UK Column Radio
He Is 'not A UN Soldier' - A Proud Father Speaks Out For His Son
UK Column’s Mark Anderson interviews Daniel New, the proud father of former soldier Michael New who, nearly 30 years ago, told his superiors ‘I am not a UN soldier’. Read the write-up at: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/he-is-not-a-un-soldier-a-proud-father-speaks-out-for-his-son
- Broadcast on:
- 15 Oct 2024
- Audio Format:
- other
What's next? At Moss Adams, that question inspires us to help people and their businesses strategically define and claim their future. As one of America's leading, accounting, consulting, and wealth management firms, our collaborative approach creates solutions for your unique business needs. We leverage industry-focused insights with the collective technical resources of our firm to elevate your performance, uncover opportunity, and move upward at MossAdams.com. Hello. Welcome to another UK column interview by yours truly, Maric Anderson, U.S. correspondent for UK column. And today, we've got a very interesting interview, something off the beaten path. And it's involving the new family of Texas. And I'm interviewing today, Daniel New, the father of Michael New, the former Army soldier who in the mid-'90s made quite a name for himself and really caused a stir in governmental circles when he refused to wear the U.N. Blue. And it kind of rolls off your tongue. Michael New refused to wear the U.N. Blue. And the blue refers to the U.N. insignia, such as berets and shoulder patches. And the meaning of this runs very deep in a world where we're looking at kind of a battle between America first, nationalistic philosophies, and internationalism. And one of the pinnacles of internationalism in terms of institutions is the United Nations. And we still stand at something of a crossroads, is the purpose of the military forces of any given nation, in this case, the United States, is that purpose to defend that nation and its constitution? Or is it something of a more nefarious nature? And Michael New's experiences as a young soldier in the '90s really shed a lot of light on that fundamental question. And his father, Daniel New, is my guest today. Daniel, thanks for being with me. Thank you, Mark. So good to be here. I appreciate it. I can say, with total accuracy, of course, that in October 1995, when Michael New Year's son showed up for formation at a U.S. Army base in Germany, and there was about to be a deployment to Macedonia, he was the only one wearing U.S. Army green, while the others obeyed the arbitrary order and showed up in their U.N. blue. And a lot of things led up to that. Your son, Michael, had already gotten wind that his unit was going to be part of a U.N. mission, and that they were no longer directly representing the U.S. government, and they would be under a foreign commander. And that had already surfaced, and he was already bulking at that. And then it kind of culminated in that day when he showed up wearing wearing the Army green while the others wore the blue in October of 1995. So that means 2025 will be the 30th anniversary of that very pivotal move by your son. So describe for us, Daniel, a little bit about Michael's upbringing and the formation of his character and what he learned growing up and what led to all this. Let's start there. Boy, you caught me off guard. I was ready to go in another direction. His upbringing was well, he grew up in a middle class family. Let's start off with that. There's a popular line these days. And we were from early on, we were home-schooled, not from the very first, but from early on. And I'm not sure that he ever attended a public school until high school. We did live in several other countries as we worked with a linguistic organization and doing linguistic research and whatnot. We lived in Papua New Guinea, so he had a year growing up there, which was fantastic for a seven, eight-year-old, nine-year-old boy and climbing coconut trees and chasing snakes and whatnot. We lived in New Zealand for a couple of years. We lived in the Philippines for three years. So he not only speaks pigeon English, he speaks English with a New Zealand accent when he wants to, and he speaks Tagalog from the Philippines. I think one of the great advantages of home-schooling for us and for living in foreign countries is that kids get a whole different perspective on life rather than just what they get if they stay home and go to public schools. So he certainly had wider exposure to cultural experiences and linguistic experiences as well. And I think he could think for himself, maybe a little bit more than just government schooling provides us. So by the time he was in high school, though, the job opportunities weren't great for him. Some of the kids were not the best element in the world, and he decided, "Hey, you know, I can join the army and see the world." He joined the army. They sent him from Texas. They sent him to Fort Bliss, Texas. That's out there by El Paso and where he bleak wasn't what he had in mind. There was next assignment he was sent to Saudi Arabia, which he says is west Texas with camels. And the next assignment was to Germany, and they sent him to Germany, which he loved. And then the next assignment was Macedonia, he was told. He was going to go there to be on a, and he was looking forward to it. It was a medic by the end. He was a combat medic, and it already saved two or three lives, and he was not in direct combat, but when somebody steps on a mind that was left from the war, and you're there, then he qualifies. So then he learned that he was going to have to wear not a blue uniform, per se, but a blue beret or a blue helmet, a blue scarf. And removing the United States flag from his right shoulder and putting it over on the left shoulder, putting on his right shoulder a U-N symbol or flag. This may not mean anything to you and me as civilians, but to anyone who can read a uniform, the right shoulder is the dominant shoulder. That's the commanding force. The left shoulder is a unit in the force that's controlled by the right shoulder, so it's a blatant statement that the United States is subject to the United Nations in this case, in all actions in that uniform. So, you know, his basic reaction was, look, guys, you know, I didn't join the United Nations. I didn't join to be a mercenary. I have a contract with, and I have an oath of allegiance to the United States of America and the Constitution, not to the President, unlike other countries, not to the nation per se, but to the Constitution. And