JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH

Another oil and gas rig in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana has exploded.  We don?t know the details on why it exploded nor do we know for certain if oil is leaking.  What we do know is that oil drilling is literally killing our marine life, seafood, beaches, water, and the very air we breathe.  It is a poisonous threat to our state of well being.  There is no way Big Oil can ?make it right.?   BP has never given a damn about safety.  It?s all about profits and not environmental safety. 

Nevertheless, Democratic representative George Miller is ?making it right? with an amendment that prevents BP from drilling in the Gulf. BP executives are threatening legislators that if they?re forced to leave the Gulf, they won?t have the funding to fulfill their moral and financial obligations. 

Wrong.  BP can certainly raise the money to pay for the infinite damage they?ve caused to Gulf residents and the marine life. BP spent $90 million dollars alone on TV ads in the last two months:

read more

DANNY SCHECHTER FOR BUZZFLASH

Q: Why are media outlets doing such a bad job covering Wall Street?   

A: Could it be, because they are owned by Wall Street? 

By Danny Schechter, Author of The Crime Of Our Time 

When you connect the dots in your writing or look for deeper explanations behind the decisions of policymakers, market makers and media-makers, it?s easy to be dismissed as a conspiracy nut. 

But forgive me for believing that those who serve interests have more clout than those that just speak out on issues. There are hidden relationships that sometimes predetermine what stories get media attention and which do not. 

I have a current film out, Plunder the Crime of our Time, taking on big media companies to task for what passes as coverage of the financial crisis. I have been asking why they weren?t paying attention, didn?t warn us about it, or investigate too deeply into how it happened. 

When I discovered that dodgy lenders and credit card companies pumped more than $3 billion into media advertising, which inflated the housing bubble between 2002 and 2007, I thought I had my answer.   

Based on my own experience inside news networks, I could see that networks investigating their own advertisers in a tough economic climate was not exactly high on their agenda. It happens, but rarely. 

Yet, even I, as savvy as I thought I was, missed an important link which was hidden in plain sight ? who owns the very media institutions I was railing against?  

read more

BARBARA'S BUZZ FROM ATLANTA

http://www.politicususa.com/en/beck-bulletproof-vest
Actions really do speak louder than words, and it's obvious that faith in a bullet proof vest trumped "Faith in God" for Glenn Beck at his rally!                                                                   
 
http://mediamatters.org/research/201009010033
Once and for all, in America it is a Conservative MainStream Corporate Media!  The tall tale that there were WMD's in Iraq was debunked a long time ago, but those who told the "Sadam WMD" lie to promote an illegal war are now being used by the CMSCM to slur and slam President Barack Obama!  "Media turn to discredited Bush officials to respond to Obama's Iraq speech"  As I live and breathe, these guys, Rove, Fleisher, and Hadley are just as slimy today as they were during the Bush Administration.  Some things never change, remember that in November----Repuglicans NEVER CHANGE!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106940.html  
"A deep recession and tougher border enforcement have led to a sharp decline in the number of immigrants entering the United States illegally in the past five years...The number of illegal immigrants entering the United States plunged by almost two-thirds between 2005 and 2009".  So much for Jan Brewer and Arizona's claims.  There is no integrity when a Repuglican is running for elective office, it's an anything goes, no matter what it takes or who it hurts political circus.
 
 
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/ex-nj_education_official_says_he_warned_christie_about_false_statement.php?ref=fpa
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/karl_rove_says_gop_candidate_c.html
"Bret Schundler (R) defended himself against charges by Gov. Chris Christie (R) that Schundler deliberately misled the governor over the events leading up to the state's loss of a $400 million grant."  Lying is inherent in Repuglican politicians, it is a basic characteristic and a permanent part of their persona.  Gov. Christie is a Karl Rove protégé and skirting the truth  to "skinny" out of responsibility should come as no surprise, especially to another Repuglican. It isn't the first time Christie misrepresented the truth and it certainly won't be the last. "Karl Rove and Chris Christie discussed N.J. governor run while serving as U.S. Attorney...news of the Rove conversations shows Christie was not being honest when he denied preparing to run for governor while serving as U.S. attorney."   A word to voters, when you vote for a liar, you get a Repuglican!

read more

MARC PERKEL FOR BUZZFLASH

Right wing commentator Ann Coulter is now saying that Obama isn't a Muslim, he's an Atheist, as if being an Atheist is a bad thing. As an Atheist myself I don't have an invisible friend telling me to fly planes into buildings or to invade Iraq after fabricating false reasons for the invasion. So if Obama actually were an Atheist I wouldn't have a problem with that.

