The lesson for U.S. in fall of Brazil regime
Joseph Farah
Americans have their hands full with a presidential election, societal strife, terrorism, a bad economy, corruption in government and political parties that seem tone deaf.
Because the impeachment of the nation’s first woman president, Dilma Rousseff, reveals some striking parallels between conditions in Brazil and what’s been happening in the states. It may even provide a glimpse of where the U.S. is headed should Hillary Clinton win the presidency.
First off, the Brazilian Senate voted 61 to 20 to convict Ms. Rousseff on charges of manipulating the federal budget in an effort to conceal the nation’s mounting economic problems. More to the point, the central charge was that she employed budgetary tricks to conceal gaping deficits.
Sound familiar? That’s exactly what Barack Obama has been doing for the last eight years.
I would suggest to you that the political downfall of Rousseff’s leftist Workers Party occurred because Brazil is about five years further down the road of socialist chickens coming home to roost.
Socialism is an appealing idea as a theory, and it can appear to work in the short term as the government confiscates wealth and redistributes it. But, sooner or later, the wealth dries up. No more is being created.
That’s what happened in Brazil and everywhere else socialism has been tried throughout history. We’ve had eight years of socialist rule in the U.S., without serious opposition. It took 15 years in Brazil for the house of cards to fall.
But the lessons of Brazil go beyond that.
The economic crisis was coupled with leadership that was arrogant, corrupt and lacking in both charisma and humility.
Sound familiar?
It’s just what American leadership will be like in a Hillary Clinton administration – socialist, out of touch, corrupt, arrogant and lacking in charisma and humility.
Rousseff outraged the public in Brazil with what has been described as “colossal graft schemes” that included bribes and illicit campaign financing.
Again, sound familiar?
Rousseff, like Hillary, had a long history of radical political activities. She was involved with the Palmares Armed Revolutionary Vanguard, an urban guerrilla group, in her youth. Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinsky in hers.
Rousseff is 68 and white, but appealed politically to Afro-Brazilians. Hillary Clinton is 68 and white and appeals politically to Afro-Americans. Her husband, a white man, relished descriptions of him as “the first black president.”
The Brazilian Workers Party is perfectly synonymous ideologically with America’s Democratic Party.
So the question on the table for Americans is very simple: In 2016, do we want to set the stage for political upheaval, corruption, colossal graft schemes and economic calamity by electing Hillary Clinton president?
There is one big difference between Brazil and the U.S. revealed in this political crisis. It appears that Brazil operates more democratically and with political opposition that holds leaders accountable to its constitution.
We haven’t seen that in the U.S. for the last eight years.
So we may actually be worse off five years from now unless there is a political realignment – the kind Donald Trump may bring if he is elected.
Will he do it? Will he be able? Who knows?
But the alternative is no change from the status quo.
We’ll continue going down the same road – socialism, government power grabs, less individual liberty, more open corruption, more divisive racial politics, less accountability to the rule of law, one standard for the gilded elite and another for the average citizen.
Take your pick.
Learn the lessons of Brazil.
Source: WND
Recommended Reading:
Former CIA director endorses Hillary Clinton, supports Muslims in CIA and characterizes Trump as Putin’s agent