Wednesday, October 14, 2009


Dogged if this isn’t the best article related to law enforcement that I have read in . . . uhm . . . forever? This appears in the latest edition of The New American magazine (October 12, 2009).

I can’t remember the last time I cheered a cop, so this dude is really something special. A cop with a brain bigger than his or her ego! Who’d a-thunk it? Who?

Read and cheer:


Written by Patrick Krey

Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, is not afraid to ruffle some feathers in order to halt what he considers violations of the U.S. Constitution.

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (commonly referred to as the Brady Bill), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on February 28, 1994. A provision of the Brady Bill compelled state and local law-enforcement officials to perform mandatory background checks. Mack, then a Graham County sheriff, was outraged. In response, Mack gained distinction by being the first sheriff in the nation to file a lawsuit against the Brady Bill. The lawsuit made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the provision was indeed unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment principles of federalism.

Now Mack is once again making headlines with his latest effort to stand up for the Constitution. In a 50-page booklet entitled The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope (available from his website, Mack concisely explains what he believes is the proper role of law enforcement, as well as how your local sheriff can be the last line of defense for the U.S. Constitution. Mack passionately argues that real change is not going to come from Washington, D.C., but instead from local county sheriffs who finally stand up and stop being pawns in the federal government’s unconstitutional schemes. “We must start at home, in our counties, in our own ‘spheres.’ We must erect the barriers and keep those at bay who would confiscate bank accounts, guns, land, property, and children. Sheriff, you are the people’s sworn protector. You cannot shrink from that duty merely because the violator comes into town with a three piece suit and a fancy attaché case.”

In an interview with The New American, Sheriff Mack explained what his goal was with writing this booklet. “My goal is to educate sheriffs to their proper authority and their standing as the ultimate check and balance for the people in their county. If we are going to get back to those principles upon which our country was founded, then the county sheriff has to be involved in that process. That’s where we are today. We don’t have anywhere else to turn, so why not turn to the guy who promised to do just that?”

Why just 50 pages? Mack explains: “I know law enforcement and I know sheriffs; they’re not going to get involved in anything that’s too long. They can read this really easily and there’s no excuse not to read it.” Mack has started a campaign via his website to distribute one booklet to each sheriff in the United States. “We have about six states covered right now. We’re going to keep moving and identify sheriffs in the country who have the guts to fulfill their constitutional duty.”

The County Sheriff: Hope for America

Mack’s experience with fighting federal gun-control legislation of the mid ’90s was quite the learning experience for him. “So here’s the U.S. Congress making an unconstitutional gun-control law, requiring a county official to enforce it and pay for it, and then threatening to arrest him if he refuses! What a government!”

Looking back on the episode, though, Mack wishes he handled things differently. “In retrospect … I wish I had never filed it. The most effective and inexpensive measure that should have been taken was for all the sheriffs of Arizona to simply send the Brady Bill back to Congress with a CC to the White House and with a strongly worded explanation as to why the Brady Bill, or 20 more just like it, would have no place in Arizona.” Mack suggests that a non-complying county sheriff would be a much more efficient and effective way to restore constitutional governance to the land of the free than endless legal challenges in federal courts filled with politically appointed lawyers. “Sheriff Nixon from Lincoln County, Montana, did just that. He didn’t join our lawsuit. He just said, ‘No, I’m not enforcing the Brady Bill,’ and he didn’t. We won a major landmark monumental decision but the sheriffs in this country have the authority to say ‘no’ to the federal government and that’s what we all should have done.”

Who Is Sheriff Richard Mack?

Mack, who started his law-enforcement career in the Provo police department in Utah during the late ’70s, doesn’t mince words when it comes to describing his personal transformation from a standard police officer to a committed constitutionalist. “I was … a by-the-numbers jerk.… We had to write tickets and lots of them. We needed arrests and felonies and DUIs and druggies in jail and our efforts supported in the newspapers. I got caught up in all of this and loved it. We literally justified our existence — on the backs of citizens.” Then in the early ’80s, Mack went undercover for a one-year assignment in narcotics, and it got him to question the entire war on drugs. “What was this all for? Why did so many people have to go to jail because of marijuana, especially when it was less harmful than alcohol? Is law enforcement really about public service, or public harassment?”

His soul searching, combined with years of research, led him to the following conclusion: “I am now totally convinced that the ‘Drug War’ is a farce. It provides no benefit to the public and actually makes the drug problem worse.” This personal epiphany didn’t just stop at the issue of drug prohibition but also extended to the entire method of using law enforcement as a revenue-raising tool for government. “I got fed up with the numbers game in law enforcement and with the idea that we, the police, were here to force people to wear their seat belts and to have their papers [license, registration, insurance, inspection, etc.] in order before they could freely go about their lives.”

