We are told, with almost religious fervor, that artificial intelligence has finally killed the writer.

​AI can spin a sonnet, or draft a takedown, and even polish a policy brief until it gleams. The eulogies are already written: human authorship is dead, long live the prompt engineer.

But the obituaries are premature...and aimed at the wrong corpse.

The writer is not dying...the reader is!

Every metric confirms it. The average American now spends less than seventeen seconds on a webpage. Half of all adults have not read a single book in the past year. The median time spent reading long-form content has collapsed from hours to minutes to (on most platforms) mere seconds. TikTok proudly reports that its users watch videos at 2× speed so they can consume more nothingness faster.

We have built machines that can produce Proust-level prose in the time it takes to microwave popcorn, yet we have trained an entire generation to scroll past Proust...and everything shorter than Proust...without breaking stride.

This is not a trivial cultural loss. It is civilizational suicide wearing yoga pants.

A society that stops reading is a society that stops thinking beyond the length of a push notification. Complex ideas, moral nuance, historical memory, scientific reasoning, even empathy...all of them require the sustained attention that only reading provides. You cannot understand the Federalist Papers in 15-second clips. You cannot wrestle with Solzhenitsyn between swipe-ups. You cannot become a serious person by marinating in slogans.

The irony is brutal: just as technology has made the best writing in human history freely available to anyone with a phone, we have lost the cultural muscle required to consume it. The library of Alexandria is in our pocket, and we’re using it to look up dance challenges.

Worse, we now blame the writers. “Nobody wants to read 2,000 words anymore,” publishers shrug, before commissioning another 800-word hot take optimized for the attention span of a goldfish on Adderall. The algorithm has spoken: long = bad, short = viral, complex = unprofitable. So we amputate ideas to fit the feed, then wonder why public discourse feels like a toddler fight in a bouncy castle.

AI will not fix this. It will only accelerate it. The same tools that let me draft this essay in a cleaner, faster, more literate voice also let every ideologue, grifter, and brand churn out “content” at warp speed. When everything is well-written, nothing is worth reading. We are drowning in perfect prose and starving for meaning.

There is only one antidote, and it is painfully analogue: we must relearn how to read...slowly, deeply, defiantly.

Not because books are sacred objects. Not because “kids these days” need another scolding. But because a civilization that cannot sit still with a complex thought for more than thirty seconds will not solve challenging problems, govern itself, or even understand why it is angry.

Parents: take the phones at 9 p.m. and hand over a novel.
Teachers: assign fewer summaries and more slow, close, luxurious reading.
Writers: stop apologizing for length. If your idea dies at 280 characters, maybe it deserved to.
Citizens: cancel one streaming subscription and buy three books you’ll never post about.

The machines can write....Only we can read.

And if we forget how...if we surrender the last quiet space where a human mind meets another human mind without an algorithm in between...then it won’t matter how beautifully the robots compose tomorrow’s symphonies.

There will be no one left to hear the music...

They promised teenagers their lives back in exchange for one little shot. They delivered myocarditis, empty desks, and a quiet stack of child-sized coffins. The invoice for that betrayal has now come due, and the generation that was forced to pay it will be writing society’s rules for the next fifty years.

Good luck.

For two centuries, every wave of vaccine hesitancy has eventually broken and receded. Jenner’s 1796 smallpox vaccine was denounced as “bestial chemistry.” The 1955 Cutter Incident paralyzed 200 children. The 1976 swine-flu fiasco triggered Guillain-Barré and was cancelled in disgrace. Wakefield’s 1998 fraud poisoned a decade of MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine) trust. Each time, however, subsided because the diseases were visibly monstrous and the institutional trust account still had a positive balance.

This time the balance is not merely zero; the bank has been burned to the ground.

COVID-19 barely grazed healthy children and adolescents. Their statistical risk of death was lower than their annual odds of dying in a car wreck. Yet they were the only demographic for whom the entire societal machinery...schools, colleges, sports leagues, even friendship circles—was weaponised to enforce a brand-new pharmaceutical product whose paediatric trials were smaller than a suburban middle-school band.

Take the shot or lose everything that makes adolescence survivable. Most obeyed. Children obey adults, especially when adults control every gate.

Now the FDA’s own memo admits at least ten confirmed paediatric deaths directly caused by the vaccine, with the true count almost certainly higher. The same agencies that ran cartoons of smiling syringes and campus compliance scoreboards now shrug in footnotes. The same media that called mandate resisters “grandma killers” simply declined to report the memo at all.

The result is not a subculture of sceptics. It is a scar across an entire generation.
The evidence is already measurable:

• Only 23 % of 18–29-year-olds say they would “definitely” take the next CDC-recommended vaccine—the lowest of any age cohort by thirty points (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2024).
• Post-2020 high-school graduates register as politically independent at record rates and show the highest openness to third-party candidates since polling began.
• Applications to Ivy League schools from the top decile of achievers are quietly flat or declining while trade schools, entrepreneurship programmes, and mandate-free state universities are swamped.
• Homeschool waitlists have doubled in many states; cash-only paediatricians who advertise “no mandates ever” are booked solid through 2027.

Seven long-term fractures are now locked in.

First, institutional deafness. When the next pathogen with a genuine paediatric threat appears, the under-35 cohort will treat public-health pronouncements the way Soviet citizens treated Pravda: useful only for starting fires.

Second, engineered vaccine refusal. The very crusaders who screamed “trust the science or people will die” have created the largest reservoir of future vaccine hesitancy in the developed world. Measles outbreaks in 2030 will not be driven by Marin County yogis; they will be driven by former honour-roll students who did everything asked of them and were rewarded with betrayal.

Third, the slow death of elite credentialism. Universities that turned themselves into vaccination enforcement arms and bragged about it. The brightest teenagers watched, learned, and are now routing around the entire prestige economy.

Fourth, political orphanhood. This is not a rightward shift in the country-club sense; it is a mass exodus from the board entirely. A permanent 20–25 % of the electorate...young, digitally native, and furious...now swings on pure spite.

