Now what, you might be asking, is the difference between his last attempt, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed, and this one? This time, he's got other people to file suit with him. We have to admit, that’s pretty crafty. Since the court threw out the case earlier on the grounds that he didn't have custody of the daughter he was trying to save from hearing that phrase "under God" and that her mother objected, he went out and made sure he won't have the problem again. This time he's got eight other plaintiffs, all legal custodians of their children to join his suit. These plaintiffs have asked to remain anonymous. Newdow's is trying to get the Supreme Court to have to consider the issue instead of just throwing it out on a technicality that made it seem like they'd rather go to NASCAR races with Clarence Thomas than have to rule on Newdow’s claim. Most legal Supreme Court experts think he’s he doesn’t have a prayer in getting the phrase banned. Hah! We made a funny.

And as if that's not enough, Newdow (who apparently is also waging war against the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun by using the word “ree” instead) is also suing to prevent prayers taking place at the Bush Inaugural. But what are we supposed to do instead?