Dear Mr Bykovsky,

Your trivial analysis of Mr Carter's book is full of half-truths and falsities.

You use the term "anti-semetic", but we're heartily sick of that tag being used to smear, it carries no weight with anyone anymore. You are perhaps "Semite-centric" in your jaundiced view of the world...

Just criticism of Israel must be dealt with justly. Your response is mere propaganda, just like the propaganda used to support the violence of Israel.

You ignore the key issues, such as the displacement of Palestinians with NO compensation, the lack of clear borders to the country, the settlements on non-Israeli lands (clearly land theft), the actual apartheid that is alive and very tangible to the citizens of the West Bank and Gaza, the clear racial bigotry caste into Israeli laws, the fact that the UN resolution that created the state of Israel also simultaneously created the state of Palestine and so on.

I have visited Israel, prior to the current Intifada. I have seen how Jewish Israelis treat non-Jewish peoples of all nations - with intolerance and bigotry. I have experienced it personally, not second hand. It is real.

We must return to the original borders, the pre-1948 borders!

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob, sent 19Jan06 in response to:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/16486312.htm ]

Dear Sir,

Saddam was executed for doing his job, and doing exactly the same as George Bush did when he was Governor of Texas. Not that your paper reported it clearly, but Saddam was not charged with the actual murder of the 148 people, he was charged with being the President of Iraq and in that role he authorised the execution warrants of the 148. What had the 148 done? They had tried to assasinate the President of Iraq, failed and got caught. Subsequently, those 148 were tried by the Iraqi court system, found guilty and sentenced to death. The sentences could not be carried out until the President authorised the execution warrants. This is a clear judicial process. As an aside, I wonder who signed Saddam's death warrant, and when?

This is exactly the same as GW Bush did in Texas, more than 150 times, sending convicted criminals to their death after signing their death warrants. Why is he not similarly guilty of murder?

Ramsey Clark says Saddam's trial reeked of injustice and that this execution has done immense damage to international rule of law.

We as Australians are now collectively guilty of a major war crime, because Saddam was a prisoner of war and hostilities had not ended. Once again the USA demonstrated their disdain for the Geneva Conventions by handing Saddam over to the Iraqis to be put to death. Saddam was not in Iraqi hands during the trial, he was an American prisoner.

If, and I really mean if, Saddam was responsible for genocide, we now have no chance of proving it in a genuine court of law. Where are the mass graves? Where is the incontravertible evidence of guilt on his part to crimes of genocide? We will never see it now, it will all be papered over with the politically correct propaganda of newspapers such as yours, to be engraved without proof, that Saddam was a tyrant but don't bother looking for the proof.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 31Dec06 - unlikely to be published in our tightly controlled propaganda apparatus in Australia]

Dear Mr Roberts,

I would like to thank you for your persistent writings in the face of the forces of the new dark age.

You words are clear and precise, and true. I have been shattered to see civilisation being assaulted, not by barbaric hordes from third world countries, but by barbaric oligarchies in the most "civilised" countries we have seen. The amazing speed with which nearly all basic liberties have been removed and the callous arrogance of the "leaders" has shocked me.

Please, keep up the excellent work. We need your voice and calls to truth to combat the relentless propaganda that covers the sores of our society with a thin coating of niceness.

Regards,

[Cockeyedbob - Sent 31Dec06 - see http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts190.html ]

Dear Mr Stanhope,

I am saddened to hear your rejection of the Westminster System of government.

The Westminster System has been failing the citizens of countries with an English derived form of government. Because it is not a written system, and while its values and responsibilities used to be well known (they were taught in schools once upon a time), more and more politicians such as yourself are abusing it.

The Westminster System was an honour based system, relying upon the participants to be honourable in their actions, and to take full responsibility for failures in any part of the organisations reporting to them.

One example is useful. Japan also has strong sense of honour and responsibility. Following the dreadful crash of a Japan Air Lines 747 after the tail section fell off, the then President of JAL took responsibility and resigned. He did so even though the crash was caused by faulty work done by Boeing employees, and clearly he had no involvement in the day-to-day activities of the repair and maintenance crews. It was symbolic of the position (the President of the airline) accepting responsibility for the actions of the organisation.

