Monday, April 13, 2009

“Bullshit” revisited! , Anti-Cyprus Revisionism

For Immediate Release: April 13, 2009

Contact: Nikolaos Taneris, New York, Tel. 1-917-699-9935

NEW YORK—The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is pleased to distribute a
review of the Anti-Cyprus revisionist book “Cyprus: The Post-Imperial
Constitution By Vassilis K. Fouskas and Alex O. Tackie”. This book is apparently
the latest effort by forces that attempt to distort the heroic role of EOKA, and
Grivas. It also attempts to exonerate the Turkish Anti-Cypriots from their
Crimes Against Humanity, and it also falsely distorts the anti-terrorist effort
by Cyprus during the 1960s. Not unsurprisingly, this anti-Cyprus revisionist
book has already been presented in New York on the air of the unpatriotic AKTINA
FM of Elena Marouletti, the weekend of April 5th.

The review (originally published by in London) is
provided by London-based Greek-Cypriot writer and journalist Fanoulla Argyrou.

In parallel there was a second book presentation two days after the presentation
of the groundbreaking book by the MOVEMENT FOR FREEDOM AND JUSTICE IN CYPRUS
‘Αιματηρή Αλήθεια’ (Bloody Truth) in Nicosia last week , that of Dr. Vagelis
Koufoudakis. Another excellent production by the distinguished academic and
friend of Cyprus. We will be providing a review of that as well very soon.
However, no comparison with Fouskas’ product. Both “THE BLOODY TRUTH” and
Koufoudakis’ book, simply complement each other and counter the Turkish
Anti-Cypriot revisionism.

Please note the invitation by the Foreign Press Association for the presentation
of the Koufoudakis book in New York, directly following “Bullshit” revisited and
we also provide below,Greek-Cypriot press coverage on the release of “THE BLOODY
much more information forthcoming.



“Bullshit” revisited!

Review of the book “Cyprus: The Post-Imperial Constitution”
By Vassilis K. Fouskas and Alex O. Tackie commissioned by Lobby for Cyprus

In their acknowledgements the authors explain that the book was commissioned by
Kyriakos Christodoulou, former coordinator of Lobby for Cyprus (London based)
and the issue originally was to address the (so called) Turkish Cypriot
‘isolation’. To my understanding K.C must have asked them to write a pamphlet
explaining that such a thing as “T/C isolation” does not exist. A book or
pamphlet to be used against the Turkish propaganda.

However, they decided to proceed on a different level (to the disappointment of
Lobby for Cyprus, as they note, which nevertheless accepted their proposal)
because as they claim the issue is inseparable from a number of other
complicated themes and because there is no reliable statistical information
about the areas where the European acquis is suspended, where the T/cs and
settlers as well as other ethnicities live, work etc.

I disagree with the authors: 1) The so called “isolation of the T/cs” is
straight forward and clear. They chose to side with Turkey who invaded half of
Cyprus in 1974 and still holds that part of the Republic under its occupation.
Therefore whatever “isolation” they claim is due to the Turkish invasion and
occupation. (Strange as it may seem, the British documents endorse fully this
position and it is questionable why the authors chose to ignore that first hand
evidence – the writer has already published references to that effect in
‘Simerini’). Since 1974 to this day, we have not seen or heard of any mass and
continued demonstrations in the occupied by the Turkish Cypriots for the
withdrawal of all Turkish occupation forces and of the hundreds of thousands of
Turkish Anatolian squatters imported to the occupied and for the return of all
Greek Cypriot refugees, legitimate owners of their properties in the occupied
2) Let us be clear. When the Turkish Cypriots claim “isolation” they mean
political isolation i.e. recognition. Nothing less. Therefore their demand is
forbidden by United Nations Resolutions 541 and 550.

Chronicle of the Cyprus Crisis

In their chronicle they list:

“ 1954 Britain, in defiance of the Treaty of Lausanne, introduces the idea of a
tripartite Conference (Greece, Turkey and Britain) to discuss the Cyprus issue.
Greece objects but finally accepts. Grivas, an extreme right-winger who fought
against the Greek Communists during the Greek Civil War (1944-49) using
terrorist methods, arrives secretly in Cyprus to organise the liberation

1955 EOKA (National organisation of Cypriot Fighters) anti-colonial campaign
begins on 1 April but the Communist left does not participate. Tripartite
Conference in London begins on 29 August. Riots in Izmir and Istanbul against
the Greek Minorities”.

