Tag Archive for: Korea

6 Hollywood Classics Worth a Watch This Memorial Day Weekend

On Memorial Day, we honor the Americans who have died protecting and serving this country in the Armed Forces of the United States of America. It is a time when all of us should—no matter who we are, where we come from, or where we fall along the political spectrum—forget about politics and our differences and remember those who gave the last full measure of devotion to our great republic and remember what unites us as a people.

Memorial Day became an official holiday in 1971, but it started in 1868 as Decoration Day. It began as an effort to remember those who died in the Civil War, the bloody brother-against-brother conflict that killed and wounded more Americans than any other war in our history. In fact, it was because of the Recent Unpleasantness Between the States, as it was sometimes referred to by gentile Southern ladies, that we established the first national military cemeteries like Arlington Cemetery in Virginia.

The idea of decorating those sacred grave sites with flowers and reciting prayers for the fallen is attributed to Gen. John A. “Blackjack” Logan. Logan was a Union Army general from Illinois who fought at Bull Run and numerous other battles. He became the head of a Union Army veterans’ group after the end of the war.

All of us celebrate Memorial Day in different ways. But as an aficionado of classic Hollywood movies, I have put together a list of war movies that may be fitting to watch this Memorial Day Weekend. I limited my choice to six movies that you can cover in a binge-watch in one day. They were hard to choose because Hollywood has made so many. The one factor common to all these films is that they are all based—although sometimes very loosely—on real incidents.

Since Decoration—now Memorial—Day was started to commemorate those who died in the Civil War, I am starting with two movies about that conflict.

The Civil War 

“The Horse Soldiers”—This 1959 movie by the great director John Ford stars John Wayne and William Holden. Wayne plays the colonel in charge of a Union cavalry brigade sent on a raid deep behind Confederate lines to destroy a railroad supply depot that is helping Vicksburg resist Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s siege. Holden plays the surgeon assigned to accompany the brigade who is in constant conflict with Wayne. Along the way, they pick up the mistress of a Southern plantation who is forced to accompany them after she overhears their plans, as they are pursued by Southern forces.

The movie is based on the daring 1863 cavalry raid led by Col. Benjamin Grierson that destroyed Confederate supply lines from Tennessee to Louisiana during the Vicksburg campaign. A terrific movie with an ending you’ll always remember.

“Gettysburg”—This 1993 movie is probably the most realistic portrayal of what happened in the pivotal battle of the Civil War. It not only has an all-star cast, including Tom Berenger, Sam Elliott, Jeff Daniels, Martin Sheen, and many others, but parts were actually staged on the Gettysburg Battlefield, the first time a movie about the battle was ever filmed there.

That included filming in the Devil’s Den and on Little Round Top, locations I have visited that sent shivers down my spine as I thought about those who fought and died there. One of the reasons the movie is so good is because it is based on the outstanding book written by Michael Shaara, “The Killer Angels.”

World War I 

“Sergeant York”—The 1941 movie about the real Sgt. Alvin York was directed by Howard Hawks, one of the top directors of Hollywood’s Golden Age. It stars Gary Cooper as the poor Tennessee farmer, a crack shot, who became one of the most decorated soldiers of World War I, including receiving the Medal of Honor, despite starting out as a conscientious objector due to his religious beliefs.

The movie about how York went from the back hills of Tennessee to the bloody battlefields of France is actually based on his diary. The modesty of York that Gary Cooper portrays in the film was also a reality. York was so resistant to a film being made about him that he was only persuaded after Hawks agreed to help fund a small Bible school in his hometown in East Tennessee.

World War II 

“They Were Expendable”—Director John Ford made a movie in 1945 about the little-known exploits of a PT boat squadron in the Battle of the Philippines in 1941-1942 that fought against overwhelming Japanese naval forces. It stars John Wayne and Robert Montgomery portraying two real PT boat commanders, one of whom won the Medal of Honor. Montgomery himself actually commanded a PT boat during the war.

