Green Party: 3,033 (0.27%)
Independent American Party: 51,535 (4.55%)
Libertarian Party: 7,111 (0.63%)
Non-Partisan: 181,960 (16.05%)
Other: 3,945 (0.35%)

California’s most recent voter registration statistics are from February 2011.

American Independent Party: 417,567 (2.43%)
Green Party: 113,118 (0.66%)
Libertarian Party: 92,246 (0.54%)
Peace and Freedom Party: 58,470 (0.34%)
Other: 121,019 (0.70%)
No Party Preference: 3,507,119 (20.41%)

Alaska’s most recent voter registration statistics are from

Alaskan Independence Party: 14,866 (3.01%)
Libertarian Party: 8,073 (1.64%)
Non-Partisan: 80, 833 (16.38%)
Undeclared: 183,045 (37.08%)
Constitution Party: 29 (.01%)
Green Party: 2,130 (0.43%)
Veterans Party: 1,427 (0.29%)

New York’s latest registration statistics were reported on November 1, 2011.

Conservative Party: 140,137 (1.32%)
Working Families Party: 38,290 (0.36%)
Independence Party: 398,830 (3.75%)
Green Party: 18,331 (0.17%)
Other: 3,059 (0.03%)
Blank: 2,135,863 (20.08%)

The Committee’s two day forum is being held in San Francisco this weekend, December 10th and 11th. Richard Winger reports that:

It is likely that representatives of the Socialist Party, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Freedom Socialist Party, and Peace & Freedom itself will participate. It is also possible that representatives of Rocky Anderson’s new Justice Party will attend.

I have heard additional speculation that many Ralph Nader voters and activists will be paying close attention to this body’s work, too, though not necessarily that any representatives will be at the meeting.

Last month, the Party for Socialism and Liberation announced that it will run Peta Lindsay for President, and Yari Osorio for Vice-President. This will be the party’s second presidential campaign. In 2008, it ran Gloria La Riva for President. She polled 6,818 votes in tbe nation.

It is widely expected that the pair will seek the ballot-line of the Peace and Freedom Party in California. The Peace and Freedom Party conventions regularly features a collection of leftist, liberal, socialist, and communist presidential candidates vying for its ballot line in California.

Peace and Freedom Party of California, the only working class, feminist-socialist party on the ballot in California, expresses our solidarity with the activists participating in the Occupation of Wall Street, now entering its second week. Our Platform has long included demands for “Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources,” as well as “Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting ‘peace dividend’ for social benefit.” Our Platform further states that: “Our goals cannot be achieved by electoral means alone. We participate in mass organization and direct action in neighborhoods, workplaces, unions and the armed forces everywhere.”

Since coverage of Occupy Wall Street has been largely blacked out by the mainstream media, we urge our members and supporters to seek independent sources of information on this important action, such as: “Occupy Wall Street: Thousands March in NYC Financial District, Set Up Protest Encampment,” on Democracy Now, Monday, Sept 19, 2011, at www.democracynow.org.

An interview with Michael Moore: “Michael Moore calls for support of
Occupy Wall Street protest, decries execution of Troy Davis, at www.current.com as well as other important sources which include: www.indypendent.org, occupywallst.org, and readersupportednews.org.

By Kathy Labriola

Published on April 15, 2005 in The Partisan Number 20

I am proud to be a Peace and Freedom Party member since 1975. I joined because of the word “peace.”

I have been a war tax resister since 1978. I have tried to obstruct US wars by not paying for them with my tax dollars. As many war tax resisters have discovered, this is easier said than done.

There are many ways to be a war tax resister. There are possible negative consequences, including penalties and fines. Most people don’t go to jail for war tax resistance, because the IRS just wants their money.

Phone Tax for War

One easy form of war tax resistance is to not pay the 3% federal tax on your phone bill every month. This tax is earmarked for the military. The phone company collects it from you and sends it on to the IRS, who forward it to the Pentagon. During the Vietnam war, many people withheld this tax to protest the war, and some of us have been withholding it ever since. Since the US war on Iraq began, more people are refusing to pay this tax.

