the thing promised…. There would be no serious difficulty in estimating the value of 25.8 grains of gold in the currency now in circulation.” The contract to pay in gold having been broken, the holder was at least morally entitled to receive in currency not just the nominal amount of the bond but an amount in paper dollars equivalent to what he would have earned if the payment could have been made in gold. “For the government to say, we have violated our contract but have escaped the consequences through our own statute, would be monstrous. In matters of contractual obligation the government cannot legislate so as to excuse itself.” Suppose a private individual tried to do the same thing, “secreting or manipulating his assets with the intent to place them beyond the reach of creditors.” Any such attempt “would be denounced as fraudulent, wholly ineffective.”
“Loss of reputation for honorable dealing,” the dissent concluded, “will bring us unending humiliation; the impending legal and moral chaos is appalling.”
By the 1970s the federal government had once again permitted Americans to hold gold coins. But when it came time to actually mint them again, it made sure that gold coins could never circulate and displace the constantly depreciating paper currency printed by the US government: the law required that such coins could circulate with a face value only a tiny fraction of their market value.
The full story of the gold confiscation is actually much worse than this, and we tell it in Who Killed the Constitution? What this episode teaches us is not so much that we need to “return to the Constitution,” though that would be an improvement over what we have now, but rather that pieces of paper that governments themselves interpret cannot be expected to prevent governments from doing what they think they can get away with.
Lysander Spooner once said that he believed “that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize.” At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it “has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” It is hard to argue with that.
WW~Notes: The following essay was removed from its original site and thankfully a financial forum preserved it, which you can read in full right here.
Hiding the Elephant: Fort Knox’s Vanishing Act
Posted – Feb 18, 2012
In one of Harry Houdini’s finest moments as a magician, he made a 6,000-pound, Asian elephant disappear – into thin air. Billed as the “world’s most incredible conjuring illusion”, Houdini swept onto the stage at the New York Hippodrome in 1918 and proclaimed “allow me to introduce Jennie, the world’s only vanishing elephant.”
The elephant was then escorted into a large colored cabinet. The doors were closed. The stage was set and the drum roll began. Moments later, with a flourish, Houdini flung open the doors of the box. Six thousand pounds of elephantine flesh had vanished into thin air. The crowd went wild.
In the years that followed, Houdini presented that trick to wide-eyed audiences of a million and more. Magic historian, Jim Steinmeyer, exactly chronicled this – and other – conjuring tricks in “Hiding the Elephant”, an exposé of stage illusions.
In 1933, with America five-years deep into The Depression, the stage was set for a magic act of unprecedented proportions. History shows a wicked warlock at work.
On March 6, 1933, Executive Order (EO) 6073 was passed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), the 32nd President of the United States in an attempt to solve the dire banking crisis. Executive orders have been around since 1789, allowing Presidents to issue legally binding orders unilaterally, without the consent of Congress. During his Presidential tenure, from 1933 to 1945, Roosevelt would issue 3,728 Executive Orders. This was his third and it was a doozy.
Just two days after Roosevelt was inaugurated as President, he proclaimed a “banking holiday”. From and including Monday, March 6, 1933 to Thursday, March 9, 1933 no bank “would pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever of any gold or silver coin or bullion or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof…” Sold to the American people as an attempt to control speculation and regulate interest rates, he closed America’s banks, thwarting customers from withdrawing their paper money holdings or converting their holdings to gold.
With a swish of his magic wand, Roosevelt mastered “complete control over America’s banking system”, expanding his Presidential powers exponentially in the process.
In his first “Fireside Speech” (which burned the backside of many Americans) on March 12, 1933 Roosevelt declared “Let me make it clear to you that the banks will take care of all needs, except, of course, the hysterical demands of hoarders, and it is my belief that hoarding during the past week has become an exceedingly unfashionable pastime in every part of our nation. It needs no prophet to tell you that when the people find that they can get their money — that they can get it when they want it for all legitimate purposes — the phantom of fear will soon be laid. People will again be glad to have their money where it will be safely taken care of and where they can use it conveniently at any time. I can assure you, my friends, that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than it is to keep it under the mattress.”
