From the Reagan Diaries - A Satire

Good ‘ol boy Ronnie Regan knows a slacker when he sees one

A moment I’ve been dreading. George brought his ne’er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.

Ronald Wilson Reagan
40th President of the
United States of America

I’m not very much into religion, nor much of a conspiracy theorist, but I’ve always found it fun and interesting that each of Reagan’s names have six letters in them:

Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6)

Therefore:

Ronald + Wilson + Reagan = 666

That’s a biblical thing, is it not..?

Daddy Reagan and Baby Bush

From the REAGAN DIARIES:
this entry is dated May 17, 1986.

Social Bookmarks: Discover, Share, Enjoy These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • bodytext
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • NewsVine
  • Netscape
  • StumbleUpon
  • Furl
  • BlogMemes
  • Fark

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to “From the Reagan Diaries - A Satire”

  1. Larry Says:

    Phony quote. Satire, actually:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp

    “but I’ve always found it interesting that each of Reagan’s names have six letters in them: Ronald (6) Wilson (6) Reagan (6). Therefore:
    Ronald + Wilson + Reagan = 666.
    That’s a biblical thing, is it not..?”

    No. There are two different interpretations of the bible. One claims that the mark of the beast is 666, the other interpetation is 616. In either case, the bible does NOT come to the conclusion of who is the beast by counting the number of letters in a persons name.

  2. AJ Says:

    Thanks for clearing it all up. Still, I can almost hear Ron Reagan saying those things. It’s not that far-fetched. Besides, even if he *did* say those things, I don’t think that they’d publish those words in a book. It would be viewed as bad for the party by the public relations spin doctors, and therefore it would be buried (as are most truths in politics).

    Regarding the biblical reference above: I just find it interesting. Not that I believe in any of those kinds of things. Besides, the only time I ever pay attention to 666 is when it is a winning hand when I play poker!

    If you’re interested enough, you can click on the image above and it’ll take you to the Amazon.com page where you can purchase the “Reagan Diaries”. The one sure way to find out what’s in the book, and what’s not.

    Thank you for writing in, Larry. Your participation is appreciated!

  3. trevor da Poker lover Says:

    Somehow when i read about the slacker in the story above and scrolled down to the picture, I immediately saw Reagan and well the startling resemblance in that picture to someone that — well someone who started a war ?

    As for the biblical reference to 666, we are all conjecturing about what that might really mean. Watch enough movies and suddenly we are all experts… but your guess is really as good as any other I have heard and actually better than most.

    Anyway that thing with the name well that is really quite curious…

    T

  4. AJ Says:

    Yes, the number reference is fun to play with. You know, after Reagan’s presidency ended, his super rich friends (whom he had made even richer while serving as President) had bought him a mansion in Bel Aire (a super-wealthy area in Beverly Hills, California).

    At that time, I had a friend who played a lot of tennis with a rich woman who lived across the street from the Reagan’s new house. He was filming a documentary on her tennis court and I was helping him with it. He pointed out to me that the address of Ronald Reagan’s new house was 666 _______ Avenue.

    The Reagan’s didn’t like this, so they had it changed to 667.

    You can run… but you can’t hide!

Leave a Reply