These two references above apart from contradicting each other are also full of
historical inaccuracies.

1) The Tripartite Conference in London took place end of August 1955 and not
1954 as wrongly stated in para a) above but correctly in para b). 2) The
reference to Grivas as an “extreme right-winger who fought against the Greek
Communists…using terrorist methods” in para a) above, in my opinion was
deliberate by the authors, in order to undermine the EOKA struggle as a
“terrorist organisation” just like the British and the Turks did. 3) Grivas was
chosen by Archbishop Makarios himself, as the military leader of the EOKA
1955-59 struggle for Union of Cyprus with Greece (something the authors avoid
explaining). Makarios was the political leader of that organisation. According
to the authors a reader can assume that Archbishop Makarios is equally and
automatically branded as a “terrorist” too! 4) In para b) the authors refer to
“EOKA anti-colonial campaign” which is half the truth. As aforementioned EOKA
1955-59 whilst an anti-colonial, it was foremost a struggle for UNION OF CYPRUS
WITH GREECE. The authors avoid explaining this crucial factor to the readers. 5)
They add that the “Communist Left does not participate” i.e. relating this to
previous para and their reference to Grivas. 6) The authors conveniently avoid
explaining to the readers that the riots in Izmir and Constantinople (by the way
Greeks all over the world, Press, Politicians, Writers, Media and ordinary
people do not use the Turkish name of Istanbul but Constantinople) were
organised by the then Turkish Prime Minister and the British government to
coincide with the Tripartite Conference. They paid organised Turkish thugs to
attack the Greek community i.e. the pogrom…

“1963 – 65….Turkish Cypriot nationalists withdraw into military protected
enclaves…Greece and Turkey assume new role to solve the Cyprus issue on the
basis of Dean Acheson’s NATO partition schemes…”

This is a misleading chronicle. 1) By 1963 the Turkish Cypriots were armed to
their teeth by Turkey. They attacked the Greek Cypriots in December 1963 before
withdrawing to their self imposed enclaves, putting into effect a long devised
Turkish plan to attack the Greek Cypriots and dissolve the Republic of Cyprus
and create two Federated States. Full text of Turkish plan found in the safe of
Turkish Cypriot Agriculture Minister, who forgot it in his haste to abandon his
office. The document was dated 14 September 1963! References in Cypriot Press
especially in ‘Phileleftheros’ of February 1964 and many books. 2) There was NO
NATO partition scheme at the time, that is a myth created by elements who want
to shield British front line involvement. The PARTITION PLAN (and how to execute
it step by step leading to 1974) was devised by the Planning Department of the
Foreign Office in February 1964. The Americans did not want to get involved in
January 1964 but the British Government pressed hard to achieve their agreement
to do so. Full description of those historical events in British Archives (also
articles by the writer in Simerini in Cyprus and London based Eleftheria and Ta
Nea). Acheson was guided by Lord Hood of the Foreign Office in all his
negotiations. Acheson, who was a sick man soon got fed up and left the scene…

1967-“Most military officers are on the payroll of the CIA”… write the authors
in their chronicle. This is very important to us. But unfortunately the authors
name none of those officers. Not even one. In the same para under “1967” they
write “ Fighting in Cyprus between Grivas’s forces and Turkish Cypriots in
Kophinou…” This is also wrong. It was not “Grivas’s forces” but the Forces of
the legitimate Republic of Cyprus in defence of the Republic. (The removal of
the Greek Contingent/ (Merarchia was a Turkish demand which the British pursued
satisfactorily in order to eliminate Greek involvement, bring back Denktash from
Turkey and start the Clerides/Denktash dialogue between the two communities. All
that with the help of the Soviet Union too!).

2005 “Talat, a left-winger, wins elections in the areas where the European
acquis is suspended, renewing hopes for a just and fair settlement for all
Unfortunately they do not explain that the position Talat holds is an illegal
one, and the area where those elections were held is the part of the Republic
UNDER TURKISH OCCUPATION since 1974. Not just the “area where the European
acquis is suspended”. That is grossly misleading to readers who are not well
acquainted with the Cyprus issue.