The movie, shot with a semi-documentary feel, includes the evacuation of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his family from the Philippines by PT boat before the U.S. Army’s surrender to the Japanese.

“Twelve O’Clock High”—With this 1949 movie directed by Henry King, we move from the naval war in the Pacific to the air war in Europe. The film tells the story of B-17 bomber crews flying out of England over Nazi-occupied Europe. It stars Gregory Peck, Hugh Marlowe, and Dean Jagger. The story and the characters are based on the real exploits and officers of the 306th Bomber Group of the 8th Army Air Force, which suffered very high causalities and whose young crews experienced severe mental, emotional, and physical stress and trauma. The movie spawned a TV show that ran from 1964-1967. This tense movie gives you a taste of what these brave young Americans went through to help win the war in Europe.

Korea 

“The Bridges at Toko-Ri”—This movie about the air war in Korea and a mission to destroy heavily defended bridges in North Korea was made in 1954, only a year after the war ended. It stars William Holden, Grace Kelly, Fredric March, and Mickey Rooney as a helicopter pilot charged with rescuing downed pilots. Holden plays a reserve Navy officer called back to duty as an aviator.

Veteran actor Fredric March, as the admiral in charge of the Navy Carrier Task Force, has a memorable line for Holden, who resents being forced to leave his civilian job, a line that every veteran can appreciate: “All through history, men have had to fight the wrong war in the wrong places, but that’s the one they’re stuck with.”

The movie is based on a book by James Michener, who based his book on attacks carried out during the winter of 1951-1952 on railroad bridges at Majon-ni and Samdong-ni in North Korea by Navy pilots flying off the USS Essex and USS Oriskany.

Vietnam 

“We Were Soldiers”—Forget the movies everyone refers to when talking about Vietnam like “The Deer Hunter” or “Apocalypse Now.” The best and most realistic movie about Vietnam according to veterans I have spoken with is this 2002 movie starring Mel Gibson and Sam Elliot, directed by Randall Wallace. It is a true story based on a riveting book, “We Were Soldiers Once … and Young,” written by Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and former UPI reporter Joseph Galloway. Moore was the commander of one of the first Army Air Cavalry Units and the movie follows him and his men from their initial training in the states to the Battle of la Drang on Nov. 14, 1965.

Moore and his 400 men were dropped into the la Drang Valley, unaware that there were over 4,000 veteran North Vietnamese army troops there. Galloway actually went in with Moore and was awarded a Bronze Star for his gallantry—as a reporter—for helping wounded soldiers. The movie depicts the ferocious battle that ensued, with the American troops coming close to being overwhelmed by enemy forces, and captures both the horror, and the gallantry faced and displayed by both sides.

None of these movies glorify war. What they do is show the courage, bravery, and sacrifice of American soldiers, often against great odds and under horrific conditions, in many different eras through many different generations. They illustrate the moral dilemmas faced by men who didn’t like violence, didn’t want to kill, but were forced to do so in order that the greater good would triumph over the evils of their time.

My salute goes out today to the many Americans all over the world in our military who are the guardians at the gates, standing at their posts, protecting our homeland while we peacefully enjoy our homes and families and commemorate their brothers and sisters who protected us in the past.

May God Bless America.

AUTHOR

Hans von Spakovsky is the manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative and a senior legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Hans on X: .

South Korea’s Democrats, Crisis, And What The U.S. Must Know

China | MEMRI Daily Brief No. 772

South Korea stands at a critical political crossroads. The impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol has triggered a snap presidential election, now just weeks away. What is at stake is more than the outcome of a vote. This election could decide the future direction of South Korea’s democracy, its institutional integrity, and its strategic alignment with the United States.

The moment is grave. Interpretations vary widely along ideological lines. But for those alarmed by China’s expanding influence, the ideological drift of South Korea’s Democratic Party under the sway of postmodernism and Marxism, and the post-pandemic legacy of coercive public health mandates, the stakes are especially high. Many South Koreans who hold conservative views – rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview – find themselves sidelined by domestic media and mischaracterized abroad. Their voices must now be heard – and understood.

