Latest Alerts


The Stand and Fight Club Intends to Bring Back Rural America, to Bring Back the Rights of Rural Americans. In a fresh, vital new “Campaign Coordination 2017” we will:

  • File lawsuits, at least 13, one symbolically for each of our first colonies, to require regulators to follow the law and coordinate with local governments to reach consistency with local policies that protect our forest industries, mill workers, fishermen, miners, ranchers, farmers, water users, nurserymen, dairymen, truckers, recreation uses of OUR LANDS, and the property and personal rights of individual citizens
  • Train citizens to a level of legal knowledge and strategy that will let them “persuade” their local governments to do their duty and exercise their authority to require the regulators to be consistent with local plans, policies and actions
  • Equip citizens with the tools they need to support those local officials and help them through the coordination process in paralegal fashion
  • Teach the constitution and the people’s rights by offering materials and teaching assistance to K1 through 12, in colleges, in community adult classes, through radio and television and news publications—keeping in mind that IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR RIGHTS, YOU DON’T HAVE ANY.
  • Keep you advised and up to speed with our progress, and with what the regulators are trying to do to further demolish our God Given liberty.




By Fred Kelly Grant

Note: This is the first of three posts that explain the difference between federal agencies’ “Public Comment” periods for new regulations, and “Coordination,” a legal obligation of agencies but rarely obeyed. Click links to read Part 2 and Part 3.

In an effort to allow the public a cathartic release, many federal agencies have a mandatory comment period before they implement new rules and regulations.

Why do I say public comment is a cathartic release?

In ​ EVERY CASE I HAVE WORKED ON FOR 25 YEARS the federal agency​ ​has​ already predetermined its decision before the public comment period ever begins. Think about it. Who prepares the “proposed decision” to be submitted to the public? The agency does. When put to you, the public, a “preferred alternative” who DECIDED on the PREFERRED alternative? The agency did. So, why submit public comment? Because Congress ordered it.

Congress had the right idea – that federal agencies should be receptive to public opinion when making decisions and rules. But agencies are run by unelected, human bureaucrats who have an agenda, and public opinion might not support their agenda.

Here’s an example. Suppose you are in charge of the school carnival for NEXT YEAR, twelve months from now. You go decide on a “Mardi Gras” theme for the carnival, and spend weeks preparing, setting up committees – one committee for a parade, another for games and prizes, another for food, and so on. But when the committees and you are all organized and ready to go, the school board decides that you have to ask what the entire district thinks. So you put the theme and its implementation plans out for public comment. Now that you have everything in place, are you really going to change the carnival theme based on comments by people who have had no part in your planning or the reasons for your decisions?  You are simply asking for public comment as a basis​ for fabricating rationalizations if the School Board questions your plans.

That same exact scenario that plays out with federal agencies planning to implement a regulation or program. Agencies have no obligation to do anything with public comments. The only real purpose of feedback is to allow the agency to prepare for any pushback on unpopular rules and regulations.The more you study public feedback for rules and regulations, the more you realize federal agencies no longer “serve us.” Instead, they serve either special interests or those with a political agenda.


In ​no case have I seen​ public comment periods alter the outcomes pursued by federal agencies.

Public comment periods are futile. They serve no purpose other than to let an angry public “get it out of their system” as agency leaders often put it.

​In fact sometimes an agency will purposely submit for public comment a conclusion that’s so outrageous, no sane person would act on it. Then when the public comments on the flaws in the conclusion, the agency can say “we’ve listened to the people” and withdraw the conclusion, and submit another that it already decided on anyhow.  ​

Many Americans ​are just waking to the tyranny of federal agencies acting through regulations, ​whether they involve​ massive land grabs, the “War on Coal”, declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, ​eliminating diesel trucks from the highways on a flawed theory that diesel particulates pollute the air, ​and even the persecution of former smokers through the “War on Vaping.”

Yet, many still passionately participate in public comment periods, even though these efforts have proved to be fruitless.

I invite you to pick a case, find the federal notice for public comment, read the thousands of pages of public comment, then read the responses to those comments by the agency. I challenge you to find me ONE CASE in which the preferred decision announced in advance by the agency WAS CHANGED.

Anyone who suggests differently to you is new to the regulatory watch game and very naive, or is deliberately misleading you.



Today marks the birthday of a man who treated me to a series of great thrills by coaching the “Bad Boys” of the Detroit Pistons–and a never before and never after to be equaled Dream Team win of the Gold Medal of the Olympics. CHUCK DALY, the best dressed man in basketball, was born on July 20 and seeing that on my morning “this was the day” alert brought back some great memories of my sons and I enjoying two great seasons of professional basketball playoff series between the Pistons and the Chicago Bulls and Michael Jordan.

Daly was one smooth as silk coach—taking the mind-boggling egos of the “Bad Boys” Dennis Rodman, Bill Laimbeer and John Salley and blending them with Isiah Thomas and Joe Dumars into a Piston ego for the court was a masterful job perhaps only equaled by Phil Jackson’s doing the same with the Bulls.

