United States Taxes on Gold Bars or Gold Coins

Document Sample
United States Taxes on Gold Bars or Gold Coins Powered By Docstoc
					American Gold
A weekly newsletter brought to you by

Discount Gold & Silver 800-375-4188

Edited by Alfred Adask.

Sunday, November 22nd, A.D. 2009

During the two weeks of November 6th through 20th, the bid prices for:

“spot”/futures Gold rose 4.9 % from $1,096.90 to $1,150.90

Silver rose 6.4 % from $17.39 to $18.51

Platinum rose 7.6 % from $1,343 to $1,445

Palladium rose 9.7 % from $329 to $361

DJIA rose 2.9 % from 10,023.42 to 10,318.20

NASDAQ rose 1.6 % from 2,112.44 to 2,146.04

NYSE rose 1.8 % from 6,958.29 to 7,084.47

US Dollar Index fell 0.1 % from 75.58 to 75.49

Crude Oil fell 0.2 % from $78.24 to $78.05
      Last week (November 14th) somebody screwed up (me) and we didn‟t publish
an issue of American Gold. The article we should‟ve published last week (“The End
of the „Multiplier Effect‟?”) appears first. This week‟s article (“Where There‟s
Smoke . . . There‟s Tungsten”) appears second.

      I hope you‟ll find both articles useful, but if you only have time to read one,
read the second (“Tungsten”).

      The End of the “Multiplier Effect”?

      George Soros had a fairly simple investment strategy: Find the investment
―story‖ whose premise is false . . . and bet against it. In other words, if the business
model (―story‖) for a particular energy company were based on the premise that
―global warming‖ is real—when, in fact, ―global warming‖ was false—then bet against
that company‘s success. Sell short. Soros‘ idea was that the ―truth will out‖ and,
when that truth was recognized, the value of the stock of a company based on some
fundamental lie would drop like a stone.

      Soros‘ investment strategy is true for both private corporations and
governments. For example, the collapse of the former Soviet Union was inevitable so
long as that government operated on the premise that government can do a better
job of managing the national economy than the free market.

      When you build a business or a government, its foundation premises are like
the steel girders in a skyscraper—they‘re part of the structural support for that
business, government and even nation. If your premises are false (lies), sooner or
later, those lies will not only be exposed, but will disintegrate and cause the whole
corporate or governmental structure to collapse.
      The ―Government of the United States‖ (a private corporation listed at that also does business as ―U.S.
Government‖), is openly operating under the same false premise that once animated
the Soviet Union: that government economists can manage the US economy better
than the free market. Until recently, most Americans grudgingly accepted that
premise as at least plausible. Today, however, even as gov-co control over our
economy increases dramatically, public confidence in the fed‘s ―story‖ and
fundamental premises is quickly disintegrating.

      The foundation premise for government taxation, deficit financing, and
management of the economy appears to be found in the Keynesian economic theory
of the ―multiplier effect‖. According to the Daily Reckoning, ―The theory behind the
current recovery concept [stimulus package] is that government spending and money
from the Fed has a "multiplier" effect. That is, the feds spend . . . the money goes
into the economy . . . and then, the private economy multiplies the spending by
growth in consumption and investment of its own.‖

      In theory, if the feds inject one trillion dollars into our troubled economy, the
economy will experience the ―multiplied effect‖ of several trillion dollars in
additional economy activity. There is disagreement as to the magnitude of this
―multiplier‖. Some economists think the multiplier is no more than three times;
other say as much as nine.

