A Subtle Distinction...

Throughout childhood and adolescence the majority of boys have engaged in at least a few fist fights. Yet, we would only consider a minority of them violent. The reason for this lies in subtle distinctions that we make based on the individual's perceived propensity towards violence and the perceived necessity of the fight. To make these determinations we would ask ourselves:

1. Do they have a track-record of violence?

2. Is violence this young man's first or last resort?

3. Does he approach it with reservation of zeal?

4. Was the punch a response to a dire situation or was the situation just a pretext for violence?

5. When the threat subsides will they revert back to peaceful behavior?

The same can be said for politicians in regards to government control of the economy.

Our current economic crisis has prompted a wide array of politicians to support extreme state intervention in the economy. Yet, in good conscience we cannot label each supporter of these measures as "socialists." Even though their actions may be similar, there are subtle but very important differences between those who support government control out of perceived necessity and those who are socialist to the core. This is an important distinction because those who are socialists will use the crisis as opportunity to permanently shift the United States from its economic and culture core towards European style socialism.

Let's apply the original five questions to Obama substituting "government control" for "violence" and see what we find:

1. Does Obama have a track record of supporting increased government control even before the crisis emerged?

Based on his pre-crisis track record with Acorn and other organizations that pushed for the government to mandate that banks promote "lending diversity" over lending standards, the answer is clearly "yes."

2. Is government control Obama's first or last resort?

For years Obama has pushed for government control of health care and other facets of the economy without exploring non-socialist options. So, the answer is definitely "yes."

3 - 4 Does Obama approach expanding the government's role in the economy and society with zeal or with great reserve based on respect for America's foundation of limited government? And was the crisis simply a pretext to push through his long standing agenda?

The manner in which he has used the stimulus plan as an excuse to push for expanded government control in a wide range of sectors indicates that the crisis was a pretext to push through zealous intervention in the economy.

5. When the crisis resides will Obama curb the government's role in the economy and society?

Not a chance in hell. In so many ways, socialism is like an addictive drug that ruins your body yet provides great power and profit to those who sell it.