Miscellaneous Posts

Originally posted 03/25/2010

An open letter from actress Maria Conchita Alonso, who penned this response to actor Sean Penn's recent remarks on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" in which the radical left-wing actor defended and professed his love for the ruthless Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Personally, I don't give a damn what Sean Penn thinks...his opinions about our country are well known and his hypocrisy is too - otherwise the pin-head would be living in Venezuelan with Bill Ayers and sucking on Hugo's tit. Sean Penn is nothing more than a pathetic embarrassment to himself; but shouldn't he have been boasting to the world about his newly aquired Obama-Care instead?

Dear Sean, WHY?

Even though I have great respect for your artistic talent, I was appalled by a recent television interview where you vigorously showed support for the regime of Hugo Chavez. Therefore, I've decided to set the record straight for you regarding the Chavez regime, supporting my case based not only on my political ideologies, but on proven facts you choose to ignore. Otherwise, I believe your position would be different.

Being born in Cuba, a country where freedom of speech is non-existent, it's startling to observe how Venezuela, where I was happily raised, is fast becoming Cuba's mirror image: Dismantling of fundamental democratic rights deserved by its people and citizens of the world.

For example, you said that all Chavez-winning elections in Venezuela were "transparent."

Then WHY didn't the government allow a manual recount of the votes and computer information when doubt set in? After all, how do you explain how these votes that were strongly favoring the opposition mysteriously reflected the opposite results the morning after, thus permitting Chavez to continue on? On what are you basing your conclusions? I strongly recommend that you read a report by the U.S. State Department written in 2009 entitled "The Fraudulent Elections in Venezuela".

We live in a Republic comprised of three autonomous branches of government: Supreme Court, Congress and Executive, thus, a true democracy.

Then WHY do you accept violations by part of the government of Venezuela to ignore its Constitution whereby one man, military-educated Chavez, controls all branches of government? His military background is revealed by his philosophy: "I order, you obey and if you disagree you're a traitor to the country." And your voice is silenced along with the ability of freethinking. Did you know solely the government controls 92% of media communications?

You've strongly criticized your own governments' overspending and corruption, whereby the budget for We the people never ends up in the hands of those who need it most.

Then WHY do you support a government with over $100 million in oil revenue that has 71% poverty? Or don't you know that corruption is so rampant that the rightfully deserving poor never sees a "red cent"? In addition, the fact is that Chavez gives away millions of dollars; belonging to the Venezuelan people, to other countries in order to build a false sense of philanthropy of a man whose self-proclaiming ego is blinded by power behind a communist Cuban-style revolution, expanding such regime.

We live in the U.S.A., the land of opportunity to do and say what we desire, respecting dissenting points of view, of course and without reprisals.

Then WHY do you defend a government whose stronghold upon its people is so oppressive that a big price is paid for exercising freedom of speech: Persecutions, closing of radio and television stations, jail...and even death?

You are fortunate enough to live in a country where you can buy property and claim it as your own to do whatever you want with it.

Then WHY do you promote the interests of a government that violates the Constitution by hindering the possibility of development: Land, industries, commerce, communications companies, foreign investment opportunities, financial institutions and private property? This is an everyday scenario in Venezuela.

Then WHY haven't you informed yourself on these facts by reading Venezuelan and international newspapers exposing thousands of cases?

Given your sense of community and respect for all people, I think you would defend the security of the citizens in your country.

Then WHY do you validate a government that has converted Venezuela into the second most dangerous country in the world, where impunity is above 90% and its people live in a constant state of stress and fear of getting killed? Many wonder if this situation isn't but a diabolic strategy by the part of the government, something to think about. Do you know that the weekend of March 13th there were 67 counted homicides only in Caracas? Furthermore, in the first 50 days of this year, there have been 140 express kidnappings for fast money (a 50% increase in 2009 versus previous years). After 11 years of the Chavez government, more than 16,000 people has been murdered by armed gangs and we're not even at war like in the Middle East.

In the U.S.A. the arm of the law comes down hard on government or private sector where cases of fraud and corruption are discovered.

