 |
| Nana Konadu, Former First Lady of Ghana |
It
has become apparent that all is not well in the ranks of the 31st
December Women’s Movement (DWM) and that a faction within it is determined to
remove Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings as its President.
A
statement published in the Daily Graphic of Tuesday, June 27, 2017 as an
advertisers announcement states clearly that Nana Konadu’s mandate as President
of the movement expired 20 years ago.
The
statement was allegedly read by Madam Aba Edusah, Central Regional Organiser of
the 31st December Women’s Movement on behalf of members at a press
conference in Accra.
It
claimed that all decisions taken by the movement over the last 20 years are not
valid because there has not been any Congress or National Executive Committee
meeting over the period.
The
statement also cautioned “any person or entity who has transacted any business
on behalf of Caridem Development Company and 31st DWM with Dr Mrs
Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, that they did so at their own risk”.
The
authors of the statement also insisted that the name of the movement has not
been changed to “Developing Women for Mobilization” and that it remains as “the
31st December Women’s Movement”.
They
called for the convening of a National Congress of the movement.
The full text of the
statement is published below;
By
introduction and as a matter of record, we the members of the 31st
December Women’s Movement bring to your notice that the 31st
December Women’s Movement is a Non- Governmental Organization. Establish almost
34 years ago and registered under the laws of Ghana as a company limited by
Guarantee under the Company’s code 1963 (Act179).
 |
| Sherry Ayitey, no shaken! |
By
this, the movement works within its regulation and constitution since it was
established. The membership of the movement at one time stood at about one
million Ghanaian women of ages 18 and above irrespective of creed, religion,
tribe, profession, marital status, and social standing. It embraced women
living in and outside Ghana.
The
functions of the movement are based on democratic governance, which involves
the participation of every member in the decision-making process. The Movement
works through the following: -
1.
Congress
2.
Regional Delegates Conference
3. District Delegates Conference
4.
Workplace Delegates Conference
The
congress is the highest body of the Movement responsible for all policy
guidelines and it shall elect the National officers as the National Executive
Committee / Council and Congress Patrons. The Congress is composed of National
Executive Committee and proportional representation from each region to be
selected at Regional conferences where Observers are to be invited by the
National Secretariat of the Movement. The
Regulations require that Congress shall be convened once every five (5) years
to:
-Review
the operations of the Movement,
-Approve
any decisions from the National Executive Committee and
-Elects new national executive officers.
-Elects new national executive officers.
The
National Executive Committee is responsible for running the affairs of the
Movement and is required to meet every four months in the year. The National
Executive committee is made up of all the National Officers, all heads of
Departments of the Movement at the National Secretariat, all Regional
organizers and chairpersons of the regional central committee, two ex-official
members of the movement nominated by congress and representation for workplace.
There
is a National Secretariat in Accra to support the work of the National
Executive Committee. The National Officers
report to the National Executive Committee.
National
Officers:
President
General Secretary
Deputy General Secretary
Deputy General Secretary
National Organizer
Deputy Organizer
Publicity Officer
Finance Project
Co-ordinator
All
National Officers shall hold office for a period of five (5) years and may be
eligible for re-election for at least two more consecutive terms for the same
position. But not for more than three (3) consecutive
terms.
We wish to state the
following: -
 |
| Nana Konadu |
1.
That the last congress of the Movement was held sometime in 1992.
To
date, Dr. Mrs. Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, former First Lady, has held
herself out as President of the Movement (in total contravention of the
stipulated five year- term) and has not called for a congress as per the
regulations of the Movement.
2.
The 3st December Women's Movement is the sole beneficiary of ALL the Assets of
Caridem Development Company Limited, established as an investment (commercial)
company to generate funds to support the programs and activities
of the Movement and creates employment and jobs for the Women.
3. It has come to our
attention that the audited counts are neither up to date nor filed at the
Registrar of Companies.
