California Under Ronald Reagan
Part 2a 44:14 | Part 2b 44:43 | Part 2c 44:16 | Part 2d 44:18 | Part 2e 44:22 | Part 2f 41:25
(Recorded August 28, 1986)
When Ronald Reagan was Governor of California, the state was the focal point of a number of highly visible, influential and politically-connected murders and terrorist plots (real and alleged) associated with activism in the African-American community and/or anti-Vietnam war movement. This program sets forth and analyzes evidence linking much of this violence to infiltration and provocation by elements of law-enforcement and the intelligence community.
The broadcast begins with discussion of the Criminal Conspiracy Section of the Los Angeles Police Department, an intelligence unit of LAPD involved with political espionage, frequently conducted in conjunction with elements of the federal law enforcement and intelligence establishment (FBI and CIA in particular.) Targeting elements of the political left (the Black Panthers and related elements in particular), the unit was alleged by Louis Tackwood (one of its operatives) to have deliberately engaged in criminal activities, including murder. The unit operated outside of the city of Los Angeles and even outside of California. (By functioning outside of its municipal jurisdiction, the unit was operating illegally.)
One of Tackwood’s most startling revelations concerns the “Squad 19” or “San Diego” conspiracy. Tackwood’s disclosures outline a plan for the CCS (operating in concert with elements of the CIA and the Nixon White House) to stage a violent incident at the 1972 Republican Convention in San Diego. This incident, to be blamed on “left-wing militants,” was to be used as a pretext for suspending the ’72 elections and, in effect, instituting martial law. (Tackwood passed a polygraph examination and his allegations were substantiated by the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Newsweek.)
Next, the program discusses Operation Garden Plot, a late’60’s and early ‘70’s program which coordinated local police, FBI, and military intelligence activities against the political left, the anti-Vietnam war movement in particular. Supervised by then Reagan legal adviser Edwin Meese (later U.S. Attorney General under Reagan), the undertaking spawned the plans for martial law, which were developed by Oliver North’s National Security Council in the 1980’s. (AFA-23 directly anticipated the Rex 84 martial law contingency plans that were publicly revealed in July of 1987, nearly a year later.)
Much of the program deals with abundant evidence that the Symbianese Liberation Army were an “agents provateurs,” operating on behalf of elements of the federal government. This portion of the broadcast draws on the seminal research on the SLA by Mr. Emory’s dear friend and colleague the late Mae Brussell.
Program Highlights Include: evidence linking the CCS’s operations to a number of violent deaths in the Black Panther Party; Tackwood’s contention that the CCS was involved in the framing of Elmer “Geronimo” Pratt (a Black Panther Party member wrongly convicted of murder and later freed after decades of imprisonment); Tackwood’s contention that CCS was involved in the death of black activist George Jackson and that of his brother; Tackwood’s allegation that CCS was involved in framing black activist Angela Davis; evidence linking the Squad 19 conspiracy to Watergate; evidence suggesting that the operations originally scheduled for San Diego may have evolved into disturbances at the convention in Miami (the event was moved to that city); evidence that the various crimes of the SLA were aided and abetted by local police, as well as elements of the federal law enforcement establishment; evidence that the SLA’s operations served as a pretext for cracking down on political activism and restricting civil liberties; information indicating that the operations that took place in California under the Reagan gubernatorial administrations served as the foundation for similar machinations conducted at the federal level when Reagan became President.
The Future: Technology, Theocracy and the Thousand Year Reich
Great program. Too Relavant to the news of the day.
The disturbing manifesto of Christopher Dorner brought to mind the allegations of informant/whistleblower Louis Tackwood and the controversy around Mark Furhman during th OJ Simpson Trial.
http://ktla.com/2013/02/12/read-christopher-dorners-so-called-manifesto/#axzz2LqZbt6bX
Was Dorner’s rampage simply the act of a disgruntled ex-cop, or could this be a weird unfortunate addition to the intellegence connected California Violences like SLA and the Zodiac Killings?
Is it possible Dorner was subjected to mind control like Jack Ruby probably was? What was the psychological effect of the rampage on the civilian population, and on the authorities?
