Heracles, or Hercules as the Romans called him, is more than just an ancient Greek hero with superhuman strength. His story and the famous 12 Labors of Hercules offer timeless lessons that extend far beyond the realm of mythology. Whether you’re seeking wisdom for personal growth, leadership insights, or historical fascination, Heracles delivers! But why do these myths still resonate, and what can we learn from them today? Let’s take a deep dive into this legendary hero’s trials and triumphs. Timeless Lessons from Heracles What do slaying lions, outsmarting birds, and capturing the guardian of the underworld have in common? They’re all challenges faced by Heracles in his pursuit of redemption and greatness. But these aren’t just epic tales; they are metaphors for human struggles. The 12 Labors of Hercules Lessons highlight the value of perseverance, courage, and strategy—qualities that remain timeless in their relevance to Greek mythology life lessons and modern challenges. Hercules and His Enduring Relevance The story of Heracles is iconic because it mirrors the common human experience. Everyone faces challenges—while most of us don’t wrestle lions like Heracles and the Nemean Lion, the 12 Labors of Hercules remind us of moments that require grit, resilience, and clever thinking. These famous Greek mythology stories resonate with life lessons from Greek mythology that apply even today. Through his sufferings and triumphs, Heracles stands as a universal symbol of overcoming adversity. Let’s explore his origins, his labors, and the lessons we can draw from them. Unpacking Myths: A Short Summary of 12 Hercules LaborsThe Origins of Heracles To understand the Labors, it’s essential to know the backstory of Heracles. His birth was anything but ordinary. His Birth and Divine Parentage Heracles was the son of Zeus, the king of the Greek gods, and a mortal woman named Alcmene. This divine parentage set the stage for his extraordinary life. However, it also made him a target of Hera, Zeus’s wife, who viewed Heracles as a constant reminder of her husband’s infidelity. Hera’s Role in His Challenges Hera’s wrath shaped much of Heracles’ life. Her schemes eventually led to the 12 Labors of Hercules Lessons, each teaching unique strategies for overcoming obstacles, as seen in myths like the Nemean Lion mythology or the Golden Apples of the Hesperides.. Fueled by jealousy, Hera cursed Heracles, driving him into a fit of rage that tragically resulted in the death of his family. Seeking redemption, Heracles was tasked with completing a series of seemingly impossible challenges to atone for his actions. Overview of the Twelve Labors The 12 Labors of Hercules are more than just a list of impressive feats. They are a mythological framework—a guide to understanding the trials and triumphs that define the human experience. Here’s a quick recap of each labor and what made it so significant. 1. Slaying the Nemean Lion  The Nemean lion was no ordinary beast; its skin was impenetrable. Heracles used his wit and strength, strangling the lion with his bare hands and later using its hide as armor. This labor highlights ingenuity and resourcefulness in the face of overwhelming odds. 2. Slaying the Lernaean Hydra  The Hydra, a serpent with multiple heads, grew two heads for each one Heracles cut off. Working smart, not just hard, Heracles enlisted his nephew, Iolaus, to cauterize the necks after decapitation, preventing regrowth. Talk about teamwork and strategy! 3. Capturing the Ceryneian Hind  This swift and sacred deer of Artemis could outrun even the wind. Heracles pursued it for a year, showcasing an extraordinary level of patience and persistence. 4. Capturing the Erymanthian Boar  Heracles chased the boar into deep snow, demonstrating his ability to adapt to the environment and persevere under challenging conditions. 5. Cleaning the Augean Stables  This labor was no ordinary clean-up task; it involved mucking out the filth of thousands of animals accumulated over years. Heracles ingeniously rerouted two rivers to wash out the stables, exemplifying innovative problem-solving. 