Sheriff money bomb


     Above is a copy of a flyer being passed around by supporters of Sussex County Sheriff, Jeff Christopher, to raise support and more importantly money for the sheriff’s law suit against the state of Delaware.

   It is Sheriff Christopher’s contention, that a law passed by the state legislature, limiting the office’s powers and authority,  is unconstitutional. The law suit seeks to reverse the law, and to empower the office with the power of arrest  and other powers that Sheriff Christopher believes the office is already empowered with, through the state constitution.

  This is not a post to debate whether the office of county sheriff is or is not empowered as Sheriff Christopher believes it to be. This is a post about the optics of how certain aspects of the conservative movement are perceived by the majority of the citizens within the state of Delaware, and also around the nation.

  I am merely using the issue of the sheriff’s office since it has been taken up as a cause, by those who see themselves as being the voice and face of the conservative movement.

  Let us ask ourselves how the majority of citizens will see this flyer?  It’s not about  whether they will agree with the sheriff’s position or not.

  Some may ask, how can the sheriff be doing his job, if he is caught up in this struggle to sue the state? How much time is spent soliciting support and money?

  Others may wonder why the sheriff wants these expanded powers, if as he has said on numerous occasions,  he is not interested in creating a county police force.

  Still others will see this as a power grab by a right-wing radical element, or a “BIG GOVERNMENT” faction of the conservative movement.

  The fact that Sheriff Christopher is a Republican allows Democrats and the media to paint all Republicans and conservatives,  as the latter. This is the optics that I am speaking of.

  As the Democrats and the media are allowed to paint with a broad brush the rest of the party and the conservative movement in general, it will have the effect of driving away people who otherwise would be supportive of the GOP.

  Some of the more conservative Democrat and independent voters will be concerned that the entire GOP is represented by this vocal element that sees itself as the voice and the driving force behind conservatism.

  But is this true? While many conservatives are concerned with the growing size and scope of the state and federal governments, most do not understand how expanding an already formed government agency will slow that expansion.

  There are those who see this as nothing more than conservative big government. That the sheriff’s law suit is nothing more than his seeking to grow his government agency’s powers over the people.

 Still others actually see the sheriff’s law suit as a bit fringe, if not bordering on fanatical.

  So, how does this effect the GOP and the conservative movement? In my opinion, it will have negative effects. It will make it harder to grow the party. It will drive others from the party and into the ranks of independent voters. It will label conservatives as radical and fringe.

  On a side note about this flyer, I do find the date of the money bomb interesting. It is scheduled for the day before the Superior Court  hearing for Sheriff Christopher’s law suit. Also in the flyer, Sheriff Christopher says that it will be costly to take this suit to the higher courts.

 Does this mean that Sheriff Christopher expects to lose here in Delaware? Or is he merely hopeful that this case will go on to district courts and then to the U.S. Supreme Court? Wouldn’t that be a feather in his constitutional cap?

 It might actually be a disappointment to some of his national supporters if it were decided here in Delaware. Some may feel that they want that national stage for the agenda.

  Now back to the optics of the sheriff issue. There is another date of importance mentioned in this flyer, that would be April 6, 2013. This is the date of an event titled as, “Sheriff & Citizen Summit”,  to be held at the Delaware Technical and Community College in Georgetown, De.

  Here is a link to the site supporting that event,    http://www.theamericanview.com/sheriff-and-citizen-summit-defending-liberty-by-supporting-your-constitutional-sheriff/

 The part of this announcement that causes me concern is the part where it says, “Join us for this FREE event and participate in training for the Sheriff’s Posse”.

  Really?  So what type of training? What is their idea of a posse? For what purpose are these people being trained? To what extent are they being trained?

  Again, simply from the point of view of how this will look to the majority of citizens in the state, the optics are not good.

 When you couple this statement with others that have been made during the history of this sheriff issue, such as the sheriff being your last defense against tyranny and that the sheriff will be your only defense against the federal government taking away your God-given rights, such as owning guns, then some may see this call to form a “POSSE” as a call to arms.

  It matters little if this is the case or not, it is how it will be seen by many around the state. Let’s face it, many people in the other two counties already think that we Sussex County conservatives are a little crazy and radical.

 Having a GOP elected official talking about training a “POSSE” will only add to that perception. 

  Why is it so hard for the supporters of the sheriff to recognize that the use of the word “POSSE” when talking about a sheriff, brings to mind old-time westerns, and will only add fuel to the fire of conservatives being seen as a bit out of touch with reality?

  The word “POSSE” draws to mind stagecoaches being robbed and men on horseback chasing other men on horseback through the rocky mountains of the old west.  Of cowboy hats and tin stars.

  This is the perception war that we as conservatives are battling against, and having our elected officials talking about “POSSES” will do nothing to win it.

  On a more serious note about this. If the sheriff is actually considering training citizens to be a part of some quasi-law enforcement group that will be at his disposal, to call on at his will, then we must ask, did we learn nothing from the Trayvon Martin case?

  This was the case of a young man who was fatally shot by a neighborhood watch member who was armed. 

  Do we really want to put people out in our communities who have been given the idea that they are now some sort of quasi-law enforcement group, simply because they attended  a one day seminar?

  Republicans and conservatives in Delaware are fighting an uphill battle in the war of perception. It is not that most people don’t agree with our views on limited government and lower taxes. It is not that they don’t agree with protecting traditional values and principles. I believe the majority of average citizens do agree with these ideals.

  The problem we as conservatives and Republicans are having, is that a vocal faction has been painted as being the true face of conservatism. Hell, just listen to how they, themselves talk, their one constant cry is, that they are the only true conservatives, and anyone who disagrees with them is a liberal or worse, I myself have been described as a NAZI. They constantly tell the world that they are the standard bearers for conservatism.

 These are the same people who speak of armed rebellion against our federal government. They speak of all elected officials as the enemy, well all except an elected sheriff of course. They seem to see the end of the world around every corner. They join groups that form posses and militias, these same groups hold forums on how to survive the coming  Armageddon by teaching their members how to grow beans and canning techniques.

