What has become of you ? USA TODAY.

THE LAND OF THE FREE, WHAT HAS BECOME OF YOU ?

 

PREAMBLE.

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns The Preamble. The first paragraph of the Constitution provides the context for the Constitution — the "why" of the document.

The Constitution was written by several committees over the summer of 1787, but the committee most responsible for the final form we know today is the "Committee of Stile and Arrangement". This Committee was tasked with getting all of the articles and clauses agreed to by the Convention and putting them into a logical order. On September 10, 1787, the Committee of Style set to work, and two days later, it presented the Convention with its final draft. The members were Alexander Hamilton, William Johnson, Rufus King, James Madison, and Gouverneur Morris. The actual text of the Preamble and of much of the rest of this final draft is usually attributed to Gouverneur Morris.

The newly minted document began with a grand flourish &mdash the Preamble, the Constitution's raison d'être. It holds in its words the hopes and dreams of the delegates to the convention, a justification for what they had done. Its words are familiar to us today, but because of time and context, the words are not always easy to follow. The remainder of this Topic Page will examine each sentence in the Preamble and explain it for today's audience.

We the People of the United States

The Framers were an elite group — among the best and brightest America had to offer at the time. But they knew that they were trying to forge a nation made up not of an elite, but of the common man. Without the approval of the common man, they feared revolution. This first part of the Preamble speaks to the common man. It puts into writing, as clear as day, the notion that the people were creating this Constitution. It was not handed down by a god or by a king — it was created by the people.

In Order to form a more perfect Union

The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

Establish Justice

Injustice, unfairness of laws and in trade, was of great concern to the people of 1787. People looked forward to a nation with a level playing field, where courts were established with uniformity and where trade within and outside the borders of the country would be fair and unmolested. Today, we enjoy a system of justice that is one of the fairest in the world. It has not always been so — only through great struggle can we now say that every citizen has the opportunity for a fair trial and for equal treatment, and even today there still exists discrimination. But we still strive for the justice that the Framers wrote about.

Insure domestic Tranquility

One of the events that caused the Convention to be held was the revolt of Massachusetts farmers knows as Shays' Rebellion. The taking up of arms by war veterans revolting against the state government was a shock to the system. The keeping of the peace was on everyone's mind, and the maintenance of tranquility at home was a prime concern. The framers hoped that the new powers given the federal government would prevent any such rebellions in the future.

Provide for the common defence

The new nation was fearful of attack from all sides — and no one state was really capable of fending off an attack from land or sea by itself. With a wary eye on Britain and Spain, and ever-watchful for Indian attack, no one of the United States could go it alone. They needed each other to survive in the harsh world of international politics of the 18th century.

Promote the general Welfare

This, and the next part of the Preamble, are the culmination of everything that came before it — the whole point of having tranquility, justice, and defense was to promote the general welfare — to allow every state and every citizen of those states to benefit from what the government could provide. The framers looked forward to the expansion of land holdings, industry, and investment, and they knew that a strong national government would be the beginning of that.

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Hand in hand with the general welfare, the framers looked forward to the blessings of liberty — something they had all fought hard for just a decade before. They were very concerned that they were creating a nation that would resemble something of a paradise for liberty, as opposed to the tyranny of a monarchy, where citizens could look forward to being free as opposed to looking out for the interests of a king. And more than for themselves, they wanted to be sure that the future generations of Americans would enjoy the same.

Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

The final clause of the Preamble is almost anti-climactic, but it is important for a few reasons — it finishes the "We, the people" thought, saying what we the people are actually doing; it gives us a name for this document, and it restates the name of the nation adopting the Constitution. That the Constitution is "ordained" reminds us of the higher power involved here — not just of a single person or of a king, but of the people themselves. That it is "established" reminds us that it replaces that which came before — the United States under the Articles (a point lost on us today, but quite relevant at the time).

 

Collateral Murder - Wikileaks - Iraq  

 

Constitution of The United States Of America.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Thirty Years War Made Afghanistan Into a Narco-State

April 3, 2010 (LPAC)—Fully substantiating Lyndon LaRouche's call for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, for his treasonous support for the Afghan opium traffickers including the Taliban, noted author Alfred McCoy (The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia) penned a lengthy article in the March 30 online edition of Salon, detailing the evolution of Afghanistan into a full-blown narco-state, over the course of the thirty years war, launched by the likes of Bernard Lewis and his Zbigniew Brzezinski, in 1979.

