Archives for February 2015

Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, is leading the first legislative effort to roll back the federal government’s decision to start regulating the Internet as a utility, calling Thursday’s action by the Federal Communications Commission the start of the “Obamanet” and a guarantee of more taxes for Internet consumers.

On Thursday, by a party line 3-2 vote, the FCC approved a plan commonly known as net neutrality, but which critics like Blackburn see as unnecessary government intrusion into the private sector.

“This is the day the Obamanet was born,” said Blackburn, who is vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  “The Internet is not broken.  It does not need the FCC’s help and assistance in order to be productive or profitable.”

Coverage and analysis of the FCC’s net neutrality decision has been fairly limited, with both experts and consumers finding the issue very complicated.  Blackburn says the impact of this is clear and very significant.

“The FCC will now reclassify broadband services from an information service to a telecommunications service.  They will do this under a 1930s-era law, the Telecommunications Act.  They will thereby subject the Internet to taxes, regulation, international considerations that are now put on our wire-lined phones.  So this is a step backward, it is not a step forward,” said Blackburn, who stresses that the private market was serving consumers just fine.

“It’s a sad day when you see the Federal Communications Commission coming in and preceding your Internet service provider, your ISP, in the governance of the Internet.  Basically, what you’re going to see is the FCC will now be able to assign priority and value to content because they will be in charge of controlling pricing and fees,” she said.

Blackburn says higher taxes on your Internet bill are not a possibility but a guarantee.  And how much more will Americans be paying?

“You’ve got estimates that run from a few billion dollars in additional taxes to as high as $15 billion.  So at this point, I think it’s ‘pick a number’, but everybody agrees the cost is going to go up because of taxes and fees,” said Blackburn.

In short, Blackburn says the government is stepping in to control something that didn’t need rescuing.

“Whether it is packaging and pricing or the availability of broadband, you now have given the control over this to the FCC to decide what areas of the country get what speeds, what type of businesses get access to what speeds,” said Blackburn.  “It allows the FCC to now begin picking winners and losers.”

Blackburn is launching the first piece of legislation aimed at rolling back the FCC plan, joining with Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, to repeal a specific provision that trumps their states’ laws on broadband service.  The FCC upheld petitions from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, that would allow their broadband rules to be placed on residents outside their jurisdictions.

“Let’s say you have County A that goes in and they work with the FCC and they get a grant that helps them stand up a municipal broadband network.  Well, they decide, ‘We need more customers on this network,’ so they go into adjoining counties B,C and D and say, ‘We will provide this service for you.  What you have then done is to make counties B,C and D subject to the governing body of County A,” said Blackburn, noting that county would then have the power to set pricing and speed levels for people who do not live within their borders.

Her bill with Sen. Tillis would block that.

“The legislation that Sen. Tillis and I filed yesterday would prohibit these municipal broadband networks from going into these other areas and expanding their footprint,” she said, while again slamming the federal government for needlessly trying to trump state law.

“If they want to do it for their own constituents within their own footprint then fine.  But it doesn’t take the federal government coming in and pre-empting state law and pre-empting local law to do that.  They have no right to do that and they ought not to be doing that,” said Blackburn.

The net neutrality controversy comes at the same time members of Congress are fiercely debating whether President Obama had the power to unilaterally approve the legalization of five million adults in the U.S. illegally.  Blackburn, who calls the FCC a group of “unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats,” sees a disturbing pattern.

“It is more of this overreach and quite frankly, I think the American people are growing weary of this.  They don’t think one city ought to be able to override another and get into the broadband business competing with the private sector,” she said.

While she isn’t sure if the Senate will find the votes to pass her bill or others likely to be drafted in response to the FCC, Blackburn says Republicans are ready to fight over her bill and the larger issues at stake.

