Frequently Asked Questions
|
Simply use the drop-down menu above to select a question. If you would like to know something that hasn't already been answered in the FAQ, please don't hesitate to contact us. Thank you.
Please use the drop-down menu above to select a question.
What can I do to help?
Do you own a copy of the book, "Michael New -- Mercenary... or American Soldier"? If you don't, that would be a good start. Read the book, and educate yourself and others. You can also write your Congressman and Senators and ask them to support Legislation to protect other American Soldiers so they will never be forced to serve under foreign commanders or wear foreign uniforms.
If you were to write a letter to your local newspaper and explain that the case is still alive, still pending in the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces, and will be an issue in the 109th Congress, it seems to us that one letter published in a local newspaper will alert people and keep the case alive in a manner that will be more effective than anything we, as a family, can possible do. If you get published, please let us see a copy, by mailing it (along with date and name of paper) to our address in Texas. Sample letter, upon which you will surely improve:
I recieved a fund raising letter the address given to send donations to is: Michael New Legal Defense Fund, P.O. Box 1341, Merrifield, VA 22116-9902. I see a address in Texas on your website. Is this legitimate?
In Virginia we employ a company to help us raise the funds to pay lawyers, etc. In Texas we use the name Michael New Action Fund, because we aren't limited to a legal defense, we also are about educating troops, the public, and even politicians and troops in other countries. The Texas address is home, and is the office of the operation. The Virginia address is the one for fund raising. Once people find us, we do prefer that they send money to us here in Texas, but we don't want to confuse them any more. In a more perfect world we wouldn't have to use a fund-raiser, but the fact is, they not only do a good job, they are educating many people who have never heard of these issues! I had never thought of fund raising letters as educational. Feel free to call me if you have more questions
Orders are orders, and you have to obey all of them That's what the Army is all about.
To the contrary, orders are not all the same. From Boot Camp, every recruit is taught that legal and lawful orders must all be obeyed, but if you believe an order is either illegal, or unlawful, (there is a difference), you must go through proper channels to challenge those orders. That is exactly what Spc. Michael New did, and is still doing. He is going through channels.
My Congressman says this is the job of Congress, not a soldier, to determine our policy and regulate our army.
If your Congressman is so smart, my question to him becomes, "What have you done to prevent this from happening to other soldiers?" We hear this a lot, and we partially agree. If enough Congressmen had a backbone (and a few of them do), this problem could be dealt with from the top. But the law remains -- soldiers take an oath to obey lawful orders, and none others
Do you hate foreigners?
We do not hate foreigners at all. I have personally lived and worked in several different countries, have been "the foreigner," have experienced the antagonism of a few, and know what it feels like. My ancestors came here from England and Scotland, (and even one from France), so I see no reason to hate foreigners just because they are foreigners. We believe in the concept of Law and of National Sovereignty. For every nation, yours included. We think the Brits, the French, the Germans, etc., should be able to determine their own destiny, without being told how to do it by some higher authority. Please tell me what is wrong with the concept of "self-determination"? It is not somewhat imperialistic to want to dictate to another country what their national policy should be?
How do I contact Michael New for a interview or to speak before our organization?
The quick answer is, you don't. At least, not directly. Michael chooses to live a private life. His father, Daniel New is the official spokesman, you can contact him for interviews and speeches. What should I tell my son, currently in the Army, about serving under the United Nations?
What should we tell our children (even after they become adults) about corruption and illegality in any occupation? Whether they work in a bank, for a lawyer, in the field of medicine, or as used car dealers, I guarantee you they will be told to do something that is illegal or unethical, sooner or later. The real question is, "Have you trained your son (or daughter) to say 'NO!' to both corruption and to peer pressure?" If not, what are you waiting on?
Is it true that only Congress can declare war?
If what you say is true that only Congress can declare war, then every war in which the USA has been involved since WWII has been illegal, with the possible exception of the Gulf War, since there was a belated Congressional declaration of War in that instance. Are you really saying that? A cogent observation, one which escapes most people completely. But, are we not members of the United Nations, and does not the United Nations' Charter authorize UN wars and other military actions? It wasn't illegal by their standards, surely! Your second sentence is correct. Korea, Haiti, Somalia, Macedonia, the Congo, etc., were not illegal by UN standards. Here's the problem, which only the Supreme Court can answer today, the Founding Fathers no longer being available. We contend that the Constitution is the only authority this country has for its government, not the UN Charter. (See article, which contends that "Treaties Are Not the Supreme Law of the Land." It is absurd on the face of it to suppose that any treaty into which this country enters, however contrary to the Constitution, could override the Constitution. Yet that is precisely what those contend who want to destroy our national sovereignty. They find their premise in a deliberate misreading of Article VI of the Constitution. Look it up. Second paragraph.) If we are wrong, then the United Stated of America is no longer a sovereign Republic. It would mean that a revolution has taken place which has destroyed our republic, literally having sold it out (the operative word is "treason") in an act of deliberate deception of We, the People. IF that is true, and the evidence seems to point in that direction, then we are a conquered nation, living in a deception, and telling ourselves that we are a free people. But what is the very definition of freedom? Is it not "self-determination?" If Bezerkistan and the Republic of Banana can outvote us in the General Assembly, we are no longer an Independent Nation. If the United Nations, its International Criminal Court and its now operative "Stand By Army" can enforce even one edict over the American people, then we are subjugated, not by an army with guns, but by traitors working like moles from within, over many, many decades. You may see the veracity of what I claim by watching closely to see if the U.N. can pull off even one international tax. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." If they can manage to place a 1/10 of one percent tax on anything any American does, they will have placed the lid on our coffin, and everything else will be a matter of nailing it down, regardless of how alive the corpse may think it is. Watch to see if the UN can get away with a small tax on every barrel of oil that comes from the ocean floor. Or a tiny tax on every international financial transaction. Or a few pennies on every international flight. Etc. I don't make this stuff up, they are all proposed by both the UN and many Americans who want to see an end to our national sovereignty.
What do you say to the charge, which I have read, that you and your son are distracting the American People from more important issues, and the implication that this is deliberate?
It's always a delicate balance to stay focused, and not become myopic. Certainly, we see the larger problem of the United Nations, as well as the concerted attack on this Republic, not simply for 60 years, but for 150 years. And we realize that there are many issues out there besides ours. But we're "playing the hand we were dealt," when the President of the United States told Spc. Michael New to remove the US flag patch from his right (dominant) shoulder and replace it with a UN patch. If we choose to fight in every arena at once, we will most assuredly dilute our efforts to the point that we not be effective in any. And we disagree with our enemies and our "friends" who say that the uniform issue is not "where it's at." There clearly are other arenas, and other effective things to do, but if we do not challenge the practice of placing our military under the authority of this foreign power, I suggest that all those other questions will soon become moot, as soldiers in blue helmets (literally, or figuratively) start enforcing the edicts of the Security Council and General Assembly in the formerly sovereign nation of the United States of America. Criticism from our enemies does not concern us, except that we strive to be accurate in our claims. Criticism from our "friends" always stings. One might well ask the question, "Why would someone attempt to reduce the effectiveness of any ally in any fight?" Why not, instead, offer to assist in making them more effective? It is our prayer that others will help us become more effective, but as a "mom and pop operation," there is only so much we can do.
What evidence do you have that the United Nations desires a one-world government?
See Still Don't Believe in The New World Order, A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER and The United Nations Army becomes a Reality by D.L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
Friday September 1, 2000
Support for a UN 100,000-Man Army of Peacekeepers
Less than 35% disagreed, and another 14.3% were not sure.
The survey of 1,213 adults nationwide showed that more Democrats (58.1%) and Independents (51%) favored the development of a U.N. 100,000-man force than Republicans, 43.3
More African Americans favored the 100,000-man peacekeepers 75.1%-16.9%, followed by Hispanics, 70.7%-26.2%. Whites were less than enthusiastic, 46.2%-38%.
What we asked:
``Do you agree or disagree that the UN should establish a peacekeeping army of about 100,000 men?''
What kind of oath do UN Officers have to take?
US personal and UN Officers take distinctly different oaths. See United States Military Oath and United Nations Officers Oath. |