If you write the phone company a letter explaining that you are refusing to pay this tax, they are supposed to adjust your bill each month to reflect that you are not being charged for the tax. Sometimes they will threaten to turn off your phone to scare you into paying this tax. However, they are legally prohibited from doing that because you owe the tax to the IRS, not to them (they just collect it).

Income Taxes

With federal income taxes, there are two approaches — filing and not filing. Filing involves a public refusal to pay. You file your taxes every year and include a letter to the IRS stating you are refusing to pay taxes for war. Not filing means not doing your taxes at all.

Some people file their taxes but refuse to pay a small portion of federal income taxes. Some people deduct 10% of their tax bill, others refuse to pay $10.40 as a symbolic amount based on the “1040″ tax form. Deducting $10.40 or even 10% of your taxes is low risk because the amount of money you owe is probably not worth the money and staff time it costs the IRS to collect it. They will probably send you threatening letters for years and do nothing.

Some people deduct 65% of their total federal taxes and refuse to pay that amount because the Pentagon gets approximately 65% of all federal tax dollars. Others, like me, refuse to pay any federal income tax because we know that 65% of every dollar we send them will go to the military. Each year I do my taxes, figure out what I owe, and send my completed tax forms to the IRS with a letter explaining why I am refusing to pay.

What They’ll Do

Here are some steps the IRS will take to collect the money from you:

1) Garnish your wages. The IRS can force your employer to deduct a small amount from every paycheck and send it to the IRS until your tax debt is paid off.

2) Repossess your car. The IRS can repossess your vehicle and sell it at auction to pay your taxes.

3) Put a levy on your bank account. The IRS can force your bank to hand over money from your bank accounts to pay your taxes.

4) Put a lien on your home. This is extremely rare but it has happened. The IRS can force the sale of your house to pay your taxes. However, that is a lot of work and expense for them.

Years of Not Paying

I have chosen to file and to refuse to pay any federal income taxes. For years the IRS did nothing but send me nasty letters. Then, about every 6 or 7 years they would put a levy on my bank account and send a sheriff to take the money from the bank and deliver it to the IRS (now it’s just done electronically and is not nearly so melodramatic). Sometimes whole wars would go by before they would collect on me.

At one point, in 1991, they suddenly put a levy on my account and took the money after 8 years of not collecting on me. I remember thinking at the time, “Well, I didn’t pay for the Contra war in Nicaragua, I didn’t pay for the bombing of El Salvador or the invasion of Grenada, but I paid for the (first) Gulf War. I only paid for one out of four wars.”

Since 2001, there has been much more collection action against me. Now nearly every year they put a levy on my bank account and collect whatever taxes I owe. However, other tax resisters have told me that they are not experiencing any more collection action than before, so it seems random rather than a change in IRS policy

Not Filing a Return

The other approach to war tax resistance is not to file your taxes at all. Many war tax resisters have done this for many years without consequences. This strategy works best for people who are self-employed, make a lot of their income in cash, have low incomes, and have few assets, as they are less likely to come to the IRS’s attention.

The main drawback to this strategy is that legally it is no different from just evading taxes. So if you get caught, the penalties and fines are somewhat higher than for filing and refusing to pay.

Diverting

Many tax resisters figure out how much in taxes they would owe, and donate that exact amount to a peace organization. This is known as “diverting your taxes.”

Many people ask “Since they eventually collect on you anyway, why don’t you just pay them?” The truth is that I am incapable of writing a check to the IRS. I know it will be spent to kill, maim, and torture people around the world. I withhold it as long as possible, forcing them to steal it from me by putting a levy on my back account. If millions of others refused to pay taxes, our joint resistance would have more impact.

For more information contact the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee at 1-800-269-7464. They have a very cool web site at www.nwtrcc.org.

