San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 10, 2016

Bernie Is Dead, Long Live The Queen

So the Democrats have made their choice and it will be Hillary vs The Donald.  It would be far more interesting if the contest could be decided inside a cage but I suspect that most folks will want to have some sort of election process prior to crowning our next King or Queen.  I went on record quite some time ago with my prediction that Hillary would become the first Queen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and I am sticking with my story.  I also predicted that Bush III would be running against her.  That prediction illustrates why I am not a stock broker.  My ability to foresee future events is nonexistent.
Now that Bernie is kaput both sides are clamoring for his supporters to come and join them.  If we lived in a truly rational world, which we clearly do not, we would all recognize that combining Bernie supporters with either Hillary or Donald is like attempting to force oil and water to mix.  It just ain't gonna happen.  Nevertheless I am looking forward to this election cycle more than any I can recall from recent times.  I think it is going to be outrageous.  I think it is going to give me plenty of fodder for this blog.  I can't wait to see how things pan out.
As I was walking through the local grocery store this morning, looking for some fresh blueberries to consume, I overheard a stocker in the produce section telling a fellow patron that he was a disappointed Bernie supporter.  His grief and sorrow, plus a significant dose of sour grapes at "the system" which had just rejected his personal diety, got me to thinking.  In fact, as I was driving home I came up with a list of questions I would like to ask of anyone and everyone who supported Bernie for next King of the SDA.  Without further ado, and in the hope some stray Bernie supporter might read this post and actually respond to my questions, I give you my dozen questions for a Bernie supporter:
  1. Who forced you to go to college against your will?
  2. Who forced you to take out student loans against your will?
  3. Why have you not brought either civil or criminal charges against the people who forced you to go to college or take out student loans against your will?
  4. How long have you been living in your parent's basement?
  5. How long do you plan to continue living in your parent's basement?
  6. Is it morally correct for me to steal your property by violence?
  7. If some legislature made a law proclaiming it to be morally right for me to steal your property by violence does that make it morally right for me to do so?
  8. If you answered "Yes" to the last question, please confirm that you believe in the principle that morality is determined by career politicians who are elected by majority vote.  Please confirm that you believe something can be morally good one day and morally evil the next.  Once you have confirmed that principle I have another question for you.  What if the career politicians who make the law declared biblical law to be the law of land, would that make biblical law morally right?  In other words, the state would execute juvenile delinquents, homosexuals, transvestites and adulterers for their heinous sins and rejection of God's perfect moral law.  After you answer "No" to that question please admit that you are a hypocrite.  If you answered "No" to the very first question, please proceed to the next question.  
  9. Since you have already admitted that a state legislature cannot make a law making it legal to steal the property of another person by violence, please explain why you are not a hypocrite for believing that the state should take some of my money by force and threat of imprisonment for non-compliance and give it to you to pay for your college tuition bills.  While you are working on that one you might also want to explain why it is morally right for the top 49% of the income population to pay for 98.5% of the entire federal budget.  
  10. Please explain how, if the "system" (whatever that is, you seem to know since you use the word all the time) is "rigged," your hero managed to advance as far as he did.
  11. Please explain how it is that money and those who hold it are evil yet you want the government to take most of the money held by evil people and give it to you.  How do you avoid becoming evil, and thus subject to expropriation of your money, once you receive the inherently evil money?
  12. How long have you been missing your brain?  Oh, that's right, I will answer this question for you. You don't miss it!
In the interest of fair play I also have a dozen questions for Hillary supporters.  Once again, if you find yourself a supporter of the person I believe will be our next Queen, please respond to any or all of these twelve questions:
  1. Why do you consider yourself to be an intelligent and informed voter and yet make the decision to vote for Hillary simply because you have two X chromosomes?  (Note to intelligent and informed voters:  having "two X chromosomes" means you are a woman.  So do you think I am condescending for writing this parenthetical comment?  Do you even know what that means?)
  2. If you are voting for Hillary simply because she is a female, what will you do with your vote if Hillary decides to self-identify as a man prior to the election in November? 