I don't think I want to do this. If you would like to give me a transfer, I'll take it. They denied him the transfer of force, and so I said, okay, they said, well, we will put you in prison if you do not wear this uniform. And he said, I can't keep you from doing that, but I sure can't keep you from putting a blue hat on my head. So that was sort of a stance and the issue was joined until October of 1995, when, like you described, Mark, he showed up for a formation wearing a green cap instead of a blue cap. Very interesting. And with that, we're going to show a short video clip here that sort of sets the tone and explains that the last person that defied an order in this, in this basic manner was none other than General Douglas MacArthur, who was then relieved of his duty for not wanting to follow every cadence of the UN during the Korean War. And so imagine that from him all the way to a young army medic. So we'll show this video clip briefly from the documentary Good Conduct, The Story of Michael New, which Daniel helped produce. So here's that clip. General Douglas MacArthur challenged United Nations rules of engagement in Korea. He believed they put American interests and American fighting men in unnecessary danger. The historical record proves that MacArthur was right, but the dangers have increased with virtually no further opposition until now. 44 years later, another soldier is decisively questioning orders from Commander-in-Chief Clinton. This time, the president's opponent is not a famous general, but a young E-4 whose popular support is beginning to rival that of some movie stars and political candidates. T-shirts and radio ballads celebrate the courage of the army medic, who stood alone to question the legality of an order to surrender his U.S. military status to serve under UN command. Michael New was seeking neither celebrity status, nor a confrontation with the president, but in simply attempting to honor his oath of duty. He has stumbled onto both, and the administration's approach to the exploding Michael New controversy is the same as it was in Douglas MacArthur's day. Answer none of the questions and get rid of the question. Anyway, Daniel, that clip really, really shows a lot in a short amount of time. It sets the tone. Someone as prestigious and as revered as Douglas MacArthur didn't like the way the UN guided war in Korea was going, the UN had just been born in 1945 in San Francisco here just a few years later in 1950, and it lasted for three years. Here comes the Korean War, the first UN War, and the very first war not to be declared by our Congress, and we have not had a declared war ever since. That is very significant. Very few people realized this, but every soldier who was killed in the Korean War came home with a UN flag over his casket, whether he came back to the U.S. or to be written or anywhere else. They did not die for country. They died for the global governance of the United Nations, and they were buried with UN honors. Back when they got back home, they may have gotten American honors, but they came under a UN flag. That is something that even I didn't realize, I consider myself reasonably well-read. That's very disturbing. It seems they've backed down a little bit since then, and they're not quite as explicit about the UN's control of our military, and we'll get into that a little bit more. The UN Security Council, which is part of the UN government and how they were involved in Desert Shield, Desert Storm, the U.S. coalition that attacked Iraq in March of 2003. There was UN involvement, very little congressional involvement, but one of the things that your son Michael established, Daniel, that's very, very important, and it comports with what we're saying now, is that the UN is a government. It is a foreign government. It doesn't necessarily have a landmass per se, but the Rockefellers donated the land along the East River in New York City. The United Nations is its own principality, if you will, at that location. United Nations New York, not New York New York, and so they have a beachhead, but not a landmass, and it is a government. They always try and get away with saying it's intergovernmental. It's purely a place where other governments meet, but the UN is not a government itself. But your son helped establish that that's not true. It has a judiciary, a world court. It has what amounts to a legislature, the General Assembly. It has a president, the Secretary-General. It has the ability to tax, even though it technically may not have a explicit UN tax in place yet. It has the military. It has the flag, and that's really important. It has the flag. I think that's one of, among others, that's one of Michael's great accomplishments, is to, in the process of bulking at wearing the UN blue, he established that this is a foreign power. In so doing, he called attention to I, as a constitutional soldier of the US, cannot arbitrarily serve a foreign power under a foreign commander. The UN was, thereby, defined for what it really is. I think that's really important. Yes, you're absolutely right. If you recall back during the Serbian war, when the United, I'm sorry, when the Open NATO began to bomb the Serbs, the United Nations told them to stand down, and there was an argument for 24 hours, and then they stood down, because NATO is a regional military alliance as defined by the UN Charter, and it recognizes the United Nations as their first authority. NATO is a UN organization indirectly, it's a dotted line, but it's nonetheless a line of authority. Each of these multinational organizations are governed by and controlled in the end, by someone in the United Nations or by some committee, and the only two things they don't really have so far is a direct taxation program, which cannot be enforced without a military or someone to back it up and collect the taxes. So this is why they, as Michael said in the video, you know, this is why they want what they want to make me, is someone who can, who can force the will of the United Nations on a nation that thought it was sovereign, but suddenly finds out it's not. And if, look, if they can deploy him, if they can deploy my son or your son in Macedonia against the people, they can deploy them in Texas or in England or anywhere else. Geography is not a defense. It's the principle of who has the power to take these soldiers and deploy them to achieve the United Nations. Very interesting. With that, we have one other video clip to show, and the reason we're showing this is this clip a little bit