Kamala Harris' dad says parents are 'turning in their grave' over her comments on weed and being Jamaican: report

The father of Sen. Kamala Harris is trying to distance himself from the 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful after she said her pot smoking in college stemmed from her Jamaican heritage.
Harris, D-Calif., told the nationally syndicated radio show "The Breakfast Club" earlier this month that she supports marijuana legalization at the federal level, and acknowledged that she's smoked pot in the past, saying: “I have. And I inhaled. I did inhale.”
The senator re-emphasized her use when asked by the hosts about rumors that she opposes marijuana legalization.
“That’s not true. Look, I joke about it, I have joked about it. Half my family is from Jamaica, are you kidding me?” Harris said, laughing.
Harris' father, Donald, disapproved of the comments, which he told the Jamaica Global Online constituted "identity politics."
"My dear departed grandmothers ... as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics," he said
Donald Harris continued: "Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.”
The senator told the radio program: “We need to research the impact of weed on a developing brain” and said measuring how marijuana impairs people who are driving needs to be addressed."
Harris supports a bill — introduced Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a rival for the Democratic presidential nomination — that would end the federal marijuana prohibition.

Blue State Debt Blues Cartoons

Move over Millennials, Oregon lawmakers introduce bill to lower voter age to 16

Liberal blue  states have gone completely nuts.

Some Oregon lawmakers want lower the voting age from 18 to 16-years-old in an effort to get young people to take part in decisions that will impact their future. (Cherokee County Voter Registration and Elections Commission)

Oregon lawmakers are floating a bill that would ask voters to amend the state’s constitution to lower the voting age from 18 to 16-years-old under a plan unveiled Monday.
If passed, the question could be put before voters in the 2020 presidential election. Oregon would become the first state to lower the statewide voting age to 16, which would give younger voters the opportunity "to participate in the ballot -- about decisions that affect their homes, their clean air, their future, their schools and, as we’ve seen, their very lives,” Democratic State Sen. Shemia Fagan said during a news conference in Salem.
"Sixteen-year-olds are subject to our criminal justice system," Fagan added, according to the Salem Statesman-Journal. "They are couch surfing with friends while their families experience homelessness and they're begging us to take action to protect their future."
Issues facing young people have been the catalyst to lowering the voting age in the past. The 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - ratified in 1971 - brought down the voting age requirement from 21 to 18. The measure was fueled in part by young people facing the draft for the Vietnam War, which had become increasingly unpopular.
"We need to be able to take our work to the ballot and protect the policies we’re working so hard to pass,” South Salem High School senior Maria Torres said, according to the Oregonian.
The bill would let 16-year-old cast ballots in all elections, including federal-level offices. Since 2003, 13 states have introduced bills to lower the voting age. None have passed.

Hume criticizes 'inappropriate' behavior by reporters who helped Harris shop

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume criticized a group of reporters who encouraged Sen. Kamala Harris to try on clothes during a campaign stop last week inside a South Carolina boutique.
“It is totally and obviously outwardly inappropriate for members of the media to come across and start recommending what the candidates should wear,” Hume told Tucker Carlson during a Tuesday appearance on Fox News' “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
“Wait a second, wait, hold on. You were ABC News’s White House correspondent for 8 years. You never bought clothing for Ronald Reagan?” Carlson jokingly replied.
"I didn’t because I was covering (George H.W.) Bush and later (Bill) Clinton, and I never recommended clothing to either one of them," Hume said. "This kind of chummy, let's go shopping stuff is obviously something inappropriate."
Hume called the reporters behavior "embarrassing" in a tweet following the encounter.
"So now journalists are going shopping with Harris, helping pick out clothes and then putting out glowing tweets about it," he wrote.
The reporters - CNN national political reporter Maeve Reston; NBC News political reporter Ali Vitali and CBS News political reporter Caitlin Huey-Burns – joked about the incident on social media but have received criticism from some within the news industry for crossing an ethical line.
Journalists typically interact with candidates while on the campaign trail, but recommending outfits can be considered a breach of journalistic integrity.