McCoy noted that, contrary to what most people assume, Afghanistan was not an opium producer prior to the launching of the mujahideen war and the Soviet military occupation that soon followed. With the surrogate war against the Soviets from 1979-1990, the entire agricultural economy of Afghanistan, including irrigation and water-management systems that were built up in the 1950s and 1960s, with the assistance of the United States, were destroyed, opening the door for the opium production that fueled the mujahideen insurgency, with the backing of the Pakistan ISI.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the opium production continued to grow, during the 1990s period of civil war. After the Taliban took control of Kabul in 1996, opium production skyrocketed, and the Taliban also sponsored the buildup of heroin laboratories. Soon after the Taliban takeover, the UN reported that Afghanistan was producing 4,600 metric tons of opium a year—75% of the world production.

For reasons still being debated, in 2000, the Taliban regime abruptly shut off opium production, slashing it by 94%. But once the U.S. invasion and overthrow of the Taliban took place in the Autumn of 2001, opium production flourished once again. By 2007, the UN reported that Afghanistan had produced 8,200 metric tons of opium, 140% of world consumption. The clearest indication that the Bush Administration, and, now the Obama Administration, had no interest in fighting the opium and heroin trade, was the fact that the responsibility for "narcotics control" was outsourced to the British forces in Afghanistan!

McCoy reported that, at a recent conference on the drug crisis in Kabul, Russia's anti-drug chief Viktor Ivanov, reported that Afghan opium was generating $65 billion a year in revenue, with $500 million going to the Afghan farmers, an equal amount going to Taliban, and the remaining $64 billion in the hands of the international mafia—i.e., the British.

McCoy began the article with a description of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's February 2010 press conference in Marja, a small village in the Helmand province, where the "new" U.S. counterinsurgency strategy was launched. Claiming victory over the Taliban insurgents, McChrystal failed to even acknowledge that he was standing in the middle of opium fields, surrounding the village, that supply 40% of the world's opium. And most of the mud huts that made up the village contained heroin laboratories. As McCoy wrote, with some irony, "Rushing through those opium fields to attack the Taliban on Day One of this offensive, the Marines missed their real enemy, the ultimate force behind the Taliban insurgency, as they pursued just the latest crop of peasant guerillas whose guns and wages are funded by those poppy plants."

It is exactly this point that Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized in his call for Obama's immediate removal from office, for his sending American soldiers to die, fighting an insurgency fueled by the very opium trade that his Administration has de facto embraced.

 

Obama's Opium War 

Afghanistan Now Leads World in Hashish, As Well As Opium Production

April 5, 2010 (LPAC)—The Dope, Inc. apparatus which President Obama is treasonously protecting in Afghanistan, has converted that country into not only the world's leading producer of opium and heroin, but also the world's #1 hashish source.

That is the finding of the March 31 Afghanistan Cannabis Survey 2009, issued by the Vienna-based U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The UNODC has published annual reports on Afghan opium for years, but now it has issued its first-ever survey of Afghan cannabis and hashish, because they too have now exploded out of control.

Afghanistan produces an estimated 1,500 to 3,500 tons a year of hashish, the UNODC reports. "While other countries have even larger cannabis cultivation, the astonishing yield of the Afghan cannabis crop (145 kg/ha of hashish, the resin produced from cannabis, as compared to around 40 kg/ha in Morocco) makes Afghanistan the world's biggest producer," said UNODC's Executive Director, Antonio Maria Costa.

Cannabis is grown in the same areas as the opium, and it is also "taxed by those who control the territory, providing an additional source of revenue for insurgents," the UNODC reports. Two-thirds of opium farmers also grow cannabis, and the smuggling routes are also the same. In short, it's one big, London-run Dope, Inc. operation—with a protection racket run by the impeachment-bound Barack Obama.

Cannabis is actually more profitable, per hectare, than opium, because it requires so little labor. The cannabis area is about one-third the size of the planted opium area, and it is almost all irrigated.

Obama's Opium War

Obama "Guilty of Impeachable Crimes," Says Author David Lindorff

April 3, 2010 (LPAC)—Investigative journalist David Lindorff, who worked closely with Rep. John Conyers' House Committee on the Judiciary in 2005-2006, making the case for the impeachment of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush—that is, before Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table"—is the first former Obama-lover to call for Obama's impeachment.

