ran’s Ayatollah Khomeini bangs his fists on the table. “Gentlemen, gentlemen!” he says. “If we do nothing else this week, we must conceive at least one terrorist act that will show all the world that the United States, the Great Satan, is but a paper tiger, a weak nation of weak people, a people ripe for destruction!” He is chairing a gathering of the infamous, among them Yasir Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi, and Mikhail Gorbachev. In the background, the man serving tea to the assemblage suddenly doffs his garb to reveal he is Frank Drebin of Police Squad. Drebin then delivers a well-deserved whupping to the whole lot of international thugs, Khomeini very much included.
The opening of The Naked Gun, the wild comedy film from 1988, is a peerless artifact of the Reagan decade—a clarifying example of America’s profound hostility toward the Iranian regime and its leader. It hit screens only seven years after the advent of Ronald Reagan’s presidency led the regime to release the 52 American hostages it had held for 444 days beginning on November 4, 1979. In the years following, Khomeinists would continue to burn the American flag on the streets of Tehran in hateful rituals broadcast worldwide. They would incept the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, the single deadliest attack on U.S. Marines since World War II. The American people knew all this, which is why they delighted in even a farcical portrayal of Khomeini getting his just desserts.
Flash-forward 26 years. The Iranian regime is still holding American hostages. These include the Washington Post’s Tehran correspondent, Jason Rezaian, and Amir Hekmati, an Iranian-American U.S. Marine sentenced to death in 2012 on bogus spying charges and still languishing in the mullahs’ hellish prisons. American flags are burned, and cries of “Death to America!” still ring out at Friday prayers across Iran. The Tehran regime continues to arm and fund Hezbollah, and Iranian forces and proxies now encircle the Arab lands. And the mullahs have in the intervening years raced to develop nuclear weapons. Their centrifuges still churn in defiance of five United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Now cut to the Oval Office. It’s Christmas 2014, and Barack Obama is sitting down for one of his periodic interviews with the liberal press. “You need to understand what their legitimate needs and concerns are,” the president tells National Public Radio, speaking of the Iranian regime. Washington should distinguish those legitimate needs from Tehran’s “adventurism,” support for Hezbollah, and threats against Israel. If the Iranians could separate the realist wheat from the Khomeinist chaff, the president says, the Islamic Republic “could be a very successful regional power.”
If the Iranians could separate the realist wheat from the Khomeinist chaff, Obama said in 2014, the Islamic Republic ‘could be a very successful regional power.’
This was an astonishing moment: Who could have imagined, even two or three years earlier, the president of United States in effect wishing the mullahs well in their quest for regional hegemony? And yet here we were. The fact that the comment didn’t make more than a few small ripples indicates just how far the public’s perception of the relationship between Iran and the United States has shifted.
The policy results are already apparent. As I write, the Obama administration is close to concluding a nuclear accord that is almost certain to transform Tehran into a nuclear-threshold state. Most Arab officials today believe that the U.S. is actively tilting the balance of power in favor of the Iranian regime at the expense of America’s traditional allies. Washington is in a de facto alliance with Tehran in the Levant and Mesopotamia, and if a nuclear deal is concluded, the United States will inject billions of dollars into Iran’s cash-starved fisc, money that the mullahs will use to bolster their proxies and tighten their grip on the Sunni sphere.
There are moderates among the new revolutionary elite, the Reagan White House was told, and Washington and Tehran could perhaps reach an understanding.
The metamorphosis of Iran, in elite American opinion, from terrorist state into U.S. partner is a long-brewing triumph for a certain set of ideas about the Islamic Republic and its relation to the nation it has called the “Great Satan” since its birth. Over time, the argument has been advanced by journalists, academics, Washington lobbies, and government officials. Its basic purpose has always been to sell the Iranian regime as moderate, amenable to reason, even decent and democratic, relative to its neighbors. The various arms of this campaign didn’t always work in concert. It wasn’t always a conscious effort. Frequently, it was advanced by well-intentioned but credulous journalists. The rebranding campaign was not a dark conspiracy; it was, for the most part, carried out openly. Nor, finally, did it always progress smoothly, but rather in fits and starts, with numerous setbacks along the way.
Nevertheless, Iran’s American apologists have now scored an unprecedented coup: making the U.S. friendly toward a regime whose motto is “Death to America.”
New York Times op-ed by Princeton scholar Richard Falk, published only days after Khomeini seized power in Iran in February 1979, can now be seen as the ur-text of American apologetics for the Islamic Republic. The piece is worth quoting at some length. “In recent months,” Falk wrote,
before his triumphal return to Teheran, the ayatollah gave numerous assurances to non-Moslem communities in Iran. He told Jewish-community leaders that it would be a tragedy if many of the 80,000 Jews left the country. Of course, this view is qualified by his hostility to Israel because of its support for the Shah and its failure to resolve the Palestinian question. He has also indicated that the non-religious left will be permitted to express its views in an Islamic republic and to participate in its political life. . . . To suppose that Ayatollah Khomeini is dissembling seems almost beyond belief. . . . What is also encouraging is that his entourage of supporters is uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals.
Falk concluded: “Having created a new model of popular revolution based, for the most part, on nonviolent tactics, Iran may yet provide us with a desperately needed model of humane governance for a third-world country.”
Seen in light of the revolutionary bloodletting and repression that followed Khomeini’s rise, the Falk op-ed is a case study in credulous reporting and mushy thinking. But we can see its contours at work today, in the way President Obama is trying to sell his nuclear deal with Iran. Consider each of these rhetorical strategies:
- the insistence that the Khomeinist core includes reformers and moderates, who have genuine ideological rather than merely tactical disagreements with so-called hard-liners (Khomeini’s “uniformly” progressive entourage);
- a willingness to take Iranian officials at their word, and a corresponding refusal to grant the same benefit of the doubt to their opponents and victims (Khomeini’s assurances to Iran’s Jews and leftists);
- the notion that behind the Khomeinists’ eliminationist slogans are grievances and legitimate aspirations, which the West would be wise to accommodate (Khomeini objected to Israel’s “support for the Shah” and failure to “resolve the Palestinian question”); and
- the attempt to persuade Americans that the Islamic Republic, for all its flaws, represents a progressive step forward for the region (“model of humane governance”).
The Obama administration has put forth variations of all these arguments over the past six years. The president has recently said that the regime only pursues anti-Semitic policies “at the margins.” Various administration figures have uncritically repeated the regime line that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons. The White House is fond of publicly pillorying America’s Arab and Israeli allies, and domestic opponents of his nuclear diplomacy, as hard-liners who unwittingly aid hard-liners in Tehran. And Secretary of State John Kerry echoed the regional-beacon argument when he said in February 2013 that “Iran is a country with a government that was elected.”
ven in the 1980s, when the mere mention of the word Iran was enough to spark rage in the hearts of most Americans, the regime attempted something like a rebranding. Desperate for more sophisticated arms than it possessed amid the grinding Iran–Iraq War, Tehran telegraphed a willingness to covertly engage the Reagan administration. There are moderates among the new revolutionary elite, the Reagan White House was told, and while an outright reconciliation was out of the question, Washington and Tehran could perhaps reach an understanding on mutual areas of interest.
There are always liberal Khomeinists waiting in the wings, we’re told, and if the West doesn’t make another concession soon, the really bad Khomeinists will then derail peace.
The pitch worked, and the Reagan team resolved to sell the mullahs antitank missiles, first via Israeli intermediaries and later directly. The missile sales would, it was hoped, curb the worst excesses of the Khomeinists and secure the release of American hostages held by Iranian proxies in Lebanon. National Security Adviser Robert MacFarlane was dispatched to Tehran with a key-shaped cake in May 1986. The Iranian moderates never materialized, however, and the Reagan team soon concluded that it was doing little more than paying ransom in arms to a hostage-taking regime.
Even so, aware of Iran’s strategic centrality and its place as one of the key exporters of the substance that made the world run, post-Reagan U.S. administrations of both parties continued to seek reconciliation with Tehran over the next two decades, often covertly. At the end of the Iran–Iraq War in 1988, with the regime desperate for funds and infrastructure, various Iranian officials once again began making “moderate” noises. But their American interlocutors, and European governments seeking rapprochement, were confounded at each turn by the Iranian regime’s own endemic nastiness. Hezbollah’s 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 U.S. service personnel, reminded Washington of the true nature of the Tehran regime. The European nations that initiated a diplomatic outreach in the 1990s called the Critical Dialogue were forced to give up after the regime carried out a series of assassinations in Europe. The current president, Hassan Rouhani, it should be noted, was an architect of this campaign of terror against Iranian dissidents in Europe.
he 9/11 attacks opened a window of opportunity for those seeking rapprochement between the United States and Iran. The terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers were Arabs, and they drew ideological inspiration from the wellspring of Sunni Islamism. America was bound to lash out at the Sunni sphere, and rightly so. Where did the Islamic Republic—characterized by its adherence to Shia Islam—stand in the post-9/11 world? Would it be seen as an ally in the fight against Sunni extremism, or would the new George W. Bush White House lump Tehran in with other state sponsors of terrorism that the administration had vowed to punish? Terrorism, Bush-administration principals knew, had been a central plank of Iranian statecraft, and it was the Khomeinists who had actually built the first modern, revolutionary Islamist state—something (pre-ISIS) Sunni Islamists could only dream of.
But hold on, urged a growing media and academic chorus. More than half of university students in Iran are women. The country has a vibrant film industry; a glorious history predating Islam by at least a millennium; a beautiful literary culture that emphasizes love of wine, dance, and idyllic pastures; and a tradition of secular politics, albeit repressed. And behold, on 9/11, Iranians poured into the streets, lighting candles to mourn the victims. Iranians didn’t pass sweets to cheer the attacks or cry “Death to America.”
All of which was true. Even so, there was a great deal of misdirection in this line of argument. For starters, the glories of Persian civilization, liberal and secular instincts, the courage of Iranian women seeking equality, latent pro-American sentiments—all were things the Khomeinist regime had attempted to flog, jail, and censor out of the Iranian soul over the previous two decades. That an anti-American regime tolerated a day of mourning when it feared Washington’s wrath did little credit to the regime. This same regime, it bears reminding, didn’t mask, even temporarily, its countless anti-American displays: the U.S. flags whose stars are replaced by human skulls, the stars and stripes that visitors step on when entering various government offices.
Never mind. Elaine Sciolino, then the Tehran correspondent of the New York Times, reported in October 2001 that “Iran believes that the terrorists behind the Sept. 11 attacks must be brought to justice and the Taliban government in Afghanistan replaced.” She cited a “senior Iranian diplomat,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, then serving as deputy foreign minister in the Khatami government (now foreign minister and the key negotiator on the nuclear accord). The article went on to describe Zarif’s opposition to a large-scale American military response to the 9/11 attacks: “His remarks offer the fullest explanation to date of Iran’s position and bring into sharp focus the psychological divide that still separates the two countries after two decades without diplomatic relations, which were broken after the Islamic revolution and the hostage-taking at the American Embassy in Tehran.”
Soon after Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map,’ the apologists set out to hide his naked eliminationism beneath a fog of obfuscation.
The article didn’t contain a single reference to the Islamic Republic’s own role as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, not a word on Beirut or Khobar Towers or the assassinations in Europe. It ran under the sub-headline: “Tehran Assails Terror but Opposes U.S. Attack.” (Sciolino today is a tour guide for “Tales from Persia,” a $6,995-a-head Iran trip organized by the New York Times.)
The image of Iran as a counterterrorism partner was supplemented with a mythology of grievance and victimization that, its proponents hoped, would soften those inconvenient historical tidbits Americans clung to, not least the 1979 hostage crisis. The mythology came in the form of All the Shah’s Men, a 2003 history of the coup that toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, after he tried to nationalize Iran’s oil.
Following a line of argument that had dominated campus international-relations studies for decades, the book averred that in toppling Iran’s “democratically elected” leader Mossadegh in 1953, the CIA and MI6 had invited the Islamist fury that would blow back against the West in 1979 and again on 9/11. The author, former New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer, didn’t read Persian, and he relied heavily on the memoirs of Kermit Roosevelt, a one-time CIA spook with a penchant for self-aggrandizement who was eager to tout his own outsize role in shaping Cold War events, including the anti-Mossadegh coup.
In constructing this myth of American perfidy in Iran, Kinzer played down Mossadegh’s own demagogic tendencies (by the time he was toppled, the premier had dissolved the senate and was ruling by decree). The author pooh-poohed the real risk that Mossadegh’s nationalist movement could soon have been swallowed by the Tudeh, the Soviet-aligned Iranian Communist Party (nationalist rallies drew thousands of supporters, while Tudeh rallies drew up to 100,000). And Kinzer neglected the fact that the balance of social forces in Iran had already tipped against Mossadegh when he was toppled in the coup.
More important, as the Stanford historian Abbas Milani has written of the turn against Mossadegh, “members of the Iranian middle class, merchants of the bazaar…and industrialists were all particularly wary of the Tudeh Party’s militant and assertive discourse.” To compel Washington to take his side in the nationalism debate, Mossadegh had begun flirting with the Tudeh. Crucially, Mossadegh had drawn the enmity of the clerical class—the same Islamists, in other words, who would go on to lead the 1979 revolution. Thus, even assuming the CIA played the pivotal role Kinzer attributed to it (it didn’t), the mullahs lacked the moral and historical standing to claim that they remained outraged at Mossadegh’s ouster. To this day, the Tehran regime marginalizes the secular Mossadegh’s legacy at home even as it uses the coup to grievance-monger abroad.
Still, Kinzer’s Mossadegh narrative was irresistible. No criticism of the Iranian regime could be uttered without some well-meaning journalist or think-tanker retorting that “yes, the mullahs do some awful things, but you know, America toppled Iran’s democratically elected prime minister.”
Meanwhile, credulous journalists and think-tankers stressed once more the existence of regime-reformers and moderates, and the importance of cultivating these, lest the hard-liners take over.
