Mediaboss Marketing

February 7, 2015 by Kamarudeen Ogundele, Ado-Ekiti 82 Comments

Supporters of the All Progressives Congress presidential candidate, Maj. Gen. Muhamadu Buhari (retd.), in Ekiti State have vowed to resist Governor Ayodele Fayoses alleged clampdown on the opposition in the State.

They warned that they would have to fight back to defend themselves if the security agencies failed to address their series of complaints against the government.

Speaking with our correspondent in Ado Ekiti, the State Coordinator of Buhari Support Organisation on International Observers, Mr. Femi Adeleye, urged Fayose to stop attacking members of the opposition in the state.

He said, We have notified the security agencies and they said they are on top of the situation.

We are law abiding citizens and we have reported to the security agencies. The governor should allow people to make their choice, but if the security agencies fail to do the right thing, we will have no option than to fight back.

If the Governor fails to allow peace to reign, then he is inviting anarchy because we will have no option than to defend ourselves.

Adeleye boasted that Buhari would emerge victorious in the February 14 election, saying many Peoples Democratic Partys members had expressed their readiness to vote for him because he had the experience, pedigree, character and integrity to turn the fortunes of Nigeria around for good.

The former member of the State House of Assembly disclosed that more volunteers had offered to join the group to help project Buharis message of change and the need to rescue Nigeria from the brink.

He urged the Independent National Electoral Commission to ensure a credible, free and fair election that would meet international standards.

Original post:
Fayoses attacks: Buharis group threatens to fight back

They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. And it happened over and over and over

"There has not been nearly enough change," she tells Salon, taking on Obama failures, lobbyists, tuition. So 2016?

By Thomas Frank

Progressive America Rising via Salon

Oct. 12, 2014 - Senator Elizabeth Warren scarcely requires an introduction. She is the single most exciting Democrat currently on the national stage.

Her differentness from the rest of the political profession is stark and obvious. It extends from her straightforward clarity on economic issues to the energetic way she talks. I met her several years ago when she was taking time out from her job teaching at Harvard to run the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was charged with supervising how the bank bailout money was spent. I discovered on that occasion not only that we agreed on many points of policy, but that she came originally from Oklahoma, the state immediately south of the one where I grew up, and also that high school debate had been as important for her as it had been for me.

In the years since then, Professor Warren helped to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which will probably be remembered as one of the few lasting achievements of the Obama Administration); she wrote a memoir, A Fighting Chance; and she was elected to the United States Senate from Massachusetts.

This interview was condensed and lightly edited.

I want to start by talking about a line that youre famous for, from your speech at the Democratic National Convention two years ago: The system is rigged. You said exactly what was on millions of peoples minds. I wonder, now that youre in D.C. and youre in the Senate, and you have a chance to see things close up, do you still feel that way? And: Is there a way to fix the system without getting the Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United or some huge structural change like that? How can we fix it?

Thats the question that lies at the heart of whether our democracy will survive. The system is rigged. And now that Ive been in Washington and seen it up close and personal, I just see new ways in which that happens. But we have to stop and back up, and you have to kind of get the right diagnosis of the problem, to see how it is thatit goes well beyond campaign contributions. Thats a huge part of it. But its more than that. Its the armies of lobbyists and lawyers who are always at the table, who are always there to make sure that in every decision that gets made, their clients tender fannies are well protected. And when that happens not just once, not just twice, but thousands of times a week the system just gradually tilts further and further. There is no one at the tableI shouldnt say theres no one. I dont want to overstate. You dont have to go into hyperbole. But there are very few people at the decision-making table to argue for minimum-wage workers. Very few people.

Read the rest here:
Progressives for Obama - Progressive America Rising

Roots of socialism in America

The roots of socialism in America can be traced to the arrival of German immigrants in the 1850s when Marxian socialist unions began, such as the National Typographic Union in 1852, United Hatters of 1856, and Iron Moulders` Union of North America in 1859. Theodore H. White, author of Fire in the Ashes: Europe in Mid-Century (1953) wrote, "Socialism is the belief and the hope that by proper use of government power, men can be rescued from their helplessness in the wild cycling cruelty of depression and boom."

Progress of socialism

The Socialist Party in America was born and grew dramatically between 1900 and 1912. Under the charismatic leadership of Eugene V. Debs in 1912, 160 councilmen, 145 aldermen, one congressman, and 56 mayors, including Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Berkeley, California, and Schenectady, New York, were elected as Socialists. At the time, Socialists published 300 newspapers, including the Appeal of Reason, which was a Kansas-based publication with 700,000 subscribers. Membership in the Socialist Party totaled 125,000.

