Jay-Z, international rap star and husband to pop diva Beyonce, took out his frustration against Republicans’ attacks on him and his wife Thursday in a new rap track, mocking their anger over their recent trip to Cuba.

Florida Republicans, including Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), have been attacking both the celebrity couple and the Obama administration for almost a week now, claiming that the trip may have violated U.S. sanctions against Cuba. The new track — titled “Open Letter” — extensively references and mocks those attacks as well as highlighting their ties to the Obama administration:

“I done turned Havana into Atlanta,” Jay-Z raps in “Open Letter,” which he released Thursday. “[…] Boy from the hood, I got White House clearance… Politicians never did s—- for me except lie to me, distort history… They wanna give me jail time and a fine. Fine, let me commit a real crime.”

Listen to the track here:

As Jay-Z noted, the two actually did not commit a crime in visiting Havana. Instead, their trip was approved under a “people-to-people” license from the U.S. Treasury Department, which handles policy related to the Cuba embargo. Under the terms of the license, Jay-Z and Beyonce stuck strictly to an approved schedule, forgoing normal tourist behavior in favor of walking tours of Cuban architecture. The entire “scandal” simply highlights the ridiculous nature of the fifty-year old broken policy the United States has towards Cuba.

Republicans continued on Tuesday to call on the Obama administration to answer questions surrounding superstars Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s trip to Cuba, inadvertently showcasing the massive failure that is U.S. policy towards the communist island nation.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Monday joined those demanding answers from the White House on just who approved the celebrity couple’s trip to Cuba for their fifth wedding anniversary. Meanwhile, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) — co-author of the letter to the Treasury Department that kicked off the “scandal” — appeared on CNN on Tuesday morning to continue to fan the flames, questioning whether the trip was taken illegally:

ROS-LEHTINEN: No one is above the law even if you are the diva Beyoncé. That’s wonderful that she is famous and rich, and Jay-Z — everybody loves him too, but no one’s above the law.

Reuters is reporting the Treasury Department did approve of the trip, under the “people-to-people” licenses the Obama administration first created in 2009. Under the provisions of the licenses, travelers cannot participate in typical tourist activities such as beachgoing. Instead, according to Reuters’ source, every minute of the power couple’s trip was planned out to comply with the rules, where even “a walk around the Old City of Havana, mobbed by crowds of excited Cuban spectators, was led by Miguel Coyula, one of the city’s leading architects.”

Though it seems inherently ridiculous and political for Florida Republicans to target Mr. and Mrs. Carter, the whole instance shines the spotlight on one of the most lengthy failed policies in U.S history. The U.S. embargo on Cuba was first put into place with the rise of communist leader Fidel Castro into power in 1960. A total ban on trade with and travel to the island just ninety miles off the Florida coast, the intention was to suffocate the Castro regime while still young, allowing the restoration of democracy. More than fifty years later, Castro is still alive, though no longer running the country, with no signs that the system he set up will collapse any time soon.

The rules currently in place surrounding the embargo are easily — and frequently — dodged by Americans seeking to visit the isolated island. Additionally, only rarely are those who slip into Cuba actually punished, with only two having to pay the fine associated with illegal travel. Had Beyoncé and Jay-Z actually broken the law in traveling to Cuba, they would have paid a combined $15,000 — hardly an amount that would be worthy of Congressional investigation.

Experts at CAP and the Cato Institute alike agree that the policy has been an abject failure at achieving the goals the United States set out. On taking office, President Obama sought to roll-back some of the harsher restrictions the previous administration placed on Cuba, including removing a ban on remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to their families back home and reducing travel restrictions on Americans with immediate family in Cuba.

Every step towards reforming Cuba policy, however, has been met with kicking and screaming, mostly from the GOP with some Democrats joining in. While the human rights violations the Cuban regime continues to perpetrate are most certainly a concern, campaign funding may play a strong role in the perpetuation of U.S. policies. A 2009 report from Public Campaign highlighted the nearly $11 million the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, along with a “network of hard-line Cuban American donors,” spent on political campaigns since 2004. In the report, those candidates who received funding displayed a shift in voting patterns on Cuba policy in the aftermath of the gift.

After Palestine was upgraded to a non-member observer state at the United Nations, members of both houses of Congress proposed legislation responding to the Palestinians’ U.N. statehood bid by cutting off American aid. However, cutting off aid would harm the prospects for peace and immiserate thousands of Palestinians.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) (who has done this before) was the first to call for defunding, followed shortly by two measures in the Senate. The proposals are essentially non-starters as they would also take away massive amounts of money from the U.N., a move Senate Democrats would most likely not allow to move forward.

