Was Ronald Reagan part of the paedophile ring?

All of this stuff thats coming out about Margaret Thatcher covering up and allowing the child abuse to continue by her MPs, and also her very friendly relationship with Saville, got me thinking about the "Special Relationship" with Ronald Reagan.
Apparently according to reports he even used to swap table places to sit next to her.

www.express.co.uk...

So I did a bit more digging an then found out about his adopted son, and guess what, in his memoirs he revealed abuse at the hand of Counsellors.

www.pbs.org...

I am not saying this is conclusive evidence at all, but it kind of smells bad enough to warrant looking into further.

a reply to: tastyrawmeat

I didn't particularly like Regan's politics. But I did respect the man.

IMO, I think that is not something Regan would have ever contemplated doing or taking part in. But who knows these days, what the elites did back then?

In any case, I don't think these investigations will serve any real purpose if all they do is go back and try to smear the names of high profile people from then. They are better off proving the links to living, breathing people in power and then the historians can work on the history..

~Tenth

Not to mention Reagan's VP George Bush, is a prominent figure in the Franklin Scandal..

Americas most notorious, high profile child sex ring cover up.

S & F

I think people are jumping to a lot of conclusions over this peadophile stuff here in the UK.

Whilst it seems very likely indeed that Thatcher was complicit in at least some of the cover-up, it's a hell of a stretch to link Regan to it on the basis he had a close relationship with Thatcher- regardless of whether his adopted son was abused by a third party.

The cover-up of abuse is an absolute disgrace, but it's very obvious why it was allowed to happen - there were people involved from all political parties, bodies like the security servics and police. Anyone breaking ranks was simply invoking mutually assured destruction.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

It should never be about smearing the name of anyone, it should be about justice for the victims, for them to be able to tell what truthfully happened to them and subsequently covered up.

Just because we may have held certain people in high regard, if they were involved in instances of abhorrent abuse of children, then the truth needs to be out there.

That's not suggesting Regan was involved in anything so sordid and sickening, but should we turn a blind eye if he was? Should we forget the truth in order to preserve the legacy and remove any form of guilt for previously liking someone so vile?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

That's not suggesting Regan was involved in anything so sordid and sickening, but should we turn a blind eye if he was? Should we forget the truth in order to preserve the legacy and remove any form of guilt for previously liking someone so vile?

That's not what I'm suggesting. Just that they focus on people we can actually put in jail, today.

Of course, I'd want it to be known, I'd want people prosecuted and then some honestly. I just worry that by focusing on what amounts to dead political royalty, only takes away from the seriousness of the conversation.

A lot of people put Regan right there with Jesus and they will turn a blind eye to any and all 'bad things' that he may or may not have done. It just compounds the problem of getting the information out in the open.

That's really what I was getting at.

~Tenth

I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist and i do tend to believe Cathy Obrien and Brice Taylor on these subjects one or both of them were said to be molested by people like kissenger, bush sr, bob hope, and i think reagan gets mentioned in their stories too. i think there's something to it. I somewhat believe brice taylor that bush jr is a victim of mind control abuse as well and that's why he comes off as being pretty stupid.

Bush Jr comes across as stupid as it suits him to do so. He's not stupid in the slightest. We have a politican in the UK called Boris Johnson (the Mayor of London, actually) who does a similar act, albeit with buffoonishness rather than stupidity.

I think if everything in the world was entirely transparent, you'd find that sexual abuse was fairly commonplace in politics worldwide throughout all of history. The vast majority of sexual abusers get off on the power aspect of it, so any job type that attracts those with an interest in power will probably be rife.

That's just my thoughts on it, of course.

Was Ronald Reagan part of the paedophile ring?

No.
That was easy.
Any more questions?

Well he was pretty much guilty of treason .
Him and his cronies should have died behind bars for the Iran-contra affair

At the end of the day I would not be surprised he was involved in this.

If you can be involved in one massive crime then its not beyond reason you could be involved in a second one too.

Do you have any evidence to support your answer?

It would tidy up the thread and we can all move along to something else then.

a reply to: tastyrawmeat

Two words:

Bohemian Grove.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

whats that?

originally posted by: tastyrawmeat
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

whats that?