4. That We have cause to believe that huge sums of monies
have been dissipated and assets sold from the accounts of 31st DWM by Dr.Mrs. Nana Konadu Agyemang
Rawlings without following proper internal processes.
5. That by our Regulations, Audited accounts showing
expenditures etc. must be submitted to the National Executive Committee and
Congress for study and approvals.
We the members of the 31st December Women's Movement make the following
statement:
1. That since for the
past twenty years there has not been Congress or National Executive committee
meeting, so making all decisions of the Movement not valid.
We
disassociate ourselves from the:-
a. The letter written by Ms. Sylvia Ahorlu dated 15'h February
2016, REF: DWM/1Il/9766.
b. The publication in the Daily Graphic of 19'h June 2017 granted by Dr.
Mrs Nana Konadu purporting that the Movement has changed its name to
Development Women's Movement and changed its
character. This publication is a fabrication
and not true. The contents of the said
publication are illegal, unlawful and
unconstitutional. The laws of Ghana states
clearly that each citizen has the freedom of association, therefore members’ of 31st December Women's
Movement cannot automatically become members of
the newly created Development Women's Movement without the express consent of
each member. The 31"
DWM is a Company Limited by Guarantee therefore any changes necessarily
must follow due process as per the company code and the Laws of Ghana.
 |
| Jerry John, did you robbed state assets for your wife? |
2.
We therefore caution any person or entity who has transacted any business on
behalf of Caridem Development Company and 31st DWM with Dr Mrs Nana
Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, that they have done so at their own risk.
3:
We are therefore demanding, based on the above for the Audited Accounts of the
31st December Women's Movement and Caridem Development Company Ltd
from 1999 to date, including all bank account statements and the Asset Register
to date from Dr Mrs Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings, holding herself out as
president of the 31st December Women's Movement.
4.
We have resolved to call on the Regional membership to work in preparation
towards the National Congress.
5.
We shall give appropriate notice as per the provisions of our constitution.
Statement
read by madam Aba Edusah, Central Regional Organizer for 31st
December Women’s Movement on behalf of the Members during a press conference in
Accra on Wednesday, 21st June, 2017.
Editorial
CHINESE LOANS AND
GRANTS
The
National Democratic Congress (NDC) is justifiably angry over the news that the
Akufo-Addo administration has sought and obtained loans and grants of up to
US$21 billion from China.
This
is because whiles in opposition, Nana Akufo-Addo and his New Patriotic Party
(NPP) accused the then government of borrowing too much and claimed that taking
loans to solve national problems was a lazy man’s option.
In
our view, even though the outrage of the NDC can be understood, it is time to
place emphasis on the national interest.
As
a fact given the conditions in which Ghana finds itself, it will have to borrow
as President Mahama’s administration did to finance important projects.
China
happens to be in a much better position than most western countries to give us
the loans and grants we need.
What
is important is not that we are taking loans but whether the loans will be used
for viable projects which can repay them.
We
salute China for its continued assistance to developing countries especially in
Africa and we wish the Akufo-Addo government well.
Local News:
EPA extends waste
segregation to basic schools
By
Kodjo Adams
The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in collaboration with Zoomlion and
Jekora Ventures, has extended its waste segregation programme to first and
second cycle schools in the Osu-Klottey Sub-Metro in Accra.
The
programme brought together heads of selected Primary and Junior High Schools
within the sub-Metro and stakeholders in the sector to create awareness about
the programme.
The
programme, launched in 2003, is to encourage separation of waste at source,
promote clean environments and reduce diseases on the citizenry.
Under
the programme, three waste bins labelled paper, plastic, food are given to each
institution within the ministries and the selected tertiary and senior high
schools in Accra.
The
first and second cycle schools are to make arrangements for the emptying of
their bins per institutions within the sub-Metro with monthly monitoring by
Jekora Ventures and Zoomlion for recycling.
