Is this freedom?

America is unlike any other land in all of history. We are most assuredly the freest human beings to ever exist outside of the garden. We have more rights than any citizen in the world. America is a buffet of choice. You can choose where you want to live. What you want to do for a living. Who you marry. How to raise your children. How to educate them. Where you want to be educated. Vast knowledge is available through books and the internet. You can choose insurance companies. You can choose your healthcare, from traditional to holistic. And nothing says freedom like the unlimited choice of food available in the average American grocery store. One thing is for certain, we are never without in this country.

Choices beyond our founders wildest imaginations. I wonder what they would say. Would they be impressed? Or would they ask with a cocked brow, “Is this freedom?” Is this what I scarified, slaved, fought for?

I’m not at all sure this is what they had in mind…

John Klar, who writes for the substack, The MAHA Report, recently began playing devil’s advocate for the latest glyphosate scandal. Where Robert Kennedy, Jr., who himself has fought as an environmental lawyer against pollutants in our country’s land, water, medications, and food supply for decades. He has lost his family, friends, reputation, and safety through his persistent courage.

Many, including myself, are scratching our heads as to why he seems to be changing course, so much that it seems he is nearly betraying his whole life’s mission.

John Klar, friend to Kennedy and MAHA apologist, gives us a clue as he writes in a recent article, “Tough Times for MAHA?”,

The first MAHA Commission Report openly criticized Roundup, the trademarked weedkiller that incorporates glyphosate as a key ingredient. The backlash against Kennedy and the Trump administration by commodity crop farmers was swift and profound. The second MAHA Commission Report barely even mentioned glyphosate, prompting howls of betrayal by the MAHA base. Kennedy strives for a middle position.

It’s obvious. MAHA isn’t going to ban anything. Ever. It’s not even going to regulate these toxins. Maybe because these corporations are too big of a Goliath. But I suspect it has more to do with THE AMERICAN WAY.

You see, we don’t “ban” things here in America. Communist, socialist, authoritarian governments “ban”. Here in America, the wild west, our motto is, free to make your own choices. Even if they are bad, evil, wrong, or stupid. The only time we make a law banning or controlling is if one's choice has the potential to infringe on another’s rights.

One can sit in a car unbelted. But once that car is in drive, amongst the population, law requires the belt be secured. One can drink themselves to death, but operate any type of vehicle, you’ve broken the law and potentially infringed on others right to safety.

According to Klar, Kennedy and MAHA, and many others, there’s no need to ban it. Their solution? Why friend, vote with your dollars, of course! Don’t support it. Don’t eat. Demand food without glyphosate.

They’re even discussing ANOTHER food label. Soon we’ll see a glyphosate-free sticker next to the dozen other warning labels on our food packaging. Talks of officially defining what “food” is is in the works, as well. The food pyramid itself was totally flipped on its head recently. Visual campaigns.

Because that’s what we do here in America. We don’t ban. We warn. We give informed consent. We do this by creating campaigns. And that is precisely what MAHA is. A marketing campaign.

Why fight the companies, farmers, and consumers who cling so tightly to their pesticides, food-dyes, and vaccines? We still have to allow them choice.

Instead of banning these toxins, which Kennedy in his democratic mindset promised for years, has now realized, we just don’t do that in America. Because banning is indeed a slippery slope.

MAHA’s strategy? Talk about these things. Talk a lot. Get it out there. Don’t get too loud or “judgey”. Even pretend to be for these toxins. Calling them “necessary to national security”. In the same breath, inform folks how utterly toxic these poisons are for one's health. Mention diseases like obesity and cancer, and you’ve got the general public’s attention. Get folks asking themselves questions. Coming to their own conclusions. Ultimately making their own choices. Horse to water kind of strategy.

It’s how we do it in America. We don’t ban. We don’t wag fingers. We don’t parent our citizens. We believe in autonomy. And that’s a beautiful thing.

By merely talking about these truths, we can effortlessly turn an issue into an informational campaign.

The strategy, let’s talk about dyes, seed oils, preservatives, pesticides, and chemtrails. Let’s talk about them so much that its what the “normies” start to talk about. Let truth fill their social media algorithm. Let them be informed, educated, and inevitably appalled. Then they will finally demand better.

That’s the idea. That if the general public is aware, they will vote with their dollars. They will force companies to self-ban. Supply and demand.

Just don’t eat it.

But what about the water and the land and the air?

Voting with my dollar doesn’t change what’s being sprayed in the skies, what is being sprayed on the crops, the suburban lawns, what’s running off into my water supply, drifting over to my organic food garden, what we breathe every single day.

I make all the right choices. The best choices. Our family is informed. Dedicated to eating clean. Disciplined with our health. Buying local. Asking the tough questions. The effort it takes to not be poisoned is a lifestyle in itself.

When it comes to packaged food, well, we don’t buy much packaged food. We buy our meats, dairy, wheat and rice locally or from trusted sources. We don’t really need labels. We vote with our dollar. And are still being poisoned. There is no opt-out. There is no choice when it comes to glyphosate.

So, where is it? Where is the seat-belt law for these poisons?

We choose not to eat foods containing chemicals. Yet, according to a resent water and soil sample of our property, we are being poisoned with them, nonetheless. Where are my rights? Where is my choice to say no thanks?

No, I would say our founders would be heartbroken by the state this land is in. The food supply, although plentiful, is poisoned along with the rest.

So what do we do? Where does the line of choice begin and end for us?

If I can’t even grow organic food on my land, drink clean well water from my sink, breathe clean air, is this really autonomy, is this really sovereignty?