 Is it any wonder that having this as the face of the conservative movement has led to a shrinking  number of people who self identify as conservative, that it has led to decline  of registered Republicans in the state?

  It is not the war of ideas that we as conservatives are losing, it is the war of perception, and it is because we are not just fighting those who clearly are our ideological enemies, but we are being sabotaged by those who should be our allies.

  It is not just that some may oppose the sheriff’s goal of expanding the office of the sheriff, it is about the way he is going about it, he is hurting the conservative movement in Delaware, a state by the way, that has enough trouble moving conservatism.

 I believe that  many of the goals that are important to people could be reached quicker if we could tone down the angry, radical rhetoric. Many times it is about how you say something, not what you say. Instead of “POSSE” maybe another word would have suited better. Instead of always talking about “TYRANNY”, maybe we could talk about an overbearing federal government. Instead of talking about growing beans to survive the end of the world, look I like beans as much as the next person, but maybe we should be talking about how to win elections so that we can actually govern, instead of, as a close friend of mine likes to say, “sitting in the stands booing”.

48 Comments on "Optics!"

  1. Dave Jones says:

    All laws passed by the legislature are written by staff attorney’s who understands what is and is not constitutional. This is a brazen attempt to
    restart the extreme, far, far right movement that hit it’s peak in 2010 and has since dwindled into a mere shadow of itself now with the political strength of a paper towel.
    If this idea had any merit elected officials would be behind it; note that none are.

  2. William Christy says:

    Don’t lump all the citizens in with YOUR view. As far as the defense fund I STARTED it. I’m the PERSON making the paracord bracelets free of charge. The monies raised go DIRECTLY to the attorney’s so people like you can’t make allegations of funds being misappropriated.

    You and people like you are the ones hurting the Republican party, who cares whether a party member is liberal, moderate or conservative. We are all Republicans PERIOD! What hurts the party and gives the Democrats the ground they gain is all this infighting within our party labeling members we don’t agree with EGOS are and will be the downfall of our party. We are imploding and all you and others want to do is play the blame game.

    HB 325 was based on an OPINION of the current attorney general a died in the wool liberal, you agree with the bill and obviously the attorney general.

    I’ve been labeled a domestic terrorist because I belong to OATH KEEPERS, the 9-12 Delaware Patriots, and I have more ammunition than the government thinks I should have. The license plate of my wife’s car was recorded because I attended a lawfully permitted peaceful rally.

    You bring up the Travon Martin case as an example to defend your argument. The case has not even been adjudicated yet, but you make the portrayal that Zimmerman is guilty. Zimmerman was properly licensed to possess the firearm, and Florida has a stand your ground law.

    Instead of attacking our County Sheriff about the upcoming event why don’t you take it upon yourself to ask questions instead of making assumptions and using “the sky is falling mentality” tabloid reporting style you are using.

    Homeowners Associations are PRIVATELY owned corporations within the state, what those associations choose to do is quite frankly NONE of yours or anyone’s business as long as no laws are being broken.

    I doubt the Sheriff of our County or any other County would even suggest citizens arm themselves without proper training, let alone make them part of an armed “posse”.

    The very things you eviscerate and castigate others for is exactly what you do far to often in your rants like this one.

    The Conservative movement in this state was a mess long before the Sheriff’s issue, but just as Obama does you find it easy to make him a scapegoat instead of reflecting inwardly and accepting and placing the blame where it really belongs.

    In closing maybe you should focus on something else instead of the Sheriff whom we all know you personally dislike, and terms like “posse” County Sheriffs have the Constitutional right to deputize a citizen “posse” it doesn’t mean a militia or a calling to arms that’s just your misconceived perception that you have chose to portray to instill fear.

  3. sam adams says:

    A Republic if you can Keep It”
    This letter pertains to the recent attempt of the “representatives” of the people in Sussex County and the state of Delaware to violate the republican form of government with another unconstitutional legislative act, HB 290. A reading of HB290 clearly shows contempt for the peoples role in self-government as having the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and the police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent state. As stated in HB 290 “WHEREAS, it is the intent of the general assembly to specifically state the Sheriffs and their deputies do not have any arrest authority;…”

    Patriots across this country are closely watching our sister state Delaware in her political struggle to maintain the high and noble constitutionally mandated office of the Sheriff. This fight is for the very heart of our form of government. We here in Maryland offer our support to this extremely important effort. It seems that people in positions of the public trust in Delaware are not deserving of that trust and must be removed from office for trying to destroy the office of Sheriff, using deceptive practices in questioning the lawful role of the Sheriff’s arrest authority. I will first explain why this office is an integral part the American system of jurisprudence, and so important to our safety and happiness.

    At the close of the Constitutional convention of 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “What form of government did you give us Mr. Franklin a Republic or a monarchy?” Dr. Franklin answered, “A Republic if you can keep it.” Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. This means that anyone with authority under the constitutions, heads of government, are elected as representatives of the people (the sovereign’s), and must govern according to the limits of existing Constitutional law. The mandate for a guarantee of a Republican form of government is found at Art. 4 Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

    The office of Sheriff is a very important part of our Republican form of government, safeguarding individual Freedoms. He is sworn to the Constitution, and is the supreme law enforcement officer of the county, also known as the chief executive, answerable for his action only to the citizens. He is our conservator of the peace (of course with arrest powers) and our duly elected representative, the one we go to first with problems of government corruption or common law crimes of theft and such. This in doctrine is known as interposition, and in practice the Sheriff interposes on our behalf as Chief executive of our county making sure the law is faithfully adhered to and executed.

    The office of Sheriff arises Constitutionally and has its roots in the Common Law of England. Americans have a right to be served by the office of the Sheriff as a matter of law, Art. 4, Sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which was incorporated into the Delaware Constitution at Art. 15.

