Monday, May 31, 2010
Sick of this yet? FOR ZION!
Any questions? If so, you're stupid. Your dad should beat you until you get it...and yes, I mean that!
...and curse those that curse thee.
Bye bye Europe.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
If there are certain words or groups we can't teach about, how are we supposed to teach history? We're through the looking glass, people, and don't count on getting back through: Hilary, Pelosi, and Elena Kagan already tried that, but the mirror broke...
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
It's Jerusalem, dick.
Robert Spencer and Pamela for Stop Islamization of America NOW group trying to stop Ground Zero Mosque
You know, imam, if you REALLY want to foster good feelings and community, how's about NOT killing people? That tends to work... at least better than your normal muzzie fagatronics.
Praise from the Overlords: Islamic Supremacist Universal Caliphate Group, OIC, Lauds Obama's Submission to islam - Atlas Shrugs
Copying here, 'cause it's necessary.
I believe it is only a matter of time before Obama forces the USA to join the OIC, Organization of Islamic Conference. Absurd you say? Second term, I say.
He joined the Alliance of Civilizations last week and that is merely a proxy of the OIC. This is horrible.
When the OIC is praising an American president then you know there’s a serious problem…
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama’s Cairo speech to Muslims, his plan to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and the dropping of language deemed offensive to Muslims are among the positive developments highlighted in the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s new report on “Islamophobia.”
Areas requiring more work include winning the Obama administration over to the OIC-held position on the need for legal tools to counter “religious defamation.”
The OIC made available copies of the third annual report compiled by a subsidiary body called the “Islamophobia Observatory” after its official release during a meeting of foreign ministers from the 56-nation bloc in Tajikistan last week.
“Defamation of Islam as well as personalities and symbols sacred to Islam and Muslims as well as other religions is a matter of grave concern to the OIC.”
Specifically, it recommends that abusive or insulting statements on matters held sacred by a religion and likely to outrage substantial number of its adherents, should be banned.
Governments should also help or encourage the creation of self-regulatory media bodies to deal with these issues.
The report also calls for international human rights law “to be evaluated and evolved in the interest of combating Islamophobia and defamation of all religions in an effective manner.”
“The main important development was the Cairo speech by President Obama, who promised a ‘new beginning’ with the Muslim world,” it says. “It was also remarkable the decision he took to close down the ‘Islamophobia prison,’ Guantanamo, as well as the instructions to stop using derogatory concepts against Muslims such as ‘War on Terror.’ ”
It also praises the appointment of Rashad Hussain, formerly a White House deputy associate counsel, as Obama’s special envoy to the OIC, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to OIC headquarters in Jeddah last February – the first by a secretary of state in the organization’s 40-year history.
How much more, oh Lord? Answer? As long as the PEOPLE bear it! TO ARMS! WARCHICK
Friday, May 21, 2010
Is Factcheck.org working with Obama? | The Post & Email
Don't you just love the smell of Pamela in the mornings? WARCHICK
Downtown vandalized by angry mob (including ongoing Twitter coverage) | Asheville News | Mountain Xpress
HT: Lewis Loflin
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
**I'm copying and printing here...too important! SHARE!!**
by: Alyssa Lappen
The prospective developer of a $100 million, 13-story mosque 600 feet from Ground Zero presents himself as a Muslim moderate (1). Yet Kuwait-born Faisal Abdul Rauf also boasts of his issue from an “Egyptian family steeped in religious scholarship” (2). Indeed, Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.
Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University. The elder Dr. Rauf studied and taught there before fleeing Egypt in 1948. That year, Feisal Abdul Rauf was born in Kuwait.
Feisal Rauf has planned for some time to further develop his father’s U.S. Islamic expansionism. In 1990, Rauf opened the tiny al-Farah Mosque at 245 West Broadway in lower Manhattan. Area residents did not even notice the mosque until 2006, when the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) refused to license a new bar on the same block and started yanking others’ liquor licenses (3).
Rauf attended grammar school and high school in the UK and Malaysia, according to his biography. He probably first lived in America only in 1965, at age 17, when his father moved from Malaysia to New York to plan and head the Islamic Cultural Center (not built until the mid-1980s) (4). Rauf then obtained a BS in physics at Columbia University (5). In 1971, the family moved to Washington, D.C., where Rauf’s father headed the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Ave (6). His father, buried in Suitland, MD, at the for-profit Washington National Cemetery, also founded three Malaysian Islamic studies programs, including the International Islamic University of Malaysia (7).
Rauf’s early UK education and familiarization with American popular culture and values made him an acutely adept practitioner of Islamic taqiyya — deceptive speech and action to advance the interests and supremacy of Islam (8). To further that Islamic advancement, Rauf in 1997 established the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA). His Kashmir-born wife Daisy Kahn, an interior designer by profession, has run the organization since 2005 (9).
Rauf then began cultivating new spheres of influence. In about summer 2002, Rauf started lecturing on Islam at the 750-acre southwestern New York campus of Chautauqua Institution, a 136-year-old non-profit where religion director Joan Brown Campbell took Rauf under her wing. Under the rubric of the “Abrahamic” faiths, a convenient cover for Rauf’s Islamic activities, Campbell subsequently named him the prospective head of a Muslim house now planned on campus by another Rauf brainchild — the 501(3)c organization Muslim Friends of Chautauqua. Rauf also befriended Karen Armstrong, the former British nun and devotee of Islam.
In summer 2002, as a “theologian in residence,” Armstrong advocated for the Muslim Brotherhood — as if the father of all Islamic terrorist organizations was a progressive charity:
[The MB] set up a wonderful welfare program before it was suppressed. … Factories where Muslims could work, had time for prayers, had vacation time, insurance, [learned] labor laws, [provided] clinics, they taught people how to treat sewage, drainage, and it was always the religions response to try to help modernity to give to the ordinary people the benefits of modernity in an Islamic setting that made sense to them and made things more balanced (10).
In 2003, Rauf befriended leaders of Denver’s Aspen Institute, including former executive director and four-term Aspen mayor John S. Bennet. In 2004, under ASMA auspices, Rauf organized a meeting of 125 young Muslims and formed Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. With Bennet’s help, he co-founded the Cordoba Initiative in Aspen, purportedly to “improve” Muslim-West relations (11). Rauf gets funding from a variety of other liberal organizations, including, for example, Gloria Steinem’s Ms. Foundation.
However, Rauf directly contradicted his conciliatory behavior with a firebrand interview with the Sydney Morning Herald. Terrorism, he stated, will end only when the West acknowledges the harm it has done to Muslims:
The West’s role during World War II was strictly defensive, and in no way religious. Moreover, Rauf’s statements — which Daisy Kahn glossed over in a December 2009 Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham — ignored Islam’s continuous attacks, from the 7th to 16th centuries, on non-Muslim peoples throughout the Mideast, Africa, Europe, central Asia, and India (12). Rauf further reflected his antagonistic sentiments in the 2006 Copenhagen gathering he organized for the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. To enhance his moderate cloak, Rauf invited such liberal Muslims as Irshad Manji and Mona Eltahawy. However Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow also includes radicals like Yasir Qadhi, a favorite speaker at conferences of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and Dhaba “Debbie” Almontasser, who works closely with Hamas’ U.S. arm — the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), itself an unindicted co-conspirator in terror financing.
Rauf further revealed his antagonistic sentiments in the 2006 Copenhagen gathering he organized for the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow. To enhance his moderate cloak, Rauf invited such liberal Muslims as Irshad Manji and Mona Eltahawy. But he also hosted radicals like Yasir Qadhi — a favorite speaker at conferences of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), among others.
Perhaps Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative in 2004 intending to build a mosque in downtown Manhattan directly across from Ground Zero. However, Rauf tipped his hand to authorities only in April 2009, when he incorporated the Cordoba Initiative in New York (13). Within months, in July 2009, he bought a future mosque site at 45 Park Place for $4.58 million in cash from the heirs to New York’s Pomerantz family.
