WAR & SILVER
Charles Savoie

Editor's note; The following is an excerpt from Charles Savoie's essay on "War and Silver".

NO STRATEGIC SILVER RESERVE!

America has been without a strategic reserve of silver since fall 2000. As part of the 2004 Presidential campaign we hear debate over the strategic petroleum reserve, but no mention of a metal without which we cannot defend ourselves. No one at a high level is willing to discuss this issue. It is as if a huge coordinated conspiracy exists. Let's drop the "as if" part. Butler wrote articles on the lack of silver as it relates to defense, "Pearl Harbor 2001" and "Silver Steal," in which he transmitted the brief response he received from General Henry H. Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If you look at Shelton's reply it's clear all he did was pass the issue to someone else, who in turn did nothing. My understanding is that other officials were also contacted with approximately a 50% response rate, but again, those responses featured no action. I sent e-mails on the situation to everyone I found at the Veterans of Foreign Wars ("We'd Do Anything For This Country!") which was something like over 15 individuals. I received one (1) response, which was a complaint that I "shotgunned" my message to everyone, when the implication was, all I had to do was send it to him. My purpose was to make sure they all saw the message, and were aware everyone else got it. The result? NO action taken. Maybe some of you want to make inquiry to the VFW at www.vfw.org/ or to the American Legion, which bills itself as the world's largest veterans organization, at www.legion.org/

In contacting Congress, veteran's organizations such as the VFW and American Legion, Defense Department, news media and so forth, on this issue, sometimes accusations are hurled back at us that our real motive is to get the Government to buy a lot of silver, because we hope to benefit from a price increase. This is all some of them can think. So what happens when defense contractors can't produce because they can't obtain enough silver? Will they ask the President to sign an Executive Order seizing investor owned silver in COMEX warehouses? That would have to be the first step. Large gold and silver dealers could also be at risk of having federal agents appear at their places of business unannounced, to impound any silver they have. Which suggestion, therefore, is more in keeping with the alleged spirit of America, that the Government go into the open market and bid for silver; or that the crisis is allowed to develop, then they step in and seize silver from the unwilling? And at what price would such seizures occur? Voices will be heard saying, it isn't right to allow "hoarders" and "speculators" to profit from the country's military vulnerability! But who caused that vulnerability? Those who lobbied to hold prices low; those who agitated to access the strategic silver stockpile; those who threw massive amounts of paper short sales at the silver price, discouraging production and exploration; and those in government who allowed the malfeasance! Also, do defense contractors, or anyone else who supplies a war effort, make any profits from such activity? Most likely. Then why is it that selling silver at a profit is painted as "wrong?" Because the greedy silver users want to be the only ones to profit from silver---let miners go bankrupt, because others will follow in their tracks, produce some silver, then they'll fail also.

Let's look at some references from the public record about the strategic stockpile issue. Wall Street Journal, June 6, 1967, page 12, "Senate Approves Bill To Permit Write-Off Of Silver Certificates," subtitled, "Measure to Lessen Price Would Allow Treasury to Free Estimated 116 Million Ounces"---

"The Senate approved a bill that would allow the Treasury to free an estimated 116 million ounces of silver in its stock by writing off a portion of outstanding silver certificates. The House Banking Committee has approved a bill similar to the Senate measure, and the full House is expected to act soon. By increasing the Treasury's supply of "free" silver, the legislation is intended to help prevent silver price increases that could lead to coin hoarding."

Here's another case where our great leaders were out in the open that they were interested in holding silver prices low. They didn't want Americans to protect themselves from currency decay by owning coins of intrinsic worth. Continuing, we find---

"In a related development, Senator Hartke (D. Indiana) said the Treasury has informed him that "it is prepared to embargo shipments of silver bullion from the U.S. should the international run on America's silver supply become acute." In mid-May the Treasury banned exports of silver from its own stock after demand increased sharply in response to price rises. According to Senator Hartke, no Congressional action would be required for the Treasury to embargo all silver exports. Generally, though, Treasury officials have been counting on the certificate legislation to spare them the need to impose such an embargo. Such a policy would be difficult to implement, planners say, because much silver that's exported from the U.S. first was imported here solely for processing."

Looking at this it's clear the Silver Users Association had its eyes on the remaining silver, and was opposed to it being exported. Continuing---

"Due to a shortage of the metal, the market price for future delivery recently has climbed above the $1.29 set by the Treasury. The Treasury is changing over from silver coins to coins made of other metal, but it will be some time before the transition is completed. The write-off of silver certificates that the Senate bill would permit is based on the Treasury's estimate that outstanding certificates for 116 million ounces have been destroyed or lost over the years. In addition to the silver that would be freed by write-offs, the bill would allow the Treasury to end redemptions for all outstanding silver certificates after one year. Over 400 million ounces of the Treasury's silver stock currently is earmarked for certificate redemptions."

They speak of freeing silver by ending the silver certificate program. Freeing silver, for what, and for whom? For the Silver Users Association, of course! But it would take time for them to get rid of all the silver as we find---

"When redemptions are ended, the Senate bill provides that the Treasury must turn over 165 million ounces of silver to the Government's defense stockpile. A floor amendment by Senator Dominick (R., Colorado) would limit to 200 million the amount of silver certificates the Treasury could write off before redemptions are ended. The legislative action may come just in time, as continuing heavy domestic demand is still swiftly shrinking the Treasury's "free silver" stock. From 81.5 million ounces May 15, just a few days before the restrictions were imposed, the free stock was down to 55.6 million ounces May 29, and, at last report on May 31, the stock was down further to less than 51.3 million ounces."

This was the start of the silver defense stockpile. First the users would empty the other Treasury silver, then go after the defense reserve. We see the concern of the Treasury was for the silver users, not for the American public, and the same treachery was evident on the part of Congress. The defense reserve was quickly seen as a source of silver for other purposes. Wall Street Journal, May 14, 1970, page 7, "Coinage Commission Approves "Silver" Dollar With Eisenhower on It," subtitled, "But Legislation of Senate Faces Opposition by House Members To 40% Use of Precious Metal,"---

"Washington---The Coinage Commission approved a Senate-passed bill authorizing the minting and selling of 150 million one-dollar coins, containing 40% silver, which would bear a likeness to former President Eisenhower. But the legislation still faces considerable opposition in the House, which in the past has refused to approve the use of silver in any commemorative coin. The commission, consisting of the Treasury Secretary, other Administration officials, public representatives and members of Congress, refused to disclose its vote, but Congressional sources said it was 14 to six. Among the opponents were Chairman Patman (D., Texas) of the House Banking and Currency Commission and Rep. Widnall (R., N.J.), ranking minority member of that committee."

