Goldberg and Guthrie

The insurgents in the War on Christmas are gathering strength. One leader, Dennis Hastert, is finally making a stand for Christmas.

If it's a spruce tree adorned with 10,000 lights and 5,000 ornaments displayed on the Capitol grounds in December, it's a Christmas tree and that's what it should be called, says House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hastert, R-Ill., in a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, recommended that the annual Capitol Holiday Tree, as it has been called the past several years, be renamed the Capitol Christmas Tree.

"I strongly urge that we return to this tradition and join the White House, countless other public institutions and millions of American families in celebrating the holiday season with a Christmas tree," Hastert wrote to Architect Alan Hantman.

His office said the tree began to be referred to as the Holiday Tree in the 1990s. Spokesman Ron Bonjean said the reasons were unclear.

Will Hastert use his influence to launch suicide attacks on the secular liberal soldiers that currently occupy the U.S.?

Have the secularists considered that the Christmas-celebrators don't want them here? We all recall the days before the war. Secular liberals like George Soros claimed to secular liberals like me and Goldberg that we would be greeted as liberators. I think we all remember when the members of several Chicago-land churches gleefully tore down the statute of Santa Clause in our city square when we first invaded. But such gestures are looking like a distant memory.

Now, the insurgents like House Speaker Dennis Hastert are threatening to fight against the secularists. Can they win? Yes, Christmas is suppressed for now - according to Bill O'Reilly we can't even utter "Merry Christmas" in stores without fear of reprisal. But what will happen if they withdraw? How can the secularists declare victory? What is their exit strategy? How long before they demand that their leaders bring back their pre-war, secular, liberal everyday lives of cashing welfare checks and having unprotected, pre-marital anal and oral sex?

God damn, this war is fucking hell. When will it end?

Liberal bias continues unabated in the media. I was flipping channels and came across a Barbara Walters piece on Condoleezza Rice. It started out by lauding the Rice family and listing Condi's many talents. It then showed her saying how "humbled" she was that Bush had appointed her National Security Advisor. But, liberal ABC had to go and include the dissenting view! Walters said (paraphrase - I'll post a link if I can find it):

But she's not popular with everyone. She is often criticized for being an African American conservative Republican.

And that was it... nothing about the substance of the attacks against her. Damn liberal bias.

I watched the special for about 2 more minutes. In other news, Tom Cruise is insane, and I think I mean literally insane.

EDIT: To fix a typo. As The Riz correctly notes in the comments, the piece was ON Condaleezza Rice, not IN her.

As I was walking to work this morning, I was saddened by the total lack of Christmas decorations in downtown Chicago. Goldberg, have the secular liberals taken over New York as well?

As we enjoy the holidays, as we focus on our jobs and our families, we should never forget that there is a war on Christmas going on. Christians suffer silently, as the soldiers of the secular liberals attack the holiday they love so much.

At Goldberg and Guthrie we will not be silent. We will bravely report on the War on Christmas over the coming month, even as the mainstream media - much like they did during the Iraq War - ignores the truth.

In the mean time, I highly suggest you read John Gibson's book: The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Although I have not read it, it appears Mr. Gibson is the one man brave enough to defend something as unpopular in this country as Christmas.

According to Drudge, this is the White House plan if Saddam is found not guilty:

"There will be more charges filed against him, and more charges after that, if needed... he has committed tremendous crimes," a top Bush source explained last week from Washington.

Look, I'm pretty sure Saddam is a murderer, the worst kind of person, someone who deserves the worst kind of punishment, etc. In fact, I support the death penalty only for the crimes of genocide and treason (in some instances), and our boy Saddam probably committed both.

But the fact is, millions of Iraqis supported him. I know this is very hard for some people in this country to accept, but it is nevertheless true. Many Iraqis may look back on his reign fondly, and no matter how misguided they are, those Iraqis deserve a voice in an Iraqi democracy. There could be a lot of good reasons to find Saddam not guilty, or to send him into exile, or to do something else that will help lessen the anger of the pro-Saddam forces in Iraq. If we are really going to let Iraq form a democracy, this seems the epitome of a decision that should be made by Iraqis. Saddam's victims were almost all Iraqis, as were the soldiers who carried out his orders. Outside of providing security for whatever the government decides to do, why should we have anything to do with what happens to Saddam?

Some wonderful day, historians will realize that we had the equivalent of a temper-tantrum throwing 10-year old on the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the high court did not inject itself into the 2000 presidential election.

Speaking at the Time Warner Center last night, Scalia said: "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble."

But he said the court had to take the case.

"The issue was whether Florida's Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn't important enough?"

That's sort of like blaming Dred Scott for Dred Scott.

(1) Dear World. Stop calling me, stop e-mailing me and stop telling me that I should be happy that the Bengals "looked good" against the Colts. Fuck that shit. And fuck all of you. First of all, they didn't really look all that good. Second of all, I don't really care if they did. Thank you, Guthrie.

(2) The NFL's policies for showing national games suuuuuuccccckkkkkkkksssssssss. Why did I have to miss the first quarter of the best game of the day so I could watch Tommy Maddox and Kyle Boller, two of the worst quarterbacks never to don a Bengals uniform, battle it out to a "thrilling" finish. Just to clarify, Steelers/Ravens wasn't even the early game here. THERE WAS NO EARLY GAME. They just started showing that overtime at 3:00 PM, in lieu of a pre-game. So I missed the whole first quarter of the Colts/Bengals. Also, apparently, you couldn't even get the game if you had direct TV (the bar across the street wasn't showing it).

(3) I don't really know much about Harry Potter. I think I'm going to start reading the books soon. But it seems to me that every Harry Potter movie has been advertised as "the dark one" or "much darker." How dark can it get? At this pace of growing darkness, I imagine the last movie will portray Harry as a vengeful serial killer who brutalizes the prostitutes of London (with wizardry, of course).

(4) Why isn't there a national advertising campaign explaining that Judge Alito is going to overturn Roe v. Wade? It's quite obvious that he will. It seems that if someone is a halfway decent person (Roberts, Alito), nobody cares that he's going to change the law so that women can't get abortions. In his view, the state legislature has more of a right to control a woman's uterus than a woman. Why aren't Democrats trying to stop this? Oh, I forgot, our new policy is to simply wait for Bush to self destruct. More on this later, although my promised future posts have a way of never materializing.