Mediaboss Marketing

The All Progressives Congress has condemned what it described as the apparently-orchestrated attack on Edo legislative quarters on Saturday.

The party said the attack had heightened the level of impunity under the President Goodluck Jonathan-led Administration to a level not even contemplated in the days of military rule.

In a statement in Abuja on Monday by its National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, the party said based on the ease with which the thugs invaded a facility that should be well secured and the ample time they had to damage more than30 cars and inflict injuries on legislators and their families, there is no question that the attack was carried out with the collusion of the lawless PDP and the increasingly-partisan police.

It said, Gov. Adams Oshiomhole said the government got intelligence report on the attack and informed the State Police Commissioner.

Instead of sending in reinforcement to prevent the attack, the few policemen attached to the quarters were withdrawn before the attack.

This is another indication of a police force that is being bankrolled by all taxpayers becoming shamelessly partisan and engaging in selective implementation of its constitutional role of protecting the lives andproperty of the citizenry.

APC said the atmosphere for the attack was created by a President whose body language encourages impunity, a President who has converted the police and the army to his partys militia, a President who presides over a government that is incapable of maintaining law and order, not to talk of protecting the citizens.

The party said whether in Rivers State, where the police was used toharass the opposition, including the Governor; Ekiti, where the policestood by while thugs led by theGovernor-elect Ayodele Fayose werebeating judges and sacking courts, the same Ekiti, where the PDP-ledFederal Government has used the police and other security agents to prevent courts from re-opening as ordered by the National JudicialCouncil, or Edo, where the police have offered protection to renegadelawmakers at the expense of the majority, the Jonathan Administrationhas given a free rein to impunity like never before in the history ofNigeria.

It said, The Inspector-General of Police takes orders only from thePresident. Therefore, where the President decides to turn the policeto his personal militia for use in vindictive and vendetta attacks,the IGP is not only required to comply, he is also expected to passthe same orders down the hierarchy. This is what is happening acrossthe country.

The danger, however, is that when a society descends into anarchy,the same police will not escape the consequences, and will also not beable to handle the outcome of its collusion as professionalism wouldhave deserted it and discipline compromised. By becoming partisan, thepolice force is destroying itself.

The rest is here:
Edo Legislative Quarters invasion heightens impunity under Jonathan -APC

press release

Senator Bukola Saraki, a chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Nigeria's main opposition party, has today announced the suspension of his bid for the presidency in 2015.

Even though his Presidential interest has sparked widespread excitement across the country, and has received major supports from key stakeholders and youth groups based on his leadership profile characterized by infrastructural development, economic growth and striving social wellbeing; Senator Saraki says he is deciding to step down his ambition because, according to him,

Nigeria's political outlook for 2015 is very complicated and "this is the time for every patriotic politician to situate his personal ambition in the context of the country's overall interest," he says.

According to him, party primaries in any healthy democracy would always leave several contenders disappointed and, sometimes bitter, as there would be only one winner. The party would then invest so much energy and time afterwards managing and reconciling various interests.

"I don't think our party can afford too much internal rancour going into next year's election. I therefore think some of us need to make the sacrifice and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem of the party," says the Senator who is regarded as one of the masterminds of a major breakaway from the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) earlier in the year.

Senator Saraki recounted how he, along with other progressives in the PDP, decided to leave the party to join the APC when it was clear that PDP, especially at the national level, had become too invested in the personal ambition of one man at the overall detriment of the country and its democracy.

"I have always maintained that I did not leave the ruling party to join the opposition because of any personal interest. Anyone who understands Nigeria's politics would know that it takes courage and self-sacrifice to do that. Therefore, whether it is on the issue of the party or all other issues that I have been pushing in my position as a Senator of the Federal Republic, I have been driven primarily by my desire to see a better and more purposely governed country."

According to him, Nigeria desperately needs change. "We need to change the way the country is run, we need change in our security and the values we place on human life, we need to change the current disgraceful situation in security and corruption. And I believe only the APC can bring about this change and give our country the leadership it deserves."

He notes, however, that APC can only live up to the aspirations of Nigerians for change if it is not derailed by too much acrimony from its primaries which is coming so close to the general elections. "This is why some of us felt that we must make the necessary sacrifice and contribute to building a strong and united party that provides the only real alternative to the floundering Government that has become so constipated on power and lost touch with the realities that ordinary Nigerians grapple with everyday."

Go here to read the rest:
Nigeria: Saraki Suspends 2015 Presidential Bid

Try as they might, reporters and liberal critics can't quite get Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to go all in and criticize President Obama. In a new interview over atSalon, Thomas Frank lays out all of the complaints of disappointed Democrats, but Warren doesn't exactly bite:

FRANK: In some ways thats exactly the problem. When I talk to people, they often say Democrats aren't the party of working people at all. And they talk about NAFTA and deregulating Wall Street, and they say, look at these guys, they wont prosecute the financial industry. They say, Democrats talk a good game, but theyre always on the side of the elite at the end of the day. What do you say to these people?

WARREN: Were the only ones fighting back. Right now, on financial reform, the Republicans are trying to roll back the financial reforms of Dodd-Frank. In fact, Mitch McConnell has announced that if he gets the majority in the Senate, his first objective is to repeal healthcare and his second is to roll back the financial reforms, and in particular to target the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the one agency thats out there for American families, the one that has returned more than four billion dollars to families who got cheated by big financial institutions. Thats in just three years.