[Kathy Labriola is a therapist and community activist. She lives in Berkeley. The photo of Kathy is by Frances Hailman.]

The Peace and Freedom Party looks forward to the success of popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East, and in Madison, Wisconsin. We urge participation in actions in solidarity with workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

People of North Africa and the Middle East can and must create their own democratic institutions. We oppose any intervention by the United States or European nations. History proves that despite rhetoric about human rights it would be done only in the interests of imperialism.

The Peace and Freedom Party stands in solidarity with Wisconsin’s worker and student demonstrations. We demand:

* The Wisconsin Legislature kill the bill that would deny collective bargaining to state workers
* Governor Walker refrain from calling in the National Guard or police
* Education and union jobs are a right
* Cancel interest payments to the banks
* Tax the rich and their corporations

We applaud the workers and students of Wisconsin for leading the way in a “people’s filibuster” while Democrats hide out to deny a quorum to the Republicans.

Dear Friend,
Three years ago, this very month, I traveled to Egypt to be in solidarity with over 50 political prisoners that dictator, Hosni Mubarak, had imprisoned for no other reason, except that they were becoming a political threat to his autocratic rule. When I was there in Cairo, I felt the most oppressive rage-soaked hopelessness at the US/Israel/Egypt cabal that not only oppressed them, but their Palestinian brothers and sisters, as well.

The simmering rage was palpable and I was not surprised that this courageous stand for freedom took place, I am just surprised that it took so long.

Eighteen days ago, this peaceful quest for freedom began and, as always, the only violence came from the counter-revolution in the form of Mubarak paid thugs that killed hundreds of peaceful protesters, but the blood of the martyrs has been vindicated today.

This past Wednesday, I went to a Bay Area high school to speak to its Peace in the Middle East Club and there was a student there from Egypt who smirked and shook his head the entire time I was having a dialogue with the other students about what was happening in Egypt. He finally blurted out: “Mubarak is not that bad, 70 million people in Egypt love him, only 10 million people want him gone.” My response was that this was not the information I was getting, but if what he was saying was true, then he and Mubarak had nothing to worry about. Apparently, the student was wrong, because today Mubarak is gone.

Yesterday was a demoralizing day. Today, we congratulate our comrades in Egypt and rejoice with them in this great victory, but this is not the end of anything, this is just the beginning of their struggle for a government by and for the people.

The protesters want a technocratic committee that works to form a new constitution that guarantees a form of government that is truly representative and responsive to the needs of the people of Egypt, not the regimes in the US and Israel. This is also a call for the US, Israel and the war profiteers to keep their bloody paws of Egyptian reconstruction and honor the will of the people of Egypt.

Today, I feel like, just for now, the veil has been lifted off of the disease of US Imperialism and that true hope, not Madison Avenue infected hope, has descended on the world.

Today, I am crying tears of joy and victory instead of tears of sorrow and anger.

Thank you, my friends in Egypt–our deepest congratulations from Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox and the people in the US that know the truth.

With love, peace, deepest respect and complete solidarity,

Cindy Sheehan
Peace Mom

POWER TO THE PEOPLE, CLAP, CLAP! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, CLAP, CLAP! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, CLAP, CLAP! POWER TO THE PEOPLE, RIGHT ON!

Our brothers and sisters in Egypt have shown us what to do–the time for symbolic protest ended years ago here in the US–may the Egyptian’s victory inspire us to do the same here:

End to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan–troops home now!

War crimes and treason trials for the Bush Regime!

Saturday rallies aren’t cutting it.

Signing petitions mean nothing.

Symbolic protests do nothing to solve real problems.

All power to the people!

On February 2, the California Supreme Court refused to hear Keyes v Bowen, 188724, the case that argued the Secretary of State must investigate whether a presidential candidate meets the qualifications to be president, before listing him or her on the ballot. The case had been brought by (America’s Independent Party Presidential Candidate) Alan Keyes in 2008. Keyes plans to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review of this case.

