Two historical propositions important to the legal analysis of discrimination of the LGBT community: (1) no consistent historical practice singles out same-sex behavior as “sodomy” subject to proscription, and (2) the governmental policy of classifying and discriminating against certain citizens on the basis of their homosexual status is an unprecedented project of the twentieth century, which is already being dismantled.
In colonial America, regulation of non-procreative sexual practices – regulation that carried harsh penalties but was rarely enforced – stemmed from Christian religious teachings and reflected the need for procreative sex to increase the population. Colonial sexual regulation included such non-procreative acts as masturbation, and sodomy laws applied equally to male-male, male-female, and human-animal sexual activity. “Sodomy” was not the equivalent of “homosexual conduct.” It was understood as a particular, discrete, act, not as an indication of a person’s sexuality or sexual orientation. Not until the end of the nineteenth century did lawmakers and medical writing recognize sexual “inversion” or what we would today call homosexuality. The phrase “homosexual sodomy” would have been literally incomprehensible to the Framers of the Constitution, for the very concept of homosexuality as a discrete psychological condition and source of personal identity was not available until the late 1800s. The Court in Bowers v. Hardwick misapprehended this history. Proscriptive laws designed to suppress all forms of nonprocreative and non-marital sexual conduct existed through much of the last millennium. Widespread discrimination against a class of people on the basis of their homosexual status developed only in the twentieth century, however, and peaked from the 1930s to the 1960s. Gay men and women were labeled “deviants,” “degenerates,” and “sex criminals” by the medical profession, government officials, and the mass media. The federal government banned the employment of homosexuals and insisted that its private contractors ferret out and dismiss their gay employees, many state governments prohibited gay people from being served in bars and restaurants, Hollywood prohibited the discussion of gay issues or the appearance of gay or lesbian characters in its films, and many municipalities launched police campaigns to suppress gay life. The authorities worked together to create or reinforce the belief that gay people were an inferior class to be shunned by other Americans. Sodomy laws that exclusively targeted same-sex couples were a development of the last third of the twentieth century and reflect this historically unprecedented concern to classify and penalize homosexuals as a subordinate class of citizens.
Since the 1960s, official and popular attitudes toward homosexuals have changed, though vestiges of old attitudes – such as the law at issue here – remain. Among other changes, the medical profession no longer stigmatizes homosexuality as a disease, prohibitions on employment of homosexuals have given way to antidiscrimination protections, gay characters have become common in movies and on television, 86 percent of Americans support gay rights legislation, and family law has come to recognize gays and lesbians as part of non-traditional families worthy of recognition. These changes have not gone uncontested, but a large majority of Americans have come to oppose discrimination against lesbians and gay men.
A liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as censorship of Christianity. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual “marriage”. Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. They prefer atheism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite ofconservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.
Polling data has consistently shown that a increasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.
A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:
- Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
- Government’s ability to solve economic problems
- The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists’ hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy 
- Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
- Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
- Gun control
- Affirmative action
- Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right
- Government-funded medical care, such as Obamacare
- Belief in evolution
- Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on.
- Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
- Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the military
- Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption
- Tax and spend economics
- Economic sector regulations
- Spreading of political correctness
- Destroying liberty
- Ending Western morality
- Non-syndicalist labor unions
- Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex
- A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
- Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
- Abolition of the death penalty
- Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
- Opposition to full private property rights.
- Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
- Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
- Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
- Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq
- Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
- Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
- Denial of traditional gender roles
- Support of financially irresponsible policies
- Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect
- Encouragement of global warming alarmism
- Persecution of Christianity with deference to other religions, such as Islam.
Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions “promoting the general welfare”. This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as Obamacare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.
The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can’t be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they “donate” money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.
Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is “a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties” or “a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,” or “open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.” or “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.” In practical usage, the term “liberal” is more closely synonymous with “radical,” “immoral,” “anti-freedom,” or “bad.”
Liberals and Uncharitableness
|“||Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives….
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
— Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Atheists and agnostics often reject Biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism. Therefore, it is not surprising that per capita atheists and agnostics inAmerica give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.
