HOME
ABOUT RACHEL
ASK RACHEL
NEO-CON HATE MAIL DEPT.
DONATE
EVENTS
SUPPORTERS
NEWS ARCHIVES
GOP COMPLAINTS
CAMPAIGN MATERIAL
BOOK REVIEWS
Past Q & A
REGISTER TO VOTE
PHOTO GALLERY
CONTACT


Hate-Mail #36

Mon, 21 May 2007

Re: RED STATE STORM TROOPERS RISING

Dear Rachel

I have been campaigning for Dr. Paul for years. Generally, I carry some political plackard; and, as a student of the mighty University of Texas, I have been approached by several young people he delivered to our world. He has delivered over four thousand babies; several, I have had the pleasure to meet!

In the name of Ron Paul, PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST your full-throttled, misguided, misinformed, bigoted ravings against all things Republican...

Remember Steve Forbes? He was tax-reform revolutionary, whose ideas were meaningful enough to change my own, bigoted, life-long lock-step obedience to the "Shemocratic Party... Ron Paul campaigned with him, if that means anything to you...

There once was a party founded on freedom, that challenged our nation to earn world-leadership by forcing an end to slavery... Guess who? *hint- the Democrats were the party of the slave-owners...*

Bless You, friend... I admire you, and urge you to use your platform to help force freedom to be an option for all by helping see Ron Paul elected president of these once-proud United States!!!

Thanks for everything!

Ronnie "Reeferseed" Gjemre



Dear Mr. Gjemere:

I am puzzled by your comments. I saw the Presidential debate in South Carolina, particularly the exchange between Mr. Giuliani and Dr. Paul. Frankly, I was sickened by the applause and reactions of the twenty-eight percenters in attendance. Tyrants throughout history have come to power by the actions of these foolish people; the presidential debate was further evidence of it. I also was outraged by the blatant attempts of Faux News to boost Rudy Giuliani and to demonize and denigrate Dr. Paul. It was exactly the kind of behavior that I had to endure in my own campaigns.

I hate party labels and resist your attempts to define me. I am neither Republican nor Democrat; neither liberal nor conservative. I do not engage in bigoted misguided ravings as you term it. By the way, I have been critical in the past of Democrats as well as Republicans (District Attorney Mike Nifong and our former Speaker of the House, Jim Black) to name a few.

As for Washington, most of the people in Congress sold we, the American people, out long ago. I have very little faith in anyone up there except for a few, like Dr. Paul, Walter Jones or Dr. Tom Coburn. That does not mean I agree with them on all issues. I have my own opinions, as do they.

Dr. Paul, regardless of his intentions, will not be the nominee for the twenty-eight percenters. They are so steeped in the neo-con ideal that nothing will shake them from it. I fail to see how the expressions of opinion from an attorney in North Carolina is going to effect either Dr. Paul’s campaign or the national Republican Party.

It is not very libertarian of you to take away my right to free speech. Are you sure you follow Dr. Paul? Or are you a twenty-eight percenter masquerading as a libertarian? Either way, it troubles me not. Unsubscribe if you don’t like the message, but your comments suggest that you have read and understood very little of the things I have written and do not know me. I suggest that if you truly wish to enlighten and educate yourself from whence you came, that you read and comprehend. So I will not stop what I am doing. I have my own agenda and my own purpose and I will comment as I see fit.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #35

Oct 31, 2006

Subject: Questions for Rachel Hunter

I have 2 questions for Rachel: 1. She complains about the personal attacks, yet she has called the GOP Mafia members, related her opponent to Goebbels, called another politician a slave, etc. - she has participated in brutal personal attacks - does she consider that appropriate?

2. Does she really think that a judge should be talking about making the law (changing contrib. to comparative), rather than waiting until an issue comes up? Also, bad example - if the driver was drunk, contrib. would not be a problem - that is an exception to it.

Thanks,
Durham, North Carolina.


Dear D Smith

1. She complains about the personal attacks, yet she has called the GOP Mafia members, related her opponent to Goebbels, called another politician a slave, etc. - she has participated in brutal personal attacks - does she consider that appropriate?

Personal attacks on me have been made, ranging from trying to get me fired, to stating that I am "fat", "ugly" "insane" etc. Personal attacks have been made on members of my family and an attempt is underway to prosecute a family member.

I have not called Mr. Robinson a slave. I criticized his behavior only. I have not made disparaging remarks about his personal appearance, mental status etc.

I call the NC GOP-Mafia what I call them because that is how they conduct themselves, like organized crime. They hire operatives to threaten and intimidate myself and members of my family when we have appeared at public meetings. They have filed frivolous complaints to other candidates and authorities. If the real Mafia engaged in this type of behavior, you would label it criminal. Threats and harassment leveled at me and my family aimed at depriving myself of the right to run as a candidate or to stop members of my family from voting are crimes.

Regarding Justice Martin, I referenced that Goebbels' was a proponent of "the big lie" theory in which a lie is repeated so often that people believe it to be the truth. How would you characterize the behavior of someone who knows and has met you and truthful information about you but deliberately continues to misstate the truth or publish the falsehoods? I merely stated he was evidently an adherent of this theory. The Republican Party is running questionable ads in Tennesee against Harold Ford. I have been attacked unmercilessly. Why do you not condemn this behavior and only my conduct?

I have not started this conduct but I have the right to defend myself against the attacks and conduct of others. With regard to Mr. Robinson, I heard his misstatements about Brad Miller on the radio and as I know Mr. Robinson personally, I criticized his behavior.

2. Does she really think that a judge should be talking about making the law (changing contrib. to comparative), rather than waiting until an issue comes up? Also, bad example - if the driver was drunk, contrib. would not be a problem - that is an exception to it. Thanks, Durham, North Carolina.

Are you a lawyer? Where do you get the idea that voluntary intoxication bars a contributory negligence claim? I gave that extreme example to make a point, but we can change the facts slightly. How about making the defendant merely negligent by speeding or accidentally running a redlight? My larger point is that we are a contributory negligence state, one of the states that are in the minority and that in some cases the application on this rule can result in injustice.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #34

Oct 31, 2006

Subject: Rachel Hunter

You tried to have your name appear on the ballot as Madame Justice. How are we to take you seriously as a judicial candidate if you tried to have such a silly name appear on the ballot?

Tony Pack
Cary


Dear Mr. Pack,

Are you not rehashing old news? I have explained ad nauseum the genesis of the nickname and why I used it. Other candidates were allowed to use their nicknames. This action highlights the need to change the law to require all candidates to use their full legal names, not their nicknames, which the elections director can arbitrarily reject or allow.

Our country has many serious problems and this is the issue you select as being crucial to you? No wonder our country is downsliding.

As for your opinion of my nickname, you are entitled to it. I have seen other names much more silly.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #33

I don't see where anyone threatened to harm Rachel in this email. Why are you making that accusation?

JUSTICE MARTIN SUPPORTER DISTRICT GOP
CHAIR THREATENS RACHEL WITH HARM!

