The next attorney general is basically Eric Holder in a skirt

Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things "Savage."

In today's issue: The Republican Party took back control of Congress during the last election, but Dr. Savage wonders what difference it has made.

As far as he can see, the GOP is doing nothing to oppose Obama's policies or even question his appointment of a new attorney general to replace Eric Holder.

---

“It's worse now that there is a Republican majority than it was before,” Dr. Savage said to his listeners.

When there was a Democratic majority, we had the fake Republicans pretending they opposed the system.

But now they're doing worse things to America.

They're going through mock show hearings on the next attorney general, who is basically Eric Holder in a skirt.

She's as far left as Obama and Holder, if not farther left.

She'll get away with more than Holder has, because she's black and a woman.

Yes, you heard me.

The media is praising Obama's pick: "She's the first black female attorney general in U.S. history!"

Since when is race and gender a qualification for a job?

Has she written any legal opinions to distinguish herself?

A CONTROVERSIAL BUT TRUE HERO

Controversial Arizona sheriff to seek seventh term

 

17 hours ago

• 
• 
• 
• 

.

View gallery

• 
  .

(Reuters) - Controversial Phoenix area sheriff Joe Arpaio told supporters Friday he would run for a seventh term at the helm of law enforcement efforts in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The 82-year-old Republican, who bills himself "America's toughest sheriff," sent an email to supporters announcing that he would run again in 2016, seeking donations in a race he said would pit him against "celebrity lefties" who are trying to defeat him.

"Going up against Barack Obama's political machine, Hollywood leftists and their millions as well as a hostile local and national media is extremely expensive, which is why I need your financial support," Arpaio said in the email.

Arpaio, who was first elected in 1992, is known for his tough stance on immigration, as well as conditions that opponents have said are too harsh in the county's jails.

The sheriff was one of a number of Obama critics who said they did not believe the Democratic president had been born in the United States.

He said in 2012 that a "volunteer posse" had investigated Obama's birth certificate and determined it to be fraudulent. The so-called "birther" movement had been widely discredited by that time.

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

UNDER ARREST CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST LEWIS REYES

BY: ANGEL JUAN

Arrested and beaten, by personnel of the Department of State Security and National Revolutionary Police, in Havana, the Activist of Human Rights Lewis Reyes.

Tel: 52547925

Fidel Castro’s Testament

Website Accessible at http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/

This message is sent in compliance with e-mail Bill HR 1910. If you no longer wish to receive emails from the CTP, please click here to unsubscribe.

