The title of this Fox News' article is "Burris insists He Is the Next Junior Senator from Illinois" which is essentially an assertion which is unjustified because of the next statement: Now in Washington DC, Roland Burris says he's the legally appointed Junior Senator from Illinois" which is simply untrue. If Burris truly believed that he was legaly appointed, why did he try to distance himself from Blagojevich when the disgraced governor first announced him. Also isn't 71 a little old to be considered "Junior"?

The first sentence of this article is interesting: "Caling himself "the magic man", Roland Burris said on Monday (that) he is going to Capitol Hill to be seated as the next senator from Illinois". For people who think that Obama was too inexperienced to run for President, inexperienced is better than corrupt.

The third sentence is downright laughable: "The former Illinois attorney general said (that) the appointment is entirely legal (if this is indeed the case, why did Burris try to distance himself from Blagojevich when he was first announced/revealed?) and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has threatened to bar Burris from the Senate, does not know the law". Mr. Burris, Sen. Reid graduated from George Washington University. That's a pretty good law school. Also, if Sen. Reid didn't know the law, it would have been impossible for him to serve as a government official for the past 22 years.

Here's what Burris had to say, specifically: "This is all politics and theater, but I am the next junior Senator according to every law book in the nation (Burris also went to a good law school, Howard University and he was also Illinois former Attorney General so how can he somehow not understand/comprehend that an appointment by a disgraced governor is not legitimate?) This appointment is legal. What don't you all understand that what has been done here is legal? That's legal". By using "legal" so many times, it seems as if Burris knows that he faces an uphil batle to get into Congress. Furthermore, Burris said that "I'm not going to make a scene. I don't want to give you all a circus". Mr Burris if this isn't a scene, what is it?

Fox reiterated that "Burris appointment is under fire as Blagojevich faces possible indictment and impeachment for allegedly trying to sell the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, among other issues (what could those other issues be?)"

Furthermore, "Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said (that) Burris lacks the necessary documentation to enter the Senate chamber, since Illinois Secretary of State Jesse Whitner has so far refused to sign his certificate of appointment (let's add another name to the opponents of the Burris selection by Blagojevich)". On top of all this, according to Fox, "Durbin reiterated that Democrats have no qualms with Burris". However, "Questions can legitimately be raised about the appointment by this governor". The implication, then, is that Blagojevich put Obama's vacated Senate seat up for sale and Burris was named by the disgraced governor to fill it and now Burris seems to be defending Blagojevich, making Burris guilty by association to Blagojevich.

Durbin added that "The whole thing is just a complete mess" and it is.

On top of all of this, "Durbin said (that) Burris must also testify Thursday before the impeachment committee weighing whether to oust Blagojevich" because Blagojevich is clearly not of sound judgment anymore, but putting Burris on the stand now would be ahuge mistake because BURRIS NOW SUPPORTS BLAGOJEVICH. If they really wanted to oust Blagojevich, they should have done so weeks ago when certain reports said that "Burris quickly moved to distance himself from the man who appointed him" because now Burris is part of Blagojevich's defense team.

Burris, meanwhile, isn't accused of any wrongdoing, BUT HE IS NOW A BLAGOJEVICH ADVOCATE: "Why should I separate myself from Rod Blagojevich? (Blagojevich is corrupt, Burris and you know it)...He carried out his duties and he filled his vacancies according to law (putting a Senate seat up for grabs to gain personal financial favors is shocking, unethical, disgraceful and, above all, illegal). Isn't that correct? (No).Isn't tnat what the statute says - that 'the governor shall appoint a person to fulfill the vacancy'. It didn't say anything about being tainted or being associated with or being 'stigmatized'. However this is precisely what Blagojevich has become: tainted, disgraced and soon-to-be-ousted, hopefully.

Burris, in the meantime, was defiant: "I am the magic man. I am a United States senator". Not if justice is being served.

Finally, Burris even tried to play hero: "I have never in my life and all of my years of being elected to office thought anything about race. I have been elected four times from the state of Illinois as the great people of Illinois have seen the qualifications and commitment that Roland Burris has and race has never been a concern of mine (Burris is repeating himself here; a confident person doesn't need to repeat him/herself). As a matter of fact, I have looked upon the state of Illinois as the only state in the nation, think about this, that has elected four blacks statewide - two senators and two constitutional officers". Burris is trying to cover Blagojevich; he is even using "think about this". People should be thinking about why Burris criticized Blagojevich when Blagojevich first named him and is now SUPPORTING HIM SO FERVENTLY. There is only one word for this: HYPOCRITE.