Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen. -George Orwell

Saturday, June 30, 2012


One of the things that often comes up in conversations about ObamaCare ObamaTax is the idea that health care is a right. And that this means that health insurance is also a right. But as Bill Whittle explains so effectively, health care and health insurance are both commodities that must be paid for somewhere down the line. It cannot be "free" and since it is never really "free" then it cannot be a "right."

Thursday, June 28, 2012


Ah, the miracle that is YouTube...

He didn't just deny that it was a tax he got a little huffy with George Stephanopoulos about it!

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax? 

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s… 

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase. 

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs. 

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy… 

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any… 


OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then… 

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.” 

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what… 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but… 

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is… 

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase. 

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but… 

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase? 

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.


So apparently I wasn't the only one to be completely offended and indeed horrified by the truly twisted premise of the University of Minnesota-Duluth's "Un-Fair" campaign against "white privilege."  Here are a couple of videos from different organizations with very different but equally valid reasons for opposing such a program.

The first video I came across is from WND and deals with the reality that within a discussion of race relations these days there actually is a certain amount of hypocrisy as to who is allowed to say what.

The second video comes from The Late Debate, a Minnesota-based talk radio program featuring Jack Tomczak and Benjamin Kruse.  With the help of Michael Wilson from Odd Lamps Production, Jack and Ben have produced a message that is similar in look and feel to the original "Un-Fair" video, without the demeaning, dehumanizing facial graffiti.

Monday, June 25, 2012


President Obama personally inserted himself into the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal after he extended executive privilege over certain DOJ documentation. Was Fast & Furious merely a botched BATF operation, or a deliberate effort to undermine the Second Amendment by manufacturing "evidence" as part of a propaganda campaign?

Panama Barack, arms dealer
In keeping with the standard "fake but accurate" praxis of the Left, it seems highly likely that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder initiated an operation specifically designed to funnel weapons to Mexican drug cartels, knowing perfectly well that Mexican lives would be lost.  This, of course, would then allow the administration to do two things: Push for stricter gun control laws and provide "evidence" to support the usual "blame America first" meme.  This is turn would provide Obama with an opportunity to apologize once again to the world on our behalf and offer to give away just a bit more of our sovereignty in order to make amends.

Is the Left obsessed with brainwashing people because the ideology simply can't stand the disinfecting light of day?  The Left has always understood that manipulation, brainwashing and other forms of coercion are essential to achieving their goals.  That's why they are always worrying about "messaging."  Their repeated failures couldn't possibly be due to the moral bankruptcy of their ideology so it must be that the rest of us are simply too unintelligent, too ignorant and (most of all) too bigoted and racist to comprehend the brilliance of their schemes vision.  And so they stand up and pat themselves on the back for nonsense like this: Here is a video of Eric Holder promoting a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Sunday, June 24, 2012


As pointed out a couple of days ago in an article by Campus Reform, the University of Minnesota-Duluth has been promoting a disgusting campaign, designed mostly to raise money and raise its profile, based on the idea that "white" people should be denounced as "racist" simply because of the color of their skin.  From the front page:
Racism is an issue that we don't like talking about. The Un-Fair Campaign was developed to look at racism and to encourage a community dialogue about the causes and solutions.

Racism is a complex social issue and depending upon what you see as the causes of racism you have ideas about the solutions.

We invite you to spend time on this website and to ask yourself how you may be part of the problem as well as part of the solution.

See it.  Know it. Stop it.

"White privilege" is the Left's preferred term for what used to be called "white guilt."  The latter term is now out of favor among Left-wing activists because it reminds people that what we're talking about here is nothing more than a guilt trip.  What does one do when he or she wants something from somebody who, for whatever reason, is reluctant to give it?  Take that person on a little guilt trip.  So, from the perspective of a Left-wing race-baiting activist what better way to leverage money and power than to inflict the ultimate guilt trip: "How dare you reduce tax-payer funding for my vanity social justice project! What's fiscal responsibility and oversight compared to 400 years of slavery?  Yeah, that's what I thought!"

But of course a guilt trip has negative connotations (for obvious reasons).  So the experts have constructed the idea of "white privilege." It is a clever vehicle for the promotion of racial bias against "white" people.  It is based on the idea that we live in a "white supremacist" society, which means that merely being born "white" confers on "white" people a level of "unearned privilege" that can never be forgiven and which empowers a "person of color" to do two things: 1) blame somebody else or some other group for his or her own failures and 2) justify his or her own biases. 

The only "remedy," of course, is for a "white" person to confess his or her original sin (of "whiteness") and beg for mercy.  If the guilty "white" person in question does a really, really good job of groveling and apologizing and embracing correct thought while learning to speak only when spoken to, then he or she can become an "ally."  (White people on a spiritual path who seek to make tangible the idea of “we are all one” by looking at "whiteness" and privilege ... without burdening people of color in the learning process.)

A "person of color" is thus granted the questionable privilege of exerting a false moral superiority by either granting or withholding forgiveness. It also empowers the "person of color" to commit acts of discrimination, including physical violence, without being accused of racism.  In Leftist dogma, it's impossible for a "person of color" to commit a hate crime against a "white" person.  (Whenever that "truth" is compromised by reality it is the duty of the Establishment Media to suppress the news, distort reality and above all protect the Narrative.)  Likewise, it's impossible for a "white" person to commit so much as a thoughtcrime (such as voting for a Republican) against a "person of color" without it being automatically blamed on "racism" (such as voting for a Mitt Romney rather than Barack Obama).

The "white" petitioner for mercy may be given an atonement task to perform, such as denouncing other "white" people, including family and friends.  Another form of atonement is the bizarre hostage video like the one below in which victims of Peggy McIntosh Syndrome repeat the "truths" they've been taught while exhibiting the dehumanizing anti-"white" graffiti on their offensive "white" faces.

And then, of course, there are the Left-wing "white" academic types who insist on having their cake and eating it too.  They take full advantage of what their fellow Leftists would call "white privilege" while also hedging their bets by falsely claiming minority status, in this case cynically calling themselves "Native Americans," without a shred of credible proof of it.

Ward Churchill (fake Indian name: Talking Bull)

Elizabeth Warren (fake Indian name: Faux-cahontas)

Of course this year everybody is familiar with Elizabeth Warren and her humiliating exposure as an affirmative-action fraud.  But not everybody is familiar with Ward Churchill.  He's the disgraced former "ethnic studies" professor at the University of Colorado who apparently saw the movie Little Big Man once too often and decided to tell people and potential employers that he was an "Indian."  For Left-wing types, having "empathy" for minorities is just as good as actually being a member of a minority, so hell, why not? You want to do something about "un-fairness?"  Perhaps we need to see Ward Churchill and Elizabeth Warren starring in their own hostage videos.  Just a thought...

Saturday, June 23, 2012


But don't try convincing this guy:

Stay arrogant, my friend. And never stop "evolving."


This is what happens when you replace patriotism with Justin Bieber.  
For those not paying attention, a kindergarten decided to switch out the famously patriotic song with Mr. Bieber’s “Baby” for a graduation ceremony a week or so ago, causing a number of Republican officials, like Rep. Michael Grimm to lash out at the decision. Today, another one of those officials, Congressman and U.S. Senate hopeful Bob Turner, held a press conference adjacent to the school in question where he sung “Proud to be an American” with a swarm of small children waving flags.
And so this video shows what happens when the inevitable Leftist malcontents show up to harass the children and Bob Turner's staff.  Because God forbid American children should sing the words "God Bless the USA."

