Connect with us

U.S.

Anti-Vaxxer Cited for Assaulting CA Vaccine Lawmaker on Facebook Live

Published

on

  • An anti-vaxxer was cited for suspicion of assault after live-streaming himself pushing California state Senator Richard Pan, an author of prominent vaccination bills in the state.
  • Pan and other legislators condemned the move, saying that disagreeing on legislation is not a reason to resort to violence.
  • Kenneth Austin Bennett, the man who pushed Pan, has 4,500 followers on Facebook, where he often posts anti-vax rhetoric. He attempted to run for Pan’s seat in 2018 but failed to appear on the ballot. 

Bennett Pushes Senator Pan

An anti-vaccine supporter live-streamed himself shoving California state Sen. Richard Pan, who authored influential vaccine legislation.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Kenneth Austin Bennett was cited with suspicion of assault on Wednesday. Bennett live-streamed the incident on his Facebook page, where he frequently posts anti-vax rhetoric along with other conspiracy theories to his 4,500 followers.

Bennett’s video opens with him walking around Sacramento near the California State Capitol. He talks to his followers about religion, conspiracy theories, and “Lucifer establishing his kingdom” in Sacramento for the first nine minutes of the video. He then runs into Pan.

“Oh my goodness you guys, what are the chances of this?” Bennett asks. “Right here, Right here…What are the chances of this, Senator Pan?”

Bennett then follows Pan down the street and asks him about remarks he made in 2015 about water being the most dangerous ingredient in vaccines. He continues to press the senator on other vaccine-related topics, to which Pan minimally responds. Eventually, Pan laughs and says, “Oh boy” after Bennett asks him a question about water being a toxin. 

Bennett then pushes Pan and says, “Yeah, I pushed you. I pushed you. I pushed you.”

He walks away from the scene and says, “I probably should not have done that.” He returns to Pan, who appears to be calling the police with his colleagues. They eventually walk into a building, and Bennett continues to address his camera outside. 

He claims he pushed the senator for “lying” about vaccine information.

“If he got what he deserved he would be hanging for treason,” he later says about Pan.  

Responses to Incident

Bennett acknowledged the situation on his Facebook page during a second live stream on Wednesday. In the hour-long stream, he further condemned Sen. Pan, and also spoke on other conspiracy theories about Facebook and the 2018 wildfires in Paradise, California.

“I was charged with assaulting Richard Pan, but also had the chance to further expose the corrupt politician,” he captioned the video.

He also told local news outlet KCRA that he did not regret pushing Pan.

In a statement on Thursday, Pan said the incident was a result of rhetoric spread by anti-vaccine extremists.

“Bullying, threats, and violence should not be acceptable in civil discourse and policy making,” he said. “Yesterday’s assault was incited by violent rhetoric and imagery employed by anti-vaccine extremists.  Anti-vaxxers have attempted to dehumanize me and other public health advocates on social media while making death threats.”

“Mr. Bennett is not a lone actor, but a person who accepted the violent rhetoric of the anti-vax movement and acted upon it by assaulting me on a public street while live streaming the attack on Facebook,” Pan added. “Social media companies also need to accept responsibility for giving a platform for this violence and hate.”

Others also supported Pan, including California Senate President pro Tempore Toni G. Atkins, who said that disagreeing on legislation is “no reason to resort to aggressive and harmful behavior.”

My colleagues and I will do all we can to aid those investigating this matter and protect the elected leaders, staff, and visitors who work at and tour our Capitol each day,” she added in a statement.  

History Between Bennett and Pan

Sen. Pan was a pediatrician prior to becoming a state lawmaker. He authored a bill that passed in 2015 that removed religious and personal beliefs as exemptions for school children receiving vaccines. He is currently working on legislation that aims to combat illegitimate medical exemptions.

In 2018, Bennett ran to unseat him as the senator for California’s sixth district. He was unable to appear on the ballot and ran as a write-in.

