- Email Signup
- Contact Us
- Progressive Party Positions Table
- Iraq & Syria
- Progressive Party 2014 Voter Pamphlet Statement
- Cease negotiations of TPP
- Ferguson & Inequality
- Police Body Cameras
- 28th Amendment to U.S. Constitution
- Health Care
- Environment (draft)
- Financial (draft)
- Foreign Relations (draft)
- Labor (draft)
- Market (draft)
- Political Reform (draft)
- Social Issues (draft)
- End Political Repression
- Joint Terrorism Task Force
- Pembina Propane Export Terminal
- Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Progressive Platform
- Register to Vote
- Party Structure
- Flyers, Buttons, Posters, Videos
Submitted by info on Tue, 12/01/2015 - 03:03
United States foreign policy in the Middle East has been a policy of forced regime change for decades. A few examples include:
1953 overthrow of the elected Iranian government of Mossadegh by U.S. and British forces
1958 U.S. invasion of Lebanon with 15,000 troops
1963 CIA-aided coup deposing the Qasim government of Iraq, which 5 years earlier had ousted the U.S.-allied Iraqi monarchy
2002 invasion of Afghanistan, followed by a decade+ of occupation
- 2003 invasion of Iraq, followed by a decade+ of occupation
The U.S. has been pushing regime change in Syria since at least 2001. These policies should end.
U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of grievously injured Americans, and the lives of hundreds of thousands Afghanis and Iraqis. They have displaced millions of Afghanis and Iraqis who fled their homes to save their lives. $2 trillion American taxpayer dollars have been spent. The wars have accomplished nothing, apart from creating an environment that bred the creation of ISIS and allowed it to thrive and expand. Now the U.S. is pursuing the same counterproductive policies to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today's Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of a US-made apocalypse, this time in Southeast Asia. . . .
Al-Qaeda - like Pol Pot's "jihadists" - seized the opportunity provided by the onslaught of "shock and awe" and the civil war that followed. "Rebel" Syria offered even greater rewards, with CIA and Gulf state ratlines of weapons, logistics and money running through Turkey. . . .
ISIS is the progeny of those in Washington, London and Paris who, in conspiring to destroy Iraq, Syria and Libya, committed an epic crime against humanity. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS is the mutation of a Western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great distance. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies, making accomplices of those who suppress this critical truth.
All human life should be protected. French warplanes carried out airstrikes in urban Syrian areas using its 12 jet fighters based in Jordan and the U.A.E. for months prior to the brutal killing of innocents in France. The government of France saw no outrage in bombing the Syrians. Nor does the U.S. government.
The solution is not more war. The solution is for western powers (particularly the U.S.) to stop their decades-long practice of military intervention to create or prop up compliant regimes, regardless of the wishes of the people who live there.
Submitted by info on Tue, 12/01/2015 - 01:16
A recent poll for the Pew Center finds that only liberal Democrats think that they are "winning" more than "losing" on issues that are important to them. I guess constant military adventures, the continuing destruction of the middle class, the rise of the billionaire class, and the two-tier justice system are not important to liberal Democrats. Because Americans surely are not "winning" on those issues.
Submitted by info on Tue, 11/24/2015 - 01:55
CEO Richard Master Masterminds Full Medicare for All - Just when the prospects for single-payer or full Medicare for everyone, with free choice of doctors and hospitals, appear to be going nowhere, from Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley comes a stirring that could go national and make single-payer a reality. Throwing … Continue reading [Ralph Nader]
Submitted by info on Sat, 11/21/2015 - 03:18
The Oregon Progressive Party calls on Oregon's Attorney General to follow the lead of New York state's Attorney General, who on November 9th, 2015 “ordered DraftKings and FanDuel ... to immediately stop accepting bets from New York residents.”
NY Attorney General Schneiderman described these daily fantasy sports sites to be “...leaders of a massive, multi-billion-dollar scheme intended to....fleece sports fans across the county.”
Oregon's sports fans are no less cheated by the operation of these on-line betting parlors. Why silence from Oregon Attorney General Rosenblum?
The Oregon Progressive Party throughout its 7-year history has consistently opposed the legalization of gambling and "government promotion of gambling, including video poker, video slots, and approval of private casinos." We call upon the Oregon Attorney General to order fantasy sports gambling operations to stop accepting bets from Oregon residents.
