Obituaries of Kim Jong Il are being published across the nation's newspapers, and the hermit country's dictator is blamed for North Koreans' mass sufferings.

Kim Jong Il was certainly an evil monster, but what the media overlooks is that he was merely an effect of North Korea's failed system, not the cause of it.

The root cause of the backwards, oppressive state is its economic system--communism--not the personality of the brute that is in charge of the state. Dictators can't exist without centralized control, and centralized control is exactly what communism provides. Yet no mainstream commentary is focusing on that fact, including the Star's.

Stalinist dictator Kim Jong Il's death at age 69 or maybe 70 -- the official mythology varies -- offers the people of North Korea some small, faint hope that their lives may get better.

Il was not the communist dictator of North Korea, he was the Stalinist dictator. See the distinction? Mainstream commentary overlooks communism's role in North Korea's poverty, as if to say North Korea isn't an example of communism's failure, it's an example of Stalinism's failure. This distinction is popular so that the Left's agenda of a more socialist economic system is untied from real-world examples of socialism and communism. Let's not forget that National Socialism in Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics killed tens of millions of people in the 20^th century. Other euphemistic systems for socialist states like the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea killed millions of more. If oppression pervades a country, chances are the word socialism or one of its euphemisms is nearby. Hugo Chavez is a member of the United Socialist Party, and Kim Jong Il was a member of the Workers' Party of North Korea.

The demonstrably failed economic system present in each of those repressive regimes is resurgent and becoming dominant in the United States, aided by our unwillingness to realize that history teaches us brutal dictators are at the end of socialism's path.

Not only do brutal dictatorships require a big, centralized government to exert control, such a government inevitably leads to dictatorships. The nature of government is to grow, and the nature of power is to centralize. If we also throw in that power corrupts, then those three dynamics eventually result in a huge government under the control of a few corrupt men. Naturally, in many places where socialism has taken hold, that's been the result, whether it's taken the form of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Hugo Chavez, Robespierre, Pol Pot, or Kim Jong Il--all members of the economic left.

In fact, dictatorship from the economic right, which is comprised of laissez faire capitalists and small-government libertarianism--is impossible, since we eschew big government, the prerequisite of oppression.

And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right.

And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. 

Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessmen and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. 

The far left-wing groups that organize illegal immigration protests don't go too far out of their way to hide their radicalism.

A group called Power to the People Collective marched in Oxnard (where else) for "solidarity" with other workers across the world on May Day.

According to the Ventura County Star, May Day was established by the International Socialist Congress in 1889. The Star noted that since then, "most of the world observed May 1 as Labor Day, and it was strongly identified with socialism, communism, anarchism and grim faced old duffers atop Lenin's Tomb reviewing endless columns of Soviet weaponry."

The meaning of the day did not seem to be lost on the protesters, who describe themselves as "members of the collective."

John and Mary Tolian of Oxnard were at the rally and march in support of workers. "I think it's important to come out on May Day," John said. "I wish they did more in the city of Oxnard."

The Power to the People Collective doesn't just have a name that seems sketchy, its mission statement sounds like it was copied and pasted from the New Black Panther Party or the KKK.  The group's mission statement calls for "organizing for the self-defense and empowerment of our community as a response toward the escalation of repressive measures aimed at migrants, families, and workers."

Organizing for self-defense?

There's more--the group's website states that "engagement and communication with those forces that oppress and attack our community are inevitable..."

 What are they going to do when they engage the "attackers?"

The website has a contact email address with the domain riseup.net. Riseup is a self-described revolutionary group that states that its purpose is to "aid the creation of a free society...where power is shared equally. We do this by providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression."

Riseup also declares that a society's "means of productions should be placed in the hands of the people," the definition of communism.

The word "liberation" is sprinkled throughout Riseup's website, a theory that is central to the Party of Socialism and Liberation, another revolutionary group that organized on May Day for "workers' rights."

The PSL regularly holds workshops on Marxism and calls itself a "militant" group.

