Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

Obama Refuses to Rule Out Jail Time for People Who Don't Use Obamacare

Smooth talking Obama is at it again as he beats around the bush after being asked a question by ABC News’ Jake Tapper.  In an interview from 2009, when Tapper questioned the president  on whether he feels that jail time is a suitable punishment for those who choose not to enroll in Obamacare, Obama’s answer is less than satisfying.



Obama conveys that just like with all other tax crimes, there is a punishment that must be given out in order to deter said crimes from being committed again. The justification behind his statement puzzles many Americans as he compares Obamacare to car insurance. 
Obama answered:   “What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”   The logic behind his argument makes no sense.  You see, if you don’t want car insurance, there is one legal way to achieve this—don’t own a car.  There is no such option with Obamacare as it is being mandated on the American people with no alternative.  If the government can force you to buy something or else be fined or placed in jail, what is stopping them from placing this standard solely on health insurance? 
Obama’s argument proves to not only be weak but not full in nature as well.  He never seems to give Tapper a yes or no answer, but instead says some form of punishment should be dealt for Obamacareviolators. Tapper reiterates the question, rewording it in effort to receive a more sound answer.   In an agile ballet, Obama flawlessly tiptoes around the question yet again saying:   “I think I put out the principle that penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”   Almost shutting down the reporter, the president seems to portray a body language signaling Tapper to back down.  He effectively let viewers know he was not going to answer the question that may place him in a political predicament.   He did however try to soften the blow explaining that hardship clauses were written into Obamacare in order to help people that may not be able to afford the insurance offered by the government.   Does he really think we believe that when we are in court in violation of these Obamacare mandates, that the judge is going to grant leniency via these hardship clauses? 

Source

Related Articles:

Obamacare: What you're not being told

Guess who's exempt from Obamacare






This image is for thumbnail purpose only







Thursday, 28 November 2013

How Ron Paul Was Cheated Out Of Presidency

A compilation of footage that shows how the establishment used illegal tactics to get Ron Paul out of the presidential running. Everything from bias to voter fraud.

Youtube have already tried to remove this video so please share before it's removed again.



The image below is a thumbnail only

Sunday, 3 November 2013

British Accuse David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald's Partner, Of 'Terrorism'

British Accuse David Miranda, Glenn Greenwald's Partner, Of 'Terrorism'


By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON, Nov 1 (Reuters) - British authorities claimed the domestic partner of reporter Glenn Greenwald was involved in "terrorism" when he tried to carry documents from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden through a London airport in August, according to police and intelligence documents.

Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was detained and questioned for nine hours by British authorities at Heathrow on Aug. 18, when he landed there from Berlin to change planes for a flight to Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.

After his release and return to Rio, Miranda filed a legal action against the British government, seeking the return of materials seized from him by British authorities and a judicial review of the legality of his detention.

At a London court hearing this week for Miranda's lawsuit, a document called a "Ports Circulation Sheet" was read into the record. It was prepared by Scotland Yard - in consultation with the MI5 counterintelligence agency - and circulated to British border posts before Miranda's arrival. The precise date of the document is unclear.

"Intelligence indicates that Miranda is likely to be involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security," according to the document.

"We assess that Miranda is knowingly carrying material the release of which would endanger people's lives," the document continued. "Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism..."

Miranda was not charged with any offense, although British authorities said in August they had opened a criminal investigation after initially examining materials they seized from him. They did not spell out the probe's objectives.

A key hearing on Miranda's legal challenge is scheduled for next week. The new details of how and why British authorities decided to act against him, including extracts from police and MI5 documents, were made public during a preparatory hearing earlier this week.

British authorities have said in court that items seized from Miranda included electronic media containing 58,000 documents from the U.S. National Security Agency and its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

Greenwald, who previously worked for Britain's Guardian newspaper, has acknowledged that Miranda was carrying material supplied by Snowden when he was detained.

In an email to Reuters, Greenwald condemned the British government for labeling his partner's actions "terrorism."

"For all the lecturing it doles out to the world about press freedoms, the UK offers virtually none...They are absolutely and explicitly equating terrorism with journalism," he said.

Separately on Friday, media disclosed details of an open letter Snowden issued to Germany from his place of exile in Russia, in which he says his revelations have helped to "address formerly concealed abuses of the public trust" and added that "speaking the truth is not a crime."

Snowden said he was counting on international support to stop Washington's "persecution" of him for revealing the scale of its worldwide phone and Internet surveillance.