Then WHY do you defend a politician who promised to sweep corruption, but has ended up sponsoring illicit enrichment by part of his closest allies and civil servants, placing Venezuela as the most corrupt country in the Americas and in its political history? Corruption has increased 68% and inflation 31% in 2009. What a coincidence, Sean that the majority of those "corruptors" are members of the government you have chosen to embrace.

You've demonstrated admirable assistance to those in need, due to natural disasters or poverty, those with desperate pleas to get their misfortune exposed for the whole world to see.

Then WHY do you applaud the efforts of a government that has notoriously increased poverty (65% to 71%), produced scarcity of staple products and created an energy and water shortage crisis never seen in Venezuela? Not to mention the numbers of children begging in the streets. You may have missed it because the government tends to take the scenic routes for its guests. I invite you see the real Venezuela, stay for a couple of weeks without the logistics the government of said country organizes for you and you'll be amazed with the results in your unaided observations.

Sean, you live in a country where your parents had the freedom to teach you principles and respect for entities and human beings, where education hasn't been manipulated by political agendas of those in power.

Then WHY are you in favor of a country where day after day education isn't plural by obligating a single-minded agenda and lack of respect for family structure? Did you know Sean that in Venezuela there is political indoctrination at a very early age, better known as "brainwashing"? And let me tell you that if parents don't agree, they will lose custody of their children, just like in Cuba, a country you've placed on a pedestal.

You are a product of a Jewish father.

Then WHY is your fascination with a government that has overtly stated its hatred against the Jewish community worldwide, to the extent that the State of Israel condemned anti-Semitic attacks in Venezuela? Do you think it's fair that many Jewish-Venezuelan families have emigrated because the Chavez government robbed their personal files when their temples and offices were under attacked in 2008?

I don't think so, Sean, that you would support violence as a means to impose your agenda.

Then WHY do you support a government with close relationships with FARC, ETA, Cuban G-2, Government of Iran, Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, among others, which are the most feared terrorist movements in the world?

You have said that you applaud the actions that Chavez has instituted for his "pueblo".

Then WHY do you back him up when he himself has recently publicly recognized his failure for effective social programs (missions) in the areas of education, social service and hospitals; where each day the number of the uncared rises for lack of appropriate facilities and respective upkeep, and a country where the mothers give birth in the streets? This you can see on YouTube in investigative programs run on German, Swedish, Italian and Spanish television stations.

Sean, have you considered researching the existence of the growing list of political prisoners, including journalists, on your own? For your information Chile, Peru and Costa Rica has that data. Furthermore, many of these prisoners are tortured and their families persecuted and threatened, just like the Cuba you stand up for.

Is that what you support when you publicly declare that all those that say that Chavez is a dictator should go to jail?

Sean, you have the right to say what you want, but as far as I know, your statements are contradictory to "Freedom of Speech", the same one you enjoy in this country; by coincidence, "The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America."

My intention isn't to convince you, but to let you know what is truly happening in this beautiful country of noble people, Venezuela. I would encourage you to investigate in depth the "inside story" and realize for yourself the dark side behind the person you choose to idolize.

Agreed, Chavez did win his first elections, but like Hitler, he betrayed what the country gave him: The vote of confidence.

Moderator's Note: In the very last line of this letter, couldn't we replace the name "Chavez" with someone else's today?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/maria-conchita-alonso/2010/03/25/open-letter-sean-penn

This is VERY odd. I looked up Hitler's rise to power and I got this.

(I wasn't even thinking about Obama at the time.)

But after reading the article, I quickly realized the similarity between Obama's rise to power and Hitler's. It's uncanny! If you only changed a few words, a very similar comparison could be made indeed. See for yourself if you don't believe me.

Original text from wikipedia with my additions or changes in (parentheses ) and subsituting words striked out with my own.