Fifth, a mental-health debt bomb. Isolation plus coerced medical intervention plus discovered large-scale deception equals complex PTSD at population scale. The downstream effects...delayed marriage, delayed childbearing, radical risk aversion...are already baked into every demographic projection for the next three decades.

Sixth, the rise of parallel systems. They are not waiting for permission. Homeschool networks, crypto land trusts, private medical practices that post “no mandates ever” signs on the door...these are not fringe experiments; they are the new mainstream for an entire age band.

Seventh, and most fatal, the death of the greater-good bargain. For seventy years Western societies ran on an unspoken contract: give up a little liberty today, survive tomorrow. That contract was torn up in front of fifteen-year-olds’ eyes, then used to mop up excess vaccine. The phrase “it’s for the greater good” now lands like a death-row last words: hollow, insulting, and permanently radioactive.

The adults who orchestrated the COVID response genuinely believed they were managing a temporary emergency. They were, instead, performing a civilisation-scale "trust-ectomy" on the precise generation that will be in charge from 2040 to 2080.

There is no quick suture for a wound that size. There is only scar tissue...thick, numb, and permanent.

History’s previous skeptics could eventually be won back with better data and visible success. However, these kids have already seen the data manipulated, the goalposts moved, and the bodies buried in footnotes. They are not waiting for the next study. They are done. And very soon, they will be the ones deciding what “public health” even means.

The adults who ran the COVID era thought they were saving lives. They were actually forging a generation that will never again believe a single word uttered by anyone wearing a government lanyard, a university crest, or a white coat with a pharmaceutical logo stitched on the sleeve. They did not create “vaccine hesitancy.” They created institutional illegitimacy at demographic scale.

In thirty years, when today’s teenagers are the surgeons, the legislators, the judges, the parents, and the voters who outnumber everyone else, the people who locked them out of prom, injected them under duress, and then hid the bodies in footnotes will be frail, retired, and begging for one more “greater good.”

They will discover that the kids they taught to distrust everything now run everything. And mercy, like trust, and compliance will not be on the menu.

That is not a warning. That is the future we built, syringe by syringe, mandate by mandate, lie by lie.
​
Sleep well.

There are moments in history when the past does not whisper...it shouts. Nuremberg was one of those moments. It was a reckoning that declared, once and for all, that no government may hide behind secrecy, bend truth to its will, or place its own authority above the people it governs. Today, as Washington sinks deeper into a culture of concealment, selective truth, and unrestrained power, the echoes of that warning grow louder. America is not facing the horrors of the 1940s, but it is facing the same temptation that once destroyed nations: a government convinced it can do no wrong, and a bureaucracy that believes obedience is more important than honesty.

There is a reason the world paused after World War II and held the Nuremberg Trials. It wasn’t just to punish the guilty. It was to place a permanent warning in the path of every future government: that the moment state power becomes unaccountable, the moment secrecy becomes normal, the moment officials begin to believe their authority outranks the truth, a nation begins to drift toward a darkness it may not immediately recognize.

The judges at Nuremberg insisted that no government can claim moral authority while hiding its actions from its own people. They declared that obedience is not virtue when the orders themselves break the law. They made it clear that a bureaucracy willing to bend truth for convenience will eventually bend it for control. These principles were not written for the ashes of the 1940s; they were written for us.

And now, in our own time, we are watching a quieter but deeply familiar pattern take shape in Washington.

It begins with investigations justified by whispers rather than evidence. It grows through intelligence agencies that decide, on their own, which narratives Americans are allowed to hear. It deepens when federal officials privately pressure social-media companies to silence voices that question their policies, their failures, or their legitimacy. It spreads when the government hides behind redactions, seals important facts behind classification barriers, and releases only the information that protects itself.

We saw it when national-security agencies used flawed and doctored material to obtain secret warrants during the Crossfire Hurricane operation, dragging the intelligence apparatus into the heart of a presidential election. We saw it when the IRS under the Obama administration scrutinized citizens for their political beliefs, something the agency later admitted. We saw it when the Biden administration’s contacts with social-media companies...now exposed in federal court...crossed the line from persuasion to censorship, turning private platforms into policing arms of the government’s message.

And we saw it in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a young man nearly killed a former president and murdered a firefighter. In the aftermath, Americans expected transparency. Instead, they were told by the FBI director that the shooter had “no online history” indicating motive, a statement later contradicted by emerging reports. They were told the bullet that tore open President Trump’s ear might have been shrapnel from a podium, as if physics itself could be bent to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Conflicting accounts trickled out of Washington, each raising more questions than the one before.

This is the mark of a government that has learned to protect itself first and inform the people only when forced.

Even on issues as vast as the border, the story is the same: official assurances that everything is under control, even as the nation watches record illegal entry, overwhelmed cities, and policies quietly designed to ignore existing law. The facts and the narrative no longer match. And when they don’t match, it is the narrative...not the facts...that Washington demands the public accept.

What Nuremberg taught is that the most dangerous governments are not always the loudest or most violent. Sometimes they are the ones that slowly convince themselves that their own survival is synonymous with the nation’s survival, that their secrecy is a form of protection, that dissent is a threat rather than a safeguard. They begin to view transparency as optional, accountability as inconvenient, and the people as an audience to be managed rather than citizens to be served.

This is where America stands now. A government insulated by bureaucracy. Agencies that decide what truths are safe for the public. Officials who speak with certainty even when evidence contradicts them. And a political class that confuses power with righteousness.

But the lesson carved into the walls of Nuremberg still stands: power must have limits, truth must outrank authority, and the people...not the government...must remain the ultimate judge of right and wrong.

We do not need revenge. We do not need a spectacle. We need something far more fundamental: a return to honesty. A return to transparency. A return to the simple idea that a government cannot be its own watchdog, its own judge, its own protector. The people must reclaim that role.

Because nations do not lose their freedom all at once. They lose it gradually, as the guardians of liberty begin to believe they no longer need to be guarded. As agencies begin to act without fear of consequence. As the truth becomes something shaped, filtered, and packaged rather than revealed.

America has not yet crossed the point of no return. But it is approaching a crossroads the Nuremberg judges understood well. Either the government returns to its proper place beneath the Constitution, or the Constitution becomes little more than a ceremonial text the government invokes but no longer obeys.