Steven Aftergood, a secrecy expert with the Federation of American Scientists, said that given the nature of the material that Miranda was carrying, a harsh response by British authorities was not unexpected.

"It seems that UK authorities were attempting to seize or recover official documents, to which they arguably have a claim," Aftergood said. "The authorities' action was harsh, but not incomprehensible or obviously contrary to law."

In a separate document read into the court record, MI5, also known as the Security Service, indicated British authorities' interest in Miranda was spurred by his apparent role as a courier ferrying material from Laura Poitras, a Berlin-based filmmaker, to Greenwald, who lives with Miranda in Brazil.

"We strongly assess that Miranda is carrying items which will assist in Greenwald releasing more of the NSA and GCHQ material we judge to be in Greenwald's possession," said the document, described as a "National Security Justification" prepared for police.

"Our main objectives against David Miranda are to understand the nature of any material he is carrying, mitigate the risks to national security that this material poses," the document added.

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington had no comment on the court proceedings or documents.

Source: Huffington Post

‘Scandalous’: Israel fumes as US officials spill the beans on Syrian missile strike

‘Scandalous’: Israel fumes as US officials spill the beans on Syrian missile strike




After sources in the Obama administration said Israel was responsible for Wednesday’s attack on a Syrian missile base, an Israeli analyst warned that the US risks starting ‘a very major flare-up.’

The Israeli Air Force struck a military base near the Syrian port city of Latakia, targeting Russian-made SA 125 missiles that Israel claims were set to be transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon, a security official told AP.

A White House official confirmed the attack happened overnight Thursday, but provided no additional information.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss details of the attack.

However, neither Israel nor Syria confirmed that a military strike of any sort had occurred. 

Israel abides by a policy of never commenting on such incidences; rather, Tel Aviv reiterated that Israel will not allow advanced weapons to pass into the hands of Hezbollah via Syrian territory.

The accusation prompted a harsh rebuke on Friday night from Israeli Channel 10, which called the American leak “scandalous,” adding that it was “unthinkable” for Israel’s ally to be acting in such a way. 

Israel’s Channel 2, as quoted by the Times of Israel, said the leak “came directly from the White House,” and noted that “this is not the first time” that the Obama administration has pointed the finger at Israel, following a number of raids on Syrian targets.

The channel went so far as to suggest that consideration had been given to establishing a panel to investigate the sources, believed to be inside the Pentagon, although it gave no indication as to how a foreign government could possibly invoke such a measure against another country’s military command center.

Channel 2′s military analyst, Roni Daniel, said Israel’s policy of remaining silent on whether it carried out such attacks permitted it to maintain plausible deniability, so that Syria’s President Bashar Assad did not feel compelled to respond to the attacks.

However, this seems to have been a large leap of faith on the part of the Israeli government, since Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Moallem, warned at the end of May “if Israel attacks again, we will retaliate immediately." 

The Israeli political pundit argued the White House, by publicly leaking news of Israel’s actions, “are pushing Assad closer to the point where he can’t swallow these attacks, and will respond.” Daniel concluded: “Then perhaps the US will clap its hands because it will have started a very major flare-up.”

This is not the first time Israel has been accused by the United States for carrying out attacks on Syrian territory. On July 5, 2013, the Israeli Air Force was suspected of targeting a military installation in Latakia that allegedly housed Russian Yakhont anti-ship missiles, an advanced weapon that Israeli officials previously said they would not allow to reach Syria.

News of Israel’s purported attack comes amid the Syrian civil war that nearly attracted US military intervention, following a mysterious chemical weapons attack on August 21 in the suburbs of Damascus that resulted in hundreds of deaths and injuries. 

With military action looking imminent, Russian President Vladimir Putin succeeded in advancing an agreed plan that would have Syria destroy all of it chemical weapons, under the auspices of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Thus far, the Syrian government has been cooperating with the investigators amid a tense atmosphere both inside the country, and, as indicated by Israel’s apparent actions, outside as well.

Source: RT News

Friday, 1 November 2013

Noam Chomsky: US, a top terrorist state

In this episode of press TV's documentary program renowned American academic Noam Chomsky says the United States would be recognized as a leading terrorist state if international law is applied.