The California Court of Appeals decision in this case will now stand. On October 25, 2010, the Court of Appeals had ruled that if a qualified party certifies a presidential nominee, the Secretary of State must list him or her on the November ballot. The decision says, “Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot…with respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties’ candidates.” The word “must” is in italics.

The Court of Appeals decision acknowledges that in 1968, California Secretary of State Frank Jordan refused to list the Peace & Freedom Party’s presidential nominee on the November ballot. That candidate was Eldridge Cleaver, and he was only 33 years old at the time. The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver.

On January 31, Peace & Freedom Party candidate Daniel Frederick filed a lawsuit in state court in Sacramento, contesting the interpretation and constitutionality of the California Secretary of State’s rules for candidates who choose to file a petition in lieu of a filing fee, rather than paying the filing fee. The lawsuit especially contests the rules for special elections, which frequently give candidates only one or two days after the Governor has called the special election to complete these petitions. Furthermore, that problem (which is an old problem in California, for special elections) is compounded by the severe increase in the number of signatures in lieu of filing fee, caused by the Secretary of State’s interpretation of Proposition 14 and its implementing legislation.

In the past, candidates who are members of small qualified parties needed 150 signatures in lieu of a filing fee for any partisan office, but now they need 1,500 to run for Assembly. The case is Frederick v Bowen, 34-2011-80000773-cu-wm-gds. It will be heard by Judge Kinney in Sacramento Superior Court. Frederick wishes to run for the Assembly in the 4th district. A special election is being held there because the seat is vacant. It is vacant because Assemblymember Ted Gaines, who won that seat in November 2010, recently resigned because earlier this year he won a special election to the State Senate in the First District. That seat, in turn, had been vacant because State Senator Dave Cox had died on July 13, 2010, in the middle of his term.

The Peace and Freedom Party rejects the 2011 budget plan presented by Governor Jerry Brown. The Governor proposes to cut education and other vital social programs while extending regressive tax increases. We can have a budget that provides for education for all Californians and ensures a social safety net if we look to the wealth that exists in this state for adequate funding.

Brown’s proposed cuts will make a higher education inaccessible to working class students. A $400 million cut to community colleges will accompany an increase in fees from $26 to $36 per unit. While the CSU and UC systems will lose $500 million each, CSU students will face a 10% tuition increase and UC students, 8%.These increases are in addition to the huge fee hikes students have been steadily facing, in a state which promises free higher education to all qualified students.

K-12 schools are already experiencing an increase in class size. The Governor claims that public school funding will remain intact. In fact, the proposed budget further reduces per pupil spending.

The Peace and Freedom Party opposes all of the cuts to vital health and social services.. The 25% reduction to CalWORKS,and cuts in child care and child development programs will make it more difficult for young people with families to get a decent education. The severe cuts to Medi-Cal and In Home Support Services are unconscionable.

The Governor refuses to consider progressive tax increases like an increased tax on the highest incomes,a split roll property tax, or an oil severance tax. Instead he proposes to extend the regressive taxes that the voters in California have already rejected, like a 1% increase in sales tax and reduction of the child exemption credit.

Why can’t we fund our budget by taxing wealth? Why do we have to take away from people who will die in the streets because they can’t afford a $10 co-pay when oil companies don’t have to pay a severance tax and the high brackets are lower than they were under Pete Wilson? Why is capitalist accumulation sacrosanct and human survival expendable? It’s class war, and this governor and legislature are on the wrong side.

We challenge the legislature to reject Brown’s cuts and propose progressive tax measures to meet our needs. We encourage everyone to organize now to demand a fair budget, and build a political party which represents the will and aspirations of the people.

The following press release was issued jointly by the Peace and Freedom Party and the California Green Party on January 26, 2011.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Contact: Cres Vellucci 916/996-9170

Candidates Rejected for 4th Assembly Special Election Race Charge Rules Unfairly Prevented Them From Running, Limiting Voter Choice; Lawsuit Considered

SACRAMENTO – At least two potential candidates prevented from running in the 4th District Assembly seat special election are charging it’s because there was an extremely short time period – only two days after Gov. Brown declared the special election – and a large number of signatures to qualify other than paying a hefty filing fee.

