If you’d like a sneak peak of the film on Sunday night, Faith TV will air In the Face of Evil twice, once at 8PM and again at 11PM EST.

And don’t forget to take part in our online poll on the greatest president of the 20th century.

Unlike some prominent politicians today (think Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, et al) who continually waffle on their beliefs to suit their purposes, their audience or the prevailing winds, Reagan has a consistency that spans the decades. Many of the truths in his speeches from the 50’s and 60’s held true throughout his presidency.

We created our documentary, In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed, to honor Reagan’s steadfast beliefs and consistency. And we wanted to be that rare breed of documentary that can actually document its claims.

In response to our film we’ve been attacked in the press and on our website continually by left-wing reactionaries calling us (and Reagan) “Satan,” “warmonger,” “bully,” saying we “should be ashamed of ourselves,” “Reagan laughed at people dying of AIDS and the always reliable “Iran/Contra!”, the precursor to today’s anti-Bush mantra, “Halliburton.” This usually shouted in a Tourette’s-like spasm whenever they’re overwhelmed by the facts or logic.

We’ve learned to have diminished expectations from the left. The years they spend cultivating righteousness and superiority in a vacuum makes for a fragile ego. Confronting an icon like Reagan completely shatters the myth the left likes to promote about themselves, namely that their policies work and Republicans are stupid. It throws them into fits of apoplectic rage.

How dare we have a hero who wasn’t nuanced! This calls for a summit!

So, like Reagan, we bear the insults, understanding that it comes with the territory.

But every once in a while, we’re forced to stand on principle and address what detractors say about us. Usually when it involves our accuracy, such as a recent article by John Meroney, “Night Unto Reagan.” http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-meroney022103.asp

The focus of Meroney’s article on Reagan’s Hollywood years, (in advance of a book due out soon) was that Reagan’s acting career was “far different from today’s conventional wisdom about his work.” Meaning that today, it’s in vogue to dismiss Reagan’s acting as laughable, much like the left dismisses his presidential and political career.

Meroney says of In the Face of Evil that “Reagan’s own supporters [us] have fallen victim to the storyline that depicts him [as an actor] as a disappointment.” He quotes a line from our film:

“In the unforgiving calculus of the studio system, Reagan was weighed, measured and found wanting. Leading man status would never come, and the brass ring of stardom would forever be beyond his grasp.”

While Reagan’s acting skills are certainly open to debate, it holds true that “the brass ring of stardom” eluded him.

In the late 30’s, Reagan was ranked along with Laurence Olivier as the one of the most recognizable and popular actors of his day, By 1942, following his two biggest roles in Knute Rockne and King’s Row, he was on the brink of superstardom.

The onset of World War II however, interrupted his plans. After a stateside stint in the First Motion Picture Unit of the Army Air Corps during the war, he was never able to capture that elusive aura again. His moment had come and gone without him being part of it.

Reagan himself knew he would never reach “leading man status,” recognizing that “I’m no Errol Flynn.” The roles he was offered after the war became less glamorous and more infrequent. His career fizzled just as it was about to take off, with him ultimately peddling soap on Saturday morning cowboy shows. This is hardly the stuff of movie legends.

To put it in more modern terms, while Bob Saget may be a household name, he will never be confused with Tom Cruise.

More puzzling to us is Meroney’s assertion that In the Face of Evil

“…erroneously claims that in 1947 Reagan ‘urged the House Committee on Un-American Activities [colloquially, though inaccurately known as HUAC] to abandon witch hunts and the naming of names.’”

Meroney says “Reagan resented the allegation of a ‘witch hunt’

But Reagan’s sworn testimony before HUAC disproves this.

In 1947, on the heels of a violent jurisdictional strike led by Communist Party thug Herb Sorrell, (whose bid to take over the Hollywood unions and control Hollywood filmmaking for communist propaganda ultimately failed) HUAC was convened to hold hearings to determine the extent of Communist influence in Hollywood.