Mr
Dodson Cudjoe Voado, the Chief Project Officer at Build Equipment, EPA, said
implementation of the programme had started with institutions in the Ministries
where 60 identified participating institutions have been given the sets of
240-litre and 30 litre capacity waste bins.
Mr
Voado said source waste segregation was an efficient and environmentally
sustainable way of managing waste and it would also help reduce the amount of
waste in the basic schools.
He
said successful implementation of the programme would increase public
awareness, increase volumes of waste diverted through reuse and recycling and
recovery of materials from waste would increase.
Mr
Voado said it was estimated that waste generation per day in most urban centres
in the country was about 2,800 to 3,200 metric tonnes, out of that about 60 to
70 per cent was collected and disposed of at approved dump sites and landfill
sites while the rest of the waste end up in unapproved location causing
environmental issues.
He
called for effective ways of managing the huge volumes of solid waste to avert
any health implications in the country.
Mr
Samuel Nortey Quaye, the Project Officer in charge of Education, EPA, said
improper waste had negative impacts on the environment such as ground water
contamination, aesthetic and odour nuisance and on public health.
He
called for collaborative efforts and attitudinal change to address
environmental challenges confronting the country.
Ms
Akua Akyaa Nkrumah, the Innovation Manager at Jekora Ventures, said their
outfit had reached 24, 000 households in the collection and recycling of the
waste generated under the programme.
The
heads of the beneficiary schools commended organisers for the initiative and
affirmed their resolute support to create the needed awareness in their
respective schools to reduce and manage waste.
Foreign News:
Comrades from Marea Socialista: Who is the enemy?
By BP
 |
| Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro |
By Jorge Martin
Marea
Socialista states that the main problem facing Venezuela is the authoritarian
shift of the Maduro government. Starting from a wrong premise they reach
conclusions which are completely mistaken and put them on the wrong side of the
barricade. Let’s see.
[This
article was published by Lucha de Clases, the International Marxist Tendency in
Venezuela, on May 24, as a response to the political position of Marea
Socialista (Socialist Tide)—an organisation which was part of the PSUV until
recently—regarding the current crisis in Venezuela]
What is
happening in Venezuela is clear: a sustained and concerted effort to overthrow
the Maduro government by force in order to install a direct government of the
oligarchy (capitalists, bankers, and landowners) under imperialist tutelage. If
such a government were to come to power (whether through elections or an insurrection),
that would be an unmitigated disaster for the working class and the people and
their organisations. Such a government would implement a brutal austerity
package as well as carry out an assault on democratic freedoms and a violent
campaign against the workers’ and peoples’ movement activists.
In this
context it is clear what revolutionaries (and more broadly, democrats) must do:
denounce and oppose by all means this counter-revolutionary offensive.
As well as
this, it is legitimate and necessary to criticise, in the strongest possible
terms, the policy of the Maduro government, which is insufficient and even
counterproductive in facing up to this offensive (making concessions to the
capitalists on the economic front, and suffocating the revolutionary initiative
of the masses on the political front).
We don’t
necessarily have to agree on the latter in order to struggle in a united front
for the former.
However,
the position of the comrades from Marea Socialista starts from a wrong analysis
and therefore proceeds to draw wrong conclusions which put them in the camp of
the counter-revolution.
Marea Socialista states that the central point of the
situation in Venezuela is “the deepening of the totalitarian course of the
government”. From this they draw the conclusion that in 2017 “the priority,
from our point of view, is to confront the totalitarian course which the
government is following” through “the widest unity in action” (from which they
do not exclude anyone, and therefore we assume it also includes the opposition)
for which “all sorts of actions should be developed: local, national, and
international”.
Nowhere in
their statement there is any criticism of the attempted coup by the opposition
Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD). They are only criticised for their “erratic,
vacillating, and powerless policy” and the statements seems to lament that “it
becomes very difficult to understand how experienced politicians, backed by
powerful international and local operators, with the cooperation of an
important section of the anti-Chavista intellectuals, have, in less than a
year, wasted such an overwhelming electoral victory”. Finally, the Marea
Socialista statement criticises reaction, not for wanting to overthrow the
government and install one of brutal austerity against the workers, but rather,
because “a section of this leadership is prepared to make a deal with the
government in order to improve its position in the sharing out of the national
income”.
