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.




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

How ironic that in the 50th Anniversary of the Love Summer, San Francisco’s elected officials slammed shut the door to freedom of choice.  After a hearing before an overflow crowd, a Committee of the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to recommend passage of the ordinance banning the sale of flavored e-liquid for vaping devices.

Mark Block, founder and CEO of Electronic Vaping Coalition of America, testified as he had in Contra Costa the day before. That County Board delayed action to have staff clear up vagueness. Block pointed out that vaping does provide the effective way to get off cigarettes, and that passage of this Ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees equal and fair treatment.

Today he heads for southern California where maybe saner heads will  prevail and separate the vaping from smoking.

What the action in San Francisco means is that people who choose to get off cigarette smoke and save their health and lives are out of luck in the city which was once the epitome of freedom. Evidence is overwhelming that if flavoring is banned, the vape shops will either go out of business or lose so much business that they will close eventually.  Evidence is also overwhelming that vapers will not stay with the product if there is no flavoring—-and many will drift back to the slow death that comes from smoking cigarettes. Sad but true.

And what is really sad about it is that it comes in the city that has been the beacon for free thinking alternative life styles and ways of life for at least a hundred years. Just fifty years ago, the Love Summer marveled all of America. Scott McKenzie’s song “San Francisco (Be sure to wear flowers in your hair) became a major hit; it was written by John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas. Haight Asbury bands like the Grateful Dead, Big Brother and the Holding Company, and Jefferson Airplane rose to the top of the charts. Janis Joplin lived near the intersection of Haight and Asbury streets and became a household name whether the house held “hippies” or not.

Long after the Love Summer ended, the Haight turned out some of the most colorful comedians such as Robin Williams, Whoopi Goldberg, and Dana Carvey. The stars of alternative ideas and thoughts and ways of life came from this Golden City; it was a city that the rest of us in America envied—often because we did not have the nerve to live life as it was lived in San Francisco.

The spirits of those that turned the Castro into the beginning of a free-wheeling, free thinking Baghdad of the Bay must be turning in their resting places. The legacy of mayors Alioto, Mosconi, Brown, Agnos called for better than what the committee did. Those men had the spirit to open doors to minorities and women to jobs and promotions so that San Francisco became the “liberal leader” of America. When Dianne Feinstein is the most conservative mayor in a span of thirty years, you know how liberal was this city even if you didn’t follow it.

Mosconi saved the Giants from moving to Toronto and if nothing else he had done, that fact alone would have made him beloved to Giants fans everywhere  He was a revolutionary mayor who appointed large numbers of women, gay men, lesbians and racial minorities to city commissions and advisory boards. He also was the first to agree that a court enter a judgment ending discriminatory recruiting practices by the police department, a first big such move in the nation. He supported an occupation sit-in of the Federal Building by 100 disabled people demanding their civil rights; while the feds wanted to starve them out, Mosconi took in portable showers and towels and food. The sit-in got results, and eventually is credited with passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Alioto, Agnos, and Brown all championed in one way or another finding suitable facilities for the homeless while other cities continued to shunt them from place to place. All  endured strikes from city and county personnel and found a way to mediate them and get better benefits for them, including coverage of domestic partners for health benefits. All continued and furthered the hiring and promotion of all nationalities, sexual preferences and races—to the point where San Francisco was the melting pot model for all America.

Free speech, free living, free choices of alternatives—this was San Francisco. Writers have portrayed the San Francisco scene as the freest there was in the counter culture of the 60’s for example, providing the natural spot for nurturing all differing interpretations of the American Dream

As an inhabitant of Boise, Idaho, and even having had experiences in Chicago and Baltimore, San Francisco was my ideal as an  American experience.  Whenever I could, I read Herb Caen of the Chronicle (and I still read Wilie Brown’s column) and listened to KGO at night—I remember Caen’s coverage off and on of the legendary Magnolia Thunderpussy, a San Francisco native and burlesque queen who has been described as “something of a cross between a den mother to San Francisco weirdos and a proto-Bette Midler”. Her place at 1398 Haight Street was legendary; featured briefly in the Jack Nicholson movie Psyche Out, you can be sure it could have been a vape shop had vaping even been in existence.