31 Oct 2006

Subject: Disgrace

Rachel:

You are a disgrace to XXXXX, XXXXX,XXXXX, XXXXXX, & XXXXX. You are an even bigger disgrace and an embarrassment to XXXXXXXXXX. I will let XXX and XXX know the awful way you conduct yourself calling people Nazis and other outrageous statements. We at XXXXXXXXXXXX work to keep high moral standards and your campaign crosses the line. If you want to run for Justice fine but your tactics and lies are embarrassing and unbecoming of a reputable attorney.

Bill Carraway

4 th District GOP Chairperson of North Carolina


Dear Mr./Ms. Walton:

This nasty email I received contained information about my employer. This individual threatened to contact my employers about me and did in fact do so. This individual interfered with my employment which has nothing to do with my campaign activities. My employer has also forbidden me from respondinng to defend myself against this individual, who has his own news letter and has attacked me on it. In other words, this individual is free to attack me and disseminate falsehoods, but I can say nothing in response.

I see a problem with that and with the type of individual this is, but you may not. Judge for yourself.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #32

28 Oct 2006

Subject: RE: Loser for Supreme Court!!!

you need mental help as you are truly a sick person.

Concerned Citizen of Durham!

Subject: Re: Loser for Supreme Court!!!

Quoting donald walters drwalters3@earthlink.net When are you going to throw in the towel and quit. Since Dean Smith wouldn't didn't give you support or rather steal from his credit, you just won't quit will you. You do agree with CINDY SHEEHAN so that proves your thought process and that ain't good! I wish no harm toward you but you really need to spend your energy doing something you can do and this is not it woman.

John Q Public


Dear Mr. Walters:

When are you going to throw in the towel and quit[?] When the election is over next week!

Since Dean Smith wouldn't didn't give you support or rather steal from his credit I do not seek his nor anyone's endorsement or support.

you just won't quit will you[?] Nope. Not until the election results are in.

You do agree with CINDY SHEEHAN I do not pretend to speak for her or she for me. We do agree, as do millions of other Americans, that the war is wrong, unconstitutional and grossly mismanaged and that the troops should be brought home now. Tell me, are you afraid of intelligent women who can think for themselves?

so that proves your thought process and that ain't good Funny, my doctors did not remove any portion of my brain so my thought processes are fine. Oh, by the way, "ain't" is not a legitimate word. Where'd you learn or grammar? Or did you?

I wish no harm toward you, although you do have my sympathy as you are wholly bereft of intellect. but you really need to spend your energy doing something you can do What, pray tell is that? I'm over-qualified to get a job at a convenience store.

In addition to being a grammarian, are you also a vocational counselor or does that suffer from the same defects? and this is not it woman. Whatever you say, man.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #31

20 Oct 2006

Subject: NOT MY VOTE

Rachel Hunter I will not be voting for you since you seem to agree with CINDY SHEEHAN !...

V. BENNETT, NC. USA


Dear Mr. Cohan or Mr. Bennett:

Evidently you cannot read. I stated repeatedly that I do not speak for Ms. Sheehan and do not necessarily agree or disagree with her on all issues or she with me. What we do have in common is that we are both independent-minded women, capable of thinking for ourselves who disagree with the President and his administration's policy regarding the War in Iraq.

If you are so short-sighted that you will base your vote on an issue that is not likely to come before the North Carolina Supreme Court, then I feel sorry for you and that you hold such myopic views of the world. However, your vote is no loss.

By voting against me and what I stand for, it means that you support my opponent and continued corruption and nepotism if office. You support arrogance and elitism. You support continued violation and even abrogation of our constitutional rights. Congratulations.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #30

9 Oct 2006

Re: Rachel Launches The Largest Blog Ad Program In NC Judicial History

Please, I'm not Nathan Tabor or a Religious nutcase like him, but I do have some questions:

1. What's Ms. Hunter's reaction to the Democrat Party reprimand for her comments?

2. What's her reaction to the Republican Party condemnation of calling someone "Uncle Tom?"

3. Is Ms. Hunter aware that her campaign website displays the photo of a white woman? Is that Ms. Hunter's photograph?

4. What's you reaction to a source in NC calling Ms. Hunter the white Cynthia McKinney?

5. Is Ms. Hunter now running as in independent?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Jim Kouri


Dear Mr. Kouri,

Answers are below:

1. What's Ms. Hunter's reaction to the Democrat Party reprimand for her comments?

See my website for my response to the chairman. Since his comments, there have been no further exchanges.

2. What's her reaction to the Republican Party condemnation of calling someone "Uncle Tom?"

I do not really care what the reaction of the NC GOP-Mafia is. However, see my statements posted at my website regarding this issue.

Mr. Robinson made outlandish statements about Congressman Miller and continues to do so. I criticized the behavior, not the man personally unlike many others who attack me personally. There is a difference and if you are so interested in matters that occurred months ago, I suggest you really read what was written for yourself, including my comments of June 6, 2006 and thereafter.

3. Is Ms. Hunter aware that her campaign website displays the photo of a white woman? Is that Ms. Hunter's photograph?

Who else would that be? It is a picture of me prior to my surgery, when my appearance was normal. Yes, I am white. However, race makes no difference to me and I try to be as color-blind as it is possible to be. I look at the person and the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

4. What's you reaction to a source in NC calling Ms. Hunter the white Cynthia McKinney?

What is the nature of this source? Is it one of the NC GOP-Mafia operatives?

If so, consider the source. No one has made such comments to me in email or otherwise. Regardless, do not base your decision on what others say but on what you know in your heart to be the truth.

5. Is Ms. Hunter now running as in independent?

No, I am not. The election is non-partisan so party affiliation of neither candidate is identified on the ballot. I am registered as a Democrat, however. Some party websites list me as a Democratic candidate and some do not. However, I am on the ballot.

Rachel Lea Hunter


Hate-Mail #29

3 Oct 2006

From: Elballjr@aol.com

Your performance at the recent NCADA meeting was disgraceful. You are not qualified to be a judge & you should withdraw from the race.


Dear Mr. Elball, Jr.:

Your behavior and comments are typical of the views of the legal establishment.

I am not going to be cowed and I am not withdrawing from the race. If the attorneys don't like me pointing out the problems with what I have been subjected to, so be it. You and they have behaved in a disgraceful manner, not me. And I really don't care what you or they think of me. I know what kind of person I am. However, your views and conduct speak about what sort of person you are. I would not want to be you.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #28

2 Oct 2006

RE: "Madame Justice" Shines The Light In Greensboro And Winston-Salem

Madame Justice,

As a concerned voter of North Carolina, it is refreshing to know that our political leaders and those in the Justice department cannot be bought. We need people with ethical and moral standards in positions of leadership.