One of the encyclopedic information sources discussed Daly except as here:

Charles Jerome “Chuck” Daly (July 20, 1930 – May 9, 2009) was an American basketball head coach. He led the Detroit Pistons to consecutive National Basketball Association (NBA) Championships in 1989 and 1990, and the 1992 United States men’s Olympic basketball team (“The Dream Team”) to the gold medal at the 1992 Summer Olympics.[1]

Daly is a two-time Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inductee, being inducted in 1994 for his individual coaching career,[2] and in 2010 was posthumously inducted as the head coach of the “Dream Team”.[3]The Chuck Daly Lifetime Achievement Award is named after him.[4]

That is the analytical skeleton, but the flesh on that frame cut a stylish look onto every court, rarely appearing in a twice viewed suit. I spent an hour and a half this morning just going through YouTube videos of those playoff games and the formation of “Jordan Rules” by the Pistons. What a great ride down memory lane!

This was one of those hundred thousand things that have happened during my lifetime that I’m glad I witnessed. It wasn’t just sports—it was an historic set of events in which minds went to work to overcome the skills of one of the greatest basketball players ever assembled by God—minds of men who could not have been more different.

Daly won two consecutive NBA championships, torching the Michael Jordan-led Bulls along the way. And after winning those titles, the first two in Pistons history, he coached the Dream Team, that never to be forgotten team of Marvels that dominated the Olympics in 1992.

Daly always “dressed to the nines,” and patrolled the sidelines with calm and order, bringing some sense of order to the “Bad Boys” of Detroit for the 1989 and 1990 championship runs. They have been called “the defense of defenses”, the “best there ever was”, and other names not nearly so flattering. Being a Bulls fan, I called them the “gangsta five”.

They were my son Andrew’s team: Bill Laimbeer, the big Notre Dame hunk of defensive steel, Dennis Rodman, he who was born to hit, Rick Mahorn and John Salley—and then Isaiah Thomas the brilliant scorer and ball handler, and Joe Dumars a likely double of Thomas. How mean, how physical they were. And to look at Daly on the sideline you would never figure that he was their coach.

Mr. Nice Guy, everybody liked him, dressed impeccably in it seemed a new suit every game, he proved capable of melding ten volatile personalities into a team where for the most part there was only one personality on the court: the Pistons’, and one on the sideline: Daly.

Of his wardrobe, he is quoted in one interview as saying, “You read the article that said I had 199 blue suits?” Daly said before coaching the East against the West squad of the fashionable Pat Riley in the 1990 N.B.A. All-Star Game. “Now I have 200. I went into a store and sure enough I bought a blue one. Nobody ever looks bad in a blue suit.”

Of his coaching, I was ready when the playoffs came and the Bulls faced the Pistons and told Andrew that his run was over, It was MJ who would win this thing. And I was right through the first three games. Michael scored 43 in that game. And then the Pistons, this gang of misfits and ne’er do wells who mugged their way to victory with the largesse of a Sherman tank in the form of Laimbeer, Rodman and Salley, those who played such a stingy “wear them down” defense that it made the game easy for scoring genius like that of Thomas and Dumars.

All of a sudden, the announcer was talking about “the Jordan Rules”, a new game plan that the Pistons had come up with to stop Jordan. In interviews, none of the players would admit what they were, Laimbeer being the premier game player who looked innocently toward the interviewer and said “Jordan rules? Are you sure you guys aren’t just making that up?” Rodman just grinned and said “Ain’t no Jordan rules, they is one rule about a man driving at you to come under the basket and that is Bill and I just throw that man to the flooow.”

That night we saw the Jordan Rules—-double team him when he has the ball, four team him when he is trying to break inside to the forecourt, the house and finally either Rodman or Laimbeer took him down.

Here’s how Daly himself later, much later, recited the Jordan Rules:

“If Michael was at the point, we forced him left and doubled him. If he was on the left wing, we went immediately to a double team from the top. If he was on the right wing, we went to a slow double team. He could hurt you equally from either wing—hell, he could hurt you from the hot-dog stand—but we just wanted to vary the look. And if he was on the box, we doubled with a big guy.

The other rule was, any time he went by you, you had to nail him. If he was coming off a screen, nail him. We didn’t want to be dirty—I know some people thought we were—but we had to make contact and be very physical.”

After getting Detroit its wins, Daly was picked to coach the Dream Team in the Olympics. The team was a display of magnificence and joy and hype and spirit and finesse and pure sport beauty all rolled up into one roster to represent the U.S.A. I have often wondered if anyone but Chuck Daly could have coached that group and left their egos in the locker room.

They won every game, winning the gold medal after watching Jordan average 43 points and the team winning its games by an average of 43 points. Daly started a different five every game and never called even one timeout during the entire tournament. How did he do it? As Brendan Suhr, an assistant to Daly, put it: “Chuck is a communicator. In the pro game, 95 percent of coaching is knowing the people. With Chuck, I’d raise that to 99 percent.”