Freedom Forged In Blood

South Korea owes its existence as a free nation to the United States. During the Korean War, 36,574 American lives were lost in defense of Korea’s freedom. They bled not as Republicans or Democrats, but as guardians of liberty. Their sacrifice laid the foundation for the Republic of Korea’s democracy and postwar transformation.

The values that shaped the United States – liberty, truth, and faith – also shaped the founding of modern Korea. Under President Syngman Rhee and the Christian leaders of his time, those principles were carried across the Pacific and embedded in our national identity. Korea’s remarkable rise from the ashes of war would not have been possible without the blood, commitment, and leadership of America.

That is why, during the most recent U.S. presidential election, the organization I lead – Truth Forum – supported for the election of Donald Trump. It was not about party politics. It was about restoring a nation founded on moral clarity and biblical truth. A strong and free America is not just in America’s interest – it is vital to ours.

Korea’s future is deeply tied to America’s direction. As we now approach a critical election of our own, following the impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, our nation stands at a crossroads. The path ahead will determine whether we remain free – or fall to ideological subversion. In this decisive moment, we do not ask for sympathy. We ask for clear understanding – and for prayer.

A Mirror Of America – And A War Over Memory

South Korea was born in the image of America – built on the same biblical worldview that inspired the U.S. Constitution and the founding principles of liberty, law, and faith. But like the United States, South Korea is now locked in an ideological crisis.

Postmodernism, cultural Marxism, and atheistic progressivism have penetrated the nation’s core institutions: schools, universities, media, courts, and even churches. These ideas have found political shelter within the Democratic Party, mirroring trends on the American left. The results are strikingly similar – truth replaced by narrative, and identity distorted by ideology.

At the heart of this ideological subversion is a calculated revision of history. In the U.S., progressives have recast the founding as a project of oppression, built on slavery and colonialism. In South Korea, the left promotes a parallel fiction: that the Republic of Korea was not a sovereign act of national will, but a betrayal – engineered by pro-Japanese collaborators and propped up by American imperialism.

This narrative does not stop at national shame. It assigns moral legitimacy to North Korea, portraying the regime as the “true Korea,” supposedly forged in resistance against foreign domination. Never mind Pyongyang’s record of tyranny, famine, and forced labor – the myth of anti-imperialist purity prevails.

These distorted narratives function as political weapons. By undermining the Republic’s moral foundation, they sow anti-Americanism and pave the way for sympathy toward Communist China. In this upside-down worldview, China is no longer seen as a threat – but as a model of post-Western order. That illusion is not only false – it is dangerous.

This war over history is not a sidebar to politics. It is the front line. It shapes how nations understand themselves, choose their alliances, and decide their futures. For South Korea – and for the U.S.-ROK alliance – the outcome of this battle will determine whether truth or falsehood writes the next chapter.

Distorting The Past: How Historical Revisionism Fuels Political Power

South Korea’s Democratic Party, under the leadership of Lee Jae-myung, has embraced a dangerous revisionist interpretation of Korean history – one that casts doubt on the very legitimacy of the Republic itself.

In 2023, Lee appointed Lee Rae-kyung – an ideologue affiliated with the “Another Centennial” Foundation – as head of the party’s Innovation Committee. Lee’s theory claims that the last 100 years of Korean history, beginning with the 1919 March First Movement, represent an era of foreign domination, imposed particularly by the United States. In his view, Korea’s founding was not liberation – but subjugation. He calls for a new national narrative, unburdened by ties to the West.

This narrative has not remained on the fringes. Former progressive presidents echoed similar views. In 2003, Roh Moo-hyun stated that Korean history was defined by the “defeat of justice” and the “rise of opportunism.” In his autobiography, Moon Jae-in described his sense of elation upon witnessing America’s retreat from Vietnam, which he regarded as a realization of historical justice.