However, you are recently quoted as saying that "...the mentality of the religious Christian right, as demonstrated by the Christian Coalition, is like the mentality displayed by the Taliban who want to impose their own brand of theocracy on the government." While I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Christian Coalition, I am concerned that you would compare Christians with a moral, conservative view, who have a love for God and their country, with the Taliban. Our mindset is totally opposite of those who are full of hate enough to murder their own countrymen and others around the world who do not believe in their views. How ridiculous a comparison. Christians have no such desire. Such statements and view points disqualify you, in my opinion, from ever being a jurist in our state. I would never vote for someone who is out of touch with reality.

Joe DePalantino


Dear Mr. DePalantino:

With one breath you find me refreshing but with the next you criticize me. Which is it?

My point has been accepted by others and I am not the first to comment on it. There is a mindset among these folks regardless of how much their defenders try to deny it. Others have commented on it to me as they believe this way. I therefore disagree with your assertion.

I have no opposition to living your life as a true Christian and living these values. However, I do not like the Christian Coalition's attempt to use the courts and the legislature to re-make public policy and the world as they wish it to be. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? People of faith can hold office but there is a problem when they seek to use government force to make others live according to their religious dictates. Sunday "blue laws" and Prohibition are but two examples of this.

I also find them to be the biggest hypocrites. They preach at the rest of us, but they call for the assassination of world leaders, the abridgement of civil rights, the abrogation of habeas corpus, the torture of fellow human beings or shady deals to extort large sums of money. Is this Christian? How does this square with what they preach? Is it better to have corrupt and unethical "Christian" leaders or Christian/non-Christian leaders who are ethical and moral? Ponder that while you are casting your vote.

Cordially,

Rachel Lea Hunter


Hate-Mail #27

26 Sep 2006

Subject: Your Comment

Good Morning Rachel,

I'm not quite sure where or how your email came to my inbox. After reading your email I'm glad to know how to vote. The following comment is offensive to me as a Christian, However, the mentality of the religious Christian right, as demonstrated by the Christian Coalition, is like the mentality displayed by the Taliban who want to impose their own brand of theocracy on the government. The religions are different but the mindset is the same. The Christian Coalition wants to impose its own version of Christianity, its own values on you. They want to tell you what to do with your own private life, who you can marry, who can live or die (abortion is bad but the death penalty is permissible) or if you can drink alcohol.

It's apparent you don't know your Bible. The Bible states God's principles on marriage, abortion, homosexuality, and even the death penalty. The principles are foundational to individuals and bodies of people such as a nation who strive to honor God.

That is what our country was founded on and what made us a great nation. As we separate ourselves from God so He will separate Himself from us. Satan is alive and well on planet earth.

He is deceiving many and many are following the lie. As II Chronicles 7:14 challenged the Children of Israel to focus on God, so too is the USA challenged today by this same verse.

We as Christians pray for our country and it's leaders. They need to be led by the Spirit of God in all decisions that are made on behalf of our people.

Larry Watkins


Dear Mr. Watkins,

Apparently you don't know God. If you did, you would not literally interpret every word in the Bible. It says that the Israelites should kill. Do you think God condones killing? Do you think God hates homosexuals? Why then did God create them? Surely someone as powerful as God would never screw up and allow such a monstrosity. Read the Bible, but do not make the mistake of believing the Bible over the true teachings of God.

Satan is alive and well? Satan is a fiction invented by the world's religions to keep uneducated people like you enslaved and controlled. You can only get to heaven unless you behave as your religion says you ought to and if you don't, then by God, you're going to Hell and will be damned forever! Now why would God create such a system which is designed for you to fail? God is omnipotent. Everything He creates is perfect. So why would He want you to go to Hell? Why would he allow the devil to exist as you claim?

And you so-called Christians are not nothing but hypocrites. You call for the death penalty because you think people who commit crimes ought to be punished. A poor defendant has no constitutional rights, let them rot in jail! It's what they deserve. Property rights have been destroyed by the US Supreme Court and that is ok. So is spying on emails and phone calls, because it makes us safer. We have seen what your goodly Christians have wrought on our state Supreme Court. People whose virtues you extol are draconian when it comes to violating your rights. But by all means, keep electing people like this. Your vote is no loss. You were never going to vote for me anyway.

You are probably too steeped in what your fellow religionists have taught you, but I will say it anyway. Feel the truth and you will then know what is right. Look at what is in your heart, not what you have been told by others.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #26

20 July 2006

Dear Miss Hunter,

I want to assure you first that I am not "blissfully ignorant or unaware", that I can read and that I do not have my "head in the sand". I tell you this to save you the time it requires for you to copy and paste your response. I am amazed at your obvious display of mental illness. Do you think your confrontational rhetoric will pursuade anyone? I spent entirely too much time surfing your site and yet I will leave it being as puzzled about you as I was when I arrived. The email entitled "tone it down" is solid advice for any candidate and you are a fool to ignore it.

Your personal attacks against your critics betrays you as one who cannot defend her views.

John Wilson B.S.
Faculty Research Assistant
University of Maryland School of Medicine
M.P.R.C.
(410) 402-6086


Dear Mr. Wilson,

With all due respect, I neither seek nor request your political advice. Moreover, you cannot vote for me, based on your area code in the phone number and address listed below. I am puzzled why you spend so much time on this when my candidacy is of no meaning to you.

You contacted me and chose to make your comments heard. I am free to defend myself against personal attacks. If my detractors wish to discuss matters of substance instead of engaging in personal attacks, I will be more than happy to oblige, but they typically do not so I feel compelled to respond in kind.

You claim to be proficient in being able to make a mental health assessment from just reading my website. That is quite a feat, as you are not personally acquainted with me and have not actually observed me. I am curious - where did you receive your doctorate in psychiatry which enables you to complete the DSM and allow you judge mental status? Perhaps you will be of use as an expert psychiatric witness.

The fact that you, someone who purports to be educated, cannot understand the obvious set forth on my website whereas simple folk like my neighbors and other acquaintances who can readily do so indicates to me why America is in the shape its in. It is a very sad commentary on the status of our country.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #25

28 Jun 2006

From: Grant Kohrmann

Subject: Tone It Down?

I've become uneasy listening to some of your comments recently on your website and your publicly spoken events. You should know that some of your rhetoric is more likely to scare people away rather then draw them to your cause. Your references to fellow politicians is not something that needs to be dramatized because often enough a sign of a good leader is someone whose tempered speaking is just as effective. Some of the comments you've made as to your opposition and opposing party members have made me less likely to vote for you because you have not said anything inspiring but rather dragging. My suggestion is as follows:

Draw back to your ideals and use them as your foreword instead of "towing the party line", you can do that later when your elected (if your elected).

As a justice you are not a person who is supposed to bring sweeping changes to the forefront of American politics, instead you are an impartial protector of our governments and your states constitution...act that way and you're more likely to be elected to the position your running for.

Remove hate speech from your daily rhetoric, because it does more harm than good and draws the wrong kind of attention.

Fight equally for all who are poor if you use that as a platform, not everyone is a minority and poor.

Focus, focus, focus. Your website, your messages, and your talking points are way too broad and end up confusing the average person instead of helping them to make a decision on you as a person.

Obviously it is up to you as to how you will take this message. Personally I don't much support your message, your attacks or your run for office but at the same time I hate to see someone cause themselves harm. Good luck in alienating the base of your party and at the same time the largest voting block in your state.


Dear Mr. Kohrmann:

Enlighten me as to why it is that I should take advice from someone who has stated that they cannot support me? Its like the hens putting the fox as guard of the henhouse. You will forgive me if I do not choose to adhere to your advice as I am skeptical of it.

Since you find my emails uneasy (could it be because I speak the truth and you do not wish to hear it and would prefer to bury your head in the sand?), you should do us both a favor and simply unsubscribe yourself. That way you do not have to hear any more of my opinions and you can remain blissfully unaware of events.

Cordially,

Rachel


It should not matter what political party I've voted for recently, and if everyone voted the way they are affiliated politically then you wouldn't have to campaign. Your concentration should not be on what I am politically but rather on how your going to convince me to vote for you.

You really should care what people within your voting block have to say instead of lampooning their e-mails because sooner rather then later you have to care about constituents or the constitution regardless if you like what either has to say. Your not in a position to write legislation but to decide how it is enforced. If you are "Max....Official watchdog of the ' Madame Justice' campaign" then even you should watch how you respond to people who might vote for or against...your not above public opinion you are a "slave" to it.


Hate-Mail #24

Rachel

I really get a kick out of your website. You amuse me greatly. Your rantings are typically from "up north" as well as your attitude. In fact, I have enjoyed your website to a point where I now believe that you cannot be serious as to your political aspirations. You cloak yourself as a neo-conservative while holding tight to your obvious left leaning concepts.

No candidate, in their right mind, would post such nonsensical rantings and still consider themself to be a contender. I know that you will probably publically dismiss my email as that of a right winger, (as Hillary is fond of doing), or you will pooh pooh this email with your usual condescending tone and nutty ravings, but the truth shines through...you are NUTZ and I think that you have missed your real calling as a stand up comedienne. May God help the Carolina's if you actually are elected for office!

A watcher of your website,

Anon


Dear Happy Fool:

Glad I amuse you and that you find the deterioration of our society very funny. Sorry, but I do share in the hilarity of the situation. However, by all means, bury your head in the sand and content yourself with the next installment of American Idol, Survivor or one of the other mindless things with which you entertain yourself.

I'll pass as a comedienne.

You evidently cannot read. Now that is funny. You are quite able to sling insults at me but you don't know how to read. If you were literate, you would know that I am not a neo-con and have argued vociferously against what the neo-cons are doing to this country and our civil liberties. I would say "learn to read" but the government schools have not taught you how so I guess you will either have to educate yourself or remain blissfully ignorant.

Far from being "left leaning" you have not the slightest idea of my true political thoughts. Anyway, Independence Day will arrive soon enough for me.

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't share it and many others do not either. Remind me again - why can you impugn me and my intellect at whim, but if I dare say anything critical of you, I will be dismissed as nuts or some other slight?

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-i-c-a-l?

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #23

Dear Madame Justice:

I noticed that your web site has equated Vernon Robinson with the Beast of Biblical Revelation, by calling him the Republican 666 Beast.
http://www.rachelforjustice.com/

However, I must point out your errors, both as to Biblical concepts and simple history.

The beast cannot have the mark of 666, as Arabic numerals did not exist in Biblical times. In fact, Arabic numberals did not show up in history until well after the year 600 AD.

Therefore, what ever mark the Biblical beast will have, it will not be 666.

You really need to study some history. How can we be sure your knowledge of law is any better than your grasp of history?

Sincerely,
Mister History

Dear Mr. Breitenbach:

I have read history although I do not proclaim to be a Biblical scholar.

Whether Arabic numerals were or were not invented, the Revelation of St. John refers to this number. I do not know what the significance of the number is in the gospel other than it mentions that there is a beast and it is bears this mark. It was June 6, 2006. The radio had mentioned it and I wrote about "the beast" that has infiltrated and permeated every level of our society. Call it what you want to - whether it's the New World Order, the neo-cons, the Jesuits, the Illuminati, the Masons or whatever. For me, it is easier to think of this thing by what I called it - a beast.

The message was in two parts; one related to the beast, another the comments about Mr. Robinson. Headlines are designed to grab attention; they are not meant to be a substitute for that which follows.

If you cannot read, how can we be sure of your ability to cast an intelligent vote?

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #22

I have been following your website and the criticism that you have received. I have also followed your responses and finally had to add some input. Are you real? In this I mean, are you truly an educated adult woman running for the North Carolina Supreme Court? Your rantings and ravings remind me of a teenage girl who is running for class president and has no clue about how to run a campaign. You come across as being arrogant, out of touch, inmature, and mentally unstable. You are a loose cannon and no one with your approach has any business even thinking about perverting such a fine institution as our state Supreme Court. I'm not worried, because I know that you have already lost this race for yourself with your sophomoric responses to people's criticism. The funny thing is that you make it so obvious that you have no real answer when you respond. People don't care to be told that because they think you are a loon that they can't read. (Especially from someone who butchers the English language both with obscenities and wrong word usage like "in tack" and others.) My impression of you is that you are an uneducated, ( I don't care where you went to college or law school, this is how you behave and you obviously flunked English) childish, loonatic who craves attention. You use of "Madame Justice" is beyond ridiculous and so are your responses to people's complaints. You NEVER, ANYWHERE on your site or in your responses have answered to basic question as to whether or not Dean Smith actually made the comment that was posted on your website. You skirt around it and tell people that they should have read the whole article. Well let me tell you Rachel, I read the whole article and above it was a quote that said "From one loyal Democrat to another, win Rachel win!" That is an endorsement and was simply either made-up, or actually spoken.

So for heaven's sake did he say it or DID YOU MAKE IT UP??? It's easy

Rachel.....YES OR NO....YES OR NO? Watch: YEEEEESSSS OR NOOOOOOO??? That's all anyone is looking for. I look forward to seeing you lose handily in November and perhaps then you and your dog can get back to whatever it is you do when you are not running a campaign for freshman class president.

Regards,

William Sikes


Dear Mr. Sikes:

In answer to your question regarding Dean Smith, the answer is no, he has not endorsed anyone.

I will not stoop to answer your ridiculous and unfounded assertions, but will categorically deny them. You are, however, entitled to your opinion. Suffice it to say that myself and others who know me or who understand what is really going on, do not share it.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #21

Your website does not help you know. People want judges to be capable of fairness...or maybe I'm naive.

Brad

Dear Mr. Kepley:

Thank you for your campaign advice.

How many campaigns have you run? Have you ever ran for office yourself in the hope of bringing a bit of change for the better to our society?

No? Then, I will consider your advice after you have done so and not before.

You are not naïve, ignorant, perhaps. Education is the cure for ignorance, but there is none for stupidity.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #20

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006

From: Ruth Smith
To: 'Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court'
Subject: RE: Vernon Robinson The Republican 666 Beast

I think you need to tone it down a bit. Calling your opponent the anti-Christ is not a good way to win votes. I sent you $$, but you are going to alienate a lot of people, including me.

