Posted on 02/25/2009 12:50:14 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Group of Rich Americans Sues UBS to Keep Names Secret in Tax Case
By LYNNLEY BROWNING
UBS was sued on Tuesday in a Swiss federal court by wealthy American clients seeking to prevent the disclosure of their identities as part of a tax-evasion investigation by the United States Justice Department.
The lawsuit accuses UBS and Switzerland’s financial regulator, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority, or Finma, of violating Swiss bank secrecy laws and of conducting what Swiss law considers illegal activities with foreign authorities. It also named Peter Kurer, the chairman of UBS, and Eugen Haltiner, the chairman of Finma, as defendants.
The suit, filed by a lawyer in Zurich, Andreas Rued, on behalf of nearly a dozen American clients, underscores the growing clash between Swiss banking secrecy laws and those of the United States. Tax evasion is not considered a crime in Switzerland. Disclosing client names under Swiss law is a criminal offense and can expose bank executives and officers to fines, prison terms and other penalties.
UBS is the world’s largest private bank and Switzerland is the world’s largest offshore tax haven, with trillions of dollars in assets.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ping!
Oh yeah. Interesting only if they reveal the names! lol
Good boys. Stop the statists. Privacy rights for all!
Typical NY SLIMES... More CLASS ENVY. Same old same old.
> Good boys. Stop the statists. Privacy rights for all!
I guess you’re happy to pay their share of the taxes that they have evaded in the US.
That’s none too bright.
I’m betting no names will be revealed.
The story is about UBS Chaairman Marcel Ospel.
Buddy, you and I pay their taxes anyway. Remember Kerry’s fortune paid only 11%? If you are employed you pay the worst rates of anyone across all taxes.
It is the loss of privacy rights and the sovereignty of the individual that is the real risk. I don’t hate the rich and I love liberty.
If you do too, then you should cheer these “tax cheats” on! Innocent until proven guilty and all those pesky rights, no?
> Buddy, you and I pay their taxes anyway. Remember Kerry’s fortune paid only 11%? If you are employed you pay the worst rates of anyone across all taxes.
And the likes of Kerry take every tax dodge — legal and illegal — to minimize their tax and to maximize how much you will have to pay instead. Their techniques will include tax evasion (a serious crime) using offshore tax havens.
That’s just plain wrong.
> It is the loss of privacy rights and the sovereignty of the individual that is the real risk.
So, pass a “Privacy Act” like what we have in New Zealand. It is fantastic!
> I don’t hate the rich and I love liberty.
I hate tax cheats, and I love liberty: the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
> If you do too, then you should cheer these “tax cheats” on!
Not in a million years. Nobody likes to pay tax — I don’t — but I will pay my fair share and I expect everyone else to do the same. When they don’t, they are effectively robbing me and everybody else who coughs up their fair share.
I would certainly cheer these tax cheats being hanged in the public square: that would definitely be worth the price of admission.
> Innocent until proven guilty and all those pesky rights, no?
Nope — not in Tax Court. Guilty until proven Innocent: and that is precisely how it needs to be, given that Income Tax is based on the “honor system”.
I guess your happy jumping to conclusions that these people haven't paid thier share of taxes [simply because the government accuses them of not having done so] and the fact that the UBS was forced to divulge the information despite Swiss (and US) laws forbiding such practices without a court order!
That’s none too bright.
I, for one, am not happy that the US government is being allowed to go on a fishing expedition with little or no facts to back up thier case!
That may be because MY records are also subject now to review by "investigators" based simply upon the fact that I live and work in Switzerland and, obviuously, have a bank account here.
The US has one and it was violated in this case.
The Swiss have one as well and it too was violated in this case.
Thus, the lawsuit against the UBS for having released the records in violation of US & Swiss Laws.
But, I guess since the government simply suspects that these people (and roughly 60,000 other UBS customers) have avoided taxes - we can just ignore the laws (and Constitution) - after all, we can TRUST the government, can't we?
Oh well. The history of America started with “tax cheats”. More power to them and smugglers too. You’ve been brainwashed, possibly by government schools. At least you cannot vote in our elections.
