Marxist May Win the Presidency in Brazil This Fall
The Brazilian 2002 Elections:
A Stacked Deck?
Jesse Jackson compares Brazil candidate to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela
Posted on 09/12/2002 3:53:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Were a Communist coalition under front-running presidential candidate Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva allied with Cuban President Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to take power in Brazil following this October's presidential election, it would undoubtedly be the greatest Communist coup since Mao and his Red Army proclaimed the People's Republic of China in Beijing over fifty years ago. In one fell swoop, 175 million more Latin Americans would fall under Marxist domination and together with Communist Cuba and Communist led Venezuela would automatically be the dominant power bloc in Latin America with a sizable majority of the population and territory there.
Constantine Mendes, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and former member of the National Security Council who recently preceded me in being interviewed on Howard Phillips' excellent and informative Conservative Roundtable public access program, has written a series of similar, but highly important articles regarding the developing political situation in Brazil. His articles serve to confirm what I wrote in an editorial on the Communist threat back in June. In addition to da Silva's strong ties to rogue states such as Cuba, Iraq, and Libya, Mendes states that da Silva has publicly praised his friend, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as "an example to emulate" if he succeeds in getting elected President in October. He states that this would mean that we could expect "the use of pseudo-electoral process and referenda to consolidate his rule as dictator." Da Silva would probably embark upon a slow path of transforming Brazil into an authoritarian, though not doctrinaire Marxist state. He would likely subvert political freedoms in Brazil and change the constitution and/or commit electoral fraud to ensure his indefinite continuance in power as has been done by Chavez in Venezuela. His political opponents should expect no mercy.
Mendes has attempted to highlight the dangers posed by a da Silva victory in the Brazilian presidential elections and prod the Bush Administration to pursue whatever options are available to avert what would undoubtedly amount to the greatest regional crisis for the US since the Soviets parked nuclear-tipped medium range ballistic missiles in Cuba in 1962. He warns of the formation of "a new axis of evil" if da Silva wins the election. Mendes writes that da Silva has spoken of his desire to restart Brazil's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs if re-elected. He reveals that Brazil's military actually "successfully designed two atomic bombs and was reportedly on the verge of testing one nuclear device" when its democratic participant discovered the rogue program and shut it down in 1994. Da Silva has essentially declared his intention to have Brazil join the Sino-Russian axis of nations against the United States if he becomes President. He has also expressed interest in providing Communist China with naval bases along Brazil's long Atlantic coastline.
Brazil is the second largest and second most powerful country in the Western Hemisphere, comprising over half the population and territory of South America. As it borders on ten other countries in Latin America, Brazil would be well-positioned to serve as regional hegemon of the South American continent were it to find the political will to do so. This would be particularly true were it to test a nuclear weapon and become a nuclear power. Brazil also boasts the world's eighth largest economy.
Da Silva has established extensive ties to international terrorism. He has been very critical of the US "War on Terror" and has professed admiration for such widely respected international statesmen as Saddam Hussein and Mohomar Quadafi. His election as President would greatly increase the prospect of a successful takeover of Columbia by the Communist FARC guerillas, which he fully supports. Mendes states that a Marxist regime in Brazil would also be well-positioned to help cause Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru to fall to would-be Marxist dictators and exploit the deepening economic crisis in Argentina, which I recently visited in June, and Paraguay. All told, a da Silva victory could well result in "as many as 300 million people" falling "under the control of anti-American dictatorships."
In 1990, da Silva co-founded the Forum of Sao Paulo with Cuban President Fidel Castro and former Nicaraguan Marxist President Daniel Ortega. The Forum is a kind of annual "Communist Party Congress" for Communists, anti-American terrorists and Marxist revolutionaries to meet together and strategize on how to best effect their plans for Communizing much if not most of Latin America. Venezuelan President and self-proclaimed Communist, Hugo Chavez has become a major power player in this organization since coming to power in 1998. Chavez is probably supporting the da Silva campaign to the tune of millions of dollars while Castro may also be committing hundreds of his intelligence operatives to help da Silva win the election.
Under da Silva's leadership, Brazil would become the new Marxist powerhouse of Latin America and the base of operations for a new Latin American "axis of evil" from which much of the rest of Latin America, beginning with Panama could fall like a series of dominoes to well-supported Marxist politicos and revolutionaries. America's surviving allies in Latin America would be completely isolated. Losing Brazil to a Communist-aligned regime would be a loss that the US could not recover from anytime soon. It would force the US to retool its entire foreign policy and change its main focus from the Eurasian subcontinent to Latin America with a concomitant redeployment of forces to the South American theater of operations (SOCOM). It would also require the reoccupation by US military forces of the Panama Canal and the eviction of its current Communist Chinese tenets for the US to have any hope of restoring a measure of continental, let alone hemispheric security.
During a pre-brief for my last trip to Brazil's capitol last March as part of an official US government delegation, I queried the intelligence community briefer on whether he believed that an electoral victory by da Silva would adversely effect Brazil's foreign policy towards the US. He told me that he did not believe that it would, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Since then, I have determined that neither the Bush Administration nor the US intelligence community is focusing much attention on the threat of a Marxist takeover of Brazil and determining what that outcome would mean for US foreign policy initiatives in Brazil. Accordingly a victory by da Silva in this fall's election will be a wake-up call for which they will be woefully unprepared. The Bush Administration would be well-advised to correct course and take immediate action designed to prevent the unthinkable loss of Brazil to a Communist-aligned coalition government.