As then President of the Screen Actor’s Guild, Reagan was called on to testify. When asked directly by Committee member Mr. Stripling about “what steps should be taken to rid the motion-picture industry of any Communist?” Reagan deferred to the system of democracy to root out and defeat any potential threat from communists, or anyone else, saying:

“I think within the bounds of our democratic rights, and never once stepping over the rights given us by democracy, we [SAG] have done a pretty good job in our business of keeping those people’s activities curtailed.” and that …”in opposing those people that the best thing to do is to make democracy work.”

Clearly, this is a man whose unshakeable belief in our system of democracy was much stronger than the revulsion he felt about the philosophy and the tactics of the communists.
Far from believing it necessary to expose and isolate individuals, he stressed the power of freedom and democracy to combat its foes, sayiing “as Thomas Jefferson put it, if all the American people know all of the facts they will never make a mistake.”

Meroney’s contention that Reagan regarded the “Communist Party as a criminal conspiracy” is spoken to specifically in his testimony.

Reagan unequivocally said that “We must recognize them at present as a political party.”

He insisted that

“…as a citizen I would hesitate, or not like, to see any political party outlawed on the basis of its political ideology. We have spent 170 years in this country on the basis that democracy is strong enough to stand up and fight against the inroads of any ideology…”

“I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest, but at the same time I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment. I still think democracy can do it.”

So much for a “criminal conspiracy.”

The reality is that we might just be the most documented documentary of all time. No less an expert than Edwin Meese, confidant to Reagan and his former Attorney General, calls In the Face of Evil “a very accurate depiction of the man whose courage, vision and strength of will, did nothing less than transform world history.”

Meese was there and knows first hand how events played out and can vet our information as true. So, say what you will about Reagan and his legacy, call our film propaganda, call us fanatics, Call us satanic. Just don’t say we’re inaccurate, because, as our movie shows, we let Reagan speak for himself.

It, like the Sundance Film Festival, (and many others) will present films that reinforce leftist worldviews and promote challenges to authority, as long as the authority is Republican. No expose’s on media bias, political indoctrination on college campuses, the devastating effects of “Great Society” giveaways or political correctness here.

Well, we just need to work that much harder. In the meantime, here are letters to the editor of Traverse City’s Record-Eagle, the newspaper that allowed Michael Moore to visit their offices after hours and make editorial corrections on ads he didn’t agree with.

Here’s one from Jim Leggette at the americanthinker.com.

James A. Leggette, Ph.D. is an economist and talk radio host. Michael W. Funk, a former Congressional Fellow, is currently an executive in the telecommunications industry. They are collaborating on a book on Ronald Reagan’s economic legacy.

Moore appears to have gone under the spell of a talented public relations firm. Much like Hillary, Moore has been heard in public lately trying to mitigate the damage he and his reputation have done to himself, the Democratic party and the country.

In a cleverly disguised dig on conservatives, he says, “There are two Michael Moores, the one you see on Fox News and the one I really am,” as if by pointing out his radical antics, Fox News editing is actually the dark force behind Moore’s well documented, over the top condemnations of his country, and its president.

These days Moore can be found speaking before local Traverse City organizations, such as the Rotary Club uttering platitudes like, “I love my country,” “I’m actually very conservative,” “I go to church every Sunday,” and the kicker, “I disagree w/ the president on many issues, but we must always be careful not to de-humanize him.”

Imagine the overwhelming self-restraint it must have taken for Moore to spit that sentence out. I can see him now, like Dr. Strangelove fighting the uncontrollable urge to throw the seig heil salute in front of his cabinet, biting his tongue, and hissing out the words through clenched teeth.

Michael Moore can’t help who he is. Its only a matter of time before he starts up his extremist rhetoric again, most likely near the premier of his next hatchet job on another US institution.

