Redistribution of money in order to provide healthcare is socialism while redistribution of money in order to provide police services isn't?

Then where do you draw the line?  Public roads?  Public libraries?  Food stamps?

You said that D'Souza summed up socialism in a nutshell.

And D'Souza ends with, "I think most people would consider him an unscrupulous thug who should be apprehended and punished. Yet when the government does precisely the same thing--forcibly seizing from some in order to give to others--the liberal insists the government is acting in a just and moral manner."

How is forcibly seizing from citizens in order to give police protection to others who could not afford it on their own any different at its very root from seizing from citizens to provide health care to those who can't afford it?

And the answer is: It's not different!  They are BOTH forms of socialism.  But some socialism IS necessary to have a functioning government.  If you went and just completely abolished every socialist policy, you'd end up with anarchy... either that or a government with a lot of laws but no means to enforce them, because it has no money.