Socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary Americanpolitics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous

animal indeed.

"Individualism" would reflect the Founder's ideology, which soughtto repose as much power as possible in individual citizens, with aslittle power as possible in the State, especially the federal state.The Founder's had emerged from a long traditional of monarchaland parliamentary statism, and they concluded that, wheneverpower is concentrated in the government, the individual suffers.And what of Statism? Well, there's already a name for thatideology, and it's a name that should now be firmly attached toSen. Obama: Socialism.

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates thatthe state, although technically composed of individuals, in facttakes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving itto ever greater extremes of control.Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal.Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism.Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically dailystories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimaltreatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needstrump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemedtoo costly (and there are no market forces at work) or thepatients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.British socialism has other problems, aside from the dead leftbehind in her hospital wards. As did Germany, Russia, and China(and as would Obama), socialist Britain took guns away (at least inLondon), with the evitable result that violent crime against innocentpeople skyrocketed.The British socialist bureaucracy also controls people's lives at alevel currently incomprehensible to Americans, who can't appreciatea state that is constantly looking out for its own good. In Britain,government protects thieves right's against property owner's, hasit's public utilities urge children to report their parents for "green"crimes; tries to criminalize people taking pictures of their ownchildren in public places; destroys perfectly good food that doesnot meet obsessive compulsive bureaucratic standards; andincreasingly stifles free speech.(Impressively, all of the precedingexamples are from just the last six months in England.)Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialistreality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whetherone is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or theSoviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at thesoft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever moretightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys

individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism alwaysbrings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe thatAmericans who live in a free society that allows people to thinkwhat they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, willwillingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They musttherefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialismisn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom.So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants tochange America into a Marxist police state of third worldAfricanized ohne kultur.We already have a socialist president—and his name is Bush.Bush’s latest scheme, as he explained in his Saturday radioaddress, is a November 15 “international summit,” including theUnited Nations Secretary-General, to “begin developing principlesof reform for regulatory bodies and institutions related to ourfinancial sectors.” This is bureaucratic doublespeak for what hasbeen called “global governance.” Some may fear with good reasonthat world government and global taxes are on the way in and U.S.sovereignty is on the way out.Kept hidden from the American people is the fact that the U.N.,under its new General Assembly President, Miguel D’Escoto, a sortof Jeremiah Wright on a global level, is working to take advantageof the continuing crisis.D’Escoto is the renegade Catholic Priest and former foreignminister of Communist Sandinista Nicaragua who advocatesMarxist-oriented liberation theology and won the Lenin Peace Prizefrom the old Soviet Union. He is in a position to influence theconduct of Bush’s “international summit” and may even show upthere.D’Escoto says that “there is growing recognition that the currentfinancial turmoil cannot be solved through piecemeal responses atthe national and regional level but requires coordinated global

efforts that should be led by the United Nations,” according to anAssociated Press story. This means it has to be a U.N.-managedor supervised process, in order to loot the U.S. and benefit therest of the world.Bush’s “international summit” fits perfectly into D’Escoto’s anti-American plans.Killing Free EnterpriseBush insists that the nations at this summit must “recommit to thefundamentals of long-term economic growth—free markets, freeenterprise, and free trade.” He has got to be kidding.While mouthing platitudes about free enterprise, Bush has alreadyauthorized several socialist-style schemes, including a $700-billion“bailout” of Wall Street, nationalization of mortgage companies,massive subsidies to American International Group (AIG), and thefederal government taking ownership stakes in big banks. Theestimated cost is already $1.8 trillion—more than $17,000 perAmerican household.It is important to note that none of this has stabilized thefinancial system, although that is what we were told by theMarxist media would happen.It is also newsworthy that Bush has escaped criticism from McCainand Palin for “spreading the wealth around.” Perhaps this isbecause McCain voted for this Bush brand of socialism. Of course,so did Obama.Four thousand supporters turned out for a rally with SenatorBarack Obama in Durham, North Carolina, on Thursday. TheDemocratic presidential candidate said he would not take anyquestions, but he relented when a five-year-old black girl namedHadassah Jones broke into tears. She was there as acorrespondent for brandnewz.com.According to the Associated Press story, Senator Obama gave thelittle girl a brief explanation of his plan for universal healthinsurance coverage and improved education. Then he explained his

view that the wealthy should pay the expenses of people who arenot wealthy: "We've got to make sure that people who have moremoney help the people who have less money," Sen. Obama said. "Ifyou had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you givehim a slice?"Senator Obama glossed right over the difference between a moralimperative to be kind to people and government force that throwspeople in jail if they refuse to pay up.

When a presidential candidate says "We've got to make sure," thatis the language of government force.

Maybe the senator should have explained it to Hadassah this way:"If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, should yoube expelled from school if you refuse to give him a slice?"

Or maybe he should have explained it this way:"If your mommy and daddy worked very hard at their jobs andwent to school at night so they could make enough money to giveyou everything you need, should they have to give that money to allthe parents who dropped out of school and wasted their time, andto all the parents who spent their money on things that yourparents passed up so they could support you?"

Or maybe he could have explained it this way:"If you build a lemonade stand and buy lemons and sugar andpitchers and cups and stand out in the hot sun all day sellinglemonade, and at the end of the day you have fifteen dollars,whose money is that? Is the answer the same if it's only twodollars? What if it's fifty dollars?"

This is not an argument over giving away a slice of pizza. This is anargument about the morality of collectivism. When Senator Obama,

and almost all other politicians, make their arguments for fairnessand compassion, they are advocating not voluntary charitable giving,but government confiscation of some people's property for thebenefit of other people, chosen by the government on the basis ofneed, or perhaps voting record.

Do the fruits of your labor belong to you, or do they belong to thepeople who most need them?And if they belong to the people who most need them, are you aslave to the needs of people you don't know and can't control?

Collectivism is not the opposite of capitalism. It's the opposite offreedom.