“I think they’re pretty fired up and you’re going to see us move forward with our legislation.  Of course, I’ve had the bill that would block net neutrality for about three and a half years , so it’s time to move it forward now so we can nip this in the bud before they get a chance to put it on the books,” said Blackburn.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review cheer a new Pew Research poll showing voters strongly preferring the Republicans being in handling homeland security and foreign policy.  They rip the Federal Communications Commission for needlessly voting to regulate the internet.  And they shake their heads as the online world goes nuts over the colors of a dress.

Senate Conservatives Fund President Ken Cuccinelli calls the Senate Republicans’ decision to push Homeland Security funding that includes money for President Obama’s immigration action a “total surrender” that proves GOP leaders “really don’t have any backbone.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, decided earlier in the week to stop pushing a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill that strictly forbids funding for Obama administration executive action on immigration in 2012 and 2014.  With Democrats blocking debate, McConnell agreed to bring a “clean” bill forward in exchange for a Democratic promises to vote on a separate bill to defund Obama’s unilateral November action to legalize five million people in the country illegally.  The latter bill has virtually no chance of passing.

So is this an example of Republicans letting Obama get away with an unconstitutional act or was it the only realistic way to keep our Homeland Security efforts funded?

“Oh, it’s an absolute surrender and surrender is the primary word that we have been able to associate with the Republican leadership since Election Day.  Can you point me to one time they have fought?  No, you can’t.  What did they run on?  Fighting.  Well, if they had run on what they have been doing just in the last few months, there wouldn’t be Republican majorities in the House or Senate,” said Cuccinelli, who served as attorney general in Virginia from 2010-2014 and was the GOP nominee for governor in 2013.

He says there’s an astounding difference between the Republican rhetoric in the 2014 midterm elections and what we’re seeing now.

“Senate leadership and House leadership by Republicans have failed to deliver what they promised.  This is a very basic item.  One of the two most important issues of the election, along with Obamacare, was the president’s illegal actions on amnesty,” said Cuccinelli.

In 2014, Republicans campaigned vigorously on the theme that a Republican majority in both the House and Senate would give the party much more power to stop President Obama’s agenda.  So why didn’t it make any difference in this debate?

“They really don’t have any backbone.  If they had principles at any point in their political lives, they don’t have them anymore.  They’ve constructed their own view in their head of what everybody thinks of them.  What they care about most is people thinking they are nice fellows instead of principled fighters or anything really meaningful.  They’re scared to death to be painted as mean,” said Cuccinelli, who says that GOP mindset is a dream come true for President Obama.

“If you’re the president, that is awfully easy to deal with and we’re watching the president deal very effectively because it is so easy for him.  This is very poor negotiation,” he said.

In addition to believing Republicans constantly cede the high ground to Obama, Cuccinelli is appalled that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is not only gaining the upper hand on the minority leader but now issuing demands for the House of Representatives to fall in line as well.

“Negotiating is a skill and Harry Reid has at least a little bit of that skill, where Mitch McConnell doesn’t appear to have any.  That little bit of that skill is enough to, frankly, outmaneuver Mitch McConnell.  So instead of getting one surrender and calling it a day, Harry Reid is upping for two surrenders.  He now also wants the House to surrender.  The only way to stop that going forward is to stop surrendering,” exclaimed Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli says Republican leaders need to apply a lesson parents learned long ago.

“The rules for how to deal with this are very similar to your two-year-old.  If you tell them that they can’t have candy if they misbehave and they misbehave and you give them candy, what happens?  Well, for any of us who have had a two-year-old, we all know what happens,” said Cuccinelli, a father of seven.

“They haven’t done what they said they were going to do.  In December, they said, ‘In February, we will attach the executive amnesty defunding language to the DHS bill.  If you don’t do that, it’s giving the two-year-old candy when they misbehave,” he said, referring to the “cromnibus” strategy.

After Obama announced his unilateral action in November, GOP leaders decided to postpone the fight over funding it until they controlled both the House and the Senate.  In December, Congress funded the entire government through September 2015, with the exception of Homeland Security.