All the
quotes above come from the Marea
Socialista statement on March 27. It could be said that at that time the current
offensive of the counter-revolution had not yet started (it was unleashed with
the excuse of the Supreme Court rulings on the last week in March). But a later
statement by Marea Socialista about the convening of the Constituent Assembly
is not better, but worse, and follows exactly the
same political line.
Again, in
this statement they do not say a word about the offensive of the counter-revolution
and imperialism, but limit themselves to criticising some actions “of foco-ist
[vanguardist] groups, or possible trained sharpshooters, which act under the
cover of the MUD leadership”, but at the same time they centre their argument
on “without any doubt we defend the right of self-defence exercised by the
demonstrators when the state violates the exercise of citizens’ rights”.
Falsifying
the truth, they state that “the majority of those killed, unarmed youth and
women, have been killed as part of demonstrations which were exercising the
legitimate right to protest”. Furthermore they point at the state as the main
culprit for violence: “This constant violation is the main feature of
authoritarian regimes which move to totalitarianism, and is one of the main
factors which whips up violence”.
But perhaps
the most scandalous case is that of the Mérida
Marea Socialista statement regarding those who were killed on April 24 in this Andean
city. What happened there was that sharpshooters from within the ranks of the
opposition protesters killed two people who were part of a Bolivarian rally
against the opposition. One of them was a regional government worker, the other
a crime investigator, who was also employed by the (Chavista) regional
government. The Mérida Marea Socialista statement about these events does not
even mention “foco-ist groups” nor “possible trained sharpshooters . . . under
the cover of the MUD leadership”. No, the statement blames the events on . . .
the governor of Mérida!
Scandalously,
the statement describes the reactionary opposition protests as “the
intervention of the Mérida people to raise their voice against the national
policies, and in order to sort out in practice the repression of participatory
and protagonistic democracy which is viciously been violated by the higher body
[the national electoral council]”.
The
incident in which workers of the regional government were shot at is described
as “a violent delay [sic] which by chance resulted in one person dead and four
wounded by gunfire, all of them workers of the regional government, according
to the governor”. BY CHANCE!! Opposition sharpshooters fire on a group of
workers, but they are killed BY CHANCE!
The
statement then proceeds to accuse those killed of being paramilitaries, in
order to justify their assassination: “the citizens must ask themselves if the
Mérida State Governorship has changed its address to the aforementioned area,
or this group of five belong to the terrorists or the killer collectives which
have been threatening people throughout Mérida with their motorbikes, armed
with weapons, and there is no moral authority to sanction these paramilitary
activities, or perhaps these armed gangs belong to the government?”
Just in
case, to cover themselves, they finally blame the governor: “If these state
workers were in this high risk area, it has to be highlighted . . . under which
interests were they in this high risk area”. So, those responsible for the
killings were not the opposition sharpshooters who fired the bullets who killed
the workers, but the regional government workers for being in the line of fire
(!!), or the governor, for putting them in that “high risk” place.
At this
point one doubts if Marea Socialista members should be addressed as comrades
any more. In reality they have put themselves on the wrong side of the
barricade.
Those who
know the opinions of the author of this article are aware of the fact that I am
a fierce critic of the policies of the [Venezuelan] government. Not just now,
but for a long time—precisely because I think that the policies of the
government, instead of pushing the revolution forward towards socialism, set it
back. In many of these criticisms it is possible that we agree with Marea
Socialista. But it is one thing to criticise the government and its policies;
it is quite another to ignore that there is a counter-revolutionary offensive
with the aim of overthrowing it and replacing it with a government which, far
from improving the situation, would make it a thousand times worse, from the
point of view of the working class and the people. In this battle we are not
neutral. We cannot be neutral.
