We're not talking about 'the war' enough

[Crissa]

1153242644[/unixtime]]Even when those other countries are firing rockets - that go boom really loud and kill people - from their country into your country?

What other countries?

Hizbollah is like a bunch of guys in pickup trucks running around Tiajuanna, Mexico launching missiles at San Diego and El Paso. They hide their missiles in suburban garages and farm houses, and the Mexican military doesn't have more guns than they do, so is rather powerless to do anything other than keep them from shooting up their own towns.

Would you say blockading Isla Mujeres and blowing up Mexico City's airport would be an apprpriate response?

-Crissa

It's nice to see a good conversation, though. But, when did W tell Israel that it shouldn't do what it's doing? Or did you miss that this has been going on all month?

[Username17]

]Hey, Frank, can you go into a little more detail about the founding of Israel? I know a reasonable amount about the political/Western aspect of things (rubber making, etc), but I know nothing of what was going on in Palestine. You seemed to imply that there was a group of Jewish freedom fighters working with The Axis?

Sure, no problem. Revisionist Zionism is a movement that goes back to about 1925 when Ze'ev Jabotinsky quit the World Zionist Organization and made the Revisionist Party. They had an official terrorist wing called the Irgun Tsvai Leum (you can call it the Irgun if you want) which they founded in 1931 which operated until 1948.

The Irgun had three platforms:

1. Every Jew has a right to enter Palestine.
   
2. Only active attacks would deter Arabs.
   
3. Only an armed force could create a Jewish State.

If there seem to be hidden assumptions there, that's because there are. For example, at the time there was nothing stopping Jews from living in Palestine along side Arabs, and "detering Arabs" in this case means "detering them from living in Palestine" which there was no pressing need to keep them from doing then or now. But the idea was to create a "Jewish State" and to them that meant other people couldn't also live there, so they formed an impromptu armed force and attacked Arab settlements. In case you're wondering, the immigration restrictions in Palestine were set up by the British High Commisioner of Palestine - Herbert Samuel (and if that sounds like a Jewish name to you, that's because he was a Jew, and the immigration quotas were tied to housing construction on the grounds that importing more people than there were homes would lead to open warfare between the Jews and Arabs, which it in fact did).

Right. Now flash forward to the year 1939, when Hitler is declaring that Jews should leave Europe and go have a country somewhere else. The Irgun (run by Stern, and called derogetorily "The Stern Gang" by less extreme Jews like myself, and the Lehi-Group by others) couldn't agree more, and famously attempts to sign on as an Axis power. Hitler never agrees to an alliance with the Stern Gang, but does supply armaments to anti-British insurgents in the area, some of which wind up in the hands of the Stern Gang. Also in 1939, the leadership of the Stern Gang is captured by British CID, but they are ultimately released in 1940 and continue their reign of terror.

Their most famous attack is on the King David Hotel, which killed 91 people, mostly civillians, in 1946, which was conducted by then-leader Menahem Begin, who went on to become Prime Minister of Israel from 1977 to 1983, which neatly coincides with Israel's first invasion of Lebanon in 1978. Menahem Begin was a member of the Likud party, as was every other member of the Irgun, and vice versa.

Interestingly, the Defense Secretary the Likud put in charge of attacking Lebanon was Sharon. In 2005, Sharon split with the Likud party and frmed his own party - Kadima, which came into power in 2006. In 2006, the Kadima government invaded Lebanon again, and that really should come as a surprise to noone. This as, after all, the pet project of the founder of the party (who got his start as a child-thug and spear-catcher for the Stern Gang).

So, long story short:

The Revisionist Zionists believe that Palesine should have only Jews in it, and that the only way to achieve that is to arm Jews and murder everyone else. They have changed their name several times (Revionist Party, Likud Party, Kadima Party), but the faces and goals at the top are pretty much the same. They have had various military wings of their party, but currently they are in charge of the Joint Armed Forces of the Nation of Israel, and they conduct the same tactics today as they conducted in 1940.

These are the bad guys. They've always been the bad guys, they've never stopped being the bad guys, and the only reason that anyone puts up with it is misplaced guilt over the fact that many of these people are related to victims of genocide in addition to being personally responsible for genocide in their own backyard.