“There’s no reason for Republicans to have not defunded executive amnesty in December.  They set up the plan to defund here in February on the DHS bill.  Remember that.  This is their plan.  This isn’t the conservatives’ idea.  Conservatives didn’t want to do this.  Conservatives wanted to defund this in December,” said Cuccinelli

What approach would Cuccinelli advocate in this debate?  He says it’s pretty simple actually.

“It’s not that complicated.  The defund language should stay in the DHS bill.  You need a must-pass bill.  They should pass the bill.  If Democrats filibuster it, that’s on the Democrats.  They should go out and say the Democrats have shut down the Department of Homeland security,” said Cuccinelli.

“[Republicans} say, ‘Oh, but we never win that fight.’  Well, good news.  Eighty or eighty-five percent of all the personnel in the Department of Homeland Security are labeled necessary folks.  So they’re not going anywhere,” he said.

“You’re only talking about shutting down 15-20 percent of that department.  We’re not going to lose border patrol.  We’re not going to lose protection.  All those things are going to continue on, but Democrats are going to have held this up.  If you’re the House Republicans and you send over a bill that doesn’t defund amnesty, you have to reject it” said Cuccinelli.

In the end, Cuccinelli says it all comes back to leading with principles and conviction.

“They need to stand up and fight for what they campaigned on.  What the American people thought they campaigned on was ending executive amnesty and restoring the rule of law,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli says the Senate Conservatives Fund does not decide whether to seek conservative challengers to sitting members based on individual votes, but he says this and other votes will be watched very carefully.  He also says a senator’s entire six years is closely scrutinized since many moderates suddenly vote in more conservatively when their re-election draws near.

Regardless of which members are eventually deemed worthy of a challenge, Cuccinelli says the criteria they look for in candidates remains the same.

“We’re looking for conservative fighters, who don’t just want to be in the majority.  They want to be helping to lead America in the right direction, and that is back in the direction of first principles of this country here in the 21st century,” said Cuccinelli.

Former Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, says the United States must lead decisive action to protect Christians and other religious minorities facing severe persecution in Iraq and that there may only be months left to save the Christian population there from extinction.

As reported earlier, Wolf recently led a seven-day trip to Iraq, where he interviewed countless persecuted believers and was told people there don’t see any meaningful help coming from the West on their behalf against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. After retiring from Congress in January, Wolf is now the first-ever Wilson Chair in Religious Freedom at Baylor University.  He is also co-founder of the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, which sponsored the trip in to Iraq in January.  The group also recently released a report of that visit, entitled “Edge of Extinction.”

In addition to documenting the horrors of ISIS violence, the report also details six recommendations, starting with the creation of a “Ninevah Plains Province” to protect religious minorities and even establish it’s own National Guard-type security force.  The report concludes another high priority should be much more active support for the only meaningful resistance to ISIS in much of Iraq.

Wolf says decisive action needs to be taken and there’s only one logical choice to lead the effort.

“The United States must take the lead.  Quite frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence in the United Nations.  The U.S. must take the lead.  Secondly, they must aid the Peshmerga, that’s the Kurdish military, because they are the point of the spear against ISIS,” said Wolf, who says we need to change how we help the Peshmerga.

“When you look at the weapons that the Peshmerga has compared to ISIS, ISIS has sophisticated, American-made weapons that they took from the Iraqi military.  The Peshmerga has old, old, old weapons,” said Wolf.

As a prerequisite for the direct aid to the Peshmerga, another major recommendation of the Wilberforce Initiative report calls for the establishment of a safe zone for displaced Christians and other religious minorities.

“One of the conditions for giving them weapons and aiding and training is that they will set aside their so-called Ninevah Plain Protection Unit area and Christians, Yazidis, Turkamen and other religious minorities can stay there.  They are working on a national guard that will defend it.  But the United States needs to put pressure on the Kurdish government, who I think will do this,” said Wolf.