longer from the documentary Good Conduct shows Michael himself explaining some of this. Michael chose not to be directly interviewed today. He has moved on and he elected not to do this, and so his father Daniel is his spokesman. Anyway, here is that clip, and it partly features Michael so people can see him more directly. We'll show some images later, what he looks like nowadays, but let's go with this clip, and then we'll go from there. New stood out in several ways, but it was especially evident that he had a well-developed allegiance to uniquely American ideals. To news, superiors, both on and off the field, it was clear that Michael New held somewhat outdated views of duty, honor, and country, but these views made him a model soldier, and he was decorated for exemplary service. News legal ordeal began shortly after Independence Day, 1995, when he learned that his unit might be ordered to the Balkans, compelled to go as mercenaries, as UN personnel, in UN uniforms, under foreign command. New expressed his concerns about the legality of such orders, and was at first ridiculed, then threatened to conform or face court-martial. When New appeared unfazed by the threat of court-martial, he was currently advised to review U.S. constitutional law and the UN charter. On September 21, 1995, New respectfully submitted his findings and position to his superiors in writing, asking them in turn for written explanations so he could review the unusual order and strive to obey it. The only justification provided by the army was a verbal briefing by an army lawyer designed to address concerns of news fellow soldiers. Immediately after the briefing, the commander gave the fateful order to Michael New and 550 others. The battalion formation eight days later would be in UN uniform. Our battalion was called in for information briefing. This was briefing on the legal basis for deployment and where the United Nations insignia. I understand ours was the only unit to have this before we deployed over there. That was probably a doing part to me. And during this briefing, he just gave a broad overview of what the army thought was legal justification, including things like the president says. So therefore it is. And when it came up to the question of why do we wear United Nations insignia, it is rather flip an answer was simply because they look fabulous. And I didn't think that was very funny. Okay, that's also an interesting clip. Daniel, we were talking off the air about the legal issues and the legal ramifications of this. And one of the things you were telling me was that there's kind of a inherent rule in all of this. That the parties in the lawsuit, that is the court martial hearing that led to the discharge of Michael, and you can give the details and the nature of the discharge. But the other parties on the prosecution side, the US government, were not supposed to get involved and influence the case from behind the scenes. But you were telling me there were some 40 violations of that rule. Let's go there. Let's walk along the legal landscape of the court martial hearing that eventually was visited upon your son. And let's go with that and describe some of that. Well, right. As I understand it, there is a anytime a court martial occurs, someone has to convene that trial. And the convening authority, which is usually a ranking officer, a fairly high officer, is the person who is in control of it from the beginning to the end. And undue command influence, what you see, I think they call they abbreviated, is forbidden by the uniform code of military justice. So it doesn't matter if it's at a local base, or if it's at a region, or if it's in a nation, wherever the theater is, that convening authority is the final authority on that court martial. And yet we found that the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, sent over at least 40 lawyers to get involved and to try to work this thing out. And they might have, some of them might have been secretaries, but they came in as a group into into Germany. And they were, it was sort of a loose lip thing. We were told that by authorities at the airport said, Oh, you guys must be with that whole group that's going to that big trial down at Swineford. And they said, Oh, there are others. Yeah, a whole bunch of them are all here. And so they didn't realize that this was a defense, not the prosecution. But those guys had no, they should have had no say and no involvement, but they did. And I think it's a small thing to the ballcat, but it just happens to be against the law. It's funny, they want to enforce the law very strictly when it comes to a soldier, but they ignore the law when they need to. Yes. What I said, 40 violations, I should have said some 40 lawyers, right? I guess maybe they were one violation each sort of a figure of speech there, but they were. Yeah, they were definitely meddling in in areas where they should not have been. And describe a little more about the court martial trial. The attorney, Ron Ray, who was in the Marine Corps for his career, seemed to have done a pretty good job assessing the overall constitutional situation, the violations of the constitutional responsibilities and constitutional framework within this case. Of course, the judges ruling eventually was pretty shocking, where the jury within the court martial, I understand there was a jury, was basically told that none of the evidence that Michael presented that backed up his case would even be allowed to be used and wouldn't even be recognized. So from what I've gathered, the whole US government apparatus from the top down in this whole thing was kind of caught flat footed by this thing. I think they expected all these soldiers to just fall in line. And it really shows you what happens when you stand on principle. And when people that are violating their oaths possibly and are transforming in the US military into something it was never intended to be. And this whole UN ruling regime is trying to kind of solidify his control over one of the most powerful militaries in history, that being the US military along the way, when they run into someone standing on principle, it's amazing what the effect is. They really didn't know what to do. Daniel, excuse me, Michael would ask questions and they would just kind of say, "Look at up yourself soldier," because they were on a mission to solidify power for the UN and they weren't about to allow principle to get in their way. So Michael put these principles right in front of them and made them look in the mirror a