清水河县肛肠医院地理位置呼和浩特市大便时痔疮出血怎么办,呼和浩特市痔疮肛瘘,呼和浩特内痔疮疮治疗大概多少钱,呼和浩特哪家医院治疗痔疮好得快,呼和浩特哪家做痔疮手术好点,呼市治肛肠疾病哪个医院好,呼市治痔疮专业的医院

The FBI issued a warning on Wednesday alerting Americans to scammers using the coronavirus to solicit donations for fraudulent charities.Federal law enforcement officials say they have received reports that scammers are using the pandemic to steal money, personal information or both.The FBI says that often, the fraudsters will use the name of a real charity to conduct their scam. The FBI adds that criminals may spoof their caller ID number to make it appear the call originated from a legitimate charity.“Be careful,” the FBI said.The FBI offered the following advice to Americans:The best way to protect yourself is by doing your research. Here are some tips on how to avoid becoming a victim of a charity fraud:Do your homework when it comes to donations, whether you’re donating through charities, social media, or crowdfunding websites.Look for online reviews of charity organizations or use information from your state’s regulator of charities or from websites like the Better Business Bureau, give.org, charitynavigator.org, or charitywatch.org to check on the legitimacy of charitable organizations.Before donating, ask how much of the donation will go toward the program or cause you want to support. Every organization has administrative costs, and it’s important to understand those structures.Never pay by gift card or wire transfer. Credit cards are safer.After making a donation, be sure to review your financial accounts to ensure additional funds are not deducted or charged.Always do your research before clicking on links purporting to provide information on the virus, purchasing COVID-related products online, or providing your personal information in order to receive money or other benefits. 1724

The E.W. Scripps Company is a partner with The Associated Press and has been following guidance from their election desk on 2020 race updates.Early Wednesday morning, the AP called the presidential race in Arizona for Joe Biden. The state is continuing to count ballots, and in the hours since, President Donald Trump has significantly cut into Biden's lead.Thursday afternoon, officials said there were about 450,000 votes still to be counted in the battleground state. As of 12:30 p.m., Biden had a 2.35 percentage point lead over Trump, an advantage of about 68,000 votes.At 9 p.m. ET, a new trove of votes from Maricopa County, the largest county in the state. Trump gained nearly 11,000 votes, cutting Biden's lead to 46,257. AP executive director Sally Buzbee released the following statement regarding its Arizona projection: "The Associated Press continues to watch and analyze vote count results from Arizona as they come in. We will follow the facts in all cases."All election results remain unofficial until each state verifies its election count.Below is the AP's explanation as to how it made the decision to call the state for Biden.The Associated Press has declared Democrat Joe Biden the winner in Arizona, flipping a longtime GOP state that President Donald Trump won in 2016.The AP called the race at 2:50 a.m. EST Wednesday, after an analysis of ballots cast statewide concluded there were not enough outstanding to allow Trump to catch up.With 80% of the expected vote counted, Biden was ahead by 5 percentage points, with a roughly 130,000-vote lead over Trump with about 2.6 million ballots counted. The remaining ballots left to be counted, including mail-in votes in Maricopa County, where Biden performed strongly, were not enough for Trump to catch up to the former vice president.Arizona has a long political history of voting Republican. It's the home state of Barry Goldwater, a five-term, conservative senator who was the Republican nominee for president in 1964. John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee, represented the state in Congress from 1983 until his 2018 death.But changing demographics, including a fast-growing Latino population and a boom of new residents — some fleeing the skyrocketing cost of living in neighboring California — have made the state friendlier to Democrats.Many of the gains have been driven by the shifting politics of Maricopa County, which is home to Phoenix and its suburbs. That's where Biden sealed his victory. Maricopa County accounts for 60% of the state's vote, and Biden ran up huge margins there.In 2016, Trump carried the county by 4 percentage points, which helped propel him to a win. But two years later, Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema flipped a Senate seat from Republican control by winning the county by 5 points.When the AP called the race for Biden, he was leading there by 9 percentage points.Biden flipping Arizona is a sign of Democrats' ascendant influence in the state.In 2018, Sinema became the first Democrat in three decades to win a U.S. Senate seat in Arizona. Democrats also won three statewide offices and five of nine congressional seats and made gains in the state legislature that year.In 2016, voters ousted Republican Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County's hardline sheriff, who built a national profile on his harsh treatment of immigrants. 3349

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

The coronavirus crisis has shown how generous people can be.When the pandemic started, animal advocates from all over North America got together and launched a massive fostering campaign.“I don’t think we ever thought people would be so willing to open up their homes to homeless pets,” said Kristen Hassen-Auerbach with Human Animal Support Services, a group educating others on how to reduce animal euthanasia.The group says the campaign resulted in nearly half of shelter pets going into foster care in April and May.In some places, the wait list was longer than the pets needing placement.“If this moment has taught us anything, it’s that we're all vulnerable. On any day, it could be any one of us that’s facing losing our homes or our pets and this is the time to help each other,” said Hassen-Auerbach.The group is now helping shelters evolve. They want a majority of animals that come into shelters to be in foster homes within hours or days. That frees up money to provide food and medical support to animal owners going through tough times.“We’re finding through early research that dogs in particular are only going a couple of houses to a couple of blocks away from their house. They're really close to home most of the time and many times if someone can just hold an animal for a few hours, they can get it home without the stress of the shelter,” said Hassen-Auerbach.You can find out more about how it works here. 1436

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued new guidance that recent studies have indicated that cloth masks offer more protection against the coronavirus than previously thought.Previous guidance suggested that masks were best used for preventing the spread of the virus. The CDC now believes that masks are effective for both stopping the spread and reception of the virus. The CDC said on Tuesday that multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50 to 70% of fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured. Overall, cloth masks offer up to 80% blockage in human experiments. The CDC’s analysis found that cloth masks offer comparable protection as surgical masks.“Studies demonstrate that cloth mask materials can also reduce wearers’ exposure to infectious droplets through filtration, including filtration of fine droplets and particles less than 10 microns,” the CDC’s guidance said. “The relative filtration effectiveness of various masks has varied widely across studies, in large part due to variation in experimental design and particle sizes analyzed. Multiple layers of cloth with higher thread counts have demonstrated superior performance compared to single layers of cloth with lower thread counts, in some cases filtering nearly 50% of fine particles less than 1 micron.”The guidance says that mandatory mask wearing can help prevent the need to implement economic shutdowns.“Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation,” the CDC said.In an interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that wearing masks is “two-way street.”"Recent data has now shown that as a matter of fact, there's also the added benefit to protect you from droplets and virus that's coming your way," Fauci said Tuesday on MSNBC."“You protect others," he added. "Their masks protect you. And your mask also protects you."In a separate interview on Tuesday, Fauci said that shut downs can be avoided.“We are not talking about shutting down,” Fauci told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “There is always that misunderstanding when we talk about public health measures. We are not talking about shutting down. We are talking about the four or five things I talk about all the time, wearing mask universally, keeping a distance, avoiding congregate settings indoors over outdoors and washing your hands.”Editor's note: A previous version of this story said "masks were best used for spreading the virus" when it should have said "masks were best used for preventing the spread of the virus." That has since been corrected. 2729