2008 “AKEL President Christofias wins …and renews hopes for a solution on the
basis of an anti-imperial anti-nationalist agenda…”. Does this reference
insinuate that previous presidents were seeking a solution on the basis of
pro-imperial, pro-nationalist agenda?


As the authors say, the book argues instead that it is the time of two left-wing
parties on both sides of the Greek Line, to initiate an anti-imperial dialogue
and to launch a post-imperial constitutional process immune from great power and
NATO engineering… because the Republic of Cyprus is a member of the EU but not
of NATO.
The authors clearly detest NATO and this is more than clear right through the
book. The exact line taken by President Christofias himself. As one Turkish
newspaper in London quoted Christofias “ NATO over my dead body”. The authors
suggest thinking of a Cypriot society, politics after imperialism, they insist
on calling the OCCUPIED AREAS as ASA (Areas of Suspended Acquis), repeatedly
they refer to the Republic of Cyprus as “Greek Cypriot-led Republic or
Greek-led”. For instance in page 7 they say “The Cypriot Left is in office both
in ASA and in the Greek Cypriot-led Republic…”.
The authors have clearly taken the issue from a wrong prospective. Or was it
intentional? The Cyprus issue is one of INVASION and CONTINUED TURKISH
OCCUPATION. Instead, they have overwhelmed the book with Left-wing anti-Natoism
which to my opinion is prejudicial.

Narrating Cyprus

On page 19 they write: “ The British partition policy on Cyprus was upheld by
the Turkish Cypriot leadership and Turkey itself, and was additionally endorsed
by Acheson’s and Ball’s conspiracy plans of 1964-65. It could also be argued
that the faction of Greek Cypriot nationalists who gathered around General
Grivas, the leader of the military arm of EOKA, played straight into the hands
of the advocates of partition, since it aroused Turkish Cypriot nationalism
further. Grivas might have been fighting for enosis but, to all intents and
purposes, he and his fellow Greek nationalists, or some of them, were working –
whether wittingly or unwittingly we are not in a position to know – for the
undercurrents of partition, serving NATO’s policy…”

This para is, again, misleading (as in pages 22 and 23 and others). All
partition plans for Cyprus were British to start with in consultation with
Turkey. And there were NO conspiracy plans of 1964-65 by Acheson and Ball. This
is a myth, as already mentioned in this review. All plans were devised by London
and sometimes promoted through the Americans with the guidance of the Foreign
Office. And when George Ball, as claimed by Martin Packard, (Ball died and is
not here to confirm or deny) told the latter:
“You’ve got it all wrong, hasn’t anyone told you that our plan here is for
partition?”, (If he really said something to that effect) what he meant by “our”
was the UK/USA plan and not just an American plan!
The undercurrents of partition SERVE foremost TURKEY’s interest and not NATO’s
and that is a fact nobody should avoid spelling out loud and clear.

Another crucial point in this para is the fact that the authors do not clarify
which EOKA they refer to! Very important point. Epecially as they refer to
Grivas as the “military arm of EOKA”. Grivas was indeed the military arm of EOKA
of 1955-59 as I have already mentioned. However, do they refer to EOKA 1955-59
or EOKA B? Again, they grossly mislead without giving proper explanations to the
readers. Grivas died anyway in January 1974, six months before the coup and the
Turkish invasions of 1974.

In page 20, again they mislead when they say “Inter-communal fights broke in
1963-64… This gave the golden opportunity to the Turkish Cypriot leadership to
leave their government positions and…withdraw…” The authors avoid informing the
readers that it was the heavily armed by Turkey Turkish Cypriots who attacked
the Greek Cypriots in December 1963. The way they portray the situation –their
reference to “golden opportunity”- prompt one to take it that the Turkish
Cypriots were attacked by the Greek Cypriots!

Worth noticing that most of the times when referring to Greece (Turkey and
Britain) they refer to it as NATO power.