FYI.
Ruth C. Smith

Dear Ms. Smith:

To my knowledge, I do not recall that you were among the donors, but I can verify. At present, any contributions are to be made to the "Madame Justice" PAC, however, I do not recall that you made any donations there either. Perhaps you are mistaken.

I did not call my opponent the anti-christ. I did not mention my opponent, who is an incumbent justice on the Supreme Court and who has been silent thus far.

I did mention Mr. Robinson, as I have met both he and his opponent for the 13th Congressional district that stretches from Raleigh to Greensboro. I know Mr. Robinson and heard him the other morning on the radio. After how he was treated by the NC GOP, I find his behavior now to be cowardly. And I do not approve of his antics, particularly his tactic in trying to stir up the masses with bashing illegal aliens and homosexuals and by linking his opponent to both these groups.

I have considered your suggestion regarding my campaign. You can do as you think best.

We are at a crossroads in our country and in our state. We can vote for the same old thing. Nothing will change and we will continue to decline. Or we can change and try something new.

Best wishes,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #19

I have a feeling this is pointless, but I'll try anyway.

Your recent media exposures have attracted media attention not because the media or any person generally opposes your philosophy, but because they are WRONG to the point of being bizarre. Drawing a crowd is not good if they're jeering at you.

No, you can't call yourself by an official or honarary title you haven't earned, especially when it inplies you currently or in the past have occupied a public position you have not. It doesn't matter if your kindergarten sweetheart called you "Snookums." If Snookums is the title of an elected position you can't call yourself that publicly unless you got elected Snookums for at least a portion of a term.

Dean Smith is a well-respected figure in North Carolina. I see a claim of endorsement in the title. Misleading people is wrong. People react negatively to apparent attempts to abuse Dean Smith in any way. Got it? I think I would apologize to the guy and blame this on a "web developer error."

An old boss of mine said something that stuck with me and I present it to you now. "If you have to explain what you said maybe you shouldn't have said it."

The implications for you based on only these two issues have made you known to me. Rather than being good publicity, they have branded you (at least with me) as one or more of the following:

A. A crackpot.
B. Mentally unstable.
C. Dishonest to a fault and proud of it.

We have enough of this stuff in the White House and the laughingly underhanded shenanigans of the NC Education Lottery. The American people despite being diverted by everything trivial and widespread ignorance are getting wise and tired of it. With time and the right actions on your part maybe you will gain the opportunity to effect change in this world. In time I might even be interested in what you want those changes to be. There are plenty of positive causes you can get involved in.

Until you are more interesting than entertaining,

James Pennell


Dear Mr. Pennell:

(Your recent media exposures have attracted media attention not because the media or any person generally opposes your philosophy, but because they are WRONG to the point of being bizarre. Drawing a crowd is not good if they're jeering at you.)

As P.T. Barnum once said, “There's no such thing as bad publicity so long as they spell your name right.” You can call me names if you wish, but I am of the opinion that P.T. Barnum was correct. Even if I am wrong and you are right, we will let the voters decide in November. If I win, then I will serve gladly. If I do not prevail, I will go on with what is left of my life and will not make another foray into politics. It is a rigged game anyway and pointless for the average citizen to run.

(No, you can't call yourself by an official or honarary title you haven't earned, especially when it inplies you currently or in the past have occupied a public position you have not. It doesn't matter if your kindergarten sweetheart called you "Snookums." If Snookums is the title of an elected position you can't call yourself that publicly unless you got elected Snookums for at least a portion of a term. I have reviewed our state constitution and cannot find anywhere therein where there is such an office as “Madame Justice.” We have a Chief Justice and an associate justice and no distinction is made for gender.)

If elected, I will be Justice Hunter, not “Madame Justice” and people will refer to me as Justice Hunter.

(Dean Smith is a well-respected figure in North Carolina.)

I agree.

Look again. In an effort to clarify matters, the website was revised to say only that I had met him. However if you had actually READ the statement, you would see that I said that I had met him, which is the same thing that he said and which I again said in a statement that was put out the other evening. Please learn to read and spell. I agree. However, I disagree that I misled anyone, but in the event that I did (I cannot rectify illiteracy or a failure to read), I again made plain that he did not endorse anyone. By the way, I have not sought or asked for anyone’s endorsement. People also react emotionally without engaging their brains and carefully reading. Just because they do so does not mean that they are correct or justified in their opinion.

(Got it?)

I fully understand your points but I do not appreciate your snide and arrogant tone.

(I think I would apologize to the guy and blame this on a "web developer error.") That is why you are not running for office nor would you succeed if you did as you have no understanding of politics or as to how the game is really played. By the way, the revised statement also made it clear that I have no intention of apologizing for anything, but I will consider it when President Bush apologizes for lying and spying, Vernon Robinson apologizes to Brad Miller and when Nathan Tabor and Ferrell Blount apologize to me. (The implications for you based on only these two issues have made you known to me. Rather than being good publicity, they have branded you (at least with me) as one or more of the following:

A. A crackpot.
B. Mentally unstable.
C. Dishonest to a fault and proud of it)

You forgot one – D. None of the above. That is the one I choose. You have been listening to too many of Art Pope’s adoption of Joseph Goebbels’ big lie theory.

(We have enough of this stuff in the White House and the laughingly underhanded shenanigans of the NC Education Lottery. The American people despite being diverted by everything trivial and widespread ignorance are getting wise and tired of it.)

No kidding. Why is it that I am running? Because I am disgusted by what I see in office and I am disgusted by the behavior of those who call themselves judge or justice and hold office. What do you think the cause of my brain tumor is? Extreme stress over what I saw happening. Can’t prove it and I have no medical evidence to prove it, only anectdotal evidence. Being a biochemist and pre-med undergrad, I do not come to this opinion lightly, but I come to it all the same and cannot be convinced otherwise. The tumor started when my severe headaches started and the severe headaches were attributable to stress cause in my employment. I left that job, but the tumor, which grows slowly, grew until it caused symptoms that led to its discovery.

(With time and the right actions on your part maybe you will gain the opportunity to effect change in this world.)

I have no wish to do so. I told you above what my intentions are.

(In time I might even be interested in what you want those changes to be. There are plenty of positive causes you can get involved in.)

Thank heavens you are not a concentration camp guard. I believe in freedom and will spend my life as I see fit, not you. I do not care whether you are concerned with my life and I sincerely desire that you not be part of it.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #18

I feel sorry for you. Sorry that you are blind to the fact that without the safety blanket that big brother provides, you and those liberal, bleeding hearted nitwits that support you would be out in the cold. I gave 9 years of my life, away from family and friends, to protect the American way of life. What do I see when I get back and try to fit back into normal life? People like you who slap the same people who protect you day in and day out.

So what if the government looks for patterns in your phone logs. It's for your protection. If they were able to stop a school shooting where our kids went to school or a terrorist attack at the local mall while you were shopping with the information obtained in these records, would it be ok then? Or would you simply continue to rant that big brother needs to stop?