Thursday, 31 October 2013

ObamaCare: What You're Not Being Told



When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a large percentage of the public is completely misinformed about what the law actually entails. Many of these misconceptions have been intentionally cultivated by political pundits from both the left and the right, and predictably people have latched on to the distortions which most closely fit into their world view. Let's remove all the party politics and set the record straight.
One the most prevalent misconceptions about ObamaCare is that it is socialized medicine. Some view this as good thing, others view it as a bad thing, but that debate irrelevant because it simply isn't true.
Socialized medicine like they have in France, provides all citizens with healthcare services regardless of their income bracket and pays for it through taxes. That's not what Obamacare does at all. ObamaCare is designed to force every person in the United States to acquire health insurance from private companies, regardless of where you get it. If your employer doesn't provide it then you must purchase it on your own. If you don't, you will be penalized and that penalty will be collected by IRS. This is referred to as the individual mandate. According to a recent Gallup poll 43% of uninsured Americans are completely unaware that the individual mandate (and the penalty associated with it) exists at all. The IRS however will clear that up for people soon enough.
40% unaware of individual mandate: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/308799-poll-many-uninsured-are-unaware-of-individual-mandate
Now most conservatives were outraged by the individual mandate, while most liberals came out in its defense. This is ironic beyond belief. The idea for the individual mandate actually originated from The Heritage Foundation, a "conservative" think tank who now is coming out attacking ObamaCare. ObamaCare is modeled after the system put in place in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney (aka RomneyCare). Both sides were hoping you wouldn't notice that little detail.
Heritage Foundation invented the individual mandate:http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-...
How RomneyCare foretells Obamacare's failure: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131029/OPINION01/310290010/Romneycare-foretells-Obamacare-failure
There has also been quite a bit of disinformation surrounding the penalties. The penalty for not buying insurance was set up to increase gradually. In 2014 the minimal penalty is $95 or 1% of taxable income (whichever is larger), in 2015 it is $325 or 2% of taxable income, and in 2016 it is $695 or 2.5% of taxable income. The maximum penalty per family is currently capped at no more than 300% of the minimum penalty (so in 2016 that would be $695 x 300% = $2,085). Of course you'd have to be pretty naive to think that these minimum penalties won't be increased over time. Remember when the income tax was first implemented most of the population only had to pay 1% of their paychecks to the Federal government. The percentage is obviously much higher now.
The penalty for not buying insurance starts small and grows each year to reduce backlash. It also gives the laws backers a convenient talking point. After all $95 is no big deal. Of course you only get a penalty that low if you make less than $9,500 a year, which is well below the poverty line in the U.S. That minimum penalty, which goes up to $695 in 2016 may not seem like much to the uber-wealthy congressmen who wrote this bill, but for those scraping by month to month it would be a very painful blow. This is of course where the insurance subsidies come in. Many of those in the lower income brackets will qualify for tax breaks to cover part of their insurance cost if they participate. This sounds kinda like socialism, but the big difference is this: in socialism there is no middle man. With Obamacare the insurance companies are still getting paid the full amount and those insurance companies are making a profit. So in reality this isn't socialism, it's not even capitalism, it's corporatism.
Many families don't qualify for the subsidies: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/10/news/economy/obamacare-families/
And this brings us to the crux of the issue: the permanent middle man. Health insurance was originally intended as a rarely used protection to cover major sicknesses or injuries. You would still pay for your normal doctor visits when you needed them, but if you got hit by a bus and weren't able to work your insurance would make sure that your hospital bills got covered. Kind of like car insurance. Since then, the situation has gradually evolved to the point where insurance is used to cover virtually everything, from routine checkups to pharmaceuticals. People don't want to pay anything directly, they want the insurance companies to cover it, and the market has adapted to this expectation. It's not hard to understand how some would see this as a positive development, after all who doesn't like free stuff. Just one problem, it's not free, in fact this trend has led to radically higher insurance premiums and medical costs.
Using health insurance to cover routine expenses like checkups and antibiotics is like having gasoline insurance for your car. You still end up paying for the product in question, but you inherently end up paying more because you have a middle man between you and the seller, and that middle man is making a profit.
Obamacare takes this already distorted system and codifies it into law, forcing you to pay that middle man and using state intimidation in the form of the IRS to back it up. This provides health insurance companies with a captive customer base that has no way out.
Now supporters will tell you that the individual mandate is necessary to keep insurance prices from rising, after all the law is called the Affordable Health Care Act, but as it turns out for most insurance premiums are dramatically rising as the law rolls out. According to Forbes initial figures indicate that premiums will rise 99% for men and 62% for women on average nation wide with some states seeing increases of 300%. Of course if you in a low income bracket these massive increases are somewhat offset by the federal subsidies, but again the insurance companies still get paid the full amount. So where is that money going to come from? You could say the government is going to pay for it, but the Federal government is already 17 trillion dollars in debt, and that debt is growing faster every day. To pin all your hopes on the U.S. government covering the tab or to assume that you are going to get something for nothing is just magical thinking.
Mainstream pundits say that the individual mandate is necessary to prevent cost from rising: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/without-individual-mandate-o...
Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women :http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamaca...
North Carolina massive price increases: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/10/06/4365331/insurance-premium-increases-shock.html#.Um7LCyRQ2rL
Here's what it comes down to: this law is a manifestation of short sighted greed. It's a half baked scheme designed to siphon money out of the middle class and line the pockets of the filthy rich. That captive customer base, with the corporate welfare propping it up translates into big profits for insurance companies. According to the New York Times over the last 12 months, the stock prices of the top five publicly traded health insurance companies have increased by an average of 32 percent, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has risen by just 24 percent.
Insurance companies see their stock prices rising disproportionately with the ObamaCare rollout:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/insurers-stocks-unhurt-by-the...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/14/269187/health-insurers-gain-from-exchanges
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The terms of ObamaCare were negotiated behind closed doors between insurance executives and government officials even though Obama promised that those negotiations would be broadcast over c-span.
Gibbs refuses to answer questions about Obama's about face: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703481004574646560762972536
What did you think would be the result of those closed door meetings? Did you really think that the insurance companies would be looking out for the interest of the people?