However, it makes me wonder if Ann Coulter is an Atheist. If I believed in God I certainly would not be using the Lord's name in vein to make a cheap political point. When I see those who call themselves Christians do bad things and use God's name as a cover, one can only conclude that they don't really believe in God. After all, if God is in your heart, transformed your life, and God actually means something to you, you simply would not abuse his name as a tool to foment hatred. Ann Coulter is admitting through her conduct that it she is the Atheist.

read more

RICHARD STITT FOR BUZZFLASH

According to Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and House minority leader John Boehner:

1. Americans don't want affordable health care for all citizens and they don't want to close the Medicare prescription drug Part D doughnut hole that requires seniors on fixed incomes to pay the full cost of the pharmaceutical industry's obscenely high drug prices.

2. Americans don't want to rid the Medicare Part D (totally unfunded by the way) mandate that forbids the federal government from negotiating lower prescription drug costs.

3. Americans don't want banking and finance reform which during the 8-year Bush-Cheney reign allowed the Wall Street hucksters and Ponzi scheme swindlers to run amok with no regulation or oversight.

4. Americans don't want the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of citizens to expire. The tax cuts, according to the  non partisan Congressional Budget Office will allow the federal deficit to balloon by an additional $3 trillion.

read more

TONY PEYSER FOR BUZZFLASH

That silence for ten seconds was stunning from

This gal who whines about illegals? residency.

I haven?t seen such an amazing stumble since

The heyday of Gerald Ford?s presidency.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010

At least three of the wells served by the offshore production platform that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday were exempted from environmental review, according to a new analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity. Government records show that federal regulators approved the offshore wells in 1999 and 2000 with the same type of environmental waiver used to approve BP's disastrous Deepwater Horizon project.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010

The instant Bob Harper's photo was posted on Facebook, the comments began to pour in: "He's gorgeous!," "OMG way too cute!," "Awww, such a sweet face!," "What a cutie-patooty!," Ah, to be the star of a hit show adored by millions of fans. Or just the adorable namesake of one.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010

On Tuesday, September 14, 2010, members of the Creech 14, along with their legal advisors and supporters will hold a rally at Lewis and 3^rd Street, at 7:30 a.m. and then proceed to their trial which begins at 8:30 a.m. in the Regional Justice Center at 200 Lewis Avenue.  Charged with criminal trespass for entering the Creech AFB on April 9, 2009, the activists will argue that, under international law, they are obliged to oppose illegal U.S. usage of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones) to attack people in Afghanistan.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010

Egyptian authorities should immediately disclose the fate and whereabouts of Mohamed Saad Tork, who disappeared in July 2009 with strong indications that he was being held by the authorities, and prosecute those responsible, Human Rights Watch said today. Tork's case highlights the continuing practice of enforced disappearances by Egypt's State Security Investigations agency.

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010

Yesterday the Federal Communications Commission released its proposed agenda for its next public meeting, slated for Sept. 23. The agenda includes items on wireless use of TV white spaces, an order to streamline the E-Rate program improving connectivity for students and library patrons and efforts to improve E911 location accuracy and build a more effective emergency response system.

Free Press Political Adviser Joel Kelsey made the following statement:

read more

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 3, 2010

After getting her head handed to her in a debate this week, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) has become prime fodder for late night comedians and political satirists. 

read more

I have to start out by saying that I'm really, really not trying to pick a fight on this one. But again, it bugs me. In the lefty mini-argument over whether the core premise of Markos' book, American Taliban, is compelling rhetorical device or merely horribly offensive, the central debate is almost entirely between different political and rhetorical styles.

