About a century and a half ago, Henry David Thoreau wrote his masterpiece, Civil Disobedience. He said that anybody has the right and the duty not to obey unjust laws or unlawful orders, if the laws are just. Who knows if Army Specialist Michael New ever read Thoreau? But in 1995 New refused to obey an order: he didn't join the United Nations mission in Macedonia. "Nobody," he said, "has the constitutional right to make me wear a non-American uniform, like the UN one". This is why he was court-martialed.
We have discussed these and other issues with Daniel D. New, Mike's father, who from the start supported his son's decision. "It was both disconcerting and at the same time something that made us very proud of Mike," he said. What follows is the result of our dialog: reasons for which a man, an American, a soldier, must serve and protect the United States and its Constitution. But today, "serving and protecting" might mean refusing to follow US policy: both domestic and foreign policy.
Why did Mike New refuse to obey an order? Didn't he betray his own oath "to serve and protect" the American people and the US Constitution?
Mike's first reaction was instinctive. The removal of the U.S. flag from the right shoulder (dominant position) to the left (subservient position) and addition of United Nations insignia on the right shoulder indicates allegiance to, and/or subservience to an organization to which he felt neither. There was no oath of allegiance to the UN, there was no contract, and there was nothing about it in the recruiting or enlistment literature.
His reaction was, "If they can make me wear that blue helmet in Macedonia, they can make me wear it in Texas or New York. Geography is no defense. It is a question of authority." To bring the issue home to your readers, I might add that if the government of Rome can force Italians to wear a blue beret in Africa or Asia, it can also force them wear one in Padania, should it be necessary.
It was only later that he learned how the uniform was actually not authorized by the Army, hence illegal; that the chain of command was in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, to which he (and all his officers, including the President) took an oath to defend; and that the deployment to Macedonia was illegal, and that the President had lied to Congress about his "authority" to send troops under the UN.
He was court-martialed. This means that they think a soldier has no right to refuse joining a United Nations mission, doesn't it?
Yes, but the charge was simply for refusing to obey a direct (and presumably lawful) order. We admit that he disobeyed the order, because we contend that the order was NOT lawful. But the judge refused to allow the panel (jury) to see any of the evidence!! That highly irregular procedure is what has us currently before the highest military court in the nation, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces. There is a good chance that they will overturn the original court-martial.
In the meantime, we have a bill before Congress, which may pass this year, maybe next year, which would clarify existing law to prevent the government from FORCING any American citizen to serve as a mercenary under the United Nations against their will. It is called the Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2000, and may be found on our website at: http://www.mikenew.com/.
It is the essence of Liberty that you may not be forced to serve another power, and in particular another political power. If you can, then to that extent you are not a free man. If I can force Carlo Stagnaro to do my will, then he is not free. It's that simple.
How was it for a father to accept all this?
My first reaction is to say, "Read my book!" (The problem with written interviews is that you don't see the smile on my face. [And we smiling say to all readers: read Daniel's book, Michael New: Mercenary ... or American Soldier?.] )
It was both disconcerting and at the same time something that made us very proud of Mike, for he is clearly able to think for himself and to stand alone when necessary. That is what should make every father proud. That means your investment of years of teaching and training has paid off. (The problem with teaching kids to think for themselves is that sometimes, just rarely, they disagree with you, and then what a mess you have!)
This is a good place to mention that I will send a free copy of my book, which is only $5 to begin with, to any active duty soldier who requests it. That includes any soldier in any army in the world. As long as I can afford to do so. This is not about money, it is about educating those who are on the verge of becoming the Storm Troopers for the New World Order.
What do you think about the United Nations? Aren't they a means of progress toward peace for all of mankind?
Behind the lofty ideals and beautiful symbols and seductive rhetoric, the United Nations is an organization that is about to realize the dream of tyrants throughout the history of mankind One World Government. It was conceived and birthed by a motley collection of Socialists, Darwinians, Utopians, Dreamers, and Marxists, every single one of whom was an atheist (at best) and none of whom believe there is anything higher than Man, with the exception of one thing the Collective. The Collective Will of Man is to be realized in the United Nations, if they succeed, and that means the individual wills of men must be exterminated. "Rights" will be defined by the Collective, not by the individual, and certainly not by a God they do not believe exists. "Rights" will be given, and taken away by the Collective.
What was the question? Oh, "What do you think about the United Nations?" Answer: "I don't like it."
The United States seem to be some kind of "policeman of the world". Several liberals say the US has this duty, because it is the most powerful nation in the world. In other words, the US has a sort of "mission from God" to restore the peace. Do you think this is a just role for the US?