(Any of this FOIA material? Can we sue those who are suing the Swiss to 'disclose' and those who are sueing for them NOT to disclose. . .oh well; as you say, 'not going to happen'; and if it did; only the Repub names and enemies of Obama would be revealed)
Of course, the shot is fired; and many are probably acting now; to get their money out before any chance of disclosure. Obama probably listening in on all 'Swiss phone calls just to keep a hand on this; just in case. . .
Oh really?? I'm sure the citizens of Switzerland would love to hear about this - then everyone here can stop paying thier taxes!
More deciet and lies from the Slimes.
"Group of rich americans" - since the names have not yet been released, the Slimes is purposly reporting an assumption on thier part as to the financial status of these people.
"...seeking to prevent the disclosure of their identities as part of a tax-evasion investigation by the United States Justice Department."
That is not the intent of the lawsuit as the information has already been released to the Justice Department. UBS & FINMA are being sued for having violated Swiss and international laws when they handed over bank records regarding these people.
"Disclosing client names under Swiss law is a criminal offense and can expose bank executives and officers to fines, prison terms and other penalties."
True, but irrelevant. The names of the clients were not divulged here. Instead, the DoJ forced the UBS to release bank records of 250 customers, based simply on the assumption that they had avoided taxes (no court order!!)
> I guess your happy jumping to conclusions that these people haven’t paid thier share of taxes [simply because the government accuses them of not having done so]
I am happy to jump to that conclusion. Delighted, in fact. Nobody uses an overseas tax haven unless it is to evade tax: there is no other legitimate reason to do so.
> and the fact that the UBS was forced to divulge the information despite Swiss (and US) laws forbiding such practices without a court order!
Yup. I do not lose so much as one wink of sleep over that.
US tax (and Canadian tax and British tax and Australian tax and New Zealand tax) on income has always been based on the honor system: you self-assess, and you pay.
The gummint has always reserved the right to audit your financial situation, and to re-assess your tax. When they do, they are presumed to be right: if you disagree with their assessment, it is your burden to prove them wrong.
Proving them wrong is easy if you have paid your fair share and can demonstrate that. It is bloody difficult or impossible if you haven’t!
If these people on the UBS list have properly paid their US taxes, they have nothing to fear from the audits that will doubtless occur as a result of this list of names being divulged.
If they haven’t paid their US taxes properly, well I guess they might just be going off to gaol for tax evasion, and having some or all of their assets seized.
Too bad, so sad: that’s what happens when people cheat on their taxes!
> I, for one, am not happy that the US government is being allowed to go on a fishing expedition with little or no facts to back up thier case!
Now they have some facts, let’s see how many tax cheats they find. If there are none, then it was a worthless fishing expedition for which someone should be held accountable.
But you and I both know that this would be an unlikely outcome.
> That may be because MY records are also subject now to review by “investigators” based simply upon the fact that I live and work in Switzerland and, obviuously, have a bank account here.
You also know that Swiss banks don’t work quite like that from a tax-haven viewpoint.
If you are a US tax resident you would surely be aware of your US tax obligations — if they are anything like Canada’s or New Zealand’s, you are taxed on your world income, and can only escape paying tax in the US if you have paid tax in a tax-treaty country on that income, and can prove it with a tax receipt.
If you are not a US tax resident, you have nothing to worry about.
US tax residents hiding behind Swiss banking laws to avoid having their financial affairs reviewed by the IRS have as much credibility as Obama has in not divulging his Birth Certificate based on the “status” of the people asking for it to be divulged.
About none.
> Oh well. The history of America started with “tax cheats”.
Oh, stop it! I’m about to start crying on behalf of all these poor tax cheats who are about to get caught and do the perp walk off to gaol!
The Boston Tea Party was all about “taxation without representation”. These tax cheats have representation, so that isn’t a fair comparison at all. In fact it’s perverse.
Nope, they aren’t like the Boston patriots: they are more like Leona Helmsley, who believed that “only the little people pay taxes.”
> More power to them and smugglers too.
Sure, and if you’re happy to pay their tax for them, more power to your fine self too.
> You’ve been brainwashed, possibly by government schools.
And no doubt you were homeschooled. Figures!
> At least you cannot vote in our elections.
Thank goodness for that! Nobody can blame Obama on me: that disaster falls squarely onto your lap.
