Five books on WWII and Soviet subversion that challenge Ken Burns’ ‘The Roosevelts’ documentary

By: Benjamin Weingarten
The Blaze

Recently we noted that there was little if any dissent when it came to the efficacy of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies as portrayed in Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts” series, providing several titles challenging the pollyannaish view put forth. Amity Shlaes, an author of one of the books on our list, “The Forgotten Man,” followed up with two recommendations of her own, including Gene Smiley’s “Rethinking the Great Depression” and “The Great Depression: A Diary” by Benjamin Roth.

In response to our post, one reader, Diana West, Blaze contributor and author of the groundbreaking and highly controversialAmerican Betrayal,” suggested several books on FDR and his administration during World War II that similarly challenge the perspective put forth in “The Roosevelts.”

The "Big Three" at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. From left to right: Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Premier Josef Stalin. (Image Source: Wikipedia)

The major thrust of the books on West’s list — namely that Roosevelt’s cabinet and much of the federal bureaucracy was filled with Communists, fellow travelers, dupes and “useful idiots,” and that at the very least this influenced an FDR agenda that proved heavily favorable towards “Uncle Joe” Stalin and the Soviet Union, enabling its expansion and increasing its sphere of influence well beyond its borders — leads to a total paradigm shift when thinking about the World War II era. It bears noting that in “American Betrayal,” West herself seeks to draw a parallel between the modern-day whitewashing of Islamic supremacism, and influence of Islamic supremacists internal and external on America’s government, and that of the Communists and their sympathizers in Roosevelt’s day.

Below are West’s five book recommendations, which may challenge your perspective on and interpretation of the major events, figures and policies implemented during World War II. These titles provide context missing from not only Ken Burns’ documentary, but nearly all popular chronicles of this period of American history.

1. Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein

Stalin's Secret Agents

2. Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor by John Koster

Operation Snow

3. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy by John Dietrich

The Morgenthau Plan

4. American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character by Diana West

American Betrayal

5. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by Herbert Hoover

Freedom Betrayed



Note: The links to the books in this post will give you an option to elect to donate a percentage of the proceeds from the sale to a charity of your choice. Mercury One, the charity founded by TheBlaze’s Glenn Beck, is one of the options. Donations to Mercury One go towards efforts such as disaster relief, support for education, support for Israel and support for veterans and our military. You can read more about Amazon Smile and Mercury One here.

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

You can find all of our Blaze Books interviews on Soundcloud and Stitcher, and subscribe to our podcast automatically via iTunes.


UN Season

Arlene from Israel

You will find that during this High Holiday season – and extending through Sukkot – my postings will be less frequent.  I hope that all who celebrated Rosh Hashana found it meaningful and joyful.


Besides being the High Holiday season, this is also the time of year when a new session of the UN General Assembly starts (hardly to be compared in one breath!).  This means – aren’t we lucky? – that various heads of state and assorted other persons address the GA.

Last Wednesday (which was the eve of Rosh Hashana), President Obama spoke.  Ben Shapiro, a skilled and perceptive analyst – as well as a Harvard-trained lawyer – has written a piece on that speech that summarizes the important points neatly.

Shapiro says Obama’s speech was “chock-full of moronic platitudes, internal contradictions, and morally disgusting sentiments.” He then proceeds to demonstrate this with considerable effectiveness.  I had hoped to cite extensively from this critique, but realize I must focus on other matters here.  And so I will simply call this to your attention, and suggest you read it:


His opening paragraph is not quite my style, but he is on the mark.


And then, sigh, there was the horrendous, and long-winded speech of Mahmoud Abbas before the General Assembly on Friday.  It was fraught with lies and accusations against Israel:

Most reprehensibly, he accuses Israel of having conducted a “war of genocide” against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

First speaking about the fact that three wars have been “waged by the racist occupying State in five years against Gaza…,” he then declares that (emphasis is mine):

“The difference today is that the scale of this genocidal crime is larger, and that the list of martyrs, especially children, is longer…

”And, the difference today is that the devastation caused by this recent aggression is unmatched in modern times

”This last war against Gaza was a series of absolute war crimes carried out before the eyes and ears of the entire world, moment by moment, in a manner that makes it inconceivable that anyone today can claim that they did not realize the magnitude and horror of the crime.”