They pointed to the reelection, in summer 2001, of a mild-mannered, smiling cleric named Mohammad Khatami as president. The Los Angeles Times’s Robin Wright crowned him the “country’s leading reformer,” while a 2002 International Crisis Group report went so far as to label Khatami a “liberal cleric” leading a “coalition of the modernist (technocratic) right and the Islamic left.” Whatever that meant. The use of such terms with respect to a system founded on the absolute authority of a supreme jurisprudent, who rules until the Imam of Time returns to herald the apocalypse, was always absurd. Yet it became a hallmark of the Iran analysis that is with us today. There are always liberal Khomeinists waiting in the wings, and if the West doesn’t make another concession soon, the really bad Khomeinists will then derail peace.
Khatami’s reformist credentials and inclinations were more hype than reality. True, he quoted Hegel, trimmed his beard, and wore crisply pressed cloaks. During his first term, he had attempted to give Iranians, especially women, a (relatively) wider degree of personal freedom than they had had before: Girls under a certain age could now share skate parks with boys and so on. But when it came to political freedom, more fundamental rights, or anything that could undermine the primacy of the clerics and the security apparatus, Khatami was consistently unable or unwilling to confront the mullahs. When an uprising erupted on university campuses in 1999, for instance, Khatami was quick to throw pro-democracy students under the bus, accusing them of “attacking the foundations of the regime.”
Even the modest reforms he advanced came to naught, as the ruling establishment created a parallel state to undo Khatami’s work. Mistrustful of Khatami’s intelligence ministry, the regime created a separate network of black sites, judicial bodies, and extrajudicial assassins to silence critical intellectuals and intimidate Khatami’s base. The sidelining of Khatami by the parallel state was already complete more or less by the time he began his second term, independent of U.S. policy. On foreign policy he enjoyed even less leeway, since decisions on Iran’s relations with the outside world are the domain of the supreme leader, with the elected president acting merely as executor.
In his second term, Barack Obama absorbed almost all NIAC’s talking points on Iran. These talking points were a crisp synthesis of various lines of apologetic reasoning.
The George W. Bush administration reacted to the reform narrative with skepticism. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush identified the Islamic Republic as part of an “axis of evil,” along with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the North Korean regime. This led to much gnashing of teeth among the Tehran-apologist crowd. A few months later, an opposition group revealed the existence of two secret nuclear facilities in Iran, which stiffened administration backs even more.
Then, according to the apologists, the Bush administration committed another fatal error when it spurned Tehran’s offer of a grand bargain that would have brought the entire U.S.–Iran conflict to a negotiated, final-status settlement. This once-in-a-lifetime offer was supposedly transmitted in 2003 via Tim Guldimann, then the Swiss envoy to Iran, in a one-page letter that bore no indication it had been approved by Iran’s supreme leader. As Commentary contributor Michael Rubin has written in an authoritative dissection of the memo, Guldimann had apparently hashed out the document with Iran’s ambassador to France, who then “circulated the paper to senior Iranian officials with the caveat that it did not come from Washington.” Next, “Guldimann tried to use the Iranian response as ‘the basis for opening bilateral discussion.’” This was a classic case of an ambitious diplomat freelancing above his pay grade. But even if the document was what Guldimann purported, why would the Iranians, who were already in dialogue with the Bush administration over post-Saddam Iraq, send it to Washington through Guldimann?
Those who sought to paint Iran as eager for peace could never resolve these contradictions. Yet the Guldimann memo lives on, like the oversimplified account of the Mossadegh coup, as one of the central myths of Iran apologetics.
he 2005 election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s next president posed a serious, if temporary, setback to Iran’s apologists. Ahmadinejad was the un-repressed id of the Iranian regime. He denied the Holocaust and called for Israel’s elimination in blunt terms. He was also a provincial, lacking the charm and sophistication of a Khatami or the English-language skills of a Zarif. The main challenge for Iran’s apologists, from the second Bush term through the first Obama term, was to portray Ahmadinejad as at once misunderstood and unrepresentative of the wider regime.
Take Ahmadinejad’s call for Israel to be “wiped off the map.” Soon after the remark was reported in the New York Times in October 2005, the apologists set out to hide the president’s naked eliminationism beneath a fog of obfuscation. True, the Times reporter’s translation was imprecise (though, to be fair, it was also used by Iran’s own state-run English news agencies). Erasing Israel “from the pages of history” would have been a more accurate rendition. This was a semantic distinction without a difference, but it provided an opening for those seeking to cast doubt on Ahmadinejad’s intentions.
Suddenly everyone in Washington became a Persian linguist. Ahmadinejad, apologists argued, was merely making a prediction rather than issuing a command. “I’m not sure there is even such an idiom in Persian,” said the University of Michigan’s Juan Cole. Iranian-American writer Reza Aslan had a different interpretation: “In Farsi, it means not that Israel should be eliminated but that the existing political borders should literally be wiped from a literal map and replaced with those of historic Palestine.”
At the same time, it was argued, what Ahmadinejad said wasn’t all that meaningful in the larger scheme of the Iranian regime anyway, since it’s the supreme leader who sets direction for foreign policy.
There are overlapping layers of mendacity here. Far from issuing a prediction akin to saying, for example, that the “Soviet Union will one day disappear from the pages of history,” Ahmadinejad had used the Persian verb baayad. That word means “must.” So this was an injunction, not a passive prediction. And Ahmadinejad’s eliminationism was in no way aberrant. Most of the new Persian-grammar enthusiasts neglected the first half of the president’s formulation. The full, correct quote in translation, later provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute, read: “Imam [Khomeini] said: ‘This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.’ This sentence is very wise.”
Ahmadinejad, in other words, was reaffirming a goal set by Khomeini—a goal the Islamic Republic has tried to achieve by, among other things, creating Hezbollah and aiding Hamas, outfits for whom the destruction of Israel is a constitutional aim.
Note, too, another favored tactic here. When an elected Iranian leader, such as Ahmadinejad, says something nasty, he is portrayed as a fool whose words mean little given the relative powerlessness of Iran’s popular branches. Suddenly, the regime’s authoritarian structure matters. When, on the other hand, an elected Iranian leader vows engagement abroad, as Khatami did and as Rouhani has, he is to be taken seriously, since he represents the will of the regime.
The regime’s defenders reacted similarly when Ahmadinejad, with Khamenei’s backing, stole Iran’s 2009 presidential election and launched a vicious crackdown on the pro-democracy uprising that followed. Footage of the regime’s brutality against millions of unarmed Green Movement protesters demanding “Where is my vote?” was ubiquitous on social media. Save for the regime’s most abject American apologists—the loathesome husband-and-wife team of Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett—few dared to openly deny the electoral fraud or justify the crackdown. Rather, the strategy shifted once more to blaming Ahmadinejad, as if he were the only source of repression in Iran.
For example, in An Iranian Challenge, a book of reported journalism from post-2009 Iran, the influential Iranian-American writer Hooman Majd, a relative of Khatami’s, distinguished what he called the “Iranian republic” and the “Ahmadinejad regime.” The former, he said, is a quasi-democratic system that enjoys broad public support. Yes, the Iranian republic has a Guardian Council, an unelected body that disqualifies candidates for the presidency if they aren’t male, Shiite, or sufficiently ideological. But, asked Majd, don’t the media play a similar function in the U.S. system by effectively barring candidates considered too “out-there” for the American consensus? Yes, Majd conceded, the Iranian republic has a repressive apparatus. But it was the “Ahmadinejad regime” that was abusing that apparatus, much as George W. Bush had done with the Patriot Act and other alleged post-9/11 crimes against American civil liberties.
Cheap, false moral equivalence of this kind was also the stock and trade of Soviet apologists throughout the Cold War. The difference in the Iranian case was that such rhetorical tricks would, under Obama, migrate to the White House and form the basis of American policy at the highest circles of power.
hroughout his first term, Obama sought to engage with Iran, even as the U.S. Congress forced him to impose a tough international sanctions regime against Tehran. He wrote letters to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—letters that went either unanswered or were met with the ayatollah’s usual anti-American jeremiads. Beginning in spring 2009, Obama also posted videos to YouTube congratulating Iranians on Persian New Year while inviting Iranian leaders to unclench their fists. Obama’s use of the regime’s full formal name in these videos—“the Islamic Republic of Iran”—signaled that the new White House accepted the mullahs’ legitimacy, and this continued even after the 2009 uprising and crackdown. With the pugnacious, Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad still in office, such engagement could go only so far. When Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013, the administration and its friends decided a new day had dawned.
One group that cheered Rouhani’s election loudly was the National Iranian American Council. Founded in 2002, NIAC had already emerged in the Bush years as the most effective, sophisticated, and professional Capitol Hill organization advocating the removal of sanctions on the Iranian regime and an end to its international isolation. The group had presented itself as the largest grassroots Iranian-American organization, empowering Americans of Iranian descent—an educated and wealthy demographic that had hitherto eschewed public life—to take part in the democratic process. Its founder and president, Trita Parsi, got his Capitol Hill start as an aide to the now-disgraced Representative Bob Ney. As an activist, he would make his basic case about Iran’s ideological benignity to anyone willing to listen: Grant Iran a measure of respect, reassure the mullahs that regime change wasn’t on the agenda, lift the sanctions, and Tehran and its nuclear program would no longer be cause for concern.
Parsi holds views that have surely warmed the ayatollahs’ hearts. An Iranian-born Swedish citizen, Parsi had made a name with his 2008 book Treacherous Alliance. The book’s basic claim was that the conflict between Khomeinist Iran and the U.S. and Israel was primarily a matter of Tehran’s seeking strategic respect in the region and not, as Jerusalem insisted, on anti-Semitic ideology. His argument elided the many ways in which the regime had actually attempted to back its ideological proclamations with action. It also invited readers in effect to excuse the regime’s ugly rhetoric as the lashing out of a rising power.
Much of what we know about NIAC’s founding and internal workings is the product of the discovery process in a defamation suit Parsi launched in 2009 against Hassan Daioleslam, a U.S.-based Iranian journalist who had described NIAC and Parsi as “key players in the lobby enterprise of Tehran’s ayatollahs in the United States.”
The documentary record exposed emails showing Parsi apparently arranging meetings between members of Congress and various Iranian officials. One 2006 email from Parsi to Javad Zarif, then serving as ambassador to the U.N., read:
[H]appy to hear that you will meet with [Republican Congressman Wayne] Gilchrest and potentially [Democratic Congressman Jim] Leach. There are many more that are interested in a meeting, including many respectable Democrats. Due to various reasons, they will contact you directly. . . . Their larger goal is to meet with Iranian elected parliamentarians.
Gilchrest is a great guy, low key but very respected among Republicans as well as the Democrats. These members are very disillusioned with the Bush foreign policy and are tired to sit on the sidelines as Bush undermines the U.S.’s global position. As a result, they are willing to take matters in their own hands and they accept the political risk that comes with it.
Another email from Parsi to Zarif, from 2007, read: “Would you have time to meet next Friday? I am having a meeting with Gilchrest and [Democratic Congressman Gregory] Meeks, and they asked for our assistance in getting some communication going between [Iranian and American] parliamentarians.” No wonder various Iranian state-run and semi-official news sites referred to NIAC as an “Iranian lobby.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit in 2012 without ruling on the veracity of Daioleslam’s claims. It was clear to the court that Parsi’s rare and mild criticisms of the Iranian regime’s rights record hadn’t been sufficient to show the defendant’s claim—that Parsi was a lobbyist for Tehran—to have been motivated by actual malice.
“Many of the statements listed in Parsi’s affidavit are not strongly anti-regime,” the court held. “That Parsi occasionally made statements reflecting a balanced, shared blame approach is not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime.” Parsi’s criticisms of Iran’s human-rights record, the court went on, were “tepid.” In addition to dismissing the suit, the court fined the plaintiffs $183,480 for their behavior in the discovery process, including various undue dilatory tactics, refusing to produce documents or denying their existence. A federal appeals court earlier this year upheld most of the sanctions, concluding that NIAC and Parsi had
engaged in a disturbing pattern of delay and intransigence. Seemingly at every turn, NIAC and Parsi deferred producing relevant documents, withheld them, or denied their existence altogether. Many of these documents went to the heart of Daioleslam’s defense. The Appellants’ failure to produce documents in a timely manner forced Daioleslam—whom they had hauled into court—to waste resources and time deposing multiple witnesses and subpoenaing third parties for emails the Appellants should have turned over. Even worse, the Appellants also misrepresented to the District Court that they did not possess key documents Daioleslam sought. Most troublingly, they flouted multiple court orders.
In a case that turned on whether describing NIAC and Parsi as lobbyists for Iran constituted defamation, the most disturbing of the plaintiffs’ behaviors was the alteration of 78 calendar entries, “including two-thirds of those in Parsi’s calendar,” before production for discovery.
Whether or not NIAC was created or retained as a lobby for the Tehran regime is now a matter of mostly academic interest. What matters is that, in his second term, Barack Obama absorbed almost all NIAC’s talking points, and that these talking points are a crisp synthesis of the various lines of apologetic reasoning stretching back to Richard Falk’s 1979 op-ed.
Recall how the president told NPR, in December 2014, that Iran’s “legitimate aspirations” should be taken into account. This was followed by the president’s remark, in an interview published in the May issue of the Atlantic, that the regime’s anti-Semitism is little more than an “organizing tool,” unpleasant rhetorical outbursts that don’t override Tehran’s other strategic interests. The hard-liners-versus-moderates dichotomy, too, has found new life in the Obama administration’s accusations that the president’s own “hard-line” opponents—that is, duly elected U.S. lawmakers—are empowering their hard-line counterparts in Tehran.
ut to the White House Situation Room, March 31, 2015. Diplomats in Geneva have just concluded the latest round of nuclear negotiations between the great powers and Iran, and a framework agreement is within view. President Obama has convened a debrief conference call with cabinet principals and other top officials. On the list of participants is one Sahar Nowrouzzadeh.
Nowrouzzadeh is Obama’s National Security Council Director for Iran. She is also, it turns out, an alumna of NIAC. A senior administration official subsequently described her NIAC role to the Washington Post as an internship. Really? A 2004 NIAC letter I’ve reviewed describes Nowrouzzadeh as a “staff member.”
We have come full circle. The apologists are now running the show, even if the Obama administration feels compelled to lie about the fact.