As Islamic attacks on September 11, 2001, destroyed the World Trade Center towers, falling jet debris simultaneously crushed the five-story 1923 structure some 600 feet away that until that morning housed a robust Burlington Coat Factory store (14). Over the ruin of the former retail outlet, Rauf now plans to build a 13-story, $100 million mosque. Rauf says the Cordoba Initiative bought the former retail building to prove to the world that Islam is not a violent faith (14).
Imam Rauf says that New York Muslims provided nearly $5 million in cash to buy the Park Place building (16). Yet in fiscal 2009, Rauf’s ASMA received large international donations. In the year ended June 30, 2009 — days before Feisal closed the purchase — ASMA received at least $1.3 million. The largest donation, $576,312, came from Qatar (17). That Persian Gulf nation has long harbored terror financiers, and even the government stands accused of funding international terrorism. Qatar also has, for decades, hosted Muslim Brotherhood spiritual chief Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The elderly sheikh, a large and founding shareholder in the terror-financing al-Taqwa Bank, champions sharia law, wife beating, and suicide bombing.
ASMA also received $481,942 from Holland’s Millennial Development Goals Fund (MDG3), $144,752 from New York’s Carnegie Corporation, $53,664 from the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), plus donations from the Rockefeller Brothers and Hunt Alternatives funds, among others (18). The Ground Zero mosque plan is more than a little reminiscent of a program initiated by Rauf’s late father in 1965. That year, Muhammad R. Abdul Rauf moved to New York to plan and head a huge Islamic Cultural Center that took decades to realize (19). He bought prime Manhattan real estate at 96th St. and 3rd Ave — roughly two thirds of a city block — apparently with $1.3 million in funding from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. The late Rauf long retained some of that land in a personal trust (19). But when construction started on the $17 million mosque in 1984, it had received funding from 46 Islamic nations. By 2010, the enormous Islamic complex had added another two buildings. Since 1984, its founders-envisioned apartment unit has been restricted to Muslims alone (20). Whenever Feisal first considered building a mosque across from Ground Zero, he had the idea firmly in mind by 2004, when he wrote What’s Right with Islam. The book was translated into many languages. In Indonesia’s Bahasa, its title translates as “The Call from the WTC Rubble.” Rauf promoted the book in December 2007 at a Kuala Lumpur gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir (20) — an organization banned in Germany since 2003, and also outlawed in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, among other places — and ideologically akin to the MB. Both seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law (sharia), and eventually impose Islam and sharia law worldwide. Most North American MB organizations avoid widely publicizing that aim. The HT however, at a July 2009 Khalifah conference at a suburban Chicago Hilton, openly promised to replace capitalism with Islam and sharia law (21).
Feisal Rauf supports sharia law, too.
Described in one Asian report as an Egyptian citizen living in the U.S., he has repeatedly stated, and writes in his 2004 book, that the U.S. Constitution is sharia-complaint. The “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law,” Rauf wrote in his book. The “American political structure is Shariah-complaint,” he contends, since Muslim jurists over the centuries have “defined five areas of life” to be protected by Islamic law — life, mind, religion, property, and family. Only two further actions could render the U.S. more Islamic than it is already, Rauf contends:
[Inviting] voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, [and allowing] religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws (22).
These assertions, however, merely fulfill the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine of flexibility — adapting to each and every environment in which the brothers eventually hope to force Islamic law upon the masses. Rauf’s claims starkly represent taqiyya, the Islamic practice of deception, to further theocratic and essentially fascist Islamic advances (23). And the additional “leeway” Rauf seeks for intra-community religious-law enforcement is a thinly veiled attempt to impose shariah more widely in the U.S., in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
President Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo challenged Muslims, as Rauf wrote in a June 5, 2009 Washington Post column (24): “Live up to the tenets of our religion, embrace Shariah law as conceived by the Prophet, and see what happens.” But sharia inhibits all kinds of freedoms, especially those of women and non-Muslims. Islamic law protects only the lives, minds, religion, property, and families of Muslims — not all peoples of all faiths, as Rauf would have us believe (25). Since at least 2006, Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative has partnered with the Gallup Organization and “a team of Sunni and Shi’a scholars from Morocco to Indonesia” to create “an Islamic legal benchmark for measuring ‘Islamicity’ of a state” for use by the public, pundits, “and state officials in both the Muslim and Western worlds.” If the U.S. is so sharia-complaint, and Rauf so strongly supports Western democracy and separation of mosque and state, why has his U.S.-based institution initiated such a project? Funded by Malaysia and many other Muslim nations in the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), no less?
