Blog

On July 4, 1945: The Man Who Tried To Halt the Atomic Bombings

On July 4, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter that would become the strongest (and one of the very few) real attempts at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb – which was two weeks from its first test at Trinity – against Japanese cities.

It’s well known that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the Szilard. On July 3, he finished a petition to the president for his fellow scientists to consider, which called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities.” It asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.”

The following day, July 4, he wrote this cover letter (below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief of the Manhattan Project, wrote Winston Churchill’s science advisor seeking advice on how to combat Szilard and his colleagues. The FBI was already following Szilard. The bomb would be dropped over Hiroshima on August 6.

July 4, 1945

Dear _______________

Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan.

Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.

Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

What happened next? Well, the petition gained from than 180 signatures—Oppenheimer obviously not one, and actively discouraged others – but was then delayed in getting to President Truman by Gen. Leslie Groves, military head of the Manhattan Project, until the A-bombs were ready to use, in early August. Groves also commissioned a poll of atomic scientists, which found that over 80% favored a demonstration shot only – so he squelched that, too. Much more in my 2020 book: The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood – and America – Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Keep reading

Marijuana Use Is Tied To ‘Significantly Higher Sexual Desire And Arousal,’ New Study Shows

Marijuana use is associated with increased sexual desire and arousal, as well as lower levels of sexual distress, new research shows.

The report, a doctoral thesis out of Queens University in Canada, includes two separate studies: an online survey of 1,547 cannabis users as well as a 28-day diary analysis of 115 individuals—87 of whom were marijuana users, while 28 were infrequent users or nonusers.

“More frequent cannabis use was linked with greater daily sexual desire,” wrote author Kayla M. Mooney. “On sexual activity days, participants reported significantly higher sexual desire and arousal on days they used cannabis compared to non-use days.”

“Across all study days (regardless of sexual activity), participants reported significantly higher sexual desire and lower sexual distress on days they used cannabis compared to non-use days,” the study continues, noting the findings could help inform both both sex therapy and general psychotherapy.

As for the online survey, “Approximately half of the sample reported sexual motivations for cannabis use, most commonly to enhance aspects of the sexual response,” according to the abstract.

The new report—which itself calls the relationship between cannabis and sexual functioning “complicated”—adds to a growing body of research about the subject.

For example, late last year a study found that cannabis-infused vaginal suppositories seemed to reduce sexual pain in women after treatment for gynecological cancer. Combining the suppositories with online exercises in “mindful compassion” offered patients even more substantial benefits.

“The outcomes favoured the [combined] group,” that research said “in which sexual function, levels of sexual arousal, lubrication, and orgasm increased, and the levels of sexual pain decreased.”

Earlier research also found that administration of a broad-spectrum, high-CBD vaginal suppository was associated with “significantly reduced frequency and severity of menstrual-related symptoms” as well as the symptoms’ negative impacts on daily life.

As for sexual fulfillment, a separate study last year found that while alcohol might be effective to “facilitate” sex, marijuana is better at enhancing sexual sensitivity and satisfaction.

While alcohol increased some elements of sexual attraction—including making people feel more attractive, more extroverted and more desirous—people who used marijuana “have more sensitivity and they are more sexually satisfied than when they consume alcohol,” authors wrote.

Keep reading

Czech Republic Bill To Legalize Marijuana Home Cultivation And Allow Psilocybin For Medical Use Heads To President’s Desk

Lawmakers in the Czech Republic have passed a bill to reform the nation’s drug laws by legalizing simple possession and home cultivation of marijuana and allowing the use of psilocybin for medical purposes.

One month after the Chamber of Deputies approved the legislation, the Senate gave it final approval on Thursday. It now heads to the desk of President Petr Pavel to be signed into law.

The drug policy reforms are part of a package of amendments to the Czechia’s criminal code that supporters say will reduce spending on low-priority offenses, lower the number of people behind bars and reduce recidivism.

“The amendment will help criminal law better distinguish between truly socially harmful behavior and cases that do not belong in criminal proceedings at all,” outgoing Justice Minister Pavel Blažek said last month, according to a translated report from broadcaster Česká Televize (CT).

With respect to cannabis, the proposal would legalize possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana at home or 25 grams in public. Cultivation of up to three plants would also be allowed, though four or five plants would be a misdemeanor and more than that would be a felony. Possession of more than 200 grams would also carry criminal penalties.