I'm a fan of democracy only because it (usually) is a better vehicle for preserving individual rights than other systems. The important thing is individual rights (including the right to not be stripped of your property), not how elections are done
Segregation in the South was democraticly sanctioned
The stealing of farms in Zimbabwe is ordered by the democraticly-elected tyrant there
A democracy becomes unstable when there is a propertyless majority who can be convinced that they would gain financially from taking the property of an electoral minority
That's right. You are apparently taking the position that so long as someone is democratically elected, that person can't be a threat to orderly freedom. I don't think that's the test.
Sure, we'll just send Jimmy Carter down there to make sur the election isn't rigged. We can trust him! /sarcasm. Or maybe even Warren Christopher!
the right to intervene should any country in the Western Hemisphere act irresponsibly in erroding its own "orderly freedom[s]." Since the most important "orderly freedom" is the right to political self-determination...
You just don't get it. Communists don't believe in orderly freedom. When people are stupid enough to elect a communist, they kiss orderly freedom goodbye. Do you think every dictator who rides to power on a wave of mob hysteria has the right to treat his slaves how he pleases? I notice you don't jump up to defend Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe. Well he is a perfect example of the insanity you are defending. According to your logic, he has every right to foment mass genocide and starve most of his slaves to death. If they don't like it, they can just vote him out, right?
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tyler
What exactly are you trying to say? That all elections are rigged?
Communists don't believe in orderly freedom.
What is orderly freedom, if it isn't the power to choose your own leaders? I think you have your priorities confused.
When people are stupid enough to elect a communist, they kiss orderly freedom goodbye.
Perhaps to some extent, then they wise up and elect a decent leader to take his place. But when the military comes and usurps the will of the people, you've lost all freedom, orderly or otherwise.
Do you think every dictator who rides to power on a wave of mob hysteria has the right to treat his slaves how he pleases?
No.
I notice you don't jump up to defend Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe. Well he is a perfect example of the insanity you are defending.
Not really, because everyone agrees he was defeated for reelection, and only won because of widespread fraud, harassment, and violence. Before the sham "election," I really had no problem with him. He was a fairly bad ruler, but one which his citizens had chosen.
Quote by Alexander Fraser Ty[t]ler, Lord Woodhouselee snipped]
Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist. Are you?
It is well suited to communism or a Robert Mugabab type taking over. All these capitalism uber alles types of the 1990s were mistaken when they dreamed that 3rd world nations could be elevated by capitalist reforms and "transparency". They can't be elevated by anything.
No. I am saying that I do not trust Jimmy Carter. He never met a Latin American dictator whose boots he didn't lick. I don't believe for a second that Arafat is the legitimately elected leader of the Palestinians. Free elections cannot be held under duress. You don't seem to care that Communists are even more antidemocratic than me. They only use democracy to take power, and then they rule as totalitarians. To them, the ends justify the means, and yes, they always cheat.
What is orderly freedom, if it isn't the power to choose your own leaders? I think you have your priorities confused.
Absolutely wrong. Once again, you are dismissing the possibility that an elected leader may dispose of orderly freedom once they have seized the apparatus of the state. This possibility becomes a certainty when Communists are involved.
Perhaps to some extent, then they wise up and elect a decent leader to take his place.
Wrong again, because once they vote the Communists in, there will never be another free election.
But when the military comes and usurps the will of the people, you've lost all freedom, orderly or otherwise.
Wrong. If the military is overthrowing an oppressive dictator, then they are fighting to preserve freedom. A well regulated militia is necessary for protecting the freedom and property of the citzens from the thieving communists. You don't seem to care to much about those whose freedom will be voted away from them by the Bolshevik majority. I believe in the Rule of Law, not in the pernicious whims of the mob or the demogogues they serve.
Before the sham "election," I really had no problem with him.
That's unforunate, because he was a genocidal Communist before the election too. The differnce between Allende and Mugabe is that we stopped Allende from doing what we are standing by and watching Mugabe do.
Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist.
So was Edmund Burke. He was right about the Colonies, and Tytler was right about democracy. Why not address his argument rather than attack the man? Is it because his argument is irrefutable?
Lord Woodhouselee was an ardent monarchist. Are you?
I serve no king but King Jesus. Whom do you serve? Are you against all monarchies? You seem to prefer Communists to Monarchs. I'll take England over Zimbabwe any day.
Everyone forgets that this was built during the 8 years of #42's horrible reign.The Pictures are on Newsmax.com (and have been for years) for anyone who thinks this is a myth.It's a Perfect Cover and startling.
Even supposing they did pose a present danger, we could easily blow up the base in the Bahamas, take back the Canal, and kick out Chavez, etc... Today is not the problem. Even assuming GW wins in '04, I think the changing demographics of the country make it likely that someone from the Democratic Leadership Council will win the Presidency from '08 on (unless Rice runs). That means that a Clinton or Carter type will be in charge. That's the rub. We are only now starting to realize the damage 25 years later that Carter did to this country by letting the Shah of Iran be overthrown (kickstarting islamic fundamentalism) and signing over the Canal.
I for one am uncomfortable to have a huge block of communist countries (Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, Columbia? Argentina? etc...)to the south.
But maybe I'm just being paranoid.
Marxist May Win the Presidency in Brazil This Fall
The Brazilian 2002 Elections:
A Stacked Deck?
Lots of Brazilians are armed, I wonder what their dirty war will look like.
You are hysterical.
"Brazil is the land of the future. Always has been, always will be."
Actually, no I'm not. Do you have any substantive disagreement with my month-old postings, or are you content merely to speculate about my emotional well-being?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