The Freedom Film Fest of Traverse Bay, the counter festival arranged to offer an alternative to Moore’s, was not organized to dictate to people what is appropriate to watch, to paint Traverse City movie fans as libertines or impose values on anyone. The Freedom Festival is nothing but a rejection of Michael Moore and the radical baggage that he brings with him. It’s not the movies that aren’t wanted, its him.

Stalin,Hitler and more recently Kim Jong Il are notorious and insatiable lovers of Hollywood movies. Who of us would celebrate their philanthropy regardless of how much cheese they stuffed in the local coffers??

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. And there’s no getting around the selfish and egoistic appetite of a censorious and devious manipulator. Its not benevolence that motivates Michael Moore, its self-gratification.

Exhibit A: In an egregious violation of journalistic standards, the Traverse City Record Eagle allowed Michael Moore to visit their offices after hours and proof ads slated to run in their paper. When he came across one that he “didn’t like” he changed it. That’s right. Michael Moore took it upon himself to make editorial changes to an ad that was paid for by a long time Record Eagle advertiser because it didn’t comport with his “values.”

This is non-political?

But by Moore’s own admission “everything is political.” As for his so-called benevolent desire to enlighten the people of Traverse City with “just good movies,” he’s proven that he does indeed have an agenda with the films he picks.

Like Democrats picking a Supreme Court justice, Moore thinks that films must pass a litmus test, his litmus test (just like the ads posted in the Traverse City Record Eagle).

This from an interview about the festival:

NE: But don’t you think there’s a place for movies like “Herbie: Fully Loaded”?

Moore: No.

NE: But that’s one of the few G-rated movies to hit this area in a long time, so I was kind of happy to have a movie I could take my kids to see, without worrying about it.

Michael Moore is not interested in advancing dialog outside of his leftist defined worldview.

That’s why you’ll never see a film like In the Face of Evil at the Traverse City Film Festival.

In spite of its Best Documentary awards, rave reviews and repeated standing ovations, folks like Michael Moore view a positive film on Ronald Reagan a far right propaganda piece rather than a mainstream historical documentary on the unimaginable accomplishments of a man who was recently voted by the American people as the Greatest American of all time. (Brought together in fact, with the help of many far left liberals).

Reagan’s tale is a truly American tale. The tale of a hopeless underdog overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds to ultimately triumph over evil. Yet anything that is even mildly flattering of a Republican is seen as beating the drum of intolerance. But look at it objectively and ask who is really the intolerant one?

The citizens of Traverse City have every right to be proud of the success of the inaugural Traverse City Film Festival. Michael Moore has done the city a great favor. We reject the overheated rhetoric of both sides when it comes to film.

The people of Traverse City aren’t unpatriotic radicals opposed to heartland values. They are film lovers, like us. They should be given the opportunity to see all sides of any issue and make up their own mind. Anyone who would try to censor that or keep a different view from being heard, can’t be very secure in the strength of their position.

If Michael Moore wants to show the world that he’s really about great movies and not playing politics, he should invite films like In the Face of Evil and films with many different points of view to participate and not show only neutral or left leaning films.

And stop censoring views he doesn’t like.

Conservative University is AIA’s FREE student summer conference which serves as an antidote to the liberal bias that college students receive during the chool year.

Conservative University’s top-rate faculty provides free-market and traditionalist perspectives on history, law, philosophy, the sciences, government, economics and a host of other areas.

Who will Speak?
Hear from today¹s leaders within the conservative movement-authors, professors, students, politicians and others‹as they address wide-ranging topics, including:
Social Security reform
The life and legacy of Ronald Reagan
Grassroots and campus activism
and more!

Incensed at the possibility of a Moore led, anti-American film festival in their home town, Traverse City residents organized a grass roots effort to counter Moore’s proaganda with a film festival of their own. Its called the Traverse Bay Freedom Film Festival.

Billed as a celebration of Faith, Family and Freedom, three of the lib’s most hated values, the festival is almost a lock to drive the leftists crazy.