little bit. It's amazing how that manifests itself throughout this whole thing. You were telling me all sorts of things that Michael during the time leading up to the court martial was getting tons of letters, tons of support from the public, baked cookies, all sorts of surprises in the mail showing that there was a lot of public support, a lot of people recognizing the principles he was calling out and standing on. This had to have really unnerved the powers that be. If you would, there's plenty of room for comment on that. Oh my goodness, yes. First of all, let me say that these deployments into Macedonia each lasted six months. That was the duration. So they would rotate in a group of guys and then rotate back out in six months. And there were others. There were British units there. There were other national units within the country. When it started, when the issue came up with Mike, one had really thought about it. Nobody had really thought about the constitutionality among the soldiers at least. No one had discussed it. So this was a new thing to them. And right away, there was quite a bit of discussion in barracks. And some of them said they didn't see the big problem. Most of them though would come to him and say, you know, I see your point, you've got a good point, it makes sense. But Mike, they're going to pay us $1,000 a month for six a month. You know, that's $6,000 means a lot to a soldier. And I can buy a car, used car with for that much money. So there was that attitude, and at the same time, and I really do think that if a large number of them had stood with him, that they would have probably backed off on the court martial or at least, and they might have had to scrap the whole deployment. But in any event, once he called me and he said, I think I'm going to be court martialed, my reaction was, first of all, what have you done? I haven't done anything. And he said, well, they don't court martialed, you're not doing anything with it. Come on. So then he said, no, it's for something I'm going to not do. And he'd already made up his mind. And so naturally, we said, look, we stand with you, you decide what you want will be supported. But it was a strong thing to him that he could not be forced to serve another power against his will. It would be one thing if they took volunteers only, but to force a man to serve under a foreign authority somehow violates the very concept of national sovereignty, violates the concept of who is a free man and who is a serf who belongs to the government to be played or traded like a professional football player. So we certainly were supportive of that. And the first thing that happened, I thought, now, who can I call? I need to call someone. Where do I find help? I need someone who is, as legal experience, I need someone who is to tangle with the government. And at that moment, the radio was on behind my shoulder over my shoulder. This voice says, stay tuned for G Gordon Liddy. I don't know if you guys remember G Gordon Liddy, but he filmed, he fit all the parameters. And then to show you that it was divine intervention, picked up the phone, I dialed his phone number. And I got through as the first caller on the first try. So how many times does that happen? So went on the air and he gave me some very good advice. And basically, he said, guessing you guys are not made out of money if your son is a medic in the army. And I recommend that you just take your licks, go home and get a job and forget about it. But if you're going to do it, if you're going to fight it, here's my advice. It's like charging a machine gun. Do not stop once you get out on the open field. You can't run halfway across a field at a machine gun and then change your mind. It's too late. If you're going to fight it, fight it all the way. And I appreciated that. And of course, we found a team of very good attorneys. And Colonel Ray was a former deputy secretary of defense. We had Herb Titus and Colonel Henry Hamilton, an army lawyer. And we were just retired and had actually been stationed at that base. He knew all of the other guys, the judge and everyone. So we had a stack of evidence. I mean, we had a pile to prove the chain of command was was unlawful. The deployment, I know this will surprise you, Mark, but Bill Clinton lied to Congress about the nature of the deployment. And I'm sorry to shock your sensibilities there, but the deployment itself was illegal. But why would we let something like that stop us? The very concept. You can just force these guys to go observe against their will. So all of that evidence was set aside by the this team of attorneys or whoever the judge says to the panel. It's an effect. It's a jury. They call it a panel of enlisted men and officers. And they were told by the judge, you are not going to be allowed to see any evidence in this trial. You're only going to answer one question. Did this soldier or did he not obey that order? His own mother would have had to vote guilty. Of course, he disobeyed the order. The whole question was why? And so off they went, they drank a cup of coffee and 15 minutes later, they came back guilty. He disobeyed the order. And after that, they were sent away to do the sentencing. I took a couple of hours. He came back with a sentence. And this shocked the army because they were asking for a dishonorable discharge and time in Leavenworth prison where army prisoners go. And these guys came back with a bad conduct discharge. That is the effect of a misdemeanor, a bad conduct discharge. In fact, I had a colonel call me from Houston the next day. And he said, I bet you're upset about the verdict. But let me tell you something that really good came out of that. He said, those guys just guaranteed that he has an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. And at the same time, they guaranteed that he cannot be put in prison. So he said, you're actually seeing some support from that panel from that jury based on what they had to decide guilty. They did what they did. When they gave him a help, they gave him a a continual appeal. And we took advantage of that. Wow. That truly is amazing. And as I noted, Michael was getting a lot of popular support. The American citizen was taking notice of the principles that he stood on. And his legal team, of course, had to have learned a lot. It had to have been a very compelling thing for them to get into to review the whole meaning of being a US soldier. One of the things I thought of Daniel was that imagine that you're in your son Michael's position or any