Author: Dr. Wayne Thorn

Posted on

Right to Bear Arms

Wayne Thorn

The development of the Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, was rooted in the desire to safeguard individual liberties by affirming the people’s right to own and carry firearms free from government interference. The amendment’s language—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—was crafted to protect this fundamental freedom, ensuring the ability to defend oneself and resist oppression. Given this intent, it raises an important question: Why do modern gun laws exist that impose restrictions on this constitutional right?

The Bruen case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2022) reinforced a historical approach to interpreting the Second Amendment, establishing that any laws or regulations infringing on the right to bear arms must align with the standards set in 1791, when the amendment was ratified. This decision emphasized that laws must be consistent with historical practices and traditions surrounding firearms during that period. When we look at the standards of 1791, we find that the founding era was characterized by minimal government regulation on firearm ownership. The prevailing norms were that citizens had the right to possess and carry arms for purposes of self-defense, militia service, and hunting, with few formal restrictions. The government did not impose licensing or registration requirements, and there were few, if any, bans on types of firearms. In fact, most able-bodied men were expected to own arms for the purpose of participating in local militias. These historical standards, therefore, suggest that many modern gun laws—particularly those involving bans on certain weapons or restrictions on where firearms can be carried—may not align with the original intent of the Second Amendment.

What were the firearm laws in 1791?

In 1791, when the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, firearm laws and regulations were minimal compared to modern standards. Here’s a summary of the context and practices of the time:

Key Points About Firearm Laws in 1791

  1. Second Amendment:
    • Ratified in 1791, it states:
      “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.”
    • This reflected the belief that citizens should be armed to ensure collective defense and safeguard against tyranny.
  2. State-Level Regulations:
    • Firearm regulations varied by state but were generally sparse. States prioritized arming militias and ensuring citizens could defend themselves.
    • Some states required able-bodied men to own firearms for militia duty and even mandated inspections of weapons to ensure they were functional.
  3. Federal Laws:
    • The federal government had almost no firearm laws in 1791. Regulation of arms was left largely to states and localities.
  4. Types of Firearms:
    • Firearms were limited to single-shot, muzzle-loading muskets, rifles, and pistols. These weapons were slow to load and less lethal than modern firearms.
  5. Cultural and Practical Norms:
    • Firearms were primarily used for hunting, self-defense, and militia service.
    • Ownership was widespread among men, particularly in rural areas, where firearms were tools for survival.
  6. Restrictions:
    • Although there were no federal restrictions, some communities placed informal or local restrictions on firearm use, such as laws against discharging firearms within town limits or prohibiting possession by certain groups (e.g., enslaved people and, in some cases, free Black individuals).
  7. Militia Acts:
    • The Federal Militia Act of 1792 required most free, white male citizens aged 18-45 to enroll in the militia and provide their own arms and ammunition. This effectively mandated firearm ownership for many.

Notable Omissions:

  • No registration or licensing systems.
  • No restrictions on the type of firearms owned.
  • No background checks or waiting periods.

Conclusion:

Firearm laws in 1791 reflected the era’s priorities—ensuring public defense and individual preparedness for survival. Regulations were minimal and focused on maintaining armed militias rather than restricting individual ownership.

My Thoughts

If we interpret the Second Amendment as it was originally intended, without compromise or modification, then all current firearm laws—whether federal, state, or local—would be unconstitutional. The phrase “shall not be infringed” in the amendment clearly indicates that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted or limited by the government in any way. This understanding challenges modern gun control laws that impose restrictions like background checks, licensing, or weapon bans. Such laws, from this viewpoint, violate the very essence of the Second Amendment and should therefore be struck down to restore the full rights of citizens to bear arms without any governmental interference.

The Second Amendment recognizes the right to own and carry firearms as an inherent right, not a privilege that can be granted or revoked by the government. This distinction is critical—rights are fundamental and unalienable, whereas privileges can be regulated or taken away. By framing the right to bear arms as a constitutional right, the founders intended to empower individuals to protect themselves and ensure a balance of power between the people and the government. As such, any law that infringes upon this right, no matter the justification, runs counter to the Constitution’s clear intent and should be invalidated, ensuring that the full freedom to keep and bear arms is restored to every American citizen.