      The ―multiplier effect‖ can be illustrated as follows: Suppose a tourist from
Chicago visits Dallas and spends $1,000. Common sense would suppose that the Dallas
economy would be enriched by $1,000. But economists claim that, thanks to the
multiplier effect, the Chicagoan‘s $1,000 will cause Dallas to receive a ―multiplied‖
economic benefit equivalent to somewhere between $3,000 and $9,000 in economic
activity. In essence, the multiplier effect predicts that spending $1,000 from an
outside source will cause a local economy to enjoy an additional $3,000 to $9,000 in
       This multiplier effect is widely recognized and explains why the Chamber of
Commerce of Dallas will battle the Chamber of Commerce of Miami to attract the
National Fireman Association‘s annual convention. If each of the 5,000 firemen spend
$1,000 (a total of $5 million) in the city that hosts the convention, that city will enjoy
a ―multiplied‖ $15 to $45 million in additional economic activity. I.e., the city will
provide $5 million in goods and services to the firemen, but the city will receive
somewhere between $15 and $45 million in economic benefits for a net ―profit‖ of
$10 to $40 million. (Such a deal, hmm?)

       The multiplier effect also justifies local government subsidies for new tourist
attractions and glamorous hotels. Under the premise of the multiplier effect,
anything that attracts outside money into a local economy will ―magically‖ generate a
―multiplied‖ economic benefit.

       Although economists have been convinced that the multiplier effect is real,
there‘s a problem: it has to be a ―zero-sum equation‖. I.e., we can‘t just spin money
out of nothing. If the Chicagoan could spend $1,000 in Dallas and thereby ―magically‖
generate an extra $5,000, why couldn‘t Dallas take the $5,000 and spend it in San
Diego to generate a ―multiplied‖ $25,000? And then San Diego could take their new
―$25,000 and spend it in Seattle—which would receive a ―multiplied‖ $125,000 which
is, in turn, spent in Chicago. Then Chicago would receive a ―multiplied‖ $625,000
benefit—all from an initial ―investment‖ of $1,000 spent in Dallas. And then the
cycle could start again by sending $625,000 to Dallas to generate over $3 million, etc.
       If the multiplier effect were purely positive, it would be the economic
equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. All we‘d have to do is move money from
city to city and we could all get rich without ever going to work or producing a single
product or service.
       Obviously, that can‘t be true. So, obviously, the ―multiplier effect‖ can‘t
operate as a purely positive profit-maker. There has to be a negative side to balance
the ―equation‖.
      The negative side of the equation is this: When the Chicago tourist takes
$1,000 out of the Chicago economy to spend in Dallas, Dallas may very well enjoy a
―magically multiplied‖ $5,000 in increased economic activity—but Chicago will have
to suffer an equivalent ―magically multiplied‖ $5,000 loss in economy activity. It has
to be that way or the multiplier effect is a perpetual money machine.