Rauf has often directly contradicted his seemingly tolerant and peace-loving pronouncements with harsh, antagonistic assessments of the U.S. In his May 7 Khutbah (Muslim sabbath sermon), delivered at 1:00 p.m. at 45 Park Place in Manhattan, Rauf implied that Muslims did not perpetrate 9/11 at all, according to writer Madeline Brooks, who attended (26): “Some people say it was Muslims who attacked on 9/11 … ” he stated, before trailing off into another topic.
The attacks were “a reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights, [yet] … ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries. … [U.S.] policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
Not the crimes Muslims committed: “the crime that happened.” He continued:
In … the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden was made in the USA (28).
Rauf explained the Islamic disdain for life, as well:
In the Islamic belief system, the next life is the primary life. The next life is more real, more intense, and more vivid.
In short, Islam reveres death. Indeed, Islam orders its adherents to conduct jihad warfare, and promises paradise and 72 virgins to those who die in the service of Allah (29).
Even Cordoba Institute’s name telegraphs the organization’s deceptiveness. Cordoba (also the name for Chautauqua’s proposed new Muslim house) was the seat of the Islamic Caliphate that ruled most of Spain from Tariq ibn Zayid’s 711 invasion through 1248, and controlled parts of Spain until its full liberation in 1492. However, neither the Umayyads (who ruled monolithically until about 1031), nor the particularly vicious Almoravids (who swept over the Atlas mountains and, in 1080, into Spain) ruled non-Muslims kindly. While Islamic harshness varied, it remained unquestionably ever-present.
Rauf is not alone in his blatant whitewash of Islam’s brutal history in Spain. Many others purvey the same historical falsehood. Yet Muslim rule in Spain never remotely approached the mythic level of beneficence that Rauf pretends (30).
The surviving victims of 9/11 and families of the deceased should not be alone in opposing Rauf’s proposed 13-story mosque, 600 feet from the World Trade Center site. Traditionally, Muslims have destroyed houses of worship built by virtually every other faith under the sun. Worldwide, Islam has plundered tens of thousands (if not more) of Christian churches, Jewish synagogues and holy archaeological sites, plus Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Sikh, and other temples and monasteries. Then, in the interest of jihad, Islam has claimed all these religious places of others as their own “mosques,” forever Muslim.
To allow a mosque at a place a Muslim gang destroyed on 9/11 would amount to formally blessing Islam’s 1,400-year-old tradition of exclusivity and suppression of all persons of all other faiths. It would be a 100% victory of Islam and sharia law over the U.S. Constitution and America’s time-honored democracy and pluralism.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Since we seem determined to sink lower and lower, can't we grab some balls on the way down? Sheesh...we have been conquered not by battle, not by power, not even by words, but by the FEAR of words. Our enemies know this, and we keep reinforcing it with our silence. And we wonder how things got so out of control.
"Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" Massoud, Afghan warrior, from Cyrus Nowrasteh's magnificent docum-drama THE PATH TO 911
The Silence Of Good Men - Teresa James ♪ :
There's Always Evil That Hides In This World
And Then The Evil Is Taught By The Silence Of Good Men
Silence Is Golden Or That's What They Say
So Good Men Stand Silent And All Of Us Betrayed
Always Impartial, Just Watching From The Side
Careful To Cover The Fears That They Might Hide
Don't Have To Tell Lies Or Reach A Helping Hand
Their Silence Speaks Across The Holy Land
Silence Is Golden Or That's What They Say
So Good Men Stand Silent And All Of Us Betrayed
There's Always Evil That Hides In This World
And Then The Evil Is Taught By The Silence Of Good Men.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
***This article was originally written at the behest of MoH recipient Gen. Raymond Davis, USMC ret., and he had a segment of it run in Graybeards magazine two years ago.***
PFC Ricardo Carrasco is a name that I have determined will not fall into the anonymity of the abyss of time.