It would be
like if in Spain in March 1936 one would argue that it does not make a
difference, that we support neither the government of the Republic, which
represses workers, nor the fascists who conspire to carry out a coup. Worse still,
it would like if in Spain 1936 we said nothing about the preparations of the
ruling class to carry out a coup, and at the same time concentrated our fire
against the government of the Republic.
Leon
Trotsky, whose writings we are convinced some in Marea Socialista must have
read, was a fierce critic of the Spanish Popular Front government in 1936,
during the Second Republic. He criticised it for maintaining bourgeois property
of the land and the economy, for stopping the revolutionary initiative of the
workers, for attempting to conciliate with the bourgeoisie, for its class
collaborationist policy, etc. But Trotsky did not have a neutral attitude
regarding the reactionary assault and the military fascist uprising which
followed it. In his statement to the Dewey Commission, which investigated the
Moscow Trials, Trotsky was specifically asked about this question. This was his
answer:
With whom
would you side at the present time in Spain?
TROTSKY: I gave the answer in many
interviews and articles. Every Trotskyite in Spain must be a good soldier, on
the side of the Left. Naturally, it is so elementary a question – you know it
is not worth discussing. A leader or any other member in the Government of
Caballero is a traitor. A leader of the working class cannot enter the
bourgeois government. We did not enter the Government of Kerensky in Russia.
While we defended Kerensky against Kornilov, we did not enter his Government.
As I declared that I am ready to enter into an alliance with Stalin against the
fascists, or an alliance with Jouhaux against the French fascists. It
is an elementary question.
In his
response, Trotsky mentions the Kornilov offensive in Russia during the 1917
revolution. Trotsky, like Lenin, opposed the Kerensky government, which was a
class collaborationist government, backed by the reformists within the labour
movement. It was a government unable to satisfy the demands of the masses who
had carried out the February Revolution. In fact, the policy of the government
was precisely the opposite: it continued with the imperialist war, it refused
to give the land to the peasants, etc. But when General Kornilov, in August
1917, attempted to overthrow that government, with the aim of restoring the old
regime, a direct dictatorship of the ruling class, the Bolsheviks did not
hesitate, nor did they take a neutral position. Without giving any political
support to Kerensky, without ceasing their opposition to his policies, they put
themselves in a united front with Kerensky against Kornilov. “We shall fight,
we are fighting against Kornilov, just as Kerensky’s troops do, but we do not
support Kerensky. On the contrary, we expose his weakness. There is the
difference. It is rather a subtle difference, but it is highly essential and
must not be forgotten.”
Unfortunately,
the comrades from Marea Socialista seem to have learnt nothing from Lenin or
Trotsky. Perhaps they think that there is no difference between a government of
Maduro and a government of the MUD. Or worse, perhaps they think that the main
enemy to fight is Maduro’s government. In fact, they are letting themselves be
influenced by the pressure of petty bourgeois public opinion, and that pushes
them into a position in which objectively they are on the wrong side of the
barricade. If the MUD comes to power, it is likely that the repression it will
unleash will not distinguish between Chavistas and “critical Chavistas” (as
they, wrongly, describe themselves).
Those who
support Marea Socialista abroad and publish their statements without any
comment, are also responsible for this criminal political line.
Two-State Solution is 'the Only Way to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'
Israeli
authorities have advanced plans for the construction of 1,500 housing units in
the West Bank, including units for the first new official settlement in 25
years. Radio Sputnik discussed the issue with Anat Ben Nun, director of
development and external relations at liberal Israeli non-governmental
organization (NGO) Peace Now.
Israeli
authorities did not respond to Peace Now’s requests to comment
on the plans.
When
asked about the impact the planned construction of additional housing
units on the occupied Palestinian lands could have on the stuttering
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Anat Ben Nun said that it means that the
Israeli government “has no goodwill or intention to arrive at a
negotiated two-state solution.”