While Wolf remains optimistic that the Kurdish government can be convinced to aid persecuted minorities, he’s far less confident the actual Iraqi government can be trusted for much of anything.  A prime example is Baghdad’s insistence that any weapons sent to Kurdish forces must go through the Iraqi government but the Iraqis never actually pass those weapons along to the Peshmerga.

Wolf says there’s a troubling reason for that.

“The Iraqi government, unfortunately, is being taken over by Shia elements.  You have a large number of Iranians that are connected to the Iraqi government.  If  we put pressure on them, because they want our assistance and they want our aid, then I think [cooperation] will happen,” said Wolf.

For the refugees, survival is the most immediate concern, but Wolf says they also want every reasonable measure taken to save their homes whenever an offensive is launched to root out ISIS from Mosul and other areas of northern Iraq.

“They want their houses back.  Christians and Yazidis are getting calls from people who are living in their homes, saying ‘We’re in your home.  Now how does this work.’  They’re concerned the homes are going to be destroyed when the Kurdish government comes back [with] the Iraqi military,” said Wolf.

With the ISIS onslaught against Iraqi Christians nearing the nine month mark already, Wolf says there isn’t mush time for the U.S. and our allies to act.

“It’s pretty short.  I don’t think the people will continue to live in the conditions that they’re in.  I say six months, maybe to a year.  There’ll always be perhaps a remnant but overall I think you’re going to begin to see them dramatically begin to leave,” he said.

Religious leaders made it clear to Wolf and his team that they cannot stay much longer under current conditions.

“We met with the religious leaders.  They said they want to stay.  The people say they want to stay.  The phrase was ‘help us to stay,’ meaning, ‘If you don’t help us to stay, we’re going to go.’  I think within a matter of a year or two, if there’s not something fairly dramatically done to come to their assistance, you’re going to see them leave in droves,” said Wolf.

“In three to five years, there’ll be almost no Christians left in the region,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review react to evidence the Clinton Foundation did accept millions in donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State.  They also shudder as NBC’s Richard Engel pours cold water on the idea that ISIS is in retreat.  And they roll their eyes as Donald Trump insists he’s really thinking about running for president in 2016.

As Senate Republicans shift towards passage of a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that includes full funding of the Obama administration’s unilateral plan to legalize five million people in the nation illegally, one the most vocal opponents of the plan says GOP leaders are not only giving Obama exactly what he wants but sending a dangerous message to the rest of the world.

In January, the House approved full funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the end of the fiscal year in September.  It did not include funding for the recently announced Obama immigration policy or his unilateral move in 2012 to grant legal status to so-called “dreamers,” illegal immigrants who were brought to this country at a very young age.

Senate Republicans tried to move the House bill but failed to get a single Democratic senator to join them.  As a result, the GOP failed four times to reach the 60-vote threshold to debate or pass the bill.  Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he was scrapping that strategy and would instead pass a “clean” DHS appropriations bill that included money for Obama’s immigration programs.  In addition, the Senate will vote on a separate bill to defund the actions announced by Obama in November.  That bill is also unlikely to receive 60 votes.

“The more I look at it and the more I hear about it, I just can’t support it,” said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Florida.

Yoho was the sponsor of a House bill in December that declared the Obama administration’s action illegal.  That fight also propelled Yoho to challenge House Speaker John Boehner when the 114th Congress convened in January.  He says this move makes no logistical sense.

“The leverage that we had was we funded DHS like we’re supposed to, like we’ve been sent up here to do the people’s business.  It went through authorization.  It went through appropriations.  We funded it at 100 percent.  We put blockage in there of any activity by the president to exercise or go forward with his illegal, unconstitutional amnesty that he did on November 20th,” said Yoho, who sees McConnell’s strategy as surrendering the high ground.

“To separate those takes that leverage away and I think it’s a huge mistake.  We’ve got the law on our side and for the Senate to not stand up and do what’s right, I just think it’s wrong.  I think there’s some other options that they could have done.  I know we’re not serving the American people properly by doing that,” he said.