text:
I love a good cup of coffee in the morning. For years, when I lived in NY, I would set the timer on my coffee pot at night and then wake up in the morning to the aroma of freshly brewed coffee. That was
until I moved to South Florida. Now it’s all about iced coffee. Nothing beats a tall glass of home brewed iced coffee in this heat, especially in the summer when the temperature is usually 90 plus.
I had heard about cold-brewed coffee and seen it on the menu at coffee shops but never really thought about making it at home. I was used to brewing hot coffee and then pouring it over ice or refrigerating my leftover hot brewed coffee and then using that to make iced coffee. Then I tried making cold-brewed coffee at home and I haven’t gone back since.
Cold-brewed coffee is coffee that’s steeped in cold or room temperature water instead of being brewed with hot water. Why is it so great? It’s because it has a smoother flavor than hot brewed coffee and a lower acidity level. When coffee comes into contact with the intense heat of boiling water, a specific chemical reaction occurs. With cold-brewing, that chemical reaction doesn’t occur so it creates a different flavor profile than drip coffee. Cold brew is less bitter and has a smooth, almost sweet flavor. Another advantage of cold brew is that unlike hot coffee, when you pour it over ice, your drink won’t instantly get diluted.
Because we are not using heat to extract the flavor from the coffee, we need time instead. Ideally,
you want to have at least 12 hours for the coffee to soak in the water. I usually start the process at night so that it’s ready to go the next day when I need my caffeine fix.
There are only two ingredients- coffee and water. The ratio of the two is the only variation and depends on how strong you like your coffee. I’ve been using a ratio of 1 cup coffee to 4.5 cups water and I think that’s a good place to start. You can start there and adjust to suit your taste.
You want to make sure to use coarsely ground coffee as it will yield the best product with minimal cloudiness. After the coffee has soaked, it’s time to strain it. You can use a fine mesh strainer or make one by lining a strainer with a coffee filter or cheesecloth. The finer the strainer, the less sediment you will have, which means a cleaner flavor. I use a cloth coffee sock filter that’s made just for straining coffee that I actually found at my local grocery store (you can also buy them online). If you have a French press, you can also use that. Just put the coffee and water in it at night and let it steep overnight. In the morning, plunge and you’re ready to go.
I store my cold brew in a large pitcher in the refrigerator so that I can have a refreshing glass of iced coffee whenever the urge strikes. When you’re ready for a glass, just pour it over ice and add any desired additions like milk or sweeteners. You can store your cold brew in the fridge for up to 2 weeks.
Cold-brewed coffee has a smooth flavor and low acidity level, plus it's easy to make at home.
Makes about 3 quarts
- ½ pound good quality coffee, coarsely ground
- 13 ½ cups water (room temperature or cold)
Place the coffee grounds in a large container and add the water. Stir to combine well.
Cover the container tightly with plastic wrap and let the coffee steep on the counter at room temperature for at least 12 hours. Pour the mixture through a fine mesh strainer or a strainer lined with cheesecloth or a coffee filter. Alternatively you can use a cloth coffee sock filter. Stop when you reach the solids at the bottom of the container.
Transfer the cold brew to a large pitcher, cover and refrigerate. When ready to drink, add ice and any other additions like milk or sweeteners. The cold brew can be stored in the refrigerator for 2 weeks.
The ratio of coffee to water that I used is 1 cup coffee to 4 ½ cups water. You can start with any amount of coffee grounds and then add the appropriate amount of water in that proportion. I used ½ pound of coffee, which measured out to about 3 cups so I then added 13 ½ cups water.