On his campaigns website, he claimed that the bills Pan had worked on were “reckless and destructive to our children’s future.”

He also said one of his campaign promises was to “protect children from forced vaccinations.”

See what others are saying: (Los Angeles Times) (KCRA) (The Daily Beast)

U.S.

Nearly 700,000 People to Lose Food Stamp Aid Under New Policy

Published

on

  • A new rule was finalized on Wednesday that tightens work restrictions for the federal food stamp program.
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 688,000 people will be cut from the program when the rule takes effect next year.
  • Those in favor of the change argue that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs, while critics say it will hurt them more than it will help them.

New Rule

Trump administration finalized a new rule that could remove almost 700,000 people from the federal food stamp program. The rule, announced in a press release on Wednesday, creates stricter work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) final rule promotes work for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents,” the press release said.  

Under current regulations, this demographic can receive three months of SNAP benefits throughout a three year period, unless they work or undergo professional training for at least 20 hours a week. 

States have had the ability to waive this time limit to account for economic turbulence, and counties with unemployment rates as low as 2.5% were eligible for these remissions. The new rule will make 6% the minimum unemployment rate to qualify for these waivers, according to the Washington Post.

It will take effect on April 1, 2020.

Impact on Americans

While the USDA originally estimated that up to 750,000 people would be cut from SNAP with this change, now they have adjusted that number to 688,000. 

The finalized regulation is the first of three proposed measures to limit access to the federal food stamp program. A new study by the Urban Institute found that if the other two rules are approved, nearly 4 million people would lose access to food benefits.

After the new rule was proposed in February, there was an abundance of public comments imploring the administration not to go through with it. 

But the USDA was not swayed and held strong in their argument that SNAP should be a form of temporary assistance instead of a long-term lifestyle. 

“Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream,” said Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture. “We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”

Those who support the rule are optimistic that it will push unemployed individuals to find jobs. 

“The changes reflect the belief that more Americans can enter and reenter the workforce,” Brandon Lipps, the USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary, told the Washington Post. “So they can know the dignity of work.”

Critics of the change were extremely disappointed upon the news of the rule’s finalization, deeming it a step in the wrong direction.

“The Trump administration is driving the vulnerable into hunger just as the Christmas season approaches,” Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Wednesday. “It is heartless. It is cruel. It exposes a deep and shameful cruelness and hypocrisy in this administration.”

Rep. Marcia L. Fudge, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s subcommittee on nutrition, released a press statement on Wednesday after hearing the news.

“The Administration refuses to take an honest look at the people they are targeting with this rule and what challenges they face that contribute to their hunger…” she said. “…Instead of considering hungry individuals and their unique struggles and needs, the Department has chosen to paint them with the broadest brush, demonizing them as lazy and undeserving.”

See what others are saying: (New York Times) (NPR) (NBC)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Melania Trump Blasts Law Professor for Dropping Son’s Name in Impeachment Testimony Joke

Published

on

  • Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan made a joke referencing President Donald Trump’s son in her impeachment hearing testimony on Wednesday. 
  • Melania Trump criticized Karlan on Twitter for bringing her child into a political matter.
  • Some condemned Karlan while others thought her wordplay was harmless. 
  • Many Twitter users called the FLOTUS hypocritical for defending her child but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experiencing inhumane treatment at the border.

Karlan’s Joke

Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor, dropped a controversial joke while testifying in the ongoing impeachment hearing against President Donald Trump on Wednesday. 

While explaining the difference between the POTUS and a king, she used a play on words with the name of his teenage son, Barron.

“The constitution says there can be no titles of nobility,” Karlan said. “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”

Karlan’s joke received a scattering of laughter around the room, including a chuckle from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who posed the question of how the president compares to royalty.  

Melania Trump took to Twitter to defend her son, condemning Karlan’s name-dropping comment. 

“A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics,” the first lady wrote. “Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.”