The Senate is already moving forward on the clean funding bill.  It cleared it’s first procedural hurdle by a vote of 98-2.  Only Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, and Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, voted against opening debate, suggesting the votes for passage are there in the Senate.  The House vote would be less certain.  Yoho says there are a lot of members who share his frustration.

“I know there’s a lot of consternation over here.  There’s people that have the same concern I do.  There’s no leverage to make what the president’s doing illegal.  I know we have that judge’s order, but if they get that rescinded then the president will go on and give green cards to five million people here,” said Yoho.

But the congressman says that’s not even the worst result of Congress giving Obama what he wants.

“What’s worse is by America’s policies, he’s created around the globe that America has a global policy of unenforcement on immigration.  You can come here any way you want to come here and we’re gonna get you a work permit so that you’re here legally.  They’ll start competing with American citizens for jobs and they’re here illegally,” said Yoho.

“Without securing the border and enforcing the laws on the books.  This is a terrible way to go forward.  It’s reckless for this president to do it,” he said.

With the deadline for funding DHS approaching fast and Senate Republicans clearly unable to find the votes for passage, Yoho says there is another approach Republicans could take besides passing a clean bill.

“If they pushed anything, if they’re going to do this, I don’t like this option but I’d like to see them push blocking the president’s executive order from November 20th.  Pass that first and have the president sign that and then and then do DHS funding,” he said.

Just as with previous funding showdowns, Republican leaders say their hands are effectively tied at this point.  Even though they say Senate Democrats are the ones holding up funding for DHS, Democrats and the media will likely brand Republicans as obstructionists and the public is likely to believe them.  Yoho is ready to call their bluff.

“If we get blamed for that like we did last time and we win the largest majority in 90 years, I’ll take that kind of blame.  The American people are smart enough to figure out who really did what,” said Yoho.

He says the argument to make for holding their ground would be an easy one.

“We stood on the side of the law.  We stood on the side of doing what’s correct for our country and standing with the Constitution.  I don’t see how anybody can fault us.  I think [voters] spoke loud and clear in November and I think the president and his party are going to have a price to pay if they keep trying to push rules and keep trying to change laws by fiat.  You’re going to see the American people wake up,” said Yoho.

If the McConnell approach carries the day and Congress fully funds the president’s immigration programs, has Obama effectively won this debate unless the courts strike them down?

“No, I don’t think he’s won this fight.  There’s other things we can do and all I can tell you is stay tuned and see what we can do to prevent them.  This is not the way to fix immigration.  If the president truly wants to fix immigration, we’ve been on the news saying I’d be happy to sit down with him.  We’ve got a four-step process that could fix this if they would come to the table,” said Yoho.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review get a kick out of the fact liberal media demonizing of Scott Walker is responsible for much of his rise to GOP presidential front-runner.  They shake their heads as Republicans flop spectacularly in their effort to stop President Obama’s unilateral amnesty.  And they love reports that Saudi Arabia may allow Israel to use its airspace to attack Iranian nuclear facilities if needed.

Fox News Channel Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate the internet constitute a major infringement upon our freedom of speech but he believes the new plan will get struck down in court for lack of transparency.

The five members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are scheduled to vote Thursday on a plan to advance Obama’s net neutrality agenda that also allegedly calls for the internet to be treated like a utility.  Despite the major changes this plan could well involve, lawmakers and the media have been rather quiet about it.

“People don’t know the danger that is coming.  The danger that is coming is a gaggle of bureaucrats here – three Democrats and two Republicans, the Republicans will probably dissent – claiming they have the power to regulate the internet,” said Napolitano.

He says Congress has passed no statute authorizing new government controls on the internet and the first amendment clearly states that Congress nor any government agency it created can make no law restricting the freedom of speech.

Napolitano admits the the stated goal of net neutrality sounds innocuous when first presented but he says the problem Obama and his allies really have is with the free market.