Did you catch the error in the quotation? It should have read, House Banking and Currency Committee. The error was partially corrected at the end of the sentence. I learned over reading references to Wright Patman that he was a friend to the silver using interests. That seemed somewhat odd, since he repeatedly called for an audit of the Federal Reserve System, and of course never accomplished it. Reading more---

"In a statement following the vote, Mr. Patman called the use of silver in the dollar coin a "speculators' bonanza" that, he said, would "create serious economic problems for the nation." Last October, the House decisively voted against including any silver in the Eisenhower dollar. The Coinage Commission, with the support of the Treasury, approved the same recommendations passed by the Senate in March. Under this measure, the Eisenhower dollar would contain 40% silver and 60% copper. This measure also would provide for the minting and general circulation of other Eisenhower dollars comprised of copper and nickel."

You can see the bias on the part of Congressman Patman in favor of the silver users, complaining about "speculators." Concluding---

"The Treasury estimated that the part silver Eisenhower coin would be sold at a premium price and could bring in as much as $750 million in the next three or four years. Officials said they haven't set any likely price on the coin, but are talking in a $3 to $5 range if the House approves the measure. Both the Coinage Commission and the Treasury have reversed positions on the minting and selling of a part silver Eisenhower dollar. Last year, they approved plans only for a silverless dollar commemorating the former President. The Senate refused to accept this version. The Senate bill also calls for the transfer of 25.5 million ounces of silver from the national security stockpile to the Treasury for coinage purposes. The Treasury would continue to sell 1.5 million ounces a week of silver bullion through the General Services Administration through next November 10."

WSJ, March 5, 1970, page 20 said---

"The Office of Emergency Preparedness would release 25.5 million ounces of surplus silver from its emergency stockpile to be used in the coinage."

Considering how much silver was used in WWII, and the fact that this stockpile contained just a fraction as much, to call the 25.5 million ounces "surplus" was folly. Let's take a brief look back at Congressman Patman of Texarkana, Texas, from the WSJ, March 20, 1970, page 16---

"After yesterday's Senate action, chairman Patman (D., Texas) of the House Banking Committee attacked the idea of a 40% silver coin and said he would fight the proposal when it went before a House-Senate conference committee. Patman said that if Congress decided to put silver in the Eisenhower dollar "the same groups will be back demanding silver in other commemorative coins." This would "completely deplete our stockpiles and place commercial users of silver in great jeopardy," he asserted. He noted that Congress for years had been moving away from the use of silver in coins, thus making the minting of coins much cheaper and preserving "an important natural resource for useful purposes. It would be wrong to reverse this by falling for a scheme to place 40% silver in the Eisenhower dollar, he said."

It's okay with the sellout elements in Congress if the Silver Users Association keeps coming back to a national silver stockpile demanding metal, but if someone wants real money or semi-real money, they oppose that. They worry about placing commercial users of silver in great jeopardy---what about the peril to the military servicemen who could be deprived of the high-tech benefits of silver use in modern weapons systems, just so arrogant Tiffany & Company can craft some sterling jewelry, and slap some bloated mark-up on it?

The Eisenhower silver content dollars ran from 1971 through 1974 then restarted as clad only in 1976 through 1978. Everyone wanted a piece of the silver defense stockpile! Wall Street Journal, September 10, 1976, page 22, "Possible Silver Stockpile Sale Seen As Bullish for Market in Long Run" we note---

"When the U.S. government makes noises about selling silver from the federal stockpile, futures traders start unloading futures contracts in speculation that such a sale would depress prices. However, some analysts say a stockpile sale could have a bullish effect on the market in the long run. Currently being considered is the sale of 118 million ounces of government held silver from the national stockpile of 139.5 million ounces. (This doesn't include 40 million ounces held by the Treasury Department.) The government has stored silver for defense purposes, although in the past few years attempts have been made to release the supplies."

We started out with 165 million ounces in the defense stockpile, the Eisenhower coins took us down to 139.5 million ounces, then we read about "attempts have been made to release the supplies," to whom---none other than the Silver Users Association. It was called "government held" silver, but it was really taxpayer owned, was it not? WHY did our government set out to assist the users at public expense? WHY didn't our government simply tell the silver users, go fend for yourselves? LOBBYING! That was the answer! The 40 million ounces the Treasury retained was to serve as some type of emergency reserve, available for beating down the price. That's why Walter Frankland of the Silver Users Association went begging to Treasury Secretary G. William Miller (another Federal Reserve guy) in late 1979, asking him to dump it on the market so prices would move south. Reading on---

"Efforts to authorize a sale from the stockpile are gaining momentum. On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee voted to reinstate a silver sale proposal previously turned down by a House subcommittee. And today, a Senate subcommittee is expected to recommend favorably stockpile sale legislation to the Senate Armed Services Committee. All of which has prompted selling of silver futures. Prices in New York and Chicago markets have dropped about 20 cents an ounce in trading since Tuesday. The enhanced likelihood of the sale continued to cause selling of silver futures yesterday even when other factors seemed bullish, said Vincent Conway, head of the metals research department at Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. Traders "swatted aside the three influences" of higher gold prices, mostly higher grain and soybean prices and a drop in the value of the British pound, he said."

Rumblings from government sources, including other governments, that they were going to dump silver, have been used to hold down the price, plus the actual dumping. They make as much noise as possible about dumping. However, they make nearly no sound at all about deficits and vanishing inventories. WSJ, November 9, 1970, page 23 had the audacity to say---

"Nowadays, the Government has little need for the metal."

The same article admitted that "The Government has been a major factor in the market for more than 35 years." Try more like 97 years, as of that article. Favoritism shown to short sellers has occurred to a greater extent in silver, than in any other example that can possibly be cited. For instance, WSJ, October 31, 1979, page 38, had this to say during the Hunt silver run-up---

"Margin was raised in several steps to $50,000 for new positions. It is hoped the higher margins for established positions will have a "severe" effect on traders whose large holdings date back to late summer, a Comex official said."

We know about the miserable instances of overt federal price capping of silver that have taken place over the years. Some reeking economist need only pipe up and suggest it again, and those in government say, "that's a better idea than sliced bread!"

Is anyone in government talking about capping the price consumers pay for gasoline? Why should the silver price have a ceiling imposed on it when gasoline has none, and when a ceiling price on silver would again do what it has done before---divert metal away from the United States? I'll tell you exactly why! Because rising gasoline prices hurt the middle class, sending many of them into poverty, (helped along by Wal Mart). That's what the bankers want---to make us all poor. Placing a ceiling on silver prices would hurt only the relative few who are investors in silver and silver mining companies. They want to harm us by capping prices. Our real money is a deadly threat to their created money. Notice how Conway of Merrill Lynch spoke of traders "swatting away" influences that would have tended to send silver higher. The chosen focus was on the lone bearish factor---government dumping. That's the rule in the financial community on silver---focus only on something bearish, if it exists; if not, invent something. Reading on---

"Although Conway says a silver sale, if approved, temporarily could drive silver prices below $4 an ounce, he expects that "once the hoard is gone, the sale could have a very bullish" effect on the market. That would happen a few years hence, however, he says. One reason is that the government has much less silver in its stockpile than it held in years past. At one time, the government held more than two billion ounces, Conway says. If some of the smaller stockpile is sold "we're theoretically left open to an embargo" by foreign suppliers that could send prices skyrocketing, he states. That's because the U.S. produces only 25% of the silver it consumes and imports the rest."

