Skip to comments.Romney revising disclosures for overseas accounts
Posted on 01/26/2012 1:32:26 PM PST by TSgt
Mitt Romney could face new questions about his overseas investments after a campaign official acknowledged to NBC News that his campaign is revising his financial disclosure forms to report more than a half dozen offshore holdings, including income from a multi-million dollar Swiss bank account that was not disclosed last year.
The tax returns released by the Romney campaign this week showed that the Ann Romney Blind Trust had reported $1,783 in interest income from a bank account held at UBS in Switzerland in 2010. But the Swiss bank account -- as well as other offshore investments in the Cayman Islands, Bermudas and Ireland that appear in the trust fund's tax returns -- were not disclosed in Romneys financial disclosure form filed with the Office of Government Ethics last August.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
I sent a message to Drudge, telling him when he’s done giving Romney a Lewinsky he should put this story at the top of his page. I’m not holding my breath...
Yes I noticed that too. I hope Mark does a broadside on a couple of things including that.
We may be too far down the road of statism to reverse it now.
Ironically, if we had a truly fair taxing system, such as the consumer tax proposed in the "Fair Tax", Swiss bank accounts and off shore accounts and investments would not be necessary.
I believe UBS was the swiss bank that fought having to disclose its records to the IRS. I wonder if Willard is hooked up in that scandal and if so, his path to the presidency just hit a canyon.
The message to take away here is that if we didn’t have confiscatory taxation, an overreaching government and insane courts that think nothing of grabbing your private property there would be NO REASON to take your possessions offshore!!!
Yeah, well, that and Romney is a corrupt tax cheat, money launderer, and filthy liar!!
I absolutely refuse to vote for or support this corrupt, lying, abortionist/socialist paperhanging SOB!!
Rebellion is ON!!
Live free or die!!
The RINO pushing elite GOP establishment and their herders can KMA!!
While Romney is not acceptable on much of any level to me, neither is Newt.
Now that Bachman is out of the race, Rick Santorum is about the closest thing we have to a true constitutional conservative left in the race.
What alternative do you suggest?
about investments in firms engaged in embryonic stem cell research
So not only is he NOT PRO-LIFE, he pays to have babies killed! What does the law say? You can’t claim ignorance of the law?
I think I’ll sent Drudge that last paragraph to see what he does with it, ann too. Not that they don’t already know.
The only solution for concern trolls is zot.
I was just reading Proverbs today & it talked a lot about helping the poor-personally. Liberals like to take someone else’s money and give it to other and then take credit. Not once did the bible say take from the people. It’s always give out of the goodness of your heart.
Well, Mitt claimed that his very pro-life conversion hung on a change of heart about embryonic stem cells...(see further below).
But it sounds to me like Mitt's not so "blind" about his investments...'cause even after he'd been running all 2007 as a "pro-life" candidate, here's what he told Katie Couric:
Couric: So what kind of embryos - embryos that are created for procreation and then would be discarded? Are those the ones that you feel are perfectly fine from which to cull cells for stem cell research?
Romney: Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a PARENT decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of RESEARCH, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law. Source: CBS, original interview aired Dec. 4, 2007, Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes
Any of you "parents" want to "donate" one of your offspring that the Creator has provided to you for "research" purposes? And then you still -- like Mitt -- have the gall to call yourself "pro-life?"
Backgrounder on Mitt's flips & flops on this:
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life.
Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
Why has no one asked the obvious question? Mr Romney, why do you have your money in a blind trust?
Blind trust, by definition:
”trust in which a trustee controls the financial investments of a public official, without the beneficiary’s knowledge of how his or her affairs are administered, in order to avoid conflict of interest
Romney is not a public official; what is he hiding, and why?
You are not alone. We did the same!
Shame on you Matt Drudge!
Private citizens do not have a Blind Trust. They are meant to prevent conflict of interest for public officials, not for private citizens.
Kneel before ZOT!
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.