Slashdot Mirror

So Clinton had a gun to his head, right? Try reading this.

The federal deficit is at a point where a future government debt collapse is guaranteed.

President Clinton: The United States on Track to Pay Off the Debt by End of the Decade

David Li's formula is not the root cause of the problem.

Actually, it is the Democrat's philosophy of "Welfare housing" which is the key reason for the mess we are in.

Under the Democrats, housing for the poor (in the form of "the projects") was not good enough; they wanted to provide actual houses for the poor -- which is a noble ideal in an ideal world, but a disaster in practice. If Democrat President Lyndon Johnson began the welfare generation with his "Great Society" vision, Democrat President Jimmy Carter escalated it with the "Community Reinvestment Act", and thereafter Democrat President Bill Clinton amended Carter's act to enable subprime mortgages, such as those facilitated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to be sold as securities on Wall Street. Indeed, in the press conference for Clinton's amendments, Clinton's economic policy assistant stated the following:

An important component of that strategy is to deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities -- pursuant to his [Bill Clinton's] belief that we must make real progress in those areas if this country is going to be successful in the future for all of us. The reform of the Community Reinvestment Act is an essential building block in the efforts I've just mentioned. (Source: "Press Briefing Secretary of the Treasury, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin..., and Eugene Ludwig...", December 8, 1993, available at the National Archives and Records Administration at http://clinton6.nara.gov/1993/12/1993-12-08-briefing-by-bentsen-and-rubin.text.html)

Securitization of subprime mortgages is the root of the current problem.

What is a subprime mortgage? It is a loan to a "subprime" borrower, who has a bad credit rating and is in danger of being unable to repay the debt.

The subprime mortgage crises of 2008 is fully explained in the CBS program "60 Minutes", as reported in the segment "House of Cards" by Steve Croft , which was broadcast on January 27, 2008 (and updated May 23, 2008). It is available for free viewing at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4126094n, and the transcript is available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/25/60minutes/main3752515.shtml?source=search_story (which also contains the video embedded in the picture) . For those of you who cannot access the video, here is an excerpt of the transcript by CBS:

Since last summer, Americans have seen their investments shrink and their property values plummet. At the heart of the problem is something called the subprime mortgage crisis, which began back then and continues to ricochet through the economy.

It sounds complicated, but it's really fairly simple: banks lent hundreds of billions of dollars to homebuyers who can't pay them back. Wall Street took the risky debt, dressed it up as fancy securities, and sold it around the world as safe investments. If it sounds like a shell game or Ponzi scheme, in some ways it was a house of cards rife with corruption, greed, and negligence. ...

Almost all of the people involved in the transactions made huge amounts of money, then passed the risk on to somebody else. Instead of keeping the dicey loans in their own portfolios, the big banks and giant mortgage companies that originally underwrote them resold the mortgages to big New York investment houses.

Firms like Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch sliced the loans into little pieces and packaged them up with other investments, then sold them to their best customers around the world as high-yield mortgage-backed securities, turning sows' ears into silk purses, all with the blessing of rating agencies like Standard & Poor's. ...

It

The National Archives has versions up of all the Clinton White House pages. Here's one. I'm sure they'll get around to doing the same for Bush eventually. I seriously doubt the Obama team came in and pulled an 'rm -rf' on the old webpage.....

Here's a point by point list of environmental legislation that Clinton signed. Just off the top of my head, Clinton signed the law that allowed lands held in the public trust by the federal government to NOT be used for ranching is the winning lease winner choses not to. Clinton also signed the law making federal agency net zero polluters, meaning all waste from federal labs is cleaned up. Clinton signed the bill requiring paper mills to recycle their waste paper. Clinton improved the rules on wetlands conservation. Clinton upgraded many of the pollutant standards in the Clean Water and Clean Air acts. Clinton established the Staircase-Escalante National Monument. He accelerated cleanup of superfund sites. He signed the sustainable fisheries act. He signed the legislation to restore the everglades.... I'm only at 1996 here!