Submitted by info on Sat, 11/21/2015 - 03:14
Greedy tobacco companies continue their efforts to entice children to smoke by paying merchants to place tobacco products at low counter levels in stores, where children will see them, and by packaging tobacco products to be attractive to children. They look like candy.
SmokeFree Oregon has produced television ads calling our attention to these practices and asks that we take action.
The Oregon Progressive Party calls on our Legislature to pass laws banning the display of tobacco products in stores, period. Anyone who want to buy tobacco products should have to ask at the check-out counter. If the Legislature will not do this, then our county and city governments should do so.
Submitted by info on Thu, 11/12/2015 - 14:58
Submitted by info on Mon, 11/09/2015 - 17:27
The long-standing State Integrity Investigation of the Center for Public Integrity and Public Radio International has granted Oregon an overall F grade on avoiding corruption in state government.
Oregon's overall rank fell from 14th to 44th, the biggest drop of any state.
We have been saying for years that Oregon's lack of limits on political contributions and repeal of laws requiring that political ads identify their funders makes Oregon government inherently corruptible. Now the leading national investigation of State integrity agrees with us.
Submitted by info on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 20:05
The 1-year term of David Hess as a member of the Oregon Progressive Party (OPP) State Council is expiring at the end of this year. The party will conduct an election for a new 5-year term for this seat. The party will accept suggested nominations through the close of October 31, 2015, and will post them on this website. David Hess, who is also the Treasurer of the party, is interested in continuing his service on the State Council and will be nominated.
Please send your suggested nominations to email@example.com. A nominee must qualify as a Supporter or Active Member of OPP and must maintain that status throughout the term of office.
The election will occur at the party's monthly meeting on November 10 (7:00 pm) at 411 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 2nd Floor, in Portland. Supporters and Active Members of OPP will be eligible to vote.
Submitted by DavidDelk on Thu, 09/03/2015 - 21:31
After much deliberation, the Progressive Party has voted to support the Iran Nuclear Agreement (INA) because it lifts sanctions and is the result of international stakeholder diplomacy. This path to peace outweighs our reservation of supporting actions that promote the nuclear power industry.
We support the peaceful diplomatic resolution of international conflict. We are against any future wars and we are against the current sanctions which are punishing the people of Iran.
We urge Senator Wyden to join Senator Merkley and vote in support of the Iranian nuclear agreement.
Submitted by DavidDelk on Fri, 08/21/2015 - 09:53
Dear Senator Sanders,
The Oregon Progressive Party has been asked by members and non-members alike to endorse your presidential campaign or to even nominate you in the Oregon primary election next year.
We are quite enthusiastic about many of your positions. You clearly understand the American people need and want fundamental systemic reform: Single payer health care to remove the corporate yoke imposed on our health; a $15 minimum wage; opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership and other corporate trade agreements waiting in the wings; Black Lives Matter; Free Tuition; break-up of the Too-Big-To-Fail Banks; imposing a transaction tax on Wall Street; ridding us of the tax havens; and more.
But we seek to know your positions on other issues you have not prominently addressed, at least up to this point in your speeches.
- Israel/Palestine - Your past support for Israel in their military aggression again the Palestinians troubles us. Last year you appear to have supported Israel's slaughter in Gaza along with 99 other US Senators. Can we expect that represents your future stance on Israel/Palestine?
- Military Industrial Complex - President Eisenhower's farewell speech warned Americans of the power of the Military Industrial Complex (we now need to add Congressional to the name). That complex's power has only grown since then, and the expense of maintaining that power undermines America's ability to finance many of the other reforms you advocate. Should military spending be drastically reduced?
- Election Integrity - Voting in America is conducted on privately owned, privately managed voting machines by companies which are owned by major funders of the Republican Party. Prior to the election of Barark Obama, this was an issue, but it has since disappeared from the national conversation. Nonetheless, the issue remains. Do you recognize this as a problem and have solutions in mind?
- Amending the US Constitution - Your support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is well known. However, many critics of that decision have noted that it fails to address the problem of corporate domination created by other court decisions. They have called for an amendment to the US Constitution which says that money is not speech (in order to address court decisions prior to Citizens United) and that corporations are not people (to address court decisions going back to 1886 - Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad - and even before the Civil War -Dartmouth College v Woodward). Will you support an expansion of your stated position to include advocating for an amendment to the US Constitution to establish that money is not speech and that corporations do not have constitutional rights?
We look forward to hearing your responses. Thank you.
David e. Delk, Co-Chair
Oregon Progressive Party