Well, I’m not sure I’m wise enough to answer such a simply complicated question, but I love a challenge and will at least make the attempt.
One would think that Ricardo’s story would be explanation enough. I agree; however, it sat for forty years collecting dust and slowly fading from memories. This disturbed me greatly. How could so perfect, so beautiful a sacrifice be forgotten?
I came to find out that it was forgotten because the full story had never been known in the first place. The truth of it was more stunning, more inspiring than anything man could have imagined.
Ricardo Carrasco arrived in Korea and landed on Old Baldy Hill in late March, 1953, just in time to join Company "A" of the 32nd Infantry Regiment of the 7th Division in a battle extraordinaire against Chinese Communist Forces. Baldy and its sister, the infamous Pork Chop Hill, would be his world for the next three months. He was 19, and had lived all of his life in El Paso, TX. Born during the depression and raised during WWII, Ricardo would cut his teeth on this first war against communism. He was the sixth of eight kids, and had wanted to be a career soldier like those men he had so admired in the newsreels of WWII. He received a terrible blow when he learned he could not be part of his beloved 82nd Airborne as he’d always dreamed; he was slightly nearsighted, and with no particular skills, was assigned to the infantry.
He was cocky at boot camp; his letters gently teasing friends back home for not volunteering like he had. But his first day in Korea knocked the macho right out of him. His letters home now begged friends not to join up. He was terrified and a million miles from those he loved. He wanted nothing more than to go home. He never could have imagined that the opportunity would present itself on a silver platter.
Director Owen Crump knew war. He had filmed much of WWII in the Army Air Corps and was a full-bird by the end of the war. However, something about this new war ate at him, and he finally realized what it was. They weren’t showing the whole picture. He wanted to do just that, but wasn’t sure how. His inspiration came in the form of a newspaper article written by Scripps-Howard war correspondent Jim Lucas. One simple line would instigate a movie: " It was a quiet day on the front with limited patrol action." Knowing war as he did, Crump knew there was no such thing as a "quiet day" for front-line soldiers. He wondered how those front-liners would write that line, and decided to do it for them. He had a revolutionary idea.
Crump approached Paramount Pictures producer Hal Wallis for help. He pitched his idea for the first movie ever filmed entirely on the front lines of a war. It would be in black and white to give it a documentary feel. Every soldier would be played by-of all things-a real front-line solder. No actors for this movie. Every explosion, every bullet would be the real, government-issued thing. Wallis loved the idea, and sent Crump and a skeletal crew to Korea to pick their men for the movie’s plot.
The movie was to be set on the last day of the war. A squad of 13 men, knowing that the cease fire would be declared that night, must still take a hill and set up an observation post. These are the most intense, most frightening moments of any war; everyone knows it’s over, but the bullets are still flying. Crump wanted to show the heartbreak of coming so close to the end, then dying anyway. He wanted the world to know the loss. One of the Americans in the fiction movie would die within hours of that cease fire.
Crump hand-picked his 13 American soldiers and one ROK soldier to play their parts. Among them was PFC Ricardo Carrasco. He would be the American to die in the movie.
Ricardo was livid at being chosen for the movie, but it was written up as a TDY, so he obeyed and went. He’d been squad leader when Crump had informed him of his new assignment, and he worried incessantly about his men. It was mid-June, 1953, and everyone knew the summer would out-live this war. It was over. But Ricardo knew of the Chinese desire to take Pork Chop, where he was fighting, and their habit of nighttime attacks. Every morning at the War Correspondents Building in Seoul-where the cast and crew were staying--he would run to a reporter and ask if the Chinese had attacked Pork Chop yet. Every night his prayers were the same: Please, God. Please don’t let the Chinese attack before I can get back. So far, he had been "lucky"-at least in his way of thinking. He knew that hill, and he knew the horror. The thought of his "fellahs," as he called them, fighting and dying while he was getting the star treatment sickened him. He felt that he was shirking his duties, letting down his friends. The war had become for Ricardo what it becomes for all good men: it was no longer about democracy, America, or even the damned hill-it was about his love for his friends. He could never live with himself if one of them died in his place or because he wasn’t there to help.
