WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS
TO BE SELF-EVIDENT!
or Our Disclaimer
A note for our readers:
In the current climate of today's political, but highly questionable leadership, and in light of recent attacks on freedoms (that all humans are born with), by governments, religions, self-appointed defenders of moralities, self-designated demi-gods, and countless other forms of low-lifes, we are declaring our position on several issues so that all who visit can understand the simplest of concepts - FREEDOM!
We declare that NO person, individual, corporation, government, bureaucrat, priest, preacher, censor, political candidate, et. al., has any privilege or right to infringe upon this website's or author's freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of expression, freedom of ideas, freedom of opinions, and any other freedom we decide to utilize. Any and all attempts to limit, impede, restrict, and/or deny free speech and press are dictatorial and totalitarian in nature. There are plenty of well-phrased reasons by well-meaning people for wanting to restrict certain speech and press, but eventually any limitation leads to and is oppression. Never allow anyone to confuse the issues of free speech and press with the issues of slander and libel. These are two distinct and separate issues, respectively, and the distinctness is what protects another person from real damage, yet still allows true freedom of speech and press.
To understand these freedoms, you must also realize that we are speaking of an individual's freedoms. Freedoms that come from being born human. People and persons inside corporations and some organizations have given up their individuality, in favor of certain 'benefits' given to corporations and organized associations, by law and governments. When speaking or writing in a capacity for their organization or corporation, they are given over to what is termed 'commercial speech' and as such is not a protected speech of any bill of rights or declaration of rights. Corporations are not a person or persons, but are all the persons involved, as one, in a creation by a law of government, not a natural law. The same person can speak 'outside his commercial arena,' however, and all his speech or writing would be respected under his birthright or declarations. Unorganized associations, usually have no 'extra benefit' of law and government, and all their speech or press would be 'natural' as individual persons. It would take many web pages to actually teach or explain how and why 'commercial speech' falls differently, but judges are well versed in the difference.
We could cite the US constitution, Canadian Rights, UK law, and usually reaffirmed by State and Province documents, etc. and we claim all these but our primary rights are rights for all humans born on our planet. These human rights are instilled from our birth and buried deeply in our soul, and none of the so-called human rights declarations by any form of legitimate government or the illegitimate ones have any 'right giving' qualities, but are only written affirmations of what we as humans are born with. To limit these freedoms and impede our happiness is damaging the souls of humans.
Being wary of today's New World Order - Illuminati Agenda - to remove and restrict FREEDOMS we are all born with, makes it necessary to state openly our position, which in our way of thinking should never have to be stated or claimed, but simply IS!
The forces in this world which are claiming to honor free-speech are the same ones destroying freedom of speech. It is important to understand that this issue should never have to be in a court under any 'color of law', because with all the historical documents to prove the affirmation of freedoms of speech and press, the point should be moot. The governments claiming to honor free speech are referring to "government-approved" or "politically correct" free speech! This is well documented by subversive activities to deny freedoms to this author and other notable authors by the Canadian government, the self-designated demi-god organization Canadian Jewish Congress, the self-appointed defenders of morality - The Canadian and UK Green Parties.
While we can never agree with organizations like the Jehovah Witnesses, we stand firmly behind their hard fought legal battle to print, speak, and distribute thier views and literature (which never should have been necessary). When such an organization crosses over the line and attempts to restrict, in any form or fashion, any person from reading or writing or speaking other material or literature opposite their own material, the hypocrisy shows through. Many only speak of THEIR OWN PRIVATE Freedom of speech and press.. NOT YOURS - NOT MINE! "... freedom only has meaning when it applies to people who disagree with you."( Jason Mendez [07-07-1999]) (note: this is only one example - we have evidences of many such hypocrisies).
If it is right and proper for publishers to print the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc, it is equally right and proper for others to publish Satanic Verses. That does not mean we condone or endorse any of these writings. We would defend Bernie Farber's (Canadian Jewish Congress) right to publish his opinions and facts about any issue. We are not obligated to publish his writings, but as long as he is personally responsible for what he speaks or writes, he has every right to do so. You will see books listed here on this site, how to obtain them, which have been banned, censored, burned, restricted, etc. in the past. While we do not necessarily endorse the conclusions of these authors, YOU have a right to access these writings, and there are facts and evidences which are valuable in these writings even when the author's conclusions may be abhorrent to us personally. How can you 'Know Thy Enemies' if you cannot read what your enemy is thinking or saying? Censorship and attempted restriction of access to writings and speech is the most dangerous, ominous, THREAT to FREEDOM that can or has ever existed.
The Ku Klux Klan members have every right to speak and publish their views, no matter how inane or non-sensical they may be, and personally abhorrent to millions of people. We, each of us, has the right not to listen and not to read what they publish, or we have the right to do so. Absolutely, no publisher, media, press, etc. has any obligation to print or publish their views, and at the same time, any press, publisher, media, etc. has the right to forward or promote their writings and views. This premise has inundated the internet with the same arguments on SPAM. They have the individual right to say what they want to say in SPAM, but they do not have the right to use another person's paid resources, to publish, distibute, or disseminate their material. This is as absurd as expecting the NAACP to publish KKK literature and distribute among their members. The argument overlooked is responsibility of their actions. You have the right to publish your speech or writings. You cannot expect or demand that another media source publish it for you at their expense. We cannot be forced to publish or print anything, but we are free to publish or print what we want to. The same is true for every human. It's Freedom! Freedom of Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Expression.