It was indeed a dream come true to be able to watch all that professional talent and put it together for the American flag in the Olympics.  One of those top-of-the-mountain-sports-events that I got to witness—one of many in a life blessed by length.



Fresh from Congress’ successful use of the Congressional Review Act to undo 14 Obama-era regulations earlier in 2017, U.S. senators are taking further steps to reassert their constitutionally delegated responsibility for federal rulemaking.

On May 17, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee sent five bills to the full Senate that would reform how federal agencies implement rules and how such rules are finalized.

Among the proposals passed by the committee were the Midnight Rules Relief Act, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS), and the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA).

The House of Representatives passed versions of each of these regulatory reform bills earlier in 2017.

Codifying, Scrutinizing, Approving Regulations

The Midnight Rules Relief Act would allow lawmakers to block rules by using the Congressional Review Act as a bundle rather than one rule at a time. Had this legislation already been law, Congress could have revoked hundreds of last-minute Obama-era regulations, rather than just the 14 it did reverse.

The REINS Act requires congressional approval of all new major regulations, defined as any regulation imposing $100 million or more in costs on the economy, before they may take effect. Under REINS, any major regulation not approved by a majority vote of Congress would be nullified.

RAA would modernize the 70-year-old Administrative Procedure Act by codifying several existing executive orders, including Executive Order 12866,signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. EO 12866 mandates the benefits of any proposed rule must outweigh its costs. The bill calls for assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative economic burdens for rules estimated to cost more than $100 million per year.

The bill would also require agencies to consider alternatives to any proposed rule; to rely on the best available scientific, technological, and economic information for proposed and final rules; and to hold public hearings on disputed factual issues.

The REINS Act and the Midnight Rules Relief Act passed out of committee on strictly party line votes with no Democratic support. Republican Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) joined Democrats Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Jim Manchin (D-WV) in cosponsoring RAA.

Calls for More Reform

The American Action Forum (AAF) calculates the 14 rules blocked by Congress using the CRA since January will save government agencies more than $3.7 billion in regulatory costs and businesses more than $36.2 billion in compliance costs while eliminating 4.2 million hours of paperwork over the expected lifetime of the regulations.

Sam Batkins, AAF’s director of regulatory policy, says the bills under consideration are a good start, but with a national regulatory burden topping $1.9 trillion in 2016, there’s a long way to go.

“There were only three major rules having an economic impact of $100 million or more among the 14 rescinded via the CRA, so rescinding those measures alone won’t drive notable economic growth,” Batkins said. “I think Congress and the [Trump] administration view the CRA votes as just the first in a series of steps to enact a durable legacy of regulatory reform.”

Batkins says the bipartisan support for the Regulatory Accountability Act gives it the greatest promise for enactment among the packet of measures passed by the committee, although Senate filibuster rules mean even the bill would need six additional Democrats to approve allowing it to proceed to a full vote, assuming no Republicans vote against it.

‘Better Rulemaking Outcomes’

Emily Benavides, a spokeswoman for Portman, told Morning Consult RAA would promote better government.

With better information and a little more time up front on the biggest rules, this bill will lead to better rulemaking outcomes that can withstand challenges in court, rather than spawn decades of litigation that we see now,” Benavides told the website.

Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, lauds all the measures passed by the committee, saying such a wholesale overhaul transcends political parties, presidents, and special interests.

“It’s not so much about what Obama did or what the Trump regulators are going to do,” said Stier. “The executive branch can only regulate when Congress gives it the authority to regulate.

“With everything else going on in Congress, sometimes [Congress] gives broad regulatory power to the agencies, which often wind up doing something that was not intended by Congress,” Stier said.

Senate Rules Favor Status Quo

Stier says Congress has a tough time asserting itself due to the nature of the bicameral, two-party system and Senate rules, because having a simple majority in favor of reform is not enough to get it done.

“Ask [Wisconsin] Sen. Ron Johnson if he feels like his party is in control of the Senate,” Stier said. “No, when the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes, it’s hard for it to join with the House and get stuff done.”

This creates a vacuum for the executive branch to legislate through regulations, Stier says.

“It is very important Congress reassert its authority and say, ‘The executive branch cannot go at it alone,’” said Stier. “Even if Congress gives authority to agencies, that doesn’t mean the authority is without limits or oversight.

“Certainly, we rely on the agencies for expertise and to make decisions, but there must be better consultation with Congress, regardless of who’s in charge of it,” Stier said. “If there’s a Democrat in the White House, they still ought to work with the Republican Congress and vice versa. That’s good system, good process, but right now, we’re not getting it.”

Kathy Hoekstra (kathy@kathyhoekstra.comwrites from Saginaw, Michigan.

This article originally appeared at the Heartland Institute.