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.

So why should we care what just happened in Brazil?

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:

President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil

Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Anti-Marxist Conscience of the Brazilian Evangelical

Lula, the Ugliest Face of “the Brazilian Way of Doing Things”

Former CIA director endorses Hillary Clinton, supports Muslims in CIA and characterizes Trump as Putin’s agent

President’s Impeachment Shows Growing Evangelical Power in Brazil

CBN News

Comment by Julio Severo: Last year, the most significant position paper of the ruling socialist Workers’ Party in Brazil declared that Eduardo Cunha, a Pentecostal leader, is the most dangerous man in the Brazilian Congress, because Cunha has been advancing, as no one else, a conservative agenda. Under his leadership, the pro-abortion and homosexualist agendas are being weakened and pro-family and pro-life interests are a priority. Above all, Cunha is the man behind the impeachment. Read now the CBN report:

Dilma Rousseff

The impeachment of Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff is being led by a Pentecostal Christian and the speaker of Brazil's lower legislative house, Eduardo Cunha.

Some say it shows evangelical influence is rising inside the traditionally Catholic country.

Brazilian historian Karina Bellotti told the Christian Science Monitor that "during the last roll call vote for the continuation of the process of impeachment in the lower house, several politicians dedicated their vote 'for God.'" 

"Some of them were Catholic, but most were evangelical, from the Pentecostal churches," she added.

Estimates put the number of Pentecostals in Brazil at about 45 million.

"Brazil is at the vanguard of the global trend of the Pentecostalization of Christianity," as well as "the epicenter of world Christianity, with the largest Pentecostal population," Andrew Chesnut, author of Born Again in Brazil, told CSM.

The impeachment proceedings against Rousseff stem from allegations that illegal accounting tricks allowed her administration to maintain government spending to shore up flagging support.

Her critics contend that she also hid deficits that contributed to the country's worst recession since the 1930s.

Rousseff has defended such fiscal maneuvers as common practice in Brazil. She insists the accusations are a flimsy excuse by the traditional ruling elite to grab power back from her left-leaning Workers' Party, which has governed for 13 years.

The lower Chamber of Deputies didn't agree. On Sunday, the body voted in favor of impeachment. The measure is now in the Senate, which is expected to decide by mid-May whether to put the president on trial.

A simple majority vote by senators is needed to approve a trial, and Rousseff would be suspended for up to 180 days while it was conducted.

During that time, Vice President Michel Temer, a Lebanese-Brazilian Maronite Christian, would take over.

But the impeachment leader, Cunha, is also under a cloud after his name appeared in the recently disclosed Panama Papers. An opinion poll showed 77 percent of people believe he too should be impeached.

Source: CBN News

Divulgation: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis

A Charismatic Response to “The Growing Crisis Behind Brazil’s Evangelical Success Story”

Brazil, the Next (Regional or Global) Threat to the U.S. Economic Supremacy?

Brazilian Crisis Sparks Chances for Socialist Marina Silva in the 2018 Presidential Election

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Anti-Marxist Conscience of the Brazilian Evangelical

Lula, the Ugliest Face of “the Brazilian Way of Doing Things”

Guatemala Lessons for Brazil in the Midst of a Powerful Political Crisis

By Julio Severo

Protests against a corrupt president? A population calling for the impeachment of the corrupt president? This is what Brazil is living right now. And this is what Guatemala lived last year.

But there is a huge difference between the presidents of both nations. While Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was a Marxist terrorist who fought the military rule in Brazil in the 1960s, Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina was a general who fought communists in the past. In fact, he was trained for such fight.

Molina was a graduate of the U.S. Army School of the Americas, an institution whose specific goal was to teach “anti-communist counterinsurgency training.” He was also a graduate of the Washington DC-based Inter-American Defense College. He is one of the distinguished alumni of this college.

As a retired general, Molina founded in 2001 the Patriotic Party (Spanish: Partido Patriota, PP), which is conservative and right-wing.