However, another vivid contradiction is to be found in pages 24 and 25. Whilst
they repeatedly refer to NATO’s and Acheson/Ball conspiracy partition plan, they
note that “The partition of Cyprus between Greece, Turkey and Britain, initiated
by the British in the 1950s and enshrined in the constitutional arrangements of
1959-60, were virtually put into practice in 1963-64 with the self-imposed
policy of enclaves by the Turkish Cypriots, a policy of which Resolution 186

In page 27 they revert to their anti-American obsession when they claim that the
Turkish invasions of 1974 were an amateurish implementation of Acheson’s
conspiracy scheme.
I find it befitting of any one who claims to be an academic to be so resentful
of the truth. The British Archives are full of documents revealing the actual
facts and the very truth. . What happened in 1974 was a well orchestrated
implementation of a detailed British plan devised in February 1964 taking into
account all Turkish demands. And had nothing to do with Acheson who was long
dead by then (1971).

The ‘Isolation’ of Turkish Cypriots

On pages 58 and 59 the authors write : “The Greek Cypriot project for
self-determination/enosis was defined from within and mainly by the Greek
Cypriot bourgeoisie and the prosperous Church – with Cold War Makarios and
Post-Cold War Papadopoulos being its most prominent political exponents,
although no Cypriot leader has since 1974 ever mentioned enosis…”.

This is again a distortion and deliberate undermining of the EOKA 1955-59
struggle. By referring to the bourgeoisie and prosperous Church (i.e. the
Communists not participating!) the authors directly insinuate that only a small
faction of the Greek Cypriot majority on the island supported that cause. By
referring to just “Papadopoulos” whom do they mean? The late President Tassos
Papadopoulos? But if Makarios was its “Cold War exponent” why was Papadopoulos
its “post-Cold War exponent”? Both of them were involved in the EOKA 1955-59
struggle, together, right from the beginning.

Finally the authors touch the heart of their promotion in the book on pages 64
and 65 (and in “Conclusions” 88 and 89). When more or less they regard as
misleading the following counter-discourse of the Republic of Cyprus:
“The Greek Cypriot counter-argument is that there is not so much isolation –
which is true – and that the isolation that exists is the self-imposed result of
1963, of the Turkish invasions of 1974 and of the declaration of independence in
1983. The very tag ‘isolation of Turkish Cypriots’ is a misnomer, they argue,
since there are more Turkish settlers in the North than Turkish Cypriots – which
is also true. The demand-driven inefficient economic system and ‘the large
public sector of the occupied areas’ has also been damaging to its economic
performance. Furthermore, the Greek Cypriot argument goes, the dependence on
Turkey and the influx of unskilled labourers from Turkey are detrimental to
productivity. Moreover, the Greek Cypriot side points to welfare policies
implemented on the part of the Republic, including the issuing of tens of
thousands of passports to Turkish Cypriots, the free welfare attention they
receive and other benefits. In short, the Greek Cypriots say that the Turkish
Cypriots are using the ‘isolation myth’ in order to gain political capital,
namely international recognition as a separate state-which might very well be

In actual fact they doubt the position of the Republic of Cyprus that the so
called ‘isolation’ myth aims at recognition. Further more they refrain from
referring in full detail to all the benefits the Turkish Cypriots absorb from
the Republic without paying a single penny in taxes. (The Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus has issued a booklet on that issue).

And they suggest:

“ We would assume that the Cypriot Left in particular, would want to step out of
the Macmillan-Annan illegal orbit, as this leads Cypriot society nowhere, while
deepening the dependence of European political and legal orders upon Anglo-Saxon
power-political calculations… Our duty here is to argue (and recommend) that the
Cypriot Left, both in the North and the South of the island, should get out of
this vicious circle of the illegal Cypriot acquis…will make some suggestions as
to how the developmental gap between the two separate parts of the island can be

In fact they promote the integration of the occupied areas with the rest of the
Republic but as two separate entities! This is more explicit in page 88: “…that
the Republic and the EU should try simultaneously to cooperate, in every
possible economic manner, to bridge the regional economic disparity between
ASA’s and the Republic’s territories, while advancing island-wide economic and
political integration…”. (ASA they call the occupied areas). Confederation?

And in conclusion they recommend: “ For it would be bourgeois humbug if the
Cypriot Left, now in office, fails to meet the condition hereunder, on the basis
of which our conception of a Cypriot post-imperial constitution is structured.
And as far as Cyprus after imperialism is concerned, this much is clear to us
for the future: Cyprus, guided by its society and its parties of the left,
should begin moving now, nationally and internationally, outside the perimeters
of its illegal and externally imposed imperial acquis. In other words, the
Cypriot left should convince itself that-with apologies to Marx-the liberation
of Cyprus will only be the work of Cypriots themselves”.