Liberal politicians and uncharitableness
Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity
As noted above, liberals are more likely to adhere to evolutionary belief than conservatives. A study conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.
Liberalism and bestiality
See also: Liberalism and bestiality
The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University. See: Atheism and bestiality
Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide andeuthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University (Princeton University is a very liberal school – see: Liberalism and bestiality). Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity.  In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.
Joe Carter’s First Things article entitled The Dangerous Mind declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
|“||Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).||”|
On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality “rights” have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality “rights” (see: Homosexuality and bestiality).
In 2010, the liberal state of Washington has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: Washington state and bestiality).
LifeSiteNews reported:”In 46 hours of programming, NBC contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, bestiality, and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1. See also:Liberalism and bestiality
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).
A study found that “Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively).”The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and marriageability and Atheism and health).
For more information please see:
Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant
See also: Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant
Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.
Below is an excerpt of the chant:
|“||Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].||”|
Liberals and Superstition
The Wall Street Journal reported: “A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. 
Also, in September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:
|“||The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.
“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience, such as evolution than evangelical Christians….
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,” skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.
Liberalism in the United States Today
Democrats and most media outlets in the U.S. are blatantly liberal. Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following acronym: SIN. Liberals (1) shift the subject, they (2) ignore the facts, and they (3) name call.
- Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. 
|“||There’s another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. ||”|
Liberal Rankings of Congress Members
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings of how liberal each member of the United States Congress is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.
American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism
Due to the explosive growth of global Christianity in traditional cultures and their influence on Western Christianity and the higher birth rate of conservative Christians and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.
The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:
|“||High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the ‘Redeemer Nation’ to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.||”|
Liberalism in Europe today
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves liberal are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is a party of the European Parliament that represents most liberal parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many liberal parties throughout the world, such as the Liberal Party of Australia.
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them “liberals” or neoliberals. Thus, just as in the US, “liberal” may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called “liberal” in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democraticparties.
In history, the word “liberal” has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the “Third Way”. In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.
Original meaning: Classical Liberalism
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with conservative values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.
Notable liberal “intellects”
See also: Infamous liberals
- John Wayne Gacy – In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, serial killer John Wayne Gacy said he was bisexual and “very liberal”. Gacy was also a Democratic Party activist who had his picture taken withRosalynn Carter.
Liberal Organizations of thought
- AARP – American Association of Retired People
- ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union
- ACORN – Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
- AFL-CIO – American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
- AI – Amnesty International
- ANSWER – Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
- CAIR – Council on American-Islamic Relations
- Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
- Democratic National Committee
- NARAL – National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
- NAACP – National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- National Committee for an Effective Congress
- National Education Association
- NOW – National Organization of Women
- PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
- Planned Parenthood Federation of America
- Progressives for Obama
- Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
- SEIU – Service Employees International Union
- U.S. Peace Council
Source: The Politix Group
Quotes on Liberals
- ↑ http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent–shifted-publics-ideology-balance
- ↑ http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
- ↑ http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
- ↑ http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
- ↑ The Warren Court, led by liberal Justices William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren issued 36 decisions granting First Amendment rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.
- ↑ http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
- ↑ Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding, Fox News, Monday, June 25, 2007
- ↑ and environmental organizations, for example Greenpeace
- ↑ For example, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court issued the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.
- ↑ http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00
- ↑ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
- ↑ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
- ↑ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
- ↑ http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152
- ↑ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1
- ↑ Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?
- ↑ Morals decline linked to evolution
- ↑ The Basis of a Christian Worldview
- ↑ The Basis of a Christian Worldview
- ↑ The Dangerous Mind by Joe Carter, First Things
- ↑ The dark side of sexual freedom: American ‘zoophiles’ take on the language of equality – October 5, 2011 – The Telegraph
- ↑ Pet Abuse -2010
- ↑ 2010 United States Census data
- ↑ 2011 Political map – CNN
- ↑ [Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]
- ↑ Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive
- ↑ A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff – Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.
- ↑ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far
- ↑ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far
- ↑ 
- ↑ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
- ↑ Media Bias basics. Media Research Center.
- ↑ Scott Baker. Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?, The Blaze, February 12, 2011.
- ↑ YouTube. Herman Cain: “Stupid People Are Ruining America”, February 11, 2011.
- ↑ Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg..
- ↑ Liberal Values in Legal Education Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)
- ↑ http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm
- ↑ Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?
- ↑ http://www.alde.eu
- ↑ http://www.liberal-international.org/
- ↑ 
- ↑ 
- ↑ “Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs.” Greenberg and Bailey 
- ↑ http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view¤t=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4
- ↑ http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527
- Conservative resources
- Articles about liberals
- Classical liberal
- Drinking Liberally
- Godless liberal
- Last wordism
- Liberal celebrity obsession
- Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia
- Liberal Christianity
- Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity
- Liberal Democrats
- Liberal Elite
- Liberal Falsehoods
- Liberal Fascism
- Liberal friendship
- Liberal Gloss
- Liberal grading
- Liberal hypocrisy
- Liberal hysteria
- Liberal Intellectualism
- Liberal labels
- Liberal Lies About the American Right
- Liberal logic
- Liberal Mind
- Liberal Party
- Liberal supremacist
- Massachusetts liberal
- Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals
- New Liberal Terms
- Conservative Links
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the first American civilians executed under Section 2 of the Espionage Act. Charges related to passing atomic bomb secrets to Russian agents (the data came from Ethel’s brother, who worked on the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos). Their legal prosecution was the “Trial of the Century” (prior to O.J., at least), and many felt the couple were unfairly convicted.
Quotations Related to JULIUS ROSENBERG:
“My opinion was that if we had a common enemy we should get together commonly.” — Julius Rosenberg
“There was a possibility I could have been under surveillance.” — Julius Rosenberg
“This death sentence is not surprising. It had to be.” — Julius Rosenberg
“First of all, I am not an expert on matters on different economic systems, but in my normal social intercourse with my friends we discussed matters like that.” — Julius Rosenberg
“I would like to state that my personal opinions are that the people of every country should decide by themselves what kind of government they want.” — Julius Rosenberg
“If the English want a king, it is their business. If the Russians want communism, it is their business. If the Americans want our form of government, it is our business.” — Julius Rosenberg
“Now, I feel that if somebody looks through all the numbers through all those years, they will find one for Julius Rosenberg, and it is worth finding if it is such an important issue.” — Julius Rosenberg
“And there had to be a dagger thrust in the heart of the left to tell them that you are no longer gonna give five years for a Smith Act prosecution or one year for Contempt of Court, but we’re gonna kill ya!” — Julius Rosenberg
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Convicted of spying for KGB:
Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (1915 – 1953) and Julius Rosenberg (1918 – 1953) were executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage. The charges related to passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. This was the first execution of civilians for espionage in United States history. Since the execution, decoded Soviet cables, codenamed VENONA, have supported courtroom testimony that Julius acted as a courier and recruiter for the Soviets, but doubts remain about the level of Ethel’s involvement. The decision to execute the Rosenbergs was, and still is, controversial. The New York Times, in an editorial on the 50th anniversary of the execution (June 19, 2003) wrote, “The Rosenbergs case still haunts American history, reminding us of the injustice that can be done when a nation gets caught up in hysteria.” This hysteria had both an immediate and a lasting effect; many innocent scientists, including some who were virulently anti-communist, were investigated simply for having the last name “Rosenberg.” The other atomic spies who were caught by the FBI offered confessions and were not executed. Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass, who supplied documents to Julius from Los Alamos, served 10 years of his 15 year sentence. Harry Gold, who identified Greenglass, served 15 years in Federal prison as the courier for Greenglass and the British scientist, Klaus Fuchs. Morton Sobell, who was tried with the Rosenbergs, served 17 years and 9 months. In 2008, Sobell admitted he was a spy and confirmed Julius Rosenberg was “in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.”