The choice belongs to the people. And the warning from history could not be clearer:
No administration, no agency, no official...no matter how powerful or well-intentioned...can place itself above the law without endangering the very freedom it claims to protect.

Not then.
Not now.
Not ever.

250 Years of Liberty

​Two and a half centuries ago, a group of imperfect but determined people undertook one of the boldest experiments in human history: to build a nation founded not on bloodlines, conquest, or the divine right of rulers, but on the God-given dignity of every human soul and the capacity of free people to govern themselves. As we celebrate this milestone, it is worth remembering what made the American idea not only new...but truly revolutionary.

The United States was born at the meeting point of two great traditions. One was the Judeo-Christian belief that every person is created in the image of God, possessing inherent worth and moral responsibility. The other was the Enlightenment conviction that reason and natural rights must form the basis of a just political order. The Founders did not see these influences as contradictory. They saw them as partners in the same pursuit of ordered liberty.

From the Judeo-Christian tradition came the moral foundation: the assertion that human rights are not granted by kings or governments but are endowed by the Creator. If rights come from God, they are beyond the reach of any earthly authority. This belief also shaped the Founders’ realistic understanding of human nature. Since every person is capable of both great good and great harm, power must be restrained—government must be limited, separated, and checked.

The Enlightenment offered the political architecture to safeguard those God-given rights. Philosophers like John Locke articulated natural rights and government by consent. Montesquieu showed that liberty requires separation of powers. Madison united these insights into a constitutional framework that would protect freedom by balancing ambition against ambition.

We see this fusion most clearly in our founding declaration, which proclaims that all people “are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The belief in a Creator gives rights their source; the Enlightenment gives those rights structure and protection. Faith provided the why. Reason provided the how.

Yet the Founders understood that no system of government, however carefully designed, could preserve liberty without virtue in the people. Freedom requires self-governance in both the moral and civic sense. John Adams reminded us that the Constitution is suited only for “a moral and religious people,” not because the state should enforce religion, but because a free society requires individuals who govern their own behavior. So while the government did not establish a national church...because forced faith is not faith at all...it protected the free exercise of religion to support the moral habits essential to liberty.

The birth of the United States was not an accident. It was a deliberate act of moral and political imagination: a nation grounded in the sacred value of the human person and structured to allow that dignity to flourish through freedom. This blending of faith and reason...Judeo-Christian ethics and Enlightenment governance...turned a collection of colonies into a new kind of nation, one that believes freedom is not the absence of responsibility but the opportunity to live in accordance with it.

And so, on this 250th anniversary, we remember not just the date, or the fireworks, or the flags—though all are worthy of celebration. We remember the idea. The conviction. The daring belief that human beings, created by God and guided by reason, could chart a different course for themselves and for the world.

Happy birthday, America. Not just the land we live in...but the hope we live out. May we continue to honor the dignity of every soul and the responsibility of every citizen, so that freedom remains both our inheritance and our gift to those who will come after us.

Capitalism Makes Compassion Possible...

Every few years, someone dusts off the same old idea...that America would be better off under socialism. They point to Scandinavian countries, corporate profits, or student debt and say, “See? Capitalism has failed.” But before we throw out the system that made America the most innovative, prosperous nation in history, it’s worth asking why socialism consistently fails here...and why it always will.
 
A Nation Built on Liberty, Not Collectivism

From the beginning, America was founded on the belief that individual liberty is sacred. The right to own property, start a business, keep what you earn, and chart your own destiny isn’t a side note...it’s the essence of being American.

Socialism, by contrast, places the collective above the individual. It assumes that central planners know best how to allocate resources, set prices, and decide what’s fair. That may sound noble, but it clashes directly with the very DNA of American freedom...the belief that people, not bureaucrats, make better choices for their own lives.

In Utah, we pride ourselves on clarity—wide skies, open valleys, and a culture that values straight talk. Yet inside our state government, a fog has settled over one of the most sacred duties of democracy: keeping elections honest and accountable. That fog doesn’t come from ignorance; it comes from design. And while nearly every official in power benefits from it, the people of Utah do not.

The “fog” I’m referring to is the structural ambiguity between Utah’s Lieutenant Governor, who runs our elections, and the Attorney General, who is supposed to enforce our election laws. When problems arise—questions about signatures, verification, or transparency—each office can point to the other, or to the law’s gray areas, and do nothing. In this arrangement, everyone wins but the public.

The Lieutenant Governor can say, “I’ve followed the process.”
The Attorney General can say, “I have no clear mandate to intervene.”
And the Legislature can say, “That’s an executive issue.”

Meanwhile, Utah citizens are left wondering who exactly is guarding the guardians.

When the states lost their seat at the federal table, the people lost their shield against central power. It’s time to give that seat back.

The Founders built a republic balanced on the tension between the people and the states. But in 1913, we cut one of the most important cords holding that balance together—and we’ve been drifting toward central control ever since. The 17th Amendment did not empower citizens; it weakened the very governments closest to them.

Senators today are insulated from direct accountability. This is, in many ways, a good thing for the House of Representatives, whose members are designed to represent the passions and interests of the people in their districts. But it is a terrible idea for the Senate, whose purpose was never to echo popular will, but to safeguard the sovereignty and stability of the states within our federal system.

The Utah Republican Party (URP) Platform provides a clear framework for restoring the proper role of government as a servant of the people, tasked with protecting God-given, unalienable rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Drawing from the principles in the platform, here’s a focused plan for how the URP can take concrete steps to implement this vision within Utah and influence the national stage...BUT IT WILL REQUIRE REAL LEADERSHIP!

Enforce Constitutional Limits Through State Legislation
The URP Platform emphasizes that “government properly exists by the consent of the governed and must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens.” To uphold this, the URP can:

• Propose a Utah Constitutional Compliance Act: Require all state legislation to include a constitutional justification, ensuring alignment with both the U.S. and Utah Constitutions. This would block laws that expand government beyond its protective role.
• Audit State Agencies: Create a task force to review agencies like the Utah Department of Health and Human Services for overreach, eliminating programs that redistribute wealth or infringe on liberties without clear constitutional grounding.
• Lead by Example: Advocate for Utah to model limited government for other states, showcasing fiscal restraint and individual freedom to counter federal overreach.

Charlie Kirk — a generational voice of the conservative movement — was assassinated Wednesday while hosting one of his famous campus discussion events.

We may not yet know the shooter’s name, but we do know the deeper cause. Radical leftists bear great blame for engaging in inflammatory rhetoric that amounts to assassination prep. And Republicans bear responsibility, too, for letting it come to this.

Before Kirk died at the hands of an assassin, leftist radicals had already tried to kill Rep. Steve Scalise, President Donald Trump (twice), and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Each time, Republicans condemned the violence, but then moved on. Each time, the left learned they could push further without consequence.

Mike Cernovich put it bluntly on X: “The weakness of the GOP led us to this moment. A mass shooter attempted to murder dozens of Republican congress members. Few people even know this happened. Republicans ‘just took it,’ as they always do. And now Charlie Kirk is dead. Recognize what time it is or resign.”

He’s right.

Evil Is Not New

Scripture reminds us that evil is not a modern invention. It is rooted in human nature. “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3).

This is more than poetry. It describes reality: sin and evil take root early, and when they are unchecked, they manifest in hatred, lies, and violence.

Today we see that reality in politics. The radical left does not merely disagree with conservatives. It dehumanizes us. It conditions followers to believe that Republicans are so vile, they deserve elimination. Once you cast people as subhuman, it is only a matter of time before assassins emerge.

Utah Senator Mike Lee said: "I continue to believe the federal government owns far too much land – land it is mismanaging and in many cases ruining for the next generation," Lee wrote. "Under Democratic presidents, massive swaths of the West are being locked away from the people who live there, with no meaningful recourse."

From our Utah Republican Party Platform Plank: UTAH STATE SOVEREIGNTY

The 13 original Sovereign States in Constitutional Convention created the Constitution of the United States of America and subsequently ratified that document creating a Federal Government and granting to that Government limited and enumerated powers.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defines Federal powers as those enumerated in the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the States and to the People.

It remains the sacred responsibility of the States as creators of the Federal Government to keep the federal powers within the limits set by the Constitution.
We resolve that the Republican Party of the Great State of Utah and elected party members take any and all steps necessary to ensure that Federal powers exercised within the Great State of Utah not exceed those granted by the Constitution of the United States, and that those usurpations of State Sovereign Powers already violated by the Federal Government be corrected by the State Legislature and enforced by the Governor’s office thus protecting Utah State Sovereignty.

This is my Constitutional argument for Utah gaining greater control over our federal lands.

Introduction

The federal government owns nearly two-thirds of Utah’s landmass. This level of federal control is not only economically harmful and socially disruptive, but it also raises serious constitutional questions about state sovereignty, federalism, and the intent of the Founders.

While past court rulings have upheld expansive federal land ownership, it’s time to reexamine this issue in light of original constitutional principles and Utah’s unique enabling history.

The Equal Footing Doctrine

The U.S. Constitution requires that all new states be admitted on an “equal footing” with the original states.

Yet Utah, like many Western states, was admitted with the understanding that it would eventually gain control over its public lands—just as Eastern states did following statehood. The fact that the federal government owns less than 5% of land in most Eastern states, but over 60% in Utah, creates a glaring violation of this principle of equal sovereignty.

Legal Precedent to Challenge: The courts have narrowly defined the Equal Footing Doctrine in past land cases, but new evidence and modern constitutional scholarship could justify revisiting the issue, especially with a more federalist-oriented judiciary.

Promises Made in the Utah Enabling Act

Utah’s 1894 Enabling Act, which set the terms for Utah’s statehood, contains language suggesting that the federal government would eventually dispose of its lands, not hold them in perpetuity.

The Act says: “That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof…until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States.”

The clear expectation was eventual disposal of federal land, not indefinite federal ownership. Utah kept its side of the bargain by disclaiming ownership temporarily, pending federal disposition. Now, over a century later, the federal government has failed to fulfill its part.

The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government. There is no constitutional provision that mandates or authorizes the federal government to permanently retain vast portions of land within state boundaries.

Proponents of federal control point to the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3), but this clause was intended to manage lands during the nation’s territorial period—not to justify permanent federal occupation of sovereign state territory.

Originalist and Textualist View: Modern overreach in land retention stretches the Property Clause far beyond its original meaning, violating the balance of power between federal and state governments.

Economic Harm and Federal Overreach

Utah’s economy, housing affordability, resource development, and local tax base are all constrained by federal land hoarding.

Consequences of current federal land policy include:

• Lost revenue from taxable land
• Restricted energy and mineral development
• Overregulation of grazing, water rights, and recreation
• Federal land management decisions made by bureaucrats with no local accountability

Constitutionally, when federal land policies infringe upon a state’s ability to govern itself and serve its citizens, federalism is undermined.
 
A Call for Legal and Legislative Action

Utah and its sister Western states should:

• Pursue new litigation: Challenge the constitutionality of indefinite federal land retention using modern originalist interpretations.
• Seek Congressional redress: Advocate for legislation to require large-scale federal land transfers back to the states.
• Mobilize public opinion: Highlight how current federal land ownership harms state sovereignty, economic growth, and individual property rights.

Conclusion

The constitutional question is not simply what the courts have ruled in the past. It is whether the current federal stranglehold on Utah lands aligns with the letter, spirit, and original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Utah deserves the same rights, sovereignty, and land ownership opportunities that the original 13 states—and most Eastern states—have enjoyed for over two centuries.

It’s time to finish the job of statehood—and return Utah’s lands to Utahns. GET ON IT ATTORNEY GENERAL BROWN!

A Journey Through Time
Bill Olson’s journey is a fascinating one, marked by pivotal moments that shaped his understanding of politics and community service. Growing up in the 60's and 70s, he faced the complexities of a tumultuous era. The Vietnam War and its associated uncertainties left a lasting impression on him, emphasizing the need for integrity in government.

​Bill Olson: A Candidate’s Background
Bill Olson is not just a candidate; he embodies the spirit of the community he aims to serve. His roots run deep in Weber County, where he has been an active participant in local politics for over two decades. His experiences have provided him with a unique perspective on the needs and aspirations of the community.

Educational Foundations: Loyola Marymount University
Bill’s educational journey began at Loyola Marymount University, where he pursued political science and philosophy. This institution, known for its rigorous academic standards and Jesuit values, played a crucial role in shaping his worldview. The small class sizes allowed for personalized learning, fostering critical thinking and debate.

Navigating the Political Landscape
Understanding the political landscape is essential for anyone involved in local governance. Bill Olson emphasizes that the role of the party is to elect quality candidates who align with the party’s platform. This platform serves as a guiding document, helping voters predict candidate behavior. When candidates stray from this platform, it can confuse and frustrate voters, leading to discontent within the party.
​
Personal Values and Beliefs
Bill’s personal values are deeply rooted in his experiences and upbringing. His commitment to integrity and truth is paramount. He believes that personal covenants with God are essential, and that these convictions guide his political actions. Bill’s approach is driven by a desire to do the right thing, even when faced with challenges or differing opinions.

Business Experience and Political Insights
Bill’s extensive business background has shaped his approach to politics. Having started multiple companies, he understands the importance of effective leadership and accountability. His experience in hiring and managing teams has taught him how to identify and cultivate talent, skills he believes are crucial for party leadership. However, he acknowledges the unique challenges faced in a volunteer-based organization, where the same level of accountability isn’t always possible.
​
Establishing Weber County Conservatives
In 2017, Bill founded Weber County Conservatives to address educational gaps within the party. His initiative aimed to provide training for volunteers and elected officials, enhancing their understanding of party governance. He recognized that many newcomers felt overwhelmed and unprepared at state conventions, and he wanted to change that. By creating a structured training program, he hopes to empower individuals to become effective advocates for conservative values.

Motivating Party Members
Motivation is a key aspect of Bill’s strategy for engaging party members. He believes in fostering a culture of learning and accountability. By encouraging individuals to read and understand the party’s governing documents, Bill aims to create a more informed and active membership. His commitment to open dialogue and debate is intended to ensure that every voice is heard and valued, even if opinions differ.
​
The Role of the Republican Party
Bill asserts that the Republican Party must remain true to its foundational principles. He believes that the party’s role is not just to win elections but to uphold the values outlined in its platform. This consistency is vital for maintaining voter trust and engagement. Bill emphasizes the need for constructive debate within the party, allowing for healthy disagreement while still striving for consensus.

Challenges Facing the Party
The Republican Party faces numerous challenges that threaten its unity and effectiveness. One major issue is the growing divide between traditional conservatives and those who lean towards more extreme views. This fragmentation can lead to confusion among voters and diminish the party’s overall impact.

Additionally, external factors such as changing demographics and shifting public opinions on key issues complicate the party’s strategy. To remain relevant, the party must address these challenges head-on while maintaining its core principles.
​
Managing Change Within the Party
Change is inevitable, especially in a political landscape that is constantly evolving. Effective leadership within the party is crucial for managing this change. Leaders must facilitate open discussions about the party’s direction and be willing to adapt strategies based on the needs of their constituents.
​
Building a cohesive team that can navigate these changes requires transparency and collaboration. By involving party members in decision-making processes, leaders can foster a sense of ownership and commitment among the ranks.

Addressing Factions and Disagreements
Internal factions can pose significant challenges for the party. These divisions often stem from differing priorities and interpretations of core values. It’s essential to recognize that disagreement is not inherently negative; it can lead to constructive dialogue and stronger policies.
​
To effectively address these factions, the party should create forums for discussion where all voices are heard. Encouraging respectful debate can help unify members and clarify the party’s stance on various issues.

The Importance of Dialogue
Open dialogue is fundamental to a healthy political environment. It allows members to express their concerns and ideas, fostering a culture of inclusivity. The party must prioritize communication to bridge gaps between differing viewpoints.
​
By establishing regular communication channels, the party can ensure that all members feel valued and heard. This approach not only strengthens relationships within the party but also enhances its overall effectiveness in reaching out to voters.

Final Thoughts and Call to Action
The future of the Republican Party depends on its ability to adapt, unite, and engage its members. By addressing internal challenges and fostering a culture of open dialogue, the party can reclaim its position as a leading force in American politics.

As a call to action, I encourage all party members to actively participate in discussions and contribute their ideas. Together, we can build a stronger, more effective Republican Party that truly represents the values and interests of its constituents.

​OVERRIDE
​
INSIDE THE REVOLUTION REWIRING AMERICAN POWER

The clock struck 2 AM on Jan 21, 2025.
​
In Treasury's basement, fluorescent lights hummed above four young coders. Their screens cast blue light across government-issue desks, illuminating energy drink cans and agency badges. As their algorithms crawled through decades of payment data, one number kept growing: $17 billion in redundant programs. And counting.
"We're in," Akash Bobba messaged the team. "All of it."

Edward Coristine's code had already mapped three subsystems. Luke Farritor's algorithms were tracing payment flows across agencies. Ethan Shaotran's analysis revealed patterns that career officials didn't even know existed. By dawn, they would understand more about Treasury's operations than people who had worked there for decades.

This wasn't a hack. This wasn't a breach. This was authorized disruption.

​While career bureaucrats prepared orientation packets and welcome memos, DOGE's team was already deep inside the payment systems. No committees. No approvals. No red tape. Just four coders with unprecedented access and algorithms ready to run.

"The beautiful thing about payment systems," noted a transition official watching their screens, "is that they don't lie. You can spin policy all day long, but money leaves a trail."

That trail led to staggering discoveries. Programs marked as independent revealed coordinated funding streams. Grants labeled as humanitarian aid showed curious detours through complex networks. Black budgets once shrouded in secrecy began to unravel under algorithmic scrutiny.

By 6 AM, Treasury's career officials began arriving for work. They found systems they thought impenetrable already mapped. Networks they believed hidden already exposed. Power structures built over decades revealed in hours.
​
Their traditional defenses—slow-walking decisions, leaking damaging stories, stonewalling requests—proved useless against an opponent moving faster than their systems could react. By the time they drafted their first memo objecting to this breach, three more systems had already been mapped.

