HUD, the Coming Next Financial Crisis

Do you know the Castro twins, Julian and Joaquin? Well, both have been fully groomed by powerbrokers in the Obama administration and the mentoring continues. In fact, the twins are rightly classified as the ‘enemies within’.

Julian is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Joaquin is a U.S.Congressman. Julian is especially dangerous and there is chatter about his vying for a vice-presidential run. Meanwhile, Julian is in large measure part of the Latino immigration movement while working his wonder-lust at HUD.

So what about the coming financial crisis? Just think back to the housing crisis, to the toxic mortgages, to the bailouts and the massive layoffs.

The Government Is Definitely Back in the ‘Affordable Housing’ Game

by: John Ligon

More than six years out from a government-driven housing bubble, the chief regulator at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Mel Watt, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary, Julian Castro are respectively clearing a path to expand the “credit box” for government-backed home loans.

Two recent examples: Fannie Mae recently started a program guaranteeing loans with as little as 3 percent down payments, and, earlier this year, the Federal Housing Administration reduced by 50 basis points the annual mortgage insurance premiums it charges borrowers.

We have been down this path before. Using the U.S. housing finance system to try to achieve political ends of broader and “affordable” housing goals ultimately undermines taxpayer safety and the opportunity to build meaningful equity for homeowners.

After all, it was only less than two decades ago that Andrew Cuomo, then-Housing secretary under the Clinton administration, announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest housing finance companies at that time, would be required to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.

In the same announcement, Cuomo went on to say that “this action will transform the lives of millions of families across our country by giving them new opportunities to buy homes or move into apartments with rents they can afford … it will help ease the terrible shortage of affordable housing plaguing far too many communities.”

To be fair, political leaders in both Democrat and Republican administrations have repeatedly called for arbitrary, vague goals aimed at achieving a “homeownership society” and expanding “affordable housing” even when most qualified homeowners already owned homes.

A great irony, though, is that these affordable housing initiatives have had the exact opposite of their intended impact: These programs encourage higher levels of debt, increased housing prices (and lower affordability) in many markets, and greater risk within the overall housing finance system.

Affordable housing advocates tend to focus on high rental costs and widespread slack in the first-time home purchase market as main justification for expanded government support, but establishing new government credit programs and expanding existing ones has repeatedly failed to fix these problems.

To be sure, there are numerous factors weighing on the overall housing market outlook, and certainly a main influence is the sluggish first-time purchase market. This market, in particular for younger individuals, is hampered by high levels of non-mortgage debt, weak employment and income opportunities, low labor mobility (some held back by federal mortgage modification programs), and high home prices in some metropolitan areas.

Despite any of the best stated intentions to assist individuals with “affordable rent” or “affordable mortgages,” all of this direct and indirect government interference in the housing finance system ultimately biases individuals toward certain market segments and particular types of debt instruments, increasing financial risk to homeowners and taxpayers in the process.

 

Ranking the Syrian Threat

 

Bashir al Assad of Syria was labeled a reformer by the Obama administration. Syria is the favorite battleground of militant terror operations for countless organizations. Assad has been propped up by Russia and Iran for years while the United States was forced to posture itself siding with Assad against al Nusra and Islamic State.

The United States has sided with Iran in Iraq, has sided against Iran in Yemen and has sided with Iran in Syria. Quietly, the United States has also launched a military mission to create safe zones in Syria that includes ordnance and counter-measures against regime aircraft, stinger missiles, manpads and ground operations.

Assad has been losing ground in spite of all the foreign support which makes matters in Syria all the more alarming. The future is difficult to predict, hence a strategy is even more ghastly an objective to draft or adhere to.

 

Obama announced a red-line threat if Assad was found to be using chemical weapons. They did and continue to do so. The White House turned the solution of chemical weapons over to Russia to cure. The United Nations sent in teams to collect the chemical weapons declared by Assad and removed them. To no avail, chlorine barrel bombs are being used by the regime with wild abandon and without a whimper from the UN or the West. Chlorine is not on any list of forbidden substances so it seems.