Have fun playing the "what if" game. As in what if it had been Tea Party people showing up and behaving like that to those children? Yeah, it's hard to imagine. Because the reality is that only in some Left-wing misfit's fevered imagination would Tea Party people behave in such an atrocious manner.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012


Ethel and Julius Rosenberg
Today marks the 59th anniversary of the executions of the traitorous spies known to history as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.  June 19th is always a major day of remembrance for the Left-wing community as it gives them an excuse to perpetuate the Big Lie that there was no justification at all for the anti-Communist, anti-subversive investigations of the early Cold War years in general and the Big Lie of the Rosenbergs' "innocence" in particular.

In an editorial on the 50th anniversary of the execution (June 19, 2003) the New York Times, long a relentless apologist for the Soviet Union, wrote, "The Rosenberg case still haunts American history, reminding us of the injustice that can be done when a nation gets caught up in hysteria."

"Hysteria" has always been a favorite term used by the Left to describe wartime concerns of Soviet espionage and Communist-inspired acts of treason committed by citizens of the United States.  But was it really a case of irrational "hysteria" as those on the Left are still desperately claiming?  Or was it a case of the Marxist contaminated media collaborating with enemy Communist regimes to create a propaganda fiasco to mask very serious acts of espionage and treason?

And what could be more hysterical than a statement by Marxist writer Jean-Paul Sartre in which he 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."

He was, of course, partially correct. Americans were perfectly justified in being afraid of the shadow of the the hands of a murderous totalitarian regime such as Stalin's Soviet Union.  Any rational people would agree with that.  The genuine hysteria was to be found and continues to exist among the promoters of Marxism in all its forms.

Another false claim is that the prosecution of the Rosenbergs was based solely on American anti-Semitism.  Certainly the very real presence of anti-Semitism in America cannot be denied.  However, such a self-serving, kneejerk reaction becomes somewhat suspect when one remembers that the main accusers of the Rosenbergs were their Jewish relatives. The trial judge (Irving Kaufman) was Jewish.  The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District and lead prosecutor (Irving Saypol) and his top assistant (Roy Cohn) were Jewish.  And that the trial took place in New York City, at that point home to more Jewish people than any other city on Earth.

The Rosenbergs did not receive any support from mainstream Jewish organizations nor from the American Civil Liberties Union. Think about that for a moment.  Even the ACLU would not acknowledge any violations of civil liberties.

In imposing the death penalty, Kaufman noted that he held the Rosenbergs 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."
If I were to find any fault in Judge Kaufman's statement it would simply be that the Rosenbergs were hardly the only traitors to whom the blame should have fallen.  They should not have been the only ones to be executed for treason on behalf of the Soviet Union.  In fact, there were others who ultimately did a lot more damage than the Rosenbergs.  But the fact that they alone suffered the ultimate penalty for their crimes does not in any way mitigate the fact that they were guilty of the crimes for which they were accused.

And so, in keeping with the spirit of re-examining the past, I will also make this a day of remembrance and to set the record straight in the hopes that somebody who may read this will be able to recognize and reject the Big Lie that has previously been told to him or her by a modern-day Marxian apologist.

Ron Radosh posted an article at PJ Media today dealing with the ongoing saga of the Rosenberg case.  In it he quotes from a powerful article in Jewish Ideas Daily that examines from a Jewish perspective the continued promotion of the idea that the Rosenbergs didn't do it and if they did do it they did it with the best of intentions.
Supporters of the Rosenbergs had always admitted their membership in the Communist party — touting this, however, as evidence not of their guilt but of their virtue: at a time when the “capitalist” nations had been doing nothing to oppose Hitler, the Rosenbergs were staunch anti-fascists as well as upholders of the higher ideals of equality and social justice embodied in the Communist revolution and the Soviet experiment. When pressed, supporters would concede that some, like Greenglass, may have been guilty of espionage, but not Julius and Ethel. Now, this pillar of the argument having been knocked out from under them, they have fallen back on the insistence that what the Rosenbergs did was good, just, and necessary, performed by two citizens of the world in support of a wartime ally. The real villain of the piece was not the Rosenbergs; it was the U.S. government.
Of course, it's always the fault of the U.S. government, is it not?  That is a theme that will emerge again and again and again as the examination of Left-wing ideology and strategy continues.

Radosh also refers to a fascinating article he has written for World Affairs entitled A Tale of Two Trials: Soviet Propaganda at Home and Abroad in which he compares and contrasts the Rosenberg case with the showtrial of Czech Communist Party leader Rudolph Slansky and 10 associates that resulted in their executions in 1952.
All of this now seems very far away, even farther than sixty years ago. Yet these two events show how the Soviets and their allies in the US ran a propaganda campaign on our own soil that convinced many Americans to adopt its themes and fight on behalf of a couple who indeed were, just as the US prosecutors claimed, spies for the Soviet Union. The KGB was able to use the Rosenbergs to offset the injustice of the Slansky trial and counter the anti-Semitism at its heart while also creating anti-American sentiment in Europe. Nowhere did the KGB campaign bear sweeter fruit than in France, where the Rosenberg Defense Committee was so successful that the American Embassy sent its young press attaché, future Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, back to the United States so he could research material to counter the Soviet disinformation campaign.
Julius Rosenberg was born to a family of Jewish immigrants in New York City on May 12, 1918. Census records show that his family lived at 205 East 113th when he was two years old. The family moved to the Lower East Side by the time Julius was eleven.  His father Harry worked in the garment industry and his mother Sophie took care of the couple's five children. As a boy, Julius attended Downtown Talmud Torah and then Seward Park High School where he graduated at 16. Although his father hoped Julius would become a rabbi, Julius enrolled at the City College of New York.  

In college, Julius also pursued his interest in politics, joining the Steinmetz Club, the campus branch of the Young Communist League.  There he met Morton Sobell, William Perl, and Joel Barr.  Julius also became a member of the Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians (FAECT), a radical union for professionals. Rosenberg became so engrossed in his radical activities that his studies began to languish. Nevertheless, he graduated in 1939 with a degree in electrical engineering.

Ethel Greenglass was born on September 25, 1915, in New York City. An aspiring actress and singer, she eventually took a secretarial job at a shipping company. She became involved in labor disputes and joined the Young Communist League, where she met Julius in 1936.  Julius and Ethel married in 1939. They eventually had two sons, Robert and Michael.  

Julius joined the Army Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, in 1940, where he worked as an engineer-inspector until 1945.  Important research on electronics, communications, radar and guided missile controls was undertaken at Fort Monmouth during World War II.  While working at Fort Monmouth Rosenberg was also the chairman of Branch 16B of the CPUSA's Industrial Division and held its meetings at the Rosenbergs' apartment. By 1943, however, the Rosenbergs dropped out of the Party to pursue their espionage activities.   

Early in 1945 Rosenberg was fired from his job with the Signal Corps when his past membership in the Communist Party came to light. Julius took a job with the Emerson Radio Corporation for a while and then in 1946 formed G & R Engineering Company with David Greenglass, Bernard Greenglass, and Isadore Goldstein. But this small machine shop was never a success.