Trump WH 'exploring every legal option' to reclaim money from defunct California high-speed rail project

The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it is exploring "every legal option" to reclaim $2.5 billion in federal funds spent by California on its now-defunct high-speed rail project, and also that it intends to cancel $928 million in federal grants not yet paid for the project to link Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area.
The move was a dramatic escalation in the ongoing war of words and policy between California and the White House. California Gov. Gavin Newsom,a Democrat, declared during his State of the State address last week that he was shelving plans for the $77 billion rail project that had been championed by environmental groups, admitting that "as currently planned, [it] would cost too much and take too long."
In response to the Trump administration's legal threat Tuesday, Newsom vowed that he would not sit "idly by" as the White House engaged in what he called "political retribution" against California.
In a letter, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator Ronald Batory said Newsom's State of the State address constituted a "significant retreat from the State's initial vision and commitment and frustrates the purpose for which federal funding was awarded (i.e., an initial investment in the larger high-speed rail system.)"

This December 2017 file photo shows one of the elevated sections of the high-speed rail under construction in Fresno, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

Batory, writing to the California HSR Authority (CHSRA), also charged that the state had "materially failed to comply" with its agreement to contribute substantial matching funding to the project in recent months.
For example, Batory noted, California pledged to spend $141.8 million to "advance final design and construction activities" on the high-speed rail network in December 2018 but ended up recording only $47.9 million in expenditures.
INGRAHAM: CALIFORNIA'S PLAN WAS A JOKE FROM THE START -- A LITERAL HIGH-SPEED TRAIN TO NOWHERESVILLE
Additionally, the letter pointed out that the project would not have been completed by 2022, when the state agreed to complete the work.
The agreement's termination is set to take effect March 5, although Batory offered California officials an opportunity to dispute the government's findings.

FILE - In this Feb. 26, 2015, file photo, a full-scale mock-up of a high-speed train is displayed at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. The Trump administration plans to cancel $929 million in U.S. money for California's beleaguered high-speed rail project and wants the state to return an additional $2.5 billion it's already spent. The U.S. Department of Transportation announcement Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2019, came after President Donald Trump last week threatened to make California pay back the money awarded to build the train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

The high-speed rail has been seen as a beleaguered and problematic project for years. According to a timeline created by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), California voters in 2008 "first approved $9.95 billion in bonds for a first in the nation, 800-mile high-speed rail project with an initial cost estimate of $35 billion, to be completed by 2020."
By 2014, no construction had started, but in his State of the State address, then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, “ad-libbed [a] summary of the Little Engine That Could, rhythmically chanting its signature line, ‘I think I can,’ four times.”
In 2017, the Orange County Register wrote that the project was "more time-consuming and tens of billions of dollars more expensive than estimated when California voters approved the funding measure in 2008.”
Finally, Newsom announced this month, “Let's be real. The current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There's been too little oversight and not enough transparency.”
Republican lawmakers in the Golden State responded to Newsom's pullout from the project last week by calling for a referendum vote on Newsom’s plan to build a much shorter, 171-mile railway through the state’s Central Valley.
The constant delays and overspending has made California Democrats a prime target for the White House. On Tuesday, Trump mocked California for joining 15 other states in suing the administration over its recent emergency declaration -- and added a jab about the rail project. (The $77 billion project would dwarf the cost of a wall at the border -- estimated to be $20-25 billion.)

FILE: Feb. 13, 2013: A computer render of California's proposed high-speed train. (CHSRA)

"As I predicted, 16 states, led mostly by Open Border Democrats and the Radical Left, have filed a lawsuit in, of course, the 9th Circuit! California, the state that has wasted billions of dollars on their out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion, seems in charge!" he tweeted.
The president added: "The failed Fast Train project in California, where the cost overruns are becoming world record setting, is hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall!"
Last week, Trump and Newsom publicly sparred over the governor's sudden withdrawal from the pact to build the rail network.
In a tweet, Trump wrote: “California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars. They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a ‘green’ disaster!”
Newsom shot back 40 minutes later.
“Fake news," Newsom wrote. "We’re building high-speed rail, connecting the Central Valley and beyond. This is CA’s money, allocated by Congress for this project. We’re not giving it back. The train is leaving the station — better get on board! (Also, desperately searching for some wall $$??)”
In a statement, CAGW President Tom Schatz said there were larger lessons to be learned from the debacle.
“California’s high-speed rail fantasy quickly became a train to nowhere at taxpayer expense," Schatz said. "This failed boondoggle should be taken as a giant red stop sign for any politician who supports the ‘Green New Deal’ and its equally farcical promise of ending air travel by forcing taxpayers to pay for a California-style rail system across the entire nation.”