The festival is organized by Jim Hubbard and Ellen Gard, the good folks who brought you the hugely successful American Film Renaissance, America’s first conservative film festival. We’re expecting a great turnout and look forward to the challenge of attempting to take back Hollywood, one film at a time.

We hope to see you there!

They will discuss everything from the upcoming Supreme Court nominations to the bold legacy established by Ronald Reagan and how that legacy manifests itself today. It should be a great interview.

Plus, Tim will have breaking news regarding In the Face of Evil and a certain portly fantasy aka “documentary” filmmaker that you won’t want to miss!

Host Jim Leggette has written extensively on Reagan and his legacy. You can read some of his articles here: (thanks to The American Thinker)

“Ronald Reagan and the Opening Salvos in the War on Terror” – June 7th, 2005

“Reagan’s vision for Social Security reform” – April 13th, 2005

“Legacy lost: Ronald Reagan’s tax simplification” – May 13th, 2005

In it he talks about the debt we owe to our founding fathers and how we need to be ever vigilant against allowing a slow erosion of our rights as laid out in their brilliant documents.

He speaks about a struggle against communism, social programs that aim to help the less fortunate, but in the end only manage to stop the industrious, his gratitude towards all the fighting men who gave their lives in war so we can remain free and the importance of private philanthropy, giving what we can instead of relying on the government to give for us.

Reagan’s clear vision and ability to distill complex ideas into memorable phrases, illustrates for us his nimble mind and innate intelligence, the very traits that would serve him so well in his remaining years.

For those who have read yesterday’s blog on the HUAC strike, what follows is Reagan’s interpretation of that strike from the 1957 Eureka College commencement- if you haven’t read yesterday’s blog yet, scroll down to read that section first. BTW, the registered lobbyist Reagan refers to is Herb Sorrell.

“And now today we find ourselves involved in another struggle, this time called a cold war. This cold war between great sovereign nations isn’t really a new struggle at all. It is the oldest struggle of human kind, as old as man himself. This is a simple struggle between those of us who believe that man has the dignity and sacred right and the ability to choose and shape his own destiny and those who do not so believe. This irreconcilable conflict is between those who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and those who believe in the supremacy of the state.

In a phase of this struggle not widely known, some of us came toe to toe with this enemy this evil force in our own community in Hollywood, and make no mistake about it, this is an evil force. Don’t be deceived because you are not hearing the sound of gunfire, because even so you are fighting for your lives. And you’re fighting against the best organized and the most capable enemy of freedom and of right and decency that has ever been abroad in the world. Some years ago, back in the thirties, a man who was apparently just a technician came to Hollywood to take a job in our industry, an industry whose commerce is in tinsel and colored lights and make-believe. He went to work in the studios, and there were few to know he came to our town on direct orders from the Kremlin. When he quietly left our town a few years later the cells had been formed and planted in virtually all of our organizations, our guilds and unions. The framework for the Communist front organizations had been established.

It was some time later, under the guise of a jurisdictional strike involving a dispute between two unions, that we saw war come to Hollywood. Suddenly there were 5,000 tin-hatted, club-carrying pickets outside the studio gates. We saw some of our people caught by these hired henchmen; we saw them open car doors and put their arms across them and break them until they hung straight down the side of the car, and then these tin-hatted men would send our people on into the studio. We saw our so-called glamour girls, who certainly had to be conscious of what a scar on the face or a broken nose could mean careerwise going through those picket lines day after day without complaint. Nor did they falter when they found the bus which they used for transportation to and from work in flames from a bomb that had been thrown into it just before their arrival. Two blocks from the studio everyone would get down on hands and knees on the floor to avoid the bricks and stones coming through the windows. And the 5,000 pickets out there in their tin hats weren’t even motion picture workers. They were maritime workers from the waterfront–members of Mr. Harry Bridges’ union.

