Denise Simon Appears on “The Truth About South Africa” – 02/14/15

Posted on February 14, 2015February 14, 2015 by Denise Simon

SPECIAL GUEST: DENISE SIMON, Host of The Denise Simon Experience

BRENDI RICHARDS, delivers The Truth in South Africa headlines, interviews and high profile guests. Richards combines factual context, reporting and opinion from within current South Africa where universal corruption and lies have made the very act of “breathing while white” a criminal offense.

In South Africa’s reality the State legislates workplace racism and outright minority oppression – with the results measured in deaths an order of magnitude worse than ever experienced during the hated “Apartheid Era”.

The World has not heard the Truth in South Africa. It is past time for all freedom loving peoples of the world to hear how they have been used to rape and victimize more than 50 million South Africans … and how today ALL citizens of every shade suffer and die.

It is time for the truth to be heard.

We share a common interest in freedom. The problems that we face are not a matter of Black vs. White – our problems are a matter of Wrong vs. Right.

Please visit Brendi’s website: The Truth About South Africa

Find Brendi on Facebook: The Truth About South Africa

The show is broadcast WORLDWIDE LIVE from 12PM (ET) / 7PM (SA) on WDFP – Restoring America Radio , Red State Talk Radio, American Agenda, Nightside Radio Studios, and on Freedom In America Radio

Ukraine has a Deadly History

Posted on February 14, 2015February 14, 2015 by Denise Simon

A cease fire was signed this week known as the Minsk Agreement. The ink was not dry and the hostilities continued. So looking back on Ukraine’s history is a look at today and tomorrow.

After hours of beatings, the men in black took Lutsenko into the woods, put a bag over his head, made him kneel in the snow and told him to say his prayers. Then they walked away.

Not long after Lutsenko emerged, Verbytsky was found in the same woods, bound in duct tape, his ribs broken, internal organs smashed. An autopsy showed he froze to death. What is a cause of Putin’s military aggression over Ukraine?

Oil.

Ukraine’s state gas and oil company Naftohaz has reported discovering a sizeable oil field on the country’s territory.

Nafothaz said late July 11 that the discovery was one of the largest oil fields found in Ukraine in some 15 years.

Naftohaz believes the Budishchansko-Chutovskoyefield in eastern Ukraine’s Poltava region, contains some 12.8 million tons of oil.

Naftohaz has been working the site since 2011 and the company’s public relations department said it was the first oil field owned solely by the Ukrainian company.

Ukraine’s government is attempting to wean the country off its dependence on Russian energy supplies. Kyiv has placed a priority on developing the country’s own energy resources and diversifying sources for importing energy supplies.

*** Yet Ukraine’s history is a look back at what is underway today.

Ukraine was formally incorporated into the USSR as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkSSR) in 1922.
The Communists were aware that resistance to their regime was deep and widespread. To pacify the Ukrainian people and to gain control, Moscow initially permitted a great deal of local autonomy to exist in the UkSSR. The
newly established Ukrainian Autocephalous (self-ruling) Orthodox Church and the new All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, non-Communist national institutions of great importance, were both permitted to continue their work
until the end of the 1920’s.

All of this changed once Joseph Stalin came to power. Stalin wanted to consolidate the new Communist empire and to strengthen its industrial base. Ukrainian national aspirations were a barrier to those ends because even
Ukrainian Communists opposed exploitation by Moscow. In Stalin’s eyes, Ukraine, the largest of the non-Russian republics, would have to be subdued. Thus, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church was
placed under the jurisdiction of the Communist-controlled Russian Orthodox Church. Ukrainian bishops, priests and thousands of Christian lay leaders were sent to Siberian labor camps, the so-called “Gulag.” Hundreds of
thousands, possibly over a million, of Ukraine’s intellectual leaders – writers, university professors, scientists, and journalists – were liquidated in purges ordered by Stalin. Not even loyal Ukrainian Communists were exempt
from Stalin’s terror. By 1939, practically the entire (98%) of Ukraine’s Communist leadership had been liquidated.