There is a multi-track convoluted mess to clean up in Syria, yet how will it play out with the United States, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan. Lebanon and Russia?

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Eyes watering, struggling to breathe, Abd al-Mouin, 22, dragged his nephews from a house reeking of noxious fumes, then briefly blacked out. Even fresh air, he recalled, was “burning my lungs.”

The chaos unfolded in the Syrian town of Sarmeen one night this spring, as walkie-talkies warned of helicopters flying from a nearby army base, a signal for residents to take cover. Soon, residents said, there were sounds of aircraft, a smell of bleach and gasping victims streaming to a clinic.

Two years after President Bashar al-Assad agreed to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, there is mounting evidence that his government is flouting international law to drop cheap, jerry-built chlorine bombs on insurgent-held areas. Lately, the pace of the bombardments in contested areas like Idlib Province has picked up, rescue workers say, as government forces have faced new threats from insurgents. Yet, the Assad government has so far evaded more formal scrutiny because of a thicket of political, legal and technical obstacles to assigning blame for the attacks — a situation that feels surreal to many Syrians under the bombs, who say it is patently clear the government drops them. Read more here.

Now the chilling questions must be asked, who is bailing out on Assad’s regime in Syria? What will be the future consequences? Why has the regime begun a tailspin and what will fill that void?

Bashar al-Assad is losing ground in Syria

by

For most of the past two years, it looked like Bashar al-Assad’s campaign to hold on in Syria was working. Syria’s weak, uncoordinated, and increasingly Islamist rebels were being gradually pushed back. And while ISIS had seized vast parts of the country, it and Assad appeared to tolerate one another in a sort of tacit non-aggression pact designed to crush the Syrian rebels. It seemed that Syria, and the world, would be stuck with Assad’s murderous dictatorship for the foreseeable future.

But in the past few weeks, things appear to have changed — potentially dramatically. The rebels have won a string of significant victories in the country’s north. Assad’s troop reserves are wearing thin, and it’s becoming harder for him to replace his losses.

A rebel victory, to be clear, is far from imminent or even likely. At this point, it’s too early to say for sure what this means for the course of the Syrian war. But the rebels have found a new momentum against Assad just as his military strength could be weakening, which could be a significant change in the trajectory of a war that has been ongoing for years.

Assad is losing ground

syrian rebel aleppo april

A rebel fighter in Aleppo. (Ahmed Muhammed Ali/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Bashar al-Assad’s forces are losing ground against the rebels, for example in northern Idlib province, where two recent rebel victories show how strong the rebels have gotten. First, in late March, Assad’s forces were pushed out of Idlib City, the region’s capital. Second, in late April, rebels took Jisr al-Shughour, a strategically valuable town that lies on the Assad regime’s supply line in the area and near its important coastal holdings.

“Jisr al-Shughour is a good example of how the regime is, indeed, losing ground,” Noah Bonsey, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told me. “Most observers were surprised at how quickly it fell, given that it is a town of some strategic importance.”

While rebels’ most dramatic victories are in Idlib, they’re advancing elsewhere as well. They’ve seized towns in the south and have repelled Assad offensives around the country.

“Losses in Idlib and the southern governorate of Deraa have placed great pressure on Assad,” Charles Lister, a fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, writes. “Frustration, disaffection and even incidences of protest are rising across Assad’s most ardent areas of support on Syria’s coast — some of which are now under direct attack.”

Bonsey concurs. “Rebels have seized momentum in recent weeks and months,” he says. “The regime is clearly weakening to an extent that was not widely reflected in the English-language narrative surrounding the conflict.”

Rebels are more united as Assad troop losses mount

Syrian rebels FSA

Free Syrian Army rebels train. (Baraa al-Halabi/AFP/Getty Images)

Recent regime defeats reflect growing unity among the rebels as well as fundamental weaknesses on the regime’s side.