Our country needs to be protected from the bad guys. Everyday, stuff goes on around the world that if it got by big brother, would end up on our doorsteps and shock you. Then the same people yelling at the government to stop what they are doing, would be yelling louder at the same people to find out why more was not done. Government does need limits and no one wants to live under an iron fist, this is America after all, but freedom is not free. I hope you remember that in the future as you live out your days under big brothers blanket.

Jason Porter

USAF Veteran

Dear Mr. Porter:

You evidently do not mind if the government pries into your personal affairs. You have no idea of my politics other than that you have jumped to a conclusion without thinking.

Government has not made us safer; you are foolish to believe that it has, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Our government has done very little to protect us from real bad guys. If so, why is it spying on innocent Americans? Seems that they are looking for bad guys in the wrong places, unless, this is part of its plan.

Destroy what is left of the Constitution. After all, what you fought for and under is just a god-damned piece of paper so trash it. Then they can consolidate power and bring about the real big brother. That’s the real plan and individuals like you keep waving the flag and spouting trite phrases that show how patriotic you are.

As you do not know my politics or real beliefs and have not bothered to learn them as contained in the many statements, then do not pretend and characterize me to fit your pre-conceived notions.

Thank you for your service by the way.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #17

Rachel,

I have reread the statement again and again and it makes no sense. The statement, "As a Loyal Democrat to another Loyal Democrat. Win Rachel!"

Win!"..... Dean Smith" implies that Dean Smith supports you, endorses you, or simply knows your. By posting that statement you are misdirecting the public. This article, http://www.wral.com/news/9254945/detail.html, states that Dean Smith doesn't know you and has NOT endorsed you. A proper removal of that statement would clear up any confusion. And if that doesn't make sense to you, I don't know what else to say.

Sincerely,

Joey

Dear Mr. Harper:

The website was revised this weekend. I prepared a clarifying statement that went out yesterday evening.

The website makes clear that I only met the man and I said so in the original statement. I reviewed it and cannot find anything that you have cited.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #16

Did Dean Smith really endorse you? I understand that he states that he has not. If that is the case, why does your site continue to imply that he did? If you are being disingenuous, why should I trust you with my vote?

Dear Sir:

The site was previously revised and a clarifying statement was issued as it appears that you, like everyone else, cannot READ. Had you read the statement, you would know that I did not say that he did. I said only that I met him.

Anyone who cannot read should not be trusted to vote as they cannot do so intelligently.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #15

Please remove reference to Dean Smith as he has asked!!!!

Man you folks will lie before you get into office and now you're caught.
REMOVE Mr. Smiith's association with you loser.
donald

Dear Mr. Walters:

The website was revised and a statement clarifying matters was issued.
You sir, have shown yourself to be the real loser.

Cordially,

Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #14

Dear Ms. Hunter,

Quite honestly, I do not understand all of your mumbo jumbo concerning the reading of subject headings. It is clear from your website that you attribute that quote as coming directly from Dean Smith. No wonder the general public distrusts lawyers--you are actively misappropriating Mr. Smith's likeness as your website still shows the falsified quote. The media is making a big deal of this issue because it's important to know the character of our elected officials, especially judges.

You have been caught in a lie--plain and simple, your attempts to explain it away are embarrasing and show a serious lack of character. Which is the point of this email: our profession is one of self-regulation and I have a duty to report you to the state disciplinary board for conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, and that's exactly what I have in mind to do--file a complaint. Please take the fake quote off of your website and treat the public as if it has half of a brain--because they know a quote when they see one.

Respectfully,

S. Caldwell

Dear Mr./Ms. Caldwell:

The website was corrected this weekend and a statement has been issued.

The bar association cannot regulate political speech under Republican Party of Minnesota v. White and it cannot regulate non-political candidates at all. The website has nothing to do with clients, the solicitation of clients or performing legal services for clients.

However, if you feel compelled to file a complaint, do so.

Cordially,

Rachel


Hate-Mail #13

Moronic, paranoid ravings.  By your own calculation, you should have been swept up in some kind of SS raid never to be heard from again.  Alas, you and many like you continue to be able to write such nonsense with complete confidence that this will not happen.  Doesn't that tell you anything?  You know you can say anything you damn well want, even mail it to me and others I suppose, against our wishes.  If the things you claim were true, we would be alarmed like you.  But some of us can tell fact from fantasy.  It is my country, and disabling its enemies from bringing us harm is the sworn responsibility of the commander-in-chief.  It's not optional.  And, don't give me that crap about Saddam not being one of them. 

  Nobody in the administration has maligned Cindy Sheehan, but she is rightly accountable for her own words.  To the extent her words give comfort to the enemy, others have a right to complain.  Speaking of words, "tendency" has no "a" in it, but then again, that's not the president's finger either, is it?  You don't get much right for someone who wants to be chief justice.

Jack Marin

 

Dear Mr. Marin:

Nobody in the administration has maligned Cindy Sheehan?  Why should they
when they have their willing accomplices in the media to do it for them?
And what about the president's statement?   He is permitted to call someone
a bitch, and that's not maligning them?

I write nonsense and should not be allowed to say it?  Do you know Mr.
Craver at Kilpatrick Stockton?    He does not believe in free speech rights
either.   You would not go farther and would label anyone who disagrees with
your views a traitor and hold them accountable.  What kind of Nazi are you?

You think that you can distinguish fact from fiction and that all is going
smoothly in Iraq .  Even if it is not, you will follow the president,
because, after all, he is the commander-in-chief.   I and other Americans
beg to differ.  We are choosing to question his policies.  We have a
disaster at home and only now do we realize that we do not have the
resources to deal with it as we have squandered money, material and manpower
in Iraq .

Maybe you can explain why, if I seldom get things right, that Paul Stam is
trying desperately trying to change the law so that someone like me will not
be elected?   If I am that incompetent, the Republicans' chosen candidate
need have nothing to fear from me.

I email you nothing against your wish.  If you want to unsubscribe, you have
the right to do so.  Oh, that's right.  You are unable or unwilling to do it
yourself.  Or is it that you are too important, working at a big firm?
Allow us to do it for you.

Best wishes,
Rachel

 

Hate-Mail #12

Please remove me from this mailing list. Regardless of my agreement or disagreement with your ideaology, this email was tasteless.

Thank you. 
Darrell Shealy

 

Dear Mr. Shealy:

You say my email was "tasteless."    What would one think of the president
name calling, using profanity and inappropriate gestures?   Is that
tasteless?  Or is my pointing out the truth tasteless?

There is a saying that the truth hurts.  You want to hide from the truth and
live in your cocoon.   My silence will not affect the truth, only your
hearing of it.  As you do not wish to hear it, live in your myopic
fantasy-land and we will unsubscribe you as you are unable or unwilling to
do it yourself.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #11

Take me off mailing list – this is disgraceful and should not be permitted.

