In 549 B.C.E., Croesus, then secure as King of Lydia (a nation in what is now western Turkey), sought to expand his power by challenging the then-nascent Persian Empire. Because of the rapid expansion of that neighbor to the east, Croesus assumed it would be vulnerable to attack from his, a nation which has long since secured its power over the lands under its control. He grew ever more confident of his impending victory when he consulted the Oracle a Delphi and learned that if he crossed the river Halys, the boundary between the two realms, a great empire would fall.

When he crossed that boundary, an empire did indeed fall, but it was his own. Had he not sought to expand his realm — and his power, he would have likely continued to reign as a powerful king until his death. No wonder history remembers him not for his leadership, but for his wealth.

Half a millennium later, having defeated his rivals (and some former allies), Julius Caesar returned triumphant to Rome. He was assembling armies to attack the growing Parthian Empire in the East. Given his military record, his success seemed likely. But, before departing on that campaign in February 44 B.C.E, he declared himself dictator for life. A month later he was dead, murdered by a conspiracy which included some who had, until that declaration, supported him.

I thought of those men last night when I read that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez lost a referendum which would have strengthened the powers of the presidency and allowed him to run indefinitely for reelection. Even though Chavez controls the media on his nation, having closed down an opposition television network, he lost, in large part due to the “defection” of some of his erstwhile supporters who spoke out against this initiative.

While some of those supporters might continue to support the leader with aspirations of life-time dictatorship, his loss may serve as a rallying point for the opposition. They know now that he is not invincible. As Daniel Duquenal writes at Pajamas, “a revolution that loses an election is always in trouble.”

Perhaps, just as those two historical rulers lost their secure positions of leadership when they overreached, so too will the Venezuelan strongman also fall for overreaching. Instead of this referendum serving to consolidate his power, it may will serve as the beginning of the end of his domination of Venezuela.

It’s too soon to tell whether or not this is the beginning of the end. With his nation’s economy in the tank despite rising fuel prices (which should be helping this oil-exporter), his people might start blaming their demagogic president for their woes. And now that he has been proven vulnerable, he may not be able to contain the forces rising against him.

Time will only tell whether this referendum represents a setback for Chavez or becomes the first nail in the coffin of his aspirations to control his nation as his buddy Castro has long controlled his.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

That mean and dangerous school teacher should be beheaded for daring to name a teddy bear “Mohammed.” If all the teddy bears in the world were named Mohammed, Islam would come to an end — that’s how much of a threat Ms. Gibbons is!

(Photo of Islamic protestors outside jail housing Gillian Gibbons in Khartoum)

OFF WITH HER HEAD! “Kill her, kill her!”

Still no protest from any prominent American liberal. They are too distraught that Dick Cheney’s heart problem wasn’t fatal earlier this week….

Oh… and I’m still waiting for the photos of thousands of Christian or Jewish protestors threatening to kill someone over a child’s toy….

or a cartoon…

or a movie…

or the endless other reasons that drive Rage Boy and his friends into wild frenzies of blood lust at the drop of a hat.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Who said the following statement this week?

It suffices as evidence of this your entering of this war and your excusing of American soldiers from being held to account by the European courts. For this reason, this address of mine is to you, not to your politicians, as it is no longer a secret that Blair, Brown, Berlusconi, Aznar, Sarkozy and those with him and their like love to shade themselves in the shade of the White House. And there isn’t a major difference worth mentioning between them and many of the leaders of the Third World.

A – Cindy Sheehan

B – Nancy Pelosi

C – Osama bin Laden

D – Harry Reid

E – Dick Durbin

F – John Kerry

G – John Murtha

H – Hugo Chavez

Hard to tell, eh?   The answer is C – Osama bin Laden…. but you would hardly know for sure, would you?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

OMG! How could I forget?!? According to that paragon of objectivity and unbiased reporting, Al Jazeera, today is the 28th annual “Death To America” Day in Iran! Now as one of the minions of the Great Satan I should know this, but alas like the typical dumb American I just don’t remember. So, are we supposed to wear any special clothing? Your basic black I guess, with the appropriate exploding accessories? Do I need to buy presents for the good little jihadis and if so, what? Hmm…perhaps a nice family visit where all the loved ones gather around the table and chant “Death to America!”. It’s so hard to understand holidays from other cultures. Perhaps a video to celebrate would be enough:

And don’t forget: Death to America!

h/t Hot Air

– John (Average Gay Joe)

After reading the brief transcript of CBS’ Scott Pelley’s interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I realized this was definitely a case where things must be getting lost in translation….or at the very least you had to read between the lines.

