The fact is that world needs more writers. The literary output of the U.S. can never be too prolific. Sustainable development is a global imperative: over one billion people lack access to food, electricity and drinking water; a majority of our ecosystems are in decline; and there is an enormous deficit in decent jobs, especially for youth globally. Climate change will only compound these challenges – and threatens progress, peace and stability in societies and global markets – including books and publishing.

The book publishing industry is changing beyond all recognition, and for the independent author, getting your book into the hands of reachers in a timely fashion with expert speed to market, has become an increasingly dominant critical factor – where once publishers and authors could rely on long-tail sales and word of mouth. Schiel & Denver Book Publishers is therefore committed to professional book distribution into all markets, on behalf of our authors, and we are pleased to be opening up new channels in Australasia, Asia, China, Africa and Brazil, (outside our main infrastructure in North America and Europe) as a means to set our authors apart in the market with greater numbers of books printed, more sales and more royalties generated per ISBN title.

In a time when reaching agreement on critical issues is proving difficult and divisive — whether at home domestically in America or on the international platform — Schiel & Denver‘s comprehensive book publishing strategies will continue to give independent authors a voice, with dedicated marketing to the retail buying units of stores like Barnes & Noble, Amazon and Books-A-Million, to ensure your voice is heard.

Our corporate sustainability is charging ahead as a collaborative and innovative space for action based on the risks and opportunities at hand. After more than a decade of building up principles and partnerships, we stand on the brink of unleashing global business action as a main-stream, independent book publisher championing author’s intellectual output on a massive scale.

Schiel & Denver only succeeds when our authors thrive with successful book sales derived from worldwide market access and expert distribution to major bookstores. Making this happen is our enduring commitment: more engagement, more innovation, more collaboration.

The vital role the UN Global Compact Office continues to play with regard to strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to partner strategically with the private sector.

As always, some book publishers activities will be open to all signatories while others will be restricted to US Network members. The results will highlight that Governments who were invited to support the local networks, in co-operation with the Rio+20 Secretariat, and the Global Compact Local Network based in America are more proportionately more likely to invest in the “inside-belt” of the book publishing industry; giving fresh credence to the notion that local authors need to work with a book publisher with far reaching contacts into the UN system, such as Schiel & Denver enjoys, to benefit from local distribution widely through bookstores in both developed and developing countries.

Schiel & Denver offers massive global book distribution to a wide-readership through over 165,000 bookstores across 4 continents. With more than 1,250 authors from over 100 countries in 2012, Schiel & Denver’s ties to worldwide book distribution, together with professional editing capabilities, and particularly being backed by the publishing power of the United Nations Global Compact, forms proof that one of the largest, most comprehensive studies on global corporate responsibility implementation is within reach of independent authors who choose to work with the company to fulfil their dream of becoming published. The UN Global Compact’s input is critical.

For those unaware, the Global Compact initiative has made substantial progress for book publishing in America, less than a year after the critical UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), which brought together different factions of government leaders (from both developed and developing nations) in an effort to build consensus on a more sustainable course for representing publishing and printing business in partnership with governments, local authorities, civil society and UN entities.

As a book publishers with a modern chain of custody gradually ending dependence on wood fibers and pulp to make our books, and keen on embracing digital eBook publishing – particularly in our Christian book publishing division, our view is that the Rio+20 Corporate Sustainability Forum is shaping up to be a vibrant and unparalleled platform for innovative businesses like Schiel & Denver, and key stakeholders to demonstrate real action, make commitments and mobilize genuine consumer growth towards a more environmentally sustainable future.

Putting our authors first continues to be Schiel & Denver’s primary mission, and with on-going author support on a daily basis – our book publishing program is designed to provide a firm infrastructure for our partners, leverage opportunities and harness our book publishing logistics. Schiel & Denver succeeds at building momentum for our author’s books, as they move into the competitive marketplace to sell to the book buying public.