On June 16, 1933, EO 6073 passed into legislation as the “Emergency Banking Act (EBA)”. After only 40 minutes’ debate in the House of Representatives, with an unknown author and no printed copies available for members of the House, the Bill was passed swiftly and without due process. The wand was waved again.
At the time, Congressman Lundeen, appalled at the reckless lack of due process involved in the passing of this Bill said “I want to put myself on record against procedure of this kind and against the use of such methods in passing legislation affecting millions of lives and billions of dollars. It seems to me that under this bill thousands of small banks will be crushed and wiped out of existence, and that money and credit control will be still further concentrated in the hands of those who now hold the power…. I am suspicious of this railroading of bills through our House of Representatives, and I refuse to vote for a measure unseen and unknown.”
Meanwhile, Executive Order 6073 paved the way for Executive Order 6102 on April 5, 1933.
This Executive Order (EO) made it a criminal act to possess gold coins, gold bullion and gold certificates within the continental United States and ordered that the hoarded gold be delivered to the Government on or before May 1, 1933. The official price of gold was raised from $20.67 to $35/ounce.
Although it is unknown just how much gold was confiscated by means of Executive Order 6102, numbers suggest that by January 1934, there were 195.1 million ounces and 227.9 million ounces by August 1934.
The Government had to have some place to hoard the confiscated gold. So, Executive Order 6102 paved the way to Fort Knox. The U.S. Treasury Department began construction of the United States Bullion Depository (USBD) in 1936. Completed in December of that year, at a cost of US$560,000, the Gold Vault sits in a 109,000-acre Army enclave in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
The U.S. Mint states that 147.3 million ounces of gold are now tucked into Fort Knox. Guarded by Apache helicopter gunships and tucked into a bunker with a bomb-proof roof and thick granite walls, you’d think that 147.3 million ounces of gold would be safe in the vault. While Treasury officials insist that the “gold is all there”, why the resistance to a public audit? Congress begs off, saying it will cost US$60 million to test the gold. Other figures bandied about suggest US$15 million. Other so-called experts contest both figures, stating that an independent audit and assay could be conducted for as little as US$15,000.
More nefarious are that the numbers don’t add up…and never have. In his article The Great American Disaster: How Much Gold Remains In Fort Knox?, dated August 27, 2010, Chris Weber states that, at their peak in 1949, the Fort Knox reserves reputedly numbered 701 million ounces – 69.9% of all the gold on the planet. The latest figures reported by the U.S. Mint state that 147.3 million ounces of gold are now tucked into Fort Knox. Treasury subsequently downgraded this figure from 264 million ounces of gold, a decline of 79%! Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.
Clearly, the road to – and from – Fort Knox is paved in gold and not-so-gold intentions. Tales of pillaging, profiteering and skullduggery abound at the crossroads of Bullion Boulevard and Gold Vault Road. Masked interlopers didn’t rob the USDB. Reputed to be the second most secure place in the world (as reported in The Blogington’s post of September 21, 2010), the video cams, armed guards, attack helicopters, armored personnel carriers, and 30,000 soldiers guarding Fort Knox guaranteed that.
For over 50 years, while domestically it was a crime to hold gold, there is little doubt that well-heeled Americans – and America’s enemies, operating offshore, were able to procure gold at the bargain basement price of $35/ounce.
Not surprising that Fort Knox’s 22-ton door is locked to an audit. For almost 40 years, no visitors have been allowed in the grounds of the Gold Depository. Considered one of the eight most secure places in the world, we’re not getting in for a sneak peek anytime soon. In the last recorded “audit”, in the early 50’s, a group of Congressmen and Senators were taken on a quick tour of Fort Knox and allowed to peek into a few vaults. They reported seeing “orange-hued gold bars”. Lucy, you got more ‘splainin’ to do.
In his article “The Great American Disaster: How Much Gold Remains In Fort Knox?”, Chris Weber outlines details about the one “audit” of Fort Knox, as follows:
“The only audit that has ever been done of the gold inside Ft Knox was done days after Dwight Eisenhower became President in January of 1953. After 20 years of Democratic presidents, the American public wanted to be sure that the gold confiscated from them was still there. Thus, the new President ordered an audit within hours after taking office.