domain: food


text:
In his valedictory speech as the head of one of the most respected economic think tanks in the world, Fred Bergsten was tempted to triumph the competitive liberalization of the global economy he championed for the last half century, including nearly two decades in the U.S. government.
Instead, the former assistant U.S. Treasury secretary issued a clarion call about “a clear and present danger” that continuing “currency wars” represent to the U.S. economy, global trade and the international monetary system.
“Virtually every major country is seeking depreciation, or at least non-appreciation, of its currency to strengthen its economy and create jobs,” he said in prepared remarks to the Peterson Institute of International Affairs Thursday afternoon. Mr. Bergsten officially stepped down as the director of the institution last year, replaced by former Bank of England board member Adam Posen.
Those currency tensions, and the policies that are fueling them, are costing the U.S. economy millions of jobs and threatening to create the kind of global problems that contributed to the Great Depression, he said.
The International Monetary Fund plays down the threat of currency wars, where countries across the globe devalue their exchange rates for a trade advantage. But Mr. Bergsten says it’s already widespread.
“Much more seems quite possible in the near future,” he said. “The economic damage that has already resulted is immense and could become much worse,” he added.
The heart of the problem, he argues, lies in the fact that there is no way to penalize countries that run trade surpluses at the expense of other countries, sanctions that would deter them from competitive currency manipulation.
“It’s the single greatest flaw in the entire international financial architecture,” he said, essentially ensuring that the problem will continue in the years ahead.
The biggest culprit in Mr. Bergsten’s accounts is China, despite Beijing’s significant appreciation of the yuan against the dollar in recent years. But he points to others, including Hong Kong, Denmark, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Switzerland and Taiwan.
If all the major currency delinquents were forced to stop their intervention, Mr. Bergsten calculates the impact would be comparable to the near $1 trillion 2009 stimulus or all three rounds of the Federal Reserve’s special monetary easing.
“Eliminating excessive currency intervention would narrow the trade deficit by 2% to 3% of gross domestic product and move the economy much of the way to full employment,” he said.
The two institutions that might be able to police currency practices — the IMF and the World Trade Organization — don’t have a legal weapon to wield.
Mr. Bergsten proposes that the victims of currency manipulation — largely the U.S., Europe, Brazil and a few other countries — should start to push for changes to the WTO and the IMF, giving them the power to stop exchange-rate intervention.
Many economists say that’s either a Herculean or quixotic task given the power that China has now accumulated on the world stage. The U.S. no longer has the geopolitical might to make it happen by itself, Mr. Bergsten concedes, as its global share of trade has shrunk and its dependence on other countries growth.
But Washington could still act unilaterally, applying special duties for intervening countries, he said. Other countries might join the effort, and while the WTO may ultimately rule against the action, the years needed for adjudication would act as a deterrent.
Time, he warns, isn’t on Washington’s side, all the more reason for the administration to act now.
In fact, Congress might force the issue when the administration seeks approval for pending new trade agreements across the Pacific and Atlantic, or for trade promotion authority.
“Congress, encouraged by the auto industry and perhaps others, will raise the currency issue in these contexts, and especially if it remains dissatisfied with the administration’s performance, insist on including relevant chapters in these and future trade agreements,” he said.

domain: finance


text:
More than one month after splitting from Marc Day, Kenya Moore is opening up about the future of her love life — including whether or not she could get back together with her ex.
Kenya Moore is not ruling out a reconciliation with Marc Daly. “There’s always hope,” the Real Housewives of Atlanta star said on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen on Nov. 3. “We haven’t filed [for divorce] yet.” Kenya announced her decision to break up with Marc after two years of marriage in a statement on Sept. 19. During her WWHL interview, she admitted that she and Marc have still not been able to work through their issues, which she said were prevalent from the beginning of their whirlwind relationship.
“We just haven’t worked through things that popped up early in our relationship and they just got exacerbated by everything else,” Kenya explained. However, she made it clear that she has NOT filed for divorce at this time, and said that she and Marc have been “cordial” since breaking up. The two even reunited to celebrate their daughter, Brooklyn’s, first birthday on Nov. 3, and Kenya admitted that they “co-parented successfully” on the special occasion. One WWHL caller asked if Kenya’s decision to return to RHOA had anything to do with her marriage falling apart, but Kenya confirmed that that had nothing to do with it. “There were issues before the show,” she revealed.
Meanwhile, host Andy Cohen was shocked to hear that Kenya didn’t sign a prenup before she married Marc in June 2017, but she explained her reasoning. “We’re both successful,” Kenya said. “I own my home outright prior to marriage, and from what I know — not being a lawyer — I think that’s protected. That’s my biggest asset. And Marc’s successful, so I just didn’t think that things would ever get to a point where he would come after my money. He hasn’t yet.”
As for whether or not she’s seeing anyone else while separated from Marc, Kenya revealed that dating is not her priority right now. “I’m not dating,” she told Andy. “I’m still married and will not date until I’m divorced.”

