HISTORIANS DENY THE PAST (Venona files prove McCarthy, Nixon right about Soviet spies)

NY POST ^ | October 26, 2003 | ERIC FETTEMANN

[Liz]

In 1992, Russia's first post-Communist leader, Boris Yeltsin, made a historic decision to open the nation's archives to Western scholars and historians. Yeltsin was anxious to expose the misdeeds of past Soviet leaders, and his decision opened the floodgates on evidence that proved profoundly discomfiting to apologists for the Communist system.

[U S Army EOD]

How is it possible to think and be a liberal at the same time??

[SkyPilot]

Thanks Liz! It must be frustrating to be a Liberal in the 21st Century. They were so successful at re-writing and "spinning" political interpretations to their whims in the latter portion of the 20th (like silly putty on crack).

This new-fangled Internet "thingie" and those dadgum independent thinkers keep screwing it up!

[Liz]

The wily know-nothing liberal scum are adept at getting into positions of power -- they use the buddy system to help one another. Their power perches are in media, academia, govenerment so that they can control the debate.

[Liz]

It must be frustrating to be a Liberal in the 21st Century......

And I intend to make it practically impossible. LOL.

[U S Army EOD]

Basically the key ingrediants to being a successful liberal are slightly above the average IQ, ruthless ambition, and above all, absolutely no consense. With those attributes, you can be president twice or have a husband who was president twice and be a senator.

[Liz]

The Liberal Credo In the name of the Clintons, Hollywarped, the ACLU and all that is unholy, we believe that:

1. Capitalism creates oppression; government creates opportunity.

2. Traditional gender roles are artificial but feminism, homosexuality, and metrosexuality are government-protected lifestyles.

3. Self-esteem is paramount; government must undertake to guarantee each citizen-victim self-esteem with as many billion dollar programs as it takes.

4. The ACLU is good, because destroying religion and silencing believers are protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment; The NRA is bad because it defends the Constitution;

5. Standardized IQ tests are racist; racial quotas and affirmative action are not.

6. Conservatives are racists; everybody knows that black people can't make it on their own without big-buck government assistance programs and Hollyweirdos to to proselytize the message 24/7.

7. Normal sex is perverted. Threesomes, bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality are just new ways to get a thrill and abortion at all stages of conception with the government picking up the tab is our consitutional right to rid ourselves of an inconvenient pregnancy.

8. Moral indignation is the standard strategy for endowing our output with superiority.

9. Victimization is the basic belief by which we blame and find others responsible for our own personal failures, then expect taxpayers, deep pocketed individuals, or the courts to bail us out. It feels good to be in the throes of "victimization" and either A) causing victims, B) concocting victims, C) playing victim, D) commiserating over victims, or E) creating another class of victims to bleed over.

10. It's our duty to treat people in the manner of raising mushrooms, that is to say, keep them in the dark and feed them lots of horse manure.

[Liz]

......key ingredients to being a successful liberal are (1) slightly above-average IQ, (2) ruthless ambition, and above all, (3) absolutely no conscience. With those attributes, you can be president twice or have a husband who was president twice and be a senator.......

Love, love, love it. Says it all so precisely and succinctly. #2 is my fave.
Libs have proved to be rank opportunists who will do or say anything to achieve their goals.

We might have to add (4) the necessity of abysmally stupid people (who vote for and put
liberals in power -- without morons to vote for them, who would liberals have to sucker?).

[Vinnie]

I remember reading a really good book many yrs. ago. "The Implosion Conspiracy".

It deals with the Rosenberg, Greenglass case.

Don't know if it's still available.

[U S Army EOD]

No doubt a lot of 4's have to be there.

[Liz]

Hmmmmmmm. Maybe, maybe not. You don't need a lot of morons just the ones that vote.

[Liz]

MICHAEL MEEROPOL and ROBERT MEEROPOL v. LOUIS NIZER, DOUBLEDAY & CO., INC. and FAWCETT PUBLICATIONS, INC.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 560 F.2d 1061

May 19, 1977, Argued July 28, 1977, Decided

SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Michael and Robert Meeropol appeal from dismissal on summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Harold R. Tyler, Jr. and Lee P. Gagliardi, Judges, of a three-count complaint alleging infringement of statutory copyright (Count I), invasion of privacy and defamation (Count II), and infringement of common law copyright (Count III). Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. @@ 1338, 1331 and 1332.

Appellants are the natural children of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Their parents were executed in June 1953 after conviction for conspiring to transmit information relating to the national defense to the Soviet Union. Appellees Louis Nizer ("Nizer"), Doubleday & Co., Inc. ("Doubleday") and Fawcett Publications, Inc. ("Fawcett") are the author and publishers respectively of an account of the events surrounding the Rosenberg trial entitled The Implosion Conspiracy, published in 1973. Plaintiffs-appellants alleged that Nizer incorporated in his book substantial portions of copyrighted letters written by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg without authorization and that this use constituted infringement of their statutory and common-law copyright. Nizer's allegedly inaccurate, misleading and fictionalized account of the events surrounding the trial, it is claimed, constitutes defamation and invasion of privacy as to appellants.

In June 1973 appellants filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York seeking injunctive relief and damages for copyright infringement, defamation, and invasion of privacy from defendants Nizer and Doubleday. Judge Tyler held that the Meeropols had not established sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and denied the request for injunctive relief. At the same time he denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. Meeropol v. Nizer, 361 F. Supp. 1063 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Judge Tyler's decision rested in part on the possible availability to defendants of the "fair use" defense which might require the subordination of copyright claims to the greater public interest in the dissemination of knowledge. He refused to dismiss the complaint in order to give plaintiffs an opportunity to establish the facts, especially since it is not altogether clear whether letters stand on the same footing as "historical facts" in relation to the "fair use" doctrine. 361 F. Supp. at 1067, 1070.

Following discovery proceedings and pretrial motions, the appellees, defendants below in the Southern District action, moved in January 1974 for partial summary judgment on the defamation and privacy claims of Count II. This motion was granted July 31, 1974 by Judge Tyler. 381 F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). In the meantime the Meeropols had commenced a similar action against Fawcett, publishers of a paperback edition of the Nizer book, in the District Court for the District of Connecticut. Fawcett moved to stay the Connecticut action and sought leave to intervene in the New York action. These motions were granted in an unreported opinion by Judge Tyler, affirmed by this court October 12, 1974. Meeropol v. Nizer, 505 F.2d 232 (2d Cir. 1974).

On January 30, 1975 defendants moved to dismiss the remaining copyright counts, I and III, of the complaint. This motion was granted by Judge Gagliardi to whom the case had been reassigned following Judge Tyler's resignation from the bench. The present appeal is from the final judgment entered July 23, 1976 dismissing all counts of the complaint against all of the defendants, based on Judge Tyler's grant of partial summary judgment dismissing Count II dated July 31, 1974 and on an opinion and order of Judge Gagliardi dated July 20, 1976 dismissing Counts I and III of the original complaint and all three counts of the supplemental complaint. Meeropol v. Nizer, 417 F. Supp. 1201 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). We affirm the dismissal of Counts II and III, and reverse and remand for further proceedings on Count I.

The Defamation Claim Plaintiffs sought one million dollars in damages for defamation and invasion of privacy in Count II of their complaint. They alleged that the juxtaposition in Nizer's book of excerpts of the private letters of their parents with "false, fictitious and distorted" statements was designed to deceive the reader and impress the public with the authenticity of Nizer's account in order to embarrass, humiliate, and ridicule plaintiffs and their parents.

In dismissing the defamation count the court below applied the standards set forth in Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974), Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 29 L. Ed. 2d 296, 91 S. Ct. 1811 (1971), and New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964). It held that because they were the sons of the Rosenbergs, Michael and Robert were "public figures" and that in order to recover plaintiffs would have to establish that defendants' book was published with reckless disregard for the truth. The court analyzed the passages in the book alleged to be libelous. It found that

The record as a whole, thus, establishes that there was no knowledge of falsity (if indeed, there is a falsity), no serious doubt concerning the truth of any statement in the article [sic] and certainly no reckless disregard of whether statements in the book were false.

To the extent that The Implosion Conspiracy contains minor fictionalization or approximations of conversations that may have taken place between plaintiffs and their parents, these cannot be considered defamatory. Such techniques do not rise to the constitutional level of a clear and convincing showing of reckless disregard. As in Miller v. News Syndicate 445 F.2d 356 (2d Cir. 1971), any "deviations from or embellishments upon" the information obtained from the primary sources relied upon were minuscule and can be attributed to the leeway afforded an author who attempts to recount and popularize an historic event.

We have carefully reviewed the portions of The Implosion Conspiracy which appellants have cited as defamatory. We agree with the district court that no passages are defamatory on their face. Of 77 pages cited, only 29 passages refer to appellants. Most of these passages contain innocuous references to the Rosenberg children and their interaction with their parents. While some of the accounts are undoubtedly somewhat fictionalized and inaccurate, almost none would be viewed as defamatory by any reasonable reader. Appellants were asked to specify in what respect the passages were false in answer to interrogatories from appellees. Their answers consisted in general allegations that the account misrepresented historical facts and cast their parents and their supporters in an unfavorable light. Three charges of falsity relating specifically to appellants are however included in the answers to the interrogatories.

On page 400 of his book Nizer writes, "Bloch [the Rosenberg's attorney] had placed Michael, nine years old, and Robert, five years old, in a Bronx shelter home." Appellants counter that they were never placed in a shelter by their parents' attorney. In fact the children were, at one point, transferred to a foster home because their paternal grandparents were ill and unable to care for them.


--SNIP--

[U S Army EOD]

Yes, like the ones who carry signs in demostrations that they don't understand or probably can't read.

[Liz]

Ad Libris web site may have it. They specialize in past publications.

[Liz]

And don't forget all those Fla Dumbocrats who drove to the polls in $50 thousand dollar advanced tech cars then couldn't figure out how to jab a hole in a paper ballot.

[skinkinthegrass]

Amazing, thanks...Was'nt there another book (in the last 5 yrs.) that reported the same data? I agree more exposure is needed for these books. :))

[Coleus]

http://www.nypost.com/missing/missing.htm

now the article is missing.

[atlanta67]

dont forget: Verona also proved

Rosenbergs GUILTY
Alger Hiss GUILTY