At stake yesterday was the freedom of choice of people who want to escape the dregs of cigarette smoking with the use of e-liquid and vaping devices  The Committee took away that freedom—-in a city whose entire history is built on free thinking, free wheeling, live and let live openness.

It has been proven that cigarette smoking is addictive to large parts of diverse minority populations.  Vaping would offer an effective, safe escape for the diverse populations of the Mission District, Bernal Heights, Potrero Hill, the Castro, the Excelsior District, the Sunset District, the Richmond, Chinatown, and Forest Hill. But neither they nor anyone else in the city/county can buy flavored e-liquid after the Ordinance is passed finally.

Sad that here in this beautiful city of freedom, the axe of arbitrary, autocratic political dictatorship fell today. And why? Money is the answer—money from the big tobacco settlement by which the big companies managed to buy their way out of huge tort cases in which people dying from tobacco exposure were cashiered out, and those not yet in court torn from their claims by a monetary settlement.

Tragic also are the excuses given for passage of the Ordinance. Supervisor Cohen who is sponsor of the ordinance represents a huge African American population in Bayview Hunters Point, said that she was driven by her experience with family members who smoked menthol cigarettes and died of cancer. But, Supervisor Cohen, no one has died of cancer from vaping; it provides the only effective, safe way for people to kick the cigarette habit. With your experiences you should be welcoming vaping, and the flavoring that makes it successful as an alternative to smoking cigarettes and death.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee endorsed the proposal. “We know from research and studies that tobacco-related diseases continue to be the No. 1 cause of preventable deaths, especially among low-income and minority communities,” he said. But again, vaping is the answer to these statistics because it gets people OFF CIGARETTES.

Those elected officials who profess to protect the cause of minorities and low-income folks should be lining up to back vaping, because it is the soul and life saver of all those folks who want to get off the cigarette road to death. One would think that in this city of ideas the elected officials would have done some research. The Trustees of the small Village of Hartland, Wisconsin did their homework, and learned of the great health value of vaping to all those who want to avoid poor health and death from cigarettes. The elected Supervisors of San Francisco would do well to read their Findings and Conclusions. One might be surprised to know that a Village in mid Wisconsin is more enlightened today than the venerable Supervisors of San Francisco.

And, as to the statements by Supervisor Cohen and Mayor Lee, trying to pass off vaping as the same as cigarettes, in the colorful words of that venerable veteran of politics Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland “Oh come onnnn now! Y’all know better.”

The reason lies not with the merits of the ordinance as applied to vaping; the reason is that California, like all other states, is addicted to money from the tobacco settlement—it has used that money as the constant staple for appropriations for annual budgets.  And the cities know that their money interests are at stake if they buck the tide that runs out of Sacramento.

450,000 lives lost every year from tobacco causes don’t seem to matter to local officials—perhaps it would be therapeutic for the Supervisors to get the opportunity to meet with relatives of this year’s deaths and explain to them why they are so adamant about closing down the opportunity to escape death at the hands of cigarettes.

As vaping sales go up, tobacco sales go down. And, since most local officials are not as up to date as are their constituents, they haven’t yet seen the tax benefits of vaping—particularly when measured against medical and health costs from cigarette smoking. If the vaping business goes under, a tremendous tax revenue will be lost to the cities. Once that has happened, there will be council people and supervisors and trustees all over the land wringing their hands, crying out “who did this to us”.

“Oh come onnnnn now!”


The Village of Hartland , Wisconsin has invoked coordination with the Food and Drug Administration.  Hartland’s Trustees have insisted that the Food and Drug Administration coordinate with the Village as to regulations that seem to doom the e-liquid “vaping” industry that provides the most effective, safe means of attacking the smoking addiction that leads to 480,000 deaths a year.  Hartland’s Trustees have taken up the cause to try to save an industry vital to its economy and to the health of the people:  Johnson Creek Enterprises which produces the product that safely allows smokers to abandon life threatening cigarettes.  The FDA seems hell bent on destroying Johnson Creek as well as the entire industry through a set of regulations that create an impossible cost for industry survival.  Hartland’s Trustees have decided that they won’t let that happen without a fight.  And it’s a fight of the type encouraged by the President of the United States who happens to be the ultimate supervisor of the Food and Drug Administration.