So let me try my best to translate from Islamoterrorese to English:

PELLEY: Mr. President, do you intend to press your request to visit the World Trade Center site?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that.

[GP translation:  "I can do whatever I want... I'm a prophet from the 12th Imam!  And, by the way, if I happen to see a woman without a burka or one of those filthy homosexuals near Ground Zero, I'm throwing both of them into that big hole so they are closer to the burning hell they belong in."]

PELLEY: But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can’t do that, I won’t insist.

[GP translation:  "I'm not going down there alone, dawg!  Isn't that crazy Rudy G still the mayor?  He still has a chip on his shoulder about my terror-brother bin Laden... I'm afraid Rudy might take me out.  Go there alone?  You are silly one, aren't you."]

PELLEY: Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans.

AHMADINEJAD: Why should it be insulting?

[GP translation:  "Nah, that's not insulting.  What would be insulting is a country that holds American hostages for 444 days and then elects one of the hostage takers as their President 30 years later.... and then that leader speaks at a major US university... now THAT should be insulting to the Great Satan."]

PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, I’m amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?

[GP translation:  "You are only a filthy media beast.  The government tells you what to say -- like in Iran.  You can't possibly speak for every American.  ."]

PELLEY: Well, the American nation–

AHMADINEJAD: You are representing a media and you’re a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there.

[GP translation:  "Well, Scott ... thanks to our propaganda and your media's willingness to peddle it unchecked, you and I have duped half of the American public into thinking their country is evil and their own President is Hitler.  Is that awesome or what? 

So you can't possibly be speaking for those folks... they are just my useful idiots.  And those Democrats love me and recite my own talking points.... And [*laughs*] those stupid Democrats don’t even mind that Iranian troops and terrorists are killing the troops they “say” they support.  Hell, I’m just wanting to visit New York to save Nancy Pelosi the airfare costs from San Fran to Tehran.  I can’t wait to give her a big kiss.   Then I’m throwing her to the dogs of hell, too.”]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I haven’t done this in a while…. but this one is particularly funny.   Our blog has a new liberal troll who has come to lecture us about American politics and the eeeeeevil of having more than one train of thought if you are gay.  The irony is this Gay Borg actually lives in Toronto, Canada.  (*sings*  Blame Canada!  Blame Canada!)

I thought my email exchange from him was particularly illuminating given how liberals always accuse conservatives of “twisting the truth” and “revisionist history.”   Ladies and gentlemen…. let me introduce you to the Kettle:

Paul’s recent comment:   “What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay  community.”

That made me scratch my head.  What on earth could this guy be referring to?  I decided to embark on a mission to find out.  My search for facts from Paul the Canadian was kind of like being a UN weapons’ inspector looking for WMD in Saddam’s Iraq…. 

My email to Paul, our Canadian commenter:

Please clarify your comment or I will have to delete it because you are making potentially slanderous and libelous comments about me and about my reputation….

You commented: “What I took away from Bruce’s earliest posts was an  unwarranted and wholly unneccessary vitriol directed at the gay community.”

I would appreciate the specific dates and postings you are referring to.  Or I would like a public apology on my blog.

Seems pretty reasonable to ask for specifics.   Hell, he might be right.   After all, I may need to apologize for some long-forgotten rant that obviously has him furious and awake at night in Toronto.

Paul didn’t agree with me:

If you want to delete the comment, then do so.  I will not have my opinion subjugated by a blogmaster.

I think this might have more to do with my pointing out that [North] Dallas [Thirty] did not have the hyper-link in his original comment, than anything I wrote about you.

