Articles written and sent to the president May 2018


John DeStefano
Assistant to the President and
Director of Presidential Personnel
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

The President of the United States of America
Mr. Donald Trump

Charles Frederick Tolbert Ed.D. Resume

I, Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD, was a Write-in NPA Candidate for US Senate Florida, and I am qualified for an office of the United States of America.

Outlined below are my goals, objectives and my resume.

Mr. Trump, as the U.S.A. President of the United States of America, I request that you consider me as an asset and a team player as part of the presidential staff. My capabilities and objectives would enhance The United States of America.

Dr. Charles Fredrick Tolbert EdD is also qualified for:

*US Secretary of State

*Head the Department of Education

*Oversee the Department of veteran affairs

*A member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
*Advisor foreign affairs

*Ambassador to Germany

*Organization effectiveness concerning education, production, defense and protection of the United States citizens.

*The re-organization of the general staff members of the Armed Forces promotions and expansion of ground forces in order to take on the offense rather than the defense to protect America from terrorism, invasion, and counter espionage.

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired MSG

Christian World View 3

Gun control and how it will harm the citizens of the United States of America 10

Is DACA, Deferred Action Children Arrival, Constitutionally Correct? 19

Should marijuana be legalized? Why or why not? 24

Marriage is under the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th amendment of the USA 46

Social Security, Medicare, and Obama care 54

Some of my ideas…Your thoughts, input or comments 61

Sovereign States rights Concerning Sanction Cities 66

Would You Be Considered A Conservative or A Liberal? 73

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act) 81

Organization of American States OAS 88 90



Charles Frederick Tolbert


ETHICAL STANDARD LEGALITY……………………………………………………..


ETHICAL STANDARD…………………………………………………………………….

ETHICS AND LAW………………………………………………………………………….

MORAL JUSTIFICATION…………………………………………………………………..

CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY…………………………………………………………….






The First Amendment of the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Should politics debate moral and ethical standards? The purpose of this paper is to provide support for the politicians, church, and Christian worldview to invoke their rights of freedom of speech, and to follow the ethical behaviors of a Christian.

This paper is to explain and assemble ideas that can be utilized by citizens in America to further their Christian views, to take action against politicians and individuals who have falsely interpreted the 1st Amendment rights and Acts to Resolve Legal Conflict in any behavior by a Politician, Educator or Human Resource Department (HRD), that would cause conflict with the code of ethics should the politician’s ethical responsibility conflict with the law. If there is a conflict, it should be resolved in a professional manner according to the constitution.


God institutes human government. Apostle Paul stated, “Humankind is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” James Skillen revealed that Hartfield from the Political system argued, “is overburdened by the drive for power on the part of politicians and officials. “The power that attracts them is self-interest, parochial, and manipulative over against this degenerate use of power.

“Christians are called to exercise the power of servanthood.”

Saint Augustine of Hippo, had a powerful conversion to Christianity in 387 AD. He was a Catholic North African bishop in Hippo. According to Michael Palmer, “Saint Augustine differentiated between human government and society (city of man) and the envisioned church to all believers (city of God).”

This was in response to the fall of Rome in the year 410 AD. If something is not of God it will fall, but if it is of God it will always stand. Saint Augustine viewed the church as spiritual and politics as material. This fulfilled the transformation as Paul described in scriptures, concerning submission to governing authorities. “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities because God is the one who puts them into position, for all human good.”

When an ethical standard is bridged, it has to be identified as a violation and brought to the attention of an ethics committee to determine the legality of the enforcement of the conflict entrusted between the public servant and the general public. If there is no immediate harm done to the general population, and this procedure does not violate ethical standards, there should be a determination on how to resolve it. The matter can be reviewed through legal counseling where both Houses and the citizens have the right to vote the Politician out of office. Unfortunately, there can be a conflict which would not allow the government to fully disclose its breach based upon the rights proclaimed by the government for security reasons. The behavior which violates a chosen ethical standard when there is a legal conflict, can be a line finely drawn. Many politicians are torn between ethical credibility and communication

with their party or constituents and the legal consequences. By notifying the general public at the beginning of a campaign and discussing items which break any legal law or moral standard which has been reported, is the first step to avoiding conflict with the public and the legality of the law.

Leon Howell stated, “The great issues of human time are moral: the uses of power, wealth and poverty, human rights, the moral character of society, violence, etc., indicate good, but risk evil.” However, God uses political methods to accomplish His will. Christians should be obedient and good citizens. Only through God’s work can they accomplish His will. In scriptures Apostle Paul pointed out, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of those who subjected it, in hope.”


The issues Christians have in society today are: what is the responsibility of politicians to society, and how is this society defined? Michael Palmer (2010) said, Karl Henry offered an example from the “work place.” “He condemned the assembly line that degrades men into machines and robs them of their destiny as Sons of God.” David Sigurthorsson discussed the Icelandic Banking Crisis how “it seemed to quite readily embrace the notion of social responsibility as contributing of their wealth to charitable causes. For example: to do responsibility as being about limiting risky and potentially harmful business practice.”

Social responsibility extends beyond day to day work for the politicians. Something good for another, and while paying little or no attention to the notion of social reform. The humanitarian responsibilities should be reviewed as a primary task of social responsibility. Society must see beyond their comfort zone, following Jesus’ example. Practicing good character and conduct may help others change their negative thoughts to good. Michael Palmer says, “Justice or fairness means, as individuals are judged according to their merits, not their gender, physical abilities or skin color.”


Ethical standards are being violated by individuals who wish to interfere with social reforms, which would enable the general population to overcome internal complex. It is unexplainable how nations who state that their form of government would lift the general population to a higher standard, but yet continue to cause chaos in the name of their god. Laws violate the ethical standard of social responsibility when it causes harm to other individuals. It is important that Christians and other religious organizations take responsibility, regardless of their location, to decrease human rights violation and human sufferings. No politician should take this as an obligation, but should view this as a social responsibility to protect the general

population. Wendy Dackson said, “Christian church and society can never be separated. They are integral to each other because this is where people are shaped and characters formed.”

According to Cornelius Plantinga, “Augustine found the one good that would not fade away, the one good that would not crumble if he leaned on it with the full weight of his love.”


One of the issues of the conflict between ethics and law and standards being violated is that many professionals were not able to separate Department of Defense regulation, the Executive Branch Legislative and Supreme Court and ethical standards versus those working outside the government. The behavior of the politician is their inability to separate the legal conflict and apply the definition to social welfare has been taken over by the government from those responsible in the church. Politicians that violate ethical standards regardless of where they are assigned create a dilemma for those that are called to defend the country, but are not given the same consideration as those who do not serve in the Armed Forces. Dackson explained the Magna Carta: “It stands mostly as an aspirational document: it described what for medieval England, good government under the king should be. It was a document between the relationship and the secular ruler. The Magna Carter can be seen as an attempt to reconcile with the pope, and to at least give the appearance that good government is answerable to divine law.” (p. 622). The military, federal and state government deems itself beyond the legality of civil law and has its own system of discipline, this could be a conflict with biblical standard.

Throughout this paper the areas of concern of legal conflict, responsibility and ethical behavior, are directly related to mannerisms of responsibility of elected officials. All individuals which include Christians, have a responsibility to speak out. At what point does the Christians voice have this responsibility to speak out? It is easy to pinpoint the improper behavior by following current events over the last ten years. As long as Politicians, Educators or Human Resource Departments allow financial gain to take priority over moral issues, Christians will continue to have corruption in the work place. The protestant evangelicals across the United States mobilized in defense of the Sunday Sabbath, Tim Verhoeven noted, “At the Lord’s Day Conference in Baltimore, former President John Quincy Adams urged Americans to seize an unprecedented opportunity.

“The World has never witnessed, he declared, the spectacle of a universal obedience to the Sabbath.” The United States could as a result, be the first nation to benefit from the

Sabbath’s “full power to bless a nation.” (p. 302). If Christians refuse to vote, they cannot blame God for its actions.


The lack of properly trained human resource departments that are to set ethical standards to ensure human rights are not violated, has to be separated from the hierarchy. ”The moral justification of improper behavior and the lack of psychologist speaking out are directly related to their earned income from the corporation. When Christians participate and educate themselves by taking responsibility, they can hold these elected government employees, the Politician, Educator or Human Resource Department and organizations to a higher standard. Unfortunately very few individuals have written on this subject or have spoken out against the government intervention. Education does not begin in grade school, high school or college, but in fact begins with the parent. To avoid the violation of the lack of religious groups speaking out will take place when all denominations of all religions come together with an agreed upon group of individuals which becomes the standard for the code of ethics for all people.


In this paper the author showed a correlation between educating the community and individuals taking standard of ethics to the work place. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the highest level is self-actualization. This concept of recognizing their own personal endeavors in many cases breaks down ethical behavior. It brings the moral beliefs to the school, which in today’s society is circumvented by government regulations. Palmer noted, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that motivate behavior represents a major contribution to define Third Force Psychology. Third Force Psychology stresses human nature and more philosophical and speculative than either experimental or clinical psychology.” Whereas Steve Wilkens and Mark Sanford noted, “Christian community can be used by God to challenge others to take a deeper look at their convictional beliefs, especially when they can draw on the resources of Christians who are mature in their thinking and living.”


In this paper the author discussed responsibility of parents, politicians and the work place which are governed by laws voted in or voted on by the political agenda as Democratic or Republican other than by the people. When voting, help create a third political party, the other two political parties will form an alliance, and come to agreements according to the need of the people. America is one of the few democratic nations which is governed by only
two parties. Christians have to stop voting party lines, but vote for individuals who are true
believers in God.


If people’s rights are being overshadowed by political rhetoric of security, and they continue to allow removal of the Christian teachings, they create a problem. They allow the decreased teaching of creation, but allow the increased teaching of evolution. Those who are believers in God can only blame themselves. With over 90% of American believers in God, who can the Christians say are responsible for the lack of morality and action of these politics? The people who represent Christianity must remove race, creed, color, religion, and even sexual preference from Governments influence. The scriptures noted “They worship God in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.”


In conclusion: what comes first, the income and wellbeing of the politician or the health and welfare of the people? The ethical dilemma is that government bureaucrats have established rules governing behavior according to the government standards, which in many cases circumvent standards of the Bible. The reasoning behind the author writing this article is to intervene and to help those with Christian background to not change their course, but to follow God. The author is giving a Christian view point. The Bible noted, The Lord said, He teaches you what is best for you, and directs you in the way you should go.” The 1st Amendment granted freedom of speech, and the law was written so that the conflict in society was to speak out against unethical procedure. However, many Pastors, and Christians do not voice their disagreement for fear of retaliation and loss of their non-profit status. According to Steve Wilkens and Mark Sanford, “A lot of good results from political and social stability, military deterrence and economic strength; and patriotism is properly directed when it acknowledges these positive aspects. However, to achieve and maintain power, nations must secure the loyalty of citizens, and without the loyalty, power and state is in jeopardy.” (Page 64)

James Sire said, “Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good holy and living and a core commitment Christian theists live to seek first the kingdom of God, that is, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” (p. 132).

Most politicians enter into politics because of the increase of income and power. Many Christians respect power and money more than they respect God and their rights to establish a government which allows the Bible to become Standard.

Operation Procedure (SOP). Their lack of participation by religious groups for fear of other true believers to establish a political party can be viewed as self-serving. In scriptures the Lord told His people, repent and if they do, they will enjoy a close relationship with Him.” That is the reason Jesus said He is at the door.

The writers calling is to teach God’s word to all the nations, concerning biblical responsibility, and the second responsibility is the State of Florida, to counsel those in distress and help lead them to a better way. God Bless America under God for which everyone stands. In scriptures, “God rules the world and He proved it by creating creation.”


Holy Bible, King James Version

Dackson, Wendy. “Anglicanism and social theology.” Anglican Theological Review 94, no. 4 (September 1, 2012): 615-637. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2013).

Howell, Leon. “Theologies for now: concerns, crises, currents.” Christianity and crisis 48, no. 8 (May 16, 1988): 174-183. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2013).

Palmer, Michael. D. Elements of a Christian Worldview. Springfield, MI: Publishing House. 2010. Plantinga, Cornelius. Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

Sigurthorsson, David. “The Icelandic banking crisis: A reason to rethink Chr W. The Universe Next Door. (5ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, Press, USA, 2009

Skillen, James W. “The purist and the apologist: a look at Hatfield’s political theory.” Reformed Journal 27, no. 1 (January 1, 1977): 17-21. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed July 21, 2013).

Verhoeven, Tim. “In defense of civil and religious Liberty: Anti-sabbatarianism in the United

States before the Civil War.” Church History 82, no. 2 (June 2013): 293. MasterFILE

Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed July 23, 2013).

Wilkens, Steve & Sanford, Mark, L. Hidden Worldviews: Eight Cultural Stories that Shape our Lives. Downers Groves, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Copy Editor: Vilet Dye… Board of Directors




Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Was a Candidate For U. S. Senate Florida 2016

What is gun control? Gun control generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of fire arms. Gun control varies greatly around the world.

In the United States liberals are trying to push for more severe gun control laws. Some even want to ban guns completely. One of the main focuses of politicians is gun control laws. Some want to make these laws stricter or even ban certain guns to be taken to certain areas. They say guns are a bad thing and that guns kill people. When argued that people need guns for protection they say that if there was a stronger ban on guns that criminals would not have guns to hurt us with, therefore we would not need them to protect ourselves with. These same politicians, including the president and vice-president, are surrounded by Secret Service men, police officers, and private security details that are all carrying guns to protect them. They want to take away your right to protect yourself while they have guns protecting them. Statistics show that eighty-one percent of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.

