Early Superbowl Chatter

I figured a few may stop by here to see what I have to say about the Superbowl match-up this year. Last year I said to Bet the Farm on Arizona, and those who followed my advise have two farms now, or may have traded up to live in the city. For once it looks to be a competitive Superbowl on paper which is nice. While watching both New Orleans and Indianapolis this season, I found them to be the two most over-rated undefeated teams ever. Sure they both got to 12 or 13 wins before facing a loss, but both teams tended more to come from behind to win then simply blowing teams out week after week like New England was doing a few years back. I did think that they were the two best teams and was expecting this match-up when the playoffs started. It looks like the line opened at Indy -4 with some pressure to move the line higher. At his point I like New Orleans for several reasons which I will list below. This is an early call and subject to change.

Reasons for New Orleans

1) Teams appear to be fairly matched so take the points

2) New Orleans beat the crap out of Favre on Sunday. Pressuring and hitting Manning is key to beating Indy, and New Orleans seems to have what it takes.

3) I like New Orleans coach better, but he needs to learn from a few big mistakes made on Sunday.

4) Minnesota's Defense is better than Indy's and N.O. still put up 31 points on them. New Orleans should score more than that in the Superbowl, which means Indy will need to put up 40+ points to cover.

5) New Orleans never let Minnesota take a big lead, though Indy did get way behind the Jets in the first half (not counting two missed FGs).

Reasons for Indy

1) It's a bit scary that New Orleans got 5 turnovers against Minnesota, and needed to go to overtime. Some of this was bad coaching, but I do not expect them to get 5 turnovers in the big game.

Coaching Issues from Sunday

Two big mistakes jump out at me from Sunday's New Orleans Game. They are subtle but important. When New Orleans got the ball late with a 7 point lead inside their own 10 yard line, they started playing not to lose, instead of to win. They should have assumed that Minnesota would get another TD, and been playing for more points, and not ultraconservative protect the ball football. They ended up punting, and Minnesota did get the TD to tie it. They should have tested them deep when Minnesota was expecting them to be careful. The last mistake nearly cost them the game. Minnesota was driving for the winning FG, when they completed the ball at the 32 yard line of New Orleans with about 1 minute left. With the clock running, for some reason N.O. used their last timeout, basically granting Minnesota an extra timeout. With the clock stopped for the stupid N.O. timeout, Minnesota was able to save one of their timeouts. Later when faced with third down from the 37 with a few seconds left, Minnesota would have been forced to kick a long FG. Instead, they had time to run one more play which was intercepted, but could have got them the yards for the winning FG. When N.O. got the ball back in decent position, they would have still had a timeout left, and may have been able to win in regulation. The wasted timeout was just a huge mistake IMO, and I am hoping they will learn from it.

Constitutional Rights?

In the past, U.S. Constitutional Rights were reserved for U.S. Citizens. This meant that you either needed to be born a U.S. Citizen, or had to go through a lengthy application process to become a U.S. Citizen. There is now a fast track status to U.S. Constitutional rights. Simply commit an "Act of War" against the United States, and you get full U.S. constitutional rights according to the Obama administration. This does not surprise me one bit from a president who values the rights of terrorists, over the rights of Americans. It does not surprise me one bit from a president who is not even constitutionally eligible to be president. I am not taking about his place of birth, which is in question. I am talking about the known fact that his father was not a United States citizen at the time of his birth (His father also never became a U.S. Citizen). Section 1 article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States"

Requirements for Natural Born Status are listed below:

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

_{* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.}

Since Obama's father was a British subject as the time of his birth, he can't be Naturally born just because he was born in Hawaii. Lets just leave it at that for now.

So should terrorist who commit acts of war get U.S. constitutional rights. The answer is absolutely not. An enemy combatant captured during an ongoing war, can be held as a prisoner of war, indefinitely. This as what we should be doing with captured terrorists. We should lock them up and throw any the key, until Al Qaeda unconditionally surrenders to the United States. Until that happens, the war is still on going, and we have the right to hold onto the prisoners of war. Also, since this is ultimately a religious war, I would lock them up with no access to the Koran, and no special religious treatment. If someone wants to make the case that this is not a religious war, I will listen, but I would not allow captured prisoners of war to practice the religion that they are fighting the war over. Sorry! If, and when the war on terror ends, we can then decide if we want to put any of these prisoners of war on trial for war crimes. Until the war is over it is completely inappropriate to put these guys into a media circus type trial.

The other huge problem with giving terrorists who commit acts of war on the United States constitutional rights, is that it allows them to "Lawyer Up", and avoid answering questions that may stop a future act of war on the United States. We are at war people! Giving Terrorists constitutional rights puts American lives at risk. What if the underwear bomber was one of several terrorists trying to smuggle in a Nuclear detonator for a nuclear bomb already on U.S. Soil. Are we really going to let this guy "Lawyer Up" instead of actively trying to stop a Nuclear bomb from killing millions of Americans. This whole business of protecting the rights of people who commit acts of war just makes me sick.

Ultimately, the constitution is just a piece of paper. If the president/congress/supreme court have no interest in defending it, it is completely worthless. Now I will admit that Bush took a crap on the constitution from time to time, but Obama appears to piss on it every morning, and wipe his ass with it every night. It will eventually just get flushed down the toilet, if this continues. I have no idea what can be done to get our elected officials to enforce the Constitution, but it needs to happen soon.