You are in just such a situation. You must take full moral responsibility for the failures of the organisation you lead and you should resign, not doing so weakens the foundations of our system of government in Australia.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 20Dec06]

Dear Mr Mobiot,

Thank you for your article about Jose Padilla and the torture nation.

I am sickened to the heart by the depths to which the USA has sunk. The change of crowd in the federal chambers has made not one dot of difference in policy, strategy or tactics. I and my friends believe we are well past the point of comparisons with Nazi Germany, the Americans have taken Fascism to new, fouler levels than we have seen on this planet in recorded history.

I write to thank you, but also to express the sad disappointment that apparent impotence brings. How on earth can we "ordinary" people, people who have not lost their minds and moral compasses, how can we stop this barbarism from affecting the entire planet? I do not want my children raised in a surviellence society with embedded RFID chips in the arms, working for a pittance to keep the 1% of wealthy comfortable.

My only relief, aside from reading to keep informed and talking with conviction to my friends, is to write letters to the key players, see http://www.blognow.com.au/cockeyedbob .

Do you have any view of how the world can rid ourselves of these self-imposed overlords who insist in propogating barbarism? Is there a pathway we can take or a method that we can apply?

Anyway, again, thank you very much for your article highlighting the evil practices of the current USA administration.

Regards,

[Cockeyedbob - Sent 19Dec06 - in response to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1970084,00.html ]

[Robot reply received almost immediately - ]

If you would like me to give a talk or an interview, I am afraid the answer is no unless you hear from me I receive 10 or 12 requests a day, and can meet only a very few of them.

Dear Mr Lieberman,

I read this today:

"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions: That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."

It comes from:

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3338320,00.html

Mr Lieberman, your statements are so far disconnected from reality that I am amazed you are not reported as new floating space junk orbiting the earth.

1) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict *is* the main fact of instability in the Middle East. We know that Saddam was attacked primarily at the instigation of the Israelis because he was actively supporting Palestinian freedom fighters. Osama bin Laden (when he was alive) pointed out the festering sore of Palestine as a major rallying point for his fellow extremists. You are being naive here.

2) sadly, the conflict is *both* territorial *and* ideological. It is territorial for the displaced Palestinians and it is clearly ideological for the Zionists who we know from a vast store of printed material have always planned for a greater Israel. Do not take us for fools Mr Leiberman or you will look foolish yourself.

3) no, the establisment of a Palestine state based on the 1967 borders will of course not end the conflict because the borders as set by the UN in 1948 are the "true" borders of Israel (if there is such a thing.) I earnestly beleive (mainly as a result of the words and actions of you and your fellow Ashkanzy Zionists) that we must return to the pre-1948 borders (ie, the return to a single Palestinian state).

You are deluded. You suffer from the collective psycopathy of the Zionist zealots who do not see the facts on the ground and prefer to hide behind a religion for the advancement of base territorial objectives.

Please Mr Lieberman, stop making these outrageous statements.

Regards,

[Cockeyedbob - Sent 12Dec06]

Dear Ms Bishop,

As my local representative, I am writing to ask for your help.

Recently I have sent email letters to Mr Downer regarding foreign affairs, and I am receiving no response, not even an acknowledgement that my correspondence has been received.

I have attached a copy of my most recent correspondence to Mr Downer for which I am yet to receive a reply.

As my local representative I ask you to please use question time in Parliament to present all the questions from my correspondence to Mr Downer. These questions and Mr Downer's response need to be in Hansard.

Please acknowledge this correspondence.

I have included my questions from the attached email below for ease of reference.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 8Dec06]

1) Are there any CIA run secret detention facilities in Australia?

2) Have you asked the government of the USA if they have any secret CIA facilities in Australia, and if you have not asked, why not?

3) Are there any Australian citizens being held in any of the CIA secret detention facilities?

4) Is Australia a sovereign nation? I ask in the sense that if the USA believes it can run detention facilities in foreign nations and also to capture and hold citizens of any nation (even if they have never been to the USA), then what does it mean to say a nation is sovereign? It would seem that sovereignty then becomes conditional on the blessing of the USA and the CIA.

