The world's most profitable companies banded together today to note that their religions look upon paying taxes as "an abomination in God's eyes." The announcement came just minutes after the Supreme Court ruled that private for-profit companies can opt out of laws requiring them to do that which they find religiously objectionable, because "corporations are people, too," according to Justice Alito.

The decision pertained to an arts and crafts company, Hobby Lobby, an absolutely ridiculous name, owned by a family who religiously objected to methods of contraception which they mistakenly decided cause abortions.

Exxon Mobil announced that it had religious objections to cleaning up oil spills. It also announced that, as a person, it would appreciate it if people would be courteous enough to hold the door for it when it was rushing to get on the elevator. It added that it was fairly certain that some people actually punched the "close doors" button just to prevent it from getting on.

Companies all over the world revealed that they had deeply religious affiliations holding that government regulation is "against God's will," and that God believed that the market will take care of everything. "That's why He created it," said Samsung, who was on its way to pick up a sandwich at a local deli.

Chase Manhattan Bank explained that God wanted it to do whatever it wanted to do without government interference, and that from now on, it would be charging a minimum of 30% interest on loans and delinquent credit card payments from now on. It also noted that it would indeed threaten to break anyone's legs who didn't "give the dough to Vinny when I send him around."

Felicity Daniels of Minnesota criticized the Supreme Court decision, because, among other things, corporations are always eating off her plate when they go out to dinner, or bragging about their kids in annoyingly loud cell phone calls when she's behind them in line at the supermarket.

"Now they'll just be insufferable," she sighed.

In the wake of new violence in Iraq, Former President Bush, Dick Cheney, and other Republican leaders called upon President Obama to "exercise the same good judgment that we did when we went into Iraq in the first place." They insisted that Obama should send U.S. military forces into Iraq immediately.

Bush told reporters that Obama should "emmuhlate" his decision in 2005 to invade Iraq again, noting that "whoever has been in charge of Iraq for the past ten years sure has made a mess of it."

Sen. John McCain (R. - Hypocrisy) faulted Obama for failing to overcome Iraqi President Nouri al-Malik's refusal to permit U.S. troops to stay past 2011. "He should have sent the troops over to al-Malik's house to make him 'an offer could not refuse,'" McCain told reporters. When reporters laughed, McCain responded angrily, saying, "I'm serious."

Americans in all of the red states agreed, faulting Obama. The opinion of Ted Filibuster of Kansas is typical: "I don't know why we don't take over the whole fucking Middle East," he said, adding that the U.S. would be better off fighting wars in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, and EuroDisney. "The troops could get R&R at EuroDisney when they need it," he offered.

Dick Cheney agreed.

N.B. Dick Cheney never disappoints: five days after I wrote this, he and his diaghter Liz penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal saying of Obama, ""Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many." I thought he was finally apologizing for George W. Bush.

Republicans in both the House and the Senate are considering legislation that will require the government to evaluate the worth of soldiers before deciding whether or not to rescue or recover them.

"The Bowe Bergdahl trade has made it clear that we should reconsider this "No Man Left Behind" rule, said Sen. Kelly Ayote (R. - N.H.). In response, Ayote proposed creating panel of conservative Republicans to review what they call a soldier's "liberty credentials." The ratings given any particular soldier would not be subjective, she insisted, but instead based on a point system. For instance, the point system would take into account the physical appearance of the soldier's parents; as an example, soldiers whose fathers have frightening beards would lose ten points.

Speaker of the House John Boehner agreed, noting that "it's clearly not worth risking the lives of a bunch of good god-fearing soldiers on, say, an atheist."

It is uncertain how most Americans feel about the proposal. A survey found that a majority of Americans were too busy watching reality television to answer questions on the subject.