A GOP Justice Out Of Touch
With Reality And The War?
Justice Martin Endorses Bush GOP War In Iran As A Victory For Democracy?
Dear Friends & Voters,
Last week, I attended a debate with my opponent at UNC. It was taped
and is
scheduled to be aired on November 2nd, before the election. For some
of
you, this will come too late and you may have already voted. For those
who
have not, you might want to tune in and watch us.
During the questions that we were asked, my opponent chose to speak on
matters of foreign policy regarding Afghanistan. It is interesting
that he
chose this foray into international politics, for it once again
demonstrates
how out of touch this man is with what is really going on.
He referred to Afghanistan as a bastion of democracy and pointed to the
elections there. How ironic that this man speaks of giving Afghanis
the
right to vote when his very supporters in North Carolina are concerned
with
taking away your right to vote. However, voicing such opinions about
Afghanistan led me to realize that my opponent actually believes that
things
are going well over in Iraq and Afghanistan and that he stands by
President
Bush even though almost sixty to seventy percent (60%-70%) of US
citizens
think otherwise.
Contrary to what my opponent deems to be true, things are not going
well in
Iraq. The country has been on the verge of civil war, if not already
enmeshed in it. The death toll of Iraqis and Americans is mounting.
In
fact, October has been one of the bloodiest months there for American
soldiers. Some have called it a fiasco, but whatever political side
you are
on, it is plain that those on the right and the left have voiced their
criticism of the management of the war and occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately, Afghanistan is no better. Numerous articles have been
written about drug lords ruling the country and the Taliban
increasingly
taking control. It, too, has become a recruiting ground for al Qaeda.
Don't take my word for it - this is what others are saying.. Oh, you
will
undoubtedly find cheerleading from diehard bushbots, but these voices
are
decreasing in number.
As for voting in both places, one can hardly point to this as a triumph
of
democracy. Under Saddam Hussein, they had 99.9% voting and Saddam was
the
only candidate on the ballot. Elections under the new governments are
not
really all that much changed. Instead of voting for Saddam, the
people of
Iraq vote for essentially US-backed puppets. Same in Afghanistan. Do
you
think Iraqis and Afghanis can vote for who they really want? Are we
going
to let them vote for someone we don't like? Of course not. Even
worse,
they had to induce people to vote. Here, such conduct would be
tantamount
to bribery or force. Over there, its just an "incentive." For these
reasons, you cannot cite the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq as
symbols of
freedom. They are not.
For my opponent to do so flies in the face of evidence to the contrary.
But
you must decide whether someone with this rosy world view shared only
by he
and President Bush, is someone you want on the North Carolina Supreme
Court.
Ask yourself, is this someone that I want deciding cases that may
affect
my life, liberty or property?
In my last statement, I noted that endorsements don't mean much. In
one
sense, that is true. Endorsements from people who have not met or
talked to
me are worthless opinions. However, I thought about it and I conclude
that
there is one aspect of relevance that I overlooked. Endorsements do
mean
something. An endorsement of my opponent means:
1. Endorsement of President Bush and his policies regarding the war in
Afghanistan and Iraq;
2. Endorsement of the continued violation of constitutional rights of
individuals, taxpayers, fathers and property homeowners;
3. Endorsement of the kind of nepotism or questionable campaign
expenditures in which $14,000.00 was given to Matthew Martin for
"political
consulting" even though he has an expert political consultant, Paul
Shumaker, on staff;
4. Endorsement of the fact that we have created a new elite
aristocracy in
this country in which judges are to be treated like royalty and are
entitled
to hold their seat;
5. Endorsement of the view that my opponent should not be forced to
actually campaign for office;
6. Endorsement of my opponent's use of campaign funds for the rental
of a
Cadillac for himself;
7. Endorsement of the elimination of your right to vote for judges;
8. Endorsement of conduct in pretending to be respectable and above
the
fray, while simultaneously calling the NCGOP-Mafia and its operatives;
9. Endorsement of the NC GOP-Mafia's operatives use of filing
frivolous bar
and other complaints as a political tool; and
10. Endorsement of tactics in re-publishing false articles planted in
the
media and using these false statements in campaign materials.
Contemplate who is endorsing my opponent and what their endorsement
really
means as you prepare to vote.
Liberty,
Rachel Lea Hunter
