Urgent call to stop the proposal to issue 600,000 student visas to Chinese nationals

Wayne Thorn

Fellow Americans,

Our nation is facing a critical decision that will shape the future of our security, education, and economy. The proposal to issue 600,000 student visas to Chinese nationals raises serious concerns that cannot be ignored. This mass issuance risks compromising our national security, overwhelming our educational institutions, and placing foreign interests above the needs of American students and families.

We cannot remain silent. Every citizen has a voice, and now is the time to use it. We urge you to write your own letter to President Trump and Congress expressing your opposition to this policy. Together, we must stand firm and make it clear that America’s priorities must remain with its people first.

Here was my letter I sent:

08/27/2025

Dear Mr. President and Congress,

I am writing to express my deep concern over the proposal to admit 600,000 Chinese students into American colleges and universities. While I strongly support international engagement and cultural exchange, I believe this policy would present serious risks to our national security, economic stability, and educational priorities.

National Security Concerns
The Chinese Communist Party has long been documented as using academic exchanges to access sensitive research and technology. Admitting such a large number of students without strict vetting and limits in key scientific and engineering fields could expose the United States to espionage, intellectual property theft, and undue influence in our institutions.

Educational and Economic Priorities
Our universities should prioritize American students first. Expanding visas to this scale risks crowding out opportunities for U.S. citizens and making our schools financially dependent on foreign tuition dollars. This dependence creates vulnerability, as decisions about admission and curriculum could become driven more by revenue needs than by the interests of American students.

Balanced Approach
I urge you to protect America’s security and academic independence by rejecting this proposal. A more measured approach would be to limit student visas from adversarial nations in critical STEM areas while maintaining selective cultural exchange in fields less tied to national security.

Mr. President, your leadership has always put America First. I strongly encourage you to apply that principle here by ensuring that higher education policies serve the interests of our nation and its people above all.

Respectfully,

Keep America Great

Together we can and will

Let me know what you think!

August 28, 2025August 28, 2025

Wrangle the DOJ back in line with the 2nd Amendment

Wayne Thorn

Call to Action

Fellow Americans,

The time has come for law-abiding citizens to rise with one voice in defense of our freedoms. The Second Amendment is not a suggestion—it is a constitutional guarantee. Yet we have witnessed repeated attempts to erode it through misguided policies, bureaucratic overreach, and selective enforcement. These actions strike at the very foundation of our liberty and cannot go unanswered.

We must now take it upon ourselves to demand accountability. We call on every patriot to urge the President and the Department of Justice to honor their duty to the Constitution and to protect the rights it secures for all citizens. This is not the task of a few, but the responsibility of us all. The strength of our republic rests on the vigilance of its people, and silence in the face of encroachment is not an option.

Let us stand together—firm, united, and resolute. Write, speak, and act so that our leaders know the will of the people is clear: the Second Amendment must be upheld, and the Constitution must remain the supreme law of the land.

My letter to the President and copied to the DOJ

08/28/2025

Dear President Trump,

I write to you today out of deep concern for the future of our Second Amendment rights. You have long stood as a defender of the right to keep and bear arms, assuring the American people that their constitutional freedoms would not be compromised. At this critical moment, we urgently need your leadership to ensure that promise is upheld.

In the past week, two significant cases—the Zero Tolerance Policy and United States v. Peterson—have underscored a troubling reality: the Department of Justice has drifted away from a fair and consistent application of constitutional principles. These cases should have been resolved simply and directly. Instead, the DOJ has complicated what should have been straightforward matters by refusing to concede to plaintiffs whose positions align with both common sense and the Constitution.

The proper course of action should have been clear: the Department ought to acknowledge that the repealed Zero Tolerance Policy was inconsistent with constitutional protections and the Department’s own evolving view of fairness. Likewise, in United States v. Peterson, the DOJ had the opportunity to affirm the plain meaning of the Second Amendment by respecting the rights of lawful citizens, yet it chose instead to resist.

The American people cannot afford ambiguity on this issue. Our constitutional rights must not be left vulnerable to bureaucratic overreach or inconsistent enforcement. The Department of Justice should be compelled to align its actions with the Constitution and the values of liberty that define our nation.

Mr. President, the time has come to move beyond words and take decisive action. We ask that you continue to stand firm in defense of the Second Amendment and bring the Department of Justice back in line with the principles of fairness, accountability, and constitutional integrity. We are watching

It is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT

Let me know what you think below

August 22, 2025August 22, 2025

DOJ Litigation Concerning the Zero Tolerance Policy

Wayne Thorn

The DOJ is still fighting the GOA case over the Zero Tolerance Policy, even though the policy has already been repealed. It’s time for us to speak up. Contact the Department of Justice and send a request to the President to tell them to stop this unnecessary litigation and concede to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to the DOJ and a copy to the President.

Re: DOJ Litigation Concerning the Zero Tolerance Policy

Dear Attorney General Bondi,

I am writing to respectfully urge the Department of Justice to discontinue further litigation in defense of the repealed “Zero Tolerance” policy. On April 7, 2025, you and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rightly announced the repeal of the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy. In that announcement, you stated:

“This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. The prior administration’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy unfairly targeted law-abiding gun owners and created an undue burden on Americans seeking to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms – it ends today.”