Instead, I get to take credit for voting in a Conservative gummint into New Zealand. Yay!
The "names" have already been "revealed". The DoJ specifically demanded, by NAME, the records of 250 UBS Customers and forced the UBS to release the same in violation of US and Swiss Law.
Whether the DoJ releases the names is another matter.
The lawsuit is NOT to prevent the disclosure of names. UBS is being sued because they released records in violation of Swiss Laws.
Yeah, very interesting, considering the DEMS/Liberals (Hollyweird Crowd) do this all the time.
> But, I guess since the government simply suspects that these people (and roughly 60,000 other UBS customers) have avoided taxes - we can just ignore the laws (and Constitution) - after all, we can TRUST the government, can’t we?
You’re seriously suggesting that the IRS is going to invent taxes for these people to pay, thet they would not otherwise be liable for, on no basis at all other than having their Swiss banking details?
If so, that’s just not credible.
Income tax does not work like that. Every taxpayer is treated equally: nobody gets a tax break that isn’t available to similar taxpayers on a similar basis. And nobody has to pay a tax that other similar taxpayers don’t have to pay.
If these UBS customers owed US tax and if they paid US tax or could produce a certificate to show tax was paid elsewhere, no further tax is owing and no further tax will be assessed.
If, on the other hand, they owed US tax and evaded it by banking in Switzerland, that is a serious crime and the IRS is right to prosecute it.
Correct.
One of my buddies is really upset about all this and I can’t blame him. There are loads of regular people who retain assets beyond out of the hands of the ever-greedy fed.
The problem is too much government. They've brainwashed you into thinking the tax system is good or fair, but it is rigged and loaded with special benefits and favors. It is unfair and unrepresentative. Do you normally not trust your representatives in other areas of your life? Yet, few trust our “representatives” to represent us do we? A gimmick, my man, to make you accept their way and reality. Open your eyes.
Now comes you, imagining some “honor” system. That might be true of New Zealanders or just your M.O., I'll accept that given your life outlook, but in America people pay taxes out of fear, not honor.
You are always paying someone else’s taxes, too. Through welfare transfers, corporate welfare, tariffs, etc. So that is not an argument.
Like you I was government schooled and brainwashed. Now I know better.
Your last argument is class envy. You mention Helmsley and her insulting comment. Which comment was stated by her ex-housemaid who had plenty of reasons for lying. The trial itself was political and Helmsley’s demeanor ruined her chances with the jury. Sensationalism ruled the day and we honestly don't know if Helmsley said it. She herself denied it. We have no reason to believe one party over the other, except that her comment fits the Marxist view of class struggle and soothes our self-serving need to not be less than other people, particularly the rich.
As for me, I won't defend a government that thinks it can own people by pretending some honor in submission.
Whats wrong is a Govt that takes 30-40% of peoples income.
Whats wrong is the way the Govt spends that $$ and ignores the law and morality.
Whats wrong is how the Govt (ie Congress) uses our money to take our freedom while lining their own pockets.
NO. I a stating quite plainly that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is violating US and Swiss laws in making a blanket demand for records with insufficient facts to make such demand. If they HAD the facts, they could easily obtain a court order. They have not done so. Instead they choose to blackmail the UBS to force them to release the records in violation of the law.
Maybe you should research exactly what is happening intheis case before you spout off abbout tax cheats, etc...
The Justice Department has agreed NOT to press charges against certain officials of the bank for aiding and abetting tax fraud IF they release the records of American Customers of the bank - regardless of whether these customers are even suspected of having comitted a crime.
The Bank initially did so regarding the records of 250 specific customers. Several of them have sues the Bank for violating Swiss Law.
Justice is NOW demanding the release of over 60,000 records. This has been stopped by the Swiss Government (for now) as Justice can NOT produced evidence that these customers have violated any laws!
Due Process. Funny that the Swiss are the ones having to invoke this.
> As for me, I won’t defend a government that thinks it can own people by pretending some honor in submission.
Without taxes, how would the United States fund its military? Through borrowing? How long would that last, I wonder?
Accepting that there must therefore be some level of tax, much as we all hate paying it, it is necessary that we each pay a “fair share”.
We can argue about whether “fair” means straight-line or “progressive”, and we can argue whether it is collected on consumption, or on income, or on both.