domain: celebrity


NASCAR Hits Nail on Head With 2018 Schedule - For Now
Seems like we've been asking for a third road course in the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series for years upon years now. Well, in reality the proposition is relatively new, but guess what, we've finally got what we asked for.
With NASCAR releasing the full 2018 schedule Tuesday afternoon, many previous assumptions were confirmed.
-Indianapolis Motor Speedway will hold the 26th and final regular season race of the season - still on the 2.5 mile oval
-Las Vegas will serve as the opener of the 10-race playoff; Chicagoland moves to July 1st, preceding the Coke Zero 400, and remains in the daytime
-The second Richmond race will be the second playoff race; also of note: the spring trip to Richmond returns to Saturday night under the lights (likely to boost attendance, despite the superior action the day-version of Richmond has offered the past three years)
-The fall Charlotte race moves to the Charlotte RC (here's the layout), and will be the 3rd race, therefore a cutoff race for Round 1 of the playoffs
Other slight changes were made, but these are the ones that made big shockwaves. From the looks of it, NASCAR faithful are pleased with the changes, mainly because of the addition of a third road course. Don't get too eager, though.
With the way the Charlotte course is setup, there may be limited opportunities to pass. There is also the possibility of overheating the tires, namely the right rear. Assuming NASCAR allows the cars to race on the banking in 3 and 4 (now turns 12 and 13), there will be significant tire wear unless teams adjust their camber accordingly. In turn, though, that would create an ill-handling car when running the road course.
Some fans may be oozing over this conundrum the crew chiefs will be in, but casual fans may not. The effects are still to be seen, but the field could be spread out because of this challenge. Nonetheless, it's still a great road course race, right?
The Charlotte infield isn't a prime road course, simply put. No one really would expect it to be, with the oval being the feature. But, as NASCAR fans have effortlessly pushed for this change, it seems as though the road course has suddenly become an awesome place for stock cars, at least according to public opinion.
Sure, it's a nice track, but compare it to the likes of Road America, Road Atlanta, or even Canadian Tire Motorsports Park, and it's not looking so hotshot anymore. Unfortunately, with the way the track contracts are, there's no adding new tracks until 2020. It's the best NASCAR could do, and fans sure have to be happy NASCAR listened to them for once.
Sadly, we have seen this story before, haven't we? NASCAR appears to make a solid decision, and the fans generally approve, but it backfires. "We want winning to mean more!" Insert the Chase. "We want more exciting races!" Insert elimination format. "We want more mid-race battles!" Insert stages.
NASCAR has tried these things and much more, but never really gone to the root of the problem. Now, fans are asking for a revived schedule so the playoffs aren't so dull. The new variety the 2018 schedule offers is promising, but not much will change. Indy will still likely be a lackluster race. The playoffs will feature their fair share of average 1.5 mile races. The Richmond night race probably won't live up to its accustomed hype. Fans will still (rightfully) complain.
What NASCAR must learn to address is the actual racing product. Yes, it's easy to say, and very challenging to do. Nevertheless, it can be done. Good, hard-nose racing can be had. Clean air won't be completely eliminated, but it's impacts can be diminished. NASCAR has achieved progress the last few years, and must continue to steer away from the disastrous Car of Tomorrow.
Regardless of what the future holds, NASCAR did make the right move - in fact, many right moves when putting together the 2018 schedule. It will be compelling to watch how the season plays out, but full-on success is definitely no guarantee.
Follow @inspection_line on Twitter for more NASCAR updates and analysis.


text:
For those of you that asked, the Autumn Potato Salad from the previous post was delish. It certainly will become a fall staple here at Chateau Simpson. I found small blue potatoes and some rosy flesh fingerling's at the market. I hadn't used those before and they were great. Speaking of blue, and Fall, maybe the early sunsets have meant that I seem to have more time in the evenings lately. I picked up some hand piecing recently and have been really enjoying it. It certainly seems like a long time since I have been able to hand piece. Here is what I have been working on.
Here are the blocks in construction. They are on my lap desk that is full of sewing tools and such. The top is covered in very fine sandpaper. If you hand piece (or would like to) and haven't used a sandpaper board - I heartily endorse one. It makes marking much easier, finer, and is a great tool to have. Just lay the fabric to be marked on top of the sandpaper board and trace around your template with a suitable marking pencil. The fabric won't distort and much less force is needed to leave a legible mark. You won't believe how easy this will make your life.
My blocks are almost ready to piece into my quilt top. As a good friend once told me - keep watching this space - "More will be revealed."
And.... we do have a winner - or winners for the coated fabric. Sherri and Izzy - please email me here and I will get your prizes off to you.

domain: artistic


text:
The Supreme Court’s Newest Justices Produce Some Unexpected Results
WASHINGTON — The arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October appeared to create a 6-to-Three conservative juggernaut that may remodel the Supreme Court.
Instead, judging by the 39 signed selections in argued circumstances to date this time period, together with two main rulings on Thursday, the best facet of the courtroom is badly fractured and its liberal members are having a surprisingly good run.
That image might change, because the courtroom has but to challenge the time period’s final 15 selections. But some tendencies have already come into focus.
The standard knowledge final fall was that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s management, with its bias towards incrementalism and moderation, was over. With 5 justices to his proper, together with three appointed by President Donald J. Trump, the chief justice’s means to information the courtroom was thought to have evaporated.
The story of the time period to date, although, is a special one. Indeed, it’s the courtroom’s most conservative members who’re issuing howling dissents and aggrieved concurrences to protest a majority they are saying is just too cautious.
That majority fairly often contains Mr. Trump’s appointees, notably Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who’s now on the courtroom’s ideological middle, changing the chief justice.
This time period, Justice Kavanaugh has voted with the bulk in divided circumstances 87 p.c of the time, greater than another member of the courtroom, in keeping with knowledge compiled by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin of Washington University in St. Louis and Kevin Quinn of the University of Michigan.
In his whole tenure, which began in 2018, Justice Kavanaugh has been within the majority 85 p.c of the time, the best price of any justice since 1953.
“Kavanaugh’s report of voting with the bulk in divided circumstances is extraordinary,” Professor Epstein stated.
The two different Trump appointees usually are not far behind. Justice Barrett is second, having voted with the bulk 82 p.c of the time this time period. And Justice Neil M. Gorsuch tied for third with Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the courtroom’s liberal wing, at 80 p.c. Justice Kagan’s price of voting with the bulk jumped 12 proportion factors since final time period.
By distinction, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative who may need thought that his views could be embraced by his new colleagues, was within the majority in divided circumstances simply 36 p.c of the time. That helps clarify his aggrieved tone in concurring and dissenting opinions on Thursday in circumstances on a conflict between claims of non secular freedom and homosexual rights within the context of foster care and on the Affordable Care Act.
In the foster-care case, Chief Justice Roberts managed to cobble collectively an inconceivable six-justice majority for an opinion that dominated so narrowly for a Catholic charity that Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, stated it “would possibly as effectively be written on the dissolving paper offered in magic retailers.”
The courtroom’s three liberal members — Justices Kagan, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — joined the chief justice’s opinion, presumably with gritted enamel and to keep away from an precise determination, one written on common paper with indelible ink.
Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett joined, too, explaining that they weren’t inclined to make a significant transfer when a minor one would resolve the case.
Something related occurred in Thursday’s second massive case, this one rejecting a 3rd main problem to the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s well being care regulation. The majority stated the plaintiffs — 18 states led by Texas, and two people — had not suffered the type of direct damage that gave them standing to sue. The courtroom sidestepped questions in regards to the constitutionality of a key provision of the regulation and what ought to occur to the remainder of it if the courtroom held the supply unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Roberts assigned the bulk opinion to Justice Breyer, presumably realizing he would ship a modest and technical opinion, one which ended up talking for seven justices — the broadest majority of three Supreme Court selections rejecting challenges to the well being care regulation. The similar coalition that joined the chief justice within the foster care case, plus Justice Clarence Thomas, saved the regulation.
Justice Alito was aghast. “Today’s determination is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the identical sample as installments one and two,” he wrote, joined by Justice Gorsuch. “In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act going through a critical risk, the courtroom has pulled off an inconceivable rescue.”
Richard J. Lazarus, a regulation professor at Harvard, stated the choices “counsel that a number of key justices are keen to mood their views to hitch the chief’s longstanding battle to have the courtroom determine circumstances extra narrowly and with a extra unified voice.”
But he added a notice of warning. “What stays to be seen,” he stated, “is whether or not, however the chief’s greatest efforts, his battle to advertise a nonpartisan picture for the courtroom is finally a shedding one.”
So far this time period, the courtroom’s three Democratic appointees have voted with the bulk 73 p.c of the time in divided circumstances, barely forward of the 72 p.c price of the six Republican appointees. In the time period that ended final yr, the hole was 14 proportion factors in favor of Republican appointees.
The change could also be defined by strategic voting. The courtroom’s Democratic appointees haven’t hesitated to hitch unanimous selections with conservative outcomes, as labeled by the Supreme Court Database at Washington University. The proportion of liberal selections in unanimous circumstances to date this time period is simply 30, the bottom since at the very least 1953.
But the story adjustments in divided circumstances, the place 64 p.c of selections have been labeled liberal, the best since 1968.
“Going into this time period,” Professor Epstein stated, “the expectation was a bunch of divided selections with the three Democratic appointees getting the brief finish of the stick. So far that prediction is method off the mark. In divided circumstances, the Trump appointees have moved the courtroom to the left. If anybody acquired the brief finish of the stick, it’s this yr’s most conservative justice, Alito.”
That might change within the subsequent two weeks, because the courtroom points selections within the remaining 15 circumstances of this time period. In any occasion, stated Michael C. Dorf, a regulation professor at Cornell, this time period’s coalitions could also be fragile.
“More than in most up-to-date phrases, Chief Justice Roberts was capable of current a reputable image of a nonpartisan courtroom, with Justices Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett specifically seeming to exit of their approach to forge centrist alliances,” Professor Dorf stated. “However, the justices seem to have reached a truce relatively than an enduring peace. With high-profile abortion and gun management circumstances already on the docket for subsequent time period, ideological disagreements will probably re-emerge sooner relatively than later.”