You can see the entire speech (if you have the stomach for it) plus commentary by IMRA director Dr. Aaron Lerner, here:



Abbas uses buzz words – genocide, martyrs, war crimes, occupation – without the remotest attention to factual reality.

Of course there is no mention of Hamas – either Hamas’s aggression against Israel or its use of human shields – for he is thoroughly in bed with Hamas (about which more below).

And his exaggeration is stupendous – e.g., “recent aggression unmatched in modern times,” when modern times are witness to Syria, the genuine genocide of Christians, and more.

Declaring that Israel “did not miss an opportunity to undermine the chance for peace,” Abbas says, “The occupation’s campaign specifically targeted the City of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, attempting to artificially alter the spirit, identity and character of the Holy City, focusing on Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

This is of particular note because it is of a piece with the on-going theme I’ve been writing about  – the attempt by the Palestinian Arabs to undermine and delegitimize Israeli sovereignty, most especially in Jerusalem. (About this exceedingly worrisome situation, too, I will have more to say soon.)

When he refers to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, he means the Temple Mount, which in Arabic is actually Haram al Sharif (often translated as Noble Sanctuary, which has a more generic meaning).  What he has done is attempt to conflate the Mosque with the entire Mount, as if it has no other history or significance.


Of particular note is this comment by Abbas (emphasis added):

”I affirm in front of you that the Palestinian people hold steadfast to their legitimate right to defend themselves against the Israeli war machine and to their legitimate right to resist this colonial, racist Israeli occupation.”
He is claiming the right to be violent.  “Resistance” is a code word for jihad and terrorism.


Threats of violence aside, with this speech, Abbas has begun the game of attempting to secure international backing – via the UN – for a Palestinian state, while delegitimizing Israel.  He says (emphasis added):

“And now, where do we go from here?

“…It is impossible, and I repeat – it is impossible – to return to the cycle of negotiations that failed to deal with the substance of the matter and the fundamental question…

There is no meaning or value in negotiations for which the agreed objective is not ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the independence of the State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital on the entire Palestinian Territory occupied in the 1967 war. And, there is no value in negotiations which are not linked to a firm timetable for the implementation of this goal.

“The time has come to end this settlement occupation…

”During the past two weeks, Palestine and the Arab Group undertook intensive contacts with the various regional groups in the United Nations to prepare for the introduction of a draft resolution to be adopted by the United Nations Security Council on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to push forward the efforts to achieve peace…

“This endeavor aspires to correct the deficiency of the previous efforts to achieve peace by affirming the goal of ending the Israeli occupation and achieving the two-State solution, of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, over the entire territory occupied in 1967, alongside the State of Israel and reaching a just and agreed upon solution to the plight of the Palestine refugees on the basis of resolution 194, with a specific timeframe for the implementation of these objectives as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative. This will be linked to the immediate resumption of negotiations between Palestine and Israel to demarcate the borders, reach a detailed and comprehensive agreement and draft a peace treaty between them.”


This venture is pie-in-the sky.  And I will enumerate here the most basic reasons why:

[] The United States has already called Abbas’s speech “unconstructive,” “provocative,” and “disappointing.”  The American position is that final borders must be resolved via negotiations.  The US almost certainly will veto what Abbas proposes.

[] The United Nations, including the Security Council, cannot create states.  It is not in the hands of the SC to declare a Palestinian State.

[] There is no “1967 border” (it was a temporary armistice line) and no legal justification for the claim that everything to the east of that line “belongs” to a Palestinian state.  In point of fact, SC Resolution 242 does NOT require Israel to return to that line, as it would not provide a secure border; it instead calls for the final border to be determined via negotiations.  What is more, SC Resolution 242 does not MENTION a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people at all.

[]  Resolution 194, to which Abbas refers, does NOT, as the Palestinian Arabs claim ad infinitum, mandate a “right of return.”  It was a resolution of the General Assembly, which can only make non-binding recommendations, and, in fact, put forth a variety of possible ways to resolve the situation, including settlement in a third country.