In 1996, 140 children died in the U.S. after being accidentally shot. In 2012, the figure was 259 with comparable numbers in between. About 1,500 children are hurt by guns every year. I believe that this is due to bad parenting. Parents who own a gun, whether it be a handgun or a rifle or shot gun, should teach their children to never touch a gun without permission and an adult present. And if they find a gun they should leave it and go tell an adult. This is good but most of them never let their kids hold the gun(s), let them shoot it, or even try to teach them about gun safety. They do not want the kid to even know that the gun is in the house. This is where I believe they go wrong. Kids are curious little creatures and always want to touch stuff. If they find a gun they are going to want to touch it and shoot it and maybe show it to their friends when they come over to play. Now that the child has found the gun, and

knowing nothing about guns and gun safety, the child can accidentally injure or kill him/herself or another person. I believe that if parents teach their kids about guns, how/when/where to use them, and what to do if they find one that is not locked up or does not have a trigger lock on it, there will be less children hurt or killed every year.

Ninety-one percent of Americans say there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership, and fifty-seven percent of Americans say there should be major restrictions or a ban. Advocates of gun control cite the large number of people killed in gun-based homicides each year; which is over 8,000 per year, peaking at 14,000 in 1993. Over 100,000 people are shot each year in the U.S.; seventy-two percent of all violent killings use guns as the weapon. This could be avoided if people were taught how to respect guns as a kid and allowed to shoot one as a young adult. Some of the homicides could be avoided if more people, open or concealed, carried a gun with them. This could help because criminals would think twice about trying to rob someone or a store, break into a house, or kill someone. If a crime did happen then the victim would have a way to defend themselves (and possibly thin out the number of criminals in the U.S.).

The following written by a teenager 2014

I believe in gun control, but I believe in it only to a certain extent. I believe the gun laws should be changed so that people are able to buy handgun ammo at the age of eighteen instead of twenty-one. Eighteen year olds are able to buy shotguns and rifles, and ammo for these weapons. I think certain eighteen year olds should also be allowed to buy a handgun. An eighteen year old should be able to buy a handgun if they have no criminal convictions, they have taken the hunters safety course, and have a valid hunting license. I think gun control laws are starting to get out of hand. Politicians want to pass bills that make it where if you want to buy a gun you have to fill out a form and go through several background checks. If you pass the background checks, there is a waiting period of a couple of days or even weeks before you can even get the gun. It is getting out of hand! If parents would actually discipline their children and teach them about guns and gun safety instead of trying to shelter them so much and keeping the guns locked up and hidden away, there would be less accidental shootings and less people walking into places with a gun and trying to kill everybody in there.

Written By Chandler T

Subject: Gun control history…do we REALLY need the 2nd Amendment


*In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. >From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Article Originally Written in 2014.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

**List of 7 items:

**Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

**Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

**Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. *

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

**Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late! **

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson..

With guns, we are “citizens”. Without them, we are “subjects”.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. *


*I’m a firm believer in** **the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward.*

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.[3][4][5][6] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right rests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments composing the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia”.[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision, expressly holding the amendment to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second

Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between the gun control and gun rights movements and related organizations continues.[15]

Concealed weapons permit 790.01(16) “Readily accessible for immediate use” means that a firearm or other weapon is carried on the person or within such close proximity and in such a manner that it can be retrieved and used as easily and quickly as if carried on the person.

No concealed weapons permit required 790.01(17) “Securely encased” means in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access.

The 2016 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
Chapter 790

View Entire Chapter
790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.

(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY.—The Legislature finds as a matter of public policy and fact that it is necessary to promote firearms safety and to curb and prevent the use of firearms and other weapons in crime and by incompetent persons without prohibiting the lawful use in defense of life, home, and property, and the use by United States or state military organizations, and as otherwise now authorized by law, including the right to use and own firearms for target practice and marksmanship on target practice ranges or other lawful places, and lawful hunting and other lawful purposes.


(a) This section does not authorize carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, as prohibited by ss. 790.01 and 790.02.

(b) The protections of this section do not apply to the following:

1. A person who has been adjudged mentally incompetent, who is addicted to the use of narcotics or any similar drug, or who is a habitual or chronic alcoholic, or a person using weapons or firearms in violation of ss. 790.07-790.115, 790.145-790.19, 790.22-790.24;

2. Vagrants and other undesirable persons as defined in 1s. 856.02;

3. A person in or about a place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05, unless such person is there for law enforcement or some other lawful purpose.

(3) LAWFUL USES.—The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:

(a) Members of the Militia, National Guard, Florida State Defense Force, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, organized reserves, and other armed forces of the state and of the United States, when on duty, when training or preparing themselves for military duty, or while subject to recall or mobilization;

(b) Citizens of this state subject to duty in the Armed Forces under s. 2, Art. X of the State Constitution, under chapters 250 and 251, and under federal laws, when on duty or when training or preparing themselves for military duty;

(c) Persons carrying out or training for emergency management duties under chapter 252;

(d) Sheriffs, marshals, prison or jail wardens, police officers, Florida highway patrol officers, game wardens, revenue officers, forest officials, special officers appointed under the provisions of chapter 354, and other peace and law enforcement officers and their deputies and assistants and full-time paid peace officers of other states and of the Federal Government who are carrying out official duties while in this state;

(e) Officers or employees of the state or United States duly authorized to carry a concealed weapon;

(f) Guards or messengers of common carriers, express companies, armored car carriers, mail carriers, banks, and other financial institutions, while actually employed in and about the shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure, bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state;

(g) Regularly enrolled members of any organization duly authorized to purchase or receive weapons from the United States or from this state, or regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for target, skeet, or trap shooting, while at or going to or from shooting practice; or regularly enrolled members of clubs organized for modern or antique firearms collecting, while such members are at or going to or from their collectors’ gun shows, conventions, or exhibits;

(h) A person engaged in fishing, camping, or lawful hunting or going to or returning from a fishing, camping, or lawful hunting expedition;

(i) A person engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of any such person while engaged in the lawful course of such business;

(j) A person firing weapons for testing or target practice under safe conditions and in a safe place not prohibited by law or going to or from such place;

(k) A person firing weapons in a safe and secure indoor range for testing and target practice;

(l) A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased or in a public conveyance when the weapon is securely encased and not in the person’s manual possession;

(m) A person while carrying a pistol unloaded and in a secure wrapper, concealed or otherwise, from the place of purchase to his or her home or place of business or to a place of repair or back to his or her home or place of business;

(n) A person possessing arms at his or her home or place of business;

(o) Investigators employed by the several public defenders of the state, while actually carrying out official duties, provided such investigators:

1. Are employed full time;

2. Meet the official training standards for firearms established by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as provided in s. 943.12(5) and the requirements of ss. 493.6108(1)(a) and 943.13(1)-(4); and

3. Are individually designated by an affidavit of consent signed by the employing public defender and filed with the clerk of the circuit court in the county in which the employing public defender resides.

(p) Investigators employed by the capital collateral regional counsel, while actually carrying out official duties, provided such investigators:

1. Are employed full time;

2. Meet the official training standards for firearms as established by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as provided in s. 943.12(1) and the requirements of ss. 493.6108(1)(a) and 943.13(1)-(4); and

3. Are individually designated by an affidavit of consent signed by the capital collateral regional counsel and filed with the clerk of the circuit court in the county in which the investigator is headquartered.

(4) CONSTRUCTION.—This act shall be liberally construed to carry out the declaration of policy herein and in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes. This act is supplemental and additional to existing rights to bear arms now guaranteed by law and decisions of the courts of Florida, and nothing herein shall impair or diminish any of such rights. This act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation in conflict herewith.

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-410; s. 32, ch. 69-216; s. 32, ch. 73-334; s. 2, ch. 77-302; s. 2, ch. 82-131; s. 15, ch. 83-167; ss. 45, 49, ch. 83-334; s. 32, ch. 84-258; s. 68, ch. 85-62; s. 5, ch. 85-332; s. 15, ch. 87-274; s. 2, ch. 87-537; s. 1, ch. 89-60; s. 8, ch. 90-364; s. 1, ch. 93-269; s. 7, ch. 93-416; s. 89, ch. 95-211; s. 1218, ch. 97-102; s. 110, ch. 2006-1; s. 2, ch. 2006-103.

1Note.—Repealed by s. 3, ch. 72-133.

Copyright © 1995-2016 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us

Is DACA, Deferred Action Children Arrival, Constitutionally Correct?

Congress has no authority over the Sovereign States other than Possessions, Territories and Washington DC. For example, Puerto Rico is a territory.

Congress has no authority over the 50 Sovereign states.

Under the 10th amendment and the 9th Amendment of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act written in 1942 has No Authority over immigrations as presented by Obama, under DACA.

Therefore president Trump’s removal of the new funding or rights as required by sovereign state implementation of their own policy and rules, does not fall under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1942, and DACA should not be funded by the Federal government, it’s a States right.

Read full link:

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired Master Sergeant United States Army/Pastor

Please consider changing the phrase, “building a border around America” to “virtual reality visas.”

Updated March 05, 2018

Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…

Charles F. Tolbert EdD
Retired MSGT
Citizens For America (CFA)n

The Un-Constitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans The 14th Amendment

The Un-Constitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

The 14th Amendment
By P.A. Madison

Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005

We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.” This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone–and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term “limits” rather than “jurisdiction” since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Complete jurisdiction thereof means Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States, and in other

words born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty – then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

To the president of the United States , please correct the issue on immigration , virtual reality visas.”

State rights concerning immigration

President Trump

Please consider changing the phrase, “building a border around America” to “virtual reality visas.”

I have written articles which present restrictions on coming across the United States borders; “if in a back ground check the requestor cannot be traced back 10 years the requestor will not receive a visa to enter into a State.” The petitioner must submit their request through one of the sovereign states. (US constitution Amendment 10)

This would establish, as per the constitution, Departments of Immigration in each individual state enabling the States to establish their immigration program according to amendment 10, then the Federal Government will continue utilizing the naturalization rules of law of 1805, 1954, 1990 and 2000 articles of naturalization which adheres to the 17 responsibilities of a Federalism, the United States Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

In addition; the current illegal immigrants are substantially higher than the 12 to 20,000,000 as presented by the federal government. These figures are in excess of 50 million at a cost to American taxpayer of approximately $4,000 per individual per month. Unless Congress declares these illegal immigrants invaders, the federal government has no responsibility. I request Congress to re-establish the Constitution and pass a bill that these illegal immigrants are “invaders” forcing them to utilize the state immigration program with a petition fee of $1500 per applicant.

I have presented how these illegal immigrants would be restricted from utilization of social welfare, education, sending money out of country and medical assistance for a two year period. These illegal immigrants will require a sponsor and also employment through their sponsor before they can submit a “virtual reality visa” through the sovereign state.

After the two-year probation, they would then be required seven years residencies. Upon completion and good moral character, they would submit to the federal government paperwork of naturalization.

Any illegal immigrant who gave birth to a child is not protected under the naturalization act and are anchor babies. These anchor babies would be required to fulfill and follow the same procedures as their parents.

Currently there are millions of anchor babies who are in fear of being removed and deported without a due process procedure which can only be provided by following the above conditions.

It should be noted the above is not an executive order condition. It would require congress to establish laws which are required for enforcement of the constitution after which time the executive branch would be required to provide protection and enforcement of the congressional laws.

The following links are written and presented by Dr Tolbert:

Those who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” often misinterpret Constitutional law and statute law

The rights of immigration belong to the state naturalization to the federal governmen

Securing the border Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD Retired MSGT Candidate for United States Center, Florida 2016


The reason for filing this grievance, concerning Marco Rubio being a non-national citizen

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Immigration belongs to the States

Copy Editor: Vilet Dye…

Should marijuana be legalized? Why and why not?


This paper is written to present the pros and cons of legalization of medical marijuana. The intent is to present both sides without taking a position on either. The writer believes that the voters have a right to make an informed decision before the 2016 election. Although the required signatures were gotten it is questionable of those who signed the petition if they researched both sides of legalization of medical marijuana such as the long term effect, short term effect, the medical benefits and withdraw issue. This paper is presented with data for the informed voter to vote, based on informed decision rather than emotional. The writer will in the summary and conclusion present both sides.

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Was a Write-in (TOLBERT) For U.S. Senate Florida 2016 CFABA

Should marijuana be legalized? Why and why not?


Vranken (2009) defined Marijuana as the most widely used illegal drug in the United States. It is a dry, shredded green/brown mix of flowers, stems, and leaves of the plant Cannabis sativa. A stronger form of marijuana called hashish (hash) looks like brown or black cakes or balls. The many street names for marijuana include pot, herb, weed, grass, Jane, reefer, dope, and ganja.

At best, readers might be better educated after reading this article, and even though, some being Democrat or Republican regardless who are running, the same may hold true for the voters who vote for or against LMM. It is the writer’s intent not to influence the voters for or against, but to educate and inform the voters. In the final analysis the informed voter should decide, not the politician. The income discerned from LMM could be the major reasons why certain states are approving “LMM” notwithstanding the benefits or lack thereof. After the readers educate themselves, the writer hopes that they, “the voters of Florida” make the right decision.

Medical benefits

Is Marijuana Harmless?

