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.




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.


Late last week, the village of Hartland, Wisconsin and its favorite son, took the next bold step into the coordination process.  The Trustees, led by president Jeff Pfannerstill, and village administrator David Cox, signed and delivered a formal recommendation to advance coordination between the local and federal governments over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s e-liquid regulations under the Tobacco Control Act. The Hartland representatives met with federal officials in the District of Columbia a little over a month ago, and now have taken a pro-active step to put the coordination talks into gear. Hearing Officer Fred Kelly Grant made recommendations to the Board on the last Monday of June, and the Board acted on the recommendation, pushing the ball into the FDA’s court.

First, Hartland reminded the FDA that the Deeming Regulations were issued in violation of several statutory mandates including the requirement that the agency coordinate with the Village as to the content of the regulations. Hartland again requested that the FDA rescind the unlawful regulations, but then addressed three specific elements that could be worked on through coordination while the rescission is taking place.

  • The Village suggested working on a protocol for deterrence of youth from beginning a smoking habit. The Trustees said that through coordination, the parties could discuss and jointly develop a deterrence protocol not through prohibitive federal regulations, but through real life testimonials from actual vapers who describe the differences in their lives between when they smoked combustible cigarettes and after vaping products helped them quit The Village Board advised FDA that they heard several very telling examples during their three-day, televised, hearing which could form the base for educational deterrence.  They expressed doubt that restrictive regulations could bring about deterrence since the law now prohibits sale and use by youth and has not worked.


  • The Trustees suggested that through coordination the parties encourage Johnson Creek Enterprises to develop a protocol by which each step necessary in applying for and gaining approval would be defined and cost analyzed. This would give the FDA an actual cost for analysis instead of mere speculation upon which it now relies.  Since no cost analysis was performed prior to the issuance of the regulations as it should have been, the FDA can now use that failure as a stepping stone toward a meaningful and actual analysis.


  • Third, the Village suggested that a tax revenue loss study be performed, with identification of repercussions from the loss of tax revenue. If the vaping industry goes out of business, or loses significant business every level of government—local, county, state and federal will lose significant tax revenues and no study of that loss has been made.  The Village suggested a cost analysis profile to include a three-dimensional view of the revenue losses. The profile would study every angle of every tax paid to every government level by every element of the business: manufacturer, retail seller, transportation, user, and all incidentals.  This tax study is vital because it raises the issue of loss of tax revenue by local governments as well as the state and federal government for the first time.

After Grant’s presentation, the Trustees discussed the recommendations and with some adjustments approved them and sent them on to the next forward step toward meaningful coordination.  During the meeting, Grant advised the Trustees that efforts were underway to help a California town from the southern part of the state to join Hartland in the field seeking coordination.  Mark Block, founder and CEO of the Electronic Vaping Coalition of America (EVCA) advised the Board that the Coalition was working in support of them and would assist in pushing coordination through southern California.  EVCA is the organization that first introduced Hartland to the concept and process of coordination which Grant has worked with successfully for nearly thirty years. Block also gave the Board an update on the bill to repeal and replace the Deeming Regulations introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.  Legislative relief through that bill is being pursued by EVCA while also supporting the coordination process.

David Cox has advised Grant that a local jurisdiction in another state has contacted him for information regarding the coordination process, so Hartland is being looked to as a standard bearer to move the coordination process forward.


Note: Fred Kelly Grant and Stand & Fight Club are pleased to support the efforts of the Electronic Vaping Coalition of America (EVCA) as it continues fight the assault on the vaping industry at the hands of unelected government bureaucrats and special interests. You are encouraged to visit the EVCA website or on their Facebook page to learn more, and help in the fight!

By: Fred Kelly Grant

 Plain Speaking in government ranks?  Oh, come on now!!!

After Harry Truman left the White House and went back to Independence, news columnist Mary McGrory wrote, “Since Harry Truman left town almost nobody has spoken his mind. Mr. Truman took the tradition of plain speaking back to Missouri with him.”

If Harry had been faced with vaping as a substitute for smoking tobacco, can’t you imagine him being asked at a news conference, “Mr. President, how do you feel about the government prohibiting vaping which effectively helps cut smoking and at the same time saves money on health care costs?”

Mr. Truman: “It is idiotic.”  Or “It’s just dirt dumb” Yuh think?

Government officials who seek to ban flavoring do not speak plainly.

They know the facts. They know banning flavoring will cripple the vaping industry. They know that will end the most effective, safest alternative to cigarette smoking. They know the health care costs that result from smoking. They know how many people die each year from tobacco related causes. But no plain speaking about any of that.

Instead, they talk about how flavors attract and tempt the young, under 21 group from rushing headlong into getting hooked. And, friends, to quote my late uncle Phel Grantham of Grantham Corners South Carolina, “That is pure hogwash!”

What pray tell was “pure” hogwash? I guess the closest I could come in non-Grantham Corners lingo is, if you’ll forgive and overlook an obvious play on words, “It’s just a smokescreen, a total smokescreen!”

The law already makes it illegal to sell the e-liquid and devices to anyone under 21 in California. Every store I have visited sports a “No one under 21” sign. So, if prohibition works, why is it necessary to ban flavors? Why isn’t it enough to simply have the “not under 21” law on the books? Why does anyone think that a ban on flavoring will prevent access by youth to smoking or vaping any more than does the “not under 21”.

Point of fact, in plain speaking as to youth: if a 17-year-old decides she is going to smoke, her aunt, her older sister or cousin, her older boy friend will oblige and buy for her. And, if vaping is eliminated, there is no game in town except combustible cigarettes and the dependence that usually follows.  And, federal law prohibits any attempt to ban cigarettes! But, even if they could be banned, our prospective smoker would be supplied by the black market.

Anyone around old enough to have experienced prohibition of alcohol in this country? Probably not with enough memory to reconstruct it. But surely there are people who have read about it – alcohol production was banned because the American Christian Temperance Union was strong enough to have booze banned. The result? Booze flowed like water. It was made in good clean laboratories and it was made in rusty old bath-tubs – and it all sold at a gosh-awful price, raking in disgraceful profits for the criminal syndicate that operated the underground alcohol business

In fact, no one event fed growth of the criminal syndicate in this nation more than prohibition. It was illegal to make it, to possess it, and to drink it.  Thus, the attraction was novel and greater – and we had more drunks than any time in our history.

Just plain speaking: prohibition produced drunks and huge profits to finance crime.

Even more just plain speaking: banning flavors will produce huge profits to finance crime.

That’s just plain speaking bad public policy. Yuh think?

The plain-speaking truth is that it is all about the money.

Governments have become addicted to tobacco settlement funds. They are so sickly addicted that they can’t satisfy their general fund appropriations without the tobacco money. They gushed over it at the beginning, sold bonds on the expected windfall from future tobacco settlement money, and spent those bond sales like the money was going out of style.

Now, however, the bonds are coming due, and these spendthrift governments do not have the money to redeem the bonds and fund basic government functions. They are caught between a rock and a hard place—-and nowhere to go but back to the well and draw some more money furnished by those who buy tobacco and die from it.

We have reached the idiotic position at which our governments thrive on money furnished by people smoking their lives away, and prohibit a product that would end cigarette dependence and save human lives.

Our governments prefer to let people die and so they can get their money, rather than lose that money and allow people to live.

In the marvelously clever Pogo comic strips, the artist/author hit the nail on the head when he used an historic phrase, turned it into swamp character talk and voila we had, “We has met the enemy and he is us.”

And that my friends, fits the plain speaking we need for the governments that would ban flavors and destroy vaping.  “WE HAS MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US.”

Yuh think?