[] Abbas made no mention of this, but the PLO is in theory committed to the terms of the Oslo Accords, signed with Israel.  The Palestinian Authority, which was supposed to be a temporary administrative entity only, was actually created by the Accords.  Those Accords call for a final status agreement to be achieved VIA NEGOTIATIONS.  Abbas, by this action, is abrogating the Oslo Accords.   Nowhere in the Accords is there any statement that defines all of the land beyond the armistice line as “belonging” to the Palestinian Arabs. That is clear on the face of the matter, as Area C was assigned to Israel fully with regard to civil and military control. It does not spell out a “state” as the necessary conclusion of a final status agreement and it does not preclude building by Israel in area C.


The entire matter of Israel not being an “occupier” is at the core of the Legal Grounds Campaign.  I will come back to this again and again, but here simply note that there is significant legal backing for this position.  Judea and Samaria, at most, are unclaimed Mandate land.  Israel cannot be termed an occupier of this land, which was given to her under international law in the first place.


I note here that Abbas ends by saying that after the UN forces terms on Israel, the Palestinian State and Israel will immediately go to negotiations to settle final matters. What he is doing here is obvious: he knows the PA is supposed to negotiate terms, and, wary of being called on this, has proposed these “negotiations” after the fact.


Abbas spoke at the UN on Friday.  The very day before – after two days of negotiations in Cairo – Fatah and Hamas had announced that they had come to terms for a final agreement on a unity government, under Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah.  That unity government will be taking charge in Gaza.


There are serious questions as to how long this will last, but right now this deal serves them both – it makes Abbas a “player” in what goes on in Gaza, and it allows reconstruction materials and funds to come into Gaza, which suits Hamas and which would not happen in the same way were Hamas alone in charge.  But this might be more realistically viewed as a temporary fiction, destined to ultimately fall apart.

Right now it is of no comfort that PA security forces will join with Hamas forces in Gaza to oversee the Gaza crossings.


There is no question in my mind about the fact that the tone Abbas assumed at the UN reflects this brand new unity reconciliation: he played down negotiations, defended the right to “resist,” focused heavily on Israeli “crimes” in Gaza, etc.  Not only is he factoring in Hamas positions, he certainly knows that there will be no negotiations with Israel as long as Hamas is a participant in the unity government.


Prime Minister Netanyahu is in New York.  He had a very positive meeting with of Indian Prime Minister Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi last night, to discuss Iran and strengthening of bilateral ties.  Earlier yesterday, he lunched with Sec. of State Kerry, at which time. according to news reports, he lashed out regarding Abbas. And he has yet to meet with Obama.

But his primary purpose in coming was to address the UN General Assembly and, presumably, to counter the slanders of Abbas.  This he did early afternoon NY time ( evening Israeli time) – just a short while ago as I write.  He had promoted this talk as one that would be a “razor sharp” retort. And so I held off sending out this post until after he spoke.  But for me the razor was more than a bit dull.


I would not say that Netanyahu’s speech was without good points. They were there, and they make Israel’s case. But they are points we’ve heard from him before:

The possibility of peace is at risk because of militant Islam, whose goal is to dominate the world.  This cancer must be eradicated in all its forms.  But it seems that countries that support hitting ISIS oppose Israel’s attacks on Hamas – even though at bottom Hamas and ISIS are one and the same in their radical Islamic vision.

One place where the militant Islamic dream may be realized is Iran, which will be enormously more dangerous if it has nuclear weapons.  If you wouldn’t let ISIS have such weapons, you cannot let Iran have them either.  Iran’s nuclear capability must be fully dismantled.  To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.

Every time militant Islam succeeds, militants everywhere are emboldened.  Israel’s fight against Hamas is not just for Israel, it is the world’s fight.


Netanyahu then described the propaganda war that Israel had to fight as it was battling Hamas rockets.  In the course of doing this, clearly he was answering the charges of Abbas, but unfortunately was not explicit in saying so. What he did say:

The reality is that Gazan citizens were inadvertently and regrettably being killed because of Hamas’s use of human shields.  Israel sought to minimize the deaths – warning civilians with notices, etc.

“No other country has ever gone to greater lengths to protect civilians of its enemy.  The IDF upheld the highest moral standards of any army in the world.  It deserves admiration, not condemnation.”

What Hamas did was a war crime.  And Abbas, as the head of the unity government, bears responsibility.


He turned then to accusations leveled at the UN Human Rights Council, which – in deciding to investigate Israel and give Hamas a free pass – has things upside down.  The Council has given a clear message to terrorist regimes – use human shields, it works.

What the Council is doing is a manifestation of the return of anti-Semitism that we are now seeing.

Abbas at the podium accused Israel although he himself called for a Judenrein Palestine. “In what moral universe is warning civilians to get out of the way considered genocide?”


So far, OK, if unexceptional.  Some good lines, some good points.

But then… then he began to talk about “historic opportunity.”  We’ve heard this before as well: the new recognition of leading Arab states that they have concerns in common with Israel.  This has the potential for partnership.  These Arab states may help facilitate an Israel-Palestinian peace.

An Israeli-Palestinian peace?  The old template for peace must be updated to allow for Arab participation.

He is willing to make an historic compromise for peace.  Some territorial concession would be necessary. But what is important are “rock solid security arrangements.”  Withdrawal from Lebanon and from Gaza led to terrorist entities in these places.  We cannot allow ISIS into Judea and Samaria.

In any peace agreement, Israel has to be able to defend itself by itself.

This, I would presume, is Netanyahu’s way of countering Abbas’s proposal regarding “Palestine” to the 1967 line.  Such a formulation would not provide the strategic depth that is necessary for Israeli self-defense.  But he does not actually say this.

For me, this is insufficient, a cop-out.

What I had hoped to hear was a crystal clear statement that a Fatah that is joined with Hamas cannot be considered a partner for peace. That there can be no talk of negotiations, as fervently as Israel hopes for peace, until Fatah’s leaders renounce violence. As it is, just days ago, Abbas, right on the UN dais, defended Fatah’s right to violent resistance.  Before there can be peace, Fatah must demonstrate a genuine desire for it.  And this is something we’ve yet to see.

Did Netanyahu – always eager to please – feel the need to mention a willingness to compromise for peace because Abbas had accused Israel of undermining peace?  Truly do I hope that is not the case.

You can see his entire speech here:



ICLA Calls for More Effective Protection of Muslim Women in the UK



International Civil Liberties Alliance

On behalf of International Civil Liberties Alliance I would like to suggest that the United Kingdom consider the immediate implementation of one very practical step in order to ensure the effective protection of Womens’ Rights for one of the most vulnerable part of its population : Muslim women.

The International Civil Liberties Alliance ask for an immediate banning of all Sharia courts in the United Kingdom which deal and give judgments about family matters and private conflicts.

Sharia courts apply sharia rules which are denying equality of Right between men and women and generally disregard any kind of compliance or compatibility with Human Rights.

Tolerating the existence of Sharia courts and allowing them to arbitrate in private family conflicts constitute a gross violation of UK commitments in regard to gender equality and women’s protection.

In theory, any woman unhappy with a Sharia court decision has the right of appeal to a British court. But actually, we know that Muslim women are very often prisoners of family and community, bonds which deny them any real possibility to contest a Sharia court decision.

The international Civil Liberties Alliance fails to see how United Kingdom can allow Sharia courts to operate on its territory and at the same time pretend to uphold its OSCE’s commitments promoting Women ’s Rights or Muslim women’s right to a fair trial as defined by the European Convention of Human Rights article 6:

I quote : “. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” End of quote.

Sharia courts are by no way impartial toward women and will never be so because they apply Sharia regulations. It is impossible to see how such tribunals could ever have anything other than a negative impact on the promotion of Women’s Right in UK Muslim communities.


The International Civil Liberties Alliance ask the United Kingdom:

First: To immediately deny Sharia courts any competence in family matters and private conflicts.

Second : To adopt policies aiming to permanently ban Sharia courts from UK.

ICLA also ask from all participating states a renewed vigilance about any attempt to create Sharia courts or equivalent institutions whatever name they use. Please remember your commitments to protect Human Rights, Women’s Rights, Children’s rRghts and firmly reject any such future attempts.


Communist ‘recipe’ for U.S. revealed

By: Gina Loudon

Trevor Loudon used to get up at 2 a.m. each morning to bake dozens of loaves of bread.

But today, the former baker from Christchurch, New Zealand, is up early to catch communists at work, and the “secret recipes” he’s discovered have already shaken up American politics, exposing politicians, activists and former President Obama advisor Van Jones.

Loudon’s investigative work began after watching the rise of communism in his home country of New Zealand. Worried the same thing might happen in the U.S., he asked a former communist to explain how it happened.

That confidant, Loudon told WND, revealed the big secret of the Marxists is that they make small gains by infiltrating institutions that have political influence ¬– like churches, labor unions and universities – and spread their “yeast” from there. In time, the communists within rise up to infiltrate and control the much larger, mainstream political parties and institutions.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/communist-recipe-for-u-s-revealed/#IFeulHbKSLZCEIi1.99


The “People’s Lawyer” is a Criminal

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

In a sympathetic profile just before his resignation, Politico said Eric Holder’s biggest legacy may be “his quiet dismantling of the War on Drugs…” How he could have “accomplished” this without legislative authority from Congress—which is supposed to make and pass laws—is never really explained. He was an Attorney General described by President Barack Obama as “the people’s lawyer.” Anybody familiar with Marxist jargon knew exactly what Obama meant.

At home and abroad, the Obama administration distributed weapons to America’s enemies. Holder’s area of expertise was facilitating weapons shipments to Mexican drug cartels, in a scandal that came to be known as “Fast & Furious.”

John Fund, co-author of the book, Obama’s Enforcer, about the Holder record, told me the other day that “No cover-up is perfect,” and that it appears a batch of incriminating documents in the scandal will soon be released, thanks to legal action from Judicial Watch.

Equally scandalous, the Obama/Holder administration made an announcement that it wouldn’t enforce money-laundering laws against banks doing business with marijuana stores.

But Politico insisted that Holder’s criminal approach to the enforcement of drug laws was something in his favor, because the “Reagan-era crusade” against drugs that he opposed at every turn “hasn’t eradicated drug use…”

Have laws against murder eradicated murder? Have laws against shoplifting eradicated shoplifting?

The Reagan approach was mostly carried through subsequent administrations, to the point where David Evans, a special advisor to the Drug Free America Foundation, notes that marijuana use went down among young people by 25 percent. “If we had had a reduction in any other health problem in the U.S. of 25 percent, we would consider it an outstanding success,” he said. But marijuana use has been going up under the Obama administration. This is not an accident.

Politico goes on, saying those Reagan policies “filled U.S. prisons past the breaking point and wrecked the lives of millions of Americans, a disproportionate number of them African-American.” So Reagan is blamed for blacks using drugs and going to prison.

Ethan Nadelmann followed up with a Politico column entitled, “Eric Holder Was Great on Drugs.” The title has a double meaning, which was apparently lost on the editors who came up with that clever use of words. Nadelmann, of course, is the head of the Drug Policy Alliance, the group funded by billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros as a means of undermining laws against the use of dangerous drugs. Politico is part of that effort.

Politico writes that, “Sensing a consensus shifting in his favor, Holder has unveiled a raft of sensible proposals to roll back overly harsh sentencing laws that would have been radioactive only years earlier but won him applause on the left and right. And instead of fighting states like Colorado and Washington when they liberalized their drug laws, as another AG might have done, he has effectively declared a cease-fire.”

There is a lot of bias packed into these two sentences. The use of the terms “sensible” and “overly harsh” tip the scales against enforcing drug laws. Plus, legal dope has become just “liberalized drug laws.”  There was never any applause “on the right,” except among libertarians who promote and use drugs.

It must be noted that Colorado and Washington violated national, and even international, drug control laws, also known as treaties. That didn’t bother Holder.

Despite what Politico says, real conservatives oppose the Soros-funded drive to legalize drugs. At the recent Values Voter Summit, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), a medical doctor, exploded many of the pro-drug myths offered by Obama and Holder and their allies at Politico. He took issue with his “libertarian friends.” The Focus on the Family magazine “Citizen” has an excellent September cover story, “Growing Like a Weed,” on the damage being done.

Fleming mentioned two cases out of Colorado—one in which a husband stoned on marijuana shot and killed his wife, and another involving a student who jumped to his death after getting high.

Fleming didn’t mention it, but an Alaska television reporter just announced on the air that she ran a marijuana club that she had been reporting on. She used an obscenity on the air and walked off the set. This was a vivid example of the dangers from the marijuana industry and the media that promote it.

This former reporter, Charlo Greene, has now appeared on a television show sponsored by The Huffington Post, where she lit up a marijuana cigarette on the air.

Greene is a poster girl not only for the marijuana culture but for modern journalism. She admits she violated commonly accepted notions of journalistic ethics because she wanted to keep her job. “I have a journalism degree,” she said. “I know in journalism there’s a line that you’re not supposed to cross, and the minute that I bought my business license [for the marijuana club] on 4/20 of this year, I shouldn’t have reported on any marijuana stories. But if I had gone to my boss and said, ‘Hey, I just bought this company,’ I would have been fired, period. I wasn’t ready for that to happen.”

In other words, she lied and deceived her viewers, just so she could hang on to her job for a while. This is an argument for drug tests.

Greene said she lied for the benefit of “my people” in Alaska, who deserve access to dope.

The Huffington Post TV interviewer, the Russian-born former Russia Today (RT) host Alyona Minkovski, was amused by the whole interview, including the spectacle of Greene smoking dope on the air.

In an obvious understatement, Greene said, “I am not the only journalist that smokes weed.”

“I certainly am a supporter of legalization of marijuana,” Minkovski quickly added. We’re sure she is.

As the Joel Gilbert film, “There’s No Place Like Utopia” shows, the game plan behind marijuana legalization has been to create another “progressive” constituency in need of something government can provide—in this case dope to “cure” problems like high arches.

It is a terrible scam that results in many wrecked lives. Holder has helped make it possible.


Qatar Awareness Campaign – Introductory Letter


To the American Public:

In light of the wars and violent turbulence that currently engulf the Middle East and parts of Africa, a coalition of concerned citizens, journalists, and activists are launching a campaign to expose a most infamous and pernicious sponsor of Islamic terror: the Gulf state of Qatar.

Qatar, (pronounced “cutter,” or “gutter”), is, per capita, the richest country in the world ($93,352 in 2013). This is partly due to the fact that they control the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, the North Dome field in the Persian Gulf. It is also because Qatar has a mere 278,000 citizens, with a total population of 2.05 million; the remaining people in Qatar are a mix of well-paid ex-pats from countries such as the United States and Great Britain, and a substantial slave labor population.

A backer of international terror from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria and Iraq, the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, exploit Islamic jihadi groups and their ties to illicit smuggling.

What is being smuggled?  Mostly narcotics and people – slaves.

Unfortunately, the United States is integrated into the Qatari “economy” as much as any other developed nation. Doha, Qatar’s capital, is home to two of the largest American military bases in the entire world, as well as familiar companies like ExxonMobil, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.  Doha also hosts a number of campuses for prestigious American universities, such as Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell. Other companies and organizations, ranging from the film production company Miramax to financial behemoths like Bank of America, have accepted significant amounts of investment by the al-Thanis.

Hamas, a Qatari client, launched a war against Israel this summer. There is an ongoing genocide across Iraq and Syria, with mass graves and grisly beheadings of Christians and Shiite Muslims. Boko Haram continues to rampage across Nigeria, threatening the political stability of Africa’s largest economy and population. Qatari fingerprints are on each of crises.

Over the course of the next month, companies, organizations, and individuals with significant investments and activities with and in Qatar will be identified and contacted with the reality of their host country. These letters, once published, will be sent to press outlets around the world.

We call on the parties identified in this campaign to review the evidence, which is all credibly sourced and vetted. In light of the terror, slavery, genocide, and narcotics trafficking, we urge the parties to demand that Qatar immediately cease any and all involvement in these activities.


Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

Walid Shoebat

Charles Ortel
Washington Times

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch    **

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.