At the center of this narrative war is the reinterpretation of the 1948 Jeju April 3 Incident. What was originally a violent communist uprising intended to derail South Korea’s first democratic elections is now widely portrayed in global discourse as a state-sponsored massacre of civilians. UNESCO’s recent decision in April to inscribe related documents into its “Memory of the World” register lends international legitimacy to this rebranding – while omitting the historical context of communist-led violence.

Acknowledging civilian casualties is necessary. But to erase the nature of the uprising – to deny that it was launched to prevent the creation of the Republic of Korea – is not just revisionism. It is a political weapon.

This is no longer a matter of domestic academic debate. It is a coordinated strategy to delegitimize South Korea’s founding, absolve the violent legacy of communism, and sow anti-American resentment. The result is a warped historical lens through which younger generations are taught to question the morality of their own nation’s birth.

The roots of this revisionist impulse run deep. Many within the Democratic Party are not only ideological heirs of the South Korean Workers’ Party but are connected to it by lineage. Former President Roh Moo-hyun’s father-in-law, Kwon Oh-seok, was a lifelong unrepentant communist and political prisoner. These are not mere coincidences – they reveal a clear line of ideological continuity from Korea’s radical past to its contemporary political elite.

If the United States and its allies fail to recognize how historical narratives are being weaponized to undermine the moral foundation of free societies, they will forfeit critical ground – not only in Korea, but across the broader fight for truth in the Indo-Pacific.

Strategic Blind Spots: How the Democratic Party Enabled China’s Reach

The Democratic Party’s embrace of revisionist history is not merely ideological – it has translated into real-world deference to authoritarian regimes, most notably China. Under President Moon Jae-in, Seoul announced the “Three No’s” policy in 2017: no additional THAAD missile deployments, no integration into a U.S.-led missile defense system, and no trilateral military alliance with the United States and Japan. In effect, the policy conceded strategic leverage to Beijing.

The consequences have been more than symbolic. In late 2024, South Korea’s Board of Audit and Inspection uncovered evidence that sensitive details about the THAAD deployment may have been leaked to China during Moon’s presidency. This revelation followed Moon’s 2017 pledge at Peking University to support China’s so-called “national dream” – a message that sent a clear signal of alignment rather than neutrality.

On the ground, the situation is even more alarming. Chinese nationals have repeatedly been caught photographing sensitive South Korean and U.S. military installations – ranging from U.S. Navy assets in Busan to the headquarters of South Korea’s intelligence agency. Yet under current law, espionage is defined exclusively in relation to the “enemy state,” which is North Korea. Efforts to revise the law to include other hostile foreign actors were blocked – and notably, by the Democratic Party.

As a result, those caught gathering intelligence for China face, at most, a fine or deportation. There is no real deterrent. Critics call it what it truly is: passive collusion.

This troubling pattern continues. While the United States intensifies efforts to combat Chinese fentanyl trafficking, South Korea’s Democratic Party has slashed narcotics investigation budgets and curtailed prosecutorial authority. The results are catastrophic: in just five years, teenage drug crimes have surged fourteenfold.

Meanwhile, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung has signaled his intention to strengthen ties with Beijing. In a 2022 interview with Time magazine, he pledged greater cooperation with China if elected. When China’s ambassador to Seoul warned in 2023 that South Korea would “regret” siding with the United States, Lee offered no rebuttal – a silence some critics interpreted as tacit approval. Even before that, Chinese state-run outlets such as Global Times and CCTV had portrayed him as a friendly and reliable figure in South Korean politics – coverage that, in China’s tightly controlled media environment, is rarely incidental.

Around the world, democratic nations are waking up to the reality of China’s “united front” operations – covert campaigns to shape public opinion and co-opt foreign elites. Confucius Institutes, long exposed as soft power arms of the Chinese Communist Party, have been shut down across much of the West. In South Korea, however, they remain active – and some are reportedly expanding.