Posted on

U.S. Birthrights Citizenship

Dr. Wayne Thorn

This topic has become a heated debate in our country, particularly concerning the birthright citizenship of children born to undocumented immigrants. Many people argue that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen, often overlooking the crucial phrase in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.“

The key controversy lies in the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.“ This was a central point of discussion during the drafting and ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1866.

In this article, we will explore what the framers of the amendment intended during the debates on this topic and how it has shaped modern interpretations of citizenship.

Historical Debate documents

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

Birthright Citizenship

The debate surrounding Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is one of the most significant in U.S. constitutional history. This section, known as the cornerstone of the Reconstruction Amendments, has sparked debates over citizenship, equal protection, due process, and the limits of federal and state power. Below is an overview of key areas of contention and interpretation:

1. Birthright Citizenship

  • Proponents:
    Supporters of birthright citizenship argue that it is essential to uphold the idea that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ status, is a citizen. This interpretation emphasizes inclusion and ensures that no one is left stateless. This principle was primarily aimed at granting citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants following the Civil War.
  • Opponents:
    Critics often argue that birthright citizenship should exclude children of undocumented immigrants or non-citizens. They claim that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to individuals who owe allegiance to another nation. This debate continues today, particularly regarding immigration policy.

Debate over birthright citizenship

The debate over birthright citizenship in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was a key point of discussion during the drafting and ratification of the amendment in 1866. This issue revolved around the meaning of the phrase “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and whether it granted citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, particularly Native Americans, children of foreign nationals, and freed slaves. Below is a detailed account of the Congressional debates surrounding this issue.

Key Participants in the Debate

  • Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI): A strong advocate for birthright citizenship who introduced the citizenship clause and supported its broad application.
  • Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL): Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who clarified the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
  • Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA): A critic who raised concerns about granting citizenship to children of foreigners, especially non-white immigrants.

1. Clarifying “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof”

One of the most contentious points was the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

  • Proponents’ View (Howard and Trumbull):
     Howard clarified that the clause was intended to ensure that all individuals born in the U.S. who owe allegiance to the country are citizens. This explicitly included:
    • Freed slaves.
    • Children of foreigners who were lawfully residing in the U.S.
      Trumbull elaborated that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant subject to U.S. laws, thus excluding certain groups, such as:
    • Diplomats and their children (as they were under the jurisdiction of their home countries).
    • Members of sovereign Native American tribes, as they were under tribal governance and not fully subject to U.S. laws.
  • Opponents’ Concerns (Cowan):
     Cowan objected, fearing that birthright citizenship would lead to an influx of immigrants—particularly Chinese laborers and Gypsies (a term used at the time)—whose children would automatically become citizens. He argued that this could dilute American identity and overwhelm local communities.

2. Freed Slaves and Racial Equality

  • Focus on African Americans:
     A primary motivation behind the citizenship clause was to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, could never be U.S. citizens. The framers of the amendment wanted to guarantee that all freed slaves and their descendants would have citizenship, thereby securing their civil rights.
  • Racial Prejudice in Opposition:
     Critics like Cowan raised objections rooted in racial and cultural bias, arguing that extending citizenship to all children born in the U.S., regardless of parentage, could lead to societal disruption. This concern was particularly directed at non-European immigrant groups.

3. Concerns About Foreign Nationals

  • Opposition from Cowan and Others:
     Cowan argued that it was unjust to grant citizenship to the children of foreign nationals, especially those who might not fully integrate into American society. He raised concerns about Chinese laborers on the West Coast and other immigrant communities, portraying them as transient populations without allegiance to the U.S.
  • Proponents’ Counterarguments:
     Supporters like Trumbull rebutted these concerns, stating that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its laws was inherently part of the nation’s social and legal fabric. They emphasized that allegiance was demonstrated through residency and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction, not by the nationality of one’s parents.