Mack looked at the way law enforcement was being handled and didn’t see public servants searching for the truth or advocating the rights of the accused. Instead, he saw a system contrary to what he in his heart believed to be right. “It is a corrupt system based on ‘win-loss’ records. Principles of freedom and equality are bypassed in order to concentrate on the money-generating numbers and plea bargains. If innocent citizens get nailed in the process, then it is ... considered collateral damage.” Mack didn’t just see abuses being perpetrated at the state level but also at the federal level in a much more flagrant and blatant manner.

Greatest Threat to America: The Federal Government

What does Sheriff Mack view as the biggest threat facing America today? Global warming? Terrorism? The swine flu? Again, Mack pulls no punches and states exactly what is on his mind. “The greatest threat we face, as a nation, is our own federal government.” Mack’s opposition to federal overreach is not limited to just when Democrats control the levers of federal power. Mack staunchly opposes right-wing overreach. He vigorously objects to an interventionist foreign policy, as well as abusive national-security tactics applied domestically. “The elitists of Washington, D.C., including those of both major parties, have turned America into a socialistic democratic dictatorship. We are a police state and welfare state all rolled into one enormous gluttonous debt.”

Sheriff Mack does not see a bright future for America if we don’t turn back the clock on the expansive growth of government. “It is a mathematical certainty that the bigger the government, the smaller the freedom. You cannot have huge government and abundant freedom simultaneously.”

Saying “No” to the Feds

For those who are absolutely fed up with the constant violations of the U.S. Constitution, Sheriff Mack’s proposition to nullify federal overreach by just saying “no” is entirely practical advice.

The notion of state interposition, or state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, is a concept as old as our Republic; Mack’s proposal to extend it to the county sheriff level merely adds a new decentralist twist. Could such a proposal possibly work? Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center and an expert on the subject of state nullification, believes that it could. Boldin told The New American, “It’s my opinion that the best way to resist the federal government and its incessant violations of the Constitution is not to continually try to ‘vote the bums out’ every election season, but instead, to virtually ignore it. Nullification, simply saying no to federal laws outside the scope of their constitutionally delegated authority, is the path to liberty for this country. It’s powerful, it’s peaceful, and it works, as can be seen in the state-level revolt against the Real ID Act of 2005. In 2007, multiple states passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that it was unconstitutional. Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation, and earlier this month the Obama administration announced that it was looking to ‘repeal and replace’ the controversial law.”

Has the time come for such action? Boldin believes that the time has definitely come. “James Madison, in his report of 1800, said that interposition must not be employed ‘either in a hasty manner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions.’ And he was quite right. But, with the massive amount of constitutional overreach coming from the federal government, choosing one overreach to resist is like shooting fish in a bucket.”

The Next Step

What kind of feedback has Mack received from other sheriffs who have read his book? “Sheriffs from Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Washington, and Wisconsin have all voiced overwhelming support and ... are getting more on board every day.” The only type of negative feedback he has received is from “a couple [of sheriffs] who have expressed reluctance, but most of those just boil down to whether or not they have the guts to do it. I think most of them know this is true but just don’t want to be the tester to see if it really works.”

Indeed, as Mack is quick to point out, “There are already several examples of sheriffs and local governments standing against federal intrusiveness.” Mack highlights an incident in Nye County, Nevada, where the local sheriff told federal agents that if they tried to confiscate cattle from a local rancher, he would arrest them. The feds backed down and the cattle remained. Mack explains, “For federal officers to come in to the county and take over in any respect is the epitome of usurpation, and he who is the rightful steward of the county needn’t tolerate any such usurpations whatsoever.”

As far as federal legislation requiring the action of local sheriffs, Mack asserts that “they’re entirely meaningless and have no way of being enforced unless [the county sheriff] says so.” Mack argues that the worst that can happen is that the sheriff will lose out on some federal funding.

Mack himself acknowledges how very revolutionary his proposal is, but argues that it is vital to preserve our freedoms. “I know this all sounds radical. Standing for freedom has always been labeled as radical, but ‘extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,’ to quote Barry Goldwater.”

Mack stands firmly by his warning that for “the tyrant to win … the only thing that has to happen is for the nation’s police and sheriffs to be convinced that all laws must be enforced.”

I doff my cowboy hat to Sheriff Mack and applaud his genuine American patriotism!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


  1. I agree, Sheriff Mack has some interesting ideas. The cops should be out there fighting crime and rounding up criminals. They shouldn't be going out of their way to look for people who roll through stop signs when there's no traffic or are going 20 miles over the speed limit in the middle of the desert. There's too much other really bad stuff going on out there. We should give the cops a longer leash when it comes to pressing after gangs. Instead the lawyers run the game as the ACLU defends the gang members' rights -- what about our rights? If a guy has a shaved head, tattoos on his face, and baggy clothes he's fair game whenever the cops want to harass him. If it looks like a duck, let the law quack down on 'em. And the stupid "drug war"-- we got bigger wars to fight. Legalize it all and let the forces of capitalism run things.

    I can see the potential abuse of power in what Mack talks about, but I like the way he thinks.


