Jan Brewer's press conference and the ban of my video on YouTube

My YouTube on video is contraversial. It is politically subversive and dissenting. It uses the press conference coverage of Jan Brewer, set to the Imperial March from Star Wars, and contains a long statement at the end. The statement reads as follows:

"An obvious difference between chattel slavery and wage slavery is that
as a chattel slave you are enslaved – totally subjected to another’s will
– at every moment from birth to death, in every aspect of your life. As a
wage-slave, you are enslaved only at those times when your labour
power is at the disposal of your employer [or government]. At other
times, in other aspects of your life – as a consumer, a voter, a family
member, a gardener perhaps – you enjoy a certain measure of freedom,
respect and social equality. Thus, the wage-slave has some scope for
self-development and self-realization that is denied the chattel slave.
Limited scope, to be sure, for the wage-slave must regularly return to
the cramped world of wage labour, which spread its influence over the
rest of life like a pestilential mist."

from "Are You A Wage Slave?" - Stefan

"There's one white powder which is by far the most lethal known. It's
called sugar. If you look at the history of imperialism, a lot of it has to
do with that. A lot of the imperial conquest, say in the Caribbean, set up
a kind of a network... The Caribbean back in the 18th century was a soft
drug producer: sugar, rum, tobacco, chocolate. And in order to do it,
they had to enslave Africans, and it was done largely to pacify working
people in England who were being driven into awful circumstances by
the early industrial revolution. That's why so many wars took place
around the Caribbean
...
As the most powerful state, the U.S. makes its own laws, using force and
conducting economic warfare at will. It also threatens sanctions against
countries that do not abide by its conveniently flexible notions of 'free
trade'
...
If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American
president would have been hanged.
...
Should a community, say, a suburb of Boston, be free to
enact legislation to say they don’t want blacks? Now that’s illegal. Fifty
years ago it was legal. Is that progress or is that regress?"
- Noam Chomsky

Congressman warns militarized border policies could be turned inwards...
Ron Paul: Border fence could be used to 'keep us in'...

"We've shipped millions of jobs overseas ... a process in Washington
where after you've served for awhile and cash in ... If you pay a dollar an
hour for labor, have no environmental or pollution controls... you will
have a giant sucking sound going south [towards Mexico]. When their
jobs go from 1 dollar an hour to 6 dollars an hour and our jobs go down
to 6 dollars an hour it will work out... but until then you've wrecked the
economy..." - Ross Perot

November 14, 1935
First Decree to the Reich Citizenship Law
"A Jew cannot be a Reich citizen. He is not entitled to the right to vote on
political matters; he cannot hold public office...A Jew is anyone
descended from at least three grandparents who are fully Jewish as
regards race...Also deemed a Jew is a Jewish Mischlung subject who is
descended from two fully Jewish grandparents and...who belonged to the
Jewish religious community...who was married to a Jew...who is the
offspring of a marriage concluded by a Jew...who is an offspring of
extramarital intercourse with a Jew..." - Adolf Hitler

"On the left side of our clothes, above the breast, we had to wear our
numbers and a triangle patch indicating our category of prisoner." - Color
ID in Concentration Camps

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage,
assassination. This is the war of the future." - Adolf Hitler

DON'T "SHOW YOUR PAPERS" IN AMERICA

This video was first challenged by Sony Music for using the Imperial March from Star Wars. Fair enough - I expected it to happen and challenged it. But then, a company called Scripps Local News got involved. Apparently, they recorded Governor Jan's press conference on the allowance of people to be asked for their citizenship papers by the United States Supreme Court. And they banned my video worldwide. I dissented that "This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.":

The news clip used addresses Alabama v. New York and contains added value (it is not just a regurgitation of the original news feed). It contains political statements and inferences that are protected under the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 allowing for fair use. The First Amendment of the United States explicitly and uniformly protects this type of speech, whereas the video expresses political dissent to a stated and far reaching viewpoint made by a elected state governor and the United States Supreme Court. It is absolutely draconian for a news organization in the United States to ban the reproduction of a press conference, issued by a sitting United States governor, under the guise of protecting copyright. This is especially true in this context: The Alabama v. United States Supreme Court ruling brings up concerns to the public that are addressed in this video concerning civil rights, human rights, and immigration reform. These concerns are at the heart of the fair use of this video. The author of the video argues that blocking it is consummate to stifling political dissent, in so far that it is the time old tradition and inferred responsibility of news agencies in the United States to allow, and in many cases, encourage, political free expression and dissent based on the agency's reporting. Anything less in this regard could be considered an attempt at prior restraint and censorship. The publisher of the video encourages the claimant to remember and review Near v. Minnesota (1931). The fourteenth amendment also incorporates the first and makes it applicable to the states. Another point of reference for guidance can be Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, whereas the US Supreme Court ruled that "The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene." It is asserted that the video has added merit in that it contains a thoughtful political opinion and political interference made by the publisher, whereas the broadcast of the governor's press conference is a requirement to: Inform the viewer, present both the original and dissenting opinion, and use music and text to highlight the political statement made by the publisher. The video has important value in the area of politically protected speech, literature, and writing which the claimant should encourage, and not attempt to censor. No attempt has been made to capitalize on the use of this footage by the uploader and this video does not damage the market value of the claimant's material. At the heart of the video is a politically opinionated response to the claimant's assumed world-wide syndication of this video by news agencies around the world. The subject matter of the video should also be considered historic, politically important, and open to the public for dissection and discussion; certainly far ranging and appealing enough that the ability of a fellow citizen to present a dissenting view of the speech using the incorporation of music and literature should be poignant enough that its use not be blocked worldwide when considering the spirit of the law. No greater abuse of copyright statutes could have been conceived when news agencies willfully block their own video coverage of a sitting United States governor from re-syndication when the defendant uses it to juxtapose a dissenting opinion. This action is not principled and violates established orthodoxy and norms when dealing what would consummately be recognized as constitutionally protected free speech and dissent. It is asked that YouTube and Scripps Local News reconsider their copyright claim under this circumstance under the basis of fair use.
I have a good faith belief that the claim(s) described above have been made in error, and that I have the right(s) necessary to use the contents of my video for the reasons I have stated. I have not knowingly made any false statements, nor am I intentionally abusing this dispute process in order to interfere with the rights of others. I understand that filing fraudulent disputes may result in termination of my YouTube account.

With millions of videos on YouTube containing news clips, why was mine selected to be taken down? Of course, I am still waiting...

"John Williams-The Imperial March from The Empire Strikes Back", sound recording administered by:
SME Your dispute awaiting response by 07/25/12
"Gov. Jan Brewer addresses SB 1070 ruling", audiovisual content administered by:
Scripps Local News Your dispute awaiting response by 07/28/12

According to YouTube:

As a result, your account has been penalized and is not in good standing. Deleting the video will remove the penalty due to this claim.

I have uploaded over a hundred YouTube videos on various accounts. They are mostly computer help and support videos.

Is blocking this video tantamount to political censorship?

I'd like your thoughts.