    The office of Sheriff was the only law enforcement office in the States of the union in the beginning from colonial times through the revolution into the Confederacy and into the Constitutional Republic. The first un-elected police force was in 1835 in Boston, Massachusetts. To my knowledge, the constitutionality of that agency has never been challenge in court, and frankly, with the sophistry in today’s courts, it would probably be a waste of time. However, that does not change the fact of the constitutionality. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his The value of Constitutions, that there is no honorable law enforcement authority in Anglo-American law so ancient as that of the county sheriff whose role as a peace officer goes back at least to the time of Alfred the Great.

    It is easy to destroy the sophistry of those “representatives” in the peoples Republic of Delaware when they state that the conservator of the peace is not defined by the Delaware constitution or that the common law powers of the Sheriff have been abrogated by statute. The attorney general’s recent opinion on this matter (AG Opinion No.12-IIBO3 ) attempts to tell (deceive) the good people in Delaware that the AG did “…forgo an exhaustive historical analysis because the law of arrest is governed by statute in Delaware and the relevant statutes control over the common law.” Well I have done that exhaustive historical analysis for them and can tell you that statement and many others given by government are not true.

    The AGs opnion states that the term “peace officer” as far as they can determine has never been judicially interpreted in Delaware (like with all the historical data and present day Sheriffs arresting in all states of the union we need a court to tell us). Well a five minute search on the internet revealed the State V Brown case attached herein. Delaware Judge Harrington ruled that a peace officer such as a Sheriff has the right to arrest.

    The common law powers and duties of the Sheriff are found in the exhaustive preeminent treatise “Anderson on Sheriffs” written by Walter H. Anderson after more than thirty years of active practical experience on this subject as a member of many state and the supreme court Bars. The government would hope this treatise would disappear. As a champion of the constitution’s I can tell you Mr. Anderson understands law. Among a few of the statements of fact in this treatise are; sec.1“The office of Sheriff is one of the oldest offices known to the common law system of jurisprudence. It is an office of great dignity and greater antiquity.” ; sec 43 “Rights of the Sheriff as a constitutional officer.-Where the Sheriff is named in the constitution his duties are the same as they were at the time the constitution was adopted.” ; sec 50 “…where the office of Sheriff is a constitutional one, the legislature has no power without a constitutional amendment to diminish his official powers or to transfer to other officers the duties which properly pertain to his office.”

    Further into the AG’s opinion it tries to explain their position as to how (unconstitutional acts of;{my words}) the legislature has abrogated the common law (without a constitutional amendment) by citing an irrelevant code section (title 11chapter 84 sec. 8401). Irrelevant because the Sheriff is specifically not included in the statute and it does not pertain to the constitutional office, only offices created by the state legislature most of them most likely unconstitutional.
    In the opinion the AG states that “Anyone who does not ‘meet the requirements of this Chapter and the criteria as established by the Council shall not have the authority to enforce the laws of the State. 11 Del. C sec. 8410’ ” If you go to the statute you do not find that ‘anyone’ is subject to the law but only “police officers” defined, not including the Sheriff. This may all seem a bit convoluted and hence the bible warns of the scribes (the attorneys of the day).
    The Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of Government ought to be forever separate and distinct from each other; and no person exercising the functions of one of said Departments shall assume or discharge the duties of any other. The function of the County council is legislative, NOT EXECUTIVE. Under the county form of government, the Sheriff is the Executive. Violating this separation of powers doctrine centralizes power into fewer hands and dangerously contributes to the possibility of a budding police state.

    It should be noted that legislative acts that conflict with Constitutional mandates are void from their enactment(see footnote below). HB 290 is only one of many unconstitutional acts that are passed routinely apparently because most of our representatives seem to be either ignorant of our system of government, or seditiously in contempt of it violating the oath they took to protect it. These constitutionally violative acts are known as the criminal act of sedition, and sedition is defined as the overthrowing of the established form of government. The result has been the violation of the people’s rights to life, liberty and property. If we are to survive as a self-governing and free people, we must elect statesmen who will be devoted to understanding and upholding that Oath. Thank God for men like Sheriff Christopher all across this country who are taking that stand. Support your local Sheriff!

    The federal and State Constitutions are not taught in our schools, not even in our law schools, and therein lays a major part of the problem.


    The following is from the law encyclopedia American Jurisprudence.

    Unconstitutional Official Acts
    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    Dear Mr. Samual Adams, of which you may have had too much, I allowed your comment through to demonstrate that you missed the point of the post. You see you like all who support this issue cannot get past your rhetoric.
    The post is not about whether or not the sheriff should or should not have the powers the current sheriff seeks.
    It is about the perception that talking about posses brings to the conversation.
    I would also appreciate if in the future you could shorten your responces, this may keep them from being stuck in moderation.
    The point here is that people such as yourself are so fanatical about this issue that other people are turned off to the message of conservatism.
    And please do not presume to give me a history lesson. Just because you can copy and paste does not make you an expert.

  5. Frank Knotts says:

    William says, ” The monies raised go DIRECTLY to the attorney’s so people like you can’t make allegations of funds being misappropriated. ” Well William I never made any such accusation, why would you bring it up? I never once questioned the money or where it was going, only that it seems odd to be asking for money the day before the hearing unless you feel you will lose the case and to mention taking it to a higher court also seems to mean they feel they will lose.
    Then William you go completely off the rails when you say, “In closing maybe you should focus on something else instead of the Sheriff whom we all know you personally dislike, and terms like “posse” County Sheriffs have the Constitutional right to deputize a citizen “posse” it doesn’t mean a militia or a calling to arms that’s just your misconceived perception that you have chose to portray to instill fear.”

    What is it with you guys? Why can’t you have a conversation without it being about me disliking him? But if you know so much, tell us all why would I personally dislike Jeff Christopher? I have no personal interaction with him at all. I have never done busibness with him, nor have I ever socialized with him, so why would I personally dislike him? This is the defualt defense of the radical right, when they have nothing else, say that you dislike them.
    I would also suggest that you learn to read and read to learn, and go back and read what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote.
    I am talking about the perception that others will have outside of the small closed minded groups that put themselves out front as the sole voice of the conservative movement.
    Of course they don’t care about that, because they don’t care abouit actually winning elections and having to govern, they only care about angry rhetoric.