Hardest hit by Stalin’s policies were Ukraine’s independent landowners, the so-called “kulaks” (kurkuly in Ukrainian). Never precisely defined, a kulak was a member of the alleged “upper stratum” of landowners but in
reality anyone who owned a little land, even as little as 25 acres, came to be labeled as a kulak. Stalin ordered that all private farms would have to be collectivized. During the process, according to Soviet sources, which are
no doubt on the conservative side, some 200,000 Ukrainian families were “de-kulakized” or dispossessed of all land. By the summer of 1932, 69.5% of all Ukrainian farm families and 80% of all farm land had been forcibly
collectivized.

Stalin decided to eliminate Ukraine’s independent farmers for three reasons:
(1) they represented the last bulwark of resistance to totalitarian Russian control;
(2) the USSR was in desperate need of foreign capital to build more factories and the best way to obtain
that capital was to increase agricultural exports from Ukraine once known as “the breadbasket of
Europe”;
(3) the fastest way to increase agricultural exports was to expropriate land through a process of farm
collectivization and to assign procurement quotas to each Soviet republic.
During the collectivization process, Ukrainian farmers resisted vigorously, often violently, especially when the GPU (Soviet secret police) and militia forced them to turn their land over to the government. Thousands of
farmers were killed and millions more were deported to Siberia to be replaced by more trustworthy workers.

*** Fast forward to the 1980’s, were marked by increasing political impotence of Soviet leadership. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident of April 26,1986, brings back painful memories for all Ukrainians. This disaster caused tens of thousands of deaths and health related problems, and inflicted enormous ecological and economic damage. Chernobyl served to rock the Communist Party establishment with political fallout as the facts behind bureaucratic ineptitude, negligence, disregard for the ordinary citizens, and cover-up emerged and began to stir the minds of the people.

On July 6, 1990, the legislature proclaimed Ukraine’s sovereignty. In August 1991, a failed three-day military coup of the Kremlin’s would-be dictators led to the Declaration of Independence by the Verhovna Rada (Parliament) on August 24. On December 1, in a nationwide referendum, 93% of Ukraine’s citizens voted for an independent Ukraine and chose Leonid Krawchuk, former communist ideologist, as their first democratically elected President. On July 10, 1994, Leonid Kuchma, former director of the world’s biggest rocket plant, defeated Leonid Krawchuk to become the second President of independent Ukraine.

Following the Orange Revolution, on December 26, 2004, after two rounds of falsified elections, Viktor Yushchenko beat the Kremlin-backed candidate in the third round. Under Yushchenko, Ukraine finally became free from Moscow’s 300-year domination. *** Can Ukraine survive the current Soviet loyalists aggression? Not without assistance from the West, but will that assistance come?

It’s Your Money and the Democrats Don’t Care

Posted on February 14, 2015February 14, 2015 by Denise Simon

Do you know how legislative bills begin and then what happens? Do you know what they may cost the taxpayers?

Sponsors of 700 bills in Congress didn’t put price tags on their proposals

Almost half of the bills introduced in the last Congress authorized spending tax dollars, but not specifically how many dollars. Instead, the proposals simply provided that “such sums as necessary” should be spent.All 20 congressmen who most frequently used the “such sums as necessary” formulation are liberals and among the most ardent proponents of expanding the federal government. House Republicans were advised by their leaders not to use the phrase, but some of them ignored the advice.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed “Democratic socialist,” led the list as the sponsor of 19 such bills.

His 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2014, for example, would require “the Department of Energy (DOE) to establish a program to provide rebates for the purchase and installation of photovoltaic systems with the goal to install 10 million systems.”

The Sanders bill provided specific instructions for what the government would need to do, and the cost of the solar panels would be known to his staff. The goal of the bill — increasing alternative energy sources — has significant public support. But Sanders didn’t include how much his proposal would cost, thus depriving his congressional colleagues and taxpayers of the means to weigh benefits versus costs.Nowhere in the bill is there a cost figure. It simply says “there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.”Florida Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson’s Fiscal Sanity Act for Appropriations bill is another whose cost is simply as much “as necessary.”