      I can‘t prove it, but I strongly suspect that when our gov-co was first seduced
by Kenynesian economics in the 1930s, that gov-co economists really believed that
the multiplier effect was purely positive. I don‘t think the saw the negative side of
the zero-sum equation. I suspect that the ―whiz kids‖ in the FDR administration
believed that the multiplier effect justified ―robbing Peter‖ (taxing the rich) to ―pay
Paul‖ (subsidize the poor), because ―Paul‖ (the poor) would receive a ―multiplied‖
economic benefit and then spend that ―multiplied‖ benefit by buying more products
produced by the rich. Result? Government intervention could enable both poor and
rich to ―pull themselves up‖ by their own multiplied ―bootstraps‖. The idealism of
such a concept would have been irresistibly intoxicating.
      In the alternative, perhaps the FDR ―whiz kids‖ knew from the beginning that
the multiplier effect was a zero sum equation. Maybe they recognized the ―negative‖
side, but didn‘t care. Maybe they actually and maliciously intended all along to
simply rob the rich to support the poor (and keep a nice cut for the gov-co
middleman). Maybe the ―whiz kids‖ were cynics born and bred.
      But whether the multiplier effect‘s advocates were idealists or cynics, there‘s
still a fundamental and pragmatic problem. The ―multiplier effect‖ justified taxing
one group to give money to some other group. The underlying premise/justification is
that if we take $1,000 from Bob and give it to Sue, when Sue spends the $1,000 the
economy will get a $3,000 to $9,000 ―boost‖.
      And gov-co might‘ve been right—Sue spending her $1,000 ―windfall‖ may have
generated a, say, $5,000 multiplied result. But what advocates of high taxes, big
government (justified by the multiplier effect) failed or refused to admit was that the
multiplier effect had to be a zero sum equation. While Sue spending her ―extra‖
$1,000 would generate $5,000 in additional, visible economic activity, that same
$1,000 taken from Bob would cause Bob to suffer an ―invisible‖ but ―multiplied‖
$5,000 loss in economic activity.
      OK, so it all balances out. Where‘s the harm? OK—maybe we‘re robbing Bob to
pay Sue, but on the bright side: 1) Sue is being paid; and 2) Bob is so rich he can
afford to be robbed. No blood, no foul, hmm?
      The harm is in the fact that the reason gov-co can impose a $1,000 tax on Bob
is because Bob is the kind of person (a ―producer‖) who has an ―extra‖ $1,000.
(Clearly, gov-co can‘t impose the $1,000 tax on Sue because she‘s poor; you can‘t get
taxes out of a poor person.)
      So, how‘d Bob get that extra $1,000? He worked for it. And there‘s the
fundamental danger in big government. Government necessarily taxes the
PRODUCTIVE elements of society to support the non-productive. As government
grows, it increasingly taxes the producers to support the non-producers. Inevitable
result? More non-producers (consumers) and less producers.
      Why? Because when gov-co imposes a $1,000 tax on the productive, the
productive suffer a ―multiplied‖ loss of, say, $5,000 in productive capacity. Yes, the
non-productive ―Sue‖ may enjoy a corresponding ―multiplied‖ economic benefit of,
say, $5,000, but Sue (being relatively ―non-productive‖; i.e., a ―consumer‖) doesn‘t
really add anything to our economy or society.
      Yes, ―consumer Sue‖ (magically enriched by the equivalent of $5,000) will
probably buy some new clothes or maybe even some new implants, but she won‘t buy
any tools. She will not add to our national ―means of production‖.
      ―Producer Bob,‖ on the other hand, might‘ve intended to buy a new $5,000
machine to produce even more products—if he‘d been allowed to keep his $1,000 and
avoid the $5,000 multiplied loss caused by taxation.
      Gov-co can look us in the eye and claim to have taken ―only‖ $1,000 from
producer Bob—but today, gov-co has to know that they‘ve actually (but ―invisibly‖)
diminished Bob‘s productive capability by roughly $5,000.
      Result? As gov-co increasingly skews the distribution of wealth to favor non-
productive consumers, the producers are driven out of business and even out of this
country. Industries and jobs flee to foreign lands. With fewer producers, we
necessarily produce less and less until there‘s little left to consume. Today‘s
economists brag about the fact that at least 60% of today‘s US economy is based on
consumers. That‘s like bragging that 60% of your body mass is fat. It‘s stupid.
      Y‘know what it takes to be a ―consumer‖? A pulse. That‘s all. People lie in
comas for years without moving, speaking, and certainly without producing.
Nevertheless, the comatose are the quintessential ―consumers‖. They consume food,
electricity, heat, medical services. They produce nothing.
      How can a society survive, let alone prosper, when 60% of its economy depends
on ―consumers‖? It can‘t.
      The idea that our nation can survive and even prosper with 60% consumers is
exactly the kind of ―false premise‖ which helped collapse the former Soviet Union and
George Soros would bet against.
      Y‘know what it takes to be a ―producer‖? A pulse—but that‘s not all. You also
need brains, guts, ambition, knowledge and hard work—and perhaps luck or blessing.
Result? Food. Clothing. Shelter. Automobiles. Computers. All for sale at
competitive prices that advance everyone‟s standard of living.
      We are all consumers, but only some of us are producers. Those who produce
make possible those who merely consume. We can‘t afford to lose sight of which
group is more critical to our national survival: consumers or producers? In the end,
who do you need more: a farmer who grows food or a welfare recipient who
consumes food?
      America loses more by taking money from productive Bob than we gain by
giving that same money to consumer Sue.
      Over time, as government grows, the invisible effect of ―multiplied‖ losses due
to rising taxes and increased costs of production caused by increased regulation, will
reduce ―producer Bob‘s‖ productive capacity to the point where he can no longer
produce anything. Without real producers, there‘s nothing for ―consumers‖ to
consume. The economy that depends on ―consumers‖ must inevitably collapse into
poverty, chaos and violence.
      Everyone—even those in government—can see that this progression from false
premises (government can manage the economy better than the free market; the
multiplier effect justifies taxes) to national disaster is virtually inevitable. And yet,
here we are—progressing ever more quickly towards national destruction. (Can you
say ―National Health Care,‖ boys and girls?)
       Why do we continue down this ―road to Hell‖?
       A: Because ―government means never having to say you‘re sorry.‖ Politicians
almost never admit making personal mistakes and never admit that the fundamental
premises on which their government is built are false.
       Will government admit that big government equates to national suicide? Of
course not. Ohh, some conservatives may pay lip service to the idea of limited
government, but can you name an administrative (Democrat or Republican) since A.D.
1932 that‘s actually reduced the size of government? I can‘t. Virtually every
politician elected to Washington over the past 70 years has supported the idea that
more government is better government. Result? We‘re headed for a national
calamity just like the former Soviet Union.
       Because our current government is based on false premises.
       Government has grown to understand that the multiplier effect is a zero sum
equation. They know that we can‘t simply tax ―producer Bob‖ to support ―consumer
Sue‖. That‘s probably why they‘ve gone to deficit financing, borrowing money from
Japan and then China, and more recently printing money as fast as the presses can
roll. The gov-co is betting that if they inject money from foreign lenders into our
economy, we will enjoy a ―multiplied‖ economic benefit while the foreign lenders
suffer a ―multiplied‖ economic loss.
       I suspect that the gov-co is betting that if they inject enough newly-printed
paper dollars into the economy, the dollar will suffer a loss in purchasing power, but
the economy will enjoy a ―multiplied‖ economic gain that will more than compensate
for the dollar‘s devaluation. The gov-co is betting that by deficit financing now, they
will stimulate the economy with the multiplier effect to such a degree that the debt
left for our children and grandchildren, will be easily paid by the expanded economy.

