WH defends Reid move to scuttle bipartisan bill

We have no idea what is in the water at the White House but whatever it is, Gibbs is obviously drinking the koolaid with the following remark:

Despite what unfolded this week, Mr. Gibbs said Republicans can still trust Mr. Obama when it comes to bipartisanship.

"Of course Republicans can trust the president. They were in a room not far from where we're sitting discussing many of the elements that will be voted on at the end of February on a jobs bill," he said, referring to a discussion of the economy that took place Tuesday at the White House with bipartisan congressional leaders.

That was before Obama threw the GOP under the bus in favor of Reid. Why would any Republican trust what Obama has to say when a few days later he changes directions? Getting more obvious that Gibbs will say anything to protect Obama even when it is a 180 from a few days ago.

Bipartisan with this Administration is way overrated as you cannot trust them even a little to keep their word. Kind of like the Bill Clinton years!

WH defends Reid move to scuttle bipartisan bill
By Kara Rowland
Feb 12, 2010

The White House on Friday defended Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's move to scuttle a bipartisan jobs bill and replace it with a Democratic-written measure, arguing that Mr. Reid's bill will end up drawing Republican support.

The Nevada Democrat's decision to scrap bipartisan legislation -- after it had drawn praise from the White House on Thursday -- along with his blocking of amendments to his bill have sparked criticism from Republicans as well as moderate Democrats. Asked if President Obama approves of Mr. Reid's actions, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs would not address the chain of events on Capitol Hill but said the Reid bill contains ideas that should appeal to members of the GOP.

"I think that the legislation that Senator Reid will move when the Senate comes back into town will garner bipartisan support," Mr. Gibbs told reporters, citing as an example a tax credit for firms that hire unemployed workers. "I don't think there will just be one vehicle that moves and I don't think there is only one chance at getting bipartisanship."

Democrats have been scrambling to show they are taking action to chip away at the nation's high unemployment rate, which is currently at 9.7 percent. The House in December passed a $154 billion package aimed at spurring job growth, but the Senate has yet to act.

Mr. Reid's bill would forgive Social Security payroll taxes for new hires who had been unemployed at least 60 days, fund highway and infrastructure projects and extend tax benefits to small businesses. The package drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, and Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley, the panel's senior Republican, contained the same provisions as the Reid bill plus an extension of tax breaks for energy efficiency, research and development and other initiatives. It also included the so-called "doc fix" to temporarily increase Medicare reimbursement rates, extended unemployment benefits and provided relief to pension plans that suffered significant losses in 2008.

The term "bipartisanship" has been on the tongue of just about every politician in Washington in the wake of Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election last month, which undermined the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Though a series of bipartisan meetings have taken place since then, legislative collaboration between the two parties has been elusive.

After the Baucus-Grassley deal was announced, the White House put out a statement saying Mr. Obama was "gratified to see the Senate moving forward in a bipartisan manner." But Mr. Reid slapped the effort down hours later, arguing that the bill had too many provisions unrelated to creating jobs.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

President Obama Now Says He's 'Agnostic' On Possible Tax Hikes For Households Below $250K a Year

What does the word 'Agnostic' mean according to Merriam Webster dictionary?

1. 1a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowablebroadlyone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2. 2a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something - political

Obviously the first definition which most assume is the meaning of the word doesn't fit. The second one looks to be a definition someone would use for a politician if their favorite vote is to vote 'PRESENT' which describes this President. Anything controversial in the IL Senate, he voted 'PRESENT.' In the US Senate he wouldn't show up for the vote. Now that Obama is President he still cannot make up his mind.

What was that he declared during the campaign over and over? No new taxes on any one making under $250,000 a year? Guess that has flown out the window with the rest of the campaign promises rhetoric. It has become perfectly clear in the last year what he reads from his teleprompter in a lot of instances is breaking his campaign promises. After Obama reads, then Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, tries to weasel word that Obama really isn't breaking the promises. It would be Comedy Central if it wasn't so serious.

If Obama was a Republican, the mainstream press would have already be attacking him for not being able to make a decision and for considering going back on his 'no new tax pledge.' Remember how the media went after Bush 41 for breaking his 'Read My Lips' no new tax pledge. They were relentless in carrying the Democrats water against Bush 41.

How many of the commentators and writers that cover for Obama attend his weekly parties in the White House? BTW, the one this week was moved to Tuesday so not to interfer with the snow storm. Will someone in the media explain to us why the taxpayers are paying for these weekly parties? We are also still waiting for the explanation from Pelosi about all the money spent illegally for her to have her children/grandchildren flown around by the Air Force plus all the money spent on liquor and food.