Okay, so Conway was the occasional exception from the "always talk bearish" rule, but it is a strong general rule on Wall Street toward precious metals. That's because they're part of the paper money mob, and interlocked with the chiseling users. Before we get to the end of this stockpile discussion, in case anyone reading this doesn't know, the stockpile is all gone. The Silver Users Association gets the primary credit for that. We are left open to a silver embargo by net exporting nations, which could place us in military peril. Their reason for embargo might not be that they want the U.S. to start fading as a military power, but that they want to retain their own silver for return to real money, scrapping the paper trash that spews out of their own central banks. And they might want to embargo to strike back for the long standing COMEX paper silver fraud, and at the repulsive Silver Users Association. Continuing---

"Charles Stahl, publisher of Green's Commodity Market Comments, says that the silver stockpile always could have been considered a "Damocles sword hanging over the market when prices moved up." However, "when people notice that the last large government silver hoard is being disposed of, then many new long-term investors may be willing" to enter the market, he says. This demand could push prices up. Yesterday, gold and platinum futures prices rose on buying prompted by the drop in value of the British pound in foreign exchange. Mostly higher grain and soybean prices also were an influence."

Yes, whenever prices started to rise, threats were issued that dumping would take place. All to help the paper money mob and the silver users. WSJ, March 6, 1978, page 26, "Congress Asked To Clear Sales From Stockpile" subtitled, "Carter Administration Seeks Authority to Sell Silver, Tin, Other Commodities" we note---

"Washington---The Carter administration asked Congress for authority to sell 11 commodities, including silver and tin, from the nation's strategic stockpile. Congress must give its permission for any sales of materials from the stockpile, but it hasn't done so since 1974. In 1976 it killed a bill authorizing the disposal of silver, after mining state lawmakers complained such sales would depress prices. Now the administration wants to sell 62.5 million troy ounces of silver from the stockpile's total 139.5 million ounce hoard of that metal. Additionally, it wants to dispose of 25,000 long tons of tin from the total stockpile of 202,842 tons. A long ton is 2,240 pounds."

"Both metals have been declared surplus to the stockpile's potential defense needs under a new policy devised in 1976 by the Ford administration and reaffirmed by President Carter last year. Under this policy, some of the 93 commodities in the stockpile will be sold to meet reduced targets, while other materials will be bought to bring supplies up to higher goals. Stockpile officials already have authority to sell 12 kinds of commodities under old laws. A bill introduced Thursday at the administration's request by Senator Gary Hart (D., Colorado) lists the 11 materials the administration wants to sell."

"The administration wants to buy $245 million of other commodities through September 30, 1979. It must obtain specific appropriations from Congress for this purpose, and authorities plan to keep this buy list secret until the money has been voted later this year. Besides the silver and tin, other materials listed in Senator Hart's disposal bill include chrysotile asbestos, 4,000 short tons; antimony, 2,500 short tons; muscovite film mica, 45,000 pounds; crude aluminum oxide, 3,500 short tons; diamond dies, 10,000 pieces; industrial diamond stones, 4.5 million carats; castor oil, 1,250,000 pounds; bismuth, 500 pounds; iodine, 750 pounds."

Senator Hart was national campaign director of McGovern for President (1972), a well-known so-called liberal. Looks like a lot of commodity users were lining up to feast at the public expense. The sale of silver was defeated, no thanks to the turncoat from the mining state of Colorado. Wall Street Journal, May 25, 1978, page 38, "Increasing Copper In Defense Stockpile Is Backed in Senate," we read---

"Washington---A Senate Armed Services subcommittee is recommending the acquisition of 225,000 tons of copper for the government's strategic stockpile. The panel also is proposing that 15 million troy ounces of silver and 35,000 long tons of tin be sold from the stockpile. The subcommittee's proposals are part of a bill authorizing the first installment of the administration's plan for revamping the amounts of commodities in the $8.6 billion stockpile. The bill is pending before the full Senate Armed Services Committee."

"The Carter administration wants to sell 11 kinds of commodities from the stockpile and acquire other kinds that are, except for copper, unspecified. The Senate subcommittee bill would allow sales of the 11 commodities, but generally in smaller amounts than the administration wants. This is especially true of silver. The General Services Administration, which manages the stockpile, wanted to sell 62.5 million ounces from its total 139.5 million ounce hoard. Senator Strom Thurmond (R., S.C.) and several western mining states are opposing any sale of silver. But an amendment by Senator Thurmond deleting any silver sales authorization failed on a tie vote of five to five and the subcommittee settled on a compromise sales target of 15 million ounces."

This was the same Carter administration that arranged to sell out and give away our very strategic operation of the Panama Canal. Loss of that canal could potentially mean naval and commercial ocean freight shipping vessels would have to travel all the way around the southern tip of South America, or South Africa, adding many thousands of nautical miles and losing badly needed transit time. The General Services Administration was the agency that handled the so-called "auctions" of Treasury silver to the grasping silver users from August 1967 through November 1970, at which the price frequently sagged. For the revolting, but documented details, refer to "The Silver Raiders" (Archives). Apparently the Silver Users Association still had some friends in the GSA as of 1978! Continuing---

"This subcommittee decision, as well as others, probably will be challenged in later stages of Senate and House stockpile deliberations. Legislatively, the stockpile situation is getting complicated, thanks to the expanding congressional habit of deciding everything twice. Under existing law, sales of items from the stockpile only require an authorizing bill written by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. But Congress currently is working on a bill requiring purchases to get an okay from the Armed Services Committees as well as the Appropriations committees."

"That's why the copper acquisition approval is on the Senate subcommittee's bill. The 225,000-ton purchase target was supposed to be a secret, but the figure leaked out and the subcommittee confirmed it. The bill contains some other still secret purchase authorizations, but before any buying can start, all will need a separate appropriation. Besides authorizing the sale of silver and tin, the subcommittee's bill would allow the disposition of 2,000 tons of asbestos, 1,500 tons of antimony, 25,000 pounds of muscovite film mica, 20,000 tons of aluminum oxide, 5,000 pieces of diamond dies, four million carats of industrial diamonds, 750,000 pound of castor oil, 300,000 pounds of bismuth and 350,000 pounds of iodine."

First the chiselers tried to deplete the silver stockpile to the extent of 62.5 million ounces, then they suggested 15 million ounces. Anything to get silver cheaper than miners could provide it; even at the cost of placing the nation in military jeopardy! WSJ, March 9, 1979, page 20, "House Panel Approves Sale of Tin in Stockpile" we read---

"Washington---The House Armed Services Committee approved legislation authorizing the sale of 35,000 long tons of tin from the government's strategic stockpile. A long ton is 2,240 pounds. The stockpile contains 200,659 long tons of tin, well above the amount the Carter administration says is needed for defense purposes in case of war. Makers of tin-plated steel have been urging the sale as a way of increasing the metal's supply. The House committee also approved a bill requiring the General Services Administration to set up a revolving fund for stockpile transactions. Proceeds from the sale of excess stockpile materials would be earmarked for purchases of other commodities deemed to be in short supply. Both bills were approved by the House, but they died in the Senate."