George Washington gave us sound advice when, in his Farewell Address, he told us to "avoid entangling alliances."
If we have any "duty" to the rest of the world, it is to maintain the highest standards of Freedom for our Citizens, protecting them from all attacks on their Life, Liberty and Property. Beyond that, we might well offer to educate those who wish to emulate our example.
My favorite quote on this subject comes from former President John Quincy Adams: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy . She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the powers of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom . She might become the dictatress of the world; she would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit." (John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821)
The blood of our sons (and daughters) is not available to be sacrificed on the altar of the New World Order, so that we may impose some kind of Pax Americana upon the world following the phony collapse of communism.
If the USA attempts to become the Policeman of the World, we will have become that which we have always fought against the Tyrant of the World. It is the unavoidable nature of Man to abuse power, and no Nation (or group of nations) should be able to dictate terms to any other nation, except as the direct result of victory in war. (And no nation should go to war, except in defense of its own citizens and their Freedom!)
Some months ago several people did contest the WTO during the "Millennium Round" in Seattle. Most of them started from leftist ideas. Were you with them in spirit?
No. I was not invited. Nor would I have gone. While I do not like the WTO and NAFTA, and consider them gross violations of national sovereignty, and imperialistic tools of the New World Order, I am always very suspicious when the Left choreographs its own opposition. This was clear from Day 1 in Seattle. There was nothing spontaneous about that demonstration, hence one must follow the money and try to figure out what is going on.
Let's talk about another issue. Day by day, they are making more difficult for American citizens to buy guns. Do you agree with Founding Fathers' thought, which is clear in the Second Amendment? In your opinion, has everybody the right to keep and bear firearms?
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant men. I agree with them.
Some may think you just changed subjects, but the fact is that when people are able to defend their Freedom, there is always a chance that they may become free. But where people are disarmed, there is a 100% statistical probability that they will become subjects of the State, and hence slaves, no matter what sophisticated labels we use to convince them otherwise. Ask your grandfather, "Are we as free today as when you were a boy?" There is your answer.
Don't you think that an armed society is more violent than an unarmed one?
It is a proven fact that "an armed society is a polite society." Wherever guns are removed from the citizens, violent crime increases.
As a matter of fact, the classroom murders are living proof that gun control does not work. Where the responsible citizen has no gun, all are potential victims to a sick mind who has no more respect the law than for life itself.
Israel gives us an excellent example. You never see anyone killing students in the classrooms there. Why? Because many of the teachers and adult volunteers are armed and capable of dealing with it. I advocate that every classroom teacher who is responsible and who has been trained be allowed to carry a firearm into the classroom, for the protection of his/her students. This nonsense can be stopped.
Since the days of the Civil War, ...
By the term, "Civil War," I presume you are referring to the War for Southern Independence.
Yeah, you are right... since the days of the War for Southern Independence, the central government has acquired ever more power. Day by day, year by year, President by President, the federal government has become bigger and more unlimited, despite state governments. Several writers say that nowdays the American system is a federal one no longer. Has America become a Nation-State like the European ones?
George Washington said that "government is like fire. A useful servant, a fearful master." It would appear that the fire has gotten out of control. The challenge before us is how to reduce the fire back to its proper role of humble and obedient servant of the People. It is a formidable task. And it will not be accomplished by watching TV and voting the way Group-Think tells us to vote.
What happened to the American Dream?
There is no doubt that America is collapsing upon its own decadent wealth and corruption. It is similar to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Today the American Dream is simply a 21st Century version of "bread and circuses," only we call it "Professional Sports and Television and Welfare."
What rights have the states, and what rights should they have?
Remember that the States created the Federal Government. It was intended to be THEIR servant, and not the other way around. Many States would not ratify the Constitution, until the Bill of Rights was added. Every amendment in the Bill of Rights is intended to limit the powers of the national government, not the States, and not the People. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that ALL power and ALL rights reside in the States and the People, with the exception of those powers being granted by the Constitution.
Final question: is there any hope against the New World Order?
Because I believe in a Father above, Who is far greater than the puny efforts of Mankind, of course there is hope. We know Who wins in the end. Therefore the battle for freedom is simply obedience to God.
I refer you to an on-line copy of the Constitution for the People of the United States http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html Wherever people gain an understanding of the principles of that document, and the spiritual principles upon which it is based, there is Hope and there will be Freedom.
Carlo Stagnaro's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 4, No 28, July 10, 2000