Well, I realize that your post was meant as a joke, but the problem with using religous views is that they do not protect you from having to perform duties. If you are a bacon bits tester at World Famous Bacon Bits Inc., and you then convert to Islam and claim you can not eat bacon - you can be fired. Yes you are merely defending your religous beliefs; however, these beliefs interfere in your ability to perform a job. You are not being fired for being Muslim but for not tasting the bacon bits. You are free to choose any religon and that can not be used to discriminate, but your religous or ethical views can be used to fire you if they interfere with your ability to do work. It is partially subjective, but there are requirements that reasonable efforts be made. Requiring the saboth off can be worked around, but when the work requires you to break your religous views - you can not use that as an excuse to get out of the work.
On the flip side, if you apply for a job to be a bacon bit taster and you are muslim - they can not discriminate on that fact so long as you are willing to do the work.

btw, I am just assuming this is true - just vague memories of reading some things about this. Here's a link
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html

If you were to use the religious defense - which may not be unreasonable, the best it seems that can be achieved is that you find someone else in the comp to complete the patent process and find a way for you to continue doing work without getting involved. If your involvement is needed, then you still don't have a means out.

"Faith" must be a bush evangelical...because she is just that STUPID.

Or maybe she is just that stupid because she was a Clinton nominee.

President Bush Spent $10 Billion on AIDS in 2003 and has increased the amount every year since. Bill Clinton spent about $5 billion in 2000 his last budget http://clinton4.nara.gov/ONAP/accomp.html#Investme nts and if you will follow the link you will see that they were talking about how much they had increased spending over previous years. I know that is shocking to people who get their "news" from the NY Times.

I, for one, would be interested in finding Al Gore's home phone number and leaking that.

"People sould not fear their governments, governments should fear their people."

What a long way we've come. Back in the mid 1990s, such a statement would have gotten you branded as a right-wing McVeigh-symphathizing terrorist-enabling reactionary by the independent-minded correct-thinkers of Slashbot.

Now it gets you modded "5, Interesting"

"But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City."
-Bill Clinton. June 1, 1995.

Remarks by President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998
But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril -- especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. .....

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pro

What the fuck was Al Gore doing to combat this when he was in power?

Urging the world to adopt the Kyoto Accords, maybe?

In fact the last time there was no deficit, I believe Jackson was president

Yet another reason why President Gore would have been an interesting period.

Funding is more of an issue. Teams were supposed to have no Government funding whatsoever, either direct or indirect. Yet MITRE had a team, and they're a quasi-governmental agency. CMU has received DARPA robotics contracts for years, as has Stanford. Red Whittaker of the CMU team is still the principal investigator on a NASA grant (#NAG5-12890) until February 2006. Stanford used software developed under DoD contract, although anyone can download it and they asked DARPA for permission. It's more of a revolving-door issue than direct diversion of Government funds.

But the real incentive for the big university teams was fear. If Joe's Auto Parts fielded a better robot than some university getting $20 million a year in robotics funding from DARPA, DARPA might well pull the plug on the school. CMU faced that prospect; originally, they weren't going to enter the Grand Challenge at all. The whole Grand Challenge was created because of unhappiness at DARPA with the rate of progress in mobile robotics. DARPA has been pouring robotics money into CMU and Stanford for thirty years, without getting much back. The head of DARPA, Dr. Tony Tether, decided that it was time to do something about that. It worked.

Additionally, we have demonstrated the capability to selectively deny GPS signals on a regional basis when our national security is threatened. This regional approach to denying navigation services is consistent with the 1996 plan to discontinue the degradation of civil and commercial GPS service globally through the SA technique.

Nothing like fuzzing out a public landmark that is so photographed that I could reconstruct an accurate-to-sub-meter 3d model just from publically available photos on the net. Like This One.

Not true. Text from my Sanyo telephone:
"Turning location on will allow the network to detect your position, making some Sprint applications easier to use. Turning location off will hide your location from everyone except 911. Ever if location is turned on in this handset, no service may use your location without your express permission."

and an interesting tidbit I found on google (url http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/0053_4.h tml)
" Enhanced-911: The FCC will soon require that all new cellular phones be equipped with more accurate location determination technology to improve responses to emergency 911 calls. Removing SA will boost the accuracy of GPS to such a degree that it could become the method of choice for implementing the 911 requirement. A GPS-based solution might be simpler and more economical than alternative techniques such as radio tower triangulation, leading to lower consumer costs."