His love over-ruled his fear.
The rumors of Chinese amassing around Pork Chop flew as the filming began. Every day Ricardo begged Crump to "kill" his character off so he could get back to his fellahs. Every day Crump told him they weren’t ready to film that scene yet. The other soldier/actors puzzled over this quiet, moody young man who had the opportunity of a lifetime. They loved this life! Good food served to them on tablecloths, by waiters no less, plenty of booze, and no one trying to kill them. They could not figure the kid out.
Still he continued to pester the director, who firmly reminded him that he was to obey his orders. Crump liked the kid, but couldn’t reckon him. Maybe he loved the battle and terror, or maybe he was bucking for a promotion or a medal. Or maybe it was like he said; that his friends were up there. Crump figured the problem would be solved one day in early July when he received a wire from producer Hal Wallis. Wallis had seen the first rushes of the movie and had been so impressed by one young man in particular that he wanted Crump to get the boy to sign a contract with Paramount. Wallis knew a star when he saw one. In fact, in Hollywood he was referred to as "The Starmaker"; everyone he’d ever tagged to be a star had become one. And now he had Ricardo Carrasco pegged as the next star he would mold and create.
Crump grinned as he ordered Ricardo aside from the other men. As he explained that Hal Wallis wanted to make the young man a star, he held his breath and waited for the reaction: a yelp, weak knees, all the color draining from his face…something to indicate his shock and excitement. But Ricardo stood still, the only movement being that of his head slightly lowering. Crump furrowed his brow, but before he could say anything, Ricardo spoke.
"No thank you, sir."
Now it was Crump who lost all color. He asked for an explanation. How could this kid turn down such an incredible offer from the most powerful producer in Hollywood? And how the hell was he supposed to tell Wallis?
At first Ricardo skirted the question, simply saying that it was time to get back and they didn’t really need him here to make the movie, even though his part was a pivotal one. Crump could see that it was something else, and finally pried it out of the boy. Why did he want his character killed ahead of schedule? Why was he turning down once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to go back and fight in a war that would be over in a matter of days now? Why had he nagged the director from day one to get back to the mud and the digging and the fighting and the dying?
Ricardo’s voice was low and husky. After an eternity, he raised his head up and looked the director in the eye. He just had to go back. Crump had to let him go back. The director was angry now. Was the kid a martyr? Why was he beating a dead horse? Ricardo’s explanation would do little to quell his angst and frustration with this odd young man.
He told Crump that the men at the front were under his command. There was no hiding the tenderness he felt toward those men, or the responsibility. He pleaded with the director to let him go back and help his friends in the final battle he knew was brewing on Pork Chop. That was infinitely more important to him than a movie. The respect and safety of his fellahs meant so much more. He could not bear the thought of them up there, fighting and dying, while he was back in a safety zone being treated like royalty. It was not right.
Crump and Carrasco argued for the next hour. The director finally gave up and dismissed the private. He wired back to Hal Wallis that his offer had been declined.
Wallis was furious. He’d never been turned down before, especially not by a punk kid on some glory kick! But after he calmed down, he decided that since the war was going to be over soon, he’d give the boy a chance to serve his country and fulfill his sense of obligation; then he’d bring him home and make him Audy Murphy.
The young, lone private continued to ask the director to kill him off, in spite of that scene being about two weeks away. Crump finally gave up. They began shooting his death scene that same week, and finished the close-ups on the morning of July 6. Ricardo was enormously relieved when he learned that the Chinese had not yet made the rumored attack on Pork Chop, but he knew his luck would not hold for long. So that very afternoon he insisted on going back. Fellow actor Otis Wright drove the jeep, cussing Ricardo out the whole way for being a "damned fool." But Ricardo was quiet, only smiling or nodding his head, occasionally speaking of his mother. They arrived in the late afternoon; Ricardo turned to wave goodbye over his shoulder. His "luck" had held; he was back with his men before the final assault. He let out a sigh of relief. He’d made it back in time…but barely.