In an April 1 article titled "The Case for Impeachment of Barack Obama," which is being widely reported on left and Democratic Party-affiliated websites, Lindorff recounts that in 2005-2006 he wrote "The Case for Impeachment," which said that Cheney, Bush, and other members of the Administration should be "impeached for war crimes, as well as crimes against the Constitution of the United States."

"Sadly, it is time to say, just 14 months into the current term of this new President, that yes, this President and some of his subordinates, are also guilty of impeachable crimes, including many of the same ones committed by Bush and Cheney."

The grounds cited by Lindorff: Escalation in Afghanistan and use of mercenaries there who carry out targetted assassinations; the expanded attacks on civilians; the failure to prosecute those who authorized and perpetrated torture; the use of death squads in Iraq; and the escalation of warrantless wiretaps. He adds that "there is ample evidence" to also call for the impeachment of Timothy Geither for covering up Wall Street's crimes and being party to "unprecedented giveaways." But then, out of either fear or confusion, or both, Lindorff throws in Robert Gates and Eric Holder as also culpable in impeachable crimes.

Obama is sinking because LaRouche opened the battle to tell the truth and get him out of office. Lindorff is only the first of the liberal left to face up to the fact that Obama has to go; he won't be the last.

 

USIP, Drug Pusher Georg Soros Join To Promote Taliban

April 2, 2010 (LPAC)—The United States Institute of Peace (funded by the US State Department) and George Soros's Open Society Institute have joined together on a project to bring "reconciliation" to Afghanistan, apparently in the aftermath of the Jan. 28, 2010 conference in London hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. This morning, the two organizations co-sponsored a discussion that featured British MI-6 agent Michael Semple, along with two Afghans, Nader Naderi, the head of the Afghan Human Rights Commission, and Farishta Sakhi, long an activist on human rights and womens' rights in Afghanistan.

Semple, along with fellow Brit Mervyn Paterson, as readers of LaRouche publications will recall, was tossed out of Afghanistan in December 2007, by the Karzai government, on suspicion that they were working for Britain's MI-6 intelligence service. Ostensibly, both worked for international organizations, Semple for the EU and Patterson for the UN, but the CIA warned the Afghan government that they had been involved in funding the Taliban, activities that were anathema to the then-Bush Administration.

Semple's British pedigree was fully borne out at this morning's event, where he acted as a virtual spokesman for the Taliban, arguing that they were once victims (prior to 1994 when they first launched their offensive out of Pakistan), too, and therefore, that has to be taken into account in any reconciliation process. "We shouldn't assume that the Taliban are a force determined to trample on all rights," he said. After all, they have "a justice agenda," too, however, distasteful it might be.

Semple's argument didn't go over too well with either Naderi or Sakhi. Naderi told Semple that it is naive to believe that the Taliban can participate in elected government and not still beat women on the street. Sakhi added that all the talk of negotiation with the Taliban is happening because of the failure of the Afghan government and the international community to come up with a successful strategy against them. "Why should the Afghan people have to pay the price for these failures?" she asked.

In their opening remarks, both Naderi and Sakhi expressed serious reservations that the Taliban could actually be reconciled with. The amnesty process in place, so far, has enhanced their impunity (that is, for crimes they have committed in the past), argued Naderi, and reconciliation would institutionalize that. Sakhi said that if there is to be negotiation with the Taliban, the strategy should be to divide them and bring them to the table weak, and that the process has to include groups, such as civil society and womens' rights groups that are currently excluded by the government.

Obama's Opium War

WATCH THIS!

THE IDES OF MARCH WEBCAST DOWNLOAD

http://www.larouchepac.com/webcasts/20100313.html

Afghan heroin helps to nurture roots of terrorist networks, but U.S. refuses to impede production

Stjórnendur vogunarsjóða mala gull

Obama Is Sending US Forces to Their Deaths

OBAMA IS SENDING US FORCES TO THEIR DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE HANDS OF THE OPIUM TRAFFICKERS HE'S PROTECTING.

by Michele Steinberg

April 1 (LPAC)—In a special edition of the LPAC Weekly Report of March 31, Lyndon LaRouche laid out the center of the strategic battle against the British Empire: Afghanistan. LaRouche stated:

"Remember ... there's a war going on in Afghanistan. In this war, the United States, under the present President, is defending the right of the drug-traffickers to continue to operate without interference. We're fighting a war—we're sending troops in, to kill and be killed in Afghanistan, in order to protect the drug-traffickers! These drug-traffickers are also the major source, of support for control of Russia. Because they harm Russia; they harbor circumstances, like the recent things that just happened in Moscow. These are things which were done, and are being done against the United States, by killing our troops, in Afghanistan—with the President's permission, and encouragement!