The past political activism of Molina and Rousseff is opposed and antagonistic. She is an atheist with a perfect Marxist history. He is a Catholic with a perfect anti-Marxist history. But their presidencies were equally plagued by massive corruption, and massive protests.

In spite of their irreconcilable ideological differences, they equally suffered protests from contrary political forces. Molina, from left-wing forces; Rousseff, from right-wing forces.

Rousseff may be impeached or deposed in 2016, while Molina, whose opposition wanted to impeach him, resigned due to fraud and corruption in 2015.

But in Guatemala, a corrupt Left was not victorious against a corrupt right-wing president. The Guatemalan Church had been active throughout the process of political crisis, holding prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting.

“God put His hand in Guatemala, it’s a miracle what happened,” prayer participant Marco Antonio Ruiz said. “We came together as Church and cried out with one voice. The effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much. God heard the voice of all those who joined us in prayer.”

After Molina’s resignation, Guatemala held new elections, and Jimmy Morales, who is a conservative evangelical Christian and has studied theology, was elected in an election process equally marked by prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting. Morales supports the death penalty and opposes abortion and gay “marriage.”

About laws promoting these evils, which are plaguing Brazil and especially the U.S., Morales said, “According to my belief, my ideology, I would have to veto such laws. I think in Guatemala we will not have this because of conservative thinking. In case Congress approves such laws, my position would be against them.”

Many Guatemalan Christians believe President Morales is an answer to their prayers. Because of prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting, the transition from a corrupt right-wing president to a conservative evangelical president was very peaceful.

Is there a more powerful lesson to Brazil than the Guatemala example in this time of intense Brazilian crisis?

The answer is not in leftist politicians, including Marina Silva.

Many Brazilians see anti-communist Army officials as the only hope for Brazil.

But the ultimate answer is not in them.

The answer is in God, who answers prayers.

Perhaps the Brazilian Church should invite the Guatemalan Church to teach her about prayer meetings, prayer vigils and fasting.

If God gave a real conservative president to Guatemala, what hinders him from giving the same blessing to Brazil?

With information from ChristianHeadLines.

Portuguese version of this article: Lições da Guatemala para o Brasil no meio de uma forte crise política

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Brazilian Crisis Sparks Chances for Socialist Marina Silva in the 2018 Presidential Election

Understanding Anti-Government Protests in Brazil

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

Anti-Marxist Conscience of the Brazilian Evangelical

Lula, the Ugliest Face of “the Brazilian Way of Doing Things”

Were Brazilian Protests an Anti-Marxist Counter-Revolution?

By Julio Severo

Socialist Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff faced, according to FoxNews, massive demonstrations protesting against corruption and calling for her impeachment last Sunday (March 15).

Different from FoxNews, which is a huge conservative news outlet, Cliff Kincaid announced in his small outlet that the Brazilian demonstrations were an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution.”

Kincaid said, “Such a development would be a major blow to the anti-American left in Latin America, which has been operating since 1990 under the rubric of the São Paulo Forum, a pro-communist movement started by Rousseff’s predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula de Silva, and Fidel Castro.”

The Brazilian protests were not about Marxism. Any anti-Marxism expression was an isolated event. The protests were, according to Reuters, about “a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption.”

When Brazilians are discontent, they protest. The same demonstrators would protest Barack Obama if discontent with him.

Many Brazilians who live in the U.S. are discontent with Rousseff, but not with Obama.

Last year, Obama announced a major amnesty benefiting millions of immigrants. Many of those benefited are Brazilians, who are fleeing from the leftist hell in Brazil, but by being aided by Obama, they are also aiding to produce a leftist hell in the U.S.

A Brazilian friend helped spread Kincaid’s article about an alleged “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” in Brazil. Frequently, he attacks Rousseff, because she is a Marxist. But he praised Obama’s amnesty. I told him that conservative Americans did not like Obama’s amnesty because it is a handout. He answered that the important thing is Brazilian immigrants need it and so he praised such wonderful policy for immigrants.