According to Deem (2012) “In 1997, the British newspaper The Independent, began a campaign to decriminalize marijuana use, describing it as a relatively harmless drug, eventually leading to the British Government downgrading the legal status of the drug. Ten years later, the same newspaper published another article entitled “Cannabis: an apology,” reversing its campaign for marijuana decriminalization because, there is increasing evidence that marijuana use is far from harmless.

Marijuana (cannabis) is the most widely used illegal drug in many developed countries. Medical studies have shown that the active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), might provide some medical benefits in some patients. Under the impression that these benefits were substantial, voters in California and Arizona approved initiatives allowing the use of “medical” marijuana by patients under certain circumstances. This paper represents a current review of the medical literature regarding the benefits and drawbacks of using marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.

Medical benefits of marijuana

Anecdotal evidence for the beneficial effects of marijuana eventually led to the design of controlled scientific studies to examine the benefits of marijuana compared to other treatments. A 1997 review of 6059 marijuana-related articles in the medical literature revealed 194 titles on antiemetic properties, 56 on glaucoma, 10 on multiple sclerosis, 23 on appetite, and 11 on palliative or terminal care. Numerous studies have been performed since that time, with most concentrating on the analgesic properties of cannabis and its derivatives.

Antiemetic (anti-nausea) use

Early on, THC had been shown to be effective for some patients who suffered nausea from cancer chemotherapy treatments. However, the narrow window between the anti-emetic dose and that which caused unwanted psychic effects made THC difficult to use. In some studies, negative side effects occurred in up to 81% of patients. In one of the few studies using smoked marijuana, 20% of patients dropped out of the study, while another 22% reported no relief of nausea symptoms. The advent of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists as new and more powerful anti-emetic drugs that were free of unwanted psychic effects has made cannabinoid use less attractive. For this reason, physicians virtually never prescribe marijuana or THC as an antiemetic for use by chemotherapy patients.

Multiple sclerosis

Studies have shown that cannabis can relieve muscle pain and spasticity in patients suffering from multiple sclerosis and can control tremors in multiple sclerosis animal models. However, a study in ten patients with spastic multiple sclerosis showed that smoking marijuana further impaired posture and balance in those patients. In addition, MS patients who used marijuana had a greater number of psychiatric diagnoses and a slower mean performance time on standard neurological tests. Some randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group crossover trials have found no significant improvement of MS symptoms during cannabis plant extract use. However, in some trials patients did show an increase in aggressive behavior and paranoiac tendencies in a standard psychological test. Another placebo-controlled study, examining the effect of a cannabis extract on spasticity in MS, found a positive partial relief of symptoms in 40% of patients. A 10-week, placebo-controlled study of MS patients found that 42% withdrew due to lack of efficacy, adverse events and other reasons. Patients reported 292 unwanted effects, of which 251 were mild to moderate, including oral pain, dizziness, diarrhea, nausea. Three patients suffered five serious adverse events, including two seizures, one fall, one aspiration pneumonia, one gastroenteritis. Four patients had first-ever seizures. A minority of patients received some relief of symptoms. So, overall, studies show that a minority of multiple sclerosis patients can receive some symptom relief through the use of marijuana extracts or THC, although a significant percentage of patients suffer unwanted adverse effects.


THC has been shown to reduce intraocular pressure in laboratory animals and humans who have glaucoma. However, it was found that intraocular pressure was reduced only when patients stayed under the effects of THC almost continuously. Since the early studies, more effective medications, such as 13-blockers and prostaglandins, have been developed to control intraocular pressure. Obviously, glaucoma medications that don’t require one to be continuously high are preferable to those that have unwanted side effects.


Regular marijuana users are aware of the phenomenon known as the “munchies.” Laboratory studies have shown that THC does increase the appetite (not a good thing for most of us). However, for those suffering from debilitating diseases, such as AIDS-related wasting syndrome, THC has been shown to be effective in maintaining body weight.

Analgesia (pain relief)

Some clinical studies have indicated that THC has some analgesic activity in patients with cancer. However, there is a narrow therapeutic window between doses that produce useful
analgesia and those that produce unacceptable central nervous system effects. Several studies have shown improvement of pain at higher doses, while others have shown no effect or a negative effect at higher doses compared with placebo.

Medical marijuana summary

The use of marijuana or cannabis extracts for medical treatment has been extensively studied over the last 20 years. Initial enthusiasm for THC as an antiemetic or to reduce intraocular pressure has waned with the advent of new medications that provide superior medical benefits with fewer adverse effects. The main success of THC has been found in patients suffering from AIDS-related wasting syndrome and in some cases in which patients are suffering from intractable pain. However, nearly all of these studies involved the use of controlled doses of purified cannabinoids, bypassing the adverse effects associated with smoking marijuana. Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Georgetown University School of Medicine, says that most opponents of the medical use of smoked marijuana are not hostile to the medical use of THC, while “most supporters of smoked marijuana are hostile to the use of purified chemicals from revealing clearly that their motivation is not scientific medicine but the back door legalization of marijuana.

Detrimental effects of marijuana

Studies examining the efficacy of “medical” marijuana have found that a significant percentage of patients suffer from some form of adverse side effects. However, these studies have been limited to a duration of a few weeks to months. Another series of studies have examined the long-term effects of recreational marijuana use.

Dosage Problems

One of the main problems with the use of crude “medical” marijuana is that the amount of THC in the preparations varies up to 10-fold, depending upon if the marijuana is made from the flowers or the whole plant. Those who can afford the “good stuff” usually get a substantially higher dose of THC than those who buy the “cheap stuff.” In addition, studies demonstrate a trend for increasing concentration of THC over the last ten years. Because of dosage problems, crude marijuana as a medical “treatment” has proved problematic, despite California’s assertion that there is such a thing as “medical” marijuana.

Brain effects

A recent study using an MRI technique, diffusion tensor imaging, mapped the structural integrity of brain tissue in eleven heavy marijuana users and eleven age matched controls.

The study found impaired structural integrity affecting the fiber tracts of the corpus callosum, suggesting the possibility that the structural abnormalities in the brain may underlie cognitive and behavioral consequences of long-term heavy marijuana use. Another MRI study found that heavy cannabis users had an averaged 12 per cent volume reduction of the hippocampus, and a 7 per cent reduction of the amygdala compared to controls. In addition, the study found that long-term cannabis users suffered from psychotic experiences, such as persecutory beliefs and social withdrawal, in addition to the loss of memory equivalent to 15 additional years of aging. Another study measured slow brain potentials in response to Go and No Go conditions before, during and after marijuana smoking. The study found normal responses both before and during smoking, but severely disrupted responses 20-40 minutes later, during the period of peak intoxication, resembling those found in patients with lateral prefrontal cortex lesions. Another study utilized BOLD MRI to examine the brain activation patterns in chronic marijuana users and matched control subjects during a set of visual attention tasks. Although all subjects demonstrated similar task and cognitive test performance, active and abstinent marijuana users showed decreased activation in the right prefrontal, medial and dorsal parietal, and medial cerebellar regions (regions affected by THC), but greater activation in various frontal, parietal and occipital brain regions. Investigators hypothesized that marijuana users had lost some functionality in parts of the brain affected by marijuana use, which was compensated in other regions of the brain. The long-term consequences of such damage was not assessed, since the average age of marijuana users was less than 30. Another study examined the ability of 25-day abstinent marijuana users to perform decision-making tasks, simultaneously measuring brain activity using PET H215O. The marijuana group showed greater activation in the left cerebellum and less activation in the right lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) compared with the control group. The investigator concluded that heavy marijuana users had persistent decision-making deficits and alterations in brain activity.

Short term memory

Marijuana usage severely impacts short term memory, probably by interfering with the hippocampus. Impairment is especially noted in tests that depend heavily on attention. Specifically, marijuana intoxication causes deficits in spatial learning tasks, delays in matching or non-matching tests, and impaired performance in a radial arm maze in rodents.

Long term cognitive function

Studies have found that regular cannabis use can cause small but significant impairments in cognitive function that may persist after drug use stops. Heavy cannabis use in adolescence may induce subtle changes in the adult brain circuits resulting in altered emotional and
cognitive performance and enhanced susceptibility for more harmful drugs of abuse in certain individuals. Several studies have found deficits in attention and memory in heavy marijuana users. However, normalization of cognitive function has been found with prolonged abstinence (after 28 days), although other studies have observed persistent cognitive deficits. Another study found that chronic cannabis use had little effect on cognitive function except for possible decrements in the ability to learn and remember new information. A 38-year study of more than 1,000 New Zealanders found that adolescents who used marijuana at least four days per week lost an average of eight IQ points between the ages of 13 and 38. Those people who began heavy smoking of marijuana only in adulthood did not suffer a loss of IQ. Loss of IQ was not reversible once marijuana use was ceased.

Psychiatric illness

Some marijuana users can suffer from cannabis psychosis when they take large doses over a period of time, with symptoms characteristic of paranoid schizophrenia. A recent study found that marijuana use significantly increased the risk of developing mental health problems among those young people who possessed a genetic high risk for schizophrenia (familial risk factors). Among cannabis users who developed cannabis-induced psychosis, 44.5% developed schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, with about half of those being diagnosed more than a year after seeking treatment for their cannabis-induced psychosis A study using a sample of 880 adolescents in Melbourne, Australia found that lifetime cannabis use and the frequency of cannabis use in the last year were associated with psychotic-like experiences (primarily the experience of auditory and visual hallucinations) Another study examined the association between cannabis use and psychosis in 3,800 participants involving a subset analysis of 228 sibling pairs over a 21-year period of time. The results show that early use of marijuana was associated with psychosis-related outcomes in young adults.

Another study examined the associations between cannabis use and the development of mood and anxiety disorders. The study found no association between cannabis used and the development of anxiety disorders, although there was a significant correlation with the development of depression and bipolar disorder. Another study found an association between cannabis use and the development of panic attacks.

Marijuana abuse and withdrawal

Although originally believed not to be addictive, marijuana studies have shown that a substantial percentage of users suffer from abuse or dependence. An Australian studied found that 10.7% of marijuana users suffered from substance abuse and another 21% suffered from substance dependence. Another study, in the USA, found that 46% of those interviewed had ever used marijuana and 9% of those users became dependent. In addition,
studies have shown that addicted individuals suffer a clinically significant withdrawal syndrome, which includes craving for cannabis, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty and weight loss, and sometimes anger, aggression, increased irritability, restlessness and strange dreams. A study of teens showed that the overall severity of withdrawal was correlated with irritability, depression, twitches and shakes, perspiring, and thoughts and cravings for cannabis. Animal studies have shown that THC withdrawal leads to physiological symptoms similar to those seen in animals suffering from opiate withdrawal. The symptoms of withdrawal can be lessened by using the CB1 receptor agonist THC, demonstrating that cannabis use results in true addictive withdrawal. A recent study has shown that the withdrawal symptoms are comparable to those seen in tobacco withdrawal.

Gateway hypothesis

There is a tendency for marijuana users to go on to use other addictive drugs, following their initial experience with marijuana. Whether marijuana use predisposes individuals to drug abuse as a “gateway drug” or whether it is just the most easily available illicit drug, is not completely known. However, a study of 311 pairs of same-sex twins found that the twins with earlier marijuana use (before age 17 years) were 2–5 times more likely to use other illicit drugs, especially psychostimulants.

Concomitant drug use

A large percentage of Ecstasy/MDMA users (90-98%) also use marijuana. Studies have found that each drug is functionally damaging, and polydrug users generally display cumulative neurobiological impairments. Another study found that those who use both drugs suffer from immunological impairments characterized by a significant decrease in interleukin-2 and an increase in anti-inflammatory transforming growth factor-β1, along with a decrease in the number of total lymphocytes, CD4+ and natural killer cells. Probably as a result of these immunological impairments Ecstasy/cannabis users suffered a significantly higher rate of mild infections.

Driving & cannabis

In Europe, three million people use cannabis every day and more than two thirds of those drive after having smoked cannabis. Over 50% of drivers in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom suspected of driving under the influence of drugs, have been found to have THC in their bloodstream. Numerous studies have shown that driving under the influence of marijuana use results in a significant increase in motor vehicle accidents especially those resulting in fatalities or serious injuries, even with low blood
concentrations of THC. These studies have been done around the world, including Canada, Norway, and France.

Use during pregnancy

A study conducted in the Netherlands found that 2.9% of women used cannabis both before and during pregnancy. Factors coincident with cannabis use included use by the biological father, being single, childhood trauma, delinquency, and lower educational level. The reason why cannabis use is of concern is because it has been shown that THC crosses the placenta, thus entering the fetus during development. It has also been found that THC is secreted in breast milk, so it would be fed to the newborn during breast feeding.

A study at the University of Pittsburg examined the effect of prenatal marijuana exposure on subsequent child intelligence. Heavy marijuana use (one or more cigarettes per day) during the first trimester was associated with lower verbal reasoning scores on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale at age 6. Heavy use during the second trimester predicted deficits in the composite, short-term memory, and quantitative scores. Third-trimester heavy use was negatively associated with the quantitative score, indicating that prenatal marijuana exposure has a significant effect on subsequent school-age intellectual development. Another study found that prenatal marijuana exposure in the first and third trimesters predicted significantly increased levels of depressive symptoms in 10-year olds. A 2006 survey of the literature revealed that cannabis use during pregnancy was associated with a number of negative outcomes in the child, including symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, deficits in learning and memory, and a deficiency in aspects of executive functions. Another study found no effect of marijuana on IQ, but did find that prenatal use negatively impacted executive functions, influencing the application of these skills in problem-solving situations requiring visual integration, analysis, and sustained attention.