Hitler's Obama's rise to power in Germany America began in September 1919 the 1980's when Hitler Obama joined the political party that was known as the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei the Democrats (a "Worker's Party"). This political party was formed and developed infiltrated by the Progressives during the post-World War I era recent past. It was anti-Marxist anti-capitalist and was opposed to the democratic Republican post-war government of the Weimar Republic Bush Administration and the Treaty of Versailles Guantanamo Bay; and it advocated extreme nationalism Socialism and Pan-Germanism Pan-Americanism and African-Americanism as well as virulent anti-Semitism (and very Pro-Palestinian). Hitler's Obama's "rise" can be considered to have began in March 1933 early 2009, after the Reichstag Progressives adopted the Enabling Act czars; President Paul von Hindenburg The Democratic Congress had already appointed Hitler Obama as Chancellor the "Anointed One" in January 1933 2008 after a series of parliamentary elections and associated backstairs intrigues (backroom deals). The Enabling Act Executive Orders - when used ruthlessly and with authority (using czars) - virtually assured that Hitler Obama could thereafter constitutionally exercise dictatorial power without legal objection.

Hitler Obama rose to a place of prominence in the early years of the party (as a community organizer and Illinois state senator) largely as a result of his considerable skills in oratory, organization and promotion. He was aided in part by (ACORN) in his willingness to use violence deception in advancing his political objectives and to recruit party members (using Project Vote and The Black Panther Party) who were willing to do the same. The Beer Hall putsch in 1923 meeting with Bill Ayers in 1995 and the later release of his book Mein Kampf "The Audacity of Hope" introduced Hitler Obama to a wider audience. In the mid-1920s early millennium the Democratic party engaged in electoral battles in which Hitler Obama participated as a speaker and organizer, as well as in street battles and violence debates between the Rotfrontkämpferbund Republicans and Tea Party members, and the Nazi's Sturmabteilung radical left-wing loons. The Nazis Democrats/Progressives gathered enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Reichstag America, and Hitler's Obama's blend of political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning converted the party's majority and plurality status into effective governing power in the ailing Weimar Republic of 1933 United States of 2009.

Once in power, the Nazis Democrats created a mythology surrounding the rise to power, and they described the period that roughly corresponds to the scope of this article as either the Kampfzeit (the time of struggle) or the Kampfjahre (years of struggle "Obama's Historical Years".

I find the comparison to be chilling!

Do read Obama's TRUE rise to power, go here:

http://tobuds.com/blogs/blog1.php/2010/04/11/jon-voight-on-fox-news-to-obama-re-the-c

Democratic columnist Joe Conason scoffs at ObamaCare's critics and takes up the administration's line that people are going to love this thing once they find out all the great surprises that are in store.

Example:

Uninsured adults who have pre-existing conditions that prevented them from obtaining insurance will get coverage from a special risk pool that will end when the new insurance exchanges--where private companies will compete--go into operation a few years from now. A similar program will cover early retirees who are too young to qualify for Medicare, assisting companies in turning over their workforce and creating jobs.

Assisting companies in turning over their workforce and creating jobs?

In plain English, Conason is touting ObamaCare because it will make it easier to fire older workers!

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145760388087340.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

Nationalism is an ideology which supports the nation as the fundamental unit of human social life, which includes shared language, values and culture. Thus national treasure, part of the ideology of nationalism, is shared culture.

Fox News has become a National Treasure to the United States - - - without it, 60% of the population who hold Conservative views, would have been relegated to watching CNN as our only alternative source of National and International news in this country,

Thank you Fox.

But I still have to buy extended cable service at Cox Communications to get your signal. CNN comes with basic cable where I live in Las Vegas, but you're worth the added expense...even in this depressed economy.

It's almost scary because, without Fox, there would be so much going on behind our backs in government that we otherwise might never have known...if just by watching CNN.

I'm a First Amendment advocate and once believed in the Fourth Estate, but it hardly exists any longer...taken over by ideological and political slants. So it's OK to say that Fox represents the conservative point of view, because America needed an unbiased source of news to be available. (I wouldn't want to have to read foreign newspapers on-line just to see what's going on in my own country).

Your ratings are up for a reason, and the LEFT will have a much more difficult time pushing their take over of the country because of you (that's why they're always whining). And thank Mister Murdoch for me as well.

While I may sometimes disagree with some of your commentators regarding the unemployed in this country, over-all, Fox is definitely "Fair and Balanced".

Thanks again and keep up the good work.

Bud Meyers,
Las Vegas, Nevada

P.S. - Please don't ever charge us to view your Fox News web site.

News International, the British arm of News Corp., said Friday that two of its publications, The Times and The Sunday Times of London, would begin charging readers using its Web sites in June.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/media/27paper.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

----- Original Message -----

From: Bud Meyers
To: Glenn Beck
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:13 PM
Subject: "Dope-smoking Hippies" CORRECTION

Regarding your reference to "dope-smoking" Hippies:

We "hippies" grew up in the late 60's and early 70's (before your time Glenn) and we wore our hair long and protested against the Viet Nam War. We also wore bell-bottomed jeans with patches and wore beads and PEACE buttons. Yes, we smoked pot too (and unlike Bill Clinton, we inhaled). And most of the "ordinary" people in those days would have considered us hippies (acronym meaning "Help In Promoting Peaceful Individual Existence").

We didn't spit on soldiers returning from Viet Nam or call them "baby killers" like John Kerry might have.

For many young people, it was almost akin to being "fashionable" for the time - like all young generations who try to be different from their parents by expressing their individualism, while at the same time, trying to tame their raging hormones. We listened to Classic rock, while later generations listened to Punk rock. A fad, a craze, a rage, a phase that kids go through from adolescence to adulthood.

According to wikipedia, Hippie was the etymology of the term 'hippie' from hipster, and was initially used to describe beatniks who had moved into New York City's Greenwich Village and San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district.

Most were probably anti-war protesters, but most of us were also just young kids trying to be cool - enjoying "free love" and rock concerts. We weren't at all like SDS and Bill Ayers, trying to blow the country up. (Once I bought firecrackers in Tijuana.)

True hippies were anti-government (like Bill Ayers) but for a much different reason - the war. But unlike Bill Ayers, we were also pacifists, and not at all like SDS, who promoted violence and a revolution to take down the government. We (hippies) wanted "reform" but not a "fundamental transformation" of the country like the left-wing radicals of the time.

Most "hippies" I knew weren't even politically informed. They just naively followed the mantra of Timothy Leary..."Turn on, tune in, drop out" - not really understanding what was at stake in American politics. We built campfires on the beach, drank beer, and played our guitars...not bombing police stations or the Pentagon.

Maybe you thought Bill Ayers and the Progressives hijacked the "hippie movement", as they did the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement...and over the years, the Democratic Party too.

I remember when we used to call authority "the establishment". Now the radicals from the 1960's ARE the establishment

Bill Ayers and his ilk weren't "hippies", they were terrorists...and still are (and many are in the White House today.)

And I'd say that half of us "hippies" eventually grew up, got jobs, wised-up, and became Conservatives. And most of us haven't smoked pot for the last 35 years. I'm but just one example.

But then again...

I'm just trying to set you straight Glenn...we love ya. Keep up the good work.

Peace and Love Brother,
Bud Meyers

P.S. My Dad used to call all my friends "dope-smoking hippies"! Did you know my father?

See: "John Lennon and John Kerry tied to the Weather Underground"

See:"What I REALLY think of Bill Ayers" (Pictures of me in my "hippie" days.)

The Obama-Care healthcare bill benefits MOSTLY the uninsured, and are CLEARLY the biggest beneficiaries of this new healthcare legislation. They say it was created ESPECIALLY for "low-income" people...but was REALLY created for "non-income people", and will also provide funding for illegal immigrants and abortions.

Here's how:

- - - - - Those Without Insurance (the uninsured) - - - - -

The first year, poor people (those below the poverty threshold) who most likely do not have health insurance (if not already covered by Medicare or Medicaid) would supposedly owe *$95, or 1% of their income, whichever is greater. But the penalty would subsequently rise, reaching $695, or 2 percent of income for all those who don't buy a GOVERNMENT APPROVED comprehensive health insurance plan.

*This is ridiculous! - $95 would represent 1% of a $950 annual income. No one in America lives on this. A homeless panhandler earns much more.

How this applies to you - Example: When you file your 1040 next year, and your gross income was $25,000 in 2010, 1% of your income would be $250.00...and you would be "fined" (TAXED) if you can't PROVE you have health insurance. This will be collected by the IRS (through tax refunds).

