Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Reagan’s Daughter Just Spoke Up About What Her Dad Would Say About Trump, Shocks All Of America

Published

on

The legendary former President Ronald Reagan might have a mixed opinion about what his daughter just said. Patti Davis is the daughter of Nancy and Ronald Reagan and often spends her time writing as she claims to be an author. One of the most recent things that she wrote was penned for (or simply published on) the Washington Post and it was somewhat shocking what she said. She talked about what her father, Ronald, would probably say about President Donald Trump. The question that remains is this – is she serious? Did she know her father well enough that she would think this is what he would say?

Let’s dive into her words and see what we can make of them because some people weren’t sure that they agreed with the daughter of one of the greatest Presidents we’ve ever had. Perhaps she didn’t think this through, or maybe she did. Either way, we have quoted her parts and provided some feedback after. It’s OK for you to agree or disagree and everyone’s opinion is welcome at the end. This is simply for discussion and debate, nothing more.

“He had a reverence and a love for America that burned in his eyes when he looked at the flag, that bled into his words when he spoke to the country. Selfishly, I used to feel slighted by that love. I referred sometimes to my “sibling rivalry” with America. My strident protests against some of my father’s policies definitely got his attention, which was what I intended — but they also wounded him, which was not my intention. In his last years of life, when Alzheimer’s disease had stolen many things but not love, I was able to sit with him and tell him my regrets. I miss my father in deeply personal ways. I also miss the dignity that he brought to the task of leading this country, the deep respect he had for our democracy, and now, after so much time has passed, I miss how much he loved America.”

Donald Trump has the same love for America.

Trending: Obama Says ‘Racist’ Trump Has ‘Mommy Issues’ – Learns Big Mistake Too Late

“People often ask me what he would say if he were here now. Sometimes I’m a bit glib in response, pointing out that he’d be 107 years old. Other times, I simply say he’d be pretty horrified at where we’ve come to. But as the June 5 anniversary of his death has drawn near, I’ve let myself imagine what he would say to the country he loved so much.”

Mr. Reagan would probably be very excited to see the economy booming, unemployment numbers low, record numbers in the stock market, and the possibility of peace between North and South Korea. It’s hard to say what any former President would dislike about those accomplishments.

“I think he would remind us that America began as a dream in the minds of men who dared to envision a land that was free of tyranny, with a government designed and structured so that no one branch of government could dominate the others. It was a bold and brave dream. But, he would caution, no government is infallible. Our democracy, because it is founded on the authority of “We the people,” puts the burden of vigilance on all American citizens.”

With the unemployment rate doing so well, the country is still a land of dreams. Anyone can be anything nowadays. Everyone has the same equal rights and men and women of all races and religions are starting businesses and living the dream they’ve always wanted. Poeple are living the dream every day.

“Countries can be splintered from within, he would say. It’s a sinister form of destruction that can happen gradually if people don’t realize that our Constitution will protect us only if the principles of that document are adhered to and defended. He would be appalled and heartbroken at a Congress that refuses to stand up to a president who not only seems ignorant of the Constitution but who also attempts at every turn to dismantle and mock our system of checks and balances.”

There are people trying to take away the rights at protests (March for our Lives). There are also people protesting for rights they already have (Women’s March). The modern day American wishes to keep all of their constitutional rights and wishes that men and women of all races and religions live a prosperous life. However, there are some people who persistently protest for things that they can already do, or rights they already have, or to even challenge the constitution and take rights away. They don’t make much sense and they cause the majority of any splintering that might happen. Mr. Reagan would be highly critical of those types of people.

“He would plead with Americans to recognize that the caustic, destructive language emanating from our current president is sullying the dream that America once was. And in a time of increased tensions in the world, playing verbal Russian roulette is not leadership, it’s madness. He would point to one of the pillars of our freedom — a free press — which sets us apart from dictatorships and countries ruled by despots. He didn’t always like the press — no president does — but the idea of relentlessly attacking the media as the enemy would never have occurred to him. And if someone else had done so, he wouldn’t have tolerated it.”

That’s probably doubtful. Ronald Reagan comes from an era where people had thick skin and strong spines. He lived in a day where comedians who were offensive were the best type. George Carlin, Richard Pryor, the list goes on. Mr. Reagan might agree that Trump sometimes doesn’t sound presidential because of his lack of political experience, but many believe that Reagan would tell people to get a grip if they’re only worried about the words and not the issues. The politically correct atmosphere is turning the strong into the weak and our nation needs to stop worrying about being politically correct.

“He would ask us to think about the Statue of Liberty and the light she holds for immigrants coming to America for a better life. Immigrants like his ancestors, who persevered despite prejudice and signs that read “No Irish or dogs allowed.” There is a difference between immigration laws and cruelty. He believed in laws; he hated cruelty.”

Since Ronald Reagan believed in laws, then he would withold the immigration laws which require immigrants to follow the laws. Perhaps Patti Davis doesn’t realize what she wrote, but there are immigration laws for a reason.

“Despite my father’s innate humility, he would ask the people of this country to reflect on his own words from his famous speech, “A Time for Choosing,” delivered in 1964: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

It’s always a time for choosing. The people voted and chose Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America.

Do you think Patti thought about what she said?

Do you agree with Patti with anything that she wrote?

Write your answers below and send this to a friend who loved Ronald Reagan.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


Trump About To Drop Presidential Hammer On Obama For Attempting To Overtake Investigation

Published

on

...

