Aug. 19, 1998

"I had taken an oath to the United States of America and no other. I had sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, to obey the orders of the President and those in authority over me. But the Army enlisted oath doesn't bind me to blind obedience, but goes on to say 'according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me, God.'"

On July 17, 1996, I wrote a scathing little piece in this space, primarily concerning Michael New of Conroe. New was the Army medic who, when the Bosnia mission began, refused to replace his Army duds with a United Nations uniform and serve under U.N. command. After a bit of spitting and snorting, the Army gave him the boot.

New's premise was that, in taking his oath of service, he had agreed to defend the United States Constitution, not the U.N. Charter.

I wasn't very nice to Mr. New, suggesting in my column that day that his refusal to serve amounted to cowardice, and that all the anti-U.N. arguments were a "huge pinko commie U.N. conspiracy," to quote myself.

It's taken a couple of years, but I stand corrected.

What changed my mind is the fact that I started connecting some dots. The emerging picture chills me to the bone.

We're not dealing with a huge pinko commie U.N. conspiracy. It is huge, it does involve the U.N., but it's neither communist nor a conspiracy: there is a well-organized, perfectly-legitimate movement led not by frothing-at-the-mouth radicals, but instead by corporate overlords in expensive business suits.

"The ultimate process has to be intergovernmental and at a high level, giving political imprimatur to a new world order whose contours are shaped to the designs developed for the anniversary year (of the founding of the U.N.," it says on Page 351 of "Our Global Neighborhood," the report of the U.N. Commission on Global Governance (ISBN 0-19-827998-1, Oxford University Press, 1995).

The book calls for a world conference on global government this year (it's scheduled for San Francisco this fall) and full implementation by the Year 2000. (And you were wondering why George W. Bush wants to be President so bad, right?)

The U.N. book conveniently lists all of the folks backing this movement toward a single global government — ten pages' worth of corporations, individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working to place the U.N. flag one rung higher than our own U.S. flag.

"We call on international civil society, NGOs, the business sector, academia, the professions, and especially young people to join a drive for chance in the international system," the Commission recites on Page 352.

A couple of weeks back, President Clinton signed the "American Heritage Rivers Initiative." Congress didn't authorize it. The AHRI designates 14 U.S. riverways as "international," and gives the U.N. the authority to take care of them. The Rio Grande is one of those rivers.

In his homecoming speech in Conroe on July 28, 1996, New stated, "I am a simple soldier, and I am now a civilian, as I said earlier, I am not a speaker or a politician, but there are those of you who are ... Let my stand serve as a sign to you of how far we have gone in subjugating the United States military to the United Nations military."

In Rome earlier this year, the U.N. established an International Criminal Court. You and I can now be tried for "crimes against humanity" — which include speaking out against the policies of the U.N. Under the treaty which established it, the court's authority supersedes that of any individual government.

If you don't believe me, ask a legal scholar (preferably one who doesn't work for the Executive Branch of our government; (you're more likely to get a truthful answer that way).

The United Nations was founded to give the world's individual governments a forum in which to air their differences — or at least, that was the reason given to the people of the world. It is now an organization which is seeking to subjugate those individual governments.

Forget the ongoing argument about the United States' "back U.N. dues." We've paid them a hundred times over, and the only benefit America has reaped has been the gradual erosion of our own Constitutional liberties.

In taking his stand against "becoming a mercenary for the United Nations," Michael New did the right thing — and, in so doing, acted in a courageous manner exemplifying the finest traditions of U.S. military service.

The United States should withdraw from the United Nations immediately. Peace is a wonderful thing, but surrendering our sovereignty to attain it is too high a price.