See all News Shorts here.
RE-Broadcast of The Meeting of Informed Minds
ARE YOU READY TO GET INFORMED?
The Meeting of Informed Minds
September Show 2026
Here is the RE-Broadcast of the show
JOIN THE UNKNOWN PATRIOT REBEL AND THE BRUTAL TRUTH FOR AN INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TOPICS THAT MATTER, THAT CHANGE OUR DAILY LIVES AND NOT ALWAYS FOR THE BETTER.
LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, GET NOTIFICATIONS AND SHARE:
The corrected times for the live shows are 8:pm ct 9:pm et
https://rumble.com/v7f0sxy-live-7pm-ct-8pm-et-tonight-for-the-meeting-of-the-informed-minds.html
Be sure to tune in on Thursday October 1st, 2026 when we have special guest Samira Hardcastle.
The Brave Tennessee Teacher who Walked away from her 8 Year Teaching Career in Protest to DEI Preferential Treatment and Unfair Employment Policies!
LIVE @ 8PM CT / 9PM ET TONIGHT FOR THE MEETING OF THE INFORMED MINDS
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth SEPTEMBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!
OCTOBER 2026
🍂🌨️❄️🍁🌨️🍂❄️
How an Internet Blackout Shaped the Record of Iran’s Deadliest Protest Days
The Manoto series and the limits of platform standards - Official counts, higher estimates, and what verified clips confirm
Citizen videos recorded during Iran’s late 2025 and early 2026 protests show security forces firing on crowds, wounded people in the streets, and families searching rows of body bags.
Much of that material reached the outside world only after an internet blackout. Outlets that later assembled the clips have warned that portions are too graphic for standard broadcast standards, which is why some YouTube uploads blur faces, cut sequences, or carry strong content warnings.
The unrest began on December 28, 2025, when bazaar merchants closed shops after a sharp drop in the value of the rial. Demonstrations spread from economic complaints about prices, corruption, and living standards into broader calls against the Islamic Republic. By early January, crowds in Tehran, Isfahan, Mashhad, and smaller cities were chanting against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. On January 8, exiled figure Reza Pahlavi called for evening protests. Large gatherings formed that night and the next.
Iranian authorities cut internet service and blocked many international calls around those peak days. Human rights groups say the shutdown limited real time reporting and later made it harder for families and investigators to confirm who had been killed. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented security forces using rifles and shotguns, including metal pellets, often aimed at heads and torsos. Verified clips include automatic fire from the roof of Police Station 126 in Tehranpars and shootings in multiple provinces. One named case is Alireza Rahimi, 26, shot in the back of the head in Tehranpars on January 8 and later dead in hospital.
The deadliest period, according to Amnesty, was January 8 and 9. Iranian officials later gave their own count. On January 21, 2026, the Supreme Council of National Security said 3,117 people were killed. The president’s office later released a preliminary list of 2,985 names drawn from forensic and civil registry records, and noted that some cases remained unidentified. In a September 2026 Fox News interview, President Masoud Pezeshkian placed the toll near 3,000 and said about 500 were security or police personnel. He described the events as an attempted coup and said the government apologized for mismanagement. He also claimed some protesters were armed.
Independent estimates are higher and remain incomplete. UN Special Rapporteur Mai Sato said in mid January that at least 5,000 had been killed and that medical sources she received suggested the figure might reach 20,000. Human Rights Watch counted at least 400 bodies visible in videos from the Kahrizak forensic center south of Tehran, where families walked among bags looking for relatives. Amnesty identified at least 205 distinct body bags in five videos from one morgue after removing likely duplicates. Both organizations stress that piles of bodies, restricted access, and fear of reprisals against families mean published counts understate the total. Opposition claims of 30,000 or more, and a figure near 65,000 cited by President Donald Trump, have not been matched by the same level of verified video and medical documentation.
In September 2026 the London based Persian channel Manoto released the four part series This Is Our Story. The producers say they reviewed more than 10,000 recordings sent from inside Iran. The episodes run more than seven hours and move from the first shop closures, through the January 8 mobilization, the searches at hospitals and morgues, and the later funerals and 40 day memorials.
There is no external narrator. Viewers hear the people filming, gunfire, warnings, and relatives speaking at graves. English subtitles were added.