As 2012 closes, Schiel & Denver is pleased we continue to be of value for our passion and commitment to new writers, not least the broad efforts that our business plays to help set a better course for emerging literary talent. Being able to ‘tap’ the United Nations Global Compact’s mainstream benefits for global book distribution forms a corporate sustainability service that our authors’ need and deserve.

As has now been widely reported, about five months ago, a representative of Pearson PLC contacted Bertelsmann SE & Co. The result of that contact emerged Monday, when the two companies unveiled the creation of Penguin Random House, a combination they hope will be better able to deal with the digital transformation of the book industry.

The timing of the initial approach came at a pivotal moment in book publishing. A few weeks before, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against Apple Inc. and five major publishers, including Penguin, alleging an price-fixing conspiracy regarding e-books. While three of the publishers settled, two continue to fight the suit, including Penguin.

Random House wasn’t involved in the suit.

Books from publishers Penguin and Random House on a bookstore shelf in London on Friday. The two houses have announced a deal to merge.

The settlement forced publishers to allow a resumption of discounted pricing of e-books, which Amazon.com Inc. had championed after it introduced its Kindle e-reader in 2007 but which had been shut down by the publishers in 2010. The implication of a new round of discounting was immediately clear: It could eventually weaken Barnes & Noble Inc., the major competitive force against Amazon.

And book executives see that as bad news. While e-books are good for publishers’ profit margins, by removing the costs of printing and distribution, the worry was that a more powerful Amazon could eventually squeeze publishers on prices.

For book publishing, an industry dominated by a half-dozen big players, consolidation was one answer. Combining forces would allow publishers to gain more heft in negotiating terms with retailers, including Amazon, industry executives said. By moving first, Pearson hoped to gain an advantage, a person familiar with the situation said.

“In reviewing the long-term trends and considerable change affecting the consumer publishing industry, Pearson and Bertelsmann both concluded that the publishing and commercial success of Penguin and Random House can best be sustained and enhanced through a partnership with another major international publishing house,” the companies said in a joint statement.

The companies’ boards approved the plan Sunday, despite a last-minute expression of interest in buying Penguin that came from News Corp., parent of HarperCollins publishers. News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal, never made a formal offer, a person familiar with the situation said.

The Pearson board considered all options, including a cash sale, but unanimously supported the joint-venture structure with Bertelsmann, the person said.

Selling Penguin would have triggered a big capital-gains tax liability, another person familiar with the situation said.The companies said they hoped to complete the merger in the second half of next year, pending regulatory approvals. The attitude of antitrust regulators in the U.S. and Europe is an open question.

Management of the new company will be split between the two publishers: Random House Chief Executive Markus Dohle, 44 years old, will be CEO while Penguin CEO John Makinson, 58, will be chairman.

The deal highlights how the rapid adoption of digital books is changing book publishing. The proportion of consumer-book revenue for publishers coming from e-books rose to 14.8% last year from 6.3% in 2010, according to BookStats. A publishing executive said that at his company, e-books could account for 30% to 50% of fiction sales now.

E-books should be good news for publishers. In addition to the lower production and distribution costs, unsold books don’t come floating back from retailers. Those returned book can reach 30% to 40% of a print run, even on best sellers, an executive said.

But as physical books decline as a proportion of total sales, the fixed costs of maintaining warehouses and printing facilities hurts overall margins. Some publishers already have started to address this. HarperCollins, for example, has closed two of its four warehouses in the U.S. The combined Penguin Random House will have between them four warehouses in the U.S., raising the possibility that some could be closed.

Mr. Dohle said the two companies were just starting to analyze the potential cost savings, including those in distribution, warehousing and information technology. But “this deal isn’t based on synergies; it is based on future growth,” he said.

Mr. Makinson said the merger will allow the companies to invest more heavily in social media and other new technologies. With fewer traditional bookstores around, he said, “it becomes harder and riskier to take a chance on new writers because you can’t be sure of finding an audience.” Social media can help remedy that.

