Brazil's Lula Called Planet's Most Popular Politician by Obama

Lula and Obama in London For US president Barack Obama, the earth's most powerful man, Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is the planet's most popular politician. He said that around other world leaders just before the start of the G20 summit, this Thursday, in London.

A video of the event shows Obama shaking hands with Lula and then telling Australia's prime minister Kevin Rudd that the Brazilian leader is his man, a guy he loves. Rudd himself reinforces the praise adding: "He is the most popular politician with a long mandate." Lula has been in power since January 1st, 2003.

"That's my man right here," Obama said while greeting Lula. "Love this guy. He's the most popular politician on earth. It's because of his good looks."

Lula is no leading man, but Obama seems to be acknowledging the Brazilian president's popularity among Brazilians, which has been hovering around 80%, (84% in February, 76% more recently).

This it the same Lula that just last week said that the global economic crisis "was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics. Now they have demonstrated that they don't know anything about economics."

And the Brazilian leader added "no black man or woman, no indigenous person, no poor person" can be held responsible.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also revealed part of a conversation he had with Lula during his recent trip to Brazil:

"I was in Brazil last week and I think President Lula will forgive me for saying this - he said to me, 'When I was leader of the trade unions, I blamed the government; when I became leader of the opposition, I blamed the government; when I became the government, I blamed Europe and America.' And he recognizes, as we do, that this is a global problem."


0 #27 even doing minimimus research about your information turns up nothing but weakness JACK DANIELS 2009-04-08 10:28
If you didn't read the Trial of the Trotskyites, you wouldn't have an idea of what I was talking about? Only that they were "moscow trials" or "Purge trials" for Stalin to butcher his enemies?
0 #26 back to its all greed no matter the colorforrest allen brown 2009-04-07 07:47
and when one country tyes itself to close to another and it fails it is not the
country that suffers its the people , not the government i have not seen one of them take a cut in pay or loose there
jobs over this deal even though in a way it was them whom allowed this to happen

there are rules that were not enforced and thoes that were not falowed
money paid out to fast to people whom could not afford the homes they were sold into
like the looting of the lost city thoes who got there first got the biggest cut but thoes that never went are left to pay for
the sins of others .
like slaves i never owned one but as a white person i am to blame for it .or i should say only white amercains are to blame as the world does not rember that as a people in that given time and place back to 850 BC and on it was the norm but only the US is to blame for slavery
0 #25 anyone who trumps up stalins prosecution notes as the truth....asp 2009-04-07 01:33
in the face of acres and acres of information that proves he was a ruthless murdering dictator and calls this acres and acres of information lies by jewish capatilists, is a bigger fraud

even doing minimimus research about your information turns up nothing but weakness
0 #24 Orlov is a fraud.JACK DANIELS 2009-04-06 15:47
THE four articles that Life magazine excerpted from "The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes" last April did an injustice to their author by making him appear a sensationalist and a shadowy figure. Actually the volume under review is a serious study of the three big Moscow trials in 1936, 1937 and 1938, staged by Stalin against leading oppositionists and others.I have a copy of the 1938 trial in English and this is the subject for which I write...not what Orlov, a person who has no credibility, says or wrote.

In this 1953 article, we have what is called "The Moscow Trials" later called "the Purge Trials" by the West.The book I referred you to was about a real trial in Moscow open to the public.

Today we have guys like Orlov who came forth to tell stories about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of Mass Destruction. They are not worth the time to debunk. Try for once to get a hold of the Trials and then debunk them. Tell me why they are propoganda...tell me why everything these guys bickered and argued about in court among eachother...tell me how all of those testimonies were staged? These guys had to be geniouses to argue and counter argue who did what and why? They were all engaged in one way or another and they all had the facts as they saw it. They either corraborated those facts or explained why they were not true. The dialog could never have been staged as you say. Orlov, did not know about these trials nor could he have known the players. He is just a CIA fruad.
0 #23 Hey Ronald BiggsAdriana 2009-04-06 12:10
I agree with you. Just a dumb can't see that Obama is fooling all those credule people who thought he would change anything in the big money machine that is the USA. Or should I say, Dumb S A??? :P ;-) :cry:
0 #22 Obama is as good-looking as Lula….Adriana 2009-04-06 10:25
Did anyone notice they have the exact same elephant ear?? Soo pretty
0 #21 alexander orlovasp 2009-04-06 08:19
i refferred to him before, but you didnt look it up

he testified the trotskytes were tortured unmercifly to get them to say things that stalin wanted...he was a guard in the jail
im sure you have another lame excuse for write a lot of fiction
0 #20 JACK DANIELS 2009-04-06 05:18
Sam Adams:

I don't work on Wall Street; however, I understood that most of the investment banker's personnel work there in the tall hi-rise buildings of AIG, JP Morgan and the other houses that do the dirty computer work of selling their garbage to the world? Do I have that wrong?. When all this junk is traded, aren't there thousands of computer operators shifting it all around; closely monitoring the graphs etc.? Fill me in if I err.