The Latell Report January 2015 The Latell Report analyzes Cuba's contemporary domestic and foreign policy, and is published periodically. It is distributed by the electronic information service of the Cuba Transition Project (CTP) at the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS). Fidel Castro’s Testament Rumors of Fidel Castro’s precarious health may swirl again in the aftermath of a letter issued over his signature earlier this week. Addressed to the Federation of University Students, the retired leader is quoted briefly about the changing Cuban relationship with the United States.  After remaining silent for more than five weeks following the announcements by President Obama and Raul Castro of measures taken in pursuit of détente, Fidel finally weighed in. “I will explain,” he is quoted saying, “in a few words, my essential position.” Ghost written or not, his message provides a hedged endorsement of the process, though not of any of the steps taken by either side to normalize relations. He says nothing, for example, about the impending restoration of diplomatic relations that he caused to be broken in January 1961. Nowhere in the message does Castro express unambiguous approval for detente. Perhaps the nearest he comes is by stating that he does not reject a “peaceful solution to conflicts or threats of war.” Employing similar lofty language, the letter merely states. “Defending peace is the duty of all.” “Any negotiated, peaceful solution . . . which does not imply the use of force must be addressed in accordance with international principles and norms.” “We will always defend cooperation and friendship with all the world’s peoples, and with those of our political adversaries.” In short, the message can only be read as grudging. Castro is quoted saying, “I do not trust the policy of the United States, nor have I exchanged one word with them.” It recalls his militance and intransigence during decades of dealings with ten American presidents: “revolutionary ideas must always be on guard. . . . In this spirit I have struggled, and will continue to struggle until my last breath.” All this sounds reliably like Fidel. But the odds are good that he did not actually contribute meaningfully to the drafting of the document. It is impossible to know of course, but it reads more like a skillful brief composed by Raul Castro’s designees. They wanted Fidel’s stamp of approval for moving toward better relations with the United States. Emblazoned on the front pages of the major Cuban dailies, the letter got maximum exposure on the island. After Fidel’s long silence it was also necessary for the regime to stifle speculation that he had died or was on his deathbed. And, for many, his extended silence left the impression that he was opposed to normalization with Washington. It was unacceptable for either of those impressions to persist. Yet, no utterance attributed to Fidel would have been credible had he enthusiastically endorsed rapprochement. Since his university days –as he in fact mentions in the letter— he pursued radical, anti-American ideals. For him now, in his late eighties, suddenly to abandon decades of anti-American intransigence would not have made sense. After all, the American economic embargo remains fully in force. Other historic Cuban demands are also still unassuaged. How could he give unequivocal approval to a process still in its early stages? Oddly, there is no mention in the letter of the release of the three convicted Cuban intelligence agents from American penitentiaries, or of the America contractor who served five years in a Cuban jail. The key figures of the large Cuban spy ring that operated in the United States had been heralded as national heroes by Fidel before his retirement. He was extravagantly associated with the protracted campaign to win their release. The regime’s propaganda and intelligence machines labored long and diligently, overtly and covertly. But Fidel has not taken a victory bow now that they are home. Nor has he met with them as they are being lionized in the official media as representatives of a new generation of revolutionary heroes. If he is not on his death bed, or severely impaired, a photo op with them would have been a routine event. Other than for reasons of health, therefore, it seems inexplicable that he has failed to boast of the Cuban success in bringing them home.  Two days after the letter was aired in Cuba, the press reported that Fidel had met with his old friend and biographer, Brazilian friar Frei Betto. They engaged, it was reported, in a friendly conversation about national and international issues. Normally under such circumstances, a photo of the two would have accompanied the article. But this time, the photo of them attached to the story was acknowledged to have been taken in February 2014 during an earlier meeting. The most recent photos of Fidel appeared in the middle of last year and he has made no public appearance in about a year. Will rumors of his imminent demise be stoked anew? _____________________________ Brian Latell is the author of Castro’s Secrets: Cuban Intelligence, the CIA, and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). A former National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, he is now a senior research associate at the Institute for Cuban & Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. ________________________________ The CTP can be contacted at P.O. Box 248174, Coral Gables, Florida 33124-3010, Tel: 305-284-CUBA (2822), Fax: 305-284-4875, and by email at ctp.iccas@miami.edu.

What Would Castro Do?

An Information Service of the Cuba Transition Project Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami This message is sent in compliance with e-mail Bill HR 1910. If you no longer wish to receive emails from the CTP, please click here to unsubscribe. Issue 233 January 30, 2015 José Azel*