-Username17

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1153230633[/unixtime]]

PS. Chechnya comments don't justify the vast crimes of YOUR pet country in the middle east.
Chechnya is bad but its hardly comparable in scale, duration, nature or in the degree to which Russia is prepared to spit in the face of the international community. (Veto anyone?)

Who is this in reference to?

Because I don't see anyoen really saying that America is somehow right in this.


Anyway:

My theory on the Us propping up Isreal no matter what it does is for morale.

If Americans see isreal get their shit stomped in for pissing everyone off, then they might start thinking that we shouldn't be pissing everyone else off too. And then we'd have people questioning the two-party anal rape squad running the show, and we can't have people thinking by thenselves, it's just not American.

[Draco_Argentum]

1153230633[/unixtime]]
ALL the other nations manage to play ball pretty friendly like.

The big boys have nukes, they'd manage to grudgingly get along without the UN just because they have no choice.

PS. Chechnya comments don't justify the vast crimes of YOUR pet country in the middle east.
Chechnya is bad but its hardly comparable in scale, duration, nature or in the degree to which Russia is prepared to spit in the face of the international community. (Veto anyone?)

That implies I was trying to justify the US. The real thrust was at vilifying the people who get veto rights over anything Australia proposes to the security council. (Australian here.)

[Josh_Kablack]

1153252666[/unixtime]]
These are the bad guys. They've always been the bad guys, they've never stopped being the bad guys, and the only reason that anyone puts up with it is misplaced guilt over the fact that many of these people are related to victims of genocide i

That's flat out not true.

Some other reasons people put up with them include:

1. Being personally related to these people themselves. (Abraham Ze'ev Lipkis is the biggest badass my family tree ever produced)

2. Trying to win the rabidly-pro Israel Jewish vote here in the states. (for clarity: not all US Jews are rabidly pro-Israel, but enough of them are to constitute a voting bloc)

3. Feeling that they might just be the lesser of two evils, given the current state of things. The Israelis may be run by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics, but they're fanatics who are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them, and therefore "friendly" to the US in a way that their enemies are not and will not be. (I don't agree with much of this, but it is a reason people back the Israelis"

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Head's up! If this gets inflammatory at all it gets shut down.
[/TGFBS]

[Josh_Kablack]

I don't think that it's possible to discuss the subject of a current war in which different posters here appear to back different sides without being somewhat inflammatory.

However, I am still interested in what other posters here have to say on the subject, despite that. That is to say, I vote for keeping this one open, even if it does get heated.

[PhoneLobster]

Who is this in reference to?

Because I don't see anyoen really saying that America is somehow right in this.

Well there are Americans here and Isreal is America's pet country in the middle east.

It was a collective "YOUR".

If you believe in national responsibility to the degree that is perfectly OK to bomb and kill dozens of random people because someone else from the same country committed a crime of a smaller scale then by the same token everyone in Isreal, and the US, are responsible for that action.

You aren't allowed to support collective punishment until you personally are prepared to accept your own collective responsibilities.

Edit: That last bit is an official Phone Lobster rule, break it on the peril of me calling you a hypocrite.

[User3]

1153252666[/unixtime]]
Sure...backyard.

-Username17

Thanks for the history lesson

...

Also: I still wonder if some good friends I had haven't talked to me in the last three years because one of them visited me at Evergreen at the same time that an Evergreen student was killed in Palestine...and I suggested that maybe Israel was in the wrong. Seems unlikely, but I seriously haven't heard from them since then.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1153296458[/unixtime]]

Who is this in reference to?

Because I don't see anyoen really saying that America is somehow right in this.

Well there are Americans here and Isreal is America's pet country in the middle east.

It was a collective "YOUR".

If you believe in national responsibility to the degree that is perfectly OK to bomb and kill dozens of random people because someone else from the same country committed a crime of a smaller scale then by the same token everyone in Isreal, and the US, are responsible for that action.

You aren't allowed to support collective punishment until you personally are prepared to accept your own collective responsibilities.

Edit: That last bit is an official Phone Lobster rule, break it on the peril of me calling you a hypocrite.

Well, I can't argue with that logic, after all, I agree with it.

I just don't actually know anybody that supports Isreal.

