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.




This is a most historic  week  for Americans as they watch the drama unfold in Washington over the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to become a Justice of the Highest Court in the land.   To my mind there is no more important job that the President has than that of nominating a Justice to the United States Supreme Court. I believe the Court is the most critical of the ideas embedded into our fundamental law by the Founders. It was intended to be the arbiter of Justice and the balance between the Legislative and the Executive Branches of government. And, I believe that over the years it has performed its function well, in fact impossibly well considering it has no enforcement powers—no armies it can send out to execute its judgment, no power of the budget or appropriation it can use to enforce its judgment. It has only the force of law, the force of a people who live in a Republic that was created to survive under the Rule of Law.

Many times in our history, the Court has issued judgments when Congress and the President were at such odds that the issues might have torn us asunder. Each time, both other branches have followed the Court’s lead and we have survived as a nation under law.

I believe the Court was not created to “make law” but to interpret the law: both the fundamental law embedded in the Constitution, statutes and laws made by legislative bodies, and the natural rights of law that we all hold under a right even higher than our Constitution, i.e., those rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. The “making of law” was bestowed to the legislative branch, i.e., Congress, and to the states and local governments of course by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The President was given the enforcement power. The Court was to be the interpreter of laws challenged by an individual, by the President or by the Congress or a state or local government.

Given the fact that I believe the nomination is so important, it stands to reason that I believe that the United States Senate has no higher duty than that of considering the nomination and either confirming or denying consent to the nomination.

This week we are expecting a battle in the United States Senate over the question of whether to confirm the nomination of Judge Gorsuch as the ninth member of the High Court. The Democrats have threatened to filibuster and it appears the threat is not only real, but also has a chance of delaying the conformation. It is in doubt, I believe, whether the Republican leadership of the Senate, as it is in the hands of Mitch McConnell, can muster the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster. If it is to be done it won’t be done by McConnell; it will be done by members like Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho who, even though a conservative, has the ability and the talent to reach across the aisle and get support of a few votes when needed.

It is regrettable that a distinguished judge like Gorsuch should be subjected to the headlines, the attacks on his record, and to the indecision of awaiting the Senate vote. He is a judge who has served impeccably, with not a blemish on his record. I have read his opinions, both those submitted to the Senate and others that I sought out. He writes a thoughtful, carefully explained opinion laying forth why he interprets and applies the law as he does, fully laying out his reason and the reason of the Court for whom he writes. He is intelligent and intellectual enough to see the nuances of the law as to what might result from his decisions, but he is not an “egg head” who writes above the level of good lawyers and literate citizens.

He is a conservative in that he tries to apply the Constitution and laws as they are written, with the intent of those that wrote them. He does not reach into outer space to come up with an approach to the law before him simply to justify his decision or that of his court. It is obvious from some of his opinions that he does not always agree with the law before him, but he makes sure that whether he likes it or not, it gets applied as it is written. To me that is the mark of a good, sound, solid judge. He is to judge, not legislate, not enforce, but to judge.

The fact that he is a conservative has nothing to do with politics. I have no idea whether he is a conservative in politics, but he is a conservative in the law. I worked many years ago as a law clerk for one of the finest judges I have ever known, Chief Judge Frederick W. Brune of the Maryland Court of Appeals. He was a conservative judge and his opinions remind me of those of Judge Gorsuch. But, in his personal life, while basically a conservative in politics, he was the most liberal person I have ever known in his empathy for the downtrodden, the disadvantaged. Much, much later, I worked for District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Idaho (when I worked for him he was a state District Judge; he later was appointed to be a Bankruptcy Court Judge and then ultimately United States District Judge where he presided over the infamous Ruby Ridge FBI shoot out case (he had presided over the trial of the infamous Claude Dallas who shot two fish and game officers)). Judge Lodge was from a politically active and very conservative family, without a liberal political bone in his body. But he, as Judge Brune, held very liberal beliefs for the people. But, the important thing on the bench for both of them is that they conservatively applied the law as they believed it read and was intended to be read.

That is my read of Judge Gorsuch. And that is my idea of a fine judge
Now, Senator Shumer and his associates may have a valid point in being upset with the way the President handled the nomination, that is, without consulting with Democrats in the Senate. After all the Constitution provides that the President shall nominate members of the Supreme Court “with the Advice and Consent” of the Senate. I believe the intent of that phrase was and should be that in making a decision so important, the President should seek the advice of the Senate when he is putting together a panel of prospective nominees. I believe when he settles on his final group, he should seek advice from the senate, and “the Senate” is both parties, not just one. Apparently he did not do that.

But, he has now had the advice of the Senate from the Democrats who have voiced their opposition, and he has not changed his mind. So, I would say that the “Advice” portion of the Constitutional mandate has been satisfied sufficiently.

So, let’s get to the vote. Lets now get to the issue of whether the Senate will confirm the nomination of this well qualified nominee to serve as a lifetime member of the United States Supreme Court.

I hope that the Senators Crapo who are in the Senate will reach out and secure the necessary votes to get this honorable man seated on the court where he has every right to sit. This is no way to treat a man who has given as much as a good judge gives up in order to serve.

But, that’s just my belief. What do I know?