I will not give you a public apology.  However, if you feel hurt by what I wrote, I will give you a private apology.

“Hurt”?!?  I found that particularly funny.  My response to Paul was the following:

It has nothing to do with your exchange with NDT.  It has everything to do with your accusing me of a very serious charge.

I’d like you to back it up with the so-called “earlier postings” that you refer to.  This wasn’t an opinion, this was you stating a fact.

So, prove your point with FACTS.  Or apologize and retract.  Pretty simple.

His response with the facts behind his wild-eyed accusations:    *crickets chirping* 

Anyway, since I haven’t heard back from him… I wanted to take this opportunity to post this exchange.  I figure that since he was willing to give me a private apology, I’ll accept it in this manner.

Case closed, Paul.   Thanks for playing.  And I accept your apology.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

This non-reported story from the US drive-by media is simply delicious.  Two of Saddam Hussein’s biggest apologists and two of America’s biggest foes in the War on Terror – Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepan — are in serious trouble in a huge French political scandal. (h/t – GatewayPundit)

President Chirac could become the first former French president to be questioned over alleged criminal acts while in office. Judges intend to question Mr. Chirac in the coming weeks despite his claims of immunity from prosecution.

Recently discovered documents suggest Mr. Chirac could be at the heart of the Clearstream scandal — described as the French Watergate. Judges will question his former prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, on September 13.

Clearstream centers on a failed attempt to smear Mr. Chirac’s successor, President Sarkozy, 52, who was wrongly accused of money laundering via a Luxembourg holding bank of that name in 2004. Mr. Sarkozy has allegedly pledged to hang the culprit “on a butcher’s hook.”

Messrs. de Villepin and Chirac were reported to be desperate to block Mr. Sarkozy’s presidential ambitions at the time. The pair has been forbidden from talking to each other by investigators.

It seems all of the enemies of the Bush Doctrine are having their comeuppance.  *cough* George Galloway *cough*

I can only pray for jail time for the two French democracy saboteurs!  As GatewayPundit said, “couldn’t happen to nicer guys”!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Given the happenings in Massachusetts and New York this past week, I had expected to blog more today on gay marriage. But, then again, I had expected to blog last week on the eHarmony lawsuit. For each story has much to do with the current situation of gays in America — and in our political system.

But, today after receiving an e-mail from a blog I enjoy, Davids MedienKritik-Online, which offers perhaps the best coverage of the anti-American bias in the European media, it struck me not only how that bias contributed to Europeans’ twisted views of our great nation abroad, but also how similar the attitudes of the European media elite were to attitudes I experienced in Europe approximately twenty years ago when I lived in (then-West) Germany and France. That good blog offers a must-see short two-part video report “on anti-Americanism in European media.”

In my post on the run-up to the French presidential election (won by the unashamedly pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy), I noted that while the “young French intellectuals . . . looked down on America . . ., young French professionals” were fascinated by America, “eager to learn” more about our nation and to associate with Americans. They looked up to the United States and wished their land were more like ours.

It was the élites who scorned us, often based on false images of — and inaccurate information about — our land. The report on Davids MedienKritik confirms that things haven’t much changed in Old Europe. As I learned about the latest European coverage of our homeland, it was as if I was hearing repeated the conversations I had had with European intellectuals and students from universities and secondary schools across the western sections of the continent.

One German high school student, while berating the United States for its involvement in Central America, heralded (à la Michael Moore) Cuba for its excellent health care system and vibrant economy. At least he acknowledged the political repression, but remarked that economic and social progress was more important than freedom. Without even touching his contention that Cuba had a sound economy, I commented that a German living fifty years previously could have used the same argument to justify the Nazi regime. That silenced him. And it stunned me he hadn’t made the connection until I brought it up.

Not long after my encounter with that young (and actually rather fetching) German (at the youth hostel in Perpignan), I met another German (not nearly as fetching) at the youth hostel in Verona. Stunned to learn my nationality after hearing me speak German, he naturally assumed that an American who could communicate in four languages would not have a very high opinion of the then-incumbent American president, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

(more…)