"Pull this thread," a senior official warned, watching patterns emerge across DOGE's screens, "and the whole sweater unravels."

He wasn't wrong. But he misunderstood something crucial: That was exactly the point.

This wasn't just another transition. This wasn't just another reform effort. This was the start of something unprecedented: a revolution powered by preparation, presidential will, and technological precision.

The storm had arrived. And Treasury was just the beginning.

THE FOUNDATION
"Personnel is policy."

For decades, this principle, articulated by conservative strategist Troup Hemenway, remained more theory than practice. Previous administrations spent months, even years, trying to staff key positions. Trump's first term saw barely 100 political appointees confirmed by February 2017.

Every delay meant another victory for the permanent bureaucracy.
But this time was different.

While media focused on campaign rallies and political theater, a quiet army was being assembled. In offices across DC, veteran strategists mapped the administrative state's pressure points. Think tanks developed action plans for every agency. Policy institutes trained rapid deployment teams. Former appointees shared battlefield intelligence from previous administrations' failures.

By Inauguration Day, over 1,000 pre-vetted personnel stood ready—each armed with clear objectives, mapped legal authorities, and direct lines to support networks. This wasn't just staffing; it was a battle plan decades in the making.
​
"This is the new normal," Vice President JD Vance declared from his West Wing office, studying real-time data flows across agency systems. "He's having the time of his life," he added, referring to the President's relentless drive. "We've done more in two weeks than others did in years."

If anyone in the future cares enough to write an authentic history of the 2024 presidential campaign, they might begin by noting that American politics exists downstream of American culture, which is a deep and broad river. Like any river, American culture follows a particular path, which has been reconfigured at key moments by new technologies. In turn, these technologies, which redefine both space and time—canals and lakes, the postal system, the telegraph, railroads, radio and later television, the internet, and most recently the networking of billions of people in real time on social media platforms—set the rules by which stories are communicated, audiences are configured, and individuals define themselves.

Something big changed sometime after the year 2000 in the way we communicated with each other, and the means by which we absorbed new information and formed a working picture of the world around us. What changed can be understood as the effect of the ongoing transition from the world of 20th-century media to our current digital landscape. This once-every-five-centuries revolution would have large effects, ones we have only just begun to assimilate, and which have largely rendered the assumptions and accompanying social forms of the past century obsolete, even as tens of millions of people, including many who imagine themselves to reside near the top of the country’s social and intellectual pyramids, continue to imagine themselves to be living in one version or another of the long 20th century that began with the advent of a different set of mass communications technologies, which included the telegraph, radio, and film.

The time was ripe, in other words, for a cultural revolution—which would, according to the established patterns of American history, in turn generate a political one.

Even Joe Biden, who nominated Garland, appears to have caught onto the fact that Garland’s DOJ is infected with partisan corruption

For once, left and right agree: Merrick Garland is the worst.

I was surprised when I first saw this article from MSNBC and CNN contributor Dean Obeidallah declaring Garland to be “America’s Worst Attorney General.” Had it finally dawned on someone in our corporate press that smearing parents as “domestic terrorists” and prosecuting political opponents of no less stature than a president might have been a bad idea? (No, it hadn’t.)

The failure for which Garland deserves infamy, according to Obeidallah, was not trying hard enough to throw his boss’s presidential opponent in prison. For that insufficient zeal, he says Garland is “the biggest failure of an attorney general in our lifetimes.”

Even Joe Biden, who nominated Garland, appears to have caught onto the fact that Garland’s DOJ is infected with partisan corruption. Biden accused Garland’s department of having “singled out” certain targets for prosecution based on political reasons, and then “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” them and “treated [them] differently” than other defendants.

“Raw politics has infected this process,” Biden wrote last Sunday in a letter absolving his son of any federal crimes he might have committed over the past decade. (What an awkward end for Garland, after all he’s done to protect the Bidens!)

In organized crime, if you are worrying about the feds turning a key witness against you things can get messy. You may have to “whack” the guy and then deal with all that unpleasant disposing of the body stuff. At the very least it involves a late-night drive to Jersey and a lot of shovels.

What the Mob wouldn’t give for the ability to make a witness useless to the prosecution by putting him legally off limits. That’s what Joe Biden just did with his pardon of his son Hunter Biden. He took the one guy on the planet who could finish him off the table forever.

The press coverage of Joe’s pardon of Hunter has largely presented this as a matter of Joe protecting Hunter from the impending consequences of his conviction on federal charges. That has nothing to do with anything. This isn’t about Hunter at all. It is about Joe, and it is about espionage.

​www.intercomsonline.com/2-way-radio-range-how-far-can-two-way-radios-communicate

One of the most common questions people ask when they are in the market for a two-way radio or wireless intercom is how far do they communicate? Unfortunately asking this question is along the lines of asking, "How far is up?". There are lots of variables involved and no easy, definitive answer. A brief lesson on radio signal transmission is required to understand the whole range issue.

If you are old enough to remember when AM radio was popular you may remember listening to radio stations that were hundreds of miles away. For frequencies like these below 2 Megahertz (MHz), these signals follow the Earth's curvature because they are reflected off the atmosphere. So AM radio signals in low-noise environments can be received by radios that are way below the horizon hundreds of miles away.

The two-way radios and intercoms available for you to purchase usually fall in the frequency range of 150MHz to 900MHz (this covers our 151.7MHz channel and 448.6MHz Ogden Repeater channel). Unlike the AM radio waves, radio waves in these frequencies travel in straight lines and as a general rule cannot travel over the horizon or behind solid obstacles.
​
But as in all general rules, there are exceptions to the rules. Even though these frequencies travel via "line-of-sight" paths, radio signals can travel through many non-metallic objects and be picked up through walls or other obstructions. Even though we can't see between antennas of a transmitter and receiver, this is still considered line-of-sight to the radios. Also, radio waves can be reflected, or bounce off surfaces so the straight line between radios, may not always be so straight.
​
Knowing that our radio waves travel in straight lines, then to figure out their maximum range for a two way radio we have to factor in the curvature of the Earth. When you stand on Earth and press the talk button on your radio, the radio waves are going straight and they will eventually just go straight off into space once they pass the horizon. So the distance of the horizon is technically the maximum communication range for a two way radio. But you have to factor in antenna height as well.

NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

​There has been a Notice of Intent to File a Claim provided to the Republican Party Chair. This means the Party has time to correct this act of omission, or be sued.

The claim is directed against members of the State Central Committee and State Party Officers, who have persistently disregarded our Party Constitution and failed to demand the correction of mistakes in direct violation of party members and Claimant’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Background

The Utah Republican Party held an indirect primary (their Convention) on April 27, 2024. Elected delegates voted for Republican candidates for various state and federal offices. Some candidates, including Phil Lyman, received over 60% of the delegate votes cast. Candidates seeking the Republican nomination in the Party's indirect primary receiving more than 60% of the delegate vote become the nominee at convention and are to be included in the general election ballot certification per the Utah Republican Constitution. 

A qualified political party that nominates a candidate in their indirect primary, must certify the name of the candidate and the appropriate ballot (primary or general) to the lieutenant governor before…” 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2024. The State Party Chair serving as "liaison with the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Utah on all matters relating to state election laws," provides the ballot certification to the Lieutenant Governor subject to the directives of the State Central Committee, the governing body of the Party. 

It is important to note here, the Lt Governor serves as the chief election officer whose main responsibility is to oversee elections. Pursuant to Utah Code, the lieutenant governor is to perform ministerial duties (without judgement) and place those candidates certified to the appropriate ballots as instructed by the Utah Republican Party. So, either the Utah Republican Party Chair submitted a proper ballot to the Lt Governor (LYMAN STRAIGHT TO THE GENERAL based on the Party’s constitution) and the Lt Governor submitted a counterfeit ballot to the state…because it was in her best interest to do so...or the Party Chair submitted a counterfeit ballot to the Lt Governor and she played along because again, it was in her best interest to do so. In either case, one is guilty and the other is stupid! Or together they conspired to violate the Party’s 1st and 14th Amendment rights. And as the governing body of the party, it is your duty to see that the rules are carried out accordingly. If laws were broken, you as a State Central Committee member have personal liability if it is not corrected. 
 
With respect to the SCC, each member is elected by their membership to represent the interests of their constituents. They have a duty, in business we call it a fiduciary duty. It means you have an obligation to act in the best interest of those you represent. The SCC has been properly noticed of this constitutional violation, and any inaction on their part is a violation of their fiduciary duty. Whether their negligence is civil or criminal, it is a gross dereliction of their duty to withhold the proper exercise of their responsibility, to see that the Party’s laws are faithfully executed!

​Below find the Actual Notice of Intent to File a Claim with appropriate citations...

For years in Utah, democrats have joined the Republican Party in order to get elected. This is possible because the UTGOP has been complacent in allowing membership in the Party simply by declaring it so. While this created challenges for voters to understand who the real Republican is, the Caucus/Convention system provided the locally elected delegates the final say in who indeed could represent the Party on the primary or general election ballot. In most cases, Democrats who declared themselves Republicans found out they could not pass the scrutiny of the well-informed delegates. So, they had to change the rules and provide an alternate path to the Republican ballot in order to get elected...Meet Count My Vote! 

According to SB54, “whenever there is at least one candidate chosen by convention and at least one who gained candidacy for the same office by collecting signatures, a qualified political party must participate in a primary election to choose between them.” If a party’s only candidates for an office are chosen at its convention, the party “is not required to participate in the primary election for that office.” For qualified political parties then, the requirement to participate in the primary only exists when the signature-gathering path to nomination is used by “declared republican” candidates outside of the Convention process. “A State cannot substitute its judgment for that of the party as to the desirability of a particular internal party structure.” The Party is a private constitutionally protected institution.
 
When a qualified political party only has candidates who emerged from its convention, the law does not require the party to participate in a primary. If Party members want a signature-gathering route to nomination outside the convention process, they can surely rally for that change to the Party’s bylaws, and if a cabal tried but failed to truly shut out the voices of ordinary members, they are free to quit, to form a new party, or to cast their votes elsewhere. It is none of the state’s business. 

ONE FOR ALL...ALL FOR ONE! 
The Utah Republican Party State Convention: Saturday, April 27, 2024 
​
My Convention Report 
Bill Olson NOG12 
Weber County 
_______________________________________________   

​After spending an hour and a half in line to register as a delegate, I entered the convention hall to find a seat. The hall was full of delegates of which almost half raised their hands as first-time delegates. Shortly after the prayer, pledge of allegiance, approval of the rules and the agenda we got started. I was standing at the microphone waiting for my turn as a delegate to gain the floor as a member of our deliberative assembly represented by all 29 counties in Utah.

As a deliberative assembly, our state delegates meet at our state convention to determine, in full and free discussion, the election of our state candidates and courses of action to be taken by our Party. To hold more efficient meetings and respect the opinion of each member, we adhere to the rules of parliamentary procedure. We are there to exhaust all debate before any vote is taken or decisions are made. Debate cannot be exhausted if it is restrained and that is what happened here today.  

Prior to the Convention there were many of us delegates concerned about the direction of the Party and its leadership. Since the success of SB 54 our caucus/convention system has been essentially neutered. This unconstitutional legislation forced on the Party by big money interests has created a path to getting their candidates elected without the hassle of delegate scrutiny or Party endorsement.  

With the deterioration of election integrity over the last few election cycles, many in the Party have related concerns about the method of elections at our Convention. The State Central Committee (SCC) is the Policy making body of the Party. Members are elected by every county; these committee members operate as the legislative branch of the Party with the responsibility of governing the Party as a deliberative assembly. That means they make the rules by majority or in some cases a super majority using Roberts Rules of Order. Roberts Rules allows for the majority to rule while acknowledging the rights of the minority.  Under these rules, the SCC determines how the Party business is conducted.  

BY Hayden Ludwig 

​In elections, good data separates the winners from the losers.

