SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
President Obama Calls for Title II as the Best Way to Protect Real Net Neutrality
WASHINGTON
President Barack Obama issued an unequivocal statement of support for real Net Neutrality, calling on the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.
"Internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website," Obama said in a statement Monday morning. "Cable companies can't decide which online stores you should shop at or which streaming services you can use. And they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors. To put these protections in place I'm asking the FCC to classify Internet services under Title II of the law known as the Telecommunications Act."
Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:
"The president who promised to take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality has finally gotten in the driver's seat. And he may have saved the Internet at the moment it was in the greatest jeopardy.
"FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the other commissioners now must abandon convoluted proposals and make clear rules that will protect Internet users and stand up in court. As the president made very clear, the only sure way to do that is under Title II.
"The president's statement of support for Title II is the result of an unprecedented public outcry. More than 4 million Americans have contacted the FCC on the issue, with the overwhelming majority of comments urging the agency to create real Net Neutrality protections. And the phones have been ringing off the hook at the White House for weeks.
"The millions who've fought for an open Internet now will need to defend the president's bold stand against the expected onslaught from Internet service providers and their many lobbyists. But no industry or partisan spin can change the fact that Title II is a deregulatory, flexible approach that has allowed the Internet to flourish.
"The struggle for real Net Neutrality isn't over, but the president's action today is a major step in the right direction. To protect the open Internet that Americans demand, the FCC now must act and reclassify ISPs under Title II."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Critics Say 'History of Enabling Sexual Abuse' Makes McMahon Unfit for Top Education Post
"This is someone accused of ignoring rampant sexual abuse under her watch," said one advocate. "It's an insult to survivors and a blatant attack on the safety of students nationwide."
Nov 22, 2024
A group that combats sexual violence on campuses was among those speaking out on Friday against U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of former wrestling entertainment executive Linda McMahon for education secretary, warning that her own sexual abuse scandal makes her an "appalling" choice to lead the department tasked with protecting students from discrimination and violence.
Kenyora Parham, CEO of End Rape on Campus, said McMahon's "documented history of enabling sexual abuse of children and sweeping sexual violence under the rug" is "disqualifying" for a nominee to lead the Department of Education.
Parham was referring to a lawsuit that was filed in October by five anonymous plaintiffs in Maryland, which alleges that while McMahon was the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) in the 1980s, she and other executives enabled "open and rampant" grooming and sexual abuse of the company's teenaged "ring boys" by announcer Mel Phillips and others.
The lawsuit alleges that McMahon and her now-estranged husband, WWE co-founder Vince McMahon, knew that Phillips was recruiting boys as young as 12 to work as stagehands and then sexually exploiting them, sometimes in front of wrestlers and executives in the locker area. WWE wrestlers Pat Patterson and Terry Garvin are also named as abusers.
The plaintiffs said they were between the ages of 13-15 when they were abused, and that the McMahons were aware of the sexual exploitation. According to the lawsuit, Vince McMahon admitted the couple was aware of Phillips' "peculiar and unnatural interest" in young boys, and the McMahons fired him briefly in 1988 over allegations of sexual abuse.
They "rehired him six weeks later on the condition that he 'steer clear from kids,'" according to the lawsuit, but the exploitation continued.
Parham spoke out a day after she and other rights advocates celebrated the news that former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who Trump had nominated to be attorney general, was withdrawing from consideration amid allegations that he paid to have sex with a 17-year-old, which were the subject of an investigation by the House Ethics Committee.
"Now can we get Linda McMahon to withdraw her appointment as secretary of education, too?" said Parham on Thursday.
Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host who Trump has nominated to be defense secretary, has also been accused of sexual assault, the details of which were revealed in a police report that was made public this week. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who Trump nominated to lead the Health and Human Services Department, has been accused by his children's former babysitter of sexual abuse.
Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who Trump has named to run his Department of Government Efficiency, has been named in a lawsuit filed by former SpaceX employees who alleged sexual harassment at work. Trump himself was found liable last year for sexual abuse in a case filed by writer E. Jean Carroll.
Putting McMahon in charge of overseeing Title IX protections, which prohibits sex discrimination and sexual harassment and assault at schools that receive federal funding, "is like handing keys to an arsonist to run the fire department," said Caroline Ciccone, president of government watchdog Accountable.US.
"Donald Trump's nomination of Linda McMahon to lead the Department of Education is indefensible," said Ciccone. "This is someone accused of ignoring rampant sexual abuse under her watch... It's an insult to survivors and a blatant attack on the safety of students nationwide."
Trump chose McMahon to lead the Education Department after President Joe Biden expanded Title IX protections to cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Trump has pledged to roll back the expanded policy, and has called for the entire department to be dismantled.
