All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 1995 - Bill Cooper
01:00:10
New Says No to UN Blue
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
*Dramatic music* *Dramatic music* *Dramatic
music* *Dramatic music* *Dramatic music* *Dramatic music* *Dramatic music* *Dramatic music* *Dramatic music*
The End
I'm William Cooper, and once again, you're listening to the Hour of the Time.
Amen.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I told you Friday night, nothing collapsed today, nothing will collapse tonight, and nothing will collapse tomorrow.
I don't care how many government workers don't get paid.
And the pressure is on.
You see that Clinton has already caved in and dropped all his prerequisites to some kind of a resolution.
And I'll bet that there will be a compromise reached tonight and all you little silly chicken pluckers running around with your head in your back pocket apologize to everybody that you've been terrorizing with your tall tales and fantastic rumors that the government was going to fall and war was going to break out.
You're just a bunch of silly ninnies.
And really, quite frankly, I'm really sick and tired of you.
I wish you'd go home and leave the rest of us alone.
And if any of you are in the intelligence service and I find out about it, it'll be your last day in the intelligence service.
I don't believe that any of you are.
Our people generally know better than this.
Quite frankly, folks, I don't know where some people get their brains.
Woolworths went out of business a long time ago.
And also, there's a loose cannon in Oklahoma.
His name is John Cash, running around threatening people.
Claims that the man in the video was not Gary Hunt.
Claims that it was some maintenance worker.
Well, John Cash, we've done body measurement, proportion, comparison, analysis, like I was taught to do when I was with the Office of Naval Intelligence.
And I've got to tell you, bud, that is Gary Hunt.
And it is not only unlikely, it is impossible that there's anybody else in the world, especially in Oklahoma City, in a building across the street from where this bomb blew up, who has exactly the same Body and facial features and bone structure as Gary Hunt.
Also, Mr. John Cash, it's extremely interesting that you've been spending a lot of time with Gary Hunt.
And in fact, I understand you even slept with him a couple of times.
And I understand that you've been driving him back and forth from Oklahoma City to Elohim City.
I also understand that you're claiming that you work for the defense team.
Yet every time legitimate investigators get a solid lead and attempt an investigation, it's John Cash who's there blocking the way and just recently threatening the life of some of the best investigators in Oklahoma City.
So, Mr. John Cash, my advice to you is get yourself a new horse and get out of town, because you just lost all your credibility and any chance of backing from legitimate investigators, researchers, and people who want to solve the Oklahoma City bombing.
Ladies and gentlemen, tonight, for the benefit of all those who do not get Veritas, I'm going to recount to you the headline story.
And if you have Veritas, and you've already read it, and you think you've got it all, you don't, because I'm going to give you some stuff that wasn't in that story.
That you need to know.
Veritas, ladies and gentlemen, is the best newspaper in the nation.
It's the only one that tells the truth and documents every word.
Documents.
New York Times doesn't do it.
They tell you what to think.
They don't document anything.
They twist and turn and put spins on stuff and they just outright lie.
Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles, all of them.
If this were Nazi Germany, we could say that all of these rags are really the propaganda mouthpiece, along with establishment television, of Herr Goebbels. - of Herr Goebbels. - Now, tonight, while you're listening to this, if you decide that you need to get this newspaper, it is now $35 for 24 issues.
Make a check or money order payable to IMAGE1216.
That's I-M-A-G-E 1-2-1-6.
That's IMAGE1216.
And address the envelope to the Intelligence... Well, let me back up there.
Address the envelope to IMAGE1216, PO Box 3390, St.
P.O. Box 3390. St. John's, Arizona 859-1390.
That's make check or money order payable in the amount of $35 to image 1216.
Send it to image 1216, P.O.
to Image 1216. Send it to Image 1216, PO Box 3390, St.
John's, Arizona, 85936, and I'll repeat that address later in the broadcast.
Don't go away, folks.
This is going to be extremely interesting.
I'm going to document some facts that you didn't have before.
I could while away the hours, confirm and wedge the problems, consult and wedge the ways.
And by day, I distraction while my thoughts were busy hatching if I only had a brain.
I'd unravel every riddle for any in the middle in trouble or in need.
With the thoughts you'd be thinking you could be in love for Lincoln if you only had a brain.
Oh, I could tell you why the ocean near the shore.
I could think of things I never felt before.
And then I'd sit and think I wonder, ladies and gentlemen, how many United States military personnel have put on the blue helmet, put on the United Nations arm patch, and gone off under U.N.
command without questioning anything.
Not even remembering their oath, most of them never having read the United States Constitution in their entire life, or the Constitution for the United States of America, or even their state constitution, yet their oath clearly says... Well, I'm going to read you exactly what their oath says in just a few moments.
Well, I'll tell you how many.
Every single one of them who have ever been ordered to do so, except for one, Specialist Michael G. New said no to United Nations Blue.
I'm reading this directly out of Veritas.
This is the headline story in the last issue, issue number seven.
Issue number eight goes to press next Monday, ladies and gentlemen.
And if we don't have your subscription in by then, you won't get it.
You see, your subscription has to be in before the next issue goes to press in order to get that issue and the next 23.
Or a total of 24.
So if you want the next issue, you better send your money in now.
$35 for 24 issues.
If you want a copy of the one that I'm going to be reading from tonight, send an extra $3 because it's the current issue.
Next Monday it'll be a back issue and the price goes up to $5.
Back issues are always $5.
New says no to U.N.
Blue.
There is, ladies and gentlemen, still left amongst all of the soldiers and all of the military forces of the United States of America, one loyal soldier with guts.
Specialist Michael G. New, who is a 22-year-old five-time decorated medic from Texas, who has steadfastly said he would refuse to wear the United Nations insignia and blue headgear Or what his commander calls the United Nations uniform, appeared as expected on October the 10th in his U.S.
Army greens at company formation at 0900 hours German time.
New, soberly standing alone in green amid a sea of United Nations blue, was told he was out of uniform.
He was ordered by his squad leader, company commander, and battalion commander to comply with the order to surrender his uniform and status and wear the United Nations uniform.
He was previously threatened with court-martial and imprisonment for expressing to his chain of command his reluctance to become a United Nations soldier.
When Specialist Michael G. New refused to take on the uniform of an alien power, he was told he would be expeditiously processed for an administrative discharge.
He expects to face a less than honorable discharge for bearing true faith and allegiance to his oath, his country, America's Constitution, and the United States Army.
New was offered non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for refusing to obey a lawful order.
He declined.
The Army has informed Specialist Michael G. New that he may now face a court-martial as early as January.
When the United States Army's 3rd Infantry Division, stationed in Germany, notified some of its troops that they were to be deployed in October as United Nations peacekeepers, one soldier said no.
The men of headquarters company of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment, were told that they would relieve 540 Army troops acting as a United Nations bulwark Preventing the Bosnia War from moving south.
Specialist Michael G. New, medic, informed his sergeant that he took an oath to defend the United States, not Bosnia, and not the United Nations.
He has declined the blue beret, the blue helmet, and the extra $150 per month United Nations pay.
Before that day ended, he was threatened with court-martial, prison, and dishonorable discharge.
New learned on August 21st that his unit would be required to wear the blue beret and arm patches of the United Nations.
He told his commanding officer, Sir, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
I cannot find anything in it about the United Nations.
And this is the oath that he took, ladies and gentlemen.
It's the same oath that I took When I went into the military service of my country, and I took it several times, where I served both in the United States Air Force and in the United States Navy, and reenlisted on several occasions.
It went like this, quote, I, Michael G. New, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice, so help me God." The Army's reaction, ladies and gentlemen, was predictable.
Specialist New was informed to prepare himself for a definite less-than-honorable discharge.
But not before a court-martial and possibly six months in the stockade.
New responded, quote, Sir, you do what you have to do.
I'm just doing what I have to do, end quote.
Michael New's oath is to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, but the change of uniform is clearly, clearly a change of allegiance.
It would require Specialist New to break his oath, and no honorable person could ever allow that to happen.
Michael New claims that the Constitution for the United States of America is not compatible with the United Nations Charter.
The UN Charter is based upon the principles of Socialism, Atheism, Humanism, Utopianism, and Marxism, says New, I regard these two standards as mutually exclusive, and I cannot understand how I can be ordered to change my allegiance, or my uniform, without my permission.
It's one thing to volunteer, but a far different thing for them to change the rules with no warning.
If the uniform change is no big deal, then why do it?
I will go anywhere in the world in my American uniform and perform my duty.
But I cannot in good conscience be loyal to my oath to the U.S.
Constitution and serve in this foreign army which is dedicated to the elimination of national sovereignty." Now, back in the early 60s, ladies and gentlemen, President Kennedy pushed the Disarmament Act, which is Public Law 87-297, through Congress.
The State Department published State Department Publication 7277, which outlined the three-stage plan to merge the military of the United States with the military of Russia into what would become the United Nations military forces.
Now, John F. Kennedy, folks, took both documents.
Let me find my place here.
Both documents to the United Nations and presented them as the official policy of the United States government.
This was not a proposal.
This was the official policy of the United States of America.
We are currently in stage two of this plan.
The ultimate goal, of course, is a totalitarian, socialist world government under the United Nations.
The President added his contribution to the plan when he signed a Presidential Decision Directive, known as PDD No.
25, on May 3, 1995.
According to the Department of Defense Public Affairs Office at the Pentagon, Section 5 of PDD No.
25 states, quote, The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S.
forces, end quote.
We discovered that the very next line of BDD No.
25 states, quote, On a case-by-case basis, the President will consider placing appropriate U.S.
forces under operational control of a competent United Nations commander for specific U.N.
operations authorized by the Security Council, end quote.
Now, folks, this means that United States military personnel placed under United Nations command are still under Union command, whether under a foreign officer, a U.S.
Army officer, whether or not the President says that he retains command.
A soldier fighting under a United Nations flag is a United Nations soldier.
This was confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt by Vice President Gore after American officers were killed in the friendly fire downing of two helicopters over Iraq on April 14, 1994.
Gore extended condolences to the families of those who died, quote, in the service of the United Nations, end quote.
That was found in the Wall Street Journal on April 29, 1994.
Is P.D.D.
No.
25 legal and lawful?
The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is yes and no.
The authority from which the President can write an executive order such as P.D.D.
No.
25 comes from Title 22, United States Code, Section 287d, covered thoroughly later in this broadcast, which gets its authority from Article 43 of the United Nations Charter.
Also covered later in this broadcast.
The Executive Order is legal based upon the fact that Title 22 United States Code Section 287D is law.
The Executive Order is unlawful based upon the fact that the United States has never ratified, accepted, or adopted Article 43 of the United Nations Charter from which Title 22 United States Code Section 287D derives its authority.
The whole thing, ladies and gentlemen, is an elaborate con, a scam, to deceive the American people who are not prone to doubt their government and check these facts.
It is all designed to lead to the dissolution of sovereignty and the establishment of the United Nations as the de facto world government.
Anyone, ladies and gentlemen, serving under the United Nations is required to take the United Nations Oath of Allegiance.
Will our servicemen be required to take this oath?
Is there another oath that is used for military forces if this oath is not required?
This is the complete text of the oath in its present form.
Listen carefully.
I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion, and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the International Service of the United Nations to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view.
And not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization." Now, does that sound like it leaves any leeway as to who the allegiance has been pledged
Specialist News' father, Daniel New, posted his son's problem in a local bulletin board service, that's computer bulletin board service, and cross-posted to a few computer nets.
The phone hasn't quit ringing for the last two months, says Daniel.
The reaction from the American public has been overwhelming.
A few have said he has no leg to stand on, but most agree that an order not in agreement with the Constitution is null and void.
Radio talk show hosts across the country have picked up the story.
The public response has been awesome.
Over 90% in favor of Michael New.
The United States Army, ladies and gentlemen, and Congress has been deluged with angry calls and letters, but not near enough.
The Army has issued a formal communique explaining New's status in response to queries from a few senators and representatives.
The Army's official response explained this.
Remember, this was the initial official response.
Specialist New continues to train with his unit for deployment.
He is not engaged in any misconduct related to this matter and is pending no disciplinary action.
He is not under charges.
Accordingly, no court-martial is scheduled or pending.
Specialist New has been counseled by his battalion commander, Sergeant Major, To do some research about the United Nations, its history and objectives before refusing to participate in this preventive deployment.
Specialist New's present statement of intention to disobey the order does not constitute disobedience of the order, although carrying out his intention may.
If Specialist New or any other soldier disobeys the order to deploy with his unit in the prescribed uniform, The decision of what disciplinary action, if any, will be taken is that of his commander.
Now, folks, all that sounded really good until the morning news showed up out of uniform.
The Army's tone changed instantly.
Who was told he would be administratively discharged?
Now he faces a court-martial, but his family stands firmly beside him.
The position of the Pentagon is that Specialist Michael G. New failed to carry out a direct order of his commanding officer and of the President of the United States.
Captain Stan Heath, Pentagon spokesman, informed us, quote, a soldier must obey orders.
If he does not, the Army cannot support him.
The UCMJ, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is the legal code of the military, demands that a soldier must follow direct orders.
And if you'll just bear with me for a second, I've got to turn a few pages back here to pick up the story where it continues.
And here we are.
Thank you.
Well, maybe that's not where we are.
Oh, here we go.
Captain Heath fails to acknowledge that the same Uniform Code of Military Justice demands that the soldier refuse to carry out any order or instructions which are unlawful.
The point was made clear during the Nuremberg trials, where German, Nazi military officers and government officials were found guilty of crimes even though their defense was, quote, we were carrying out the orders of our superior officers and our government.
If we refused, we would most certainly have been prosecuted, end quote.
The Nuremberg Tribunal ruled that military personnel, officer or enlisted, must refuse unlawful orders even though to do so would result in prosecution.
The Army's case depends upon whether or not the orders given Specialist Michael G. New were lawful orders.
On the 28th of August, Michael New met with a military lawyer from the Army's Judge Advocate General's office to discuss his options.
And, as expected, this officer informed Michael that his future did not look good. this officer informed Michael that his future did not look Thank you.
Supporters, ladies and gentlemen, have started a legal defense fund.
Contributions are pouring in from everywhere, said a representative.
New has since found legal representation in the person of a retired United States Marine officer, Colonel Ronald Ray, former Assistant Deputy to the Secretary of Defense.
Colonel Ray appeared as a guest of Herb Horner's Radio talk show on WWDB and stated that he has written opinions from authoritative sources who cite that the order must be constitutional and the order to serve in baby blue under the United Nations is definitely not constitutional.
New stated, quote, I don't regard the charter of the UN and the Constitution of the US to be compatible documents.
If an American who took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States can be forced to serve another power or army, further the agenda of documents alien to constitutional principles, then that American is not a free man." It appears that Michael New will need all the help he can get.
He faces a court-martial, and the Army hopes to make an example of him.
The future, ladies and gentlemen, of United Nations peacekeeping may hinge upon this very legal challenge by this one lone, brave soldier.
Now, just what is New likely to use as his defense?
The answer, ladies and gentlemen, appears to be a constitutional challenge to the President's authority to turn over command of United States Army soldiers to United Nations command.
The Constitution gives Congress the power in Article I, Section 8 to, and I quote, provide for the common defense, to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations, to declare war, to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
To provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." The Constitution in Article II, Section 1 requires the President to take this oath or affirmation, quote,
That I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution gives the President, in Article II, Section 2, the power, and I quote again, "...the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States,
When called, and listen carefully folks, when called into the actual service of the United States, he shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." End quote.
Did you notice that clause?
When called into the actual service of the United States, doesn't say anything about the United Nations.
Can treaties supersede the Constitution?
No, ladies and gentlemen.
Based upon Article 2, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the President's order is unlawful.
clearly states that he shall be commander-in-chief of our military forces, quote, when called into the actual service of the United States, end quote.
This qualifying clause applies to all three military entities.
When the president orders U.S.
troops into the actual service of something or someone other than the United States, the order, though legal because of Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 287d, becomes unlawful because of Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
And because Article 43 of the United Nations Charter was never ratified by the United States of America, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the soldier must refuse to obey an unlawful order.
The Constitution in Article 6, Paragraph 2 states, quote, This Constitution, you must listen to this carefully, This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution so that you
anything And there's no mistaking it.
You see, when it talks about bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state, it's talking about the Constitution of the states, not the Constitution of the United States of America.
You see, if the treaty is in conformance with the Constitution for the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the land, then states must conform.
But the treaty cannot supersede the Constitution for the United States of America, change it, amend it, subvert it, or take its place.
The Constitution specifically spells out the method by which it can be amended or changed, and treaties are not a mechanism of that method.
So here I'm going to read that to you again, Article 6, Paragraph 2.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."
Now, this clause has been taken by some idiots to mean that treaties do not need to conform to the limits that the Constitution places upon government, but may supersede the Constitution and become the supreme law of the land.
This interpretation is wrong, as the clause itself so clearly reveals.
To assume that the Founders would pen a Constitution that could be relegated to the trash heap a week later by merely signing a treaty and ratifying said treaty by the Senate is absolutely ludicrous.
The Constitution clearly provides for the mechanism by which it can be changed, and treaties are not mentioned anywhere as being a function of that mechanism.
Therefore, treaties In order to be legal and binding, must conform to the powers granted government by the Constitution and the limits placed upon government by that same Constitution.
In fact, Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison that any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void from the very moment it is enacted.
He said, quote, the general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose.
Since un...
Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me start that over.
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." But he goes on, "...further, an unconstitutional law is void, and is no law, and is as no law.
An offense created by it is not crime.
A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment." Ex parte. Seibold.
100. United States Supreme Court.
371. Comma. 25 L. ED. 717. The United Nations Charter was signed by the United States, but was ratified only, ladies and gentlemen, in part by the ladies and gentlemen, in part by the United States Senate, as it was indeed ratified only in part by the United Nations itself.
Do you see that body?
Well, I'll get to that in a few minutes.
The authority granting military power to the United Nations and the power to assume command of its members' military forces is contained in Article 42 and 43 of the United Nations Charter.
Article 42 is no good without Article 43.
Article 43 is the specific clause which might have enabled our military to serve under United Nations command if it were in conformance with the Constitution of the United States of America.
Article 43 of the United Nations Charter is unconstitutional.
Yeah.
It was rejected by the Congress.
Article 43 was never ratified or adopted by the Senate.
It has no force of law or force of treaty.
But because of this fact, there is no circumstance where United States military forces can be placed under the command of any foreign military officer or government, including the United Nations.
It is unconstitutional, therefore illegal and unlawful.
And even if it were constitutional, Article 43 of the United Nations Charter was never ratified, and therefore has no force of treaty or law.
Now here is the text of Title 22, United States Code, Section 287D, which is the law the President cites as his authority to deploy United States military troops under the command of foreign officers as United Nations forces.
Quote, The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement, are agreements with the Security Council, which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate act or joint resolution, providing for the members and types of armed forces,
numbers and types of armed forces, numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rites of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining
In accordance with Article 43 of said charter.
The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under Article 42 of said charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein.
Provided that, except as authorized in Section 287D-1 of this title, nothing herein contained shall be construed as a
As an authorization to the President, by the Congress, to make available to the Security Council, for such purpose, armed forces, facilities, or assistance, in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements." End quote.
December 20, 1945, Chapter 583, Section 6, 59 Statutes, 621.
Also October 10, 1949, which was the amendment, Chapter 660, Section 4, 63 Statutes at Large, 735.
But...
You see, the President is not telling the truth again!
Title 22, United States Code, cites as its authority an article of the United Nations Charter that was never ratified by the United States.
Every attempt to ratify Article 43 of the United Nations Charter has failed.
Congress and the American people do not want our military forces under foreign officers as United Nations forces under any circumstances.
22 United States Code Section 287d is without legal standing or force of law.
The President is clearly attempting to deceive the American people, in general, and the United States Army in particular, unless... Are the generals ignorant, or have they sided with world government?
Are they dupes, or are they partners in treason?
Now, folks, why would Specialist New place himself in a more difficult situation when he had already been reassigned and told he would not have to serve in the United Nations operations in Macedonia?
On Thursday of last week, and that's the last week before this paper went to press, the Army informed New Through the Brigade Sergeant Major of Charges Against Him for a Violation of Article Ninety-Two of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, U.C.N.J., quote, a violation of a lawful order, end quote.
Specialist New is presented with two possible courses.
1.
Non-judicial punishment, which is an informal military criminal procedure handled by his brigade commander, Colonel Paul Eaton, United States Army, which amounts to a misdemeanor offense in civilian law.
You see, in a non-judicial proceeding, Michael Dew does not have legal counsel, and the Army prosecutes and judges the case without any legal record, and that's baloney.
It's a law.
There's always a record.
It goes in your service record and has detrimental effect forever.
After non-judicial procedure, Michael would still be in the Army and could conceivably Be given another such order, or even be reassigned to United Nations duty under foreign officers or United Nations command.
The other course offered to Michael, if he declined non-judicial punishment, was to request a court-martial, a military judicial procedure which carries a greater jeopardy because it is comparable to a federal felony charge in civilian criminal law.
Specialist Michael New told his family, Daniel and Suzanne New, and legal advisor Ronald D. Ray, that he chose the court-martial because, quote, a court-martial is a public hearing with a record made, and appeals might not be exclusively handled within the Army.
I can also have civilian legal counsel from outside the Army representing him, and the proceedings are open to the public and not closed, as are non-judicial proceedings," stated Col.
Ray.
After standing since August 21st on his constitutional oath and his right to decline to wear the uniform of a foreign power, Michael wants an open hearing and public record made.
If he is going to be charged for all to see, no matter the cost to him personally.
He is standing where the United States Army leadership training encouraged him to stand, but certainly not where the Army wants him to stand.
Now listen to this, quote, Moral courage is as important as physical courage.
It is the courage to stand firm on your values, your moral principles, and your convictions.
You show moral courage when you do something based on your values or moral principles, knowing that the action may not be in your best interest.
It takes special courage to support unpopular decisions and to make it difficult for others to do the wrong thing.
Others may encourage you to embrace a slightly unethical solution as the easiest or most convenient method.
Do not ease the way for others to do wrong.
Stand up for your beliefs and what you know is right.
Do not compromise your professional ethic or your sober and considered judgment.
Hold your position." Guess where that came from?
It's called, Military Leadership, from the United States Army Field Manual, 22-100, 1990, Chapter 4, quote, We the People, page 23, end quote.
It is the opinion of most that Specialist Michael G. New is right.
He cannot be forced to don the uniform of an alien power and serve under the United Nations.
The order given him by his superior officers is clearly an illegal and unlawful order.
It is the military brass who should be court-martialed, and not Michael New.
The President, by ordering United States military forces deployed under United Nations command, is committing treason.
He is helping the United Nations to destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America.
He should be impeached.
Again, we see the Magi practicing magic, foisting another deception upon the American people.
Now, New can win if his legal representatives do not betray him.
It is paramount, however, that the administration win if the New World Order is to become reality.
In light of all of these facts, it is the opinion of this reporter that unless the American people exert tremendous pressure Specialist Michael G. New will be sacrificed at the altar of world government.
