BEHOLD A PALE HORSE William Cooper

" ... according to a law dictionary, the terms "legal" and "lawful" are almost one and the same. Agreed! "Almost," but not quite. I believe there is a fine point of difference. Taking us into the U.N. may SEEM to have been done legally (by the President and Senate), but the act is still unlawful, because it is unconstitutional, and the CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. All renowned and genuine Con- stitutional experts (such as Thos. M. Cooley, Thos. Jas. Norton, and Harry Atwood, to name several) have always held that anything which con- travenes, diminishes, or perverts the Constitution is null and void and of no effect.Neither the President or Senate has authority or power to change, diminish, or destroy the Constitution "by usurpation," treaty, or otherwise: only a Constitutional Amendment can lawfully change it.The Constitution is a contract that WE THE PEOPLE of the USA made with one another, which sets up the machinery of government to carry out this contract —mainly for the purpose of PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS as well as STATE RIGHTS, AGAINST THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT: and no public official has a right to override the provisions of that contract. To quote Thos. Jas. Norton's Constitution of the United States, Its Application, etc., "A law of Congress to be one of the supreme laws must be 'made in pursuance thereof and not in conflict with the Constitution. When not made in pursuance thereof it is of course unconstitutional and of no effect." And the same would similarly apply to a .. unlawful Treaty.)

America will never be a socialist U.N. country