5) Do you personally support the USA's policy of extra-territorial sovereignty and the acts of "rendition" that have *no* judicial oversight?

6) Have you been briefed by any member of the USA government on these facilities and policies?

7) Is the Magna Carta a part of our legal framework or not?

8) Did any of the aeroplanes identified in the EU report ever stop-over or transit through any Australian airports?

9) Have any individuals (Australian citizens or otherwise) been seized the CIA inside Australian and subsequently flown out of Australia as part of the programme acknowledged by President Bush?

Dear Mr Downer,

I wrote by email to you recently to ask you some specific questions about the USA's "extraordinary renditions".

I have found this interesting report from the EU. It can be found at:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/european_report2_clean.pdf

and I have attached a copy for your reference.

I note that the report states clearly "whereas President George W. Bush said that the vital information derived from the extraordinary rendition and secret detention programme had been shared with other countries and that the programme will continue" and so I have to specifically ask the question - did any Australians (perhaps the ADF, or ASIO or ASIS) receive any of this information and has such information been used in conjunction with Australia's anti-terror laws to impose secret holding orders on Australian citizens?

Mr Downer, have any individuals (Australian citizens or otherwise) been seized the CIA inside the territory of Australia and subsequently flown out of Australia as part of the programme acknowledged by President Bush?

In my email of 8th September, I asked the following questions:

1) Are there any CIA run secret detention facilities in Australia?

2) Have you asked the government of the USA if they have any secret CIA facilities in Australia, and if you have not asked, why not?

3) Are there any Australian citizens being held in any of the CIA secret detention facilities?

4) Is Australia a sovereign nation? I ask in the sense that if the USA believes it can run detention facilities in foreign nations and also to capture and hold citizens of any nation (even if they have never been to the USA), then what does it mean to say a nation is sovereign? It would seem that sovereignty then becomes conditional on the blessing of the USA and the CIA.

5) Do you personally support the USA's policy of extra-territorial sovereignty and the acts of "rendition" that have *no* judicial oversight?

6) Have you been briefed by any member of the USA government on these facilities and policies?

7) Is the Magna Carta a part of our legal framework or not?

In addition to those unanswered questions from my previous correspondence, I would like to know:

8) Did any of the aeroplanes identified in the EU report ever stop-over or transit through any Australian airports?

9) Have any individuals (Australian citizens or otherwise) been seized the CIA inside Australian and subsequently flown out of Australia as part of the programme acknowledged by President Bush?

Please reply (and perhaps also let me know why my letter of 9th September was not answered sooner) as soon as possible.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 5Dec06 - No reply]

cc Kevin Rudd MP,

Senator Bob Brown,

Carmen Lawrence MP

Dear Racist Lieberman,

I love the sad irony of your surname. It makes me laugh.

Mr Lieberman, your racially bigotted nonsense does not alter anyone's opinion. We all know that the Zionists have cruelly stolen the lands of the Palestinians based on some supernatural fairy tales of an invisible being making a promise to a small group of people while ignoring all other people's own personal invisible beings' promises.

My own invisible friend says "the world belongs to ME" so get off MY land, you vile trespasser.

You are a violent psychopath if you truly believe that "jews" and "arabs" are essentially different and that an imposed apartheid is the "answer".

In the article, you say "Every week, the president of Iran declares his intention to destroy us" yet at the same time you say that you intend to destroy the Palestinian homelands and to seize the lawful property of the pre-1948 inhabitants of the area now known as Israel. I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand the idea of "hipocracy"?

It is time to return to the original borders, the pre-1948 borders!

Take your filthy words and crawl back under a rock you slimy insect.

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 5Dec06 - No reply]

Dear Chief Small,

I read this article:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1371805.php

I am shocked and appalled by the "training technique" of using a civilian's car to train police officers on. It is not your property, and even if the owner has been arrested (and clearly not yet found guilty of any crime and so accorded the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law) that does not make it acceptable to commandeer someone's private property for police business.

I find this type of behaviour is common on America, where civil rights seem to have disappeared under a sea of totalitarian behaviour. Your officers' actions seem straight out of a dime novel about Nazi Germany.