The series is on Manoto’s YouTube channel. A content note on related coverage states that the material includes shootings, injured people, bodies in forensic facilities, and grieving families, and that viewer discretion is advised. News organizations that verified overlapping clips, including The New York Times visual team, have said they blurred portions because of the graphic content.
A UN Human Rights Council fact finding mission reported in September 2026 that the response to the 2025 2026 protests included widespread killings, mass arrests, torture, executions, and prolonged internet shutdowns, and that many of the acts amount to crimes against humanity. The mission drew on witness interviews, satellite imagery, and video. Iranian officials continue to reject that framing and point to their own casualty list and to attacks on security forces.
Later clips from 2026, including university gatherings, show smaller protests continuing under tighter controls.
The January archive remains the main visual record of the largest single loss of life.
Because the blackout interrupted uploads, many of the clearest sequences appeared weeks or months afterward, which is why compilations released in the fall of 2026 still draw the description that the footage is almost too horrific for open platforms.
SOURCES
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/01/what-happened-at-the-protests-in-iran/
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-910338
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaGpDHWkTPrs
#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #IranMassacre2026 #ThisIsOurStory #IranProtests
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!
The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law
Christa Pike is still alive
Gov. Bill Lee asked to commute her sentence
As of the latest reports on October 2, 2026, Christa Pike is still alive.
She is in critical condition and receiving life-saving medical care after Tennessee’s failed execution attempt on the evening of September 30. Her lawyers have said she remains alive but that her prognosis is unclear; they have not released further medical details.
Reports place her at a Nashville hospital (identified in some coverage as Vanderbilt University Medical Center).
Key updates:
On September 30, after legal delays, the state administered two doses of pentobarbital at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Media witnesses reported she remained conscious or semi-conscious at points, complained about arm pain, and was later heard snoring with a heartbeat still present. The procedure was halted; she was taken by ambulance for medical care. The Tennessee Department of Correction said it followed its approved protocol and that the protocol does not allow further steps beyond what was done.
Her attorneys described prolonged difficulty establishing IV access (one lawyer said at least seven needles were used in her left arm, including a bent one) and called the experience torturous. They have asked Gov. Bill Lee to commute her sentence, arguing she has already endured extreme punishment.
Lee ordered a comprehensive third-party review of what happened and paused the state’s remaining scheduled execution for the year (Gary Wayne Sutton, previously set for December 3). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office said the review is appropriate.
Death-penalty researchers have described the case as unprecedented in the modern era because the lethal drug entered her system and she survived. Earlier botched attempts (such as Romell Broom in Ohio) generally failed before the drugs were fully administered.
Legal questions about any future execution attempt remain open; historical precedent (including Willie Francis) has allowed a second attempt after a failed execution, but those cases differed in important ways.
A medical expert retained by her team has suggested she may not have reached a blood level of pentobarbital sufficient to stop breathing and heart function, and has raised the possibility of brain injury. That is not a confirmed diagnosis.
Pike, 50, was sentenced to death for the 1995 torture and murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer in Knoxville. She would have been the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years. No later reports indicate she has died.
*
Checking the latest reports on her condition.
As of the latest reports from October 2, 2026, Christa Pike is still alive.
Her lawyers said in a court filing that she was unconscious, intubated, and on a ventilator in a Nashville hospital, and remained critically ill.
Hospital staff were working to keep her alive and clear pentobarbital from her system. Both of her arms were described as swollen, burned, and blistered when she arrived. Her attorneys allege the IV lines were misplaced or veins blew, so some of the drug entered tissue rather than the bloodstream.
There are no reports that she has died. Wikipedia’s page, updated early October 3, still lists her as alive after the failed injections, citing the October 2 ventilator update.
#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #ChristaPike #BotchedExecution #TennesseeDeathPenalty
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!
The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law
Where Does Government Authority End?
America’s biggest political battles are increasingly becoming battles over who has the authority to make the rules.
Immigration, federal power, universities, congressional oversight, military reform and artificial intelligence are exposing deeper conflicts over government authority
The United States is experiencing a period of unusually intense conflict between major institutions of government and society.
Immigration enforcement, presidential authority, federal investigations, higher education, congressional oversight, military restructuring and artificial intelligence may appear to be separate subjects, but they share a common question: how far can government authority extend before it conflicts with constitutional protections, institutional independence or individual rights?
Immigration enforcement is one of the clearest examples. The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration, temporarily, to resume removing certain noncitizens to countries other than their countries of citizenship while the Court considers the legality of the policy. The decision does not represent a final ruling on the underlying dispute. The Court is scheduled to hear arguments later this year.
The legal issue is more complicated than simply determining whether someone entered the United States legally. The government has broad authority to enforce immigration laws and remove people who lack lawful status. At the same time, federal law and international obligations recognize protections for individuals who face persecution or torture if they are sent to a particular country. The dispute concerns what procedures must be provided before a person can be removed to a third country when such concerns are raised.
That distinction is important because immigration enforcement involves two separate principles. One is the government’s authority to control its borders and enforce immigration laws.
The other is the legal requirement that government agencies follow established procedures when individual rights and safety are at stake. Strong immigration enforcement and due process are not automatically contradictory concepts. The legal system is responsible for determining how those principles operate together.
Public support for stricter immigration enforcement has also become a major political force. Immigration was one of the central issues of the 2024 presidential election, and Donald Trump received more than 77 million votes nationwide. However, those votes cannot accurately be described as 77 million individual votes specifically for mass deportation. Voters make decisions based on numerous issues, and election results do not establish the motivation of each individual voter.
Another major institutional conflict concerns federal investigations and congressional oversight. Questions surrounding former special counsel Jack Smith have focused partly on the government’s acquisition of telephone records connected to members of Congress. Congressional investigators have argued that the use of subpoenas and nondisclosure orders raised serious questions about congressional privilege and whether lawmakers were properly protected from investigative actions involving their official activities.
The controversy illustrates an important constitutional tension. Federal prosecutors require substantial investigative authority to conduct criminal investigations.
Congress, however, has its own constitutional responsibilities and privileges. When executive branch investigators seek information involving members of Congress, questions can arise over separation of powers, confidentiality, judicial supervision and the legitimate scope of investigative authority.
These disputes should not be reduced to claims that one branch of government is automatically right and another is automatically wrong. The underlying issue is whether established legal procedures were followed and whether the government had legitimate authority for the actions it took. Those questions are ultimately matters for courts, congressional investigations and documented evidence.
Higher education represents another front in the broader battle over institutional independence. Harvard University and the federal government have been involved in an extensive dispute involving federal research funding, campus antisemitism, admissions practices and university governance.
The federal government has argued that universities receiving federal support must comply with federal law and meet certain standards concerning discrimination, civil rights and campus safety. Harvard has argued that the government cannot use federal funding as leverage to impose political demands that interfere with academic freedom and institutional independence.
A federal court ruled that the government’s cancellation of approximately $2.2 billion in Harvard research funding was unlawful. The ruling addressed the government’s actions rather than declaring that every policy or decision made by Harvard was proper.
Harvard, like other universities, remains subject to legitimate scrutiny concerning admissions, academic standards, discrimination, campus safety and the use of public funds.
Harvard has also faced serious controversies independent of the Trump administration. Former Harvard president Claudine Gay resigned in January 2024 following controversy involving her congressional testimony concerning antisemitism and allegations of plagiarism. Those events demonstrated that elite universities are not immune from legitimate public scrutiny. At the same time, criticism of a university does not automatically give the federal government unlimited authority over the institution.
The larger dispute over higher education reflects a broader national argument about what universities are supposed to provide. Colleges are expected to educate students, conduct research and prepare graduates for professional and civic life. Critics increasingly argue that some institutions have become too politically active or ideologically divided. Universities respond that academic freedom requires the ability to explore controversial subjects and challenge prevailing political views.
The challenge is finding the boundary between legitimate academic debate and institutional policies that violate legal requirements. Political disagreement alone does not establish discrimination or indoctrination. Likewise, the existence of academic freedom does not exempt universities from complying with federal law.
Military restructuring represents another significant institutional change. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has moved to reduce the number of senior general and admiral positions by approximately 20 percent. The Pentagon has described the effort as an attempt to streamline senior leadership and reduce unnecessary layers of command.
The change is not simply a matter of removing 20 percent of existing generals and admirals. Some positions are being eliminated while others are being reduced in rank. The stated objective is to create a more efficient command structure while reducing unnecessary bureaucracy at the highest levels of the military.
The Pentagon is simultaneously placing greater emphasis on artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, drones and other emerging technologies. Modern warfare increasingly involves systems that can process enormous amounts of information and operate at speeds that exceed traditional human decision making. The military therefore faces pressure to modernize its command structure while preparing for technologies that are changing the nature of warfare.
Reducing bureaucracy can improve efficiency, but organizational changes also carry risks. Military leadership structures exist for specific operational reasons, and removing positions can have consequences for command responsibility, expertise and readiness. The effectiveness of the restructuring will ultimately depend on whether the changes improve military capability rather than simply reducing the number of senior officers.
Artificial intelligence adds another dimension to the national debate. AI is no longer a theoretical technology waiting for future development. It is already being used in business, education, government, cybersecurity, research, communications and military applications.
The central question is therefore not whether artificial intelligence can be stopped entirely. That is increasingly unrealistic. The more practical questions involve how AI should be developed and controlled, what information systems should be permitted to access, how personal information should be protected and who is responsible when an automated system causes harm.
There are legitimate reasons for caution. Artificial intelligence can create privacy problems, security vulnerabilities, misinformation, discrimination and new forms of fraud. It can also produce incorrect information while presenting that information with convincing confidence. Organizations using AI therefore need safeguards, transparency and human oversight.
At the same time, fear alone is not a workable technology policy. AI has potentially significant benefits in medicine, scientific research, manufacturing, education, logistics, cybersecurity and numerous other fields. The challenge is to develop safeguards without preventing legitimate innovation.
These disputes are connected by something larger than any individual politician or institution. They represent a continuing struggle over the boundaries of government power.
The executive branch is exercising substantial authority over immigration and federal policy. Courts are determining whether that authority complies with existing law. Congress is investigating executive conduct while defending its own constitutional responsibilities.
Universities are resisting federal pressure while facing legitimate questions about their own policies. The military is reorganizing its senior leadership while preparing for rapidly changing technology. AI is creating opportunities that governments are simultaneously attempting to regulate.
The result is an American political system under considerable institutional pressure.
That pressure is not necessarily evidence that the constitutional system is failing. In many respects, conflict between institutions is part of the system itself. The Constitution deliberately divides government authority among separate branches and gives each branch tools for challenging the others.
The more serious question is whether those institutions continue to operate according to established law and constitutional principles when political disagreements become intense.
Immigration enforcement requires the government to maintain control of the nation’s borders while respecting applicable legal protections. Federal investigations require strong investigative powers while protecting constitutional privileges. Universities require academic independence while remaining accountable to the law. The military requires efficient leadership without sacrificing readiness. Artificial intelligence requires innovation without abandoning privacy, security and accountability.
None of these problems has a simple political solution.
The United States is entering a period in which institutional decisions made today could influence government for years.
Court rulings concerning immigration may establish important boundaries for presidential power. Decisions involving federal funding could redefine the relationship between Washington and universities.
Congressional investigations could clarify the limits of executive investigations involving lawmakers. Military restructuring could influence how the armed forces operate in future conflicts. AI regulation could establish rules affecting an entire generation of technology.
The personalities involved will eventually change, but the institutions will remain.
That is why the most important part of these disputes is not the political scorekeeping. It is whether the government follows the law, whether constitutional protections remain meaningful, whether institutions remain accountable and whether Americans can distinguish documented facts from political claims.
The arguments will continue and the consequences will depend on what the courts decide, what Congress legislates, what executive agencies implement and what institutions themselves choose to defend or change.
The central issue is ultimately simple
American government was designed around competing centers of power. The continuing challenge is making sure that those centers of power remain accountable to the law.
Source Addresses
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html
https://apnews.com/article/2219c35c065eab4b0690058d81bd787a
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/26-1212/26-1212-2026-09-18.html
https://www.fec.gov/documents/5644/2024presgeresults.pdf
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/06/immigration-attitudes-and-the-2024-election/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/09/court-victory-for-harvard-in-research-funding-fight/
https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
https://www.reuters.com/world/pentagon-creates-autowarcom-expand-ai-drone-capabilities-2026-09-30/
#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #GovernmentPower #ConstitutionalRights #AmericaPolitics
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!
The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law
No-Knock Warrants Hit Section 8 Housing No Permissions Needed
Targeted Fugitive Sweeps in 2026
U.S. Marshals Service and HUD Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG) teams have run targeted fugitive sweeps in 2026 focused on people with outstanding warrants who were living in or using federally subsidized housing. These are not general raids on Section 8 or public-housing households.
What the operations actually were
Official U.S. Marshals releases describe coordinated efforts under names such as Operation Clean House and local variants:
Philadelphia-area “Operation Moving Day” (announced September 28, 2026): The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Violent Crime Fugitive Task Force and HUD-OIG arrested 41 people described as fugitives residing in federally subsidized properties. Charges cited included arson, aggravated assault, shooting, armed robbery, and crimes against children. Highlighted cases included a 31-year-old wanted in an August Philadelphia shooting and a 23-year-old wanted for offenses against children. Officials framed it as removing people who were both wanted and receiving housing assistance.
New York/New Jersey multistate operation (announced early September 2026): Marshals across five federal districts plus the NY/NJ Regional Fugitive Task Force, working with HUD-OIG, arrested 63 people described as violent fugitives (including non-compliant sex offenders) who were residing in or using government-subsidized housing. Narcotics were also seized.
Cleveland “Operation Clean House” (September 14–25, 2026): 68 people utilizing HUD housing assistance were arrested on serious felony warrants, plus seven others encountered during the operation. Similar joint efforts were reported in 2026 in places including Minneapolis (16 arrests earlier in the year), Columbus, Chicago, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, Kansas City, and parts of North Carolina.
HUD-OIG and Marshals statements emphasize two goals: locating fugitives who were using subsidized units as places to stay, and reducing risk to other residents. U.S. Marshal comments in Philadelphia explicitly linked the arrests to “negating this fraudulent receipt of benefits.” Reporting indicates many of the Philadelphia targets were in private apartments receiving rental assistance rather than only traditional public-housing projects.
Current official accounts and news reports confirm warrant-based fugitive arrests. They do not establish that authorities are broadly executing no-knock warrants against Section 8 households as a category. A fugitive-arrest operation is not automatically a no-knock entry.
Are Section 8 tenants being targeted?
The operations target people already wanted on warrants (often violent or sex-offense related) whose location information intersected with HUD-assisted housing data or addresses. They are not described as random compliance checks or sweeps of every voucher holder. Ordinary tenants without warrants are not the stated subjects. HUD-OIG’s role supplies housing-program information that helps locate specific fugitives; the Marshals execute the fugitive arrests.
Can Marshals enter a subsidized apartment?
Standard arrest-warrant rules apply regardless of whether the unit is subsidized. An arrest warrant for a person, combined with reason to believe the person is inside their own residence, generally authorizes entry to make the arrest (subject to the usual Fourth Amendment limits, knock-and-announce requirements, and exceptions). Entry into a third party’s home typically requires a search warrant or an exception such as consent or exigent circumstances. Subsidized status does not create a special exemption or a special license for entry. Nothing in the Marshals/HUD-OIG releases describes a program of indiscriminate no-knock entries into voucher units.
Effect on the Housing Choice Voucher or other HUD assistance
An arrest does not automatically terminate a family’s Section 8 voucher or public-housing assistance.
HUD Notice PIH 2015-19 / H 2015-10 (still the governing guidance on this point) states that the mere fact of an arrest is not evidence that the person engaged in disqualifying criminal activity and cannot itself be the basis for denying admission, terminating assistance, or eviction. An arrest record may prompt further inquiry, but the housing authority or owner must have sufficient evidence of the underlying conduct.
Termination or eviction can still occur when the authority shows, by a preponderance of the evidence in the voucher programs, that a household member, guest, or person under the tenant’s control engaged in disqualifying activity.
Common grounds under the regulations include:
Drug-related criminal activity (on or near the premises, with broader reach in some programs),Violent criminal activity, Other criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of other residents or persons residing in the immediate vicinity, Fleeing to avoid prosecution, custody, or confinement after a felony conviction, or violating probation or parole.
Lifetime statutory bars on admission are narrow: primarily lifetime sex-offender registration requirements and conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing. Public housing authorities have discretion, must follow their own policies and due-process rules (including informal hearings for voucher terminations), and can consider mitigating circumstances. In many cases the authority can pursue removal of only the culpable household member rather than ending assistance for the entire family. Landlords in the voucher program remain subject to the lease and to state/local eviction law; the housing authority’s decision on the subsidy is a separate process.
In short, these 2026 operations are warrant-driven fugitive apprehensions that used HUD-OIG information to find people already wanted for serious offenses inside assisted housing. They are not a blanket enforcement action against Section 8 tenants, and an arrest alone does not automatically end a household’s federal housing assistance.
#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #section8housing #publichousing #section8counciling
FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth SEPTEMBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!
The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law