“It shows they aren’t serious fiscal stewards — they aren’t concerned with how much it costs, often-times. If they were, they could write in offsets saying ‘this fund over here will be decreased by the amount necessary,’” said Demian Brady, who tracks individual congressmen’s spending propensities for the National Taxpayers Union.

“It could also be a way to avoid accountability. If they did say $20 million for a gun buyback program, media and everyone would say she wants to spend $20 million. If you leave it blank, it’s a shield you can hide behind, even if they know how much it’s going to cost,” he said. Some were token efforts that sponsors never expected to go anywhere — they were introduced only so their sponsors could tell campaign backers that they tried. But occasionally those proposals wind up becoming policy anyway.“They say, ‘we didn’t bother to get an estimate because we didn’t expect it to go anywhere,’ but then soon we’ll find it as part of bigger legislation,” Brady said.When Rep. Maxine Waters wanted a “minority diabetes initiative,” the California Democrat didn’t care how much it cost, and didn’t attempt to measure it, craft a budget estimate or find a way to fund it. Instead, she asked colleagues to essentially vote for a blank check.

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey’s Caregiver Corps Act of 2014 would require the Department of Health and Human Services to “contract with a nonprofit” and “[a]llows the Secretary to award grants for the operation of local Corps programs.”Yet there is no mention of cost anywhere. At the very end of the description of the proposed program, it says simply, “There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as may be necessary.”“It’s very bad practice to put these things in place because they also lead to bloated appropriations. The authorizers have kind of punted,” said a senior Senate Republican aide. “We’d like to have all the authorizers be more accountable to things.”

Congress must first pass a bill “authorizing” money to be spent, and then another, separate appropriation bill officially funds it — generally one of a few major bills passed by the appropriations committee.

The handful of powerful congressional “appropriators” who meet in back rooms and until recently were able to dole out earmarks as favors have been the subject of significant ire as poster children for what is wrong with Washington.

But when lawmakers write bills that “authorize” funding without specifying amounts, they are ceding authority to the appropriations committees, who will have to fill in an amount, even though they’re much less acquainted with the purpose.

The Examiner analyzed legislation from the two-year congressional session that ended last month. Dollar amounts — or lack thereof — were extracted from the bill text by the Cato Institute as part of the libertarian think tank’s Deepbills project.

One reason for the Democratic dominance of the “such sums as necessary” list is that Democrats introduce more bills in general than Republicans. But another is that House Republican leadership cautioned its members not to use “such sums as necessary” at the beginning of last Congress, as one of nine “legislative protocols.” “Any bill or joint resolution authorizing discretionary appropriations shall specify the actual amount of funds being authorized,” the protocol says. “This protocol is designed to improve transparency and accountability in the authorization of discretionary programs.”

But it only discourages, not forbids, House Republicans from using the technique. The House Select Committee on Benghazi, formed to investigate Hillary Clinton’s State Department, was funded by “such sums as necessary,” leading Democrats opposed to the investigation to protest that it is irresponsible to allocate open-ended amounts of money with no end date.

And it doesn’t bind senators, who lead the list in bills introduced.

Sanders and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ. the most frequent users, didn’t respond to the Examiner’s requests for comment.

WRITING THE MOST BLANK CHECKS

Name Bills
Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) 19
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) 14
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) 13
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) 13
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) 11
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) 10
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) 10
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) 10
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) 9
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

But Barack Obama does not care either. His budget was presented last week and has zero chance of advancing with good reason. Obama’s Budget Hikes Taxes by $1.6 Trillion In his budget, Obama also proposes that over the next 10 years, tax cuts of $349 billion be accompanied by tax increases of $1.9 trillion, for a net 10-year tax increase of $1.6 trillion.

The president’s budget would repeal, let expire or limit:

the Lifetime Learning Credit;
the student loan interest deduction (for new borrowers);
Coverdell accounts; and
529 education savings plans.

