Condoleezza Rice

[commonsense]

Dr.Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, ranks high among the most accomplished in politics today.

At a time when voting for a candidate has meant choosing the lesser of two evils, Dr. Rice presents a truly principled selection.

She speaks many languages and has represented the U.S. successfully in the most difficult cultural situations with universally accepted diplomacy, and worldwide acceptance, respect and popularity.

Her views on the sanctity and preservation of 2nd Ammendment rights are rooted in her personal familial experience in escaping slavery via the Underground Railroad and in defending against Ku Klux Klan terrorism targeting black voters.

Being a Black woman, her successful candidacy and support from principled Americans of all political persuasions, male or female, would put an end for all time the perceived injustices stemming from politicization by both sides, before or after the Civil Rights Movement;

Her candidacy would dissolve the artificial and contrived divisiveness perpetuated on college campuses which only serves to benefit career politicians, bureaucrats, social engineers and so-called "educators" who are the only ones who benefit from cultivating Americans seeing themselves only as members of "groups" with their own agenda:
dependent upon---or beholden to---those govt administrators who created or fomented their condition in the first place...

A Condi Rice candidacy could go a long way toward forever uniting and restoring this nation under its founding principles of personal freedom, property rights, contract law and constitutionally limited government and taxation.

There is a grass-roots movement afoot to draft and nominate Condi Rice without the dubiousness of big-money contributions that mark every other national campaign.

Wouldn't it be truly hopeful and inspiring for the future of this country, the world's first to be united not under ethnicity, but under the shared and mutually beneficial principles of limiting the historically-proven tendency of all governments to grow and become controlling, usurping and over-reaching into its "subjects" lives?

Wouldn't it be hopeful and inspiring to elect a true public servant who silently and without ego answers the call of duty once drafted into running for office out of reason and necessity, and not pursue office solely for career, or worse, out of condescending, elitist, self-serving totalitarian ideas?

http://www.americansforrice.com/bumper_stickers.htm

Dr. Rice does not espouse many of my political ideals,
but as an American who "stereotypically" would be considered by the ignorant to automatically oppose someone like her, I feel I must not be alone
in supporting this fine American for her superiority to all others who might compete with her.

It may seem early to consider presidential candidates for 2008, but investigating the record and beliefs of this impressive American should cast the light of truth on all politicians, for Dr. Rice seems truly unique in her sincerity and dedication and lack of prejudice.

[RickSp]

Rice is an obedient centurian of the empire. She doesn't make this mistake often but now and then she does tell the truth. Recently she admitted that the Bush administration always intended to take over the Middle East.

Rice calls war part of post-9/11 plan

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that it was always the Bush administration's intent to redesign the Middle East after the September 11 attacks, which exposed a "deep malignancy growing" in the region, and that the Iraq war was part of that plan. "Unless we commit to changing the nature of the Middle East, and if we tire and decide that we are going to withdraw and leave the people of the Middle East to despair, I can assure you that the people of the United States are going to live in insecurity and fear for many, many decades to come," Miss Rice said. Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California, Barack Obama of Illinois and Bill Nelson of Florida said that was not the reason the administration had given Congress for the Iraq war; rather, it was the threat dictator Saddam Hussein was said to have posed with his weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. "Now, in an unbelievable rewriting of history, you talk about this bolder mission we undertook in response to 9/11 to transform the Middle East with Iraq as an anchor," Mrs. Boxer said, adding that the administration "didn't tell the American people that at the time." "This broadening of the mission is disturbing and difficult for us in the Senate to deal with as it requires a leap of faith on our part that a mission of that breadth can be accomplished in a reasonable time frame," Mr. Obama said. Miss Rice, while conceding that the Senate's war resolutions regarding Afghanistan and Iraq were limited to action against the Taliban, al Qaeda and Saddam, argued that killing Osama bin Laden and other terrorists will not secure a victory over extremism. "We had to make a decision that we were going to go after the root cause of what caused September 11," she said. "So what I'm describing to you, Senator, is not what you voted for in the war resolution, but the broader strategy of the administration."

