George Lincoln Rockwell - American National Socialism
This video is in dedication to one of the greatest Americans who ever lived. For too long our opposition has indoctrinated us with fallacious notions in regards to National Socialism. Watch...
By: Oscar Turner
Excerpt from:
George Lincoln Rockwell - American National Socialism - Video
P2 Hamza And Noel Socialism
description.
By: Perih Midpac
Continued here:
P2 Hamza And Noel Socialism - Video
Published February 14, 2015
Cornell president David Skorton had a "testy" exchange with students who stormed his office in protest of health care opt-out fees by the school.
Students at vaunted Cornell University are plenty smart enough to know they should not have to pay a penalty for not buying the school's health insurance if they already have coverage, but that's exactly what a new policy at the Ivy League school requires.
The $350 "health fee" for opting out of the schools insurance plan was announced in a memo school President David Skorton posted on Cornells website last week, according to higher education blog The College Fix. But it is just setting in with the student body, and many attending the Ithaca, N.Y., school are not pleased. Under the Affordable Care Act, students must have insurance, but making those already covered pay an extra fee to skip the school's plan is not sitting well.
Effective next academic year, 2015-16, we will be introducing a student health fee for those not enrolled in the Cornell Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP), read the memo. As a physician, parent and president, I am proud of our university's long history of providing quality medical, mental health, education and prevention services on campus. These essential services play a critical role in student well-being and, therefore, success. Yet funding these services and creating access to them for all students has been a growing fiscal challenge, and a personal concern of mine.
The announcement sent students into a fervor, leading to a series of rallies on campus and hashtag activism, with #FightTheFee trending on the social media website.
Students who do not opt in to the $2,352 per year plan must pay the $350 fee, which most likely wont be covered by financial aid, according to campus newspaper The Cornell Review. The newspaper also said the university plan is run through Aetna, whose CEO, Mark Bertolini, is a Cornell MBA grad. In addition the fee, students will have to pay a $10 co-pay fee when visiting the schools health center.
Read the rest here:
'WELCOME TO SOCIALISM' Ivy League students erupt over $350 health care fee
People who believe in the power of individual liberty and free enterprise have had a rough time lately. And with so many recent examples of government intrusion, its hard to feel good about the future of capitalism.
In the case of financial markets, the tide has never really turned in favor of free markets. At the federal level, the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act effectively enshrines as law the progressive movements paternalistic view of regulation. Under this view, its not enough to merely deter and punish fraud; the government also has to protect everyone from virtually everything that could go wrong.
Thankfully, theres a ray of hope for everyones inner capitalist a spirited defense of capitalism from Frank Keating, president of the American Bankers Association. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, Keating argued its not the federal governments business to dictate private companies salaries. According to Keating:
[I]f its private money, if its not FDIC-insured money, for example, if its private capital, private stockholders, whatever they pay or dont pay is their business. This is a free enterprise capitalist system after all.
Now, if youd like to remain in a state of capitalistic bliss, read no further in that interview. Please. Because the rest of Keatings interview displays symptoms far more in keeping with the paternalistic approach to regulating financial markets.
This approach goes well beyond simply providing legal protections for property rights and against fraud. Instead, it defines exactly what people must consider high risk versus low risk, and it dictates which risky activities are acceptable for which people.
As a result, we end up with exactly what we have: a giant mess that hinders the formation and use of capital and subjects it to political whims.
The last part of Mr. Keatings defense is dead wrong because we really dont have a free enterprise capitalist system. We havent had one for decades.
To paraphrase financial journalist Jim Grant, what we have is much closer to some sort of smiley-faced socialism. Government doesnt fully own the means of production, but it directs the daylights out of them. Especially in financial markets.
The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act is a great example of the ills that come with smiley-faced socialism.
See the original post:
Capitalism vs. "Smiley-Faced Socialism"