“That’s
why I expect this to negatively affect the peace process.”
The
move came shortly after US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel.
Anat Ben Nun said that the new US administration’s stance on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unclear.
“Even
though [the US has endorsed the construction of more Jewish settlements],
many of those in Israel who celebrated his election now see that they
are not getting what they hoped for,” he said.
Since
most countries see the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands in the
West bank as illegal, Anat Ben Nun said he expected a great deal
of international condemnation of the Israeli decision to build
more housing there.
Amnesty
International has called for an international ban on the import
of goods produced at illegal Jewish settlements.
Speaking
about the likelihood of some kind of sanctions to be
imposed on Israel, Anat Ben Nun said that even though he doesn’t think
that sanctions are easy to implement, he still believes that some external
pressure is necessary.
“The
EU already has a policy of differentiating between goods
from Israel proper and from [Jewish] settlements. And we would
like more implementation of that.”
When
asked about the future of the Israeli settlement construction and the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Anat Ben Nun said that if this settlement
construction on occupied Arab lands continues, it would put the future
of a “viable Palestinian state” along the Israeli border on the
line.
“That
said, the situation on the ground still allows for the creation
of a two-state solution physically to happen. We will advocate a
two-state solution,” he continued.
He
said that even though any final solution to the problem can hardly be
expected now, the continued construction of Jewish settlements in the
West Bank would prevent such a solution in the future.
“The
two-state solution is the only way to reach an end to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Anat Ben Nun emphasized.
Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier pledged to build a new
settlement for around 40 families of a wildcat Jewish outpost
in the West Bank.
This
settlement known as Amona was evacuated under court order
in February. Promotion of the new settlement comes as Israelis
and Palestinians marked the 50th anniversary of the Six Day War, when
Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
On
December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council voted 14-0, with the United
States abstaining, to pass a resolution calling on Israel
to immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the
areas.
However,
in January, Israeli authorities approved the construction of thousands
of new housing units in the occupied West Bank despite the
resolution.
The Assassination of
Senator Robert F. Kennedy: Questions, Hints and Allegations
 |
| Robert Kennedy |
By Edward Curtin
If
you were going to arrange a political assassination in an indoor crowded
setting, would you plan to have one of your operatives (not the assassin) at
the murder site be a strikingly curvaceous young woman in a conspicuous white
dress with black polka-dots, and then have her flee the scene, yelling, “We’ve
shot him, we’ve shot him,” so that multiple witnesses would see and hear her as
she made her escape?
Would
you have the same woman earlier in the day pick up a salesman in the hotel
where the assassination was planned, spend the day with him driving around and
having dinner together, while repeatedly inviting (i.e. luring) him to join her
later that night at a big public event where they will shoot their famous
victim, whom she names?
Would
you have your operative tell this man that, although she wasn’t staying at the
hotel, and although she had been in town only three days, having flown from NYC
where she had arrived from overseas, that she knew the hotel stair routes very
well, including an unobtrusive one that she shows the man?
Would
you have this woman tell this man that a few days earlier she had met with a
very famous political operative (whom she names), diametrically opposed to your
victim’s political philosophy and that she would need to flee the country after
the assassination and would like the man’s help?
Would
you have your operative in the tight dress so conspicuously lay down a trail of
breadcrumbs from morning until night, until she made her escape, never to be
found despite having been seen by more than a dozen credible witnesses at the
shooting site?
I
think you would agree that you would have to be extremely stupid to plan an
assassination in this manner, except if you were extremely devious, and the
voluptuous stand-out girl was part of your intricate plot to create a false
lead to someone other than the assassins.
This
is exactly what happened when Senator Robert Kennedy, the presumptive
Democratic nominee for president, was shot shortly after midnight on June 5,
1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, after celebrating his victory in
the California Democratic Primary. The woman in question came to be known as
“the girl in the polka-dot dress,” but unlike the ways we associate girls with
innocence, this woman was a key player in hideous evil.