When the Village invited Food and Drug to attend its hearing,  a spokeswoman for the agency left a voice message that the agency would send a letter addressing the Village Trustees’ “concerns”.   I seriously doubt that sending a letter is the level of coordination that is expected by President Trump. Since taking office he has repeatedly emphasized that control over many aspects of life must be returned to local government.

And the issue taken up by Hartland would seem to be the perfect type issue for local interest and involvement.  After all, smoking addiction strikes at the heart of public health that is a part of life subject to the police powers reserved to the states and local governments by the Tenth Amendment.


Since the Hartland, Wisconsin “coordination” the coordination process has been a topic of broad discussion.  Many call the Hartland approach “novel”, many call it “new”, some call it nonsensical to believe that a federal agency must coordinate with a small village.

But, if and when the Food and Drug Administration wants to know what we mean by “coordination”, our answer should be “why don’t you call the President and ask him?”  Because President Trump obviously knows the term.  He used it repeatedly in an Executive Order issued within the last two weeks.  In the Order directing that all designations under the Antiquities Act be reviewed he used the term four times in a two page order.  He ordered the Secretary of Interior to coordinate with local governments.

And, the order to coordinate is not new to this President.  John Fitzgerald Kennedy ordered all agencies to coordinate with local governments in a Presidential Memorandum on November 10, 1961.  He said he wanted “coordination of government activities outside of Washington significantly strengthened” in order to bring about a closer relationship with local governments on “economic problems, natural resources development, protection of equal rights and urban development efforts.”

Ronald Reagan ordered an Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs in 1982, and directed all agencies to adopt “processes or refine processes for State and local elected officials to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development”.  He ordered the agencies to coordinate with local governments “as early in the program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions”, and to “make efforts” to reach consistency with local  plans and actions, and where that is legally impossible “explain the bases for …decision in a timely manner.”

Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13132 in 1999  that contained the order to coordinate with local government.  Why?  Because, said the President

“The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several states according to their own conditions, needs, and desires.  In the search for enlightened public policy, individual states and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public  issues.  One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems.”

He said further that “policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of—and should encourage opportunities for—individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.”  To that end, he ordered all federal agencies to coordinate with local governments, and where national standards are being developed he ordered the agencies to “consult with appropriate state and local officials in developing those standards.”

And, President Obama ordered coordination by every agency with local governments in an executive order issued in June, 2011.

So, when an agency spokesperson says “we don’t know what coordination means” or when he or she asks local government “what do you mean by coordination”, perhaps the answer should be “why don’t you ask the President who supervises you what he meant when he ordered you to coordinate.”

Every one of the Presidential orders directed a process that was mandated by Congress to every federal agency by the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969.  That act orders every federal agency to enter into the coordination process regarding every “major federal action”, and issuance of regulations is considered a “major federal action”.  So, regardless of what subject is being regulated, when an agency begins to develop a regulation or set of regulations, coordination is necessary.

Some have said that the coordination process is only available for land issues.  But that simply is not so.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) makes it clear that it applies to  protect local governments and their citizens regarding all aspects of “man” and “his” environment, not just the natural resources of the environment.  Congress opens the act with a declaration of national policy “to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment” in order to “stimulate the health and welfare of man.”  In order to better provide for the public health, the Act created the Council on Environmental Quality which has defined the “human environment” as including all aspects of life: “ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, [and] health”.

So, when Hartland invokes coordination regarding the “deeming regulations” which restrict an effective alternative to smoking that leads to death, it is invoking the process in precisely the situation anticipated by NEPA.  When invited to attend the Hartland hearing, Food and Drug said they were unable to make anyone available to come to the meeting but would send a letter addressing Hartland’s “concerns”.

We will see whether sending a letter is the degree of coordination expected by FDA’s President who as recently as last week said  he would continue the effort to return to the people the decisions important to their lives—taking them from the hands of Washington, DC “bureaucrats”.  If my experiences over the last twenty five years are any indication, sending a letter will not be the answer.  The state of Texas and the federal EPA thought writing a letter would suffice when four small towns with a population of around 6,000 invoked coordination over the first leg of the NAFTA Superhighway—but after 24 months of coordinated badgering by the towns, the Trans Texas Corridor was abandoned.

