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
No comments :
Post a Comment