In general terms, this is the profile of an “anti-Marxist” Brazilian in Kincaid’s piece.

A true anti-Marxist counter-revolution would be characterized especially by a moral fight against two fundamental banners of the U.S. and Brazilian Left: abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Yet, a fight against abortion and the tyrannical homosexual agenda had no place in what Kincaid termed “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” in Brazil.

In fact, Monday (March 16), just one day after the massive demonstrations, Catholic Levy Fidelix, a former Brazilian presidential candidate, was condemned to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement. There was no massive or even small demonstration in his support.

He was condemned because in the last Brazilian presidential election he made pro-family declarations. The other main contenders — Dilma Rousseff, Aécio Neves and Marina Silva — also lambasted him for his pro-family view.

Evangelical Marina was the candidate of the Brazilian Socialist Party, and was heavily involved in the anti-Rousseff protests. Does a socialist fighting a socialist look like an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

Because he knew I am a Brazilian, a minister with some evangelical churches in the U.S. praised Silva, saying that she is a conservative evangelical politician who absolutely fights abortion and the gay agenda. I asked him where he had read it, because in her history, Silva never undertook such fight. I emphasized that she always was leftwing. He said that he had read about her strong evangelical “conservatism” in the U.S. mainstream media.

Neves, admired by most demonstrators, had his candidacy built by Marxist strategist David Axelrod, a longtime top Obama adviser. Does a socialist helping a socialist look like an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

Even so, Kincaid said, “President Barack Obama’s fellow Marxist, Dilma Rousseff.”

It is correct to say that Obama and Rousseff are Marxist. But they are not fellows. Rousseff and her administration have had a very hard time with Obama and his administration because of NSA and its economic espionage against Brazil.

There is a big difference between pro-U.S. Marxists and anti-U.S. Marxists. Neves is in the former group; Rousseff is in the latter one. Yet, Rousseff is not totally anti-U.S. Her administration has faithfully supported every pro-sodomy measure by the U.S. in the United Nations.

Fidel Castro and Aécio Neves

There is a picture of Neves with Fidel Castro. Even so, he and Marina Silva, a radical environmentalist, were portrayed in the U.S. mainstream media as “conservative.” They were the leading political figures in the massive demonstrations.

In this point, you could think then that the massive protests were pro-U.S. and pro-Obama Marxists protesting anti-U.S. Marxists. Hardly an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”!

Basically, Brazilians protesting Rousseff because of rising prices would also protest Obama if he backtracked in his amnesty policy benefiting millions of immigrants, including Brazilians. While Obama does not backtrack in his handout, Brazilian immigrants in the U.S. will keep attacking only Rousseff.

What about if Socialist Aécio Neves and environmentalist Marina Silva agreed to denounce the São Paulo Forum to destroy Rousseff’s socialist party, the Workers’ Party? Would Marxism be politically destroyed in Brazil? No. There is a bigger threat: the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (NCBB).

Professor Hermes Rodrigues Nery, a prominent Catholic pro-life leader in Brazil, said recently that NCBB is “an extension of the São Paulo Forum.” It was a generous charge.

Actually, Marxist NCBB is credited, by many Catholic conservative and pro-life leaders, as the original creator of the Workers’ Party. And as a mother nurses her baby, NCBB nursed its red monster.

Above all, long before the São Paulo Forum’s birth, there was a NCBB guiding Brazil, the largest Catholic nation in the world, into socialism.

Ignoring the Brazilian reality, Cliff Kincaid said, “The protests in Brazil are giving hope to those who see an opportunity to defeat Marxism in the Western hemisphere.”

If Brazil is the best example of an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution” that Kincaid is able to see, then it is no wonder that Obama is at the White House.