At Seoul National University – South Korea’s most prestigious academic institution – a “Xi Jinping Library” continues to operate despite widespread public opposition. It no longer serves as a neutral academic resource, but rather stands as a stark symbol of how deeply China has embedded itself in the nation’s intellectual and political landscape.

China’s ambition matters – but more concerning is South Korea’s vulnerability. If the United States and its allies ignore this creeping influence, they risk losing not just a partner – but the geopolitical anchor of democracy in Northeast Asia.

When Impeachment Aligns With Authoritarian Ambition

Whether the declaration of martial law was the right course remains debated. But what followed is beyond dispute: tens of thousands of young South Koreans – many previously disengaged from politics – took to the streets. Their outrage transcended partisanship. It stemmed from deepening concerns over unchecked legislative power, weaponized budget obstruction, growing doubts about election integrity, and clear signs of Chinese interference.

For China, Yoon represented an obstacle – resolutely pro-U.S. and openly critical of Beijing’s influence operations. For the Democratic Party, removing him was existential. A failed impeachment could have spelled collapse, especially with Lee facing intensifying corruption probes, including the high-profile Daejang-dong scandal.

The convergence of interests between South Korea’s progressive establishment and the Chinese Communist Party is no longer a matter of speculation. Reports indicate Chinese nationals took part in pro-impeachment rallies – raising urgent questions about foreign orchestration at the heart of Korea’s constitutional process.

This is not coincidence. It is coordination. It is what happens when internal political warfare intersects with the global ambitions of authoritarian regimes. Beijing wants South Korea out of America’s orbit. The Democratic Party wants to survive – at any cost. Their common adversary: President Yoon.

For U.S. policymakers, the lesson is clear and urgent. South Korea’s internal crisis is not just confined to its borders. It is a case study in how foreign adversaries can leverage democratic institutions against themselves. Unless the United States recognizes this alignment for what it is – a coordinated effort to undermine Indo-Pacific stability – it risks repeating the mistakes of the past.

A Sudden Pivot – Or Calculated Camouflage?

In a striking shift, South Korea’s Democratic Party – long criticized for its dovish stance toward Beijing – has begun to sound an unfamiliar tune. On January 21, the party introduced a resolution reaffirming support for the U.S.-ROK alliance. The timing was no accident. It coincided with rising global anticipation of a possible Trump administration return, and with South Korea’s own snap election looming.

Party leader Lee Jae-myung has followed suit. Once a champion of progressive economic policies, Lee is now signaling a retreat. He has signaled a willingness to abandon key progressive platforms, including the Democratic Party’s hallmark policy of universal basic income – once championed as a pillar of its socialist agenda. In meetings with U.S. and Japanese officials, Lee has gone so far as to emphasize the importance of trilateral cooperation with Washington and Tokyo, a line rarely heard from the party’s upper ranks.

To casual observers, these gestures might suggest an ideological realignment. But within South Korea, few are convinced. Even some within the Democratic Party have expressed unease over the abruptness and optics of this sudden shift.

However, this calculated camouflage seems working abroad. Not long ago, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited South Korea and addressed growing concerns in Washington about the Democratic Party’s pro-China leanings and far-left tendencies. In a post on his X account, he noted that despite these concerns, most South Koreans remain firmly supportive of the U.S.-ROK alliance – and that even if the Democratic Party wins the presidency, the alliance would likely endure.

His observation reflects a widely held reality in South Korea. The majority of South Koreans strongly value the alliance with the United States.

However, as the U.S.-China rivalry intensifies, it is critical to recognize the dangers posed by the Democratic Party’s distorted view of history and ideological foundations. If these are overlooked, the future of the U.S.-ROK alliance could face serious and lasting consequences. America’s allies must distinguish rhetoric from conviction – because the future of our shared security may depend on it.

Forecast And Response: South Korea’s Election At The Crossroads

South Korea stands on the edge of a consequential decision. The outcome of its upcoming presidential election will not only define the direction of its domestic politics but may also recalibrate the nation’s democratic framework and foreign policy orientation.