Wrong! Liberation of Cyprus comes only by the withdrawal of All Turkish troops
and all Turkish Anatolian squatters by “Natoist” Turkey and NOT by the “Cypriots

“Solution by the Cypriots for the Cypriots” was the invention of the Foreign
Office promoted by pro-Turkish Joan Ryan and which President Christofias
adopted. And implied nothing short of the recognition of two constituent states
legalised of course by a …new Constitution! (Already such a camouflaged attempt
failed in Zurich only recently).

This book is yes, music to the ears of President Christofias on many respects.

Let us make the long story SHORT:

CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER STATE OF AFFAIRS, namely Virgin birth i.e. in Greek

No doubt, the 1960 Constitution needs to be UPGRADED, but NEVER REPLACED, as
this -further to the “annanial character” the NEW Constitution will definitely
have- in no uncertain terms will lead 100% to “EU throw us OUT”.

The TETRAGONISMOS TOU KYKLOU (squaring the circle) by the EU guys, so to
accommodate the nonsense that will be agreed, is PARAMITHKIA THS PANO TSIKARTZHS
(total nonsense). Indeed, the chances for squaring the circle are the same
Cyprus will have in maintaining its EU identity, should the Constitution be
REPLACED and the Republic of Cyprus be deconstructed.

AS SIMPLE AS THAT. Whoever disagrees, HAS to document and convince of any
opposite position.

The authors have chosen and used repeatedly ( I lost count ) two words:
“bullshit”and “hambug”.

In which case I am entitled to use it myself. I regard this book as “bullshit”

Fanoulla Argyrou


(2) The Permanent Mission of Cyprus to the UN
In collaboration with
The Foreign Press Association

Cordially invite you to the launch of

“International Aggression and Violations of Human Rights: The Case of Turkey in
Cyprus ”
By Van Coufoudakis

Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs
Number 17, 2008, Modern Greek Studies, University of Minnesota

Thursday, April 23 2009, at 5.30 p.m.

The Cyprus House
13 East 40th Street
N.Y., N.Y, 10016

Reception to follow

RSVP: Suzanne Adams (212) 370-1054 or
Maria Zoupaniotis (212) 481-6023 or


Το πιο κάτω άρθρο του Λάζαρου Μαύρου στην Σημερινή δημοσιεύθηκε στις 10.4.2009
και θεωρεί το νέο βιβλίο της Κίνησης για Ελευθερία και Δικαιοσύνη στην Κύπρο ‘
Αιματηρή Αλήθεια’ (Bloody Truth) ως το καλύτερο μνημόσυνο για την μνήμη του
Καβάζογλου. Διαβάστε το.