“They claim that the purpose of their regulation is to prevent the internet from affording priority and faster service to certain preferred users.  Would we all like to have fast service?  Yes.  Do we all know how to get fast service?  Yes, we do.  Might that cost us something?  Yes, it might, but at the present time it is free from government regulation,” said Napolitano.

However, the judge says the public goal of establishing internet fairness will come at a very heavy price.

“If the government regulates the internet and tells providers how fast they can move information, we will soon see the government regulating the cost of the internet and we will eventually, just like with broadcast television, see the government regulating the content of the internet,” said Napolitano, who described the chain reaction he believes the FCC proposal would trigger.

“Right now, the internet is the freest marketplace of ideas and transfers of information that the world has ever known.  At least in the United States, it is utterly and totally – there are some minor exceptions – unregulated.  Once these federal bureaucrats get their hands on it, give them a couple of years.  It’ll look like broadcast television, a watered down version of what we now have,” he said.

Also at work, according to Napolitano, is the federal government’s unquenchable thirst for more and more power.

“Think about it.  You’re a commissioner on the FCC.  You’re regulating telecoms and broadcast TV.  Wouldn’t you like to regulate cable while you’re at it?  Wouldn’t you like to regulate the internet while you’re at it.  It’s human nature when you have power to want to expand the power.  That’s why we have a Constitution, to prevent these expansions of power,” said Napolitano.

One of the greatest frustrations for those concerned about the FCC plan eroding speech rights is that the commissioners will not, and say they cannot, reveal any details of the package until after the vote on Thursday.  Napolitano says that tactic is actually a double-edged sword.  He says the downside of the secrecy is obvious.

“It’s bad because the government has an obligation under federal law, when any of its administrative agencies plan on changing their rules and expanding their power or modifying substantially the manner in which they regulate, to publish those rules for 30 days,” said Napolitano.

And because the FCC is not following the law, it gives opponents fertile ground for an appeal.

“The good part is the failure to publish this will invalidate the rules once they’re challenged before a federal court.  The government is shooting itself in the foot,” said Napolitano, who sees this turning into a replay of another fierce court battle involving the administration.

“This is the very same thing it did when it attempted to implement President Obama’s changes in immigration law and they were enjoined from doing so last Monday by a federal judge in Texas, who said, ‘You didn’t publish these rules for 30 days, which gives the public the opportunity to comment and, more importantly, Congress the opportunity to modify the rules,” said Napolitano.

Napolitano says the biggest asset for net neutrality supporters right now is the disinterest of the American people.  He says if that changes, the whole debate will change.

“This proposal by the president (these are the president’s appointees on the FCC) actually has the support of the leadership of both political parties, big government Republicans and big government Democrats.  But some of them will have great pause for reconsideration if there is a great national debate on this,” said Napolitano.

He says fierce debate is exactly what the Democratic majority of commissioners is trying to avoid through their secretive tactics.

“That’s the reason why the three Democrats on the FCC want to force it through, so there will be no great national debate, because a great national debate will result in the undoing of this,” said Napolitano.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer the inclusion of conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt as a questioner in an upcoming CNN GOP presidential debate.  They also groan as more confirmation of egregious government waste comes to light.  And they react to the Clinton Foundation continuing to accept foreign donations and the revelation that conservative outlet NewsMax contributed a million dollars to the foundation.

Former Rep. Frank Wolf, the leading voice for religious freedom in Congress for decades, says Christianity is on the verge of extinction in Iraq and the remaining steadfast believers do not see much effort from the U.S. or other western nations to improve their plight.

Wolf served in the House of Representatives from 1981-2015.  He is the author of the International Religious Freedom Act, which the International Religious Freedom Office at the State Department and created an Ambassador-at-Large position to promote religious freedom around the world.  That post has been vacant for some time.