Instead of tax hikes, this Administration should be talking about how they can cut back their lavish life style they are living on the taxpayer's nickle and clipping off Pelosi's wings. That would be a start in getting the White House budget under control. With so many people out of work and no where to turn, it would be a symbolic start in the right direction but not this group. They will party to the end taking trips at a moment's notice.

President Obama Now Says He's 'Agnostic' On Possible Tax Hikes For Households Below $250K a Year
New York Daily News
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Kenneth R. Bazinet

President Obama says he is now "agnostic" about raising taxes on households making under $250,000 a year to help cut budget deficits, signaling a possible retreat from a campaign pledge.

In an interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek on newsstands Friday, Obama said a presidential budget commission needs to look at all options for deficit reduction - including tax increases and cuts in spending on such programs as Social Security and Medicare.

"The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table," Obama said. "So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions."
Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 campaign to spare households earning less than $250,000 a year from tax increases.

Excerpt: Read more at nydailynews.com

We admit that we never thought we would see Obama say anything close that he and his administration are 'fiece free market advocates.' Just like the 'no next taxes' his words mean ZERO! Nothing about this administration has led anyone to believe they support the 'free market' economy. Zero, zip, nada!

Have to admit the chutzpah of his comments on the 'free market' take the cake. Nationalizing car companies and choosing which dealers stay or close is not 'free market' no matter how much he spins.

Bloomberg -- Obama Says He’s ‘Fierce’ Free-Market Advocate, Rejects Critics

All politicians tailor their remarks to different audiences, but this is ridiculous.
In an interview with Bloomberg News President Obama said he and his administration were “fierce advocates” of the free market.

It should be a caution to the president that his statement now sounds like a bad punch line. While voters once gave credence to his claims of being an unwilling implementer of a centrally-planned economy, say when he was nationalizing two failed carmakers or forcing banks to take bailouts they tried to refuse, a year later no one is buying.

The president told writers Mike Dorning and Julianna Goldman that the complaints from the Left that he was “being in the pockets of big business” and complaints from the Right that he was “anti-business” as proof of his equanimity and balanced approach. But both things can actually be true.

Obama went to pains in the interview to defend the fat bonuses of his friend and adviser Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and political bankroller Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, comparing their compensation to that of champion athletes. Obama’s embrace of some big bonuses comes after weeks of Lonesome Rhodes-style rhetoric about the “fat cats” and after Wall Street donors sent their warning shot that they would be just as happy funding Republicans.

The complaint, and it’s hardly just on the Left, isn’t that Obama is in “the pockets of big business” but that he is helpful to some and hurtful to others – that he wants to pick winners and losers.

What makes this, and the full article that will follow in BusinessWeek absolute must reading is to see how disconnected Obama really has become. While you could once say that Obama was just bluffing about these assertions, it’s pretty clear now that his much-vaunted Socratic model of management has produced a new kind of groupthink bubble. It just takes longer to be affirming.

“‘We are pro-growth,’ Obama said. ‘We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.’”

Source: Washington Examiner Morning Must Reads

Poll: Majority of Americans Support Cutting Size of Government Workforce

We agree with the outcome of this survey 100% and why we have been trying to call attention to what is happening at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins, GA, where they are going gangbusters to hire engineers, etc. who they plan to utimately replace the 67 businesses currently working in Automatic Test Sytems today. These new hires will be used to do manufacturing in-house like a contractor except with their overinflated salaries and benefits of civil service.

These new Civil Service hires are also going to be used to replace test equipment that doesn't need replaced in order to establish the Robins Empire for Automatic Test Systems to the tune of well over a billion of taxpayer dollars that will be wasted before it is said and done. How can an organization inside the Air Force be a contractor? Who gave them the contract and who will oversea their work? Pretty good if you can get it -- give yourself the contract, hire more government people, put private business out of business, and everyone has to come to your organization. One slight problem they don't have the expertise but they moving ahead wasting our tax dollars anyway.

It is time the Air Force was cutting their civilian work force not increasing. Is anyone listening?

More to come on this!

Poll: Majority of Americans Support Cutting Size of Government Workforce
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Joe Schoffstall

CNSNews.com) -- A Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 58 percent of Americans support cutting the size of the government workforce to reduce the deficit, while 22 percent oppose the idea and 19 percent are “not sure.”

The Feb. 5 poll also found that 51 percent support cutting pay for non-military government employees, while 32 percent opposed the idea and 17 percent are not sure.

Roughly three-fifths of Americans (59 percent) believe government workers earn more money than the average taxpayer, according to the poll, while 15 percent believe that they do not, and 26 percent are undecided.

Rank-and-file representatives in the U.S. House receive an annual salary of $174,000, while the Speaker of the House receives $223,000. The majority and minority leaders both claim $193,400 a year.

The rank-and-file senator also makes $174,000 a year while the Majority Party Leader and Minority Party Leader in the Senate both take in $194,400, in 2010.

As for staffers, limits are placed on how much money they can make. As of 2007, the maximum salary for a staffer in a member’s office was $156,000, while committee staffers may be eligible for a slightly higher salary.

Source: CNS

Senate filibusters Becker nomination

BREAKING NEWS

Senate filibusters Becker nomination

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and Mark Murray

On a 52-33 vote, Illinois labor attorney Craig Becker's nomination to serve on the National Labor Relations Board failed, as expected.

This was a cloture vote to end debate, and not the actual nomination up or down.

Senate Democrats needed 60 votes. Among those voting no: the newest member, Sen. Scott Brown (R).

The AFL-CIO released this statement: "It is reprehensible that a minority in the U.S. Senate has blocked an up-or-down vote on Craig Becker, nominated seven months ago by President Obama to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Once again, a Republican-led filibuster has put political interests over the needs of America's working families. For more than two years, the NLRB has had only two of its five members. Without a fully staffed NLRB, working families face a major disadvantage in winning justice in the workplace."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce countered: "While the Chamber rarely takes issue with presidential nominees, today's vote reflects a bipartisan rejection of the ideology behind the Card Check bill and this nominee's out-of-the-mainstream views about the rights of job creators in unionizing drives."

The Chamber also warned, "A recess appointment of this controversial nominee, instead of a new consensus candidate, definitely would send the wrong signal given the clear lack of support expressed by the Senate. The two other NLRB nominees have bipartisan backing, and the White House should use those as a model for who should be appointed to the board."

Source: MSNBC First Read

Democrats’ Misplaced Priorities by the Numbers (Healthcare)

This came in email to us this afternoon from the Republican Policy Committee. The title Misplaced Priorities by the Democrats has to be the understatement of the year!

When you look at these figures in black and white, it strikes you that the Senate only spent 25 days debating these healthcare bills. Something so important with thousands of pages and the Senate under the leadership of Sen Reid only allowed 25 days of debate. That is shocking but not surprising.

Democrats’ Misplaced Priorities by the Numbers
Senate Republican Politics Committee
9 February 2010

How Will A Job-Killing Health Care Bill Help Unemployment?

Even as President Obama now attempts to re-focus his attention on the economy, a look at Democrats’actions over the past year shows the party’s stubborn focus on a government takeover of health care that would kill jobs, not save them:

5,298—Total pages of health care legislation passed by three House and two Senate Committees[i]

30—Number of days House and Senate Committees spent marking up health care legislation[ii]

25—Number of days the Senate spent debating health care legislation[iii]

$729,500,000,000 and $518,500,000,000—Tax increases in the House and Senate-passed health care bills[iv]

5,000,000—Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of the taxes in the Pelosi health care bill,according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer[v]

Meanwhile, all across America millions of workers have been struggling, even as Democrats rushed to pass a health care bill that would destroy jobs:

2,742,000—Number of jobs lost since President Obama signed the $862 billion “stimulus” bill[vi]

6,130,000—Number of workers unemployed for at least six months—an all-time high

29.1 weeks—Average length of time Americans have been unemployed—also an all-time high

15,267,000—Number of unemployed Americans—down only slightly from October’s 26-year high

17.3%—National rate of unemployment, including under-employed individuals and “discouraged workers” who have stopped looking for work

0—Days the Senate spent debating legislation providing permanent tax relief to small businesses

Even now, amidst the economic hardship facing American families nationwide, Democrats refuse to abandon their efforts to pass a government takeover of health care that would kill jobs, not create them.

Many may ask: how many more jobs must be lost before the President and Democrats in Congress will abandon their health care scheme that would raise taxes on hard-working families and businesses?