According to a 2001 book by his former handler Alexandre Feklisov, Rosenberg was originally recruited by the NKVD on Labor Day 1942 by former spymaster Semyon Semenov. He 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. In fact, Feklisov, a life-long Communist, was covering the role of Jacob Golos, who in 1942 passed the Communist "information" cell of young engineers headed by Julius Rosenberg into direct contact with the Soviet operatives in New York. After Semenov was recalled to Moscow in 1944, his duties were taken over by Feklisov.

According to Feklisov, Rosenberg provided thousands of classified (top secret) reports from Emerson Radio, including a complete proximity fuze, an upgraded model of which was used to shoot down Gary Powers' U-2 in 1960. Under Feklisov's administration, Rosenberg is said to have recruited sympathetic individuals into NKVD service, including Joel Barr, Alfred Sarant, William Perl and Morton Sobell. The Venona intercept shows that Julius Rosenberg (code name LIBERAL) was the head of this particular spy ring.

According to Feklisov, 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 said he learned through Rosenberg that Rosenberg's brother-in-law David Greenglass was working on the top-secret Manhattan Project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory; he used Julius to recruit him.

In the aftermath of World War II the U.S. was naturally protective of its nuclear secrets.  Nevertheless, the world was shocked by the speed with which the Soviets were able to stage their first nuclear test, "Joe 1," on August 29, 1949. In January 1950, the same month that Alger Hiss was convicted on two counts of perjury, the U.S. discovered that Klaus Fuchs, a German refugee and theoretical physicist working for the British mission in the Manhattan Project, 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 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. Though he initially denied any involvement by his sister, Ethel Rosenberg, eventually he claimed that she knew of her husband's dealings and typed some documents for him.  He also claimed that her husband, Julius, had convinced her sister-in-law Ruth Greenglass to recruit David while on a visit to him in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1944. He said Julius had passed secrets, and linked him and Ethel to the Soviet contact agent Anatoli Yakovlev. This connection would be necessary as evidence if there was to be a conviction for espionage.

Another accused conspirator, Morton Sobell, was hiding in Mexico City when both Rosenbergs were arrested. According to his memoir, he tried to figure out a way to reach Europe without a passport. Abandoning that effort, he returned to Mexico City, where he claimed to have been kidnapped by members of the Mexican secret police and driven to the U.S. border, where he was arrested by U.S. forces. In reality, Sobell was arrested by the Mexican police for bank robbery on August 16, 1950, and extradited the next day to the United States in Laredo, Texas. He was charged and tried with the Rosenbergs on one count of conspiracy to commit espionage.

In August 1950, a federal grand jury was convened in New York City to hear the Justice Department's case for indictments. The grand jury transcripts record that on August 3, Ruth Greenglass testified that in November 1944, Julius Rosenberg recruited Ethel, and urged her to recruit her brother David Greenglass into a conspiracy to engage in atomic espionage for the Soviet Union:
"He 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.... She 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, 1950, less than two months after North Korea had invaded South Korea, starting the Korean War, the grand jury returned an indictment alleging 11 overt acts. Both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were indicted, as were David Greenglass and Anatoli Yakovlev.  The latter was subsequently dropped from the indictment due to diplomatic immunity, and he had, in any case, returned to the USSR four years prior to the indictment.

The trial of the Rosenbergs and Martin Sobell began on March 6, 1951. Julius was represented by Emanuel Bloch. Ethel was represented by Bloch's father, Alexander. Sobell was represented by Edward Kuntz. 

United States Attorney Irving Saypol, famous already for his recent successful prosecution of Alger Hiss, opened for the government. Saypol told the jury that the defendants "have committed the most serious crime which can be committed against the people of this country." The Rosenbergs conspired, Saypol said, to deliver to the Soviet Union "the weapons the Soviet Union could use to destroy us."  

Emanuel Bloch, in his opening statement, asked the jurors to give the defendants "a fair shake in the American way." He urged the jurors not to "be influenced by any bias or prejudice or hysteria."

The government's case against Sobell was based largely on the testimony of Max Elichter, an engineer, who testified that he had accompanied Sobell when a can of microfilm was delivered to Julius Rosenberg. Sobell and Elichter were fellow students at CCNY with Rosenberg. 

Several others, who were suspected of being part of the Rosenberg espionage ring, by the time of the trial had fled the country. They too were fellow students at CCNY. One of these defectors was Joel Barr, who disappeared in Paris on the day Greenglass was arrested, leaving most of his personal possessions behind. He later became the leading figure in the Soviet computer industry. He died in a Moscow hospital on August 1, 1998.  

Another Rosenberg friend, Alfred Sarant, managed to elude FBI surveillance at a racetrack and make a successful dash by car to the Mexican border, and then to parts unknown. William Perl, a Cleveland scientist, was called before the Rosenberg grand jury where he denied ever having known Rosenberg. On the basis of that statement and ample evidence to establish its falsity, Perl was indicted for perjury.

The fact that Sobell had fled to Mexico and had been forcibly returned to the United States by the FBI, that he had used various aliases while in Mexico, and that he had used Elichter as a "mail-drop" while in Mexico was damaging to Sobell's defense.

Elitcher testified about how he came to join the Communist Party:
SAYPOL: Did Sobell ever invite you to join meetings of the Communist Party?

ELITCHER: Yes. At first, I declined, but he continued to ask me and I finally visited a cell of the Communist Party and joined it.

SAYPOL: Did you thereafter attend meetings of this Communist cell with Sobell?

Saypol asked Elitcher if Julius Rosenberg had visited him in 1944 in Washington, where Elitcher was working on a firing control mechanism for anti-aircraft artillery:
ELITCHER: Yes, he called me and reminded me of our school friendship and came to my home. After a while, he asked if my wife would leave the room, that he wanted to talk to me in private. She did. Then he began talking about the job that the Soviet Union was doing in the war effort and how at present a good deal of military information was being denied them by some interests in the United States, and because of that their effort was being impeded. He said there were many people who were implementing aid to the Soviet Union by providing classified information about military equipment, and so forth, and asked whether in my capacity at the Bureau of Ordnance working on anti-aircraft devices, and computer control of firing missiles, would I turn information over to him? He told me that any information I gave him would be taken to New York, processed photographically and would be returned overnight--so it would not be missed. The process would be safe as far as I am concerned.
SAYPOL: Was Sobell mentioned in this conversation?

ELITCHER: Yes, Rosenberg said Sobell was one of those who were getting military information for him.

SAYPOL: For what purpose?

ELITCHER: To transfer to the Soviet Union.
According to Elitcher, Rosenberg pursued him, but he was evasive, saying if he had anything and wanted to give it to Rosenberg, he "would let him know."

SAYPOL: Later, did Rosenberg warn you of a leak in espionage?

ELITCHER: Yes. He said, we must be more careful--not to visit him any more, or see him. Also, he advised that I discontinue my Communist Party activities. I told him I couldn't. That it was my life and I could not withdraw....

SAYPOL: Did Rosenberg tell you how he got into espionage?

