Austin, TX
Transcript: Historian H.W. Brands on
The following is a transcript of an interview with H.W. Brands, Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair in History at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War,” on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that aired on Dec. 1, 2024.
MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back. We turn now to author and historian H.W. Brands. He is the Jack S. Blanton Sr. Chair at the University of Texas at Austin, and his latest book is “America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War.” He joins us this morning from Austin, Texas. H.W., it’s great to see you. First of all, what does this “America First” clash then tell us, if anything, about today and references to “America first”?
H.W. BRANDS: The debate that I describe in the book is whether the United States should enter World War II between the time Germany started the war in September of 1939 and the United States entered the war in December of 1941. That was the narrow focus of the debate. The larger question, and the one that persists today, is, what do Americans think their country’s role in the world ought to be? Should the United States, must the United States, take a leading role in the world? Should the United States concern itself in conflicts among other nations that perhaps don’t directly address American interests? This- this was the question then, it’s a question we’re dealing with again today.
MAJOR GARRETT: If you could, sketch out briefly Charles Lindbergh’s stature at the time this debate with Franklin Delano Roosevelt was engaged.
BRANDS: Lindbergh came to the attention of the American public, indeed, to the world public, in 1927 when he flew a solo flight for the first time across the Atlantic Ocean. He became this national hero. He became a world celebrity for accomplishing this great technical feat, but it was also a feat of personal daring. He was a darling of the United States, a darling in other countries. He was decorated by foreign governments. He became an early celebrity in an age when celebrity was first starting to take form. So that was his position as of 1927. His celebrity took a different turn in the early 1930s when his and his wife’s infant son was kidnapped and murdered in what then was called the “crime of the century,” which gave raise- which gave rise to the “trial of the century.” And so this golden boy, all of a sudden, had a dark shadow cast across his life. And so he was, in some ways, this star crossed hero, at that point. He continued to be influential in aeronautical engineering circles. He knew a lot about aircraft, but in the American mind, he was this- he was this great celebrity. And many people were surprised, actually, that he did take a leading role in the debate over American policy, because he was not a political figure. He eschewed politics.
MAJOR GARRETT: And in that debate with Roosevelt, did Roosevelt and his administration regard Charles Lindbergh as a potential political threat? And if so, how did they deal with him?
BRANDS: It’s a little bit hard to say. Franklin Roosevelt, at some point, decided that he wanted to run for a third term. This broke a long standing informal rule of American politics. And he knew that Republicans were constantly going up to Charles Lindbergh and saying, you could be president, you’d be a great candidate. Lindbergh’s father had been a congressman, but Lindbergh took from his father’s experience, which- which turned out badly because of his opposition to American policy during World War I, that he didn’t want to have anything to do with politics or politicians. He considered politicians a bunch of liars, people who could not be trusted, and he considered politics this low and sort of mean occupation that he wanted to have nothing to do with.
MAJOR GARRETT: When this debate began in 1931, Lindbergh was in one place. When it ended in 1941, he was in a different place in the public mind. Some accused him of being a Nazi sympathizer. Some editorialists described him as an antisemite. Where do you come down?
BRANDS: The one thing I should say is that everybody who called him an antisemite or a Nazi sympathizer had political reasons for doing so, because Lindbergh became the face of opposition to American intervention in the war. And it served his opponents’ purposes to paint him in this negative category. In terms of his Nazi sympathy, he- there were American Nazis. There was an American Nazi Party. They were clearly Nazi sympathizers. Lindbergh was not a member of the party. In fact, the America First Committee, of which Lindbergh was a part, took pains to keep its distance from those. Lindbergh did not want Germany to win the war. His position was that the United States should not place its frontier of security in the middle of Europe,the way Franklin Roosevelt and the interventions appeared to be doing. But because he took that position, and it was a position that the Germans supported, the Germans didn’t want the United States to enter the war. There was this objective sense in which one could say that when Lindbergh gave a speech, it served the purposes of the German government.
MAJOR GARRETT: How about his appraisal of American Jews wanting to push America into the war and then exercising outsized influence culturally in our country?
BRANDS: So, the charges of antisemitism against Lindbergh really are associated with a single speech he gave in the autumn of 1941, in which he identified three groups that, in his opinion, were most influential in pushing the United States toward war. One was the British government. Britain was already at war, and he explained it was natural that they would try to get the United States involved in the war. The second group, he said, was American Jews, and he said it’s perfectly understandable that they should want the United States to get into the war, given what Hitler and the Nazis have done to their relatives, friends, co-religionists in Europe. And the third group was the Roosevelt administration. He was most critical of the Roosevelt administration because Lindbergh claimed that Roosevelt was using the excuse of the war to further his own political ambitions. Now, merely for mentioning American Jews in the context of war policy, the sky fell down upon Lindbergh. Everybody who wanted to make sure that they weren’t accused of antisemitism, everybody who opposed Lindbergh’s policy, came down and pointed the finger of antisemitism at Lindbergh. To what extent was Lindbergh actually an antisemite? Well, I would say- I would- I put him in the category of the sort of, not in my country club, kind of antisemite, which was extremely common in the United States at the time.