Keep reading

Independence From Empire Day 2025

We are independent of London, but are we independent of Washington? Is there more freedom when governed by one tyrant 3,000 miles away or by 3,000 tyrants a few miles away?
Does government today remotely resemble the values articulated on July 4th 1776?

When the president of the United States bombs the lawful facilities of a foreign country that pose no threat whatsoever to American national security and does so without a congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires; when thousands of non-violent folks in America are arrested by masked federal agents without warrants and kicked out of the country without due process; when troops patrol the streets of a large city in defiance of federal law; when both major political parties support mass surveillance, undeclared foreign wars and borrowing trillions of dollars a year to fund a bloated government — nearly all of which is nowhere countenanced by the Constitution — we can safely conclude that personal liberty in our once-free society has been radically diminished and is in the twilight of its existence.

Two hundred and forty-nine years ago this week, Thomas Jefferson was fuming in his rented rooms in Philadelphia as the Continental Congress was softening the tone of his final draft of what would become the most critical document and radical articulation of the origins of human freedom in American history. [Read Jefferson’s first draft.]

The Declaration of Independence is an indictment of King George III as well as a manifestation of limited government and maximum individual freedom.

Though the final version dropped some of Jefferson’s more bellicose language, the document as we know it is largely his — not only his lofty language but also the three principal Jeffersonian values that it manifests.

Keep reading

After All is Said and Done, American History is Human

The New York Time’s 1619 Project, a series of essays launched on August 18, 2019, sought to “reframe the country’s history” by placing slavery and the later prejudice that was indeed experienced by black Americans “at the very center of our national narrative.” Not electing our own leaders, not the Bill of Rights, not separation of powers. Racism, according to the 1619 Project authors and proponents, defines America’s origins.

In less than a year, the 1619 Project materials were transformed into a curriculum that was taught in 4,500 schools across the country. Since then, there have been national arguments over Critical Race Theory and DEI in schools. One group of professors conducted a survey in which they asked high school students how often they had heard certain phrases from their teachers. The study found that 36% of respondents said they heard the argument that “America is a fundamentally racist nation” often or almost daily.

This “America is fundamentally racist” view, in and of itself, is prejudiced. It labels our entire country because of the actions of a subgroup of people. So, should we wrap ourselves in the flag and avoid acknowledging the darker side of our history? Of course not. But the healthy response is not eternal and unending guilt; self-hate will not bring us any closer together as Americans.

The healthy response is to remind ourselves that we are human; some Americans humans held slaves and some freed slaves. Healing the nation is not about seeing only one side or the other, it is about seeing ourselves in our basic humanity. Author Jacob Needleman put it well in his book, The American Soul: Rediscovering the Wisdom of the Founders:

Like unregenerate man himself, America is both good and evil at the same time…When the real feeling, the deep sensing and pondering of each side of this contradiction begins to appear in us, something entirely new may be glimpsed in our hearts and in our actions. But, for that to happen, we first need to stand in front of each side of the contradiction without impatience and without helpless reactions of guilt or pride. We need to apprehend what is good in America, but without self-inflation, and what is evil in America, but without self-flagellation.

There is currently tremendous focus on the sins of slavery, so let’s ponder the other side, as Needleman suggests. Here are three early voices for the abolition of slavery, a very small sample of good people in colonial America.

Keep reading

Female Cyclists Allege They Were Tricked Into Racing Against Transgender Competitor: ‘It Was Hidden from Us’

Female cyclists are crying foul after an event in Wisconsin this week was won by a man competing as a woman — and the women are claiming they were deceived about the race.

In an interview with “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday, cyclist Debbie Milne charged that USA Cycling, the organization behind the competition, did not include the name of the male competitor in a list that was published before the event.

“It was hidden from us,” Milne said.

The event Tuesday was the Lyons Masters and Junior Road Race National Championships in Lyons, Wisconsin.

In the women’s aged 55-59 bracket, a “transgender” cyclist identified as Katheryn Phillips came in first.

But the problem is not only that Phillips is a man, but Milne said she and other competitors were not even aware Phillips would be competing.

“Basically, we came to compete and we found out, during the race, after the race that’s when we found out that there had been another competitor we thought just added,” she said.

However, Milne said, another racer spoke to a race official who said Phillips had been on the list of competitors since mid-June.

“There’s not been transparency there,” she said.

Keep reading

Kyiv On Fire As Russian Pummels Ukrainian Capital

Russian missiles and drones are attacking the capital of Ukraine – Kyiv.