ELITCHER: He told me that a long time ago he decided that this is what he wanted to do, and he made it a point to get close to people in the Communist Party, until he was able to approach a Russian. 
Elitcher testified that in 1948 he decided to leave Washington. He drove with his family to New York to seek a permanent residence. He arranged a emporary stopover at the home of Sobell. While on the way to New York, he noticed he was being followed. Elitcher expressed his concern about being followed to Sobell when he reached his home, who became agitated and asked him to leave, but then relented and allowed him to stay.
ELITCHER: ...Sobell said he had some valuable information in the house, something he should have given to Julius Rosenberg some time ago. It was too valuable to be destroyed and too dangerous to keep around. He said he wanted to deliver it to Rosenberg that night. He said he was tired and he wanted me to go along. He might not be able to make the trip back. He took a 33 millimeter film can. We drove to Catherine Slip. I parked the car facing the East River. He left with the can. I waited. He came back about a half hour later and as we drove off, I said, "Well, what does Julie think about my being followed?" He said, "Don't be concerned about it; it is ok."
The case against the Rosenbergs was based mainly (but not exclusively) on the testimony of the David and Ruth Greenglass and Harry Gold. Gold had already been sentenced to 30 years for his complicity in the case of Klaus Fuchs and his role in receiving documents from David Greenglass. David Greenglass would soon be sentenced to 15 years, and Ruth Greenglass was an unindicted co-conspirator. O. John Rugge, the lawyer for the Greenglasses, had engineered the relatively light sentence for David and no sentence at all for Ruth by convincing them to cooperate with the government.

David Greenglass's appearance and demeanor, coupled with the fact that he was testifying against his own sister, did not make him a particularly sympathetic witness. However, once the questioning began, he proved to be a highly effective one.  The direct questioning was done by Saypol's assistant, Roy Cohn.
COHN: Now, Mr. Greenglass, have you at our request prepared a copy of the sketch of the lens mold which you furnished to Rosenberg on that day?


COHN: Is this it?


COHN: We offer it in evidence.
Greenglass was temporarily replaced on the stand by Walter Koski, an Atomic Energy Commission physicist, who explained to the jury the significance of the Greenglass sketches to an enemy interested in developing an atomic bomb:
SAYPOL: The important factor from the experimental point of view is the design, is it not?

KOSKI: Correct.

SAYPOL: That was original, novel at the time, was it not?

KOSKI: It was.

SAYPOL: Can you tell us, Doctor, whether a scientific expert in the field you were engaged in could glean enough information from the exhibits in evidence so as to learn the nature of the object of the experiment that was involved in the sketches in evidence?

KOSKI: From these sketches and from Mr. Greenglass' descriptions, this gives one sufficient information, one who is familiar with the field, to indicate what the principle and the idea is here.

Saypol: Would I be exaggerating if I were to say colloquially that one expert, interested in finding out what was going on at Los Alamos, could get enough from those exhibits in evidence which you have before you to reveal what was going on at Los Alamos?

Koski: One could.
Greenglass then returned to the witness stand and testified that Julius Rosenberg had asked him and Ruth to visit him at the Rosenberg apartment in Knickerbocker Village. When they arrived, a woman by the name of Ann Sidorovich was also there. Greenglass said that Rosenberg told him that Sidorovich would probably meet Greenglass in a movie theater in Denver to pick up information that he was able to get in Los Alamos. Because his contact might turn out to be someone else, Rosenberg cut a Jell-O box with a scissors and gave one half to Ruth Greenglass while keeping the other half.  He told Greenglass that whatever person he sent to meet with him would carry the matching half of the Jell-O box as a recognition signal. The meeting point was changed from Denver to Albuquerque. 

Greenglass then testified as to a meeting (also in New York) arranged by Julius, with a Russian in a car. Greenglass described the lenses to the unknown Russian and answered his questions about activities in Los Alamos.

Cohn then provided Greenglass with a Jell-O box and asked him to cut it in the way that he said Julius had done it during their meeting at the Rosenberg apartment.

Cohn asked Greenglass about his meeting in Albuquerque with Harry Gold, who turned out to be his contact.

COHN: Would you tell us exactly what happened from the first minute you saw Gold?

GREENGLASS: There was a knock on the door and I opened it. We had just completed eating breakfast, and there was a man standing in the hallway who asked if I was Mr. Greenglass and I said, yes. He stepped through the door and said, "Julius sent me," and I said, "Oh" and walked to my wife's purse, took out the wallet and took out the matched part of the Jell-O box. He produced his piece and we checked them and they fitted, and the identification was made. I offered him something to eat and he said he had already eaten. He just wanted to know if I had any information, and I said, "I have some but I will have to write it up. If you come back in the afternoon, I will give it to you."  I started to tell him about one of the people who would be good material for recruiting into espionage work-- He cut me short and he left and I got to work on the report.

COHN: Where did you work on the report?

GREENGLASS: In my combination living room and bedroom.

COHN: Tell us exactly what you did.

GREENGLASS: I got out some 8 by 10 ruled white paper, and I drew some sketches of a lens mold and how they are set up in the experiment, and I gave a description of the experiment.

COHN: Was this another step in the same experiment on atomic energy concerning which you had given a sketch to Rosenberg?

GREENGLASS: That is right, and I also gave him a list of possible recruits for espionage.

COHN: Did Harry Gold come back in the afternoon?

GREENGLASS: Yes at 2:30-- I gave him my report in an envelope and he gave me an envelope, which I felt and realized there was money in it and I put it in my pocket.

COHN: Did you examine the money at that point?

GREENGLASS: No, I didn't. Gold said, "Will it be enough?" and I said, "Well, it will be plenty for the present." And he said "You need it" and we went into a side discussion about the fact that my wife had a miscarriage earlier in the spring, and he said, "Well, I will see what I can do about getting some more money for you."

COHN: How much was in the envelope?

GREENGLASS: My wife and I counted it later. There was $500-- I gave it to her.

COHN: Have you prepared a sketch of the drawing which you gave Gold in June I943?


COHN: I offer it in evidence as Exhibit 6.
The cross-examination of Greenglass, conducted by Emanuel Bloch, included this exchange:
E H. BLOCH: You have known your wife Ruth since childhood days?


E. H. BLOCH: Did you love her when you married her?


E. H. BLOCH: Do you love her today?


E. H. BLOCH: Do you love her more than you love yourself?


E. H. BLOCH: Do you love your children?

GREENGLASS: I do. . . .

E. H BLOCH: Did you at any time think of your wife while you were down here telling your story to the FBI?

GREENGLASS: Of course, I thought of her.

E. H. BLOCH: Did you think of your wife with respect to the fact that she may be a defendant in a criminal proceeding?

GREENGLASS: I did. . . .

E. H. BLOCH: Now, Mr. Greenglass, your wife has never been arrested, has she?

GREENGLASS: She has not.

E. H. BLOCH: And she has never been indicted, has she?

GREENGLASS: She has not. . . .

E. H. BLOCH: And your wife is at the present time home, taking care of your children, isn't that right?

GREENGLASS: That's right....

E. H. BLOCH: After you were arraigned, were you taken to jail and put in solitary confinement?

GREENGLASS: Yes, for three days. The reason I was confined, was because there was an erroneous story in the newspapers that I was going to commit suicide; so the keeper felt, well, he wasn't going to take it on himself, so he had me put in solitary and had my laces taken off my shoes and my belt taken away from me so I wouldn't commit suicide. That was the whole story. There was no other reason.

E. H. BLOCH: Now when for the first time did you have a visitor?

COURT: May I ask what the relevance of this is?

E. H. BLOCH: The relevancy of this entire line of testimony is to show that this witness is lying, in order to save his wife....