Left-wing operatives understand this better than anyone, which is why they’ve built the world’s most impressive machine to find, register, and turn out their preferred voters—all using tax-exempt nonprofits created to encourage charity, not politics. Activists label it “civic participation” because they’re benignly registering people to vote. In reality, they’re cynically helping just Democrats vote.

Conservatives have witnessed the awesome power of this election machine in states like Georgia and Arizona. But there’s one component they’ve yet to reckon with: the Electronic Registration Information Center, better known as “ERIC.” ERIC is a 501(c)(3) public charity, not a government agency; yet this privately run organization has incredible access to sensitive information on 208 million Americans—62 percent of the total population—across 31 states.

ERIC claims it uses this data strictly to help its member states maintain clean voter rolls by tracking when voters move, die, or fall off the registration list. The more states that join the compact, the theory goes, the more accurately ERIC can funnel information to them.

Yet shocking new discoveries about the compact’s origins reveal ERIC’s true purpose: Compiling a near-perfect picture of where America’s voters—and potential voters—live nationwide, driving Democratic victories in battleground states. Amazingly, ERIC’s membership agreement forces states to conduct expensive voter registration campaigns, yet does not require states to clean their voter rolls, the very reason most states enrolled in the compact.

This is ERIC’s value to the Left, the best data money can’t buy.

ERIC’s Data-Driven Origins

​Yet all this microtargeting machinery is only as good as the voter files that inform it. Critically, while Catalist and others could purchase those voter files, no such list of unregistered people exists.

State motor vehicle departments and other agencies collect vital information on potential voters, but that data is inaccessible to companies under federal privacy laws. Worse, the most desirable demographic—young people—typically have no credit history or utilities in their name, making them virtually invisible to political data vendors. What was needed to reach this electoral goldmine was a central database on all 65 million eligible-but-unregistered individuals, but that was impossible with traditional data-collecting methods.

Enter ERIC.

ERIC began life in 2012 as a project of the Pew Center on the States (an arm of the liberal funder Pew Charitable Trusts) under David Becker, Pew’s director of election initiatives. If the goal was to get states to share valuable voter data with a private organization, ERIC needed a powerful selling point and the guise of political neutrality. So for the next four years Becker led the push to lobby nearly two-thirds of the states into joining ERIC—always marketing it as an opportunity to improve their voter rolls more effectively and affordably than they could do themselves.

Early ERIC funding came from George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society, which granted $725,000 in 2011 “to support the Pew Center on the States’ voter registration modernization initiative” and “expand [its] scope and scale.”

The idea for ERIC may even have originated with Soros, who after all had previously helped found the Democrats’ premier data firm, Catalist. In 2010, Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) revealed its goal of using voter registration “modernization” programs as cover to convince states they needed outside help to maintain their voter rolls. OSF termed it “reform dialogue.”

OSF rallied two more left-wing organizations to the cause: the Brennan Center and Advancement Project, both of which oppose voter ID laws and lobby for the Left’s usual raft of election “reforms” such as same-day registration and felon re-enfranchisement. (Recall that the Brennan Center had already called for mass voter registration campaigns “through a modernized registration system” to advance the “progressive agenda” beginning in 2010.)

​“Any candidate blaming local officials for the failures of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is demonstrating to voters that they don’t understand important issues facing our state and country,” said Sheriff Mike Smith, President of the Utah Sheriffs’ Association.

“It’s bizarre that Republican candidates for high office would keep repeating false statements that have been walked back by the Biden Administration,” Smith continued. “It’s even more bizarre that candidates in Utah would malign local law enforcement without first knowing the facts.”

Background

Last year, a draft memo was put out by ICE’s Salt Lake City Field Office Director Michael Bernacke titled “Sanctuary State Designation for the State of Utah”. In this memo, Bernacke took it upon himself to declare Utah a sanctuary state. He made absurd claims that Utah sheriffs are destabilizing ICE’s law enforcement capabilities in Utah and surrounding states. State leaders joined Utah’s sheriffs in voicing strong objection, and ICE immediately rescinded the draft memo.

Historically, not all sheriffs in Utah have been willing or able to house federal detainees in county jails. Those who did contract with ICE have been subjected to unending federal mandates, regulations that are not based upon constitutional rights, legal standards not based on case law, and demands that ICE detainees receive special treatment far exceeding what incarcerated U.S. citizens receive.

The demand that ICE detainees receive special privileges is accompanied by audits and threats of lawsuits from liberal Washington DC based special interest groups. The ICE policies and practices under the Biden Administration have made it impossible for Utah’s sheriffs to house their civil detainees.

Now some candidates for office are openly citing the rescinded ICE memo and demagoguing on the issue using false information. As the election year continues and the political season heats up, Utah’s sheriffs respectfully request that candidates running for office at least reach out and ask a sheriff before taking positions and issuing statements that are directly related to the work they do.

​By Otto Krauss

​There has been some news lately about the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) and what it does, but mostly because a number of states have cut ties with the organization in the last year. Why is ERIC significant and why should Utahns care about this organization?

​"​If I were the devil … If I were the Prince of Darkness, I’d want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I’d have a third of its real estate, and four-fifths of its population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree — Thee."  

​"​So, I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please.’"

​​“To the young, I would whisper that ‘The Bible is a myth.’ I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around. I would confide that what’s bad is good, and what’s good is ‘square.’ And the old, I would teach to pray, after me, ‘Our Father, which art in Washington…’"

The federal government’s failed policies and inability to protect our country’s border is causing upheaval and strain on states across the nation, including Utah. We are being forced to deal with the public safety, financial and humanitarian consequences of President Biden's failure to enforce immigration law. The result is that over two-thirds of captured illegal aliens are released back into our community here in Utah.

The Biden administration continues to make detention of illegal aliens difficult or impossible for local authorities to handle. Several federal agency's tactics are designed to discourage local jails from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) threatening the public safety of all people living in Utah.

ICE’s detention standards have become more absurd as a reaction to multiple lawsuits filed by many anti-enforcement groups. The Biden Administration’s response has been more stringent federal standards for ICE “detainees.” Whether intended or not, the consequences of these standards are that they cannot be met by our county jails.