This Is Who Will Protect Us From Tyranny?

Mack and Christopher   This is a photo of former  Graham County, Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack presenting the sheriff of the year award from the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA), to our very own Sussex County, Delaware Sheriff Jeff Christopher in 2012.

Mr. Mack recently made the news again for being an outspoken supporter of Cliven Bundy, the Arizona cattle rancher who has been in a stand-off with federal authorities over his refusal to pay grazing fees to allow his cattle to graze on federal lands.

It really isn’t very shocking that Mr. Mack would put himself in this position, since he has made his fame, in his view, fighting tyranny.

What may shock even some of his supporters, are statements he made to Fox News about some of the strategy he and his fellow travelers were considering, had “rogue federal agents” ,   opened fire.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,”  Mack told Fox News.

These are the people some trust to stand up and defend them when the big bad federal government comes to knock down their doors? These so-called guardians of the Constitution, who continually talk of principles, and values, that never tire of talking about the dangers of tyranny, and how only constitutional sheriffs can protect the citizens from the tyrannical federal government?


Richard Mack continued to lay out his reasoning for hiding behind women by saying,

“If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot. I’m sorry, that sounds horrible. I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would’ve gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”

Oh, he’s not afraid to die is he? That is after he places his wife and daughters in harm’s way to make a political statement. He basically is saying that he would forfeit the lives of his wife and daughters, to move them around like pieces on a chess board, or maybe checkers is more appropriate, in order to make a bigger splash in the news for his cause.

So ask yourself this friends, if this so-called liberty loving constitutional sheriff would so easily sacrifice the lives of his loved ones, how quickly do you think he would throw Joe Citizen under the bus, or more likely in front of a bullet?

Mr. Mack made his case this way,

“But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front. Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”

So after admitting that he would hide behind woman, and allow them to be shot, so that he could make the evening news, he has the nerve to call someone else “ruthless cowards”.  Do these people have no idea how they are seen by average people? These are the tactics of the terrorist in Afghanistan, and Iraq, they hide weapons in schools and park rocket launchers next to hospitals.

You know these so-called constitutional sheriffs and their supporters like to think they are living in the old wild, wild west, well Mr. Mack if you were living in the old west, you would be known as a yellow dog coward for hiding behind a woman’s skirt.

Sheriff Jeff Christopher has often quoted Richard Mack, and we can only assume that he holds him in high regard, and since Sheriff Christopher is running for re-election, and seems determined to once again make the campaign about the constitutionality of the office, and since Sheriff Christopher has also many times stated that he is the last line of defense between the citizens and the government, I think it is fair to ask Sheriff Christopher if like his hero Richard Mack, will that line of defense be fronted by women?

22 Comments on "This Is Who Will Protect Us From Tyranny?"

  1. Frank, you have once again maintained your status as a statist, clue less, boot licking moron. Well done. Thanks for showing folks what the DeGop really thinks about the constitution.

  2. FLYLADY says:

    Uhhhh….ADB? Point of order… Frank Knotts does NOT speak for the DE GOP!

  3. Frank Knotts says:

    Flylady is correct, I do not speak for the DE GOP, or the Sussex GOP, or anyone else here at Delaware Right, I speak only for myself, my views are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of others.
    Now to my good friend ADB, I am sorry ADB, I have read the Constitution many times over, however, you will have to show me where in the Constitution it says anything about hiding behind women, or putting them in front of a firing squad to make a political point. Is it in the Articles, or the Bill of Rights?
    Just admit it, one of your fringe whack job heroes has shown himself for what he is, a whack job!
    Is it not bad enough that Richard Mack Thinks it would be justified to put women out front in the hopes that the FBI would shoot them, and in doing so make the case for the whack jobs? But no, you compound that insanity by coming here and turning a blind eye to the insanity by making it about me and the Constitution.
    By the way whack job Mack was on the Doug Beatty Show over at Hate Radio yesterday talking about the Bundy stand off, and imagine this, Beatty did not bring up the topic of hiding behind women. Shocking?
    Not really since Beatty was a little busy shoving his head up Sheriff Mack’s butt.
    No real man would even consider putting there women in front of a firing squad simply to make a political point, so Mack is no real man. I am sure he never played baseball, or football, or basketball, because as we can see now, he has no balls.

  4. Cletus says:


    Frank does not speak for the DEGOP or Sussex GOP, but Duke Brooks does. And Duke Brooks made a complete fool of himself on Susan Monday’s show talking about Richard Nixon, Bush 41 and Model Trains.

  5. Don Ayotte says:

    “Now to my good friend ADB, I am sorry ADB, I have read the Constitution many times over, ”

    Yes but you failed to understand any of it and the importance of a Constitutional sheriff. I agree with Beatty, you are a statist, liberal boot licking moron. You may not speak for the DEGOP, but you certainly make them look bad. Keep on truckin.