young man or young woman joining the military. And you voluntarily sign up for the military. And then they want to do the switcheroo and have you fight for the UN. And my immediate reaction to that, if I were Michael or anyone else in similar circumstances, would be, Hey, I didn't sign up for this. There's no military draft right now. The draft was abolished a long time ago in the US. I signed up voluntarily at a, you know, outlet for the army or Navy or whatever, whatever, maybe the Marine Corps. And then you get in there and something like this happens. It's it's as if you're being conscripted. It's as if there's all of a sudden a draft. You signed up for the army, but you're being drafted into the UN against your will. Yes. One of your classic replies was, look, if I had wanted to be a mercenary, I would have joined the French Foreign Legion. Yes, exactly. And so that's another way that US law is kind of circumvented. You live under US laws, you live under the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And there is no draft enacted by Congress. So then to be subjected to what amounts to a draft, once you've signed up voluntarily via the UN of foreign power, it's as if you're being, it's almost as if you're being kidnapped in sort of a legal sense. And that leads to another point we need to, we need to focus on for this all important interview. If you're fighting as a mercenary, kind of a constabulary for the global government under the UN flag, under UN authority, under the UN blue, and you're captured by the main enemy or some faction that's also your adversary, you're not a prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions, are you? You're something else. You're a mere hostage. And the consequences of that are partially featured in the documentary Good Conduct, the story of Michael New. And we'll make sure the link to that whole documentary is with this interview for anyone that wants to watch that very, very all important documentary. So it also shows in that documentary, Daniel, that those soldiers that have been caught while fighting under UN authority were desecrated, sometimes murdered in the most heinous ways or otherwise mistreated. So this is no small matter, this is not just, hey, let's wear a different patch and a different hat, but I'm the same old soldier doing the same old thing, far from it. And I think this is, again, among the most important things, you're not a prisoner of war, you're a mere hostage, if you would elaborate on that a bit. Yes, we actually sent a letter to the Pentagon asking them to define what his status would be if you were captured. And we have that imprint from the Pentagon saying he would not be a POW, he would be a United Nations hostage, and be protected by all the guarantees that that brings with it, which did not warm the cockles of our heart. The thing that happened though, the next year, about a year and a half later, is five Americans were captured in Macedonia, Army personnel, a couple of sergeants in two or three lower ranking, and they were captured by these rebels, they were Muslim rebels in Macedonia who were conducting a war of terror there. And the Pentagon wanted to say what they were, and the White House had political implications, what if these guys are not POWs? And they did it, they were frustrated for several days. And finally, Bill Clinton proclaimed that they were prisoners of war, but that was exactly what the Pentagon had told us they would not be. Well, that was for political purposes, but they were soon given back. I think rebels in most cases would have a little less respect for being told that they had U-N hostages than they would if they had POWs from the United States. I think that carries a little more weight, because if the next thing that may happen, they may have Marines right on top of it. So no one's really afraid of the gavel in New York City, but they might be afraid of being a field of messing with the United States troops. They're not U.S. troops when they're in a blue hat and a blue scarf and a blue and a blue patch. They are U-N mercenaries. Yeah, in the documentary Good Conduct, it quotes the former Congressman Newt Gingrich. He said, and I don't know if this is accurate, that they're basically a constabulary, kind of like police officers in military garb. I'm not sure if that's 100% accurate, that was his view. What's your take on that? Well, yeah, that's true. The mission was not a combat role. The mission was to observe, to monitor, and to report. They were there as peacekeepers. They were not there as combatants, even though they did wear sidearms. But we know on one occasion, a whole group of Muslim rebels was being trained to use a certain type of machine gun, and they got cornered by Macedonian soldiers and got surprised. And the Macedonians played hardball. They really, they were getting ready to kill them all. The British, United Nations troops, stepped in between them and held them up and prevented the slaughter. They then called buses and Americans sent over a bus, buses, and hauled these guys out to protect them from their enemy. And it turns out all of the instructors were American instructors who were teaching these rebels out of fight against their government. So we were involved in, you know, regime change and coups on both sides and have been for years. So, but, but typically, no, they weren't there to fight. They were there to report and try to protect people from getting killed. Yeah, in the documentary, Good Conduct, and I think it came up in our conversations before we did this interview, when you're in that position under UN Authority, you become kind of a the military wing of diplomatic meddling. In other words, you're sort of a chessboard for international intrigue and diplomacy, not the soft power part of diplomacy, but the hard power part of it. And anything can happen. There can be conflicts of interest. There can be the UN involved in areas that might be contrary to the safety of US soldiers. I remember back in Korea, it came out that a Russian, a fairly high level Russian officer was actually involved in overseeing the American part of the Korean War. So in other words, someone who was a potential adversary in his home nation, and in this case, that's the USSR, was involved in some sort of managerial or oversight role on the US involvement in the Korean War under the UN flag. So in other words, it would be possible through the UN to send our troops intentionally into harm's way, a huge, deadly conflict of interest. I don't remember exactly