邯郸爱眼医院院可信吗肥乡爱眼医院院是正规医院吗,邯郸爱眼医院院收费贵不贵,石家庄爱眼医院院好不,石家庄爱眼医院在哪,大名爱眼医院怎么样能信吗,成安爱眼医院口碑怎么样?,峰峰爱眼医院路线

A controversial radio ad airing in the St. Louis area led to mounting criticism on Friday as the campaign for Republican Senate candidate Josh Hawley said it did not support the commercial claiming white Democrats could end up lynching black Missouri voters.The ad was paid for by the Black Americans for the President’s Agenda political action committee, based out of West Virginia, and aired for races in both Missouri and Arkansas.In the 60-second ad, two women are heard talking about the Brett Kavanaugh investigation and alleged threats that could happen if Democrats win on Election Day this year.“What will happen to our husbands, fathers, or sons when a white girl lies on them?” one woman asks. “Girl, white Democrats will be lynching black folk again. Honey, I’ve always told my son, ‘Don’t be messing around with that. If you get caught, she will cry rape,’ ” the other woman responds. 910

A Castle Rock, Colorado, restaurant that defied the state’s public health order in May to remain solvent in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic has closed its doors permanently.C&C Breakfast & Korean Kitchen in Castle Rock attracted national attention after it opened its doors to the public on Mother’s Day weekend, despite Colorado’s safer-at-home guidelines prohibiting restaurants from opening except for curbside delivery and take out.In a message posted on the restaurant’s Facebook page, owners Jesse and April Arellano told customers Friday they would not renew their lease at the Castle Rock location “to try and stop the financial bleeding” between their two locations, and said Gov. Jared Polis used them as an example “to ensure other businesses obey him.”The Arellanos also decried what they described as “the hypocrisy of the lockdowns” and the way it scrutinized small businesses during the shutdowns and blamed government officials for making decisions from a place of fear and panic instead of hope.“I was asked what I would say to him (Gov. Polis), I would say “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?””The closure of the Castle Rock location was met with a lawsuit from the owners, who claimed their constitutional rights were violated after the state suspended the café’s license for 30 days when video of the crowded restaurant went viral.The lawsuit blamed Gov. Polis, the State of Colorado, the CDPHE, the Tri-County Health Department (TCHD), and the executive director of the CDPHE, Jill Hunsaker Ryan, of depriving the Arellanos “of their livelihood and ability to operate their business after they simply allowed customers onto their premises to serve food and beverages.”The Arellanos were able to reopen for business on June 14, a month after they were forced to close their doors.The C&C location in Colorado Springs will remain open as long as it can, the Arellanos said in the Facebook post.“If our business survives all of this, we hope one day to return to CR."This article was written by óscar Contreras for KMGH. 2112

A major earthquake Tuesday night struck the territory of New Caledonia, sparking tsunami alerts. The earthquake had a preliminary magnitude of 7.5 and rattled the area just after 8 p.m., according to the United States Geological Survey. The quake struck just over 100 miles east southeast of Tadine, New Caledonia. According to the USGS, waves between three and nine feet above the tide level are possible along some coasts of New Caledonia and Vanuatu. Waves between one and three feet above the tide level are possible along the coast of Fiji. New Caledonia is a French territory in the South Pacific. See the map below for its exact location: 654

A federal judge has dismissed several charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala in the historic female genital mutilation case, ruling that the federal law against female genital mutilation is unconstitutional.U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that Congress did not have the power to enact a federal law that banned female genital mutilation in the United States.Instead, Friedman made the argument that the law was too broad and it violated Congress' powers, as the law does not stand up to scrutiny under either the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.He also found that laws penalizing Female Genital Mutilation should be handled at the state level, similar to laws regarding Criminal Sexual Conduct, battery or child abuse.  Shannon Smith is the Defense Attorney for Dr. Nagarwala.  She says the ruling is "absolutely a huge victory. When you actually studied the law they enacted, there was no constitutional basis for them to enact the law. It’s really an issue that should be left to the states."Smith also claims the doctors did not perform Female Genital Mutilation, saying instead they performed a mild form of female circumcision."What Dr. Nagarwala was doing, if we had gone to trial, would have been vindicated that she was not mutilating little girls. While we’re happy with the victory and we’ll certainly take it, there’s a part of me that’s a little disappointed that the public isn’t going to see the evidence brought out at a trial to see that she was never guilty of it in the first place," Smith said.The ruling comes after Friedman also dismissed a "conspiracy to transport minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity" charge in January. That was the only count that could have lead to life in prison for both Nagarwala and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.Friedman's ruling leaves two counts in place in the case. Nargarwala is charged with "conspiracy to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct," and four of the defendants are charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.Judge dismisses several charges in FGM case by WXYZ-TV Channel 7 Detroit on Scribd 2194

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719