成都半导体激光治疗下肢动脉硬化(成都婴儿血管瘤专业医院) (今日更新中)

Conditions at the border are getting worse as desperate migrants wait for asylum. Many have given up hope in their desperate hour. The shelter where migrants are staying is packed to the brim. It’s said to be completely full and actually three times above capacity. Conditions are getting worse as officials with the state’s special committee on migration issues say city and state officials are even looking for a second shelter, but no local businesses are willing to rent out their facilities for the migrants. People at the shelter have reported deteriorating conditions including open sewage drains. The Mexican Navy has set up small kitchens and the Red Cross is providing medical care. Migrants say they want the U.S. to speed up the political asylum process, saying it’s taking too long. 804

Cori Bush, a onetime homeless woman who led protests following a white police officer’s fatal shooting of a Black 18-year-old in Ferguson, has ousted longtime Rep. William Lacy Clay in Missouri’s Democratic primary. Bush’s victory came in a rematch of 2018, when she failed to capitalize on a national Democratic wave that favored political newcomers such as Bush’s friend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But this time around, Bush’s supporters said protests over George Floyd’s death and outrage over racial injustice finally pushed her over the edge. An emotional Bush, speaking to supporters while wearing a mask, said few people expected her to win.“They counted us out,” she said. “They called me — I’m just the protester, I’m just the activist with no name, no title and no real money. That’s all they said that I was. But St. Louis showed up today.”Bush’s campaign spokeswoman, Keenan Korth, said voters in the district were “galvanized.”Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, which which encompasses Ferguson, has been represented by the 64-year-old Clay or his father for a half-century. Bill Clay served 32 years before retiring in 2000, when William Lacy Clay was elected. 1191

COMPTON, Calif. – Dr. Keith Claybrook says he'll never forget the way he felt when a national guardsman was stationed near his backyard in Compton During the 1992 Los Angeles riots.The uprising happened after a jury acquitted four L.A. police officers in the caught-on-camera beating of Rodney King, a Black man.“I have vivid memories of a national guardsman being posted on the roof. Here’s a national guardsman, looking over the side of a building, automatic weapon in hand, as far as I’m concerned, 13 years old, staring at my dad and I. Why are you standing on this roof looking at a man and his son doing lawn maintenance?” asked Claybrook.Shades of ’92 -- that’s all Keith says he sees this year, especially in Portland.“In my experiences, and in my studies, and in my conversation with other people, the presence of law enforcement in general, and the presence of other, you know the national guard, forces like that, it doesn’t do anything but escalate the situation," said Claybrook.Federal forces have been used in the past on U.S. soil for a variety of reasons.We found more than 10 examples in the last 100 years. From dispersing protesters after World War I in Washington D.C., to integrating schools in the south in 1950s and ‘60s, to the Los Angeles Riots in 1992."It is rare, and it's usually used in extraordinary circumstances," said Kevin Baron, the founder of Defense One, an online publication focusing on national security, foreign policy and the U.S. military.He says there are some big differences between what happened in Portland, and what happened in some of these other instances."At least in L.A., for example, the U.S. soldiers and National Guard were asked to come in and bring peace and deter further rioting and violence that was happening," said Barron.In the case of Portland, the mayor, and the governor of Oregon have been on record several times saying they did not want federal law enforcement involved.“No one knew who these people were originally. Right? It was these, people who suddenly arrived dressed in camouflage, military uniforms, with very little markings indicating who they are,” said Ian Farrell, a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.His main focus teaching is constitutional and criminal law. He says while people were confused at first, there was legal basis for the officers to be in Portland."There is a section of the U.S. federal code that authorizes homeland security, get employees of homeland security and have them protect federal property and the people on federal property," said Farrell.There are other things about what happened in Portland that stand out as well.“They seem to be essentially abducting people off the streets,” said Farrell."The image of them as militarized, wearing combat fatigues, without insignia using rental cars and unmarked vehicles," said Barron.“Individuals walking on the streets and a minivan would pull up and these camouflaged, officers, as it turned out, would just grab them and put them in the minivan and drive off,” said Farrell.U.S. Customs and Border Patrol said in a statement its agents did in fact pick up protesters in vans, but did so for the safety of everyone.As of July 31, federal law enforcement had arrested at least 25 protestors in Portland.Claybrook says while they are differences between Portland in 2020 and L.A. in 1992, it’s the similarities that stick out to him.“I’m still questioning what law of the land is being enforced in 2020. I don’t know, to bring in that level of policing,” said Claybrook. 3557

CLEWISTON, Fla. -- An overturned sugarcane truck has caused the closure of southbound lanes of U.S. 27 near Clewiston Wednesday.Florida Highway Patrol reports that the truck overturned Wednesday morning at the intersection of U.S. 27 and Evercane Road, just east of Clewiston.All southbound lanes were closed while crews clean up the approximately 25 tons of sugarcane that spilled onto the roadway.The roadway has since reopened.No injuries are reported. 468

