As the reality of the Brexit sinks in, Democrats have had, well, very un-Democratic responses to the vote. Barack Obama threatened England, saying the U.K. would move to the “back of the queue” on trade deals if the Brexit went through.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, told American voters that the Brexit vote “only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests.” Oddly enough, if we analyze the rhetoric the Democrats have used for the last 8 year, you would think they would be avid supporters of such an escape from corruption.
After months of Democratic primary campaigning, we have heard much and more regarding the “terrors” of Wall Street’s influence on politics, how campaign financing is the greatest threat to democracy and how the military industrial complex profiteers are responsible for the many worldwide slaughters of innocents. If these are the core Democrat beliefs, why would Democrats be so opposed to a country refusing to align with a multi-national group that was not established through voting?
If “too big to fail” banks like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan don’t deserve more rights than citizens of a country, why are Democrats so upset England voted to get out from under that large thumb of big business and banking?
The truth might shock you: the liberal ideology is void of substance, existing and sustaining exclusively through the means of reactionary fear and blindness.
In both England and America, there are public appeals to vote only thinking of short-term GDP outcomes. When our founding fathers dreamt of this country, they were thinking about the values and ideals that would make the greatest country in history; next quarter’s GDP was never a question. Yet even the party warming up to being called socialists wants their voters to think about financial projections over value systems. If Karl Marx were still alive, I believe he would be as disgusted with the Democrats as any honest conservative.
As it currently exists, the Democrat party’s primary role is to establish and maintain the same warmongering, corporate driven politics that the traditional Republicans have pushed under their leadership. The difference, however, is that the Democrats include impotent talking points about women and homosexuals – and the feel good emotions of voting for an African American or a woman that just so happens to have the same devotion to the perpetual war as any white candidate.
England and America, perpetually intertwined throughout the centuries, have been faced with a similar question at a similar time: Are multi-national corporations better rulers of a country than its own people? Britain has responded to this question with a resounding no. In the United States, our politicians and media are telling us every day that it is too dangerous to vote for a candidate who hasn’t had the backing of Goldman Sachs or Saudi Arabia. We are told war is more likely with Donald Trump than a former Secretary of State who fought to arm dangerous rebel groups throughout Libya and Syria. We are told to expect more corporate overreach with a Trump presidency than with a candidate who was paid fortunes to speak at Goldman Sachs conventions.
With or without pawns from minority groups or smiles, Hillary Clinton is the same as any purchased politician we have ever seen in this country. As the liberals from America have proven with their reaction the Brexit, the tough talk about speaking against Wall Street and creating peace with the Islamic world is not as important as the next shareholder meeting at Exon Mobile. One could only assume the last 8 years of Democrat rhetoric about the 1 percent was just a joke. The Brits weren’t fooled by David Cameron’s false appeals to maintain corporate control over England, and America must not be fooled by the same two-faced, insincere rhetoric of our left. What happened to standing up to big business, Democrats?