No Picture


They Protect Us – Who Protects Them?
The politicians of our nation have so messed this country up, but the military is still our military. Or is it? Why do our Armed Forces exist? To protect the United States of America? One would think so. But there are politicians in both parties who think our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are there for something else – to carry out the agenda of the United Nations!
What’s wrong with that? Where does one start? First and foremost, the problem is that if we allow even a portion of our military to be controlled by any foreign power, then to that precise extent, we are no longer sovereign and we are that vulnerable to attack from any quarter, in any way, when our defenses are compromised.

Second, and as important, the U.N. is not the U.S. We did not elect them, we cannot impeach them, and yet we have to support them with our tax dollars. If we let them take even a smidgeon of control over our military, then they will eventually own us. Not acceptable. Why should we allow ourselves to be governed by a motley crew of socialists, petty dictators and greedy welfare nations who want nothing more than to (continue to) plunder the American taxpayer?
Well, then, why should they have any control over our military and its actions? Only a nation bent upon national suicide would allow another power to control their military forces. Is that what the politicians want? You think it through – that’s what they are asking for when they push for military alliances which are outside the scope of the Constitution, when presidents involve us in war-making without congressional approval, etc.

Does America have no will to survive? If we continue in this direction, then we shall not survive as a sovereign nation. The Citizen Soldier Protection Act of 2015 is a modest little stumbling block on the road to a New World Order. It will check the ability of renegade politicians who attempt to turn our troops into mercenaries, against their will. It will prevent the forced military service under the United Nations (or other international agencies) without the permission of the soldier. It won’t prevent volunteers from going on those missions – we seem to always have enough people who are looking for action and adventure and glory, but the very idea, that you can force an American citizen-soldier to serve under a foreign power, not only constitutes Involuntary Servitude, but it borders on Treason!
(Continue Reading)

No Picture



What happened to an American decorated soldier who refused to remove his U.S. uniform, don the UN uniform/insignias, and serve under a foreign country’s commander??

By Daniel New March 10, 2015


Twenty years ago this year, a young soldier in the US Army, stationed in Germany, was given an unlawful order to wear an unauthorized United Nations uniform, to report to duty to a foreign military officer, and to deploy to Macedonia on a “peacekeeping mission” where he stood a good chance of having to fight, bleed or die for the United Nations. He respectfully declined the “honor”, stating to his officers that he did not take an oath to the United Nations, that he was a soldier in the U.S. Army, and that he had no contract with the United Nations. Without judgment on those who chose to volunteer, Army SPC4 Michael New requested a transfer to any other unit, anywhere in the world, in a US Army uniform under US Army officers. A free citizen cannot be forced to serve a foreign power.


SPC New was told he had to obey orders without question. To make a long story short, on October 10, 1995, he deliberately disobeyed the order, showing up in formation wearing an authorized Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) with a US flag on his right shoulder instead of the UN patch worn by the other 549 soldiers. He was promptly arrested and removed from formation, and consequently court-martialed. In the court-martial that followed, SPC New was prepared to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that:


1. The order to deploy was illegal, for President Clinton lied to Congress about the legal basis of the order;
2. The uniform was unauthorized according to Army regulations governing what constitutes a Battle Dress Uniform;
3. The Constitution specifically forbids American troops from receiving an income (or “emoliument”) from any other government;
4. The chain of command was unconstitutional, with a general from Finland in charge of U.S. troops in a situation where Congress had not authorized it.

  (Continue Reading)