As the Spindle Turns . . .

Posted by thelunaticfarmer@gmail.com (Joel Salatin)

https://www.thelunaticfarmer.com/blog/4/22/2026/political-blunders

In 2025, President Trump issued an executive order terminating federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) on the grounds that "neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens."

                  U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss a couple of weeks ago issued an injunction after NPR and PBS sued.  The Judge's ruling is informative:  "The First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power--including the power of the purse--to punish or suppress disfavored expression by others."

                  To be sure, this is rich considering the ongoing censorship by the Biden administration regarding dissenting COVID opinions, but let's let that lie for now.  While the judge may be right, the thing that I want to point out is how this whole debacle illustrates political blundering.

                  Because Trump chose to make this about politics rather than constitutional authority, the whole case has devolved into a name-calling fight rather than a clarifying position on the role of government.  Does the Constitution allow the existence of a Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the umbrella that funds NPR and PBS?  That is a much more noble question, and speaks to the American brand.

                  The whole idea of America was small government and individual opportunity.  You can't encourage individual opportunity when you have a meddlesome and interventionist government.  Privatizing everything possible, including philanthropic obligations to the poor and disabled, is what made America distinctive among civilizations. Low taxes, high entrepreneurial freedom, and high philanthropy propelled American exceptionalism.

                  A debate about the role of government is far more important than whether a particular agency is being politically prejudicial.  Going to the core idea means exploring whether the agency under discussion should even exist.  Instead, we get this childish "I don't like what you say" approach and what could be a societally valuable discussion turns into a tantrum exchange.

                  That is highly unfortunate because at this juncture of Americanism we desperately need honest and deep core debate about the role of government and responsibility of citizens.  A good example is foreign aid.  Every time some foreign government does something U.S. leadership doesn't like, we threaten to "cut off your aid."  Why should the U.S. give any aid to any foreign government?  Wasn't this one of George Washington's major contentions, to avoid "entanglements" with foreign powers?

                  But instead, U.S. leaders assume foreign aid is a given and just argue over whether it's more or less beneficial to this outfit or that one.  The notion that we should keep our money at home to tend our own garden never even sees the light of day.  That's unfortunate because it cheapens the discussion.  What could be a substantive exchange becomes simply a decision about which bucket gets the money.  

                  The result of all this theater is that as a society we never deal with the convictional and over-arching philosophical foundations that underly policy.  We don't ask whether there should be agricultural subsidies.  The only question is who should get them and how much.  

                  The fact that Trump issued his executive order on the basis of political disenchantment rather than on the basis of restoring constitutional government is a political blunder.  We the people deserve, desire, and should demand that these issues be discussed substantively rather than like a schoolyard tantrum. To deny deep debate in the public square indicates cowardice among our leaders and lack of accountability among the citizenry.  Both bode ill for America's future.

                  Is Public Broadcasting constitutional?

PS:  If you like my blog, please forward it to others.  Thank you.

https://www.thelunaticfarmer.com/blog/4/22/2026/political-blunders

Posted by thelunaticfarmer@gmail.com (Joel Salatin)

https://www.thelunaticfarmer.com/blog/4/20/2026/prime-act-is-in

The Farm Bill, which is now long overdue and supposedly on tap to be voted on in the next couple of months, still contains Congressman Thomas Massie's PRIME ACT.  All of us fighting for food freedom have watched with consternation as his amendment suffers the vicissitudes of political arm-twisting.

                  For the uninitiated, this amendment would, for the first time in half a century, enable a ribeye steak to be sold to a neighbor without federal or state inspection.  This historically normal activity has been illegal since the 1967 Wholesome Meat Act, signed Dec. 15 by President Lyndon Johnson.

                  Right now, the nation enjoys (?) three types of meat processing:  federal inspection, state inspection, and custom.  Federal inspection allows meat to be sold anywhere in the world.  State allows it to be sold anywhere in the state domiciling  the abattoir.  Custom does not allow any meat to be sold; each package must be stamped "Not For Sale."