After darkness fell, Chinese Communist Forces began the final attack on Pork Chop Hill. It was brutal, and the cost for it would be high. So high, in fact, that American military leaders made a moral decision to pull off on July 10, only four days later.
It would not be in time for Ricardo. At about 2330 that night of July 6, a scant nine hours after wrapping up his movie death, a mortar round took out the left side of his head, wrapping up his life. Not many men can say they died twice in one day.
I don’t know what happened that night. Oh, I have the casualty report and some documentation. But what has made the past twelve years of research into this story so agonizing is that I’ve yet to find anyone who knew Ricardo and was with him that night. I must find someone. I must know if his going back made any difference to them that night. More importantly, I want them to know what Ricardo sacrificed to be there for them. Through my research and tracking down men, I have been astonished to learn that none of his fellow temporary thespians knew that he had been offered that contract from Wallis. I’m willing to bet that the men for whom he sacrificed such an opportunity do not know just how much he gave up to be there with them that night. I’ll bet they don’t know that he didn’t have to be there that night, wasn’t supposed to be there that night, and had nagged and pestered and "killed" himself off early so he could be there that night. I’ll bet they don’t know the eeriness of him dying in both "reel" life and "real" life, on the very same day. I’ll bet they don’t know that he did what he did out of his love and concern for them. I’ll bet they don’t know why.
"Cease Fire!", as it would be titled, came out in November of 1953 with its all- soldier cast. Most of the men were flown to the New York and Los Angeles premieres in high style. They appeared on Ed Sullivan and the Gary Moore Show. But Ricardo was rarely mentioned. Out of respect for the Carrasco family, Crump re-shot the death scene later using an extra. He knew that watching her son die on the screen would be too much for Mrs. Carrasco to bear. He also edited Ricardo out of as many places as he could in the film, but his part was too important. He could not be totally eliminated.
Mrs. Carrasco took it hard. In one of his last letters home discussing the making of the movie, Ricardo had written a line that now seemed ominous and foreboding: "Don’t worry when you see me die, Mom, it’s only acting." Her heart broke, and 18 months later, she, too died. She was only 47.
Paramount would be there to film Gen. Mark Clark signing the armistice only 21 days after Ricardo died. At one of their last meals together, the cast and crew of "Cease Fire!" raised their glasses to "the one who isn’t here." He was rarely mentioned thereafter.
Why would he go back to fight in a war that was over anyway? He had been under orders; no one would have thought less of him. In fact, no one had expected him back before the end of the war. They assumed when he was chosen in mid-June that he would be gone the rest of the summer. So why did he go back to fight in a war that was almost over, however tenuous that ending might be? Why would God allow one such as Ricardo to give up so much, but have his sacrifice virtually unknown by the very ones for whom he did everything? I’ve pondered that long and hard myself.
I once listened with great interest to a man explain his interpretation of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. The question had been posed: If God is omniscient, then he knew what Abraham would do. He knew this faithful son loved Him more than even his own long-promised son, and would give him up at his Father’s command. Then why the test at all? Why did God ask Abraham to do what He already knew he would do?
Then came the answer that to me seemed so perfect, so beautiful in its simplicity that it had to be right. God had to prove to Abraham just how strong he was. It wasn’t that God doubted Abraham’s capability…it was that being mortal, Abraham doubted himself. Abraham had to know what Abraham could do. Like everything God does, it was not for His benefit, but for ours. I loved it! This was so very characteristic of our Father in Heaven…to show us, weak as we are, that we have within the seeds of godhood, Deity’s DNA. That we are capable of turning evil that we do or that is done against us into something divine is what makes us most like God; a "God Moment," as I often call magnanimous acts of mere mortal men.
