Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Subject: U.N. official calls for ‘ark’ to save world from global warming

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Compliance to a communistic world governing body is the goal and the global warming/climate change deception is the “life threatening crisis” that the United Nations has chosen to get there.

The UN’s New World Order
The push to empower the UN with global legislative, executive, and judicial powers has already yielded huge dividends, and UN bodies are now exercising those powers to various degrees — and constantly pushing to usurp more control. Here is a brief survey.
• The Global Army: On its Web page entitled “Honoring 60 Years of United Nations Peacekeeping (1948-2008)” the UN makes this ominous boast:

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of the environment, therefore, it is unconstitutional. All 50 states of the Union have their own version of the EPA as authorized under the 10th Amendment. There is no need for a federal agency. The states of the Union can handle their own environmental needs as authorized by their legislatures.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Wake up everyone! God has been regulating the temperature of this planet for thousands of years. The very idea that a government entity can control the weather or the temperature of the planet by regulating the amount of CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere is preposterous!

So, is any of this really happening? The answer is no. None of this is true! As a matter of fact, most scientists do not agree with this man-made global warming theory and have offered sound scientific data debunking the myth. Here are just a few of the many proofs that have been provided:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser says that climate change is a ruse led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control. The statement coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator.

United Nations seeks to co-opt, via individual governments, and eventually, a “one-world government,” privately held land under the auspices of ensuring its “sustainability.” Worse still, the UN’s Agenda 21 has even laid out plans for “depopulation” or rather, “population control.”

Agenda 21 is a major tool of the New World order, conceived in 1992 in Rio DeJaniero at the “Earth Summit.” Its original name, “Sustainable Development”, began in 1987 with Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. Heavily promoted to the public as the salvation for this planet and every human being, it is anything but that. It needs to be revealed in no uncertain terms so you know what it truly is.

Seven50 is Agenda 21’s baby cousin. It was born in the U.S.A., in Washington, D.C. somewhere, when the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave a partnership of South Florida regional planning councils a $4.25 million grant to make “sustainable development” happen.

That’s seven counties –Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River — all under regional control within 50 years.

Charles Frederick Tolbert


Retired United States Army master sergeant

The question is why does the press only talk about democrats and Republicans?

H.R. 25: Fair Tax Act of 2011

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.

When you vote in the 2016 election for the president or United State senate, ask yourself three questions: Did the candidate serve our country and risk his/her life to protect our freedom? Does the candidate have an education concerning how to teach the children of tomorrow? Does the candidate represent the views of 92% of Americans that believe in God?

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD, pastor, retired MSGT and Vietnam veteran

For US Senate Florida Citizens for A Better America (CFABA)

Scalia, Antonin, 1936–, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1986–), b. Trenton, N.J. He graduated from Harvard Law School (1960) and subsequently taught law at the Univ. of Virginia (1967–71) and the Univ. of Chicago (1977–82). In 1982 President Reagan named him to the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and four years later he was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, taking the seat vacated when William Rehnquist ascended to the position of chief justice. An outspoken conservative, Scalia is a prominent proponent of “textualism,” the idea that one should focus on the text of the U.S. constitution or a law and its original meaning when seeking to interpret it, and that decisions of judges should be based on that original meaning, a position enunciated in A Matter of Interpretation (1997). Though he has been willing to overturn (often liberal) precedents and has been one of the most conservative members of the Court’s right wing, Scalia has sometimes taken more libertarian positions, for example, protecting flag burning as a form of free speech.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This means that if the government infringes on your rights, you are entitled to mount a timely and meaningful defense of those rights in court. It’s one of the cornerstones of our entire legal system, with roots dating back at least as far as the Magna Carta, which declared, “No free man…shall be stripped of his rights or possessions…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prefers a less venerable form of justice, as the Supreme Court will hear next month during oral arguments in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. At issue is the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Water Act through so-called administrative compliance orders, which are government commands that allow the agency to control the use of private property without the annoyance of having to subject its actions to judicial review.

The case started four years ago when a married couple named Mike and Chantell Sackett received an EPA compliance order instructing them to stop construction on what was supposed to be their dream home near Priest Lake, Idaho. The government claimed their .63-acre lot was a federally-protected wetland, but that was news to the Sacketts, who had procured all the necessary local permits. Their lot, which is bordered by two roads and several other residential lots, was in fact zoned for residential use.

“Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to legislate in the area of the environment, therefore, it is unconstitutional. All 50 states of the Union have their own version of the EPA as authorized under the 10th Amendment. There is no need for a federal agency. The states of the Union can handle their own environmental needs as authorized by their legislatures.

Congress acts, EPA bureaucrats will continue to inflict potentially devastating economic consequences on communities like Matagorda County and people like the Sacketts. Destroying the economy is no way to save the environment. A thriving economy and a fair judicial system that respects property rights and the Constitution provide the best protection of the environment.

The Constitution was written under a simple principle – positive grant. In short, what this means is this: The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.

Everything else is “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”


The Tenth Amendment Center the federal government has no constitutional authority, whatsoever, to prevent individual states from implementing their own regulations.

Charles Frederick Tolbert EdD NPA

Candidate for US Senate Florida 2018

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.