The Secret to Getting Your Voice Heard in Government

Wayne Thorn

“Practical strategies for ensuring your concerns reach policymakers.”

Great — here are some practical tips to increase the chances that your message makes it past the sorting stage and into the policymakers’ daily briefing or staff reports:

“A handwritten or mailed letter is often a more effective way to make your voice heard. The White House receives 40,000–50,000 emails every day, most of which are reduced to summaries and trend reports. By contrast, a handful of letters—perhaps 10—are chosen for the policymakers’ daily briefing folder.”

1. Be Personal, Not Generic

Share a personal story or experience that connects to a larger issue.
Instead of just saying “I oppose higher taxes,” explain how a specific policy impacts you, your family, or your community.
Staff look for letters that put a human face on a policy.

2. Keep It Clear and Focused

Stick to one main issue per message.
Use simple, direct language instead of long explanations.
Avoid clutter — a focused story or argument is easier for staff to pull and summarize.

3. Connect to National Values

Relating your concern to American ideals (freedom, fairness, opportunity, the Constitution, the Bible if appropriate for you) makes it resonate more.
Example: “I believe protecting the Second Amendment is part of protecting the freedoms our nation was founded upon.”

4. Show Respect and Sincerity

Avoid insults, sarcasm, or angry rants — those are less likely to be passed up the chain.
A firm but respectful tone has a greater chance of being taken seriously.

5. Be Timely

Reference a current event, bill, or policy debate.
Timely messages are more likely to be chosen because they connect with what the President and staff are already discussing that day.

6. Make It Shareable

Write in a way that makes your message quotable.
Short, memorable sentences often stand out.
Example: “When government spending grows, my family’s grocery budget shrinks.”

7. Send It Through the Right Channel

Use the official White House contact form (https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/) — this is the fastest way to get into the system.
For especially important issues, send both an online message and a physical letter (mailed letters often carry extra weight because fewer people take the time to write them).

✨ Pro Tip: If you’re writing on behalf of an organization or church, note how many people you represent. Saying “I’m writing on behalf of 200 families in our congregation” gives the letter more influence than just speaking as one individual.

Let me know what you think below

_{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.}

September 8, 2025September 8, 2025

Where is the USA in the Cycle of Nations

Wayne Thorn

Introduction

Throughout history, great civilizations have risen to power, enjoyed prosperity, and then declined. Many scholars describe this as the Cycle of Nations, a repeating pattern that shows how societies move through stages: from bondage to faith, from faith to courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to dependence, from dependence to apathy, and finally from apathy back into bondage.

The United States, now approaching 250 years since its founding in 1776, has followed much of this same pattern. Born out of bondage under British rule, the nation embraced faith and courage, secured liberty, and grew into a land of abundance. Yet, history warns that abundance often breeds dependence and apathy, weakening the values that once sustained freedom. Many believe America today sits dangerously between these latter stages, facing a choice: drift further toward bondage, or renew its foundation of faith and courage to restore liberty.

1. Bondage → Faith

Start of America (pre-1776): Colonists under British rule, longing for freedom. Out of bondage came a turn to God and faith in a higher cause.

2. Faith → Courage

Revolutionary Era (1776–early 1800s): Faith gave rise to courage. Men and women risked everything for independence and self-governance.

3. Courage → Liberty

Founding & Expansion (1800s): Liberty flourished. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and westward growth embodied a people willing to defend their freedoms.

4. Liberty → Abundance

Industrial Revolution to mid-1900s: America reached abundance—economic power, scientific progress, and global leadership after WWII.

5. Abundance → Dependence

Late 20th Century: Prosperity created dependence on government programs, entitlements, debt, and consumer comforts.

6. Dependence → Apathy

Today (2000s–2020s): Many analysts say the U.S. is between dependence and apathy:
- Growing reliance on government and systems.
- Declining civic involvement.
- Rising political polarization.
- Comfort and distraction taking priority over responsibility.

7. Apathy → Bondage?

If the cycle continues, apathy leads to loss of freedoms—bondage. Not necessarily chains, but bondage to debt, surveillance, elite control, or external powers.

Conclusion:

The U.S. appears to be standing at a critical juncture in the Cycle of Nations, somewhere between Dependence and Apathy. In many ways, the nation’s wealth and abundance have created comfort, but also complacency. Heavy reliance on government systems, rising national debt, and a culture of entitlement reveal growing dependence. At the same time, widespread disillusionment with politics, declining civic involvement, and a pursuit of personal ease over collective responsibility reflect apathy. These forces together weaken the very fabric that once secured America’s liberty.

History warns that when apathy takes hold, societies inevitably slide toward bondage—not always chains of iron, but bondage through loss of freedoms, economic collapse, or rule by elites. Yet, this path is not inevitable. The cycle can be broken if people return to the principles that first brought freedom: faith that grounds moral conviction and courage that acts boldly in the face of challenges. Renewal will require personal responsibility, spiritual awakening, and a willingness to sacrifice for the good of future generations. Without such a shift, the nation risks repeating the downward spiral seen in past empires. With it, however, America may yet rise again to reclaim the liberty and strength that marked its beginning.

Call to Action

The cycle of nations is not fate; it is a warning. America’s future does not have to be written in decline. The turning point will come when ordinary citizens choose to rise above dependence and apathy, and instead embrace the values that once gave birth to liberty.

Renew Faith: Return to the spiritual and moral foundations that shaped the nation, acknowledging that freedom without virtue cannot last.
Choose Courage: Stand boldly for truth, justice, and righteousness, even when it is unpopular or costly.
Live Responsibility: Take ownership of your family, community, and civic life instead of waiting for institutions to carry the burden.
Guard Liberty: Be vigilant in defending freedoms, remembering they can be lost far more quickly than they were won.

If America’s citizens embrace these commitments, the cycle can bend back toward liberty and strength. If not, history suggests the outcome: bondage. The choice belongs not to governments or leaders alone, but to every individual who calls this nation home.

Let me know what you think below

August 28, 2025August 28, 2025

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.

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.

June 22, 2025June 22, 2025

Self-defense is not for civilians, but is for Law Enforcement Officers

Wayne Thorn

I have a question on law-abiding citizens and self-defense. Here is the question:

“Gun control advocates often claim that civilians don’t need an AR-15 for self-defense—that a handgun should be enough. But if that’s true, why do law enforcement officers carry both a handgun and an AR-15? If a handgun is sufficient for protection, then why aren’t we asking police to give up their rifles too?”

Give me your comments.

GIVE ME YOUR COMMENTS:

_{I will post them after review}

June 16, 2025June 16, 2025

One of the most sacred symbols of America is our United States flag.

Wayne Thorn

It represents our history, our freedoms, and the sacrifices made by countless men and women to protect this nation. Yet we are told that people are allowed to burn the American flag in protest — a symbol of disrespect not only toward the flag, but toward the country we stand for. To add to the offense, some then choose to fly the flags of other countries in defiance.

This is wrong.
While freedom of speech is a protected right in our nation — one of the very rights the flag represents — we must also recognize that with freedom comes responsibility and respect. Disrespecting our flag dishonors the principles that make this country great.

We should never take lightly the meaning of the American flag. It deserves honor, not contempt.

If people want to support countries whose governments would punish — even execute — them for doing what they freely do to the American flag, we have to ask: Why do we tolerate this kind of disrespect here?

Burning, stepping on, or spitting on the United States flag isn’t just an act of protest — it’s an attack on the very freedoms and sacrifices that make those protests possible. In many of the countries whose flags are proudly waved in these protests, such actions would lead to prison or worse.

There must be a line.
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but when that freedom is used to defame the very nation that protects it, we should question whether we’ve lost sight of the balance between liberty and loyalty.

The American flag stands for all of us — for justice, for sacrifice, for freedom. It should never be treated with contempt by those who benefit from all it represents.

Proposed Constitutional Amendment: The Flag Protection Amendment

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Section 2. Desecration shall include any intentional act of burning, defacing, defiling, trampling upon, spitting upon, or otherwise showing contempt toward the U.S. flag in a public setting.

Section 3. Congress shall have the authority to define penalties, including imprisonment, fines, or other appropriate sanctions, for violation of this amendment.

Section 4. This amendment shall not be construed to abridge the freedom of speech, but to protect a national symbol held sacred by the people of the United States.

Sample Federal Legislation: The Flag Honor and Loyalty Act

Section 1. Short Title
This Act shall be known as the Flag Honor and Loyalty Act of 2025.

Section 2. Prohibited Conduct
It shall be unlawful for any person, while in the United States or under U.S. jurisdiction, to willfully and publicly desecrate the flag of the United States.

Section 3. Definitions

“Desecrate” means to knowingly burn, trample, tear, spit on, or otherwise defile the U.S. flag in a way intended to express contempt or hatred.
“Public setting” includes protests, demonstrations, or any event where the act is meant to be seen or is recorded for distribution.

Section 4. Penalties
(a) Any person found guilty of flag desecration shall be sentenced to not less than 10 years and up to 50 years in federal prison.
(b) If the act of desecration is performed while waving, displaying, or promoting a foreign national flag, the individual may be subject to revocation of citizenship (if naturalized) and deportation to the nation whose flag was displayed, if they hold dual citizenship or legal standing in that country.

Section 5. Exceptions
This Act shall not apply to the proper and respectful retirement of worn or damaged flags by authorized organizations such as the American Legion or Boy Scouts of America.

Section 6. Enforcement
The U.S. Department of Justice shall have the authority to enforce this Act and prosecute violations in federal court.