Use during adolescence

Adolescent exposure to cannabinoid compounds has been shown to affect the postnatal development of opioid neurons. These alterations are likely to produce important long-lasting functional changes in these neurons in the adult brain, including alterations in neuroendocrine control, pain sensitivity, and reward processes. Animal studies have shown

that cannabis exposure during adolescence can produce lasting memory deficits and hippocampal alterations that affect memory and social interaction.

Hormonal effects

Since THC affects the hypothalamus, which directly or indirectly modulates anterior pituitary function, it has been hypothesized that it might affect human endocrine function. Animal and human studies have shown that THC suppresses the reproductive hormones, prolactin, growth hormone, and the thyroid axis, while the hypothalamic pituitary-adrenal axis is activated. However, it appears that in humans many of these effects are transitory, likely due to the development of tolerance with continued use of the drug.

Cancer risks

Although smoking marijuana doesn’t have the same degree of risk as smoking tobacco (because of the frequency of usage), smoking anything over long periods of time does add to risks of contracting forms of cancer of the respiratory tract. Studies have suggested that smoking marijuana increases the risk of both oral cancers and lung cancer. This is because marijuana smoke contains carcinogenic materials, including vinyl chlorides, phenols, nitrosamines, reactive oxygen species, and various polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, including Benzo[a]pyrene, which is present in marijuana tar at a higher concentration than in tobacco tar. Ammonia was found in marijuana smoke at levels up to 20-fold greater than that found in tobacco. Hydrogen cyanide, NO, NO x , and some aromatic amines were found in marijuana smoke at concentrations 3-5 times those found in tobacco smoke. However absolute correlation of marijuana smoking with cancer risks are complicated by continuous tobacco smoking and increased alcohol use among marijuana users.

Adverse cardiovascular events

Some studies have suggested that marijuana might be a trigger for adverse cardiovascular events, including tachyarrhythmia, acute coronary syndrome, and vascular complications, especially in older users, and may be a risk factor in congenital heart defects for their children. Mixing marijuana with cocaine can cause cardiac problems, including the death of an otherwise healthy 31 year old male and an acute myocardial infarction in a 21-year old male.


Ischemic stroke is found almost exclusively in people of advanced age. However a number of reports have shown an association between cannabis abuse and ischemic stroke in young

people (one at the age of 15). Using Doppler sonography scientists were able to determine that cerebrovascular resistance and systolic velocity were significantly increased in marijuana abusers compared to the control subjects and that cerebral perfusion observed in 18-30 year old marijuana abusers was comparable to that of normal 60 year-olds. Another study showed that 6 of 10 subjects experienced reduced cerebral blood velocity and dizziness following
marijuana use. One heavy cannabis user was found to have a right temporal lobe hemorrhage, which was cleared within three months by reducing cannabis use from 2–6 cannabis cigarettes per day to 3–4 cigarettes per week.

Oral health

Marijuana users generally have poorer oral health than non-users, with an increased risk of dental caries (cavities) and periodontal diseases, along with dysplastic changes and pre-malignant lesions within the oral mucosa. In addition, users are prone to oral infections, possibly due to immunosuppressive effects.

Medical Marijuana Survey 1998-2008

In any review of the literature, it is possible that reviewer bias can enter the picture and distort the overall impact and conclusions of the review. To mitigate potential reviewer bias, the author initiated a complete Ovid-Medline search of marijuana/cannabis research in February 2009 for the years 1998-2008. Studies were categorized as being “Very Negative,” “Mostly Negative,” “Neutral,” “Mostly Positive,” or “Very Positive.” Data was collected and is presented in the figure to the right. The data shows that research on the medical effects of marijuana is becoming increasingly negative and decreasingly positive over the last 11 years of medical research. In addition, the number of studies examining the medical aspects of marijuana has increased markedly over the last 5 years, dramatically expanding our knowledge of the mostly negative aspects of marijuana usage (see original data). The United States Department of Justice has examined studies on medical marijuana us and abuse and has concluded, “At present, there are no FDA-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana NDA evaluation at the FDA for any indication. Marijuana does not have currently accepted medical use in the United States or a currently medical use with severe restrictions.

Legalize marijuana?

The California state legislature, in its infinite wisdom, is considering a bill (AB 390 to legalize the growing of cannabis, its use, and sale. In return, the state expects to get over a billion dollars from the sale of permits and taxes. Besides the revenue, they expect to save millions of dollars from not having to enforce marijuana laws. And, of course, we know that all the

people who grow marijuana will do so legally by paying the several thousand dollar permit fee! Although the sale of marijuana is restricted to those 21 years and older, the penalties for selling to underage persons is $100 or less. As a result of such lenient penalties, it is clear that adolescents will be able to obtain marijuana more easily, leading to increased use, which is especially troublesome given its effect upon the maturing brain. What the legislature seems to have ignored in its financial analysis is the almost astronomical costs that will be incurred
through increased health care and mental health costs that will result from increased marijuana use in the population of California. In addition, the number of people driving under the influence of marijuana will increase dramatically, as it has in Europe, since its legalization there. The cost in terms of increased deaths from automobile accidents could be in the hundreds to thousands of lives lost.

The vast majority of studies show that there is no such thing as “medical marijuana.” In general, physicians in the United States are not thrilled with the idea that marijuana should be allowed to be prescribed, since only 36% take that stance. The act of smoking marijuana is fraught with so many adverse side effects that it really isn’t useful in treating symptoms in any specific disease for the vast majority of sufferers. However, the active ingredient in marijuana (THC) has been shown to be useful for some patients who suffer from chronic pain, especially in refractory cases of multiple sclerosis, and in patients who are suffering from AIDS-related wasting syndrome. Even in those diseases, a minority of patients actually derive a benefit that is without unwanted side effects. THC’s use as an anti-emetic for patients suffering nausea from cancer chemotherapy or as a way to lower intraocular pressure for glaucoma has been replaced by far superior new medicines that don’t have the negative side effects.

As a recreational drug, marijuana is not quite as benign as most of its proponents would claim. Heavy marijuana use results in long-term effects on the brain, including lower responses in those areas which are affected by THC.

Although users are able to compensate somewhat through the use of other brain areas, the long term effects of this damage, as users’ age, has not been determined. This damage may be responsible for impairments noted in short-term and long-term memory, along with a host of possible other psychiatric illnesses. A proportion of marijuana users become addicted and suffer from classic withdrawal symptoms upon abstinence. For a minority of users, marijuana is a gateway drug, and they proceed to use and abuse more powerful psychostimulants. Besides its effects upon the brain, marijuana use can lead to increased risks for respiratory cancers and may have some adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular effects in some users. Marijuana use during pregnancy has been shown to result in lower child intelligence, while increasing the incidence of mental health problems. According to the DOJ, “In sum, at present, marijuana lacks an acceptable level of safety even under medical supervision. The

idea that marijuana is a harmless recreational pastime has been disproved through continuing scientific research.

Medicinal Cannabis and Painful Sensory Neuropathy

There is increasing evidence that cannabis may represent a useful alternative or adjunct in the management of painful peripheral neuropathy, a condition that can markedly affect life quality.

According to Grant, MD (2013) Painful peripheral neuropathy comprises multiple symptoms that can severely erode quality of life. These include allodynia (pain evoked by light stimuli that are not normally pain-evoking) and various abnormal sensations termed dysesthesias (e.g., electric shock sensations, “pins and needles,” sensations of coldness or heat, numbness, and other types of uncomfortable and painful sensations). Common causes of peripheral neuropathy include diabetes, HIV/AIDS, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, and certain drugs and toxins. Commonly prescribed treatments come from drugs of the tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant classes, anticonvulsants, opioids, and certain topical agents. Many patients receive only partial benefit from such treatments, and some either do not benefit or cannot tolerate these medications. The need for additional treatment modalities is evident.

Animal studies and anecdotal human evidence have for some time pointed to the possibility that cannabis may be effective in the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy. Recently, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the University of California completed five placebo-controlled phase II clinical trials with smoked or inhaled cannabis. Another study reported from Canada [8]. Patients included people with HIV neuropathy and other neuropathic conditions, and one study focused on a human model of neuropathic pain. Overall, the efficacy of cannabis was comparable to that of traditional agents, somewhat less than that of the tricyclics, but better than SSRIs and anticonvulsants, and comparable to gabapentin.

The concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in these studies ranged from 2 to 9 percent, with a typical concentration of 4 percent resulting in good efficacy. Side effects were modest and included light-headedness, mild difficulties in concentration and memory, tachycardia, and fatigue. Serious side effects (e.g., severe anxiety, paranoia, psychotic symptoms) were not observed. Mild cognitive changes resolved within several hours of drug administration.

While these were short-term trials with limited numbers of cases, the data suggest, on balance, that cannabis may represent a reasonable alternative or adjunct to treatment of

patients with serious painful peripheral neuropathy for whom other remedies have not provided fully satisfactory results. Because oral administration of cannabinoids (e.g., as dronabinol, marketed as Marinol) can result in inconsistent blood levels due to variations in
absorption and first-pass metabolism effects, inhalational (or potentially sublingual spray, e.g., nabiximols, marketed as Sativex) administration remains preferred to oral administration.

Cannabis as a smoked cigarette, while demonstrating efficacy, poses a number of challenges, in as much as it remains illegal under federal law, even though it is permitted in an increasing number of jurisdictions on physician recommendation. There is a schematic approach for physician decision making in jurisdictions where medicinal cannabis is permitted. This decision tree suggests key points that a physician should consider in making a determination. In the case of a patient assumed to have persistent neuropathic pain, the first determination to be made is that the patient’s signs and symptoms are indeed consistent with a diagnosis of neuropathy. Assuming a patient does not respond favorably to or cannot tolerate more standard treatments (e.g., antidepressants, anticonvulsants) and is willing to consider medicinal cannabis, the physician proceeds to compare risk and benefit. Among these considerations is whether the patient has a history of substance abuse or a serious psychiatric disorder that might be exacerbated by medicinal cannabis. Even the presence of such a risk does not necessarily preclude the use of medicinal cannabis; rather, coordination with appropriate substance abuse and psychiatric resources is necessary, and, based on that consultation, a risk-benefit ratio can be formulated. In patients for whom the ratio appears favorable, the physician should discuss modes of cannabis administration including oral, smoked, or vaporized. Once risks and benefits are evaluated and discussed with the patient, cannabis treatment may commence as with other psychotropic medications, with attention being paid to side effects as well as efficacy. Attention must also be paid to possible misuse and diversion, which can then trigger a decision to discontinue the treatment.

Medical disadvantages

There is still a great deal of research to be done concerning the effects of marijuana on the health of humans due to the fact that widespread marijuana use has only become prevalent in this country within the last three decades, so the effects of long-term use are just beginning to become apparent.

Marijuana has often been touted as one of the safest recreational substances available. This is perhaps true; many reputable scientific studies support the conclusion that cocaine, heroine, alcohol, and even cigarettes are more dangerous to the users’ health than marijuana. In addition, the celebrated pharmacological properties of cannabis have led thirty-six states to permit its use as a therapeutic drug for, among others, those suffering from AIDS;

various painful, incurable and debilitating illnesses; the harmful side effects of cancer chemotherapy, and glaucoma. Additional research is being conducted concerning the use of marijuana on the treatment of anxiety and mental disorders.

Nonetheless, it would be fallacious to conclude that because the chemicals in marijuana have been found to present fewer dangers than some very harmful substances, the medical or recreational use of marijuana may be perfectly safe. In a recreational context, marijuana has been shown to affect health, brain function, and memory. And in a medical context, marijuana is like any other powerful prescription drug: it has potentially dangerous side effects, and the decision to use it to treat patients must involve the same balancing test as the one required for chemotherapy or AZT: do the therapeutic effects of the drug outweigh its harmful effects? Though there are many more studies to be done on this issue, current data shows that the answer to this question may not always be “yes.”

Effects of Habitual Marijuana use on the Immune System

The most potent argument against the use of marijuana to treat medical disorders is that marijuana may cause the acceleration or aggravation of the very disorders it is being used to treat.

Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.

Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general “immunosuppressant” whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker’s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. “killer cells”) and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana as a medical therapy can and does have a very serious negative effect on patients with pre-existing immune deficits resulting from AIDS, organ transplantation, or cancer chemotherapy, the very conditions for which marijuana has most often been touted and suggested as a treatment. It has also been shown that marijuana use can accelerate the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS and increase the occurrence of infections and Kaposis sarcoma. In addition, patients with weak immune systems will be even less able to defend themselves against the various respiratory cancers and conditions to which consistent marijuana use has been linked, and which are discussed briefly under “Respiratory Illnesses.”

Respiratory Illnesses

The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs.

Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. This implies, but does not establish, that smoking marijuana may lead to some of the same results as smoking cigarettes. It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion of marijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases.

For more information, please see the Tashkin website mentioned at the end of the section on immune disorders. See also:

• 21.96.10.html, for information on the link between chemicals contained in marijuana and lung cancer.

•, for an article concerning the link between marijuana and cancer, with commentary

Mental Health, Brain Function, and Memory

It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and
uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis

Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.

In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise.

•, for more information on the indirect effects of marijuana on health

•, the Australian Drug Foundations website

•, a reprint of New Science magazines “Marijuana Special Report: A Safe High?” with commentary

•, an article about the similarity of long-term marijuana uses effect on the brain to that of “hard” drugs, with commentary

•, for general information on the health risks of marijuana.