This analogy is the warrior spirit defined. I have always felt that man is at his most spiritual when he is at war. Now this puzzles many who have heard me say this. Surely war is an evil, murderous event in our existence for which we are punished by God, right? How can it then also be good?
I have been studying the men of the Korean War for twelve years now. These valiant servants of both God and man hesitate to speak of what they’ve seen, what they’ve done. I have seen their tears, slow and trembling on the edge of graying eyelashes, slipping down care-worn cheeks as they recount their tales of war. I have strained to hear their voices, so low with the agony of this cross they bear. Many of their tears are for the brutality and horror inherent in war…the dead and mangled bodies of beloved friends, boys barely old enough to shave now forever frozen in time, never aging another moment in the memories of those who watched them die.
But what has touched me most is their anguish at what they hesitate to share…and that is the memories of what that war forced them to do. These gentle men, who lovingly cup the face of a child or make love with tenderness and sincerity to the woman they adore, sob over the clear and unforgiving images of those they were forced to kill. It is the memories of these long gone screams, these tears, this enemy pain that haunt them most as the years go by. For all of the hatred and anger they may have felt against the enemy, it is still a hard thing to kill another man. However they may have understood the need to kill the enemy, the need to win the war, the price they pay is still the greatest to bear. They did what they had to do, and would do it again if faced with it, but the price such action exacts from a tender soul is no small thing.
This is a most glorious testament to manhood and the warrior spirit…that they bear this arduous burden with quiet dignity so those they love won’t have to. The beauty of this selfless act leaves me in awe. I have long understood the willingness to die for a friend…after all, that is the epitome of what Christ did, and for which we mortals strive. He died that we might live. But those who must live with the memories not only of dead friends but butchered enemies are the closest we, as weak, wretched beings born into this veil of tears, can ever come to knowing what Christ bore. The memories of war are the price that the good man pays; it is out of his deep love for others that he spares them this particular agony. It is perhaps summed up best this way: Upon these two laws doth every commandment hinge-that we love God, and that we love each other. There is no better example on earth of this unconditional love than the American soldier. They would die for their friends, true, but even more heart-breaking and remarkable about such men is that they also live with what they’ve had to do.
The Korean War Veterans who went on to live instead of dying on that distant soil are acutely aware of such suffering. They came home to nothing-no "Thank you’s", no recognition-just nothingness. America acted as if the Korean War had never happened, in spite of it being the only war from the twentieth century that is still being waged. This was unimaginable to these men who had seen WWII and the honor bestowed upon their fathers, their older brothers, or even themselves. Their homeland wouldn’t even give them the decorum of calling their campaign a war. And yet it is a direct result of what they gave-and gave up-for what they believed and for those they loved that made possible my own existence. I sit and write today because of what they stood and gave yesterday.
Is the soldier man at his most base animal or most spiritual God? Is it the monster coming out in us, or the Deity weaving its way in? This is what I see when I look into the eyes of our warrior brethren. Thrown into the most horrifying concoction of man’s inhumanity to man, it is the fact that these mortals are capable of such unselfish, beautiful acts of humanity-no, Divinity-that reaches the heart and soul of those left behind in a dust-cloud of wonder. Of all God’s children, surely He must relate to and glory over the American soldier.
Greatest of all warriors on earth, the American soldier is capable of fighting fiercely, loving gently, living nobly, and forgiving totally. These are not the war-mongers that feminists and Hollywood have tried desperately to portray; these are gentle, loving creatures who want nothing more than to be free to go on living and loving. It is this desire that enables our brothers to choose to step out of their own selfish tendencies on behalf of another.
Just like with Abraham, God was showing Ricardo just how good, how magnificent he truly was capable of becoming. God was willing to sacrifice His son because He knew there were good men out there like Abraham and Ricardo-and most good soldiers--and he wanted them back with Him. Whether it requires dying for a friend or living with the memories, the order of the day for the American soldier is and always has been that of sacrifice. For them, "life, fortune, and sacred honor" are not only words. They know this meaning by their wounded hearts; no one has to tell them why.
For God's own, the HONOR GENERATIONS of the American Warrior.