I did see a jack chick tract saying that we should support isreal because Islamists are worshippers of Satan, but that's the limit of the pro-isreal support I see.

[power_word_wedgie]

1153274176[/unixtime]]
2. Trying to win the rabidly-pro Israel Jewish vote here in the states. (for clarity: not all US Jews are rabidly pro-Israel, but enough of them are to constitute a voting bloc)

3. Feeling that they might just be the lesser of two evils, given the current state of things. The Israelis may be run by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics, but they're fanatics who are smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds them, and therefore "friendly" to the US in a way that their enemies are not and will not be. (I don't agree with much of this, but it is a reason people back the Israelis"

Josh, I agree with you, and in fact in a certain manner, I think you answered the OP's original question of why Bush doesn't listen to liberals (or at least the opposition) on this matter and tell Israel to stop.

So why is it? Because frankly some of the voices in the opposition in the US are supporting Bush on this one.

>Hillary Clinton's Response<

I want us here in New York to imagine if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?' she asked. 'We will stand with Israel because Israel is standing up for American values as well as Israeli ones.

The unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are dramatic escalations of violence against Israel.

The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself. No government can stand idly by when its citizens and soldiers are attacked and abducted and when terrorist groups make incursions into its territory.

These events demonstrate that Hamas's ascent to power in the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah's participation in the Lebanese government, are dangerous for the stability, not only of Israel, but of the entire region. Hamas and Hezbollah must return the Israeli soldiers they abducted and cease their attacks against Israel.

Israel's right to exist, and exist in safety, must never be put in question We must also continue to send a very clear message to Syria, Iran and others to join in condemning these attacks and to exercise their influence over Hamas and Hezbollah.

As for Charles Schumer, what is more alarming is that he has said nothing since the Israeli-Lebanese crisis started. (At least from what his website and news that I was able to obtain said) He's solidly liberal and saves no time in bashing Bush, and thus if he objection to Israel and Bush's response, he would have spoken up by now.

So, with this in mind, it isn't like the liberals are all in lock step on this one pressuring Bush to put pressure on this. Why? Just like what Josh mentioned it item #2. If they did, the Jewish American voting bloc would never forgive them, the Democrats know that they might as well label New York and Florida as red states for the next 100 years, and hence with a loss of that many electoral votes they might as well run Kenneth Lay for the Democrat ticket since he would have as much chance of winning as a Democratic candidate. It makes too much sense for Clinton and Schumer to keep doing what they are doing. Yeah, it lousy for politiiians to look at the political rammifications over the moral rammifications, but that is what politicians do.

Finally, as Josh noted in item #3, it's the perceived "greater strategic interest" of the US to support Israel over the Palestinians. Really, if we could get Saudi Arabia or Egypt to take on more of a leading role (since they're not big on Hamas or Hizbollah either) to diffuse the situation, that would be better. However, we've go some really crummy choices, and the US is picking the lesser of the stinkers.

[Username17]

I did see a jack chick tract saying that we should support isreal because Islamists are worshippers of Satan, but that's the limit of the pro-isreal support I see.

Watch more news. Any news. You can't swing a cat without hitting some fvckr on American news ranting about how the Israelis are innocent little angels that need to set fire to Lebanese children just to keep from paying the consequences of their own actions.

The United States is, when it comes to our politicians and media, a solidly united front in favor of Israel. Nothing Israel can do can break the outporing of sympathy for Israelites from US politicos. Nothing. Because they've already done the whole shooting small children and sending in rape squads and that really didn't even phase the American media.

Really, if we could get Saudi Arabia or Egypt to take on more of a leading role (since they're not big on Hamas or Hizbollah either) to diffuse the situation, that would be better. However, we've go some really crummy choices, and the US is picking the lesser of the stinkers.

What? You do realize that Saudi Arabia is the worst of the stinkers n the region, right? Maybe we ought to freshen up your memory:
Amnesty International's Report on Saudi Arabia

Really, those fvckers are fvckers. Worse than Iraq, worse even than Israel. Saudi Arabia exports more terrorism than any other country except the US and conducts more executions each year than any country except Iran and China.