To the casual reader flipping through the newspaper, the Power to the People Collective is merely a coalition of concerned citizens. A few minutes of Googling, however, reveals the group is sympathetic to a revolutionary, militant, Marxist ideology. 

R. Lee Ermey doesn't pull any punches.

The most famous Marine in the country took on the Obama Administration at a recent charity event for toddlers--not exactly the venue one would expect for a rant on the perils of socialism, but you may have noticed he's rather outspoken.

Ermey carved out a nice little acting niche for himself as a tough military man after his masterful appearance as a colorful drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket. He hosted the History Channel's Mail Call, a successful series on military equipment, provides the voice of the lead army man in Toy Story, and most recently is all over the TV in GEICO commercials as a verbally and physically abusive psychologist.

Apparently ,he doesn't think too highly of the Obama Administration.

"The economy really sucks," Ermey said from the stage of a Toys for Tots event, lamenting the decline in donations to the organization. Now I hate to point fingers at anybody but the present administration probably had a lot to do with that. The way I see it, they're not going to quit doing it until they bring this country to its knees, so I think we should all rise up and stop this administration from what they are doing because they are destroying this country. They are driving us into bankruptcy so they can impose socialism on us."

Ermey later apologized, saying he was just trying to be entertaining. After watching the video, for some reason I don't think his words were insincere.

I saw the headline in the Star that Cal Lutheran University named its first peace prize recipient, and I thought to myself, "I'm not going to like what I'm about to read about my alma mater."

About 10 paragraphs later, my suspicions were confirmed.

Salvatierra, a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is being honored for her work with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice.

Economic justice, as every good conservative knows, is liberal slang for wealth redistribution. It's unjust that some people are rich and some people are not, so economic justice advocates call for that wealth to be moved from one person's pockets to another's. It's a sibling of social justice, which just a euphemism for Progressivism, itself a euphemism for socialism.

I continued to read.

Salvatierra, who lives in Los Angeles, serves as executive director of the statewide faith-based movement for social justice that helps low-income workers fight for living wages and fair working conditions.

Eww, there it is, social justice. Alarm bells are going off. Here's a way of putting this succinctly--Social Justice is Just Socialism. What is CLU doing? There are other little lefty code words hidden in that paragraph. "Low-income workers"--really, are they all working? Or are they not working and getting financial assistance from the government? "Living wages"--I think in America the Left think that you don't have a living wage until you can afford an iPad.

The group is also a coordinating agency of the New Sanctuary Movement, which supports immigrant workers and their families facing deportation.

Ah, my favorite Leftist euphemism for illegal aliens. "Immigrants." We were all immigrants at some point, weren't we? Yes, but only some of our immigrants came here illegally. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the ones facing deportation fall into that category.  I'm also going to assume that "sanctuary" means that CLU supports the harboring of illegal immigrants and hiding them from the authorities.

All the warning signs are there. Economic Justice. Social Justice. Sanctuary. CLU is entering the waters of the loony Left, and seems to be trying very hard to be the religious equivalent of Berkeley.

How liberal is Barack Obama? Pundits identify him as anything from a center-left pragmatist to a far-Left Marxist. This one-dimensional Left-Right paradigm is useful only in determining that he's not a conservative; it doesn't tell us how far to the left he is.

Opinions are all over the map, sometimes in surprising ways. Earlier this year, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly opined:

Radio guy Rush Limbaugh recently mocked me because I do not call President Obama a socialist. Although I asked Mr. Obama to explain his "socialistic tenets" in my last interview with him, I have not branded him with the "S" word because the label does not exactly apply to his governance thus far.

However, MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell--who proudly wears the "S" label-- agreed with Limbaugh that Obama is a socialist.

"Two weeks ago on Bill Maher's show," O'Donnell said, "Bill and I both admitted to being socialists and we threw Barack Obama in with us."

The progressive website Media Matters complained that Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes "smeared" Obama when he said that he "had to be told by the French and Germans that his socialism was too far to the left for them to deal with."