6. Slaying the Stymphalian Birds  Armed with metallic feathers that could pierce armor, these birds were lethal. Heracles used noise and cunning—clanging bronze castanets gifted by Athena—to scare them into flight, making them easier targets. 7. Capturing the Cretan Bull  This powerful, wild beast wreaked havoc on Crete. Heracles wrestled it into submission, mastering the art of tackling chaos head-on. 8. Stealing the Mares of Diomedes  These carnivorous horses devoured humans, but Heracles subdued them after feeding them their master. This labor showcased his courage and strategic thinking. 9. Obtaining Hippolyta’s Girdle  Heracles secured this symbol of power from the Amazonian queen, Hippolyta, through negotiation before Hera’s interference turned the encounter into battle. He exhibited a mix of diplomacy and combat skill. 10. Retrieving the Cattle of Geryon  This labor involved defeating a three-bodied giant and herding cattle across vast, treacherous lands—an epic showcase of physical endurance. 11. Acquiring the Golden Apples of the Hesperides  The apples belonged to Hera and were guarded by an immortal dragon. Heracles needed both strength and cleverness, convincing Atlas to help while strategically maneuvering out of holding the sky. This labor emphasizes the value of constructive collaboration. 12. Capturing Cerberus  The three-headed hound guarding the gates to the Underworld was Heracles’ final labor. By mastering fear and resilience, Heracles brought Cerberus back to the surface without harming it, concluding his trials on a note of control and compassion. Key Themes and Lessons from the Labors Each labor embodies life lessons that are as powerful now as they were in ancient Greece. 1. Courage and Strength in the Face of Adversity  Whether wrestling creatures or confronting the loss of loved ones, Heracles reminds us that bravery is essential in rising above hardships. 2. Perseverance in the Face of Challenges  From pursuing the Hind for a year to crossing dangerous terrains, Heracles demonstrated relentless determination. 3. The Power of Strategy and Intelligence  Brute strength wasn’t enough. Heracles succeeded through innovation, creative thinking, and strategic alliances. 4. Teamwork and Collaboration  Several labors required teamwork, proving that even the mightiest hero benefits from help. 5. Redemption and Personal Growth Through Trials  The 12 Labors of Hercules Lessons symbolize Heracles’ path to redemption and transformation, offering enduring Greek mythology life lessons that reflect the universal human experience. 6. The Importance of Patience and Persistence  Not all victories are quick. Perseverance, as shown in the pursuit of the Hind or cleaning the Augean Stables, is key to achieving long-term success. Cultural and Modern Relevance The 12 Labors of Hercules extend far beyond ancient Greece, influencing countless works in art, literature, and even pop culture. Ancient Greek Society revered Heracles as the epitome of human virtue and resilience. Modern Adaptations, like Disney’s Hercules or novels inspired by the famous Greek mythology stories, continue to bring attention to Heracles’ challenges and the timeless lessons from Greek mythology they embody. Applications in Modern Life Heracles’ trials hold practical applications in leadership and self-improvement today. Leadership Insights highlight the importance of resilience and teamwork. Overcoming Obstacles mirrors Heracles’ fights, encouraging us to face personal and professional challenges head-on. Personal Growth draws from the struggles and redemption arc of his story. Finding Strength in the 12 Labors of Hercules The myth of Heracles and his 12 Labors of Hercules offers lessons brimming with wisdom, even in today’s fast-moving world. Whether you see the labors as metaphors for personal goals, professional challenges, or as inspiring stories of perseverance and strategy, they continue to captivate and motivate us. Take a page from Heracles’ story—confront your own Nemean Lions and Hydras, one labor at a time. Just like the 12 Labors of Hercules, who knows? You too might uncover your inner demigod.