CNN is filing a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's access to the White House.The lawsuit is a response to the White House's suspension of Acosta's press pass, known as a Secret Service "hard pass," last week. The suit alleges that Acosta and CNN's First and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated by the ban.The suit is being filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday morning, a CNN spokeswoman confirmed.Both CNN and Acosta are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There are six defendants: Trump, chief of staff John Kelly, press secretary Sarah Sanders, deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine, Secret Service director Joseph Clancy, and the Secret Service officer who took Acosta's hard pass away last Wednesday. The officer is identified as John Doe in the suit, pending his identification.The six defendants are all named because of their roles in enforcing and announcing Acosta's suspension.Last Wednesday, shortly after Acosta was denied entry to the White House grounds, Sanders defended the unprecedented step by claiming that he had behaved inappropriately at a presidential news conference. CNN and numerous journalism advocacy groups rejected that assertion and said his pass should be reinstated.On Friday, CNN sent a letter to the White House formally requesting the immediate reinstatement of Acosta's pass and warning of a possible lawsuit, the network confirmed.In a statement on Tuesday morning, CNN said it is seeking a preliminary injunction as soon as possible so that Acosta can return to the White House right away, and a ruling from the court preventing the White House from revoking Acosta's pass in the future."CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration this morning in DC District Court," the statement read. "It demands the return of the White House credentials of CNN's Chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta. The wrongful revocation of these credentials violates CNN and Acosta's First Amendment rights of freedom of the press, and their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process."CNN also asserted that other news organizations could have been targeted by the Trump administration this way, and could be in the future."While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone," the network said. "If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials."During his presidential campaign, Trump told CNN that, if elected, he would not kick reporters out of the White House. But since moving into the White House, he has mused privately about taking away credentials, CNN reported earlier this year. He brought it up publicly on Twitter in May, tweeting "take away credentials?" as a question.And he said it again on Friday, two days after blacklisting Acosta. "It could be others also," he said, suggesting he may strip press passes from other reporters. Unprompted, he then named and insulted April Ryan, a CNN analyst and veteran radio correspondent.Trump's threats fly in the face of decades of tradition and precedent. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have had a permissive approach toward press passes, erring on the side of greater access, even for obscure, partisan or fringe outlets.That is one of the reasons why First Amendment attorneys say CNN and Acosta have a strong case.As the prospect of a lawsuit loomed on Sunday, attorney Floyd Abrams, one of the country's most respected First Amendment lawyers, said the relevant precedent is a 1977 ruling in favor of Robert Sherrill, a muckraking journalist who was denied access to the White House in 1966.Eleven years later, a D.C. Court of Appeals judge ruled that the Secret Service had to establish "narrow and specific" standards for judging applicants. In practice, the key question is whether the applicant would pose a threat to the president.The code of federal regulations states that "in granting or denying a request for a security clearance made in response to an application for a White House press pass, officials of the Secret Service will be guided solely by the principle of whether the applicant presents a potential source of physical danger to the President and/or the family of the President so serious as to justify his or her exclusion from White House press privileges."There are other guidelines as well. Abrams said the case law specifies that before a press pass is denied, "you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it's doing and why, so the courts can examine it.""We've had none of those things here," Abrams said.That's why the lawsuit is alleging a violation of the Fifth Amendment right to due process.Acosta found out about his suspension when he walked up to the northwest gate of the White House, as usual, for a Wednesday night live shot. He was abruptly told to turn in his "hard pass," which speeds up entry and exit from the grounds."I was just told to do it," the Secret Service officer said.Other CNN reporters and producers continue to work from the White House grounds, but not Acosta."Relevant precedent says that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press. That includes press rooms and news conferences," Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, told CNN last week. "In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can't be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling."The White House accused Acosta of placing his hands on an intern who was trying to take a microphone away from him during a press conference. Sanders shared a distorted video clip of the press conference as evidence. The White House's rationale has been widely mocked and dismissed by journalists across the political spectrum as an excuse to blacklist an aggressive reporter. And Trump himself has cast doubt on the rationale: He said on Friday that Acosta was "not nice to that young woman," but then he said, "I don't hold him for that because it wasn't overly, you know, horrible."Acosta has continued to do part of his job, contacting sources and filing stories, but he has been unable to attend White House events or ask questions in person -- a basic part of any White House correspondent's role.Acosta is on a previously scheduled vacation this week. He declined to comment on the lawsuit.On CNN's side, CNN Worldwide chief counsel David Vigilante is joined by two prominent attorneys, Ted Boutrous and Theodore Olson. Both men are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.Last week, before he was retained by CNN, Boutrous tweeted that the action against Acosta "clearly violates the First Amendment." He cited the Sherrill case."This sort of angry, irrational, false, arbitrary, capricious content-based discrimination regarding a White House press credential against a journalist quite clearly violates the First Amendment," he wrote.David McCraw, the top newsroom lawyer at The New York Times, said instances of news organizations suing a president are extremely rare.Past examples are The New York Times v. U.S., the famous Supreme Court case involving the Pentagon Papers in 1971; and CNN's 1981 case against the White House and the broadcast networks, when CNN sued to be included in the White House press pool.The backdrop to this new suit, of course, is Trump's antipathy for CNN and other news outlets. He regularly derides reporters from CNN and the network as a whole.Abrams posited on "Reliable Sources" on Sunday that CNN might be reluctant to sue because the president already likes to portray the network as his enemy. Now there will be a legal case titled CNN Inc. versus President Trump.But, Abrams said, "this is going to happen again," meaning other reporters may be banned too."Whether it's CNN suing or the next company suing, someone's going to have to bring a lawsuit," he said, "and whoever does is going to win unless there's some sort of reason."The-CNN-Wire 8437

来源：资阳报