Chief Small, I suspect you don't give a damn about what anyone thinks, let alone a foreigner from the other side of the planet, but I hope that you might just pause and reflect for a moment on a couple of points:

1) Rule of Law applies to all, and presumption of innocence even for someone arrested is a vital part of civilisation. Your illegal and immoral use of other people's property after arrest shows that you do not understand this important point.

2) Your actions and your officers actions are visible to the wider world, a world already deeply unhappy about the sadly broken attitudes of "average Americans" to civil liberties and freedom. I already have a negative attitude to the USA and this type of action and subsequent justifications for the unjustifiable simply reinforce the wider world's disgust at the barbaric behaviour of modern American society.

I would be interested to hear your point of view on these wider issues.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 3Dec06 - No reply yet]

Dear Ms Kwiatkowski,

Thank your for your continuing efforts to unmask the madness and dangers we face from the war-mongers.

I too was simply appalled that such an article could be published in a major American newspaper. It prompted me to write directly to Mr Muravchik. I have attached my email should you feel inclined to read it. Strangely, Mr Muravchik has to date declined to reply to my correspondence.

Anyway, once again please accept my thanks for your continued principled stand for common sense and humanity.

Regards,

[Cockeyedbob - Sent 28Nov06 - no reply yet, sent in response to:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski167.html

See also my letter to Mr Muravchik in this blog]

Dear Mr Muravchik,

Sorry, but your article is based on prejudice and propaganda. Anyone who has been seriously watching recent events knows that you are "crying wolf" one more time, and guess what, we stopped listening to this bigotted nonsense a long time ago.

Mr Muravchik, your call to violence seems typical of the war-mongers in the USA. I used to admire the USA, but it has spriralled down into the abys of pre-emptive violence and criminality.

I could call for pre-emptive strikes on the USA also, because, guess what, the USA has a nuclear programme and is currently violating multiple international treaties ranging from the NPT, the anti-missile treaty through to the Geneva conventions.

Torture has been authorised at the highest levels. Spying on and restrictions on travel for the ordinary citizen are now the rule in the USA. The USA claims the right to sieze, hold indefinitetly and torture non-USA citizens even if they have never been to the USA. For the USA, there is only one sovereignty and all other nations are subject to that sovereignty. Other nations do not have true sovereignty, because Amerikan sovereignty trumps all others.

If there was a case for bombing, it has to be right now, on the critical command and control infrastructre of the USA to "pre-emptively prevent" further international beligerence. We can not afford any more destroyed nations courtesy of the USA's privatised military forces. We have to stop the secret renditions to secret bases for secret torture. The USA now fights wars for profit, not for any divine or noble principles based on the dignity of all human life.

If you can not see the essential hipocrisy of what you have written, then you are not worthy to carry the intellectual honours of University Degrees. Surely, as an undergraduate, you used to value logic and open debating? Surely you can see that you are not on sound intellectual grounds with your call to bombs? You have become a shill for the war-mongers.

Regards,

Dear Ambassador Sulaiman,

I have some questions that I would like some answers to.

I have always found the Syrian Ambassador to the USA to be a clear speaker and thinker, and have read a number of his interviews where he discusses the strained relationship between the USA and Syria. It seemed to me that his point of view was fair and reasonable while the USA's position seemed to be one of confrontation and the creation of false negative stories about Syria.

Given this clearly cool relationship between Syria and the USA, I have become extremely puzzled by the stories of CIA "rendition" of people to Syria for torture. See the following article as what I believe to be a confirmed instance of this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15424.htm

Can you please answer to me these questions:

1) Is this relationship between the CIA and Syrian Secret Services known of, and approved by, the Syrian government?

2) Is it normal for Syrian secret services to apply torture during "interrogation"?

3) Given the public image of a "cool" relationship between the USA and Syria, why is Syria supporting the USA's illegal activities?

4) Does the Syrian government condone the kidnapping by the USA of foreign nationals followed by forced transportation to another country and indefinite detention without trial?

5) Does the Syrian system of justice have the concept of Habeas Corpus embedded within it or does Syrian law allow indefinite detention without trial?

As I said, I had thought of Syria as being somewhat civilised, based on the Syrian Ambassador's public comments, but if it is true that Syria has supported illegal CIA activities while at the same time complaining about USA's attitude to Syria, then I would be forced to view Syria as a double-speaking barbaric country in league with the evil regime in the USA. I hope this is not the case.

I look forward to your reply to my questions.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 29Oct06 - No reply yet -  Copied to following:]

cc Alexander Downer, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs [A.Downer.MP@aph.gov.au]

Kevin Rudd, Shadow Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs [Kevin.Rudd@aph.gov.au]

Carmen Lawrence, Australian Labor MP [Carmen.Lawrence.MP@aph.gov.au]

His Excellency General Ghazi Kan’an, Syrian Minister of Interior (admin@civilaffair-moi.gov.sy)

Dear Gabor Steingart,

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,439766,00.html

An interesting article, however you say:

"First, nowhere in the world can you find such a high concentration of optimism and daring."

I find these repeated claims of American "Can-Do" superiority just plain sick. By any measure, Americans do not stand out in front of other peoples in terms of optimism, daring or simply the ability to get on with the job and to complete it.

Scotland is an example of a place that has consistently produced some of the greatest minds in the world. Australia has one of the highest per capita ratios of Patents granted to population. I worked for a Japanese company, and while perhaps individuals do not shine as much, when a team of Japanese are focussed on a goal, they are the most productive people I have worked with.

From my point of view, the myth of the American "Can-Do" attitude was blown apart when I worked in the telecommunications industry in the 1990s. While working in Zurich in Telecommunications R&D, I met Americans and met professionals who had worked in American, and they all had the characteristic of extremely narrow areas of specialisation (and with that, a strong reluctance to step outside those narrow areas) and they were basically lazy workers unprepared to put in the hard effort to do a top job.

No, America lost her will to work sometime after the Vietnamese War. They have been in decline since, and your article is really talking about the results of decades of lazy, indolent, yet arrogant attitudes from American workers.

Regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 26 Oct 06 via email to spon_feedback@spiegel.de]

Dear Mayor Anderson,

I have just watched a small video clip of you being interviewed on television about your involvement in a protest against President Bush.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/rocky-rocky-rocky.html

You words were clear and elegant, and they were right. You called on our moral responsibility not to be servile and courteous to the position of President when the President is leading the nation in the wrong direction.

Although I am not an American, I agree that President Bush has done huge damage to the USA, and I would say huge damage to the world. He has poisoned international relationships and stepped far outside of the rules of law, both international and domestic.

We need more principled people such as yourself to clearly and succinctly express dissent. I fully agree that principled dissent is required in circumstances such as we find ourselves now.

Thanks, and regards,

[Cockeyed Bob - Sent 2 Sep 06 - Reply received 25 Oct 06 follows:]

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

John F. Kennedy, remarks at the signing of the charter establishing the German Peace Corps, June 24, 1963 (misattributing the statement to Dante)

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing or calling to express your views regarding my speech on the occasion of President Bush, Secretary Rice, and Secretary Rumsfeld’s visit to Salt Lake City. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.

In one of his most powerful statements about truth and conscience, Gandhi wrote, “A 'no' uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a 'yes' merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.” Gandhi’s words remind us of our fundamental, inescapable duty to tell the truth, to speak out when our country’s leaders fail to aspire to the high ideals and rich traditions that form the foundation of our nation and of our Constitution.

As the leader of a successful movement that peacefully ended the rule of an oppressive colonial regime, Gandhi knew that following one’s conscience and speaking truth to power is rarely easy or agreeable. He also knew that the obligation to do so transcends what many would consider as edicts of civility. Standing silent in the face of injustice is far worse than being impolite.

I was obliged to speak at the protest on August 30 because of my deep conviction that the Bush administration, aided by a cowardly and corrupt Congress, has been an unmitigated disaster—economically, morally, and spiritually—for our great nation.

