It’s been 15 years since Daniel New penned an article for American Free Press (http://www.americanfreepress.net) reporting that in the spring of 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of his brave son, Michael.
“Michael New refused to submit to UN authority as an American soldier. He was court-martialed for his principled stand and, on April 24, the Supreme Court ruled against him. With that, they took the U.S. across the Rubicon toward legal chaos and empire,” Daniel wrote, comparing the precipitous decline of the U.S. republic and its worldwide military footprint with Rome’s endless far-flung military operations that put the Roman republic in history’s dustbin.
“The Supreme Court, in issuing . . . two words— ‘petition denied’—stated that in the American system today, it does not matter about due process . . . . All that matters is that ‘soldiers must obey orders.’”
IT ALL STARTED IN 1995
On Oct. 10, 1995, Michael, in an act that would upset the globalist Clinton administration, refused to wear “the UN blue” in the form of an arm insignia (or blue hat, scarf, beret or helmet, or any other UN accoutrements) when New and his fellow soldiers gathered in formation at a military base on German soil in preparation for deployment to Macedonia as part of a UN “peacekeeping” contingent.
The principled young Army medic from Texas, who was all of 22 at the time, was literally in a situation where the 1/15 Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division, some 550 men and women strong, was being pressed to change commands under a UN-assigned foreign commander from Finland, strongly evidenced by the fact that the American-flag insignia on the right shoulder of New and his fellow soldiers—the right shoulder is the dominant placement indicating a soldier’s allegiance—was to be replaced with a UN insignia.
New, who later would learn much more about the Rockefeller-linked UN and its despotic notion of negotiable “human rights,” instinctively refused to wear the uniform of a foreign entity because he knew deep down he had only taken an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. So, he instead elected to wear his standard Army-issue “camo” cap on that October morning in Schweinfert, Germany. His superiors sternly berated him for “disobeying a legal order.”
As New told the New American magazine’s William Norman Grigg at the time, “Our mission heading states that we will be in Macedonia to observe, monitor, report and ‘make the UN presence known.’ I have a problem with that because I am not ‘UN.’ I explained this to my lieutenant and told him, ‘Sir, I don’t think I should have to wear the UN arm band or a UN beret. I enlisted in the U.S. Army. I am not a UN soldier. I have taken no vow to the UN . . . . I regard the UN as a separate power. Where does my oath say I have to wear UN insignia?’”
According to New, his commander responded, “Well, soldier, you enlisted in the Army, and that oath you took was to obey orders from your chain of command and we’re saying—wear it.”
LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS / REVERBERATIONS
Before Long, Daniel wrote a book, a copy of which he shared in paperback form with WIN. Entitled “Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier?” it recaps not only Michael’s refusal to wear the UN blue, but also the profound ongoing implications of that refusal—cutting to the very heart of what can happen when one’s true heartfelt, constitutionally grounded allegiance is stripped away and replaced with a foreign command that makes wholly different assumptions about the source of political power, the source of human rights and the relationship of the individual to the state.
“I didn’t want to just write the book as a flash in a pan but something that would withstand the test of time,” Daniel told WIN (based on version of this story that originally appeared in American Free Press), adding that he’s met plenty of people who’ve made life decisions based on what Michael did. “They would tell me, ‘After thinking it through, you’ve certainly raised my attention to what’s going on here,’” Daniel said. “And Michael has often said, ‘If I had wanted to be a mercenary, I’d have joined the French Foreign Legion.’”
One of many whom Michael Inspired, Army Staff Sgt. Hal Jones, encapsulated Michael’s story in comic-book form. Sgt. Jones, whose hobby is cartoon work that includes several superhero figures, produced a quality “coffee table” comic book. “He saw Mike as a superhero and he wanted to do this,” Daniel noted.
“Michael set the standard,” this writer offered, conversing with Daniel. “He effectively challenged and made public the illicit, somewhat hidden stranglehold of foreign command. He laid down the principle that, as an American, just as our rights are God-given—unlike phony UN ‘universal rights’ bestowed upon the people from a world state that can revoke those rights at whim—it naturally follows that any order that’s ungodly and/or unconstitutional is null and void and must be disobeyed as a matter of eternal principle.”
“Yes, thank you very much,” Daniel replied. “Once he made the stand, that was the important overall point.”
Less than a year after Michael stepped out of formation in Germany, the 29 Palms Marine base in California conducted its infamous survey in which participating Marines were asked whether, if given the command, they would fire on fellow Americans. Back then, 25% of those surveyed said they would so do, but those high in the chain of command, who’ve perhaps been seduced by the power brokers that desire a full-fledged one-world order, were miffed that 75% refused to fire upon Americans. So, the ongoing survey was reportedly taken over by the Pentagon and the percentage of those who would fire upon Americans has apparently grown.
“Later on, the survey was misused as an indoctrination tool by the military,” Daniel noted, adding that the survey reflects disturbing changes in the military culture in the age of globalism. “They changed the contract when you enlist for the armed forces that you’ll obey all orders given to you without any question.”
Michael himself tends to shy away from interviews these days, though there was a time when he gave speeches and thousands of radio interviews. Today, at the age of 49, he’s the father of two boys and lives in Oregon, working in the IT field. But at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Texas in 1996, Michael gave an address in which he remarked, “. . . [T]he day is coming . . . when the U.S. Army Code of Conduct will become as obsolete as Gen. MacArthur became during the Korean War . . .” Citing the writings of Duane Thorin, Michael concluded: “I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions and dedicated to the principles which make my country free.”
The only remaining question is, even if U.S. soldiers remain under a direct U.S.-based chain of command and avoid taking part in a UN-DIRECTED mission, and yet they end up fighting in a mission AUTHORIZED by the UN Security Council (keeping in mind that the U.S. Congress hasn’t officially declared war since World War II), does that go far enough to extricate the U.S. from the un-constititional, un-American system of the UN? [Editor’s note: The art at the top of the story is the creation of the John Birch Society from its well-known, longstanding campaign to get the U.S. out of the UN]