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