Coord. 101 Flyer, 5-5,6-17






[The Executive Order allows to local governments  the opportunity now to demand coordination throughout the review of energy regulations ordered to take place over the next six months.  The Council on Environmental Quality will be reviewing the reports of these agencies within its role as overseer of environmental policy; and the Council’s rules require coordination with local governments.


So, any local government that does not make use of its coordinate authority is not doing its citizens a favor—either those citizens who favor climate controls and those that do not; and such government is not doing its duty to its citizens to make sure that sound science and sound economics are used in making regulatory decisions.


The President has opened the entire administrative process to coordination. It is there for the taking—-or there as an opportunity for involvement to be lost.


It also allows local governments the opportunity, through coordination, to state their positions in a way that gives the federal agency heads the base they need to roll back unduly, and unlawfully, burdensome regulations.  It shows that we have an Administration open to that process—now who will take advantage of it?  And who will lose the opportunity?]




Yesterday, President Trump signed Executive Order Entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth”.  It rolled back the prior Administration’s ban on fossil fuel exploration and development.


Senator Jim Inhofe, chair of the powerful Energy and Public Works Committee, praised the Order when he pointed out that the prior Administration’s artificial goals had been determined by scientists to be totally impossible to achieve.  And, even if achievable would have no real impact on global warming because we in this country play such a small role as compared to pollution from the entire globe.


Immediately, global climate warming activists roared that “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” and the Washington Post editorialized that children would wonder how any president could do such great harm to our world.


But, what does this Order actually do?  It sets forth to rescind regulations that “ unduly burden  the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.”     In other words, get rid of those that are beyond what our laws allow.  Kind of a novel approach for DC?

It also recognizes that the policy of this nation “to the extent permitted by law” is to “promote clean air and clean water…..[while making sure that regulations] are developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics…[and] while respecting the proper roles of the Congress and the States concerning these matters in our constitutional republic.”

My oh My, how revolutionary—an Administration, the leader of which, recognizes science, economics, the law and federalism.  But the Washington Post moans that it will destroy us, as though if we follow the law and act based on real science and economic theory we are doomed.  In other words, unless we act on theory unsupported by facts, and unless we depart from our Constitution, we will not survive and we will take the world down with us.  If that were true, it would be time that we all went down.

What the alarmists do not discuss is the fact that the President did not order immediate rescission of all such regulations; rather it orders a structured, orderly review of such regulations by the heads of agencies.  It orders all executive department agencies to review all regulations, orders and policies (including guideline documents) that “burden” development of and use of “domestically produced energy resources…oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear energy resources”.


It orders that the review result in a report to the Council on Environmental Quality 120 days from now as to how, within the law, the burdens on energy development and use can be eliminated “to the extent permitted by law”, [WHAT A NOVEL CONCEPT—FOLLOW THE LAW]  such report to be finalized by 180 days from now.


In other words, and in the vernacular of the streets   “okay, guys, get your act together, you don’t make laws, you only implement those that are made by the people’s elected representatives in Congress and the state legislatures and the county and city councils; so get your houses in order and identify those regulations that went too far to burden our energy development and our economy.”


Through all the ballyhoo about the sky falling, not a mention of the importance of this Order to the people of the United States—their economic survival or the survival of the form of government, a federal republic, that has served them so well for two and a half centuries.


Not a word about what this Order does to again recognize the important role played by state and local governments in this land.  In one of the preliminary paragraphs, the President again expresses the “policy of the United States” that agency personnel must respect “the proper roles of the Congress and the States concerning these matters [matters of energy and fossil fuel use and development]in our constitutional republic.”

For thirty years Presidents of  the United States have led their executive agencies on an unchecked path to usurp the authority of the legislative branch, Congress, to make law.   And the Courts have stuck their heads in the sand and allowed it to happen through the infamous “Chevron case doctrine” which says that a court should stand back and give deference to an agency’s judgment as to what the law is and should be. (the whole Chevron deference is simply a way for the courts to avoid tedious examinations of and analysis of thousand page records leading up to an agency decision; the courts didn’t have any problem refusing deference to the  President’s travel ban issued for national security, yet will defer to an agency  decision as to whether a pipeline is necessary or what a “wetland” is.]


The prior bans on fossil developments and use were put in place through executive orders which avoided the entire legislative process, thus evading the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives and senators.  At the same time, those prior orders negated any and all countering opinions of states that yield fossil fuels, as well as any counter opinions expressed by the people through their city, county and state elected officials.  The bans were put in place by Executive Orders which  made energy policy that specifically by law is within the mandate of the Congress, and through the Tenth Amendment within the mandate of the States and local governments.


Global climate warming enthusiasts will wail and gnash their teeth, but to no avail.  What one President did to evade the will of Congress, which represents the people, this President undid in order to attempt to right the course of regulatory agencies that have run amok.


Before one succumbs to the gloom and doom predicted by climate warming activists, he or she should examine what in fact this Executive Order does: it

actually demands that appointed regulatory agency heads insist that their employees do their jobs instead of making laws that Congress refused to make.


Kind of astonishing that a President with no constitutional history background to speak of acts so quickly in his Administration to right one of the greatest wrongs of the past thirty years—the usurpation of the legislative function by executive non-elected agencies.