We actually pick the worst countries to be strategic allies with, and we do it on purpose. We don't support King Fahd because he's a nice guy. We don't do it because he stabilizes the region, we do it because he's an evil toad and he fvcking needs us. That's the key right there. If Israel didn't get over 15 billion dollars a year from the US, they'd be jacked. If Saudi Arabia didn't have US military bases propping up their absurd regime they'd collapse tomorrow.

We don't pick the lesser of the two evils. We pick the countries that can't make it without us. That's sort of "smart", but it's undeniably evil. The United States actively seeks out horrible regimes to make into our puppets. And when countries don't have horrible regimes, the United States installs them in nations like Chile, Nicaragua, and Panama.

Yes, the US liberal establishment won't own up to the fact that our allies are a rogues gallery of nations that would otherwise be pariah states the world over. They do this because the US media and political establishments will fvcking crucify you if you try. The US discourse is locked into the program and cannot escape. People in America actually believe that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all the lesser evils in their region. People from the rest of the world - go ahead and try to wrap your mind around that fact.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

I kinda wonder why being pro-Muslim country isn't a position. You'd get the Muslim vote. Also since Israel happens to be launching air attacks at Christian districts in Lebanon you could play that up. Plenty of political capital at home and it'd help on the international front.

[User3]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/18/dobbs. ... br][br]And this, from CNN.

[power_word_wedgie]

1153354112[/unixtime]]I kinda wonder why being pro-Muslim country isn't a position. You'd get the Muslim vote. Also since Israel happens to be launching air attacks at Christian districts in Lebanon you could play that up. Plenty of political capital at home and it'd help on the international front.

The problem is that the Muslim vote is not organized like the Jewish vote in the US. If Muslims are black, for example, they usually vote as a black bloc.

Also, part of the Christian attacks is that really the focus from Israel is to (a) knock out Hizbollah target or (b) pressure Lebanon to crack down on Hizbollah. If there was any documented evidence that they were trying to take out Christian targets due to the target being Christian, oh yeah, that would change American opinion to pressure Israel to stop attacking Christian targets. However, from what I've seen so far, it just happens that the targets are strategic for other reasons and their happening to be Christian was justa coincidence.

And though there may be possible reasoning for the environment for US policy making (ie. (a) media cracking down on liberals if they speak up - however, I don't know how the media could sell Israel being driven into the sea and make it palatable to the Jewish American block, but that's neither here nor there or (b) dependency of allies on America - I'd argue that our economy is currently dependant on Saudi Arabian oil (mutual symboitic relationship) and Israel is due to a strong American Jewish bloc, once again neitherhere not there), due to the US being a Democratic republic, the thing is that American politicians make decisions based on the following perspectives:

1) The perceived politicial fallout of their decisions onto the politicians themselves and,

2) The perceived American national interests in the area.

If you live in an area of the world where the leaders do not factor the above in and base their decisions on purely moral perspective, I commend your government. However, I will agree that this is not the case in the US.

[PhoneLobster]

There are a few reasons the "jewish block" has the influence it does.

The primary one though is because it is NOT a voting block, its a Lobby group. A skilled and heavily backed group of political operatives who put lots of pressure on the right politicians and media at the right times.

It has little to do with actual electoral politics.

It has more to do with your typical corrupt Washington power plays combined with organized groups that crush dissenting opinions in the media with lies and shout downs about antisemitism and protocols of zion conspiracy nuts.

[Username17]

Yes, the fact that there are real and demonstrable crazies out there who hate Jews makes it really easy for Israel to make ad hoc arguments against people making valid points against Israel. You'd think that Rwanda or Nigeria could play the same card with respect to "[EDITED]-haters", but apparently they just lack the funding and organization to pull it off.

Anyway:

I'd argue that our economy is currently dependant on Saudi Arabian oil

I'd argue that it has to be more than that, because Saudi Arabia's total oil exports to te US are tied for third - with Venezuela. And Venezuela actually gives us refined petroleum as well as crude, making their contribution actually much larger in terms of real dollars than that of Saudi Arabia.

The #1 and #2 oil importers are, of course, Canada and Mexico respectively, which shouldn't surprise anyone. But Venezuela is essentially #3, and Bush hates those guys. He sponsored a coup to overthrow their country, and he attempted to get the international community to ban sales of weapons to the nation. And yet, they haven't stopped shipping us oil. They gave heating oil to several of our cities at a discount during the cold snaps.