Tristero points to this brief piece by Matt Yglesias that registers displeasure at the "American Taliban" label. Yglesias says:

So, yes, the Taliban is misogynistic and so are most religious traditionalists. And, yes, the Taliban is nationalistic and so are right-wing political parties in most democracies. And, yes, the Taliban is enthusiastic about war-fighting as a way to achieve policy aims and so is Bill Kristol. This is all true and somewhat important. But it’s also true that American progressives and American conservatives are  peacefully coexisting in a functioning republic, whereas the Taliban is waging an extremely violent military campaign against its ideological antagonists. Even though that’s only a “difference of degree” between two strands of religiously inspired populist nationalism, it’s actually a lot more important than the “difference in kind” between secular cosmopolitan Americans and are religious nationalist antagonists.

Tristero emphasized the first sentences: I'd like to emphasize the last. In arguing precisely against comparisons against the two movements, Matt says:

"Even though that’s only a “difference of degree” between two strands of religiously inspired populist nationalism, it’s actually a lot more important than the “difference in kind” between secular cosmopolitan Americans and are religious nationalist antagonists."

Well... but there it is, then, isn't it? Matt is indeed willing to state directly that both the Taliban and the American movement are "two strands of religiously inspired populist nationalism." He managed, himself, to come up with a terse, precise and quite meaningful phrase that describes the very political/sociological similarities Markos and numerous others have been talking about, and why comparisons between the two movements may be compelling.

That said, I don't think his cited examples are quite grasping the hypothesis here, a hypothesis which puts more emphasis on the religious and rhetorical similarities between the two groups and which would put, say, the pro-war, anti-Islam statements of national American religious figures and their followers (not to mention self-proclaimed Godly politicians and military officials) above those of a Bill Kristol or other right-wing-secular-but-merely-warmongering pundit -- but that's an argument for another day. The central premises of misogyny (or explicit criminalization of homosexuality, or other sex-based obsessions), of right-wing religiously-premised nationalism, and a desire to militarily remove or dominate unbelievers or apostates explicitly because of their supposed moral inferiority? Those are indeed decent starting points for describing both movements.

To make a short point of it all, Matt seems in one paragraph perfectly willing to cede the ground that (1) there are similarities between the two groups, which he can name, that (2) those similarities are grounded in conspicuously similar ideologies, the whole point and premise of the book, and that (3) there's "only a 'difference of degree between'" the two: his phrasing, not mine. From an intellectual standpoint, he has no apparent quarrels with any of those central rhetorical premises, and is not too shy to openly state them himself.

He, like other liberals uncomfortable with the labeling, instead bases his objection on the "differences of degree" part rendering the overall rhetorical comparison too weak or insulting -- when even he himself can rattle off those very obvious comparisons with hardly any effort. Well, I don't think anyone on the planet is arguing that there aren't differences in degree. We're making the point that the core ideologies of the two religiously inspired, populist, nationalist groups (that hate the identical things and similarly demand the delegalization of social behaviors that are contrary to their rigid moralities) are so similar that in many areas they only differ in expressed degree, and arguing that that's a damn interesting and scary thing to contemplate.

You could go farther still, of course: the "American Taliban" movement, after all, engages in successful, organized violence. Abortion clinic arsonists and bombers have long structured themselves in "cells", offering up mutual support and coordination for their actions. Websites celebrate religion-justified assassinations of doctors. There are paramilitary training camps scattered throughout America that are based on explicitly right-wing religious and conservative views and the notion that those views may need defending by force, even (or rather, especially) against their own government and their own fellow citizens. The anti-abortion domestic terrorist who successfully did what foreign terrorists could not, planting a bomb at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, was widely suspected of receiving help from like-minded Americans during the five years he continued to elude capture -- during which time he was able to bomb three more locations (two clinics and a lesbian nightclub.) Even difference in degree therefore needs qualification; perhaps difference in scope is slightly more accurate. The difference is that the Taliban succeeded in writing the laws for their country, and thus could take any action they liked "legally", by definition: the far-right American movement does not have the same luxury. And we should ensure it does not, by fighting constant attempts to nationally criminalize or "officially" stigmatize behaviors that the movement deems, via the interpretations of their own particular religious subsect, to be immoral.