The president’s budget would:

triple the maximum Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC);
expand the American Opportunity Tax Credit;
create an auto-enroll IRA for workers without an employer-based retirement plans (with an option to opt out);
create a new second earner credit of up to $500 for families where both spouses work; and
expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for workers without children and for non-custodial parents.

The president’s budget would raise taxes in many ways. For example, it would:

increase the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 28 percent (inclusive of the net investment income tax);
end stepped-up basis by treating bequests and gifts as realization events that would trigger tax liability for capital gains;
raise estate and gift taxes;
limit the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent;
create an additional alternative minimum tax designed to ensure certain high income taxpayer pay at least 30 percent of income —after charitable contributions—in taxes;
impose a 19 percent on the foreign earnings of U.S. companies;
raise tobacco taxes; and
impose a tax on the debt of financial institutions.

In addition, Obama’s budget increases the corporate welfare provided through the tax code, with substantially higher subsidies for alternative energy and politically favored infrastructure.

The budget does contain a constructive provision that would permanently extend section 179 expensing allowing small business to deduct up to $1 million of capital expenses.

White House Invited Muslim Brotherhood Policy

Posted on February 12, 2015February 13, 2015 by Denise Simon

A ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION WITH “THE STOP QATAR NOW COALITION”

Who Are the Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Leaders Obama Met?

US President Barack Obama, privately met with 14 Muslim leaders, including several leaders of Muslim Brotherhood front groups with ties to Hamas.

Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America and the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center.

The White House has released the names of senior American Muslim leaders that President Obama met with personally last week. The list of names was included on the transcript of the White House daily press briefing on Thursday, despite journalists having requested the information much sooner. Prior to that, the White House had refused to name the leaders.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the President meeting with representatives from any faith community and with the Muslim community in particular. Yet some of the individuals who met with the President have alarming links to the Muslim Brotherhood

and organizations that have funded terrorism.

Azhar Azeez represented the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in the talks with Obama. Declassified FBI documents show that ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group as early as 1987 and its past leaders include Abdurrahman Alamoudi, who was convicted on terrorism related charges in 2004.

In 2007, ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity shut down by the U.S. government for financing Hamas. The U.S. Department of Justice listed ISNA as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Mr. Azeez is also the senior National Director of Islamic Relief USA, the American branch of Islamic Relief worldwide. The United Arab Emirates lists Islamic Relief Worldwide as a terrorist organization. Israel also banned Islamic Relief from operating in the disputed territories it administers, accusing it of funding Hamas.

According to the Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs “The IRW provides support and assistance to Hamas’s infrastructure. The IRW’s activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by Hamas operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further Hamas’s ideology among the Palestinian population.”

Five senior members of Islamic Relief USA were named in a list of 30 Muslim Brotherhood operatives in America by the leading Egyptian newspaper El-Watan. Azeez’s bio also says he is a founder and past president of the Dallas/Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator. CAIR is also listed as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

Imam

Mohamed Magid is the President of the Islamic Society of North America and head of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society ( ADAMS) Center, in which capacity he met with the President. The ADAMS Center was investigated by the FBI for connections to terrorism funding and was raided in 2004 by federal agents.

Mohamed Magid signed a letter in September 2014 alongside other Islamist leaders which condemned the Islamic State while asserting the need for an Islamic Caliphate

and supporting the hudud

punishments of sharia

law, which include amputation, flogging and the execution of apostates. The letter said that a person could only be regarded as an apostate if the person “openly declares disbelief.”

Azhar Azeez also signed the aforementioned letter. Among the other signatories to that letter was terrorist supporting Sheikh

Abdullah bin Bayyah, who in the past endorsed a fatwa

that authorized the killing of US soldiers. He also said that giving donations to jihadists who fight Israel count as zakat

and said as recently as 2013 that Muslim leaders should give Hamas financial and military assistance to fight Israel. Bin Bayyah was cited by Obama in an address to the UN in September 2014 as a Muslim leader who supports peace.