They are exploring the possibility of a lawsuit challenging the rules on Constitutional grounds.

Election law expert Richard Winger of Ballot Access News confirmed that nine federal courts have ruled, during the last 30 years, that states cannot force candidates to complete ballot access petitions in tiny amounts of time. Further, smaller parties previously have had to only collect a maximum of 150 signatures, not 1,500 under new rules.

“California elections officials have been careless and inconsiderate of the rights of candidates and voters by assuming they can force candidates in special elections to complete hefty petitions for themselves in less than a week,” said Winger.

“Democratic and Republican candidates can buy their way on the ballot, but I am a young working man that can only get on by showing support. In the last election I had 55 days to collect 64 signatures from Peace and Freedom Party members, but now I had seven days, at most, to collect 1,500 signatures of registered voters. I collected 200 signatures but was refused my Declaration of Candidacy,” said Daniel Frederick, Peace and Freedom Party nominee for State Assembly from District 4 in 2010.

Gary Blenner, a registered Green Party member, former Center Unified School District board trustee and teacher at Rio Americano High School, said the time limits made it impossible for him to run for the seat as planned.

“It was barely 48 hours from the time Gov. Brown called the Special Election until the time signatures were due. When I inquired about filing my candidacy the next day, I was told the only way to file was by paying an outrageously high filing fee,” said Blenner. “There was no way anyone without a huge campaign war chest can participate in our so-called democracy under these conditions. It severely limits the choices for voters.”

“The State has denied the voters several choices by limiting the time candidates have to get an unreasonable amount of signatures. Signatures in lieu of filing fees are supposed to be an avenue for candidates to get on the ballot. Even when allowed the full 55 days, 1,500 signatures is just too many and is unconstitutional,” said C. T. Weber, Peace and Freedom Party of California, State Chairperson.

What paulie said — anti-TSA and pro-WikiLeaks! Both of these issues represent key tests of government power against civil liberties, one related to the First Amendment protections of freedom and speech and of the press, the other related to the Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure. These protections should belong to all people in the world.

I recently wrote a proposed resolution for the Libertarian Party of San Francisco on the WikiLeaks issue, and sent it to members of the Libertarian National Committee and other email lists, offering it as sample wording others could use in crafting resolutions for their own bodies to pass on the topic:

* * *

WHEREAS WikiLeaks has provided an invaluable service to the cause of free speech and to helping keep governments and other institutions accountable to the people of the world; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of San Francisco thanks Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, as well as their sources including U.S. Army private first class Bradley Manning, for exposing what congressman Ron Paul called “the delusional foreign policy” of the U.S. government, and revealing government secrets wrongfully withheld from the American people.

* * *

Not sure whether this had anything to do with Mark Hinkle’s press release — he wrote me to ask whether the WikiLeaks protest I mentioned happening in San Francisco was still happening given that he’d heard Assange was out on bail.

I heard nothing back from any other LNC members except for alternates Carl Vassar (who enthusiastically endorsed it in a “reply all” to the LNC members I had written) and Andy Wolf, who inquired how I thought such a resolution would be received by the national membership and adding, “I will reserve judgment on whether to thank Assange until I better understand why he is releasing this information. It is unfortunate that so many people are focusing on him, whether as a martyr or a pariah, while the discussion should be about the substance of the information. I think it plays into the hands of the establishment — they want to distract us because it reduces their accountability. And unless someone can explain to me the crime that Assange or WikiLeaks committed and that a US court has jurisdiction over him or his company, extradition makes no sense; I agree with Mr. Hinkle’s statement that publishing documents provided by a government agent and embarrassing public officials are not crimes. Liberty should no know borders.”

I believe the WikiLeaks issue as clear-cut a libertarian issue as any facing us.