The Idlib advance, in particular, was led by Jaish al-Fatah, a new rebel coalition led by several different Islamist groups. While the coalition includes Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, the jihadis don’t appear to dominate the group.

“The operations also displayed a far improved level of coordination between rival factions,” Lister writes, “spanning from U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) brigades, to moderate and conservative Syrian Islamists, to al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and several independent jihadist factions.”

Rebel coordination is nothing new in Syria. But this coalition stands out for its size and breadth.

“The number of fighters mobilized for the initial Idlib city campaign has been significant, and that’s been just as true in subsequent operations in the north,” Bonsey says. “The level of coordination we’ve seen over several weeks, on multiple fronts, is something that we have rarely, if ever, seen from rebels in the north.”

And as the rebels have gotten more united, the regime has gotten weaker. The basic problem is attrition: Assad is losing a lot of soldiers in this war, and his regime — a sectarian Shia government in an overwhelmingly Sunni country — can’t train replacements quickly enough.

Bonsey calls this an “unsolvable manpower problem.” As a result, he says, Assad is becoming increasingly dependent on his foreign allies — Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah specifically — to lead the ground campaign.

But Iran has shown limited willingness to commit heavily to areas like Idlib, and rather is concentrating principally on defending the regime’s core holdings around Damascus and the coast. According to Bonsey, “it’s a matter of priorities,” which is to say that their resources aren’t unlimited, and they’ve (so far) preferred to concentrate them in the most critical areas.

Iran’s involvement in conflicts in Iraq and Yemen on top of Syria has left it “really overstretched,” according to Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The cumulative resource investment has “certainly had an impact on Assad losing territory in Syria,” he concludes.

“For the regime, the status quo militarily is not sustainable,” Bonsey says, and “Iran’s strategy in Syria does not appear sustainable. The costs to Iran of propping up Assad’s rule in Syria are only going to rise with time, substantially. And what’s happened with Idlib in recent weeks is only the latest indication of that.”

How Assad could ride this out: with Iran’s help

iranian revolutionary guard ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

Iranian Revolutionary Guard. (Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)

Bonsey, like most Syria experts, does not believe Assad is on the road to inevitable defeat.

“While much of the subsequent commentary [to the Idlib offensive] proclaimed this as the beginning of the end for President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, we are still a long way from that,” Lister writes.

For one thing, Iran sees the survival of the Assad regime as a critical strategic priority, as it allows Iran to supply Hezbollah and maintain a close ally in the Levant. Any post-Assad government is likely to be Sunni-dominated,and quite hostile to Iran. Tehran is probably willing to go to some lengths to keep that from happening, and Iranian intervention in the war has been a significant force.

“In strict military terms, there isn’t yet a direct threat on the strategically essential territory that the regime and its backers continue to control,” Bonsey says, “and there isn’t yet a reason to think the rebels are capable of threatening” such a region.

Since Assad can’t crush the rebels in their strongholds, then, the conflict is looking a lot like a stalemate — which it already was before this rebel offensive began.

Moreover, the unity of this new rebel coalition could collapse. The broad alliance we’ve seen in Idlib is held together by victory: the more they push back Assad, the more willing they are to cooperate. But if Assad’s forces start beating them, the ideological and political fault lines in the coalition could cause rebel groups to turn on one another. It’s happened — many times — before.

The “big question now,” according to Bonsey, is “how the regime and its backers choose to respond to these defeats.” A major decider, in other words, is Iran. But as long as they see protecting the Assad regime as vital, they are likely to do what it takes to keep his core territory intact.

Kerry’s Unfolding Iran Plan?

Get our your decoder ring, some interesting things are in play here and it appears that Kerry is possibly ready for the ultimate Iran betrayal, which has been telegraphed in history and most especially during the P5+1 talks.

