Tag Archives : Build House

Dozens of tree species face extinction from insects, diseases and climate change: research

A first-of-its-kind report shows more than 100 native species of trees in the lower 48 states are facing the threat of extinction due to invasive insects, diseases and climate change. 

A sweeping report published in the journal Plants People Planet assessed the health of the 881 tree species in the contiguous U.S. to improve the efficiency of tree conservation efforts. 

Researchers say up until the assessment was completed, most tree species in the U.S. were not assessed or assessments were outdated. The years of research was conducted by the Morton Arboretum, Botanic Gardens Conservation International and NatureServe, in collaboration with the United States Botanic Garden and the Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

The recently released threat assessment found between 11 and 16 percent of all tree species in the contiguous U.S. are threatened with extinction, due to threats such as invasive pests and diseases, intensifying wildfires, urban development and climate change.  

According to the report, oaks and hawthorns make up most of the tree flora in the U.S. and thus were found to have the most threatened species. The report found 17 species of oaks and 29 species of hawthorns are facing the threat of extinction. 

Florida and California have the largest number of threatened tree species in the U.S., with 45 and 44, respectively. Florida is home to 342 species of trees, one of the highest in the U.S. alongside Texas. 

“Trees form the basis of many of the world’s terrestrial ecosystems,” Sean T. O’Brien, president and CEO of the non-profit NatureServe, which collaborated on the assessment, said in a statement. 

“Understanding what trees are threatened and why is critical to informing conservation for trees and ecosystems across the nation.” 

Researchers note that most native tree species are located in an off-site conservation area such as a botanic garden, arboretum or seed bank, but at least 17 threatened species are not currently conserved in any botanical collections and “thus have no insurance policy against extinction.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Psychiatrists disagree with US policy on certain psychoactive drugs: survey

Reports have documented the increased popularity of marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs among Americans in recent years, while particular attention has been paid to potential therapeutic benefits of psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. 

But under U.S. federal law maijuana and many hallucinogenic drugs are classified as schedule 1, meaning they have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. This classification also hinders research on these substances, while use can lead to criminal consequences.

Now, new research from Ohio State University reveals many psychiatrists are taking issue with federal classification of psychoactive substances, particularly psilocybin and alprazolam (Schedule IV). 

The online survey was completed by 181 U.S. psychiatrists, randomized to read one of four vignettes depicting a depressed patient who reported symptom relief after non-prescribed psychoactive drug use (methamphetamine [Schedule II], ketamine [Schedule III], psilocybin or alprazolam). Participants had been practicing psychiatry for an average of 16 years.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

“We wanted to choose two drugs for the vignettes that we felt were appropriately scheduled based on the scientific evidence, and then we chose two that we felt were not necessarily reflecting current evidence,” explained co-author  Adam Levin, a third-year psychiatry and behavioral health resident in Ohio State’s College of Medicine, in a press release. 

“Psilocybin may not be appropriately scheduled, and we felt risk might be underestimated for Xanax. Methamphetamine and ketamine, based on a review of the literature, are fairly consistent with their schedules. And then we wanted to see whether psychiatrists perceived any incongruities.”

Psychiatrists answered questions about the clinical scenario, and rated the substance’s safety and therapeutic and abuse potentials. 

Alprazolam (Xanax) is currently classified as a Schedule IV drug, meaning—in the eyes of the federal government—it has low potential for misuse and dependence and has strong therapeutic value. 

But survey respondents rated alprazolam as having the highest misuse potential out of all four substances and found it has misuse potential on par with methamphetamine and alcohol. It also currently belongs to the third most commonly misused group of substances in the United States, benzodiazepines. 

Behind ketamine, psilocybin was rated as having the second-highest therapeutic potential, while having the lowest potential for misuse. Studies have documented therapeutic benefits of ketamine and psilocybin for certain mental health conditions. 

“The problem is that our drug schedules don’t match the scientific evidence of their actual harm and their actual therapeutic and abuse potential,” said co-author Alan Davis, assistant professor and director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education in The Ohio State University College of Social Work in the release. 

These substances were last classified in 1970 following the Controlled Substances Act. But since that time, much more has been discovered about the drugs’ harms and potential uses. Notably, alcohol is not a scheduled substance, despite data showing it is the third leading cause of preventable death in the country.

“Methamphetamine, alcohol and Xanax were rated statistically equivalent in terms of their abuse potential,” Davis said. “And we showed a similar finding where methamphetamine, alcohol and Xanax were all found to be equivalent in terms of lower on the safety scale – more unsafe compared to psilocybin and ketamine.”

Overall, researchers stressed the importance of having policies congruent with scientific evidence and noted psychiatrists’ views were largely in line with those of other mental health professionals and drug addiction experts, along with drug users themselves.

“It’s important to call attention to this – we should have a flexible policy that can incorporate expert consensus,” Levin said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

White House liaison to Black voters leaves post

The White House’s liaison to Black voters, Trey Baker, left the administration on Monday, the White House confirmed.

Baker was a senior White House adviser for public engagement and left the administration to work at law firm Barnes & Thornburg as a partner. He will be based in the Washington office.

Bloomberg first reported the news.

Baker served as the national director for African American Engagement during Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, when he managed the campaign’s outreach plan to Black voters.

Before his time with President Biden, he worked for nearly three years as the city manager of Grenada, Miss., and had previously served as legislative assistant and counsel to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).

Biden carried Black voters in the 2020 presidential election with 92 percent of the vote, according to Pew Research Center. A poll from June showed though that, while Black voters’ support for Biden remains the highest among most demographics, it has weakened since he took office.

Organizers have warned Democrats not to take Black voters for granted ahead of this midterm election and are worried that the party isn’t listening to the community’s concerns.  

Black voters have expressed frustration that Democrats overlook them until it’s too late and that growing dissatisfaction could have an outsized impact on the party this election year.

Source: TEST FEED1

Youngkin traveling to five more states amid talk of possible 2024 bid

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) will be heading to at least five more states amid growing speculation that he might run for president in 2024.

Kristin Davison, a political adviser to the governor, confirmed to The Hill that he will be traveling to Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico, where he’s seeking to hold rallies with the GOP gubernatorial candidate in each state. 

She said more states could be added. Politico was the first to report about Youngkin’s travel plans. 

Davison also confirmed that Youngkin will be attending a gala hosted by the Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent anti-abortion group, on Sept. 13 in Washington, D.C. The timing of the gala comes several months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

She additionally confirmed the governor will be holding an event with Nevada gubernatorial candidate Joe Lombardo (R) on Sept. 15.

Youngkin is already slated to headline the Michigan GOP state convention and campaign for the Republican gubernatorial candidate in the state, Tudor Dixon (R), who won her primary earlier this month and was endorsed by former President Trump.

Youngkin became a rising figure within the Republican Party after he won the governor’s race in Virginia last year, flipping the state red and fending off a challenge from former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D). But the new travel plans are fueling further speculation about whether Youngkin is seeking a presidential bid in 2024 as he gets ready to travel to a slew of battleground states.

During an interview last month, the Virginia governor said that while he was “hugely humbled” by people voicing interest in him possibly running for president, “that’s not a decision that we have even begun to undertake.”

Trump himself has not officially said whether he’ll be running in 2024, but he has at times teased the possibility of doing so. Other Republicans who have been floated as possible 2024 candidates include Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), former Vice President Mike Pence, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Markle features Serena Williams in first episode of new podcast

Meghan Markle, the duchess of Sussex, talked ambition with tennis star Serena Williams in the first episode of her new podcast series, “Archetypes.”

The duchess invited Williams, who recently announced she’s “evolving away” from tennis, to discuss what Markle called “that dirty, dirty word when it comes to women — ambition.”

The 23-time Grand Slam champion discussed coverage that painted her behavior during matches as “a meltdown,” while a male player was called “passionate.” 

“I just feel like there’s obviously a double standard,” Williams said. 

“Often women are definitely put in these different boxes when we are ambitious or when we do have goals or when we reach our goals, it’s a negative connotation on how we reach the goals.”

The pair also discussed struggles with raising children in the public eye. 

Meghan described an incident during which she says a nursery where her then-four-month-old son Archie was supposed to be sleeping caught fire while she and her husband were at an official engagement in South Africa.

“I’m standing on a tree stump and I’m giving this speech to women and girls, and we finish the engagement, we get in the car and they say there’s been a fire at the residence. What? There’s been a fire in the baby’s room.” 

The fire was put out and Archie was unharmed, Meghan said, but she and her husband “still had to leave him and go do another official engagement.”

“The focus ends up being on how it looks instead of how it feels,” Meghan said. 

When asked to define herself, Serena said, “I think above all, I’m just a mom. And I love being a mom.”

In a separate segment during the episode, Meghan also chatted about gender stereotypes and ambition in women with Laura Kray, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. 

“Archetypes” is a joint endeavor with Spotify and Archewell Audio, a production company owned by Meghan Markle and her husband, Prince Harry, that seeks to “investigate the labels that try to hold women back.”

The second episode, set for release next week, will feature singer Mariah Carey.

The duke and duchess entered into the exclusive partnership with Spotify back in 2020. 

Former first lady Michelle Obama launched a Spotify podcast that same year, but the Obamas are reportedly looking for a new partner after Spotify declined to extend its deal with Higher Ground, the former first family’s production company.

Source: TEST FEED1

Six reasons Biden should not cancel student debt

Next week, President Biden’s executive order imposing a freeze on student loan repayments and interest accrual is set to expire. It’s almost guaranteed that the president will extend the freeze for a fifth time because no effort has been made to notify borrowers that payments are resuming, and to do so now would be providing too little time to prepare.

But in addition to extending the current freeze, Biden is under tremendous pressure from a years-long campaign by leftwing activists to cancel at least $10,000 of debt per borrower under a certain income threshold. This is a regressive and fiscally irresponsible demand likely to further estrange Democrats from working-class voters. Here are six reasons why he should develop a plan to resume payments in a timely manner that doesn’t include mass debt cancelation by executive order:

1. Mass debt cancelation would undermine the Inflation Reduction Act

Earlier this month, Biden and Democrats in Congress accomplished a historic victory with the Inflation Reduction Act — a transformative bill that would expand domestic energy production, fight the climate crisis, lower health care costs and reduce budget deficits over the next decade by over a quarter trillion dollars. That last part is especially important because reducing the deficit is one of the most effective tools Congress has at its disposal to help the Federal Reserve tamp down on inflation.

Canceling up to $10,000 of debt per borrower who earned less than $150,000 last year would squander most of the IRA’s near-term savings and thus its inflation-fighting potential. Such a move would be especially problematic since Congress already passed legislation increasing deficits by several hundred billion dollars last month. With inflation finally starting to moderate, now is not the time to reverse hard-won progress.

2. Canceling debt for most borrowers is a giveaway to affluent elites — paid for by workers

Although the administration may think that limiting debt cancelation to borrowers who earned less than $150,000 last year helps limit giveaways to the wealthiest, it’s still a regressive transfer of wealth. Many people who fell under the income limit last year will still have lifetime incomes far above average, such as a recent law or medical school graduate who is just beginning their career. And whether it’s through inflation today, or higher taxes and spending cuts tomorrow, workers who don’t reap the income benefits of a college education will bear the costs of canceling debt for those who do.

3. Student debt cancelation distracts from the real problem of college affordability

The debate around student debt cancelation has sucked all the oxygen away from solutions that would address the underlying problem of college affordability for the entirety of Biden’s term. If the president cancels debt for previous borrowers without offering an actionable plan to prevent future students from ending up in the same position, he is merely kicking the can down the road. Doing so may even worsen the problem, as future borrowers become less concerned about taking on debts they believe will ultimately be forgiven and universities take advantage of the dynamic to raise tuition prices even higher.

4. Mass debt cancelation by executive order sets a dangerous precedent

When Congress created the student loan program in 1965, it gave the executive branch discretion to offer targeted debt forgiveness to borrowers facing specific distress, such as those who have been defrauded. Never did those lawmakers imagine that a president would abuse this authority by indiscriminately giving a $10,000 handout to all borrowers regardless of need or personal circumstance. If President Biden attempts to spend over $200 billion of taxpayers’ money without explicit approval from their representatives in Congress, and the courts uphold the move, they open the door for future presidents to usurp the power of the purse and unilaterally spend trillions more down the line.

5. Student debt cancelation is bad politics

If canceling student debt were good policy and good politics, Congressional Democrats could have at least attempted to include it in the budget reconciliation bill they just passed through a party-line vote. They didn’t, because it isn’t: only 13 percent of Americans currently carry any student loan debt, and they have better income and job opportunities than the workers without a degree who will bear the costs. The move is likely to backfire with the overwhelming majority of workers who lack college degrees and suburban voters concerned about inflation and government overspending.

It will also do little to relieve pressure from activists on Biden’s left, who have made clear that they will continue to push for canceling at least $50,000 of student debt for all borrowers at all income levels. Moreover, if the conservative-majority Supreme Court rules that Biden does not have the authority to do blanket debt cancelation by executive order, he will be in the unenviable position of having to restore debt payments that he already told borrowers were canceled.

6. There are better tools available to help struggling borrowers

President Biden has already wiped out more student debt than any other president in history, both through the moratorium on interest accrual (which has effectively canceled roughly $6,000 per borrower to date) and additional forgiveness his administration has given to certain borrowers. Biden can continue providing carefully targeted relief and work to expand and reform income-driven repayment programs that directly tie debt cancelation to a borrower’s ability to pay. But the more debt that is rightfully canceled through these mechanisms, the clearer it becomes that there is little justification for canceling the remaining balance.

Biden likely has to extend the freeze on repayments until December. But with unemployment at its lowest level in modern history, there is no good reason to continue a freeze originally intended to support the economy during the darkest days of the pandemic beyond that time — or to pair it with additional debt cancelation for the vast majority of affluent borrowers who don’t need it.

Ben Ritz is director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future.

Source: TEST FEED1

Here's why kids shouldn't skip breakfast

Where and what kids eat for breakfast — and not simply if they eat — has a tremendous impact on their behavioral health, according to a new study. 

A first of its kind study published in the journal Frontiers in Nutrition shows that skipping breakfast or eating away from home are linked to an increased likelihood for behavioral issues. 

“Similarly, consumption of certain foods/drinks are associated with higher or lower odds of psychosocial behavioral problems,” the study’s first author, José Francisco López-Gil of the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Cuenca, Spain, said in a media release. 

Lopez-Gil and his colleagues analyzed data from 3,772 Spanish residents between the ages of 4 and 14 who participated in the 2017 Spanish National Health Survey, which included questions about a child’s breakfast habits and their psychosocial health. 

Their findings stressed the importance of eating a healthy breakfast at home, as eating it away from home had a similar negative affect to skipping the meal altogether. 

“The fact that eating breakfast away from home is associated with greater psychosocial health problems is a novel aspect of our study,” López-Gil said. “Our findings reinforce the need to promote not only breakfast as part of a healthy lifestyle routine, but also that it should be eaten at home.” 

The team also found consuming “a breakfast that includes dairy and/or cereals, and minimizes certain animal foods high in saturated fat/cholesterol, could help to decrease psychosocial health problems in young people.” 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

The study, released as millions return to classrooms across the U.S., adds to previous research measuring the impact breakfast has on school performance and behavioral problems. 

Eating breakfast is linked to a host of positive outcomes in the classroom, including better memory, test scores and attention spans.  

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows slightly more than 82 percent of children eat breakfast each day. And the percentage decreases with age, dropping from nearly 96 percent among children aged 2 to 5 to almost 73 percent between ages 12 and 19.

Source: TEST FEED1

Lachlan Murdoch sues Australian website over Jan. 6 criticism

Lachlan Murdoch, the top executive at Fox Corp., is suing an Australian news website for publishing an opinion article linking his family and Fox News to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Murdoch, the son of Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, filed a state of claim in Australian federal court on Tuesday against Crikey, an online news and opinion website, after the site’s leaders had challenged Murdoch to sue them in an open letter earlier this week.

The article in question mostly focused on former President Trump’s actions as it relates to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, but argued in its last paragraph that if Trump “ends up in the dock” for any crimes committed as president, “not all his co-conspirators will be there with him.”

“Nixon was famously the ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in Watergate,” stated the op-ed, written by Bernard Keane, Crikey’s politics editor. “The Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators of this continuing crisis.”

After the June 29 op-ed was published, Murdoch alleged that the article defamed him, Crikey said in an editor’s note attached to the original article.

On Monday, the outlet published a series of demands it says it was sent by Murdoch’s legal representatives following the op-ed’s publication, which argued the article was an “unwarranted attack on my client, without any notice and in complete disregard to the facts” and “is malicious and aggravates the harm to my client.”

“We are publishing these letters because we believe they expose the normally concealed world of Australian media power, in its most bullying form,” the outlet said in response as part of its open letter.

A representative for Fox Corp. and Murdoch declined to comment.

The New York Times noted the back-and-forth between Murdoch and Crikey is not the first. Last year, Crikey apologized and deleted an article that contained false claims about Murdoch’s time as a TV network board member, the Times reported.

Source: TEST FEED1

China and Russia escalate to intimidate; America de-escalates to accommodate

The Defense Department’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review described Russia’s nuclear strategy as an “escalate to de-escalate doctrine.” Moscow calculated that threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons would deter U.S. intervention in any Russian regional conflict.

Sure enough, as Vladimir Putin launched Russia’s next invasion of Ukraine, after going into eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014, he raised his nuclear force alert and suggested using those weapons “to defend Russian sovereignty.”  

President Biden, asked if Washington and NATO would grant Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s urgent request for a no-fly zone to protect against Russian air attacks, immediately rejected it. As if reading from Putin’s script, he dramatically declared, “That’s called World War III.”

The lurking fear of Putin’s threats has continued to hamper U.S. support for Ukraine. Washington has held back from providing the full complement of defensive weapons needed to defeat and repel Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory seized in the 2014 and 2022 invasions. Concern over escalation has meant that saving Putin’s face weighs more heavily in Western decisions than saving Ukrainian lives, cities and sovereignty.

China’s Xi Jinping also has used the “escalate to de-escalate” rhetoric — more accurately termed “escalate to intimidate” — as Chinese officials have brandished the use of nuclear weapons in a Sino-U.S. conflict over Taiwan. While Biden has said, three times, that America would defend Taiwan, his staff canceled each of his declarations of strategic clarity.

The “escalate to intimidate” approach permeates Beijing’s strategy toward America and the West at all levels. Its utility in advancing China’s interests, while keeping Washington on the defensive, was evident when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently visited Taiwan.

China escalated what could have been a low-key, relatively uneventful visit into the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis, threatening “severe consequences” and even allowing quasi-official conjecture about the possibility of shooting down Pelosi’s plane. It then conducted the largest ever military exercises near, over and around Taiwan, exceeding what it did in 1995-96, which Kurt Campbell, then a Clinton official, often cites as “our own Cuban missile crisis.”

Missing this time was a U.S. response commensurate with China’s expanded aggression against Taiwan, which Beijing describes as the “new normal.” 

But the new normal is anything but normal — that is, in accordance with international norms. It is a blatantly aggressive military strategy of economic, diplomatic and political strangulation against the 24 million people of Taiwan and its government. It is a clear violation of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, which states as the organization’s purpose “the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and … the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.”

China’s coordinated military encroachments against Taiwan and its rehearsal of a permanent blockade and invasion of the island also clearly run afoul of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which deems “any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.”

The TRA goes further and says the use of force or economic coercion against Taiwan flouts the very basis for switching U.S. diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China: “[T]he United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.”

The Biden administration, like its predecessors, never mentions that TRA provision, even though it suggests a powerful diplomatic “nuclear” option to counter China’s growing threats against Taiwan. It supports abandoning the counterproductive policy of strategic ambiguity on defending Taiwan, essential to preventing war by Chinese miscalculation.   

Actually, the new normal had its roots in the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis when, after the Nimitz Battle Group transited the Strait in July 1995, a second transit, in March of 1996 — this time with two carriers — was shooed away by Beijing’s escalatory threat of “a sea of fire.”

Given the success of that intimidation, despite the vast disparity in U.S. and Chinese military capabilities at the time, it is no wonder Xi was sure the U.S. would back down even more expeditiously now with China’s anti-ship ballistic missiles and attack submarine fleet menacing the U.S. Navy.

His confidence was vindicated when no Navy ships ventured into the Taiwan Strait during China’s military exercises, although the USS Ronald Reagan remained on station in the region. 

Indeed, since the 1995 Nimitz transit, only one U.S. carrier has entered the Strait — the Kitty Hawk in 2007 — despite Pacific Commander Timothy Keating’s defiant statement that the Navy did not need China’s permission to transit that international waterway and would do so “whenever we choose to.” But successive U.S. administrations have chosen not to.

Russia and China escalate to intimidate; the United States de-escalates to accommodate.

While U.S. carriers have otherwise been absent from the strait for 27 years, two Chinese carriers, which didn’t exist until recently, have been making frequent patrols there, giving rise to Beijing’s latest escalation: its claim last month that the strait is strictly under Chinese sovereignty, not the international waters the world has considered it for centuries.

The Biden administration is again out-thinking itself, as it did before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, arguing that economic sanctions would best deter Putin after an invasion was underway.