  6. Walt says:

    The so called Republicans are so far to the left in Delaware it is so clear to see why these so called conservatives are not 100% behind our Sheriff here in Sussex. I stand with the Sheriff. I cast my vote for him when he was elected and know I voted for a man with common sense conservative ideas.

  7. Connie Runyon says:

    First off, I’d like to address your sarcasm, Frank. Looks like there are several of your ‘answers’ to legitimate concerns that are outright accusations to one’s character. Which we all know fall in line with the liberal left in denouncing someone’s ‘opinion’.
    Second, You say your one concern in this flyer is the implementation to the forming of a ‘posse’. Must I fill you in on “Obama’s Youth Brigade’? Na…I won’t give you the luxury of my ‘copy and paste’ on a search. Do it yourself, you might learn something.
    And, thirdly, As far as a division/diversion of people from the Republican Party….all one has to do is follow the Congressional Records and see all the RINOS. The people have taken notice and your job in the future will be to destruct, destroy and dismantle a third party run. Yeah, thats right….watch….and good luck (NOT) with the coming hard work you will be required to do. In my opinion, it’s time for a 3rd party! And Americans are FED-UP!

  8. Angus Berger says:

    What part of Article XV Section 1 of Delaware’s Constitution don’t you understand Frank. The Sheriffs shall be the “Conservators of the Peace in the Counties in which they reside.” Plain and simple Frank.
    You are such a weenie and a constitutional obstructionist that you can’t interpret what’s written in blasck and white. They kicked you off of delawarepolitics for you stupidity and personal attactkss and Grossman took you in like a wayward hobo, looking for a handout.
    You just don’t get it Frank

  9. Angus Berger says:

    Well, you guys proved what you are worth very early in the game. I wrote a comment without profanity and you deleted it within ten minutes. I just simply disagreed with Frank ‘s unconstitutional stand on the sheriff’s right to be conservator of the peace.

  10. Frank Knotts says:

    Walt, I don’t know how many ways I can say this, the post is not about whether or not the sheriff should or should not have the powers he is seeking. It is about the way he is going about it, and how it will be seen by the rest of the citizens of the state. The very people he and his supporters are seeking the support from.
    It is certainly not about Jeff Christopher and his decision making on this and the effect it will have on the larger issue of the GOP.
    Please go back and read the origianl post and read the qualifiers and not just the hot button words.

  11. Frank Knotts says:

    Connie, thank you for at least being able to spot sarcasm, many who troll the blogs are so super serious that they miss the sarcasm, leads to a lot of misunderstandings.
    As for pointing out the fact that Pres. Obama has formed some quais-military sounding youth brigade, does not in my opinion, justify making the same mistake. Connie, my post is not about what he wants, but about how he is going about getting it. The court case was the right, “NEXT STEP”, but talking about posses is a step backwards.
    As for the 3rd party idea? Well of course that is the freedom we have, and it is and shoud be a part of the system we have put into place.
    But the political reality that so many miss is that, once you actually get a 3rd party that can effectively affect elections on a regualr basis, you will hand over the elections to the Democrats for at least the next twenty years before you would be able to build that 3rd party into a strong 2nd party and be able to challenge for control.
    Can our nationa and state survive twenty more years? No, now is not the time to divide, it is time to unite, which means that one faction of the party cannot be allowed to be seen as the only faction of the party.
    To divide is to play directly into the hands of the opposition, it is their strategy to divide and conquer.

  12. Frank Knotts says:

    Angus, welcome to the big boy table. I’m glad you showed up to make my point. This is not about the constitution. The post is not about the issue, but about how the issue is being presented by the sheriff to the public from whom he is seeking support. So your quoting of the talking points of the sheriff’s position is wasted here. However, if you would like to give me a reason why you think this is the propper way to go about building support among the majority of citizens in this particula state, please feel free.
    There is political ideology, and then there is political reality. Too many miss the reality part and are forever locked into “Politcal Wonderland” .
    So go back and read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote and then we will talk.

  13. Frank Knotts says:

    Angu, my apologies. We are still a new site and are working out the bugs. Your comments were stuck in moderation. Don’t know why and am working on it, please be patient. My goal is to allow everyone a chance to speak in an intelligent way. I do not intend to become that which I left behind, I will say that I was not “kicked off” D P, but I was run off by what it had become. I do not intend to be a part of that again.
    If you have followed me in the past, then you know I welcome the debate, and if people attack me personally, they only demonstrate that they have nothing more to add to the debate, and I will always allow people to either “be silent and allow the world to think them a fool, or open their mouths and prove themselves for fools”

  14. William Christy says:

    Frank of course your rant is about the Sheriff having the powers taken away from him. You right in front of me stated you do not believe the Sheriff is law enforcement or should have arrest powers. You also accused him of being on some power trip.

    The way he going about it? This is the way the system works Frank, that’s the beauty of our government, we have the right to file a suit to receive a judiciary ruling on matters like this.

    You are only perceiving how others will see the Sheriffs’ actions through your own eyes. How many citizens have you actually spoken to in Sussex, Kent, NCCo or anywhere else across our nation.

    You are trying to make Sheriff Christopher a scapegoat for the shortcomings of the GOP in Sussex County, you did the same thing with Eric Bodenweiser, and Don Ayotte.

    The problem with the Sussex GOP is the “eat your own” mentality. Then couple that with the racist bigots who are very vocal about their views, it’s a death warrant for the party. I heard all the comments at the one and only meeting I attended. Instead of compromise and focusing on the real core values that make us Republicans everyone including you Frank are trying to one up each other and put labels on each other.

  15. Willaim Christy says:

    Frank what qualifies you to state the Sheriff discussing a “posse” is a step backwards?