•, the homepage of the National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, for general information on marijuana.


Marijuana: Cultivation, Distribution and Possession

According to Ronfola (2013.The legalization of marijuana in California and across the United States is an extremely unsettled area of law. California allows each jurisdiction to establish local cultivation and distribution guidelines. State law, however, is in conflict with federal law regarding the legalization of marijuana. Federal authorities have been aggressive in their pursuit and prosecution of distributors and cultivators of marijuana.

At the Law Office of John Runfola, we are available to counsel you so that you may legally navigate the ever-changing network of federal and local guidelines surrounding cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana. A consultation with John Runfola before beginning to plant and grow marijuana can help a client avoid future prosecutions. Although possession, cultivation and distribution continued to be a violation of federal law, a basic understanding of California marijuana law follows.

Does Using Marijuana Lead to Other Drugs?

Answer: Long-term studies of high school students and their patterns of drug use show that very few young people use other drugs without first trying marijuana, alcohol, or tobacco. Though few young people use cocaine, for example, the risk of doing so is much greater for youth who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it.

While research has not fully explained this association, growing evidence suggests a combination of biological, social, and psychological factors are involved.

Researchers are examining the possibility that long-term marijuana use may create changes in the brain that make a person more at risk of becoming addicted to other drugs, such as alcohol or cocaine (16). While many young people who use marijuana do not go on to use other drugs, further research is needed to determine who will be at greatest risk.

Researchers Find Clues to Marijuana Effects

Lowers Body Temperature, Impairs Functions

Scientists have been studying cannabinoids, substances that are chemically related to the ingredients found in marijuana, for more than two decades, hoping to learn more about how the drug produces its effects — both therapeutic and harmful.

Marijuana has been reported effective in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, nausea caused by chemotherapy and wasting caused by AIDS. However, like all drugs, it also causes numerous unwanted side effects, including hypothermia, sedation, memory impairment, motor impairment and anxiety. Research on cannabinoids could someday yield new, more effective drugs or drug combinations.

At Temple University’s School of Pharmacy and Center for Substance Abuse Research (CSAR), one of only a few centers in the nation focused on the basic science of substance abuse, several researchers are investigating how cannabinoids produce pharmacological effects in rats.

One such study, “L-NAME, a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, and WIN 55212-2, a cannabinoid agonist, interact to evoke synergistic hypothermia,” published in the February 2004 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, reveals how cannabinoids produce one of the drug’s most robust actions, hypothermia, or decreased body temperature.

According to lead author Scott Rawls, Ph.D., assistant professor of pharmacodynamics at Temple’s School of Pharmacy, “To operate at maximum efficiency, the body needs to maintain a stable, normal temperature. When the body’s temperature is altered, as in hypothermia, normal body functions, such as blood pressure and circulation, are impaired.”

Marijuana operates via two receptors in the body. One receptor, called CB1, is located in the brain and produces the drug’s psychoactive effects, including euphoria and dizziness. The other receptor, CB2, is found throughout the body and impacts the immune system. Substances in marijuana bind to one of these receptors and set off a chemical process that leads to an effect, such as hypothermia. Scientists have focused on this chemical process at the molecular level to pinpoint the exact molecules involved.

Knowing that the molecule nitric oxide (NO) plays an important role in the regulation of body temperature, the Temple researchers set out to determine what role it might play in cannabinoid-induced hypothermia. By combining a cannabinoid with a substance that blocked NO synthesis, they found that cannabinoid-induced hypothermia increased more than two-fold.

“This demonstrates the possibility that NO plays a part in regulating the impact of cannabinoids on body temperature and other cannabinoid-mediated actions,” said Rawls.

“These findings could be helpful in determining the mechanisms that underlie some of the pharmacological actions of marijuana,” he added.

Rawls’ research team is currently investigating the impact of cannabinoids on other physiological systems, such as analgesia and movement, and the brain neurotransmitters that mediate those systems.

Other Possible Problems

In addition to the long-term and short-term side effects, you may have heard that using marijuana may lead to other drug use. Although it is not certain that marijuana is the direct cause, people who have used marijuana are eight times more likely to have used cocaine, 15 times more likely to have used heroin, and five times more likely to need treatment for substance abuse.

There are also legal aspects to marijuana use: Every state except Colorado and Washington has laws against growing, possessing, and selling marijuana.

Penalties vary from state to state, but they usually involve fines and/or jail time for those caught using or distributing marijuana. People who use marijuana may end up with criminal records that can hurt plans for college or finding a job.

Speaking of jobs, more and more places test for drug use as part of the hiring process. It can take several weeks for marijuana to leave someone’s body. So people who use marijuana may find they don’t get a job they want — or, if their place of work does ongoing drug tests, they may lose their jobs.

Marijuana is typically smoked in cigarettes (joints or spliffs), hollowed-out cigars (blunts), pipes (bowls), or water pipes (bongs). Some people mix it into food or brew it as a tea.

Short-Term Effects

The main active chemical in marijuana is THC (delta9tetrahydrocannabinol). When smoked, THC passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which transports it to the brain and other organs. When it reaches the brain, THC connects with a certain type of receptor on nerve cells in areas that affect coordination, thought, memory, concentration, sensory and time perception, and pleasure. This causes the marijuana “high.”

Marijuana users can experience these short-term effects: difficulty in thinking and problem solving problems with memory and learning loss of coordination distorted perception.

Medical Use of Marijuana

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pills that contain THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) to help relieve nausea in people who have cancer and help people with AIDS regain their appetite. There’s still debate over the medical use of marijuana, though, so the THC pill is only available in certain states and requires a doctor’s prescription.

Long term research has found that side effects from using marijuana frequently over a long period of time include:

Changes in the brain. Marijuana can affect the areas of the brain that play a part in response to stress, motivation, and reward.

Fertility implications. Animal studies suggest that heavy users may experience disruptions in ovulation or produce less sperm. So its possible people who use a lot of marijuana might have difficulty having children as they get older. Studies also show that babies born to women who use marijuana when they are pregnant may be more likely to have developmental and behavioral problems.

Respiratory problems.

People who smoke marijuana have more respiratory problems — such as having more mucus, a chronic cough, and bronchitis (irritated breathing passages).

Changes in blood pressure.

Over time, continued use of marijuana can lead to decreased blood pressure, which may cause dizziness. It also seems to impair the body’s ability to fight off infections and some other diseases.

Emotional problems.

Heavy users are more likely to report symptoms of depression than nonusers. They can also feel more anxiety, have more personality disturbances, and are at an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, a severe form of mental illness.

At present, there is not enough data for scientists to determine whether smoking marijuana is any more helpful than taking its active ingredient in pill form. Studies into this are ongoing.

What If I Want to Quit?

People who try to give up marijuana after using it frequently over a period of time may experience withdrawal symptoms. These can include irritability, sleeplessness, anxiety, depression, and lack of appetite. As with caffeine addiction, symptoms of marijuana withdrawal are usually worse a day or two after someone stops using marijuana. They gradually decrease and are usually gone a week or two after the person no longer uses the drug.

If you or someone you know would like to kick the habit, talking to a counselor can help. Studies suggest that a combination of individual counseling and group therapy sessions is the best approach for getting off marijuana.

These effects can make activities like driving dangerous while under the influence of the drug.


In summary, there is increasing evidence that cannabis may represent a useful alternative or adjunct in the management of painful peripheral neuropathy, a condition that can markedly affect life quality. Our society should be able to find ways to separate the medical benefits of making a treatment available to improve lives when indicated from broader social policy on recreational use, marijuana legalization, and unsubstantiated fears that medicinal cannabis will lead to widespread cannabis addiction.

On the other side further information is needed before Florida’s voters can determine the long term effects, concerning positive or negative, health issue due to long term use. If in fact states pass LMM only for the financial rewards due to taxation revenue yet do not discuss adverse side effects this could do more harm than good.


In conclusion, it seems that the potential dangers presented by the medical use of marijuana may actually contribute to the dangers of the diseases which it would be used to combat. Therefore, it is suggested until a more conclusive research has been completed concerning its debilitating effect on the immune system, the voters might want to reconsider their vote.

Waiting for the results of studies done by the 20 states (see annex website at end of this session) who have currently approved LMM. If a limited number of patients should be approved for LMM in the state of Florida, individuals should be followed for the long term effect, whether positive or negative, mental and emotional behavior be tracked, recorded by physicians and presented in medical journals to be evaluated by the legislators.



Cyber law Harvard. (unk). Health Concerns: Ware the Medical Dangers of Marijuana use? Retrieved from
20 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC Drug war statistics. (2013). Retrieved from

Grant, I (2013). Medicinal Cannabis and Painful Sensory Neuropathy. Retrieved from

Gray, E. (2013). New Laws Chart Course for Marijuana Legalization. Retrieved from

Marijuana ProCon (2013. Laws, Fees, and Possession Limits. Retrieved from

Rick Deem (2012). The Medical “Benefits” of Smoking Marijuana (Cannabis): a Review of the Current Scientific Litera. Retrieved from

Ronfola, J. m. (2013). Marijuana: Cultivation, Distribution and Possession. Retrieved from

Van Vranken, M MD. (2009). Adolescent Medicine Staff Physician, Teenage Medical Services
Director, Annex Teen Clinic and West Suburban Teen Clinic Children’s Physician. Network. Retrieved from

White, B. (2013). Should Marijuana Sale and Possession Be Legalized? Retrieved from

Copy Editor: Vilet Weaver…

Marriage is under the 1st, 9th, 10th and 14th amendment of the
USA constitution

Letter sent to Judge Gorsch United States Supreme Court

May 10, 2017

Judge Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court,
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

“The rights of the state under the 10th Amendment US Constitution versus Supreme Court rulings”

christians should file a class action suit

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Was a Candidate For U. S. Senate Florida 2016

Info to:

Clarification; Same-sex Marriage versus Civil Union, Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion – Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed and the10th Amendment-Rights of the State

On January 12, 2015 Dr. Tolbert spoke on American statesman talk radio, to listen to issues concerning marriage common core and other vital political policies please download the below blog. In addition the discussion concerning the new political party Citizens For A Better America.

Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed:

This article is being written to explain the rights of citizens in United States of America as written in the U.S. Constitution and the enforcement of (Amendment 1) and (Amendment 14). It is important that the reader completely understands both articles prior to reading the reasons Ministers and Religion object to the term (SAME SEX MARRIAGES). There are several scriptures which also should be read in order for the reader to conclude when amendment one has precedence over amendment 14.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

(Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase “Equal Justice Under Law”. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups.

The Equal Protection Clause itself applies only to state governments. However, the Supreme Court held in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) that equal protection requirements apply to the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Congress shall (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion) make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[James Madison speaking]: Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses to wit: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2 be inserted this clause to wit: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases.” (Annals of Congress, 1:434-435)

Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which lead to the short-hand for the term we use today: “Separation of church and state.” Which has NO constitutional base.

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in

proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Thomas Jefferson

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The Establishment Clause was written by Congressman Fisher Ames in 1789, which derived it from discussions in the First Congress of various drafts that would become the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. This clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states:

-or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;-

These two clauses make up what are called the “Religion Clauses” of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second prohibition inherent from this specified prohibition is no preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another; an aim desired by the Founding Fathers necessary to accommodate all
of the many denominations in the United States. The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The above information is provided in order to establish the right of Religion (amendment 1) and its relationship to the Equal Protection Clause (amendment 14)

The reader should note that under (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. There is no mention of separation of church and state and that Thomas Jefferson coined the phase in 1802 in a letter he wrote. As is in many court cases to include the one allowing same sex marriages under 14 no thought was given to the wording or use of the word marriage versus civil union. (Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection. In fact under the courts wrote:

Florida judge allowing same sex marriage rather than upholding U.S. Constitution and also against Florida Constitution, abridging the civil rights of the first amendment, where-as the term marriage goes against religions and he should have used the term civil union.

When (The ruling by Circuit Judge Luis M. Garcia only applied to Monroe County, which primarily consists of the Keys. It was appealed within an hour. The lawsuit contended that the same-sex marriage ban approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2008 violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The judge said licenses could not be issued until Tuesday but the appeal halted that, putting an automatic stay on the ruling.) Now that Florida has become the 36th state to allow same-sex couples to marry, more than 70 percent of Americans live in jurisdictions that permit such unions. What’s made this possible is a string of supportive federal court rulings following the Supreme Court’s pivotal 2013 decision striking down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 federal law that denied federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.

Judge Robert Hinkle of Federal District Court in Tallahassee cleared the way for the Florida breakthrough with a New Year’s clarification of an earlier ruling in August in which he declared the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The clarification said that clerks in all 67 Florida counties were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The first Florida County to allow same-sex weddings was Miami-Dade, where a state judge, Sarah Zabel, lifted her own temporary injunction, and, fittingly enough proceeded to officially marry two of the six couples who had sued the county over the marriage ban. The rest of the state began legalizing same-sex marriages just after midnight on Tuesday January 05, 2015. All clerk offices agreed to comply with Judge Hinkle’s order, although, disappointingly, some said they would stop performing marriages altogether so that staff members who objected to same-sex unions would not have to officiate them — an infuriating but probably not unconstitutional act of defiance.

In previous paragraphs I wrote marriage, same sex marriage and civil union. There are several places in the Bible which defines marriage and because of the religious definition the use of the term same sex marriage versus civil union violates (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion).

There are over 31 places in the Bible defining marriages, these three are the basis for religions to file suits against the State of Florida and the United States Congress.