Penn Craver

 

Dear Mr. Craver:

You say that this conduct should not be permitted.  I assume you mean that
the government should not allow any dissent.   Did you forget the first
amendment to the constitution?   How about the 14th?   You prove my point.
If you don't like what you are hearing, your response is to silence the
message, the constitution be damned.  What kind of Nazi are you?

For someone at such a fine law firm, one would think that you would have the
intellectual capacity to remove yourself.   As you are lacking it, we will
cheerfully remove you.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #10

Please remove my name from your mailing list. Your sophomoric rants belong in a high school student council contest; not in a race for chief justice. The NCGOP certainly knew what they were doing in distancing themselves from you in 2004.

Katherine Schultz

 

Dear Ms. Schultz:

One would think that you would be more intelligent, but you cannot manage to
unsubscribe yourself.   Since you cannot, we will remove you.

You say that the North Carolina Republican party was correct in distancing
itself from me.  You have it exactly backwards.  It is not the Republicans
who distanced themselves from me.  It is I who left the party when I could
stomach no more of what was happening to our constitution and our liberties.

Look at their own conduct.  Let's see - we have Bill Peaslee, who hangs out
at the Doll House, which is a "gentleman's club."   I have seen the
sagacious Mr. Blount talking about his top-down style and how this is a
Republican state.  Last time I checked, the Republicans were NOT in the
majority, but then I don't inhabit the same land of denial inhabited by
people like you and Ferrell Blount.  Our president swears, uses profanity
and gives people the bird.  The country is falling apart, both here and
abroad.  Much to emulate there!

It is I who have adhered to true republican principles, not the party of the
neo-cons.  If you want to unquestioningly follow the fine example set by
them in destroying the constitution, go ahead.   Meanwhile, our country is
deteriorating.   We will know next year whether the voters have truly woken
up, whether they can save what little is left or whether they will continue
to go down the path of empire and ruination.   I know where I stand.  Do
you?

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #9

Remove me from your e-mail list immediately !  I most certainly will not be supporting your efforts to run for any kind of public office!

Sincerely,
Jane Rouse, 
Chairman, NC Republican Party 1995-96

 

Dear Ms. Rouse:

I notice that you are the former state Republican party chairperson.  Evidently, you believe in following the Republican party even though it destroys our constitutional rights and promotes big government now.  Whatever happened to less taxes and limited government?   What happened to the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan?   You prove my point; what passes for the Republican party these days is really the neo-con party.  And you are too blind or lacking in intelligence to comprehend it.

As you display your inability or unwillingness to remove yourself form the email list, we will do it for you.  I don't want the support of people like you.  Good riddance!

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #8

Please remove me from your e-mail address list. I do not want to receive any more of you trash rantings about President Bush. I respect the President and I respect our judiciary. I hope your effort to contaminate the judiciary with your presence fails in a big way.

Gerald Thornton

 

Dear Mr. Thornton:

You state that you "respect our judiciary."  Is the president respecting the
people by swearing, using profane name-calling or by such childish actions
as in giving someone the finger, let alone trashing the Constitution.   Is
such conduct worthy of respect from you?  It evidently is.

You speak of my contamination of the court, yet we already have one
law-breaker on our court.   Is this evidence of his contamination, too?  Or
is his behavior acceptable to you?

While you are entitled to your opinion of me, I do not share it.  Nor do
many other people.  Since you are unwilling or unable to remove yourself, we
shall do it for you with pleasure.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #7

I have submitted today to be removed from your lists.  It is almost unbelievable to me that while a major portion of our country is devastated and all of us feel the impact, you deem it appropriate to send political propaganda.  If there is a time for us to put aside petty politics and pull together it is now.  You've shown me your mettle.   I refrained from participating in the general ridicule delivered your way relating to your website and the emails I received, but your choice of sending that message today, frankly, disgusts me.  I am not a political person, but you've crossed the line.  Perhaps you should rethink your priorities as hundreds of thousands of our countrymen and women suffer on this day. 

Mike Winters

 

Dear Mr. Winters:

The statement was written while the hurricane was wreaking havoc.  I, like most people, did not know of the full nature of the devastation and the chaos that would result.   If you feel compelled to alleviate the suffering and wish to volunteer or donate, then do so.

However, the statement will be out of date if it is not sent.  These are decisions which must be made.  It would be nice if politics would take a holiday, but it won't.

I need not re-think my priorities and need not take advice from you.

Unsubscribe from my list.  It is people like you who disgust me.

However, ignoring me won't make the problems go away.   Nor will it make things better in Alabama , Mississippi or Louisiana .    In fact, the destruction there highlights the point that we are wasting resources and material in Iraq when our own people are suffering and in need here.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #6

You really have lost your mind.  As a law student, I can confidently say
that you are embarrassing my future profession.  Please, if you want to
be a judge, show a jurist's temperament.  This is not a game.

Steve Russell

 

Dear Mr. Russell,

This is not the first time I have been called nuts, so your criticism falls
on deaf ears.   I do not speak for all lawyers everywhere and never
pretended to.  Since you are so easily embarrassed, may I suggest a change
of careers?   You really are not cut out for the law.

Are you familiar with Judge Evelyn Hill and her judicial temperament?  Maybe
we need more jurists like that to display the qualities that you seek.

Best wishes,
Rachel

 


Hate-Mail #5

I made reference to your not being nominated or elected, obviously
referencing the election process, and I am still thankful you were neither.
And I will help to decide because I am a voter.  During the last election, I
was in the majority.  How about you since you judge yourself to have such
sterling wisdom?

 Wishes,  Bob

 

Dear Mr. Philbeck:

You are evidently a true believer neo-con.  You will tolerate no criticism of your leaders.  Anyone who dares voice a contrary view is branded a traitor and should be killed or imprisoned or, at the very lease, told to shut up because you and they don't want to hear it.  

Nothing I say will ever persuade you otherwise and I will not try.

I never proclaimed that I am wise.   I am as equally competent or incompetent as the fools that I have seen elected to office.  And if you think otherwise, then you are in the same group as they.  You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not share your view and other people do not share it as well.

If you are correct, then why are the neo-cons trying to change the law and get appellate judges appointed instead of being elected?  Why are the neo-cons trying to change the law and make Justice Lake serve a full year?   Evidently, they are afraid that someone like me just might win and that they will lose power.  If I were an incompetent nobody as you think, those in power and the neo-cons would not be wasting their time and energy to defeat someone like me.

You might be deluded into thinking that this is a neo-con state and that neo-cons will be victorious.  The economy has gotten worse.  Things are falling apart in Iraq .   We will see how the people vote this year and next year.   If you and the neo-con majority vote your “well-qualified” candidate in, so be it.  I will go on with my life and will not trouble with politics again.  It is an ugly business.  But I will never blindly vote for someone because of party affiliation again.