E. H. BLOCH: After three days in solitary you were treated just the way all other prisoners were treated?

GREENGLASS: That's right.

E. H. BLOCH: Did you tell the FBI about your wife's participation in the Jell-O box incident?

GREENGLASS: I did, but let me point out, I wasn't a lawyer. I didn't know it was an overt act or anything else. How was I to know that? I just told them the story as it happened. That was all. I was interested in getting it out.

E. H. BLOCH: You were interested in getting out?

GREENGLASS: I said, all I was interested in was getting out the story. Don't misconstrue my words.
Towards the end of the day's testimony, Bloch showed Greenglass a Jell-O box and asked him if it was similar to the one he had cut up years before. Greenglass replied, "They made a darker-colored box at that time."
E. H. BLOCH: Are you color blind?


E. H. BLOCH: Do you know what color this is?


E. H. BLOCH: May we recess until tomorrow, your Honor? I have worked hard all day.

COURT: We will recess at this point, ladies and gentlemen, until 10:30 tomorrow morning....
The next day Greenglass was shown a brown paper bag that he said contained $4,000 when it was given to him by Rosenberg.
E. H. BLOCH: Can you tell us what color that bag is?

GREENGLASS: From previous experience, when I see a shading of this nature, I say it is brown. I don't actually see the color brown, but I say it is brown and I know that I have heard words to the effect that "brown paper bag.... brown manila paper," I realize that it is brown; everybody accepts it as brown, so I call it "brown."

E. H. BLOCH: Even though you are not sure this is brown?

Greenglass had testified that he had been given $500 at one time by Rosenberg, and that the currency was all $20 bills. Bloch asked Greenglass how many twenties there were.
SAYPOL: Is this a test?

E. H. BLOCH: Yes, it is a test.

GREENGLASS: You divide 500 by 20?

SAYPOL: The jury would know the answer without testimony.

COURT: He wants to see now whether he knows mathematics.

GREENGLASS: Twenty-five 20-dollar bills.

SAYPOL: Will counsel concede that he passed the test?

E. H. BLOCH: Yes, I think--well, I better not say....
The next witness to testify for the prosecution was Ruth Greenglass. Well groomed and calm, she testified as to how she, then just 19, was asked by Julius to inquire of her husband, recently stationed in Los Alamos, whether he would be willing to provide information on the progress of the Manhattan Project. She testified as to Julius instructing her on where and when to meet a courier in Albuquerque, and how a man now known to be Harry Gold showed up on their Albuquerque apartment doorstep, Jell-O box cover in hand.

She then testified about a meeting with the Rosenbergs when David was in New York on forlough. While David and Julius talked about the bomb, she had a conversation with Ethel:
KILSHEIMER: What did you say to Ethel Rosenberg at that time?

RUTH GREENGLASS: Well, Ethel said that she was tired, and I asked her what she had been doing. She said she had been typing; and I asked her if she had found David's notes hard to distinguish. She said no, she was used to his handwriting. Then she said that Julie, too, was tired; that he was very busy; he ran around a good deal; that all his time and his energies were used in this thing; that was the most important thing to him; that he was away a good deal and spent time with his friends, that he had to make a good impression; that it sometimes cost him as much as $50 to $75 an evening to entertain his friends; and then we spoke further. I said that I expected to be very lonely in Albuquerque; and Ethel said that I would make friends; that after a while I would probably meet other people there from New York.
She corroborated her husband's testimony that Gold left them an envelope containing $500. Then she went on to describe another meeting with the Rosenbergs in September of 1945:
RUTH GREENGLASS: Well, Ethel was typing the notes and David was helping her when she couldn't make out his handwriting and explained the technical terms and spelled them out for her, and Julius and I helped her with the phraseology when it got a little too lengthy, wordy.
Both Blochs did their best to rattle Ruth Greenglass but failed.  At one point Alexander Bloch asked Ruth to repeat a portion of her testimony in an apparent attempt to demonstrate that her testimony had been memorized.  When she finished, he asked if she had in fact memorized her testimony.
RUTH GREENGLASS: I never memorized it. I knew it too well.

A. BLOCH: Well, are you aware of the fact that the narrative you just gave us is almost identical with the verbiage used on your first giving of the testimony of that particular occurrence?


SAYPOL: Just a moment. I appreciate so expert an opinion as to the accuracy of the witness's recollection, but I object to the form of the question.

COURT: Your objection is sustained. I don't know exactly what the point is. If the witness had left out something, Mr. Bloch would say that the witness had left out something. Mr. Bloch would say that the witness didn't repeat the story accurately. And the witness repeats it accurately, and apparently that isn't any good.

A. BLOCH: What I am referring to is the verbatim repetition of the verbiage.

COURT: Well, we don't know that it is verbatim. We haven't had the record yet.

A. BLOCH: Well, it is a matter, of course, of comparing the testimony after we get it written up.

COURT: Mr. Bloch asked the question; the witness has answered.

A. BLOCH: Very well....
The next witness was Harry Gold.  He had worked for the Soviets for 15 years and was one of their most trusted spies. He may have been the only American spy to meet Yakovlev, chief of the American spy network.  He was the witness best positioned to tell the inside story of Soviet espionage activities.

Gold described his espionage activities. He described his meetings with the British physicist and spy, Klaus Fuchs. He described his meetings with Yakovlev, or "John." He described the use of recognition signals and said that he never gave his true name or residence.
GOLD: In other words, if we were just going to discuss the possibility of obtaining certain types of information, the hazards involved, just how much information should be obtained and just what source was needed, then a rather long meeting was scheduled. If I was going to actually get information, very usually a brief meeting was scheduled, the idea being to minimize the time of detection when information would be passed from the American to me. In addition to this I made payments of sums of money to some of the people whom I regularly contacted and always I wrote reports detailing everything that happened at every meeting with these people; and these reports I turned over to Yakovlev.

COURT: And where would you get the money from, that you paid to some of these people for the information?

GOLD: The money was given to me by Yakovlev....This is how it worked: We had an arrangement not only for regular meetings but we had an arrangement for alternate meetings, should one of the regular ones not take place, and then in addition to that we had an arrangement for an emergency meeting. This emergency meeting was a one-way affair. A system was set up whereby Yakovlev could get in touch with me if he wanted me quickly. But I couldn't get in touch with him because I didn't know where. Yakovlev told me that in this way the chain was cut in two places. The person from whom I got the information in America did not know me by my true name, nor did he know where I lived, nor could he get in touch with me and I couldn't get in touch with Yakovlev. Yakovlev said this was a good thing.
Gold testified as to one favorite technique for passing information:
GOLD: I would take the information and put it between the folds of a newspaper and Yakovlev and I would exchange the newspapers. The one that I got was just a newspaper. The one that he got had the information between the folds, the information usually being in some sort of an enclosure.
Gold testified that Yakovlev asked him to go to Albuquerque to meet an American spy. He said that Yakovlev told him that the woman who was supposed to make the trip couldn't.
GOLD: Yakovlev then gave me a piece of paper; it was onionskin paper, and on it was typed the following: First, the name "Greenglass," just "Greenglass." Then a number [on] "High Street"; all that I can recall about the number is . . . it was a low number and . . . the second figure was "0" and the last figure was either 5, 7 or 9; then underneath was "Albuquerque, New Mexico." The last thing that was on the paper was "Recognition signal. I come from Julius."
Gold also testified that he was given part of a Jell-O box and told that Greenglass or his wife should produce the matching piece. According to Gold, Yakovlev gave him $500 to give to Greenglass once he had received the information.

Through a detailed examination, Gold told the story of how the secrets of Los Alamos were discovered, how Greenglass passed information in Albuquerque, how Fuchs passed information in London, and how Yakovlev first became concerned about security lapses:
GOLD: Yakovlev almost went through the roof of the saloon. He said, "You fool." He said, "You spoiled eleven years of work." He told me that I didn't realize what I had done, and he told me that I should have remembered that sometime in the summer of `45 he had told me that Brothman was under suspicion of having been engaged in espionage and that I should have remembered it.
Gold testified that Yakovlev told him shortly before Fuchs was arrested, "I'll never see you again."

Gold was an excellent witness and the defense team was somewhat intimidated by his obvious credibility.  Fearing additional damage from Gold's testimony, Emanuel Bloch took the calculated risk of not cross-examining the witness.

The next witness was Elizabeth Bentley, a former high-ranking member of the CPUSA and a Soviet asset who had come in from the cold in 1945.  She had provided a treasure trove of information and had exposed entire networks of spies and traitors.  By 1950 she was a high-profile expert on Soviet espionage within the U.S.  The Left naturally loathed her and sought to discredit whenever possible.

Since it had been established that the Rosenbergs had been members of the CPUSA, Bentley began by establishing the relationship between the CPUSA and the Communist International (Comintern):
SAYPOL: Miss Bentley, had you learned what was the relation of the Communist Party of the United States to the Communist International?

BENTLEY: It was part of the Communist International and subject to its jurisdiction as such.

SAYPOL: Well, what connection did the Communist Party membership of you and Golos have with the destination of this material to Russia?

BENTLEY: The Community Party being part of the Communist International only served the interests of Moscow, whether it be propaganda or espionage or sabotage.
The purpose of calling Bentley as a witness was to establish a connection between Julius Rosenberg and Jacob Golos, a Ukrainian veteran of the Russian Revolution, co-founder of the CPUSA and a high-level Soviet agent in charge of the recruitment and coordination of the activities of a broad network of assets.
SAYPOL: Miss Bentley, referring to this occasion when you accompanied Mr. Golos to the vicinity of Knickerbocker Village and you saw him in conversation with a man. Do you recall that?


SAYPOL: Can you describe the characteristics of that individual to whom Golos talked? What did he look like?
 At which point Bloch objected and Judge Kaufman sustained it.
SAYPOL: Well, then, if that i so, I will abandon that line of inquiry, if the Court please. Subsequent to the occasion when you went to the vicinity of Knickerbocker Village with Mr. Golos and saw him in conversation with a person, and continuing until November 1943, did you have telephone calls from a person who described himself as Julius?

BENTLEY: Yes, I did.

SAYPOL: Did you then have conversations with Golos regarding the telephone calls from the person describing himself as Julius?

BENTLEY: That is correct.

SAYPOL: And thereafter, having conversed with Golos about the telephone call from Julius, in the first instance, would you immediately hereafter receive further telephone calls from the person describing himself as Julius?


E. H. BLOCH: Same objection, your Honor.
This time Kaufman overruled the objection, stating:
COURT: It will be for the jury to determine, not for you, not for me, it will be for the jury to determine from all the evidence whether or not the "Julius" she is referring to is the defendant Julius Rosenberg on trial. The testimony is admissible, as I see it, because of the foundation which had been aid, or shall I say, the previous testimony which came in from the lips of Elitcher, and I believe it is found on page 355 of the record. . . . It will be for the jury to infer, whether they want to give any weight whatsoever to this portion of the evidence . . . as to whether or not the Julius she spoke to in view of this previous testimony, is the defendant Julius Rosenberg.)

SAYPOL: May I have one further question, if you allow me? Then I will drop it.


SAYPOL: From your conversations with Julius and with Golos, did you come to learn in what vicinity Julius resided?


E. H. BLOCH: I object to it, your Honor, upon the same grounds.

COURT: Overruled.

E. H. BLOCH: I respectfully except. [take exception]

BENTLEY: Yes, he lived in Knickerbocker Village.
In 1940 the Justice Department had forced Golos to register as an agent of the Soviet government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This made it dangerous for him to contact and take documents from the network of American spies he controlled, and he had gradually transferred this responsibility to Bentley.  She was asked what function she served in relation to Golos and the mysterious "Julius."  
BENTLEY: My part was that I took messages from Julius to Golos and told Golos that he wanted to meet him, and so on. I was the go-between.
When Bloch got his chance to question Bentley, he tried an old tactic that now has a 21st-Century name: slut-shaming.  He didn't dare delve too deeply into the insider knowledge that Bentley possessed about the Russians.  Instead, he focused on her personal life, particularly her relationship with Golos, who had died of a heart attack in 1943.
E. H. BLOCH: Now, you have referred to a man by the name of Jacob Golos? He was known to you also as John?

BENTLEY: John was the name he used with his undercover contacts. His real name was Jacob Nathan Golos.

E. H. BLOCH: And what name did he use to you?

BENTLEY: Well, when I first met him for the first year, I knew him as Timmy. After that, I knew him by his real name.

E. H. BLOCH: What name did you call him?

BENTLEY: You mean personally?

E. H. BLOCH: Yes.

BENTLEY: I called him Yasha.

E. H. BLOCH: You were pretty friendly with him, weren't you?

BENTLEY: I think I have said this in other trials; I was in love with Mr. Golos.

E. H. BLOCH: And you not only were in love with him, but you lived with him, did you not?

BENTLEY: Yes, I did and, as I have explained at each and every trial, that was a Communist--

E. H. BLOCH: I move to strike out "at each and every trial," your Honor. I think I am entitled to a direct answer.

COURT: Answer the question.

E. H. BLOCH: You lived with him, did you not?

BENTLEY: I lived with him in what was the Communist conception of marriage. The Communists didn't believe in bourgeois marriage.

E. H. BLOCH: And you didn't believe in bourgeois marriage?

BENTLEY: Since I was a Communist, I didn't.

E. H. BLOCH: And you lived with him, did you not?

BENTLEY: I certainly did. . . .

E. H. BLOCH: Did you know that Golos was married at the time you started to have relations with him?

BENTLEY: Mr. Golos was never legally married to any woman in his life. Any other women had the same relationship I had. He did not believe in bourgeois marriage. He was a Communist.

E. H. BLOCH: Would you characterize your relationship with Mr. Golos as your being the mistress of Mr. Golos?

BENTLEY: I don't feel I am called upon to characterize it. That is up to you.

E. H. BLOCH: I am asking you now.

COURT: No, I am going to sustain the objection. I think she is giving you the facts. Characterization is unimportant. . .

E.H. BLOCH: Did you know that Mr. Golos had a child when you started to have relations with him?

BENTLEY: I knew that Mr. Golos had lived with a woman previously, who had gone back to the U.S.S.R. two years before, and that he had had a child by her, yes...
Bloch asked about phone calls that somebody named "Julius" placed to Bentley's apartment on Barrow Street in Greenwich Village.
E. H. BLOCH: Did you recognize the voice of the man who you say called you up and said, "This is Julius"?

BENTLEY: What do you mean recognize?

E. H. BLOCH: Are you a college graduate?

BENTLEY: Well, I mean--

E. H. BLOCH: Did you recognize whose voice it was who called you up and said--

BENTLEY: I don't understand, your Honor. I have heard the man over a telephone, that is all. I have heard no other voices. What does he mean?

SAYPOL: Just a moment. I object to the question as to form. It depends upon whether Mr. Bloch addresses himself to the first call from Julius or to subsequent calls. I hardly think--

COURT: No, no. Did you ever meet a person, did you ever meet anybody in person, whose voice you heard, and you can now say is the voice of the man who identified himself as Julius on the telephone?

BENTLEY: No. I have never met anyone whose voice I heard, whom I could identify as Julius.

E. H. BLOCH: How many times in all do you say this person who called you up and said, "This is Julius"--

BENTLEY: It might have been five or six; it may have been more.

E. H. BLOCH: And during what period of time was this?

BENTLEY: I think I have stated that. It was from the fall Of '42 to about November Of '43--

E. H. BLOCH: Can you tell us more specifically when these calls came in?

BENTLEY: Yes, they always came after midnight, in the wee small hours. I remember it because I got waked out of bed. .

E. H. BLOCH: You were living at that time in Mr. Golos' apartment?

BENTLEY: I have just informed you, I think twice, that I did not live with Mr. Golos. I lived at 58 Barrow Street, by myself.

E. H. BLOCH: When you say these calls came in in the wee hours of the morning, was that at Mr. Golos' house at which you received these calls?

BENTLEY: I have just told you, the calls came to my house at 58 Barrow Street. Mr. Golos was living some other place.

E. H. BLOCH: Was Mr. Golos with you at your house at 58 Barrow Street when these calls came in?....

BENTLEY: Yes, on one occasion he was.

E. H. BLOCH: And on that one occasion, did you answer the phone?

BENTLEY: I always answered the phone.

E. H. BLOCH: Did you always ask the people who called you their names.

BENTLEY: If I didn't get the voice right off, but this particular party always started his conversation by saying "This is Julius."

E. H. BLOCH: "This is Julius"?


E. H. BLOCH: That was on six or seven occasions?

BENTLEY: I put it at five or six. It might be seven or eight. I don't know exactly the number of them.

Bentley had written a book detailing her spy activities. It had recently been submitted to a publisher. Bloch asked whether in her book she mentioned her phone calls to a man named "Julius."


E. H. BLOCH: When?

BENTLEY: I haven't the least idea when that particular part of the book was written, but that was put into the book very definitely. Whether it is still in or whether it has been cut out I don't know...
The only witnesses called by the defense were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Sobell chose not to testify. Both Rosenbergs pleaded the Fifth Amendment in response to all questions concerning their membership in the Communist Party, most likely to head off potential questions about other acquaintances who might be members of their spy network.  With his use of the Fifth Amendment, however, Julius lost the sympathy of the jurors.

Julius testified as to his modest lifestyle, inconsistent-- it was suggested by the defense-- with the rewards one would expect a world class spy to have received. Rosenberg mostly offered a long string of denials. He denied that he ever received information from Greenglass about the atomic bomb. He denied receiving gifts of console tables and watches from Russians. He denied the Jell-O box incident. He denied having attempted to recruit Elitcher to espionage. He said that Greenglass had come to him in 1950 for money, not that he had offered money to Greenglass in order that he might flee. According to courtroom observers, Julius during his testimony seemed oddly unconcerned about the dire circumstances he was facing.

Finally, Julius was asked a series of questions about whether he and his wife had had passport photos taken. Julius denied this, although he admitted that his family had had "snapshots" taken from time to time. 
SAYPOL: Did you, in the month of June, 1950, or in the month of May 1950, have any passport photographs taken of yourself?

ROSENBERG: I did not.

SAYPOL: Did you go to a photographer's shop at 99 Park Row and have any photographs taken of yourself?

ROSENBERG: I have been in many photographer's shops and had photos taken.

SAYPOL: Did you have any taken in May or June of 1950?

ROSENBERG: I don't recall. I might have had some photos taken.

SAYPOL: For what purpose might you have had those photographs taken?

ROSENBERG: Well, when I walk with the children, many times with my wife, we would step in; we would have--we would pass a man on the street with one of those box cameras and we would take some pictures. We would step into a place and take some pictures and the pictures we like, we keep.

COURT: He is not asking you that. He is asking you about these particular pictures in June 1950. What was the purpose of those pictures?

ROSENBERG: Just--if you take pictures, you just go in, take some pictures, snapshots.

SAYPOL: What did you tell the man when you asked him to take those pictures in May or June 1950?

ROSENBERG: I didn't tell the man anything.

SAYPOL: Are you sure of that?

ROSENBERG: I didn't tell the man anything.

SAYPOL: See if you can't recall. Try hard. May or June 1950, at 99 Park Row.
ROSENBERG: I don't recall telling the man anything.

SAYPOL: You mean you might have told him something, but you don't recall it now?

ROSENBERG: I don't recall my saying anything at this time.

SAYPOL: What don't you recall? Tell us that.

ROSENBERG: I don't know, sir.

SAYPOL: Do you remember telling the man at 99 Park Row that you had to go to France to settle an estate?

ROSENBERG: I didn't tell him anything of the sort. . . .

SAYPOL: At the time David was talking about going to Mexico, what kind of pictures did you take and how many?

ROSENBERG: I don't recall.

SAYPOL: When did you find out Sobell was in Mexico?

ROSENBERG: When did I find out?

SAYPOL: You heard my question, didn't you?


SAYPOL: Was it a hard one?

ROSENBERG: I head that Sobell was in Mexico through the newspapers.

SAYPOL: What did you have to do with sending Sobell away?


KUNTZ: I object to that, if your Honor please. There is no testimony here that he had anything to do with sending Sobell or anybody else away.

COURT: You are excited, Mr. Kuntz.

KUNTZ: I mean, to ask a question that way, I can convict anybody by that kind of question.

COURT: The jury will please disregard that statement by Mr. Kuntz, supposedly in behalf of his own client.
Ethel's testimony was mostly a confirmation of her husband's version of events along with a few terse denials concerning her own role in espionage activity.  However, her demeanor on the witness stand was to be her undoing. She wasn’t merely composed, as her sister-in-law had been, she was ice-cold, contemptuous, almost arrogant, so much so that she gave the unmistakable impression that she was the one in charge. She seemed to display a contempt for the whole proceeding.  

As he had with her husband, Saypol was able to induce Ethel to invoke the Fifth Amendment repeatedly.  The effect of this on the jury was even more negative than it had been when Julius had taken the Fifth. At the grand jury she had been asked if she had "discussed this case with your brother David Greenglass." It was a seemingly innocuous question.  But she refused to answer, invoking privilege. Saypol asked about her privilege claim:
ETHEL ROSENBERG: It was true, because my brother David was under arrest.

SAYPOL: How would that incriminate you, if you are innocent?

ETHEL ROSENBERG: As long as I had any idea that there might be me chance for me to be incriminated I had the right to use that privilege....

COURT: Now let me ask a question. If you had answered at that time that you had spoken to David, for reasons best known to you, you felt that that would incriminate you?

ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, if I used the privilege of self-incrimination at that time, I must have felt that perhaps there might be something that might incriminate me in answering.

SAYPOL: As a matter of fact, at that time you didn't know how much the FBI knew about you and so you weren't taking any chances; isn't that it?

ETHEL ROSENBERG: I was using--I didn't know what the FBI knew or didn't know.

SAYPOL: Of course you didn't, so you weren't taking any chance in implicating yourself or your husband?

E. H. BLOCH Wait a second. I object to this entire line of questions . . .
Bloch immediately moved for a mistrial.

COURT: I think it is proper cross-examination. Your motion for a mistrial is denied. Your objection is overruled....

ETHEL ROSENBERG: Well, if I answered that I didn't want to answer the question on the grounds that it might incriminate me, I must have had a reason to think that it might incriminate me.

SAYPOL: Well, that reason was based on the advice that your lawyer had given you, was it not?

ETHEL ROSENBERG: My lawyer had advised me of my rights.

SAYPOL: He advised you only on the basis of what you told him?

ETHEL ROSENBERG: He advised me as to my rights, but he also advised me it was entirely up to me to decide, on the basis of what the question was, whether or not I thought any answer might incriminate me, and I so used that right.

SAYPOL: You weren't making those answers because of a concern that you had about incriminating your brother, were you?

ETHEL ROSENBERG: I can't recall right now what my reasons were at that time for using that right. I said before and I say again, if I used that right, then I must have had some reason or other. I cannot recall right now what that reason might or might not have been, depending on the different questions I was asked...
Once the Rosenbergs had completed their testimony, the prosecution called a trio of rebuttal witnesses.  The first, Evelyn Cox, the Rosenbergs' cleaning lady, disputed Ethel's claim that a console table had been purchased at Macy's.  The table, supposedly altered so that it could be used for microfilming, had been mentioned by Ruth Greenglass. Julius had claimed that he paid cash for it. Ethel had told Mrs. Cox that it had been a gift from a friend of her husband’s . While insignificant in itself, Mrs. Cox's testimony seemed to confirm Ruth Greenglass's truthfulness and make Ethel's testimony seem devious.

The second rebuttal witness was the Greenglass lawyer's secretary, who confirmed receiving $3,900 from Ruth's brother-in-law, reminding the jury of the supposed $4,000 given to the Greenglasses by Julius, to be used for their flight to Mexico.

The third witness was Ben Schneider, a photographer, who had taken three dozen passport photos of the Rosenbergs in mid-June, 1950, after David Greenglass's arrest.
SAYPOL: What is your business?

SCHNEIDER: A photographer, sir.

SAYPOL: Where is your place of business?

SCHNEIDER: 99 Park Row.

SAYPOL: When you say that you are a photographer, what is the substantial part of your business, what do you do mainly?

SCHNEIDER: Passport photographs and identification photographs.
Schneider testified that in May or June 1950 he had he been visited by a family consisting of a husband, wife, and two children, about ages six and four. He was asked whether he saw the man and woman in the courtroom. He pointed to Julius and Ethel, and each stood up. Schneider said that the Rosenbergs asked to have passport photos taken. According to Schneider, Rosenberg waited for 20 minutes while the pictures were developed. Ethel used the time to take the children, who were being unruly, for a walk. Rosenberg paid the $9.00 fee for 36 photos (an unusually large order), and told Schneider that the family was planning a trip to France.

Schneider had been a surprise to defense team.  What they didn't know at that moment was how the prosecution had even heard of Schneider.  The answer was that they learned of the passport photos through a prison informer, Jerome Tartakow, who had been Julius Rosenberg's jailhouse chess partner.

Summations by both sides brought the month-long trial to its end, with Bloch lambasting David and Ruth Greenglass for their lack of character and attacking their credibility and Saypol doing much the same thing to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.  A tale of two couples.  The jury, consisting of 11 men and one woman, was sent off to deliberate.

The following day, March 29, 1951, the jury returned a verdict of guilty for both the Rosenbergs and Sobell on the charge of conspiracy to commit espionage.  Less than a week later, on April 5, Judge Kaufman sentenced the Rosenbergs to death by electric chair.  Sobell, with only the one charge, was given a 30-year sentence with a recommendation that he serve the maximum.

It would be a full two years before the death sentences were finally carried out. 


This begins a multi-part examination of the realities and motivations of the Left's promotion of atheism and anti-Christian ideology.  If you haven't already done so, I invite you to read the quote from the late Left-wing philosophy professor Richard Rorty that I've permanently posted at the top of the blog.  In it he brags about his tactics of attacking the views and values of his students based on certain criteria. His fanaticism is extreme enough that he felt comfortable comparing his tactics favorably with the Nazis.  If I were to attempt to describe such a sentiment without providing the quote itself, it would be difficult for most people to believe.  Nevertheless, he said it and he meant every word of it.

So how did a professor (who wasn't a young man fresh out of school himself and therefore still somewhat naive about the world) come to his conclusions?  And more importantly, how on earth did he come to feel comfortable enough in his job that he assumed he could get away with that kind of hateful attitude towards the students he's supposed to be educating, not radicalizing?  The answers to those questions are directly related to the very ideologies that have corrupted both the thought processes of the so-called "educators" and the processes of the educational system itself.

Naturally, an intelligent man such as Richard Rorty isn't going to expose himself for the irrational hater that he is by nakedly stating his reasons for despising Christianity and feeling compelled to target certain students (some of whom, at least, went into debt for the "privilege" of being bullied and indoctrinated by the likes of Rorty).  No, he's going to construct an oppression scenario that allows him to portray himself as the defender of the persecuted rather than the aggressor.  He's going to manipulate reality in order to justify his bias and enable his discrimination, secure in the knowledge that the university will do nothing to restrain him and that, in fact, the university will support him.

How did it come to this?

The video by Bill Whittle concerning "The Narrative" (which is also permanently placed at the top of the blog) does a great job of giving a concise introduction to the Frankfurt School, its origins and motivations.  This blog is dedicated in large part to deconstructing (to borrow their terminology) the ideology of the New Left that was largely inspired by the Frankfurt School.  And one of the first things that must be understood is that none of what will be examined happened by accident.  This is not to say that it was all specifically planned to the last detail but rather was the inevitable result of a ripple effect. If a person drops a pebble into the water he or she is not required to plan out what will happen next. The dropping of the stone will automatically create a ripple effect that expands far beyond the initial point of contact.

The specifics of the Frankfurt School reach back to the early part of the 20th Century.  But the dropping of the proverbial pebble into the water approximately a century ago was inspired by ideology developed in the 19th Century which, in turn, was inspired by philosophers, writers and fanatics of the 18th Century.  And so another metaphor would be that of a stream, flowing in one direction from a source that must be sought by traveling in the opposite direction.  In other words, it's hard to determine the starting point of an ideology and the effort to do so requires a constant journey backwards into history.

Saturday, June 16, 2012


As it happens, this video dealt specifically with an issue in the Toronto public schools.  But the broader topic of Che Guevara and the bizarre reverence with which he is still held by many in our own country is very relevant.  I've had arguments in the past with friends and even family both in the States and in Ireland who think it's cool to wear a t-shirt featuring the iconic image of Che with his beret and beard.  They almost never have an idea as to what he was really about and if they do it's the movie version that makes him out to be some sort of tragic figure. Well, he was a tragic figure, if by that you mean he was the instigator of a great deal of tragedy for his victims and their families.  Many of them live in the United States and can never forget the trauma of the revolution and the Communist conquest of their homeland.

Thursday, June 14, 2012


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.