As far as time synchronization, I'm ignorant to modern standards, but I do recall a company that sold NTP servers that synchronized with cellular towers using CDMA vs. GPS, which indicates that cell phones do this as well. It's quite possible that the GPS enabled ones use GPS instead.

As you know, I believe strongly that we must set aside every penny of any budget surplus until we have saved Social Security first.

Fiscal responsibility gave us our strong economy. Fiscal irresponsibility would put it at risk. And whether we save Social Security first I will not be moved, but on how we save Social Security -- that will require us to have open minds and generous spirits. It will require listening and learning and looking for the best ideas wherever they may be. We simply must put progress ahead of partisanship.

The stakes couldn't be higher. For 60 years, Social Security has reflected our deepest values -- the duties we owe to our parents, to each other and to our children. Today, 44 million Americans depend upon Social Security. For two-thirds of our seniors it is the main source of income. And nearly one in three beneficiaries are not retirees, for Social Security is also a life insurance policy and a disability policy, along with being a rock-solid guarantee of support in old age.

Today, Social Security is sound, but a demographic crisis is looming. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security.

However, gains in average pay have been greatest for married women with children (see figure 5).

However, gains in average pay have been greatest for married women with children (see figure 5).

1. You assume that it is US moderators that mod you down because they don't like your criticism of the US. Possible, but not proven. I believe that some of my pro-Right to Keep and Bear Arms comments get modded down because of moderator prejudice. Oh, well; it happens. That's what meta-moderation is supposed to work against. I hope you moderate and meta-moderate, both often and fairly. We ALL should (Yes, it just kills me to mod-up stuff I disagree with, but I do it because if it's a truly informative or insightful comment that move the discussion, then I should.)

2. Like Slashdot, the US isn't perfect. I think even the most ardent supporters of the US Constitution (my hand raises & waves frantically) do noot seriously make such a claim. I've certainly not seen it made.

Now, the claim that the US is *better* than other countries, yeah, that we'll fess up to proposing that!

3. Yes, America if full of racism & injustice. As a Christian, I believe that is because of the sinful nature of man. You may believe in other reasons. But -- what country isn't?! All are guilty of it!

I believe the US Constitution gives free people the "best in the world" shot at legal equality and real justice. Of course, we will never achieve perfect justice and equality, but for each of us in the US, the protections afforded us in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments make justice and equality a possibility. In far too many parts of the world there is NO chance for justice or equality--the poor and weak are the prey of the rich and powerful. Sure, it doesn't always work here, either, but there is a chance. Sometimes, the weak overcome the powerful in the courts or in the market.

Television, movies, video games and music are here to stay, and will continue to be influential in shaping the opinions and behavior of our children for years to come. In the face of an industry that targets our children with harmful products, we parents must be willing to assert our power as consumers and take back our authority over what our children see and hear in our own homes. -- Hillary Clinton

Apparently you missed your talking points memo from the great liberal conspiracy. Check your e-mail before you post.

Here's the cover-up.

Clinton signed that Executive Order the day after the French periodical Paris Match published the radar transcripts showing that there was something else in the air next to TWA 800 when it exploded.

Nobody's expecting you to remove your blinders. But maybe if you could just take a peek every now and again at the world outside, you know, a sort of reality check.

Meanwhile, here's a picture for you.

And here are a couple for you:

Jimmy Carter shaking hands with mass-murderer Leonid Brezhnev

Franklin Roosevelt schmoozing with mass-murderer Josef Stalin

Bill Clinton toasting mass-murderer Jiang Zemin

Hint: politicians meet, and shake hands with, a lot of truly disgusting people. These photos prove nothing at all about the politician's personal feelings.

No. Claiming that Iraq had programs to develop WMDs was not a lie. Claiming that Iraq did not cooperate with inspections was not a lie. Claiming that Iraq has, in the past, used gas on its own people, was not a lie.

One part of CNN's paraphrasing of his speech might be taken to imply existing weapons, but I doubt he actually said that, given how a White House publication on the topic only talks about how Saddam might potentially rebuild his arsenal. There was no claim he had already rebuilt it and was ready to strike the US in 45 minutes.