  3. If Hillary identifies as a man and remains married to Bill, does that make her a homosexual and thus subject to privileged status in the eyes of the government?  Is that privileged status enough to win her the Crown?  Can she sue somebody for discrimination if she does not win?
  4. Are you going to read Gary Byrne's tell-all book about his life and times as the secret service agent posted outside the oval office during Bill's kingship?  
  5. Have you already made up your mind that Byrne is a vicious liar out to enrich and aggrandize himself, thus allowing you to discount and ignore everything he writes about the tyrannical and immoral Hillary Clinton?  
  6. Please explain, in your own words, how health care premiums are actually a tax and thus subject to federal regulation.  Feel free to refer to the Constitution of the United States in defense of your position. 
  7. How many pants suits do you own and how often do you wear them?
  8. Would you rather listen to a speech by Hillary or camp out next to an operating 747?
  9. Do you consider crying in public a sign of strength or weakness?  Please explain your answer. Yes, the Mad Welshman is both sexist and misogynist.  Does that bother you?  Why?  You have already confessed to being misandrist if you answered Question # 1 in the affirmative.
  10. If Hillary is the next Queen does that make Bill the first "First Man?"  Follow up question:  If Bill is the first First Man does that give him the right to have sex with staffers in the oval office, just like the good old days?
  11. At what point does a particular minimum wage become detrimental for economic growth?  If raising the minimum wage never becomes detrimental for economic growth why should it not be raised to $100,000 per hour, thus making everyone rich beyond their wildest dreams as all of those wages are spent back into the economy, causing it to grow beyond belief?
  12. How many hairstylists should Hillary have on staff, how many hours should they work and how much taxpayer money should they be paid if she becomes the first Queen of the SDA?
I don't expect any answers to any of these questions because the questions themselves gloriously expose the weakness of all the positions held by both Bernie and Hillary supporters.  Admit it, I am right and you are wrong.  Admit it, I win and you lose.  Admit it, you are an envy-filled lover of civil government out for a free ride at taxpayer (me) expense and I simply love freedom.   You are thieves, each and everyone one of you.  Repent before it is too late to do so. 

Thursday, June 9, 2016

King Obama Apologizes For Bombing Japan

Barak Obama, King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, recently made a trip to Japan where he outraged patriotic Amerikans by apologizing to various Japanese people about the fact that the SDA military had dropped two atomic bombs on their country in 1945.  In the course of his apology our King said, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening."  As you would probably expect, defenders of the Amerikan empire are enraged at what they consider to be treasonous remarks made by our King to a bunch of stinkin' foreigners, all of whom probably deserve to die.  Let's consider that for a while today.
Public apologies are meaningless.  Go here for a blog post making that argument.  Technically an apology is an admission of sin against another person.  In post-Christian Amerika an apology is simply a statement about the emotional state of the person who sinned against another person.  When a sinner says he is sorry for what he did to an innocent victim he is only saying that he feels bad about himself.  That is a meaningless and utterly worthless assertion.  Any alleged apology that is not immediately followed up with reparations is valueless.  Indeed, the act of repentance must include both a statement about how the sinner recognizes the sin he has committed and how he is going to make things right with the victim.  Anything less is simple posturing for the cameras and nothing more.
It is impossible to apologize on behalf of someone else.  That is what makes all public apologies issued by career politicians to groups of people who were not even alive at the time of the offense so comical.  Furthermore, King Obama is not qualified to apologize to the surviving Japanese people for dropping the atomic bombs upon them because he was not responsible for those actions.  So what our King did in Japan a month ago is nothing more than tokenistic symbolism designed to create a photo opportunity to allow various parties to feel good about themselves for things they had no part in.  What a total waste of time it all is.
Anthony, I call him Tony, Accetta of Denver wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post to express his utter disgust for our King and his actions while in Japan.  Tony wrote, "President Obama's flowery words to the Japanese people went over the line when he said he looked forward to the day when" the bombings would be illustrative of the moral awakening of the SDA.  He continued by asserting that, "Obama is saying that America, and its greatest generation, were morally asleep when the Japanese refused to surrender, when they promised to fight to the last man, when the casualties among American GIs alone would be over 1 million!  Every American, particularly our youngest generation, should know the horrors of war as waged by the Japanese, and should be proud of Truman's heroic decision to stop the slaughter."