We won our fight in Hollywood, cleared them out after seven long months in which even homes were broken, months in which many of us carried arms that were granted us by the police, and in which policemen lived in our homes, guarding our children at night. And what of the quiet film technician who had left our town before the fighting started? Well, in 1951 he turned up on the Monterey Peninsula where he was involved in a union price-fixing conspiracy. Two years ago he appeared on the New York waterfront where he was Harry Bridges’ right hand man in an attempt to establish a liaison between the New York and West Coast waterfront workers. And a few months ago he was mentioned in the speech of a U.S. Congresswoman who was thanking him for his help in framing labor legislation. He is a registered lobbyist in Washington for Harry Bridges.”

Just one year earlier, the Conference of Studio Unions (CSU), led by a communist backed Herb Sorrell, attempted a strong-arm takeover of the major Hollywood labor unions. Using tried and true communist tactics, Sorrell organized a violent union strike and declared that “There may be men hurt, there may be men killed before this is over.”

It was partly a result of this action that woke Reagan up to the tyranny of communism and led self-proclaimed “bleeding heart liberal” Reagan to embrace conservativism.

The Communist Party of the USA had also developed a formal plan for its members to infiltrate and control of top intellectual groups in Hollywood to complement their attempts at infiltrating the labor unions. In so doing, it was believed, they would have “complete control of the greatest medium of communication in history”

Violence and threats of violence had failed to deter Reagan from opposing the Sorrell led thugs and increased Reagan’s stature as a tough minded and resolute crusader. In fact, his resolve was credited by some as the reason the CSU strike had failed.

The events leading up to Reagan’s HUAC testimony helped to shape the philosophy and determination that he showed later as president of the United States. It also puts to rest finally, the contention that Reagan was somehow a puppet to a cabal of power mad Washington insiders.

The truth is, Reagan’s belief that communism was evil and must be defeated, was an almost lifelong passion and one that only solidified with time. The confrontation and violence of the 1946 strike helped turn Reagan from a believer to an activist. In many ways, we are deeply indebted to Herb Sorrell and his thuggish goons. He helped shape the man who was to become- the Greatest American

The people of America have spoken: the Greatest American is… Ronald Reagan!

As you probably know, the Discovery Channel has been hosting an event to determine who is the Greatest American. Throughout the month of June, viewers have been invited to go online to cast their vote for a number of notable Americans.

From politicians to sportsmen, entertainers to scientists, the list is an illustrious and grand tribute to the great men and women who have helped to shape our country and its people.

At the end of it all, Ronald Reagan was deemed to be the most outstanding of all the millions of people who have had the honor of being called American.

He is in esteemed company. The top five are:

Ronald Reagan
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther King Jr.
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin

Congratulations, Ronald Reagan-

All this week we will honor the choice of Reagan as Greatest American by highlighting some of his greatest accomplishments, so come back often. Be sure to scroll down to the bottom to read important news stories relating to Reagan and his legacy.

Also, be sure to watch In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed again to see why. If you don’t have a copy yet, you can order it here or through Amazon.

Watkins’ moving and power-packed film, ranked “Best Documentary film of 2004″ by The Liberty Film Festival, chronicles Ronald Reagan’s 40-year struggle and ultimate triumph over Communism.

When Farah first viewed the movie, he wrote: “For many Christians, Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ moved them like no other movie ever made. I’ve got to tell you that, as an American, this movie had that same effect on me. It is truth. And truth is powerful.”

The international editition will have slightly different bonus material, as well as closed captioning for our hearing impaired friends, and multiple language subtitles. We are looking into packaging an award winning documentary from 1969 that shows the changes and oppression that are visited upon the good citizens of Czechoslovakia by the different incarnations of tyranny such as the Nazis and Soviet Union. Its a great piece of work and we’re looking forward to it.

We will also produce a domestic retail edition of IN THE FACE OF EVIL that will have a bonus disc of Ronald Reagan in
SANTA FE TRAIL.