domain: news


text:
Get ready for Vision of Disorder, all the way live. Vision of Disorder is playing this year in many cities . Buy premium Vision of Disorder tickets and experience the thrill of a live concert with Vision of Disorder at affordable prices.
Vision Loss in Eye Disease Slowed Using Novel Encapsulated Cell Therapy
It is a disease causing cells in patches â ? "part of the eye that allows us to see fine detail â ?" to death. There are two forms of chaos, wet and dry AMD. The General Assembly is the final stage of dry AMD, where central vision is lost. April 2011
Vision clinic fills need
It's not a place where routine eye care services or evaluation. Spencer Clayton was seeing problems for nearly 50 years as a rare genetic disorder. Now 85, information in the right eye has limited vision in his left. April 2011
Demystifying The Use Of Spectacles
Myopia or nirsaytidnis is the extreme dislocation vision lead objects appear blurred but neo clearly seen. Individuals who suffer from myopia by eyeglasses with concave lenses, a refractive error compensation of. April 2011
Robbed woman, 20, loses most of her sight
McCulloch said her father Laurie was born with rare vision disorder but before attack enjoyed function and independence. "Had to abandon her post because she was now engaged in limited it scenery bonings. March 2011
Disfear Star Dies- New Aerosmith Collection- Fat Mike Musical- Springsteen ...
See more "chaotic" (aka VOD) plans to enter the Studio in May to begin recording the first album in a decade. Titles include preparing songs to appear on the CD "hard times", "destructive" and "even". Will release more difficult "Aerosmith. March 2011
Vision of Disorder tickets in
Music Hall Of Williamsburg on
Saturday November 24, 2012.
Vision Of Disorder tickets in
Gramercy Theatre on
Friday August 20, 2010.
Vision Of Disorder tickets in
University of London on
Friday June 19, 2009.
Vision of Disorder tour 2015 - See it Before it's sold out!
We are completely certain if we say that Vision of Disorder concert is a remarkable musician that offers happiness to souls of lovers whatever place they are such as Brooklyn, New York and London; therefore, it's common nowadays that this musician's concerts tickets primarily for 2015 concerts taking place in Gramercy Theatre are pricey. The latest albums have brought Vision of Disorder tour 2015 more public eminence, hence concerts fans that situate in main cities such as in Brooklyn, New York and London find it hard to put a hand on low priced tickets primarily for live shows taking place in Gramercy Theatre. TicketsInventory.com is not associated with any tickets for Vision of Disorder fan association, but we are an online ticket market that strives to provide assistance to access to low priced tickets considering for main cheap tickets shows taking place in Gramercy Theatre.
Vision Of Disorder bio:
Vision Of Disorder is a group of hardcore, original New York. It was in 1992 that the group formed around Matt Baumbach and Mike Kennedy. Tim Williams who is a fan of the Group The Doors the joined shortly after Mike Fleischmann and Brendon Cohen. The latter left the band for a short period, leaving VOD without bassist during a few shows. Very quickly yet VOD is a name in the New York Hardcore scene with many very intense concerts where the clan between public and group spirit is still very strong in this scene. Their first opus; Still out in 1995 and gets a strong success, enough so that the powerful label Roadrunner Records sign and allow them to open a wider hearing. Vision Of Disorder is the name of the second album and was founded in 1996, this album Gets the support of an old school hardcore scene, but we are beginning to glimpse a side a bit nearest metal of the typical groups of Roadrunner Records. 1998 is the year of Imprint output that detonates the group as much towards fans on the more commercial wave hardcores and all-new: neo-Metal, Phil Anselmo of Pantera singer also participates in a song By The River. The old fans of hardcore and the first hour of VOD grognèrent the new album by criticizing the fact that he popularisait their sounds to attract success. Later in 1999 For The Bleeders is reverting with the hardcore tradition and in 2001 From Bliss To Devastation, this album finally buried the fate his hardcore for the benefit of a sound more Metal, see Grunge or Heavy, groups such as Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, or even Black Sabbath will be new comparisons of Vision Of Disorder. ' VOD has never marked its musical footprint, it is a group of Hardcore influences such as: Minor Threat, 25 Ta Life, Earth Crisis, Snapcase, Sick Of It All, Madball, Fury Of Five. But VOD has also sailed with his Metal, then Roadrunner Records: Machine Head, Soulfly, Fear Factory, Coal Chamber. Inspired a generation neo-Metal (: limped Bizkit, KoÐ¯n and Deftones) and Metalcore (: 36 Crazyfists or GlassJaw) compared sometimes has a more current extreme as groups Will Haven, Hatebreed, Strife.
Vision of Disorder tickets 2015 - Get Your Tickets Today!
The large number of supporters that have genuine aspiration for concerts including Vision of Disorder expected concerts that take place in London or somewhere else around the country, and always do their best to be on time to them all, are those who explore all the schedules looking for discounted tickets aiming to save few dollars. In order to enjoy the concerts you be on time to, you have better reserve premium seats; however, if back row seats are what you aim to select, they are on hand including for Vision of Disorder concert important 2015 concerts that take place in Music Hall Of Williamsburg, Gramercy Theatre and University of London. Before moving to another website to search for tickets for Vision of Disorder tickets, just remember that our pages are updated momentarily to make available tickets for other concerts for instance Vision of Disorder concerts that take place in London.
Vision of Disorder concert 2015 - Enjoy Yourself!
Advantageously, fans located in New York like in New York and look forward to attend tickets for Vision of Disorder or may be Vision of Disorder 2015 concerts, like those appearing in Gramercy Theatre, may buy now their tickets at affordable prices. As an online ticket market that specializes in tickets supply, approximately for all events, we ask concert attendees whatever place they situate around New York and whatever 2015 concerts they aim to attend, including Vision of Disorder; to return back every time to make hold of their tickets here as they are available at affordable prices. Today or tomorrow, you have the choice to survey our site and order front row seating or lawn seats to most important events including for cheap tickets 2015 concerts appearing in New York or any other place around New York.

domain: entertainment


text:
Testimony at the retrial of Pedro Hernandez in the 1979 disappearance of 6-year-old Etan Patz came to an end on Friday, paving the way for closing arguments and the start of jury deliberations next week.
Jury selection began on Sept. 12, and testimony stretched over three months. The first trial of Hernandez in 2015 lasted 10 weeks, and jurors deadlocked 11-1 for conviction after deliberating for 18 days.
Hernandez, 55, of Maple Shade, New Jersey, was working as a bodega clerk in Etan’s SoHo neighborhood at the time of the boy’s notorious disappearance without a trace on his way to catch a school bus. The bodega was next to the bus stop.
He came under suspicion in 2012 when a relative tipped police that Hernandez had made incriminating statements. In custody, Hernandez gave police a videotaped confession after an unrecorded interrogation, and later walked police around the SoHo crime scene.
According to the confession, he lured Etan into the basement of the bodega by offering the boy a soda, strangled him, stuffed his body into a fruit box, and carried the box on his shoulder to a trash bin two blocks away.
At both trials, prosecutors built their case around the confessions and incriminating statements Hernandez made to a friend, a church group and his ex-wife. Etan’s mother Julie Patz gave evocative testimony about the morning she sent her little boy off to school clutching $1 to buy a soda at the bodega.
Lawyers for Hernandez offered a two-pronged defense — claiming that Hernandez’s confession was a delusion stemming from a mental disorder, and seeking to cast blame on Jose Ramos, a convicted child molester who had social contact with a woman who walked Etan home from school during a city bus strike.


text:
Source: F —
As a homeowner, you’ve worked hard paying off the mortgage on your house and updating it when you can. Now it’s time for the house to work for you! Low rates mean there’s a bit more equity in your home, which is an opportunity to use that equity to put some money in your pocket or purse.
David Hall from Hall Financial explains how you can make your home equity work for you by refinancing your home for a lower rate.

domain: economics


NPC Chief Minister C.V. Wigneswaran’s Visit to the US
WASHINGTON (July 19 2015) Sri Lanka’s Northern Provincial Council Chief Minister Justice C.V. Wigneswaran visited the US from June 27 – July 13. He was the chief guest at the FeTNA annual Tamil convention held in San Jose, CA. The speech that merited standing ovation from 2,000 attendees can be accessed here in Tamil and in English.
Justice Wigneswaran also spoke at length at the USTPAC Semi Annual General Meeting. President of USTPAC Dr. Karunyan Arulanantham welcomed the Chief Minister : “Mr. Wigneswaran stands for all the reforms that have been promised, but not yet delivered by administrations past and present: demilitarization, accountability for war crimes, the return of lands to rightful Tamil owners and the release of information on political prisoners.” Thereafter he attended public meetings in Los Angeles, Washington DC, New Jersey etc. He also met with officials at various levels at the State Department, with NGOs, Think-tanks and Congresspersons at the Congressional Caucus for Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lnaka, the World Bank and several high ranking UN officials in New York. While in Washington, The Hill published an op-ed he wrote titled,SRILANKA: Seize this opportunity for true reform.
Latest from USTPAC
Mullivaikal Massacre May 2009 – Tamil Americans Commemorate.Tamils in the United States of America unite with those all over the world commemorating the sixth anniversary of the Mullivaikal Massacre.
Justice and Accountability must be realized in Sri Lanka. Dismay on delayed report tempered by promises for stronger outcome»»
Worldwide Tamil bodies urge High commissioner Zeid for timely release of OISL report»»
USTPAC welcomes UN Human Right chief Zeid’s statement calling Sri Lanka’s bluff»»
Joint New Year Message from World-wide Tamil Orgs: A Solemn Pledge to Work for Justice, Protection, and Freedom of the Tamil People »»
USTPAC Welcomes the Oral Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka »»
Working with many organizations at UNHRC, and helped pass resolution calling for justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation and assuring Sri Lanka stays on international agenda.
54 co-sponsors on US House Resolution 177 – calling for an independent international investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity & a new US policy.
Senate Resolution 84 – passed unanimously calling for international investigation.
5 or more One Minute Speeches on Tamil issues in Congress 2010, 2011, 2012.