But once the mish-mash of taxation methodologies is agreed then everybody must pay their fair share, whether they like it or not. I don’t know anybody who likes to pay tax — I sure don’t. But most people will accept the necessity to do so.
So when people go out of their way to cheat, and to not pay their fair share, they are worthy of all the opprobrium we can muster.
At that point, it makes no difference whether the gummint invests our taxes wisely, or whether we have too much gummint, or if some people are able to take advantage of legal tax breaks that others can’t for good legal reasons — all of that set aside, when somebody cheats on their tax they are cheating everybody. Not just the disembodied “gummint”: they are cheating you personally and me personally.
You are trusted to self-declare your Income and your deductions. To that extent your Income tax is an “honor” system. If you falsify that declaration that is plain wrong. And dishonorable. And a criminal act.
Any Conservative that cannot see the difference between Right and Wrong when it comes to cheating on their tax has their Moral Compass badly out of alignment.
Fixed that.
You are letting yourself get distracted. As two conservatives we both agree that lower taxes are better and less government too.
Do you believe in national sovereignty? The sanctity of contracts? Private property?
These people are using the Swiss system as designed by and in the sovereign country called Switzerland. Now comes the US government, not known for fairness, honesty or honor, and demands records that will break Swiss law, undo private contracts and destroy private property. They are wrong to fight that?
Who told you they were tax cheats? You don’t believe everything your government tells you, do you?
As to morality, should moral men follow immoral laws? If I get my representative to pass a law giving me special tax treatment or monopoly profits is that moral? Let’s say laws were passed allowing us to take property from others, like German Jews or Japanese Americans, would following the law trump your moral outlook?
It is obvious you’re a sheepdog and that is great. We need more like you. But, resorting to legalism against your fellow men is not moral.
Bravo to this and post 12 as well.
Your answers here make you look like a fool. You should quit now.
I feel sorry for you and others like you who pretend to conservative values and get them all twisted up with statism.
> NO. I a stating quite plainly that the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is violating US and Swiss laws in making a blanket demand for records with insufficient facts to make such demand.
So what?
> If they HAD the facts, they could easily obtain a court order.
Now they have the facts, perhaps these court orders will be forthcoming. Followed by indictments and guilty verdicts.
> They have not done so. Instead they choose to blackmail the UBS to force them to release the records in violation of the law.
GO ON...! UBS is being “blackmailed” by the Justice Department?? What with — compromising photographs?
> Maybe you should research exactly what is happening intheis case before you spout off abbout tax cheats, etc...
Maybe you should. I am quite clear on tax law, tax havens, and on this case.
> The Justice Department has agreed NOT to press charges against certain officials of the bank for aiding and abetting tax fraud IF they release the records of American Customers of the bank - regardless of whether these customers are even suspected of having comitted a crime.
That’s not blackmail: spin that around and read it like this:
“Either you release these records that you are withholding or we will press charges for aiding and abetting tax fraud against you and your bank officials”. Which is probably word-or-word what was said.
That’s not blackmail, and that’s not even a threat. It is a matter-of-fact laying out of the practical consequences of not producing the information that Justice has asked for.
As to whether the Ameican customers were suspected of committing a crime — come on. The Justice Department wasn’t in Switzerland for a skiing holiday: obiously they suspected something amiss.
> The Bank initially did so regarding the records of 250 specific customers. Several of them have sues the Bank for violating Swiss Law.
Why not sue the Justice Department instead?
> Justice is NOW demanding the release of over 60,000 records. This has been stopped by the Swiss Government (for now) as Justice can NOT produced evidence that these customers have violated any laws!
Of course not. Fraud, when coupled with strong Secrecy Laws, makes it difficult or impossible for the victims to “prove” anything. As was aptly demonstrated by the Winebox Tax Fraud.
> Due Process. Funny that the Swiss are the ones having to invoke this.
Perverse, you mean. The Swiss are acting out of pure, unadorned self interest: all of their banking dollars are ill-gotten gains, and have been for centuries. They stand to lose one of the greatest scams in the history of the world if their banking “secrecy” is finally breached.
Swiss banking secrecy is the finance industry’s equivalent of “Omerta”. And it has much the same purpose: to cover up criminal malfeasance.