The Case Against the Rosenbergs
KGB Spy: According to his former NKVD handler, Alexandre Feklisov, Julius Rosenberg was originally recruited by the KGB on Labor Day 1942 by former NKVD spymaster Semyon Semenov. Julius had been introduced to Semenov by Bernard Schuster, a high-ranking member of the Communist Party USA as well as Earl Browder’s personal NKVD liaison, and after Semenov was recalled to Moscow in 1944, his duties were taken over by his apprentice, Feklisov. According to Feklisov, Julius provided thousands of classified (top secret) reports from Emerson Radio, including a complete proximity fuze, the same design that was used to shoot down Gary Powers’ U-2 in 1960. Under Feklisov’s administration, Julius Rosenberg is said to have recruited sympathetic individuals into KGB service, including Joel Barr, Alfred Sarant, William Perl and Morton Sobell. The Venona intercept show that Julius (code name LIBERAL) was indeed the head of this particular spy ring. According to Feklisov’s account, he was supplied by Perl, under Julius Rosenberg’s direction, with thousands of documents from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, including a complete set of design and production drawings for the Lockheed’s P-80 Shooting Star. Feklisov says he learned through Julius that his brother-in-law David Greenglass was working on the top-secret Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and used Julius to recruit him. The USSR and the U.S. became allies during World War II, after Nazi Germany’s surprise attack on the USSR in 1941, but the U.S. government was highly suspicious of Joseph Stalin’s long-term intentions. Therefore the Americans did not share information or seek assistance from the Soviet Union for the Manhattan Project. However, the Soviets were aware of the project as a result of espionage penetration of the U.S. government and made a number of attempts to infiltrate its operations at the University of California, Berkeley. The FBI file CINRAD (Communist Infiltration of the Radiation Laboratory) led particularly to J. Robert Oppenheimer, a consultant at the Radiation Lab and later, the key figure at Los Alamos.
A number of project members—some high-profile—voluntarily gave secret information to Soviet agents, many because they were ardent communists or were sympathetic to the Soviet Union’s role in the war and did not feel the U.S. should have a monopoly on atomic weapons. After the war, the U.S. continued to protect its nuclear secrets, but the Soviet Union was able to produce its own atomic weapons by 1949. The West was shocked by the speed with which the Soviets were able to stage their first nuclear test, “Joe 1”, on August 29, 1949. It was then discovered in January 1950 that a German refugee theoretical physicist working for the British mission in the Manhattan Project, Klaus Fuchs, had given key documents to the Soviets throughout the war. Fuchs’ identified his courier as Harry Gold, who was arrested on May 23, 1950. Gold also confessed and identified Sergeant David Greenglass, a former machinist at Los Alamos, as an additional source. Greenglass confessed to having passed secret information on to the USSR through Gold as well. Though he initially denied any involvement by his sister, Ethel Rosenberg, eventually he claimed that she knew of her husband’s dealings and even typed-up some documents for him. He also claimed that her husband, Julius, had convinced Ruth Greenglass to recruit David while on a visit to him in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1944 and that Julius had also passed secrets, linking Julius and Ethel to Soviet contact agent Anatoli Yakovlev. This connection would be necessary as evidence if there was to be a conviction of espionage. Another accused conspirator, Morton Sobell, was on vacation in Mexico City when both Rosenbergs were arrested.
According to his story published in On Doing Time, he tried to figure out a way to reach Europe without a passport, but ultimately abandoned that effort and was back in Mexico City when he was allegedly kidnapped by members of the Mexican secret police and driven to the U.S. border where he was arrested. The government claimed Sobell was arrested for bank robbery on August 16, 1950, by the Mexican police and extradited the next day to the United States in Laredo, Texas, but in 1956 the Mexican government officially declared that he had never been deported. Regardless of how he was returned to the U.S., he was arrested and stood trial with the Rosenbergs on one count of conspiracy to commit espionage. Grand Jury: In August 1950, a federal grand jury was convened to hear the Justice Department’s case for indictments. The grand jury transcripts, made public in 2008, record that on August 3, Ethel Rosenberg’s sister-in-law, Ruth Greenglass, testified that in November 1944, Julius Rosenberg recruited her, and urged her to recruit her husband (Ethel’s brother, David Greenglass), into a conspiracy to engage in atomic espionage for the Soviet Union:
“[H]e proceeded to tell me that he knew that David was working on the atomic bomb…. that he felt there was not a direct exchange of scientific information among the Allies, and that it would be only fair for Russia to have the information, too… and he wanted to make that possible. He asked me if I would relate this to David and ask him to pass on information through Julius.”