So the justifications provided by the Bush administration were just convenient lies. They had intended to go to war all along. The part about 9/11 was of course also untrue. The neo-cons had been talking about this war for several years prior to 9/11. And the empire marches on.

[carriew]

i would vote for her!

[Boetie]

Kindasleazy Rice: I didn't know there were going to be hijackers

Evidence is produced that Kindasleazy did know there were going to be hijackers.

Kindasleazy Rice: Are you questioning my integrity? at any rate uh uh, well uh well you see yes I did know uh but uh I didn't know they were going to fly the planes into buildings uh yes that's it, if I had known they were going to fly into buildings I would have done everything to stop them uh otherwise I decided to do nothing about a mere hijacking, giggle giggle.

[commonsense]

[quote=RickSp]Rice is an obedient centurian of the empire. She doesn't make this mistake often but now and then she does tell the truth. Recently she admitted that the Bush administration always intended to take over the Middle East.


I do not disagree! ......But! as an intermediate step, until our public "indoctrination" (education) system is awakened to the truths of our history and the real intent of our founders, wouldn't a Condi candidacy go a long way toward a more Libertarian awareness?

.....as inhumane as the U.S. 's foreign campaign might be, as harsh a realization this is, our Constitution and the unique situation of the U.S. hold the world's last hope for human ascendancy, and as destructive and unjust as "the wayward empire's" foreign actions might be, the human destruction that Liberalism wreaks at home must be staunched, lest all hope for a restoration of our founding principles and the future they promise, be lost.

......Remember! Our congress (unconstitutionally) permitted Bush to go to war (including Hillary)
If Bush weren't given the (unconstitutional) power to do so (OR THE TAX MONEY) to accomplish it with in the first place, and with an educated awareness of the safeguards within our constitution, which is deliberately obscured by educators and the supreme court alike, we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor the human suffering it creates, abroad, but more crucially, at home, for the future of freedom in the world.

Academia in America reminds me of the Planet of the Apes film in which Dr. Zais repeatedly refers to "the sacred scrolls" full of absurdities.
As our children come through this system for generations, "taught" by those who have only known the progressive falsehoods they themselves have been handed down,
absurdity becomes truth as the blind continue to lead the blind.

The presidency was (brilliantly and justly!) never intended to be a saviour, nor should it ever be expected to be, as believe much of our voters.... and a Condi presidency won't be, either, but awareness and the undoing of deliberate of decades of Liberalism/Racism will go a long way toward restoring our founding brilliance and hope.


Education is the only way, and our public education system has been founded on spreading Marxist ideals since its inception, and stopgap measures toward the end of teaching a philosphy of freedom of the human spirit, property rights, and limited government and taxation must be worthwhile, no? ...even if it means a "sometimes honest" "empress"

[Osborn F Enready]

Condi would not do anything good for this country, in my opinion of her actions to date.

She has immense power now, and isn't using it.

How could I trust a woman who is loved so much by her ex-BIG OIL employers that loved her so much they named an Oil Tanker after her?

[Sonart]

Quote by: RickSp Rice is an obedient centurian of the empire.

There it is... like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice is the Good Soldier. Neither has any desire to run the nation beyond their areas of expertise.

In other words, she'll never run, not in a million years.

.

[commonsense]

Good Soldier, true enough! ...but not the perfect soldier, and in the ways she is "imperfect" she hold hope for America's youth, especially blacks, for increased awareness, and Osborn F: like I said, a stepping stone toward a Libertarian awakening.

Remember, too, that "Big Oil" would still be big, but without its undue influence on our govt's actions were our founding principles better adhered to by, or demanded of, our politicians.

BTW, I submit to all you "social democrats" (who I'd like to enlighten with Libertarian thought)

IF:

The U.S. is filled with greedy capitalists, and
There is so much wealth concentrated in the hands of a sizable few who only lust for more,
Wouldn't they pool resources and launch a private business campaign to build more fuel refining capacity and cut into the monopoly held by "big oil"?
The reason they don't, is government "regulation" (read: monopoly protection)
and all the seemingly "environmental" regulations creating so many various state required climatic gasoline formulations in fact only serve to raise prices (and profits) for the gasoline suppliers.
Another example of how govt always corrupts, serves its own interest first and limits the economy (read: happiness) of its people while pulling the wool over its eyes that it has its "health" as its primary concern.