Thanks.
Thanks for your voice of wisdom. Too many buy the government’s line - hook and sinker.
> Your answers here make you look like a fool. You should quit now.
Try to do better than that. I’m not a “fool” for disagreeing with you, and I don’t intend to quit just because you say I should.
> I feel sorry for you and others like you who pretend to conservative values and get them all twisted up with statism.
I feel sorry for you who pretends to espouse Conservative values but cannot discern right from wrong because your moral compass is completely out-of-whack.
You go ahead and make excuses for tax cheats. But don’t come crying to me about government waste and high taxes if you do: you’ll lack what little credibility and moral authority you currently have.
Alright.
Clarify for me the difference between legal, lawful and moral.
What you have written is legal = lawful = moral, no?
Good to read you here and you are right on target.
Okay, give me your real name, address, phone number, employers phone number, wife and children's name, wife's maiden name, her occupation, your and her race, ethnicity, her employers number, your tax id numbers, income for the last five years, date of marriage, date of birth for every member of your family...
Feeling threatened yet?
You trust government too much. The above are all their questions. For my part you can just stay DieHard the Hunter and keep your privacy.
But, really what are you hiding?
If we are to cheer the tax cheats, we should commit to become tax cheats ourselves and do everything within our power to cheat the government out of confiscating our earnings as the Swiss account holders do.
What is wrong with self-interest? You don’t practice self-interest with your Guardian Angels, sales job, in your marriage, between your friends. Come on.
You are stepping in it. Just back off.
Mine used quotes, yours did not. You jump to conclusions, I did not. You trust government, I do not.
Please correct.
Your posts read like a NY Slimes article!
“So What”? Allowing the Government to obtains any and all records regarding private citizens “at will” (i.e. without a warrant) is tyranny.
“As to whether the Ameican customers were suspected of committing a crime — come on. The Justice Department wasn’t in Switzerland for a skiing holiday: obiously they suspected something amiss.”
So I AM a tax cheat. Thanks, I guess I’ll turn myself in now ....
You seem to be just fine with the fact that the Government can simply demand the financial reocrds of a citizen based simply on the place where that citizen banks. How conservative of you.
“GO ON...! UBS is being “blackmailed” by the Justice Department?? What with — compromising photographs?”
DoJ has all the evidence it needs to prosecute UBS Bank Managers for aiding in Tax Evasion. It chooses to use that evidence as a lever to force the Bank to violate laws and release information without a court order in the hopes that some of the information can be used against “tax cheats” (and to be clear - there likely ARE some in the mix!). That is Blackmail.
“Why not sue the Justice Department instead?” Justice did not violate the law - UBS did.
“Strong secrecy laws” - continue to drink the cool aid. All the justice Department need do, is make an official request to the Swiss - with sufficient evidence to convince a court - that a crime has been committed and the Swiss will release information.
What the Swiss will NOT do is simply release information regarding Bank Customers based on a “we think so and so, maybe possibly, in some way, at some time, might have failed to declare something, so please tell us everything you know ...”
But, since you seem to think that suspicion = guilt until proven innocent, I’m likely wasting valuable time and bandwidth.
> You are letting yourself get distracted. As two conservatives we both agree that lower taxes are better and less government too.
Yup, we agree on that.
> Do you believe in national sovereignty?
Not necessarily. If my country were to be at war with your country, then no: your national sovereignty would mean nothing to me. However, if our countries enjoy peaceable relations, so long as your country is not violating my country’s laws or sovereignty, I believe your country’s sovereignty should be respected.
> The sanctity of contracts?
Only to the extent that contracts cannot be entered into to thwart the law (the “lawful purpose” requirement) and that they cannot prevent an officer of the Crown from executing his legal duties and that they cannot prevent the Government from passing and enforcing an Act.
> Private property?
Private property should usually be respected, but not absolutely so.
> These people are using the Swiss system as designed by and in the sovereign country called Switzerland.
Yes, and they are using it to avoid paying US tax, which is a crime in your country. By doing so, Switzerland is using its sovereignty to aid-and-abet a crime by US citizens. The US — quite rightly — takes a dim view of that, sovereignty or no.