Immediately after Rousseff’s reelection, her opponents made a petition in the White House asking help from Obama. Nowhere the petition mentioned the threat of abortion policies and the homosexual agenda. But it mentioned “São Paulo Forum” and said, “We call a White House position in relation to communist expansion in Latin America.”

Oh, my God! Does people asking help from a socialist produce an “anti-Marxist counter-revolution”?

The most important Marxist today is at the White House. Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, quoted often by Kincaid, said recently: “Because I am just a legal resident and not an American citizen, I cannot get involved actively in the anti-Obama fight, but I believe that this fight is the ONLY thing that matters today.”

The most important fight — against Obama and his wicked policies — has been one of the main focuses of my ministry, because the Obama administration is impacting the whole world. I would not avoid this calling even if threatened of losing a chance to get a U.S. citizenship.

Of course, the other huge threat is Islam, the greatest murder machine in the history. Its main victims have been Christians.

But Kincaid (and Obama!) has been focusing his attacks and provocations on Russia. Kincaid’s radicalism does not spare even pro-family events in Russia. Last year, an international conservative pro-family congress was held at the Kremlin, attended even by an Inter-American Institute (IAI) fellow. But Kincaid preferred to join the U.S. homosexual militant and radical Marxist chorus who attacked the event and the Russian laws banning homosexual propaganda for children.

Another IAI member recommended the book “The War Against Putin: What the Government-Media Complex Isn’t Telling You About Russia” to me and made it clear that he disagreed with the radical criticism of some Americans against the Russian president.

While Kincaid and other ultranationalist Americans are heavily busy attacking Russia, Obama and neocons are trying to destroy pro-family cultures by advancing their Marxist revolution and imposing around the world their pro-sodomy, pro-Marxism, pro-abortion and pro-Islam policies.

To denounce, expose and fight Obama’s pro-abortion, pro-sodomy and pro-Islam Marxist revolution — that is the ONLY thing that matters today.

Portuguese version of this article: Os protestos anti-Dilma foram uma contrarrevolução antimarxista?

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Former Brazilian Presidential Candidate Levy Fidelix Condemned to Pay R$ 1 Million for Voicing “Homophobic” View

Interview with Don Hank: Interpreting What is Happening in the U.S., Europe and Russia today

US Names First Global Envoy for Homosexual Agenda

OLAVO DE CARVALHO AND THE INQUISITION

Former Brazilian Presidential Candidate Levy Fidelix Condemned to Pay R$ 1 Million for Voicing “Homophobic” View

By Julio Severo

Former Brazilian presidential candidate Levy Fidelix was condemned by the São Paulo Supreme Court to pay a fine of R$ 1 million (over US$300,000) in a public civil action filed by the LGBT movement.

Levy Fidelix, in a TV show, after being lambasted by Dilma Rousseff, Aécio Neves e Marina Silva

The condemnation, delivered Friday (March 14), deals with declarations that Catholic Fidelix made in an interview in a TV show September 28, 2014, where he said:

“The large intestine does not reproduce… How can I, a family man and a grandfather, be afraid of losing votes? I prefer not having such votes, but to be a moral father and a moral grandfather to teach his child, to instruct his grandchild. Let us end this. I just read that the Holy Father, the Pope, expelled a pedophile from the Vatican. He did very well. He is right! We train our children all their lives in a religious way so that they may really find a good family way.”

Fidelix also recommended psychological treatment for homosexuals and he said that homosexuals should be kept away from families and their children.

In that time, the TV show also interviewed the other presidential candidates, who did not like Fidelix’s view.

Workers’ Party candidate Dilma Rousseff, who eventually won the presidential election, said about his view: “I have already said that I am against homophobia and I think Brazil has reached such a degree of civility that we cannot live together with acts and words of discrimination leading to violence. I think that homophobia should be outlawed.” Rousseff is a leftist with Venezuelan and Cuban connections.