Yes, in every meaningful national interest sense, Venezuela does more for us than Saudi Arabia does. Also, unlike Saudia Arabia, they don't have more state executions than we do (despite having less people than California). They don't even have a death penalty.

In fact, when Amnesty International talks about Venezuela, their number 1 complaint is the ongoing conflict and political killings of the failed coup. Which is to say, the number 1 human rights problem in Venezuela is the United States.

So enlighten me: How is it dreadfully important for us to allow Saudi Arabia to dig holes in the ground so that they can use dumptrucks to efficiently stone women to death and chop peoples' heads off in public with a dull sword, but also equally important for us to sponsor an ongoing reign of terror against the people of Venezuela? The amounts of oil at stake seem to be the same...

-Username17

[power_word_wedgie]

1153359196[/unixtime]]There are a few reasons the "jewish block" has the influence it does.

The primary one though is because it is NOT a voting block, its a Lobby group. A skilled and heavily backed group of political operatives who put lots of pressure on the right politicians and media at the right times.

It has little to do with actual electoral politics.

It has more to do with your typical corrupt Washington power plays combined with organized groups that crush dissenting opinions in the media with lies and shout downs about antisemitism and protocols of zion conspiracy nuts.

Actually, they do vote in a voting bloc, but only for certain "hot-button" issues, I'll agree to that. One of them would be the dissolution of Israel and anti-semitism.

And agreed, in certain states, the Jewish vote is nothing. Here in Indiana, for example, they have very little say since we have a miniscule Jewish population. However, the same can't be said for New York and Florida. Now are they a majority voting bloc in either state? Nope, but the Democrat to Republican split is so tenuous that if they switched from voting Democrat to voting Republican, both states would fall to the Republicans. Hillary Clinton and Schumers responses (or lack there-of for the latter) highlights the point.

However, as I noted in my previous post, whether it is due to media bias, massive Jewish lobby, sun spots, or little green men, whatever the reason may be, it's still the same effect: it is enough of a politicial liability to the liberals that they want nothing to do with slamming Bush and thus Israel on this issue. For Presidents, Congressmen, and Senators, political liabilities are their Kryptonite - they want nothing to do with it. It's like the line in "Red October" (roughly paraphrased): "Sir, I'm a politician - if I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops."

[power_word_wedgie]

1153361191[/unixtime]]So enlighten me: How is it dreadfully important for us to allow Saudi Arabia to dig holes in the ground so that they can use dumptrucks to efficiently stone women to death and chop peoples' heads off in public with a dull sword, but also equally important for us to sponsor an ongoing reign of terror against the people of Venezuela? The amounts of oil at stake seem to be the same...

Easy. Saudi Arabia is cozying up with the United States while Venezuela has no interest in doing so. Different stimuli produce different responses. Also, Saudi Arabia is closer to countries that are perceived to harbor Al Qaeda terrorists and has a vested interest with eliminating them. (since both governments are targets of Al Qaeda) Thus, it's the old addage, "My enemy's enemy is my friend" and thus supports American national interest. (Note that this is the same reason why we are buddies with Pakastan as well)

Now, agreed, it would be interesting to see what would happen if Venezuela would threaten to shut down supply of oil to the US.

[PhoneLobster]

it is enough of a politicial liability to the liberals that they want nothing to do with slamming Bush and thus Israel on this issue

A political liability? Clintons very nearly successful push for peace compared to the descent into chaos produced by Bush?

There is PLENTY of fertile ground for favourable comparisons for democrats on the issue.

And its not even like Clinton wasn't pro Israel.

And its totally not just Bush's pet country, the whole of the US is Israels bitch and has been since forever, not just the current Republican administration.

Now, agreed, it would be interesting to see what would happen if Venezuela would threaten to shut down supply of oil to the US.

Nothing would happen.

Because...

A) The US can't manage to pull of a coupe. And has all its armed forces tied up elsewhere. Bush is basically a joke in South America at the moment.

B) When that happens it will be because they have sold it all to China instead at a better price. And China won't be one bit happy if the US tries anything at all to cheat them out of their oil.