text:
dancer son & i arrived last night. the rest of the crew come in later this evening. all will be here with the exception of sailboat son who couldn't make it down from jersey. all is not lost though as fav daughter and son-in-law have a trip scheduled up there next month. stay tuned for that!
agenda for the day, walk the beach, buy flip flops that someone forgot (and it wasn't me!), wander, and just go where life takes us today. of course gotta get the boy out of bed first!
challenge for the day, eating vegan in the land of seafood!
(above is my breakfast doodle. imperfectly perfect)
peace, love and sandy feet y'all 😊🌊

domain: travel


text:
Two people have been arrested in South Carolina after Anderson County deputies conducted a traffic stop – and ended up finding cocaine hidden behind what they thought was a pregnant woman’s belly.
According to the Sheriff’s Office, deputies pulled over Anthony Miller and Cemeka Mitchem along Interstate 85 during what police said was a “proactive patrol.” Mitchem appeared to be pregnant, but police said that they detected a “red flag” soon into the stop when the pair “gave conflicting information about her ‘due date.'”
The Anderson County Sheriff’s Office in South Carolina confiscated more than 1,500 grams of cocaine during a traffic stop after finding a woman had hidden it behind a fake rubber pregnancy belly. / Credit: Anderson County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook
Soon after, police said that Mitchem realized that the deputies were becoming suspicious of the pair’s story, and she “immediately took off running.”
“Very quickly drugs fell from the fake rubber stomach,” police said. When they were cleaning up the scene, they collected more than 1,500 grams of cocaine, they added.
The sheriff’s office posted about the incident on Sunday, although county records show the pair were arrested on April 12. CBS News has reached out to the sheriff’s department for comment.
The office also shared an image of what seems to be a police officer posing with a large fake pregnancy stomach, an I-85 sign, and what appears to be the confiscated cocaine.
Miller and Mitchem are now facing charges for trafficking cocaine, police said. According to county inmate records, both were denied bond and have yet to be released.
South Carolina warned earlier this year that the state is continuing to see a “significant increase” in drug overdose deaths. Most of those deaths are due to opioids, the state said, as the state saw overdose climbs from 1,734 in 2020 to 2,168 in 2021, compared to just 573 overdose deaths in 2012.
“Other drugs are being laced with fentanyl – without the user’s knowledge – which can cause a fatal overdose even in a small quantity,” Sara Goldsby, director of the state’s Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services, said in February. “If there is a possibility of coming into contact with an unsafe drug, it’s important to have naloxone on hand in case of an overdose.”

domain: sociology


text:
Each month we share a well-researched campaign action with our grassroots network. Our action materials include the context of the campaign, additional information, tips and guidance. The 'call to action' each month is often to write to, and engage with MPs and Government Ministers. Who you write to depends on who RESULTS UK policy and parliamentary teams think we can influence the most! We have guides available to help you take these actions. To receive our campaigns and updates, subscribe to our mailing list.
March 24th marks the 19th annual World TB Day (WTBD). WTBD commemorates the date in 1882 when Dr Robert Koch first discovered the bacilli that causes TB.
Education for all is at a critical moment. While some great progress has been made, there are still 57 million primary age children out of school around the world. A further 69 million adolescents are unable to attend lower secondary school, and around 250 million children in school are not learning basic skills, even though half of them have spent at least four years in school. Meanwhile, global spending on education is declining just when it is needed most.
This February, the great and the good of the African mining world will come together for their annual 'Indaba' in Cape Town South Africa for the regions largest industry investment conference.This represents a once in a generation moment to mobilise the vital political will needed to drive real, lasting change for millions of miners and their families.
2013 has been another really successful year for us here at RESULTS. This month we are going to be sharing in our successes of the past 12 months and taking time together to look ahead at our opportunities and campaigns for 2014.
On June 8th 2013, RESULTS was celebrating the success of the ‘Nutrition for Growth’ event; world leaders had come together in London and pledged $4.1 billion for tackling the global scourge of undernutrition, with the UK alone promising £655 million in new money.
Health workers are the life blood of a health system. Without them, babies cannot be delivered safely; vaccines cannot be administered; family planning cannot be provided; and TB and HIV testing and treatment cannot be carried out. It is estimated that there is a global shortage of four million health workers.
Tuberculosis is not just a threat to developing countries; nearly every single country in the world has some reported incidence of the disease. This airborne disease doesn't respect national boundaries or discriminate by class, gender or ethnicity. As the old saying goes 'TB anywhere is TB everywhere'. The UK is no more protected against TB than any other country and, in fact, rates of the disease have been rising here year on year since the mid 1970's. With over 9000 new cases of the disease every year, the UK has been described as 'the TB capital of Western Europe'.
We have been campaigning on the issue of TB among Southern Africa's goldminers for the past 18 months, advocating for a strong regional response supported by international actors like the UK and the World Bank. In that time we have seen some amazing progress, with real political will being committed by the heads of the state in the region, the UK announcing new funding for a project to tackle the issue and the World Bank undertaking economic analysis of the issue.
Last year, the UK made us proud by hosting the best Paralympic Games ever. It’s almost a year later, and there are signs of real progress in the UK Government’s efforts to reach disabled children through their education aid programmes.
Over the past 10 years, the UK Government, using money raised through taxation, has giving over £1 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.That support has enabled the Global Fund to support over 1000 programs in 151 countries.

domain: politics


text:
Music at Barnby Road
At Barnby Road we will ensure that music is experienced throughout the school and that all children have opportunities to express themselves musically and perform. Progressive weekly singing sessions, lead by a specialist musician, are accessed by all children from Nursery through to Year 6 which displays Barnby’s intent that all children experience the benefits and joy of singing. All year groups sing in our annual Christmas celebration concert to enable the experience of performance and to feel part of our local Barnby Road community.
All children in Years 3, 4, 5 and 6 learn an instrument as a whole class (recorder/ukulele) and there are opportunities for children to choose to learn a wide range of instruments and progress through external musical grades during Key Stage 2. Opportunities to join choirs and musical ensembles, including the school orchestra, are open to Key stage 2 children. Children will learn to compose using percussion and graphic scores in Key stage one, using recorders and staff notation in Years 3 and 4 and using chord symbols and ukuleles in Years 5 and 6,
Children will listen to and respond to a wide range of musical genres and ensembles. Opportunities for children to hear live music will be available regularly, both from our own ensembles, visits from secondary schools and from visiting professional musicians. Barnby Road will contribute musically to community events in the local area such as carol concerts, performing at our local hospital and entering and performing in local music competitions.
Music at Barnby Road will ensure that pupils make progress through each year group, acquiring and applying key knowledge, so that they at least meet the agreed age expectations in a subject and develop a life long passion about the importance of the creative arts.


text:
Asbury Inn & Suites
Just minutes from Lexington and Nicholasville, Asbury Inn & Suites invites you to stay in comfortable accommodations and experience the warm hospitality in the heart of the Bluegrass. Let us know if you need a ride from our airport shuttle, and we’ll be glad to pick you up after a long flight and will make sure you face the day prepared. Our first-rate amenities will leave you wanting for nothing. Daily continental breakfast, WIFI, fitness center, and a range of office necessities that you might need in a pinch—computer, copier, or fax machine—are within a moment's reach.
The newly renovated Asbury Inn & Suites will make your stay away from home an enjoyable and relaxing one.


text:
Drawing inspiration from the Bauhaus ideal, namely the inventive use of geometric shapes, innovation in materials and a commitment to minimalist design. The six new inspirational designs include QUADRA, CASTOR, JUNO, LIGO, FREYA and INSPIRA variably named after observatories, spacecraft orbits, stars, black holes, constellations and goddesses of mythology.
Inspired by iconic 20th century kinetic art, the Stellar line echoes the architectural principles of balance, rhythm, and harmony to symbolize the delicate art of achieving balance in our busy lives. Stellar designs feature authentic diamond dust embedded in black-tinted concrete. The sparkle of real diamond residue, re-purposed into jewelry, elevates the tastefulness of the minimalist designs. Each piece of jewelry is handcrafted in the designer/maker studio, resulting in subtle variations that make each piece unique.
Architectural details inspired the beginnings of the avant-garde Concrete Collection. KONZUK was struck by the visual contrast and the difference in textures between stainless steel and concrete. This is incorporated the same bold aesthetic into rings, earrings, cufflinks and bracelets. The result is a an incredibly architectural and sculptural line of jewelry.
The Facet Collection redefines the typical diamond engagement ring. Prevailing notions dictate that diamonds take center stage but the simplicity and stunning elegance of the tension setting— with the diamond—provides an undeniable allure that’s often disregarded in the design of the most important piece of jewelry you’ll ever wear.
For nearly 20 years KONZUK has drawn inspiration from contemporary works of art and architecture. The new Discus collection re-interprets the surface textures of sculptures by Richard Serra in jewelry forged from concrete and steel. The Discus collection is based on a series of over-sized discs — formed by casting concrete into 2mm lathed stainless steel, then refining each piece by hand to create a one-of-a-kind finish. These unique motifs appear in bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and more.


