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.




March 7, 2017                              Fred Kelly Grant


For years I have shared the passion of my friend Nick Dranias for a curb on spending by the Congress and the Executive branches of the national government.  So long as Congress refuses to discipline itself to a balanced budget it will continue to spend, thus allowing the zealots of regulatory government to keep spending and expanding the national government at the expense of state sovereignty.  The power to spend is the power to destroy.  In this case, heavy handed, unlimited spending has brought many states to their knees, dissipating their sovereignty to a point of impotence.


But, I have had the fear that to submit a balanced budget amendment to a Constitutional Convention was too great a risk—a risk as to what those who would like to rip our personal rights from the Constitution would do in a runaway session.  I agreed with the opposition stated very thoroughly by the Eagle Forum in a set of 20 questions, and the observation that if they could not be answered satisfactorily from a conservative’s standpoint no one should be urging a Convention.


I know Nick Dranias.  I fought with him side by side when he was with the Goldwater Institute.  Together we urged the American Legislative Exchange Council to adopt a resolution urging adoption of the process of “coordination” by which local governments could reinstate a healthy federalism with federal regulators.  Together we worked to assist Senator Sylvia Allen in her development of and passage of a “coordination” statute empowering the people to bring about “coordination” by their local governments.


Finally he caught me at a moment when I had a break from my fights with regulators, preparing for a rather major surgery, and I took time to review his work with Compact for America, work that is exemplified in Arizona House Bill 2226 that is up for committee vote today.  I have been a supporter of the Tenth Amendment my entire life—the sovereignty of the states, the local governments, THE PEOPLE, depend on that Amendment and on limiting the runaway power of the national government.  I believe that a balanced budget requirement is the best protector of the Tenth Amendment’s authority.  Today I accept and support the interstate compact that is evidenced in House Bill 2226.


But, until now I have told Nick that I had too great a fear of a runaway Convention.  I had seen too many bills in Congress go south as malcontents used the sausage making process of considering 175 bills by voice vote in one package to slip in a clause that injured or destroyed a personal or property right.  A perfect example was a grazing bill that was designed by “ranchers’ friends” in Congress to secure grazing viability.  At the time I was with American Stewards of Liberty and heavily involved with defending the rights of grazers in Owyhee County, Idaho.  Margaret Hage Byfield, Dan Byfield and I were asked to support the bill and we said we would wait and see.  On my granddaughter Samantha’s birthday, I was called from DC by an ardent supporter of the bill and asked to support it as it faced a crucial vote that day.  I declined out of fear what language the opponents of grazing might slip into it at the last second to take some right we claimed to have.  I was assured “we have guards on the committee door, nothing will get past us.”  I still declined.  My position, shared by Margaret and Dan, became a thorn in the side of the bill’s supporters.  We were called on the carpet in a meeting in Reno of the bill’s supporters.  In the bill as it came through committee to the floor, a new section had been added, “section 210”, a section that by its nature would give the Bureau of Land Management the excuse it needed to end or severely limit grazing for at least a year.  So, after several speeches chastising me for withholding support, I finally spoke and said “I will support this bill and urge American Stewards of Liberty to support it if any one of you will explain to me how section 210 will help ranchers—what does 210 mean?”  I was amused at the look of consternation on their faces as they opened their bills and searched out 210.  After time for reading, one of the leading supporters said “where in the hell did that come from?”  I could not help myself, “I don’t know cause you guys were the guards on the committee doors.  What does it mean?”  A well respected lawyer from one of the great pro bono programs glumly answered “it means there would be no grazing next year anywhere in the west.”  I said “precisely and that is why I don’t support the bill.”  The supporters went to work and stripped that language from the bill and lost the support of the anti-grazers, thus loss support needed to gain passage.


Thus, my reluctance to support a Constitutional Convention with the focus on an amendment to require a balanced budget.  Yet I knew, and know that it is the only way for us to gain control of an overzealous national government.


While Nick has been working with Compact for America I have been in court and the administrative process fighting regulatory abuses that overwhelm the sovereignty of states and local governments.  I haven’t taken time to review the Compact’s results.


One day recently, I received an email from Nick and I took time to read the citations he included.  I didn’t stop with those; I continued to read and have since then satisfied myself that the Compact has the answers to my questions which paralleled those posed by Eagle Forum.


The Compact’s structure in the form of an interstate compact is the gist of Arizona House Bill 2226 which is in committee for a vote today in the
Arizona legislature.   The Compact assures the limited nature of the session that will act on the amendment, it assures that the sovereignty of every small and every conservative state will be protected, but represented, and it offers us the chance to stem the tide in the District of Columbia.


Having fought for Tenth Amendment principles nearly all of my life throughout the Western United States, I am now utterly convinced that the states must unite behind the Compact for a Balanced Budget as set forth in Arizona House Bill 2226 to limit federal borrowing capacity. A key feature of the Compact for a Balanced Budget is the requirement that a majority of state legislatures must approve any increase in a constitutional debt limit. The federal government could not engage in most of its mischief if it had to gain approval from a majority of state legislatures for any increase in its borrowing capacity. Restoring respect to our states is at the core of the Compact for a Balanced Budget. If you believe in the Tenth Amendment and limited federal power, as I do, then I urge you to support Arizona House Bill 2226 joining the Compact for a Balanced Budget by passing that bill.




Risk?  Maybe a slight one, but none that cannot be handled under the terms and provisions as outlined in the Arizona bill.  But, as Mr. Justice Scalia said, when he was still a professor at my alma mater University of Chicago School of Law, “The founders…knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power.  The founders foresaw that and they provided the convention as a remedy.  If the only way to get that convention is to take this minimal risk, then it is a reasonable one.”  Spoken like the champion of liberty which he was.  Every  patriot from our early days of revolution to bring about individual and then state liberty has been willing to take reasonable risks.  I am too.  The work that Nick and his organization have done in designing an interstate compact reduces the risk to minimal, and again in the words of Anton Scalia, professor, jurist and patriot extraordinaire: “I think [a constitutional amendment session] is necessary…and I am willing to accept what seems to me a minimal risk of intemperate action.”  I agree!


If you know an Arizona legislator and you want to curb the runaway nature of the national government, call and urge that legislator to vote yes for HB 2226.