Maybe the Philistines should have sent a letter rather than Goliath?



           Unsung hero of rural America

Fred Kelly Grant instructs local officials how to beat environmental nannies


By Kathy Hoekstra – – Thursday, April 13, 2017


While President Trump and Congress tackle federal regulations and the agencies that promulgate them, Fred Kelly Grant is quietly doing the same — and succeeding — with the most powerful weapon you’ve likely never heard of.

It’s called “coordination” — tucked into the National Environmental Policy Act by Congress in 1976, the provision requires federal agencies to coordinate with local officials before implementing new rules, so the intentions and expectations are consistent at every level of government.

“Local policy and local plans are what drive the economy,” Mr. Grant said. “Under the coordination law, the agency doesn’t just come to the table and talk and walk away. They have to try to reach consistency with local government. That’s the key to it and that’s why it works, and every other process doesn’t.”

Not even Mr. Trump can make a difference without local help, according to Mr. Grant.

“Anybody that thinks the president of the United States drives the economy is living in an Alice in Wonderland world. He doesn’t. He can set the tone, but nothing changes from the top. It all has to change from the bottom,” Mr. Grant said. “And that’s where local government, with coordination, could get the agencies to the table with them and begin to make change.”

Mr. Grant, a longtime attorney who lives in Idaho, discovered the rule in the early 1990s during the Clinton administration’s “Cattle Free by ‘93” campaign to reduce grazing on federal lands. A rancher friend asked him for help in fending off the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) efforts to cut such grazing by 45 percent in southwest Idaho’s Owyhee County.

Considering around 76 percent of the county’s 5 million acres are federally owned and ranching is the primary economic producer, the move would have put more than 100 of the county’s 140 ranchers out of business.

“I said to my friend, ‘If the federal government wants you off their land, you’re going to be put off. There’s nothing I can do.’ “

Mr. Grant heard about coordination at a conference on property rights, and looked it up.

“I didn’t know about it. I worked for two governors and I had never come across it,” Mr. Grant recalled. “As I read it, I thought, ‘This can’t be. Congress didn’t leave this loophole.’ And the more I read, the more I realized it was not a loophole. It was intended and had been used successfully by counties four times in the past.”

The BLM had never coordinated with county officials as required by federal law. So Mr. Grant told the ranchers that with the statute, he could hold the feds at bay for two years — long enough for the BLM to find another way to get cattle off federal land.

Mr. Grant was wrong.

“The ranchers are still there, they’re still raising livestock, they’re still all in business and we beat the BLM,” he said. “We got rid of six different district managers because they broke the law. We got rid of two state directors because they broke the law, and today managers of the BLM drive 140 miles round trip once a month to sit down and meet with three county commissioners of Owyhee County, Idaho.”

Since then, Mr. Grant has used coordination to beat back not only the BLM, but the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

He has also worked with the Americans Stewards of Liberty, which trains local governments in the coordination process, helped persuade the American Legislative Exchange Council to adopt a model coordination ordinance for local governments, and launched the Stand up and Fight Club, which aims to restore and protect the rights of rural Americans.

Now, he’s taking on the Food and Drug Administration.

With Mr. Grant’s help, the village of Hartland, Wis., is using the coordination statute to fight the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 2016 tobacco rule that deems liquid nicotine products such as e-cigarettes as tobacco products. The rule includes an expensive premarket approval process, which the vaping and e-cigarette industry says will wipe out 99 percent of the nation’s businesses.

Given that one of the town’s biggest economic drivers is a vaping shop, the village adopted a resolution calling for coordination with the FDA on the development and implementation of the rule.

At 83, Mr. Grant has no plans to slow down.

“Not as long as I can stand and walk and talk. I’m tempted all the time to retire,” he said. “But I truly believe in this nation and I think there are too few people who understand and believe in the core principle of the federal republic, and if we lose that, I believe we lose what makes the Constitution the most perfect instrument of government that’s ever been created.”

By using the federal government’s statute to fight its own agencies to protect private property and enterprise, Fred Kelly Grant is an unsung hero.

  • Kathy Hoekstra is the national regulatory reporter for