Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233 (202) 489-5182

Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Corporate funds must be donated to the GOP Trust Super PAC.

Site Header


   "Always remember that you are Americans, and it is your birthright to    

   dream great dreams in this sweet and blessed land, truly the greatest,    

   freest, strongest nation on Earth."  — RONALD REAGAN


Obama’s Favorite Terrorist Group

by Scott Wheeler

Obama has, at times, refused to negotiate with Congress on the basis that the Republican Party has been hijacked by “extremists” for insisting on budget cuts. On the other hand, Obama demands that Israel negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist group whose stated goal is the complete annihilation of the Jewish people. This raises a serious question: What would a compromise between Israel and Hamas look like? Only half of the Jews in Israel be murdered? Perhaps three quarters are allowed to survive, but all must live under Sharia Law? Anyone who dismisses that statement as hyperbole better have a ready answer to the question “What must Israel give up in order to reach a compromise with those who seek its total destruction?” 


 Obama has been steeped in anti-Israel propaganda for at least 25 years--from his anti-Semitic Pastor Jeremiah Wright, to his close relationship with Hamas activist Rashid Khalidi. This would explain the Obama Administration’s equivalency approach in the current conflict in Israel in which it places Hamas on the same platform with Israel and pretends that murderous barbarians are no different than the legitimate government of Israel. While Hamas hates America,

and the West in general, it has had a strange affinity for Obama. The terrorist group Hamas endorsed Obama in 2008, but instead of feeling suckered like many of the Americans who voted for him, they have actually seen results.  An Agence France Presse report from March of 2009 quoted Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal praising what he calls Obama’s “new lexicon” for describing terrorist’s demands.  "The challenge for everyone is that [Obama's new language] is a prelude to a sincere change in U.S. . . . foreign policy," said Meshaal. 


By “sincere change” the Hamas leader was referring to the previous U.S. policy in the Middle East that stated unequivocally that we would not support Hamas’ goal of killing all the Jews, taking over Israeli land and turning it into the new Palestine.  That is the reason for Hamas’ existence. There is no arguing this point: it is stated clearly in Hamas’ charter, has been reiterated constantly ever since, and rewritten in the blood of over eight hundred Jews they have murdered since the organization was founded in 1988.


Obama is reaching out a friendly hand to the terrorist organization that has not only murdered hundreds of innocent Israeli women and children, but Americans as well. Hamas has also threatened attacks within the United States several times in the past 15 years and has had attacks thwarted by U.S. and Canadian intelligence. Ironically, some early warnings of those failed attacks came to us from Israeli intelligence.


During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama was forced to fire one of his campaign advisors, Robert Malley, for advocating negotiations with Hamas, a charade that was immediately erased once in office. In June 2009, Obama rewarded Hamas with a visit from former President Jimmy Carter who became the highest-ranking official to ever meet with Hamas.  Carter stated that he was there as a “private citizen,” but was preparing a report for the Obama administration about the visit. Carter himself has been relentless in his support of Hamas to pursue its murderous policies aimed primarily at civilians.


It also came at a time when Obama was attempting to legitimize Hamas and preparing to send them financial aid.  In fact, some reports at the time indicated that Carter was delivering that message from Obama. While in Gaza, Carter also urged Hamas to recognize the right of Israel to exist. Exposing the uselessness of this entire gambit, a senior Hamas official announced:  “Recognizing Israel is completely unacceptable.”


June of 2010, one year after Carter’s visit to Gaza, President Obama transformed the United States, both technically and literally, into a “state sponsor of terrorism,” a designation that, when applied to other countries, means no aid, no trade, and such a nation is an adversary of the U.S. and her allies.  Like many of the ambiguities chasing Obama, his announcement of a $400 million aid package to the West Bank and Gaza stunned anyone who understands the region.  The West Bank and Gaza were, at the time, two separate entities--the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas, reputed to be a moderate by radical Islamic standards, and Gaza, which is run by the democratically-elected Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as Hamas. 


When announcing this “aid package” to Gaza, Obama must have thought us a nation of fools. Abbas was not the head of Gaza.  Perhaps it was a parlor trick to have Abbas physically present at the White House when Obama made the announcement, as if it would somehow conflate – in the collective mind of the media – Abbas, who they accept as a moderate, and the radical terrorist group Hamas into one acceptably moderate amalgam. However you characterize the farce, it was clearly a bold attempt to avoid scrutiny while handing over American tax dollars to a terrorist organization that has murdered American citizens.


Obama and his administration also appear to be turning a blind eye to American citizens and their associates, who appear to be bankrolling the Abbas regime in the West Bank. Rakhat Aliyev, a criminal and former Kazakh KGB Major General, his business associate Issam Hourani and his brother Devincci Hourani, a U.S. citizen, have entered into a business deal with Yasser Abbas, the son of Mahmoud Abbas. 


General Aliyev, currently in jail in Austria after his June 2014 arrest for charges relating to murder, torture and political assassination, worked with the Hourani brothers, both billionaire oligarchs who have previously filed claims against the World Bank for freezing their assets, and Yasser Abbas.  The group violated various U.S. sanctions to negotiate and secure lucrative oil contracts in Sudan for the Palestinian Authority. The travel undertaken during these negotiations was done on Palestinian diplomatic passports, indicating the close links of the group to the Palestinian Authority.


The existence of this group of business partners is dubious enough. However, worse still is that these individuals were investigated by a Congressional Committee for breaking U.S. federal law, breaking U.S. sanctions and financially supporting a recognized terrorist group, yet no charges were brought against any members. It is certainly curious that none of these men have been punished in any way for financing the regime that seeks to wipe Israel off the map.  


Whatever else you can say about Obama, at least he never forgets his friends.  Thanks to the dogged investigative journalism of Aaron Klein, we know that some Gazans bought themselves a stake in the Obama presidency. “Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign,” Klein reported in 2008. Perhaps the Palestinians and Hamas knew more about Obama than we did.


The timing of Obama’s announcement of the aid to Gaza was rather curious.  Late May 2010, Israel had just taken action against ships that were calling themselves a “freedom flotilla,” sponsored by the Free Gaza movement.  The ships were attempting to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, put in place specifically to stop the flow of weapons and war supplies that Hamas uses to attack Israel and its citizens.  Israeli soldiers boarded the ship and were violently attacked by the so-called “peace activists.”  The soldiers responded in kind by dispatching the attackers.  Obama rushed to join the rest of the Islamic world in condemning Israel for taking action to defend itself against terrorist attacks. “Gaza has become the symbol in the Arab world of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and we have to change that,” said an unnamed White House official to the New York Times following the incident. 


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded an investigation of Israel’s actions in defending itself.  A State Department spokesman also issued this revealing statement referring to a warning issued to Israel in the run up to the intercept, "We emphasized caution and restraint given the anticipated presence of civilians, including American citizens," referring to the leftist anti-Israel cobelligerents aboard the boats. So on the one hand, Obama warns our ally, Israel that it should use “restraint” in defending itself against American radicals who might be participating in a breach of its sovereign waters, and on the other hand sends aid to Hamas, a “Specifically Designated Global Terrorist Organization” which has actually murdered innocent Americans.


While Obama can characterize his political opposition as “extremists” that he should not negotiate with because they prefer a smaller rate of growth in government spending, he demands that Israelis negotiate with Obama’s favorite terrorist organization—a group committed to the destruction of all Jews.                                                                                                        


Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. 

2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340 Washington, DC 20037-1233 (202) 489-5182


Contributions to The National Republican Trust PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Corporate funds must be donated to the GOP Trust Super PAC.

Refugees are streaming into the Southern border of the U.S. from Central American countries through Mexico by the tens of thousands, and Democrats are doing everything they can to keep them here. The public wailing over the conditions from where the immigrants came is merely politics--Democrat style.  The recent spike in child refugees from Central America directly corresponded with the Obama Administration's policy of allowing immigrant children--regardless of their legal status--to stay in the U.S. Democrats have always had a soft spot for poor immigrants from Mexico and Central America, and why shouldn't they? Immigrants from those countries vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. In the 2012 presidential election, Obama received 71% of the Latino vote, Romney got 27%, and similar trends show up in almost all elections across the nation. Democrats get a huge advantage from certain immigrant groups and those preferences betray the Democrat's compassion. Does it seem overly cynical to question Democrats' motives and compassion? Let us go back to President Clinton, who experienced an influx of immigrants from Cuba. According to the Encyclopedia of American Foreign Relations: "As social and economic conditions deteriorated in Cuba, many more Cubans, using what boats they could find, headed for Florida in the summer of 1994. These 'rafters' posed a diplomatic problem for the Clinton administration." Notice that "social and economic conditions deteriorated" was the reason for refugees fleeing the socialist paradise of Cuba. Sounds like the very same reasons that Democrats are using now for the refugee problem; back then, however, Democrats had a different way of dealing with the crisis: "[T]he president [Clinton] announced that the 'rafters' would not be allowed to reach the United States. Rather, the Coast Guard returned them to Cuba or detained them at the Guantánamo naval base in Cuba."    Does anyone recall any media reports about the heartless treatment of Cuban refugees at the hands of Democrats? Of course not, because there were none. Cubans not only live in poverty under a communist dictatorship, but are persecuted for dissent from the communist government there, the precise kind of refugee that the U.S. should welcome, but perhaps that is why Democrats didn't want them here: "The [Clinton] administration knew that if the Cubans reached Florida, they would be covered by the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act." Why the disparity between how Democrats treat one set of refugees versus another? We have seen that immigrants from Mexico and Central America overwhelmingly favor Democrats, but NOT Cubans. According to the Cuba Transition Project, in the 2000 election, Republican George W. Bush received 75% of the Cuban vote, and in 2004, Bush got 78%. No wonder Democrats have done their best to keep truly suffering Cuban refugees from making it to the U.S., having experienced their socialist policies first hand, few of them will ever vote for a Democrat. And Florida, where almost all Cuban/Americans live, is an extremely important electoral state. In the last four presidential elections, Florida was critical in deciding the winner--with Obama winning it by a thin 1%.  If Clinton had not cruelly stopped Cuban refugees from reaching Florida in the 1990s, the increase in Cuban/American citizenship could have made Florida a solid Republican state. The Democrats' outrageous advocacy for illegal immigrants is rooted in political self-interest, so before anyone buys their phony compassion-for-immigrants-play, look at Democrats' record with Cubans and recognize that if immigrants from Central America and Mexico voted for Republicans the way Cuban/Americans do, the Democrats would be advocating that they be stopped before they ever arrive here--and the ones who got here illegally would be on the first bus back south of the border, maybe even with a knife in their backs.