With the National Assembly firmly in the hands of the Democratic Party – widely criticized for its conciliatory stance toward Beijing – many Koreans fear that continued consolidation of power could tilt the country irreversibly toward strategic ambiguity. Some fear it could even lead to alignment with authoritarian regimes.

Amid this uncertainty, Kim Moon-soo has emerged as the conservative standard-bearer. Once a socialist labor activist, Kim renounced those beliefs following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He went on to serve three terms in the National Assembly, as Minister of Labor, and as Governor of Gyeonggi Province. During his tenure, Kim played a key role in advancing South Korea’s industrial growth through projects like Samsung’s Pyeongtaek complex, Pangyo Techno Valley, and Gwanggyo New Town.

Kim’s profile – defined by personal modesty and a reputation for integrity – stands in stark contrast to his rival, Lee Jae-myung, who remains entangled in multiple legal investigations and continues to face widespread public distrust. Several individuals connected to his criminal cases have died under suspicious circumstances – allegations that continue to raise unanswered questions.

Yet the political momentum has shifted since President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment. Conservative unity has weakened, and concerns have emerged over the reliability of polling and voter engagement. Notably, Yoon’s approval ratings had rebounded to over 50 percent prior to his impeachment – suggesting that, with proper mobilization, the conservative base could still be reactivated.

At the core of this election lies the issue of electoral integrity. While fraud allegations in the United States have prompted unified calls for investigation within conservative circles, South Korea’s conservative leadership has remained largely silent – eschewing any meaningful inquiry. Even President Yoon’s invocation of martial law, tied to concerns over election manipulation, failed to prompt a serious audit of the system or restore public trust in the electoral process.

The result is a fragmented national discourse. Allegations of rigging are dismissed by some as fringe conspiracy theories, while others point to opaque procedures by the National Election Commission and the possibility of foreign interference – particularly from China. Public confidence continues to erode.

This erosion is unfolding against the backdrop of a broader geopolitical threat. Anti-China sentiment in South Korea ranks among the highest in the world – 81 percent, according to Pew Research. Yet paradoxically, the political party widely viewed as sympathetic to Beijing continues to command significant support.

This contradiction stems from deep historical and ideological divides. Some voters perceive the conservative bloc as tainted by alleged ties to Japan’s colonial legacy. Others downplay the threat from China, citing economic pragmatism. Still, some progressives argue that concerns about Chinese influence are overstated. Others believe that economic cooperation must take precedence in times of global uncertainty.

But this calculus may not hold. Recent reports of Chinese espionage involving South Korean military personnel have heightened public alarm. If further evidence emerges, the backlash could be swift – and politically decisive.

South Korea is approaching a moment of reckoning. Rebuilding democratic confidence will require more than campaign rhetoric. It will demand transparency, institutional courage, and an honest reckoning with the risks posed by foreign interference. The stakes in this election are not abstract – they are existential.

Syngman Rhee’s Warning And The Unfinished Mission

In 1954, President Syngman Rhee delivered a stark message to the United States Congress: “Unless we win back China, ultimate victory for the free world is unthinkable.” At the time, his words may have sounded extreme. Seventy years later, they read like prophecy.

The Republic of Korea today stands amid an unresolved struggle between truth and falsehood – a battle rooted not only in domestic division, but in the broader regional order shaped by North Korea’s authoritarian regime and China’s expanding influence. This ideological fault line runs deep, touching everything from historical interpretation to democratic governance.

The collapse of North Korea and the liberalization of China remain essential, not optional, conditions for the full realization of freedom and stability on the Korean Peninsula. So long as the North Korean regime endures, it serves as a source of internal subversion, disinformation, and national division. Likewise, China’s authoritarian reach continues to embolden illiberal forces in South Korea and beyond.

This is more than strategy – it is a question of values. The U.S.-ROK alliance was forged not just to deter war but to safeguard liberty. That mission – defending truth, securing sovereignty, and advancing human dignity – remains incomplete.