how that worked, but what I am saying is that being involved under a foreign power like the UN can lead to deadly consequences, where you later find out that the UN was playing both sides of the field, things like that. And even if it doesn't happen in reality, the potential is always there. What is your knowledge or take on that? Well, first of all, let me say the soldiers are always pawns in the game. They have no say in where they're sent. The trust and the they have is that their own government will not betray them, or put them in just some sort of a situation that is contrary to the needs of their own country. That doesn't happen. The same thing that you describe in Korea also happened in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese knew, in many cases, they knew in many cases what the Americans were going to do, because our orders had to go through Security Council, and that included the Soviet Union in New York. So that's not new. And obviously, every nation, whether it should have its own interests at heart or not, is that a question? Is it wrong for Germany or England or Kenya to want to take care of their own country first and their own people first? We certainly saw that in Somalia and in the fiasco there with the situation where some United Nations troops would not respond, would not go and save American troops who were under fire. So Black Hawk down, the movie is made about that. It was based upon true events. So you have unreliable troops to start with, especially if they're going to be so selfish as they want to live. As they want to live, they want perhaps to pursue their own country's goals rather than the UN goals. That's always going to be a problem. I was just going to say that when Michael got this this, as soon as we did an interview, the first or second interview I did, someone asked me, "What can I do?" And I said, "Well, you drop him a card. You know, just give him some support. He probably appreciate that." And I gave his address out on the air. "Oh, my goodness, the response was so terrific. I could tell from my own email response that he was going to get a lot of mail." So I called him and I warned him and he said, "I asked him later, you know, how much mail did you get?" And he said, "I don't know." I said, "What do you mean you don't know? I mean, I've been waiting for three days to hear how much mail you got over the weekend." And he said, "Well, you put it like this." He said, "I was carrying the second duffel bag full of mail from the mail room to my barracks." And it was so full, it was overflowing. And the sergeant comes along and says, "What are you doing besides littering? You know, what is this?" He said, "Just taking home the mail," sergeant he said. And so he said, "Well, let me see." He said, "Let me look at some of that because I bet you half of them want to see you in a stockade." And Mike said, "Sure, come on in." They sat on his bunk. They opened mail for about 45 minutes before dinner time. And not one single letter was critical. Nobody was disagree. The sergeant was blown away. He said, "I had no idea the American people feel this way about the United Nations or about, you know, this whole concept, and this all new to him." And it continued. And then later, of course, there's the famous story about the cookies so we can do that later. Yes, I even understand, I don't know, some more humorous note, but it's notable that he even got a couple marriage proposals in the mail. He did. He got marriage proposals. He got cookies. And of course, his mother said, "Don't eat the cookies. You know how moms can be? Don't eat the cookies." She said, "Oh, come on, mom." She said, "They're so good." He said, "No, that's the way somebody will poison you. You don't want to do that." So that's how they'll get you. So a few days later, he said something to me on the phone. He didn't know if he was listening. He said, "Boy, somebody sent some great chocolate chip cookies." And she said, "Hey, hey, hey. You're not supposed to be eating those cookies." He said, "Oh, it's okay now. We figured out a way to test them." Oh, yeah. What's that? He said, "No, we just give a few to the LT, to the lieutenant. In the next morning, if you're still alive, we know it's okay to eat them." You got to have a guinea pig somewhere. Yeah. As we begin to summarize this all-important issue that arose 20 years ago next year, and I'm glad we're catching it ahead of time, or excuse me, 30 years ago, rather, back in pardon, 30 years ago next year. I'm glad we're catching it in advance of that all-important milestone. We've got to look a little bit at what have been the long-term effects of what your son Michael did. If I'm wrong, correct me. What I've seen is while the UN Security Council, I believe, was too deeply involved in the attack, shock and awe attack on Iraq in March of 2003, and the earlier Desert Storm Desert Shield military coalition adventures, maybe you'd call them misadventures, it does seem that they ever since Michael's situation and what he did, and maybe I'm missing examples to the contrary, it does seem that they've been very reluctant to try again to make national soldiers from the US and other nations explicitly fight for the UN with the dominant patch on the right, the unit patch on the left, meaning that your unit is the US or Great Britain or whatever, but your real boss on the right patch is the UN, and the UN blew hell much UN, blew berry's, the overall blue insignia. Is that happening at all? Or has it been at least toned down? What have been the long-term effects of what your son did? One of the long-term effects is that we gave them a bloody nose on the issue of the uniform, and they learned a lesson from that, and today a lot of guys are being sent out on UN authorized deployments wearing American uniforms, so you don't see that distinction. There may be a UN flag somewhere back in the back or at the headquarters, but they're not even aware in some cases, if this is anything more than just a UN thing, but it's not nearly as blatant. Now that's an empty victory to me. In fact, it just made them more sophisticated, Mark, because they've learned how to get away with it and not offend, because had they not used the uniform, Mike may not have even reacted. His reaction was on the gut level at the basic level. He wasn't an expert on the United Nations. He just understood that flags and hats and symbols mean things, and so they've gotten away from that. Also, I was told recently by a colonel who I know here locally in the reserve, he said