See http://clinton1.nara.gov/White_House/EOP/OMB/html/ omb-a130.html for more info.

Also, NIST produces lots of standards documents for the civilan side of the gov't. See http://csrc.nist.gov/

You're on the right track. It seems that everybody is missing the most important point, that of the "open" in open source software, which is the most important thing for Government use. Although cost should be an issue, it is not nearly as important as openness. The government is around to serve the people, and must make it's "output" must remain free, as in freedom, to all.

The government's "outputs" are of course things like laws and regulations, research, census statistics, environment and geological surveys, budgets, and so on. All of those things should be made available to the public who pay for it without restrictions. And that means that all the document formats used should not be beholden to copyright and patent ridden proprietary corporate software.

Just consider the National Archives, which publishes the Federal Register (the offical US publication which announces regulations and so forth. They have long understood that freedom concept and make all these regulations available as PDF and text, as well as their traditional paper-printed forms. There are no MS Word documents there, no encrypted eBooks. It is important that the public have free access to those publications, and that they remain perfectly readable 20 years from now (long after old Word versions become unreadable by the newer versions). Also it is important that the public be able to trust that what they are reading is authentic. Can I really trust Word to not recognize that when I'm reading a regulation on software piracy it silently inserts an extra little Microsoft sentence? Well, actually MS is not that evil, but the point is that I have no way to really know, the Word format is binary and proprietary and I can't verify that Word is displaying the correct output as I can't examine it's source or recompile it from source.

Governments should adopt OSS not for it's potential price benifits, but philosophically because it is open.

Also, say what you will about Clinton, but he was the first president to really make an effort at utilizing the internet to diseminate information regarding the executive branch, though granted he was the first president of the 'internet era.'

This is one of the most pointless statements I have ever read. That is like congratulating Theodore Roosevelt for being the first president to make an effort to utilize automobiles to diseminate information.

Here for instance is the Executive Order signed by President Clinton that proves they were working to coverup the shootdown of TWA-800.

I've had this link for over two years now.

Why doesn't it focus on the ones that actually preoccupy peoples' minds?

I've never even heard of this business with the microbiologists.

But what about TWA-800? There are a lot of people who think a missile brought that plane down, so why doesn't the Times investigate this?

Here is an Executive Order Bill Clinton signed the day after Paris Match released the radar tapes showing that something else was in the sky and closing on TWA-800's position. The order removes members of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group from the Whistleblower statutes. It is quite clearly an attempt on the part of the administration to cover-up the events surrounding TWA-800.

Neither the New York Times nor any other corporate media outlet chose to publish this fact, however. To a man they all dismiss the notion that a Navy missile brought down TWA-800 as nothing more than conspiracy theory.

By exposing this rather silly theory about the microbiologists being murdered their intent is to throw doubt on the many other theories that do merit our attention... that still hold the rank of conspiracy theory only because papers like The New York Times refuses to publish the truth.

This is a disgraceful story.

Actually the forth one is obviously in the US declaration of Independence.

The Third copmes from the US Consitituion Article I Section 8 Clauses: 1, 3, 11

The Seccond from the US constitution again Article I Section 8 Clauses: 11-16

The First also comes from the same source Article I Section 8 Clauses: 5,6, and possibly 2

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The cameras and microphones are on. Your correspondence will be violated by your government, as will your phone calls without judicial supervision. Your XP EULA gives Microsoft rights to search all of your documents. Recent legislation gives the governemnt unprecedented ability to collect computer records, most damningly they lay claim to all computer records collected by the above mentioned spyware.

Senator Holling's bill, obsensibly to "protect" music and movie publishers, is the final piece of the above puzzle. It gives government the ability to make good on their claims correspondence and information that might otherwise get away from them. It is the ring that binds all of the above and places control firmly in the hands of those who create and approve of the "security" software.

In a fourth amendment framework, you will NOT be secure in your home and personal effects. The government is able to search said effects WITHOUT reasonable cause presented before witnesses in a court of law.

Under such a coercive environment people will obviously NOT be able to say what they think and free speech is lost. Senator Holling's bill has the potential to further that goal by installing censor ware on all digital devices. Why not? Protect music today, public decency and order tomorrow. A little optical character recognition software is all it would take to apply this to photocopiers and other devices in the future. All other rights are lost when the first amendment is thus destroyed.