Hoda Hawa is National Policy Advisor of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of which, Mather Hathout, served jail time in Egypt for his membership in the group.

In 2001 the then President of MPAC said that Israel should be included on the suspect list of those who might have perpetrated 9/11. MPAC cooperated with other Muslim-Brotherhood aligned groups to oppose the appointment of Muslim anti-Islamist activist Dr. Zudhi Jasser to the U.S. Commission on International Freedom.

MPAC co-founder Mather Hathout has also made statements in the past in support of Lebanese Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah.

They also have a very limited following. A 2011 Gallup poll found that only 6% of Muslim-American males and 1% of females chose MPAC as the organization that most represents their interests, even though MPAC has large resources and has been around since 1988.

Also present was Rahat Hussain, president of the Universal Muslim Association of America (UMAA) . The UMAA received thousands of dollars from the Alavi Foundation, an Iranian propaganda front group, from 2005 onwards. Clarion Project discovered that they received at least $138,000 from the Alavi Foundation between 2005 and 2012. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office investigations chief, Adam Kaufmann, said “We found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation.”

The British Government is set this week to launch a major clampdown on Muslim Brotherhood front groups and the funding of terrorism after lengthy investigations found multiple Muslim Brotherhood entities operating within the country.

Yet in America the State Department received a delegation from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The meetings were described as “fruitful” by one of the delegates. The State Department, after facing criticism for the meeting, then doubled down on their decision to do so in a later press briefing.

This is while Brotherhood representatives in Turkey are calling for violence on the streets in Egypt, saying “we are now in the retaliation phase.” At the same time, a Brotherhood TV station based in Turkey broadcast a threat to all foreigners in Egypt that they must flee the country or face being targeted by terrorist attacks, while another Muslim Brotherhood figure said “It is time to begin armed insurrection.”

Given that these American Muslim leaders have highly problematic connections to Muslim Brotherhood front groups, why are they being given access to meet the President personally, especially when one takes into account the presence of genuine anti-Islamist Muslim leaders like Dr. Zudhi Jasser who are denied such opportunities?

The Stop Qatar Now Coalition of good Patriots have spent weeks gathering evidence, documents and performed interviews to bring to publication the facts on the Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the American culture against the will and knowledge of Americans and the U.S. Constitution…

BROADTCAST LIVE WORLDWIDE: THURSDAYS – 9:00PM (eastern) / 6:00pm (pacific) on WDFP – Restoring America Radio , Red State Talk Radio, American Agenda, Nightside Radio Studios, and on Freedom In America Radio

Uncovering the AUMF Against Islamic State

Posted on February 11, 2015February 11, 2015 by Denise Simon

There is zero strategy in the Authorization of Military Force the White House sent electronically to Congress today. At the core of this feeble document is all deference to Iran and the building issues with Russia. Yet the most unspoken issue is Barack Obama taking a swipe at GW Bush.

Ralph Peters told Fox News this morning that Obama’s war authorization reads as if it were written by a nervous lawyer, not a bold Commander in Chief. He said there are so many caveats in it that you’d think it was a Hollywood contract negotiation.

As far as the ‘no enduring troops’ phrase, Peters says that’s simply a swipe at George W. Bush. He says this White House can’t get over the fact that Bush ever existed and it’s a dig at the occupation of Iraq.

The AUMF notably allows Obama to employ U.S. ground troops against ISIS, but with the proviso that such operations not be “enduring.” The three-year limitation comes alongside the repeal of the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, but the AUMF notably leaves intact the 2001 authorization to use military force against al Qaeda — the resolution the Obama administration is relying on to conduct its war on ISIS now.

The Obama administration’s draft language and transmittal letter, obtained from congressional sources, appears below:

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) poses a threat to the people and stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East, and to U.S. national security. It threatens American personnel and facilities located in the region and is responsible for the deaths of U.S. citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller. If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland.

I have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat ISIL. As part of this strategy, U.S. military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Although existing statutes provide me with the authority I need to take these actions, I have repeatedly expressed my commitment to working with the Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) against ISIL. Consistent with this commitment, I am submitting a draft AUMF that would authorize the continued use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL.