Brazilian Socialist Party candidate Marina Silva said that the declarations of Levy Fidelix were “homophobic and unacceptable in any circumstance.” In the TV show, she had committed herself to mobilize her party, Rede Sustentabilidade (Sustainability Network), to carry on a lawsuit against Fidelix for “homophobia.” Strangely, Silva was eventually portrayed, by a propaganda from an unknown source, as “conservative” in the U.S. media, which was silent on Fidelix and his much more conservative stances.

PSDB candidate Aécio Neves moaned about Fidelix’s declarations, saying, “We absolutely repel those declarations. And as I have already said more than once, in my view all kind of discrimination is crime. Homophobia too.”

David Axelrod, who served as a top White House adviser after helping Obama get elected, had been hired to help build Aécio Neves candidacy for the 2014 Brazilian presidential.

Axelrod was brought to Brazil with the help of former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, also known by his initials FHC — who is close to former US President Bill Clinton. FHC founded PDSB, the Brazilian Social Democrat Party, whose presidential candidate was Neves.

Longtime Obama adviser Axelrod wrote in his new biography, “Believer: My Forty Years in Politics,” that Obama followed his advice that he should not declare his real position on gay “marriage” so he could avoid opposition from African American religious leaders and others to get elected president in 2008. He said Obama “modified his position” to say he supported civil unions — but not same-sex “marriage.”

Possibly, Axelrod taught his Brazilian candidate to lie about the same issues. Even so, both Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Aécio Neves were portrayed as “conservative” by the mainstream media in the U.S. In this point, I wonder why the U.S. media labels Brazilian leftist politicians as “conservative” if all of them opposed and attacked Fidelix and his anti-sodomy views.

Axelrod’s candidate lost, but the homosexual agenda not. To the detriment of moral issues, especially a resistance to the advance of homosexual tyranny, the focus of political battles has been economic.

Yesterday (March 15), according to Reuters, “Over one million demonstrators marched in cities and towns across Brazil on Sunday to protest a sluggish economy, rising prices and corruption — and to call for the impeachment of leftist President Dilma Rousseff.”

Among those opposing Rousseff were Neves and Marina Silva.

Today (March 16), with Brazilian headlines about the Fidelix condemnation, there was no demonstration, by Neves or Silva, to defend Fidelix’s free speech.

In an ideal world, he would not have been condemned, and Rousseff, Neves and Silva would see millions of demonstrators marching against their leftist agendas.

The São Paulo Supreme Court said that Fidelix’s declarations exceeded the limits of free speech and reflected hate speech. In its ruling, the court added, “[Fidelix’s declarations] reflect a sad Brazilian reality of violence and discrimination against this population group. We, the public authority, have the fundamental responsibility to protect human dignity.”

Now, homosexual vice equals “human dignity.”

The lawsuit filed by the LGBT movement also wants Fidelix and his party to pay all expenses for the production of a TV show promoting homosexual rights. Moreover, it imposes a daily fine of R$ 500,000 for each day of judicial order breach.

During the September TV show, where Fidelix made his declarations, a member of Marina Silva’s Brazilian Socialist Party said: The worst thing is that most constituency thinks as Fidelix does.

As Fidelix, most of the Brazilian people are Catholic.

Even not taking his religion in consideration, is his view different from what most Brazilians think? No. According to a study by an institute connected to the Workers’ Party, 99% of the Brazilian people are “homophobic,” that is, they have views contrary to homosexual behavior.

Today, Fidelix has been fined R$ 1 million for voicing a view against the obvious homosexual depravity. Tomorrow, ministers and priests and their members may be the next.

If the Brazilian people do not make demonstrations for Fidelix’s free speech, Cuba, Venezuela, Axelrod, Obama and other antifamily radicals are going to keep in the Brazilian presidency individuals committed to homosexual agenda.