On the economic front, the federal administration and Congress frittered away a surplus of $86.4 billion dollars in 2000 and racked up a deficit of $493.6 billion last year. The 2004 budget deficit of $568 billion was the largest in history. The astoundingly irresponsible fiscal policy currently reigning in Washington is due as much to the prevailing lack of fiscal discipline as it is to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Non-defense discretionary spending skyrocketed from $298.6 billion in 2000 to $435.3 billion in 2005—an increase of about 45.7%. This makes President Bush one of the biggest-spending presidents in history. He has yet to veto a single spending bill.

This reckless spending has been accompanied by equally reckless tax cuts, the majority of which benefit the wealthiest in our country. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, the tax cuts promoted by the federal administration and passed by Congress deprived the Treasury of over $1 trillion in revenue. If the tax cuts enacted since 2001 are made permanent, they will cost the country an additional $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

The federal administration’s economic and social policies, which favor those who already enjoy the greatest advantages in our country, have also led to decreasing wages and a widening gap between rich and poor. The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2% since 2003, while corporate profits are at their highest level since the 1960’s. In 2004, the top 1% of wage earners received 11.2% of all wage income, up from 8.7% in 1984 and less than 6% in 1964.

       The Bush administration and Congress have needlessly mired our country in an unnecessary, immoral war in Iraq, based on false pretenses. According to The Lancet, approximately 665,000 people have been died in Iraq as a result of the war – and many have been seriously maimed, brain damaged, or rendered mentally ill.  Our nation’s reputation throughout much of the world has been destroyed.  We have many more enemies bent on our destruction than before our invasion of Iraq.  The hatred toward us has grown to the point that it will take many years, perhaps generations, to overcome the loathing created by our invasion and occupation of a Muslim country. As William F. Buckley, Jr., one of the founders of the modern American conservative movement, recently declared, “One can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.”

The administration’s blatant disrespect for domestic laws and international treaties has fostered the kidnapping and torture of suspects worldwide, without even the pretense of due process of law. President Bush has repeatedly promoted the idea that the Geneva Conventions—international standards to ensure the human rights of those involved in combat—do not apply to detainees captured as part of the war on terrorism. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, acting at the time as White House counsel, wrote a memo in 2002 concluding that detainees should not be treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, as their lack of POW status would reduce the chance of subsequent prosecutions against their US captors under the domestic war crimes statute. Clearly, something has gone terribly wrong in our country when our government strives to provide legal and intellectual justification for the torture of human beings

President Bush and members of Congress make much of so-called values. They don’t generally mention the values of torture, of killing, of war-profiteering, of constitutional violations, of choosing to invade and occupy a Muslim country that posed no security risk to our nation, or of generating even more hatred and terrorism by our government’s unjustified, illegal tragic actions. Rather, they speak incessantly of what they term “freedom,” “democracy,” and “good and evil.”

On August 30, I spoke about a different set of values. We cherish the freedoms and liberties of our country. As patriotic Americans, we don’t malign those who speak out against our nation’s leaders as being unpatriotic or un-American, or accuse them of providing aid to terrorists. We have good, wholesome family values. In our families, we teach honesty. We teach kindness and compassion toward others. We teach that violence, if ever justified, must be an absolutely last resort. In our families, we teach that our nation’s constitutional values are to be upheld, and that they are worth fighting for. Our family values promote respect and equal rights toward everyone, regardless of race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.

The Bush administration and Congress have acted in complete derogation of those values. For that reason, we all have a duty to raise our voices in calling for change.

America suffers when we remain politely silent or apathetic on such important issues. We renege on our obligations as citizens of this great nation, and as human beings, when we stifle our conscience on issues that matter. America suffers when some attempt to silence those who question the direction of our country by disparaging them as being “un-American” or likening them to appeasers of fascists or terrorists. We sully the noble principles of this nation when we equate those who plan attacks on American soil with those who, through honest and thoughtful criticism, seek the best for our country.

“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels—men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine,” said President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953, at the height of the Cold War. “As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”

We perform the greatest service to our nation and to the world when we remember, with President Eisenhower, that the good of our world often depends on the courage to seek justice precisely when it is most inconvenient to do so. The duty of dissent is greatest precisely when the need for it is most pressing. This is such a time.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      Ross C. Anderson

                                      Mayor