Is it a smear when the far-Left O'Donnell says the same thing?

O'Donnell also said that O'Reilly "lies" about what socialism is, adding that there isn't a capitalist country left in existence, and cited Newseek's infamous "We're all socialists now" cover to show how much in the mainstream that ideology really is.

I'm not sure what lies O'Donnell is referring to, as O'Reilly has gone out of his way to paint Obama as a Left-centrist--much to the chagrin of his conservative audience.

O'Reilly wrote that "as long as he isn't nationalizing industry or purloining private property, I don't think the socialist label is accurate."

O'Reilly doesn't think Obama is a socialist but O'Donnell (along with Limbaugh and Maher) do? What is going on here?

I think I have the answer, and it will be in my next post.

Now, let me say at the start that I'm not trying to offend anyone. There are people I love very dearly that are on the far Left and that support socialism.

"I hate it when people say I'm a commie," one such person told me once, about a conversation they had had with a Republican. "There's a big difference between socialism and communism."

I guess, in the way that a Quarter-Pounder differs than a Big Mac. They are called different things, and are priced separately. One has special sauce, but c'mon, they both have a beef patty, cheese, a bun and they both come from one place. Sure, the Big Mac has more patties and 50 percent more buns, but they are both burgers, right?

And don't give me a hamburger and tell me I'm eating a taco. For example, the latest thing now is to call Marxism "state capitalism."

That's like saying, "meet Whiskers, he's my feline dog."

Um, that looks like a cat. It just meowed.

"No, I just told you, it's a feline dog."

Fortunately, we have organizations like the Party for Socialism and Liberation that are so rabid they don't care about hiding the truth. That's the party for Socialism, and Liberation, ok?

What sort of ideas are mulling through the socialists' heads over there?

On Tuesday, maybe I should head down to Los Angeles and stop by the first of a three-part series of classes on "myths and facts and socialism."

There, the Party for Socialism and Liberation will correct the myth that socialism and communism are related, right?

"Living in the world capital of anti-communism, there are a wide variety of misconceptions and distortions about what socialists believe, and the world we fight to build," a PSL ad for the class reads.

Did they just use communism and socialism interchangeably? Maybe I hallucinated that.

Or maybe not--if the description of the second class is any guide.

Nov. 2: The Communist Manifesto--a guide to changing the world: The Communist Manifesto stands as one of the most well-read books of all time. Printed more than 160 years ago, it has been republished in almost every language, and has been a guide to action in the hands of workers and poor people on all over the world. What is it about the Communist Manifesto that has captured the minds of generations of people, and lead them in struggle? Find out why the Manifesto has been studied by workers in China, farmers in Cuba, soldiers in Russia and autoworkers in Detroit--and what we can learn from it today as we struggle for a better world.

Hmm, autoworkers in Detroit? Certainly American unions wouldn't get mixed up in this. You don't think Andy Stern read the manifesto, do you? (Even the MediaMatters rebuttal of the Stern video refers to "communist and socialist dictators"--but aren't they two entirely different things?)

But certainly we wouldn't confuse socialism, communism, AND Marxism, three, totally separate, unrelated ideas.

Unless you go to the PSL's third class, "Making a revolution--the role of a Marxist party."

No, PSL! You are the Socialist Party, not the Marxist party! Get with the program! S stands for socialism, not Marxism or communism. Can't you see they are three completely, separate, wholly independent ideas, with absolutely nothing to do with each other?

What's next, are you going to tell me that "liberal" is just a happy sounding word for the same idea, that liberals are all about sociali, uh...um...<pause>...er...would be about...<pause>...basically...taking over...and the government running everything?

I'm confident that many liberals/socialist/progressive big government types don't want collectivism, or communism or Marxism in the United States. But I don't think that they see that the uninterrupted growth of government eventually leads there. And it's not me saying it; I wish they'd ask themselves why the Socialist Party seems to be saying it.