Well, Dirty Harry Reid followed through on his threat and denied the Illinois senate seat once occupied by President-elect Obama to Roland Burris.
Think of the picture.
Dirty Harry playing to role of the infamous Bull Conner with the dogs, or in this case the senate sergeant-of-arms to deny a duly appointed black man his rightful place as senator from Illinois.
Priceless!
So, what is the big deal?
Well, there is the case of Illinois Democrat governor, Rod Blagojevich.
He was arrested in December and is being investigated for allegedly trying to sell the senate seat vacated by now President-elect Obama. Note, Gov. Blago was arrested. Not convicted of a crime.
Now, because of this the Illinois legislature wants to impeach Gov. Blago. Again, he has not had a trial and or been convicted.
And, the Secretary of State in Illinois does not want to certify that the appointment of Roland Burris. Again, keep in mind that Gov. Blago has not been convicted of a crime.
Because of that, the senate majority leader, Dirty Harry Reid is justifying denying Mr. Burris his rightful place in the senate.
Since Gov. Blago is still the sitting governor and he lawfully appointed President-elect Obama's successor, time for the game to end and allow Mr. Burris to take his place in the senate.
It is rich that the Democrats are trying to portray themselves as above all the corruption that permeates in Chicago and by extension the Illinois state capitol in Springfield. Suddenly, Dirty Harry has a conscience. Oh, no, not a conscience just a worry that the Democrats will not be able to hold the Illinois senate seat.
The irony is that once again the Democrat party is denying a right to a black American.
Where is the outrage?
2 comments:
Why aren't we hearing from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel etc. about this gross disenfranchisement?
Can you imagine the outcry when Trent Lott was majority leader if he had tried to pull a stunt like this?
You can always count on the libs for one thing: being consistently inconsistent.
Reid's a Democrat and by their self-definition it's an impossiblity that he has a prejudiced bone in his body, so why imply otherwise?
(I "get" what you're saying, but I didn't like it.)
Post a Comment