“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.”
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.
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.
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 Trumpand 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.
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.
Send this to President Trump, your House Rep, and your Congress Rep
Let’s make this happen
Feel free to reach out with any questions, feedback on articles, or anything else you’d like to discuss—I’m always happy to connect!
We have another example of how Gun Control and Gun Free Zones do not protect people with the Mall of America shooting. Here is what we know so far:
The Mall of America under Minnesota state law is a gun free zone. The Mall of America posts these signs:
At least 6 gang members were carrying firearms despite the law and involved in shooting and killing a 19-year old. 5 have been arrested so far. 2 are 18 years old and 3 are 17 years old. Minnesota does not issue CCW permits to anybody under 21, so they were carrying illegally. It was illegal for them to carry in the Mall. One of them is believed to be the shooter who killed the 19 year old. It is possible another of them also fired a firearm, but all are suspects involved according to police.
There were 16 police officers on duty in the Mall. Despite that all of the suspects left the Mall without being arrested, and went to White Castle to eat.
Compare that the the Greenwood Mall shooting. Where state law does not give the No Weapons signs legal force, and an attempted mass shooting was stopped by a concealed carry holder.
The Greenwood Park Mall shooting occurred in the state of Indiana. Specifically, at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana, a suburb located just south of Indianapolis .(Wikipedia)
During the incident, a gunman opened fire in the mall’s food court, resulting in the deaths of three individuals and injuries to two others. The shooter was subsequently fatally shot by Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year-old legally armed civilian who was present at the scene .(Axios, Wikipedia)
The swift intervention by Dicken was widely recognized and praised by local and state officials for preventing further casualties .
My Thoughts
“These incidents make one thing clear: gun-free zones and restrictive carry laws may disarm the law-abiding, but they do little to stop those with criminal intent. Real safety comes not from signs and statutes alone, but from empowering responsible citizens to protect themselves and others when seconds count.”
In areas where civilians were legally permitted to carry firearms, the intervention rate by armed citizens was even higher. The CPRC found that in such locations, armed civilians stopped 51.5% of active shooter incidents, compared to 44.6% stopped by police.
The Republican-led Ways and Means Committee has undermined our efforts to repeal the Hearing Protection Act by gutting it—reducing the stamp tax from $200 to $5, but keeping all the bureaucratic red tape, including the paperwork, extra background checks, and fingerprinting. On top of that, they completely threw out the SHORT Act.
We have one last chance to make our voices heard. Tell every member of the Ways and Means Committee to reverse course: restore both bills to their original language and pass them forward, as intended. Contact them now and remind them who they work for—the people.
Let them know that we are paying attention. If they fail to act, come the midterm elections, we will do everything in our power to vote them out and replace them with true Republicans—those who actually represent our values and priorities.
Below is the list of all current members of the Ways and Means Committee. We have until 5/13/25 at 2:30 PM to make our demands clear. Let’s stand together and ensure our voices cannot be ignored.
As a pro-gun American, I urge you to use reconciliation to repeal the NFA and completely deregulate suppressors, along with pushing through the Short Act as well.
We are watching you, and we will remove anyone in the mid-term elections who did not stand with the wishes of the Republican people.
Let our voices be heard
Feel free to reach out with any questions, feedback on articles, or anything else you’d like to discuss—I’m always happy to connect!
Published: 8:15 ET, Feb 18 2025 | Updated: 14:12 ET, Feb 18 2025
On February 17, 2025, a tragic shooting occurred at the Harris Teeter grocery store located at 545 Radford Lane in Crozet, Virginia. The incident resulted in the deaths of two individuals: 43-year-old Peter L. Martin of Crozet, who was pronounced dead at the scene, and 68-year-old Diane G. Spangler of Afton, who succumbed to her injuries after being transported to UVA Medical Center.
