Sunday, November 30, 2008


"your right she said it too nonchalantly as if it was common knowledge ... i happen to agree with you that she meant to say pearl" -checkitb4uwreckit

"ok rep press i see the link. this is a good point. this is something that makes a reasonable argument for the possibility of her mis speaking. ... israel we should admit that this is not a ridiculous theory rep press is pushing" - joopq

"She may have really meant to say Daniel Pearl ... I've made it crystal clear what I meant is that she may have MEANT to say Daniel Pearl ... My take on it is that she DID "misspeak", as in not intentionally saying 'Osama Bin Laden'" - israelfnp

(this Youtuber calling himself "israelfnp" had at first refused to believe that she may have meant to say "Daniel Pearl." This is what he posted three months ago on my channel page: Oh, I get it, Bhutto MEANT to say Daniel Pearl, but accidentally said "Osama Bin Laden", yeah I make slips like that all the time, I mean to say apples and I say Oranges instead, silly mistake, right. Can't wait to see you debunk that on your vid. It's so easy to confuse "Daniel Pearl" with "Osama Bin Laden")
Bhutto didn't mean to say "Osama bin Laden"
See video

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Journalist Receives Death Threat for Talking About Israel

SEE VIDEO: Journalist Receives Death Threat for Talking About Israel
"After debating on How Can Peace Be Achieved Between Israelis and Palestinians? Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, Alison Weir and If Americans Knew received a voicemail message saying: On Monday, at 2 PM, you better not be in your office. Because me and my buddies, who were trained in the Israeli Army, will come and kill every single one of you..."

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Understanding Power, the Indispensable Chomsky. A Book Recommendation

Understanding Power, the Indispensable Chomsky. A Book Recommendation (see video)

Re: Democrats and war VIDEO

Bush lied about Saddam and al-Qaida being "allies" see video, Re: Democrats and war

Fair issue was clarified and the situation resolved with YouTube

I am happy to say that months ago the fair issue was clarified and the situation resolved after I sent the following e-mail to YouTube (I figured I would share with others the e-mail I sent in order to explain the issue of fair use) also see: Fair Use and YouTube:

Dear YouTube Team:

Thank you for contacting me concerning the videos I submitted for monetization and giving me the opportunity to clarify the fair use of them. From what you wrote in your e-mail I understand that you are asking me if I still maintain that the use of the clips in my videos is still fair use even if I make commercial use of my videos.

The answer is yes and I would like to state my case by first referring to the website you sent me a link to in your e-mail. The info at that link makes it clear that I am abiding by fair use principles, both according to the explanation and the examples provided at the website you referred me to. I will go into detail below but I would like to point out that I have the same fair use rights as Viacom and Viacom regularly makes commercial use of the content it uses according to fair use doctrine.

The specific videos you ask me about in your e-mail, I list here as 1, 2, 3 and 4:

Concerning videos numbered 1, 2 and 3, the many clips I use I have a right to use because it is government-produced video of the legislative proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and it is in the public domain so I can use it without restrictions. As C-SPAN explains, "Although C-SPAN is the only news media organization that regularly televises the legislative proceedings of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, it does not hold a copyright in that video coverage. That government-produced video is in the public domain which means that it belongs to the American people and may be used without restrictions of any kind." ( )

Concerning video number 4, my use of a 28 second clip from the 60 Minutes Pelly-Ahmadinejad interview and a 6 second clip from the 60 Minutes Pelly-Bush interview was for the purpose of political commentary and criticism and conforms with fair use doctrine. Section 107 of the copyright law lists four factors to be considered in determining fair use. My use is fair use according to all four factors. The first factor is the one that considers "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." This does not say that use of a commercial nature violates fair use doctrine, it simply says it is part of the consideration in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. Commercial use in and of itself is "not at all determinative" of whether a particular use is considered fair but rather "that preference will be granted to works that were created for non-profit educational purposes." I am quoting from one of the "Fair Use Links on the Web" which YouTube provides on its Copyright Tips page. ( )

That commercial use of material can be considered fair use is well established in case law. Even at the site you highlighted, there is an example of a company making commercial use of content under the fair use doctrine. It was legally determined to be fair use for the Washington Post to use three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts and post them on the Internet. That site says the "issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work." ( )

The fair use network points out, "commerciality is not the most important aspect in the first fair use factor. More important than commerciality is whether a use is "transformative" or merely substitutes for the original work." ( )

Viacom regularly makes commercial use of video clips it does not own the rights to and it relies on fair use doctrine to do so. "We are very familiar with the doctrines of parody, political commentary and criticism and the way they relate to the use of copyrighted material. In fact, Viacom relies upon the law in these areas regularly. Watch nearly any episode of South Park, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or the Colbert Report and you will see how our artists draw from copyrighted works in legitimate ways for legitimate purposes." - Michael D. Fricklas, Executive Vice President General Counsel and Secretary for VIACOM, 2/6/07 ( )

Commercial use is permitted under fair use doctrine. Viacom accepts this by their own words and actions. In addition to the examples cited above from Comedy Central, VH1's commercial entertainment show "Web Junk 2.0" features clips it uses under the fair use doctrine. The show is a commercial show, commercials are sold around the show and advertisements are sold around the content on the website, and the clips they use are not used with permission, instead Viacom uses them under the fair use doctrine.