A fourth proposal, amendment 3203 to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), would only remove United States aid to the Palestinians in case any Palestinian authority brings a case at the International Criminal Court (a potential consequence of the U.N. upgrade). Regardless of whether or not one thinks the United States should seek to deter the Palestinians from going to the ICC, the blanket, automatic aid cutoff proposed in SA 3203 could have potentially devastating consequences. As CAP’s Matt Duss explains, diplomatic and financial support for the Palestinian Authority is a critical tool for bolstering the moderate Palestinian leadership vis-a-vis their hardline Hamas rivals:

U.S. policymakers and legislators should consider the words of several former Israeli officials who have come out in support of the Palestinian bid, including former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who said in a recent interview that “the Palestinian request from the United Nations is congruent with the basic concept of the two-state solution. Therefore, I see no reason to oppose it.” Writing in Foreign Policy this week, former deputy Israeli defense minister Ephraim Sneh warned that efforts to punish Abbas and the Palestinian Authority over the U.N. bid — which would likely redound to the benefit of Abbas’ more hardline rivals in Hamas— “would be a shot not in the foot but in the liver — Israel’s.”

Threatening aid in retaliation for the widely popular U.N. bid would undermine the moderate leadership’s argument that diplomacy with Israel, and not force, is the best way to advance the Palestinian national cause. Passing SA 3203 would undermine America’s main goal in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — furthering a peace process towards a two-state solution.

It could also shatter the fragile Palestinian economy. Though Palestinian growth has averaged a massive 7.7 percent in recent years, that growth has been fueled by foreign economic assistance. Without foreign aid, the Palestinian Authority would be unable to pay for services and development projects, which is why the World Bank believes “it is imperative” that “donors maintain their support to the PA’s budget.” This situation is unfortunately likely to continue for the forseeable future, as the continued occupation makes sustainable, non-aid fueled growth difficult. Since the U.S. provides an enormous amount of non-military aid to the PA, and aid is already slowing down, further cuts could do serious harm to Palestinian economy, endangering both vulnerable Palestinians and the legitimacy of the moderate, economically-focused Fatah leadership.

Perhaps for these reasons, the White House is not supporting any sort of “punishment” for the Palestinian bid at the United Nations.

Various news outlets reported last November that Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee, had lifted her hold on all U.S. aid going to the Palestinians. Ros-Lehtinen said she was blocking the funds until she received assurances from the Obama administration that they were in America’s national security interest. But last month the Florida congresswoman sent a letter Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying she would continue to hold $147 million because the Palestinian economy grew.

But the National Journal reports today that Clinton is bypassing Ros-Lehtinen’s hold and authorizing the aid anyway:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is allowing U.S. funds to flow to the West Bank and Gaza despite a hold by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., a rare display of executive-branch authority sure to anger the key lawmaker concerned about protecting her congressional oversight role.

A State Department official said that the letter was delivered on Tuesday to key members of Congress informing them of Clinton’s decision to move forward with the $147 million package of the fiscal year 2011 economic support funds for the Palestinian people, despite Ros-Lehtinen’s hold. Administrations generally do not disburse funding over the objections of lawmakers on relevant committees.

The State Department official told the National Journal that said that withholding the funding could “undermine the progress that has been made in recent years in building Palestinian institutions and improving stability, security, and economic prospects, which benefits Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) today appealed to House members to unfreeze Palestinian aid and continue funding for Palestinian Sesame Street. Ellison, in remarks delivered on the House floor, spoke of the benefits of funding Palestinian Sesame Street and the dangerous television shows competing for children’s attention in the West Bank and Gaza.

Holding an Elmo doll, Ellison argued for continuing U.S. funding of the popular children’s show:

This guy taught us our 123’s, but he also taught us tolerance and understanding.

For the past several years, he’s been doing the same for children in the Palestinian Territories. Because of Sesame Street in Palestine, Palestinian kids grow up with the same positive role models that we did.

But with the freeze on Palestinian aid funds, Sesame Street went off the air and Hamas children’s programming faces less competition. Ellison warned:

Now, Palestinian kids are left watching Farfour – this mouse – who is the main character on a Hamas TV show for children. Instead of tolerance and understanding, Farfour promotes violence and anti-Semitism.