In case the talks fail, Kerry could be posturing a move to delete Russia and China from having a vote. Even the Iranian Supreme leader appears to be poised to run away. The Obama team building mission for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has failed…no checkmark there. The next try again event is neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program which appears to be taking a nose-dive…no checkmark there either?

(Reuters) – Washington wants to be certain that any nuclear deal between Iran and major powers includes the possibility of restoring U.N. sanctions if Tehran breaks the agreement without risking Russian and Chinese vetoes, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

United Nations sanctions and a future mechanism for Iran to buy atomic technology are two core sticking points in talks on a possible nuclear deal on which Tehran and world powers have been struggling to overcome deep divisions in recent days, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

Negotiators were wrapping up nearly a week of talks in New York on Tuesday, the latest round in 18 months of discussions aimed at clinching a long-term deal by June 30 to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an end to sanctions. Expert-level negotiations are expected to continue for several days.

The current talks have been taking place on the sidelines of a conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The negotiations between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union will resume in Vienna next week.

The latest discussions revolved around a future Security Council resolution that would endorse a deal and render invalid all previous sanctions resolutions, while keeping U.N. bans on ballistic missiles, an arms embargo and some other restrictions.

U.S. and European negotiators want any easing of U.N. sanctions to be automatically reversible – negotiators call this a “snapback” – if Tehran fails to comply with terms of a deal. Russia and China traditionally dislike such automatic measures.

The “snapback” is one of the most important issues for Western governments who fear that, once any U.N. sanctions on Iran are suspended, it could be hard to restore them because Russia and China would veto any such attempt.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power made it clear that Washington did not want Russia’s and China’s recent slew of vetoes on resolutions related to Syria to be repeated with an Iran nuclear agreement.

“We’re going to do so in a manner that doesn’t require Russian and Chinese support or a vote for snapback … because we are in a different world in 2015 than we were when the sanctions architecture was put in place,” Power said in an interview with Charlie Rose on Bloomberg television.

She offered no details.

Power said Washington hoped the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Tehran would lead to a change in Iran’s posture on Syria, where it has supported President Bashar al-Assad in a four-year civil war against rebels seeking to oust him.

PROCUREMENT CHANNEL

Iran’s chief negotiator in New York offered a positive assessment of the latest round of nuclear negotiations.

“The atmosphere of the talks was good and it is possible to reach the final deal by June 30,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state television.

However, Western diplomats said on condition of anonymity that Iran and the six powers, who struck an interim agreement on April 2 in Switzerland, were far from agreement due to divisions on sanctions, monitoring and other issues.

Restoring U.S. and EU sanctions is relatively easy, but that is not the case with U.N. sanctions. While the United States is worried about Russia and China, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran want to be certain that Washington cannot unilaterally force a snapback if the Republicans win the U.S. presidency in 2016.

“We haven’t found a mechanism that works for everyone yet,” one diplomat said.

Another difficult issue is the “procurement channel” – a mechanism for approving Iranian purchases of sensitive atomic technology currently banned under U.N. sanctions. One idea under consideration is a vetting committee that would include Iran and the six powers. Tehran would have a say but not a veto, diplomats said.

Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal and works hard to circumvent them.

A confidential report by a U.N. Panel of Experts, obtained by Reuters last week, said Britain had informed it of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted companies.

Iran’s supreme leader threatens nuclear talks walkout

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, vowed on Wednesday that his nation would leave nuclear negotiations if it feels threatened by America’s armed forces.

“Recently U.S. officials threatened to take military action against #Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.

“What does negotiations mean under ghost of a threat?” he asked.

“U.S. need for the #talks – if not more – is not less than #Iran’s,” Khamenei wrote.

“Negotiators should observe red lines & tolerate no burden, humiliation & threat,” he added.

Khamenei said Tehran does not need the economic relief the U.S. is offering in a potential deal over its nuclear arms research.

The pact would lift sanctions on Iran in return for greater restrictions on its nuclear programs.

“Many foreign officials said if sanctions against #Iran were put on other countries, they would’ve been destroyed but they didn’t undermine Iran,” Khamenei tweeted.