* By

More and more is coming out about Spygate. The Obama administration tried to take over the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign, according to The Hill’s John Solomon. He covered it last night on Hannity’s show and then wrote on it extensively at The Hill. Solomon claims that the FBI began spying on members of the Trump campaign to gather the intelligence that ultimately justified the collusion investigation, weeks or even months before the FBI had a formal predicate. If true, the whole thing was cooked up and premeditated. It was indeed a pre-planned coup and President Trump is about to drop the presidential hammer on all of them.

“That’s very important. The rules say you can’t use sources until you have a predicated investigation. The predication is July 31, 2016,” Solomon told Hannity. The investigative reporter said he had sources and documents backing up his claim that he would be making public in his report in The Hill on Friday and he did just that.

Solomon started off his well-researched piece with this:

“The bridge to the Russia investigation wasn’t erected in Moscow during the summer of the 2016 election.”

“It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, where foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders reveal. These contacts in spring 2016 — some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters — occurred well before FBI headquarters authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.”

“The new timeline makes one wonder: Did the FBI follow its rules governing informants?”

A very good question and of course the answer is a resounding “no.”

Solomon stressed that informants were making contacts with the Trump officials and providing information to the FBI “much, much earlier than July 31.” Then he drops the bombshell that according to the FBI, the White House and Obama wanted to take over the whole investigation. Here is where that led on Sean Hannity’s show last night:

John Solomon: I’m putting finishing touches on a column that I think will come out tomorrow. And it will reveal two really important things. The efforts to begin targeting and reaching out to Trump campaign officials to gain intelligence on Russia that would ultimately justify the investigation began weeks and maybe months before the FBI had a formal predicate. And that’s very important the rules say you can’t use sources until you have a predicated investigation. The investigation is July 31, 2016. My sources and documents that I will be able to make public tomorrow will show that there were contacts going on by people identified as informers, informants, people who provided information began much, much earlier than July 31st. That’s the first part. The second part is as the investigation was just starting to ramp up there are internal FBI documents showing FBI agents talking about the White House trying to take over the investigation. Fears that the Justice Department were going to leak for political reasons and their own personal fear.

Sean Hannity: Slow down. When you say the White House you mean the Obama White House- they were attempting to take over the investigation.

John Solomon: That’s what these messages say.

Sean Hannity: These are FBI messages and this is the Obama White House. How high up are we talking about here?

John Solomon: We don’t know the messages are just what they are.

Solomon covers in the second part of his report the internal FBI communications between former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, his mistress Lisa Page and others discussing how the Obama White House was trying to take over the investigation. “The words ‘the White House is running this’ are clear in the text message,” Solomon told Hannity, adding that “the FBI agents who opened this case feared that Barack Obama was weak on national security and wouldn’t do what they needed for Russia.” Wowzers. He went on to say, “The political elements of the administration were trying to intrude on the FBI investigation.”

Solomon’s report does not sync with what former Obama deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes wrote about the investigation in his new book “The World as It Is,” which is set to be published next week by Random House. Well, duh. Rhodes is lying. That’s what he is good at and has done from the beginning. In his book, Rhodes claims that Obama didn’t know there was an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible contacts with Russia until he left office. That’s just laughable. Rhodes said that “neither he nor Mr. Obama knew at that time that there was an F.B.I. investigation,” according to the New York Times, which obtained an advance copy of the book. Way to cover your collective backsides. No one believes that.

The failed novelist claims in the book that he learned about the FBI investigation from news reports after he left office. Gee, that is the same excuse Obama used multiple times during his presidency. Tell a lie often enough, these guys really think Americans are gullible and stupid. Rhodes is simply insulting our intelligence here. I wouldn’t buy his book to use as a doorstop.

No collusion between President Trump and Russia has ever been proven because it does not exist. The only ones gaining from this are Mueller and his team who are getting paid a ton to try and tie the President’s hands to keep him from doing his job. Taxpayers have wasted almost $17 million on the Russia probe since Mueller took over in 2017, according to a spending report just released by the DOJ. About $10 million was spent in the five months between October 2017 and March 2018 alone. That includes $4.5 million in hefty salaries for Mueller’s team of Trump-hating Democratic attorneys and another $5.5 million spent on random expenses.

Solomon’s report gives justification to President Trump to stop this nonsense.

Do you think Trump should swing the hammer down hard?

What is your opinion of this situation?

Write your answer below and share to a friend who is on the same page.

Continue Reading

Melania Unveils This Year’s White House Christmas Decorations That Libs Are SURE To Hate

Published

on

...

* By

Melania Trump’s first year in office was marked by immense criticism of our incredible first lady, who in the eyes of the Trump family’s numerous detractors, Melania could do nothing right, or at least as well as her predecessor, Michelle Obama. This included her full Christmas decor plan, which was stunning in silver and white, and a beautiful modern take on the same tired style that Michelle un-creatively came up with.

This year’s decorations will likely be no different, if not worse.

Last year, liberals claimed she decked the halls in depression and gloom, likening it to looking more like a haunted house than a holiday home. So, what will they say about this year’s new look?

Chicks On The Right reports:

FLOTUS doesn’t just slay on the fashion front. Her decorating skills are off the charts. (Yes, yes– I know she didn’t do this by herself, but if you really believe she didn’t have a say, you’re nuuuuuuuuuuuuts.)

ANYWHO. She finally unveiled this year’s White House Christmas decorations, and they’re GORGEOUS.

You have no idea how much I want to stroll through those halls of beautifully decorated trees. Oh well. I’ll have to settle for the aisles of Hobby Lobby.

It all looks great. I’m obsessed. TY, that is all.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend