SPECIALIST MICHAEL NEW, A MEDIC with the 3rd Infantry Division in Germany, has refused to wear a UN-blue beret or insignia in October when his unit is deployed to Macedonia to conduct a UN "peacekeeping mission" there. New says, "I took an oath to the Constitution for the United States, and I can find no reference to the United Nations in it anywhere". The army says, "You took an oath to obey legal orders and you WILL comply, or you will face possible court martial, possible imprisonment, and at the least, a less-than-honorable discharge". New asks, "By what authority can you transfer my loyalty without my permission?" On Monday, 28 August, ('95) New met with a JAG (Judge Advocate General) attorney to review his legal options. We're told New does face possible court martial for his position. According to Will Grigg of the New American, who had personal conversation with New, the military was attempting to construe his refusal to wear UN BLUE as an indication that New is a Conscientious Objector. New says he is not. New is quoted as saying there are many officers and non-coms who privately agree with his stance. Publicly, they all have family, careers and retirement to consider. The Army has issued a statement saying that New hasn't disobeyed an order until the UN insignias are handed out and he directly refuses to sew them to his uniform. New is standing firm. We assert: this is an attempt to defuse/cover-up a volatile situation which could escalate when other like-minded pro-American military personnel discover someone has the courage to stand up for his principles and his Constitutional rights.
And now, the $64,000 question: BY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY can any one entity in this country or this world - including Clinton, or the US Congress or ANY COURT - order Michael New, an American soldier who is a sovereign citizen of the united sovereign States of America, to wear the insignia of a Global Corporate Army (UN - or NATO for that matter) which was created from the diabolical minds of self-proclaimed "world policy makers"? Perhaps the answer to this question can be found in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s article titled "Back to the Womb?", from the July/August '95 edition of "Foreign Affairs"
In his article, Schlesinger laments the isolationist stance of Americans throughout history. He says the obstacles to the "commitment of troops to combat" in a world army are both political and constitutional.
"Political - How to explain to the American people why their husbands, fathers, brothers, or sons should die in conflicts in remote lands where the local outcome makes no direct difference to the United States? and... Constitutional - If a president favored US participation in a UN collective security action, must he go to Congress for specific authorization? Or could the UN Charter supersede the US Constitution?"
The answer is "NO", and obviously the answer to that question was understood even in Roosevelt's administration. Schlesinger says,
"The UN Participation Act of 1945 came up with an ingenious solution. It authorized the US to commit limited force through congressionally approved special agreements as provided for in Article 43 of the UN Charter... This formula offered a convincing way to reconcile the charter and the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Article 43 special agreement procedure soon withered on the vine."
