This book review appeared in e-venthorizon.

MICHAEL NEW: Mercenary... or American Soldier?
reviewed by Brett Daniel Wills

"They will deliver you up to tribulation (tribunals?) and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations (United Nations?)… You will be brought before councils (courts?)… before governors and kings."
— Mathew 10:17-18, 24:9

"I solemnly affirm… not to seek or accept instruction in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."
— United Nations Oath
Taken by commanding officers of U.N. deployments.
[Michael New: Mercenary... or American Soldier? is a detailed accounting of the circumstances surrounding the military trial, conviction and appeal of Michael New, a US soldier, court-martialed for refusing to remove the US flag patch from his uniform and replace it with the UN insignia. Once you have read the facts, you, the reader, can decide for yourself the merits of the case.]

Among the manifold points of construction which make up an increasingly complex global infrastructure, four distinct tiers, or regions, remain to be built in raising a viable, comprehensive world government. Rising from the suddenly rich geopolitical soil of our post-Cold War environment, they will, when finalized, lay as cornerstones upon which the columns of economic, political, cultural and religious unification stand. Like light-tower beacons uplifting from a storm-tossed sea of resistance, they will then cast their secular beams across each other's bows, weaving together a seamless agenda of universal cooperation and accord.

Of the four tiers, (here shown in chronological order of establishment) — a United Nations standing world army; an International Criminal Court (ICC); global taxation; and a unified religious theory, or what is commonly referred to as a world religion — commencement to elevate the first column struck it's fateful bell's toll upon Spec. Michael New. A young soldier of strong Christian morals and almost fabled courage, New was court-martialed for refusing to break his oath of allegiance by removing the United States Flag patch from his dominant right shoulder and replace it with United Nations blue-helmet insignia. This simple act of quiet, inoffensive, ethically inspired and thoroughly pondered resistance during the deployment to Macedonia in October, 1995 kindled the first spark of official controversy in what has spread, in five hastened years, into an international firestorm of debate over the relevance and fate of national sovereignty.

To help us discern the ambiguous blueprint for world government, authors Daniel New, father of the soldier dismissed from military service on a permanently career-damaging Bad Conduct Discharge, and Cliff Kincaid have crafted a penetrating book entitled, MICHAEL NEW: Mercenary...or American Soldier? A 237-page tome, the first half lays out in six remarkable, knowledge-packed chapters the story of a soldier's courage to stand up to and endure a daunting U.N. bureaucracy and scathing US hypocrisy. The second half unfolds for us the technical elements of the military trial, conviction and appeal via actual court documents; official versions of sealed presidential directives; oaths and critical letters; a House of Representatives resolution proposal; and New's inspiring homecoming speech.

Altering the Course of History
Astonishingly, as part of the Army's 550-member Battalion of the Third Infantry Division deployed to the region of former Yugoslavia to assist in staving off the spread of the Balkan War, Michael New stood alone. That more soldiers did not follow his lead then — nor since — is deplorable, and bodes ill for the endurance of national independence should this precedent be a microcosm of the scale of United Nations military drafts to come, for which U.N. Secretary-General Annan's "Kofi Doctrine" espouses to strive.

Michael's case, which first broke in the weekly Spotlight publication and the nationwide periodical The New American, is ongoing in civilian and military appeals courts. Whatever its outcome, it "has the potential to alter the course of history." And, one will find, after careful examination of the facts, that's no exaggeration.

Already, we can see evidence of the incident's historical impact, as "there are indications that President Clinton originally intended for the (Bosnia) deployment to be under U.N. control, but switched to NATO because of publicity arising from SPC New's" insubordination.

Likened unto celebrated hero Hugh Thompson, who received the prestigious Soldier's Medal in the '60s for rescuing Vietnamese civilians while threatening to use deadly force against American troops allegedly bent on a campaign of domestic terror, New points out that as Thompson "was honored 30 years after the fact for his stand at My Lai, perhaps it may take 30 or more years to recognize what Michael has accomplished."

With the late Vatican scholar Martin Malachi's warning that the next generation will see the realization of a global government, and some military officials claiming that the U.S. military will be "completely under U.N. control within the next 10 or 15 years," as history progresses, New will be viewed less as a positive figure symbolizing the endurance of national sovereignty, and more as the first individual to avoid the draft for induction into a standing world army. Indeed, how the world comes to view Michael New's stance will say much about the judgment of popular opinion as it determines the merits of a one-world government.

The U.N. 's First Step Toward Empowerment
Preparations for U.N. annexation of national sovereignty extend back decades, with scores of questionable events raising eyebrows, providing a steady ration of analysis for political academics to diet on. Yet since the U.N.'s inception, theorists have been hard pressed to pinpoint any single piece of legislation or official action that could provide a definitive separation between preparation and practice. The distinction was critical in giving credence to arguments espousing the imminence of global governance. As long as U.N. actions remained behind the preparatory line, such claims were relegated to the margins of societal debate; and calls for congressional action went unheeded for lack of evidential substance.