Senor da Silva:

I used to be a big fan of Shakespeare and just finished a book claiming that someone else was he. I do remember Shylock and I remember the Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe. He seems to have been murdered by Elizabeth's spymaster, Walsington. All that said, I suppose you are laying out an arguement for anti-judaism? Do I understand you?

Another time maybe.

As for Stalin, he is no Baruch and they are not alike. Stalin was a great man like Elizabeth I and he had great enemies like Elizabeth. Both were forced to do what they did to their enemies.I would have done the same. If a guy like Trotsky caused famine and undermined the state using thousands of misguided dupes, how do you deal with that. Pat them all on the head and send them to finishing school like the Chinese did after WWII? What do you tell their victims whose families starved to death?

I am convinced that Stalin only woke up to the threat after the assasination of Kirov and realized he was next on the list.I am convinced that the west tried to destroy him and communism.I know that he saw a number of his comrades assasinated by invisible forces and that his own security was in jeapardy all because of a dream, communism. I have many documents that show how every western embassy plotted and undermined him and I am sure that he had no illussions. The role of history makes him out to be a tyrant because he defended Russia from the wolves and destroyed his enemies. Those same Enemies, Senor, are on your doorstep now so perk up and watch out.

The thing about Baruch and World Zionism was that they started this because trade in half the world vanished for them as well as their vested interests under the tsar. All their gold mines, raw materials, etc. etc. no-more with the Bolsheviks. All their ill-gotten wealth was no longer available. The new communist system dis-enfranchised them overnight. The czar that they had so ably exploited had quit. Baruch wanted Russia back in the fold of Wall Street. That is why they tried killing the Party leaders; killing the faithful; causing havoc throughout the land. They were trying to convince the people (1) that everyone hated these guys and (2) that communism was a total failure. When they lost that battle, they tried to paint Stalin as the devil. I know who the devil is Senor? How about you?

Baruch didn't care if he killed every last russian. Stalin was not going to let that happen. That was the difference between them.That was proven by the trial of the Trotskyites. That is why they were executed. Not because Stalin was a devil but because these people were poison to Russia.

As for Elkizabeth, I suspect she went too far. But, still, she had those damn Jesuits to worry about. They were also cockaroaches to be dealt with.

By the way, I am not familiar with the computer. I don't know how to send images or deal with the icons below. This means you are just going to have to trust me when I say I have a picture. Believe it or not, I have pictures of Nazi Flags and Stormtroopers marching side by side with VFW holding American Flags and the KKK holding their own in New York. It defies the imagination today and no-one believes it.
0 #19 A few black bankers?Sam Adams 2009-04-05 18:26
"Also, there were a few black bankers."

Jack Daniels, where were the black bankers involved in this crises and where are the headlines? Can you name names of black bankers putting mortgage backed securities together? I don't think so. No black bankers or Wall Streeters were involved. There are a very, very few on Wall Street for your information. Do you even work on Wall Street?
0 #18 Jack DanielsJoão da Silva 2009-04-05 17:45
Much ado about Nothing
Aren't you quoting Shakespeare, Mr.Daniels? Our fellow blogger, Augustus would be able to confirm it.

But Lula's language was only somewhat pejorative and ubiquitous. And, when you laugh when you say it, it has none of the venom of racism or the hurt of one that is callous.I don't really know this man nor have I ever heard him put 10 words together save the stuff that people write about him, so I do not have your advantage. I just think everyone is taking this out of context.
The problem here is that Lula generalized and stereotyped all the "Blue eyed white devils" forgetting that there are plenty of such "Devils" in Brazil (In case you did not know). Obviously, he was referring to the Wall Street Bankers, IMF, etc; If he had done his homework correctly, he would not have used the term loosely. For example, I don't think that Madoff has blue eyes.Also, there were a few black bankers. But there again, as the commentator before me said, he is a very good politician and his statement served its purpose externally to enhance his image as a world leader. Internally, not many " Blue eyed devils" voted for him nor would vote for his third term. BTW, did Hitler have Blue eyes? I don't recall.

I was wondering if you ever followed up on that book about the Trotskyites and their trials?
No, I haven't had time to do it.

The story needs to be told because everyone has the Voice of America view that Stalin was only trying to get rid of his enemies. If anything, at least read the life of Bernard Baruch.
Mr.Daniels, there are three ways of getting rid of your enemies. a) Quickly, like Stalin did by sending them before firing squads that ensures quick death b) Or slowly like he did by sending them to Gulags c) Or economically ruin them, like Baruch did.Enslave and ensure slow and torturous end. You being a fan of Shakespeare, you must have heard of a character by the name of Shylock.

I honestly think that there is no difference between Stalin and Baruch. Birds of the same feather.

Any further questions, Mr.Daniels?

Add comment

Security code

Who's Online

We have 4439 guests and no members online


Articles View Hits


Brokers list for binary options


Football Shirts


Option Accounts


Make money with binary options


Only useful paper writing tips Doing homework assignments isn't hard, all you need is our advices and help