		WWCD: What Would Castro Do?**
		The recent editorials arguing for or against the continuation of the U.S. embargo and travel ban of Cuba have one feature in common; unlike the Evangelical self-inquiry of “What Would Jesus Do?, the writings fail to ask the WWCD question. That is, what would Castro do if the United States were to unilaterally and unconditionally end economic sanctions? This is a peculiar omission, since the formulation of U.S. foreign policy is often compared to a chess game in which every prospective move is analyzed and weighted with an eye to what the adversary’s counter move would be. As in a conditional proposition in logic, a unilateral policy move by the U.S. implies reciprocity by Cuba in the “if…then…” array of possibilities. And yet, advocates of a unilateral-unconditional ending of economic sanctions simplistically posit that the policy has failed and hence it must be changed, without advancing their vision of how the Castro government would respond to such a U.S. initiative. This is an irresponsible approach to the formulation of U.S. foreign policy. Let me thus advance a WWCD scenario that, although necessarily speculative as these crystal ball exercises are, is perfectly consistent with the statements and actions of the Castro government. First the obvious; Cuban officials would move to capitalize economically in every possible way, but most importantly by welcoming American tourists as the most immediate source of foreign exchange. A corollary is that the Cuban government may also move to restrict travel by Cuban-Americans. The Castro logic is simple. American tourists do not speak Spanish, are not subversive, will have limited contacts with Cubans, and will stay in isolated resorts that are off limits to the average Cuban and controlled by Cuba’s security apparatus. Cuban-Americans, on the other hand, symbolize a more destabilizing and less profitable group given their propensity to stay with family and friends and their ability to communicate in Spanish their experiences in a free land. Ironically, ending the travel ban on the merits of American tourists as communicators of democratic values will enrich the Cuban military- who controls the tourism industry. And, under this scenario, will threaten travel by Cuban-Americans who offer more accessible evidence of the virtues of democracy and free markets. My WWCD scenario foresees another Castro move that would be very awkward for the United States. For years, the Cuban government has carried out a very successful campaign in the United Nations and other international platforms to make a case for economic damages to Cuba caused by the U.S. embargo. In Cuba’s view this policy by the United States has caused over 116 billion dollars in damages to the Cuban economy. The damages are detailed in yearly reports that Cuba submits to the United Nations. In the latest UN vote, 188 nations voted to end the embargo and only one nation voted with the United States. Ending economic sanctions unconditionally would strengthen Cuba’s juridical case and would be exhibited by Cuba to the international community as an admission of culpability by the U.S. Indeed, Cuba may seek reparations for damages in forums such as the International Court of Justice. This “if…then…” scenario is not as far fetched as it may seem. The doctrine of state immunity, which protects a state from being sued, allows exceptions for disputes arising from commercial transactions. Moreover, scholars in this field have argued that states should not have immunity in cases relating to human rights abuses. Correspondingly, and astutely, the Cuban government has diligently built its case against the U.S. embargo as a violation of human rights contending it is a policy “deliberately designed to provoke hunger, illnesses and desperation in the Cuban population.” Opponents of the embargo naively reinforce Cuba’s case by always noting in their language that the embargo “only hurts the Cuban people.”  Some provisions of the embargo extend the territorial jurisdiction of the United States in a way shunned by most nations. The Cuban government will rejoice at the opportunity to place the United States ‘on trial’ in international stages populated by anti-Americanism. This is not to suggest that Cuba’s case would prevail and be awarded damages, but it is the sort of scenario that makes advocacy for a non-negotiated ending of economic sanctions such an irresponsible argument. Supporters of terminating the embargo unconditionally must be confused; the Castros are not the type to “turn the other cheek.” _________________________________________________ *José Azel is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami. He is the author of the book, Mañana in Cuba. _________________________________________________ **Previously published in El Nuevo Herald on November 5, 2014.  _________________________________________________ The CTP can be contacted at P.O. Box 248174, Coral Gables, Florida 33124-3010, Tel: 305-284-CUBA (2822), Fax: 305-284-4875, and by email at ctp.iccas@miami.edu. The CTP Website is accessible athttp://ctp.iccas.miami.edu.

EXPRESSION OF ANGEL JUAN MOYA ON MARCOS RUBIO NOMINATION

Ángel Juan Moya expresses bad news for the Castro regime, with the new nomination of Marcos Rubio as Chairman Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. Congratulations on your new appointment, we all know, here in the island, you carry Cuba in your heart, handle the dictatorship with a firm grip.

====================

BY: PRESS RELEASE

Rubio Named Chairman Of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Western Hemisphere Subcommittee

Panel will hold its first hearing next Tuesday regarding Cuba policy

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) was officially named today as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women’s Issues. He will also be a member of the Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy; the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism; and the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy.

Rubio also announced the first hearing to be held in the Western Hemisphere subcommittee will be next Tuesday, February 3 at 10:00 a.m. EST. It will examine President Obama’s changes to Cuba policy, and its implications for human rights in the island.

In assuming this chairmanship, Rubio issued the following statement:

“Being from Florida, I’ve seen how events in the Western Hemisphere not only impact our state but our entire nation. For too long, Congress and the Administration have failed to prioritize our relations in this hemisphere. This lack of attention has kept us from seizing the opportunities of a rising middle class, emboldened tyrants and non-state actors to erode democratic values, allowed global competitors to deepen their influence in the continent, and diminished our ability to respond to the proliferation of transnational organized crime and the violence and instability associated with it.

“As chairman of the subcommittee, I will promote bold measures that improve U.S. economic and security interests by addressing the region’s growing calls for transparent institutions, access to quality education, private sector competitiveness, and respect for political and economic freedom for all.

