Citizens of member nations of the U.N. except one have voting power from 2 to over 2,000 times greater than that of U.S. citizens. This is rather hypocritical for an organization that preaches one-man one-vote in Rhodesia.

The members of the United Nations, their populations, and the voting power of each citizen in relation to that of each U.S. citizen is shown in the following chart:

MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS, THEIR POPULATIONS, AND THE VOTING POWER OF EACH CITIZEN IN RELATION TO THAT OF EACH U.S. CITIZEN

And these U.S. contributions to the U.N. do not include our usual out-ofproportion lives and equipment (30,000 killed and billions of dollars) that went into the U.N. war in Korea to hold condemned aggression by the new face of the China representative and the Chinese Communist Party in the U.N. Nor do the U.S. contributions include the U.S. outlay in South Vietnam which is also another U.N.-controlled war where the majority of the casualties and costs are

at the suffering of the American people. Nor do the U.S. contributions include the U.S. $65 million interest-free loan to build the U.N. headquarters, the $6,200,000 Ford Foundation grant to build the Dag Hammarskjold library, the $8 million John D. Rockefeller contribution for the land and the $26,500,000 contribution by the City of New York for adopting the site.

From the preceding discussion and statistics, it is obvious that the present method of assessing the amount of contributions by member nations is discriminatory and unfair to the citizens of the U.S. What is the present method or formula of arriving at the "assessment" if it is not by population or voting right? Apparently, there is no formula. Some individual or group at the United Nations arbitrarily decides what member nations must pay. Fairness demands that the contribution of the United States should be greatly reduced so that our contribution bears to the total U.N. budget the same ratio that our population bears to the total population of member nations as the United Nations.

A CASE FOR TOTAL U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM THE U.N.

Our people are being mentally conditioned by the world's finest opinion molding machinery-told time and time again-that the United Nations was formed and is necessary to promote peace and fundamental human rights. Yet in the past 32 years, the people of 32 countries on the average of one per year have been enslaved under communist imperialism. Millions have reportedly been denied basic human rights, subjected to cruel treatment and been murdered by the despotic rulers of Russia and Red China. Yet the U.N. as an instrument of peace has done nothing about these human rights violations nor has one Red Colony been granted self determination or independence from communist domination by the United Nations.

If the U.N. or anybody else can tell us what to do, and make the order stick, then the U.N. and not the American people nor Congress nor the President is running our country. We've either been conquered and have lost our independence, or we have been tricked and are in the process of losing it all in the guise of peace. If we do not wake up and break free before a whole series of "mandatory provisions" get us tied hand and foot we are finished as a nation! An increasing number of Americans are demanding an end to the Viet Nam War, by complete withdrawal and permitting these allies to lose their freedom and dignity to Communism. The policy of the Nixon Administration is not to win-Mr. Nixon's international policies are the UN policies.

In 1969, Averill Harriman is reported to have stated publicly:

"Winning the war is not our objective, and the American press and people should understand and not talk about winning the war."

Our President's rhetoric is UNism, he talks about winning the peace. The UN talks of peace in New York City, the UN talks peace at Panmunjon and we carry on in Paris but more American soldiers die in Viet Nam. For what? If winning the war is not our objective, then what are we in Vietnam for? Answers to the questions are to be found in the United Nations.

If the purpose of the U.N. is to put an end to aggression, why isn't it actively involved in trying to bring the war to an end? The U.N. did nothing about the Russian invasion of Hungary. The U.N. did nothing about the recent Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. Yet, when the anti-communist forces of Moise Tsombe were opposing the communist forces in Katanga, the U.N. sent forces to oppose the anti-communists. U.N. forces bombed hospitals and innocent civilians, raped and pillaged-and UNICEF consented to allow $10 million of its funds to be used to support the effort! This was to advance world peace or communism. With regard to Southern Rhodesia, the U.N. passed a resolution that member nations institute an economic boycott and embargo-acts of limited warfare of that friendly, anti-communist nation. President Johnson on January 7, 1969 sent to Congress a letter and his Executive Order No. 11419. He stated in this letter that his Executive Order prohibits virtually all financial transactions (and also trade) between the U.S. and Southern Rhodesia. Why did he do such a thing? In the same letter to Congress, the President wrote that he did it because of the mandatory provisions of the U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 253.

Twenty-six years ago, Communists Molotov, Hiss, and Pasvolsky so wrote the United Nations Charter that member nations engaged in a war should not fight entirely on their own but under the guidelines set by the United Nations.

Our Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war. Yet, we are in a war without a declaration by Congress. Why? President Johnson stated on January 10, 1967:

"We are in Vietnam because the United States and our allies are committed by the SEATO Treaty to act to meet the common danger of aggression in Southeast Asia."

UN men fought under the U.N. Command in Korea. Thirty thousand Americans were killed, over 120,000 were injured, and thousands were captured and some are still prisoners of war. Billions of dollars were wasted and after years of fighting, Americans still die and the enemy Red China is seated in the U.N. We are still in Korea 17 years later seeking to win peace by talking.

Now we are fighting communists in Viet Nam under similar conditions. Some say that the U.N. is not involved in Viet Nam and that the Viet Nam war is entirely an action of SEATO, which includes the United States.

