The junior senator from Illinois again plead his case yesterday in front of an audience at the City Club in Illinois.  Sen. Roland Burris said yesterday that he will no longer answer any questions regarding pending the current investigation under way as to the circumstances surrounding him being appointed to President Obama’s former senate seat but not before he got his (4th) side of the story out…..again.    “You know me” was how Burris began his defense of the alleged “rush to judgement” he claims to be the victim of.  Burris went on to say that if he had done the things that he has been accused of he would be emBurrised(snark) to be standing in front of the group.  Though Burris claimed that the group was made up of his friends and supporters it did not stop one “friend” from asking if he (Burris) thought it was appropriate for him to agree to do fundraising for the Governor when he had publicly expressed  his interst in the senate seat.  Burris responded that he will not be answering those types of questions and ended the session.  Washington  Post, Chicago Tribune, Congressman Hare  are all calling for Senator Burris to resign.  The ongoing investigation as to whether Burris committed perjury a month ago while testifying in front of the Illinois impeachment panel has prompted his fellow Democrats, including Congressman Phil Hare, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune to call for Burris’ resignation.  Burris says that he welcomes the investigation and that he will not resign.  The Senate Ethics Committee has opened an inquiry.

President Obama signed the stimulus bill yesterday as well as gave a breakdown of how the money will be spent. 

• $288 billion in tax relief
• $144 billion in state and local fiscal relief
• $111 billion in infrastructure and science
• $81 billion goe to protecting the vulnerable
• $59 billion healthcare
• $53 billion education and training
• $43 billion energy
• $8 billion listed as other

The President said that 3.5 million jobs will be created or saved by the package.  For more specific information about the bill and track how it is being spent go to www.recovery.gov

Today the President will unveil his plan to stabilize the housing market in Phoenix, Arizona, one of the hardest hit areas in the nation for foreclosures.

Sen. Roland Burris has come under fire in the last couple of days after a second affidavit that he filed was leaked to the Chicago Times. In the new affidavit Burris admits that he spoke with several of Governor Blagojevich’s associates including the former Govenor’s brother Robert Blagojevich regarding the senate seat even though he was not forthcoming with this information in his testimony before the Illinois impeachment panel.  Sen. Burris attempted to refute the allegations in what some would call a circus of a press conference this past Sunday.  Seriously, that press conference was reminiscent of two drunk uncles arguing over who was the greatest baseball player of all time after an overly indulgent Thanksgiving dinner.  Completely ridiculous but I digress.  The U.S. Code defines perjury as follows:

Whoever…

• … having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

• in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.” U.S. Code: Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 79 § 1621

This is what Sen. Burris said in his Jan 5th sworn affidavit.

I, ROLAND W. BURRIS, being first sworn on oath, depose and state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection:

……….

“Prior to the December 26, 2008 telephone call from Mr. Adams, Jr., there was not any contact between myself or any of my representatives with Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives regarding my appointment to the United states Senate.”

On January 8th, Sen. Burris said the following under oath during the Illinois impeachment hearing of Governor Blagojevich.

Jim Durkin:  “Did you talk to any members of the Governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the Governor including family members or any lobbyists connected with him including…oh…..let me throw out some names…..John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk…John Wymna, did you talk to anybody who was associated with the Governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the Governor’s arrest?”

Roland Burris: “I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.”

Durkin:  “Guess the point is I was trying to ask…did you speak to anybody who was on the Governor’s staff prior to the Governor’s arrest or any body…..any of those individuals….or anybody who…uh..was closely related to the Governor?

Burris:  “I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get…..uh….uh…continued business and I did bring it up…it must have been in September or Jul…maybe it was in July..of a….of a..08.  That….you know…..if you’re close to the governor…..you know….let him know that I’m certainly interested in the seat.”

Okay, so the Burris Jan. 5th sworn affidavit states that Burris nor any of his representatives had any contact with the Governor or any of the Governor’s representatives about the appointment to the United States Senate prior to the Governor’s arrest.  Yet he admits during the Illinois House impeachment hearing, as well as in his February 9th affidavit , that he talked to at least one (Lon Monk) of the six people named in the question posed by Durkin during such hearing.  Thus revealing inconsistencies between the first affidavit and the hearing as well as between the first and second affidavits.  By swearing in the first affidavit that there was no contact about the appointment and then, under oath, saying that there was contact about the appointment with Lon Monk raises questions about the veracity of the two statements.  Burris attempted to defend the apparent inconsistency in a recent press conference by proclaiming that there are no inconsistencies between the two statements. The junior senator claimed that in the January 5th affidavit he was referring to the “appointment” as opposed to the “Senate seat” and in his more recent February 9th affidavit he was referring to the “Senate seat” and not the “appointment.” I know.  Unfortunately for Burris, during the hearing Durkin specifically used the word “appointment” in his question and not “senate seat” as Burris used in his latest affidavit.  Usually in a perjury case, and why they are so difficult to prove, vagueness is your friend.  However, the fact that Burris was specifically asked about the “appointment” and he contradicted his sworn statement under oath could mean problems for the Illinois senator.  Of course the counter argument will be that the use of the word “my” before the word “appointment” in the Jan. 5th affidavit allows for some wiggle room.

