All living creatures have a way to communicate. Humans use words. They talk. Spoken, written or signed by the deaf, words are how people relate to one another and how they form a society.

But words are tricky. They can be misunderstood, misinterpreted or used to manipulate, so it’s wise to question just exactly what’s going on when people use certain words. For example, freedom.

Americans believe in freedom — freedom of association, freedom of religion, free trade and free speech.

Democracy is another word Americans like. We proudly elect our own leaders and govern ourselves through a representative body composed of the presidency, Congress and the U.S. court system.

Do we really? I don’t think so, not any more; and I am concerned because our preconditioned acceptance of emotionally leaden words like freedom and democracy blinds us to what is actually happening.

The American people no longer elect their leaders. Money does. Money elects Congress. The man or woman with the most money wins over 90 percent of the time.

But doesn’t that money reflect the will of the people? No. It reflects the will of people with the money. And where do you find these people? Not on Main Street. You find them in the corporate world and the international business community.

But isn’t this global corporate structure what gives us a lifestyle envied by developing nations around the globe? Maybe, but let’s not be naive about what’s happening here. We have been and are being manipulated by words like free speech and democracy.

You may be free to say whatever you want, but getting heard costs hard cash. Democracy isn’t "by and for the people" if the poor are getting poorer and the rich control Congress.

And who are the rich? Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are now global corporations. Only 49 are countries.

Money is power, and the U.S. Supreme Court just made the corporate world even more powerful by giving them, under the guise of free speech, the right to spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence U.S. elections and legislation. The court based its decision on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was written to provide constitutional protection and due process of law to emancipated slaves, but the nation’s growing corporations wanted that protection extended to them. Corporations were then considered "artificial persons" under the terms of their contract.

For years, corporations were unsuccessful.

Then in 1886, during a case between Santa Clara County and Southern Pacific Railroad Co., the presiding judge voiced a personal opinion about corporate personhood. The opinion was entered in the headnotes by the court reporter, and it changed everything.

Since that case, corporations have been granted all the rights and privileges of living breathing human beings, and the power and wealth of the corporate world has soared. But the court in the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific did not rule on corporate personhood. They ruled on an issue concerning fences along the railroad line. Furthermore, headnotes are not law.

For a detailed description of exactly what happened, read "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann, particularly Chapter 6, and judge for yourself whether corporations should be treated as living human beings. If you think they should, show me where the U.S. Constitution supports this view.

The Constitution and its amendments were written to protect the people. Any ruling that transfers that protection from living human beings to a corporate entity is legally and morally reprehensible, but that’s exactly what happened Jan. 21 when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were the same as "natural persons" and could back candidates for public office with as much money as they cared to spend.

May God help the people of the United States. Our courts won’t.