But is the American movement attempting to enforce their particular sub-strain of morality on the rest of the country by explicitly criminalizing contrary behaviors? Oh, absolutely. That's a whole stated platform of the movement, right? Is the American movement explicitly framing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a religious context, and declaring the other religion itself to be the primary enemy? Of course. The entire point of opposition to the "(not) Ground Zero Mosque" and other mosques throughout the country is that Islam, even Islam practiced by American citizens in their American cities, is inherently wicked, violent, and primitive. Mere moral scolding is one thing; attempts to nationalize one particular religious code, to the exclusion of all others, is another, and examples of attempts to legislate hard-right morality even when the state has no apparent logical interest in doing so abound. Religious groups put substantial funding and pulpit-thumping into efforts that saw Californians vote to criminalize same-sex marriage, in a campaign that the judge himself declared devoid of anything but bare moral disapprobation. More troublingly, the mounting extremism of violent rhetoric among the religious far-far-right is hardly a new or controversial discovery: journalists like David Neiwert have been charting that national trend for years.

No, the Islamic Taliban and the "American Taliban" counterpart are not the same movement. If they were, we'd call them the same thing, not different things. But are the similarities interesting enough, and specific enough, to be informative? Even in passing Matt seems to identify some that are, arguing instead mainly against the rhetorical label associated with that comparison. Fair enough; it's a difference of opinion. But I don't think it's fair to note the broader similarities and then declare a deeper discussion of those very similarities too uncouth or unserious to be explored.

The object of the "American Taliban" label isn't simply to insult the far-right -- although the cover art of Markos' book is a clear and pointed hit at Jonah Goldberg's profoundly silly Liberal Fascism, and although I personally have exactly zero sympathy for scolding about too-harsh rhetoric after having endured a decade of hearing how liberalism was "traitorous", "anti-American", "in league with terrorists", "against the troops" and so forth. And Markos is hardly the first or only person to use the American Taliban label: even the American Prospect itself has previously used it, upon which it caused no apparent devastation. The label is intended as a rather valid, if alarming, rhetorical device to make the reader seriously contemplate the underlying, equally alarming implications. If you have multiple groups of religious nationalists who vow that the other religion needs to be wiped off the map, that unbelievers are the enemy, that contrary behaviors should be criminalized, that the military of a nation needs to be more specifically religious, that government should be explicitly based on far-right interpretations of religious law, and that violence against other nations (or potentially, apostates in your own nation) is an acceptable path towards furthering those goals, than it seems more than reasonable to ask whether or not the ostensibly dissimilar groups in fact represent a wider phenomenon. It should not be a question delegated solely to the Sinclair Lewises of the world.

What feels wrong about this particular debate is that it feels, once again, like the usual Sensible Liberal debate. That since liberals are "above" such things, harsh rhetoric or harsh accusations from our side needs to be instinctively looked down upon as being unserious, or unhelpful, or not properly liberal-ish, i.e. in the mold of that particular well-known bent and well-worn format. And that the better and more noble path, therefore, is the same sort of intellectual above-the-fray non-engagement of the other side's worst impulses, actions and rhetoric that our own political movement so frequently celebrates as the height of sensible-person moderation. We seek to look forward, not backward, or we prefer to engage on the issues, or we prefer to_not dignify such behaviors with a response_. I think we all know exactly how much that works, mind you, but that doesn't stop liberals and Democrats alike from the exact same behaviors every single time, under the remarkable supposition that this time, non-engagement will be rewarded. On the contrary, however, it seems at least as reasonable to believe that extremist behaviors should be met with appropriately bell-ringing warnings of those behaviors, especially when those behaviors show significant signs of increasing in scope, hostility, or frequency.

I think it's perfectly fine and rational to say that the American Taliban label for American far-right religious or pseudo-religious extremism is not one that you, personally, would use to describe the phenomenon, but I think it's less sincere to declare that the whole rhetorical ground is unserious and off-limits, which is by and large the main ground that critics of the label have gravitated towards, having not themselves spent much time reading either this particular book or other, similar invocations of the term. If proponents of the global comparison fail to make their case, so be it. But I think it is a case with merit enough to at least be taken seriously.

The Texas teabaggers have such solidarity with their candidate in Alaska.

NBC affiliate in Texas KETK reports  that angry constituents held demonstrations "at all of" the Senator's offices in the Lone Star State to protest accusations of meddling in Alaska's recent U.S. Senate primary.