[PatrickHenry]

commonsense, good to see you back on volconvo! Where ya' been for the last six months?

Sorry I can't support your opinion of Dr. Rice. I think she is a lackey of the elites who seek the demise of the workers freedom. She has been a non-stop supporter of BushCo's drive towards a police state in America and a militarily controlled Empire abroad. She is the same type who would torture you at the behest of her masters. She is highly polished scum.

A woman I respect, Catherine Austin Fitts, wrote her an open letter: http://peopleforchange.net/commentaries/condi

April 9, 2004 Dear Ms. Rice: I am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Point #1: You are a liar.

More...

[shield772]

Quote by: commonsense Good Soldier, true enough! ...but not the perfect soldier, and in the ways she is "imperfect" she hold hope for America's youth, especially blacks, for increased awareness, and Osborn F: like I said, a stepping stone toward a Libertarian awakening. Remember, too, that "Big Oil" would still be big, but without its undue influence on our govt's actions were our founding principles better adhered to by, or demanded of, our politicians. BTW, I submit to all you "social democrats" (who I'd like to enlighten with Libertarian thought) IF: The U.S. is filled with greedy capitalists, and There is so much wealth concentrated in the hands of a sizable few who only lust for more, Wouldn't they pool resources and launch a private business campaign to build more fuel refining capacity and cut into the monopoly held by "big oil"? The reason they don't, is government "regulation" (read: monopoly protection) and all the seemingly "environmental" regulations creating so many various state required climatic gasoline formulations in fact only serve to raise prices (and profits) for the gasoline suppliers. Another example of how govt always corrupts, serves its own interest first and limits the economy (read: happiness) of its people while pulling the wool over its eyes that it has its "health" as its primary concern.

I would like to see a Colin Powell (President) Condaleeza Rice (Vice President) ticket.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: shield772 I would like to see a Colin Powell (President) Condaleeza Rice (Vice President) ticket.

Who would nominate them? The Black Party of America? Certainly not the Republicans, who are more concerned with winning than with your naive PC-ness.

[shield772]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Who would nominate them? The Black Party of America? Certainly not the Republicans, who are more concerned with winning than with your naive PC-ness.

Well I don't consider it Naive PC-Ness, I consider them the best the Republican Party has to offer.

[Sonart]

Quote by: shield Well I don't consider it Naive PC-Ness, I consider them the best the Republican Party has to offer.

So it doesn't bother you that Powell is Pro-Choice and Pro-Affirmative Action and generally opposed the entire Bush/NeoCon policy regarding Iraq? I daresay Patrick is right... he's just lost the Religious Right and 'The Weekly Standard' Neo-Cons right there.

Powell would be better off running as a DLC/Clinton Democrat.

.

[shield772]

Quote by: Sonart So it doesn't bother you that Powell is Pro-Choice and Pro-Affirmative Action and generally opposed the entire Bush/NeoCon policy regarding Iraq? I daresay Patrick is right... he's just lost the Religious Right and 'The Weekly Standard' Neo-Cons right there. Powell would be better off running as a DLC/Clinton Democrat. .

Well IMO both of those issues you mentioned are domestic issues, and that would be the pervue of Congress not the President, the President deals with Foreign Policy, and I don't think his or Dr. Rice's qualifications in that area are disputable.

[commonsense]

Well, I'm not exactly motivated to defend Condoleezza Rice... my whole point about her is that she is the lesser of all evils, most of all, Hillary the Stalinist.

I was particularly impressed with her stance about individual gun rights, wiht her and her family having come through many experiences in which gun possession averted oppression--( a truth that evades most americans, black or white)

I do know she does support some gun laws, which is a shame, but once again, she seems like the better of two evils, with Dick Morris claiming that demographically, with the black and female votes so pivotal in the upcoming election, Rice is the only possible candidate to beat Hillary.

