Hello, welcome to another UK column interview by yours truly,
Mark Anderson, US correspondent for UK column.
And today we've got a very interesting interview, something
off the beaten path and it's involving the the new family of
Texas. And I'm interviewing today,
Daniel New, the father of Michael knew, 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, to, to wear the UN blue.
And it kind of rolls off your tongue.
Michael knew refused to wear the UN blue.
And the blue refers to the UN 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 this something of a more nefarious nature?
And Michael News 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 knew, your son
showed up for formation at AUS Army base in Germany and there
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 UN 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 Aun mission and that they were no longer
directly representing the US government and they would be
under a foreign commander. And that had already surfaced
and he was already balking 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 the middle class family.
Let's start off with that. There's a, a popular line these
days and we were from early on. We were, we homeschooled not
from the very first, but 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 for a 7-8 year old, 9 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's, 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, 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, you know, 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, they can join the Army and, and
see the world. He joined the Army.
They sent him from Texas. They sent him to Fort Bliss, TX,
that's out there by El Paso and pretty bleak wasn't what he had
in mind. It was next assignment he was
sent to Saudi Arabia, which he says is West TX with camels.
And 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.
He 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 he was in, you know, when
you step, when one of somebody steps on a mine that was left
from the from the war and you're there, then he, you know, 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. You know, the and removing the
United States flag from his right shoulder and putting it
over on the left shoulder, putting on his right shoulder a
UN 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 the force that's controlled by the right children.
So it's a blatant statement that the United States is subject to
the United Nations in this case and all actions in that uniform.
So, you know, his 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 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
course. And so he said, OK.
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 his stance.
And the issue was joined until October of 9095, when like you,
like you described Mark, he showed up for for 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.
In 1951, 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 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 US
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. You know, but very few people
realize this, but every soldier who was killed in the Korean War
came home with aun flag over his casket, whether he came back to
the US or to Britain or anywhere else.
They did not die for country. They died for for the global
government governance of the United Nations and they were
buried with with UN honors. Now the back when they got back
home, they may have gotten American honors, but they they
came under Aun flag. You know, 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 EU NS 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 US 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, NY 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 they that 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 a military. It has a flag, and that's really
important. It has a flag.
And I think that's one of, among others, that's one of Michael's
great accomplishments is to, in the process of balking at
wearing the UN blue, he established that this is a
foreign power. And 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. So the UN was thereby defined
for what it really is. I think that's really important.
Yes, you're absolutely right. And if you recall back during
the the Serbian war, when the United, I'm sorry, when, when
NATO began to bomb the Serbs, the United Nations told them to
stand down. And there was an, an argument
for 24 hours and then they stood down.
Because NATO is an, a regional military alliance as defined by
the UN Charter and it recognizes the United Nations as their, as
their first authority. So NATO is aun organization
indirectly, it's a dotted line, but it's nonetheless a line of
authority. And each of these multinational
organizations are governed by and 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 they, 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 you 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. It's 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 agenda.
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 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.
News stood out in several ways, but it was especially evident
that he had a well developed allegiance to uniquely American
ideals. To New's 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. New's 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 curtly advised to review US
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 8 days
later would be in UN uniform. Our battalion was called in for
an information briefing. This is a briefing on the legal
basis for deployment and where the United Nations Insignia.
I understand ours is the only unit to have this before we
deploy it over there. That was probably doing part to
me. But you know, and during his
briefing, he just gave a, a, a broad overview of what what the
Army thought was legal justification, including things
like the president says. So there, therefore it is.
And when it came up to the question of why do we wear
United Nations Insignia, his rather flippant answer was
simply because they look fabulous.
And I didn't think that was very funny.
OK. 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 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 let's walk along the legal landscape of the court martial
hearing that eventually was visited upon your son and let's
go, 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 that trial and the
convening authority, which is usually a ranking officer fairly
high officer is the person who is in control of it from the
beginning to the end. And undue command influence what
UCI think they call the abbreviated is forbidden by the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So if if it 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 and yet we found that the
this Department of Defense for 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 lips thing.
We were told that by authorities at the airport and said, oh, you
guys must be with that whole group that's going to that big
trial down at Schweinford and. They said, oh, there are others,
Yeah, yeah, a whole bunch of them are all up here.
And so they didn't realize that this was the defense, not the
not the prosecution. But those guys had no, he should
have had no say and no involvement.
But they did. And I think it's a small thing
to the bulk at, but it just happens to be against the law.
It's funny they they want to enforce the law very strictly
when it comes to a soldier, but they ignore the law when they
need to. Yes, when I said 40 violations,
I should have said some 40 lawyers, right.
I guess maybe they there were one violation each, sort of a
figure of speech. There could have been, but they
were definitely. Could have been. 40 counts,
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 of the constitutional
responsibilities and constitutional framework within
this case. Of course, the judge's ruling
eventually was, was pretty shocking where the 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, would even be allowed to be used
and wouldn't even be recognized. So from what I've gathered, the
whole U.S. 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, you know, violating their
oaths possibly and are, you know, transforming the US
military into something it was never intended to be.