"McMahon and her colleagues were reportedly aware of abuse happening right under their noses—and they did nothing," Ciccone said. "Now she's been chosen to oversee, and likely overhaul, the very protections designed to stop this kind of harm? The Senate must put an end to this sham of a nomination. She lacks the experience, the judgment, and the track record to protect students from harm."
Parham said McMahon's nomination signals "a calculated agenda to dismantle the protections afforded by Title IX."
"Appointing someone with such a compromised background is a direct attack on these hard-won rights and threatens to leave countless students vulnerable," she said. "We urge policymakers and fellow advocates to unite against this nomination and demand accountability—to join us in this critical fight to uphold and strengthen the protections that every student deserves."
"It is imperative that leaders are appointed who will genuinely champion the safety and rights of every student," she added, "regardless of their identity and background."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Rip Musk-Ramaswamy Plan for Spending Cuts as Illegal 'Power Grab'
"The legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous," said the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
Nov 22, 2024
Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon's impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the "government efficiency" commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.
But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that "the power of the purse rests solely with Congress."
"Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power," the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. "During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system."
"They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval," the Democrats continued. "American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent."
"House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."
The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
The pair noted that Trump "has previously suggested" the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that "the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question." The former president appointed half of the court's right-wing supermajority.
"But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who's set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans' healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that "the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous."
"Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk," said Boyle. "House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Fears That World War III Has Already Begun, Russia Strikes Ukraine With New Missile
“I really believe the situation is very dangerous,” said one Russian politics expert during a week in which the two countries exchanged strikes.
Nov 22, 2024
Voices on both sides of the war between Russia and Ukraine have issued ominous statements during a week when the two countries traded escalatory missile strikes.
Russia launched a strike on the Ukrainian city of Dnipro using an experimental, hypersonic missile Thursday, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The attack followed Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory using western-made, long-range missiles.
"This is an escalation," said Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center toldThe New York Times. "I really believe the situation is very dangerous."
Moscow's missile was fired using a conventional warhead but "it could be refitted to certainly carry ... different types of conventional or nuclear warheads," Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh said. Singh also described it as an "intermediate range ballistic missile."
Initial reports from Ukrainian officials said that the strike was an intercontinental ballistic missile, in contrast to Putin's characterization of the missile. According to the Financial Times, officials from Ukraine, Russia, NATO, and the U.S. have offered different exact classifications for the weapon.
Putin, in a televised address, made clear that the move was in response to Ukraine's use of western-made weapons to strike deeper into Russia.
The Ukrainian government had long sought the permission of western governments to use weapons like American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, and U.K.-produced Storm Shadow missiles. The U.S. began supplying the Lockheed Martin-produced ATACMS earlier this year, according to Defense One, but imposed restrictions on their use due to the escalatory implications of Ukraine using them to strike targets far inside Russian territory.
Ukraine launched strikes using both of those weapons this week following a policy shift from the Biden administration allowing their use, which at least one foreign policy expert cautioned was a "needlessly escalatory step."
"From that moment, as we have repeatedly underscored, a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character," Putin said in his address, according to Reuters.
The comments come days after Putin also codified a change to the country's nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use.
Meanwhile, on the Ukrainian side, the country's former military commander Valery Zaluzhny offered a bleak prognosis of the war earlier this week, saying that he "believe[s] that in 2024 we can absolutely believe that the Third World War has begun."
The comments were in reference to the fact that Russia is enlisting the help of outside allies, such as North Korea, in its military effort.
Elsewhere, foreign policy experts cautioned against escalatory spiral.
Anatol Lieven, the director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, offered an argument against what he sees as the underlying rationale of allowing Ukraine to attack Russia with U.S. and U.K.-supplied long range missiles.
"The official argument for the ATACMS and Storms Shadows decision is to put Ukraine in a stronger position before peace talks are initiated by Trump," he wrote in a piece published Thursday. "This is a dangerous gamble, because the missiles (which are guided to their targets by U.S. personnel) risk infuriating Russia without giving really critical help to Ukraine."
U.S. intelligence analysts have also warned that granting Ukraine the ability to use U.S., French and U.K.-supplied long-range missiles could prompt forceful retaliation by Russia; additionally, analysts cautioned that the missiles would likely not fundamentally change the course of the war.
In a similar vein to Lieven, Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and Robert Farley, an assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, argued in the pages of Foreign Policy this week that U.S. policymakers should pursue a negotiated peace for Ukraine, in part because "Ukraine does not have a path to a straightforward victory."
"If Trump makes good on his promise to end the war, supporters of Ukraine must be clear about the principles at stake and be careful not to let maximalist aims foreclose a durable negotiated settlement. We say this with the knowledge of what conceding Ukrainian territory to permanent Russian control could mean, and has already meant, for Ukrainians in those territories," they wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular