LibertyVoter.Org

By Rachel Leah, Salon

The 400-mile wall meant to divide Israelis from Palestinians along the West Bank features concrete slabs that rise to more than 25 feet tall in some sections and exists as a fence in others. Construction started in 2002 by Israel for “security,” but according to the international community and law, its existence is illegal, given that the overwhelming majority of the ”separation barrier” stands not inside Israel's borders or even on the Green Line that splits Israel from occupied territory, but inside the West Bank.

“Israel made great efforts to loop the barrier around settlements and strategic areas of the West Bank that it wished to keep on its side under any future peace deal,” the New York Times said. “Most of the barrier ended up east of the pre-1967 line, inside West Bank territory, prompting international criticism and creating humanitarian problems for thousands of Palestinians trapped in enclaves between the barrier and Israel proper.”

To Palestinians and their international supporters, it is an “apartheid wall.” Neighborhoods were arbitrarily sliced, families were isolated from each other and people were cut off from their work, education and resources. Palestinians, who work in Israel or in the settlements, have to line up hours before their shifts each day to trek through a series of checkpoints. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled 14-1 that this wall violated international law because of its confiscation of occupied Palestinian land and the way it severely restricted the movement and self-determination of Palestinians.

In “Broken,” a new documentary to be released in June, Palestinian-American filmmaker Mohammed Alatar examines the groundbreaking court ruling and why 14 years later, the wall still stands. Over an intense three-year process, Alatar traveled to Germany, Holland, Jordan, the U.S., and around Israel and Palestine to interview key figures in this decision, and to obtain footage from the trial and the UN hearings leading up to the court ruling and its aftermath.

Alatar talked to one of the wall's architects, members of the Palestinian legal team, a former legal adviser to the Israeli foreign …read more

Source: ALTERNET

By Bob Brigham, Raw Story

Robert Kennedy, Jr. has concluded there may have been a second gunman and is now publicly urging a re-investigation into the assassination his father, Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-NY), The Washington Post reported Saturday.

After months of research, Kennedy met in December with Sirhan B. Sirhan, the man convicted of killing his father. The December meeting at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Center reportedly lasted for three hours.

“There were too many bullets,” Robert Kennedy Jr. told The Post. “You can’t fire 13 shots out of an eight-shot gun.”

Kennedy, an attorney like his father, dismissed Sirhan’s trial as “really a penalty hearing.”

“It wasn’t a real trial. At a full trial, they would have litigated his guilt or innocence,” he explained. “I think it’s unfortunate that the case never went to a full trial because that would have compelled the press and prosecutors to focus on the glaring discrepancies in the narrative that Sirhan fired the shots that killed my father.”

Kennedy has now joined calls for a re-investigation lead by Paul Schrade, the former western regional director of the United Auto Workers, who was also shot in the head at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

“Once Schrade showed me the autopsy report,” Kennedy said, “then I didn’t feel like it was something I could just dismiss. Which is what I wanted to do.”

“I got to a place where I had to see Sirhan,” he explained. “I was disturbed that the wrong person might have been convicted of killing my father. My father was the chief law enforcement officer in this country. I think it would have disturbed him if somebody was put in jail for a crime they didn’t commit.”

Watch Paul Schrade discuss discrepancies in the case during a 2008 CNN interview on the 40th anniversary of the murder:

…read more

Source: ALTERNET

By Angelo Young, Salon

Like the nemeses from a fantasy drama, a game of thrones is playing out in the world of digital media, and by summer we could witness an epic battle erupting between titans vying for control of a media kingdom currently ruled by Rupert Murdoch.

In one part of the large and complicated map is AT&T, the world’s largest telecommunications company, which is fighting U.S. antitrust authorities for the right to buy Time Warner, the third-largest entertainment company, whose holdings include major television, news and movie assets, including HBO, CNN and TNT.

The $85 billion deal would not only give AT&T ownership of content for its 40 million video and broadband customers but also immense leverage to charge rival distributors like Verizon and Charter more for access to programming. The telecom company denies its acquisition of Time Warner would lead to higher prices, but the Justice Department and critics of the trend toward consolidation between two industries view their borders as increasingly blurry.

“Leverage matters in video content negotiations because millions of dollars change hands depending on who blinks first,” Makan Delrahim, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said in court filing earlier this month.

The case has attracted unusual public attention because it will help define what kinds of deals can be made between creators and distributors of digital content moving forward. Internet service providers like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon see content ownership as the source of new revenue streams, as the price of internet services fall; they argue ISPs need content to fight upstart rivals like Netflix, Sling TV and Amazon Video.

But those new content creators are concerned that ISPs like AT&T and Comcast could favor their own media assets by throttling bandwidth of outside providers and gouging rivals for access to lucrative programming. The Federal Communications Commission’s decision last year to remove net neutrality rules, which guaranteed equal throttled access to internet streaming, has opened the way for distributors to favor their own content over their rivals.