       It‘s a nice theory. It‘s a seductive premise.
      But according to economist Robert Barro in The Wall Street Journal, "Our new
research shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect . . . the available
empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically
exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise the GDP by less than
the increase in government spending."
      If Mr. Barro‘s research is correct, then the ―multiplier effect‖ that‘s been
taken for granted for 70 years is false. Insofar as that multiplier effect has been a
fundamental justification for high taxes and big government, high taxes and big
government are built on a false premise.
      George Soros‘ investment strategy was find an investment ―story‖ whose
premise was false . . . and bet against it. The multiplier effect is at least one of the
fundamental premises on which the big Government of the United States is
constructed. If that premise is false, then ―bet against‖ that Government.

      How do you ―bet against‖ the Government?

      Short dollars. Buy gold

      Where There’s Smoke . . . There’s Tungsten

      In April of A.D. 2004, the Rothschild Banks left the gold commodity market.
Bill Murphy of the Gold Anti-Trust Action committee (GATA) speculated: “Why is
Rothschild leaving the gold business at this time? . . . something is amiss. They
know a big gold scandal is coming and they want no part of it.”
      Two weeks ago, I reported a story that JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank had sold
tons of gold futures contracts on the gold commodity markets for prices ranging from
$950 to $1050 per ounce. These contracts came due in October. Curiously, when
investors demanded to take physical delivery of their tons of gold, JPMorgan and
Deutsche Bank reportedly offered to instead write them checks for the spot price of
gold plus a 25% premium—$1275/ounce!