that they don't, if you refuse to go, you cannot doubt. He doesn't look good on your career, but you don't have to go anymore if they send you on a UN deployment. Now that is a major shift, and I have not confirmed it. I haven't gotten, I'd like to go get someone who's in active duty department of defense to tell me, but we're still using them. And if it's NATO, then it's the same thing. And American troops are already serving under NATO and in Ukraine and in Israel and in many other hotspots around the world, and they're there as NATO troops. So the whole issue with NATO is the same issues with the United Nations. And this is something I don't think most Europeans and or Americans understand is that this is not 19, this is not a 30 year old issue. This is a 2024, 2025 issue. And it's your children today who are enlisting, who are going to find themselves fighting, bleeding and dying for one world government, because that's the direction they're trying to take it. One of the great ironies of our lifetime, Mark, is that what we used to think of as the Soviet Union and that those who would enforce a global government on the rest of us is today the bulwark against the new world order. Is that not a great iron? Certainly, certainly it is. You raised some very good points there on the one hand and we're not confirmed on it yet. As you said, it appears, I stressed the word it appears that if you're a soldier and there's a pending NATO or UN mission, you can opt out and we want to confirm that. And I'll try and find some documentation and some links that will go along with the this video that we're doing interview once it's posted to try and clarify that. Of course, the good conduct YouTube video link for that documentary will be along with this interview posted at ukcolumn.org. But it's really important for everyone to realize that a UN mission authorized largely by the UN Security Council, that's the executive arm of the UN foreign government, even if the Congress gives it some weak, weak need little authorization to use military force, which is this blank check that Congress has given the presidency, which doesn't have a lot of meaning or substance to it. There's no, again, no formal declaration of war as required under the US Constitution. And there hasn't been one of those since World War II. And so this whole new paradigm is trying to completely ensconce itself. And so it behooves everyone who's got sons and daughters going into the military to find out who the ultimate authority is to find out if you can opt out of particular missions. And just because you're wearing your home covers doesn't necessarily mean it's a home based or home authorized mission. So there's a lot of room investigation. Still, Michael opened up this whole thing so everyone could begin looking at it and begin thinking about it. But I think what it boils down to is, do we even want the United Nations around? Is it really doing the world better for there to be a UN or at the very least should your nation be a member state of the UN? And we remember the John Birch Society's rally and cry, get us out of the United Nations, us standing for US. And that is still a relevant topic to consider. The UN itself, what is it about? It has other branches, the WHO, possibly looking at pushing a very own risk pandemic treaty. And if the WHO was a branch to the UN, that means it's part of the UN government. It is a foreign government. But digressing from that, this raises all sorts of questions, as you say, that are not a 30 year old lesson, but they're right here right now, even though next year does mark that important milestone marking 30 years since Michael did what he did. And what else comes to mind, Daniel, any other loose ends as we wind up, we can talk a minute about what Michael's doing today, a little bit about his current life, and what other loose ends might there be legal or otherwise that we maybe haven't covered? Well, first of all, I want to back up and clarify that I did not mean to state or imply that they might have an option on a NATO deployment. The direct United Nations employment or peacekeeping movement, especially if it's a combat zone, I've been told that they might be able to opt out of that. But I don't know that about NATO, and I certainly don't know that about Ukraine. And I'm sure they're taking volunteers right now, technicians who are handling the artillery and the rocketry and the computers and the drones, though there are plenty of Americans and Brits and Germans in there. But I'm sure those are volunteers at this point. But standing in a reserve in Poland, in Romania, and in other countries around the edges of Ukraine, are a whole lot of soldiers from various and sundry countries who are probably not going to get any option at all. And as they continue to push this envelope and continue to push and escalate, as the West continues to escalate this war, the danger of them being involved, either in conventional or nuclear war, gets greater every day. One of the things I did also want to mention is that I have heard since Michael's case, there has been one soldier who tried to present evidence and was told he could not present it based upon the precedent that was set in the Michael New case, that they didn't have to look at his evidence. All they had to do is decide if he did it or didn't. And why was no longer relevant? This is a terrible blow to the, I think, to the whole concept of justice within the uniform code of military justice. So that's not good. Now Mike today lives up in the Northwest. He's an engineer for a company that installs internet and telephone services. And he's very happy living a quiet life, hoping nobody recognizes him. He didn't do it to be famous. Yes, and as we're talking, we're showing some pictures of Michael today. We saw what it looked like back in the 90s, the first film clip with this documentary. But nevertheless, despite all the ups and downs and difficult legal situations and whatnot, Michael did in my view. And I think in the view of many, certainly those that were sending him so much mail back in the day, he did a great public service in shining a bright light, a very bright light on the unconstitutionality of fighting for a foreign power under a foreign commander and where that can lead. And the very dire implications, not only potentially, but things that actually happened to US soldiers under UN command, very atrocious things. And so, I believe that this provides plenty of reflection again on the United Nations itself. Let's look at its founding