    1. Have you spoken to the Sheriff directly to ask him what he means or what his intent is?

    2. The “posse” you speak of is the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association posse, which has chapters in a number of states nationwide including Texas, Arizona, and Rhode Island.

    I would think that the Sussex GOP would concentrate on learning from the mistakes of the last 20 years that the Democrats have controlled Delaware. Concentrate on how to change the fact that Sussex County votes mean nothing, the state is controlled by NCCo and Kent County voters. what I can tell you is pointing fingers and passing judgement doesn’t solve either one of the above problems facing Sussex County voters regardless of party affiliation.

  16. William Christy says:

    Frank thank you for proving my point about what i see as problems with members of the Sussex GOP party.

    1. You absolutely lose any and all credibility when you use terms like “big boy table” when addressing someone. You give the perception (whether intended or not) that you feel somehow superior to those you are addressing.

    2. Yes this is about the Constitution and Constitutional rights being taken away. What hasn’t been determined yet is whether it was Constitutional to take those rights away, that is the crux of the lawsuit.

    3. No one can “present” an issue without addressing the “issue” certainly even you can understand that.

    4. Once again your comments show how you are close minded to considering others views about the very issues you are discussing. You are dismissive to the point that no ones views but your are important or matter.

    5. Constitutional rights are something that every citizen is concerned about and can understand regardless of party affiliation, socioeconomic, or racial backgrounds. Make no mistake Frank there is nothing that will rally more people than any government attempts to nullify any Constitutional rights of the We The People the citizens of our great nation. That is a fundamental political reality without any dividing party lines.

  17. William Christy says:

    Frank you weren’t run off D.P. your own actions were the cause of you not being welcomed there any longer. Everyone who posts on D.P is given the option to “clean up their act” for lack of better phraseology you chose not to change the way you were presenting your views.

  18. Frank Knotts says:

    William, I have been very open about my views on this issue, and there will be time to discuss it further as the hearing draws near.
    But in this post I am talking about how the optics play against all conservatives.
    You are correct that the sheriff has the right to file the suit, please show me where I said he didn’t. I merely said that the timing of the money bomb might lead one to believe that the sheriff is not confident of winning, along with talking of higher courts.
    Then I spoke of the use of the word posse and the visual that the usage brings to mind.
    As I said above this is not about Jeff Chrsitopher beyond what I and others see as a miscalculation of tactics. He may not recall this, but I gave this advice to him personally after a county GOP meeting, I also voiced my opinion of some of the people who were using his issue to further there own agenda and political objectives.
    We do however agree on the amount of bigotry and racism within certain circles and this has been one of my reasons for acting and speaking out, though i have never, I repeat never ever heard a racist of bigoted remark from Jeff Christopher, actaully, I repsect jeff Christopher and believe him to be an honorable man, I just don’t happen to agree with him on this issue. If that in your eyes makes me a liberal or worse, than so be it, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

  19. William Christy says:

    WOW I’ll give you credit Frank you sure have one hell of a big pair! You’re criticizing those of us trying to help raise funds for our Sheriff, and making issue of the flyer.

    I just looked at your donation page http://www.delawareright.com/delaware-right-donate/ you start at $25.00 and go up to $2,400.00

    You certainly aren’t trying to attract the blue collar conservatives that are struggling to make ends meet.

    I wonder what “optics” that presents to people you are trying to attract, as the self proclaimed spokesperson for the Delaware Right.

  20. Frank Knotts says:

    William, WOW! Again, the post is about how the word posse will be perceived by the average citizen.
    William go back and read this paragraph in the post.
    ” It matters little if this is the case or not, it is how it will be seen by many around the state. Let’s face it, many people in the other two counties already think that we Sussex County conservatives are a little crazy and radical.”
    This also explains why we have such a hard time reaching NCC voters. Do you not understand that the people in NCC see and hear things differently than we do down here? Do you also not know that Republicans are out numbered almost 2 to 1? Do you not understand that to win we must attract independent and Democrat voters, which means that if they hear things like posses being talked about, then they will never buy into our ideology.
    The point I am trying to make is that it is not the message, it is the delivery method. You hear the sheriff say posse and you go, “hey great idea”, a person in NCC hears posse and they go, “what the hell did he say?”
    You are making my point by completely missing my point. Slow down and disengage your emotions for a second and try to see with you eyes and mind for one second and instead of seeing me as hating, you might see that there is advice in my statement. Of course it is hard advice and I have no emotional ties to the issues as others seem to.
    As for what qualifies me to state that to discuss a posse is a step backwards, well William the last time I checked this was still a semi-free country, and I am still a citizen there of, so I guess I am free to give my opinion, but again my comment is intended to say, that moving the issue to the courts was the right thing to do, and has the air of legitimacy to it, but to talk of posses will only lose that air, in my opinion.

  21. Frank Knotts says:

    William, point taken about the use of “big boy table”, I am only human and when I am attacked I respond with sarcasm.
    You say no one can present an issue without speaking of the issue, well in this case and this post, the issue is the optics of how the sheriff issue is being presented. I am merely attempting to keep the conversation on the track of my original intent, so that others do not lead the conversation down a path of their choosing.
    But let me entertain your point #2, ” Yes this is about the Constitution and Constitutional rights being taken away. What hasn’t been determined yet is whether it was Constitutional to take those rights away, that is the crux of the lawsuit.”
    First of all, what the sheriff is arguing is not about a constitutional “RIGHT”, it is his belief that the office of sheriff has a constitutional “AUTHORITY”, you see an office can’t have a right, it can only be granted an authority. This may be why so many people are confused on the issue. They have come to believe that Sheriff Christopher has had a right taken from him and that if that can happen then their rights can also be taken, not the case however. And since an individual cannot be granted a constitutional authority, only the office that one might hold or be elected to, then we as individuals cannot have that taken away from us. Surely you see the difference.