The central problem was that it wasn’t much of an audit. To sum it up:
Representatives of the audited group were allowed to make the rules governing the audit. No outside private experts were allowed.
Those government bureaucrats involved were inexperienced in their tasks, by their own admission.
The entire audit of the largest gold hoard ever concentrated in history lasted only seven days.
Only a fraction of the gold was actually tested. Later, the officials put this fraction at just 5%.
Based on that fraction, the official committee reported that, in their opinion, all the holdings would have matched their records if they’d all been tested.
If the audit was accurate, the fact remains that almost 80% of it went overseas in the coming years. If the audit was not accurate, the amount of gold lost could have been even more. “
On September 23, 1974, Mary Brooks, the Director of the United States Mint, led a tour of members of Congress and the news media through the USBD. There was no audit or inventory of the gold and no other public “inspection” has been allowed since then.
Why won’t the Mint comment about how much gold is there? Perhaps the acid test is not so much as what has happened to the gold in Fort Knox; but rather is there gold in Fort Knox? And if so, how much…..or how little?
In a feat worthy of The Great Houdini himself, the Fort Knox gold may be the World’s Greatest Vanishing Act ever.
The real magic is how we have been duped for so long.
Fort Knox Looted of 7,000 Tons of Gold in 1973-1974 says 1981 Article!
This imaged article from 1981 and excerpted commentary below will set the landscape for the scandal that is just now unraveling before the world. To date, we have not been able to uncover any official refutations, disclaimers or denials from the USGovt or Federal Reserve.
for larger view: http://www.knology.net/~bilrum/811215_FtKnoxGold_globe.jpg
For eight years now the powers that be here in America have kept a blackout on the covered up FORT KNOX GOLD SCANDAL in our allegedly free press, but outside the United States there is a new upsurge of journalistic interest in what has happened to our gold.
Unlike the controlled American major media, some foreign reporters have started asking questions again, and some of them don’t like the answers they are getting from the United States Treasury Department.
Earlier this month in its December 15, 1981 issue, a nationally circulated tabloid called The Globe published a cover story about our missing gold. It was titled appropriately
“66-BILLION DOLLARS IN GOLD GONE FROM FORT KNOX.”
The Globe appears on newsstands and supermarkets and drug stores all over the United States but its editorial control lies outside the American blackout, in Canada. And just two weeks ago on Sunday December 13 an even harder-hitting article was published in England in The Sunday Express of London. It was titled: “UNITED STATES PROBES FORT KNOX ROBBERY.”
The article, written by correspondent David Markham, begins, quote:
“The American Gold Commission in Washington will this week begin an examination of Treasury documents to decide whether 7000 tons of gold, enough to fill 300 lorries, has been stolen from Fort Knox, the world’s biggest and most protected bullion store.”
The article then reviews the basic charges which I have made together with my friend Mr. Edward Durell, and it mentions that the Treasury is trying to refute our charges by providing certain documents to the Gold Commission. The article then zeros in on the question of the missing 165-million ounces of Fort Knox gold that I reported on in the spring of this year. If you will recall, I urged all my listeners to send Mailgrams to the entity
President Reagan last spring demanding that this be looked into immediately. Based on glaring conflicts among the Treasury’s own documents, this staggering amount of gold disappeared without a trace from 1961 to 1971.
Those of you who did as I asked last spring received your own
evidence that this Administration, like those before it, is
sitting on the Gold Scandal. They’re continuing to cover it up,
and the replies you received did not answer the question of the
missing 165-million ounces of Fort Knox gold.
The London Sunday Express article which I mentioned a moment
ago focused in on that awesome amount of missing gold. They
asked the Treasury Department to explain it, and now listen to
the incredible reply they received. Quoting once again from the
“At the Treasury Department in Washington Jerry Nisenson,
Deputy Director of Gold Market Activities said: ‘We have
investigated the claims of Dr. Beter and his supporters and we
contend that the gold was not stolen. There is no cover-up.
They have misinterpreted our books. The gold was being refined
into better quality gold and those ounces just went up the
My friends, if anyone swallows that explanation then I give up.