That declaration was clear and unequivocal. Yet, the Department’s continued defense of the policy in court stands at odds with your own words and the official repeal. To persist in litigation risks undermining the Department’s credibility and prolonging unnecessary legal conflict with plaintiffs who were directly harmed by the policy.

I respectfully ask that you take immediate steps to align the Department’s litigation posture with its public position. This includes conceding to the plaintiffs in the pending cases and acknowledging that the repealed policy was inconsistent with the Department’s current view of constitutional rights and fairness.

The American people deserve consistency from the Department of Justice. By standing firmly behind your April 7th statement and ending these legal defenses, you will reinforce the Department’s commitment to both the Constitution and to justice itself.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Make your voice heard about our 2nd Amendment rights.

Lets Keep America Great

Feel free to ask me about anything, including comments on articles, questions you may have.

_{Copyright Notice © 2025 Cecil Wayne Thorn}_{Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work authored by Cecil Wayne Thorn, to distribute, display, and reproduce the work, in its entirety, including verbatim copies, provided that no fee is charged for the copies or distribution. This permission is granted for non-commercial distribution only.}

August 15, 2025August 15, 2025

Shall not be infringed

Wayne Thorn

There is currently a legal case affecting Second Amendment rights, in which the Department of Justice and the ATF are advocating to maintain restrictions on non-residents purchasing handguns in states where they do not reside. Notably, these restrictions would not apply to rifles.

It is imperative that the President and the Department of Justice reconsider their position, withdraw any opposition to this case, and allow a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Here is my letter I sent:

Dear President Trump, and DOJ Pam Bondi

I ask that you instruct DOJ, Pami Bondi, to withdraw any opposition to this action and to grant judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Based on the case and statements below.

The case you’re referring to is Elite Precision Customs LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), filed on January 20, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division). The case number is 4:25-cv-00044.Firearms Policy Coalition+4NationBuilder+4CourtListener+4Firearms Policy Coalition+1

Case Overview

This lawsuit challenges the federal ban on interstate transfers of handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) to individuals who are not residents of the state where the dealer is located. Plaintiffs argue that this restriction infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of individuals and businesses.GIFFORDS+3NationBuilder+3Firearms Policy Coalition+3

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791):

“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.”

“Infringe” was stronger than merely regulate; it implied violation, encroachment, or impairment of a right. It was not used lightly; “infringe” suggested denying or materially restricting a right rather than simply placing conditions on it.

Implication for the Second Amendment

The Framers’ use of “shall not be infringed” suggests that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be absolute in its protection against government encroachment, though subsequent interpretation has allowed for some regulation that doesn’t destroy the right.

For example, minor regulations constitute infringement; laws that effectively prohibit the right would have been considered infringing in 1791.

Origin / Source

From Latin infringere (“to break, violate”). Common in legal texts and dictionaries of the 18th century.

From Latin incrocare or French encrocher, meaning “to hook into” or “advance beyond proper limits.” Used in legal and property contexts.

Samuel Johnson, 1755

“To violate; to transgress; to break a law or right.”

“To advance beyond proper limits; to intrude.”

Blackstone, 1765–1769

Acts that breach or diminish established rights or liberties.

Acts that intrude upon another’s lawful rights or property, including civil liberties.

Strength / Severity

Stronger: implies violation or material impairment of a right; actionable in law.

Strong but slightly more gradual: implies intrusion or gradual trespass, may or may not constitute full violation, depending on context.

Legal / Rights Implication

Government or individual cannot infringe a right without overstepping legal bounds; protection is absolute.

Encroachment is an unauthorized intrusion; often gradual or creeping; legally objectionable but may describe minor or developing overreach.

Example (18th c. rights context)

“A law prohibiting all citizens from bearing arms infringes the right to keep and bear them.”

“A law requiring burdensome regulations before exercising the right may encroach on the right, depending on severity.”

Thank you,

Stand up for our RIGHTS and make America Great Again

Feel free to ask me about anything, including comments on articles, questions you may have.

August 9, 2025August 9, 2025

52 incidents compared gun-free and non-gun-free zones 08/09/25

I was looking for information on gun incident reports in gun-free zones versus non-gun-free zones. Using ChatGPT, it gave me reports that were stated as being non-partisan and non-bias 3 of the 4 were given as accurate reporting. They said on the surface that there appears to be more gun-free zones had fewer gun incidences and then added that this is more Caveat, and it appears there are fewer gun incidents in gun-free zones

Also, this research is coming from states that are Democratic. The 4th research totally disagreed with them and was blasted the 4th report altogether.

So I adventurally go down to the nitty gritty and told ChatGPT to give me reported gun violence and whether these were in gun-free zones or non-gun-free zones, and instead it gave me the reports again. I then told it from news media accounts, then it started giving me at first 26 incidents and most were in gun-free zones. But then stated these were only high-profile incidents, so that was not a good sampling to be able to agree that there is more shooting in gun-free zones.

So I said give me 26 random incidences it did and all of them were in gun-free zones.

I then told it using both hight profile and random incidences and give me the average presentages in a chart

And then it recanted it claims

Here is my ChatGPT screens from beginning to the end (pdf). I also did this on Perplexity AI and ended up with the same results. I then sent a message to Donald Trump about his support for this AI, and it was very left-leaning with its results and told him that This AI was not non-partisan or non- bias.

Final Statement

We need to send a message to the President and Congress to shut down Gun-Free Zones and Make America Safe Again for our families, neighbors, states, and country.

Give me your comments.