It’s not easy to find a particular picture that visually captures the strategic chaos that has come to define the Trump administration but Trump himself may have created the perfect photo-op to capture that spirit. It was a photo-op where Trump described the property damage from the protests as “acts of domestic terror” and declared himself a “president of law and order” while holding up a Bible outside of St. John’s Church next to the White House. A photo-op where he announced he would be deploying “thousands and thousands” of soldiers to Washington DC and would send the military into any city or state that “refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents” to quickly solve the problem. A photo-op that was immediately preceded by an aggressive clearing of protesters outside the White House with tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash grenades so Trump could walk across the street to the church and have that picture taken with a bible. A photo-op that enraged the bishop of the church who pointed out that Trump didn’t even bother saying a prayer or any unifying words but just showed up to have his picture taken. So while the actual photo of Trump was just standard political theatrics, the larger photo-op that created that photo — from “domestic terror” threats against protesters to the casually aggressive clearing of protesters to make way for Trump — really did capture the spirit of the Trump administration:
“The president made the announcement amid the back drop of tear gas and flash bangs on the other side of the White House in Lafayette Park. Shortly before the president spoke and declared himself an “ally of peaceful protesters,” demonstrators described as peaceful and journalists across from the White House were tear-gassed, clearing the area. After his statement, the president and his staff walked through a cleared-out Lafayette Park and took photos in front of St. John’s Church, which was set ablaze Sunday night.”
Keep in mind that it wasn’t just tear gas. It was tear gas, flash bang grenades, and rubber bullets fired directly into the crowd of demonstrators. And after clearing out these protesters with tear gas, flash bang grenades, and rubber bullets, Trump defined the property destruction taking place as some of these protests — frequently by unknown third-party actors — as “acts of domestic terror”. Viciously clearing out protesters in order to cross the street from a staged photo-op with a Bible where he can declare the protests part of a campaign of domestic terror:
So what do Trump’s fellow elected Republican officials say about this kind of use of force people who were peacefully protesting outside of the White House? Well, they appear to largely approve. In some cases overwhelmingly, with Senator Tom Cotton characterizing the protests as an “insurrection” that can only be stopped with an “overwhelming show of force.” But perhaps the most disturbing GOP response came from Senator Chuck Grassley, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who rationalized the use of force against the peaceful protestors as fine because they may not have remained peaceful and may have been plotting terror attacks. Yep, that’s literally what he said: “It’s all assumed to be peaceful until someone that’s got a terrorist activity or a rioting activity, you don’t know that until it happens. So I don’t know if they could have known that.”:
“Asked if the President should have gone to the church for a photo-op that led to tear gas and other measures to be used on the protesters, Cornyn criticized the media and others who are “never going to find any good or any positive development in anything. So you can characterize it the way you want, but obviously the President is free to go where he wants and to hold up a Bible if he wants,” calling it a “civil message.””
Why can’t the media stop picking on Trump for every last little thing he does, like clearing out protesters for a photo-op so he can deliver a civil message. It’s the president’s right to go where he wants when he wants to hold up a Bible if he wants. That’s how Senator Cornyn sees it. Senator Grassley, on the other hand, has a somewhat different take: this was necessary anti-terror measure to stop all the terrorists that were obviously in the crowd:
It sounds like the “civil message” that was actually get sent by this photo-op was a message to protesters that they are domestic terrorists who can expect more rubber bullets and flash grenades. It’s part of the “overwhelming display of force” required to end this “insurrection”, according to Senator Tom Cotton:
So since displays of overwhelming force is what Trump’s fellow senators are encouraging at this point, it’s worth taking a quick look back at what we know about Trump’s idea of an overwhelming display of force might look like: Tiananmen Square. Specifically, the Chinese government’s quelling of the Tiananmen Square protests. That was ‘the power of strength’ that had Trump gushing with approval three decades ago:
““When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength,” Trump replied. “That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak...as being spit on by the rest of the world.””
The power of strength exemplified by the Chinese government’s Tiananmen Square crackdown. It’s another one of those disturbing peeks into Trump’s brain. It’s also worth recalling that this Playboy interview where he made these comments about the power of strength was from 1990, the same year of the Vanity Fair article that pointed out that Trump’s first wife Ivana claimed he kept a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches in his nightstand. Just in case it wasn’t already clear that Trump is a really, really big fan of the power of strength. And pretty much only the power of strength. And golf. The power of strength and golf. That’s pretty much it. So as Trump made clear during that photo-op, protesters had better be prepared for more a lot more displays of “the power of strength”. Followed by more speeches that sound like they could have been written by Hitler portraying his political enemies as domestic terrorists.