The media were quick to dig into Joe Wurzelbacher's personal and private information such as tax records, and trumpet it to the world in an attempt to discredit someone that dared question Barack Obama's tax plan. Lets see if they even report on this when they don’t have any digging to do whatsoever.
Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law
Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act
But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking)
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
That’s not change we can believe in.
Just to sum up, the media can find Joe the Plumber’s tax woes within 24 hours of his having dared to question The One’s narrative, but they can’t find a clear ethical violation in the released records of a man who has been campaigning for President for two years now.
Another truth-telling moment brought to you by our fair and objective news media.
Why isn’t this a major headline at CNN? I think we all know the answer to that question. Laws only apply to Republicans.
—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes.
October 19, 2008 - 20:51 ET by GregEAs long as McCain didn't do the same thing, everything's cool. Move along folks.
Assumption
October 19, 2008 - 20:56 ET by MichelleCYour assumption is that Democrats care about ethics when it comes to their own or even know the definition of ethics for that matter.
Nothing to see here, move right along.
Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July. Democrats believe every day is April 15th ~ Ronald Reagan
The hypocrisy is so thick
October 19, 2008 - 21:05 ET by MrSnugglesThe hypocrisy is so thick you could eat it like pudding.
So right, Mr S.
October 19, 2008 - 21:22 ET by mom_roxWasn't ETHICS REFORM Obama's MAJOR bipartisan accomplishment and the one where he "went against the members of his own party"?
regarding Barack Obama's tax plan - I never received a job from a poor person.
Mr. Stephenson, that's just
October 19, 2008 - 21:05 ET by motherbeltMr. Stephenson, that's just a distraction, the same old politics, and not one of the "real issues" that the American people care about.
They want to know who's going to make their next mortgage payment and send their kids to college!
Oh please John, this is The
October 19, 2008 - 21:05 ET by bigtimerOh please John, this is The ONE we are talking about...it was just a little snafu, give him a break, besides being busy walking on water, he had to make sure the waters receded before Global Warming kills us all...
Have you no heart?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Law is just an academic
October 19, 2008 - 21:06 ET by HockeyKidLaw is just an academic exercise for liberals, anyway. If you can twist it your way often enough in court, you can make big bucks. If you're not good at practicing it (or you have a felony conviction on your record and can't get on the bar), you just "teach" it in a classroom. Actually obeying laws? That's like, SO regressive, man.
Besides, 0bama will just say that's not the ethics rule HE remembers...
Of course he did!
October 19, 2008 - 21:11 ET by saw the lightI'm sure Barack took much of that hard-earned money and spread it around to all those who did not win "life's lottery."
Besides, laws are arbitrary things to graduates of the Chicago political machine, right?
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama to "Joe the Plumber"
see it isnt an ethics
October 19, 2008 - 21:13 ET by dark_dssee it isnt an ethics violation because when he was speaking it was God speaking thru him ... allot of people dont know that God says ummm a lot .. and that the hebrew word for ummm is thou .. just an issue with translation ... God also has funny little disdainful grin when people dont agree with him ....that was in the Dead Sea Scrolls
O man really didnt have to put those speaking fees in there but he a big believer in full disclosure
LOL
October 20, 2008 - 15:07 ET by Gabrielle EThat's hillarious.
This is the first I've heard of it.
October 19, 2008 - 21:15 ET by krendlerBig surprise.
MSM is too busy looking into "troopergate" and gathering dirt on Joe the Plumber to worry about stuff involving the guy at the top of the Dem ticket.
Well obama can satisfy
October 19, 2008 - 21:27 ET by MidAmericaWell obama can satisfy the legal requirement quite simply.
(c) Any honorarium or honoraria accepted in violation of this Section shall be surrendered to the State Treasurer and deposited into the General Revenue Fund.
Are there legal limitations on prosecution?
October 19, 2008 - 21:38 ET by Lame CherryIf this is correct Mr. Stephenson, there is a federal prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago investigating all of this.
Provide him the information directly to the Chicago office now dealing with Tony Rezko, ACORN etc... on the RICO violations I highlighted before all of this broke into the main media.
Just posting things does no good. Alert the authorities.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
So, he violated the law HE formulated?
October 19, 2008 - 21:38 ET by KSKSo, he violated the law HE formulated? That's what Socialists are famous for, is'nt it? They are above the law.
"Why isn’t this a major
October 19, 2008 - 21:53 ET by Mazzi"Why isn’t this a major headline at CNN? I think we all know the answer to that question. Laws only apply to Republicans."
The answer is firmly embedded in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" handbook that all of Obama's disavowed associates seem to rely on.
"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
Rush Limbaugh hits on this often, but without the Alinsky connection. He says that libs can get away with anything because they have no ethics, values or morals. Since conservatives have our morals, ethics and standards, and we claim these values, if we violate them we must be whipped with our own failures.
Obama has no obligation to tell the truth, or to be honest. He never claimed that he would be those things, so no one can hold it against him, right? That's why we won't see it on CNN. They think like that too.
Remember, most of the MSM - the "elites" if you will, were victims of the University culture that pounds these radical ideas into the student's little cashew-sized brains. Alinsky was the master - he was the one who said to infiltrate the education system, and that's precisely what they have done. The inmates are running the asylums now, and we are pretty much screwed.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Money Laundry
October 19, 2008 - 22:05 ET by TN MomObama needed the extra cash to buy the lot from convicted felon Rezko.
OBAMA: Yes We Can break ETHICS LAWS, I did when I was in the Illinois State Senate!!!!!!!!!!
No surprizes here.
October 20, 2008 - 09:40 ET by NorthCoasterAll the way around the subject from Barak to the MSM, it's no surprize. The answer depends on what the definition of is, is.
When you personally decide what is right or wrong and intend to hide the truth behind a screen, anything is possible. The foulest act used to gain advantage is allowed, because there is no standard to meet.
H/T Bill Clinton
BlogWatch: Is the MSM Vetting Candidates?
October 20, 2008 - 11:16 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerAdded this post to http://www.jeremiahf... Which contains unreported issues which are important to people's choice on who to elect as president.
The Obamassiah
October 20, 2008 - 12:21 ET by retroconThe Obamassiah doth not speak, He bestows upon us the word. He givith us the tablets of His Law.
One cannot consider such things in the same context of mortal men and their trivial utterings and bloviations.
I just heard something
October 20, 2008 - 16:54 ET by MazziI just heard something else. I don't know how deeply this has been researched by the non-msm (we know the msm would do nothing), but it seems that Obama allegedly did not list "other" names he had been known by (ie: Barry Soetoro and Barry Dunham) on his Bar Association application. More fraud, more integrity questions. La-la-la.
Isn't it ridiculous that the media, who have ready access to this kind of information, refuses to investigate, leaving us to try and piece this crap together? All these little bits and pieces mean nothing on their own, but when you package them up, they show a patter of dishonesty. Hardly the man I want to lead my country.
"We just want truth, we want fairness. We want that balance." ~ Sarah Palin (re: hypocricy of the press)
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" ~ Martin Luther King Jr.