Nothing new here guys, it's just good old fashioned greed and corruption. What you thought Obama was going be looking out for your interest? The same Obama who signed the NDAA giving the military the power to detain anyone indefinitely without trial? The same Obama who maintains a secret kill list, who defends the NSA's domestic spying program, and has massively expanded the drone program? That Obama? Come on, seriously? You can't be that naive.
Listen, we aren't even scratching the surface of this fiasco. We're not going to go into detail about the disastrous rollout of the HealthCare.gov website, or how millions of people are getting their existing policies canceled because of ObamaCare (more in fact than were able to successfully sign up in the exchanges), and we're not going to try to estimate how much higher prices will rise in the years ahead. But rest assured, this train wreck is just getting started.
When people come to terms with something like this they tend to ask the same thing: what can we do? You really want to know?
Disobey. That's the only non-violent solution. The politicians aren't going to help you guys. I know you'd prefer an answer that puts the responsibility on someone else, but that wouldn't be honest. Until the people fully come to terms with the fact that this so called government is run by criminals and that we have no moral obligation to obey criminals, then nothing is going to improve. It's as simple as that.
More Americans have had their insurance canceled than have signed up in the exchanges: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/24/more-americans-have-had-their-insurance-canceled-under-obamacare-than-have-filed-an-exchange-account
***BONUS CONTENT***
It turns out that the multi-million dollar no-bid contract to build the disastrous HealthCare.gov website was handed over to a company called CGI, and one of Michelle Obama's classmates from Princeton (Toni Townes-Whitley) just happens to be top level executive of that company.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is...
Of course just being classmates doesn't really prove anything, after all Princeton is a big school, but the Whitley family spending Christmas with the Obama's in 2010 and getting their picture taken together... well that indicates a personal relationship. We took this screenshot directly from a public post made on Toni Townes-Whitley's facebook profile. The picture was uploaded on December 28th, 2010.
Toni Townes-Whitley's facebook profile:https://www.facebook.com/tonitwhitley
Toni and her husband spending Christmas with the Obama's at the White House: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=134031659989997&set=a.1340316033...
To know the full extent of their relationship and to be able to establish whether these backdoor dealings were in fact criminal in nature would require a real investigation, and with the Obamas personally on the line you can rest assured that they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. In the mean time we felt that you should at least see this information.
And to top it off...


Article Source: StormCloudsGathering

More great SCG Videos:


The Next Terrorist Attack - What The Mainstream Media Isn't Telling You 


 When Will The Economy Collapse?


 The Blunt Truth about The Travyon Martin Case


 Egyptian Revolution: What You're Not Being told


 The Chain of Obedience


 Revolution: An Instruction Manual


 So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?


 The Best Kept Secrets of The Dollar


 The Death Throes of the United States


 Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S to be Used for Political Dissidents


 After America Collapses, What Comes Next?


 U.S. Government Preparing for Collapse


 The Snowden Case What You're Not Being Told


 Why a Dollar & Euro Collapse Is Guaranteed


 The Truth about The Social Contract


 The Chain of Identity






Friday, 25 October 2013

CONFIRMED: NSA Taps Phones of Major World Leaders



The National Security Agency eavesdropped on hundreds of phone numbers belonging to dozens of world leaders, newly leaked documents supplied by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden reveal.