I don’t feel I need to know the WikiLeaks founder’s motives in order to appreciate the pro-freedom impact of his actions. Just about the only scenario I can think of under which I would not be grateful were if WikiLeaks turned out to be simply a massive disinformation campaign, with the leaks being generally false information released at the direction of government authorities themselves. Given the responses of those authorities to date however, I think we can pretty much rule that possibility out!

I told Andy I would welcome additional scrutiny of the leaked data’s content, and that I thought this would make a good subject for another LP press release.

But I’m not unhappy with the way most of the media has recently been covering the story by focusing on Assange. WikiLeaks was known to me many months before I ever heard of Julian Assange, and I think the focus only started shifting from the content of the leaks to him personally when it became clear that he and his organization could be in jeopardy.

At that point, it seems to me that paying attention to him was a right and proper journalistic decision, because government attempts to go after the head of an important media outlet and put that outlet out of business for leaking their secrets and embarrassing them are not only extremely newsworthy, but arguably no less embarrassing to government than the original leaks. Having your crimes revealed is one thing; trying to cover them up, and silence those who exposed you, takes it to another level. That’s what got Nixon removed from office.

The full text of the Libertarian Party’s press release:

WASHINGTON – While Democratic and Republican politicians outdo each other with calls for the prosecution and even execution of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for providing information to various news media, Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle says that free speech and freedom of the press must be supported unconditionally. Hinkle released the following statement today:

“In 1787, as the U.S. Constitution was being written, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.’ His recognition of the critical need for a free press led him and others to demand a Bill of Rights, where freedom of speech and freedom of the press were listed in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

“In 2010, Democratic and Republican politicians alike are trying to destroy this precious liberty. The Obama Administration, which has already invoked the ‘state secrets’ claim in court more than any administration in history, has arrested Army Private Bradley Manning, alleging that he copied and leaked various documents, and is holding him in solitary confinement pending a military trial. Meanwhile, Republican presidential hopefuls are falling over themselves seeing who can sound the toughest. Mike Huckabee says that anything less than execution of the leaker is too kind. Newt Gingrich wants Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, declared an ‘enemy combatant’ so that he can be denied all due process. And Sarah Palin wants Assange hunted down like Osama bin Laden (perhaps missing the irony that bin Laden has not been caught).

“Even more ominously, companies which provided various services to WikiLeaks suddenly decided to end their relationship after receiving pressure from Washington. Amazon, PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard all suddenly felt that the activities of WikiLeaks, well-known to them for years, were illegal, absent any actual charges being filed for the violation of any law. When government officials start pressuring businesses in order to silence critics, tyranny isn’t far off.

“Publishing documents provided by a government agent is not a crime. Embarrassing public officials is not a crime. Regardless of the degree to which the released documents are helpful or harmful, Assange and WikiLeaks are exercising their rights, and American politicians and government agents should stop threatening and harassing them.

“Freedom of the press is not a luxury, and the prospect of a government able to silence dissent and prevent the press from communicating unfavorable information about the behavior of government employees should frighten anyone who loves liberty. It is understandable that government officials who are lying to the public and covering up misdeeds want to keep their actions secret, just as a criminal doesn’t want the police to find out about his crime. As Steven Greenhut of the Pacific Research Institute notes, ‘If it weren’t for anonymous sources and leaked information, the journalism business would serve as a press-release service for officialdom.’

“Private Manning deserves the presumption of innocence, due process, a speedy and fair trial, and decent treatment while in prison. If Manning revealed information which did not damage national security or result in harm to others, but instead revealed evidence of incompetence, corruption, or other illegal activities, then he should be able to raise that as a defense at any trial. Just as when Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 and had his subsequent prosecution dismissed by the courts, an important principle is that information which is being kept secret to protect wrongdoing is not in fact legally and properly classified. A jury should be able to judge both the facts and the law, and to acquit Manning if the jury finds his actions to be justified.