MAJOR GARRETT: Very quickly, H.W., there’s a clash over information and disinformation, both sides warn each other and the American public about that. Unspool that for us, if you could, real quick.
BRANDS: The British government and the German government, the two antagonists that were at that point, were both engaged in propaganda campaigns in the United States. And so when the British government would plant editorials, features, in American newspapers, often unknown to the reading public, then Lindbergh and his side would say, well, look what the British government is doing. When the German government would do something similar, then the Roosevelt administration would say, look at what the German government is doing. So each side then, the governments of the two sides, they were doing their best to sway American public opinion, because they realized that, in the end, it was American public opinion that had to be persuaded.
MAJOR GARRETT: Foreign interference in American public opinion, then and now. H.W. Brands, it’s been a pleasure. Thank you so much. And we’ll be right back
After ranking as the third-best large U.S. city for starting a business last year, Austin took a surprising tumble into the 24th spot nationally for 2026.
WalletHub’s annual report, “Best Large Cities to Start a Business (2026)” compared 100 U.S. cities based on 19 relevant metrics across three key dimensions: business environment, access to resources, and costs. Factors that were analyzed include five-year business survival rates, job growth comparisons from 2020 and 2024, population growth of working-age individuals aged 16-64, office space affordability, and more.
Florida cities locked other states out of the top five best places in America for starting a new business: Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, Hialeah, and St. Petersburg.
Austin’s business environment ranked 11th best in the country, and the city ranked ninth in the “access to resources” category. The city also tied with Boise, Idaho, and Fresno, California, for the highest average growth in the number of small businesses nationally.
Austin lagged behind in the “business costs” ranking, coming in at No. 80 overall. This category examined metrics such as the city’s working-age population growth, the share of college-educated individuals, financing accessibility, the prevalence of investors, venture investment amounts per capita, and more.
Earlier this year, WalletHub declared Texas the third-best state for starting a business in 2026, and several Houston-area cities have seen robust growth after being recognized among the best career hotspots in the U.S. WalletHub also ranked Austin on its top-10 list of the best U.S. cities to find a job. Entrepreneurial praise has also been extended to 15 Austin-based innovators that made Inc Magazine’s 2026 Female Founders 500 list.
Texas cities with strong environments for new businesses
Multiple cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex can claim bragging rights as the best Texas locales for starting a new business. Dallas ranked highest overall — appearing 11th nationally — and Irving landed a few spots behind in the 16th spot. Arlington (No. 23), Fort Worth (No. 30), Plano, (No. 35), and Garland (No. 65) followed behind.
Only six other Texas cities earned spots in the report: Houston (No. 26), Lubbock (No. 36), Corpus Christi (No. 39), San Antonio (No. 64), El Paso (No. 67), and Laredo (No. 76). Corpus Christi and Laredo also topped WalletHub’s list of the U.S. cities with the most accessible financing.
“From the Gold Rush and the Industrial Revolution to the Internet Age, periods of innovation have shaped our economy and driven major societal progress,” the report’s author wrote. “However, the past few years have been particularly challenging for business owners in the U.S., due to factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the Great Resignation and high inflation.”
Austin, TX
‘I want to be louder’: Austin Drag King Bobby Pudrido refuses to be deterred by Texas ban
Jay Thomas grew up like any kid, laughing at silly things and making up funny names.
So in the ’90s, when Tejano superstar Bobby Pulido’s songs played on the radio, young Jay and his peers couldn’t help but rhyme his last name with the Spanish word pudrido (which means rotten in English).
“We grew up calling him that just because it was funny,” he told Austin Signal host Jerry Quijano.
When he was thinking of a name for his drag persona, Thomas created a list.
“I was thinking of some queer icons and some not queer icons,” he said. “This one just resonated because he is a Tejano star. And in the ’90s he was this really big heartthrob that everybody wanted to be or be with.”
And three years ago, Thomas became Drag King Bobby Pudrido.
He thought it would be fun to impersonate a masculine figure from the Latino community and perform for an audience attracted to that type of energy. He also wanted to bring his culture into his drag.
Pudrido’s name has new recognition these days: Tejano singer Pulido decided to retire from music and go into politics. He’s running for Congress in South Texas’ District 15 against incumbent Republican Monica De La Cruz.
Both in an out of drag, Pudrido is also politically vocal. He advocates for trans rights and against the drag ban that went into effect statewide in March. The law prohibits drag performances in public properties or in front of children. Venues that host these performances can be fined up to $10,000.