“I look forward to advocating for closer ties with Canada, Mexico, and other regional partners such as Colombia as well as greater energy cooperation and trade. The subcommittee will be a platform for bringing light and solutions to rising problems in the hemisphere, such as growing inhospitality for individual freedoms, deteriorating security environments, lagging competitiveness, ineffective regional organizations, the need for political stability and economic prosperity in Haiti, and the promotion and support of democracy in places where individual freedoms are all but a dream, such as Cuba and Venezuela.

“I hope to also continue my work on the U.S. government’s efforts to promote democracy and advance human rights around the world, to support the fair and equitable treatment of women around the globe, and increase religious freedom. This is another set of issues that has far too often been neglected by this administration. I plan to continue to be a voice for the oppressed, whether they be in our own hemisphere or on the other side of the globe. I look forward to working to ensure that U.S. programs aimed at advancing these freedoms are effective and achieving results that are consistent with our values as a nation.

“I also intend to remain active on the East Asia and Pacific subcommittee by supporting our strong alliances in Asia and working to address the challenges confronting that vitally important region which will play a significant role in shaping the 21st century. It’s clear that American leadership has achieved a great deal in this region in recent decades, and now it’s important that we take none of our gains for granted and continue working with our allies to advance our security, economic and human rights agenda.”

SESSIONS: Obama’s AG Nominee Will ‘Continue to Execute an Unlawful, Unconstitutional Policy’

Share this Tweet this Google + 

Email this

JANUARY 30, 2015 6:50 PM  

• OBAMA NATION

(CNS News) – Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s executive action plan for illegal immigrants was unconstitutional and therefore Congress must not confirm Obama’s attorney general nominee who is committed to executing that “illegal and unconstitutional” policy.

“So, why would we want to confirm someone who’s going to continue to execute an unlawful, unconstitutional policy?” Sessions told CNSNews.com.

SPECIAL: Join the Tea Party REVOLUTION! The Obama Regime must be dismantled!

At the Capitol on Thursday, CNSNews.com asked Sessions if  illegal aliens have a right work in the U.S.–a claim attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch had made the day before in her confirmation hearing in response to a question from Sessions.

“The law says they don’t, and it explicitly says an employer can’t hire someone who’s illegally here,” said Sessions.

“There’s no question about this,” said Sessions. “This is why the president’s action, his amnesty, is so stunningly, dramatically dangerous–because our Congress considered what he wanted to be done and rejected it.

“And the president goes beyond,” said Sessions, “saying well I don’t have enough, I’m using prosecutorial discretion about who gets deported to the point where he says I’m giving up to 5 million people work authorization, Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, an ID card [to individuals] who under the law are here unlawfully.”

Attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch being sworn in at her confirmation hearing on Jan. 28, 2015. (AP Photo)

“This is, as Professor Turley has so eloquently stated, an incredible constitutional overreach,” said the senator. “And Congress is not a potted plant, it needs to defend itself, it has certain powers that it should use to block this wrongdoing. One of those powers is confirmation power, so why would we want to confirm someone who’s going to continue to execute an unlawful, unconstitutional policy?”

“One of the other powers, will soon be on the floor, is the power of the purse,” he pointed out, “and Congress has no responsibility to fund an executive program that they oppose as a matter of policy or, and in addition, is illegal and unconstitutional. So Congress should not give money to the Executive branch to execute a plan that’s unlawful and especially when the American people by a substantial majority oppose what the president’s doing.”

Session said he was “just baffled by the President’s assertions of power that are so baseless,” adding “I don’t think that we should feel obligated to confirm someone who stated in the hearing that she intends to continue those policies.”

CNSNews.com followed up: “Do you think Loretta Lynch should clarify her remarks to you where she said, ‘I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here?’”

“Well I think that revealed her thinking, so they got scared about that because American people begin to see just how broad their view is on this issue,” Sessions replied.

“Secondly all she really said was, when she retracted, was that it’s the 5 million people. Well that’s the complaint about the president’s action. He had no authority to give them the work permit, so she’s supporting what the president said.”

“She refused to say that she would not take legal action against an employer who gave preference to lawful workers over … workers with an Obama Card,” said Sessions.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/sessions-why-confirm-ag-who-s-going-execute-unconstitutional-policy

- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/sessions-obamas-ag-nominee-will-continue-execute-unlawful-unconstitutional-policy-80391/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sessions-obamas-ag-nominee-will-continue-execute-unlawful-unconstitutional-policy#sthash.mmfXQWNb.dpuf