The supreme leader also mocked the Obama administration’s struggles with the civil war in Yemen. U.S. efforts in the region, he argued, had not restored stability in the Middle East.

“U.S. has been disgraced,” he said.

“Supporting those who attack #women & #children in Yemen & destroy #Yemen’s infrastructure ruin U.S. image in the region,” Khamenei said of American support for ousted Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

Khamenei closed with a parting shot at U.S. race relations. Police action towards minorities, he said, exposed the hypocrisy of American human rights.

“In the world of deception, the most racist govts. become flag-bearers of human rights,” Khamenei posted alongside a video documenting alleged law enforcement abuses in the U.S.

Khamenei’s criticisms come as diplomatic talks between Iran and the West resume over Tehran’s nuclear program. The two sides are wrangling for a final agreement due June 30.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday announced he would move later this week on legislation allowing Congress to review any final Iran deal.

Should it pass, lawmakers could vote on whether they approve of the Obama administration’s potential agreement with Iranian leadership.

Proof the Feds are Extorting

A new Federal Emergency Management Agency policy requiring states to address climate change before they can become eligible for grant funding is drawing fire from congressional Republicans.

The regulations, part of a FEMA State Mitigation Plan Review Guide issued last month, are not set to take effect until next March. But lawmakers are demanding an explanation for the rules now.

In a letter to FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate, the lawmakers said they’re concerned that the agency’s decision will create unnecessary red tape in the disaster preparedness process.

“As you know, disaster mitigation grants are awarded to state and local governments after a presidential major disaster declaration,” they wrote. “These funds are crucial in helping disaster-stricken communities prepare for future emergencies.”

The letter was signed by Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), David Vitter (R-La.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).

In the revised guide, the agency said mitigation planning regulation requires consideration of the probability of future hazards and events to reduce risks and potential dangers.

“Past occurrences are important to a factual basis of hazard risk, however, the challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future,” FEMA said in its guide.

But in their letter, the senators said climate change is still being debated, citing “gaps in the scientific understanding around climate change.”

The letter goes on to ask FEMA to explain which statutory authority the agency relied on to require states to consider climate change, whether or not the agency still agrees with its 2012 statement that hurricanes follow a cycle of increased and decreased activity over decades and how much it will cost states to comply with the new requirement.

In a January White House blog post about a new flood standard for federal investments, Fugate and then-presidential adviser John Podesta (who has since joined the Hillary Clinton camp) recognized the effects of climate change.
“Effects of climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” they wrote. “And the climate is changing — earlier this month, NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally, meaning that 14 of the 15 hottest years in recorded history have happened this century.”

FEMA’s new requirements will take effect March 6, 2016.

Then there is ObamaCare or lack thereof:

ObamaCare extortion? Why Fla. Gov. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration

Governor Rick Scott joins us. Governor, thanks for going On the Record tonight and we want to hear more about why you are suing the administration.

RICK SCOTT, FLORIDA GOVERNOR: Kimberly, it’s outrageous. The federal government started a program in our state in 2006. It’s called the low income pool. It’s for low income families. Now, what they are saying is they are not going to keep that program going unless the state expands ObamaCare. So this first off is horrible.

GUILFOYLE: It sounds like extortion.

SCOTT: Absolutely. It’s – first off, you think about the families at our state that are relying on this. Second, Justice Roberts said, The NFIB versus Sebelius, that it’s not lawful for the federal government, for the Obama administration, to use coercion tactics, basically held a gun to our head, if we don’t expand ObamaCare. They say they can’t do that. So – and by the way they are not cutting our federal taxes in doing this. They did not say, “Oh, we will cut your federal taxes because we are going to cut out your program.” So our taxpayers are still paying for the federal government.

GUILFOYLE: Right.

SCOTT: But they are going to cut out a program and try to hold a gun to our head.