You can't do this kind of thing to an educated population, so propaganda is pouring forth to reduce privacy expectations of an increasingly ignorant population. Particularly sinister is the notion that somehow digital comunications are insecure and will be monitored. Beyond that, knowledge itself is under attack. What better place to censor things than the local library? Publishers hate libraries too these days. According to the last article, sharing information without paying is a violation of copyright, even reading the book out loud. If you have enough money to buy your own books, you are still out of luck as copyrith law treatens your ability to use your books when and how you please. What, you think publishers will continue the vastly expensive practice of printing on paper? The MPAA has shown them the way to pay per play and shifting formats will insure that you won't be able to access the work later anyway even if you are a very clever lawbreaker. Is that dumb enough for you? I don't need to prove the well known continued decline of national test performance or the lessing expectations of privacy that have been foist on us by the regulated public shcools. It's working!

Whew! That's a lot of reading, but you have to admit that it encompasses much more than pop music, "Plannet of the Apes" and other disposable entertainments. The pieces of the puzzle are all there. We can see where it's going and what's driving it without understanding programing concepts. Just imagine your paper books, TV, and pencil behaved as your DVDs, digiCam and word processor do. Then imagine it getting much worse.

When it all get's too much for you, just comfort yourself with the somewhat archaic, and disregarded text of the Bill of Rights. You don't think I'm sitting here at three AM becuse I don't have anything better to do, do you? I'm doing this because I love my country. OK, I am insane and I can't think of anything better to do.

So are the Second and Third Amendments. The intent of something evolving into something different over time is not necessarily bad. In some cases, this is actually a good thing. Try again: Why is it bad that copyright law has evolved?

Erm, what are they teaching in the schools these days? In the words of Mr. Locke, as channeled through Mr. Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Rights are something you are born with buddy. Priviledges are something you are granted and can be taken away, like Daddy loaning the old family car to you as long as you maintain a 'B' average. You can lose rights for the commission of crimes, but that is seen as a punishment.

And what happens when someone takes away those rights? Reading a bit further in the same document:

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Of course exercising that Right might get your sorry ass killed. Live Free or Die, as they say.

The full thing is here, in case anyone wants to accuse me of selective quotation.

I'd be careful about trying this. Film is not an especially stable medium. Photographs require careful conservation as well.

I highly suggest you consult an archivist or a librarian trained in archival management. Nineteenth century paper products are notorious fragile (a result of the switch from rag pulp to acidic, unstable wood pulp). If you don't have the facilities to store these properly, donating them to a local museum or archive is a wonderful idea.

The National Archives and Records Administration has a FAQ. Their advice on preserving family papers? --

Paper preservation requires proper storage and safe handling practices. Your family documents will last longer if they are stored in a stable environment, similar to that which we find comfortable for ourselves: 60-70 degrees F; 40-50% relative humidity (RH); with clean air and good circulation. High heat and moisture accelerate the chemical processes that result in embrittlement and discoloration to the paper. Damp environments may also result in mold growth and/or be conducive to pests that might use the documents for food or nesting material. Therefore, the central part of your home provides a safer storage environment than a hot attic or damp basement.

Light is also damaging to paper, especially that which contains high proportions of ultra violet, i.e., fluorescent and natural day light. The effects of light exposure are cumulative and irreversible; they promote chemical degradation in the paper and fade inks. It is not recommended to permanently display valuable documents for this reason. Color photocopies or photographs work well as surrogates.

I highly suggest you consult an archivist or a librarian trained in archival management. Nineteenth century paper products are notorious fragile (a result of the switch from rag pulp to acidic, unstable wood pulp). If you don't have the facilities to store these properly, donating them to a local museum or archive is a wonderful idea.

The National Archives and Records Administration has a FAQ. Their advice on preserving family papers? --

Paper preservation requires proper storage and safe handling practices. Your family documents will last longer if they are stored in a stable environment, similar to that which we find comfortable for ourselves: 60-70 degrees F; 40-50% relative humidity (RH); with clean air and good circulation. High heat and moisture accelerate the chemical processes that result in embrittlement and discoloration to the paper. Damp environments may also result in mold growth and/or be conducive to pests that might use the documents for food or nesting material. Therefore, the central part of your home provides a safer storage environment than a hot attic or damp basement.