She added that Ethel participated in this effort, urging her to comply:
“His wife said that I should at least relay the message, that she felt that David might be interested, he would want to do this…. [S]he urged me to talk to David. She felt that even if I was against it, I should at least discuss it with him and hear what he had to say.”
On August 17, the grand jury returned an indictment alleging 11 overt acts. Both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were indicted, as were David Greenglass and Anatoli Yakovlev. Ruth Greenglass’s testimony alleging the involvement of Ethel as well as Julius would subsequently be corroborated by a decrypted Soviet Intelligence cable of September 21, 1944, from New York station to Moscow Center:
“LIBERAL recommended the wife of his wife’s brother, Ruth GREENGLASS…. She is 21 years old, a TOWNSWOMAN [GOROZhANKA], a GYMNAST [FIZKUL’TURNITsA] since 1942…. LIBERAL and his wife recommend her…. [Ruth] learned that her husband … is now working at the ENORMOUS [ENORMOZ] plant in SANTA FE, New Mexico.”
Notes by U.S. Signals Intelligence Service cryptographers (who partially decrypted this cable in the Venona project) identify the code-names LIBERAL as “Julius ROSENBERG,” GOROZhANKA as “American Citizen,” FIZKUL’TURNITsA as “Probably a Member of the Young Communist League,” and ENORMOZ as “Atomic Energy Project.”
Trial and Conviction: The trial of the Rosenbergs and Sobell began on March 6, 1951. The judge was Irving Kaufman and the attorney for the Rosenbergs was Emanuel Hirsch Bloch. The prosecution’s primary witness, David Greenglass, stated that his sister Ethel typed notes containing U.S. nuclear secrets in the Rosenberg apartment in September 1945. He also testified that he turned over to Julius Rosenberg a sketch of the cross-section of an implosion-type atom bomb (the “Fat Man” bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, as opposed to a bomb with the “gun method” triggering device as used in the “Little Boy” bomb dropped on Hiroshima). The notes allegedly typed by Ethel apparently contained little that was relevant to the Soviet atomic bomb project and some suggest Ethel was indicted along with Julius so that the prosecution could use her to pressure Julius into giving up the names of others who were involved. However, neither Julius nor Ethel Rosenberg named anyone else and during testimony each asserted their right under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment to not incriminate themselves whenever asked about involvement in the Communist Party or with its members. Then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers, when later asked about the failure of the indictment of Ethel to leverage a full confession by Julius, reportedly said, “She called our bluff.”
The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death by Judge Irving Kaufman under Section 2 of the Espionage Act of 1917, 50 U.S. Code32 (now 18 U.S. Code 794), which prohibits transmitting or attempting to transmit to a foreign government information “relating to the national defense.” The conviction helped to fuel Senator Joseph McCarthy’s investigations into anti-American activities by U.S. citizens. While their devotion to the Communist cause was well documented, the Rosenbergs denied the espionage charges even as they faced the electric chair. The Rosenbergs were the only two American civilians to be executed for espionage-related activity during the Cold War. In imposing the death penalty, Kaufman noted that he held them responsible not only for espionage but also for the deaths of the Korean War:
“I consider your crime worse than murder… I believe your conduct in putting into the hands of the Russians the A-Bomb years before our best scientists predicted Russia would perfect the bomb has already caused, in my opinion, the Communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason. Indeed, by your betrayal you undoubtedly have altered the course of history to the disadvantage of our country. No one can say that we do not live in a constant state of tension. We have evidence of your treachery all around us every day for the civilian defense activities throughout the nation are aimed at preparing us for an atom bomb attack.”