It appears that there were other termites and looters at work besides the Silver Users Association, trying to tap the defense stockpile for their private gain. The London Times, April 11, 1978, page 24, claimed Congress wanted to release "45,000 tonnes of tin." As of September 12, 1979, the WSJ ran the story, "House Committee Rejects Sales of Silver From Government's Strategic Stockpile," page 35---

"Washington---The 139.5 million ounces of silver in the government's strategic stockpile remain locked up tightly by Congress. The House Armed Services Committee rejected, by a thunderous voice vote, a bill authorizing the sale of 15 million troy ounces of silver from that stockpile. The vote kept intact the congressional track record of hanging on to every ounce of silver in the strategic reserve. The Carter administration, as did the Ford administration before it, believes the U.S. doesn't need any silver as a reserve against the three-year war upon which the strategic stockpile of 93 different commodities is predicated. But the stockpile planners haven't made any headway in persuading Congress to sell the "surplus" metal."

It makes you want to curse, loudly and for a very long time, to see that we had two Presidential administrations in the mid to late 1970's who were on record with the American public as maintaining that we didn't need any silver reserve for defense purposes! After the experience of war demands in WWII, and with the leaps in technology that had taken place in the 24 years since then, to say we didn't need a silver reserve was nearly as brazen as saying we didn't need fuel. We still had 139.5 million ounces then, and they were asking to bleed off 15 million ounces of it. But their position that we didn't need any silver in reserve, proves that had they gotten the 15 million ounce sale, they would be back for the rest of the silver later. Dumping was necessary to help the paper money mob and the silver users. Reading on---

"A silver sale bill that came to the House floor in 1976 was voted down. Opposition in the past was led by mining state lawmakers from the West who were traditionally interested in protecting silver's market price. More recently, the most outspoken sales opponents are hawkish conservatives who argue the nation's defense would be weakened without a silver reserve, especially with sharply rising prices pointing to a world-wide shortage of the metal. At yesterday's Armed Services Committee meeting Rep. Larry McDonald (D., Georgia) argued the government should be buying silver rather than selling it. Contended Rep. Sam Stratton (D., N.Y.)---"For us to dispose of silver today in order to get some of those Susan Anthony dollars to pay for some social program is the height of insanity."

Notice the media bias above, where the WSJ accused the mining state legislators of being exclusively interested in supporting silver prices. You cannot defend a nation without silver. You could surely defend it better without a fiat currency spoiling the economy. In 1976 Larry McDonald wrote the introduction to "The Rockefeller File," in which it was claimed that the family may control over 2,000 trusts, exercising concealed control over hundreds of billions in corporate assets. This is one of the main family groups which constitute what I have referred to as the Society or the World Money Power (I will present documented specifics relatively soon). We just saw that the Ford administration wanted to dump all the stockpile silver, and do you recall who was Vice President? Nelson Rockefeller of the Society, the leading paper money mob family in America! Congressman McDonald, who got on the wrong side of the silver issue, as did President Kennedy in 1963, was on board flight 007 of Korean Air Lines when it was fired upon and shot down by a Soviet fighter pilot over Sakhalin Island north of Japan on September 1, 1983. Jeffrey St. John wrote a book about the matter called, "The Day Of The Cobra---The True Story of KAL Flight 007." Continuing---

"Under a law passed earlier this year, proceeds from the sale of stockpiled commodities are earmarked for the purchase of other materials deemed needed in the stockpile. Rep. Charles Bennett (D., Florida), backing the administration's position, said sale of the silver would allow the government to buy other needed materials for the strategic reserve. While rejecting the silver sale, the Armed Services Committee approved a separate bill to sell 5.5 million carats of industrial diamonds from the stockpile. The government owns more than 26.4 million carats of these diamonds, nearly twice as much as it says it needs. There haven't been any significant additions to the stockpile since 1959, and Congress hasn't authorized any dispositions of materials since 1973. The House earlier this year passed a bill authorizing the disposal of 35,000 long tons of tin from the stockpile, but the Senate hasn't acted yet. Also pending in the Senate is a silver sales bill, but it's sure to face the same kind of opposition that was evident yesterday in the House committee."

Selling the silver would provide funds with which to buy other commodities for the strategic reserve---what do you say to that? Like, selling your transmission would give you funds to re-upholster your car's interior and get a paint job? Congressman Bennett was either an idiot, or more likely, on the take from someone waiting to benefit from the proposed silver dumping. Bennett was a captain in the U.S. Army in the Philippines and New Guinea in WWII, and received a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. He also was decorated with the Phillippine Legion of Honor and Gold Cross. Seems like such a fellow would realize the necessity of America holding a defense silver reserve! He was a member of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and authored, "Southernmost Battlefields of the Revolution" (1970) and coauthored "Congress and Conscience" (1970). Leaving this country without a military silver reserve takes, to the contrary, a man without a conscience!

The WSJ, September 25, 1979, page 38, reported that the House approved the sale of diamonds from the stockpile, about $95 million worth of industrials used in the drilling and cutting of metal, 5.5 million carats total, leaving about 14.5 million carats. Remember these attempts to dump silver from the stockpile were at a time of uptrending silver prices, which users and fiat money creators will do anything to suppress. WSJ, December 13, 1979, page 3 ran a story titled, "House Refuses To Sell Any Silver In U.S. Stockpile" subtitled "Compromise That Called for Sale of 5 Million Ounces Loses by Lopsided Margin." We read---

"The House once again has refused to turn loose any of the 139.5 million ounces of silver in the national strategic stockpile. The vote was a lopsided 272 to 122 to delete permission to sell five million troy ounces of silver from a bill disposing of some noncontroversial quantities of tin and industrial diamonds. In October, the Senate voted without debate to dispose of 15 million ounces of silver, the amount suggested by the Carter administration. House-Senate conferees, doing most of their negotiating by telephone, agreed to cut back the silver sale to five million ounces, but even this was too much for the House in yesterday's floor vote."

"A clue to the outcome came in September, when the House Armed Services Committee rejected any silver sale by a loud voice vote. Rep. Robert Mollohan (D., W. Va.), one of the bill's sponsors, said he didn't regard that vote, in which there wasn't any roll call taken, "as a very conclusive or positive position." Thus he said most of the House conferees felt free to agree with their Senate counterparts in putting a dab of silver in the compromise bill."

"However, his side was beaten by conservative Rep. Larry McDonald (D., Ga.), who argued that the U.S. might need all of its silver in case of war, and from mining state Rep. Steven Symms (R., Idaho), who accused the administration of "wanting to auction off the family jewels." The House approved the rest of the compromise stockpile bill, which includes permission for the General Services Administration to dispose of 35,000 long tons of tin and three million carats of industrial diamonds. The silverless bill goes back to the Senate, which must decide whether to settle for the tin and diamond sales or try to work out a new silver compromise with the House."