4. Native Americans

  • Exclusion from Citizenship:
     The drafters explicitly excluded most Native Americans because they were considered members of sovereign nations and not fully subject to U.S. laws. Howard and Trumbull argued that Native Americans who remained under tribal jurisdiction were outside the scope of the amendment.
    This exclusion was later addressed by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans.

5. The Outcome and Adoption

  • Strong Support for Inclusivity:
     Despite opposition, the framers overwhelmingly supported a broad interpretation of birthright citizenship to ensure that the U.S. would no longer exclude people based on race or heritage. The clause was adopted without major amendments, solidifying the principle that anyone born on U.S. soil (with exceptions like diplomats’ children) was a citizen.
  • Immediate Impact:
    • Guaranteed citizenship for millions of formerly enslaved individuals.
    • Laid the foundation for expanding civil rights through federal intervention.

Key Quotes from the Debate

  • Senator Jacob Howard:
     “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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.”
  • Senator Edgar Cowan:
     “Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what allegiance does he owe? … Shall these persons, who owe no allegiance to the country, be permitted to make citizens?”
  • Senator Lyman Trumbull:
     “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Legacy of the Debate

The framers ultimately upheld birthright citizenship as a key principle of equality and inclusion. While the debate reflected some of the racial and cultural prejudices of the time, it also demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that citizenship would not be denied based on ancestry, race, or social status. The principle remains central to American identity and law, though it continues to face challenges in modern immigration debates.

My Thoughts

It is clear from the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment that citizenship was not granted solely based on being born in the United States. The framers carefully considered the context, to whom they were speaking, and the far-reaching implications of their decisions. At the time, the amendment guaranteed citizenship to millions of formerly enslaved individuals and, later, to Native Americans through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Today, the issue of birthright citizenship has taken on new dimensions, as people from around the world enter the country illegally with the hope that giving birth to a child on U.S. soil will grant automatic citizenship—not only for the child but potentially as a pathway for themselves.

If this matter reaches the Supreme Court, the justices will revisit the original debates and intentions behind birthright citizenship to determine how it applies in today’s complex and evolving circumstances.

Posted on

Introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA)

Dr. Wayne Thorn

Bill Would Repeal State Gun Bans!

The SAGA Act would prevent states across the nation from prohibiting or restricting rifles and shotguns that are legally permitted under federal law.

It’s crucial that we urge our legislators to support this important legislation.

Call 202-224-3121 to find your representative.

Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Second Amendment Guarantee Act to Defend New Yorkers 2A Rights

January 15, 2025 

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) to ensure that states are prohibited from banning the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun that is lawfully permitted under federal law.

Additional cosponsors of this legislation include Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-1) and Nick Langworthy (NY-23). 

 New York’s SAFE Act, signed into law under disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning certain firearms. If signed into law, this SAGA Act would nullify the SAFE Act and prevent New York and other states from passing unconstitutional gun bans.

 “The Constitution clearly established our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The SAGA Act nullifies New York’s unconstitutional SAFE Act and prevents other states from enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment. This legislation upholds our country’s founding principle of protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans, even from liberal states with anti-gun policies,” said Congresswoman Tenney.

“No matter how hard radical Democrats in Albany attempt to limit lawful gun ownership, the New York Congressional delegation will stand firm to protect law-abiding New Yorkers and manufacturers in protecting their constitutional rights. I am proud to join Rep. Tenney and my New York colleagues in Congress to ensure these rights ‘shall not be infringed, and I will never back down in my fight to protect the Second Amendment,” said Congressman Langworthy.  
 

###

Posted on

Colorado’s “The Fight For Freedom”: Bill Seeks To Ban All Semi-Autos That Take Magazines

Dr. Wayne Thorn

Colorado’s new bill to ban all semi-autos that take magazines wants to strip away at 2nd Amendment RIGHTS.

On January 8, 2025, Colorado Democrats introduced Senate Bill 25-003, aiming to ban the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and sale of semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable magazines. This legislation targets a wide range of pistols and rifles, including popular models like the AR-15, which are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Critics argue that such a sweeping ban infringes upon Second Amendment rights, as it would prohibit the acquisition of firearms that are in common use for self-defense and other legal activities. The bill also seeks to outlaw rapid-fire trigger activators and bump stocks, further expanding its reach. While proponents believe the measure will enhance public safety, opponents contend that it overreaches by restricting access to firearms traditionally used for lawful purposes, thus undermining constitutionally protected rights.

Supporters of the Second Amendment are encouraged to reach out to their Colorado representatives and voice opposition to the proposed bill to ban semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines. Advocates argue that if such legislation is enacted, it may set a precedent for similar measures in other states, potentially creating a ripple effect nationwide. Engaging with lawmakers at the state level is a key step in influencing the legislative process and ensuring the representation of diverse perspectives.

Go to this YouTube link for more detailed information on this bill: View here

Here is a list of sources related to Colorado’s proposed ban on semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines:

1. The Colorado Sun Colorado Democrats introduce a bill to ban semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines
Read here

2. National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Colorado lawmakers propose semiautomatic ban bill, sparking Second Amendment concerns
Read here

3. Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-003 Colorado lawmakers propose semiautomatic ban bill
Read here

4. Colorado Legislators Legislators membership list Read here

My Thoughts

Colorado’s proposed bill to ban semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines represents a contentious debate over public safety and constitutional rights. While supporters see it as a step toward reducing gun violence, critics view it as an overreach that infringes on the Second Amendment and limits access to firearms commonly used for lawful purposes. The outcome of this legislation could have far-reaching implications, not only for Colorado but also for other states considering similar measures. It underscores the importance of civic engagement, urging individuals to advocate for their perspectives and actively participate in shaping the laws that affect their rights and communities.

Note: The percentage of homicides in Colorado in 2022, relative to its population of 5,850,935, is approximately 0.0052% or 304 homicides. (2023 and 2024 records were not available as of this posting)


In the United States, there are over 2.5 million instances annually where firearms are used for self-defense, including situations where the weapon is fired or simply displayed to deter a threat.

Contact me: [email protected]

Write me with your comments, questions, or concerns.

Posted on

Hearing Protection Act Would Remove Suppressors From NFA!!

Dr. Wayne Thorn

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution stands as a cornerstone of our nation’s founding principles, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This right is not merely a historical relic but a safeguard of individual freedom and a cornerstone of our national identity. However, in recent years, this constitutional protection has come under increasing scrutiny and threat, with legislative proposals aimed at imposing restrictions that many believe infringe upon this fundamental liberty. It is imperative for all of us who cherish our freedoms to take a stand and ensure that our voices are heard.

I urge every 2A supporter to contact their House or Senate representative and demand unwavering protection of our Second Amendment rights. Now is the time to remind our elected officials that the phrase “shall not be infringed” is not open to interpretation or compromise. By speaking out collectively, we send a clear message to our government: we will not tolerate any encroachment on the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Together, we can preserve and protect this essential right for generations to come.

Below is a copy of both Bills so you can compare them.

SENATE BILLS-118s401is (English) PDF: DOWNLOAD

HOUSE BILLS-118hr152ih (English) PDF: DOWNLOAD

When you look at both of them they’re pretty much the same except for the House bill.

In the House bill sec 6, 1, B

If I could advocate for a change, it would be to allow the freedom to manufacture personal suppressors without the requirement for serialization, whether they are homemade or purchased.

Throughout much of U.S. history, there have been few restrictions on the personal manufacture of firearms for personal use. Historically, individuals were generally free to make firearms for themselves without legal barriers.

HERE ARE SOME OF THEM

During the time of the writing of the U.S. Constitution (1787) and the ratification of the Bill of Rights (1791), there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership or manufacture. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, explicitly stated, “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.” This reflected a cultural and practical necessity for firearm ownership during the era.