“Two years ago, candidate Barack Obama praised the long tradition of information leaks by defending those who revealed Bush-era covert actions. ‘We only know these crimes took place because insiders blew the whistle at great personal risk…. Government whistle-blowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal.’ Obama appears to have forgotten this statement, just as he has forgotten many other statements and promises he made while campaigning.

“Only a month ago, we were told by the Transportation Safety Administration that they should have the power to strip or grope us if we want to exercise our right of travel. In my view, any government official too embarrassed to handle a full-body scan of their words and actions should resign.”

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

1.1 Expression and Communication. We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.

1.5 Crime and Justice. Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to them selves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

Numerous other parties have also expressed support for WikiLeaks, including the Socialist Party USA, Green Party, Pirate Party, Ralph Nader, and the Peace and Freedom Party, among others. In a recent interview with Forbes Magazine, Assange said:

It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

There are many alarming disclosures within the WikiLeaks documents which deserve scrutiny and further investigation. It is therefore all the more outrageous that instead of investigating what has been uncovered, the U.S. Government has, instead, focused its vast resources on an attempt to silence the alleged “whistle-blowers”.

The Peace and Freedom Party stands in support of Julian Assange, who is now under House Arrest in England, and Bradley Manning – currently being held – on the basis of hearsay evidence – in solitary confinement in a military prison in Quantico, Virginia. We support all calls for their freedom. We condemn the attacks and threats against Assange and Manning and renew our defense of the right to free speech and a free press.

It is hard to separate this issue from the activities of the military. War might be a “racket”, but it is also the most devastating act one can be involved in, whether you are the aggressor or a victimised civilian, no one can shake off the psychological scars of war. No one.

Its effects on the individual as well as collective human psyche are terminal. Championing equal rights is an issue of morality, war is immoral, and the US military is heading further and further down the path of immorality.

Even with the advent of WikiLeaks, transparency and accountability of US military activity has been sucked into a black hole of silence. Drone attacks, illegal cross-border interventions, extra-judicial assassinations all occur in the name of national interest. It is not in the interest of equal rights activists to support an institution that is intent on ignoring every protocol of human decency.

Face it, gays are now and have been in the military since before Valley Forge during the Revolutionary War.

The only difference being one can now admit their orientation without fear of official recrimination - a major boon for the equal rights movement! The capacity for increased carnage should not be celebrated as a victory!

I cannot help but think about those that are on the receiving end of US military aggression. So a minor change has occurred at the input juncture of the war machine, but the output remains the same: we dismantle systems of indigenous governance, support disingenuous often criminal overlords, commit endless acts of brutality, and worst of all leave entire nations rudderless, spiraling downwards into the same abyss that engulfs the US military’s lack of accountability.

I wonder what the response towards don’t ask, don’t will be overseas? I wonder if mothers across the Swat Valley in Northern Pakistan are cheering the repeal of the act (most likely not), gathering in the streets to celebrate a victory in the global pursuit of human equality, only to be forced to take cover as yet another hellfire-laden drone appears on the horizon. Hell hath no fury, as a drone operated from somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Don’t equal human rights extend to those that the Empire has mislabeled as the “enemy”? Or do we now have to ignore the fact that innocent people are being slaughtered by the thousands?

 All four members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission who are not members of the Democratic or Republican parties are decline-to-state voters, though at least two have had a prior affiliation with a third party. In his application for the Commission, M. Andre Parvenu of Culver City apparently first identified himself as a member of the Peace and Freedom Party but then sent a follow-up email stating that he is in fact a decline-to-state voter, not registered with a political party.  Asked about the discrepancy at an applicant review panel on September 9, 2010, Mr. Parvenu stated that he had voted for the Peace and Freedom Party in the past but now prefers to be nonpartisan, and thought it would be “better to go decline to state,” adding, “throughout this process I want to remain neutral.”  Mr. Parvenu has a bachelor’s degree in geography and urban studies, a master’s degree in geography and urban planning, and has been a city planner in Los Angeles for the last ten years. 