again. I'll put some links with this show and talk a little bit on UK column.org. I report every Friday, we'll talk a little bit more about the UN's founding, how it's structured, how the people of the world feel about it. Certainly, there was a lot of skepticism back then as evidenced by the mail and support that Michael got. And we can only hope that that skepticism and those questions are still being asked and certainly will encourage those questions to be asked so we can look at just exactly where our nations and our military is headed. And it seems to be very indicative, Daniel, the way a military is handled and structured and the way the chain of command is put together is a provides a very clear measurement of just where the powers to be are trying to take us. And maybe that's one of Michael's greatest contributions is through the military venue. He's opened up all the right doors to where we even today can look, can use the same criteria and look along the same lines, the military chain of command and all these things. And by that, we can gauge and measure just where our governments are trying to take us. And it still appears to be in the direction of global governance, a global government. Maybe I'm engaging in wishful thinking, but it seems that Michael's case might have slowed him down a little bit. As you say, they kind of got to be a little more sly about it, keep everybody in their national uniforms but still send them on what basically amount to you and those without being too explicit about it. But it gives us a great way of a good avenue of inquiry and a great way to measure just what's going on. Maybe you want to reflect on that and we can begin to conclude. Well, I think basically most people love their country or at least like their own country. If they didn't, they wouldn't be joining up in the military in those countries. And our bottom line is if you love your country, the United Nations is not your friend. Period. We'll stop. Yeah, there you go. I think that pretty much summarizes it. Well, anyway, this has been an interview with Daniel New, the father of Michael New, the former army medic who caused such a stir and made the US government reexamine itself in those days. Of course, they came down hard trying to say, we're in charge. You're not supposed to obey because we said so. And I'll just mention one of the loose end that came to mind, Daniel. And it's in the documentary that, and I don't know if this is still true, but as of that time, the US Congress had never approved the military attire of the UN. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but the uniform and the regalia and all that for anything other than US authority had never been approved by Congress. And I wonder if that still holds true. That's a great point. There are regulations that govern the wear of every uniform, and the regulations that govern the battle dress uniform says that there are certain berets that could be worn, a red beret if you're in as a right unit, a green beret if you're in special forces, a black beret. There's no mention of a blue beret. And you say, oh, well, big deal. Well, it is a big deal because the code clearly says no article of uniform that is not specifically authorized in this regulation may be worn. And then it turns around and says it the other way. So it was an unauthorized uniform. Now, they could change that. They could change the code, but at the time they had not changed the code. By the way, I had forgotten and I wanted to bring to your attention that a book was written on the subject. I don't know if you can see this or not, but I happen to think it's fairly well written because I wrote it. So we'll let others decide what a good book it is. But this is the story of Michael New mercenary or American soldier, question mark. Now, that was the first edition. We had reprinted three or four times, and this is now the current edition is the, it's a camouflage. We obviously, we took a, it occurred to me that a soldier might get in trouble carrying around a book with Michael New's picture lawyer. So we got to asking ourselves what, what does an officer want to see his, his troops reading? And the answer was a, you know, a field training manual. So we took a copy of, we took my field training manual and we duplicated the cover. I want to point out that anyone who asked for a copy of this, especially soldiers, I mean, we sell these books for $5, which is cheap, cheap for a paperback. But, you know, I need a couple of books for postage, but we'll give a copy of this book to anyone who asks for it who's in uniform, active duty. I do ask, you know, help me out with the postage, but we'll send it anywhere in the world and we don't ask for a donation for that. We're not interested in trying to get rich. We'd just like to get the message out. And I am told by those who, who I think are very honest that the book helped open their eyes and help them understand. I think active duty personnel, veterans, young people contemplating enlistment, it's a good book to put in their hands if they'll read it. Absolutely, whether you're from the UK, Europe, the US, Canada, wherever you might be from. Thank you for that, Daniel. I'm glad that we added that on. So, Michael's legacy can carry on for decades to come. And the 30th year, again, the anniversary is next year. So, we can continue to focus on this issue and sustain and enlarge upon what Michael did, get the NATO related question answered, get all these lingering, loose end questions answered, and solidify the case for national sovereignty. And it's just shocking to look at Michael's case and look at the US government wanting to abridge and defy its own rules, its own regulations, and literally defy the Constitution itself, which each soldier, officer, etc, takes an oath to uphold and defend. In other words, breaking the oath for the sake of the United Nations, a Rockefeller created monstrosity. Anyway, thanks, Daniel, for this interview. And I hope everyone out there in UK, common land enjoys this. And we'll see you next time. Thank you so much. What's next? At Moss Adams, that question inspires us to help people and their businesses strategically define and claim their future. As one of America's leading accounting, consulting and wealth management firms, our collaborative approach creates solutions for your unique business needs. We leverage industry-focused insights with the collective technical resources of our firm to elevate your performance, uncover opportunity, and move upward at MossAdams.com.