                  Shortly after being elected the first time, Massie wrote and pushed what he called the PRIME ACT.  It would give states who wanted to allow in-state (called intrastate) sales of meat from custom butcher shops freedom to do so.  In other words, it doesn't mandate anything.  It doesn't ask for any regulations--amazing idea from legislation, no?

                  All it says is that if a state wants to allow custom slaughtered meat sales, the federal regulators will stand down and let it happen.  Wyoming is the only state, so far, to enact this freedom pre-emptively.  If the PRIME ACT makes it into the federal register, Wyoming doesn't have to wrangle about it again; freedom to sell would automatically be the law of the state. 

                  The PRIME ACT has been inserted and stripped out of the Farm Bill enough times to make a pin-ball machine blush, but right now, it's in and that's exciting.  Some folks think the Farm Bill will actually get voted on in 2026.  If it does, the PRIME ACT's existence at this late stage offers a hopeful sign.  Yes, it's been watered down with some experimental boundaries on time, but the basic idea of selling uninspected meat has been preserved.

                  While to many this may seem like an inconsequential step in food freedom, realize its significance.  The industry knows that if passed, this would legalize private party uninspected meat sale options for the first time in nearly 50 years.  Massie believes about 1,000 shuttered custom abattoirs or start-ups would open their doors within a year or so of passage.

                  In a time when meat eaters are increasingly frustrated with rising prices and farmers feel increasingly constrained by "the big four," few single-step freedoms would represent as compelling a shot across the bow of the food oligarchy. 

                  The answer to oligarchies is not antitrust activity; it's not government regulation; it's freedom for entrepreneurs to compete in the marketplace.  That's the ultimate constraint on control and power.  People who think capitalism got us where we are couldn't be more wrong.  Government intervention got us where we are; absent that we can restart a functional, competitive marketplace.

                  The PRIME ACT's survival at this late stage of the Farm Bill's evolution is a wonderfully hopeful bright light in otherwise governmental darkness.  Let's all hope it survives the final salvo from Big Ag and Big Food to strip it out.  Go, Massie.

                  Would you eat uninspected meat from a local farmer?

https://www.thelunaticfarmer.com/blog/4/20/2026/prime-act-is-in

Posted by thelunaticfarmer@gmail.com (Joel Salatin)

https://www.thelunaticfarmer.com/blog/4/13/2026/supreme-court-rally-and-indiana

A flurry of activity keeps me tied down in recent days to keep me from writing about issues.  Two things have developed quickly that I want you to know about.

                  First, this Sunday afternoon, Apr. 19 from 6-8p.m. I'm doing a fundraiser for an amazing Indiana lady running for U.S. Congress representing the Indianapolis area:  Sarah Janisse Brown https://www.votesarahbrown.com/events

                  She's a home school mom with 15 kids--yes, you read that right--only 4 are still at home.  They run an agritourism homestead farm and the rally is titled FARM, FAMILY, AND FREEDOM.  That's my kind of headline and I'd love to see it well attended.

                  Knowing the few trolls on this blog who apparently get their life's energy from making erroneous assumptions and accusations, let me say straight up that both of these events are gratis:  I'm not charging a dime.  It's my way to tithe toward truth.

                  If you're in the Indianapolis area, I hope to see you at the rally. 

                  Number two is Monday, Apr. 27 from 9-12 noon, a MAHA rally on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. to support folks wanting to preserve the freedom to sue businesses who poison them.  It's the Bayer glyphosate case, to determine if a business selling a product deemed safe by the EPA bears any liability obligation if it kills people.  This is not about the right for the government to determine safety; it simply means a company who buys government cover isn't indemnified from liability. 

                  I have a short speaking slot and simply appreciate being asked to lend my voice in a public way to defend the people's right to hold products accountable.  It seems strange to come alongside tort attorneys, which in general I find despicable, but the overarching issue here is the power of the federal government to absolve fascist business allies from accountability.  That cannot stand.

                  I tend to stay away from politics but not issues.  In these two cases, I'm pushing myself a bit past my comfort zone to encourage folks who dare to question the big government narrative.  We sure need more of them. 

                  How do you separate politics from issues?

https://www.thelunaticfarmer.com/blog/4/13/2026/supreme-court-rally-and-indiana