There was also this exchange, which again lays out the disappointment something of a longing on the part of disaffected liberals to have someone of Warren's stature validate their frustration (emphasis ours):

FRANK: Heres the penultimate question: everything youre saying are issues that have been important to me most of my adult life. In 2008, I thought I had a candidate who was going to address these things. Right? Barack Obama. Today, my friends and I are pretty disappointed with what hes done. I wonder if you feel he has been forthright enough on these subjects. And I also wonder if you think that someone can take any of this stuff on without being president. You know, there are a lot of good politicians in America who have their heart in the right place. But theyre not the president. Well anyhow. You understand my frustration

WARREN: I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, its about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. Im completely convinced of that. And I go through the details in the book, and I could tell them to you. But he was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table. Now there was a lot of other stuff that also had to happen for it to happen. But if he hadnt been there, we wouldnt have gotten the agency. At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.

FRANK: You might say, always. Just about every time they had to compromise, they compromised in the direction of Wall Street.

WARREN: Thats right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter.

This is the harshest criticism could muster, and it's not exactly new. In fact, the original criticism of Obama's financial team when he picked them was that they were Clinton retreads, collected fat Wall Street paychecks and favored deregulation. Obama, in Warren's view, picked the wrong economic team, and they wound up pickingWall Street. Again, this isn't a new assessment of Obama, nor is it the kind of barn-burner denunciationsome liberals are apparently pining for.

Partly, it's because it wouldn't do Warren and her fellow Democrats any good to criticize the party and the president in a tough midtermyear. But Warrenhas shown plenty of reticence to criticize any of her fellow Democrats -- including Hillary Clinton.

Go here to read the rest:
The Fix: Sorry, liberals. Elizabeth Warren still wont really criticize Obama or Clinton.

South Australia's state Liberal opposition is preparing for two by-elections, following the death of long-serving independent MP Bob Such.

Dr Such's family released a statement to say the independent MP, who has held the seat of Fisher since 1989, died on Saturday morning after being diagnosed with a brain tumour six months ago.

A by-election for the seat of Fisher will provide the Liberals with a chance to add to its 21 lower house seats.

Labor holds 23 seats in the lower house but independent MPs Martin Hamilton-Smith and Geoff Brock have promised to back the government on supply and no-confidence motions, while voting freely on other issues.

A by-election will also be held in the neighbouring seat of Davenport, with Liberal MP Iain Evans planning to retire in the coming months.

Opposition leader Steven Marshall says nine Liberal candidates will contest preselection for Davenport, with a candidate to be chosen this week.

"Everybody is, at the moment, focused on celebrating the contribution that Bob Such has made," he said on Monday.

"But quickly, there will be people that will be turning their minds to what happens next."

University of Adelaide lecturer Clem MacIntyre said he expected the Liberals to win both seats but a strong independent candidate could draw strong support.

"Davenport is a long-time Liberal seat that the Liberals will expect to hold," he told ABC radio.

See the original post here:
SA Liberals prepare for two by-elections

Try as they might, reporters and liberal critics can't quite get Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to go all in and criticize President Obama. In a new interview over atSalon, Thomas Frank lays out all of the complaints of disappointed Democrats, but Warren doesn't exactly bite:

FRANK: In some ways thats exactly the problem. When I talk to people, they often say Democrats aren't the party of working people at all. And they talk about NAFTA and deregulating Wall Street, and they say, look at these guys, they wont prosecute the financial industry. They say, Democrats talk a good game, but theyre always on the side of the elite at the end of the day. What do you say to these people?

WARREN: Were the only ones fighting back. Right now, on financial reform, the Republicans are trying to roll back the financial reforms of Dodd-Frank. In fact, Mitch McConnell has announced that if he gets the majority in the Senate, his first objective is to repeal healthcare and his second is to roll back the financial reforms, and in particular to target the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the one agency thats out there for American families, the one that has returned more than four billion dollars to families who got cheated by big financial institutions. Thats in just three years.

There was also this exchange, which again lays out the disappointment something of a longing on the part of disaffected liberals to have someone of Warren's stature validate their frustration (emphasis ours):

FRANK: Heres the penultimate question: everything youre saying are issues that have been important to me most of my adult life. In 2008, I thought I had a candidate who was going to address these things. Right? Barack Obama. Today, my friends and I are pretty disappointed with what hes done. I wonder if you feel he has been forthright enough on these subjects. And I also wonder if you think that someone can take any of this stuff on without being president. You know, there are a lot of good politicians in America who have their heart in the right place. But theyre not the president. Well anyhow. You understand my frustration

WARREN: I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, its about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. Im completely convinced of that. And I go through the details in the book, and I could tell them to you. But he was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table. Now there was a lot of other stuff that also had to happen for it to happen. But if he hadnt been there, we wouldnt have gotten the agency. At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.

FRANK: You might say, always. Just about every time they had to compromise, they compromised in the direction of Wall Street.

WARREN: Thats right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter.

This is the harshest criticism could muster, and it's not exactly new. In fact, the original criticism of Obama's financial team when he picked them was that they were Clinton retreads, collected fat Wall Street paychecks and favored deregulation. Obama, in Warren's view, picked the wrong economic team, and they wound up pickingWall Street. Again, this isn't a new assessment of Obama, nor is it the kind of barn-burner denunciationsome liberals are apparently pining for.

Partly, it's because it wouldn't do Warren and her fellow Democrats any good to criticize the party and the president in a tough midtermyear. But Warrenhas shown plenty of reticence to criticize any of her fellow Democrats -- including Hillary Clinton.

Continue reading here:
Sorry, liberals. Elizabeth Warren still wont really criticize Obama or Clinton.