Note: This "fine" or TAX, is CONSIDERABLY cheaper than actually buying a healtcare plan, unless your your annual income execeeds $250,000 (of which 2% would be $5,000...what it costs for a good comprehensive healthcare plan.)

One tactic: I would just claim the maximum amount of exemptions allowed (9) on my W-4 form to avoid paying excessive income taxes in my payroll checks during the course of the year; then when I'd file my 1040 federal income tax return, I'd just pay what I actually owed minus the "fine".) They can send the IRS Agents to arrest me. But if 150 million tax filers did these, the IRS would have to be very selective in their enforcement

Note: I would be careful that they don't have the legal authority garnish your checking / savings / IRA accounts before I used this tactic. But the way things are going, they might, AND put a lien on your house and REPO your car. I wouldn't put anything out of reach of the IRS - not even off-shore bank acounts.

Compare:
The average unemployment benefit across the U.S. is $1,278 a month (or $15,336 annually).

COBRA monthly premiums are just too expensive (family coverage are $1,069).

If you're SINGLE collecting unemployment benefits, you EXCEED the "poverty threshold" but if you're a single mom with 3 or 4 kids, you would qualify for Free Obama-Care.

Or if you're single with no children with a wage or income $11,161 or below, you would also qualify for Free Obama-Care.

And "families" who fall below the Income-tax Filing Thresholds (defined below) would not owe anything either, and get Free Obama-Care. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8% of their income (8% of a $25,000 annual income is $2,000). It would be next to impossible to find a comprehensive healthcare insurance policy for $2,000 a year! They too, get Free Obama-Care.

Non-income people - This means 2 or more adults on welfare (and also qualify for food-stamps and other government substitutes from the "Obama Stash") can share the expenses of living in a rented apartment AND ALSO qualify for Free Obama-Care!

Low-income people - But a factory worker working *40 hours a week earning the minimum wage (or people who rightfully collect unemployment benefits) would NOT qualify for Free Obama-Care - you'd be ABOVE poverty threshold.

(* $7.25 an hour, times 40 hours, times 52 weeks = $15,080 annual income)

This healthcare plan is specifically geared to "Non-income" people, not "Low-income" people as the Progressives in the Democratic Party would have you believe.

- - - - - - The Timeline - - - - -

Within three months of the law’s taking effect, people who have been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition would be eligible for subsidized coverage through a new high-risk insurance program. That special coverage would continue until the legislation’s engine kicks into a higher gear in 2014, when coverage would be extended to a wider part of the population through Medicaid and new state-run insurance exchanges

Six months after the legislation is enacted, many plans would be prohibited from placing lifetime limits on medical coverage, and they could not cancel the policies of people who fall ill. Children with pre-existing conditions could not be denied coverage. And dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents’ plans.

In 2013, affluent families with annual income above $250,000 would be required to pay an additional 3.8 percent tax on their investment income, while contributing more to the Medicare program from their payroll taxes. And eventually, the most expensive insurance policies would be subject to a new tax.

In 2014, people with pre-existing conditions could no longer be denied insurance, all lifetime and annual limits on coverage would be eliminated and new policies would be required to meet higher benefit standards.

Beginning in 2014 many employers - those with 50 or more workers - could face federal fines for not providing insurance coverage.

Although most Americans who do not obtain health insurance would face a federal penalty starting in 2014, many experts question how strict the enforcement of that penalty would actually be.
See "I.R.S. to ENFORCE Obama's Healthcare Bill"

--------------------- Other Provisions ----------------

EXPANDED MEDICAID More lower-income individuals under the age of 65 would be covered by Medicaid, the federal health insurance plan for the poor. Under the new rules, households with income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $29,327 for a family of four, would be eligible.

EXCHANGES AND SUBSIDIES Most other uninsured people would be required to buy insurance through one of the new state-run insurance exchanges. People with incomes of more than 133 percent of the poverty level but less than 400 percent (that’s $29,327 to $88,200 for a family of four) would be eligible for premium subsidies through the exchanges.

Premiums would also be capped at a percentage of income, ranging from 3 percent of income to as much as 9.5 percent.