“As a drag artist, one of the things we need to do is get booked so we can pay our bills,” Pudrido said.
Even though it’s unclear whether the ban affects some venues, he said, he thinks certain business owners won’t book drag performers because of the risk of being fined.
But as a working-class artist, he doesn’t have the luxury to dwell on it.
“You have to go to work, because you need to pay your bills,” he said.
The law has taken an emotional toll on him, too.
“The way it chips away at a queer person to hear any type of anti-queer legislation pass is something that is really big for me,“ he said. “We are constantly — just as human beings — trying to maintain our mental health. “
But that doesn’t mean his love for performing has been diminished. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
“It has fueled me,” Pudrido said. “Right now I’m in the angry phase where I want to be louder.”
As a performer and producer, the drag king has put on shows in the Austin area and recently traveled back to his hometown in Laredo for a show.
“It’s hard for drag kings to get booked sometimes, so we are still far away from the perfect ideal world for [them],” he said. “But the fact that I have a platform at all is huge.”
Pudrido’s passion for performing comes from his drag ancestors, “who started the art form as a way of being political and of being against the systems that were oppressing queer people.”
Drag King Bobby Prudido is currently producing his second queer quinceañera, “Con Mucho Amor,” with an anticipated show date in the fall.
Austin, TX
Men wrongly accused of grisly yogurt shop murders in Texas reach $35 million settlement with city
The city of Austin will pay $35 million to three men and the family of a fourth who were wrongly accused of the 1991 rape and murder of four teenage girls at a yogurt shop, a case that initially sent one of the men to death row and another to life in prison, under a tentative settlement reached Tuesday.
Robert Springsteen, Michael Scott, Forrest Welborn and Maurice Pierce had all insisted they were innocent of one of the city’s most notorious crimes. They were finally declared innocent by a judge in February after investigators determined the crime was committed by a suspect who died in 1999.
The settlement must still be approved by the city council at a later date. Details of the payments to the men and their families were not released.
“This settlement closes the final chapter of a devastating story in Austin’s history,” Austin City Manager T.C. Broadnax said in a statement. “We are pleased to have reached an agreement with those who were wrongly accused and wrongly convicted in this case and hope that this settlement brings a sense of closure to everyone affected by this horrific event.”
Scott and his attorney Tony Diaz said in a joint statement they are hopeful the settlement will help improve investigation practices and safeguards against wrongful convictions.
“Discussions and negotiations are ongoing regarding police reforms that would help ensure that nothing like what occurred in this case ever happens again,” they said.
Amy Ayers, 13; Eliza Thomas, 17; and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison, ages 17 and 15, were bound, gagged and shot in the head at the “I Can’t Believe It’s Yogurt” store where two of them worked. The building was set on fire.
Investigators chased thousands of leads and several false confessions before the four men, who were teenagers when the girls were killed, were arrested in late 1999.
Springsteen and Scott were convicted based largely on confessions they insisted were coerced by police. Both convictions were overturned in the mid-2000s.
Welborn was charged but never tried after two grand juries refused to indict him. Pierce spent three years in jail before the charges were dismissed. He died in 2010 in a confrontation with police after a traffic stop.
Prosecutors wanted to try Springsteen and Scott again, but a judge ordered the charges dismissed in 2009 when new DNA tests that were unavailable in 1991 and the previous trials revealed another male suspect.
Investigators determined in 2025 that new DNA science and reviews of old ballistics evidence pointed to Robert Eugene Brashers as the sole killer.
Since 2018, authorities had used advanced DNA evidence to link Brashers to the strangulation death of a South Carolina woman in 1990, the 1997 rape of a 14-year-old girl in Tennessee and the shooting of a mother and daughter in Missouri in 1998.
The link to the Austin case came when a DNA sample taken from under Ayers’ fingernail came back as a match to Brashers from the 1990 killing.
Brashers died in 1999 when he shot himself during an hourslong standoff with police at a motel in Kennett, Missouri.
-
West Virginia2 minutes agoPrimary Election Post Mortem – WV MetroNews
-
Wyoming8 minutes agoWyoming High School Softball Regional Tournaments 2026
-
Crypto14 minutes agoADI Foundation and Settlemint Launch ADGM Tokenization Rail for $30.9B RWAs
-
Finance20 minutes agoHousehold savings, income and finances in Spain: how did they fare in 2025 and what can we expect for 2026?
-
Fitness26 minutes agoWhat is Americans’ favorite exercise? New study reveals a surprising trend in fitness habits
-
Movie Reviews38 minutes agoReview | Nagi Notes: Koji Fukada ponders the meaning of art in wartime
-
World50 minutes ago
Denise Powell wins Democratic primary in Nebraska’s ‘blue dot’ 2nd District
-
News56 minutes agoSouth Carolina Governor Plans Special Session to Redraw House Maps