Three hundred (300) truckloads of gold went up the chimney?? If
it did, then enough gold dust should have settled out of the air
to gold-plate New York City.
The United States Treasury Department is continuing its cover-up of what The London Sunday Express article says, quote: “would amount to the biggest theft in criminal history.”
My friends, they are lying, and because they are lying the Fort Knox Gold Scandal refuses to die. One might think that the forces behind the ransacking of Fort Knox might want to lay low for a while under the circumstances; but No. Those who stole the Fort Knox gold have so far been powerful enough to keep it under wraps. They are so arrogant that they believe they can never be stopped, and so they are now compounding the felony with a new Fort Knox-style gold theft! It’s going on right now as I say these words.
The target this time is the United States Treasury Assay Office in New York City. The New York Assay Office is the Treasury’s second largest depository for gold. Having successfully robbed Fort Knox, which is the biggest depository, the New York Assay Office is next in line.
In late October rumors circulated briefly in New York City that the so-called Reagan Administration plans to close the Assay Office. For that reason, the rumors said that the gold there might be moved out and taken to the West Point Depository up the Hudson River from New York. An article about it was published in the New York Daily News for October 27, 1981. Treasury officials immediately denied it all, saying no shipments of gold out of the New York Assay Office were imminent. But as usual, my friends, they lied.
At 10:00 P.M. Saturday night November 7, 1981, a secret meeting got under way at the New York Assay Office. Those present included: Donna Pope, Director of the Mint; Dr. Alan Goldman, Deputy Director of the Mint; James Edwards, Officer in Charge at the West Point Depository; New York Assay Office employees, and others. The entire group remained at the Assay Office overnight. Then at 5:00 A.M. the following Sunday morning, November 8, they departed. They were accompanying the first secret shipment of gold out of the New York Assay Office ‘reportedly’ bound for the West Point Depository. The shipment consisted of four (4) truckloads totaling 2.18-million ounces.
Shipments have been continuing like this ever since. Every shipment leaves in the dead of night in elaborate secrecy.
Everyone at the Assay Office who knows about the shipments has been sworn to secrecy about them. Meanwhile the gold stock there is being depleted rapidly–four (4) tractor-trailer loads at a time. I can report that shipments of four truckloads each left the New York Assay Office on December 10 and December 11. The combined total amounted to 144 skids with 80 bars each, or over 11,500 bars totaling over 4-1/2 million ounces. Additional shipments of four truckloads each were scheduled for December 17 and 20 according to my latest information. There is a mad rush to complete all shipments before the end of the year!
New York Assay Office employees who see all this going on are being given the excuse that this is being done, quote “for security reasons”; but that, my friends, is ridiculous.
In spite of the security problems at the Assay Office which I have discussed in the past, security at West Point is vastly inferior. The West Point Depository was never designed for gold bullion safekeeping. It’s mainly for the storage of pennies.
It’s not designed as a fortress like the New York Assay Office. There’s no high-security gold vault at West Point. There are no iron gates, no bars, no military guards; and unlike the New York Assay Office which is situated in Lower Manhattan, the West Point Depository is isolated, totally isolated. Anything could go on there and no one would know.
The point is this, my friends: the gold is supposedly being moved secretly to a location without adequate storage facilities and with very low security. In other words, it’s being made easy to steal; and, my friends, I have already received preliminary reports that some of this gold has already begun going to places other than the West Point Depository!
Meanwhile, day by day the economic news becomes more gloomy. America’s economy, once the strongest in the world, is coming apart at the seams. The United States dollar, once as good as gold, is shriveling before our very eyes. In pretended response our leaders are giving us nothing but theories, rhetoric, political grandstanding, and hypocrisy. They continue to paper over and cover up the root causes of our economic woes.
Up to now the so-called Reagan Administration has been guilty mainly of hiding the past thefts of America’s gold, but now they are compounding their guilt. A major new gold theft scandal is brewing at the New York Assay Office. The entity known as Ronald Reagan pretends to be upset over alleged mistreatment of the Polish people and yet he is mistreating his own people in many ways!
Excerpted from>> Dr. Peter David Beter – Audio Letter No. 70.