      I speculated that if these rumors were true, they were evidence that: 1) the
gold commodity market is selling gold that does not actually exist; 2) some very
wealthy people are headed for prison; 3) if and when the real supply of gold is shown
to be dramatically less than currently supposed, the price of gold will increase
dramatically; and 4) JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank had just set the minimum price of
gold at $1,275.

      This week, we have more rumors that suggest that the real problem may not
simply be that the commodity markets have been selling ―paper‖ gold that does not
exist, but worse, they may have been selling ―counterfeit‖ gold bars that are only
gold plated on the outside and primarily tungsten ($10/pound) on the inside.

      Such a scheme could work because the densities of gold and tungsten are
almost identical and therefore make it difficult to tell a gold bar from a gold-tungsten
counterfeit. While it might be possible for bullion banks and commodity dealers to
talk their way out of selling ―paper‖ gold bars that don‘t actually exist, there are no
words to excuse selling gold bars which are primarily composed of tungsten.

      The rumors are spectacular and even chilling. For example, although
Christopher Story at Global Intelligence is skeptical of the rumors, he described them
as follows:

              ―The amount of ‗salted tungsten‘ gold bars in question was allegedly
      between 5,600 and 5,700 of 400 oz–good delivery bars—roughly 60 metric
      tonnes. This was apparently all highly orchestrated by an extremely well
      financed criminal operation. Within mere hours of this scam being identified,
      Chinese officials had many of the perpetrators in custody. And here‘s what the
      Chinese allegedly uncovered: Roughly 15 years ago—during the Clinton
      Administration [think Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, and Lawrence Summers]—
      between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were allegedly
      manufactured by a very high-end, sophisticated refiner in the USA [more than
      16 thousand metric tonnes]. Subsequently, 640,000 of these tungsten blanks
      received their gold plating and WERE shipped to Ft. Knox and remain there to
      this day.‖

      The reference to Ft. Knox seems incredible. Everyone knows that it‘s
impossible to actually rob Ft. Knox, right? (But then, there was a time when
―everyone knew‖ the earth was flat, too.)

      But even more disturbing is the allegation that 16,000 tons of tungsten bars
were allegedly produced by the ―high-end, sophisticated refiner,‖ but only 60 tons
have so far been discovered. Where are the other 15,000+ tons of tungsten bars?

      The numbers alleged are almost too fantastic to be believed and may prove to
be exaggerated or false. But if these numbers are even partially true, they point to a
fraud of monumental audacity that could cause: 1) the perceived supply of gold to
dramatically fall; 2) the price of gold to skyrocket; and 3) the collapse of national and
even global financial systems.

      • Rob Kirby at Goldseek published a report on the tungsten-gold scandal that
was identical to Christopher Story‘s plus:
             ―Irregularities in the publication of the gold ETF—GLD‘s bar list from
      Sept. 25 – Oct.14 where the length of the bar list went from 1,381 pages to
      under 200 pages and then back up to 800 or so pages;‖ and,

              ―The balance of this 1.3 million – 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten cache was
      also plated and then allegedly “sold” into the international market.
      Apparently, the global market is literally „stuffed full of 400 oz salted bars‟.‖

       Kirby also remembered a February 2nd news report that Stuart Smith, senior
vice president of operations New York Mercantile Exchange, was served with a search
warrant by the NY district attorney's office. Details of the investigation were not
disclosed, but according to Kirby:

             ―We never have found out what happened to poor ole Stuart Smith.
      After his offices were ‗raided,‘ he took administrative leave from the NYMEX
      and he has never been heard from since. Amazingly [or perhaps not], there
      never was any follow up on in the media on the original story as well as ZERO
      developments ever stemming from D.A. Morgenthau‘s office who executed the
      search warrant.