The question before us is whether we are prepared to finish the work begun decades ago. For both Koreans and Americans, the unfinished mission is clear: the liberation of North Korea and the arrival of genuine freedom in China. Without these, the free world’s victory remains partial – and its future uncertain.

AUTHOR

David Eunkoo Kim

David Eunkoo Kim is the founder and representative of Truth Forum, a conservative youth organization founded at Seoul National University. Rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview, Truth Forum promotes universal values and defends freedom, national sovereignty, and historical integrity in response to the rise of leftist ideology in academia and media.

He holds a law degree from Seoul National University, where he also completed his doctoral coursework. Before launching his own game development company, he worked on the legal team at Nexon, one of South Korea’s leading tech firms.

He also co-produced and appeared in The Birth of Korea, a groundbreaking documentary that surpassed one million viewers. The film challenges progressive distortions of history and restores the legacy of South Korea’s founding president, Syngman Rhee – a U.S.-educated Christian who built the Republic on principles of liberty.

David founded Truth Forum in response to the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye, which he viewed as a turning point in South Korea’s ideological trajectory. Under his leadership, the organization successfully led the campaign to shut down the Xi Jinping Library at Seoul National University – a symbol of growing Chinese influence on Korean campuses. He also launched Students for Israel in Korea to combat rising antisemitism and pro-Hamas sentiment in academia.

Today, Truth Forum is at the forefront of a rising conservative movement, championing a strong U.S.–ROK alliance and advocating for Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Israel, Pro–South Korea, and North Korean human rights. David regularly writes and speaks on national identity, international security, and cultural resistance, focusing on countering authoritarian influence and defending democratic values.

EDITORS NOTE: This MEMRI column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Guy Who Wouldn’t Take His Flag Down!

You might remember a news story several months ago about a crotchety old man who defied his homeowner’s association by refusing to take down the flagpole on his property and the large flag flying on it. Now learn who, exactly, is this old man.

On June 15, 1919, Van T. Barfoot was born in Edinburg — probably didn’t make much news back then. Twenty-five years later, on May 23, 1944, near Italy Van T. Barfoot, who had enlisted in the US Army in 1940, set out to flank German machine gun positions from which fire was coming down on his fellow soldiers. He advanced through a minefield, took out three enemy machine gun positions and returned with 17 prisoners of war. If that wasn’t enough for a day’s work, he later took on and destroyed three German tanks sent to retake the machine gun positions.

That probably didn’t make much news either, given the scope of the war, but it did earn Van T. Barfoot, who retired as a colonel after also serving in Korea and Vietnam, The Congressional Medal of Honor.

What did make news was a neighborhood association’s quibble with how the 90-year-old veteran chose to fly the American flag outside his suburban Virginia home. Seems the HOA rules said a flag could be only flown on a house-mounted bracket, but for decorum, items such as Barfoot’s 21-foot flagpole were unsuitable.

He had been denied a permit for the pole but erected it anyway and was now facing court action if he didn’t take it down. Since the story made National TV, the neighborhood association rethought its position and agreed to indulge this old hero who dwells among them.

“In the time I have left, I plan to continue to fly the American flag without Interference” Barfoot told The Associated Press. As well he should. If any of his neighbors still takes a notion to contest him, they might want to take a moment and read his Medal of Honor citation. It indicates he’s not really good at backing down. Van T. Barfoot’s Medal of Honor citation: This 1944 Medal of Honor citation, listed with the National Medal of Honor Society, is for Second Lieutenant Van T. Barfoot, 157th Infantry, 45th Infantry:

WE ONLY LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE…BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE! AND, BECAUSE OF OLD MEN LIKE VAN BARFOOT.

Thank you, Sir!

©2024. Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Living History of Medal of Honor Recipient Van T. Barfoot

I Fought For You

A moving, patriotic tribute to our military, past and present. Thank you for your service! This video was produced by The Sound Tank.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/AgYLr_LfhLo[/youtube]