Tony is mimicking precisely what I was taught in the government schools about the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities.  I was told the only way to defeat the mongrel hoards that infested the Japanese homeland was to bomb them into oblivion, thus saving countless lives of heroic SDA soldiers.  The trouble with that story line is it is not exactly true.  The only reason the Japanese military vowed to fight to the bitter end was due to the fact that the SDA government and military insisted upon an unconditional surrender.  The Japanese were fully committed to a complete cessation of warfare provided they could retain their imperial government.  The career politicians in Washington refused to recognize that request and made plans to try out two atomic bombs they were just itching to drop on people they considered to be sub-human anyway.  (Go here for the complete story of the bombings.)  The bombing of the Japanese homeland could have been completely avoided, and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives saved,  if SDA power brokers had agreed to let the Japanese keep their Emperor, who would have continued on as a symbolic figure only.
Almost always ignored in the discussion about the atomic bombs is the fact that SDA air forces had been relentlessly firebombing the Japanese mainland for months prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.  According to Wikipedia, "The Allied bombing campaign was one of the main factors which influenced the Japanese government's decision to surrender in mid-August 1945....The most commonly cited estimate of Japanese casualties from the raids is 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded. There are a number of other estimates of total fatalities, however, which range from 241,000 to 900,000."  Then, "The United States...dropped nuclear weapons on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945... The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in history."
Why were Amerikans so happy to obliterate entire cities in Japan?  The answer is simple.  The Japanese people were not fully human and deserved whatever they got.  Wikipedia continues, "During the war 'annihilationist and exterminationalist rhetoric' was tolerated at all levels of U.S. society; according to the British embassy in Washington the Americans regarded the Japanese as 'a nameless mass of vermin'. Caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common. A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of 'killing off' all Japanese men, women, and of the atomic bombing was greeted enthusiastically in the U.S.; a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans (22.7%) wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan."  Amerikan imperial blood-lust knows no bounds.
Tony's belief that Amerikan soldiers are noble heroes and Japanese scum dogs are immoral cowards is typical of the way history is rewritten by the victors in a conflict.  All movie footage and photographs coming out of Japan that showed the impact of the SDA bombing campaigns, plus the atomic bombs themselves, was confiscated and censored.  Very little of it ever saw the light of day.  The military officials in charge of the censorship were fearful that the sentiments of the Amerikan populace might change if they saw what actually happened when entire cities were obliterated, not to mention the after affects of the bombings upon the survivors.  War is war and no side has clean hands.  The sterilization of what SDA soldiers did on all the various fronts of the war is a masterful work of propaganda that allows SDA citizens to continue to believe they are exceptional, whatever that means.  So keep sticking your head in the sand and repeat after me, Amerika is Great, Amerikans are Exceptional, and anyone who does not like that deserves to die, preferably by means of an Amerikan bullet or bomb.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

One Bureaucrat's Perspective On The "Free Market"

I opened page two of my morning newspaper yesterday to be treated to the glum news that health insurance premiums are rising by as much as 40% in 2017.  As I read that headline I nodded knowingly to myself and mumbled, under my breath, how it is all a result of Obamacare.  I wondered silently to myself how much my monthly premium is going to rise next year and made a mental note to set aside a couple more thousand dollars to cover the anticipated increase.  I now pay over $1000/month for my policy and I only have an Obamacare Silver plan.
Here is part of what the article had to say, "Individual health care plan premiums could increase significantly in 2017 -- by as much as 40 percent for one insurer -- according to preliminary requests released Monday by the Colorado Division of Insurance.  The requested rates for the small group market reflect greater stability, with mostly single-digit increases and several companies decreasing premiums."  Unfortunately for me, I am in the individual health care plan market, not the small group market.  The article went on to report that, "the requests, which will be reviewed by the insurance division for compliance with state and federal requirements, would not be approved until the fall."  In other words, when insurance companies, operating under the rules and regulations associated with Obamacare, need to raise premiums to remain profitable they must first receive permission from state insurance regulators to do so.  If the regulators, in their infinite wisdom and knowledge of the health insurance market, decide that a premium increase is unwarranted the insurance company has to decide between moving out of the Colorado market or continuing to operate at a loss, eventually going bankrupt.  That is not a very good choice to be forced to make.