text:
Google was told to have information, which includes the blog owner’s user name, email address and IP address disclosed to defamation lawyer Yair Cohen who acted for the claimant, who is fighting for defamatory content about him to be removed from the American based Blog. Read full article on Internet Law Expert blog
Home » Blogs
Category Archives: Blogs
Defamation on a Complaint Website – best practice.
I know of only ONE very effective way to deal with defamation on a Complaint Website.
Most people believe that if you focus on removing the defamatory comments from a Complaint Site the problem will somehow get resolved.
The exact opposite is true. Very often the focus on the Complaint Site invites more defamation problems. You get a reply to your reply and other people who you never even heard of are now making further accusations about you. You don’t want that!
This is my advice and you can ignore this advice at your own peril:
Instead of focusing on the removal of the web pages that contain the defamatory comments about you, you address any issues raised in them but on your own territory.
Here is an example of what I mean:
A few years back when I was faced with almost an identical problem in retaliation to posts listed on a Complaint Site I wrote a blog post, talking about
what happens to your life when people defame you on the internet, giving my own personal story as an example setting the facts right and even taking responsibility for my own mistakes. Read more on Internet Defamation Problems
How to safely purchase a domain name? How to make sure that after purchasing your new domain name it remains yours?
Once you consider the so many different ways by which you can lose your domain name, you will see how important it is to keep it safe and secure.
17 Reasons Why Organisations Lose Their Domain Name
Imagine this scenario: All of a sudden you wake up one morning to find that the great website that you invested in—the vehicle that is providing you with business worth tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of pounds has suddenly disappeared, and there’s a good chance that your domain name is owned not by you, but by somebody else….Essential Reading on Domain Name Security
By Yair Cohen
We used to call them ‘The Complaints Barons’ because they were running websites dedicated to complaints/defamation so that those people defamed have no choice but to ‘hire’ the ‘Barons’ services to ‘mediate’ ‘moderate’ and ‘facilitate’ the successful removal of the defamatory content from their websites. You basically have to pay for protection. If you pay extra, they might also ‘protect’ you from future negative posts.
Internet defamation is used by owners of such websites to blackmail business owners as well as their defamation attorneys, says defamation lawyer Yair Cohen.. …READ MORE on Internet Law Expert blog
Internet trolling is no longer part of a sub-culture. Online bullying of adults and children is soon to reach an ‘epidemic’ level, because no one is around to enforce any rules.
After the conviction of Sean Duffy at Reading Magistrates’ Court in September 2011, I was hopeful that his prosecution and conviction would deter others from harassing innocent members of the public on the internet.
Unfortunately I was wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be difficult to argue that the conviction of Sean Duffy has made any significant impact on the numbers of internet trolling cases in the UK. What we have experienced in the past 5 months since the conviction, is an intensification of a serious social problem, involving both adults and children in the role of online bullies. A radical solution will soon be required.
Read in full Internet Trolling
Author: Yair Cohen
Defamation lawyer Yair Cohen wins injunction against Google Inc. that tells Google to disclose personal information of an anonymous blogger
Can Stalking Bill Stop Increase In Internet Stalking, Online Harassment and Social Networking Bullying?
The new Stalking Bill is a golden opportunity for the Government to start controlling and to possibly, dramatically reduce the number of incidents of internet stalking, harassment and bullying that are devastating the lives of innocent people and their families every single day. The new Stalking Bill is an opportunity for the government to introduce ‘Online Social Responsibility’, by making access to details of those who commit these terrible acts of internet stalking, harassment and bullying, easier. Just as with the case of the London Rioters, once the internet anarchists realise….Read More on the new Stalking Bill
INTERNET giant Google has lost a landmark legal battle that is expected to open the floodgates to online litigation against anonymous online commentators.
The Supreme Court in Australia ordered Google Australia to reveal details of the owner of a website which named an entrepreneur and self-help guru Jamie McIntyre a “thieving scumbag”.
In a statement which is encouraging to victims of online defamation around the world, including UK victims of online defamation, Google Inc confirmed that….Continue on Internet Law Expert blog
This latest prosecution of Sean Duffy at Reading Magistrates’ Court may signal the beginning of a new line of prosecution by the police of internet related offences, which will be great news to tens of thousands of UK victims of internet defamation and abuse, and in particular to those vulnerable victims who are not in a financial position to be able to afford expensive civil proceedings.
In a first case of its kind, Magistrates’ have jailed a man who posted abusive images to online memorials dedicated to dead children. The man was jailed for 18 weeks and was banned from participating in social networking for a period of five years.
At Court, Sean Duffy, 25 from Reading, admitted to posting images on Facebook…
The full story is available on Internet Law Expert blog

domain: law


text:
The Detroit Red Wings lost their third straight and eighth in their last 11 games on Wednesday night by getting shut out by a non-contender, 4-0.
The Red Wings are now only up two points on Nashville for the No. 4 seed in the Western Conference standings. If they don't get healthy and turn this thing around in the final 11 games, they're going to lose home ice for the playoffs. The Wings close out their road trip in San Jose on Saturday.


text:
President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has reassigned two ministers of State with immediate effect.
The Minister of State at the Ministry of National Security, Mr Bryan Acheampong, has swapped positions with Mr Henry Quartey, the Deputy Minister for the Interior.
The reassignments, which took immediate effect, were announced by the Director of Communications at the Presidency, Mr Eugene Arhin, in a press statement issued yesterday morning.
“Mr Bryan Acheampong, MP, Minister of State at the Ministry of National Security, is now a Minister of State at the Ministry for the Interior.
“Mr Henry Quartey, MP, Deputy Minister for the Interior, is now Deputy Minister at the Ministry of National Security,” the statement said but did not provide reasons for the reassignments.
Emile Short Commission
The issue of clarity of roles between the Minister of National Security and the Minister of State at the National Security came up during the Emile Short Commission on the Ayawaso West Wuogon by-election violence.
The Commission recommended the evaluation and reorganisation of the National Security Ministry and stressed the need for clarity on the responsibilities, roles, as well as reporting lines for persons appointed to serve in the ministry.
“The commission recommends that the President (Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo) should review and restructure the Ministry of National Security with a view to ensuring clarity of responsibilities and roles, as well as lines of reporting,” it said in its report.
The commission, which was unimpressed by the manner in which the said National Security operatives conducted themselves, suspected a clash of roles between the National Security Minister and the Minister of State in Charge of National Security at the Presidency.
The commission, in its report, advocated the role of the Minister of State in charge of National Security at the Presidency to be clearly delineated, with responsibilities indexed to that of the substantive sector minister.
“This should establish a clear chain of command and the circumstances under which he or she can act in the absence of the substantive minister,” it said.
This assertion was, however, shot down by the government in its White Paper.
However, responding to public concerns for an explanation on the swapping of roles in a radio interview yesterday afternoon, Mr Arhin insisted that this was not the first time in Ghana’s history a minister of State, for example, had been deployed to the Ministry for the Interior.
“We recall that on July 24, 2007, the then President of the Republic, Mr John Agyekum Kufuor, appointed Nana Obiri Boahen to that particular ministry (Interior) as a Minister of State, so this is not the first time,” he said in the radio interview with Accra-based Joy FM during the midday news which was monitored by Graphic Online.
Mr Arhin explained that his understanding was that the Ministry for the Interior would not be assigned a deputy minister as things stood now.
He explained that “he (Bryan) is just going there (Interior) to be assigned a specific role by the President or the substantive minister (Ambrose Dery) himself, so I don’t believe it is going to create any problems for us…. No problems were created while he was there at National Security; we don’t believe he is going to create any problem at the Ministry for the Interior with this new role he has been assigned by the President”.
Asked if Mr Acheampong would be working under the substantive Minister for the Interior, Mr Arhin said: “He is going to be assigned a specific role; normally that is what a Minister of State virtually does.”
“From my understanding, Mr Bryan Acheampong will be reporting to Mr Dery,” he added.
Mr Quartey, born on March 12, 1971, is the Member of Parliament for the Ayawaso Central Constituency in the Greater Accra Region.
Mr Acheampong is the Member of Parliament for the Abetifi Constituency and was born on November 27, 1972 in Suhum in the eastern part of Ghana. He hails from Nkwatia in the Kwahu East District.


text:
Suggest treatment for severe fever while on Prednisolone and Azathioprine
How high is your fever? Are Tylenol will help!
Hi and thank you so much for this query.
I am so sorry to hear about this fever. It would be important to report any other possible symptoms you may be having like headaches, cough, breathing difficulties, abdominal pain, urinary changes, et. This will help us narrow down what the possible causes could be and from there propose a treatment plan. It will also help me in deciding whether this can wit till your doctor returns or requires immediate attention. Finally, report the temperature value to me for further insightsFor now, tylenol 1g at most every 6hours would address the fever. But then, we need to identify the cause and treat to be sure we are on the right path.
I hope this helps I wish you well. Feel free to ask for more information and clarifications if need be.
The User accepted the expert's answer
Get personalised answers from verified doctor in minutes across 80+ specialties
- Severe headache with fever suggest treatment
- Severe fever shivering and loose motion
- Suggest treatment for enteric fever
- Suggest treatment for typhoid fever
- Suggest treatments for scarlet fever or glandular fever
- Suggest treatment for high fever
- What treatment is suggested for fever
- Suggest treatment to cure high fever
- Had severe fever having hair loss problem suggestion
- Suggest treatment for low fever with productive cough treatment

domain: medical