Britain’s Guardian newspaper wrote Thursday that a classified memo provided to them by Snowden suggests that the NSA encouraged officials within the United States government and intelligence community to share among their colleagues contact information pertaining to international heads of state.

According to the Guardian, the memo made reference to an unnamed US official who had reportedly supplied the NSA with over 200 numbers, including 35 belonging to world leaders.

“These numbers plus several others have been tasked," or monitored, reads the memo.

The leaders themselves are not identified in the memorandum, but classified documents previously disclosed to the media by Snowden have suggested that the NSA spied on conversations involving citizens of France, Germany, Brazil and elsewhere.
Guardian reporter James Ball writes that senior officials in the NSA’s “customer” departments — or officials within the White House, State Department and Pentagon — were asked in the memo to share their own collection of international contacts, as their unnamed colleague had, in order for the agency to add the numbers to its list of intelligence targets.

"This success leads S2 [signals intelligence] to wonder if there areNSA liaisons whose supported customers may be willing to share their 'Rolodexes' or phone lists with NSA as potential sources of intelligence," Ball quotes from the memo. "S2 welcomes such information!"

“From time to time, SID [Signals Intelligence Directorate] is offered access to the personal contact databases of US officials," it continues. “Such 'Rolodexes' may contain contact information for foreign political or military leaders, to include direct line, fax, residence and cellular numbers."

When asked by the Guardian to comment, White House press secretary Jay Carney referred to comments made earlier Thursday during a briefing in which he acknowledged the NSA disclosure and said, "The revelations have clearly caused tension in our relationships with some countries, and we are dealing with that through diplomatic channels.”
Last month, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff canceled a scheduled meeting at the White House after leaked documents showed the NSA spied on her country’s state oil company. This week it was reported that officials in both France and Germany summoned the US envoy over similar allegations in the wake of Snowden’s leaks.

On Thursday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called allegations the NSA spied on her private communications “not at all acceptable” during a summit of European leaders in Brussels. Germany’s Der Spiegel paper reported previously that leaked NSA documents indicated Merkel’s mobile phone number had been on the radar of American intelligence.

Carney, the White House press secretary, said, "The president spoke with Chancellor Merkel, reassured her that the United States is not and will not monitor the chancellor's communications." 

The White House has not, however, gone on the record to dismiss allegations that German leaders were not previously the subject of US-administered surveillance. 

"It's not just about me but about every German citizen," Merkel said during Thursday's conference. 

"This is not how you should treat your partners," said Stephanie Hilebrand, a 38-year-old German woman who spoke to reporters with Reuters on Thursday from Berlin. "We're not terrorists. Nor is our chancellor." 

Source : RT News

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

News Anchor Loses It For The Best Possible Reason

You’d call this guy crazy if he wasn't so brilliant, concise and 100% on point! Mind = Blown. The world is waking up.




Tuesday, 8 October 2013

The Blunt Truth About The Government Shutdown




Sources:

Feds spend 5 billion on eve of shutdown:http://www.defense.gov/contracts/cont...

Feds ordered to make the sequester as painful as promised.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

Feds try to close down the ocean:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/03...

Abuse of NSA domestic spying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09...

Rand Paul Supports the use of drones to kill Americans on U.S. soil:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar...


NDAA of 2013 passes unanimously:
http://rt.com/usa/ndaa-military-deten...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2nMwm...

Thursday, 3 October 2013

Iran's Troops Join Assad's Troops


Iran now has troops in Syria fighting along side Assad's troops. At the same time the U.S. has been escalating its arms shipments to the religious extremists who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government


Put two and two together and it should be obvious that a clash is in the works.


U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels


The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.
The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month.
The arms are being delivered as the United States is also shipping new types of nonlethal gear to rebels. That aid includes vehicles, sophisticated communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footage emerges of 'Iranians fighting in Syria'

Video footage has emerged that appears to show Iranian nationals dressed in military clothing operating inside Syria and apparently working with government forces.
It comes as Russian and US foreign ministers prepare to hold talks in Geneva to discuss to dismantling Syria's chemical arsenal.
Mohamed Madi from the BBC's Middle East monitoring service has studied the latest footage.
The BBC has not been able to fully authenticate this footage, but based on additional checks made on it, it is believed to be genuine

Similar Articles:

SYRIA : Is it the end of the world?