Skip to comments.Hillary: ‘Government Cannot and Should Not Control Any Individual's Life’
Posted on 05/16/2012 5:07:59 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Hillary: Government Cannot and Should Not Control Any Individual's Life By Pete Winn May 16, 2012
(CNSNews.com) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told an assemblage of human rights and civil society activists gathered at the State Department Wednesday that government cannot and should not control the lives of individuals.
(T)o make the case for civil society is really quite simple because government cannot and should not control any individuals life tell you what to do, what not to do, Clinton said, taking part in a Global Dialogue of Civil Society.
Clinton said that any sustainable society must have three legs to stand on: an accountable government, a free-market economy, and civil society.
The economy has to be in the hands of those who are the entrepreneurs and creative innovators, she said. But it is in civil society where we live our lives. Thats where our families are formed; thats where our faith is practiced. Thats where we become who we are, through voluntary activities, through standing up for our common humanity. And so, as we see the explosion of civil society groups around the world, we want to support you.
Civil Society is a buzzword for U.S. efforts to bring social change and democracy to countries of the world by working with civil society activists around the world.
Clinton drew on her own experience as a social activist to illustrate what the U.S. supports.
I started my career working in civil society, she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
There's no other explanation for all the "Democrats fear Zero is unelectable" stories we've been seeing lately. The Bamster is doing the Slave Party equivalent of the RINO swan dive, on cue. I can't see Romnuts doing anything but taking a political powder under the circumstances. From 'first black President' to 'first woman President,' here we come. Sorry ladies, but I'm afraid that there are just too many women who would get all tingly about this for a squishy RINO pulling his punches in the name of chivalry to overcome. Hence, the media game will be to start by playing up 'Romney is mean.' He'll respond by trying to prove he's 'a nice guy.' Game over.
Oh, really? This, from the woman who said “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” in June of 2004?
Uh... did she run this by Premier Hussein?
There’s a definite difference of opinion (and policy) there.
Hillary proves life is so much easier when you forget what you’ve done in the past.
One problem with your scenario.
If the Democrat party gives the boot to "the first black president" -- in favor of "the first womean president" -- they will lose the black vote. Forever.
And, if the Democrat Party can't command 90% of the black vote, they will never win another election.
Translation: I’m gay, give me your children.
You got that right - wonder what the Hill is posturing for this time.
That must have been said with a wink and a nod!
Hillary? As in Queen Hillary the Bimbo Slayer? Vanquisher of Vincent Foster and Sworn Guardian of Prince Priapism?
SHE said this?
Someone needs to check the temperature in Hades, quick!
Come on, you expect us to believe this?
She’s the one who said, “It takes a village.” She wants government to run every facet of our lives. She tried to get Obamacare going in her husband’s first term.
And her nose grew 10 feet after that comment.
What a laugh.
Controling people’s lives is what she dreams of every second of her miserable life.
POTUS or UN
Personally, I don’t think Romney has a chance, even against Obama. But I do think that the Democrats may simply be sick of Obama. A lot of his corporate fanciers have seen the cold light of day, I think his inept handling of the Afgahn situation and other foreign situations has alienated even a lot of Democrats, and it is pretty clear that Obamacare is not popular with anybody and will probably be overturned.
He is focusing on an increasingly narrower segment of the Democratic constituency, and while Hollywood and blacks may like him no matter what, the rest of the Dems are feeling a bit neglected. I think they would be very happy to replace him, particularly with Hillary. Hollywood would come around, blacks might not vote for Hillary but they certainly wouldn’t vote for the Republican either, and I think it would give the Democrats as a whole a chance to regroup and no longer feel the party was focused on just one group (blacks) with one program (redistribution of income) and one goal (government uber alles).
So personally, I don’t see this as an unlikely scenario at all.