And this whole UN ruling regime is trying to kind of solidify
its 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, or excuse me, Michael
would ask questions and they would just kind of say, look it
up yourself, soldier, because, you know, they were on a mission
to solidify power for the UN and they weren't about to allow
principal to get in their way. So Michael put these principles
right in front of them and, you know, made them look in the
mirror a little bit. And it, it's amazing how that
manifests itself throughout this whole thing.
You, you were telling me all sorts of things that 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. The first of all, let me say
that these deployments into Macedonia each lasted 6 months.
That was the duration. So they would rotate in a group
of guys and then rotate back out in six months.
And, and there were others, There were British units there,
there were other national units within the country.
And when it, when it started, when the issue came up with
Mike, no 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 the
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 $1000 a month for six months. You know, that $6000 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, 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 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.
He said, well, they don't court martialed you for not doing
anything. We could come on.
So then he said, no, it's for something I'm going to not do.
And he's already made-up his mind.
And so naturally, we, we, we said, look, we, we stand with
you. You decide what you want.
We'll be, we'll be supportive. But 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 us a man to serve under
an, under a foreign authority somehow violates the very
concept of, of national sovereignty.
It 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, we certainly were
supportive of that. And the first thing that
happened I, I thought, now who can I call?
I need to call someone. Where do I find help?
I need someone who is has 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 filled the he fit all the
parameters. And then to show you that it was
divine intervention, I 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 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 we all, we found a, a team of very good
attorneys. And Colonel Ray is a, was a
former deputy Secretary of Defense.
We had Herb Titus and Colonel Henry Hamilton, an army lawyer
and who 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 was
unlawful. The the deployment is.
I know this will surprise you, Mark, but Bill Clinton lied to
Congress about the nature of the deployment.
And I'm, I'm sorry to shock your sensibilities there, but the,
the deployment itself was illegal by but why would we let
something like that stop us? And the very concept you can
just force these guys to go serve against their will.
So all of that evidence was set aside by these, this team of
attorneys or whoever the judge says to the panel, it it
affected the 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 the 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, from Houston the next day and he said, I bet you're upset
about the 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, 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 and then
they gave him an account, they gave him a a continual appeal
and we took advantage of that. Wow, that that truly is amazing.
And as I noted, Michael was getting a lot of popular
support. The American citizen was was
taking notice of the principles that he stood on and his 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 AUS soldier.
One of the things I thought, 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, 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 USI 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 his 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 U.S. law is kind of
circumvented. You, 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
UNA 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 interviews for 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, some 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 he 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 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,
a war of terror there. And the Pentagon wanted to say
what what they were and the White House had political
implications. What if these guys are not Pows?
And they dithered. They, they, they, they were
frustrated for several days. And finally Bill Clinton
proclaimed that they were prisoners of war.
But that was a 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 UN hostages than they would if they
had PO WS 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.
So no one's really afraid of the gavel in in in New York City,
but they might be afraid of being appealed, you know, of
messing with the United States, 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 UN mercenaries. Yeah.
In the documentary of 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 the the mission was not to
not to fight. It 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 as
combatants, even though they did wear side arms.
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 play hardball.
They really, they were getting ready to kill them.
All the the British United Nations troops stepped in
between them and and, and, 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 how to fight against this government.
So we, we were involved in, you know, regime change and coups on
both sides and, 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
chess, the chess board for international intrigue and and
diplomacy. Not 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 U.S. soldiers.
I, 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 deathly
conflict of interest. I don't remember exactly how
that worked what 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. Thing 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
that soldiers are always pawns in a game.
They have no say in where they're sent.
The trust and the and the and and the that they have is that
their only government will not betray them.
Excuse me, will not betray them or or put them in in, in just
some sort of a situation that is contrary to the, to the needs of
the of their own country. That doesn't happen.
The same thing that you described in Korea also happened
in Vietnam. The, the, the North Vietnamese
knew in many cases, they knew in many cases when what the
Americans were going to do because our orders had to go
through Security Council and that included the Soviet Union.
In, in New York. And 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, or, or Kenya to want
to take care of their own country 1st and their own people
first? We certainly saw that in in
Somalia, in Somalia and in the in the fiasco there with the,
with the situation where some United Nations troops would not
respond, would not go and save American troops who are under
fire. So, you know, with the 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.
They still want to live as they want to live and want or perhaps
to pursue their own country's goals rather than the UN goals.
That's 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, a 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'd 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 e-mail
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, I've been waiting for three days to hear how much mail
you got over the weekend. And he said, well, he put it
like this. He said, I was carrying the
second duffel bag full of mail from the mailroom to my 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, what, 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, let me look at
some of that because I bet you half of them want to see you in,
in the stockade. And Mike said, sure, come on in.
They sat on his his bunk. They opened mail for about 45
minutes before dinner time. And not one single letter was
critical. Nobody was disagreeing.
The Sergeant was blown away. He said, I had no idea the
American people feel this way about the United Nations or
about, about, you know, this, this whole concept.