Further Backlash

Karlan was put on blast by other prominent figures for her mention of the president’s son. Vice President Mike Pence called her joke a “new low.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida who strongly supports the president, chastised her directly on the floor Wednesday. 

“Let me also suggest that when you invoke the President’s son’s name here, when you try to make a little joke out of referencing Barron Trump, that does not lend credibility to your argument,” he said. “It makes you look mean.”

The Trump campaign released an official statement on the topic.

“Only in the mind of crazed liberals is it funny to drag a 13-year-old into the impeachment nonsense,” National Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said.

Karlan’s Apology

Later in the day, Prof. Karlan apologized for her remarks, but not without mentioning that she wishes Donald Trump would also admit to his faults. 

“I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president’s son. It was wrong of me to do that,” she said during her testimony. “I wish the president would apologize obviously for the things that he’s done that’s wrong, but I do regret having said that.”

Defense of the Professor

While some were outraged by Karlan’s play on words, others spoke up to defend her, deeming the joke harmless.

Some Twitter users criticized the FLOTUS for being quick to defend her own son but staying silent on her husband’s treatment of other minors, including teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and migrant children experience inhumane treatment at the border.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (NBC) (Newsweek)

Continue Reading

U.S.

George Zimmerman Sues Trayvon Martin’s Family for $100M, Citing Defamation

Published

on

  • George Zimmerman is suing Trayvon Martin’s parents, their lawyer, and a publishing company for $100 million, citing defamation relating to the 2013 case involving Martin’s shooting.
  • The lawsuit cites a documentary titled The Trayvon Hoax, which accuses Martin’s parents of falsifying testimony.
  • Ben Crump, a lawyer for Martin’s parents, called the lawsuit unfounded and reckless.

Zimmerman’s Lawsuit

The man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin is now suing Martin’s family, their lawyer, and a publishing company for allegedly engaging in false testimony during the 2013 trials related to Martin’s death.

According to reports, George Zimmerman and his lawyers are alleging defamation, saying that Martin family and their prosecutors “have worked in concert to deprive Zimmerman of his constitutional and other legal rights.” Because of this, Zimmerman is asking for $100 million in civil damages.

Zimmerman’s suit cites information from a documentary titled The Trayvon Hoax. It also claims that the Martin family lied in court. 

Zimmerman’s suit cites information from a documentary titled The Trayvon Hoax. It also claims that the Martin family lied in court. 

On top of suing Martin’s family, Zimmerman is also suing the publisher Harper Collins after it released a book titled Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People, which was written by Ben Crump, the lawyer who represented Martin’s family in the case against Zimmerman.

While The Trayvon Hoax was scheduled to be screened at the Coral Gable Art Cinema Thursday following a noon press conference giving more details about the lawsuit, the theater later canceled the screening as news of Zimmerman’s lawsuit surfaced.

In a statement responding to the allegations, Crump said he hoped the lawsuit would soon be thrown out.

“I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is – another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others,” he said.

Trayvon Martin’s Death

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin in Florida on Feb. 26, 2012. At the time, Martin had been visiting his father.

The night he died, Martin had reportedly been walking home after buying candy and a drink at a gas station. Zimmerman, who was part of the community’s volunteer neighborhood watch, then called the police to report a suspicious-looking person in a dark hoodie.

“These assholes, they always get away,” Zimmerman told the dispatcher.

About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said he saw Martin then began to run. He then chased after Martin despite the dispatcher telling him not to.

Soon after the phone call ended, Zimmerman and Martin reportedly engaged in a violent altercation that ultimately led to Martin’s death.

Zimmerman was then arrested and charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter.

In the months that followed, the trial gained national scrutiny as many waited to see what would happen to Zimmerman after shooting an unarmed black teenager.

Ultimately, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in 2013 after claiming self-defense in court.

See what others are saying: (Miami Herald) (Washington Post) (NBC News)

Continue Reading