If anyone has any special requests regarding the international release or other things you’d like to see in the bonus material, please forward them to us.
We are always happy to get feedback from you. You can email us at reaganmovie@yahoo.com.

How do you thank someone to whom you are so indebted to, you couldn’t repay him in a hundred lifetimes?

When history looks back to write the final chapters of the 20th century, one man will stand above the rest as an icon of hope, faith, freedom, and courage: Ronald Reagan. In fact, Ronald Reagan will go down in the annals of history as one of the greatest men to ever walk the earth.

Ronald Reagan spent most of his life fighting against terror and tyranny, both from foreign governments and from the far left right here at home. The left often attempts to portray Reagan as a doddering old fool, a benevolent grandfather or toastmaster in chief. That this confused bio doesn’t mesh with the facts drives the left into fits of apoplexy.

Showing why they are rarely accused of accuracy, objectivity or sincerity, even as they mock him, the left is forced to acknowledge his victories. Through clenched teeth they hiss platitudes, invoke his legacy in campaign speeches and even attempt to co-opt his language of faith and freedom in television interviews and talk shows. (To little effect though. The people can spot insincerity).

The fact is Ronald Reagan was a consistent and aggressive advocate of the need to confront evil and tyranny both in America and throughout the world. He recognized early on that appeasement and concessions against evil would only serve to embolden and strengthen our enemies while ensuring the quick demise of freedom from tyranny

One of the first public records of Reagan speaking out against oppression was in 1947, as President of the Screen Actors Guild at the Committee on Un-American Activities for the House of Representatives. These hearings were colloquially, if somewhat inaccurately known as “HUAC,” and focused on the communist infiltration of the motion picture industry. In response to questions of communist tactics in overtaking the Hollywood guilds in order to control and create communist propaganda, Reagan testified:

“I detest, I abhor their philosophy, but I detest more than that their tactics, which are those of the fifth column, and are dishonest…we have exposed their lies when we came across them, we have opposed their propaganda…and we have been eminently successful in preventing them from (their) usual tactics.”

In 1952 at a commencement speech to William Woods University in Missouri he said:

“(T)he great ideological struggle that we find ourselves engaged in today is not a new struggle. It’s the same old battle. We met it under the name of Hitlerism: we met it under the name of Kaiserism: and we have met it through the ages…in the name of every conqueror that has ever set upon a course of establishing his rule over mankind.”

Continuing the theme, in what was perhaps Reagan’s most spectacular speech, “A Time for Choosing” Reagan’s 1964 appeal to the public to support Barry Goldwater for President, Reagan ignited a fierce and fanatically loyal group of supporters who would eventually help propel him to the White House.

In this speech, he clearly has found his voice, and the sentiments he so passionately evoked remained largely unchanged through his entire presidency. They also finally shatter the leftist argument that Soviet communism was destined to fall and Reagan was just a happy go lucky chap who happened to be in charge when it happened. Instead, it was because of his fierce opposition to communism and the policies he implemented to combat it that led to their demise. In his speech he cautioned:

“We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said that if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”

It could be argued that the resulting election was a complete rejection of Reagan and his ideas. Just a few days after the speech, Goldwater was soundly defeated by uber-liberal Lydon Johnson who hoisted upon America his vision of a “Great Society.” The only thing great about it were the massive tax and spend programs which, in the words of Senator Clark serve “to meet the needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government,” aka socialism.

Instead of a defeat, though, “A Time for Choosing became a seminal moment in the political movement that he was to trumpet. This speech served as a call to arms that galvanized right thinking people across America. Martialing his momentum, Reagan proceeded to cut his political teeth as two-term governor of California where he further synthesized the different factions of the Republican Party into a cohesive and formidable conservative movement.