Some book agents have voiced concerns about the impact of the merger. Mr. Makinson emphasized that authors won’t see significant changes because the two companies intend to keep the same number of publishing imprints.

Scott Turow, best-selling author and president of the Authors Guild, said: “Publishers are facing a new reality with some of the biggest companies in the world, including Google, Apple and Microsoft entering their field. I understand why they want to get bigger. But what I haven’t thought through yet is what the down side is for the cultural landscape.”

The deal was announced just a few weeks after Pearson’s longtime chief executive, Marjorie Scardino, disclosed plans to step down at year-end. Her departure sparked speculation about whether the incoming CEO, John Fallon, would focus the company on educational publishing, the area of the company he runs, exiting businesses such as consumer books.

Each company is committed to staying in the book venture for the first three years. After that, Pearson has options to raise cash from its stake, including by requesting a debt-financed dividend payment. Both companies can call for an initial public offering of the venture after five years.

This is particularly valuable in the case of an organization with branches spread throughout the country. Everyone has something to contribute to the common pool in the book publishing process. In conclusion, the media of communication are not the most important part of public relations activity but they occupy a vital area in any forward-thinking organization since they provide the link between an organization and the different groups and spheres of interest. There are signs of radical changes in methods of communication with the rapid growth of the use of computers, the automation of office techniques, satellite communication, etc, but it is difficult to forecast how soon these tendencies will make a real difference to our present means of communication.

The public relations adviser today, whether as a staff member of the organization or as outside counsel on public relations to management, has a new top function to fulfill. In this rapidly changing world, the obligations of company management are no longer limited to increasing sales and profits by winning friends and influencing people, it must serve the society of which it is a part in many different ways, in order to survive. The business organization, today has new responsibilities imposed on it by the society. It must fulfill its obligations as a good citizen of the community in which it functions. It must have socially sound living and training practices. This is key to effective book marketing from book distribution. It must be aware of and help to maintain the environment where it functions. It must help to improve the social conditions of the public on which it depends. It must participate in all efforts to improve the broad society. Successfully to fulfill the new demands, pose the challenges of the eighties to Public Relations

Contact with the Press may be either on personal basis, by written communication, or at a press conference. Personal contact is undoubtedly the most effective way of promoting close understanding with members of the Press, but with such a large area of interest it is obviously not possible to have personal contact with the Press all the time. Press releases are therefore an important part of press relations, and the releases which are merely written news items may be sent out to a very wide, or, on occasion, to a restricted list of journalists and publications; particularly of note in the poetry book publishers arena.

Some companies will wish to have a constant contact with the various sections of the Press and will issue two or three stories a week as well as extra news items for particular journals. This level of activity may be appropriate for some large companies but many companies will not need to be quite so active in keeping in touch with the Press. It is very desirable that in every organization there should be a press officer whose primary function is to help forge a durable link between the company and the Press, and a separate department for U.S. Copyright Registration.

In a small company the press officer may also be the public relations officer; in a large organization, he may be the head of a sizable press office. Either way, he must seek to understand the needs of the different sections of the Press and be prepared to make a sustained effort to help the Press in its work. It is only in this way that he can serve his own company to the best possible advantage. A press conference should be held when there is an announcement of some importance to be made when questions are likely to be helpful to members of the Press in writing their stories. It may also be justified when there is something to show like a model of a new hotel complex or a plan of a new motorway. A press conference may also be very useful for giving background information “off the record” about some new development of significance. The Press will respect the request for keeping some of the news “off the record” provided it is made clear which part of the conference is in confidence.

This agreement establishes a framework to provide access to book publishers’ in-copyright books and journals that were digitized by Google for its Library Project and to govern how such works may be scanned in the future.

The agreement settles the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by five publisher plaintiffs. As is typical of a private settlement between parties, a number of terms are confidential. You can read Google’s press release regarding the settlement however we provide more details below for publishers analysis. The key elements of the agreement:

The agreement settles the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by five publisher plaintiffs.  As is typical of a private settlement between parties, a number of terms are confidential.

The key elements of the book publishing agreement:

1. First and foremost, the settlement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright-holders.  A publisher can choose to make available or remove its works from Google’s programs.
2. The agreement covers US book publishers – those who are members of Association of American Publishers and certain other publishing associations with US publisher members – for in-copyright books and journals in which they hold a copyright interest under US law.
3. The agreement provides for such book publishers to make available or remove scans of their works previously created in the Google Library Project.
4. The agreement provides a set of satisfactory terms as to how future scanning by Google of covered books and journals may be addressed by their publishers.
5. The agreement authorizes Google, through separate agreements with individual publishers, to make commercial use of those scans – particularly in educational math books.
6. The agreement also authorizes Google to enter into file return agreements with publishers.  This gives publishers digital files of their scans for certain authorized uses while also granting Google additional rights.
7. This deal marks the end of seven years of litigation between the publishers and Google relating to the Google Books Library Project.  It secures dismissal of the lawsuit, without prejudice or release of claims, by stipulation of the parties.
8. This settlement does not affect Google’s litigation with the Authors Guild nor does it address the underlying questions in that suit.
9. This differs from the class action settlement rejected by the court in 2011.  It is narrower in scope and effect because it resolves more limited claims by individual plaintiffs rather than a class.
10. There are a number of reasons why the parties chose to make the deal.

For the publishers, they wanted to find a way to move forward and bring this lengthy, complex litigation to an end while building on the existing relationship between publishers and Google.

Publishers’ attempts to settle this through the court were not successful and a private settlement, which does not require the court’s approval, was the most effective means.  Although the settlement does not resolve the disagreements regarding the scope of fair use and other points of copyright law, it resolves to the plaintiffs’ satisfaction the practical issues underlying the dispute which led to the lawsuit.

Google sought to make the deal to bring to an end seven years’ litigation and move ahead with increasing the body of works available in Google Books and Google Play.  This deal proved to be mutually beneficial because it expands eBook discovery and sales while respecting the rights of copyright owners.

The challenge to understand the reasons why this is happening is more complex. It is not easy to preserve and keep a Republic once it begins to fall away. The heart of the republic is the voice of the people and the voice of the people is expressed through its mandated representation. It’s necessary at this point to consider a definition of Common Law.

The heart of Common Law is substance or Fact; the heart of Equity which came out of the Common Laws, is based in theories of liability and require some kind of damages – usually money. Common Law in practice is:

“The impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him the right to claim.”

Equity court corrects the operation of the literal text of the Law, and supplies its defects, by reasonable construction, and by rules of proceeding and deciding what is not admissible in a court of law. The first Judicial Acts established a judicial system with the sole purpose of upholding our Constitution and basing decisions of the Common Laws which decided right from wrong.

Your Congress represents elected officials representative of a part of a whole. They are not the whole, nor can they represent the nation without consent from the majority of the other parts which form that whole. The whole is the nation; even without the surge in book publishing company interest, however, the voice of the nation is the people collectively expressing themselves through individual representatives. A nation is not the body, the figure of which is to be represented by the human body; but is like a body contained within a circle, having a common center, in which every radius meets; and that center is formed by representation.

An issue is a point at which you must go to trial. There are two kinds of issues: 1) in law and 2) in fact. An issue in law arises when the point in issue is a question of law. An issue in fact is when the point in issue is a question of fact.

A fundamental to the Common Laws are those which are orally handed down to us, introduced into our Constitution as Rights of Man and recorded as the Bill of Rights. Any law abrogating such law is repugnant. This, then, is a fundamental right.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void and no man has to obey them.”

We believe therefore that the U.S. public has been inspired to write as a consequence of the expression of our democracy and statutory law. It is the written law, which later became codified and called the Codes. Statutory Law originated in the unwritten Common Laws, but did not have their binding force in the principles of justice, nor of long use, nor the consent of the people or nation. Statutory Law has its binding force in the acts of legislative branch: the Congress.