"At the same time, the same forces, the same group of people, who were behind 9/11, are operating against Russia, too, now. And will operate against other nations.

"And Obama is practically committing an act of treason, by sending U.S. troops into area, to be killed, by the logistical force which Obama is defending. If that isn't tantamount to treason, I don't know what is."

While the U.S. protection of the British-sponsored opium production in Afghanistan—which grew 40-fold after the U.S. and Nato occupation of Afghanistan began in 2001—started under the Bush/Cheney administration, it was Obama who ended all eradication of opium and ended the efforts to eliminate the drug lords and traffickers who fund the Taliban and insurgency operations, just at the point that American patriots in the military mapped out a strategy to eliminate the drug traffickers.

The background to Obama's treason from approximately Spring, 2008, when Lyndon LaRouche put the spotlight on the Afghanistan narco-terrorism as a strategic threat, to his treasonous actions in Afghanistan last week, is summarized here:

Spring, 2008 — EIR researchers begin exposing the opium protection policy in Afghanistan after receiving detailed briefings from several veterans of the Afghan war, who describe that under the NATO agreement for forces in Afghanistan, the military targetting of the "narco-kahns" (drug lords), opium and heroin warehouses, or drug traffickers is absolutely forbidden under NATO rules of engagement. Only "terrorists" and "insurgents" against the Anglo-American-NATO occupation can be militarily targetted. EIR is told that only a decision by the NATO Council could change the rules of engagement, and the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld leadership had absolutely backed up the British occupation policy that protected the opium traffic.

By 2006, Afghanistan had begun producing an unprecedented 8,000 metric tons of opium a year—more than the entire world production of opium at any prior time.

July 27, 2008: Thomas Schweich, a former top level counter-narcotics official in the State Department wrote in a New York Times magazine feature article, "Over the next two years [from July 1, 2006], I would discover how deeply the Afghan government was involved in protecting the opium trade by shielding it from American-designed policies. While it is true that Karzai's Taliban enemies finance themselves from the drug trade, so do many of his supporters. At the same time, some of our NATO allies have resisted the anti-opium offensive, as has our own Defense Department .... The trouble is that the fighting is unlikely to end as long as the Taliban can finance themselves through drugs and as long as the Kabul government is dependent on opium to sustain its own hold on power."

Schweich exposed how the Bush administration backing for Afghan President Karzai's insistence that aerial eradication of opium fields be ended, was fatal to the counter narcotics effort. Schweich showed how the substitution of manual eradication a sure loser that was a disaster waiting to happen. Local Afghanis — farmers and tribal leaders — fought the U.S. forces when they tried to move in to seize opium fields.

July 30, 2008: Gen. Barry McCaffrey (USA, Ret.), the former head of the Office of Drug Abuse Policy under President Bill Clinton, submits his report on Afghanistan to Col. Michael Meese at West Point.

August 7, 2008: EIR endorsed McCaffrey's findings in a press release called "McCaffrey: Afghanistan Disaster, Unless We Send in the Engineers." EIR reported, "McCaffrey writes: 'Afghanistan is in misery.' Sixty-eight percent of the population has never known peace, life expectancy is only 44, and Afghanistan has the highest maternal death rate in the world.... The atmosphere of terror cannot be countered mainly by military means. We cannot win through a war of attrition.... Afghanistan will not be solved by the addition of two or three more US combat brigades from our rapidly unraveling Army.' Instead, McCaffrey argues that, in addition to building up the Afghan security forces, economic measures are also required. He calls for the deployment of a 'five battalion Army engineer brigade... to lead a five year road building effort employing Afghan contractors and training and mentoring Afghan engineers.... The war will be won when we fix the Afghan agricultural system which employs 82% of the population.... The war will be won when the international community demands the eradication of the opium and cannibis crops and robustly supports the development of alternative economic activity.' McCaffrey pointed to the tremendous growth in the poppy crop since the US invasion in 2001 and warned that 'Unless we deal head-on with this enormous cancer, we should have little expectation that our efforts in Afghanistan will not eventually come to ruin.'"