Yeah and in B I said "When", not "If". Thats right I'm making a prediction right there.

[Josh_Kablack]

1153345486[/unixtime]]
So why is it? Because frankly some of the voices in the opposition in the US are supporting Bush on this one.

>Hillary Clinton's Response<

I'm drunk, tired and lazy right now, but it would be cool if someone could point me to what Dean, Feinstein and the more left leaning attack dog voices in the party are saying about this.

[Username17]

Dean has a much more measured response about how some targets in Lebanon are legitimate military targets and sme are not. And about how neither Syria nor Iran control Hizbolla and widening the conflict is cold war mentality that is bad for everyone.

Feinstein has been pretty silent about the Lebanon war, but during the run-up of the seige of Gaza she sent out "Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles. In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance." - of course, she's not the liberal voice in California. She's our spineless conservative senator.

Our actually liberal senator, Barbara Boxer, has asked Israel to cease its attacks and negotiate with Hizbollah. The right wing blogosphere is hopping mad over the idea.

---

Meanwhile, Faux News is running puff pieces about how war is aesome and the Israelis have been using powerful, awe-inspiring howitzers made in the U.S.A. on neighborhoods in Lebanon that are filled with bad people. Which makes me feel great, imagine the joy I feel when some jackass is broadcasting to the people who just got family members killed that the munitions were made in my country. Fvcking wonderful.

-Username17

[User3]

And Bolton, apparently, doesn't believe that a Lebanese (or Canadian, for that matter) civillian's life is worth an Israeli's.

But is anyone really surprised?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/pl ... r][br]Also, Israel has apparently been using the chaos to mask bulldozing more Palestinian farm land. There are a lot of moral grey areas, IMO, in what Israel does. There are rationalizations. To demolish farm land (which is nothing new for them), however, is inexcusable. You can't pretend that a grove of olive trees or date palms had to be destroyed because it served as a 'terrorist training ground.' You can't claim that is was an unfortunate but unavoidable accident. This is nothing but intentionally trying to take the livelyhood of farmers (not milllitants, farmers!), and starve a population.

As of Wednesday, Hezbollah has apparently killed 12 Israeli soldiers. Israel has apparently killed 12 Lebanese (Hezbollah?) soldiers, although I'm not sure how they qualify that.
Hezbollah has also killed 12 Israeli civillians, which is bad but maybe surprisingly low give the unguided nature of their rocket attacks. Israel has killed 195 Lebanese civillians, as well as a number of vactioners (such as the 8 canadians).

Oh, and in unrelated news it is now illegal to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Damn! If only we had done that with every other unconstitutional law! Oh well, at least from now on we'll be able to stick a 'may not be declared unconstitutional' clause into every new law.

[power_word_wedgie]

1153424473[/unixtime]]And Bolton, apparently, doesn't believe that a Lebanese (or Canadian, for that matter) civillian's life is worth an Israeli's.

But is anyone really surprised?

Nope, not when 410 out of 435 Congressmen agree with Israel. In fact, only 8 Congressmen voted against the measure.

And, back to the OP original question, the thing is that there are various shades of Liberal, just like there are various shades of Conservative. Frank illustrates that when he says that Feinstein is a conservative. I can say that for my state, that wouldn't be the case - very few people here are as liberal as Feinstein here. So, yes, I'll concede that there may be 8 Congressmen (see link above) that may be pressuring the President to stop Israel. However, there's another 410 Congressmen saying, in so many words with the support of Israel, "Stay the course," and I would say that a fair share of them may be Liberal. (The reason why I say this is that, though I agree that there is a Republican majority in the house, I'm having a hard time accepting that 410 out of 435 Congressmen are Conservatives.) Thus, for this case, though the President may have heard the calls to stop Israel, he's going with the majority (at least in the House) opinion.

[RandomCasualty]

1153424473[/unixtime]]
Oh, and in unrelated news it is now illegal to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Damn! If only we had done that with every other unconstitutional law! Oh well, at least from now on we'll be able to stick a 'may not be declared unconstitutional' clause into every new law.

Of course, the Supreme Court could just rule the "may not be declared unconstitutional" clause to be itself unconstituational (which it is since it's taking away the judicial branch's powers).