After China’s unprecedented recent actions, Colin Kahl, undersecretary of defense for policy, stated, “Clearly, the PRC is trying to coerce Taiwan. … They’re trying to coerce the international community. [W]e’re not going to take the bait, and it’s not going to work. So, it’s a manufactured crisis but that doesn’t mean we have to play into that.” Washington didn’t take “the bait” but Beijing pocketed the new normal.

Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Kritenbrink said last week that “Beijing’s growing coercion [is] deeply destabilizing. … The United States will continue to conduct routine naval transits through the Taiwan Strait.” But “routine” transits no longer include the Navy’s carrier battle groups, the greatest symbol of American power and global presence. Transits of smaller combatant ships were occurring on a regular monthly basis, but none was reported in June and, so far, none in August.

Carriers must again become part of regular strait transits if China is to understand the depth of the bipartisan U.S. commitment to Taiwan and the danger to the survival of the Chinese Communist Party that Beijing’s aggressive actions are creating. 

Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He served in the Pentagon when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia and was involved in Department of Defense discussions about the U.S. response. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.

Source: TEST FEED1

Florida deputy resigns after pointing gun at pregnant Black woman

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — A Florida deputy who was caught on video pointing a gun at a pregnant Black woman during a traffic stop has resigned, authorities tell WFLA.

Deputy Jason Desue left the Bradford County Sheriff’s Office after the incident, which occurred around midnight on Friday, Aug. 12, First Coast News reported.

The mother, Ebony Washington, who is four months pregnant, told WJAX she and her four children were on their way home to Jacksonville from Gainesville when Desue tried to pull her over for speeding. She was going 75 miles per hour in a 55-mph zone, according to reports.

Washington said she was looking for a safe, well-lit place to pull over, and turned on her hazard lights and kept driving until she got to a convenience store.

“It was dark and I was with my kids. I felt uncomfortable, and I didn’t want to be able to not have anyone else around,” she recalled.

Body camera video released by the sheriff’s office shows Desue follow her into the parking lot, get out of his patrol car and immediately point his gun at her van.

“If you make a move that’ll be the last mistake you make. Do not move,” Desue told Washington.

“I didn’t know he had a gun until I told him my seatbelt was still on and he said, ‘Get out. I have my gun. I’m not worried,’” the mother recalled.

After Desue ordered her to step out of the vehicle, Washington exited the van with her hands raised and tried to explain why she didn’t stop in time.

“Your excuse means nothing to me right now,” Desue said.

“I’m trying to tell you the only reason why I didn’t stop,” she told him. “I’m a very educated woman with a master’s degree … It’s dark out and I have three kids with me. I’m pregnant, and I did not want them to feel uncomfortable.”

“Just shut up about the why,” Desue said. “I don’t care about why.”

One of Washington’s children recorded video of the incident. Another could be heard crying as the deputy pointed a gun at their mother, First Coast reported.

“I was scared he was going to either take her to jail or that he might hurt her,” Washington’s daughter, Saige Washington, told WJAX. “Why is he so upset? She wasn’t doing anything.”

“Had I have done any movement outside of what he told me to do that would’ve been the opportunity for him to pull the trigger,” Washington said. “Him having power, the badge, the gun and the authority to do things, I think sometimes officers, like himself, they take advantage.”

The deputy gave Washington a speeding ticket and eventually let her go. When she apologized again, he told her to “apologize to herself for not thinking.”

In a statement provided to WFLA by his spokesman, Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith said he had already accepted Desue’s resignation while “continuing the internal investigation into his conduct.”

“I am disturbed and disheartened how Jacob Desue handled the traffic stop on Ebony Washington. She responded in a manner that was totally understandable in this circumstance,” Smith said. “Jacob Desue should have deescalated the situation but disappointingly was unable to respond in the appropriate manner.”

Smith told First Coast Washington did exactly what he would tell his daughter, wife or anyone else who feels uncomfortable during a traffic stop to do, “You reduce your speed, you turn on your flashing lights, be acknowledged,” he said.

“The whole thing would upset my children, my grandchildren,” the sheriff added. “So a lot of things that should have been done weren’t done. And at the end of the day, we determined that was something that we didn’t need representing us, or protecting our community.”

Although Smith said Washington did things right, she still blames herself for how things unfolded.

“None of this would’ve happened had I not been speeding,” she told First Coast. “My husband always says … ‘Why you so in a rush?’” 

Source: TEST FEED1