> Now comes the US government, not known for fairness, honesty or honor, and demands records that will break Swiss law, undo private contracts and destroy private property. They are wrong to fight that?
Yes. They are wrong to fight that if they have been providing facilities for US citizens to break US laws.
I’ll give you a practical, non-tax example. In New Zealand it is unlawful to participate in child prostitution — quite rightly so. In parts of the Far East it is not.
It used to be that filthy scroats from New Zealand would go on child prostitution tours of these Far Eastern countries, and perform filthy acts while there that would see them thrown in gaol for many years if they had done them in New Zealand.
So New Zealand passed a law. It is now illegal for New Zealanders to do anything overseas that would be considered a crime while in New Zealand. This effectively killed off these Child Prostitution tours overseas. It might be legal in Cambodia (for example) to do that to kids, but if it is a Kiwi doing it, he will surely go to gaol in New Zealand.
Does this trample on Cambodia’s sovereignty? Too bloody right it does. It is good that this be so? Yup.
> Who told you they were tax cheats? You don’t believe everything your government tells you, do you?
If not tax cheats, then what are they? One would have to be terminally credulous to believe that they are being looked at for anything other than tax evasion. Or perhaps money laundering, of which tax evasion would almost certainly feature.
> As to morality, should moral men follow immoral laws?
Moral men should follow the law, and if the law be immoral then it is the duty of moral men to have the immoral law changed or repealed. It is not the duty of moral men to break the law.
> If I get my representative to pass a law giving me special tax treatment or monopoly profits is that moral?
It may not be moral, but it’s legal. And until moral men have that law changed, that’s the law and it ought to be obeyed.
> Let’s say laws were passed allowing us to take property from others, like German Jews or Japanese Americans, would following the law trump your moral outlook?
I would have the choice of not taking their property because the law doesn’t compel me to do so. It would be my moral obligation to strive to have that law changed because it would not be just.
> It is obvious you’re a sheepdog and that is great.
I am.
> We need more like you. But, resorting to legalism against your fellow men is not moral.
You’re right — that is why Justice is well within its rights to do as they are doing. It may not comply with the niceties of Swiss laws, but when Swiss laws aid-and-abet crimes by lowering a veil of silence — just like Omerta — then their legalism is trumped by Justice’s moral right to apprehend the crooks and help the IRS collect tax owing.
You really are a sheepdog.
I have to agree that the U.S. tax authorities are once again pressuring a country to violate its own laws and of course to violate the legal privacy of American UBS depositors.
Our Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The U.S. Dept. Of Justice wants “to force it [UBS] to disclose the names of the 52,000 American clients it suspects may have evaded taxes.”
Does anyone in their right mind seriously believe that they have “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” on each and every one of those 52,000 UBS depositors?
Most of us a law abiding, tax paying citizens. Explain to me how the simple fact that I, as an American Citizen who lives and works in Switzerland, is suffient grounds for assuming that I am a tax cheat and/or money launderer (or whatever other crime you can think of)!
> Clarify for me the difference between legal, lawful and moral.
Legal vs lawful have nuanced differences and are mostly synonymous. Moral is quite different to either concept.
Legal = founded upon law or official rules or accepted practises
Lawful = that which is allowed by statute
Moral = in compliance with a code of Morality
> What you have written is legal = lawful = moral, no?
No. It would be ideal if it were so, but it isn’t so.
This is exactly my point. They don't. If they DID have sufficient evidence to convince a court, they would not have resorted to blackmailing the UBS into compliance.
I resent the tax policies that make people feel they have to hide their income. We need to use those people to fuel the debate for tax reform.
> Most of us a law abiding, tax paying citizens. Explain to me how the simple fact that I, as an American Citizen who lives and works in Switzerland, is suffient grounds for assuming that I am a tax cheat and/or money launderer (or whatever other crime you can think of)!
Nobody is making that accusation. So what possible reasonable objection would you have to Justice requesting banking records that may include information on those who are?
Surely it is in your best interest as much as it is in everyone else’s for tax cheats and money launderers to be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
What reasonable person could possibly object to that? What reasonable objection could there be?
Agreed. It is dangerous to take the governments motives as innocent.
Remember Clinton and the FBI files. I suspect it was the first thing the Obama’s read their first night in the WH.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.