Covington High student's legal team sues Washington Post

Attorneys representing the Kentucky high school student involved in a confrontation that went viral on social media last month announced Tuesday that they were suing The Washington Post for $250 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Kentucky, accused The Post of practicing "a modern-day form of McCarthyism" by targeting Nicholas Sandmann and "using its vast financial resources to enter the bully pulpit by publishing a series of false and defamatory print and online articles ... to smear a young boy who was in its view an acceptable casualty in their war against the president."
Washington Post spokesperson Kris Coratti told Fox News in an email that the paper was "reviewing a copy of the lawsuit, and we plan to mount a vigorous defense."
Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, became a target for outrage after a video of him standing face-to-face with a Native American man, Nathan Phillips, while wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat surfaced in January. Sandmann was one of a group of students from Covington attending the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington, D.C., while Phillips was attending the Indigenous Peoples' March on the same day.
Sandmann and the Covington students were initially accused of initiating the confrontation, but other videos and the students' own statements showed that they were verbally accosted by a group of black street preachers who were shouting insults both at them and a group of Native Americans. Sandmann and Phillips have both said they were trying to defuse the situation.
The lawsuit claims The Post "ignored the truth" about the incident and says the paper "falsely accused Nicholas of ... 'accost[ing]' Phillips by 'suddenly swarm[ing]' him in a 'threaten[ing]' and 'physically intimidat[ing]' manner ... 'block[ing]' Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips 'to retreat,' 'taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,' [and] chanting, 'Build that wall,' 'Trump2020,' or 'Go back to Africa,' and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct. ..."Sandmann's attorneys accuse The Post of publishing seven "false and defamatory" articles about the incident between Jan. 19 and 21 and claim the paper "knew and intended that its false and defamatory accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media."
Earlier this month, Sandmann's attorneys sent preservation letters to more than 50 media organizations, celebrities and politicians -- including The Post, The New York Times, CNN, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and actors Alyssa Milano and Jim Carrey -- the first step in possible libel and defamation lawsuits.
Last week, investigators hired by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington concluded that the students did not instigate the confrontation with Phillips. Bishop Roger Foys, who initially condemned the students' behavior, wrote in a letter to parents that they had been "placed in a situation that was at once bizarre and even threatening."

California Democrat Cartoons

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is a 'no' on free college tuition

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., speaks during a meet and greet with local residents, Saturday, Feb. 16, 2019, in Mason City, Iowa. AP

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, has separated herself again from the large field of progressive 2020 candidates by not endorsing free college tuition.
At a televised town hall in Manchester, N.H, a recent college graduate asked the senator about her thoughts on the student debt crisis.
"Would you be willing to stand with my generation and end the student debt crisis by free college for all and would you include undocumented and formerly-incarcerated people in that program?" he asked, adding that he wanted a “clear yes or no” answer.
Klobuchar said she wants to “make it easier to refinance” and extend Pell Grants to include more students. She also called on two-year community college to be free. She said she'd like to focus on kids that don't graduate high school.
CNN anchor Don Lemon pressed Klobuchar to answer yes or no.
“No, I am not for free college for all,” Klobuchar answered. “I wish if I was a magic genie and could give that to everyone and we could afford it, I would.  I’m just trying to find a mix of incentives and make sure kids are in need- and that’s why I talked about expanding Pell Grants, can go to college and be able to afford it and make sure that people who can’t afford it are able to pay.”
This isn’t the first time Klobuchar has distanced herself from her liberal peers. She is one of very few Democrats who hasn’t endorsed the Green New Deal, calling the resolution an “aspiration” but that the goals are “very difficult” to meet in such a short period of time.