Kyiv International Airport is apparently one of the main targets. Ukrainian air defense assets have been known to be located at the airport.

The attacks come after the phone call today between Russian President Putin and President Trump. POTUS said he was not happy after the call.

It looks like Moscow has decided to push for complete destruction of Ukraine’s military capability to resist, prior to suing for peace. This decision may be based on the Ukrainian destruction of Russian strategic nuclear aircraft just weeks ago.

Keep reading

Texas Gubernatorial Candidate Vows to Hold Fauci Accountable for ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ 

Retired Green Beret Doc Pete Chambers just announced he’s running for Texas Governor, vowing to issue arrest warrants for those who have committed crimes against humanity—starting with Anthony Fauci.

He says he witnessed vaccine injuries firsthand among his own soldiers and is determined to hold the architects of the COVID pandemic accountable, no matter how powerful they are.

“They will be afraid to come into Texas,” he warned.

Doc Pete Chambers is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, Special Forces Green Beret and physician who has dedicated his life to defending freedom and serving others from combat zones to the Texas border.

Doc has always shown up where leadership is needed most. Over the weekend, he stunned the country and the world when he announced that he’s running for governor of Texas.

If elected governor, he promises to go after those who have committed crimes against humanity. His first target? Anthony Fauci.

Needless to say, people are very keen to hear from Doc Pete Chambers. He joins us to detail why Texas desperately needs a new governor, and why he is the only man for the job.

Keep reading

FLASHBACK: That Time in 2021 When Hakeem Jeffries Called the Filibuster a Racist Artifact of the Jim Crow Era 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries launched an hours-long filibuster today, in an unsuccessful attempt to block the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill.

The liberal media talked about it all day. They just couldn’t get enough of Jeffries’ ‘historic’ speech.

Here’s how CBS News framed the story:

Hakeem Jeffries sets record for longest House speech before vote on Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”

There’s no filibuster in the House, but Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries essentially conducted one anyway as the House debated President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” before it passed on Thursday.

Jeffries held the House floor for more than eight hours, taking his “sweet time” with a marathon floor speech that delayed passage of Republicans’ massive tax and spending cuts legislation and gave his minority party a lengthy spotlight to excoriate what he called an “immoral” bill.

As Democratic leader, Jeffries can speak for as long as he wants during debate on legislation — hence its nickname on Capitol Hill, the “magic minute,” that lasts as long as leaders are speaking.

He began the speech at 4:53 a.m. ET and finished at 1:37 p.m. ET, 8 hours, 44 minutes later, breaking the record set by then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California in 2021, when he was the GOP leader. McCarthy spoke for 8 hours, 32 minutes when he angrily criticized Democrats’ “Build Back Better” legislation, breaking a record set by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, when she spoke about immigration for 8 hours, 7 minutes in 2018.

So brave. So historic. One little problem.

Back in 2021, during an appearance on MSNBC with Al Sharpton, Jeffries called the filibuster a racist artifact of the Jim Crow era, and complained that the filibuster was allowing people to stand in the way of progress.

Keep reading

Taxpayers WHACKED with $66k legal bill for E-Karen’s failure

The eSafety Commissioner’s failed legal battle against Elon Musk’s social media platform X and Canadian activist Chris Elston — better known as Billboard Chris — will cost Australian taxpayers approximately $66,000.

The Administrative Review Tribunal on Tuesday threw out a takedown order issued by Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in response to a controversial post by Elston criticising the World Health Organisation’s inclusion of radical transgender activist Teddy Cook on a policy panel.

In February 2024, Elston shared a post on X stating: “This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people’. People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.”

Inman Grant deemed the post “degrading” and issued a takedown notice to X on March 22, threatening the company with a $782,500 fine if it failed to remove the post. X blocked the content, but subsequently challenged the decision alongside Elston.

On Tuesday, the Tribunal sided with X and Elston, ruling the takedown order invalid. Deputy president Damien O’Donovan stated that there was no evidence Elston intended for Cook to see the post.

“In the absence of any evidence that Mr Elston intended that Mr Cook would receive and read the post, and in light of the broader explanation as to why Mr Elston made the post, I am satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook,” the ruling read.

An eSafety spokesperson confirmed the legal challenge had so far cost “approximately $66,000”, and acknowledged the Tribunal’s guidance.

eSafety said it would continue an agenda to “protect Australians from online abuse” while taking the Tribunal’s findings into account.

Keep reading