Hoffman,Abraham. “The El Monte Berry Pickers’ Strike, 1933: International Involvementin a Local Labor Dispute.” 12, no. 1(1973). Account of the 1933 involving “Mexican laborers, Communist agitators,Japanese employers, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and businessrepresentatives, and state and federal mediators . . . over issues of wages,hours, and working conditions. . . . The El Monte strike, however, claimed thedistinction of direct involvement by the government of Mexico, in the form ofdiplomatic pressure, monetary assistance, and consular intervention. . . .”
Ruíz,Vicki. . Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press, 1987. Discusses the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing,and Allied Workers of America, CIO, a union with significant Communistleadership.
Fischel,Jacob Robert. “Harry Gideonse: The Public Life.” Ph.D. diss. University ofDelaware, 1973. Biography of the anti-Communist liberal president of BrooklynCollege (1939-1966) who eliminated much of the Communist Party influence in thecollege and who as a leader of Freedom House also opposed Joseph McCarthy.
Holmes,Judith Larrabee. “Passage of the 1935 Teachers Loyalty Oath in Massachusetts:Brahman Prerogatives, Catholic Sensibilities and the Communist Threat.” Paperpresented at Social Science History Association Conference. Baltimore, MD,1993.
Gettleman,Marvin E. “Communists in Higher Education: CCNY and Brooklyn College on the Eveof the Rapp-Coudert Investigation, 1935-1939.” Paper presented at Organizationof American Historians Annual Meeting, 1977.
Although the BAC was a government advisory group, the corporate community itself selected its members. Through consultation with the leading policy groups and trade associations, the corporate leaders that set it up made a deliberate attempt to enlist highly visible and respected members of the corporate community (McQuaid 1976; McQuaid 1982). At the outset, it had 41 members, representing a cross-section of business and financial executives. Several members of the Special Conference Committee were in this group, as well as officers of other large banks, retail firms, policy groups, and trade associations. Eighteen of the 60 largest banks, railroads, utilities, and manufacturing corporations of the day were linked to the BAC through the multiple corporate directorships held by some BAC members. There were also numerous regional and local businessmen from across the country.
Gerard Swope, the president of General Electric, and a friend of the New Deal, was named chairman of the BAC. Teagle was selected as chairman of its Industrial Relations Committee, which demonstrates the central role of the Rockefeller network in the corporate community once again. One of Teagle's first decisions was to appoint all the vice-presidents that were members of the Special Conference Committee to the Industrial Relations Committee, thereby making that private group into a governmental body. Rockefeller's personal employee, Edward Cowdrick, the aforementioned secretary of the Special Conference Committee, was made secretary of the new BAC committee. Reflecting the seamless overlap of the corporate community and government in the early New Deal, Cowdrick wrote as follows to an AT&T executive. The memo deserves to be quoted because it reveals one of the ways the corporate leaders explained their involvement in government advisory groups, as well as a decision to avoid any mention of the Special Conference Committee, even though the government advisory meetings were part of Special Conference Committee meetings. The members were told they would be there as individuals, not as representatives of their companies or as members of the Special Conference Committee:
Not surprisingly, perhaps, the first task of the new Industrial Relations Committee was to prepare a report on employee representation and collective bargaining, which favored employee representation plans and criticized unions (Scheinberg 1986, p. 163). However, it did not really take a report from the new BAC to prod the corporate community into defensive action by quickly installing employee representation plans (Jacoby 1997, pp. 157-159). As if to signal that it meant to continue the central role it had always taken in resisting unions, U.S. Steel hired the longtime director of the IRC, Arthur H. Young, as its vice president in charge of industrial relations.
Any qualms about the administration of the act seemed to disappear for the ultraconservatives when someone they trusted, whose name and story need not sidetrack us here, was appointed as the NRA director. To the great satisfaction of ultraconservatives, he immediately made an interpretation of the collective bargaining section that discouraged unionization. He also accepted many other suggestions made to him by businessmen, including various mechanisms for setting industry wide prices. Further, he ended any lingering concerns on the part of Southern Democrats by ruling that the Agricultural Adjustment Administration would deal with any issues concerning agricultural labor, a ruling that was backed up with a series of executive orders by Roosevelt (Farhang and Katznelson 2005, p. 12).
FactE: The mass and size of nations around Israel makes it appear as a blotch on the map. Though they spend more on defense than the surrounding nations, those nations whom are anti semetic have much more space, food, and resources than Israel, there are a few exceptions to this, but again, they are few. If Israel truely had designs on world domination, they could and would have already began making large scale incursions and capturing territories outside of their own border. They do not. They happily sit, trade, work, share and communicate from their own tiny little place on the world map, even while being shelled. Even when they do attack back, they go right back home. Instead of capturing territory they instead neutralize the threat and head home. They then wait and hope that it will not start up again. Any nation with designs on world domination must capture territory to gather more resources. The Jews trade for their resources.
FactF: A good man is a good man, and a bad man is a bad man, just as a good Hebrew is a good Hebrew and a bad one is a bad one. This is vice versa as well. You can go anywhere in the world and see people acting horribly to one another. This is not something new. The difference is the Hebrews shun, reject and denounce those among them who act out of line with the morals of their people. This is also true for many other peoples, the difference is that the Hebrew expects a permanent change before the individual can be respected as they once were in the community. Many other nations celebrate the sociopath and tolerate the liar and the psychopath and then wonder why things are going bad. As examples we have leaders of many of the arabic nations. Whos leaders lie, cheat, steal, starve their own people all the while touting their greatness. We see this same thing in North Korea. This is something that most often is abnormal in Jewish society.