The shooter, identified as 28-year-old Justin M. Barbour of Crozet, arrived at the store’s parking lot around 1:33 p.m. Within approximately one minute, he began firing, discharging 28 rounds in 20 seconds. The killer, Justin Barbour, 28, whipped out a gun and opened fire in the parking lot before being stopped by the good Samaritan, who was exiting the store and heard the gunfire, engaged Barbour with their personal weapon, resulting in Barbour’s death at the scene.
Investigations revealed that Barbour had no prior connection to either victim or to the location of the shooting. He did not have a criminal history but had previous interactions with law enforcement between 2014 and 2025, including a mental health-related call in December 2024 and a response from Albemarle County’s Human Services Alternative Response Team in January 2025. During these interactions, Barbour exhibited a calm demeanor, and there were no indications of violence or self-harm reported to police.
The community has been deeply affected by this event. In response, Peter Martin’s family has initiated efforts to support his surviving daughters, emphasizing the profound personal impact of the tragedy.
Colion Noir interview with Morgan, an Army Veteran: He Was Unarmed During A Mass Shooting Because Of A Gun Free Zone
This year’s 2025 Legislative session, Florida state lawmakers have been busy filing hundreds of different bills.
Among these, several are aimed at changing up state laws involving gun ownership, pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike. These bills involve topics like age limits, storage requirements, and harsh crackdowns on gun sales.
To become law, these bills require the approval of both the state Senate and House, as well as a signature from Gov. Ron DeSantis.
We must all make our voices heard and help shape Florida’s government based on the will of its constituents. One way to do this is by sharing your message, just as I have done below.
Here is my letter about how I want our Governor and my Representative to vote on these issues
To Governor Ron DeSantis and my State Representative Josie Tomkow,
This is how I want you to vote on the following Gun bills.
HB15 – Vote NO
I would want a better option of not restricting CCW/P citizens to be able to carry anywhere. This way the criminals would be stopped getting firearms from vehicles, because of the restriction this is like saying you want a gun. All you have to do is go to a parking lot, there is plenty available in the vehicles.
I sent you a letter earlier that we should do the same thing Wyoming is doing removing gun-free zones. Also, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police.
See the report: https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/11/study-concealed-carriers-do-a-better-job-of-stopping-active-shooters-than-police/
HB53 – Vote NO
You will be placing an unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens by requiring an additional background check and its associated fee for every ammunition purchase.
This legislation is a reaction to a single tragic incident. While the event was terrible, it should not be used as justification to impose broad restrictions that unfairly impact all responsible citizens.
HB491 Vote YES if not NO- with the below changes
I agree with this bill, if it removed the exceptions – I go back to my statement about removing gun-free zones altogether for CCW/P citizens
HB759 Vote YES
Young men as young as 18 have been called to serve in the military, bearing arms to defend our country since before the ratification of the Constitution. Yet, they are deemed incompetent to purchase a firearm for personal defense. If they are truly incapable of responsible firearm ownership, then by the same logic, no one under 21 should be allowed to enlist in the Armed Forces.
HB1019 Vote NO
That would mean that if I wanted to pass down a firearm to a family member in my will, there would be no way to conduct a background check on both parties. Private transfers or sales would no longer be possible, despite the fact that such transactions have historically been allowed without issue.
Gun manufacturers have been providing gun locks with their firearms for years, even without a legal mandate.
Home gun manufacturing has been practiced since before the Constitution was written. There were no licensing requirements for building firearms, nor any mandates for serial numbers to be engraved on them.
Gun enthusiasts have been creating 3D-printed firearms as a way to test their skills and refine their gunsmithing abilities. While many early attempts result in failure, they continue learning and improving their techniques.
H6003 Vote NO
This would grant local governments the authority to establish their own gun-related regulations, covering aspects such as sales, ownership, possession, storage, and taxation.
HB6025 Vote NO
Just look at California it became a looter haven – until law abiding citizen (with Arms) took actions to protect what they had left for themselves and others, there was not enough police to go around to protect them- and the citizens deterred looter.