In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court in Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp (486 U.S. 847, 869-870) quoted Justice Frankfurter, explaining that the “‘guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.’” Here, appearance and fact are constant; Justices Ginsburg and Kagan are vested in their same-sex marriage positions. This partiality also raises real concerns of whether the litigants in Obergefell v. Hodges can receive due process from those who have demonstrated bias.

So what can be done about Justices who ignore the ethical standards in violation of the judicial Code of Conduct and who violate a federal statute barring their participation in a “proceeding in which [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned?” Obviously, there is no court above the U.S. Supreme Court from which discipline may be applied. Nor is there a mechanism by which other justices can vote a biased colleague off a case. Internal policing doesn’t appear to be working in Obergefell v. Hodges, even though a number of justices have previously disqualified themselves from cases in which they have vested interests or have made public comments.

The only answer for justices who blatantly violate their Code of Conduct, federal law, and their oaths of office is impeachment and removal. Regrettably, a Republican-controlled Congress, more concerned about rescuing Obamacare than resisting yet another activist attack on the Constitution, offers little hope. Unless and until Members of Congress demonstrate real fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, no Ruling Class politicos in either party can be trusted, and none should be supported, by those who seek to restore liberty to our nation.

Read more:

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. (Mark 12:17).

Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one?”

Acts 8:30-31
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31 “How can I, he said, unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

James 2:10
10-“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.”
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one?”

Citizens for a Better America Inc; CFABANP

Charles Frederick Tolbert
Div.M., Ed.M., Ed.D.
Pastor, Retired MSGT


The White House
John DeStefano
Assistant to the President
Director of Presidential Personnel
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD

Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…
Social Security, Medicare, and Obama care

Articles on Social Security and individuals that want to maintain its legality do not explain the constitutional violation of our rights and excise tax placed on a retirement program that contradicts the Constitution.–thank-god-im-free-on-this-thanksgiving-day–2015

Articles on Social Security and individuals that want to maintain its legality does not explain the constitutional violation of our rights and excise tax placed on a retirement program that contradicts the Constitution.

Although there has to be a better substitution, the question is, do we debate the issue in an article, or for now not make it one of the issues that we would want to review as a senator.

A forced retirement program is what Social Security is and although I benefit from social security I support the constitution more which overrides anything that may work to my advantage and to deny its legitimacy or to affirm it, I think creates an issue.

It would take a constitutional amendment to secure Social Security as a right rather than the way it is currently presented.

Although there are contradictions on privatizing of security, we have to understand that the federal government starting back with many of our presidents took money out of Social Security illegally to offset areas where they did not get budget approval. This is why social security is faced with a deficit today.

In conclusion, the federal government needs to repay all of its loans borrowed from social security for other debts and replace it in Social Security, and then there has to be a decision about how to correct the constitutionality and make it so it is not an excise tax.

The reason being, Congress is the only one that can establish taxes. This is reflected in Obama care where the Supreme Court ruled that Obama care is an excise tax which is based on the same principle as security.

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937.

When the new law was enacted based on the power to levy payroll taxes, it was immediately challenged in the courts. And Justice Stone’s provident prediction bore out. On May 24, 1937 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the new Social Security program, based on the government’s broad power to tax, was fully constitutional.

Conceptually, the old-age insurance program was a social insurance program with an obvious connection between the taxes collected in Title VIII of the Act and the benefits paid in Title II of the Act. The taxing and spending provisions of the Act were placed in separate titles in the vain hope of convincing the courts that what was obvious was not the case–that is, so that the argument could be made that the taxing and spending provisions had nothing to do with each other. Whether such a strategy would work was highly questionable–especially following the ruling on the AAA. But as it would turn out, the Court itself would change in ways that rendered the strategy moot and the Social Security Act safe from legal challenge.

If the Supreme Court holds that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which requires every American adult to purchase health insurance or pay a fine, is unconstitutional, why could not Social Security be next? After all, it requires nearly every American to purchase retirement coverage? What about Medicare, which requires every working adult to purchase old age medical insurance?

The constitutionality of both of these federal mandates is not being challenged, even by the Tea Party. Nor have we heard charges that Social Security is a takeover of private pension care or Medicare a takeover of private health care. No one is claiming that Social Security takes away your choice of pension options or that Medicare takes away your choice of doctors. To the contrary, the great majority of Americans do not want anyone messing with these federal mandates.

There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Social Security tax or FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) is another tax taken out of your paycheck as withholding, or self-assessed as self-employment tax. Where’s the authority for this and who does it apply to?

“IRC (Internal Revenue Code) 3101. Rate of tax.

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance. In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b).”

Again, this is just another excise tax imposed on income, in addition to other taxes, and has nothing to do with any type of insurance. Since an excise tax is a tax on a privilege, then what’s the privilege here? The privilege is a wage received with respect to employment. Is employment a government granted privilege? Yes, since the government property (U.S. citizen) is employed by a business that makes every employer a government employee. But notice that, again, the tax is a percentage of wages. Do you receive wages?

The TRUTH is that Social Security is just a fringe benefit, for any U.S. citizen who is a subject of the federal government. And the qualifications for Social Security are easy. You just have to be a U.S. citizen/subject and pay in for 10 years. In the Supreme Court case of Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is paying Social Security benefits under the same constitutional authority that it doles out Aid to Families with Dependent Children and to those receiving food stamps. The Court said that workers have no legal claim to either their accrued contributions or to their anticipated benefits. And Congress can stop these benefits at any time they want. Remember, privileges and immunities for citizens/subjects can be granted and withdrawn by the government at will. You have no ‘right’ to Social Security benefits, even if you paid in for 50 years, because it is NOT insurance. It is just a tax, to be doled out as willed. You are just on welfare, being paid from the income made by others! It is a giant pyramid scheme that would be illegal if you tried to implement a retirement program like this yourself. And it can be discontinued or changed at any time.

Remember, the social security tax is an excise tax on a privilege. The privilege is, being employed by the government in the jurisdiction of U.S. federal territory. Can you be forced to accept a privilege, so you can be taxed on that privilege? No. To engage in a privilege is still voluntary. But, the government is working on that. They have made it almost mandatory to accept the privilege of Social Security. After all, you can’t get “employment” in the “United States” without a Social Security card. And if you go to the doctor, they want your Social Security number. And in some states you can’t get the “privilege” of liberty (driver’s license)
without a social security number. You didn’t know that liberty was now a privilege, and not an inalienable right? United States citizens have this “privilege” of liberty. American

sovereigns have the inalienable right of liberty. They can drive to the grocery store without permission (driver’s license) from the government. Another whole book subject!

It would take many legal debates on Social Security’s legality but to read and understand it fully would take a large committee and many years to redesign, re-organized and implemented on a voluntary basis rather than mandating that a tax on a privilege is unconstitutional.

This presentation is to provide information on both sides of the issue of the legality of Social Security and why it enhances a socialist economy as does Obamacare.

There has to be a better solution.

Conclusion: before any political party or group of individuals challenge the legality and constitutionality of Social Security, lawsuits need to be made against the federal government to include Congress, the President and the Supreme Court for misappropriation of the American funds and taxes and the usage of those funds tended for Social Security.

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Was a Candidate for United States Senate Florida 2016 NPA
Retired MSGT

Dr. Allen W. Smith is a Professor of Economics, Emeritus, at Eastern Illinois University. He is the author of seven books and has been researching and writing about Social Security financing for the past ten years. His latest book is Raiding the Trust Fund; Using Social Security Money to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich. Read other articles by Allen, or visit Allen’s website.

by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

“The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

Some members of Congress were outraged by the practice and tried to nip this misuse of Social Security revenue in the bud. On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC expressed his outrage during a speech on the Senate floor. Excerpts from that speech, taken from the Congressional Record, follow: “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund…The public fully supported enactment of hefty new Social Security taxes in 1983 to ensure the retirement program’s long-term solvency and credibility. The promise was that today’s huge surpluses would be set safely aside in a trust fund to provide for baby-boomer retirees in the next century. Well, look again. The Treasury is siphoning off every dollar of the Social Security surplus to meet current operating expenses of the government. The hard fact is that in the next century the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate banknotes.”

A year later, on October 9, 1990, Senator Harry Reid of NV expressed similar outrage. Excerpts from his Senate speech, taken from the Congressional Record, include, “…Are we as a country violating a trust by spending Social Security trust fund moneys for some purpose other than for which they were intended. The obvious answer is yes…During the period of growth we have had during the past 10 years, the growth has been from two sources. One, a large credit card with no limits on it, and, two, we have been stealing money from the Social Security recipients of this country.”

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of NY even introduced legislation in early 1990 to repeal the 1983 payroll tax increase. In an effort to keep politicians from spending the Social Security surplus money on other things, Moynihan wanted to eliminate the surplus revenue and return Social Security to a “pay-as-you-go” system. President George H.W. Bush was furious about Moynihan’s proposed legislation. Bush said, “It is an effort to get me to raise taxes on the American people by the charade of cutting them, or cut benefits. And I am not going to do it to the older people of this country.”

Bush, the “read-my-lips-no-new-taxes” president, did not need to raise taxes as long as he had access to the surplus Social Security revenue. During his four years in office, $211.7 billion in Social Security surplus revenue flowed into the U.S. Treasury. Every penny of it was spent for general government expenditures, and none of it was saved and invested for the payment of future Social Security benefits, as is commonly believed. This practice has continued until this day. The plan was that when benefit costs start to exceed payroll tax revenue, in about seven years, the Social Security trustees would begin dipping into the huge reserve that was supposed to be built up in the trust fund to make up the revenue shortfall in
order to continue to pay full benefits. Unfortunately, there are no assets in the trust fund that can be dipped into.

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.

He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program > would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money from participants would be put into an independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore > Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “put away”– you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the “general fund” so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party supports the eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party wrote bills to tax Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, whether or not they ever paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

Copy Editor, Vilet

Some of my ideas…Your thoughts, input or comments

Some of my ideas…Your thoughts, input or comments

Written April 7, 2013

Updated March 8, 2018
Was a Write-in (TOLBERT) for US Senate Florida 2016 NPA

CFA Citizens For America
Citizens for a Better America
Retired MSGT

Issues: Some of my ideas…Your thoughts, input or comments

Bring back draft-all 18 years serve one year

A military draft is beneficial because it expands the military in size and age range. A draft provides a quick way for the military to expand its size because of the thousands of people who will be required to join. The military will also benefit from fewer expenses in advertising for recruits. Military drafts help to reach young people who may not be in touch with their government system. People in their early 20s will be required to join the military and learn about how the government functions. Young people are also strong and can bear the military life longer than those who are older.


Discipline is a benefit of a military draft. The intense military training and drills produce discipline in those who may lack the skill. Draft recruits will learn how to awake early in the morning, keep a tidy living space and follow those in authority. Young people who are drafted will benefit from learning how to respect military officials and themselves. The physical training in the military teaches men and women how to discipline their bodies for better health. They may continue to discipline themselves and stay healthy after leaving the military.


A benefit of enlisting a military draft is to secure America’s status among other nations. WashingtonMonthly.compublished an article by Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris called, “The Case for the Draft.” The authors state that, “a draft helps America remain as the world’s superpower. A modernized draft would ensure that everyone in the country participates, including the privileged. If everyone participates, the U.S. military will remain one of the largest in the world.”

The article suggests creating a large number of ground troops with a draft. According to the article, an all-volunteer military will not help America remain as a superpower in the 21st century.

Read more: Good Things About the Military Draft | eHow.com for within 100 miles of their home, in return they receive four years of college tuition paid in full.

Train and release, after review, individuals incarcerated except for murderers, rapist and child molesters, in return they commit to four years of duty to help protect America in foreign lands. Upon receiving an honorable discharge four years of college, or cross trained into another field.

According to the advocacy group, Consensus Building Institute, the rising rate of prison releases is becoming a major concern for agencies that are directly involved in the reintegration process. It drains their resources. To help in the efforts, the federal government signed the Second Chance Act into law on April 9, 2008. The purpose of the law is to allow the public and private agencies to get funding from the federal government to provide assistance to the ex-offenders.

1. Housing Assistance

Unless an inmate has a family to go home to, one major problem for an individual just released from prison is having a place to live. The National Reentry Resource Center has a nationwide database of transitional housing, sober living homes and even affordable housing available to ex-prisoners. The agency also has lists of many other services.

Career and Vocational Training

Career One Stop is a program sponsored by the United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Its goal is to provide opportunity to ex-offenders to learn or update their skills, further their education and develop their careers. The department
partners with community colleges and training centers to provide affordable education to individuals who come out of prison.

Employment Assistance

The National H.I.R.E. Network educates ex-offenders about their legal rights. Some employers have the tendency to reject a job applicant who has a criminal record. In many states, the employers are prohibited from denying jobs to applicants based solely on their past convictions. The agency also gives guidance to those with criminal records to help them prepare for the application and interview process. It provides training and assistance to agencies that help the ex-offenders find employment. H.I.R.E. stands for Helping Individuals with criminal records Re-enter through Employment.

Mentoring and Spiritual Guidance

The Association of Gospel Rescue Missions provides a variety of assistance not just to the homeless but also to the ex-offenders. There are rescue missions in almost every state in the country. The missions provide emergency and transitional housing, food, clothing, employment assistance, health care assistance and mentoring. Their goal is not just to provide for the physical needs of a person but also to spiritually nurture the individual.