"The bill is a modest attempt to carry out a new strategic stockpile policy devised during the Ford administration and later endorsed by President Carter. There are 93 different commodities in the stockpile, ranging from aluminum to zinc. Based on the assumed needs of a three-year war, stockpile managers figure they have too much of 40 kinds of materials and too little of 53 other kinds. In future years, the GSA will be buying some materials and selling others in hopes of meeting the Ford-Carter inventory goals."

"The pending bill thus authorizes the purchase of $237 million of a list of commodities that are in short supply, according to the current plan. The list of the different kinds of materials is being kept secret to discourage speculation. According to the new stockpile plan, the government says it won't need any inventory of silver at all to cope with a three-year war. It has been trying to sell silver for several years, but hasn't been able to get permission from Congress. The House in 1976 rejected a silver disposal bill. The Silver Users Association, a trade group representing photographic and jewelry consumers of the metal, has been lobbying for years for stockpile silver sales in hopes they would moderate silver's rising price. After yesterday's House vote, the group's executive vice president, Walter Frankland, said the best strategy this late in the congressional session would be to let the tin-diamond bill die and wait for the administration to submit new silver sales proposals next year."

Frankland was, and remains, a termite gnawing away at the world's silver supply, and it is evident that he wishes NO profits to accrue to those who mine it! The London Times, December 3, 1979, page 18 said---

"In an effort to control prices---reminiscent of gold sales---the Treasury has run down reserves, from 2 billion ounces 10 years ago to just 139 million ounces."

The Treasury had less than 2 billion ounces remaining in 1969, but the rest of the comments were accurate---agencies of our government, including the Treasury, have acted collusively with private industry and bankers to hold silver prices low. This is the cause of the shortage, even more than depletion of ore bodies. It is scandalous that the government has been more concerned with holding prices low, than with insuring existence of a defense stockpile.

WSJ, December 20, 1979, page 38, "Senate Sends President Bill Authorizing Sale of 35,000 Long Tons of Stockpile Tin," is worth looking at for several reasons, including the fact that it was when silver price charts were looking like a mountain range---

"The Senate passed and sent to the White House a bill authorizing the U.S. to dispose of 35,000 long tons of tin, or 17% from the national strategic stockpile, a measure that tin buyers have been awaiting for three years. After watching tin's price rise to as much as $8.38 a pound from $5.78 in mid 1978, buyers currently expect the price will drop sharply, perhaps as much as 25%. There's some question about the rate at which Washington would sell the tin, assuming the President signs the bill. But "even if they sell only 10,000 long tons a year, that's a lot of tin," says a trader with Minneapolis based C. Tennant, a metals trading unit of Cargill Inc., the large commodities trading concern."

Industrial commodity users have accessed commodities other than silver, at public expense, and at expense to those who produce the commodities. Is it really so important that the government cause commodity prices to collapse in order that industrial users can buy them more cheaply, than it is to hold certain commodities in a military defense reserve? Surely the military preparedness of the country outweighs the desire of private concerns to enhance their profits. And remember, it was the producers, not the users, who supplied the commodities in the first place. So the users lobby the government and the interests of the public and the miners both get trampled. Reading on---

"Much of the recent escalation in tin prices has been due to expectations that the measure would pass sooner than it did. Many tin users, such as steel companies that use it for plating tin cans, solder manufacturers and chemical concerns, ran their inventories down because they expected tin from the stockpile would be released and drive prices down. There wasn't much opposition in Congress to selling the tin, but over the years tin disposal has been tied to other, less popular stockpile measures, analysts say. Thus, as each month passed without stockpile tin going onto the market, consumer companies were forced to buy the metal for immediate delivery. This can be expensive, as nearly all U.S. tin has to be imported, primarily from Malaysia, Thailand, Bolivia and Indonesia."

So much the more reason why no one should have been allowed to access that tin, since we produce just a small amount here. The government should not be responsible for helping users get commodities more cheaply, that's their problem. Continuing---

"In the middle of the year everyone expected stockpile tin to be on sale during the fourth quarter," says one trader. "Consumers have worked their inventories down to the bone." The tin is expected to go on sale in about two months, according to the General Services Administration, which manages the stockpile. The exact effect the sale would have on prices depends on how rapidly and by what process the GSA disposes of the tin, traders say. That, in turn, depends on delicate political considerations. Washington is sensitive to the fact that Bolivia, which depends on tin for 75% of its foreign exchange revenue, is worried that its economic lifeline will be jeopardized when the GSA tin enters the market. Bolivia's deep shaft mines have higher production costs than the surface mines in Asia, where opposition to GSA sales is less vehement. Some traders and consuming industry officials see tin dropping to perhaps $6 a pound."

"Bolivian officials aren't convinced that the U.S. sales won't harm their economy. "That's what the U.S. said five years ago," says a Bolivian official in Washington, referring to a GSA sale of 39,906 long tons in 1974. "We had to cut our volume to maintain the equilibrium of the market. We feel very frustrated over this." A State Department official insists Washington is doing all it can to protect Bolivia's economy but that Bolivians "just don't believe us." Among other things, the U.S. has indicated that 5,000 long tons from the authorized disposal will be released to the International Tin Council's buffer stock, a supply of metal designed to moderate price swings."

Government manipulation has occurred in many markets other than silver. Producing nations who have been cheated for years of decent prices, upon realizing that no more commodity dumping can take place, may retaliate with embargoes. The article concluded---

"As originally passed by the Senate in October, the bill also provided for the sale of 15 million troy ounces of silver from the stockpile. House-Senate conferees cut back this target to five million ounces, but the House decisively rejected selling even that much."

Another article on the same page reported that the GSA would go ahead with a sealed-bid sale of 209,835 ounces of silver reclaimed by the Veterans Administration from medical programs along with 257 ounces of gold. The C & FC, November 5, 1964, page 1709, article by Harry Magnuson, vice president, Golconda Mining Corporation of Wallace, Idaho entitled, "Silver's New Stature and Inevitable Rise in Price," we find---

"This nation cannot afford to have its supplies of silver exhausted, because of the strategic use of silver in rocketry, space and defense industries. Spokesmen for the Idaho silver mining industry recommend that the government maintain at least a 500 million ounce strategic reserve of silver, because they are concerned about the defense aspect of the metal. Our experience in World Wars I and II certainly illustrate the need for having an available reserve of silver. The Department of the Interior shares in that concern. A special study made by the Bureau of Mines says that such defense uses for silver added to conventional strategic uses make any shortage of silver a potential threat to national security. The Department of the Interior is so disturbed by the implications of this shortage of silver that it has increased the percentage of Federal financial assistance from the current maximum of 50% to 75% of the total cost of new private silver exploration ventures. It also is making a study of potential new supplies of silver. It has ordered the Geological Survey to begin a reconnaissance program to study silver deposits in Nevada, and it has directed the Bureau of Mines to place particular emphasis on silver in mining and metallurgical research, and also in its nationwide resource evaluation investigations. Higher prices will be needed to encourage any increase in silver production."

