The end of life as we know it...Precious Blue Gold

What is most disturbing about this is that this isn't some distant off issue. We're talking about the next 15 years. The situation is dire, most don't acknowledge it (especially here where we can just turn on a faucet).

But even in the US water tables are falling. We are using way more water than the recharge ability of those water tables. We need to check into doing things.

I plan on getting involved in Wetland Creation myself. As Wetlands retain water, clean and purify pollutants. But that won't be enough, the politics must be changed.

I would say Corporate "Rights" as being entitled to the same Constitutional Rights as citizens is definitely a problem.

Because it affords the Corporation Protections bestowed upon individual citizens, yet they are able to maintain a very specific right of being a Corporation...and that is protection from prosecution of Individual Owners of a Corporation.

It's one of the few entities in all of humanity who can indeed..."Have it both ways" or "Have its cake and eat it too"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Here's the Wiki link to Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific. Which is where this idea of "Corporate Citizenship" started.

headnotes are defined as "not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession

Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.

Waite replied:

I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.

Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court 'avoided' the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue

The actual fact is it was to be up to the Courts on case by case basis as to whether Corporations could or could not be entitled to specific rights. And the "opinion" of the court is also not recognized as legal precedence. Certainly not the headnotes in anyway.

But Corporations took this and ran with it. Demanding ALL the rights of citizenship for pretty much EVERY corporation.

And after the Civil War...that time period really ushered in the birth of Corporate America coupled with Expanded Federal Government. The sweeping away of States Rights from the Civil War paved the way for a much more centralized and powerful Federal Government. The subsequent Court rulings then enabled Corporations a path for infiltrating that centralized power structure for their benefit in a national sense.

I personally understand the need for taxes, specifically income taxes. In times previous, income was often not as large as the assets of many citizens, and the revenue that could be generated from tariffs, and taxes on goods. Today many citizens have no where near as many assets as income so income taxes replaced a lot of other ones.

This issue is not necessarily that taxes are wrong, even income taxes. But the rulings in behalf of income taxes (Springer v. US 1881, Polluck v. Farmers Loan and Trust 1895 [which careful reading reveals this did not reverse the actual act of taxing income, merely unapportioned taxing of income generating assets like rent, interest on bonds, stocks, etc]

After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population

And eventually the 16th Amendment in 1913.

None of that is technically an issue in and of istelf. Income tax was originally like 2% when this was enacted.

The problem was the actions of the Federal Reserve coupled with all these other rulings. The rulings of Corporations, the tax rulings, the formation of a strong centralized government.

Even a "Centralized Bank" in and of itself is not a bad idea so long as this bank is made of a network of Government banks and is a Completely Federal Entity. But it's not, nor was it ever. It is a private network, that loans money to the Federal Government, which automatically creates debt. It takes away the ability of the Federal Government to truly issue its own money.

And this by extension enables to control of credit to the entire populace because all money in circulation comes from a network of private banks. And this system is in place the world over. Every government pretty much uses this system of a central bank that issues money to their governments.