SB188 Vote NO
If a person has a CCW/P permit, there should be no need to further restrict them, as they have already undergone thorough vetting. Restricting them only creates unnecessary complications, such as forcing them to temporarily leave their firearm in a vehicle, where it becomes vulnerable to theft.
Gun-free zones essentially signal to criminals that no one present can stop them. If certain locations must prohibit firearms, CCW permit holders should be treated similarly to law enforcement—security could temporarily hold their weapon and return it upon departure, ensuring that no firearms are left unattended. However, even this approach risks creating another location with no deterrent for criminals.
SB814 Vote NO
The policy bans individuals from storing firearms—rather than merely possessing them—at school-sponsored events or on school property. This includes storing them in a vehicle, effectively requiring attendees to leave their firearms at home. As a result, law-abiding citizens are left vulnerable to potential threats from the moment they leave their homes until they return.
SB 1338 Vote NO
This policy infringes on our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, restricting firearm possession to our homes or designated storage facilities like shooting ranges.
By this logic, it also limits our ability to transport firearms altogether. Millions of civilian versions AR-15s—often mislabeled as “assault weapons”—are commonly used for competition shooting, recreational target practice, and hunting.
A true “assault weapon” is a firearm capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger—also known as a “machine gun.” In contrast, civilian versions of the AR-15 are semi-automatic, meaning they fire one round per trigger pull.
Thank you for your time,
Dr. Cecil W Thorn
Below is the link to find your state representative and the link to Governor DeSantis
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel ruled that suppressors are not firearms but an accessory and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the same that a suppressor is not a firearm but an accessory.
Yet the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) says A suppressor is legally defined as a “firearm” under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).
Key Legal Definitions
26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7) – Classifies a suppressor as a “firearm” under the NFA.
26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) – Defines a suppressor as “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.”
The National Firearms Act (NFA) was signed into law on June 26, 1934, in response to violent crime during Prohibition.
Suppressors were classified as “firearms” under the NFA in 1934, meaning they required registration, a tax stamp, and ATF approval to own.
The original tax stamp was $200 (the same cost today, but in 1934, it was meant to be a prohibitive cost).
Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)) (which defines suppressor parts as “firearms”) – Includes all parts intended for suppressor assembly.
he Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was signed into law on October 22, 1968, following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This law expanded the definition of “firearm” to include any combination of parts that can be assembled into a suppressor, effectively making individual suppressor components subject to regulation.
These existing laws clearly define suppressors as “firearms,” as stated and recorded in the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other legal frameworks. Given that no legislation has been passed to reclassify them as accessories, how can the Court and the Department of Justice suddenly assert that suppressors are accessories?
Hearing Protection Act (HPA) in 2017 and 2025
Objective:To remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), reclassifying them under the Gun Control Act (GCA)
Status: As of March 2025, the HPA has been introduced but has not passed into law. continuing the effort to pass the bill after it failed to progress in prior sessions.
Summary
While there have been attempts through both the courts and legislation to reclassify suppressors as accessories, these efforts have not resulted in a change in their classification to date. Suppressors remain regulated under the NFA, requiring registration and a tax stamp for legal ownership.
If we allow the government to arbitrarily reclassify items as mere accessories, where does it end? Today, it’s suppressors—tomorrow, it could be scopes, red dots, and magazines. Do you see where this is headed?
Write to the President and the Attorney General to express our dissatisfaction with the direction this is heading. Let them know we expect them to take action to stop this and uphold our Second Amendment rights.
With everything happening in the United States—immigration issues, government corruption, attacks on our Second Amendment rights, and a struggling economy—it’s more important than ever for We the People to take a stand. We can no longer sit back and believe that there’s nothing we can do. It’s time for us to actively voice our concerns and make our desires known to those in power. Our involvement and engagement are crucial for shaping the future of our country.
Find and contact elected officials
Get the names and contact information for the people who represent you on the federal, state, and local levels.