Upon leaving the House, Wolf became the first-ever Wilson Chair in Religious Freedom at Baylor University and co-founded the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative.  He co-led a trip to Iraq in January to observe conditions for Christians and other minorities and to speak to people first-hand.  The group recently released a report based on that trip entitled “Edge of Extinction: The Eradication of Religious and Ethnic Minorities in Iraq.”  He says the conclusions of the visit were obvious.

“Two things.  They’re really suffering and they’re really facing extinction,” said Wolf, who says the people there are mystified at the relative silence in the midst of their suffering, since the Islamic State has very real plans to bring their savagery to the West as well.

“The threat ISIS poses is not only to them but to people in the West and, quite frankly, people in the United States.  It’s kind of a conglomeration.  They kept saying, ‘Why will no one in the West speak out for us?  Does anyone care?’ said Wolf.

“I think they’re running out of confidence that the West will do much about it, because you know it’s been going on since it started in June, then in August.  Now here we are in February of the next year, so they’re not seeing very much assistance,” said Wolf.

Wolf says that impression is only intensified after events like the beheading of Coptic Christians in Libya and the Obama administration only referred to them as Egyptian citizens.  He says instead of reacting to individual atrocities, the U.S. and other western nations need to understand what’s really happening.

“It is genocide, genocide against Christians and genocide against the Yazidis and other religious minorities,” he said.

The nightmare for Christians started long before the rise of the Islamic State.  Wolf says the the state of Christianity in Iraq now compared to the days before the Iraq War is staggering.

“In 2001, there was a million and a half Christians in Iraq.  They’re down now to 300,000 and I think probably under that number.  Some say under 225,000,” said Wolf.

“The suffering of the people is not just numbers.  We interviewed many, many people there that are suffering.  They would like to stay, but if something isn’t done they are going to leave,”

Christians who refuse to convert are either killed or forced to live in subhuman conditions.  As cold winter conditions hit the region, thousands of people are sleeping in whatever abandoned buildings they can find, often in 12×12 or 15×15 foot sections with just two-inch-thick mattresses as beds and kerosene heaters for warmth.  For those allowed to live, there is no opportunity for work or for education.  They also have no medical care.

“Many of them are doctors and many of them are lawyers.  They’re educated people, but they don’t have any resources,” said Wolf, who says the most substantial relief is coming to believers through a Catholic group called the Dominican Sisters as well as Samaritan’s Purse, the relief organization headed by evangelist Franklin Graham.

All of this is taking place in a region rich in biblical history.

“More biblical activity took place in Iraq than any other country in the whole world, other than Israel.  Abraham’s from Iraq.  Rebekah’s from Iraq.  The twelve tribes of Israel lived in Iraq.  Ezekiel is buried in Iraq.  Jonah, Ninevah, in fact Jonah’s tomb was just blown up in Iraq.  Daniel, one of the great men of the Bible, is buried in Iraq,” said Wolf.

Despite the intense persecution, the report from the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative suggests the faith of embattled believers remains strong.  It tells stories of people preferring to die than recant their faith in Christ.  Another man lost his wife to cancer after the Islamic State refused to allow her to receive treatment in Mosul because she would not convert to Islam.  In the report, the widowed husband shared his wife’s last words.

“I am going to hold onto the cross of Christ.  I refuse to convert.  I prefer death.  I prefer death to abandoning my religion and my faith,” she told him.

Wolf says faith of Iraqi Christians is the strongest he’s ever seen, but he adds that Christians and other religious minorities there have infinitely less faith in western nations to come to their rescue.

“Their faith is strong.  Maybe their faith is greater with the persecution than it is in the West where there’s a lot more materialism and things like that.  I think they’re beginning to give up on the west and many are saying, ‘Help us stay,’ meaning if we don’t stay. we’re going to leave,” said Wolf.

“If they leave, we will literally see the end of Christianity in the place where it kind of began.  In the cradle of Christendom, there’ll be no Christians left and ISIS will have won,” he said.