However, there were a few notable restrictions or practices related to arms regulation during this time:

1. Militia Service Requirements

  • Many states had laws requiring able-bodied men to own firearms for militia service. These laws mandated that individuals possess arms and ammunition in working condition, effectively making firearm ownership not just a right but an obligation for many.
  • For example, the Militia Act of 1792 required all free, able-bodied white male citizens aged 18 to 45 to equip themselves with a musket, ammunition, and other supplies for militia duty.

2. Class and Racial Restrictions

  • Some laws restricted firearm ownership for enslaved people and free Black individuals. For example:
    • Virginia (1640s onward): Laws prohibited enslaved people from owning firearms, and even free Black individuals often required special permissions.
    • Other colonies and states had similar restrictions aimed at maintaining control over marginalized populations.

3. Firearm Use in Public Spaces

  • Certain municipalities or colonies enacted laws to regulate the carrying or discharge of firearms in specific settings, such as within town limits or during public gatherings. These restrictions were often aimed at preventing accidents or maintaining public order, not disarming the populace.
  • For instance, some towns prohibited the firing of guns during celebrations or near public buildings.

4. Storage and Maintenance Requirements

  • In some places, laws required firearms to be properly maintained and stored to ensure they were available for militia use. This was less about restricting ownership and more about ensuring readiness.

5. Restrictions on Gunpowder

  • Many towns and cities had regulations on the storage and transportation of gunpowder due to the risk of fire and explosions. For example:
    • Boston (1720s): Laws limited how much gunpowder could be stored in homes and required it to be kept in designated storage facilities.

Notable Absence of Restrictions:

  • There were no federal or state laws restricting the manufacture of firearms for personal use, and individuals were free to make or modify their own weapons.
  • Serialization, background checks, licensing, and other modern regulatory mechanisms did not exist.

Summary

At the time of the Constitution’s writing, most restrictions related to firearms were tied to militia service, public safety, and social control (e.g., racial exclusions). There were no federal restrictions on personal firearm manufacture, and the prevailing attitude strongly supported widespread ownership and use of arms, both for individual self-defense and collective security.

I just emailed my congressman to express my support for this bill. I also suggested a change to remove Section 6, 1, B, as it restricts the ability to manufacture personal suppressors and requires serialization for purchased suppressors, which I believe should not be mandatory.

I encourage all 2A supporters to reach out to their House and Senate representatives and urge them to stand against any attempts to impose restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, which clearly state, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Let’s make our voices heard and protect our freedoms.

SUBSCRIBE

CONTACT ME: [email protected]

About anything, comments to articles, questions you may have, etc.

Posted on

Sanctity of Life

Cecil W Thorn

In a world where the value of life is often debated, the Scriptures present an unwavering perspective on its sanctity. From the beginning, God established human life as sacred, weaving His divine image into each soul and setting humanity apart with inherent dignity. His provision, care, and intentional design extend to all—both the born and the unborn. By examining God’s Word, we can see that every life holds unique worth and purpose in His eyes. Through His love, we are called to honor, protect, and value life in all its stages, acknowledging that each person is part of His divine plan. This study will explore the sanctity of life as revealed in Scripture, God’s intentional provision for every person, and the high value He places on life, inviting us to reflect on our role in honoring His creation.

1. Sanctity of Life

Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Commentary
This foundational verse establishes the sanctity of human life, as it reveals that humans are created in God’s own image. This divine imprint endows every person with inherent worth and dignity. The sanctity of life stems from this divine creation, underscoring that every life, from conception, holds sacred value because it reflects the Creator Himself. Human life is, therefore, not merely biological but imbued with spiritual significance and worth.

Psalm 139:13-16
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Commentary
David’s words emphasize God’s intimate knowledge and care for each life, even in the womb. This passage highlights that God not only creates life but also actively shapes and knows each person before birth. The detailed care God takes in forming each individual underscores the sanctity of every human life, as each one is precious and purposed by God Himself.