While
many people are aware that President John Kennedy was killed five
years earlier in a conspiracy organized by U.S. intelligence operatives and
that Lee Harvey Oswald was the “patsy” that he said he was, far fewer
realize that Robert Kennedy was also killed as a result of a conspiracy and
that the convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan did not kill RFK. In fact,
not one bullet from his gun struck the senator. Sirhan was standing in front of
Kennedy when, as the autopsy definitively showed, RFK was shot from the rear at
point blank range, three bullets entering his body, with the fatal head-shot
coming upward at a 45 degree angle from 1-3 inches behind his right ear.In
addition, an audio recording shows that many
more bullets than the eight in Sirhan’s gun were fired in the hotel pantry that
night. It was impossible for Sirhan to have killed RFK.
While
Sirhan still sits in prison to this day, the real killers of Senator Kennedy
went free that night. For anyone who studies the case with an impartial eye
(see this, this,this, this, and this), the evidence is
overwhelming that there was a very sophisticated conspiracy at work, one that
continued long after as police, FBI, intelligence agencies, and the legal
system covered up the true nature of the crime. That Sirhan was
hypnotized to play his part as seeming assassin is also abundantly clear.
But
it is not my intention here to detail all the facts of the case that still
scream out for justice, as do the linked assassinations of JFK and MLK.
In fact, referring to the Kennedy assassination is a misnomer; we should speak
of the Kennedy assassinations, since JFK wasn’t the only one.
I
would like to focus on the so-called “girl in the polka-dot dress,” and ask you
to think along with me as we explore why she was so conspicuous that day and
night, and what function she may have served. I know you will agree that
it is counterintuitive for her to have behaved the way she did.
Counterintuitive for the general public, that is.
The
best detailed day-to-day account of this mysterious girl is in the book linked
to above by Fernando Faura, The Polka-Dot File: on the Robert F.
Kennedy Killing (see my review here). Faura writes,
“Seconds
after the shooting stopped, a young woman in a polka-dot dress ran out of the
kitchen, past Sandra Serrano [see video], a Kennedy campaign worker.
The woman shouted, ‘We shot him, we shot him.’ Asked who they shot, the woman
replied, ‘Kennedy,’ and ran into the morning darkness, never to be found.”
Although
Serrano was interviewed by Sandy Vanocur of NBC News on live TV at
1:30 AM shortly after the shooting, she – as well as other eyewitnesses to this
girl – was browbeaten by the police to retract her story, yet she never did.
The police shut down its pursuit of this girl, despite all the witnesses. The
LAPD officer in charge of the investigation, Lt. Manny Pena, was CIA
connected, having worked for U.S. AID and been recently brought back to control
the investigation. So too was the brutal interrogator, Sgt. Hank
Hernandez, CIA affiliated.
It
is obvious that this girl was part of a conspiracy to kill Robert Kennedy and
that it is equally obvious that she was meant to stand out, be seen, and to be
heard shouting what she did. Why?
Logically
it follows that she was meant to create false leads, and generate mystery when
there was none. Writing of the JFK assassination, Vince Salandria, the
eminent and early critic of the government’s false conspiracy story, has
recently said something quite appropriate to the RFK case and this girl:
“The
Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators
to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The
purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and
plainly a coup d’état….President Kennedy was assassinated by our
national-security state…”
While
far fewer people have yet to question the false narrative in the RFK case, when
or if they do they will find that the polka-dot girl’s actions and her
disappearance could keep them guessing for a long time, and that that guessing
will lead away from the obvious and essential truth.
The
investigative journalist Robert Parry has written about
how Richard Nixon sabotaged a possible peace accord in Vietnam in the
summer/fall of 1968. This he did through an intermediary, right-wing Republican
Chinese émigré Anna Chennault, wife of General Claire Chennault,
legendary founder of the Flying Tigers. Parry explains,
“Nixon’s
gambit was to have Chennault pass on word to South Vietnamese President
Thieu that if he boycotted Johnson’s Paris peace talks – thus derailing
the negotiations – Nixon would assure Thieu continued U.S. military support for
the war.”