             ―Are we to believe that NYMEX offices were raided, the Sr. V.P. of
      operations then takes leave—all for nothing?‖

             In fact,

             ―The NYMEX office of the Senior Vice President of Operations is exactly
      where you would go to find the records [serial number and smelter of origin]
      for EVERY GOLD BAR ever PHYSICALLY settled on the exchange. They are
      required to keep these records. These precise records would show the lineage
      of all the physical gold settled on the exchange and hence "prove" that the
      amount of gold in question could not have possibly come from the U.S. mining
      operations—because the amounts [of gold bars] in question coming from U.S.
      smelters would undoubtedly be vastly larger than domestic mine production.‖
      (Perhaps the DA‘s raid on NYMEX was based on the presumption that the Senior
VP knew where all the bodies—both human and tungsten—were buried.)

       • ―Gold swaps‖ are a device by means of which central banks and bullion
banks might ―cooperate‖ (actually, ―conspire‖) to ―sell‖ gold at a reduced prices
back and forth between themselves without suffering financial loss.

      For example, the Fed might sell 50 tons of gold to JPMorgan for $800 an ounce
when the ―free market‖ price was $825. JPMorgan would then sell the same 50 tons
back to the Fed for $800 an ounce. Neither the Fed nor JPMorgan would profit or lose
from this swap. However, the net effect of ―cooperatively swapping‖ 50 tons of gold
at artificially reduced prices would be a suppression of the global price of gold. Gold,
instead of rising from $825 to $850 per ounce in the ―free market,‖ might instead fall
to $810 in the ―manipulated market‖.

      Result? The apparent value of our paper, fiat dollar would be supported and

      This year, GATA filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the
Federal Reserve System for documents since 1990 having to do with gold swaps, gold
swapped, or proposed gold swaps.

      On August 5th, Federal Reserve Governor Kevin M. Warsh responded to GATA‘s
FOIA request by sending 173 pages of documents requested—but also refusing under
Federal Reserve rules of ―confidentiality‖ concerning transactions with foreign banks
to send another 137 pages. By that response, Fed Governor Warsh implicitly admitted
that the Federal Reserve has in the past and may now be engaged in trading gold
swaps with foreign banks.
         Point: Again, we see evidence that the price of gold has been manipulated to a
significant (and perhaps enormous) degree. If that evidence rises to the level of
proof, we can expect the price of gold to rise dramatically.

         • Regarding the tungsten-gold-bar scandal, Jim Willie of the Golden Jackass

                ― . . . the Powerz are losing control. . . . The biggest gold crime story
         of the century might be soon coming to full light. Evidence is accumulating
         that the Clinton administration with Rubin at the US Department of Treasury
         replaced perhaps the entire contents of the Fort Knox gold with tungsten bars
         plated with gold. The salted gold bars are fast becoming a global crime issue. .
         . . assayers are trying to authenticate most of the global gold held in banks. . .
         . tens of thousands of bars have been examined, usually using four test holes
         drilled for direct sampling. . . .

         If their ―gold‖ bars are found to be fraudulent, will the banks admit the fraud?
Doing so would 1) diminish bank assets by a considerable amount and thereby limit
the amount of credit they can loan; 2) reduce confidence in the banks holding these
―toxic-tungsten assets‖; 3) push up the price of gold; and 4) push down the perceived
value of paper, fiat currencies like the dollar.

         Mr. Wiley continued:

                ―Some demand for gold might be frozen into inaction as customers
         would fear owning fake gold bars. However, the significantly greater effect is
         that sellers of gold will scramble to purchase real gold bars, so as to avoid
         fraud charges, criminal prosecution, and jail time. They will be motivated to
         repair the fraudulent transaction with maximum expedience. The replacement
         effect will cause an extraordinarily huge demand. . . .‖
      If demand for gold bars falters, demand for gold coins (so far untouched by
tungsten) should increase dramatically. With increased demand, we should see
skyrocketing coin prices.