2. God’s Provision for Both the Born and Unborn

Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Commentary
God’s words to Jeremiah reveal that He not only forms each person in the womb but has purposes and plans for each life even before birth. This affirms the worth of the unborn and God’s intimate involvement in each life. The notion that God knows and calls individuals before they are born emphasizes His provision and value for life from its very inception.

Isaiah 46:3-4
“Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from before your birth, carried from the womb; even to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save.”

Commentary
This passage highlights God’s provision and care from conception through every stage of life. The imagery of God carrying His people from the womb to old age reflects His unfailing support and provision. It underscores the value He places on each person’s life journey, affirming that His concern spans all of life, born and unborn alike.

3. Value God Places on Life

Deuteronomy 30:19
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.”

Commentary
God’s exhortation to “choose life” indicates that He values life as a precious gift. This choice reflects His desire for individuals and communities to embrace life in alignment with His will. It speaks to the communal aspect of valuing life, encouraging actions that honor and sustain life not only for the individual but for future generations.

John 10:10
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.”

Commentary
Jesus’ words in John emphasize His mission to bring abundant life, contrasting sharply with the destruction caused by sin. Jesus’ desire for people to experience fullness of life underscores God’s ultimate value on life itself—not just existence, but a life enriched by His presence and purpose. It is a call to live lives that reflect God’s image, value His creation, and uphold the sanctity of life in every form.

My Thoughts

The Scriptures present an unmistakable message about the sanctity and value of life. Through verses that span the Bible, we see God’s intentional creation, provision, and plan for every person, from conception to old age. Life is more than biological existence; it’s a sacred reflection of God’s image, woven with purpose and worth by the Creator Himself. This calls us not only to recognize life’s value but to act as stewards, protecting and honoring life in all stages. As we journey through this study, may we deepen our understanding of God’s heart for humanity and feel compelled to uphold the dignity and sacredness of every life. Through honoring life, we honor Him who is the source of life itself.

Posted on

Prioritize the needs of our citizens above all else

Dr. Wayne Thorn

This is a comparison of the assistance the U.S. government provides to foreign countries and illegal immigrants versus the support available for U.S. citizens.

US Government Assistance to Foreign Countries (So far for this year 2024)

$24,400,000,000 to Ukraine.
$11,300,000,000 to Israel.
$1,950,000,000 to Ethiopia.
$1,600,000,000 to Jordan.
$1,400,000,000 to Egypt.
$1,100,000,000 to Afghanistan.
$1,100,000,000 to Somalia.
$1,000,000,000 to Yemen.
$987,000,000 to Congo.
$896,000,000 to Syria.

Total: $45,733,000,000

(For financial support, military aid, food assistance, and health programs)

US Government Assistance for Illegal Immigrant

$129,600,000,000,000,000 to illegal immigrant ($9,000 per illegal immigrant that has entered the U.S. from January- June 2024 current estimates 1.44 million according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

(For Food Assistance, Clothing Assistance, Counseling Services, Health Insurance, Employment Support, Housing Assistance, Public Education, Adult Education, Immigration Legal Services, Phone and service)

US Government most recent Assistance for American Citizens

$3,750,000,000 to approximately 5 million people (Americans who have lost everything to Hurricane Helene will be getting $750, courtesy of FEMA)

$11,000,000,000 for approximately 33,000 Homeless Veterans (For housing, health care, and supportive services)

$3,700,000,000 for approximately 580,000 General Homeless (For shelter, medical care, or long-term housing solutions)

Total: $17,600,000,000

My Thoughts

Our country is currently facing significant challenges, including rising costs for food, gas, electricity, and housing. It’s essential that we prioritize the needs of our nation and its citizens above all else, ensuring they have the resources necessary to lead fulfilling lives and support their families. It seems we have lost our way in this regard.

