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:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyWe5eNBRE8
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9E3V1FUliQ
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS4zyThVnok
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gfrMWjfypk
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." ( http://www.c-span.org/about/copyright.asp )
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. ( http://www.copyrightwebsite.com/Info/FairUse/FairUse.aspx )
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." ( http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html#1 )
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." ( http://fairusenetwork.org/reference/c-fairuse1.php )
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 ( http://www.liberalviewer.com/ViacomDocs/Letter2.pdf )
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.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Also see this blog post: Fair Use and YouTube
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Concocted Scenarios Doing Violence to Logic and Reason
Mike,
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.
-Tom
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.
-Tom
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: Tinyurl.com/BhuttoBinLaden
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: Tinyurl.com/BhuttoBinLaden
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
MSNBC's favorite foul mouthed pundits charm cable TV audiences.
Joe "F-Bomb" Scarborough Strikes Again,
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
(second clip is Chris Matthews )
SEE VIDEO: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.
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.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Question for Pelosi
Question for Pelosi
see video
pass it on: Tinyurl.com/PelosiQuestion
Zerbisias writes: "Even one of the journalists who originally reported Bush's explanation, The Post's Dana Milbank, soft-peddled it in his story co-written a week ago with Dana Priest.
see videopass it on: Tinyurl.com/PelosiQuestion
| by Antonia Zerbisias |
Zerbisias writes: "Even one of the journalists who originally reported Bush's explanation, The Post's Dana Milbank, soft-peddled it in his story co-written a week ago with Dana Priest.
(Again, the emphasis is mine:) "The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."
Appeared? Like, maybe we're not sure? Like the president isn't, oh let's not put too fine a point on it, lying"
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Presidential Debate TONIGHT on C-SPAN2 9PM
Presidential Debate TONIGHT on C-SPAN2 9PM (see video)
Presidential Debate Oct23 PASS IT ON:
Tinyurl.com/PresidentialDebateOct23
Presidential Debate Oct23 PASS IT ON:
Tinyurl.com/PresidentialDebateOct23
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Presidential Debate Oct. 19th @ Columbia University + Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, McCain and Obama All Invited
SEE VIDEO, PASS IT ON:
Send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/PresidentialDebateOct19
Send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/PresidentialDebateOct19
Presidential Debate Oct. 19th @ Columbia University + Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, McCain and Obama All Invited
Monday, October 06, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
OJ Simpson GUILTY of all charges
OJ Simpson GUILTY of All Charges see video
Read book: If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer by The Goldman Family
"Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to satisfy the civil judgment in part. The Goldman family views the book as his confession, and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is O.J. Simpson's original manuscript, approved by him, with up to 14,000 words of additional key commentary."
Read book: If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer by The Goldman Family
"Florida bankruptcy court awarded the rights to the Goldmans in August 2007 to satisfy the civil judgment in part. The Goldman family views the book as his confession, and has worked hard to ensure that the public will read this book and learn the truth. This is O.J. Simpson's original manuscript, approved by him, with up to 14,000 words of additional key commentary."
Friday, October 03, 2008
5 Friends Uncensored
5 Friends? Hell, tell 10 and tell them there are 6 presidential candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to win enough electoral votes to win the election: Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, Obama and McCain <-- SEE VIDEO Send link to others:
Tinyurl.com/4yjsmf
Pledge at Third Party Ticket
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Message to some one who gave my video one star:
Message to some one who gave my video one star:
you should check out the track "Selling Free Enterprise" on the CD "Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind"
I don't see any reason someone would give one start to a video that exposes the facts. I know it is not what you were probably taught ion school but these are the facts. In fact what you were probably taught in school is the result of a massive propaganda campaign by business in over to sell a certain way of looking at economics.
And I did not say Paul endorsed Nader. it is a fact that, as I wrote, "on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul said he wants to see people vote for Nader." I never wrote that he is "supporting him" or "endorsed him." He did say what I quoted and you can find the video of him saying it. What he has now done, very recently, 12 days after saying what he said on Blitzer's show, he changed his mind about what he called his "neutral stance" in a letter saying he is supporting candidate Chuck Baldwin now.
And are you saying Ron Paul didn't deny the suffering of the Great Depression? (I guess he feels he must because he thinks his economic vision MUST work so he has to deny that it doesn't) "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." - Ron Paul
"I can only presume that the Great Depression never occurred in whatever universe Paul inhabits."
GOOGLE: "Those who forget the past are doomed to sound like Ron Paul"
Ron Paul has said he doesn't support impeaching Bush, why the hell is this man not pushing for the impeachment of a war criminal in the White House? So much for caring about the Constitution.