Cornyn, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, caught fire last week after Tea Party-backed U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller said he sensed "some game play going on" with the NRSC "meddling" in his primary fight to unseat incumbent Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Those damned "national types" interfering in. . . Um, what?

Alaska Republican Senate hopeful Joe Miller has hired a prominent Washington, D.C., fundraiser to help fuel his general election campaign against Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams (D)....

One Republican lobbyist said Miller should be able to raise significant funds downtown, noting that Murkowski -- ranking member on the Energy and National Resources Committee -- never enjoyed the strongest relationships with K Street. The lobbyist also suggested that Democrats may not pressure lobbyists to stay neutral in the race given the likelihood that the seat will stay in GOP hands.

What's coming up on Sunday Kos ....

• Dante Atkins will elaborate on the idea that all government spending is not equal.
• Steve Singiser will look at some of the demographic assumptions being made by pollsters in this cycle, how they deviate from past midterms, and whether they even matter in the prognosis for Democratic fortunes in the upcoming midterms.
• DarkSyde lands an interview with the most famous scientist of our generation
• A recent poll found that nearly half the country thinks it's "too easy" to get an abortion in America today. Kaili Joy Gray will beg to differ.
• Meteor Blades will explain the very simple reasons he'll vote "aye" in November on California's Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana. And it's not just because he's a DFH.
• Laurence Lewis will look behind Glenn Beck's clown act to the real danger it serves to mask.

Two things look really good for Ann McLane Kuster with 10 days left before the New Hampshire primary -- and there are also two really good reasons not to get overconfident.

Good news first: In the pre-primary filing period, she outraised her primary opponent and both Republicans combined. Kuster raised $222,507 to Katrina Swett's $36,795, Charlie Bass's $57,190, and Jennifer Horn's $39,036. But don't let the numbers make you think Kuster must have been raking it in via big donations -- a campaign press release reports the average contribution at just $45.09

A Kuster campaign internal poll also has good news:

A Mellman Group poll of 400 likely Second District Democratic voters shows Kuster with 47 percent support, Swett with 24 percent, and 29 percent were undecided. The Mellman Group polled for John Kerry's campaign in the 2004 New Hampshire primary.

Reasons not to relax: That poll shows a big lead, but it's notoriously difficult to predict primary turnout, and this is the only primary on the Democratic side. A low turnout could change the picture.

And while Swett only raised $36k in this filing period, remember that she came into the race with around $800k cash on hand. She continues to have a substantial cash-on-hand advantage -- $798,172 to Kuster's $449,891. There's every likelihood this will be Swett's last race, and she could well decide to pour everything she has into this last 10 days of the primary.

Ann McLane Kuster needs our help making a strong final push through the primary and entering the general election campaign well positioned to beat Charlie Bass or Jennifer Horn (most likely Bass). Give now or volunteer.

Ann McLane Kuster for Congress
Contribute to Ann McLane Kuster

John Kitzhaber's political career in Oregon was characterized by his unwillingness to go negative against opponents. And just this cycle, he asked the Democratic Governors Association to pull an attack ad against GOP candidate Chris Dudley. But with Charlie Cook moving the race to toss-up category, and Dudley continuing to outpace in fundraising, Kitzhaber seems to be ready to begin defining his opponent. This is a good start.

“OK, the job is governor and you’re hiring.

“You can hire Chris Dudley who has never managed anything...Never tried to create jobs to help Oregon’s families...

“And never shown much interest in Oregon...Because Dudley lived in Washington to avoid paying taxes that support our schools and health care.

“Or you can hire John Kitzhaber, who spent his life working for Oregon- creating over a hundred thousand jobs and giving healthcare to thousands of children.

“It’s your hire but if we want to create jobs and create change...vote for someone who already has.”

There's a lot about Dudley that most Oregonians don't know (other than his lousy free-throwing ability), and the Kitzhaber campaign needs to start taking care of that. Dudley's lack of any kind of governing experience and Oregon tax evasion issues are good places to start. Here's the next one to highlight:

Dudley indicates that he is in favor of rolling back abortion access and supports restrictions to choice that Oregon voters have rejected on the ballot time and time again. And he also favors abstinence-only education -- a failed concept that has been proven to be unsuccessful and is only supported by 12% of all Oregonians.