After the publication of an investigative series in The National Guardian and the formation of the National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, some Americans came to believe both Rosenbergs were innocent or received too harsh a punishment, and a grassroots campaign was started to try to stop the couple’s execution. Between the trial and the executions there were widespread protests and claims of anti-semitism; the charges of anti-semitism were widely believed abroad, but not among the vast majority in the United States, where the Rosenbergs did not receive any support from mainstream Jewish organizations nor from the American Civil Liberties Union as the case did not raise any civil liberties issues at all. Marxist Nobel-Prize-winning existentialist philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre called the trial “a legal lynching which smears with blood a whole nation. By killing the Rosenbergs, you have quite simply tried to halt the progress of science by human sacrifice. Magic, witch-hunts, autos-da-fé, sacrifices — we are here getting to the point: your country is sick with fear… you are afraid of the shadow of your own bomb.” Others, including non-Communists such as Albert Einstein and Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Harold Urey, as well as Communists or left-leaning artists such as Nelson Algren, Bertolt Brecht, Jean Cocteau, Dashiell Hammett, Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, protested the position of the American government in what the French termed America’s Dreyfus Affair. In May 1951, Pablo Picasso wrote for the communist French newspaperL’Humanité, “The hours count. The minutes count. Do not let this crime against humanity take place.” The all-black labor union International Longshoremen’s Association Local 968 stopped working for a day in protest. Cinema artists such as Fritz Lang registered their protest. Pope Pius XII appealed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower to spare the couple, but Eisenhower refused on February 11, 1953, and all other appeals were also unsuccessful. Their case has been at the center of the controversy over Communism in the United States ever since, with supporters steadfastly maintaining that their conviction was an egregious example of political persecution and likening it to the witch hunts that marred Salem and Early Modern Europe (a comparison that provided the inspiration for Arthur Miller’s critically acclaimed play, The Crucible). On September 12, 2008, co-defendant Morton Sobell admitted that he and Julius Rosenberg were guilty of spying for the Soviet Union, but that any information about the atomic bomb that they had passed was of no value for the Soviets. He believed Ethel was aware of the espionage, but did not actively participate.
Execution: Because the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons did not operate an electric chair at the time, the Rosenbergs were transferred to the New York State-run Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining for execution. The couple was executed at sundown in the electric chair on June 19, 1953. This was delayed from the originally scheduled date of June 18 because, on June 17, Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas had granted a stay of execution. That stay resulted from the intervention in the case of Fyke Farmer, a Tennessee lawyer whose efforts had previously met with scorn from the Rosenbergs’ attorney.
On June 18, the Court was called back into special session to dispose of Douglas’ stay rather than let the execution be delayed for months while the appeal that was the basis of the stay wended its way through the lower courts. The Court did not vacate Douglas’ stay until noon on June 19. Thus, the execution then was scheduled for later in the evening after the start of the Jewish Sabbath. Desperately playing for more time, their lawyer, Emanuel Hirsch Bloch, filed a complaint that this offended their Jewish heritage, so the execution was scheduled before sunset, at 8pm on Friday instead of the regular time of execution at Sing-Sing of 11pm. which usually took place on Thursday. Eyewitness testimony (as given by a newsreel report featured in the 1982 documentary film The Atomic Cafe) describes the circumstances of the Rosenbergs’ death, noting that while Julius Rosenberg died after the first series of electrocutions, his wife did not. After the normal course of electrocutions, attendants removed the strapping and other equipment only to have doctors determine that Mrs. Rosenberg had not yet died (her heart was still beating). Three courses of electrocution were ultimately applied, and at conclusion eyewitnesses reported, Bob Considine among them, a grisly scene with smoke rising from her head in the chamber. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were buried at Wellwood Cemetery in Pinelawn, New York.
Final letter from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to their children:
The Rosenbergs were convicted on March 29, 1951, and on April 5 were sentenced to death. The Rosenbergs remained on death row for twenty-six months. They were eventually executed by electric chair on June 19th, 1953. The following letter to their two sons was written on the day of their execution.