If this is allowed to happen, the militias will be the only military force left that remains loyal to the Constitution and the American people.
And, ladies and gentlemen, that is precisely the reason the Founders provided for the militia and included the second article in amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.
Specialist Michael G. New declined on October 16th to accept Article 15 non-judicial punishment for his earlier refusal to surrender his U.S.
Army uniform to wear a United Nations uniform.
This opened the option once again for the Army to court-martial New, placing him at the risk of being convicted of the felony charge of, quote, violation of a lawful order, end quote.
The Army has been willingly wearing the United Nations uniform for at least three years in the Balkans and elsewhere.
If convicted by special court-martial, New could be sentenced to six months in prison at hard labor, loss of two-thirds pay for six months, and receive a bad conduct discharge—all for holding to his oath of true faith and allegiance.
New is not speaking to the press, since he is an American soldier in uniform and does not wish to jeopardize his current service or cast the Army in an unfavorable light and jeopardize his future in Army service.
The Army, unfortunately, has cast itself in an unfavorable light.
During the last week in September, Michael and his family conferred with conservative leaders in Washington, D.C.
Few, if any, respectable conservatives would come to his aid.
Congressman Jack Fields refused to see him.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson's office was openly hostile, Daniel New reported.
A meeting with Republican presidential candidate Phil Graham was politics as usual.
Seems Graham's lying in his stump speech.
You see, it includes a resolve never to let American soldiers serve in a United Nations army.
It is a sure-fire applause-getter for Graham, but that's all it appears to be—another political lie.
You see, Michael met him backstage at the Concerned Women for America conference in Washington, D.C., said Michael's father.
Michael told Graham that, quote, I'm in exactly the situation that you described in your speech, and explained what he was doing.
Graham shook his hand and said, My staff is working on it, and turned and left just as quickly as he could.
But since then, no one has heard or seen anything from presidential candidate Graham on Michael New's case.
Specialist New was approaching the October 10th deadline and had no tangible promise of support from any of his elected representatives.
His father asked him how he would respond to those who expected him to concede.
Michael borrowed his one-word answer from General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of Bastogne.
Nuts, he said.
Mr. Thunderbunk of Congress asked and was given permission to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend his remarks.
He said this, Mr. Speaker, last year when American soldiers were killed over Iraq Vice President Gore told the widows and orphans of those men that they died in the service of the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more outrageous statement made by any American official in years.
The Clinton administration now has struck again.
This time they are considering prosecuting a young American soldier, Specialist Michael New, who refused to put on the blue uniform of the United Nations and refused to serve in Macedonia under a general from Finland.
Specialist New understands his soldier's oath.
He pledged to wear the American uniform and to lay down his life for our country and our Constitution.
Nowhere did he swear allegiance to the United Nations Charter or promise to obey the orders of his superiors in the United Nations High Command.
Mr. Speaker, I hope they understand that down at the White House before they tell another American family that its husband, father, son, or brother died in the service of the United Nations.
I do not believe any American soldier should serve under United Nations command." Representative Joe Scarborough and Representative David Thunderbunk signed a letter along with several other House colleagues demanding that President Clinton send Congress a constitutional analysis on his basis for taking such actions against me.
Scarborough had a press conference on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.
I did not get to see it.
Now, what can you do to help?
I'll tell you in just a few moments.
But right now, I'm going to tell you this.
In the July-August 1995 edition of Foreign Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations flagship publication, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
said this, quote, In defense of the world order, United States soldiers would have to kill and die, end quote.
As seen on C-SPAN upon his appointment as Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, Counsel on Foreign Relations, was given a copy of the United Nations Charter by Senator Claiborne Pell, also Counsel on Foreign Relations, who asked Warren Christopher to give his word that he would, quote, do everything in his power to get Article 43 ratified, end quote.
In 1993, United States Senators Pell, Biden and Simon introduced Senate Joint Resolution 112, called the Collective Security Participation Resolution, which proposed to ratify Article 43.
It, too, died on the vine.
These are United States Senators who swore to uphold our Constitution.
If United States Senators know this, why is it that you do not know this?
According to the United Nations Information Center, in answer to a direct question in September by the Council on Domestic Relations and also by the Intelligence Service, they said this, Article 43 has never been implemented or ratified." That came straight from the horse's mouth, ladies and gentlemen.
If the United Nations has not implemented or ratified its own Article 43 of its own United Nations Charter, how could the United States have ratified Article 43 of that same United Nations Charter?
is that the United States has never ratified or implemented Article 43 of the United Nations Charter at any time in its history.
The United Nations Charter was ratified by the United States Senate, but the Senate could not ratify anything which was not a part of the United Nations Charter, nor did the U.S.
Senate have any authority to add anything to the United Nations Charter.
Since the U.N.
had not ratified Article 43 because of veto action by the United States and others, it was never a part of the United Nations Charter to begin with.
Article 43 was never ratified by the United Nations or the United States, and all copies of the United Nations Charter which show Article 43 as being a ratified part of that Charter are lies, intentionally printed to fool the stupid sheeple of the world into believing that the President has the authority
Upon demand of the United Nations, under Article 43, to commit United States troops to United Nations command to fight a war which is not in the interest of the United States of America, and can only help to bring about world government and the destruction of the sovereignty of this nation.
When the Federal Register states that the U.N.
Charter was ratified without amendment, it is telling the truth.
Article 43 was not included in the Senate resolution presented to the United States Senate for ratification.
For reference, check the Congressional Record, United States Senate.
In fact, even had Article 43 been ratified, it would be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.
The passing of a resolution or the ratification of a treaty by Congress or the Senate in the case of treaties does not make it law, nor does it implement the law.
Treaties do not supersede the Constitution, as ruled by the Supreme Court on many occasions, but must conform to the supreme law of the land, which is the Constitution.
Treaties cannot come into conflict with the Constitution, change the Constitution, or amend the Constitution.
The UN Charter's Article 43 was not accepted, nor was it implemented as law, and this is confirmed by the information that I have just given you.
It's also confirmed by Clinton's PDD 25, where he says, quote, the President retains and will never relinquish command authority over U.S.
forces, end quote.
If Article 43 were enforced, And as you say, as law by force of treaty, Clinton could not retain command but would have to relinquish command to the United Nations if asked to do so by the Security Council.
Furthermore, ladies and gentlemen, you'd better listen closely.
The United Nations Participation Act forbids the President to place United States military under United Nations command in any event.
The U.N.
Participation Act is what implements the U.N.
Charter and makes it law.
The U.N.
Participation Act rejects the authority of Article 43 and restricts the President's use of U.S.
military forces under United Nations service.
The Act states clearly that the President may negotiate agreements with the Security Council, but those agreements are subject to the approval of Congress.
If Article 43 were in actual effect, Congress would have no say in the matter.
The Act does not restrict the President as far as Article 42 is concerned, but it has no teeth without Article 43.
The Act further restricts the President's use of U.S.
armed forces to, quote, supportive actions of the United Nations, end quote.
It further restricts the use of U.S.
armed forces to, and I quote,
Observers, guards, or in any non-combatant capacity, but in no event, shall more than a total of one thousand of such personnel be so detailed at any one time, provided that while so detailed, such personnel shall be considered for all purposes as acting in the line of duty, including the receipt of pay and allowances, as personnel of the armed forces of the United States.
Credit for longevity and retirement and all other prerequisites appertaining to such duty.
Good night, ladies and gentlemen.
And, of course, God bless you all.
If I were king, were the father...
Not queen, not juke, not prince...
My regal robes of the fatherland would be satin, and not a cotton, and not silk.
I command thee, king, be at peace for an hour with a rose, and a miss, and a royal flower.
If I click my heel, all the trees would kneel, and the mountains bow, and the bulls howl!
And the sparrow would take wing!
Fie!
Fie!
Well, the king!
▲
Export Selection