GUILFOYLE: All right. So when are you going to file this lawsuit?

SCOTT: We’re working with our attorney general, Pam Bondi. We have a great attorney general in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. That’s my friend.

SCOTT: We’ll work with them to make sure – yes. She is a good friends of yours. And we’re working with her to do this in the right manner. But we’re going –I’m going to stand up for every citizen in our state. One, the citizens that have a program that they are relying on, those that can’t afford their own health care, that’s one. Then two, the rest of our citizens that are saying, “You know, we are paying our federal taxes and we are not going to let the federal government tell us how to run our state.” That’s outrageous. It’s not what the Supreme Court allows. And so we’re going to stand up for all 20 million people in our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, I think, you know, with Pam Bondi filing this and you on top of it, this is really a compelling issue. There are serious constitutional implications as a former prosecutor myself. It seems that you are on some serious strong ground with the president, with the comments from the chief justice that this should not be allowed and it should be precedent setting for other states if they are compelled in this way, forced against their will to expand and feed the behemoth that has become ObamaCare.

SCOTT: Absolutely. But don’t they care about the low income families that they have already created a program for in our state?

GUILFOYLE: Sure.

SCOTT: And doesn’t everybody now understand that this is an administration that’s going to use coercion tactic and when it’s appropriate they’ll cut back funding if you don’t do another program they want.

GUILFOYLE: Right. The penalty. Yes.

(Crosstalk)

SCOTT: That’s not the way the federal government is supposed to work. Absolutely. It’s not the way we expect our federal government. We’re supposed to be able to run our state.

GUILFOYLE: Well, it’s a shakedown to the states. If you don’t do what we say….

SCOTT: Absolutely.

GUILFOYLE: . …because we’re gig bigger than you, and we’re going to bully you and we’re going to force you and penalize you and it’s really just hurting the lower income families by doing this.

SCOTT: Absolutely. One, they don’t care about the low income families because they are willing to walk away from a program. And then, two, they are using bully — this is a Sopranos. They are using bullying tactics to attack our state. It’s wrong. It’s outrageous just that they’re doing this.

GUILFOYLE: Well — but you’re standing up for all Floridians. So I think that’s fantastic. And you know, this is so important we get the message out there and that we learn about these issues because it’s going to be facing the other states as well. Governor, such a pleasure. Thank you for coming on here tonight.

SCOTT: Nice talking to you, Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right.

SCOTT: Have a great evening.

Pam Geller and those Before Her

Did the Yazidis draw cartoons? Did James Foley draw cartoons? Did Daniel Pearl draw cartoons?

How is it that Islam has assumed exclusive power with the declaration they are the judge, jury and executioner of what is blasphemy?

The Southern Poverty Law Center has this on Pam Geller. Ah but, they do have a right to do so as noted by the Supreme Court decision in 2011 in the case of picketing a funeral.

All media, even global media has become Sharia compliant for not standing long ago on free speech and now for blaming the Garland, Texas attack on those who are taking a stand.

Pam Geller, Tom Trento, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer and Louis Gohmert are all declaring a call to action, a clarion call and offering sage advise. Are we as a nation listening? Two hundred plus years later why they forced to do this? They are telling you the same as many historical figures before them. LISTEN

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
George Washington

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

[Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]”
Harry S. Truman

Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So Geller is taking a stand with her organization noted here.

Robert Spencer is doing the same here, offering books and lesson plans.

Tom Trento is tireless in his efforts as noted here.

Geert Wilders has been at the mission for a very long time in Europe.

Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other “unbelievers:”

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).

“And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30).

“And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120).

“And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).

“Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28).

“And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for the unbelievers.” (Sura 3, verse 131)

“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101).

“O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123).

“Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4).

“O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

“And their taking usury (interests on money) though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.” (Sura 4. verse 161).

“Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers (Jews, Christians and followers of other faiths) and has prepared for them a burning fire.” (Sura 33, verse 64).

“And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.” (Sura 48, verse 13).