And then it arrived, falling like manna from an historian's Heaven for analysts to feast on: substantial evidence clarifying the U.N.'s first official step toward empowerment. Surprisingly, the precedent was set not with a third world country, where the usurpation of sovereignty would afford the least resistance, but rather via the United States itself, a stronghold of fierce national independence. As Daniel New explains:

"Before Macedonia, a non-American or non-NATO officer has never before had command of an American battalion abroad."
The event was a historical bombshell, giving justification at last to arguments against U.N. expansion, yet it landed upon the international conscience with a thud. And it became increasingly clear that preparations for U.N. empowerment were prolonged to thoroughly condition the populace to accept global governance.

Yet the U.N. was ill-prepared for what would immediately follow: resistance not from the international community, nor even among the fringe elements of conspiracy theorists and opponents of world order (most of whom failed to recognize the subtle transition), but from within the very ranks themselves in the form of a single soldier.

Like a splinter in the otherwise smooth surface of U.N. empowerment, Michael New was now "standing in the way of the New World Order." And, lest his example spark a forest fire of defiance, he was blacklisted and prosecuted. Explains author New: "If any soldier could refuse induction into the U.N. army, the floodgates would be opened and others — hundreds if not thousands — could follow his lead. So they determined to make an example" of him.

Critical Evidence Thrown Out
In various ways, the U.S. Establishment promoted a smear campaign against Michael New in order to justify its rationale for imposing such a harsh punishment. Press distortions claimed New was a "cause celebre for isolationism," regardless of his belief in furthering American interests abroad. It was then presumed New's intention was to avoid a military conflict. Yet he had previously served in the U.N.-endorsed Operation Southern Watch to Kuwait in 1993, obeying the command to deploy for two reasons:

  1. He remained "under an unbroken chain of American command," and

  2. He was not ordered to wear U.N. insignia, which would have "contradicted his sacred oath, the law, the Constitution and military regulations."
Lastly, Michael was accused of naivete wrought by a sheltered life, regardless of evidence showing he was raised in the missionary field, having lived in Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and the Philippines.

During his trial in the military appeals court, evidence proving the unconstitutionality of his court-martial was excluded from the jury, as the U.S. Government refused to contest the "unlawfulness of the order." New further points out that "Michael's key objection was not to serving in a U.N. authorized operation but in a U.N. controlled operation."

In court, New's prosecutor's claimed he had violated Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), citing Article 11, Section 2 of the Constitution as proof he had disobeyed a lawful order to deploy, issued by the Commander-in-Chief. However, it was countered, the Constitution, the U.N. Participation Act, and the Foreign Assistance Act "either prohibit such deployments or do not authorize them," effectively debunking the Government's case.

Yet all critical evidence, such as the fact that New had "offered to accept a transfer to another unit or an honorable discharge" was thrown out. Left in legal purgatory, the judicial authorities pronounced the issue a political problem, and hence non-judicable, while Department of the Army lawyers argued that the case cannot be tried in civilian courts because it's a military matter, thus lacking jurisdiction.

Toeing the Pro-U.N. Line
As one of the pivotal stratagems of warfare, it is of no surprise that the UN's plan of attack for dissolving national sovereignty should find as its first target of offense the opponent's most formidable stronghold. Hence, among the various lines of legislative defense, the U.S. Constitution was clearly understood as the most solid bulwark against which the U.N. should direct the bulk of its combative resources. And the distinction between the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Constitution could not be more starkly contrasting.

"Our Declaration of Independence," New points out, "declares openly that our rights come from God" while the U.N. Charter "was organized and has been run ever since by atheists who believe there is only one higher thing than the evolved human, and that is the Collective."

New makes a striking parallel between the characteristics of the U.N.'s military hierarchy and those of Nazi guards at Auschwitz. Both bear the traits of indoctrination, conveying the "rationale of mercenary soldier(s) - mindless subservience and obedience to orders from whomever is in command." Just as the Nazi guards "pled at their trials in Nuremberg" that they were merely following orders when "they forced innocent people into the gas chambers," so U.N. soldiers, under similar pressures, may come to act with equally reprehensible moral deficiency.

New then goes on to clarify two meanings of crucial import:
  1. The purpose of separation of church and state.

  2. The definition of 'civilian control.'
Noting that the famous phrase coined by Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the Dansbury Baptist Association in Connecticut is not part of the Constitution, New reminds us it was written 13 years after the First Amendment was ratified; and, most importantly, "was addressing the issue of the government interfering with churches, and not the other way around."

Secondly, although schools now teach just the opposite, "civilian control" means congressional, not Presidential, control of the military. Only during a declared war is the President, by congressional authorization, given control as Commander-in-Chief.