[i] Includes the 1,504-page Senate Finance Committee bill (S. 1796), the 840-page Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee bill (S. 1679),
the 794-page House Ways and Means Committee Chairman’s Mark to H.R. 3200, the 1,040-page House Education and Labor Committee Chairman’s Mark
to H.R. 3200, the 1,026-page House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman’s Mark to H.R. 3200, and a 94-page motion to instruct the Rules
Committee on H.R. 3200 approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
[ii] The Senate Finance Committee spent six days marking up S. 1796; the Senate HELP Committee spent 13 days marking up S. 1679; the House Ways and
Means Committee spent one day marking up H.R. 3200; the House Education and Labor Committee spent two days marking up H.R. 3200; the House
Energy and Commerce Committee spent six days marking up H.R. 3200, including one day debating a motion to instruct the Rules Committee regarding the
legislation.
[iii] According to the Congressional Record, the Senate debated H.R. 3590 on November 19-21, November 30-December 10, December 13-17, and December
19-24, 2009.
[iv] Figures based on Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation analyses of H.R. 3962 as passed by the House, and similar CBO and
JCT analyses of H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate.
[v] House Ways and Means Committee Republican staff calculation.
[vi] All jobs data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly employment data, http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

Heard on the Hill: Global Warming Snow Job

This Igloo built in DC is our nomination for the best idea to depict Al Gore and his 'Global Warming!' Looks to us like Senator Inhofe's daughter took after her Dad with her sense of humor. Great Job!

Roll Call
Heard on the Hill: Global Warming Snow Job
By Emily Heil and Elizabeth Brotherton
Roll Call Staff
Feb. 9, 2010

Link to Article

View More Pictures on Facebook


Visit Senator Inhofe's Facebook Page For More Pictures

While most Washingtonians took cover during the Blizzard of 2010 (or Snowpocalypse, or Snowmaggedon - whatever you want to call it) Sen. James Inhofe's family braved the storm to poke fun at former Vice President Al Gore.

The Oklahoma Republican's daughter, Molly Rapert; her husband, Jimmy; and their four children built an igloo - roomy enough to fit several people inside - at Third Street and Independence Avenue Southeast.

They officially dedicated the humble abode in honor of global-warming crusader Gore, even posting a cardboard sign on the igloo's roof reading "AL GORE'S NEW HOME" on one side and "HONK IF YOU [HEART] GLOBAL WARMING" on the other.

Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is famously one of Congress' most vocal critics of global warming. And he told HOH that he found his family's ironic tribute to Gore - which came during one of Washington's snowiest winters on record - "really humorous."

Inhofe was so proud of the construction effort, in fact, that he posted several pictures to his official Facebook page.

Inhofe noted he wasn't the only person who liked the igloo - several people honked to show support.

It took five hours Saturday and three hours Sunday to build the igloo. "The funny thing was seeing how many people would stop to pose in front of it," Molly Rapert said.

And while this week's expected snowy weather will ensure the igloo won't melt, Inhofe did admit that he fears the structure might meet a premature demise by global-warming believers.

"I know that somebody is going to end up tearing it down," Inhofe said. "Because there are a lot of people who can't take a joke."
###

Boehner, Cantor Question White House on Proposed Health Care Summit

Will the Obama Chief of Staff Emanuel answer the questions of the Minority Leader Boehner and Whip Cantor or will he send back spin? Time will tell but this puts the ball back in the Obama Court.

Press Release

Boehner, Cantor Question White House on Proposed Health Care Summit
GOP Leaders: “Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?”

Washington, Feb 8 -
February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.


These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Source: http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3784561315774230886

Congratulations New Orleans Saints!

Congratulations to the players, the owner Tom Benson and his family, and most of all to the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast who have brought this area back. The Saints are what is really good about New Orleans and the Upper Gulf Coast that was devasted by Katrina -- they never quit and neither did the people of the Gulf Coast states. New Orleans had some unique problems with being a major city but the devastation wasn't any different to a resident of New Orleans or to someone living in Sliddel, LA, or Gulfport, MS. Their lives were turned upside down and it looked hopeless in so many areas.

At the time, the people of the region didn't know if the Saints were going to stay in New Orleans after playing on the road for a year, but members of the team kept coming back during that year to help. When the decision was made to renovate the Super Dome so the team could come back, the city and a region who had been through so much now had their Saints back with a new spirit and a new coach, Sean Payton from the Dallas Cowboys.

Non sports people probably think the rest of us are nuts who would put so much into a sports team but football/basketball or other sports are what brings a community together. If anyone ever wanted the proof -- look no further then New Orleans and the Upper Gulf Coast.

This time when the Saints return to New Orleans they are returning as Super Bowl Champs and bringing along the Super Bowl Trophy for the people of New Orleans!

A great way to end the football season! Mardis Gras has arrived early in New Orleans!

GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights

Where did Obama find such intept people to place in his Administration? For John Brennen to say Republicans knew was stretching it a lot. Guess Republicans now have to become mind readers as well when dealing with this Administration so they know what they meant to say.

Brennan calls the Ranking Republican on Intelligence and doesn't tell him about mirandizing Abdulmulttallab which might lead to the assumption he didn't tell the Democrat Chairman of House Intelligence either. Did he?

We live in dangerous times that seem to be getting more dangerous by the day with the inept group of people in the White House on intelligence. First they cannot connect the dots and then Brennan comes out with his weasel worded statement that you are left with asking what is he saying. Making intelligence calls on an unsecure cell phone on this important breach of security brings more worry they don't have a clue.

GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights
By: Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent02/07/10 2:24 PM EST

Republican lawmakers are denying a charge made by top White House counterterrorism official John Brennan that they were briefed about -- and did not object to -- the decision to offer full American constitutional rights to accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

On "Meet the Press," Brennan said that on Christmas night, just hours after Abdulmutallab tried to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253, Brennan called GOP Senators Mitch McConnell and Christopher Bond, as well as Republican Representatives John Boehner and Peter Hoekstra, and told them that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point," Brennan said. "They didn't say, Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?"

Each of the lawmakers strongly denies Brennan's account. A spokesman for McConnell says, "During a brief call from the White House, Sen. McConnell was given a heads up that Abdulmutallab was in custody, but little else. He wasn’t told of the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab."

A spokesman for Boehner says, "On an unclassified/non-secure call to Boehner's cell phone that was very short, John Brennan informed Boehner that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was in custody. The call imparted no other substantive information and Brennan did not inform Boehner that the administration had read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights." And Bond released a statement saying that Brennan "never told me any of plans to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber -- if he had I would told him the administration was making a mistake."

In a conversation Sunday afternoon, Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, angrily denied Brennan's statement. The possibility of Mirandizing Abdulmutallab "never came up" in a call that Hoekstra describes as a "quick update." Hoekstra recalls Brennan calling between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Christmas, which would have been before Abdulmutallab was informed of his rights. "I think I talked to Brennan before they did it," Hoekstra says. "He could have told me that, and asked me what I felt about it -- but he didn't."

Hoekstra says if Brennan had brought up the subject of Miranda rights, then he, Hoekstra, would have discussed the issue with legal counsel from the Intelligence Committee. "If Brennan had called and said, 'Congressman, we're contemplating a legal strategy here,'" Hoekstra says, "the first thing I would have done is call up…my legal counsel and some other people and said, 'Hey, is this a sound strategy or not?' It never came up."

All the lawmakers describe Brennan's call as being very short; one recalls it as less than a minute. And all describe it as a heads-up, and not a briefing or an exchange of views.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Washington Examiner

Today is SUPER BOWL XLIV Sunday!

Kick back, relax, eat, drink, and enjoy the festitivites leading up to tonight's Super Bown game between the Saints and the Colts as you hear from some of the best authorities on the NFL explain what you are about to see from both teams. This over analyzed game comes one day after the seven new NFL Hall of Fame inductees were announced:

Jerry Rice
NFL's all-time leader in receptions, receiving yards and total touchdowns. ... Three Super Bowl rings with 49ers.

Emmitt Smith
Ran for an NFL-record 18,355 yards with 164 rushing touchdowns. ... Three Super Bowl rings with Dallas. (Emmitt joins Troy and Michael as part of the Cowboy triplets in the Hall of Fame)

Russ Grimm
Pro Bowl guard for Redskins' famed 'Hogs' offensive line. ... Member of three Super Bowl-winning teams.

Rickey Jackson
Six-time Pro Bowl linebacker in 13 seasons with Saints. ... Member of Super Bowl-winning 49ers in '94.

Dick LeBeau
Made 62 interceptions in 14 seasons as Lions defensive back. ... Became an innovative defensive coordinator.

Floyd Little
Amassed more than 12,000 all-purpose yards and scored 54 TDs as a running back for the Broncos.

John Randle
Pro Bowl defensive tackle registered 137½ sacks in 14-year career with Minnesota and Seattle

Festivities are already under way on TV and now it is time to pick our winner of the Super Bowl. It came down to basics as neither of these teams are our favorite team so we decided there was only one measure for us to choose our picks. Which team had Sooner players? Saints won 3-0 thus getting our nod to win the game:

24-21 Saints

Time to put politics on the back burner and enjoy what many think will be one of the better Super Bowls.