Portuguese version of this article: Ex-candidato presidencial Levy Fidelix é condenado a pagar 1 milhão por expressar opinião “homofóbica”

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

“Homosexuality is Unnatural”: The Last Great Message of Myles Munroe on the Gay Agenda

Brazilian Government Says 99% of Citizens Are “Homophobic” and Must Be Reeducated

“Study” in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo: 99% Brazilians do not accept homosexuality

Brazil Says 99% of Citizens “Homophobic”

Inflamed by American Prophecy, Brazilian Evangelicals Want a Woman for Brazil Presidency

Gay “Marriage”: Obama Lied, Rick Warren Believed

Obama Strategist in the Brazilian Presidential Campaign

Brazilian Families Want Legal Homeschooling

By Julio Severo

A group of families made a 12-hour trip to be in Brasilia, Brazil’s capital city, to attend a vote in the Brazilian Congress on homeschooling. The vote was postponed, but the presence of these families and their children touched the hearts of many congressional representatives.

Homeschool families in the Brazilian Congress

These families, who were sponsored by ANED (Associação Nacional de Educação Domiciliar, National Home Education Association), promise to be in Brasilia again next Wednesday, when there will be a possible new vote.

Congressmen touched by homeschool families

The current Brazilian government is controlled by the socialist Workers’ Party, and it is hostile to homeschooling. The past social democratic government, of the Marxist, former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, was similarly hostile.

The ideological opposition by the Workers’ Party is reminiscent of the Workers’ Party in Germany some 80 years ago. In fact, this was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, also known as Nazi Party, which banned homeschooling in Germany in the 1930s. After the ban, national socialist dictator Hitler said, “The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

Hitler’s ban is in place in Germany even today. Germany, which is tolerant of many kinds of radical Muslim practices and customs from its Islamic immigrants, has been radically intolerant of every homeschooling practice of Christian parents.

Germany is a long way from one of the most important founders of the modern German language, Martin Luther, who said, “I am much afraid that schools will prove to be the great gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures, engraving them in the hearts of youth.”

About the Brazilian government, why should it imitate the German government behavior against Christian parents? About the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who was an admirer of the Soviet Union, why should she keep a ban on homeschooling? Why should her administration persecute Christian parents who homeschool in a Christian way?

The Soviet Union no more exists. In modern Russia, homeschooling is legal. In my pro-life and pro-family meeting in Moscow two months ago, one of the most prominent homeschool leaders in the world told me that Russia has several homeschool curriculums. In today’s Russia, it is not a crime to homeschool. Why in Brazil is it?

CBN News, of Pat Robertson, reported that Russia “is one of the freest nations in which to homeschool.”

“We have complete freedom of home education in Russia, in terms of legality,” Pavel Parfentiev, a family rights advocate in Russia, said.

“The Russian Federation is sort of a champion of human rights in this particular area, so of course I think it is a good example for both Germany and Sweden where home educators are persecuted,” he said to CBN News.

If Rousseff admired the old Russia much, why should she admire new Russia less? She should allow homeschooling and even imitate a Russian ban on gay propaganda to protect children.

She should not imitate Germany, which is intolerant of homeschooling by Christian parents, but extremely tolerant of Islamic radicalisms.

Rousseff should make a trip to Russia and learn basic lessons of freedom, protection and educational choices for children.

She should ban homosexual propaganda, not homeschooling, to minors.

Portuguese version of this article: Famílias brasileiras querem legalização da educação escolar em casa

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

A New Reformation to Counter-Attack the Great Gates of Hell?

Americans Warned: Home-Schoolers Stripped of Rights

Triumph of the state over the family: Brazilian Congress reinforces ban on homeschooling

Obama: the “Savior” of the Brazilian Right

By Julio Severo

There is no doubt that Barack Obama is destroying America as her founders intended her to be. And with his politics of imposing the homosexual agenda through his State Department, he shows that he is capable of destroying other nations too.

All Christian conservative leaders I know denounce his destructive capabilities. And all of them agree that Obama is a socialist. So his destructive capabilities are basically socialist.