This
treachery has been confirmed. Having stumbled on Parry’s work in 2014, the
reporter Fernando Faura was startled to find himself connecting the
girl in the polka-dot dress to Anna Chennault and to Nixon. This was because he
remembered that the man, John Fahey, who had spent all day with the girl
on June 4, 1968 and dropped her off in the evening at the Ambassador Hotel, had
told him that the political operative she had met with three days before the
assassination was Anna Chennault. Faura speculates that perhaps Nixon was
therefore connected to RFK’s assassination because he feared that, if Robert
Kennedy were to become the Democratic presidential nominee, he would push to
end the Vietnam War and would be more likely that anyone else to defeat him in
the general election. He speculates that the “peace talks” conspiracy might
have been the origin of the Kennedy killing; that the two conspiracies were
connected.
But
at the same time Faura writes,
“Why
is the CIA’s shadow all over this?”
And
since the CIA’s shadow is all over the RFK assassination, we are left to ask if
Nixon and the CIA were operating on the same page. Or was it the reverse, that
Nixon and the CIA were at odds? Did the CIA remove Nixon from office with Watergate?
Could the girl have been used to create a false lead to Nixon? Or was it
something else again? Was it simply fortuitous that Sirhan’s Palestinian
Arabic origins were emphasized and that his lawyers, who in no way defended
him, suggested that he was mad at RFK for supporting the sending of planes to
Israel and the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel? What were Kennedy’s
positions vis-à- vis Israel? Who was the girl? What country had she come from
when she arrived in NYC three days before?
Many
questions leading hither and yon originate with this girl. And it is obvious
that she was meant to do that: to muddy the waters and keep people guessing
once they came to realize that Sirhan obviously did not kill RFK. And she
“disappeared” as quickly as she “appeared.” And the authorities shut down
their investigation and pursuit of her. They denied her existence against
all the evidence. Meant to stand out, she was also meant to go out,
leaving a trail of questions.
Former Congressman
Allard Lowenstein, who was investigating Robert Kennedy’s killing and was also
strangely murdered, put it well:
Robert
Kennedy’s death, like the President’s, was mourned as an extension of senseless
violence; events moved on, and the profound alterations that these deaths…brought
in the equation of power in America was perceived as random…. What is odd is
not that some people thought it was all random, but that so many intelligent
people refused to believe that it might be anything else. Nothing can measure
more graphically how limited was the general under- standing of what is
possible in America.
While
such pseudo-innocence prevailed then and is still very widespread, perhaps no
one epitomized the twisted mind games played by intelligence agencies more
than James Jesus Angleton, the notorious CIA Counterintelligence Chief for
so many years, in whose safe were found gruesome photos of Robert Kennedy’s
autopsy. Why, one may ask, were those photos there, since Angleton allegedly
had no connection to the RFK killing and since Sirhan was said to be the
assassin? Was Angleton’s work as CIA liaison with Israeli any way connected?
As
I wrote earlier, if one objectively studies the assassination of Senator
Kennedy, one cannot but conclude there was a government conspiracy and that
Sirhan is not guilty. That much is not particularly complicated, although many
people not familiar with the facts of the case may think otherwise.
The
mystery girl is another matter. Everything about her has served to hypnotize,
first Sirhan, and then those seeking to get to the deeper forces behind this
American tragedy.
Robert
Kennedy, like his brother John, was a great danger to those virulent forces of
war and oppression within his own government, and he died opposing them as a
true patriot.
We
should honor him on this day – June 6th – that he died; honor him by
pursuing the truth of why he died and why it still matters. Because it does.
Featured
image: history.com
The
original source of this article is Global Research
No comments:
Post a Comment