Dearest Sweethearts, my most precious children, Only this morning it looked like we might be together again after all. Now that his cannot be, I want so much for you to know all that I have come to know. Unfortunately, I may write only a few simple words; the rest your own lives must teach you, even as mine taught me. At first, of course, you will grieve bitterly for us, but you will not grieve alone. That is our consolation and it must eventually be yours. Eventually, too you must come to believe that life is worth the living. Be comforted that even now, with the end of ours slowly approaching, that we know this with a conviction that defeats the executioner! Your lives must teach you, too, that good cannot really flourish in the midst of evil; that freedom and all the things that go to make up a truly satisfying and worthwhile life, must sometimes be purchased very dearly. Be comforted then that we were serene and understood with the deepest kind of understanding, that civilization had not as yet progressed to the point where life did not have to be lost for the sake of life; and that we were comforted in the sure knowledge that others would carry on after us. We wish we might have had the tremendous joy and gratification of living our lives out with you. Your Daddy who is with me in these last momentous hours, sends his heart and all the love that is in it for his dearest boys. Always remember that we were innocent and could not wrong our conscience. We press you close and kiss you with all our strength.
Lovingly, Daddy ( Julie)and Mommy (Ethel)
The Rosenbergs’ two sons, Robert and Michael, were orphaned by the execution, and no relatives dared adopt them for fear of ostracism, or worse. They were finally adopted by the songwriter Abel Meeropol and his wife Anne. Abel, under the pen name of Lewis Allan, wrote the classic anti-lynching anthem Strange Fruit made famous by singer Billie Holiday.
Rolf was either the smartest dog in history or the center of a scam that fooled a nation—specifically Nazi Germany. Either way, then, he was pretty awesome. According to the Nazis, Rolf could talk. To put this into context, the Nazis backed a lot of hair-brained schemes during World War II, and one of the most hair-brained was trying to train an army of super-intelligent dogs to share their ideals.
The smartest of these “super dogs” was Rolf. Apparently, Rolf was able to talk by tapping his paw against a board and using a sort of special dog Morse code to communicate with humans. It was using this code that he was able to converse, appreciate poetry, express his pride in the Nazi regime, and vent his blinding hatred of the French. Apparently, he even expressed an interest in joining the war effort and fighting on the front lines. We don’t expect you to believe that a dog could talk, but Hitler certainly did. He took a great interest in Rolf, and history’s greatest monster wasting time on the ridiculous notion that the Nazis had created the world’s first racist dog could only possibly be a good thing.
Push a button, turn a dialYour work is done for miles and milesWhen it hits it’s bound to shakeBecause it feels like an earthquakeThat’s the drink that you don’t pourWhen you take one sip you won’t need any moreYou’ll feel small as a beetle, big as a whaleBoom! Atomic cocktail!
When the Atom Bomb Fell (Davis-Taylor)Oh it went up so loud it divided up the clouds
And the houses did vanish away
And a great a ball of light filled the Japanese with fright
They must have thought it was their judgement daySmoke and fire it did flow through the land of Tokyo
There was brimstone and dust everywhere
When it all cleared away there the cruel Japs did lay
The answer to our fighting boys’ prayers
Yes Lord, the answer to our fighting boys’ prayersThere was no atheist in a foxhole
And men who never prayed before
Lifted tired and bloodshot eyes to heaven
And begged the Lord to end that awful warThey told Him of their homes and loved onesThey told Him that they’d like to be thereI believe the bomb that struck HiroshimaWas the answer to our fighting boys’ prayersOh it went up so loud it divided up the cloudsAnd the houses did vanish awayAnd a great a ball of light filled the Japanese with frightThey must have thought it was their judgement daySmoke and fire it did flow through the land of TokyoThere was brimstone and dust everywhereWhen it all cleared away there the cruel Japs did layThe answer to our fighting boys’ prayersYes, Lord, the answer to our fighting boys’ prayers
Herbivorous megafauna are typically imagined as a group that includes elephants, rhinoceros, and giraffes. However, one of the most spectacular examples of megafauna is a bovine from India. At 3 meters (10 ft) tall, the gaur is a truly gargantuan beast, and the world’s largest wild cow species. This massive creature with truly formidable horns crashes through Indian forests and fields, and sometimes invades gardens. While it’s a threatened species due to poaching and habitat loss, it’s a match for most threats and weighs up to 1,600 kilograms(3,500 lbs). Among the megafauna that crash and devour their way through tropical vegetation, only the elephants, rhinoceros, and giraffes are bigger or taller. The gaur is more docile than African buffalo, but human fatalities do occur now and then. In one case, a gaur was attacked by a tiger. The gaur responded by literally snapping the tiger in half.