Even so, many, even Christians, have been mesmerized into seeing him as a “savior.” Progressive Christians in America see him in this way. And now even rightists in Brazil see him in the same light too.

Some of them put a petition in the White House website asking for help. They said: “We call a White House position in relation to communist expansion in Latin America. Brazil does not want and will not be a new Venezuela.”

They are asking the same White House that recently decided to betray Brazilian military men who saved Brazil from communism!

Yes, they asked the Obama White House to take a position. And if Brazil became a Venezuela, what would the U.S. do? They would merely buy Brazilian oil!

A 2006 article said: “The United States continues to be the top buyer of Venezuelan oil, bringing the South American country billions of dollars in earnings that help fund” the Foro de São Paulo and other communist efforts.

When communist dictator Hugo Chávez called George Bush a “devil,” how did the U.S. answer? By bringing more billions of dollars to communist Venezuela.

As a conservative, Bush had very good reasons to get rid of the Venezuelan communism. But he never did it.

I assume that Marxist Dilma Rousseff will never call Obama a “devil.” Both of them love the homosexual and abortion agenda. In fact, both have been great allies in the United Nations. If Brazil wants to promote sodomy in the U.N., the U.S. says “amen.” If America wants to promote abortion in the UN, Brazil says “amen.”

Their differences are merely economic: Brazil is in the BRICS and Obama does not want Brazil there. In other respects, Obama is destroying America in the American Marxist way and Rousseff is destroying Brazil in a mixed American-Cuban Marxist way.

Both anti-U.S. and pro-U.S. Brazilian Marxists love the U.S. gay and abortion agenda. But pro-U.S. Brazilian Marxists prefer only the American Marxism. Now even Brazilian rightists are saying: “If Brazil is to have communism, we want Obama and his communism!”

Now, Obama has become a savior for Brazilian rightists too!

We are living in incredible times!

As a Brazilian conservative, I have never supported Rousseff. And I wonder how a conservative could support Obama. Are they really conservative?

Some time ago, I told a Brazilian Pentecostal minister, who has the American citizenship, that the Obama administration has been funding Islamic terrorists who torture and slaughter Christians. He answered: “This is an anti-American lie. Since I came to America in the Obama administration, I have received excellent free healthcare and many other things. I have no complaint about Obama.”

So if the Obama administration supports Christian slaughters in the hands of Islamic terrorists around the world, who care? The important thing is that Obama is taking care of me!

See the Brazilian rightist petition in the Obama White House:

Position yourself against the Bolivarian communist expansion in Brazil promoted by the administration of Dilma Rousseff

On 10/26, Dilma Rousseff was reelected, and will continue his party's plan to establish a communist regime in Brazil - the Bolivarian molds propounded by the Foro de São Paulo. We know that in the eyes of the international community, the election was fully democratic, but the ballot boxes used are not reliable, apart from the fact the heads of the judiciary, are mostly members of the winning party. Social policies also influenced the choice of the president, and people were threatened with losing their food allowance if they do not re-elect Dilma. We call a White House position in relation to communist expansion in Latin America. Brazil does not want and will not be a new Venezuela, and the USA that need help the promoters of democracy and freedom in Brazil.

My question to these Brazilian rightists is: How will Obama help to promote democracy and freedom in Brazil if he is taking them from America?

I do not know about American rightists, but Brazilian rightists are desperately crazy.

The only escape from Obama and Rousseff and their socialism is Jesus Christ.

Portuguese version of this article: Obama: o “salvador” da direita brasileira

Source: Last Days Watchman

Recommended Reading:

Beware of False Conservatives! Neocons and Their Leftist Mistreatment of Christians

Obama Strategist in the Brazilian Presidential Campaign

U.S. Betrays Military Men Who Protected Brazil from Communist Threat

After Pressure, Google Restores Blog Julio Severo in Portuguese

Inflamed by American Prophecy, Brazilian Evangelicals Want a Woman for Brazil Presidency

US wants to combat anti-homosexuality movement worldwide