The breathtaking beauty of Hans Zimmer’s music makes many people feel that they would like his compositions to be the soundtrack to their life. But what about your book?

In a recent poll, Schiel & Denver Book Publishing Company and Book Distributors found that mystery and thriller authors would prefer Hans Zimmer above all other composers to write the soundtrack to their novel if it was ever made into a film through consistent book marketing. Listening to this above quite brooding and dark piece that Hans Zimmer composed for The Dark Knight Rises, that was released before the tragedy in Colorado, it’s hard to disagree.

The Colonists, disguised as Indians, boarded the tea ships in Boston the night of December 16, 1773 and dumped the cargoes into the water. The captain’s log book, dated Thursday, December 16, 1773 stated:

Between six and seven o’clock this evening, came down to the wharf a body of about one thousand people, among them were a number dressed and whooping like Indians. They came on board the ship, and after warning myself and the customs-house officers to get out of the way, they undid the hatches and went down the hood, where was eighty whole, and thirty-four half chests of tea, which they hoisted upon deck, and cut the chests to pieces, hove the tea overboard, where it was damaged and lost.

The event was publicized as “the destruction of the tea” but was not recorded as the “Boston Tea Party” until the mid-30s, around 1834/5, when the new moniker was born, for opposing oppressive government control.

The tea party of 1773 united all of the Colonists under a moniker surviving today. Whether protesting as tea party members, as patriots, as occupiers, the opposition and clamor to correct abuses is louder than ever. It gives us our Republic and a Republican form of government.

The Republic is a renovation of the natural order of things, a system of principles as universal as truth and the existence of man, and combed moral with political happiness and national prosperity. It is the natural order to preserve liberty, property, and security as guaranteed rights of man. It extends the sovereignty of such rights into the political associations which comprise the nation and demands that such associations, whether individual, or as a body of men are only entitled to that authority which is expressly derived from the people.

What is called the Republic is not any particular form of government like democratic, aristocratic, or monarchy. It is wholly characteristic of the matter or object for which government ought to be instituted, and to which it is to be employed— A REPUBLIC, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy which encompasses arbitrary power vested in an individual person, the exercise of which is the person, and not the republic.

The REPUBLIC, public thing has as its origin the Greek “Democracy”; however, there are many strong limitations in the Democratic form of government. It ultimately leads to the failure of a true Democracy in guaranteeing the innate rights of man.The true distinction between a Republic and a Democracy is that in the Democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person. In a Republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives.

Democracy will, by necessity, be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over a large region. Mitt Romney’s negative ad attacks on the Obama presidency and healthcare reform are an example of this kind of modern comparison.

Democracy works well as a form of government where limited in scope of size and population it can conduct the REPUBLIC or the public business of a nation until, however, it becomes too extensive and populous. Democracy cannot work effectively as the separate parts soon become oppressive once becoming powerful.

Space and size quickly destroy the effectiveness of Democracy. Ancient Greece discovered this quickly as power shifted from Athens, and the demand for centralized power in the government arose out of strength, not voice. Under a Republic, the public voice, as pronounced by the representatives of the people, is more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.

Our Tea Party fought not so much for sovereignty, but for the public voice to be heard by abusive powers. Their voice, being unheard, soon results in a voice demanding to be heard. They wanted representation then, most of all. And when denied, the very voice which believed in natural law, gave birth to a new nation and a new form of government: the Republican Form.

This startled the world juxtaposing a new voice within a Democracy. A people’s voice creating a Republican form of government: a government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It did not connect with any particular form which the world understands.

It defies being subservient to another power and declares itself sovereign by divine right and by voice. And that voice declares itself by representation.Adding representation upon Democracy creates a system of government which embraces and brings together all the various interests and every extent of territory and population known.

