O’Sullivan’s First Law
O’Sullivan’s First Law describes the leftward drift of many politicians, leaders, and organizations. First coined by John O'Sullivan in 1989, it states: "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."
Examples
The Fox News Channel became a puppet for the liberal media, and liberal censorship in the aftermath of the 2020 election, and had drifted leftward earlier as well.
The Drudge Report's leftward shift and, to some extent, the National Review. Christian colleges, such as Wheaton College, which first compromised on Biblical inerrancy and evolution, then increasingly on other issues like abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and Islam.
Azusa Pacific University also has drifted far from its Christian roots. Christians in the West, overall, have become increasingly compromised. Christianity Today's liberal shift is an example of this.
The many token conservatives who originally held conservative positions but shifted sharply to the Left, like Chris Wallace.
Republican politicians frequently cave on political issues and accept the Left's positions, whether it be on "climate change", ObamaCare, immigration, or some other issue. When Alabama enacted a ban on most types of abortion, many establishment Republican politicians claimed it "went too far" despite it still allowing abortion in several cases.
Additionally, after mass shootings, Republican officials increasingly ignore the root of the problem and instead join leftists' assault on self-governance and the Second Amendment.
European establishment conservatives, who eventually shifted sharply to the Left, supporting Europhile, pro-mass migration, and anti-Christian policies, such as Angela Merkel.
The Conservative Political Action Conference's leftward drift, marginalizing social conservatives and pro-gun activists, among other conservatives, while caving to the homosexual agenda.
Pat Robertson's shift to the Left on several issues, including abortion, gun control, climate change, and his support for liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani in 2008.
The Boy Scouts of America's shift to the Left on social issues such as homosexuality and gender. Other Christian organizations have experienced a similar shift.
The media, big business, and the military establishment once were generally conservative though liberal thinking now predominates within them.
Positions that once lay in the mainstream of society only a few years previously are being increasingly labeled as "far-right" or "ultra-right."
Chick-fil-A's surrender to far-Left activists by ending its donations to conservative Christian organizations in November 2019, and also donating to the far-left hate group the Southern Poverty Law Center.
https://conservapedia.com/O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s_First_Law
Arizona law, as explained by Sen. Borrelli in a recent video and noted earlier in a previous thread, requires ballots and voting machines to be moved and stored in a secure location after an election.
The obvious reason is the integrity of the election depends on a legitimate audit which depends on uncompromised ballots and machines. The importance of this is reflected in the fact it is a law and a criminal offense not to do it. The materials must be moved quickly to the custody of the Treasurer.
That did not happen. The ballots and machines were not moved quickly and still haven't been moved. They were illegally retained and are illegally retained.
Access to the materials post-election must be by court order for obvious reasons. You can't have anyone and everyone being allowed to see, alter or damage them.
The board of supervisors never got a court order to access the ballots and machines after they illegally retained them. So the access to them before they got companies to access them was illegal access--or unauthorized access--the same as hacking--every day after they should have been in the custody of the Treasurer.
The companies that the supervisors asked to "audit" the machines did not have a court order to access them. Their access was also unauthorized access or illegal access--the same as hacking.
It has been reported that the hackers who illegally accessed the Arizona State hardware and "audited" the machines changed the data on the machines. This hacking was also illegal. There was no court order to edit the data. The law of course prohibits data manipulation or deletion of any kind on the state's election machines before a court-approved forensic audit.
There were three crimes:
- Illegal retention
- Illegal access
- Illegal editing
Bill Barr was soft and useless--a national disgrace--and, as Trump would put it, "a disaster." Rudy Guiliani, at least in NY, was tough--and relentless. He wasn't intimidated and he did his job prosecuting the mob.
What is Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich?
The reason for this question is the Patriots here and elsewhere in Arizona are saying all you have to do is ask the AG to do an investigation and all our election fraud problems in AZ get solved. Sen. Finchem is supposed to make it official on Monday.
The assumption is Brnovich can be trusted. Why? Is he based? Is he tough?
I'm writing this as a neutral observer. I don't think I'm biased one way or the other. I see some good things and I hear some other things that aren't good. I see potential but no guarantee.
Positive signs
Recently Brnovich wrote an amicus brief in support of the AZ legislature taking the position it has the legal authority to issue subpoenas for election records. This is great but there's a lot of daylight between writing a brief and arresting criminals or even between writing a brief and starting a criminal investigation. In writing the brief he is not compelled to do anything himself; it's basically him telling other people what they can do.
Whereas nobody in the AZ legislature seems to be willing to say anything bad about Governor Doug Ducey--even privately--despite his pressure on the senators to back off election fraud investigations, Brnovich wrote another amicus brief yesterday, this time against Ducey. It was about his lockdown/covid decisions, not election fraud, but it does indicate Brnovich is not intimidated by Ducey and wouldn't back away from an election fraud investigation just because Ducey doesn't want it.
On the other hand, there have been complaints about election fraud in Arizona but what has Brnovich done? Nothing? Something? He actually has a lot of authority under AZ law to investigate election violations according to the AG website but hasn't done anything significant. Is that because he didn't receive complaints--all the complaints went to the AZ legislature--and because he expected the legislature to deal with election fraud?
Or is it because he did receive complaints but doesn't want to investigate election fraud like too many other unpatriotic "Republicans" (Bill Barr, Fox News, Georgia leaders, Tucker Carlson, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Maricopa County board of supervisors, Paul Boyer, etc., etc.)?
In AZ is Brnovich known as being soft on crime or tough? Is he considered aggressive or passive? Is he slow or does he move quickly?
Brnovich isn't the only remaining person who can intervene to enable the forensic audit. I think we need to be realistic about what we can expect from him and plan accordingly. Our expectations must be based on him as a leader, not on the office he leads. If he's a long shot, look at other options immediately (there are other options), not put all our hope in him like we did in Pence. Brnovich could be the next villain or the next hero.