SUBSCRIBE

Posted on

A voice cries: In the wilderness

Dr. Wayne Thorn

Here is Psalms 20:6-9 from the King James Version (KJV):

6 Now know I that the Lord saveth his anointed;
he will hear him from his holy heaven
with the saving strength of his right hand.
7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses:
but we will remember the name of the Lord our God.
8 They are brought down and fallen:
but we are risen, and stand upright.
9 Save, Lord:
let the king hear us when we call.

These verses convey a similar message, emphasizing trust in God’s strength over human power, while expressing confidence in His divine salvation and unwavering support.

40 MILLION CHRISTIANS DON’T VOTE

15 MILLION AREN’T EVEN REGISTERED

Isaiah 40:3 (ESV):
“A voice cries:
‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.'”

We are now the voice crying in the wilderness in this time and place that the savior of all has come to give use life, life eternal with the father.

The statement “We are now the voice crying in the wilderness in this time and place that the Savior of all has come to give us life, life eternal with the Father” draws from the biblical imagery of John the Baptist as the forerunner who prepared the way for Christ. It also reflects a call for believers to take up that same mantle today.

“We are now the voice crying in the wilderness”:

    • In biblical times, John the Baptist was the voice in the wilderness, proclaiming the coming of Jesus and calling people to repentance. In today’s context, we, as believers, have taken on the role of proclaiming the good news of Christ’s coming. The wilderness symbolizes the spiritual desolation or confusion in the world—a place where many are lost, distant from God, and searching for meaning. As voices in this wilderness, we are called to guide people towards Christ, just as John did.

    1. “In this time and place”:

      • This phrase highlights the urgency of the call. Every era and generation faces unique challenges—whether moral, social, or spiritual. In our current age, the distractions of modern life, secularism, and materialism often act as barriers to hearing God’s voice. Now, more than ever, the world needs voices that cut through this spiritual noise, proclaiming the eternal truths of the gospel in the context of present-day challenges.

      2. “That the Savior of all has come”:

        • This affirms the central truth of the Christian faith: Jesus Christ, the Savior, has come into the world. His coming was not just for a specific group of people or time but for all humanity, throughout all history. Our message, as “voices crying in the wilderness,” is to proclaim the arrival of Jesus, the fulfillment of the prophecy that John the Baptist once heralded. We point to the fact that the Savior has come, bridging the gap between humanity and God.

        3. “To give us life, life eternal with the Father”:

          • The heart of the gospel message is not only about salvation from sin but also about the gift of eternal life. Through Jesus’ sacrifice, we are offered a life that transcends earthly existence, a relationship with God that begins now and lasts forever. Our task as modern-day “voices in the wilderness” is to proclaim this gift—life with the Father, secured through faith in Christ. We are called to share the hope of eternal life, which offers a deep sense of purpose and peace amid the uncertainties of the world.

          In essence:

          This statement calls believers to recognize that we are living in a spiritually dry and confused world—a “wilderness”—and just as John the Baptist prepared the way for Christ’s first coming, we are now preparing the way for hearts to receive Him in the present. Our role is to boldly proclaim the life-changing truth that Jesus has already come to bring salvation and eternal life, inviting people into a life-giving relationship with the Father. We are entrusted with sharing this message of hope, redemption, and eternal life, becoming voices of God’s grace and love in a world that desperately needs it.

          Stand Up

          We must stand up, just as our country did at its founding, by using the powerful tools we have—our voices and our votes. The principles on which this nation was built call us to engage actively, and it is our responsibility to ensure that godly values are represented in our leadership and policies.

          As Christians, we cannot sit idly by while our government is increasingly influenced by voices that reject God’s truth in favor of subjective feelings and personal agendas. There are those who shout loudly, demanding that their views be accepted, but we must remember that our foundation is not built on human opinion but on the eternal truth of God.

          There is only one truth—God’s truth—and it transcends personal feelings, opinions, and cultural trends. Now is the time for believers to boldly stand for what is right, guided by Scripture, and to use the influence we have been given to promote righteousness in our communities and our nation.

          Make your voice heard VOTE