Good catch.

More about the American Prospect review, which other liberal and conservative pundits continue to cite. I agree with Digby and Hunter about its lacunae, but I think I found something even more interesting.

Earlier this year, Robert Kuttner reviewed Max Blumenthal’s Republican Gomorrah for the American Prospect.

There's a punchline:

If you’re looking for Kuttner’s article, it’s called “American Taliban” (Feb. 17, 2010).

There's an amusing line of attack, as weenie liberals get the vapors over the theme and title of my book. Their argument is two-fold -- that 1) we shouldn't say mean things about Republicans, because really 2) Republicans aren't that bad and their over-the-top rhetoric hasn't won them shit.

Both are ludicrous arguments, and I'll address them early next week. But while the American Prospect twisted themselves into pretzels patting themselves on the back over trashing my book for its harshness, here is its co-editor (i.e. head honcho), making a compatible argument.

With the complete takeover of the GOP by an American Taliban, the party should be doomed to minority status.

But think again. Despite the occasional principled libertarian such as Ron Paul, a Christian who equates the Federal Reserve with Satan, the marriage of religious fundamentalists and market fundamentalists is holding. Why? Because, in the favorite word of Church Lady, it is so convenient. The Christian far right hates big government, and so does the commercial right. It may be annoying to socially moderate financial elites that the religious right is so crazed on the subject of gays, guns, and God, but these views do not affect the business elite where it lives.

More from Tristero, Digby, Paul Rosenberg, Osborne Ink, Armando, and Peter Daou.

Tristero's piece is particularly prescient, as it speaks to one of my main motivation in writing the book:

Matt can claim as often as he likes that he is not in any real sense equating the Taliban and William Kristol and be quite sincere about it. But simply because Kos - secondhand - got him to talk about it, that is exactly what he is doing.

And that is exactly what we want the right to do as well. We want them to defend their extremism by debunking the comparison with Taliban. Talk about it in detail, please! Tell us all about the important differences between al Qaeda's homophobia and Focus on the Family's. Explain all the nuances so we understand.

And the more they explain how different they are, the more the two are rhetorically associated. And invariably, the more plausible the comparison becomes.

San Juan Copala, Oaxaca - On April 27th at about 2:50pm, people believed to be paramilitaries affiliated with the ruling party of Oaxaca ambushed an international aid caravan en route to San Juan Copala. Two people were killed in the armed attack.

The caravan was carrying food, water, and other basic necessities to San Juan Copala, which has been subject to a paramilitary blockade that has prevented anyone from entering or leaving the community since January. In addition to carrying much-needed supplies, the caravan was meant to accompany teachers who were returning to classes after paramilitaries denied them access to the community nearly five months ago. The caravan included representatives from the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO), Section 22 of the teachers union, the Center for Community Support Working Together (CACTUS), Oaxacan Voices Constructing Autonomy and Liberty (VOCAL), two reporters from the Mexican magazine Contralinea, and international observers from Belgium, Finland, Italy, and Germany.

Read more | Paramilitary Attack Leaves Two Dead and Three Disappeared in Oaxaca
Spanish: Indymedia México | CMI Chiapas | Kaos en la Red
English: El Enemigo Común | My Word is My Weapon
French : Indymedia Bruxelles | CSPCL

2010 is a crucial year for nuclear disarmament. On the military base of Kleine Brogel (Belgium), there are estimated to be around 20 NATO nuclear weapons. Belgian pilotes are trained to use them. If we ever want to get rid of those nuclear weapons, the Belgian government has to take initiatives now. It's now or never. We aren't a part of the negociations, but we can make sure that the illegal nuclear weapon strategy doesn't go on undisturbed.

April 3rd will be a European Day of Action to ban nuclear weapons. Mass actions will take place at every European NATO nuclear weapons base in Germany, The Netherlands, France, Italy, Turkey, United Kingdom, and Belgium.

Recent actions by the bombspotters activists : Bomspotters defy militaries of air force base Kleine Brogel | Torturés par des soldats belges dans une base de l'OTAN au coeur de l'Europe[fr]