As governor, he lashed out at the welfare state, cleaving programs that only encouraged dependence on the government. He was also an outspoken critical supporter of the war in Vietnam. Unlike the short-sighted appeasement monger Democrats of today, Reagan knew it was crucial that America fight the spread of communism (like terrorism) and wholly supported the effort.

His critique was that the US insisted on fighting the war according to arbitrary rules, which served to hamper the effectiveness of the military. He wanted to take the fight to the North Vietnamese where he felt they would be crushed under the weight of the mighty US Military. It was not meant to be.

Before too long, American hating activists like John Kerry would testify before Congress that US troops were little more than butchers of babies and instigators of heinous crimes against the people of Vietnam. In due time, the Socialists, Maoists, Trotskyites and other ist groups across the country, would hasten the inglorious exit of the US Military from Vietnam.

They would also become complicit in the decision not to uphold our commitment to aid the South Vietnamese when they were invaded by the communist North, which set the stage for the butchering of millions of people throughout Vietnam and Cambodia.

After Nixon’s scandalous and expedited exit from the White House and Gerald Ford’s startling transformation in front of a national television audience from a Republican to an apologist for Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the nation was ready for a change.

Just not the one they got.

By the time Reagan ran for President against Jim Carter, the country was suffering from a collective melancholy angst, its spirit slowly transforming to a malaise of staggering proportion. As if things weren’t bad enough at home, Carter’s steadfast liberalism also heaped a never-ending stream of inane capitulation after asinine appeasement to autocrats and tyrants the world over, further depressing the good people of the United States.

From giving away the Panama Canal to overseeing a crippling inflation and jobless rate, to kowtowing to Islamic radicals who imprisoned fifty two Americans for over a year to allowing the Soviet Union unchecked aggression across the globe, the “human rights” President did little to help the people of the United States or the right of humans around the world to live in peace, freedom and liberty.

As we learned through Carter’s maladroit experiment with onerous liberal programs and policies, those policies might sound good on paper but in practice they are a prescription for disaster, not just for the US, but also for oppressed people around the world who look to us as an advocate for freedom from despotism.

All that was about to change. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. He assumed the post from Carter on January 20, 1981, and he came out swinging. The Iranian mullahs sensing that their foreign policy tactics were not going to wash with the new President, released the US hostages a mere twenty minutes after Reagan began his inaugural address.

Ronald Reagan never looked back. And neither have we. Under his watch, the United States became proud state sponsors of freedom and liberty and a beacon of hope to people the world over. Natan Sharansky has said that when Reagan gave his “Evil Empire” speech, he and his fellow dissident celebrated Reagan’s message as a validation of their cause and gave them hope to continue their quest for freedom.

We as a nation are indebted to Reagan: For his unbounded enthusiasm, his utter conviction in America as that “shining city on a hill,” his dissolution of one of the most despicable governments the world has ever seen, his willingness to battle the liberals on their turf, for reinvigorating our economy and for once again making us proud to be Americans.

On this President’s Day, we honor Ronald Reagan’s service to his country and the people of the world. Though we could never hope to repay him, each of us can strive to uphold the principles he so tirelessly fought for and to do all we can to preserve in his honor, this, “the last best hope of man on earth.”

O’Malley is the latest of a growing number of Democrats eager to use invective beyond truth or reasonableness in their maniacal desire to paint President Bush as akin to a domestic terrorist.

At a press conference last Wednesday, the historically challenged mayor likened Bush’s proposed budget cuts to arguably the worst assault on American values in all its history. (If you discount the scorn heaped upon this country by the left, that is.)

“Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America’s great cities…because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most. Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the President of the United States. And with a budget axe, he is attacking America’s cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core.”

This paranoid and despicable slander is in keeping with O’Malley’s overall governing scheme. By using rhetorical misdirection and political slight of hand, he repeatedly attempts to shift the focus from his own failed policies and incompetence by creating a larger straw man to attack and blame.