  2. I decided to comment here because it is your most recent posting.
    I found your writings as I was contemplating purchasing Carrol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, which lead me to Skousen's Naked Capitalist, which lead me to your review on Amazon.
    I spent a few hours reading some of your material. It has convinced me to purchase a few of the books on your "idiot" list. I will probably also get the books on feminism when i have some more funds, but that will have to wait. As a university student your review of books about America's "education" was especially... interesting to me. I've had my own feelings about education for a long time now, but now I can put a label on the ridiculousness that is the education that I am paying an incredible amount of money for.
    This brings me to my purpose for commenting: I was wondering if I could humbly request your assistance over email?

  3. rLEE-b ~

    >>[If it looks like a duck, let the law quack down on 'em.]<<

    Ha!-Ha! Sheesh, Brother, you're even worse than I am with the puns. Now THERE'S something the cops should be quackin' down on.

    >>[And the stupid "drug war"-- we got bigger wars to fight. Legalize it all and let the forces of capitalism run things.]<<

    We need to be pretty wary of any issue Uncle Sam adds the word "War" to.

    I'm all for legalizing the "weed" and treating it in a similar way to how we handle booze. Magic mushrooms, too. I can't go that far when it comes to some of the really hardcore, highly addictive drugs like Meth and Horse, etc. Although I do understand the argument of those who would endorse legalizing them.

    rLEE-b, talk about abuse of authority problems, I'm familiar with several stories related to the federal alphabet agencies such as the BLM, CPS, and the ever-popular IRS, that would straighten a person's hair and curl their toes. Or is that curl their hair and straighten their toes? Well, you know what I mean, Bro. Trouble! We got trouble, right here in River City!

    ~ Stephen
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>

  4. JOHN ~
    Thanks for your fine comment, my brother.

    If you haven't purchased any books yet, please allow me to make a recommendation: First read my Blog Bit on this site which I titled "RAPING THE WHOLE WORLD (AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT)". And be certain you read the excellent article by James Perloff which I linked at the bottom of that Blog Bit. ("OUR MONETARY MAYHEM BEGAN WITH THE FED" by James Perloff)

    If that article provides you with "The Wow Factor" (as I'm sure it will), then the first book you want to purchase is "THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND: A SECOND LOOK AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE" by G. Edward Griffin. I think Griffin's book or "NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON ...25 YEARS LATER" by John Stormer are the first two titles I would recommend to anyone who is starting out on a search for political truth.

    As for the Email question: I generally don't make my Email address known to people I'm not familiar with. As you can undoubtedly imagine, writing the sorts of truths I do, there are plenty of people out there who would consider me a political enemy and would like nothing better than to infect my computer with a virus, etc.

    Another problem is that I don't own a computer; everything I write is done on my brother Nappy's machine, and I hesistate to possibly jeopardize it since it doesn't belong to me.

    However, you certainly seem sincere to me. Give me a few days to show this to my Bro and to talk it over with him and see how he responds to the idea. I'll be seeing him on Saturday for sure.

    Meanwhile, feel free to post any and all comments/questions on my Blog(s) as I will certainly reply to you.

    If Brother Nappy doesn't object, I'll probably ask you to post your Email address here and then I'll contact you, or I'll ask you to send me a "Friend Invite" via, and that will provide you with my Email address. But sit tight for now, Friend, and I'll revisit this topic here soon enough.

    ~ Stephen
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>

  5. Howdy, JOHN ~
    I just wanted to let you know that I did receive your message and I will retain it (not post it) until I've had a chance to go over this with my Brother. If it were up to me, I'd "Just say Yes", but since it's my Brother's computer, it's really his decision to make. You should hear from me again on Sunday, either via Email or a comment posted here.

    ~ "Lonesome Dogg" McCarthy

  6. Sheriff Mack did a interview with Gary Franchini for Republic Magazine's on line broadcast, "the reality report." It's a multiple segment piece and can be watched on You Tube. Just type in Sheriff Mack. I love this guy, and have been following him for a few months now.

  7. Sheriff Mack,
    He's our man!
    If he can't do it,
    ...We'll have to pay our speeding tickets.

    ~ Stephen
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>

  8. Sadly, Stephen, we're stuck with the caricature-who-walks-like-a-man-and-spews-bs-like-a-wannabe-politician, Sherrif Joe here in the denser (and I don't just mean population count) part of Airheadzona.

  9. Ah, DiscConnected . . .
    Spoken like a man who knows what he's talkin' 'bout... and who knows Sheriff Joe like the back of his hand. (And wouldn't we like to give Sheriff Joe the back of ours?)

    However, Joe IS enforcing our immigration laws when no one else wants to (especially Uncle Sam!), and so I must give him credit for that much anyhow. In my 14 years of living in this God-forsaken town, it may be the only thing Sheriff Joe has ever done that I approve of.

    ~ Stevieboy
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>

  10. Yo! JOHN ~
    Did you receive the Email I sent to you on the 17th?

    I think I'm-a resend it in a few minutes, just in case you no got.

    Watch your InBox - you may be the winner of one million dollars and a new car.

    ~ Stephen
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.