      According to Wiley, an unidentified but reputable source claims:

             ―. . . the next round of [futures] gold contract delivery pressure comes
      in late November, then again in March 2010, and finally in June 2010. . . .
      the financial system will be broken at the gold-USDollar cross beam. . . . it is
      inconceivable that the system will hold together past June of 2010, and a
      severe test is likely in March 2010. . . . When the breakdown comes, it will be
      next to impossible to trade in US Dollars, to settle commerce in US Dollars, to
      finance the US Treasurys, to supply the US Economy with credit, and to
      maintain the US banking system. The banks in the United States will then shut
      down in all likelihood. . . .

      Wiley predicts:

             ―. . . future chapters will possibly involve the International Court in The
      Hague for prosecutions against the Wall Street firms and former US Treasury
      officials. It will possibly involve a wave of murders from the middle levels . . .
      . It will surely involve relentless attacks on COMEX and London CME for gold
      deliveries, where collateral requirements are not enforced. The practice known
      as ―naked shorting‖ [selling products you don‘t really have] is illegal. It will
      probably involve the isolation of the United States, with full recognition of a
      crime syndicate lodged within its government ministries and capital markets. .
      . . It is the climax to the US financial collapse. . . .‖

      • The tungsten-gold-bar rumors have precipitated some extraordinarily dire
predictions. It‘s too early to know which of the opinions advanced by Story, Kirby,
GATA and Wiley are largely correct. But there‘s enough smoke to suspect that there
may be a real, tungsten ―fire‖ in the gold commodity markets.

      If this ―fire‖ exists, it may not be as large as these other authors suggest. But
let‘s suppose that this ―tungsten fire‖: 1) is just 10% the size implied; and 2) does
implicate Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin and other former or current powerful men and
women—what do you suppose those powerful people would do to avoid prosecution?
Kill the witnesses? Sure. Destroy the evidence? Of course—but how? Could another
―terrorist‖ attack on the NYMEX archives or even Ft. Knox of the sort seen on 9/11
A.D. 2001 suffice? Or might this next cover-up require the detonation of one or more
―back-pack‖ nuclear weapons?

      Remember the old James Bond ―Goldfinger‖ plot? Goldfinger didn‘t plan to
steal the gold in Ft. Knox, he only intended to detonate a ―dirty‖ nuclear device at
Ft. Knox to render the gold radioactive and therefore useless for eons. If there were
150,000 tons of tungsten bars hidden in Ft. Knox, a ―dirty‖ bomb might be just the
thing to prevent anyone from assaying those gold/tungsten bars until the robbers had
long since died of natural causes as wealthy men.

      Silly idea, hmm? It‘s easy to get carried away with this conspiracy stuff.

      But, on the other hand, in today‘s society, how much is left for us to imagine
that is truly too incredible to be imagined? Not much. It is now at least conceivable
that ―they‖ have robbed Ft. Knox. The mind reels.

      As Jim Wiley concluded, ―These are truly incredible times.‖

      Amen to that.

      Buckle up.
      Until next week, I remain at arm‘s length and within The United States of

      Alfred Adask


      blog at:

For the best in pricing and service for gold and silver coins, call Melody at 1-800-
375-4188. Be sure to listen to DGSTC live on Short-wave 7.415Mhz M-F 4:00PM
ET, and 3.215 MHz M-F 11PM ET. Call 1-800-375-4188 or visit the Web site at\main.htm

        or email us at:

      Discount Gold & Silver Trading Co. provides all forms of precious metals
including gold, silver platinum and palladium whether you are buying or selling.
Our inventory includes but not limited to the American Gold, Silver, Platinum
Eagle and numismatic products including rare, investment and circulated coins.
Silver dollars, silver bars, rounds are on hand for the silver investor. Foreign gold
is also available. Call for information regarding your precious metal gold and silver
IRA. 1 800 375 4188

Description: United States Taxes on Gold Bars or Gold Coins document sample