The statement is misleading and not entirely true. It is true we are in Viet Nam because of SEATO. President Johnson and our U.S. State Department have so stated yet South Vietnam is not a signatory or member of SEATO, SEATO is a collective defense arrangement under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. The SEATO Treaty (Manila Pact) itself states:

"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations.. to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with purposes of the United Nations. Measures taken shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations." Since the present Administration has issued no denial of this reason for our being in Viet Nam, it is reasonable to assume that the reason is still valid. Consider that article 4, paragraph 1, of the SEATO Treaty provides that military "measures taken to repel aggression must be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations."

This is in compliance with article 54 of the UNO charter commanding that "the Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements." In our SEATO involvement, in which Vietnam is not a party, every activity-every command of our military-must be reported to the UNO Security Council.

Since 1946, the post of Under Secretary General for Political and Security Council Affairs in the United Nations Organization, with one 2-year exception, has been held by a Russian officer. The exception was a term held by a Yugoslavian Communist. The post is presently held by Leonid N. Kutakov of the Soviet Union.

That Vietnam is a UNO war is clear by the language in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The Gulf resolution at section 2 provides:

"Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations, in accordance with this obligation under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is. therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force . . . in the defense of its freedom."

Section 3 of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution provides that it shall expire "when the President determines that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by the action of the United Nations or otherwise."

In Vietnam we fight another UNO war. This time under the American flagbut without national leaders bound by treaty not to win nor end the war-except at the discretion of the United Nations Organization.

And, by the same treaty, we are restrained from offensive action. We are limited to "repel," or "defend." It does not permit pursuit, and precludes victory— because it is impossible to win when you can't advance, and when every operation must be approved by the real enemy, sitting in New York at the head of the UNO military committee.

Just as there has been no end to Korea, there can be no end to Vietnam-nor any peace, unless we repeal the UNO Participation Act, or we breach our mistaken allegiance to that organization.

By the resolution at hand, we are further subordinating the office of President of the United States and the powers delegated to us by the American people to the UNO for supreme control over the Vietnam situation. After 15 years of struggle and loss of the substance and the men of America, any solution achieved under the resolution would be considered to the credit of the UNO in the eyes of the world.

In my humble judgment the enactment of this resolution is far more than an emotional appeal to support the President and bring peace to Vietnam. The resolution has no legal effect. It cannot help the United States, but it could prove a wedge to further polarize our people. It contains within it the seeds of destruction and includes an appeasement guaranteed to result in lengthening the war-not bringing peace. There remain many questions unanswered.

Now the U.N. General Assembly has purported to censor the Congress for the Military Procurement signed into law November 17. By the U.N, vote of 106 to 2 that unelected body of "peace" workers who ignore wars and slavery by some of its own members would purport to dictate to our country on matters which the people's elected Congress felt were essential to the common defense of our country.

It shall become more and more realistic to the American people that we can only exist as the USA or as a puppet State of the U.N. The U.N. seeks power and has become a de facto World government organ. As such, Section 104 of Public Law 92-77, 85 Stat. 250 provides that all funds appropriated for such intended contributions should be cut off immediately. Needed, are only attorneys with the filing fee.

GENERAL PROVISIONS-DEPARTMENT OF STATE

**

SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this title shall be used (1) to pay the United States contribution to any international organization which engages in the direct or indirect promotion of the principle or doctrine of one world government or one world citizenship; (2) for the promotion, direct or indirect, of the principle or doctrine of one world government or one world citizenship. This title may be cited as the "Department of State Appropriation Act, 1972." The most cogent of all reasons for U.S. withdrawal from the U.N. is that the U.N. is a Godless institution. God and religion are excluded from all proceedings of the U.N. How can any world leader expect to shut out God from the considerations of world affairs and expect to promote peace with freedom? "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."

There can be no United Nations as intended by the U.N. bureaucrats and at the same time a sovereign United States. There can be only one or the other. And those of us who are Americans and understand the protections we so take for granted under the U.S. Constitution which are known by no other people on the face of the earth are not willing to surrender our country or our freedoms to the whims of that motley bunch of U.N. bureaucrats who clapped in glee and danced at the U.N. vote expelling Nationalist China and admitting Communist China. I leave to your imagination what this bunch would do to our liberties and property if they ever got complete control of the United Nations.

There is only one real solution to the whole mess. Congress should enact legislation to remove us completely from the U.N. trap before we are so weakened and entangled that escape is impossible. We have a job to do. We must restore American independence now. If America is to remain free, that is mandatory.

I have filed discharge petition No. 10 to discharge H.R. 2632, a bill introduced by Congressman John Schmitz of California, which would rescind and revoke membership of the United States in the United Nations and its specialized agencies and for other purposes. Passage of H.R. 2632 would remove the U.S. from the U.N. and the U.N. from the U.S. It would enable us to achieve the American dream which is freedom-not peace at any cost.

The text of H.R. 2632 follows:

H.R. 2632

A BILL To rescind and revoke membership of the United States in the United Nations and the specialized agencies thereof, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the effective date of this Act the ratification by the Senate of the United States on July 28, 1945, of the United Nations Charter, making the United States a member of the United Nations, be, and said ratification hereby is rescinded, revoked, and held for