EMPLOYMENT FLEXIBILITY The exchanges would also help people who lose their jobs, quit or decide to start their own businesses.

"If you lose your employer-related insurance, you will be able to move seamlessly into the exchange," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Moreover, people of any age who cannot find a plan that costs less than 8 percent of their income would be allowed to buy a catastrophic policy otherwise intended for people under age 30.

- - - - - Those who already HAVE Insurance - - - - -

EMPLOYER COVERAGE People who receive coverage through large employers would be unlikely to see any drastic changes, nor should premiums or coverage be affected. But almost everyone would benefit from new regulations, like the ban on pre-existing conditions that would apply to all policies come 2014.

There might even be cases where people would be eligible to buy insurance through an exchange instead of through their employer, Professor Jost said: those who must pay more than 9.5 percent of their income for premiums, or those whose plans do not cover more than 60 percent of the cost their benefits.

CHANGES IN MEDICARE One of the biggest changes involves the Medicare prescription drug program. Its unpopular "doughnut hole" - a big, expensive gap in coverage that affects millions - would be eliminated by 2020. Starting immediately, consumers who hit the gap would receive a $250 rebate. In 2011, they would receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs.

HIGH-COST INSURANCE Starting in 2018, employers that offer workers pricier plans - or those with total premiums of $10,200 or more for singles and $27,500 for families - would be subject to a 40 percent tax on the excess premium, said C. Clinton Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte. Retirees and workers in high-risk professions like firefighting would have higher thresholds ($11,850 for singles, or $30,950 for families), pegged to inflation.

Although the taxes would be levied on the insurer, experts expect the assessment to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums or reduced benefits. (IRS)

- - - - Income-tax Filing Thresholds (H&R Block) - - - -

Your filing status is Single and you're either of the following:
* younger than 65 with gross income of $9,350 or more
* 65 or older with gross income of $10,750 or more

Your filing status is Married Filing Jointly and you are any of the following:
* you are both younger than 65 with a combined gross income of $18,700 or more
* only 1 spouse is 65 or older and together you have a combined gross income of $19,800 or more
* you are both 65 or older with a combined gross income of $20,900 or more

Your filing status is Married Filing Separately and you are any age with gross income of $3,650 or more.

Your filing status is Head of Household and you are either of the following:
* younger than 65 with gross income of $12,000 or more
* 65 or older with gross income of $13,400 or more

Your filing status is Qualifying Widow(er) with dependent children and you are either of the following:
* younger than 65 with gross income of $15,050 or more
* 65 or older with gross income of $16,150 or more

Disclaimer: Seek professional tax advice. This post is meant for general information only.

INCLUDED SOURCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/your-money/health-insurance/22consumer.html

March 20, 2010 - "Giant banks that are perceived as 'too big to fail' are among the most insidious barriers to competition in financial services," the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, said last Saturday.

"One of the greatest threats to the diversity and efficiency of our financial system is the pernicious problem of financial institutions that are deemed ‘too big to fail,’" Mr. Bernanke said in a speech at a convention of the Independent Community Bankers of America.

(I wish he hadn't used that word "diversity", it makes me cringe!)

That line, and others, elicited applause from the bankers, who have been wary of the overhaul, which would enhance consumer protections and tighten capital and liquidity requirements.

"It is unconscionable that the fate of the world economy should be so closely tied to the fortunes of a relatively small number of giant financial firms," Mr. Bernanke said. "If we achieve nothing else in the wake of the crisis, we must ensure that we never again face such a situation."

("The" crisis? Not "this" crisis? You mean there's no more crisis? I supppose the big boys like Goldman Sachs can stand on their own two feet now.)

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/politics/21address.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Ponzi Schemer Was Assaulted by Another Inmate in December; Officials Deny Incident

Mr. Madoff advised one inmate to diversify, saying he should invest in funds that track the S&P 500 index of stocks "where my money would be on all the stocks instead of putting my eggs into one basket," the former inmate said.

He said Mr. Madoff also warned him off of day trading. "I was trying to get into day trading and he's like, 'That's not for you. That's for individuals like me with millions to spare,' " he said.

Full Story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704743404575128031143424928.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular