Islamic State Sponsor of Terrorism and U.S. Chamber of Commerce Pulling for the Same Republican Presidential Candidates in 2016

As it stands today, there are three Republican establishment candidates for President in 2016 that are considered acceptable by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCOC) – Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Chris Christie. Unfortunately, those candidates are also considered acceptable by Qatar, a nation that harbors Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas terrorist leaders. What’s more disturbing is that the USCOC has had a cozy relationship with that country for years; they’re business partners.

Qatar may be in a position to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election too. Despite harboring the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader as well as leaders of Hamas – an officially designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) – and being ground zero for the Brotherhood’s propaganda network Al-Jazeera, the nation of Qatar and USCOC have common interests when it comes to elections.

USCOC President Donohue

USCOC President Donohue

In 2010, as reported, USCOC COO and Executive Vice-President David Chavern was in Qatar to inaugurate the American Chamber of Commerce in Qatar (AmCham Qatar). Four years later, that country would be on the receiving end of $5 Billion and five Taliban commanders in exchange for an American deserter. In this video, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer explains that he was consulted on how to best get Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl back but says that Obama decided to go with the option that involved trading five Taliban commanders and $5 Billion to Qatar in exchange for Bergdahl:

Does anyone know how that money is being spent?

Keeping in mind the partnership between Qatar and the USCOC, would it be possible for Qatar – a foreign country – to donate any of that money to USCOC anonymously for the purpose of nominating / electing a Republican establishment figure? Unfortunately, the answer to both questions could be yes, but only with trickery and law skirting, which the USCOC has been accused of doing in the past.


While federal election laws prohibit any foreign national from contributing to U.S. candidates in elections, USCOC does in fact take foreign donations. The issue has to do with how the Chamber ensures that none of that money goes toward elections. Here is an excerpt from an article by about one month prior to the 2010 midterms:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue has declared that his group will spend $75 million in connection with the upcoming midterm election. But the chamber won’t say specifically where that money is coming from, which gives corporations a conduit for funding attack ads anonymously.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce COO Chavern in Qatar in 2010.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce COO Chavern in Qatar in 2010.

None other than President Obama himself expressed this concern about USCOC in 2010:

“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from.”

Earlier this year, Michelle Malkin suggested it was all a dog and pony show:

Allow me to say, “I told you so.” In 2010, when President Barack Obama hypocritically attacked the Chamber for accepting “foreign donations” right before the midterm elections, many on the right rushed to the group’s side. But as I warned then, the purported enemy of my enemy is . . . sometimes my worst enemy. Barely three months after their Kabuki campaign fight, Obama and the Chamber had already kissed and made up.

It’s worth noting that the New York Times reported Qatar was donating $14.8 million to the Brookings Institute over four years. Despite protestations by Brookings that the donation would not influence their research papers and reporting on Qatar, not only is there evidence to the contrary but such an arrangement is reminiscent of maniacal preacher Jim Jones giving “commendation awards” to California media entities like the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, and others (Chapter 5 of Unsung Davids). The mere acceptance compromises the recipient, which serves the donor’s purpose. The same can be said for the USCOC, even if any money received from Qatar is technically not allowed to go toward elections.

Jones speaking at the Muslim Spiritual Jubilee in 1976.

Jones speaking at the Muslim Spiritual Jubilee in 1976.

Some might point to the USCOC working to elect Republican candidates. While that’s true, the Chamber is interested in electing establishment Republican candidates, not conservative ones. As for Qatar, if a Republican President were to get elected, someone like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Mitt Romney would certainly be preferable to a conservative who might blow the lid on Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government.

In 2008, establishment Republican John McCain was the nominee and he has more than burnished his bonafides as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer in the years since, as demonstrated. In 2011, McCain cheered the Arab Spring and said he hoped it would spread around the world:

In 2012, Islamic Monthly endorsed Mitt Romney for President. As reported, Romney completely avoided the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood. At one campaign event, he was asked about the affiliations of Huma Abedin and ran away from the issue as fast as he could:

As for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the Muslim Brotherhood may not have a more staunch advocate than this establishment figure, as has chronicled, to include praising an Imam with connections to Hamas at the Governors mansion and appointing another very questionable figure to a Superior Court judgeship in his state:

Inexplicably, another establishment Republican – House Speaker John Boehner – earlier this year introduced Imam Hamad Ahmad Chebli, a Muslim Brotherhood-connected Imam to deliver a prayer on the House Floor. As reported, this was one of Boehner’s most egregious acts. Chebli is also someone with whom Christie is quite familiar:

Chebli (far left) and Christie (talking with Ali Chaudry).

Chebli (far left) and Christie (talking with Ali Chaudry).

The recently anointed front-runner for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination is Jeb Bush. Bush’s desire to run likely has as much or more to do with protecting the family legacy and controlling information about the Bush name as it does with becoming president. His brother’s presidency is aging more and more poorly with the passage of time. As has reported on extensively, George W. Bush embraced Muslim Brotherhood leaders both before and after 9/11. He also protected the Clintons for completely separate reasons.

Jeb: Will fight to protect his brother's legacy.

Jeb: Will fight to protect his brother’s legacy.

Speaking of Jeb, he too has a history of cozy relations with CAIR. Here is a letter he sent to the Muslim Brotherhood front group after receiving an invitation to attend one of the group’s events:

2005 Letter from Jeb Bush to CAIR.

2005 Letter from Jeb Bush to CAIR.

In various ways, Republican establishment candidates are beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that is strongly supported by Qatar. Muslim Brotherhood countries would indeed support many of the issues supported by establishment Republicans. In the case of common core, this is something that Jeb Bush supports. You know who else would throw their support behind such a thing? You guessed it, the Muslim Brotherhood. Check out the kinds of things American children would learn about if Common Core were adopted:


Another issue near and dear to the hearts of the USCOC and establishment Republicans is immigration / amnesty. Again, this issue lines up perfectly with Muslim Brotherhood-friendly nations that would love to see further infiltration of the U.S. and stronger Muslim voting blocs.

When it comes to amnesty, the normally conservative Wall Street Journal has been all for it for quite a while. In a recent article, it doesn’t disappoint in that regard.

The ask is simple. In the past, the USCOC has been cagey about how money it receives from overseas companies is spent, saying only that it isn’t used for political ads and then not being transparent about its accounting.

Considering that USCOC has a relationship with a State Sponsor of Terrorism (without the official label), transparency should be in abundance.


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,