Al's Views, Personal Thoughts


Republican vs. Democrat?
What's the difference?

14 January 2004

By Allan B. Colombo, GKO Publisher

Under what conditions is the end result the same no matter whether the party in control is that of the Democrats or Republicans? The answer is simple: where it involves Globalization. The truth centers on the fact that no matter which of these two parties happen to be in the White House, the general direction of society, this country, and the world at large is that of collectivism.

What this circumstantially proves is that both the political Left and Right are, indeed, collectivists. Another just as applicable description of both parties is "monopolists," which is totally contrary to popular belief. This writer has had tremendous difficulty coming to this final conclusion as well; but, in due time, with due study, this is the only final conclusion that works.

If you fail to see it at first, I suggest you step back from the political and military vigor of the day and take another fresh look at history-the history you have seen unfold before your very eyes over the course of your own life. Shut the magazine, close the paper, and begin to think for yourself.

For example, I have yet to talk with anyone concerning the Bush immigration initiative that has actually said it makes any sense. Matter of fact, not one person has yet stepped up and told this writer that they believe it will do good for America. Overwhelmingly the general consensus has been, in essence, "What on Earth is he thinking? Has he lost his mind?"

On one hand President Bush says that he is working to improve national security, and yet on the other he proposes to open the flood gates to illegal immigration by allowing those who have illegally entered to remain in place. This does not spell "national defense" ... it spells "doom" in a number of ways, such as jobs for Americans, cultural redefining for America, and less national security. Who is kidding who here?

"What on Earth is he thinking? Has he lost his mind?"

At first glance, these are valid questions since President Bush is "suppose" to be of a "conservative" cloth. If I didn't know better, I'd say a full-blown liberal now holds the office of President. If William Jefferson Clinton had done this (which he was very involved in the open border effort), there would have been hell to pay. It's as if he's thrown us, the U.S. citizenry, overboard and joined lockstep with the European faction of the Trilateral Commission. One thing is for sure, very little of what President Bush has done since he arrive in D.C. can actually be considered "conservative."

As I have clearly stated on GKO several times now, one of the things that caused me to embark on the creation of GKO was the fact that no matter which party is in office, the general direction of the country is the same. Oh, it may vary a tad in texture, the accent may be different, the vocabulary words a shade bit one way or the other, and the story line (script) altered from the previous administration; but when you carefully step back and scrutinize the end result associated with either party, the general flow is still that of GLOBALIZATION! In a word, there is no difference in this regard, which loudly spells a central "AGENDA" shared by both the political Left and Right. The only folks yet to realize this are those of sincere conscience who begin in politics and those who largely populate these United States of America-the unaware citizenry.

Here is what Arnold Sutton, a former Research Fellow at Hoover Institution and Stanford University, had to say about the political Left and Right in the early 1970s:

"While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to 'go political' and make society go to work for the monopolists-under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist. Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution.

"Therefore, an alternate conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features" (Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Antony C. Sutton, 1974 Arlington House, New Rochelle, N.Y.).

For those grand Capitalists among us who do not understand this, the Russians did not want Bolshevik Socialism, which came to be widely known as Communism. Russians did not ask to be subjected to the rigors of a Communist regime that kept them under thumb from morning till night. No common Russian wanted national surveillance that led the Russia KGB to pull thousands upon thousands of honest countrymen from their homes in the dead of night. Have we not seen this same KGB practice proliferate here in the states over the past decade and a half?

A long time back, when I was either in elementary school or junior high, one of my teachers boldly told us that, in time, the political form of government in the United States and the Soviet Union would one day meet in the middle. He was correct, for the game plan has long been to place both societies under one unified, centralized governmental body.

How do I know that? First, we have Norman Dodd's investigation during the early 50s, the result of which came to light in a videotaped interview in the early 1980s, just before he expired. His testimony therein offers plenty of believable information on how the alleged charitable foundations have been used to foster a single mandate, allegedly given to each of the major charities by the White House itself, or so said Dodd said.

Quoting one of my earlier works, "In an interview with G. Edward Griffin, Norman Dodd, Congressional investigator, 1953, stated that there was, indeed, a plot afoot to subvert democracy and to replace it with socialism. Through an investigation of the tax-exempt foundations, such as the Ford and Carnegie Foundations, it was found that these organizations deliberately gained control of both the State Department and the Department of Education" (The Post Cold War Era? Joseph McCarthy Exonerated?, April 02, 2001, bottom [The Hidden Agenda]).

Secondly, we have the United Nations' redefined charter, nation building, regime change, and interference upon interference upon interference into others' national interests--all by simply stating that their interests are our own national interests. We know the rest by watching Clinton and Bush.

If you will recall Matthew 7:15-20:

Watch out for false prophets: they come to you looking like sheep on the outside, but they are really like wild wolves on the inside. You will know them by the way they act. Thorn bushes do not bear grapes, and briers do not bear figs. A healthy tree bears good fruit, while a poor tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a poor tree cannot bear good fruit. Any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire. So, then, you will know the false prophets by the way they act" (Source: Good News For Modern Man, 1966 1971 American Bible Society).

In other words, do not listen so much to what they say, but do watch what they do in practice. Also, do not let the word "prophet" throw you off, for prophets are not always religious leaders per se. These verses clearly discuss "anyone" who leads society, and our political leaders qualify, especially those who claim to be a Christian but who often act otherwise.

Thank you.

Send Mail
Send Mail

Al's Views Index
What's New on GKO
GKO Main Menu
Minuteman Main Menu

Copyright©2004
Allan B. Colombo

Thompson Promotions
www.TPromo.com