It was all new to him and it continued.
And then later, of course, there's the there's the famous
story about the cookies, but we can do that later.
Yes, I even understand on a somewhat more humorous note, but
it's it's notable that he even got a couple of marriage
proposals in the mail. Yeah, 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, Mommy said there,
they're so good. He said.
She said, no, that's the way they 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 he he said something to me on the
phone. He didn't know she 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 OK now we figured out a way to test them.
Well, yeah, what's that? He said no, we just give a few
to the Lt. to the Lieutenant the next morning.
If he's still alive, we know it's OK to eat.
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 beg your
pardon, 30 years ago next year, I'm glad and 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 your real boss on the right patch is the
UN and the UN. Blue helmets, UN blue berets,
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 Aun flag somewhere
back in the back or at the headquarters, but they're not
they're not even aware in some cases that this is anything more
than just a, you know, Aun thing.
But they but it's not nearly as blatant.
Now that's an empty victory to me.
In fact, it's, it just made them more sophisticated, Mark,
because they, they've learned how to get away with it and not
offend because had they not used the, UM, may not have even
reacted. You know, his reaction was on a
gut level. It's a basic, basic level.
He wasn't, he wasn't an expert on the United Nations.
He just understood that flags and hatch and symbols need 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 if you want, if you refuse to go, you can opt
out. It doesn't look good on your
career, but you don't have to go anymore.
If they send you on AUN 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
an 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 are
already serving under NATO and in Ukraine and in Israel and in
many other hot spots 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 a world one world government because
that's the direction they're trying to take it.
The 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 a a global government on the rest of us is
today the bulwark against the New world order.
Is that not a great irony? Certainly, certainly it is.
You raised some very good points there on the one hand and we're
we're not confirmed on it yet. As you said, it appears, I
stress 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, 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 AUN
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 kneed 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 2.
And so this whole new paradigm is trying to completely ensconce
itself. And so it 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 colors doesn't necessarily mean it's a home
based or home authorized mission.
So there's a lot of rude investigation still, Michael.
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 AUN? Or at the very least, should
your nation be a member state of the UN?
And we remember the John Burke 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.
You know, the UN itself, what what is it about?
It has other branches, The Who possibly looking at pushing a
very own risk pandemic treaty. And if The Who is a branch to
the UN, that means it's part of the UN government.
It is a foreign government. But digressing from that it,
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 does 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 may be having covered.
Well, first of all, I want, I want to back up and clarify that
I did not mean to, to state or imply that that they might have
an option on a NATO deployment, the, the, 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, 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, who are,
who are handling the artillery and the rocketry and the, 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 the reserve in
Poland, in Romania and in other countries around the edges of
Ukraine are a whole lot of 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,
to push and, and escalate as the West continues to escalate this,
this war, the danger of them being involved either in
conventional or nuclear war gets greater every day.
One of the one of the things I did also want to mention is that
that I have heard since Michael's case, there has been
more than one soldier who tried to present evidence and was told
he could not present it. Based upon the 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, to the whole
concept of justice within the uniform code, code of military
justice. So that's not good.
You know, Mike today lives up in in the, in the Northwest.
He's a design engineer for a company that installs Internet
and telephone services. And he's very happy living a
quiet life, hoping nobody recognizes he didn't do it to be
famous. Yes.
And as we're talking, we're we're showing some pictures of
Michael today. We saw what it looked like back
in the 90s at 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 and shining a bright light, a very bright light on
the unconstitutionality of fighting for a foreign power
under a foreign commander and, and where that can lead and the
the very dire implications, not only potentially, but things
that actually happened to U.S. 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 let's look at its founding
again. I'll, I'll put some links with
this show and talk a little bit on ukcolumn.org.
I report every Friday, we'll talk a little bit more about EU
NS founding, how it's structured, what it's how, 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 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 that be are trying to
take us. And that 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
them 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
missions without being too explicit about it.
But it gives us a great a great way of a good Ave. 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, 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 re examine itself.
In those days, of course, they came down hard trying to say
we're in charge. You're not.
You're supposed to obey because we said so.
And I'll just mention one of the loose ends that came to, came to
mind, Daniel and the 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 the uniform and
the the regalia and all that for any anything other than US
authority had never been approved by Congress, and I
wonder if that still holds true. That's a great point.
The there are regulations that govern the wear of every uniform
and the regulations that govern the battle dress uniform says
that there are. 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 can 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 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.
But 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 it reprinted 3 or 4 times
and this is now the current edition is the, it's a
camouflage, obviously. We took a, it occurred to me
that a soldier might get in trouble carrying around the book
with Michael Nee's picture on it.
So we got to asking ourselves what, what does an officer want
to see his, his troops reading? And the answer was a, 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 asks 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
bucks 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 just would like to get the message out.
And I am told by those who 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 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.
Well, thank you for that. I'm glad that we added that on.
So Michael's legacy can carry on for decades to come.
And the 30th year again 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, etcetera 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 column Land
enjoys this and we'll see you next.
Time, thank you so much.