This mining executive was probably accused of greed for suggesting a 500 million ounce silver defense reserve. The day could come when most people see greed on the part of silver users agitations over the years for government to keep dumping metal just so prices could be held low for them. WSJ, September 16, 1964, page 9 expanded on Magnuson's remarks about the Department of the Interior---

"Secretary of the Interior Udall announced several steps designed to expand supplies of silver and to forestall a possible shortage of the metal. Udall said the actions were taken after a special study by the Bureau of Mines made at his direction. It showed that new uses for silver in solid-fuel rockets, supersonic jets and special purpose batteries when added to conventional strategic uses make any shortage of silver a threat to national security. The Secretary said he has---Instructed the Office of Minerals and Solid Fuels to determine potential silver supplies available to meet mobilization needs and to develop information needed to establish an adequate mobilization base. "We intend to make every effort to insure a silver supply adequate to the nation's needs," Mr. Udall said. "Developments are being watched closely and the department is giving top priority to all aspects of the silver situation." The special study determined that domestic mines produced an average of only 34 million troy ounces yearly over the past five years while average domestic consumption was running at 106 million ounces yearly, more than three times mine production."

The C & FC, November 17, 1966, page 1757, mentioned that there was 65 million ounces of silver on loan to the Atomic Energy Commission, and that the silver was radioactive, apparently having been exposed to active isotopes. What became of that silver? I have not found the answer yet despite persistent searches. Likely it too is gone, along with the 40 million ounces Treasury still had as of December 1979. See also Wall Street Journal, November 20, 1967, page 28. That was when Glenn T. Seaborg was head of the AEC. The same Glenn Seaborg whose name appeared in the 1969 list of the Society---the only known year a list leaked. Not Skull & Bones, but the World Money Power! Seaborg was as high a level operator as could be found within his field. Co-discoverer of some 7 nuclear energy isotopes; co-discoverer or discoverer of 19 elements, including plutonium; head of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences for two years, 1972-1973, and a director of the globalist World Future Society and the Federal Radiation Council. We have no silver for national coinage. We have no silver, as of the year 2000, for defense purposes. All so the silver users could have cheap metal. But what will it cost to replace? Those who controlled prices for so many years, and held them unnaturally low, must be the sole parties to be penalized for the consequences of the coming unserviced deficit. Forty years ago, Senator Wallace Bennett, Utah Republican, addressed the American Mining Congress meeting at Portland, Oregon, and, according to the NYT, September 17, 1964, page 59---

"The American Mining Congress was told today that the silver dilemma which faces the United States Treasury stems from the fact that the demand for silver at the price ceiling established by the Treasury was greater than the supply being produced at that price."

Senator Bennett's comments in part were---

"The only way the demand can be met under these circumstances is to use up already existing stockpiles."

That is exactly what has happened. We have no federal silver stockpile. Government stocks of silver worldwide have been scurrilously accessed under cover of darkness, and "leased" to industrial users and bullion banks to hold prices low. Their plan obviously is to place the blame on silver savers ("hoarders") and silver investors ("speculators") when the shortage goes unanswered. Silver recovery and recycling initiatives on the part of the Pentagon are no substitute for increased mining output. WSJ, January 2, 1980, page 10---

"Washington---While investors are scrambling to buy gold and silver at breathtaking prices, the Pentagon is trying to stop throwing those precious metals away. The metals are contained in the billions of dollars of equipment and materials that the Defense Department uses or discards each year. For instance, exposed film and film developing solution contain silver. And there's gold in those hills of junked electronic gear. Until the past year, the military wasn't working hard enough to cull gold and silver from its throwaways, according to the House Appropriations Committee. "Many millions of dollars could be saved through recovery of precious metals," the committee reported recently."

"Two years ago, the Pentagon's own auditors found that the Defense Mapping Agency was flushing away so much silver-laden film developing solution that the silver was creating an environmental problem. "In addition to polluting the waters, the silver from the solution can build up in the drainage system and cause clogged drainpipes," the auditors warned. Stung by such criticism and inspired by silver prices that have quintupled in the past year and gold prices that have more than doubled, the Pentagon is looking harder for silver linings and nuggets of gold among the castoffs. "We're going after everything," says Lt. Colonel Larry Goar, commander of the department's precious metals recovery office in Colt's Neck, N.J. In the fiscal year ended last September 30, the Pentagon spent $3.1 million to recover precious metals with a market value of $36 million. It hopes to do better this year. The goals are to recover 19,400 ounces of gold, up from 10,368 last year, and 1.9 million ounces of silver, up from 1.7 million."

"The Pentagon has assigned 11 "precious metal area representatives" to monitor recovery operations at military installations nationwide. They are focusing first on silver recovery. About 2,200 military hospitals, photographic facilities and medical labs have been identified as prime silver sources, and metal recovery machines have been sent to the silver culling front. The military's penchant for photography produces a lot of the silver. About 13% of the silver recovered in the past fiscal year came from film developing solution and 29% from the ashes of used film."

"Mining silver from top-secret film isn't always easy. The Pentagon is about to award a contract to burn 1.8 million pounds of classified film from intelligence satellites and spy planes. The film will be shipped under armed guard, placed in a specially sealed film furnace and incinerated for two days. Then the silver will be extracted from the ash and refined. Used batteries, particularly from submarines and torpedoes are the largest source of recovered silver, more than 50% of the total. The Pentagon is also trying to recover 350,000 ounces of silver from various wing and engine parts of 84 outmoded B58 bombers. The silver was used primarily for soldering certain wing sections. The Defense Logistics Agency, which supervises the disposal of military equipment, is currently experimenting with ways to increase recovery from electronic scrap. The department also is taking steps to reduce the chance that items containing precious metals will be sold at low scrap prices. So far, it has identified 84,000 parts and coded their precious metals content."

"The Pentagon doesn't sell its recovered precious metals on the open market. It distributes the metals to defense contractors for use in film, electronic gear and other goods the military buys. The Pentagon distributes metals at the cost of recovery---82 cents an ounce for silver and $20.21 an ounce for gold."

WSJ, August 5, 1969, page 13 reported---

"The GSA said all Federal agencies will seek to recover the metals from materials such as silver bearing scrap, used photographic development fluid, used film, used X-ray film, dental scrap and aircraft spark plugs. Silver is the most abundant metal in these materials. Previously only a few Federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Veterans Administration had specific programs to recover metals."

WSJ, August 19, 1976, page 1 reported---

"Medical miners---Veterans Administration employees at 179 hospitals and other medical facilities recovered 457,000 ounces of silver from X-ray developing solution and scarp film in the year ended June 30. That total would have ranked the agency 18th among 80 U.S. silver mines last year, the Silver Institute reported."