August 2008 - January 2009: EIR publishes major feature articles continuing to detail the Afghanistan opium/heroin traffic connection to terrorism, including the in the November, 2008 attack by Islamic extremist narco-terrorists on Mumbai, India. At the same time, the LaRouche movement organizes among elected officials and military and intelligence professionals to force a change in NATO rules of engagement to eliminate the drug trafficking organizations as the only effective way to stop the continued strengthening of the Taliban/Al Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

January 16, 2009: EIR publishes feature package: Drive the Narcos out of the Americas, which includes the following aspects: Call for U.S.-Mexico Anti-Drug Fight, Excerpting a second report by Gen. McCaffrey; Colombia Nearly Disappeared by Negotiating with Narcoterrorists; How Drugs Can Be Wiped Out, Totally—EIR's 1996 report on the high-technology, nonlethal means of eradicating and seizing drug crops, plus stopping the drug money laundering; LaRouche's 15-Point Plan for a War on Drugs (March, 1985); George Soros, Britain's Drug Kingpin Waging War Against the Americas.

January, 2009: Gen. Bantz John Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the highest military commader in Europe approves NATO military operations against drug traffickers, narco-lords, and drug refineries and warehouses in Afghanistan. But this victory for an effective strategy is short-lived. On January 28, 2009, the German news weekly, Der Spiegel receives a leak of a classified NATO document in which Craddock approves the targetting of narco-traffickers and the bombing of narcotics laboratories in Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter, Craddock's rotation as SACEUR ends, and the anti-opium offensive is effectively ended.

March, 2009: Obama's Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke announces in Brussels that the poppy eradication effort in Afghanistan has been ended because it is "wasteful" and is driving Afghan farmers "into the arms" of the Taliban because it destroys the farmers' livelihood. Holbrooke downplays the significance of narcotics traffic money in financing the insurgency, and lies that the U.S. and NATO will focus efforts on interdicting narcotics shipments, and on stopping money laundering. No such escalation in interdiction or in anti-money laundering operations is carried out against the Afghanistan dope trade.

The George Soros pro-legalization website, www.stopthedrugwar.com, gleefully welcomes Holbrooke's denunciation of opium eradication, and claims the decision as a victory for the march towards drug legalization. Not insignificant is the fact that Holbrooke was a business partner of Soros, the world's leading drug legalizer, in a medical/pharmaceutical enterprise.

May 11, 2009: Obama suddenly fires Afghanistan commander, Gen. David McKiernan, and replaces him with Gen. Stanley McChrystal. McKiernan was reported to EIR to have been favorable to SACEUR Commander Craddock's decision to target narcotics operations and laboratories.

Any U.S./NATO operation against the narcotics trade that is financing the Islamic extremist terrorist operations from Afghanistan to the Northern Caucasas to Moscow and Mumbai, India are ended. On March 28, 2010, Obama mades a surprise visit to Kabul to chastise President Karzai about corruption in his government. Criticizing everything except the opium trade, Obama ensures that the opium traffic will not be touched.

Where Obama's Orders Come From: London Spits on Haiti

April 1, 2010 (LPAC)—While many world governments sent high-level officials to New York City to participate in today's Donors Conference on Haiti, the British government didn't bother even appearing interested, sending its Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations to represent it.

Nor did the British government pledge any new funds for Haiti. So far, the UK has donated a grand total of 150 million pounds ($224 million), and over half of that, 90 million, was given by the British public. The first British Minister managed to visit Haiti after the Jan. 12 earthquake on March 24, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, Mike Foster, who reported Britain's aid to Haiti is focused on helping rebuild its prisons.

The UK was too busy planning how to kill Africans, to join the world community in aiding Haiti. Joining the UK in the African genocide campaign, is Barack Obama's chief economic advisor, the notorious Larry Summers.

Yesterday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown convened the inaugural meeting of the United Nations "Climate Finance Group" in London, launched a new UK action plan on international climate change, and issued a "guide" to climate change in sub-Saharan Africa. Joining Brown in the "Climate Finance Group," are the bagman for Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, drug-pusher George Soros, the discredited purveyor of genocidal Prince Philip's fraudulent "climate change" hoax, Nick Stern, and Larry Summers.

OBAMA'S OPIUM WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

 

THE "BRUTISH EMPIRE" MANIPULATION OF WESTERN NATIONS

 

THE ENEMY OF HUMANITY

 

THE PURPOSE OF NATO IN AFGHANISTAN

Video Link  http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=14041

Watch This Lesson. FOR YOUR FUTURE SAKE!