Μνήμη Καβάζογλου και ο κοινός εχθρός
10/04/2009 | ΤΟΥ ΛΑΖΑΡΟΥ ΜΑΥΡΟΥ Σημερινή

Τ Ο ΚΑΛΥΤΕΡΟ μνημόσυνο για τους δολοφονηθέντες την 11η Απριλίου 1965, από την
τουρκική ΤΜΤ, Ντερβίς Αλί Καβάζογλου και Κώστα Μισιαούλη, η αληθέστερη δηλαδή
Μνήμη της αλήθειας των δύο θυσιασθέντων ηρωομαρτύρων, δεν είναι οι
διαφημιζόμενες κομματικές εκδηλώσεις εκείνων που ο ραγιαδισμός τους οδηγεί σε
παραχάραξη της ιστορικής αλήθειας χάριν «λύσης» «Συνεταιρισμού Δύο Συνιστώντων
Στέιτς» με τον πρώην «μουτζαχίντ» του 77 λόχου της ΤΜΤ, συνεργάτη και όργανο των
κατακτητών, προϊστάμενο της πολιτικής πτέρυγας του Αττίλα, Μεχμέτ Αλί Ταλάτ… Το
καλύτερο μνημόσυνο για τον Καβάζογλου, για τις αλήθειες για τις οποίες
θυσιάστηκε ο Καβάζογλου, αποτελεί η έκδοση και κυκλοφορία, αυτές τις μέρες, του
δίγλωσσου βιβλίου «Αιματηρή αλήθεια - Bloody Truth 1955-1974». Θα το
διαπιστώσουν όσοι το μελετήσουν: Η πραγματική φύση της πολιτικής και της δράσης
των Βρετανών αποικιοκρατών με τους Τούρκους επεκτατιστές εναντίον της Κύπρου, με
κύριο όργανό τους την τρομοκρατική ΤΜΤ. Η οποία, από το 1958 κυνηγούσε να
δολοφονήσει τον ανυπότακτο Καβάζογλου. Και που γι’ αυτό ο ίδιος εγκατέλειψε τον
τουρκομαχαλλά της Ομορφίτας και διέμενε κρυβόμενος στον ελληνικό τομέα της
Λευκωσίας. Απ’ όπου αγωνιζόταν ενάντια και στην Τουρκανταρσία του 1963-64.
Στενός φίλος, συνεργάτης και σύντροφος - φρουρός του Καβάζογλου, υπήρξε κι ο
ηρωικός της νεολαίας του ΑΚΕΛ Μιχαλάκης Κουσουλίδης από το Καϊμακλί. Που αντί να
πάει για σπουδές στην Πράγα το 1964, κατετάγη στη νεοσύστατη Εθνική Φρουρά,
τοποθετήθηκε στην 31 Μοίρα Καταδρομών και θυσιάστηκε πολεμώντας τους Τούρκους,
7η Αυγούστου 1964, στον Λωρόβουνο της Τηλλυρίας.
Ο ΚΑΒΑΖΟΓΛΟΥ, όπως κι ο δρ. Ιχσάν Αλή, με την ανυπότακτη δράση τους αποκάλυπταν
δημόσια τον πραγματικό πρωταίτιο της Τουρκανταρσίας του 1963-64: Την ΤΜΤ. Τη
φασιστική, τρομοκρατική και δολοφονική ηγεσία των Τ/κ Κιουτσούκ και Ντενκτάς,
όργανα των αποικιοκρατών και των ιμπεριαλιστών. Εκατόν και Ένα φανατισμένα μέλη
της ΤΜΤ υπόγραψαν δήλωση με όρκο ότι, θα σκότωναν τον Ιχσάν Αλή και τον Ντερβίς
Καβάζογλου. Πέτυχαν, στη δολοφονική ενέδρα της Κυριακής 11ης Απριλίου 1965, να
εξοντώσουν τον Καβάζογλου και τον Κώστα Μισιαούλη, στα μπροστινά καθίσματα του
αυτοκινήτου τους. Στην κηδεία τους ο αείμνηστος Τάσσος Παπαδόπουλος, υπουργός
τότε Εργασίας, είπε και τα εξής: «Έζησαν και εργάσθηκαν αδελφωμένοι, για την
αδελφοσύνη του λαού μας και πέθαναν αδελφωμένοι, κτυπημένοι από τον κοινόν
εχθρόν. Διότι ο κοινός εχθρός Ελλήνων και Τούρκων, είναι ο τουρκικός σωβινισμός
και η τουρκική τρομοκρατία» («Χαραυγή» 13.4.1965 και 26.1.2003).

Και γιατί, λοιπόν, να μεμφόμεθα τον πρόεδρο των αμερικανο-νατοϊκών ιμπεριαλιστών
κ. Μπαράκ Ομπάμα που θέλει να μπήξει την Τουρκία στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση;
Σημαιοφόροι της τουρκικής ένταξης δεν είναι, πρώτοι απ’ όλους, οι του
νέο-οθωμανισμού νέο-ραγιάδες Αθηνών τε και Λευκωσίας, με τις αυταπάτες και
ψευδαισθήσεις τους περί δήθεν εξευρωπαϊσμού της… τουρκικής πολιτικής;



Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA)
2578 Broadway #132
New York, NY 10025
New York: Tel. 917-699-9935

The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is a grass-roots, not-for-profit
movement created to support genuine self-determination and human rights for the
people of Cyprus.

To be added to CANA's Action Alert e-mail distribution list, or to introduce
CANA to a friend or colleague, please forward the pertinent name and e-mail
address, with the subject heading "Add e-mail to CANA distribution list", to

You are encouraged to forward this action alert to five or more individuals who
may have an interest in our e-distributions or in CANA’s mission.

You may post any CANA article, press release or action alert on the internet as
long as you credit CANA and the author(s).