Also, he is so fanatical with his economic theories that he says falsehoods about basic fundamental facts. Slick politicians can simply avoid mentioning something but he denies the fact that the government CAN and DOES make money. Corporate dominated public discourse is such that you will probably never hear it but the Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal corporation and the nations largest public power company and it makes money. Google TVA and look under "About TVA" then "TVA FAQ" For over 70 years the TVA has proved him wrong. AS I pointed out, the economic system doesn't work without Gov. help anyway. why should we allow profits to only flow into private hands?
-Tom
you should check out the track "Selling Free Enterprise" on the CD "Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind"
I don't see any reason someone would give one start to a video that exposes the facts. I know it is not what you were probably taught ion school but these are the facts. In fact what you were probably taught in school is the result of a massive propaganda campaign by business in over to sell a certain way of looking at economics.
And I did not say Paul endorsed Nader. it is a fact that, as I wrote, "on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul said he wants to see people vote for Nader." I never wrote that he is "supporting him" or "endorsed him." He did say what I quoted and you can find the video of him saying it. What he has now done, very recently, 12 days after saying what he said on Blitzer's show, he changed his mind about what he called his "neutral stance" in a letter saying he is supporting candidate Chuck Baldwin now.
And are you saying Ron Paul didn't deny the suffering of the Great Depression? (I guess he feels he must because he thinks his economic vision MUST work so he has to deny that it doesn't) "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." - Ron Paul
"I can only presume that the Great Depression never occurred in whatever universe Paul inhabits."
GOOGLE: "Those who forget the past are doomed to sound like Ron Paul"
Ron Paul has said he doesn't support impeaching Bush, why the hell is this man not pushing for the impeachment of a war criminal in the White House? So much for caring about the Constitution.
Also, he is so fanatical with his economic theories that he says falsehoods about basic fundamental facts. Slick politicians can simply avoid mentioning something but he denies the fact that the government CAN and DOES make money. Corporate dominated public discourse is such that you will probably never hear it but the Tennessee Valley Authority is a federal corporation and the nations largest public power company and it makes money. Google TVA and look under "About TVA" then "TVA FAQ" For over 70 years the TVA has proved him wrong. AS I pointed out, the economic system doesn't work without Gov. help anyway. why should we allow profits to only flow into private hands?
-Tom
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout
See Video: The Truth about the Wall Street Bailout: How "Free Market Capitalism" Really Works. Nader and Chomsky Explain the Game, a Nanny State to Take Care of the Rich
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader (subscribe to the Nader channel) has a good video about the wall street bailout, I'll play you a short clip and also a clip of Chomsky talking about capitalism in the real world .
Nader is right, the bailout is yet another example of socialism for the rich which has been the game that's always been played. ALSO SEE: We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism
I recommend this CD of Noam Chomsky talking at Harvard in 96: Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism in the Real World
Chomsky explains that the free market theory sold to the public is just a fantasy. He shows how in the real world, different rules apply to the rich. the rich make sure they have the nanny state to take care of themselves. We are being played for fools. Let's get the word out.
Send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/BailoutTruth
Presidential candidate Ralph Nader (subscribe to the Nader channel) has a good video about the wall street bailout, I'll play you a short clip and also a clip of Chomsky talking about capitalism in the real world .Nader is right, the bailout is yet another example of socialism for the rich which has been the game that's always been played. ALSO SEE: We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism
I recommend this CD of Noam Chomsky talking at Harvard in 96: Free Market Fantasies, Capitalism in the Real World
Chomsky explains that the free market theory sold to the public is just a fantasy. He shows how in the real world, different rules apply to the rich. the rich make sure they have the nanny state to take care of themselves. We are being played for fools. Let's get the word out.
Send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/BailoutTruth
ALSO SEE: We have State-Capitalism NOT Capitalism
★ ★ ★ Please Subscribe →↘↓↓↓
Also please Join e-mail list →↘↓↓↓
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Swedish Twin charged with murder, One of the Highway Crossing Swedes Charged
Swedish Twin charged with murder
Sabina Eriksson, one of the twins who ran across a British highway, was charged with stabbing to death 54 year old Glenn Hollinshead. Eriksson, a 40 year old Swede living in Ireland, had been previously charged will running onto the highway and had admitted assaulting a police officer.
Why would Fox News write an article about this story with the twins and make joke out of it? Why wrote this: Swedish Twins Get Hit Playing 'Frogger' on Freeway?
That is the headline Fox News used in their report of a story of the Swedish twin sisters who ran into the road and caused accidents. How old is the reporter who wrote this?: "in what could best be described as a real-life game of ‘Frogger,’ the object of which is to cross a busy freeway without becoming road kill."
The story was interesting so I looked into it, I contacted a Swedish journalist who had written a recent article about charges against one of the twins in order to verify it is the same woman. It is.
Sabina Eriksson, one of the twins who ran across a British highway, was charged with stabbing to death 54 year old Glenn Hollinshead. Eriksson, a 40 year old Swede living in Ireland, had been previously charged will running onto the highway and had admitted assaulting a police officer.
Why would Fox News write an article about this story with the twins and make joke out of it? Why wrote this: Swedish Twins Get Hit Playing 'Frogger' on Freeway?That is the headline Fox News used in their report of a story of the Swedish twin sisters who ran into the road and caused accidents. How old is the reporter who wrote this?: "in what could best be described as a real-life game of ‘Frogger,’ the object of which is to cross a busy freeway without becoming road kill."
The story was interesting so I looked into it, I contacted a Swedish journalist who had written a recent article about charges against one of the twins in order to verify it is the same woman. It is.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader
SEE VIDEO: Ask Steve to Change the "You Choose '08" page. See Renetto's Interview with Nader
Spread the word, send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/wechoose
Renetto makes some excellent points in the video description of his latest video:
Spread the word, send this link to others: Tinyurl.com/wechoose
Renetto makes some excellent points in the video description of his latest video:
"Following the example of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation established by the Republican and Democratic parties, YouTube is presenting the two corporate nominees as the only candidates running for president on their You Choose '08 page. How can we allow private interests to limit what voters are exposed to on a supposedly user-driven site where the word "you" is right in the name?
The exclusion of candidates like Ralph Nader is tantamount to a political endorsement of the two corporate parties by YouTube. Please contact Steve Grove, director of the You Choose '08 platform, telling him politely that you'd like to see the You Choose page changed to have Ralph Nader and all other serious candidates running for president equally represented. YouTube users must make it clear that they are against the deceitful practices of placing certain candidates which do not adequately represent their interests at an advantage above those which do.
You can also pledge your support for the democratic values of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign by visiting ConstitutionPledge.com. Contribute to the restoration of your civil liberties and constitutional protections. The money drive ends on the 27th, so please act now."
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us.
Please discuss the fact that the 9/11 Commission did not do its job. This video shows exactly what I am talking about: 9/11 and Wrong Policy, what the 9/11 Commission Report did to us.
Pass this URL on to others:
http://tinyurl.com/911WrongPolicy
SEE VIDEO
In their book, "Without Precedent" top 9/11 Commission admit to the game the played. Commissioners REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And you can see this this video the testimony they excluded from the 9/11 Report.
Pass this URL on to others:
http://tinyurl.com/911WrongPolicy
SEE VIDEO
In their book, "Without Precedent" top 9/11 Commission admit to the game the played. Commissioners REJECTED mentioning the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And you can see this this video the testimony they excluded from the 9/11 Report.
Thank you James
Thank you James for all the work you do to get the truth out about the main motive for the 9/11 attacks.
You can see James at one of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project's hearings challenging Lee Hamilton, vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission about how they were avoiding talking about US support for Israel which was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. SEE VIDEO HERE: http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
You can see James at one of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project's hearings challenging Lee Hamilton, vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission about how they were avoiding talking about US support for Israel which was the main motive for the 9/11 attacks. SEE VIDEO HERE: http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Bryan,
You have repeated the usual misrepresentations, distortions and omissions which are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative. http://tinyurl.com/6syrgj
First of all, only a small percentage, aprox. 5% to 7%, was purchased. And the point is that Zionists plotted ethnic cleansing from the beginning. Israel Zangwel argued that Zionists “must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.” http://tinyurl.com/5svow9
Even before the 20th century, some Jews saw warning signs that the Jews moving into Palestine were not going to respect the non-Jewish inhabitants. Ahad Aham, a Jewish critic of Zionist supremacy, complained in 1891 that "they treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."
This Yeshiva University Commentator admits the truth:
"One of the greatest Israeli myths is that most Arabs left their homes on orders from the Arab High Command. To support this myth, the oft-quoted scandalous canard "their leaders told them to leave" was concocted. Assiduous research has shown this to be fall. ... The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves."
And even thousands of Palestinians who didn't leave still had their property and land stolen: There were thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave yet still had their homes and land stolen! In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never returned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." - See endnote 67 of The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg
http://tinyurl.com/5svow9
And
"The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State."
Plus, see how unjust the whole plan was:
http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
Bryan, spreading your lies continues to put my life and the lives of my fellow Americans at risk. See this video:
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
You have repeated the usual misrepresentations, distortions and omissions which are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative. http://tinyurl.com/6syrgj
First of all, only a small percentage, aprox. 5% to 7%, was purchased. And the point is that Zionists plotted ethnic cleansing from the beginning. Israel Zangwel argued that Zionists “must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.” http://tinyurl.com/5svow9
Even before the 20th century, some Jews saw warning signs that the Jews moving into Palestine were not going to respect the non-Jewish inhabitants. Ahad Aham, a Jewish critic of Zionist supremacy, complained in 1891 that "they treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."
This Yeshiva University Commentator admits the truth:
"One of the greatest Israeli myths is that most Arabs left their homes on orders from the Arab High Command. To support this myth, the oft-quoted scandalous canard "their leaders told them to leave" was concocted. Assiduous research has shown this to be fall. ... The myth of the radio broadcast was important to us because, if followed to its logical conclusion, it allowed all the blame to be placed on the refugees themselves."
And even thousands of Palestinians who didn't leave still had their property and land stolen: There were thousands of non-Jews who didn't leave yet still had their homes and land stolen! In the first 8 years, the Jewish State took away a staggering 50% of all the land owned by Palestinians remaining in Israel. The shocking fact is some 39,000 Palestinians who never left were robbed anyway! "Israel seized property and land from some 39,000 Palestinians who escaped expulsion and remained in Israel. It was never returned, and these individuals never received compensation although they are citizens of Israel." - See endnote 67 of The Palestinians: In Search of a Just Peace by Cheryl A. Rubenberg
http://tinyurl.com/5svow9
And
"The misleading story often told is that "Jews declared Israel and then they were attacked." The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had seized land beyond the proposed Jewish State."
Plus, see how unjust the whole plan was:
http://www.representativepress.org/IsraelHistory.html
Bryan, spreading your lies continues to put my life and the lives of my fellow Americans at risk. See this video:
http://tinyurl.com/5nlhs6
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
US Media FAILS to Inform the Public about Looming ILLEGAL Attack which Risks Starting WORLD WAR THREE.
US Media FAILS to Inform the Public about Looming ILLEGAL Attack which Risks Starting WORLD WAR THREE.
See Video:
Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons
"The largest newspaper in the Netherlands, De Telegraaf, reported this past weekend that its nation's intelligence agency has been working closely with the CIA to help prepare the U.S. in a planned air attack on Iran.
See Video:
Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear WeaponsDutch withdraw spy from Iran because of 'impending US attack'
"The Dutch intelligence service has pulled an agent out of an "ultra-secret operation" spying on Iran's military industry because spymasters in Netherlands believe a United States air attack was imminent," Dutch withdraw spy from Iran because of impending US attack, Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom - Aug 31, 2008"The largest newspaper in the Netherlands, De Telegraaf, reported this past weekend that its nation's intelligence agency has been working closely with the CIA to help prepare the U.S. in a planned air attack on Iran.
The front-page story in De Telegraaf, published Friday and headlined "Attack on Iran Imminent," claimed that U.S. military strikes on Iran's nuclear and weapons facilities would happen in weeks.
The paper indicated Holland's military intelligence service (Algemene Inlichtingen-en Veiligheidsdienst, or AIVD), has pulled back from its operations inside Iran helping the U.S. to identify targets." - Dutch Paper: U.S. Will Attack Iran in Weeks, NewsMax.com, FL - Sep 1, 2008
"The newspaper quoted a source as saying that the agent was recalled "because the U.S. was thought to be making a decision within weeks to attack Iran with unmanned aircraft."" - Dutch recall spy from Iran fearing U.S. attack, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, NY - Sep 1, 2008
"One of Iran's top military commanders warns any attack against Iran would start a new world war. Iranian state media reported the comments by Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri Saturday. General Jazayeri says unrestrained greed of the United States and Zionism are pushing the world to "the edge of a precipice." He warned, in the case of an attack, "fake and artificial regimes" would be the first to be eliminated. Iran and the United States have been at odds over Iran's nuclear program. Iran says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes but the U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of working to develop a nuclear weapon. " - Iran Top Military Commander Warns Attack Would Spark World War, Voice of America - Aug 30, 2008
US media is not making this clear:
"Tel Aviv has threatened to launch air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities under the pretext that Tehran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has plans to develop nuclear weapons.
This is while the UN nuclear watchdog has confirmed that Iran enriches uranium-235 to a level of 3.7 percent - a rate consistent with the construction of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear arms production requires an enrichment level of above 90 percent." - US to Attack Iran 'within weeks' According to Dutch Newspaper, by Jeremy R. Hammond, Tuesday, September 2, 2008
US media repeatedly ignores the distinction between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear weapon when discussing Iran and often leaves a misimpression in the minds of American viewers.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Commentary from the comment sections of RepresentativePress's videos
accersitusmaximus writes, "Regarding the truth movement. It's actually mostly about questions. Questions like, why Osama Bin Laden is NOT wanted by the FBI. Questions like why the Bush administration opposed the investigation on 9/11 (441 days). Then you have historical records such as Tonkin lie and the declassified plans of Operation Northwoods. Not to mention "Project for the New American Century" and the oil factor. It's not OK to ask questions? How do you proceed to get some answers?"
My reply: "accersitusmaximus, there are such things as loaded questions. Misleading people is not OK. And bin Laden IS wanted by the FBI, so your "honest" question contained a falsehood."
posted to the video "9/11 Truth Movement" Suppresses Bush Contradiction with Intelligence Agencies: Bush Lies
My reply: "accersitusmaximus, there are such things as loaded questions. Misleading people is not OK. And bin Laden IS wanted by the FBI, so your "honest" question contained a falsehood."
posted to the video "9/11 Truth Movement" Suppresses Bush Contradiction with Intelligence Agencies: Bush Lies
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Digg Pelosi Question Now: Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Aren't you violating your oath when you refuse to impeach a war cr
SEE VIDEO: Digg Pelosi Question Now: Who gave you the right to take impeachment off the table? Aren't you violating your oath when you refuse to impeach a war criminal?
Digg the question here Digg is interviewing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be in the spotlight with your questions presented by Digg CEO Jay Adelson on Wednesday 8/27 at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Digg John Perry's question please.
After you do that, you could Digg this to help promote this video:
http://digg.com/politics/hey_nancy_let_s_talk_impeachment?OTC-em-st1
"A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime' against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
See John Perry's video here & see my video here
Digg Pelosi Question, Promote Impeachment
Digg the question here Digg is interviewing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will be in the spotlight with your questions presented by Digg CEO Jay Adelson on Wednesday 8/27 at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Digg John Perry's question please.
After you do that, you could Digg this to help promote this video:
http://digg.com/politics/hey_nancy_let_s_talk_impeachment?OTC-em-st1
"A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime' against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
See John Perry's video here & see my video here
Digg Pelosi Question, Promote Impeachment
Friday, August 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
NIST FAQ
NIST FAQ
NIST FAQ 8/30/06
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)
"NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."
NIST FAQ 8/30/06
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)
"NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower."
NIST FAQ 12/14/07
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Supplement (December 14, 2007)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Supplement (December 14, 2007)
Also see Tinyurl.com/WTC7FAQ
Monday, August 11, 2008
On 9/11, WTC1 Hit WTC7, Seriously Damaging the South Side
On 9/11, WTC1 Hit WTC7, Seriously Damaging the South Side
See Video:
"The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. - FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
See Video:
"The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. - FDNY Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
Friday, August 08, 2008
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
There was an error processing your comment. Please try again.
I keep getting "There was an error processing your comment. Please try again." So I'll put the reply I have been trying for several times to post to the channel here:(this is to a YouTuber who calls himself "Israelfnp")
You dishonestly wrote, "What's wrong Reppress, you have time to answer everyone but me?" Israelfnp, must you continuously be dishonest? Anyone can search through the comments and see that I have responded to you and your falsehoods more than once. And anyone can see that I don't answer "everyone," the reason is simply time. Fact is, I have answered you more than once and I have not answered "everyone else." I may get to questions from you or others, it depends on time and resources. How about a donation to help me with my efforts if you are so eager to hear my opinion? I have already debunked a few of your falsehoods on the channel page and pointed you to my blog which debunks many more.
You dishonestly wrote, "What's wrong Reppress, you have time to answer everyone but me?" Israelfnp, must you continuously be dishonest? Anyone can search through the comments and see that I have responded to you and your falsehoods more than once. And anyone can see that I don't answer "everyone," the reason is simply time. Fact is, I have answered you more than once and I have not answered "everyone else." I may get to questions from you or others, it depends on time and resources. How about a donation to help me with my efforts if you are so eager to hear my opinion? I have already debunked a few of your falsehoods on the channel page and pointed you to my blog which debunks many more.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The yellow cake was not discovered by US troops in 2003, the UN's IAEA already had it safeguarded
The yellow cake was not discovered by US troops in 2003, the UN's IAEA already had it safeguarded
Senior Defense Official: As you know, the United States government has invited the IAEA to conduct a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards inspection at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility at Tuwaitha, more commonly known as Location C. This inspection will be under the protection and auspices of coalition forces. The safeguard inspection will begin on or about June 7th. And I'm sure the next person will speak to the actual logistics, but for planning purposes, we and the IAEA expect that this process will likely take a couple weeks. The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium. Typically, the IAEA would conduct an NPT safeguards inspection at this location annually. The last inspection was conducted in December of 2002. Given the changed circumstances, the United States has determined it would be helpful to have the IAEA reinventory this location. "
Also see: "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Senior Defense Official: As you know, the United States government has invited the IAEA to conduct a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards inspection at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility at Tuwaitha, more commonly known as Location C. This inspection will be under the protection and auspices of coalition forces. The safeguard inspection will begin on or about June 7th. And I'm sure the next person will speak to the actual logistics, but for planning purposes, we and the IAEA expect that this process will likely take a couple weeks. The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium. Typically, the IAEA would conduct an NPT safeguards inspection at this location annually. The last inspection was conducted in December of 2002. Given the changed circumstances, the United States has determined it would be helpful to have the IAEA reinventory this location. "
Also see: "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
SEE VIDEO and pass it on. Show your solidarity with Representative Press:
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
I have a question for youtube partners, is there anyone not listed as a partner besides me? representativepress is not listed as a current content partner in Youtube's alphebetical listing of partners? ... (see video for more)
Is this happening to any other YouTube partner? Solidarity!
I have a question for youtube partners, is there anyone not listed as a partner besides me? representativepress is not listed as a current content partner in Youtube's alphebetical listing of partners? ... (see video for more)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Fair Use and YouTube
Fair Use and YouTube
YouTube has a Copyright Tips page where they talk about "using some copyrighted content in your videos."
"While videos that are direct copies of someone else's content are clear copyright violations, there are certain very limited circumstances in which the use of very short clips of a copyrighted video or song may be legal even without permission. This is known as the "fair use" principle of copyright law.
To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or song qualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in the U.S. copyright statute."
On YouTube's Copyright Tips page, they provide Fair Use Links on the Web:
See the video: In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA Pt. 2
Zizzle Zoundz! This is the toy at the heart of the biggest YouTube drama of all time!
also see In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA
and Lady, you've just been Zizzled! "Renetto's Toy" gets DMCA'd! See Video
See videos here:
YouTube has a Copyright Tips page where they talk about "using some copyrighted content in your videos."
"While videos that are direct copies of someone else's content are clear copyright violations, there are certain very limited circumstances in which the use of very short clips of a copyrighted video or song may be legal even without permission. This is known as the "fair use" principle of copyright law.
To determine whether a particular use of a short clip of a copyrighted video or song qualifies as a "fair use," you need to analyze and weigh four factors that are outlined in the U.S. copyright statute."
On YouTube's Copyright Tips page, they provide Fair Use Links on the Web:
- http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
- http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/
- http://www.copyrightwebsite.com/Info/Law/FairUse.aspx
- http://chillingeffects.org/fairuse/
See the video: In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA Pt. 2
Zizzle Zoundz! This is the toy at the heart of the biggest YouTube drama of all time!
also see In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCAand Lady, you've just been Zizzled! "Renetto's Toy" gets DMCA'd! See Video
See videos here:
- Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace
- 550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it?
- Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
- Apologize to the World Mr. Wallace and Return that Emmy
- Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings!
- Tell Congress Bush and Israel Have No Legal Justification to Attack Iran
- War Crime Sold By Neocon Deception, IMPEACH NOW!
Monday, July 14, 2008
A little entertainment, a little promotion
A little entertainment, a little promotion:
In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA (SEE VIDEO)
In this multi-part video series, we will examine a pillar of free speech rights, the right of "Fair Use." It's going to be a hell of a ride, make sure you are well rested and ready, and I mean good and ready for this. This is going to be quite possibly the most intense exploration of one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, YouTube dramas off all time. Get yourself well rested for it. Go to bed for a few hours and get some really good sleep. See you back here in a few hours for part 2 of "In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA"
Zizzle Zoundz! The toy in this YouTube drama and DMCA controversy!
In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA (SEE VIDEO)
In this multi-part video series, we will examine a pillar of free speech rights, the right of "Fair Use." It's going to be a hell of a ride, make sure you are well rested and ready, and I mean good and ready for this. This is going to be quite possibly the most intense exploration of one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, YouTube dramas off all time. Get yourself well rested for it. Go to bed for a few hours and get some really good sleep. See you back here in a few hours for part 2 of "In Defense of Greg Solomon, Victim of a Frivolous DMCA"
Zizzle Zoundz! The toy in this YouTube drama and DMCA controversy!
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace
Will Congress listen? IMPEACH NOW! Bush is a Threat to Peace, PROOF Bush Lied about excuse for Iraq War: 'Saddam didn't let UN weapons inspectors in' is a LIE! See Video
see video
Pass it on: http://Tinyurl.com/LiarsCriminals
"United Nations weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq today to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction. The findings of the inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, could determine whether or not Iraq will face the wrath of the US military in the coming months. The arrival of about 30 inspectors who flew into Baghdad from Cyprus marked the first visit by UN arms monitors to Iraq for four years." - November 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors arrive in Iraq
"A team of 17 United Nations weapons inspectors has arrived in Iraq, supported by a sweeping mandate to search sites that were off limits during seven years of inspections in the 1990s." - November 25, 2002 UN inspectors arrive in Iraq
see video
Pass it on: http://Tinyurl.com/LiarsCriminals
"United Nations weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq today to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction. The findings of the inspectors, led by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed El Baradei, could determine whether or not Iraq will face the wrath of the US military in the coming months. The arrival of about 30 inspectors who flew into Baghdad from Cyprus marked the first visit by UN arms monitors to Iraq for four years." - November 18, 2002 UN weapons inspectors arrive in Iraq
"A team of 17 United Nations weapons inspectors has arrived in Iraq, supported by a sweeping mandate to search sites that were off limits during seven years of inspections in the 1990s." - November 25, 2002 UN inspectors arrive in Iraq
550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it?
550 Metric Tons of Yellowcake, what about it? (see video)
see video
"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." - AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq By BRIAN MURPHY Associated Press Writer
see video
"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
"U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." - AP Exclusive: US removes uranium from Iraq By BRIAN MURPHY Associated Press Writer
Friday, July 04, 2008
WTC7 & the BBC
Mike,
You have done good work against Israeli crimes but your 9/11 arguments hurt the cause. What you are saying about the BBC and WTC7 makes no sense AT ALL. The reason it was reported that the building collapsed is because the fact that it was expected to collapse had been communicated to many people because firemen were telling people that is exactly what they expected. Someone miscommunicated the "going to collapse" with "had collapsed." No mystery.
Foreknowledge indicates the structural integrity was failing well before the building collapsed. You can read the firemen's statements and see a firemen saying it was going to collapse, so what is the mystery?
You try so hard to dismiss the logical prediction of the collapse that you go to extremely illogical lengths. To argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell media outlets that they should report that WTC7 had collapsed is so illogical - have you ever tried to think this through? Never in this reality would secret agents ever tell a media outlet that they should report "the building has collapsed." It is mind-numbingly illogical to even think that makes sense! You are suffering cognizant dissidence because you are confronted with the fact that firemen could see the condition of the building and were telling the media that the building was going to collapse and apparently you can't accept what that means. You have emotionally invested in a theory so you concoct an off the wall scenario to explain the fact that it was expected by people that it was going to collapse. You have latched onto something that could only exist in a poorly written comic book with no internal logic, NO ONE EVER would tell a media outlet "report that the building had collapsed." If you don't understand something about what I have written, please tell me what it is. Otherwise can we declare out independence from illogical theories which hurt the cause? Please, this needs to be resolved.
-Tom
You have done good work against Israeli crimes but your 9/11 arguments hurt the cause. What you are saying about the BBC and WTC7 makes no sense AT ALL. The reason it was reported that the building collapsed is because the fact that it was expected to collapse had been communicated to many people because firemen were telling people that is exactly what they expected. Someone miscommunicated the "going to collapse" with "had collapsed." No mystery.
Foreknowledge indicates the structural integrity was failing well before the building collapsed. You can read the firemen's statements and see a firemen saying it was going to collapse, so what is the mystery?
You try so hard to dismiss the logical prediction of the collapse that you go to extremely illogical lengths. To argue that secret agents would think it necessary to tell media outlets that they should report that WTC7 had collapsed is so illogical - have you ever tried to think this through? Never in this reality would secret agents ever tell a media outlet that they should report "the building has collapsed." It is mind-numbingly illogical to even think that makes sense! You are suffering cognizant dissidence because you are confronted with the fact that firemen could see the condition of the building and were telling the media that the building was going to collapse and apparently you can't accept what that means. You have emotionally invested in a theory so you concoct an off the wall scenario to explain the fact that it was expected by people that it was going to collapse. You have latched onto something that could only exist in a poorly written comic book with no internal logic, NO ONE EVER would tell a media outlet "report that the building had collapsed." If you don't understand something about what I have written, please tell me what it is. Otherwise can we declare out independence from illogical theories which hurt the cause? Please, this needs to be resolved.
-Tom
Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
Sign this Weekend, Stand for the Constitution, Impeach Bush
See Video:
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/
We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.
Also you can Write a letter to Congress A message from Ramsey Clark:
If we let Bush be the "decider," he'll decide on WAR!
Excerpts come from a June 11, 2008 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show
OLBERMANN: Time now to call in George Washington University law professor and constitutional law expert: Jonathan Turley.
Good evening, Jon.
JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.
TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.
But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.
OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?
TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.
What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.
And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.
But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean that at least one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.
OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.
Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.
TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.
The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.
And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.
OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?
TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.
One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.
What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.
OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
See Video:
http://impeachment.kucinich.us/petition/
We Want Bush Impeached, We Support the Kucinich Resolution.
Also you can Write a letter to Congress A message from Ramsey Clark:
If we let Bush be the "decider," he'll decide on WAR!
Excerpts come from a June 11, 2008 Countdown with Keith Olbermann show
OLBERMANN: Time now to call in George Washington University law professor and constitutional law expert: Jonathan Turley.
Good evening, Jon.
JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERT: Hi, Keith.
OLBERMANN: I‘ve often argued here that even if you think the words aren‘t going to lead to any action, say the words anyway, simply to get them on the record for history, and simply because nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without somebody first saying—this is bad. Assess the importance of what Dennis Kucinich did last night.
TURLEY: You know, it is very important. The fact is that this is not supposed to happen the way it happened in the last seven years. The framers, I think, would have been astonished by the absolute passivity if not collusion of the Democrats in protecting President Bush from impeachment. I mean, they created a system that was essentially idiot-proof and God knows we put that to a test in the past years.
But, I don‘t think they ever anticipated that so many members of the opposition would stand quietly in the face of clear presidential crimes. It has many of us who study the Constitution quite worried that we have a real crisis here. This is not something that really was supposed to happen. It was not something that one would predict.
OLBERMANN: This is the list that he presented last night—a remarkably lengthy and thorough record of the high crimes and misdemeanors. It‘s just a cascade really. Did Kucinich successfully make his case?
TURLEY: I think he‘s made his case. I mean, frankly, some of these claims are not really impeachable offenses. Like for example, it‘s not impeachable to be negligent. If that was the case, we‘d lose half that people that sat in the Oval Office. But there are plenty of crimes there. This is a target-rich environment.
What‘s really disturbing for many of us is that it takes a real effort for Democrats to walk from the floor to their offices and not trip over crimes. I mean, they are all over the record, from destruction of evidence, to illegal surveillance, to unlawful torture programs. They‘re all over the place.
And what‘s amazing is that the president is hiding in plain view. He hasn‘t really denied the elements of these offenses. So, all that is lacking is political will.
But that doesn‘t mean that suddenly the Democrats are going to get principled and say—my God, we took an oath, and we need to fulfill it regardless of the outcome. But it does mean that at least one member, and they‘re actually more than one, are really calling their colleagues to the floor and saying—it‘s time to pony up. It‘s time to answer the public of whether you stand for the Constitution and against its abridgement.
OLBERMANN: Have we ever seen a situation like this before, Jon? Obviously, 1868 and Andrew Johnson, there were constitutional issues but that was a political box that he was squeezed into, various laws come by that said he couldn‘t dismiss anybody who worked basically for the government. He violated those laws, they impeached him. He was kind of set up even though he‘s probably was not a very good president.
Clearly, the Clinton impeachment, whatever legalities were involved in that, that was to some degree a setup, too. This is different in that it‘s a political issue again, but it‘s not the politics of impeaching somebody, it‘s the politics of not impeaching somebody who seems to clearly constitutionally deserve it.
TURLEY: Yes. That is the most remarkable if not bizarre aspect of all of this—that President Bush‘s allies in the last seven years have been the Democratic leadership and the Democratic members that have repeatedly stepped in to protect him, not just from impeachment, but serious investigation. And it‘s part of a very cynical political strategy. It has succeeded.
The Democrats know that they can retain the Congress if they just let this guy, you know, sort of ripen on the vine. And that they are afraid that there could be a backlash if they try to impeach. But of course, that‘s literally all politics and no principle. They took an oath in the House of Representatives. And the most important thing they have to do as House members is to stand firm in the face of presidential crimes.
And I think history will be very, very severe, not just for Speaker Pelosi, but all of the Democrats, of how they could let this come to pass where they stood silent and did nothing in the face of such compelling criminal record.
OLBERMANN: Well, clearly they are going to let it come to pass in this way. So, that begs the question—is there anything to do after January 20th of next year? Is there any mechanism or precedent for dealing with the presidency that has already ended?
TURLEY: Well, there is a lot that can be done. I mean, first of all, the new administration can certainly reverse some of the more outrageous acts of this administration with regard to torture, unlawful surveillance, the misuse of the FISA accord, and misuse of the states secrets privilege. All those things can be done.
One thing that they may have to consider which would be interesting since they—it could be the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, but they could consider bringing back the special counsel law that they got rid of after the Clinton administration.
What we‘ve seen with Attorney General Mukasey and his predecessors is that the system just hasn‘t worked, that you don‘t have attorney—when the attorney general doesn‘t have the principle and independents to allow investigations, to submit evidence to grand juries, the system literally shuts down. And we may have to re-examine whether we need a special counsel that could be called upon on such occasions.
OLBERMANN: Constitutional law professor, Jonathan Turley—as always, great thanks for your time tonight, sir.
TURLEY: Thank you, Keith.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts
Ex-Agent Says CIA Ignored Iran Facts
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all."
Are we a banana republic or are we a nation of laws? What the hell is going on in this country? Demand that our representatives impeach President Bush and Vice-president Cheney immediately.
"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all."
Are we a banana republic or are we a nation of laws? What the hell is going on in this country? Demand that our representatives impeach President Bush and Vice-president Cheney immediately.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Please make a correction regarding Iran
Sent: 6/27/08 12:38 PM (no reply yet)
Dear Ms. Alexander:
You wrote, "the Iranian government, which has threatened to destroy Israel." That is false, Iran has made no such threat. Please make a correction. In this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, stated: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."
Please look at these three videos and the links in the video descriptions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd5uq1AGxPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Dear Ms. Alexander:
You wrote, "the Iranian government, which has threatened to destroy Israel." That is false, Iran has made no such threat. Please make a correction. In this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Iran's U.N. Press Officer, stated: "It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state."
Please look at these three videos and the links in the video descriptions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd5uq1AGxPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