Those 457,000 ounces represented less than one-third of one percent of the defense silver stockpile. Recycling is positive, but cannot take the place of the stockpile. The only means to replenish the stockpile is with higher prices, and let the Silver Users Association be the ones to pay for it, along with the big commercial COMEX silver shorts. Let's take a glimpse at what happened to the stockpile after 1979. The September 18, 1981 London Times, page 19, "Silver Falls on News of U.S. Sale" said the U.S. started selling 46.5 million ounces from the silver stockpile, one-third of the total and reported---

"Silver prices fell sharply after the sale was announced."

Just looking at indexes to the Wall Street Journal we note on page 1367 the reference to their article dated June 15, 1981, page 32---

"Budget pressures are pushing Congress toward authorizing a large sale of silver from the government's national security stockpile; may sell 52 million ounces of silver starting October 1."

The index shows that the following day---June 16--- the WSJ ran an article that appeared on page 45 and said---

"The House Armed Services Committee voted to let the government sell 105.2 million ounces (more than $1 billion) of its stockpiled silver during the next three fiscal years."

That was an amazing and shocking turnaround, because the WSJ index eleven days earlier (June 5, 1981, page 37), said---

"House Armed Services Subcommittee unanimously disapproved the Reagan administration's request to sell silver from the government's stockpile of strategic materials."

How do you take the House of Representatives from denial of stockpile sales to affirmation in 11 days? No doubt money was spread about; dare we use the term "bribery?" For their August 18, 1981 edition, page 42, WSJ index reads---

"U.S. plans to sell silver from its stockpile; depresses metal's price 11%; gold drops."

The index for their September 29, 1981 edition, page 46 reads---

"Government will hold first in series pf weekly silver auctions."

Yes, those alleged auctions were give-aways to the lobbying Silver Users Association, and the WSJ reported on October 6, 1981, page 46, that in response silver prices sagged 45 cents on the COMEX! The October 14, 1981 WSJ, page 46, index says---

"In a last minute attempt to block the Reagan administration's plans to sell 46.5 million ounces of stockpiled silver over the next 12 months, Idaho officials have written a letter of protest to the head of the GSA in Washington."

The WSJ index for October 22, 1981, page 46 and October 29, 1981, page 46, said that "private bidders" at those auctions took 224,000 and 488,000 ounces, respectively. Then for its December 17, 1981 issue, page 37, the index said---

"GSA will halt sales from silver stockpile pending Reagan study."

The WSJ index for 1982, June 30, page 36 reads---

"Silver prices soared after Interior Secretary James Watt announced that sales of the government's silver stockpile will be indefinitely postponed."

However, the users had already made successful runs at the defense stockpile, but to make their larceny seem less of a scandal, some silver was permitted to go the U.S. Mint for Silver Eagles (WSJ, November 25, 1986, page 46 reported that the initial offering of 1.4 million one ounce Eagles sold out very fast). On November 27, 2000, the United States Defense National Stockpile Center sent its last silver---some 15 million ounces---to the U.S. Mint, primarily for manufacture of Silver Eagle coins. The U.S. might have to curtail its overseas military adventures with the British for several years because mining can't supply a lot of new silver just because prices suddenly move higher and stay there. As the WSJ, May 29, 1967, page 14, story titled, "Silver Producers Cool to Idea of Boosting Production Because of Current Price Rise," we read---

"Soaring silver prices may prompt a few weekend prospectors to sally forth with pick and shovel, but professional mining companies aren't likely to expand feverishly as yet. This is because most North American producers long ago anticipated a supply pinch and are already operating at peak output, on the basis of current prices. Silver's complex mineralogy, plus some problems posed by the current supply crisis, tend to rule against any early boost in mine output."

"Typical of those concerns who claim an immediate production jump isn't possible is Hecla Mining Company, Wallace, Idaho, one of the nation's largest silver producers. Says an official---"Our producing properties are already operating at an optimum rate, and silver just doesn't come out of the ground that fast. Besides, many of the old-time silver districts are just plain bottomed-out and can't be rejuvenated quickly."

"One factor weighing against any sudden rise in production is that more than half of all known silver reserves throughout the world are in deposits mined chiefly for copper, zinc, lead or other base metals. Thus, significant amounts of silver are produced by Kennecott Copper Corp., and other giant copper companies, most of which say silver is only an "incidental" consideration to them and that they can't change exploration plans merely to bring a few million additional ounces of silver to the surface."

When the crisis hits, let the Silver Users Association be called on to supply silver to the government for military purposes. SUA, may we please hear your response? It was a textbook case of hypocrisy to read the WSJ article dated May 19, 1967, page 2 entitled, "Treasury Takes Steps to Protect Silver Stockpile," and discover that they weren't interested in preserving silver for defense reasons, but that they were limiting their sales to "Legitimate Domestic Users," that meaning the SUA! And to you irresponsible officials in government and Congress who haven't acted to restore the silver defense stockpile, we quote Lee Marvin as Major Reisman speaking to the American Generals meeting in London in the 1967 film "The Dirty Dozen"---

"Since I'll have to assume that we're over here to try to win the war, I don't think it would pay to advertise the fact that one of the men we're working for has to be a raving lunatic!"

WAR & SOME SIGNIFICANT ORGANIZATIONS

There are some well-known organizations interested in the subject of warfare, armaments and proliferation. They are all banker fronts for financiers and armaments manufacturers hoping to profit from wars in two ways. First, the obvious way---sell arms or services to profit and second, use wars as an excuse to prod people to accept a world government. That was exactly why the League of Nations, guided by the Carnegie interests, sprang up after WWI, and why the United Nations, guided by the Rockefellers, came about at the close of WWII. It is the reason why various regional attempts at national sovereignty submergence, such as NATO, SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) and others have come about. It is a reason, along with forming a trade bloc, for the European Union. Let's briefly look at some of these banker sponsored think-tanks. Every one of these is fully aware of the role played by silver. The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at California's Stanford University always has as trustees, people who are members of The Society, or relatives of members, or offspring of members. Included in the current list is Peter Bedford (Standard Oil heirs); Shelby Cullom Davis (son of an Ambassador to Switzerland); William H. Draper III, whose father was a U.S. member of the NATO council from 1952-1953, and was with Dillon, Read & Company, the investment firm of the former Treasury Secretary who helped take us off silver coins in 1965; Herbert Hoover III, descended from the President; Jeremiah Milbank III (family of Wall Street financiers) whose grandfather was a director of Chase National Bank, and another Milbank was a director of the War Industries Board in 1918; Richard Mellon Scaife, of the great Mellon and lesser though significant Scaife dynasties; and Dean Witter III, Wall Street financier. For the full list of trustees see their extensive website
www-hoover.stanford.edu/

Then there's the Council on Foreign Relations at www.cfr.org, with over 4,000 members, which has Generals, Admirals and Colonels in its membership. NYT, January 30, 1965, page 31, mentioned (retired) Rear Admiral Donald J. Ramsey was legislative counsel to the Silver Users Association. It's hypocritical for a high-ranking military figure to be a leader of the interests who took our silver stockpile away. Also to be found are directors of Silver Users Association firms such as Kodak, Du Pont and Dow Chemical, plus the usual assortment of Federal Reserve personalities. This is not a patriotic, American sovereignty organization. On its board of directors always sit members of The Society. Sorry to make you keep waiting for exact details. That will come soon. The Council on Foreign Relations is heavily interlocked with Hoover Institution and the others I will mention.

