Mediaboss Marketing

He also threatened to use the Senates budget powers to withhold the funds needed to fully reopen the embassy building in Havanas Plaza de la Revolucin.

I intend to use every tool at our disposal in the majority to unravel as many of these changes as possible, Mr Rubio said.

His call to fight Mr Obamas diplomatic initiative was echoed by Lindsey Graham, another Republican senator.

I will do all in my power to block the use of funds to open an embassy in Cuba. Normalising relations with Cuba is bad idea at a bad time, Mr Graham said.

The stand-off illustrates the political reality Mr Obama faces in his final two years in office with Republicans fully in control of Congress. While he retains vast powers over US foreign policy the Republicans also have a wide array of tools to try to thwart him.

Josh Earnest, Mr Obama's spokesman, said it was "odd" that Mr Rubio would oppose an embassy in Cuba when he had recently spoken about the importance of the US embassy in China.

"'Senator Rubio said, 'Our embassy [in China] should be viewed as an ally of those within the Chinese society that are looking to express their fundamental rights and to worship freely,'" he said. "We think the exact same thing can be said of the new American embassy in Cuba."

The US is currently represented in Havana by a special interests section that operates under the auspices of the Swiss embassy. The section is led by a senior US diplomat who would remain the acting envoy to the Castro regime if Republicans blocked the appointment of an ambassador.

Mr Obama will also need the cooperation of Republicans to lift the 54-year-old trade embargo that bans US companies from importing or exporting to Cuba.

The President called for an honest and serious debate about ending the embargo but few in Washington believe there is any chance the Republicans will agree before Mr Obama leaves office in early 2017.

The rest is here:
Republicans threaten to stop US embassy opening in Cuba

President Barack Obamas plan to normalize relations with Cuba has hit a familiar roadblock: Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Just hours after Obama announced that a prisoner swap with the Cuban government for two Americans was the start of a new relationship with the communist country, Republicans began informally kicking around ideas to stop any changes to the U.S.-Cuba relationship.

Story Continued Below

On the list: deny Obama funds to reopen an embassy in Havana, stall the nomination of a potential ambassador, vote down a bill to open up travel more widely and ignore requests from the White House to lift a decades-old embargo.

(Also on POLITICO: Obama's December surprise)

When Republicans control the Senate next year, the party would be in a good position to get some of their plans done. But even if they cant fully stop Obama, who has some authority to act without Congress, the dispute will provide another opportunity for the presidents Hill rivals, including 2016 likely hopefuls Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, to continue to question his use of executive action a theme Republicans had already planned to take on next year around Obamas moves on immigration and Obamacare.

I will do all in my power to block the use of funds to open an embassy in Cuba. Normalizing relations with Cuba is bad idea at a bad time, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Twitter Wednesday.

In a White House address on Wednesday, Obama said he would direct Secretary of State John Kerry to reviews Cubas place on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, reestablish an embassy in Havana and ease travel restrictions. Obama also said the U.S. would increase remittance levels, expand commercial sales and exports.

(Also on POLITICO: GOP livid over Cuba)

We will end an outdated approach that for decades has failed to advance our interests, Obama said. Neither the American nor the Cuban people are well-served by a rigid policy that is rooted in events that took place before most of us were born.

Read the original here:
How Republicans could stop Obama's Cuba play

Embattled Speaker of the Ekiti State Assembly, Dr. Adewale Omirin,

The 19 All Progressives Congress members of the Ekiti State House of Assembly on Friday formed a parallel assembly at a secret location and suspended factional Speaker Dele Olugbemi and the six lawmakers loyal to him.

The APC lawmakers accused the seven Peoples Democratic Party lawmakers of violating Section 96 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

Those suspended apart from Olugbemi are Mrs. Abeni Olayinka , Adeyinka Adeloye, Alexander Adeojo, Mr. Olowo Ajiboye, Mr. Dele Ajibola and Mrs. Ayo Olajide-Fatunbi

Olugbemi and the six lawmakers had purportedly impeached the state House of Assembly Speaker, Dr. Adewale Omirin, and his deputy, Taiwo Orisalade, on November 20, 2014.

At the plenary held at a secret location in Ado-Ekiti and presided over by Omirin, the APC lawmakers also nullified all legislative actions purportedly carried out by the Olugbemi-led Assembly.

The actions include the receipt and consideration of the 2015 budget; the dissolution and reconstitution of the caretaker committee members for the 16 local government areas and the confirmation of three commissioner-nominees and special advisers.

The plenary concluded that the purported impeachment of Omirin and the election of Olugbemi as House Speaker portrayed the Assembly in bad light, hence the need to suspend the seven lawmakers to save the integrity of the legislative chamber.

The Majority Leader, Churchill Adedipe, who moved the motion, claimed that the PDP lawmakers had consistently violated Section 96(1) of 1999 Constitution and House Standing Order in the last one month.

He alleged that the seven lawmakers gave false information to the public by accusing the 19 APC legislators of receiving bribes to impeach Governor Ayodele Fayose.

See the article here:
Ekiti APC lawmakers form parallel assembly

The All Progressives Congress governorship aspirant in Akwa Ibom State, John Udoedehe, has threatened to defect to the Peoples Democratic Party if the former fails to cancel the result of its governorship primaries in the state.

Udoedehe said he would explore options to substantiate his calls for the cancellation of the APC governorship primary, but would dump the party for the PDP if it remained unfair to him.

Addressing journalists in Uyo on Thursday, Udoedehe said the defection of the former Secretary to the Akwa Ibom State Government, Mr. Umana Umana, from PDP to APC might destroy the latter.

He added that he had to walk away from the governorship primaries because he (Udoedehe) did not want a repeat of what happened in 2011.

Udoedehe said the APC constitution did not make provision for Option A4 which was used during the primaries that made Umana to emerge as the partys governorship candidate.

He said, I will pursue all internal mechanism to resolve the problem but if the party remains adamant to corruption and fraud, I will dump it for PDP.

I am not moving to PDP for now. It is not going to be a personal decision; many of our followers will meet and decide on a way forward for the interest of our group.

The way forward will mean moving to PDP and it will also mean that we have to choose between one evil and another evil.

I believe that APC has the ability to resolve internal crisis and Akwa Ibom State cannot be an exception. If the party decides to do otherwise, then I can take a decision.

He denied that he had been paid N500m by Governor Godswill Akpabio to move from APC to PDP, describing it as a speculation aimed at denting his image.

Here is the original post:
Udoedehe threatens to dump APC for PDP

After reading letters by Harry Douglass Jr. (Dems & big money,' Dec. 6) and Marlene Haslett (Metcalfe's immigrants insult, Dec. 7) I have to ask: Don't people read what they write? Are they that liberal? Do they not think for themselves?

Mr. Douglass contends a majority of Americans favor gun control, a higher minimum wage, etc. and said he cannot understand why Democrat candidates do not voice those sentiments when running for office.

Does he not know the reason is the liberal media and politicians push these things, but the majority of Americans do not support those agendas? The candidates keep quiet because they want to win.

Ms. Haslett said she supports giving people a chance, but in doing so, she supports criminals. That's what these immigrants are, yet she believes they should be rewarded for breaking U.S. laws?

It's especially interesting to note that she points out that her own grandfather came to this country from Poland and insinuated that he settled here and raised a family here. My guess is her grandfather came here legally as my great-grandfather did. He did not sneak across the border at night like most of these undocumented immigrants and break U.S. laws.

Let's not ignore the truths and laws in our world, but instead stand firm to defend and support our laws and the U.S. Constitution.

Leonard Stanga

Harrison

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

See the original post here:
Liberals & illegals