  22. Frank Knotts says:

    William, I really would rather not air the dirty laundry of my former blog life. I will simply say that the mamagment of DP chose to allow one of the very people I feel is an optics problem for the party to be in charge of deciding who got to say what and when. he was deleting comments for merley mentioning his name, and not just me but many others as well.
    You may not like what I have to say, I may not like what you have to say, but as long as we can do it without cursing, or out right name calling or pointing out physical features, and we leave family members out of the conversation, then I will alow most any comment to stand as a testament to the character of the person making the comment, the same as I stand by my comments.

  23. Frank Knotts says:

    I am a little troubled by your concern for the size of my pair! But let me make it clear, I receive nothing for my posting here, not a dime. The donation page is run by those who own the site, the money is for them to use as they see fit. I have been given a place to voice my opinions, without the fear of being deleted because I stepped on a toe.
    And if you don’t think that a blue collar family can afford a $25 donation, then they are not blue collar, they are unemployed. And in my talking with those who are in charge of that side of the site, they are not only trying to attract the blue collar citizens, they are trying to attract all types of citizens, and if you don’t understand that it takes money to run politics, well then come back and see me after you have bought a vowel. This attitude that anyone who can afford to donate $2,400 is not to be trusted is demonstrative of what is wrong with the thinking of some. You would keep listing types of people who can’t be trusted until your numbers are so smal that you couldn’t win a school board election.
    And once again please lead me to the spot in my post or any of my comments where I critized the Sheriff for running the donation drive? Wait let me help you, don’t bother, I didn’t. Tiresome!

  24. Frank Knotts says:

    A perfect example! I was trying to figure out how to demonstrate exactly what it was I was trying to say about how certain people in the conservative movement lend an air of the ridiculous.
    And then an old friend of mine went and wrote it down. Here is a piece written on another blog in response to my piece here. Now he didn’t have the courage to name me by name, but it is clear. Here at Delaware Right we believe the conversation is the best place to start, and we are not afraid of the opinions of others, we will even link to them to demonstrate our points.
    So here is a post at Delaware Politics by that literary star Don Ayotte, notice how he completely misses the point as well, and goes off on the tried and true talking points of the issue.
    This demonstrates my point far better than I could have and he speaks the language. So thank you Don, you have lived up to my expectations once again. http://www.delawarepolitics.net/sussex-countys-sheriff-an-active-volcano-that-refuses-to-go-dormant/#comments

  25. Doug Beatty says:

    Zeal in the pursuit of Liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of Liberty is no virtue.

    Sorry Mr. Knotts, just because you have decided to join the ranks of liberals who get their hoplophobic world view from wild west movies doesn’t change case law, common law, the United States or Delaware constitutions. I’m sure Mr. Schwartzkopf appreciates your support.

  26. Doug Beatty says:

    There is nothing free from bigotry or open minded about this anti-sheriff post. Progressive certainly but not really liberal except in the strictest political sense. Which brings us back to progressive.
    Jeff isn’t on a power trip. He could certainly accept one of a number of job offers to take senior positions in law enforcement elsewhere. Jeff is doing what he thinks is right because he’s a decent man. Anybody who would suggest otherwise without direct experience tells us all we need to know about their intellect, courage, and character. Let alone credibility.

  27. Doug Beatty says:

    Could it be that the word posse is the correct one to use with the target audience. In this case dedicated supporters who would spend money?

    Could it be there’s a reason that Jeff Christopher is known and marketable nationwide unlike all of his detractors?

    So many question.

  28. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Beaty, you do realize that when you come here and attack me and call me a liberal, and give your “patriotic” quotes, that you are behaving exactly as I described that radical element within the conservative movement, don’t you?
    Are you so detached from the political reality of this state, that you don’t understand that we cannot win elections unless we can attrack people to the conservative meassage. That means independents and conservative Democrats. And we will never do that talking about posses.
    I have lived in this state my entire life, I didn’t just float here down some river in a canoe.
    When we talk about posses and tyranny, we scare them away.
    And by the way, you may think that today you get to decide who is and who isn’t a conservative, but tomorrow it will be someone even further right than you, and they will call you a liberal because you don’t want to put the lock on the railroad car.
    You don’t, right?
    And let me remind you whose shirt you wore on primary day in Bridgevill!

  29. Frank Knotts says:

    Comment Mr. Beaty, please tell me in which paragraph did I attack the character of Sheriff Christopher. I have actually said in comment that I respect him, and I too believe that he is doing it because he believes that it is the right thing to do. I have never said otherwise.
    I just so happen to disagree. Am I not allowed that right? Would you, a person who says they revere the God given rights of man and the Constitution, would you deprive me of my right to disagree in the arena of public debate? would you silence any and all oppistion to your ideas?
    Is this your idea of honoring our Founders?

  30. Frank Knotts says:

    Oh thank you Mr. Beaty. You have just put the issue of Sheriff Chritopher’s being “marketable nationwide.
    So, what does that mean Mr. Beaty? in what way? Are you saying that there have been some offers? That the publicity has been a benefit to the Sheriff in sonme way? Please do tell.
    As for your question of, Could it be that the word posse is the correct one to use with the target audience. ”
    Of course that is exactly what he was doing. You really think that I am that stupid, don’t you.
    Read the post, it is all about that the language is ment for a target audience. The point is, that when you tatget an audience, you miss the rest of the state. Read the psot, it is not, IT IS NOT!!!! About whether or not the sheriff should have the powers, IT IS ABOUT THE OPITICS!!!!!!!!!!
    OPITICS!!!!!!!!!! OPITICS!!!!!!!!!! OPITICS!!!!!!!!!!



  31. Doug Beatty says:

    The name is Beatty. I was wearing Eric’s shirt on Primary day and would do so again. He’s an outsider.

    Until and unless these charges being made by a double convicted felon are proven true I will continue to support Eric.

    We don’t really have republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives here in Delaware. We have insiders and outsiders.

    You have clearly chosen your side on the Sheriff’s issue. You can’t divorce yourself from your anti-Sheriff record by trying to write one post on “OPtics”.

    You certainly have a right to your opinion on the message the Sheriff is putting out. We certainly have a right to our opinion on somebody who has stood against the constitution and is a staunch defender of “The Delaware Way”.

    Get it straight, I’m not an outsider or a ‘transplant’. I’m from America. Delaware is part of America, and some restrictions may apply.

    You are the essence of what’s wrong with DeGop. We’ll be taking up that topic on my blogtalk tonight at 7:00 EST. The player is linked from my website above.

    You are most welcome to call in and defend your position. (347) 884-8190 starting at 7:00 p.m. EST tonight.

    Jeff Christopher is CSPOA Sheriff of the year. Of course he’s had job offers from other places. All you have to do is call him up and ask him. Or you can just run around saying he’s on a power trip. My salary remains unaffected.

  32. Frank Knotts says:

    Please excuse the misspelling of your name Mr. Beatty, that one T is important after all.
    you still don’t get it do you? You say I am anti-sheriff, tell me how? You say I have stood against the constitution, tell me how? Do you have examples? Or do you merely have the accusations and rhetoric? No what you mean is, is that I disagree with you. if you have ever read anything I wrote on the issue you would know that I have an opinion based on my reading of the state constitution, it differs from that of the sheriff and you, in your mind that makes me anti-sheriff and anti-constitution and in my mind that makes you small minded.This post was about optics, you and the others turned it into a post about the issue of the sheriff, you don’t even now get it that you played the role so well.
    As for outsiders? Well you know what you get to do as an outsider? Nothing but complain. Which you and many others do so well. Please also lead me to the paragraph in which I said anyone was on a power trip before you brought up the topic of the sheriff’s marketability.
    Now as for you discussing me on your little tak show, well enjoy yourself, though i wouldn’t want to drive your listenership over two, so I won’t be “tuning in” . Why would I, the people who would be listening would already have their minds made up, just like you have. You do not hear what I am saying, you only hear that I don’t agree with you.

    Until you learn to listen to others, you will never be anything but an outsider, so wear you badge of honor well my friend, it suits you.

    I attempt to reach out to people and change their minds through my ideas and views, not as you and others do by name calling and derision.

  33. Frank Knotts says:

    Here at Delaware Right we believe everyone should have a chance to express themselves to the best of their ability, so with that in mind I have decide to post a link to an internet “radio” broadcast by Mr. Doug(2T’s) Beatty, in which he comments on this post and just about anything that pops into his mind, he is joined by some guy named Wolf in this “discussion”. I had planned not to listen to this, but was force fed it by a close friend who heard it and told me of some of the content. I will let Mr. (2T’s) Beatty and Wolf’s words speak for themselves. I will only adress one thing here since it was a false accusation of a crime. The knife they speak of was of legal length to be concealed, no law was broken, and anyone who talks so much of the law and of constitutional rights, should know that the word “ARMS” goes beyond merely firearms, and yet they question my caring a knife, I wonder if I had been wearing a sidearm, if they would have been as shocked? If they knew Sussex as well as they would have us believe thay would know that many men wear a knife on their hips everyday.
    So please enjoy this interlude into the minds of the very people this post was intended for.

  34. Robert Hauser says:

    Merely because an attorney, staff or otherwise, supposedly “understands” the Constitution and/or what is Constitutional in no way spawns any kind of an assurance that the Constitution is being used as any yard stick by which to gauge their own nomography—-there are quite literally more “laws” in this country than there are people and you would play Hell convincing any person of sound and disposing mind and memory that even one tenth of one percent were other than rabidly un or anticonstitutional. “Laws” are passed in America at the rate of more than one per second

  35. Robert Hauser says:

    This column by Frank Knotts is no more than a syllogistic rant….mindless word smithing that says really nothing but takes up the entire afternoon doing it. ….semantic antic hair splitting. What will be coming down in the courtroom tomorrow doesn’t have a solitary damned thing to do with “conservative” (conserving WHAT anymore?) versus “liberal” (as if that word hadn’t been likewise gutted of meaning—what do “liberals” liberate now?)….or “right” v “left”; saying that someone is right or left is about like saying east of the sun and west of the moon: you either stand by the Constitution or you do not. It is entirely digital

  36. Robert Hauser says:

    What difference does it make what the “rest of the citizens” perceive? In a moment of Constitutional crisis perhaps gallery crows like you have nothing but the luxury of time to engage in endless speculation and sophistry about perception and nuances and shades of gray, but the Sheriff does not —-he is stepping into the breach in the name of the Constitution. What are YOU doing?

  37. Doug Beatty says:

    Far right like the voters of California who struck down a ballot initiative to eliminate their elected Sheriffs? Far right like standing case law that establishes the elected Sheriff as the executive law enforcement in their county?

    Or far right like 46 out of 50 states? The constant refrain seems to be “this is Delaware and we don’t care how the rest of the Country does it” Remarkably similar to what Mississippi was saying concerning voting rights in ’63.

  38. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Hauser, we do agree that there are far too many laws, so many that the average citizen breaks an unknown number in a single day, simply by going about their daily lives, all without even knowing that they have broken them. By the way I will assume you ment to write “monography”, not “nomography”.

  39. Frank Knotts says:

    Well Mr. (2T’s) Beatty, as someone who spends hours talking about the constitution, one would think that you would be in favor of state’s rights. You know like the X Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Ever heard of it, or can’t you get past the II Amendment.

  40. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Hauser asked, “What difference does it make what the “rest of the citizens” perceive?” Well Mr. Hauser, I am glad you asked, from the aspect of trying to elect conservatives to office so that we can move the conservative movement forward, it is important to be able to attract new members to the GOP, inmy opinion. To do this we need to be able to communicate that meassage without sounding like fanatics. When all we say is “unconstitutional” this and “unconstitutional” that, without finding a way to broaden the message, well all you are doing is preaching to the choir.
    Now if all you care about is speaking to some small target audience, this is fine, but if you look at the bigger picture, then you have to recoginze that you have to reach out to more people than the few within your personal circle.
    Finally you ask me, ” What are YOU doing?”, well you may not agree with it or me, but this is what I am doing, I am trying to reach out to people in a way that communicates that all conservatives are not closed minded and without compromise.