There's the Center for Strategic & International Studies in the District of Columbia, headed by former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn (1972-1996), now also chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Nunn is a director of Chevron-Texaco, a multinational certainly interested in Iraq/Iran and Caspian Sea oil, and of General Electric, a large war contractor and big silver using concern. Henry Kissinger is a trustee of the CSIS (www.csis.org) and a prominent member of The Society representing Rockefeller interests. Kissinger is also a member of the Defense Policy Board. The CSIS executive Committee is chaired by Anne Armstrong, former Ambassador to Great Britain, and a member of The Society, as are all Ambassadors to England.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London (www.iiss.org) is perhaps the foremost international think-tank on war and maintains detailed, up to the minute information on military capabilities of all nations. Members of the London branch of The Society are always on its governing council, including Sir Robert Wade-Gery, who was vice-chairman of the huge Barclay's Bank International from 1994-1999 (holder of largest interest in longtime silver short American International Group); Sir John Weston, United Kingdom Ambassador to NATO from 1992-1995 and to the United Nations, sitting on the Security Council, from 1995-1998 and a governor of the Ditchley Foundation, one of the important foundations managed by The Society; and General Lord Guthrie of Craigebank, Order of the British Empire, also on the steering committee of the Center for Strategic & International Studies, and director of N.M. Rothschild's. Let's not forget the fact that the Rothschilds became immeasurably wealthy by financing governments to fight each other, all over Europe for centuries, and backed the North through August Belmont and the South through the Erlanger family in our own Civil War.

Next there's the Rand Corporation (www.rand.org) in D.C., which as a subsidiary has the National Defense Research Institute, "a Federally funded research and development center, conducts Rand's research for the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands and the U.S. Navy." Michael Rich links the International Institute of Strategic Studies with the Rand Corporation. On May 14, 1948 Project Rand separated from Douglas Aircraft and became the Rand Corporation. Douglas Aircraft, run by Society member Donald Douglas, produced some 45,000 aircraft in WWII and was a big silver user. Sponsors of Rand include Rockefeller Foundation; Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Soros Foundation; Starr Foundation (American International Group); Carnegie Corporation of New York; Howard Heinz Endowment; and the Nuffield Trust, managed by the Society's London branch. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neill (Mellon interests) and former Defense Secretary Harold Brown (Warburg interests) are trustees. Brown is also a member of the Defense Policy Board. Various silver users are there, including Ford, GM and Honda plus seven big pharmaceuticals whose intent seems to be to cause cures for major diseases to be withheld, until they can be positioned to take every last cent owned by Americans.

Also there's the Mitre Corporation, interested in "defense and intelligence," headed by James Schlesinger, first American to advocate weapons sales to Communist China, and Admiral David Jeremiah, who has questionable ties with China (see "Silver Devils," Archives, for details). Schlesinger and Jeremiah are both members of the Defense Policy Board. Also Mitre trustees are General Montgomery Meigs, with NATO from 1998-2002; Admiral James Busey IV, director of Texas Instruments which was involved in deliberations and manufacture of the infamous clad coinage we went on in 1965; Charles S. Robb, son in law of President Johnson, who helped take our nation off Constitutional silver money; and Richard Kerr, ex-of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Another entity that we could consider is the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory board (www.whitehouse.gov/pfiab), which has been chaired by various members of The Society, which I've been able to identify, including General Maxwell D. Taylor (1968-1970) and Ambassador Anne L. Armstrong (1982-1990). And let's not overlook the Defense Policy Board, some of whose members we've already identified as involved with other related entities. The Defense Policy Board reports directly to Secretary of Defense (currently Donald Rumsfeld, silver short from the Nixon era Cost of Living Council who hurt Idaho miners quite badly). For a list of their links to defense contractors see http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=515&L1
If the link doesn't work, go to www.publicintegrity.org and use the search function. If you've heard the name Richard Perle, it was in connection with his resignation as chairman of that board. He was a notorious hawk for invading Iraq and had connections from which he was positioned to profit. In fact the financial elite have always profited by wars, and it's in their interests to instigate wars, fabricating bogus excuses whenever necessary. "History of the Great American Fortunes" (1909) by Gustavus Myers details notorious instances of such interests selling rotten food and shoddy equipment, especially to the North, in the Civil War. Other related entities exist which are interested in the warfare theme, including globalsecurity.org
and the extremely evil Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ceip.org
with trustees such as World Money Power member Richard Debs of Morgan Stanley, who was with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1960 through 1976.

Defense contractors such as General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, TRW (aerospace), Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Alliant Techsystems (cluster bombs), General Motors, Ford Motor and many others, will all need silver in major quantities for the wars of the future which are planned from behind the scenes by The Society and its interlocking affiliates and subsidiaries such as Bilderberg, Skull & Bones, Trilateral and Council on Foreign Relations. I strongly suggest to the American public that they lobby Congress to prohibit any member of such organizations from holding Ambassadorial or any other Federal Government positions. The fact that the President, the Secretary of State and the Ambassador to Britain are automatically made members of the controlling organization must become known to the American public, for the facts of the situation appear in no known textbook on government or political science. This is to be the focus of a research I will soon release---all documented. These organizations wish to immerse the world in wars from which they plan to benefit by being personally enriched, and by acquiring more power in the aftermath of conflicts. They undoubtedly view COMEX warehouse silver held by investors as the next military silver reserve, whether the owners are willing or not!

Government by secret organizations is not the American way. We must have a strategic silver stockpile once again, and can do so without victimizing those who had no role in its demise. Those who manipulated it away must pay for it. That is primarily the Silver Users Association. Ironically, the NYT, August 16, 1942, page 29 commented that Handy & Harman, who became members of SUA in 1947, was presented with an "Army-Navy Production Pennant for high achievement" in producing silver and silver alloys for the war. Actually, they produced no silver---the miners did that. Handy & Harman merely fabricated silver. But the NYT forgot to thank the miners. Like the Wall Street Journal index for October 10, 1983, page 31 said---

"Jobless miners in Idaho's Silver Valley face a hard winter as metals prices stay depressed."

We must have no more of mining companies and their employees being cheated out of making a decent living, especially since the world cannot function without their product! And a new stockpile must be used for true defense purposes. It must not be used to support another World War to further the ambitions of the British Empire and its American collaborators! With silver once again in reserve, and our government out of the hands of these secret and semi-secret organizations, we can say with Sylvester Stallone as John J. Rambo in "First Blood" (1982)---

"I'll give you a war you won't believe!"