Read more: Help for Inmates That Are Being Released From Prison |

Elimination of the IRS (HR 25 )

Immigration policies will become a lesser issue when HR 25 is passed, consumption tax will make money from everyone who buys anything.

H.R. 25: Fair Tax Act of 2011

To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Sponsor: Rep. Rob Woodall [R-GA7]


This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Explanation: Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of the committee (H.R. 25: Fair Tax Act of 2011)

Reduce all mortgages to current market value and loans set for 5 years at 2%.

Mortgage Manipulation

Basically if the Government were to standardize mortgages we would not have the foreclosures that have happened.

Each person would have a new mortgage of equal to, or lesser than, the true market value of their home.

Each house that is mortgaged would have a fixed 2 to 3.5 per cent interest rate (depending on their ability to pay) on their mortgage and the payments would be amortized over 40 years.

Everybody would have their taxes and insurance payment collected each month into an escrow account to be paid by the mortgage holder.

Forgive all student loans for all individuals who have served at least two years in the military.

If we believe that public servants should have student loans forgiven, why not those who served the military?

Set up a committee with members from each state, to review and restructure the school system K-12. In addition, review the constitution where the state and federal government must work together.

Turn over the education system K-12 to the private sector oversight committees both state and federal.

Turn over the Post Office, to be run by the private sector, with the Federal Post Office becoming an online agency for certified mail and start an online federal post office.

Reduce the Federal Government by 30%.

Influx money into small businesses and curtail outsourcing to other countries.

Supreme Court judges should have no more than 8 to 12 year terms.

Dr. Charles Frederick Tolbert was one of the first members of the Sergeant Morales club.

At the time he did not even have a high school education. Today he has a Masters in Theology, a Masters in Education and a Doctor degree in Educational Leadership.


Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…

Sovereign States rights concerning sanction cities

Articles But not limited to state Rights and sanction cities

State rights Dr Tolbert candidate for US Senate Fl 2016

The rights of the Sovereign States

The States must comply with laws passed by the US Congress only if the laws do not violate the United States Constitution. If the laws are unconstitutional the States are free to disregard them. If the States believe the laws are unconstitutional they do not have to wait for the Supreme Court to declare them unconstitutional. The Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the authority to regulate the lives of the citizens living inside of the States or the land inside the borders of the States, therefore these laws are unconstitutional.

The US Constitution only granted the Federal Government the power to take 10 square miles from the states of Virginia and Maryland to build Washington DC.

The US Constitution grants the Federal Government the authority to buy land from the States for the sole purposes of creating forts, arsenals, magazines, dock yards, and buildings. These purchases must be made with the consent of the State legislatures.

When the States ratified the Constitution they did not surrender all of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. The States only transferred small portions of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. These portions of sovereignty, or powers they transferred are clearly spelled out in the Constitution and mainly have to do with the defense of the nation as a whole, relations with the foreign nations, and relations between the individual States. All other powers remained with the States. They retained all powers necessary to regulate the lives of the citizens living in the States and the land inside the borders of the States. This is called federalism and is one of the fundamental concepts enshrined in the Constitution.

The Constitution created a limited Federal Government. It is a limited government because it is limited only to the powers spelled out, or enumerated, in the Constitution. If a power is not spelled out in the Constitution the power remains with the States or individuals respectively.

If the States had surrendered all of their sovereignty to the federal government then all of the power would be concentrated with the federal government. Our founding fathers greatly

feared the concentration of power in Washington DC. They included in the Constitution many protections to prevent that from happening. During the ratification of the Constitution it became clear that many believed these protections were not strong enough so the Tenth Amendment was added to the constitution

The framers of the Constitution never intended the Supreme Court to be the final arbitrator of what is Constitutional and not. The Supreme Court plays an important role in this process but this duty is shared with the other two branches of the federal government, the States, and ultimately with the American people.

Beginning in 1895 the Federal Government began seizing land inside the borders of States. At first this was done to create national parks and monuments. Now the Federal governments claims ownership of 75 percent of the land contained inside the borders of western States. Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management claim the power to regulate this seized land. The Environmental Protection Agency claims the authority to regulate all sorts of behavior over land contained inside the borders of every State. All of this is unconstitutional.

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 of the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to regulate territory and possessions of the United States. This only applies to unincorporated territories that have not been formed into States. Once this land is incorporated into a State, the State then becomes responsible for the regulation of land and activities inside the borders.

The Proof

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress

Article 1 Section 10 lists the powers denied to the States

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thomas Jefferson:

“It is fatal heresy to suppose either our state governments are superior to the federal, or the federal to the states. The people to whom all power belongs, have the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characteristics of which are foreign and domestic.”

James Madison:

“The powers of the Federal Government are related to external objects and are few. But the powers in the states relate to those great objects which immediately concern the prosperity if the people.”

Thomas Jefferson:

“The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the states all authorities with respect to their own citizens only, to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign and other states.”

Thomas Jefferson:

“The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments.”

James Madison:

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolves and James Madison in the Virginia Resolves, discuss the doctrine of nullification which allows the states to ignore unconstitutional laws even if the Supreme Court does not declare them unconstitutional.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

17. “To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”

Since immigration is not discussed in the United States Constitution, it falls under amendment 10. Therefore immigration belongs to each State. Should an individual want to migrate to The United States of America, they must first petition the state for residency.

Upon completion of 5 to 7 years as a resident of the state of the registrar, according to naturalization act of 1802, they can apply for naturalization.

Any individual today who is an illegal immigrant can file with state for residency. Upon payment of fees to a state they can register and therefore become a resident of the state after a thorough background check. They can become a naturalized citizen when they have fulfilled federal government requirements. The constitution states those residents of good character, once they filed the petition, no longer are illegal immigrants and could be naturalized through the process of naturalization.

Unless the congress declared the illegal immigrants invaders this is a States right.

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Was a Candidate for US Senate Florida 2016
Retired MSGT

Do not vote for E-Verify only four constitutional amendments should be put on the Florida ballot in 2018

Articles and links concerning the States and The USA

Articles and links concerning Islam

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD, For The Department of Education For Professor or Dean of University/College

War on terrorism, bring back the draft

Voters fraud

Resume sent to the president of the United States by Dr. Tolbert

Taking the power away from the state is what caused the Civil War

The Constitution Today: Redistricting

Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…

Is DACA, Deferred Action Children Arrival, Constitutionally Correct?

Congress has no authority over the Sovereign States other than Possessions, Territories and Washington DC. For example, Puerto Rico is a territory.

Congress has no authority over the 50 Sovereign states.

Under the 10th amendment and the 9th Amendment of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act written in 1942 has No Authority over immigrations as presented by Obama, under DACA.

Therefore president Trump’s removal of the new funding or rights as required by sovereign state implementation of their own policy and rules, does not fall under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1942, and DACA should not be funded by the Federal government, it’s a States right.

Read full link:

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired Master Sergeant United States Army/Pastor

Please consider changing the phrase, “building a border around America” to “virtual reality visas.”

Updated March 05, 2018

Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…

To the president of the United States , please correct the issue on immigration , virtual reality visas.”

State rights concerning immigration

Mr. Trump:
Please consider changing the phrase, “building a border around America” to “Virtual Reality Visas.”

I have written articles which present restrictions on coming across the United States borders; “if in a back ground check the requestor cannot be traced back 10 years the requestor will not receive a visa to enter into a State.” The petitioner must submit their request through one of the sovereign states. (US constitution Amendment 10)

This would establish, as per the constitution, Departments of Immigration in each individual state enabling the States to establish their immigration program according to amendment 10, then the Federal Government will continue utilizing the naturalization rules of law of 1805, 1954, 1990 and 2000 articles of naturalization which adheres to the 17 responsibilities of a Federalism, the United States Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

In addition; the current illegal immigrants are substantially higher than the 12 to 20,000,000 as presented by the federal government. These figures are in excess of 50 million at a cost to American taxpayer of approximately $4,000 per individual per month. Unless Congress declares these illegal immigrants invaders, the federal government has no responsibility. I request Congress to re-establish the Constitution and pass a bill that these illegal immigrants are “invaders” forcing them to utilize the state immigration program with a petition fee of $1500 per applicant.

I have presented how these illegal immigrants would be restricted from utilization of social welfare, education, sending money out of country and medical assistance for a two year period. These illegal immigrants will require a sponsor and also employment through their sponsor before they can submit a “virtual reality visa” through the sovereign state.

After the two-year probation, they would then be required seven years residencies. Upon completion and good moral character, they would submit to the federal government paperwork of naturalization.

Any illegal immigrant who gave birth to a child is not protected under the naturalization act and are anchor babies. These anchor babies would be required to fulfill and follow the same procedures as their parents.

Currently there are millions of anchor babies who are in fear of being removed and deported without a due process procedure which can only be provided by following the above conditions

It should be noted the above is not an executive order condition. It would require congress to establish laws which are required for enforcement of the constitution after which time the executive branch would be required to provide protection and enforcement of the congressional laws.

The following links are written and presented by Dr Tolbert:

Those who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” often misinterpret Constitutional law and statute law

The rights of immigration belong to the state naturalization to the federal governmen

Securing the border Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD Retired MSGT Candidate for United States Center, Florida 2016


The reason for filing this grievance, concerning Marco Rubio being a non-national citizen

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD

Copy Editor: Vilet Dye…

Would You Be Considered A Conservative or A Liberal?

Liberal/Conservative or No Party Affiliation?

This Article was originally written November 5th 2013

Updated and edited March 08, 2018

Liberal/Conservative, Citizens For a Better America Party Florida CFABAPF

CFA Citizens For America

Of Democrats and Republicans 39% to 46% are not sure who they would vote for, for United States Senator.

I’ve written several articles stating that I would vote for what is correct for the United States according to the constitution.

There may be a difference of opinion by Democrats comparatively as Liberals and Republicans comparatively as Conservatives. I felt it would be a good starting point for me to present my views as a U. S. Senate of Florida 2016 candidate. I would like other candidates to express their views on each subject in order for the voters to know where our political parties stand.

I do not want to be politically correct, but instead, I want to present my views based on my experiences and education.

The complete article can be found on www.cfabamerica.comconcerning: Abortion, Affirmative Action, Death Penalty, Economy, Education, Stem Cell Research, Energy, Euthanasia & Physician-Assisted suicide, Global Warming, Gun Control, Healthcare, Homeland Security, Immigration, Private Property, Religion & Government, Same Sex Marriage, Social Security, Taxes, United Nations (UN) War on Terrorism, Welfare.

I was a high school dropout, with sisters of which one tried and the second one did committed suicide. I had the option of jail or joining the Army before my 18th birthday. I served my country for 22 years, and retired as a Master Sergeant. After serving my country, I became a motivational speaker then opened an executive aircraft sales company which I
owned for 17 years. In 1999, I was called to teach the gospel and became a Pastor. Since then I have received a Master’s in Divinity, a Master’s in Education and a Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership.

For my full resume visit

For my YouTub presentation visit

Charles Frederick Tolbert Ed.D.
U. S. Senate Florida 2016 CF
Citizen for a Better America, Inc (CFA);

My view is in line with the conservatives, however, there are issues which are also liberal and some which do not belong to either group because the Constitution limits the Federal Government to inter-state commerce, and defense. All not stated in the constitution belongs to the State and to the people. We sometimes forget we are a Federalism which means that each State enacts its own laws according to the well-being of the people of their state.

THE ISSUES: (In alphabetical order)


Here is where my teaching and studying the scriptures have an internal battle. Even though I personally disagree with abortion, I do not believe the Government or other individuals should be involved in this decision. The man and the woman in prayer and understanding of God’s will, have to come to a common agreement. What is needed is, the ministries provide counseling, care, adoptions and medical facilities to insure the health of both the woman and child. Church assemblies are against abortions. These same ministries have not established alternate methods for the health and welfare of both parents and the child. Although prevention should be taught, the parents of their young children need to be involved in instructions of ethical and moral behavior. Unfortunately with the increase of single family homes our children do not have the male and female role model needed to make reasonable decisions. The private organizations that provide care are doing the job of our religious leaders. I believe we should remove the government from this process and each citizen should be provided needed support.

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action begins with the removal of race, creed, color, religion and or sexual preference from any questionnaire used for public opinion, polls or allocation of funding. Our

President and mass media as well as other politicians, play the race card in order to divide and conquer. We the people according to our constitution are equal and no one group or individual should receive more rights than another.

Death Penalty

Prisons are treating the problem and not the cause. Repaying the community cannot be accomplished by putting someone to death, but by molding your child’s life at an early stage can reduce or even eliminate violent crime. When young I was given a second chance, by being offered the opportunity to either join the army or go to jail. I believe this option when given to a first offender can reduce crime and change the lives of the next generation. Many wish to follow the rule, an eye for an eye rather than forgiveness and rehabilitation. The same individuals that are against abortion are for the death penalty. Many of our homeless have tried to join the army, but because of their lack of education and misbehavior when they were young, are not given the same chance I was given in 1960.


Here I take a conservative view with the addition of the elimination of the IRS by enacting HR 25

And and return to producing products made in America.

Education – vouchers & charter schools

Education should not be a privilege, but a right. Since I represent 1% of Americans, I have a Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership and graduated in 2010 from Nova Southeastern University. This accomplishment was not without cost and even though I served our country for 22 years, my student loans are well over $250,000.00. I do not see the advantage of a public school system that is teaching a socialist doctrine and does not allow freedom of speech and religion. Visit in addition to

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Both liberals and conservatives make a valid argument. Because of this, further research would be necessary to determine which would be ethical and morally correct.