Special Weekly Update with Lyndon LaRouche: 03.31.2010

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=14043

 

HITLERS T-4. THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS FOR GENOCIDE.

http://www.larouchepac.com/lpactv?nid=11174

 

THE OBAMA WATCH !

http://www.larouchepac.com/obamawatch

 

WATCH THIS VALUABLE VIDEO AND THE MESSAGE IN IT ! Download the Video.

THE IDES OF MARCH WEBCAST DOWNLOAD

http://www.larouchepac.com/webcasts/20100313.html

http://www.larouchepac.com/organize

International Agencies Decide No Mass Relocation for Haitians; Let Them Die

March 31, 2010 (LPAC)—One week before tomorrow's U.N. Donors Conference on Haiti, the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA) announced that the policy, for now, is that mass relocation of the 1.3 million-and-up Haitians displaced by the earthquake shall be carried out only as a "last resort," and for only a small number of people. According to media reports, that policy is supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and others.

To not relocate people quickly to decent, sanitary shelters built on high ground, is a policy of mass murder, Lyndon LaRouche charged on Feb. 22, in a statement calling for the Obama administration to offer the aid of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Haitian government to carry out such a relocation. When such a policy was later proposed to the White House, it was rejected out of hand.

Now mass death is at hand. Former President Bill Clinton warned on March 25 that 20-40,000 lives are at stake, if they are not relocated now. On March 28, Haiti's Ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Joseph, called for international aid in quickly relocating a half-million of those living in displaced camps.

The same aid agencies adopting the "last resort" relocation policy, themselves, admit that 250,000 individuals are at "high risk" of flooding or mudslides in the makeshift camps where they now live, and their contingency planning estimates that 1.8 million across the country are at risk in the rainy and hurricane seasons about to hit. Meanwhile, the Pan American Health Organization reported last week "a constant increase in suspect cases of malaria" reported to them.

Instead of the mass relocation required, the policy adopted, as of now, is to help 60% of the displaced people around Port-au-Prince to return to their homes in rubble-filled, dysfunctional neighborhoods, if the homes are deemed safe, or, if not, to tents outside those homes. Another 10% are to be piled in with "host" families. Some are to remain where they are, in sites considered safe from flooding (! in tents?? under plastic?? with latrines?). Relocation to newly constructed sites is to be carried out only as "a last resort."

Wahhabi-Trained Chechen Suicide Bombers Kill 38 in Moscow Subway

March 30, 2010 (LPAC) — One female suicide bomber blew herself up just before 8 a.m. on Monday, March 29 at the Lubyanka station in central Moscow. About 45 minutes later, a second explosion hit the Park Kultury station, which is near Gorky Park. The two bombs killed at least 38 people and wounded 60 others. In a televised meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev, Federal Security Service head Alexander Bortnikov said body fragments of the two bombers pointed to a Caucasus connection. Last month, Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov warned Russians in an interview on a rebel-affiliated website that "the war is coming to their cities."

Behind this mindless act lies the hand of two external forces, represented by the Saudi Arabia-spawned Wahhabism and the British policy to weaken Russia. Training of these terrorists, along with the Uzbek and Uighur Chinese terrorists, was carried out in Pakistan's tribal area of North Waziristan. There were reports that since last August these terrorists began moving towards their home bases to step up jihad against the governments of Central Asia and Russia.

According to an Indian high-level intelligence contact, who follows terrorist activities in the region, reports from the Caucasian region of Russia have been indicating that jihadi terrorists continue to be active in the Ingushetia region, bordering Chechnya. In February, at least 20 insurgents were reportedly killed in an operation by Russian security forces in Ingushetia. Many Chechens work as security guards and manual labor in the commercial establishments of Moscow. Often, pro-al-Qaeda Chechens use them for creating sleeper cells in Moscow.

What should also be noted is that those who train the Chechens are Wahhabis, who are virulently anti-Shi'a, involved in violent dismantling of sovereign nation-states and installation of the Caliphate. Many of these trainers are of Chechen origin settled hundreds of years ago in Jordan and other Middle East countries. Imbued with the Saudi-promoted orthodox Wahhabi version of Islam, they have become in essence terrorists working for Saudi Arabia and Britain to undermine all sovereign nations in Central Asia, and Russia.

This connection of Caucasus terrorism and Saudi-funded Wahhabi training was first exposed in Executive Intelligence Review, Sept. 10, 1999.