Within the ranks of the U.S. military, the U.N. propaganda campaign is conditioning soldiers for eventual submission to its cause. Though many soldiers quietly agree with the stance Michael New has taken, few are willing to openly declare empathy for fear of the consequences of suffering a similar fate. Unlike New, who was single and young at the time, other soldiers have pensions and family obligations to consider. Furthermore, a sizable percentage of soldiers now consider the U.S. constitution to be "a controversial document that they would prefer to deal with as 'underground literature'."

'Samizdat' Journalism Fuels Underground Resistance
To give an idea of the battle for loyalty now being waged within the military, some soldiers have opted not to "refuse orders to serve on U.N.-controlled missions" but rather "undermine them from within," and "make sure the mission doesn't succeed." To fuel the stealth tactic, the use of "Samizdat" journalism (taken from the word used for underground literature in the Soviet Union to convey facts censored in the official press) has gained circulation.

"The Resister," otherwise known as "The Official Publication of the Special Forces Underground" has become a leading publication monitoring the expanding guerilla warfare being waged against global governance. The influence of those associated with the literature is said to have kindled "opposition political activities" in Haiti, spurring "the regime of Marxist President Jean-Bertrand Aristide" to request that "the U.S. or U.N. investigate the allegations."

Although the publication "does not advocate racism, illegal actions or violence," soldiers found in possession of the literature are, nonetheless, "reprimanded."

On the U.N. front, various methods are being used to mold the U.S. armed forces to toe the Pro-U.N. line. Two sources of conditioning, New points out, are: To gauge the level of conflicting commitments vexing the soul of the U.S. military, New highlights the contradictory evidence gleaned from a 29 Palms survey of soldiers conducted by LTC Guy Cunningham. Entitled "Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion," the poll of 300 Marines, taken in May, 1994, revealed that "more than 60 percent would never take an oath of allegiance to the U.N." Yet Question 46, which asked, "whether U.S. troops on a U.N. mission would open fire on American citizens 'who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. Government,'" found an astonishing 26 percent were "prepared to carry out such a mission."

Soldiers in Legal Limbo, Impeachment, and a Global Gun-ban Treaty
New delves into other issues of U.N. intrigue, revealing for us many insights, such as a partial transcript of a congressional hearing by the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Committee of Armed Services. At one point, Senator Symington of Missouri asks former Korean POW Duane Thorin if the "ultimate goal" of disarmament treaties is "a world army that would control all countries."

New follows the trail of legal complexities that bear down upon those soldiers who, persuaded to carry only U.N. identification, yield their national protection status. U.S. soldiers ensnared by this legal web cannot claim POW status if caught behind enemy lines. With intransigent nations far more fearful of U.S. retaliation than the U.N.'s diplomatic hand wringing, these soldiers are deprived of the rights and protections entitled under the Geneva Conventions on War of 1949.

Of all the characters that fall under New's critical examination, none receives a more severe lashing than William Jefferson Clinton. Exposing the vital distinction between the U.N. Charter's Chapter VI missions, which are non-combative in nature, and Chapter VII missions, which requires the approval of Congress, he discloses how Clinton had distorted their presentation to justify his U.N. foreign policy; Clinton's gradual reengineering of the U.S. military via budget cuts, admission of open homosexuals, and placement of women on "the front lines of combat"; and a scathing analysis of Clinton's military actions as exceedingly more worthy of impeachment than the Lewinsky/Jones proceedings.

Outlining the expansive history of the U.N., New touches on the famous Pugwash Conferences between 1955 and 1965; the fraudulence of America's alleged debt to the U.N.; the zealous agenda of the World Federalist Movement (WFM); the expansive bureaucracy and mob-like corruption of the International Criminal Court, which has no legal justification to exercise authority; the illegal transformation of NATO from a defensive force into a tool for imposing U.N. mandates; the interweaving of national armed forces to perform military maneuvers, such as the six-nation "RimPac" naval exercises off Hawaii and the five-nation "Cope Thunder" Air Force exercises in Alaska, both conducted in July, 1998; and, most interestingly, the agenda for complete national and civilian disarmament, which the author — along with Cliff Kincaid, Chief planner of the Coalition for the American Sovereignty and Bill of Rights, which includes more than fifty organizations opposed to the ICC — goes into extensive detail to reveal, showing us the particulars of the U.N.-sponsored international gun-ban treaty now making the rounds of adoption in national legislation.

New finishes his thoroughly researched tome with a score of political figures whose actions and statements were and are pivotal to the outcome of Michael New's case, as well as the fate of U.S. sovereignty.

In addition to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Secretary of State and former Ambassador to the U.N. Madeline Albright, and even First Lady Hilary Clinton, among the most prominent of those mentioned are: Among the numerous political figures in support of Michael New, the book gives special praise to Howard Phillips, Chairman of Conservative Caucus and Presidential Candidate of the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1996, for his consistency in standing behind the cause.

As U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, who denied New's first writ of habeas corpus, said of New's case: it raises "serious Constitutional questions which have never been answered between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch."

Indeed, until those questions are answered, the viability of Constitutional integrity hangs precariously in the balance.