PH: I do not disagree with anything you say overall, but doesn't a pro-second amendment position contradict your "police state" argument?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: commonsense Condoleezza Rice... ... is the lesser of all evils,

Lesser of all the likely Demopublican nominees? I can think of several who have not been co-opted by the Statists. But if the kingmakers think she can win, I will be VERY surprised to see her nominated. Condi has never run for political office at all, to my knowledge...

Here's the NNDB on her: http://www.nndb.com/people/205/000024133/
A quote:

While she was National Security Advisor, she dismissed warnings that Osama bin Laden might be planning a terrorist attack. "I was standing in my office at my desk that morning," she has said of September 11, 2001, "and at 08:47 my executive assistant came in and said that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. And I remember thinking: What a strange accident." After the World Trade Center was gone, Rice stated, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Her statement was false. That scenario was the premise of a 1994 Tom Clancy bestseller, and the danger had also been alluded to in several separate U.S. intelligence and national security reports, which Rice read or should have read. Rice's other key accomplishment as National Security Advisor was sounding the alarm that Iraq posed a grave danger to America. She wrote an article for the New York Times in January 2003, titled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying," explaining that Iraq's claims to have disarmed were sheer folly. She also warned before that war, "We do know that Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon... We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Anyhow, you know my opinions on 9/11 and I think she could very well be on the inside of an inside job...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: commonsense Well, I'm not exactly motivated to defend Condoleezza Rice... my whole point about her is that she is the lesser of all evils, most of all, Hillary the Stalinist. I was particularly impressed with her stance about individual gun rights, wiht her and her family having come through many experiences in which gun possession averted oppression--( a truth that evades most americans, black or white) I do know she does support some gun laws, which is a shame, but once again, she seems like the better of two evils, with Dick Morris claiming that demographically, with the black and female votes so pivotal in the upcoming election, Rice is the only possible candidate to beat Hillary. PH: I do not disagree with anything you say overall, but doesn't a pro-second amendment position contradict your "police state" argument?

Here I thought the government was out to get my guns whenever a Liberal is in office.


The lesser of the two evils, is indeed, still evil, is it not?


The Police State is a progressive thing, and the the restrictions are becoming clearer at an alarming rate. It seems the Second Amendment is truly the last constitutional claim we have., and that will likely be attacked the next time a Democrat is elected.

[Sonart]

Well IMO both of those issues you mentioned are domestic issues, and that would be the pervue of Congress not the President, the President deals with Foreign Policy, and I don't think his or Dr. Rice's qualifications in that area are disputable.

You honestly don't think the President gets involved in domestic issues?????????? On what planet??? Who pushed for the Medicare Prescription Drug law, who pushed for No Child Left Behind, who pushed through Homeland Security? Who sicced the Justice Department on the State of Oregon?

Quote by: Milton Bradley It seems the Second Amendment is truly the last constitutional claim we have, and that will likely be attacked the next time a Democrat is elected.

Really?? I'd say that 'claim' is long gone.

Post #34, after the second boxed quote.

.

[shield772]

Quote by: Sonart You honestly don't think the President gets involved in domestic issues?????????? On what planet??? Who pushed for the Medicare Prescription Drug law, who pushed for No Child Left Behind, who pushed through Homeland Security? Who sicced the Justice Department on the State of Oregon? Really?? I'd say that 'claim' is long gone. Post #34, after the second boxed quote. .

I am not saying the President is not involved in Domestic issues, but really it is limited (or should be Constitutionally) to Law Enforcement and an advise and consent role, just as Congreses role on Foreign issues is an advise and consent role.

[Sonart]

I am not saying the President is not involved in Domestic issues, but really it is limited (or should be Constitutionally) to Law Enforcement and an advise and consent role, just as Congreses role on Foreign issues is an advise and consent role.

That's certainly the way it supposed to be I guess, but that's sorta like saying Congress creates the budgets. Theoretically, sure, but the President comes out with his budget every year, and the Hill gets the honor of messing with it, tweaking it and eventually voting on it, or, if they're the other party, offering an alternative budget.

Back to the point, it's significant where a Presidential candidate stands on domestic issues, even if he only gets to sign or veto legislation, since he's the defacto head of his party.

.