Another Independent member of the Commission appears to have past ties to the Green Party.  Michelle R. DiGuilio-Matz of Stockton cites her status as a decline-to-state voter as evidence of her “ability to be impartial.”  In response to an essay question on her application for the Commission, she writes, “While I have been listed with formal political parties I have always voted in a manner to reflect the qualifications and expereince of the individual or issue on the ballot.”  Asked later to clarify what she meant by this statement, DiGuilio-Matz responded that she had previously been a member of the Democratic Party and the Green Party, but has been registered as a decline-to-state voter for at least five years.  In her application materials, she writes:

     “I have found that, while organized political groups have certain commonalities and/or affiliations that may serve their consituents, I too often have seen strict party adherance coming at the expense of rational discussion and critical thinking. “Decline to State” reflects my desire to be as unbiased as possible in adhering to political positions and a willingness to be open minded in measuring the validity of various positions.”

A voter registration drive restored the Peace & Freedom Party to the ballot, and it has run candidates in recent elections. This year, the only PFP candidate to beat the 2% requirement was Dina Padilla, running for Insurance Commissioner. Ms Padilla has so far received 262,641 votes, for 3% of the total. The vote for Ms Padilla has kept the Peace & Freedom Party on the ballot for four more years.

With at least two nominees for statewide office receiving more than the required 2% of the vote, the Peace and Freedom Party has secured its official status in California at least through November 2014. Early results show Dina Padilla at 3% for Insurance Commissioner, and Karen Martinez at 2.2% for Controller. These percentages are expected to rise as vote-counting continues, as is the case after every election. Those who vote for Peace and Freedom Party candidates are more likely than the average voter to turn in a last-minute mail ballot, or cast a provisional ballot.

Retaining ballot status means, among other things, that the Peace and Freedom Party will be able to nominate candidates for President and Vice President in 2012.

As partisan primaries and party nominations for state office and congress are not taking place after 2010 under the provisions of Proposition 14, it will be necessary for the Peace and Freedom Party to roughly double its voter registration before the end of 2014 in order to hang onto ballot status then. Unless Prop. 14 and legislation to implement it are changed, repealed or invalidated by the courts, it will no longer be possible to qualify by percentage of the vote in the general election.

IPR note: Ballot Access News says “California: all the qualified parties retained their qualified status. These include American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace & Freedom.”

Ralph Nader has conveyed his endorsement to three specific Peace and Freedom Party nominees for statewide office, and generally suggested to Californians that they vote their conscience and priorities through the Peace and Freedom Party candidates.

While he mentions Jerry Brown in his statement, he does not endorse Brown, but refers to Brown as the almost-certain winner, in order to suggest that C.T. Weber of Sacramento “would be a sagacious complement” to Brown if Weber were to be elected Lieutenant Governor.

The other candidates he mentions specifically are Dina Padilla, whom he recommends for Insurance Commissioner, stating that she would “put the law to the runaway group insurance companies,” and Robert Evans, nominee for Attorney General, who would “put the wood to the corporate crime wave against consumers and workers.”

Peace and Freedom State Executive Committee member Kevin Akin, releasing Nader’s statement, says “most Nader voters probably intended to vote for at least some Peace and Freedom Party candidates tomorrow, but it is good to have it in writing from the man himself. And we would appreciate it if the millions who considered voting for this consumer hero in 2008, but ended up voting tor someone else, went ahead and voted for their real preferences for state offices in California on Tuesday.”

For more information, contact Kevin Akin at 951-787-0318 or 951-675-2813.

Statement from Ralph Nader

“In an election year filled with censored or self-censoring Republican and Democratic Candidates, why not vote your conscience and your priorities in California through the Peace and Freedom Party’s candidates right on your ballot.

Dina Padilla as Insurance Commissioner would put the law to the runaway group insurance companies. While Bob Evans, nominee for Attorney General, will put the wood to the corporate crime wave against consumers and workers. C.T. Weber would be a sagacious complement as Lt. Governor to the introspective Jerry Brown.”