Yours in Liberty ,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #4

Rachael, I an so, so glad you were not nominated or elected to the Supreme Court.  You demonstrated idiocy should qualify you for a commitment to one of other fine institutions.  BHP

Bob Philbeck

Dear Mr. Philbeck:

Supreme Court justices are elected, not appointed.   For one who is so quick
to judge my intellect, one would have thought that you would be smart enough
to at least know that.
You are entitled to your opinion, but others do not share it, judging by the
growing numbers of those opposed to the war.  I guess they are all idiots
too, and you and others who share your blind views must be in the right.
You may choose to be unquestioning of your leadership, but I am not.
Fortunately, the voters will decide, not you.   We will then know which of
us is the real idiot!


Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #3

Fuck those ragheads!

MarkAdamsEsq@aol.com

Dear Mr. Adams:

You evidently see nothing wrong with America killing other people around the world because its do-able and the victims are just third-worlders.  While you are entitled to your opinion, there is something dreadfully wrong with it.  I will not take the time to explain why, as one wonders whether you have the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend it, although you claim to be an attorney. 
We can agree to disagree, but I have an IQ larger than my shoesize, so I will not resort to obscene remarks.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #2

Dear Madame:

  I thought you were a nice lady when you first started sending me email updates. And I THOUGHT maybe you had gotten a bad deal from the republican party, but lady now I think that maybe you have been a little too close to some of the extreme-LEFT to be able to see right from wrong or good from bad.
I truely am sorry about your illnesses and wish you good health for the future, but as for me and my family and friends(who are many) we will no longer support you or your anti- war and or anti-American views. Howard Dean will be proud to have you in his(losing} party.
Again I am sorry that you have changed so much since I first became interested in your campaigne. And I am truely sorry for you.

Hope you never sit in judgement of anyone.

Good Bye:
Thomas D. Marcum

Dear Mr. Marcum:

I made it clear in an earlier statement that I loved my country.  I still do.  I do not want to let it be destroyed by the neo-cons.   I do not like what they are doing to America .  That is why I have spoken out.  For someone that does not want me to sit in judgment of someone, you certainly do a lot of judging on your own.   We obviouly have different views about the war and you are certinly entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.  However, your attempts to portray me as someone on the far left are absurd.  I am not a tool of the far left.  Nor am I a tool of the far right.  If you had read closely, you would see that I have not changed my principles one iota.
Far from Howard Dean being of the losing party, you would do well to take your blinders off and stop listening to the neo-con propaganda.  Every time an American fills up his or her gastank, they will be reminded that it is George Bush and the neo-cons that have caused this to happen.  Their are many more people than you realize who are against the war.  It is by no means a given that the so-called Republicans will win.  However, history will judge the winners and the losers, not you or I.
Since you cannot remove yourself, I will ask my staff to remove you.   However, not hearing from me will not stop the steady drumbeat of Americans opposed to this war.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #2

Dear Madame:

  I thought you were a nice lady when you first started sending me email updates. And I THOUGHT maybe you had gotten a bad deal from the republican party, but lady now I think that maybe you have been a little too close to some of the extreme-LEFT to be able to see right from wrong or good from bad. I truely am sorry about your illnesses and wish you good health for the future, but as for me and my family and friends(who are many) we will no longer support you or your anti- war and or anti-American views. Howard Dean will be proud to have you in his(losing} party. Again I am sorry that you have changed so much since I first became interested in your campaigne. And I am truely sorry for you.

Hope you never sit in judgement of anyone.

Good Bye:
Thomas D. Marcum

Dear Mr. Marcum:

I made it clear in an earlier statement that I loved my country.  I still do.  I do not want to let it be destroyed by the neo-cons.   I do not like what they are doing to America .  That is why I have spoken out.  For someone that does not want me to sit in judgment of someone, you certainly do a lot of judging on your own.   We obviouly have different views about the war and you are certinly entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.  However, your attempts to portray me as someone on the far left are absurd.  I am not a tool of the far left.  Nor am I a tool of the far right.  If you had read closely, you would see that I have not changed my principles one iota.
Far from Howard Dean being of the losing party, you would do well to take your blinders off and stop listening to the neo-con propaganda.  Every time an American fills up his or her gastank, they will be reminded that it is George Bush and the neo-cons that have caused this to happen.  Their are many more people than you realize who are against the war.  It is by no means a given that the so-called Republicans will win.  However, history will judge the winners and the losers, not you or I.
Since you cannot remove yourself, I will ask my staff to remove you.   However, not hearing from me will not stop the steady drumbeat of Americans opposed to this war.

Best wishes,
Rachel


 

Hate-Mail #1

If you pick up your "marbles" and leave....you don't change anything...stay and work to help America.....however....please read history and realize that people who cut off heads are a lot worse than those just detaining them..we have to guard against more buildings being blown up.... we are not the bad guys... we are not nazis... check it out... study history please

We do not have a Republican Party anymore in North Carolina ; we only have a faction that is in the control of one man.  I am not acceptable to him and never will be.  As long as he remains at the helm, nothing will change.  I think I can do more good outside the party.
On a national level, I have read history.  Yes, there are bad guys who decapitate.  All I said was that they should not be held indefinitely. If they are guilty of war crimes or other crimes, then charge them with such and punish them.  But don't keep a goat herder locked up indefinitely.
I said that the administration is acting like Nazis.  Aside from putting suspected Muslim terrorists in jail, it has done the following:
1.  Invented the term "person of interest" - remember Dr. Steven Hatfill?  Shortly after September 11, 2001 , someone put anthrax in a Congressional building.  After research by the FBI, Dr. Hatfill was declared a "person of interest."  He was not charged to my knowledge. He lost his job. If the government has evidence that he is guilty, it should charge him with that crime.  It should not be permitted to ruin his life by declaring him to be "person of interest."
2.  The Patriot Act - it authorizes "black bag" searches of your home, review of library books or other purchases without a warrant and more. Oh, but its all to make us safer, right?
3.  Silencing its critics - Congressman Jones called for an exit strategy in Iraq as the war was declared to be over in 2003, Saddam Hussein has been captured and his sons are dead. How long will we stay?  Each day, Americans and Iraqis are killed.  The killing will go on for the foreseeable future, because they have alimitless supply of those willing to plant bombs and die.  Its a different mindset.  Not to mention the money that we have to pay.  For asking this legitimate question, we have people calling for his resignation from office or worse.  He should resign just because he has a different view?  I don't think so.

4.  It used to be that we could travel to Canada without a passport. Not any more.

5.  For the first time in history, the president declared a pre-emptive war.  We found out that he either lied or misrepresented the facts. And he declared war unconstitutionally.
These are but a few of the abuses.  And the other day, our Supreme Court declared that a municipality can seize private property to benefit a developer.  The silencing of critics, failure to respect liberty and property rights, these are the hallmarks of tyranny.
I do not want another September 11, 2001 .  But I suggest you study some American history.  Our founding fathers warned us foreign entanglements.  We should go home and leave the people of the Mid-East to go about their business.
Best wishes,

Rachel


 


Paid for by Rachel Lea Hunter for Supreme Court
Suite 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary , North Carolina 27513
Ph. 877-893-3713 | Fax 877-893-3713