Watch it:

Since October, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) has held up $190 million in Palestinian aid. The decision to freeze aid came after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sought U.N. recognition for an independent Palestinian state. “By providing the Palestinians with $2.5 billion over the last 5 years, the U.S. has only rewarded and reinforced their bad behavior,” Ros-Lehtinen said.

J Street, the “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” organization, supports unfreezing Palestinian aid, issued a statement last week calling on Ros-Lehtinen to “Lift the remaining holds on Palestinian aid — don’t punish Palestinian children with political posturing.”

Last night, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1905, The Iran Threat Reductions Act (PDF), by a 410 to 11 margin. The bill strengthens and requires the president to impose existing sanctions against Iran, but also contains a provision which constrains the administration should it seek to diplomatically engage the Islamic Republic.

The provision in Section 601(c), proposed by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and added to the bill in her House Foreign Affairs Committee, says:

No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that…is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran, and… presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.

Yesterday, the White House also dropped a veto threat on a defense bill that includes sanctions aimed at Iran’s central bank. Taken together, said the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a group that advocates diplomacy, the moves “represent a major step in the wrong direction for the United States’ Iran policy.” Policy director Jamal Abdi said, “By working to take diplomatic options off the table, the House is putting restrictions on the only tool available to prevent a nuclear Iran and prevent a disastrous military confrontation.”

Despite a waiver in the Threat Reduction Act that allows the president to suspend the ban when U.S. national security is at stake, the provision faced criticisms from advocates of engagement. Last week, 26 liberals groups sent a letter to Congress opposing the measure.

In November, former U.S ambassadors Thomas Pickering and William Luers wrote that this “preposterous law” barring contacts defies Sun Tzu’s famous maxim by “mak[ing] it illegal for the U.S. to know its enemy.” Noting that there have been virtually no contacts with Iran since the country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the two elder statesmen observed:

That ignorance of this powerful adversary dangerously weakens our ability to know how to achieve U.S. objectives and protect U.S. interests.

The most successful practitioners of Sun Tzu’s counsel have found that the more one knows about the adversary, the more likely it is that war can be won or, better yet, avoided altogether.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), though, noted in a “dear colleague” letter that the bill only bars contacts with those who are a “threat” to the U.S. or “affiliated with terrorist organizations.” She continued: “None of the persons with whom the United States would negotiate over the nuclear program fit into this category.”

A Senate version of the legislation remains stalled. Faced with signing the bill in the future, the administration would likely issue a signing statement exempting itself from Sec. 601(c) because, as Pickering and Luers point out, it “rais[es] serious constitutional issues over the separation of powers” by curbing the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy.

Led by right-wing Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the House Foreign Affairs Committee today marked up and passed new legislation on U.S.-Iran policies. Amendments to the bill, H.R. 1905, included one that says, “No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that…is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran.” The president may request a waiver, but only with 15 days notice and if the contact averts an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.”

The restriction in the amendment basically criminalizes U.S. diplomacy. At Democracy Arsenal, Heather Hurlburt lists a few very recent contacts with Iran that would be considered illegal under Ros-Lehtinen’s restrictions:

U.S. and Iranian diplomats have been sharing a conference room discussing the political future of Iran’s neighbor Afghanistan this week. The New York Times reported that the Administration had quietly reached out to Iran to attempt to bring it into a political discussion around Afghanistan’s future stability. No more of that.

And the number three official at the State Department, Bill Burns, had a meeting with an Iranian counterpart that, among other topics, proved important in releasing the first of the three American hikers from Iranian custody.

So those contacts — banned, as far as the House Foreign Affairs committee is concerned. What, after all, “vital national security interests” are served by ending the imprisonment of one of the U.S. hikers?

Furthermore, Georgetown professor and former top intelligence analyst Paul Pillar points out that the restrictions could prevent progress on the most contentious issue between Iran and the West, the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, potentially heightening the likelihood of war:

It would prevent any exploration of ways to resolve disagreement over that Iranian nuclear program that we are supposedly so intensely concerned about… And it would prevent any diplomacy to keep U.S.-Iranian incidents or crises—the kind that retired joint chiefs chairman Admiral Mullen expressed concern about—from spinning out of control, unless the crisis conveniently stretched out beyond the fifteen-day notification period.

And the 15-day notification seems outrageously long. The National Iranian American Council’s Jamal Abdi wonders, “What if Kennedy had to wait 15 days for Congress’ permission to meet with the Soviets to prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis – which lasted 13 days – from ending in nuclear war?” Indeed, Jim Lobe adds that the bill “eliminate(s) any doubt that its proponents want to involve the U.S. in yet another war in the Middle East.”