Light is also damaging to paper, especially that which contains high proportions of ultra violet, i.e., fluorescent and natural day light. The effects of light exposure are cumulative and irreversible; they promote chemical degradation in the paper and fade inks. It is not recommended to permanently display valuable documents for this reason. Color photocopies or photographs work well as surrogates.

I suggest you direct your question to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution - "Congressional Authority to Establish Uniform Rules of Naturalization"

Horse shit. The Constitution was written by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was proposed in Congress in 1789 and ratified in 1791. Two minutes spent reviewing the National Archives website would have shown you this.

the order in which they appear was almost as contentious a subject of debate as what they actually say. It is no coincidence that they appear in the order they do.

More rubbish. There were originally 17 amendments proposed in Congress by James Madison. Five of these were dropped or amalgamated in the Congress. Twelve of them were sent to the states for ratification. The first two were not ratified; if they had been, then today's First Amendment would actually be the Third. And the most important Amendments, at least to those discussing the issue at the time they were proposed, were the current Ninth and Tenth amendments (originally the Elevenbth and Twelfth) -- yet they were placed last.

There is no historical justification for supposing that the First Amendment, or for that matter the Second, is of any more importance or inviolability than the others, simply because of the order in which it appears in the Bill. I defy you to produce any support for your opinions.

-ccm

Wrong on two accounts. First, copyright (and patents) does have its basis in the Constitution. Article I, sect 8, paragraph 8:

Frowning on an act would indicate some remedial conscience or morals, and as we see everyday corporations have NONE.

While you and I may believe that, evidently others do not.

We allow corporations to donate soft money, thereby influencing the political process, probably more so than the votes. We even allow them to give favors to candidates and politicians. They have property rights, can invent, can author creative works, can be exempted from laws, can buy other laws, can be sued, and can even sue for wrongs done to it! In the meantime, we also award companies for being "good corporate citizens"!

For something that only exists on paper, and that has no morals, ethics, conscience, spirit or life...corporations sure do have a lot of corporate rights. As if a they were "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...".

I bloded the part that you whant:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As for the second:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You can read the full text to The Bill of Rights Here

I don't see a whole lot on the "right to profit" in our constitution...

No, I believe that was in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The unalienable right to pursue hapiness should not be challenged by your perspective on what hapiness is or by your belief in the welfare state.

Oops, you make the mistake of assuming the number of states and counties actually matters. See, here in America, each state gets one electoral vote for each member of Congress that state has. The nonsense you babble about "increasing voting power of smaller states" only works in the Senate, where each state is represented equally, and as such, balances the House, where the number of Congresscritters depends on the population of the state. But in the electoral college, high-population states like California (54 electoral votes? something like that...) routinely pound smaller states like Wyoming (with the federal minimum of 3 electoral votes) with the system that is in place. I recommend checking out the Electoral College FAQ by clicking on this link before posting nonsense about the Electoral College

You're just upset because your guy lost.

No, you only think that because you don't know what you're talking about. Too bad, really - since "your" guy won and you don't even know how. Funny and sad, all at the same time. *sigh*

Modulo this little piece o' paper, of course.

What exactly was the "oppression as was found in England at the time"? Also... did the freedoms set out in the US Constitution just suddenly appear from nowhere 250 years ago?

It's not solely for nobles, it is actually a protectorate of the commons, it limits the role of the sovereign and what he can wield on his subjects (all of them).

Though similar in aim, the Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People."

The Magna Carta is important to US history and the foundation of the constitution

Besides... the US and Britain have a long history of plagiarism

It's not solely for nobles, it is actually a protectorate of the commons, it limits the role of the sovereign and what he can wield on his subjects (all of them).

Though similar in aim, the Magna Carta is a charter of ancient liberties guaranteed by a king to his subjects; the Constitution of the United States is the establishment of a government by and for "We the People."

The Magna Carta is important to US history and the foundation of the constitution

Besides... the US and Britain have a long history of plagiarism