Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Senate Appointee Burris Rejected

by D. E. Carson (writer), , January 06, 2009

Democrats are turning on themselves and it isn't pretty.

Roland Burris was rejected today from taking his place in the recently vacated seat of President Elect Barack Obama (PEBO). Burris was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in accordance with the requirements of the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

“I will not be accepted, I will not be seated.” Burris told a group of reporters at an impromptu news conference across the street from the U.S. Capitol. “I am not seeing to have any type of confrontation.” Burris said, but he did indicate that if necessary, he would file necessary paperwork to have his appointment recognized through the court system.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to certify the appointment in an act of defiance toward a sitting and legally elected and sworn governor. A cloud of suspicion currently hovers over Governor Blagojevich; however, no evidence has been presented in a court of law to convict Governor Blagojevich. Additionally, Governor Blagojevich has not been impeached or officially removed nor has he tendered a resignation and therefore he is still the legal and sitting governor of the state of Illinois. Secretary of State White’s refusal sign Burris’ paperwork is nothing more than an act of defiance toward and contempt for Governor Blagojevich. According to the Seventeenth Amendment, “When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State [the governor] shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.” (clarification added).

Governor Blagojevich has not been indicted. He has not been tried or convicted of any wrongdoing. In fact, Patrick Fitzgerald has released some of the FBI wiretap tapes to Blagojevich’s legal team and has petitioned the US Federal Court for additional time before bringing an indictment against Blagojevich.

Now remember, this reporter is an admitted conservative. The Illinois governor is a liberal Democrat as is Roland Burris and yet, here this reporter stands defending both men because he sees that what is happening to Blagojevich and Burris is ethically wrong. There is no reason to prevent Blagojevich from carrying out his constitutionally mandated duty or for preventing Burris from assuming his seat and being sworn in as the junior senator from Illinois. After having read over everything associated with this case, this reporter cannot help but ask what Secretary of State White and Senator Reid hope to accomplish by rejecting Roland Burris’ appointment?

From a speculative point of view, this reporter cannot help but wonder if the rejection of Burris has less to do with the fact that Burris is black (and would be the only serving black senator) and more with the idea that PEBO does not like Burris for whatever reason. Is it possible that PEBO does not want Burris in his old senate seat because there are other politicians PEBO would be more receptive to having in that seat? Certainly this is speculation, but it does seem to fit the events that have unfolded over the vacancy.

Need more convincing? How about examining the allegations against Governor Blagojevich? He has been reported as saying that he wanted something in exchange for a favorable appointment for the seat. Perhaps Burris was Blagojevich’s way of actually carrying out that “f*ck him” comment supposedly looming on a tape somewhere in Patrick Fitzgerald’s office. This, of course would have to rely on the possibility that Illinois Secretary of State White is in PEBO’s pocket in some way and that would explain White’s blatant disregard for Blagojevich’s appointment.

It’s all speculation anyway and has no concrete foundation, but it is a plausible theory. Democrats have certainly not been secret about their desire to implement socialism within the United States. Having PEBO in the White House and like-minded senators and representatives sitting just up Constitution Avenue on Capitol Hill would certainly make it a lot easier to band together and usurp the authority of the people and implement socialism in America. Perhaps Roland Burris was a Democrat who had no intention of playing ball with the rest of the Senate Democrats. Perhaps Burris is a moderate who doesn’t believe in socialism and would be a thorn in the side of Senate Democrats who want to make America a socialist nation. Maybe Burris believes that America is a true land of opportunity where every person deserves to succeed based on his or her own efforts and not based on what the government thinks is best for the people.

About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

3 comments on Senate Appointee Burris Rejected

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By D. E. Carson on January 08, 2009 at 02:20 am

I can't win for losing with you people.  You know what, to hell with you all.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on January 09, 2009 at 12:34 am

The same part that your comment that prompted my "to hell with you all" statement.  Look, at this point, we should agree to disagree.  You're obviously oblivious to what I was trying to say with this article, so I'll spell it out for you here:  I was DEFENDING Burris not trying to tear him down.  I was making a point that Blagojevich hasn't been charged, impeached or removed from office and as such his appointment is valid.  I was also pointing out that Harry Reid is still a ferret-faced pinhead and can't be trusted -- he's turning on his own party now.  The rest of it was labeled as speculation because it was just that -- speculation.  I even went so far as to say, "It’s all speculation anyway and has no concrete foundation, but it is a plausible theory." 

And dammit, it is a plausible theory whether you agree with it or not.  In calling it a theory I open myself up to the possibility that I may be wrong there and frankly, if I happen to be proven wrong, I'll admit it.  But for you to object to my offering a theory as an opinion -- which, by the way, was based on facts garnered from the AP news wire -- was not exactly what I needed to read last night after I spent all damned day reading multiple stories from the AP wire dating back to Sunday afternoon.

As for using the term "this reporter", who the hell are you to tell me (or anybody for that matter) that I cannot use that term?  What, you think you have the corner on that franchise?  Sorry pal, but I'll put my B.A. in Journalism up against your military record any day of the week.  So unless you've worked for the Washington Post, the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, button it!  I walked away from a promising career in journalism because I hated -- yes HATED -- the crap they taught me in college about how the story is more important than personal integrity.  I saw that crap coming down the pike 16 years ago, before Bill Clinton ever copped his first feel of Monica Lewinski.  I actually had a professor tell me that all corporations were inherently evil and that I was obligated as a journalist to bring them crashing down.  When I asked him how that might affect the nation's economy (the term globalism was still another 10 years away from being coined) he said that it didn't matter if it drove the nation into a permanent depression, it was my bound duty to destory the evil corporate machine.  This same professor also believed that it was okay to rummage through someone's garbage to dig up dirt.  I think he ended up being one of Obama's campaign officials (JOKING HERE!).  But in 2008 with all the coverage of His Holiness Barack Obama, I knew I was right about how screwed up journalism was going to be.  I only signed on here because I can write articles here that are not bound by the left-wing liberal agenda.  I always said I'd rather write true to myself for free than be paid to write articles I couldn't stomach to put my name on.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Lucy Ong on January 11, 2009 at 06:02 pm

Reading this author’s over and over and over again same opinions and comments is like reading equally narrow-minded Laura Ingraham’s Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the U.N. are Subverting America.

The author reminds me of  the Dixie Chicks Shut Up and Sing, where “Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't do it in public.

Perhaps this author can explain why a mirror reverses left and right but not up and down?

 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us