Ever bought your kids ice cream? How about candy?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a meat eater?
We have ways to make you talk!
Posted on 02/25/2006 5:48:32 PM PST by elkfersupper
Today the Federal Trade Commission published a Federal Register notice seeking public comments on “marketing activities and expenditures of the food industry targeted toward children and adolescents.”
Last November, Congress ordered the FTC to prepare a report on this subject by July 1 of this year. The FTC is now seeking “empirical data” and other relevant information for use in the report.
A public comment request is unremarkable and generally unobjectionable.
But the FTC's notice also states that
[t]he FTC is interested in receiving publicly available information that can be used to prepare the report.
However, because it is unlikely that information sufficient to prepare the report is publicly available, the Commission likely will later issue orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 46(b)) to obtain needed information from food industry members.
In other words, the FTC will force companies to turn over private information without a subpoena.
The statute cited by the FTC purportedly authorizes the agency To require, by general or special orders, persons, partnerships, and corporations, engaged in or whose business affects commerce . . . to file with the Commission in such form as the Commission may prescribe annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions, furnishing to the Commission such information as it may require as to the organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and individuals of the respective persons, partnerships, and corporations filing such reports or answers in writing. Such reports and answers shall be made under oath, or otherwise, as the Commission may prescribe, and shall be filed with the Commission within such reasonable period as the Commission may prescribe, unless additional time be granted in any case by the Commission. (Emphasis added.)
Calling a subpoena a “general or special order” is a sleight-of-hand designed to confuse an unambiguous constitutional violation.
The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Emphasis added.)
There is no “probable cause” for the FTC to forcibly search any company under the pretext of preparing a report for Congress. Indeed, the legislative language authorizing the report only maintains that Congress “is concerned about the growing rate of childhood and adolescent obesity and the food industry's marketing practices for these populations.”
Congressional “concern” about a subject beyond the federal government's enumerated powers—the framers gave Congress the power to fix the “standard of weights and measures,” not the weights of children—is not probable cause.
I have one child that eats nothing but junk, but he thinks since he devours the box of Little Debbies with milk he's fine. One child doesn't care for junk food at all. Would rather eat fruit or will grill himself chicken (on a George Forman grill) for an after school snack. The third is more balanced,although he likes anything with Sponge Bob. We go through 2 dozen eggs a week and they drink whole milk. All three are very healthy, no allergies, asthma or obesity. They prefer to be outside and active. In fact my 9 yr old will not go to some friends houses because they like to play video games and he thinks they're boring.
Isn't it something how so many have been taught to hate the evil demon tobacco and even as we told them all that tobacco was just the smoke screen, they still signed on to letting the elite that our founding fathers fled from and despised take over power in the country.
Many still won't get it that they have willfully given up their freedoms as well as banning smokers and tasty foods now.
All the time they've told us that we need this new law and that new regulation. At the clip of about 3,000 new laws each year. It's been incrementing like that for several decades -- more than a dozen. Telling us that without each year's new laws and regulations persons and society would run themselves and society headlong to destruction -- we'd plunge over the cliff edge. That's their excuse -- not reason -- for proposing thousands of new laws and regulations each year.
Ironically, for decade after decade for hundreds of years man and his society have increasingly prospered. And, as it is now, we continue to increase prosperity despite almost every person breaking several laws each year. A person would think that surely persons and society would have self destructed with so much lawlessness occurring. Yet just the opposite has happened. People have increased prosperity.
It is the establishment parasitical elites that are a drain on people and society while dragging us closer to the cliff edge. The cliff-edge that persons via increasing prosperity are distancing themselves from. For it is they -- parasitical elites -- that have created the cliff edge to drag us over. Free people do not move toward self-destruction.
Congress and high-ranking officials of the IRS have ensured that most people break the law. When not one in 40 accountants can arrive at the same income tax bill for the same family of four and, the IRS help-line answers are wrong 60% of the time, is that not a glaring sign that the intentionally blind are leading the manipulated blind -- people manipulated, usually emotionally via boogie-man "problems" and fears foisted on them -- over the cliff edge.
Unlike truth that has many gray areas, honesty has none.
A War of Two Worlds:
Value Producers
versus
Value Destroyers
"It is a war of rational honesties versus irrational dishonesties."
No Mc Donalds, Burger King of KFC in our house. On Sunday, a few pancakes slathered with brown gravy with bacon on the side, and buttered toast and grape jam.
We rarely eat the fast food stuff, either. If we get take-out it's usually a gyro or Chinese or something.
But wait just a cotton-picking minute ---- do you REALLY put brown gravy on your pancakes? Not maple syrup (the real stuff; not "breakfast syrup")?
Regards,
Ever bought your kids ice cream? How about candy?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a meat eater?
We have ways to make you talk!
Who heads up the executive branch of government under which the FTC falls?
I know, a lot of people think it's really disgusting to put gravy on pancakes. It's a Pennsyvania tradition. Think about the idea of having a splat of gravy on your plate after a prime rib meal and sopping it up with a piece of bread. Gravy on pancakes is wonderful! We also have pancakes with melted butter and maple syrup as well. It depends on the season and our particular "audiance." Anyway, Try it! You're not going to die, are you?
I'll definitely give it a try. I've got some leftover brown gravy in the fridge from last night...hey, here in NY, a favorite late-night diner food is french fries smothered in gravy with mozzarella cheese. Sound gross, right? It's YUMMY!
Besides, how can I POSSIBLY die?? After all, gravy doesn't have a cute little cartoon character promoting it. It's the cartoon characters that cause cancer and obesity, remember? LOL
Regards,
You must be typing on a drool proof keyboard or have a lobster bib on or you wouldn't have finished that post.
As a stepping stone, we have had guests eating a pre-meal with garlic bread drizzled with gravy. It is very popular with our guests! Since we moved from the NorthEast, to NC, our Southern neighbors like the idea. Yummy!
I think the FTC is under Commerce. I'll check later.
Enough already!!
And the band plays on...
Most people who vote have lost sight of what the purpose of our government is.
The formation of our country is based upon freedom and the lack of government control via the Constitution.
tic...tic...tic...
As this Dogma of thought withers on the vine.
Ping
Ok, looks like their coming after the obese, now. I sure hope none of the obese in question were the same ones who favored the bans on smoking.
The ironic side to this is that if you quit smoking, you can expect to gain weight. Then they can come after you again for being too fat.
And don't forget Tony the Tiger, all gone the way of Joe Camel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.