呼市医学院做痔疮手术住院需要多钱呼市治痔疮哪家便宜,肠息肉呼市哪个医院好,赛罕区肛肠医院坐几路车,呼和浩特肛肠专科医院呼和浩特,呼和浩特东大收费高吗,回民区医院肛肠科怎么检查,赛罕区哪个治肛肠医院较好

The White House National Security Council is ending the role of cyber coordinator, according to an internal announcement obtained by CNN on Tuesday.The internal announcement said the elimination of the cyber role, just weeks into the tenure of national security adviser John Bolton, was part of an effort to "streamline authority for National Security Council Senior Directors."The announcement said the cyber coordinator job would end as Rob Joyce, the latest to hold the post, returned to the National Security Agency."With our two Senior Directors for Cybersecurity, cyber coordination is already a core capability," the announcement read. "Eliminating another layer of bureaucracy delivers greater 'decision, activity, secrecy and despatch (sic)' as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist Number 70."The elimination of the cyber coordinator job marked the latest of several changes to the National Security Council since President Donald Trump named Bolton his national security adviser.CNN reported last month Bolton pushed out Tom Bossert as homeland security adviser to make room for his own team, as several other officials left the National Security Council, including deputy national security adviser Nadia Schadlow and Joyce, who served as Bossert's deputy.Politico?first reported?on the elimination of the post.Asked about the position at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she had not discussed the decision with Bolton."I have not had a conversation with Ambassador Bolton about that particular issue," Nielsen told Michigan Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.Nielsen said DHS has "strengthened all of our relationships with the silos" in government that Peters mentioned in his question, and said she is in regular contact with Bolton on cybersecurity, the previous statement notwithstanding."Since Ambassador Bolton has come onto the job, he and I speak regularly," she said, describing cybersecurity strategy work between herself and Bolton as "hand in glove."She added the cybersecurity strategy released by her department on Tuesday was done in "close coordination" with NSC.During his first year in office, then-President Barack Obama?announced he was establishing the role of cybersecurity coordinator and warned at the time the nation needed to bolster its online security efforts.Mississippi Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, issued a statement responding to the news and accusing Bolton of "wreaking havoc" on the NSC."With cyber threats ever-changing and growing more sophisticated by the day, there is no logical reason to eliminate this senior position and reduce the already degraded level of cyber expertise at the White House," the statement read.Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin, of Rhode Island, said Tuesday he feels the decision was the "first major step backward" on cybersecurity by the Trump administration. He added the Trump administration had mostly followed in the footsteps of the Obama administration before this move."Bad move, big mistake, and just shows how out of touch and uninformed John Bolton is," Langevin said. 3227

The US called on Turkey to not follow through on threats to attack US-backed forces in Syria Wednesday, an incursion the Pentagon warned could threaten US personnel and derail the fight against ISIS."Unilateral military action into northeast Syria by any party, particularly as US personnel may be present or in the vicinity, is of grave concern. We would find any such actions unacceptable," Commander Sean Robertson, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, told CNN."We believe this dialogue is the only way to secure the border area in a sustainable manner, and believe that uncoordinated military operations will undermine that shared interest," he added.Earlier on Wednesday, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a televised speech that Turkish troops would launch a military operation east of the Euphrates in Syria, an operation aimed at targeting Kurdish militants.The US troops in Syria regularly work with Kurdish elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces as part of their campaign against ISIS.Turkey sees all Kurdish forces in in Northern Syria as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as terror group by the US and the EU. The US does not share Turkey's view."Our target is definitely not American troops. It is the members of terror organization operating in the region. I want to emphasize this," Erdogan added, saying that he expected the operation to begin "in a couple of days."Secretary of Defense James Mattis recently directed US troops to establish a series of observation posts in the northeast Syria border region as part of an effort to reduce tensions between Turkey and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.Two US officials told CNN that while the US has observed additional Turkish forces arriving in the area, at this point in time it is assessed that Turkey does not have enough troops in the area to conduct the type of operation in the timeline outlined by Erdogan.However the threat of cross-border shelling remains, potentially putting US troops there at risk.Previous cross-border clashes caused the Syrian Democratic Forces to suspend their hard-fought offensive against the ISIS-held town of Hajin, the terror group's last remaining redoubt east of the Euphrates River."The campaign against ISIS is not over. Coalition forces are working closely with the Syrian Democratic Forces who are in the midst of offensive operations against ISIS in the Middle Euphrates River Valley," Robertson, the Pentagon spokesman said."We should not and cannot allow ISIS to breathe at this critical point or we will jeopardize the significant gains we have made alongside our Coalition partners and risk allowing ISIS to resurge," he added. 2703

The U.S. population grew by the smallest rate in at least 120 years from 2019 to 2020.Figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau show the U.S. population grew by 0.35% from July 2019 to July 2020, an increase of 1.1 million people in a nation with an estimated population of more than 329 million residents.Demographer William Frey says population growth in the U.S. already had been stagnant over the past several years due to immigration restrictions and a dip in fertility.However, the pandemic exacerbated that lethargic-growth trend.Even during the height of the Spanish flu, the growth rate was higher — 0.49%. 632

The showdown over mail-in ballots is expected to heat up this week.Democrats are calling back Congress to vote on legislation to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from changing any of its operations. A House committee also called an emergency hearing for next week to address mail delays and concerns the White House is interfering.The USPS is removing hundreds of mail processing machines across the country and has warned 46 states that it may not be able to process all mail-in ballots in time to be counted for the election.“Are we going to force people to have to choose between their fundamental right to vote and their health?” asked Shaundra Scott with the South Carolina Democratic Party. “The American voters are going to be very frustrated that we may not know who the winner is until frankly December.”Political experts agree the presidential race, pandemic and mail-in voting will all lead to massive increases in voter turnout and probably a lot of contested results.Some states have streamlined mail-in and absentee voting for years. However, other states are rushing to change their voting process because of the pandemic.“When things like that happen, it doesn't inspire confidence. It leads to the fear that people who shouldn't be voting may potentially be voting or people that should vote are not going to get ballots because of a snafu,” said Matt Klink, a GOP strategist with Klink Campaigns.For example, New York changed the rules to make it easier to vote by mail ahead of the primary, and it provided pre-paid envelopes. But those envelopes were not postmarked, or they were returned late. And there were other issues like ballots that weren't signed. That led to one out of four mail-in ballots being disqualified.But voting by mail could close the gap on inequities.“Yes, there are rules and regulations that say your employer should give you two hours to be able to vote but if you’re working hourly and you’re working on a job that is shift based, even though voting is extremely important, taking away that two hours of pay from someone and them having to make that decision is huge,” said Scott.Some expert say Republicans fear mail-in ballots would capture new Democratic voters, but seniors also benefit from absentee and mail-in voting. They often skew red, according to the Brookings Institute.A major study of California, Utah, and Washington state's elections between 1996 and 2018 found there was no partisan advantage to voting by mail. 2482

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026