Bob was born in South Australia in 1882, and for some reason he loved trains. He spent the early years of his life as a stray, following railway workers to work, until he was rounded up by a dogcatcher. It looked as if he was destined for the pound, but luckily for Bob he was bought by a kindly station guard who’d taken a liking to him. It worked out well, as his new master allowed him to ride the train with him in the guard’s van every day. But, eventually, his master got a promotion and he and Bob parted ways. Then Bob started to jump trains alone.
Bob traveled up and down Southern Australia, becoming a familiar and welcome sight on trains across the land. Sometimes, when Bob felt that he needed some privacy, he chose an empty carriage and scared away any passengers who tried to sit in it by barking like crazy. The station masters and guards all knew him by name, so they left him to his own devices. At night he followed the engine driver home for a warm meal and soft place to sleep, then returned to the train the next morning. For most of his life, Bob went where he pleased, and as his fame grew so did his reception when he rode into town. He was allowed to attend banquets as a guest of honor, was given a special bracelet with his name on it—with an engraving telling anyone who read it to let him go where he wanted—and when he was seen riding on trains by local children they ran after him as if he were the Pope. Bob had many adventures in his short life and died the most famous dog in Australian history.
Simo Häyhä (December 17, 1905 – April 1, 2002)
Nicknamed ‘The White Death’
705 confirmed kills (505 with rifle, 200 with submachine gun)
Was a Finnish soldier who, using an iron sighted bolt action rifle, amassed the highest recorded confirmed kills as a sniper in any war…ever!!
Häyhä was born in the municipality of Rautjärvi near the present-day border of Finland and Russia, and started his military service in 1925. His duties as a sniper began during the ‘winter war’ (1939-1940) between Russia and Finland. During the conflict Häyhä endured freezing temperatures up to -40 degrees Celsius. In less than 100 days he was credited with 505 confirmed kills, 542 if including unconfirmed kills, however the unofficial frontline figures from the battlefield places the number of sniper kills at over 800. Besides his sniper kills he was also credited with 200 from a Suomi KP/31 Submachine gun, topping off his total confirmed kills at 705.
How Häyhä did all this was amazing. He was basically on his own all day, in the snow, shooting Russians, for 3 months straight. Of course when the Russians caught wind that a shit load of soldiers were being killed, they thought ‘well this is war, there’s bound to be casualties’. But when the generals were told that it was one man with a rifle they decided to take a bit of action. first they sent in a counter-sniper. When his body was returned they decided to send in a team of counter-snipers. When they didn’t come back at all they sent in a whole goddamn battalion. They took casualties and couldn’t find him. Eventually they ordered an artillery strike, but to no avail. You see Häyhä was clever, and this was his neck of the woods. He dressed completely in white camouflage. He used a smaller rifle to suit his smaller frame (being 5ft3) increasing his accuracy. he used an iron sight to present the smallest possible target (a scoped sight would require the sniper to raise his head for sighting). He compacted the snow in front of the barrel, so as not to disturb it when he shot thus revealing his position. He also kept snow in his mouth so his breath did not condense and reveal where his was. Eventually however his was shot in the jaw by a stray bullet during combat on March 6 1940. He was picked up by his own soldiers who said half his head was missing. He didn’t die however and regained consciousness on the 13th, the day peace was declared.
Once again total kills…. 505 sniper + 200 submachine = 705 total Confirmed Kills…all in less that 100 days.