The Republican form of government immediately concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts and of the whole. The whole is now the nation, the parts are states, the people are also parts of the whole, yet their collective voices, by representation, become the whole.For once, government can be seen as the child of the voice of the people who created it. Every man is a proprietor in government, and has the duty to consider it a necessary part of his business to understand. The Republic concerns his interest, because it affects his property, his life, and his pursuit of happiness.And these interests have costs which derive themselves from all men being created equal.You can examine the cost and compare it with the individual or collective advantages. And your voice, alone must represent your examination before all others.

With the advent of a Constitution enumerating what you grant, you do not have to adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called leaders.

As Benjamin Franklin quickly noted when asked what kind of government is formed, he answered prophetically: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

It is not easy to preserve and keep a Republic once it begins to fall away. The heart of the republic is the voice of the people and the voice of the people is expressed through its mandated representation.

How often have you heard representatives say, I voted for the “good of the country”, or for the “good of the party”, when the voice going unheard is the voice of representation which says… vote for the good of the republic within the district you represent?

Representation must represent only those constituents who exercised the sovereign right to put them in power and position to represent.

Your Congress represents elected officials representative of a part of a whole. They are not the whole, nor can they represent the nation without consent from the majority of the other parts which form that whole. The whole is the nation; however, the voice of the nation is the people collectively expressing themselves through individual representatives.

A nation is not the body, the figure of which is to be represented by the human body; but is like a body contained within a circle, having a common center, in which every radius meets; and that center is formed by representation. The representatives, too, represent themselves only as a part of their very constituency and are one voice within their collective membership when in Congress Assembled. There can be no vote taken by them for the “good of the country”.

As representatives sitting in the federal government, the “good of the country” only occurs concomitantly with the consent of the rest of the nation.What is government but more than the management of the affairs of a Nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and through by force and contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of thing.

Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the Nation only, and not any individual; and a Nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds inconvenient, and to establish such as accords with its interest, disposition and happiness. Every citizen is a member of the collective sovereignty; and as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection – his obedience can be only to the Common Laws.

As members of the national government, the good of the country is only that under powers given by citizens, and granted to the national government, such as the management of foreign affairs wherein the states waive all rights to make a treaty, enter into an alliance, receive a foreign ambassador, or deal in any way with a foreign government.

The balance of power, conversely, and ultimately, flows from the bottom up rather than from the internationally recognized top down. Such principles of Declaration are the truths to restore our Republic. They are reserved in the declarations made by the Tea Party forefathers. What have we learned?

That man has rights, — life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. This is the legacy left us. The ideal of individual liberty, that an individual has certain fundamental and inalienable rights which municipal, state or federal government can never override without permission.Governments exist for the benefit of the governed to secure and protect those rights of man. Government is FOR the people.

And that these governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Government is OF the people and BY their consent. Whenever any government usurps power and becomes destructive of the rights of man, then it is the right of the people to overthrow that government, and when necessary to do so, it is also the right and duty of the people to establish a new government on whatever principles and in whatever form will insure to them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That under law and government, and in the protection of the rights of the people “all men are created equal” and must be allowed the fullest and freest exercise and development of their natural powers.

And that these governments“derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”Government is OF the people and BY their consent.

Whenever any government usurps power and becomes destructive of the rights of man, then it is the right of the people to overthrow that government, and when necessary to do so, it is also the right and duty of the people to establish a new government on whatever principles and in whatever form will insure to them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That under law and government, and in the protection of the rights of the people “all men are created equal” and must be allowed the fullest and freest exercise and development of their natural powers.

And to do so, our forefathers decreed: “there shall be freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, freedom of petition. The homes of the people shall be secure against search, seizure, or intrusion, except by legal process. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Continuing, “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it, but any one accused of crime shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime may have been committed. He shall not be arrested except by legal process; he shall be informed of the exact nature of the accusation; he shall be confronted by the witnesses against him, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.”

Some of those who represent us now in Congress Assembled are ineligible to represent us and have lost their citizenship.

Do you know the ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT was passed in support of Article I, Section 9, of the United States Constitution?

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Said original Amendment is a matter of record notwithstanding it being continuously omitted in reproduction as it clearly provides the penalty for enforcement of Article 1, Section 9.

 The ORIGINAL THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Passed by Congress February 1, l865“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatsoever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or Foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”Is it any wonder, then, that the following two questions might just be answered with an emphatic: NO!

Can any attorney taking oath to any Bar association which pledges itself to the Crown of England still be a citizen?

Can any Congressman, in the House or Senate, accepting financial support from corporations or lobbyists outside their constituency and venue still be a citizen?

Thus, it is time again to restore America to its rightful place in history as that nation which first introduced the Rights of Man as being the grantor of power and privileges to uphold and defend its rights.

To do this, the Republic needs the voice of the people once more. We need to speak again as in 1773 where the real intent of the Boston Tea Party was not to just dump tea in protest of taxation. It was to demand representation and voice. Again, today, We the people, need to speak.It is our duty. Our rugged Constitution clearly gives us the Right to speak within our Bill of Rights with no less than six specifically identified amendments.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL VOICES

The only lawful constituent voices are those who can delegate representation in municipal, State or Congressional districts, and are limited to:

CITIZENS, who have been identified and are registered with district rights to vote for representation at municipal, State, or federal levels.

CORPORATIONS (like Mitt Romney‘s Bain Capital) which have only recently been identified by the U.S. Supreme Court as being persons.

Under Article XIV, Section 1, and having corporate headquarters in a specific Congressional district, they may lobby (one vote) only in their district for representation at municipal, State, or federal levels.We need now reformation of the process of creating and submitting bills for consideration and ratification. The following procedures are suggestive ballot measures to be sent via e-mail, blog, or what have you, to your representative or as a ballot measure for submission to voters on the next ballot to bring back the voice of America for the benefit of its people.

The Revolution promised power is in the local community and the hands of the common folk. Now the writers of the Constitution wanted to change all that. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay used the widespread and widely read newspapers of the day to distribute a series of short essays known as the Federalist Papers to influence America to accept and ratify a Constitution.

The essays covered a broad range of topics, including presidential authority, taxation and representation, and the division of power between the national and state governments.In the end, the newspaper plan worked. The Liberty Bell rang so long, it finally cracked. Americans were persuaded to support the Constitution, but the Liberty Bell could not ring in the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed the sought after freedom and individual liberty for all.

The Federalist Papers are now considered the first – and most important internationally – discussions of federal government.

The Federalist Papers serve as a model of political reasoning, and so can readily be ascribed to the reason the Colonists were influenced and prepared to ratify a Constitution for the United States of America.

No other set of essays created such an international clamor for independence and a new kind of power in that eighteenth century. No man could believe or envision that Power actually emanates from the bottom up. Power is by the will of the people and is granted by Providence. That is what happened. The Natural law then, would soon be an Organic law in a written Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of all men created equal.

The sentiment swept the nation then and such is the sentiment which was later so historically and strongly expressed by President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863.

That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

We are again at that same crossroad where sovereignty and liberty intersect. The basis for our Constitution is inherent in its Federalist Papers. But who knows of them? Our Constitution, after months of work, finished in September 1787 and is a document that cannot by any standard be ratified by the individual state unless their populations wants them to do so.

The Constitution FOR the United States of America is ordained and established in its Preamble by the People OF the United States.

Its Federalist Papers (number 39) established two things:

• A country to be known as the United States of America (U.S.A.).
• A national government for that country to be known as the United States (US).

All American citizens are Sovereign citizens OF the United States of America – the Country. They live under the Common Laws of the country (Nation) known as the United States of America (U.S.A.)

The United States, as such, is only a national government (US) representative of the union of all states, known as these United States (U.S.A.); and is not to be confused with the nation (country) known as the United States of America.
The only sovereignty delegated to the national government (US) is that of foreign commerce and treaties.

It is this area where the States granted international powers to the federal government, albeit with the checks and balances accorded the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial departments.