  41. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Hauser, not sure if you agree with me or not since you used the word, sllogistic to describe my post. The definition of syllogistic is; a logical scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and minor premise and a conclusion which must logically be true if the premises are true.
    As for your final statement about the court case, about it not being about conservative or liberal or left or right? If you truly believe that, then you are either blind to reality or you simply refuse to see the truth.

  42. waterpirate says:

    I think the operative word for optics could also be perception. Elections are won and lost every cycle on optics, perceptions alone. The last election cycle in sussex being the poster child for the effects of perception on the voters.

    In regard to the perception of the sherrif and his lawsuit. I am not a constitional buff for the state, nor is anyone I talk to regularly. What I am is a fiscal conservative, and stand against a expansion of govt. The voters are given the perception that this will cost us monies in the end, to provide services allready provided by other agency’s. The other perception is that the sherrif accepted a job which he agreed to perform, then when elected sought/seeks to expand it beyond it’s traditional role. Both of these perceptions are not appealing to the rank and file voters of sussex. Nor is the money and time being wasted on this lawsuit appealing to the rank and file, when it is clear that we have much more pressing problems than interpreting the language and intent of the founders as it aplies to the sherif.

  43. Frank Knotts says:


  44. kavips says:

    Speaking of optics, if I just casually looked at this page, I’d vote democrat for the rest of my life…

    Gosh, you really do have some people who only think with their emotions… up north we put people like that in institutions!

    You know, this may be helpful… Back when the youth of the Democratic party were not being considered seriously, … they used to take off their clothes and run across football fields to get noticed….

    It looks like these commentators here are doing the same, taking off their clothes that keep their ugly parts hidden, and they aren’t half as pretty as those coeds running across the football fields…

    In fact, they are pretty ugly… Who in their right mind would ever associate with them? They are simply disgusting people, horrible human beings and obviously not Christian at all…

    Why doesn’t the real republican party sue them for a) malfeasance, b) slander, c) liable, d) misrepresentation, e) loitering, and f) impersonating an officer?

    The Republican Party should sue sufficiently to drain Mr. Christie and the 9/12 Patriots of all their money by suing them over, and over, and over, and over, and over, until Mr. Christie has to lose his house and family because he can’t afford them anymore… As long as people like the 9/12 are part of the Republican Party, they are going to lose, because, yuck, who can stand their filth?

  45. Frank Knotts says:

    Kavips, and they take pride in their being, “outside”, they don’t realize that to win they must appeal to a larger number of people, but instead they are all about reducing the number of supporters to their idea of the purest, and they also don’t get that to actually be able to govern and to lead, they must first win something beyond a primary. Right now they only thing they are good at is eating their own.

  46. Robert Hauser says:

    No ….the word was “nomography”…no typo

  47. Robert Hauser says:

    I was using “syllogy” in another of its accepted senses…perhaps it would have served better to use sophistry or speciousness….the act of mere argument for argument’s sake. I believe if i am understanding your text correctly that you are concerned that certain so called “conservatives”, assuming that word hasn’t been completely gutted of any sensible meaning do to gross abuse and bandying about like nearly every other word in the lexicon of this nation’s scatosphere of politics, might be disenchanted or feel disfranchised by the Sheriff’s actions. I dare say that many of the more lily-livered among them may well be. First, i really don’t like these terms “conservative” and “liberal” or “right” and ‘left” because, as I think I’ve already said on this thread—-they make about as much sense now as saying that politically someone is situated east of the sun and west of the moon—just what is it that so called ‘conservatives’ are conserving and “liberals’ are liberating?. Based upon what I have observed, i am moved to say “a deadly pox on BOTH your houses”.
    This nation is quite in fact in an hour of Constitutional crisis and the person who steps into the breach hasn’t the luxury of time to be concerned about what abrasion it may inflict upon the delicate sensitivities of mugwumps and other biomasses that are far more of the problem than the solution. If you are in fact occupied with winning the hearts of the drooling Moron Majority, all I can say is good luck because you are going to find it extremely dismal and thankless going.

  48. Jon Moseley says:

    Frank Knotts wrote: ” Let us ask ourselves how the majority of citizens will see this flyer?”

    This is of course the correct question to ask and an important consideration.

    If someone is bothering to write a flyer, political letter, brochure, etc., the over-riding purpose and question is, as Frank Knotts argues, what effect will it have on the reader.

    Far too often political leiterature, flyers, and other messages are written and designed for the purpose of making the speaker feel good rather than persuading the reader or listener.

    But where Frank Knotts and others go astray is in believing that Frank Knotts and others are representative of the majority of citizens.

    The question is whether soem conservatives assume inaccurately that most people will agree with them and their way of expressing their arguments.

    Frank Knotts questions that assumptoin. And that is the right way to look at it. You hvae to ask that question. Frank Knotts is right. Youc annot go out and write or speak in politics without making sure that you undestand whom you are tryign to persuade.

    However, Frank Knotts and those of his stripe don’t apply this lesson to themselves any more than some conservatives apply it, either.

    Of course, it is a human tendency common to everyone.

    But the problem is whether th way Frank Knotts feels about the issues is truly the definition for how most other voters do.

    The average citizen has a more positive view of a SHeriff than the legislature. The average citizen has a positive view of posses.

    The average citizen is worrieda bout whehter someone is going to come to defend their family when they call 911.

    The average citizen doesnt’ give a hoot about whether a government agency is bigger or smaller.

    The average citizen just wants to know that when they call 911 because there is a burglar in their house that someone is going to show up — immediately — and keep their children and wife safe.

    So perhaps the impression created for the average citizen is not what you imagine.

Got something to say? Go for it!