A really really #ed up place the mega rich and powerful go to for laughs.

DP

originally posted by: crazyewok
Well he was pretty much guilty of treason .
Him and his cronies should have died behind bars for the Iran-contra affair

At the end of the day I would not be surprised he was involved in this.

If you can be involved in one massive crime then its not beyond reason you could be involved in a second one too.

Since he didn't do anything that violated the actual definition of treason, no he was not "pretty much guilty" of it. Laws were broken, either by him or in his name, but the act of treason wasn't one of them.

And really, saying that since somebody is willing to break one kind of law, then they're probably willing to break an entirely different kind of law is silly.

There are plenty of murderers in prison who wouldn't bat an eyelash at killing somebody, to include a chomo because they find the crime reprehensible.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: crazyewok
Well he was pretty much guilty of treason .
Him and his cronies should have died behind bars for the Iran-contra affair

At the end of the day I would not be surprised he was involved in this.

If you can be involved in one massive crime then its not beyond reason you could be involved in a second one too.

Since he didn't do anything that violated the actual definition of treason, no he was not "pretty much guilty" of it. Laws were broken, either by him or in his name, but the act of treason wasn't one of them.

And really, saying that since somebody is willing to break one kind of law, then they're probably willing to break an entirely different kind of law is silly.

There are plenty of murderers in prison who wouldn't bat an eyelash at killing somebody, to include a chomo because they find the crime reprehensible.

No but it does mean he loses credibility.


And bypassing congress to give "comfort and aid to the enemy" last time I checked was treason.

Iran was the USA enemy. Regan allowed the supply of weapons to Iran. That fulfills the definition of providing aid to the enemy.

originally posted by: KingIcarus
Bush Jr comes across as stupid as it suits him to do so. He's not stupid in the slightest. We have a politican in the UK called Boris Johnson (the Mayor of London, actually) who does a similar act, albeit with buffoonishness rather than stupidity.

I think if everything in the world was entirely transparent, you'd find that sexual abuse was fairly commonplace in politics worldwide throughout all of history. The vast majority of sexual abusers get off on the power aspect of it, so any job type that attracts those with an interest in power will probably be rife.

That's just my thoughts on it, of course.

What makes you think Bushie is intelligent? Name something he has ever done for the American People who he was supposed to be working for. I think he is a disgrace to humanity, along with that "B" Actor Reagan who destroyed our infrastructure putting the tax burden on the working class which is so evident today.

a reply to: tastyrawmeat

Its a place in the redwood forest where the world aristocrats and world politicians/leaders go to burn efigies to ancient Canaanite gods, engage in (at the least) boarderline homosexual acitvities, and have a good time with their rivals.

Ronald Reagen went there, along with most of America's Presidents and our Soviet enemies at the time.

Oh yeah, and women are not allowed. In a recorded conversation, Richard Nixon called it (and I quote), "...the faggotiest place you could ever be...".

Its a little wierd to say the least.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: crazyewok
Well he was pretty much guilty of treason .
Him and his cronies should have died behind bars for the Iran-contra affair

At the end of the day I would not be surprised he was involved in this.

If you can be involved in one massive crime then its not beyond reason you could be involved in a second one too.

Since he didn't do anything that violated the actual definition of treason, no he was not "pretty much guilty" of it. Laws were broken, either by him or in his name, but the act of treason wasn't one of them.

And really, saying that since somebody is willing to break one kind of law, then they're probably willing to break an entirely different kind of law is silly.

There are plenty of murderers in prison who wouldn't bat an eyelash at killing somebody, to include a chomo because they find the crime reprehensible.

No but it does mean he loses credibility.


And bypassing congress to give "comfort and aid to the enemy" last time I checked was treason.

Iran was the USA enemy. Regan allowed the supply of weapons to Iran. That fulfills the definition of providing aid to the enemy.

Ahhh but the arms were supposed to be going to what was put forth as a moderate faction within the government seeking to establish a relationship with the U.S.

That turned out not to be the case.

Hardly qualifies as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, except in hindsight.