  6. Dave says:

    Jeff Christopher is an able and very visible representative of the far right. With Christopher, absolutely no effort is required to demonstrate the looniness that has infected the some of Sussex County. With a poster boy like Christopher, it’s a target rich environment for the sane among us. I doubt that Christopher will be able to power wash his past actions and statements away. The taxpayers will remember what he cost them in suing us, the residents of Sussex County and the state of Delaware. I can’t wait for the campaign!

  7. Cletus says:


    at least Frank doesn’t have to wake up every morning knowing that Joan Deaver beat him. He wakes up knowing that he has participated in numerous WINNING elections supporting candiates who currently sit at the table in Dover, Georgetown, and several municipalities and school districts while you , well, why you sit at home and, well, just sit at home.

  8. Harry Whittington says:

    The Sheriff lost his “Constitutional” battle. The foremost expert on each of Delaware’s 4 Constitutions shot him down like he was Dick Cheney’s hunting buddy. The USSC will not and should not interfere with the interpretation of the Delaware Constitution by the Delaware Supreme Court. Delaware has no ballot initiative or referendum and I can guarantee you that Christopher will never see his question on a ballot.

    The small number of people in Sussex who want the kind of Sheriff in Delaware that never existed in their lifetime will not get what they want. Our duly elected representatives in the legislature made sure the will of the people was heard and took away any chance of Christopher getting power. God bless America. The system worked as our Founding Fathers planned.

  9. Whirli birdie says:

    the sheriff of nuttingham doesn’t stand a chance
    is fly ladys statement their official view as a scgop ab member or just that of someone who sleeps with an ab member
    donnie ducks a** a db and woofie birds of a feater that j*** off oops….. flock together
    frank thanks for being spot on once again I can’t wait to see your coverage of duck a**es other hero eb next month when the trial begins

  10. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Ayotte, one would think that you would be consumed with running your newest losing campaign, rather than defending Sheriff Christopher’s.
    I have read both the U.S. and Delaware constitutions many times over, I have read them with my eyes and mind wide open, unlike those who read them seeking to make them conform to their own opinions and desires.
    I would send you back to articles and comments that I wrote and made, and debates you and I had over at DP, but I am sure you and others have expunged that evidence of how wrong you were then, and how my arguments were spot on with the decision handed down by both Delaware Courts in the case of Sheriff Christopher.
    But of course the fringe always has their escape hatch built in, when they are proven wrong it is always because the system is corrupt.
    Don’t you have some T-shirts to have the spelling corrected on?

  11. FLYLADY says:

    Whirli birdie – in answer to your question, I do not speak for the SCGOP any more than Frank does. Executive Committee and Advisory Board members have been discouraged from making public statements, as they could easily be misconstrued by innocent bystanders (or malicious bloggers) as being official statements of the committee or the board. Accordingly, the only people that can speak for the SCGOP are John Rieley and Duke Brooks. Any opinion offered by anyone else in those groups is strictly their own.

  12. delacrat says:


    I’ve heard Sheriff Christopher is committed “protecting us from tyranny”, but I’ve never heard of an instance where Sheriff Jeff actually protected anyone from tyranny.

    When tyranny came to evict homeless Sussex county citizens from their tent encampment near Rehoboth,… where was Sheriff Christopher?

    To expect someone in the business of “delivering subpoenas and eviction notices.” to protect anyone from tyranny is like expecting an arsonist to make a enthusiastic and competent fire chief.

  13. Rick says:

    I have read both the U.S. and Delaware constitutions many times over, I have read them with my eyes and mind wide open, unlike those who read them seeking to make them conform to their own opinions and desires.

    Really? Then what, in your mind, do the words “…the Sheriff(s) shall be conservators of the peace in the counties?” I’m not asking you what some judge says they mean- what do you think they mean?

    Nationally, local sheriffs may be the first line of defense against a coordinated federal agent/state police offensive. As I recall, federal agents shot Randy Weaver’s 14-year-old son in the back, then a federal sniper shot his wife, who was holding her infant son, in the head, as she stood in the doorway. All over an alleged gun violation. As I also recall, Janet Reno ordered the incineration of a compound holding many women and children, again, over possible gun violations.

    Given the history of federal transgressions, who could blame Sheriff Mack?

    As an aside, why does the federal government now control over 50% of US lands in the western states?

  14. delacrat says:


    Local sheriff’s did not prevent “a coordinated federal agent/state police offensive” at Ruby Ridge or Waco. Why do you think they would at any other place or time ?

  15. saltyindependent says:

    christopher is a man of the people, by the people and for the people! just look at his picture. you can tell he loves the constitution and hates tyranny.

  16. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick, I was making the case that the vague term COP in the Delaware constitution was undefined long before the judges in Sheriff Christopher’s case came to the same conclusion, so I have given my view on this many times. The term COP outside of the Delaware constitution can have many meanings, but within it the term is undefined.
    As for your view that sheriffs can protect us against tyranny, well that is BS. There was a sheriff in the county in which Bundy lives who refused to do anything, he said he had no jurisdiction. So you see, again as I have said for a long time, all sheriffs are not the same. Of course the fringe will use the escape hatch and say that sheriff is corrupt.
    I am struck by this comment from you, “Given the history of federal transgressions, who could blame Sheriff Mack?”
    So are you saying that you too would place women in front of a firing squad just to make a political point?
    You then ask this question, “As an aside, why does the federal government now control over 50% of US lands in the western states?”
    This is an easy one, because those states gave up the land in return for federal funding, and as states they have the right to piss away their control, it is up to the citizens to hold elected officials accountable, but not at the end of a gun.