Debs converted to socialism while serving jail time for his part in the Pullman Strike in 1897, and began to edit the Appeal to Reason publication. From 1900 to 1920, he ran for president on the Socialist ticket while increasing membership to the Socialist Party tenfold. Although Debs insisted he was a Marxist, he spoke more about poverty and injustice than typical socialist concerns about the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat (Marx).

In 1912, Debs received 900,000 votes, which was six percent of the presidential votes cast that year, principally for his stand against America`s involvement in World War I. Debs appealed to blue collar workers hungry for improved working conditions and higher wages, but also such intellectuals as authors Jack London and Upton Sinclair.

Prominently with President Theodore Roosevelt and through the 20th century`s first years, the Progressive Movement came into view with its belief in the perfectability of man, and in an open society where mankind was neither chained to the past nor condemned to a deterministic future; one which people were capable of changing their condition for better or worse.

The Socialist Party was included within the Progressive Movement. The party dealt with American problems in an American manner. Unlike the Communist Party, the Socialist Party at that time felt no obligation to adhere to an international party line. For example, socialists and other progressives campaigned at the local level for municipal ownership of waterworks, gas and electric plants, and made good progress in such endeavors. In 1911, there were 18 Socialist candidates for mayor, and they nearly won the Cleveland, Ohio, and Los Angeles, California, mayoral races.

See the article here:
Socialism in America - United States American History

By Emma Dumain Posted at 5:03 p.m. on Feb. 6

Van Hollens economic plan, with its transaction tax on Wall Street, has Grijalva and other members of the CPC encouraged. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

For members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the question of whether Democrats shouldmove to the centeror double down on left-leaning populism after Novembers midterm whacking was never in doubt.

Three months after those historic losses, it seems party leaders agree as CPC-endorsed policies once dismissedas fringe ideas are increasingly providing a new framework for the party.

Progressives are especially optimistic about the massive economic overhaul proposal championed byRep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the Budget Committees top Democrat and a de facto member of leadership.

Van Hollen pitched the proposal Friday inPhiladelphia at the CPCs annual summit.

If economic populism is the new brand and the message, quite frankly and with no bragging the Progressive Caucus has been carrying that brand and message for five or six years, said Rep. Ral M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., during a phone interview a few hours before Van Hollen was scheduled to speak. Mr. Van Hollen being here is an acknowledgment of that.

Van Hollens self-described action plan to grow the paychecks of all, not just the wealth of a few puts a new emphasis on wage growth and income disparity, progressives say.

Were glad he prioritizesjobs, not just deficit reductions, said Grijalvas co-chairman, Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota.

Most exciting for CPC members is Van Hollens inclusion ofa transaction taxtargeting high-frequency trading to minimize systemic risk in the financial market.Progressives appreciate the symbolism: The tax goes after Wall Street. Not even President Barack Obama has taken the leap of including a transactiontax in his budget proposals.

See the original post:
House Progressives Cheer Populism in Van Hollen Plan

By Niels Lesniewski Posted at 3:58 p.m. on Feb. 5, 2015

(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

A Democratic senator has launched a new campaign-style effort to lend a voice to progressives in foreign policy, saying theres a void in the current debate.

Sen. Christopher S. Murphys newcampaign, which features a new website and social media engagement, makes the case thatthose with more liberal views on foreign affairs have been underserved in current debates about global hotspots, with the conversation focusing on disagreements between the likes of President Barack Obama, and hawkish and libertarian Republicans like the split between John McCain of Arizona and Rand Paul of Kentucky, for instance.

The dominance of the President, Senator McCain, and Senator Paul on foreign policy should trouble progressives. Why? To state the obvious, because none of these three camps adequately represents the views of most American progressives, Murphy wrote in a post on Medium.

In that post, Murphy, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that a progressive view might includea substantial increase in the budget for diplomacy relative to the Pentagon.

A substantial transfer of financial resources from the military budget to buttress diplomacy and foreign aid so that our global anti-poverty budget, not our military budget, equals that of the other world powers combined, Murphy said. A new humility to our foreign policy, with less emphasis on short-term influencers like military intervention and aid, and more effort spent trying to address the root causes of conflict.

Murphys viewis also interesting given the extent to which Connecticuts economy has been reliant on defense production, with facilities that manufacture everything fromjet engines and helicopters to submarines. Its also a stark contrast from his predecessor, independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who while a member of the Democratic caucus generally aligned with McCain on defense and national security questions.

The Murphy website, which is run through his campaign operation, urges supporters to submit ideas. It comes as the Senate isgoing to be faced with a number of foreign policy issues in the coming months, including a battle over imposing additional conditional sanctions against Iran and authorizing the use of military force against the terror group ISIS.

The 114th: CQ Roll Calls Guide to the New Congress

More here:
Murphy Seeks to Be Progressive Voice in Foreign Policy Debates