Both liberal and conservatives have a valid argument; there should be a long term plan for reduction of resources and a short term plan to increase productivity. Here both groups can
come to an agreement which would allow us to accomplish returning production “Made in America” and still be competitive in the world market.

Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide

I am in total agreement with the conservative view point and believe that we must teach more home care for those who are in need of assistance. For 10 years I took care of three ladies. A woman born in Russia in 1918, who I met and moved her into my home at which time she was given 6 months to live. After being her caregiver for 10 years she passed over in June 2013 at the age of 94. I have a plan to fund, at the state level, educational programs to teach caregivers how to take care of members of their family and neighbors. The cost of the program to be funded by the state in committee colleges, in the long run will reduce the cost of care, extend and enrich the lives of our senior citizens.

Global Warming/Climate Change

Both groups make a valid point, however statically data does not prove either is totally correct. Extensive research is needed to insure that the natural process created by a greater intelligence is allowed and by the planting of more trees to insure that the natural cycle of clean air happens. The cost to business growth in America should be tempered without increase of government regulations. A gradual increase of checks and balances, with private businesses being more involved, with a reduction of government regulations will increase productivity in America. No businesses in America want to do harm but they want to be more competitive in the world market. By learning to be more productive and energy efficient we can compete in the world market.

Gun Control

Here we must follow the Constitution with common sense, such as Individual’s rights versus safety of the committee. We should allow each state to place on their ballot different options such as: training, background checks, licensing and other means concerning gun control

(Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed).


Your Health! It’s components:Physical/Nutrition/ EmotionalYou are a spirit in a fleshly body. Are you taking care of yourself?

Health care starts with the individual being better educated and then getting preventative medicine checkups to prevent major health issues. I believe that Healthcare and Education is a right, not a privilege. However I believe it begins at State Level with the increase of a 1% sales Tax paying for Medicaid which allows those not being taken care of to be given required treatment. Many assembles claim they are there to help the poor, but yet they do not understand the act of charity. By spreading the cost of Medicaid through sales tax reduces the states dependence on the Federal government which would allow each state to be a true Federalism.

Homeland Security

I am against profiling for national security such as having race, color and creed on their driver’s license. Because of profiling our society has turned against different races, creed, color and religion and has separated us from each other as Americans. I do believe that expanding our National Guard by downsizing federal Homeland Security, and educating the public through awareness programs can secure our boarders. I do not believe building walls and separating us from other countries will prevent terrorists. Building a wall creates friction between us and other countries. In addition, we cannot isolate ourselves from allowing others to know we will defend our rights of freedom. Russia, China and other Countries have tried to build walls to contain themselves from outside intervention only to find they stopped their own growth. By building a stronger Army, bringing back the draft and re-educating our children will we take our position as a strong united country.


Both Liberal and Conservative viewpoints can be achieved by passing the HR 25, fair tax Law by allowing churches and assembles to be more involved in the community. Elimination of the IRS (HR 25) Immigration policies will become a lesser issue when HR 25 is passed, consumption tax will make money from everyone who buys anything To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a federal national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Private Property

I believe this speaks for itself.

Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the personas or things to be seized.”

Religion & Government

The conservative wins hands down here.

First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The real issue is that Churches, and the people, believe that they lose the freedom of speech when the organization becomes a not for profit, or 501(C3) and these organizations will not promote political candidates that support the biblical teaching of their individual faith.

Same-sex Marriage or Civil Union

Before the repealing of “don’t ask don’t tell,” I wrote an article concerning discrimination.

Up until 1993, homosexuality was banned completely and yet the other infractions were acceptable. This article is not about what is morally correct or incorrect but it is about, who we should discriminate against. Hitler chose to discriminate against the Jewish people and in our own history we have discriminated against not only the African American’s but we have read about the Irish, the Catholic, the Jewish, the Japanese and the American Indian. We have written laws protecting the rights of all people, yet again we are focusing on other groups. If a Government wants to be judgmental and replace the will of the people over the will of God by selecting one group, should they not also read the Bible concerning adultery, fortification, infidelity, and drunkenness? I would like to take a stand on behalf of what constitutes a marriage and a civil union. A marriage, according to the Bible, is between one man and one woman where a civil union is not covered by the Bible and it is and can be legally binding according to the will of the people. This issue should not be forced upon religious organizations to go against their belief, but because two individuals who wish to be joined

together can be legally be joined together by a state certificate giving both parties the same rights as a man and woman would have in a marriage by a church. If a church decides, without force, because of their belief, to marry these same two individuals, this decision has to be left up to that particular establishment.

Social Security

Social Security is in financial trouble because of mismanagement and the reallocation of funds. Because today our seniors live a longer life, Social Security is now paying out more than what is being brought in. A solution would be that all children under 13 would not receive or be eligible for Social Security until they are 70 years of age. The current generation would be grandfathered in and this age increase would become effective upon each state voting on it during a presidential election.


I do not believe that we can function as a free country with the IRS, but have to pass the fair tax law HR25.

H.R. 25: Fair Tax Act of 2011


To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

United Nations (UN)

I agree with the conservative view point that the USA has overstepped its responsibility to World peace because the UN has not fulfilled its role of intervention to insure international peace. The cost to the USA for being a member of the UN exceeds six billion dollars and even that money has not gained the USA a voice at the table with Russia and China vetoing action which the majority of UN members agree with. It is soon expected that the world legal and financial decisions will no longer be a choice of the American people and we will be subject to international laws. The loss of our freedom goes against our constitutional rights and if we do not take action at the voting booth we will lose or freedom of speech, religion and right to bear arms. The reasoning behind politicians supporting the UN is to move us more to a socialist country.

War on Terrorism

It appears with recent events that the liberals or Democrats have shifted their position to internal spying on all Americans and our allies. A strong arm force, increase in man power and the return of the draft is the only way to return America to a force that other countries and our enemies would not want to see happen. The current political system has weakened the USA and has created an atmosphere of terrorism by having ready armed forces and the understanding that troops on the ground win wars and hold the enemy at bay. Since the reduction of our military and the enrichment of manufactured weapons, we have lost the respect of all nations to include our allies. As a retired Master Sergeant, a Viet Nam Veteran and a plans officer in the Army, I understand that a well-trained Army backed by Generals who understand troops on the ground, is the only way to fight Terrorism. Our borders will only be secured when our enemies understand we will not only search them out, but we will go to the cause to treat the problem.


The only way to decrease welfare is to educate, empower and employ our young. Currently we are working on a program which will train our citizens to earn a better income and to survive. A hands on training along with on the job training, teaching by using a hybrid school system where online, classrooms and parents are working jointly to reduce poverty and the interaction of the assemblies, regardless of their doctrine. The amount of regulations prohibiting the religious organization from feeding, clothing and sheltering the population, has a greater cost to the Government which is leading us to a socialist nation. We certainly will always have those that have need for our help but that number can be reduced and become manageable with proper training.

Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…

Citizens for a Better America INC (CFABA, inc.) complies with the First Amendment. You are welcome to read these e-mails and or share with friends. Copy written material cannot be disseminated for commercial purposes without permission from its Author, Editor or Publisher. These messages are for information and educational purposes only under Sec. 107 of the Fair Use Notice. Unsubscribe and opt out by an email to

“All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of the author.” Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…viletsvoice@yahoo

Write-in (TOLBERT) for US Senate Florida 2018 NPA CFA Citizens For America

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

Written July 1, 2016

In order to clarify and to insure the understanding of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act) Dr. Tolbert has prepared the following information:


ISLAM WAS BANNED FROM THE USA IN 1952, but Obama & the media don’t want you to know that. The Immigration and Nationality Act that passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States. That act, which became Public Law 414, established both the law and the intent of Congress regarding the immigration of Aliens to the US and remains in effect today.

Among the many issues it covers, one in particular, found in Chapter 2 Section 212, is the prohibition of entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” This, by its very definition, rules out Islamic immigration to the United States.

This law is being ignored by the White House. Islamic immigration to the U.S. is prohibited under this law because the Koran, Sharia Law and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, which is antithetical to the US government, the Constitution, and to the Republic. All Muslims who believe that the Koran is life’s guiding principal also believe in total submission to Islam and Sharia law.

To all who claim that Islam is a religion, read the law again … the law states that Aliens who are affiliated with ANY “organization” that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government are prohibited.


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing this controversial system of immigrant selection.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is the basic body of immigration law. Before the INA was created in 1952, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location.

The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

McCarran-Walter Act establishes the basic laws of U.S. citizenship and immigration. This act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, has undergone several changes since its adoption. Originally, the law admitted only a certain number of immigrants of each nationality. But a law passed by Congress in 1965 gave preference to immigrants with skills needed in the United States and to close relatives of U.S. citizens. A 1990 law continued these preferences. Aliens must be admitted as legal immigrants to get U.S. citizenship. People who flee to the United States after being officially certified as refugees may receive immigrant status” (World Book Encyclopedia) Naturalization Act (1790).

Accordingly the ban was removed by:

Immigration Act (1990)

As the Immigrant Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990 attest, however, immigration legislation continues to be the site for the resurgence of contradiction between the capitol and the state, between economic and political imperatives, between the ëpush-pullí of markets and the maintenance of civil rights and is riddled with conflicts as the state attempts to control through law what is also an economically driven phenomenon. In the 1990s, recent immigration policies and de facto immigration policies express this contradiction around the ëcrisisí of illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Latin America (though Haitian and Chinese).

U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 8

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(A) A person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(B) A person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, that the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(C) A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(D) A person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(E) A person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(F) A person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(G) A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:


That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person:

(A) Honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

Law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from him being a citizen such as the terrorist who the media claims was a citizen of the U.S.A.

Becoming a citizen:

A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). –Note, Rubio is not a Natural-citizen, he was born to non-citizen parents in 1971. His parents become naturalized citizens in 1975. In addition, they did not file naturalization papers for him so he is not eligible to be a U.S Congressman. The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including an application to become a US Citizen and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien).

Note, if congress does not declare the illegal immigrants invaders, then immigrants are subject to the acceptance and issue of residence for the period outlined in the naturalization act—- applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens

automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character.

The Oath of Allegiance to the United States:

The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Losing your citizenship:

For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.

Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not constitute an act that presumes renunciation. Neither does taking a routine-level job with a foreign government. This stand is quite different from U.S. policy of the past, where even being naturalized in another nation could be seen as renunciation. The sections of the law that pertained to losing ones nationality for many of these cases was found at 8 USC 1482 and related sections.

The U.S. Code does, however, see some acts as creating the possibility of a loss of nationality. When you lose your U.S. nationality, you are no longer under the protection or jurisdiction of the United States. When the United States considers you to no longer be of U.S. nationality, it in effect considers you to no longer be a citizen. Note that these are things you can do that mayforce you to lose your citizenship. The law also says that these acts must be voluntary and with the intent of losing U.S. citizenship. The ways to lose citizenship are detailed in 8 USC 1481:

•Becoming naturalized in another country

•Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country

•Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force

•Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance

•Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office

•Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General

•By being convicted of committing treason

Eligibility Requirements:

If you are a green card holder of at least 5 years, you must meet the following requirements in order to apply for naturalization:

•Be 18 or older at the time of filing.

•Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.

•Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application.

•Have continuous residence in the United States as a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.

•Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application.

•Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization.

•Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).

•Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law.

This would exclude illegal immigrants and Marco Rubio from being a natural or naturalized citizen.

The naturalization act of 1952 prohibiting Muslims in America was changed in 1965 and 1990.

The terrorist in Orlando was not an American citizen.

Rubio is not a US citizen!!!!!

The federal government changed the naturalization law of 1952 in 1965 and 1990 and nobody knows.

The states must first accept an individual as a resident.

The federal government can only be involved in naturalization if Congress finds illegal immigrants invaders.

Write-in (TOLBERT) for US Senate Florida 2018 NPA CFA Citizens For America

Citizens for a Better America
Retired MSGT
Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD
Retired MSGT
Candidate for U.S. Senate Florida 2018

Copy Editor, Vilet Dye…

Organization American States (OAS)

Organization of American States OAS

Dr. Tolbert understands the Organization of American States OAS. The United States president has finally assigned a representative to the OAS.

However the USA is still not helping and correcting the issue in Venezuela and soon there will be an election in Venezuela and we can only pray for the removal and the reestablishment of Venezuela as a free and independent country.

Dr. Tolbert talks to God daily and ask for God’s intervention.

Dr. Tolbert believes God will protect us and Christian believers and there will be direct intervention by the OAS and the president of the United States of America to ensure Health is returned to Venezuela and the economy allows Venezuelans to return back to their country.

Dr. Tolbert is talking to mother’s in Venezuela who had to send their children and families to Peru and other countries, because the children’s mothers and fathers are dying.

He is talking to people in countries all over the world who are facing poverty and death. He is talking and praying daily for families that are not surviving and Dr. Tolbert is keeping them in prayers.

It is difficult for them as Christians to understand where God is in our churches and why our ministries are doing nothing to help them.

Dr. Tolbert believes it’s for the benefit of everyone who comes to the understanding that God is our protector and it is difficult to comprehend God’s intentions. The trials and tribulations we face is in preparation for the dreams that God is giving you soon and how they will impact you and I in the world.

Dr. Tolbert

The question to be asked, “Is Russia and China involvement in Venezuela a threat to the security of the United States?”

The question to be asked, “Is Russia and China’s involvement in Venezuela a threat to the security of the United States?”



‪To: The President of the United States.

Dr. Tolbert for US Senate FL 2018


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.