My Administration’s draft AUMF would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our Nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The authorization I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving

U.S. or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. It would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF.

Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

I can think of no better way for the Congress to join me in supporting our Nation’s security than by enacting this legislation, which would show the world we are united in our resolve to counter the threat posed by ISIL.

The White House,

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

***

Whereas the terrorist organization that has referred to itself as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and various other names (in this resolution referred to as ‘”ISIL’”) poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners;

Whereas ISIL holds significant territory in Iraq and Syria and has stated its intention to seize more territory and demonstrated the capability to do so;

Whereas ISIL leaders have stated that they intend to conduct terrorist attacks internationally, including against the United States, its citizens, and interests;

Whereas ISIL has committed despicable acts of violence and mass executions against Muslims, regardless of sect, who do not subscribe to ISIL’s depraved, violent, and oppressive ideology;

Whereas ISIL has threatened genocide and committed vicious acts of violence against religious and ethnic minority groups, including Iraqi Christian, Yezidi, and Turkmen populations;

Whereas ISIL has targeted innocent women and girls with horrific acts of violence, including abduction, enslavement, torture, rape, and forced marriage; Whereas ISIL is responsible for the deaths of innocent United States citizens, including James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller;

Whereas the United States is working with regional and global allies and partners to degrade and defeat ISIL, to cut off its funding, to stop the flow of foreign fighters to its ranks, and to support local communities as they reject ISIL;

Whereas the announcement of the anti-ISIL Coalition on September 5, 2014, during the NATO Summit in Wales, stated that ISIL poses a serious threat and should be countered by a broad international coalition;

Whereas the United States calls on its allies and partners, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa that have not already done so to join and participate in the anti-ISIL Coalition;

Whereas the United States has taken military action against ISIL in accordance with its inherent right of individual and collective self-defense;

Whereas President Obama has repeatedly expressed his commitment to working with Congress to pass a bipartisan authorization for the use of military force for the anti-ISIL military campaign;

and Whereas President Obama has made clear that in this campaign it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground instead of large-scale deployments of U.S. ground forces:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for Use of Military Force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized, subject to the limitations in subsection (c), to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces as defined in section 5.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.— (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)). (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

(c) LIMITATIONS.— The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.

SEC. 3. DURATION OF THIS AUTHORIZATION. This authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, unless reauthorized.

SEC. 4. REPORTS.

The President shall report to Congress at least once every six months on specific actions taken pursuant to this authorization.

SEC. 5. ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FORCES DEFINED.

In this joint resolution, the term ‘‘associated persons or forces’’ means individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside ISIL or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.

SEC. 6. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107– 243; 116 Stat. 1498; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

But what about Libya, Afghanistan or Pakistan?

The Islamic State has expanded its presence in the failed state of Libya, and if not confronted, the terror group may be able to gain strategic territory in its quest to form an Islamic Caliphate, according to the Washington Institute’s Andrew Engel. While the United States and its allies are focused on Syria and Iraq, IS (commonly referred to as ISIL or ISIS) has its eyes beyond that fight.

The report, titled The Islamic State’s Expansion in Libya, says Libya’s ex-ambassador to the Emirates Aref Ali Nayed is worried that if Washington does not act, IS will use Libya to threaten Europe. The IS has increased its physical and media presence in the last three months. A local terrorist organization, the Islamic Youth Shura Council (IYSC), has pledged its loyalty to IS.

“ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi recognized the Libyan ‘provinces’ of Barqa (Cyrenaica), Tripolitania, and Fezzan as belonging to his self-styled ‘caliphate,’” Engel said.

Adding to concerns, IS is winning the battle to be the dominant terrorist group in the region, just as it is in Iraq and Syria. Al-Barqawi has said that the terrorist organization would like to remove the borders of North African countries Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt to form a province similar to the one they are building in Syria and Iraq, which they call the “Euphrates Province.”