What do you think?

There has been a great deal of hoopla made about Representative Bobby Rush’s comments accusing the United states senate efforts to block Blogojevich’s appointment of Ron Burris to Pres-elect Obama’s vacant Illinois senate seat to that of a “lynching” and comparing such efforts to the segregationist actions of Orval Faubus, George Wallace and Bull Connor blocking the progress of integration and civil rights.  Rush’s exact comment was:”You know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where schoolchildren — where you have officials standing in the doorway of schoolchildren,” Rush said. “You know, I’m talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Ark. I’m talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I’m sure that the U.S. Senate don’t want to see themselves placed in the same position.”

Rep. Rush, all of a sudden, seems to be very concerned about the fact that there are no African-Americans remaining in the United States senate since Pres-elect Obama’s recent departure.  As a matter of fact, Rep. Rush says that ”[w]e need to have not just one African American in the U.S. Senate. We need to have many African Americans in the U.S. Senate.”  However, in the 2004 senate primary when then United States senate candidate for Illinois Barack Obama and another fellow African-American, Joyce Washington, needed Rep. Rush’s support for their candidacy, Rep. Rush supported the millionaire white candidate Blair Hull in the 2004 democratic senate primary.  Where was Rep. Rush’s concern for African-American representation in the United States senate at that time?  Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there needs to be more female, African-American, and minority representation in the senate.  After all, the senate should reflect the electorate with every group having a seat at the table and needs to be much more diverse than it is at the moment.  However, it does not have to be this African-American/minority that fills the spot.  Not to mention the fact that Rep. Rush, Blagojevich, and every person involved in the Burris appointment, motives are seriously questioned. 

Most would agree that the electorate wants effective representation in the Senate. As written about in a previous post, after running and becoming the Illinois Comptroller in 1979, Roland Burris has ran for public office five additional times in the state of Illinois.  Three times for governor, once for the United States Senate, and once for Mayor.  Burris has lost everytime.  I, as a non-Illinoisian, am willing to accept the people of Illinois verdict on Roland Burris, they do not want him representing them in such a powerful position.  Now Burris has seized on a tainted opportunity to gain a senate seat by not having to actually get elected.  He has seized on such opportunity after it was turned down by other ELECTED officials.  Be clear, Burris wants this seat so that he can add United States Senator to his Chicago cemetary monument that he has built to himself in recognition, if he does say so himself, of all his accomplishments.  (He really has built a very elaborate monument headed “Trailblazer” to himself, see it here, with room left for his senate title).  Burris has two children which he named Rolanda and Roland.  He also has a grandson named Roland.  Senator Barack Obama worked very hard for that Senate seat and he was ELECTED by the state of Illinois because such electorate believed that he would be the person to best represent them in the United States Senate.  Somehow, giving this seat to Burris just does not sit right with me as an African-American.  Further, did we mention that Burris and Rush were calling for Blagojevich’s resignation two weeks ago?

Granted, Governor Blogojevich does have the right to appoint whomever he wants to the senate seat (however briefly he may retain such right).  However, the United States Senate has a right (arguably) under Article 1, section 5 to judge the qualifications of its members.  Thus, arguably, the Senate has the right to question a credential given by Blagojevich to Burris to enter the United States senate.  Arguably, the senate can question credentials of an appointee given by a Governor charged with selling the exact senate seat to which an appointee claims to have been appointed.  Granted, this may be a case of first impression for the federal courts (meaning it has never been ajudicated before) but cases of first impression are won by plaintiffs and defendants all the time. 

Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of the Burris appointment going through because it increases their chances of getting a Republican elected to the Illinois seat in 2010 because Burris has all but assured democrats that he would not be running to keep the seat.  (Update) Burris has changed his mind and said that he will run in 2010.  Great (snark).  As mentioned before, Democrats are concerned about retaining the Illinois senate seat in the 2010 election.  Thus, it is important that the person appointed will be able to maintain the seat and actually get elected in 2010.  Burris has demonstrated time and time again that he is incapable of doing that.  Of course the GOP are pushing for the appointment.

My reason for writing this post is to address the issue that African-Americans will be up in arms about Roland Burris being denied a seat in the senate.  Give me a break.  This African-American will not be bothered if Roland Burris is denied entry.  I’m also insulted that a few African-American and main stream media pundits are playing along with this blatant race baiting and claiming to speak for me.  Do they honestly think that I will be persuaded to back someone simply because he/she is black?  I actually heard Roland Martin dare the United States senate not to seat Burris because of what he believes will be an African-American backlash.  Here is an example of such backlash when Burris held a rally with all his Illinois senate seat supporters, all 20 of them, in Chicago last week.  Backlash…we think NOT!!!   Seriously, did we not learn anything from this past election?