  17. Rick says:

    Rick, I was making the case that the vague term COP in the Delaware constitution was undefined long before the judges in Sheriff Christopher’s case came to the same conclusion, so I have given my view on this many times.

    There’s one thing you’ve never done– and that is answer my question; what does the sentence “…the Sheriff(s)shall be the conservator of the peace in the counties” mean to you?

    You then ask this question, “As an aside, why does the federal government now control over 50% of US lands in the western states?”
    This is an easy one, because those states gave up the land in return for federal funding.

    Well, it’s obviously not that easy, because your answer is wrong. Most of the land is held under the guise of environmental protection, as is the case in the Bundy controversy. He had to cut his herd from 900 to 150 in order to “protect” some type of tortoise.

    From today’s Washington Times:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists” Thursday, turning up the rhetorical heat on the already tense situation at the Nevada cattle operation.

    “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Mr. Reid in remarks at a luncheon, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which sponsored the event. “… I repeat: What went on up there was domestic terrorism.”

    I see. Supporting an American citizen against an over-zealous federal government, under the constitutional rights of petition and association, is “domestic terrorism,” according to the Senate Majority Leader.

    You need to seriously re-think your position on this, Frank.

  18. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick, I have given my views on the COP as it is used in the Delaware Constitution, I have said many times, that because it was not defined in the constitution, the legislature is free to define it. As they have with the other offices that were labeled COPs. Your problem is not with me, but with those who drafted that version of the state constitution. Why is it no one is upset about the Legislature defining the AG? Unlike you and Sheriff Christopher, I am not willing to impose my definition of COP upon the citizens, I like others actually respect the rule of law and the system in which we are currently governed, you and others simply use the escape hatch when it doesn’t go your way and cry corruption.
    As for your federal land question, I again state that the states gave over control of those lands. The fact that the federal government is taking advantage of the weakness of those states is again not surprising. But again you and others misplace your anger, you are mad because once the states give over control to the feds, the feds actually take advantage of the power they were given. You should be mad at the individual states and the voters who fail to hold their state legislatures accountable. But the feds are the bigger easier target, because then you don’t have to look inward.
    As for people being domestic terrorist? Well as I said in my post, “These are the tactics of the terrorist in Afghanistan, and Iraq, they hide weapons in schools and park rocket launchers next to hospitals.”, So whether they are terrorist or not, Richard Mack is definitely using terrorist tactics.

  19. fightingbluehen says:

    Thinking that this sheriff or virtually any other sheriff is going to protect us from tyranny is a joke.

    If you take a look at sheriffs offices around the country, you will see that most are affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security.

    That’s right. The same sheriffs offices that these out of staters think will protect them from tyranny are the same sheriff’s offices that are buying up all the drones and armored vehicles.

    Also, one should note that, whenever these people start talking about how the state took away the sheriffs powers, they never seem to mention that it happened almost a century ago. It’s chicanery.

    Don’t be fooled by these people who come to our state and prey on the ignorance of the well intentioned, just to further their own care careers.

  20. Frank Knotts says:

    The other question that must and should be asked of those who support the sheriff having arrest powers is, are you willing to pay 30 to 60 million dollars more in county taxes, because $60 million was the budget for the NCC police department, and if you don’t think that a county wide police force is what Sheriff Christopher envisions, well then you are either lying to yourself or you are completely clueless.
    let us not forget, the same people who support the Sheriff, are many of the same people bitching over paying $49 more a year to support Sussex Tech.

  21. Dunleve says:


    Why doesn’t the Sheriff’s posse post the entire section you are quoting, rather than just one small part.

    So the all important Sheriff’s duties were placed in the Delaware Constitution in the miscellaneous section. Must have been high on the priority list, or more of an afterthought.

    “Section 1. The Chancellor, Judges and Attorney-General shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State; and the Sheriffs shall be conservators of the peace within the counties respectively in which they reside.”

    If the Sheriff is to protect us from tyranny, then you expect the same from a Judge, or our Attorney General?

  22. concerned sussex voter says:

    The current sheriff doesn’t seem to be performing his duties when he is taking all this time off a walkabout with Lacee Lafferty. A trip out to the Bundy ranch in NV, I wonder who paid for that. A trip to the CSPOA convention. I wonder how county council feels about the county sheriff representing Sussex county in the Bundy flap. What’s the real purpose of the upcoming event on May 17 I’ve heard it’s really a fundraiser for the current sheriffs election campaign. A number of Sussex county tax paying residents have been told they are not welcome at the event by the sheriffs campaign manager. I guess working for the residents only means the ones who belong to the special interest groups like cspoa, oathkeepers, first state liberty pac, and c4l.

Got something to say? Go for it!