I think you will agree that I should have the same fair use rights as Viacom and other Youtube Partners for that matter. I see YouTube allows other Youtube Partners to make commercial use of content they do not own, relying on fair use doctrine to do so, in their monetized videos. My use falls well within fair use doctrine, in fact, I think it is a textbook example of legitimate fair use.

Tom Murphy

Also see this blog post: Fair Use and YouTube

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Concocted Scenarios Doing Violence to Logic and Reason


You linked to a page directly that pushed the "no plane at the Pentagon" conspiracy theory. You didn't have a problem with that. You wrote, "Good summary here. Except for the claim that there was no plane at the Pentagon, of course." This is a theory that you have said was wrong. You even said it was a false theory created by secret agents to make the 9/11 truth movement look bad. [Note: The background to this is that Mike says he doesn't want to link to playlists of videos sent to him because he says he doesn't want to give his readers the idea he agrees with videos which play after the one he links to.]

Mike, I have proven that things you wrote are inaccurate. (4 days ago, for example, I showed you that your site claims that "Bhutto said that Osama Bin Laden was murdered &
the person responsible may be behind the attempts to kill her." That simply is not true, she said that the former military officer may be behind the attempts to kill her, NOT that Omar Sheikh was. That is literally what the words she spoke said yet you got it wrong.) When I prove these things, you don't ever seem to stop and question if you are getting things right, you don't seem to pause to rethink your position.

If we are ever going to get out of this crisis, we need people to make a sincere effort to look at and think about the facts. Did you ever consider that you are getting things wrong and withholding info from people and that info could allow them to form an accurate opinion?

Part of your reply to me was, "therefore unless she is lying, she truly believes Osama was murdered." For the life of me I can't understand how you can make that claim after watching
my Bhutto video. And you give no explanation at all about why you say you disagree with the Bhutto video. The video PROVES she DIDN'T think Osama was murdered or dead because in interviews before AND AFTER the Frost interview she talked about bin Laden in the context of him being alive. Why not think about that?

And it is so illogical how you think a claim made by the Taliban that bin Laden "died a natural and quiet death natural death" supports a claim of murder.

People are sick of all the errors and inconsistencies and viewers are telling me they want me to point out specifically how your website and Alex Jones are getting all of these things wrong. I want to give you an opportunity to at least try to defend these things you are doing. I am sure you don't want to be known as a man who irrationally and stubbornly refused to apply logic to one of the most serious issues we face as Americans.

What do you think it looks like to refuse to give your readers the info which clarifies all these issues? Again, why aren't all the testimonies from all these firemen sufficient to debunk CD? For example, WTC7 was visibly undergoing structural failures WELL BEFORE it collapsed. I gave you
a link to a fireman explaining that the building's structural integrity was not there and it was going to collapse. He explains why WTC7 was going to collapse: "See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building." What are people supposed to think when you refuse to give your readers a link to this info? And those observations were passed on to the press which is why WTC7 was expected to collapse. The BBC made the mistake of reporting it "had collapsed" because someone obviously confused the prediction and assumed it already had.

What is extremely frustrating is the irrational lengths you go to to explain away the proof that it was not CD. For you to argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell the BBC to report that WTC7 had already collapsed is grotesque. You are in such denial about the fact that people expected WTC7 to collapse that you refuse to acknowledge what the firemen said and instead concoct a scenario which does violence to logic and reason.
And the PHOTOS of the bowing columns of the twin towers, for that matter, which prove the structural integrity was being compromised WELL BEFORE the collapse. That ISN'T a "controlled demolition." Could you please respond to these points? What do you want me to tell people?

The rest of us must live in the real world where the threats are real and only compounded by the misdirection of potential activists.


Please Help Spread the Word: Tell others about Representative Press

This is an easy way you can tell others that even subscribing to Representative Press helps. Just click on this link and you can add this as a personal message to your contacts:"Yes, Even Subscribing Helps: Click on the Subscribe button at this page." (Just type this message in before you send)

Please help Spread the Word: Tell others about Representative Press
Click Here for the Representative Press Store

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Benazir Bhutto talked about bin Laden on CNN Nov 3, 2007

Benazir Bhutto talked about bin Laden in the context of him being alive on CNN Nov 3, 2007 (this is the day after the David Frost Interview):

WHITFIELD: Do you think General Musharraf knows where Osama bin Laden is?

BHUTTO: I don't think General Musharraf personally knows where Osama bin Laden is, but I do feel that people around him are many who are associated with the earlier military dictatorship of the '80s.

Please pass this link on to others:

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

MSNBC's favorite foul mouthed pundits charm cable TV audiences.

Joe "F-Bomb" Scarborough Strikes Again,

(second clip is Chris Matthews )


Scarborough has a really ugly world view too. See the videos Shame On Joe Scarborough, MSM & Obama Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
The American people don't deserve to be manipulated and lied to. And people like Joe know damn well what the motive for 9/11 was. Pointing out a motive for a crime does not mean you endorse the crime. I should not have to point that out but in an environment where people are unwilling to discuss Israel and Palestine, it needs to be pointed out. Israel supporters often resort to social blackmail of accusing those who tell the truth of "justifying" terrorism.

Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer said in a CNN interview that "the politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people."

What I see is suppression, denial and misdirection about the actual motives. And the "9/11 Truth" movement has filled this role so perfectly that powerful people like it. Chomsky is right when he points out that the 9/11 truth movement is "treated so tolerantly" and he suspects that "people in positions of power like it." He points out that "It's diverting enormous amounts if energy away from real crimes of the administration ... so much potential activist energy is directed into 9/11 discussions. From the point of view of power centers, that's great. We'll give these people exposure on C-SPAN and have their books right up front at the local bookstores. A pretty tolerant reaction. We sort of say we think it's a bad joke, but you don't get the kind of reaction you do when you really go after hard issues." p36, Chomsky, What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World see my blog post

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Cynthia McKinney Answers Questions

I received answers to my questions from Cynthia McKinney:

1. Will you will absolutely rule out the use force unless it is legal according to our Constitution and abide by the international treaties the US has signed which prohibit wars of aggression? And will you declare that all threats of force are off the table and that you will instead abide by the UN Charter which the US has signed and the supreme Law of the Land as spelled out in our Constitution?

Yes, absolutely. My voting record in Congress and my bill to impeach President Bush for his violations of these principles show where I stand. My first act in office would be to immediately withdraw US troops, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan but from over 700 bases in over 100 countries around the globe and to put an end to wars and military interventions abroad.

2. Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer said in a CNN interview that "the politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Will you go on record stating that President Bush lied to the American people about why we were attacked on 9/11? ( Our intelligence agencies say it is specific foreign policies yet Bush says it is "our freedoms" they hate)

If the motive of the attacks was merely being free, pluralistic or wealthy, why isn't Canada being attacked? Of course it has been our policies around the world, mostly covert operations, that have garnered us enemies since the end of World War II. That does not justify the mass murder of 9/11, but it puts it into proper context. It was a crime against humanity not an act of war, and should have been dealt with in an international tribunal, not by a pre-emptive invasion of two other countries with scant evidence of their involvement, if any. I was the first member of Congress to question the veracity of the Bush administration's account of the attacks on 9/11, the reasons for them, what was known in advance of them and the flawed response to them. I introduced legislation to impeach President Bush and other key figures in his administration based in part on their response to 9/11. I supported a full investigation from the start and the victim families efforts to have one, but it was seriously flawed in its assumptions, investigation, conclusions and recommendations, which I examined in a full-day briefing on Capitol Hill in my last term in Congress. I still call for a thorough and open investigation into the remaining questions surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.

3. Would you make a statement telling all of mainstream media that it is deceitful to keep referring to "both" candidates because it deceives people into thinking there are only two in the race. Please ask them to stop deceiving the public about who is running in the presidential race.

The mainstream media and those who manage the campaigns for the major parties want to limit Americans' choices to their two candidates and ignore the other parties and independent candidates who have a chance of winning enough electoral votes from the states where they fought hard to obtain the ballot. My campaign has been even less visible than most of the other parties and independent candidates, despite the fact that it is a historical first to have two women of color running for the executive office. Rosa Clemente, my vice-presidential running mate calls this a "white out" and I agree. The flawed polls taken from the beginning of public campaigns do a disservice by telling people ahead of time to vote for who allegedly can win, or for the lesser of two evils, instead of voting for their values. If American were not voting against someone but could vote for what they believe in, uninfluenced by what pollsters are telling them about candidates' chances, and if independents got the same federal funding, fair news coverage and inclusion into televised debates with the corporate-backed candidates then I am sure Green Party values would win the election. Many people who have told me they would like to vote for me but are voting for Obama instead solely to be sure McCain will not win. The media are part of the same corporate system that tries to manipulate the candidates and issues of these elections and the outcome of the vote. "Both candidates" of the Green party stand for peace, social justice, ecological wisdom and grassroots democracy, the real values of the real majority of the American people.