The report went on to further report that due to changes in who is going to continue to provide health insurance coverage for the citizens of Colorado, "coverage changes will impact 92,000 people statewide, or about 20 percent of the 450,000 who buy insurance through the individual market....They will need to find new options during open enrollment..."  So once again folks who were promised by our King that they could keep their doctors and that they could keep their current coverage find themselves on the dirty end of the stick.  As a result of the inefficiencies in the socialist health insurance program know as Obamacare, almost 8 percent of the citizens of Colorado will be forced to go out and find new and more expensive coverage in 2017.
All of the above is simply introductory material for what I really want to write about today.  Marguerite Salazar is the Colorado State Insurance Commissioner.  Marguerite is also an air-head and an economic idiot.  That perfectly qualifies her for a position as a career bureaucrat in the state of Colorado.  She is also a woman and, even more powerfully, she is also, if I am interpreting her name correctly, of Hispanic ethnicity.  In other words, Marguerite is entrenched in the bureaucracy forever. They only thing that could make her even more qualified for a job as a civil servant (ha! ha! ha!) would be if she was L,G, B, T, X, Y or Z.
When queried about the outrageous increase in health insurance premiums Maggie, as I like to call her, had a quick and amazingly stupid response.  She said, "In the larger picture, what is taking place is a market correction; the free market is at work.  And it is important to recognize that this is a market correction taking place on a national scale, not just in Colorado."  What?  Did I read that right? What in the world is Maggie trying to say?  Allow me to dissect her statement in what follows.
What "is taking place" in the price of health insurance is not difficult to understand.  When the socialistic rules and regulations surrounding Obamacare are forced upon the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika it is inevitable that government created economic inefficiencies will evolve.  As is always the case with any free market service that is socialized, the cost of the service rises due to those inefficiencies.  The only question relevant to paying for Obamacare is what the ratio will be between the revenues received via premiums forcibly paid and the revenues received from the taxpayers.  In a sense that ratio is in constant flux as various state and federal legislative actions allocate more or less funds from their respective Treasuries to subsidize Obamacare's cost overruns.
Maggie looks at what is happening with the total revenue being generated by health insurance premiums and insanely believes it is an example of the free market in operation.  Maybe Maggie is not aware of these truths but a free market does not mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, under penalty of law for non-compliance.  A free market does not regulate the premium increases charged by the various insurance companies that provide coverage.  A free market does not determine which company may operate within an arbitrary geo-political boundary.  A free market does not have a state insurance commissioner who must approve all coverage and premium changes.  A free market does not appropriate taxpayer dollars to cover losses in its insurance program.  Nothing that takes place in the health insurance market as it exists today is free.  The entire process is socialized.  Maggie seems incapable of understanding that truth.
Maggie's reference to what is taking place as premiums skyrocket under the administration of Obamacare's rules and regulations as a "market correct" defies understanding.  Using an analogy from the stock market makes no sense whatsoever.  Maggie, in case you are not aware, a market correction is a short term, sentiment driven, decrease in the price of stocks across the board.  The price for health insurance is not experiencing a short term, sentiment driven, decrease.  The price of health insurance is rising dramatically.  How can anyone in her right mind refer to that as a market correction?  Answer:  Maggie is not in her right mind.   She is, after all, a career bureaucrat. 
I suspect Maggie is just like every other career bureaucrat. She knows deep down that what she is doing is wrong and harmful for the citizens of Colorado and she vainly attempts to justify her activities as being somehow beneficial to the citizens of the state.  When the cost of health insurance rises dramatically she knows that it is the result of her own application of the Obamacare regulations to the health insurance market in Colorado that is the cause of those increases, but like every other socialist who has ever drawn a breath she hates the free market and, therefore, attributes the cost increases to the free market rather than to herself.  Good job Maggie.  You are a splendid bureaucrat!

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Grotesque Failings In Humanistic Law

I have addressed this issue in the past but am compelled by my rage to address it again today.  The Socialist Democracy of Amerika is a country now populated by God-hating reprobates who worship at the throne of civil government and who use the laws created by that government to enrich and empower themselves at the expense of their neighbors.  The most reprehensible concept for a citizen of the SDA is the idea that the Law of God, found in the Bible, should ever determine how we are to properly relate to one another.  Men, utterly lost in their sin, are incapable of conjuring up any affection for God's law and, in its place, revere and genuflect in the presence of the contradictory and immoral law of the land as it is created by the career politicians who rule over us.
I read an article in the newspaper yesterday that starkly and tragically illustrates the difference between the morally perfect Law of God and the degenerate and disgusting law of man that exists in this immoral country today.  Back in 2004 a fellow by the name of Weldon Angelos was entrapped by an FBI sting operation and enticed into selling $350 worth of marijuana to a Salt Lake City FBI agent.  You have heard many stories like his before.  He was a law abiding citizen until the FBI agent approached him and promised him cash for marijuana.  Seeing an opportunity to make a little extra money, Angelos took him up on the offer and sold marijuana to the FBI agent in three separate transactions.  After the third transaction was completed the sting was finished and the full severity of the law fell upon poor Weldon.
According to the AP story, "Prosecutors said he was a gang member who carried a gun during two of those deals, though he was not accused of using or showing a weapon.  Angelos denied being in a gang and having a firearm but police found several guns while searching his apartment."  Angelos was a record store owner and the FBI set him up to increase and pad their drug enforcement statistics, thus ensuring that taxpayer dollars would continue to flow to that branch of the bureau.  The fact that they ruined his life was irrelevant as government careers and pensions were at stake.  The fact that he had the constitutional right to have guns on his property was ignored.  The fact that there was no evidence he ever carried a gun to one of the sales was ignored. 
Angelos was convicted on federal drug trafficking and weapons charges and sentenced to 55 years in prison with no possibility of parole.  Mandatory sentencing laws essentially guaranteed that he would die a ward of the taxpayers in some wretched federal prison.  Even in the "law and order" state of Utah his conviction and sentence seemed a bit much for the folks involved in the process.  The judge apologized for what he had to do, but the law must be served, and sentenced him anyway.  Eventually the man who prosecuted him had a change of heart and advocated for his early release, despite the fact that the law of that time would not permit it.  The story I read was written because Angelos did eventually obtain clemency and he was released after serving 12 years in prison for what is not even a sin, much less a crime.
Too bad for Angelos that he did not live across the border in the Colorado of today when he decided to sell a little marijuana.  As everyone in the world is now aware, Colorado has no penalty for selling marijuana, provided you have a government license permitting you to do so.  I ask you who believe in the beauty of law and order and the beauty of man made law, how is it possible for two such diametrically opposed legal positions to coexist without shattering your admiration for man's law?  How can you continue to call upon the various legislative bodies that rule over you to enact even more laws every time they are in session when the inevitable result of those laws will be more contraction, more entrapment and more injustice?  The only possible reason I can think of for why men continue to praise the immoral law of men is that they are idolatrous worshipers of civil government and the laws that issue forth from it.
God's Law is very clear on the matter.  Buying, selling, growing, smoking, drinking, eating, transporting or anything else you want to do with marijuana is neither a sin nor a crime.  The same is true for heroin, cocaine, meth and any other drug you can think of.  People, according to biblical law, are free to do whatever they want provided they do no harm to their neighbors or transgress the First Table of the Law.  God's law holds men responsible for what they do, not why they do what they do, and it provides for perfectly just punishments for crimes that treat the criminal with respect and protect the victim rather than enrich the state.  If you kill someone while in a drunken stupor God's law declares you to be a murderer and orders you to be executed.  The only thing that matters is what you did, not why you did it.  The same is true for marijuana.  If you do harm to your neighbor while under the influence of the hallucinogenic effects of THC you are responsible for what you do, regardless of why you did it.
Under biblical Law Angelos would have never been arrested.  Under biblical Law the FBI would not have deceived him and entrapped him to violate an immoral law.  Under biblical Law Angelos would have been free to run his record business and he would never have served a day in prison.  Under biblical law Angelos, and the rest of us as well, would be free to pursue our own interests and serve others as we see fit.  Under biblical Law we would be truly free.  Sadly, idolatrous state worshipers prefer to be enslaved to the government rather than to face the responsibilities that come with being free men. As long as that cowardly and idolatrous position reigns supreme in this land we will have many more Angelos. 

Monday, June 6, 2016

Matt Damon Should Stick To Acting

I enjoyed the Bourne series of movies.  After watching the first one I got hooked and had to finish the entire series.  If I am remembering them correctly, and I am probably not, I particularly appreciated the emphasis upon the fact that the government is never to be trusted.  As I recall the various branches of the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika involved in spying on behalf of the empire were portrayed as heartless, cold-blooded killers who cared about nothing more than protecting their own piece of government turf.  Matt Damon played Jason Bourne, a man who had once worked for the spying machine and then had a change of heart about going around murdering foreign nationals for fun and profit.
Last Friday Matt Damon delivered a commencement address to the graduating class of MIT. reported the story, in part, like this, "Hollywood actor Matt Damon branded Wall Street as a cabal that 'steals people's money,' right before making a thinly veiled endorsement of Massachusetts' freshman Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren....the Boston-bred Damon gave a politically tinged speech that also took aim at presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, the media and elected officials. Damon excoriated politicians who are 'incentivized to think short term, and simply do not engage with long-term problems.'  Yet Damon—an outspoken Democrat who has endorsed Hillary Clinton—reserved some of his harshest critique for bankers, which he faulted for the 2008 financial pandemic that reverberated through the global economy. Ironically, Clinton has come in for sharp criticism for her ties to the financial industry, cultivated during her tenure as New York's junior senator.  Calling the crisis 'the biggest heist in history,' the actor insisted that financial institutions were aware of the ramifications of their actions, which he called fraudulent. 'It was theft, and you knew it. It was fraud and you knew it, And you know what else? We know that you knew it...I don't know if justice is coming for you in this life or the next but if it does come in this life her name will be Elizabeth Warren.'"  Let's consider Mr. Damon's comments for a bit here today.
I will take Damon's comments in the order they were presented in the report.  According to Wikipedia, a cabal is defined as "a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue, usually unbeknown to persons outside their group."  I find it fascinating that Damon would choose to define the investment bankers who operate on Wall Street as a cabal.  The various companies involved in investment banking on Wall Street are highly competitive, especially with one another, for business.  To allege that they have formed some sort of secret society with the goal being to destroy the wealth of the citizens of the SDA sounds a bit paranoid to me.  Furthermore, the idea that what goes on inside the board rooms of these investment bankers is top secret defies belief.  Everything they produce and sell to the investing public is precisely that, public.  There are no secret investments, despite what you might have been told about "Wall Street fat cats," that are not offered to the public.  Everything that goes on within Wall Street investment banking firms is designed to produce investment products the public will want to invest in.  Damon's position that they constitute a cabal is ridiculous.
Damon could have taken the opportunity to pontificate about some of the real cabals that exist in this immoral country if he had wanted to.  He could have talked about trade unions and how they create unemployment by restricting the supply of labor available to profit seeking companies.   He could have talked about professional licensing laws that require anyone who wishes to be a doctor, a lawyer or a taxi cab driver to be a member of the cabal first.  He could have talked about all of the cabals created by the gigantic body of commercial rules and regulations that exist in this country but he didn't.  I wonder why?