This O’Malley does with a practiced skill and shamelessness. He is on record as blaming federal prosecutors and juvenile justice officials for his out of control crime rates and in a real eye opener, has recently taken to blaming the POLICE themselves for the sharp spike in citywide murders, saying they were brought on by “increased police activity.” This may be the first time in America’s history that police have been blamed for a jump in the crime rate by being more effective.

This is not the first time that O’Malley’s rhetoric has spun out of control. In the summer of 2004, he said “I remember after the attacks of September 11…I was very, very worried about al-Qaida and still am. But I’m even more worried about the actions and inactions of the Bush administration.”

As mayor of one of this country’s most blighted and crime-ridden cities, what Mayor O’Malley should really be worried about is what he can do to combat the rampant drug addiction, murder, urban decay and all around hopelessness that currently infects his city.

O’Malley fancies himself a crusader of sorts for strengthening the security of American cities. He even gave an address to last year’s democratic convention on this issue. Using all the well-worn leftist rhetoric that has been debunked time and again, O’Malley spoke about how George Bush doesn’t fund our first responders, doesn’t do anything to protect our ports, increase spending on communication technology etc, etc.

By what authority is O’Malley qualified to critique safety and security? On his watch as mayor of Baltimore, the city has consistently ranked in the top ten per captita in all statistical categories that most cities try to avoid, namely violent crime, murder, sexually transmitted disease, drug addiction and the like. Even while O’Malley has miserably failed his own constituents he somehow finds the chutzpah to attack the president on his policies.

Statistically, it may be safer for him to walk through a Fallujah bazaar than the mean streets of downtown Baltimore at night. In fact, there is a point of contention over who actually controls those streets. Drug dealers and other ne’er do wells have taken to brazenly producing propaganda videos reminiscent of al Zarqawi and his legion of animals. In it, a litany of Baltimore’s worst threaten to do away with anyone who snitches on criminals to the police. Add a few headless bodies and a sprinkling of “Allah Akbars” and Baltimore can become the Sunni Triangle of the west.

O’Malley claims that “if the foreign chemical attacks of cocaine and heroin can still flow unchecked through our ports and borders, then biological and chemical weapons can be smuggled through those same unprotected ports and borders just as easily.” We are left to wonder just what he has done to protect the citizens of his own city from these ravages. (One also wonders if the local hoods would be eligible to sell those biological and chemical weapons in downtown open-air markets like they do with drugs?)

During his five-year stint as mayor, O’Malley has presided over five different police commissioners. They don’t sign up for one year service contracts, instead they either run screaming from the post, due to O’Malley’s obsessive “micromanaging just about every decision” like Ronald L. Daniel and Bert Shirey who lasted 57 and 43 days respectively, or they resign in scandal.

The two latest involved Edward T. Norris who recently relocated from his “home” in a federal penitentiary because of his misappropriation of city funds and Kevin P. Clark who was dismissed after being accused of domestic violence.

In this light O’Malley still claims that the high commissioner turnover has had “minimal impact” on his crime prevention policies, even while he says that “police officers crave stability.” He also curiously maintains that as his city’s murder rate spirals out of control, “we have led America’s big cities in reducing violence.”

The most galling statement O’Malley made in his speech was when he paraphrased Ronald Reagan saying that Americans have a “rendezvous with destiny” somehow equating Reagan’s appeal in his now famous “Time of Choosing” speech to face our enemies with poise and resolve, with his own puzzling vision and record of security and peace.

Will these democrats ever wake up to the reality? As their party slides ever more precariously towards obscurity, the vitriol emanating from their ranks becomes increasingly hateful and absurd. These politicians need to be held accountable to their constituents and the American people at large for their hateful and hypocritical speech.

To equate our president’s policy and programs, which have meant more to basic human quest for freedom and liberty than any since Ronald Reagan broke the back of Soviet communism, with the tyranny and terror of the 911 tragedy is disgraceful and vile. It disgraces the families of those who were lost in the attacks and all Americans. For that there can be no forgiveness.