When someone or organization or government starts defining, restricting, determining, what you can or cannot read, say, write, or publish, -- then bells, whistles, sirens, should start ringing in your ears, and you know your freedoms have instantly be denied, trampled on, and limited. It was the encroaching, continual denial of human freedoms by government, including speech and press, which BRAINWASHED an entire nation into thinking it was right and proper to discriminate, abuse, and murder massive numbers of humans in during WW-2! There was no alternative, rational view being published, which would combat the daily onslaught of government-approved, brainwashing propaganda. It must be remembered that the denial and limitations on individual freedoms in Nazi Germany was done by reason of national security, national crisis, emergency measures, state of danger, public safety and public order, and all of these encroachments on individual freedom lead to tyranny and holocaust.
This is what FREEDOM is about! You are oppressed when another entity says you cannot speak, say, talk, see, read, write, publish, or think---- and when oppression is not stopped cold, it always leads to rebellion in one form or another.
This website is also the PRESS, but all of us are in reality - the Press! We publish information, ideas, opinions, facts, articles, expose's, education, and news. If this author or any writer speaks or writes an idea or article and it is published by any press, in the exact text which it was spoken or written, the PRESS publishing the work is NOT responsible or liable for another person's speech or writing. Only the originator - the author - is responsible for what he has written or spoken - not the publisher! Holding the publisher liable is an overt and subversive act to limit and restrict what you may or may not read! The publisher or press's hands can never be tied or interfered with to continue exercise of this freedom. This FREEDOM of the PRESS is the backbone of FREEDOM of SPEECH. You will see some articles or opinions on this website in direct contradistinction to what we would endorse or support. On the same hand, under our freedom of press we are NOT obligated to publish or print anything, we decide not to print. YOU are free to publish your writings, we are not obligated to do so, except where we obligate ourselves. --F-R-E-E-D-O-M!-- We are ONLY liable and responsible for what we speak or author.
Copyrighted material: We search for uncopyrighted material for this site, and constantly seek author's permissions to reprint certain articles to keep the public informed. If we inadvertantly post a copyrighted article and the originator of the article complains, we will remove the article. It is our view also that Governments cannot and may not copyright anything and any pretended 'government copyright' is under color of law, without form and void. Since governments' money is derived from the public at large through taxation, fines, penalties, licenses, fees, etc., then all that the goverment pays for is property of the public at large. This includes grants and subsidies to private and public organizations/corporations which have taken sustenance from the public in forms of taxation, fines, fees, etc. These public monies expensed to non-govermental organizations develop materials, inventions, writings, etc. which should properly and rightfully belong in public property, since the public is truly the one that has paid for these materials, items, services, et.al.
There are thousands of ambulance chasers (lawyers) searching internet sites for so-called copyright infringements and many of these are connected and paid for by political committees with the sole intent to harrass websites and deny people not only certain information and knowledge, but basic freedoms. Lawyers will quickly re-tort (they like the word 'tort') that some of what we stated above is without legal precedent or no basis in law... To which we reply: We don't care.. We know right from wrong...
We know and understand the rights of the author and publisher. We respect those rights and expect our private and personal copyrights to be observed and protected at all costs.
We know that if three people combine funds, and purchase a book, then the entire book belongs to all three parties (not three pieces of one book). If 250 million buy and pay for a writing (or anything else) on a government website, it belongs to 250 million people.
Under this basis, the internet was developed and paid for by the government, and options placed for privatization of selected areas came later, then anything 'legally' placed on the internet for public consumption and dissemination is being PLACED into the public domain, voluntarily. Any item can also be posted on the same internet which is placed into a protected area 'NOT' for public domain consumption, and should effectively be protected from copyright pirates (those which attempt to deny profit or profit from another's labors). That choice of keeping the material from public domain or placing it in the public domain lies with the copyright holder. Surrendering the material into public domain does not eradicate the copyright. Copyright laws are there to protect profits derived from the material. All material on this site which we author and hold copyright to, is placed into the public domain, voluntarily, simply requesting a courtesy link back to the originating website (in press terms - bylines). Not so long ago this view was upheld, even concerning newpapers and press, that once the profit had been derived from the original article in a newspaper, it then came into the public domain, and could be disseminated further, as long as there was not profit being derived DIRECTLY from the article, because these were public newspapers. The public newspaper had no further profit incentive from the same article and it became public domain but not public property.
The above re-statement of our Rights and Freedoms was prepared so everyone can understand the climate of how our freedoms are being stolen from all of us, everyday.. and what makes the political disclaimer below necessary.
Democrat-Greens-Tory-Conservative-Libertarian-
Liberals-AntiChrists-Beast-Dragons-et.al. &
Campaign officials and their lawyers:
This site contains facts, articles, editorials, political satire, opinions, parodies, jokes, observations, personal stories, and a whole lot of words. This site contains truths we do not expect you to be able to comprehend. No one affiliated with this site is affiliated with any political party. George W. Bush Jr. (aka Dubya, aka Shrub, aka BushLite, aka antichrist, aka silver spoon, aka Poppy's boy, aka Texecutioner, aka God, aka what's that white stuff, aka dumber than a fence post) has
called for limits to freedom (May, 1999), as yet those limits
haven't been imposed. His goal to criminalize a protected right (see Bill of Rights, Magna Charta) is an insult to the integrity of that little which remains holy in the constitution (may it rest in peace). In fact, we hold Mr. Bush's publically expressed views as direct violation of the Texas and US Constitution and direct contradiction to his oath of office and proof of his guilt of Perjury of Oath. We will do our damnedest to make sure his goal to 'limit freedoms' does not happen. His views on our freedoms are socialist, communist, fascist, Nazi, and nauseous. Since he has not retracted the statement publically, as one made in anger, then we must presume that his immaturity and perverse views can only be dangerous to all humans he is trying to rule from the White House. We're not here to ruin his reputation; he simply opens his mouth and takes care of that himself. (We are afraid Mr. Bush might send us to hell.) We are well aware of Mr. Bush's royal bloodline to the Queen of England and how his grandfather supported Hitler and the Holocaust (even financed part of it). We are well aware of his Skull and Bones perversions, his Bohemian Grove occultism and his CIA connections. It's a
crime against humans we even have to make this statement, but after
your attempted violation of rights, through conspiratorial and/or covert actions as defined in Title 42 USC, against Zack Exley www.gwbush.com, we must reiterate--
We are not a campaign organization! We recommend you obtain Paul Harvey's expose' on early Virginia law concerning the attorney profession. We cling, against all odds the legal system throws in front of us, to the ideals of freedom including, speech, press, expression, truth, parody, satire, satirical expression, laughter, and much more. We could remind you that satirical expression on public figures, has been taken and ruled on as high as the supreme court. (Flint vs. Falwell) Laughter and satire, in our opinion, serves as a release valve for people around the world and without that release many of you might be facing lynch mobs. Understand we will not be held hostage, nor will we be placed in a position to clear what we print through any campaign headquarters (we are NOT ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc.). If Mr. Bush chooses to rebutt or address any article on this site with an article well researched, with cites and evidence, to prove the contrary, we will publish his article. If you bother to pay close attention you will discover we give the same attention to all public figures and political candidates, and we find most of them grossly incompetent to rule, lead, or even advise the human race. So Mr. Bush, you're not in this alone--- you did not claim to invent the internet... we doubt you could spell internet much less invent it. And Mr. Bush, didn't Dan Morales, under your own nose, in the executive branch with you, take you to the cleaners on the tobacco settlement? We are aware of the ambiguotory symbolography which the FCC and FEC rules and regulations are written in. The recent news items referring to filing with the FEC the amount of money spent on such internet ventures is false and misleading, since the rules and regulations are very careful never to mention the word 'money.' This site does declare it has not spent one constitutional dollar in lawful money of the United States on this venture. Federal Reserve Notes are debt notes which have no tangible value to express, since the word 'money' does not appear on those notes (if they are not money then they are 'paper' of negligible value). Understand this website is not a corporation nor is it a political committee, both concepts being foreign to true choice and freedom. If the author of the book Votescam is correct then all of this writing and rambling is for naught, since it has been pre-determined for us who is the winner. This website has no affiliations with any political party (what a frightening concept!). Further, we have not taken or used ANY material from bushsucks.com, bushblows.com, bushbites.com or other websites which are registered websites of George Dubya Bush and his campaign.
"What are my conclusions? It seems that Bush's Internet
political opinions are informed mainly by the owners of large
businesses, that they have not been fully detailed yet, and
that his campaign has (so far) been fairly clueless in its use
and knowledge of the Internet. The Internet learning curve
for presidential candidates is steep -- and Bush has barely
begun his incline."
--Dana Blankenhorn at
http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue312/item6910.asp.
We are not the only site on the internet which holds Dubya and da boys, CLUELESS-- so does anyone with an ounce of Intellectual Capital.
WHAT IS 'FAIR USE'
The priciple of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."
Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality.
These criteria are:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes. To the extent the work is cited brings no monetary gain to the user, greater claim of "fair use" will be supported.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work. Generally, courts are more likely to support claims of "fair use" for works of non-fiction than fiction.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. Generally, the law supports citing smaller portions of a previous work than larger portions.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of "fair use" if such a finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. However, unpublished or recently published works may be viewed as having more potential value than older or out-of-print works. Therefore, use of unpublished works may be potentially less qualified to support claims of "fair use". A purpose of research or scholarship may be interpreted as having very little "effect" as opposed to an larger "effect" should there be a commercial intent in the use of the work.
If the above criteria are substantially satisfied, use of a copyrighted work by second parties is protected under the "fair use" provisions of The Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107.
information, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research;
with NO intent to deprive any human from their profit on their labours.
Link URL for websites
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles2/disclaimer.html
Feel free to post this page URL anywhere!