Matt also confidently declares that Wall Street investment banking firms "steal people's money."  Well, I guess if having a person voluntarily enter into a contract to give some of his money to an investment banking firm in the expectation of a return on his investment is an act of theft, then Matt is right.  I just have a hard time defining theft as anything that takes place voluntarily and in the free market.  How Wall Street bankers steal other people's money was not described.  Maybe he went into more detail in his speech.  What I find interesting is how Matt came to his conclusion.  Certainly, given the hatred for financial institutions that exists in this socialist and post-Christian society, somebody should have been arrested, tried and incarcerated for theft by now. Other than Bernie Madoff, who I don't believe Matt is talking about in his speech, none of those Wall Street profiteers Damon despises so much has even been indicted for theft at this point.  I wonder why Matt concludes that Wall Street bankers are a cabal of thieves?
The most ignorant statement that came out of his mouth last Friday, actually a series of statements, had to do with Matt's opinion on what caused the Great Recession.  Like all other worshipers of government in this envy-filled country Matt believes that the free market was responsible for the Great Recession.  In particular, he believes that financial institutions operating freely on Wall Street created the Great Recession for their own, as yet undisclosed, evil motives.  At first blush Matt's argument is hard to swallow.  The most hard hit corporations in the country during the Great Recession were financial corporations.  Remember Lehman Brothers?  It was the 4th largest investment bank in the world when it collapsed in 2008.  If the goal of the investment bankers was to steal money and enrich themselves they did a pretty poor job of it.
Damon proudly declares that he personally knows with absolute certainty that the as yet unnamed investment bankers on Wall Street he is speaking about knew they were behaving fraudulently when they created, packaged and sold mortgage backed securities stuffed to the gills with subprime mortgages.  I wonder where the fraud took place?  Did it take place when the Clinton and Bush administrations threatened to fine into oblivion any mortgage company that refused to issue billions of dollars in subprime mortgages to unqualified buyers?  Did it take place when mortgage companies were sued by agents of the federal government for refusing to issue mortgages to black people because those black people, imagine this, were not qualified to own the mortgages?  Or maybe it happened when, to alleviate the risk associated with all of those horrible mortgages they were forced to sell to unqualified buyers, Wall Street bankers followed a tried and true risk reduction strategy and packaged those subprime mortgages into mortgage backed securities, thus reducing the potential risk to investors by spreading the risk of bad individual loans around an entire package of loans.  I wonder, did fraud take place when government sponsored bond rating organizations declared the mortgage backed securities created by the investment banking firms to be of much higher quality than they actually were?  Matt, as far as I could tell, never really explained where the corporate fraud took place.
Matt failed to mention that the collapse of the mortgage backed securities market that triggered the Great Recession took place because the federal government, attempting to assign blame and punish profit seeking companies for the recession of 2001-2002, changed the rules on how those securities were to be valued on the balance sheet of the firms.  A new rule, called "mark to market," forced the investment banking firms to value the government mandated mortgage backed securities at zero value when the market could not immediately assign a value to them.  Given a little time the free market would have sorted it all out and each security would have been assigned a free market value.  That time was never permitted.  Nancy Pelosi fearfully announced that if Congress did not do something there would be no economy in the SDA the next day.  So Congress and Treasury did something and several investment banking firms were suddenly bankrupt even though they were quite solvent, with tons of cash on hand.  Maybe fraud took place when, immediately after those mortgage backed securities were valued at zero, the Federal Reserve, operating under the Treasury directive that no mortgage backed securities could be sold in the free market, established a fiat money slush fund, called Maiden Lane, and purchased all of those securities at deep discounts from their true value.  I am not a financial genius like Matt Damon but it sure looks to me like fraud took place when the Fed eventually sold all of those mortgage backed securities back into the free market with huge profit margins, causing the Federal Reserve to be the world's most profitable company for two years running.  None dare call that a cabal because the god of civil government was involved. 
The most outrageous claim made by Matt during his speech was his prediction that the avenging angel by the name of Elizabeth Warren is coming to get those evil profit seeking corporations that operate on Wall Street.  Apparently Warren is hugely popular with the Hollywood set.  Warren, for her part, is also an economic idiot and a liar to boot.  Go here for the story.  Those twin attributes make her a perfect career politician.  If Hillary does not end up being our first Queen, I am pretty certain that Queen Elizabeth will rise again four years from now.