The Justice Department is expected to rule on the AT&T/Time …read more

Source: ALTERNET

By Matthew Rozsa, Salon

Back in March, talk show host Bill Maher had an observation for Amy Chua, author of the book “Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations,“ that neatly sums up the central moral conundrum facing Trump supporters who believe themselves to be patriotic:

We're supposed to still be part of the American tribe. You know, they always said if Mars attacked, then we and Russia would get together. But as it is now, Mars hasn't attacked, so we're still supposed to be against Russia as Americans. It seems to have gotten a little out of whack here when the Republicans hate the Democrats, that tribe, so much that they're with the Russian tribe over the Democrats.

This is an observation with which everyone should agree, even those who have doubts about whether President Donald Trump actually colluded with the Russian government during and after the 2016 presidential election. It is one that, as millions of Americans honor the sacrifices made by our soldiers during Memorial Day weekend, we absolutely must keep at the top of our minds and close to our hearts.

Even if you aren't convinced that a smoking gun exists to prove Trump did anything illegal in his interactions with Russian government officials, it is indisputable that he has suspicious ties to that country — or, at least, it would be indisputable if we didn't live in an era where facts are so commonly warped by partisan biases.

While most of the culprits here are Republicans and other conservatives who fear that discrediting Trump would harm their cause and hand liberals a major moral victory, it should be noted that there are many on the left who have also gone out of their way to pooh-pooh the possibility of collusion or other forms of impropriety. This wing of the leftist movement seems mainly motivated by their seething distrust of and hatred for the military-industrial complex. That skepticism may be justified, but it also leads them to reflexively doubt any theories that they fear will provide the so-called “Deep State” with …read more

Source: ALTERNET

By Noor Al-Sibai, Raw Story

Now that Donald Trump has admitted to reimbursing his attorney Michael Cohen for the  “hush money” paid out to the president's old mistress Stormy Daniels, the legal strategy of the adult film star's lawyer's has been reinvigorated.

Bloomberg reported Thursday that attorney Michael Avenatti filed a motion in Los Angeles federal court in an attempt to overrule a judge's 90-day delay that came after Cohen was raided by the FBI earlier this year. As Avenatti argued, there's no need to question the president's attorney because now that Trump has admitted he repaid Cohen, he can be deposed himself.

“Mr. Trump’s newfound voice on facts concerning this lawsuit demonstrates he will be able to testify in his defense,” the attorney said.

In his filing, Avenatti argued that “when the stay was issued on April 27, the California judge wasn’t aware of Trump’s statements a day earlier on Fox News, where the president said the criminal investigation in New York had nothing to do with the hush-agreement case,” Bloomberg reported.

In the filing, the attorney also said the three month stay is “unfair” to Daniels because it allows the president to continue posting “incendiary” and false tweets about the case.

This latest motion comes days after Avenatti was hit with a $10 million bankruptcy judgement — a move the attorney has called “nonsense.”

…read more

Source: ALTERNET

By Lydia Chodosh, Independent Media Institute

The success of America’s first-ever plant-based burger joint is no accident, say its founders. When Matthew and Cierra de Gruyter opened Next Level Burger (NLB) in 2014 neither had ever run a restaurant before. But five additional restaurants later, with plans to open many more, they're willing to give a lot of credit where they think it's due: their decision to go with burgers. We chose the burger to promote plant-based food because it “is approachable to everyone,” Cierra told Nil Zacharias on #EatforthePlanet.

When the first burger joint opened, “people just freaked out,” says Matt. Customers lined up to try the burger patties made with sustainably sourced umami mushrooms and quinoa, a long list of soy and coconut-based shakes, and more. Investors also took note. One of them, Alex Payne, an original founder of Twitter, played a key role in opening NLB's second site in Portland, Oregon, which drew an even bigger crowd of followers.

Next Level Burger opened in 2014 flaunting a completely plant-based menu of burger joint classics, like the Animal Burger, pictured here. Now on its way to national expansion, the company joins a growing number of meat-free burger ventures working to change the way Americans eat. (photo from Next Level Burger)

“It was lines out the door for days and days and days,” says Matt. Only a couple of weeks later Whole Foods invited the business to become a member of its 365 concept, which connects shoppers to “innovative food and lifestyle brands.”

Serving Up Burgers for a Better World

Matt and Cierra chose a good time to begin their plant-based venture. Some 38 percent of Americans are now renouncing meat at least one day a week, says the Institute of Food Technology. People are increasingly open to alternatives, thanks to the negative environmental impact of meat, concerns about farm animal welfare, and health worries—eating meat has been linked to high rates of cancer, diabetes and obesity, among other problems.