Franklin Roosevelt’s battle with the famous aviator and anti-interventionist Charles Lindbergh is often presented as a morality play showing Roosevelt to be the long-sighted hero in the war on fascism. Since then, Democrats have lobbed charges of fascism against Republicans, the latest being Donald Trump. So, one wonders at the timing of two books this year. On September 24, came the latest of thirty books by history professor H.W. Brands, America First: Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh in the Shadow of War, which followed the June 4, release of Awakening the Spirit of America: FDR’s War of Words with Charles Lindbergh — and the Battle to Save Democracy by former director of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, Paul M. Sparrow. But what Lindbergh got wrong was the American people: they had few “regrets” about interventionism and becoming a superpower. Brands’s use of the antagonists’ speeches, correspondence, and journals to weave a storyline, some say, offers an unfiltered objective account. But the technique deceives. Brands remains the FDR fanboy he was in his earlier book, Traitor to His Class: The Privileged Life and Radical Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (2008), where he wondered, “What traumas or epiphanies had transformed a Hudson Valley patrician into a champion of the common people of America?” And where he also marveled at how the “signature line of his first inaugural address — that the only thing America had to fear was fear itself — spoken in his confident tenor, had “flashed across the radio waves to every neighborhood, village, and hamlet in the country” and “soothed the worst of the fears and allowed the president and Congress to pull the financial system back from the brink.” In America First, Brands briefly describes Lindbergh’s upbringing as the son of an anti-interventionist (World War I) Minnesota Congressman, his technical precocity, his solitariness, the first world-famous solo transatlantic flight in 1927, and the kidnapping and murder of his young son. FDR is still the heroic “traitor to his class.” He “charmed people with his winning smile.” After contracting polio, he retreated to the “soothing waters” of Warm Springs, Georgia, where he got to know “humble whites and blacks often overlooked by one or both political parties.” He became more “empathetic.” He did not complain; “his typical expression was a broad smile; the hearty hello with which he greeted visitors boomed louder than ever.” The image was cultivated, though. Although FDR called himself a “cracker farmer,” he belonged to the most exclusive clubs where decisions were made with fellow East Coast millionaires, as Lynne Olson details in her 2013 title, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941. As he campaigned for president, writes Brands, Roosevelt promised “a ‘new deal’ between government and the ordinary people of America without elaborating” and “steered especially clear of foreign affairs.” As president, he expertly maneuvered the American public, a feat illustrated by a photo caption for the Pearl Harbor bombing: “Miscues by Lindbergh and the antiwar movement, combined with Roosevelt’s political savvy, made full-scale American intervention almost inevitable by the autumn of 1941.” FDR’s “savvy” included a British spy and propaganda agency in Rockefeller Center and taps on telephone lines of the anti-interventionist organization America First. Lindbergh, when he made speeches for America First, assumed that explanations would convince. In describing Lindbergh’s famous speech on September 11, 1941, in Des Moines, Brands refrains from speculating about Lindbergh’s “hidden” or “unspoken antisemitism” (unlike Sparrow). He notes that Lindbergh’s reference to American Jews being one of the three groups agitating for war (the other two being the British and the FDR administration) was accompanied by statements of sympathy and concern. Brands places Lindbergh’s “anti-Semitism” within his views about the “white” race (a term not given historical context). Little is said about Roosevelt’s attitude towards Jews — outside of his circle of men of wealth and advanced degrees — other than that FDR gave “lukewarm support” (as did “Jewish leaders”) to Interior Secretary Harold Ickes’ idea of relocating persecuted Jews to Alaska. FDR was more interested in exploiting Lindbergh’s faux pas in Des Moines. Riding on public outrage, he tarred Lindbergh a “Copperhead,” a “Fifth Columnist,” and finally Nazi sympathizer. Surrogates amplified the charges. But Lindbergh had inspired FDR’s wrath earlier, in 1934, when he criticized him over breach of contract and the deaths of twelve military pilots — recounted in Olson’s book, as well as in Wayne S. Cole’s Charles Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (1974), A. Scott Berg’s Lindbergh (1998), and especially in James P. Duffy’s Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt: The Rivalry That Divided America (2010, Regnery). Democrats during the 1934 midterm election season ginned up charges against airmail delivery contracts that had been assigned during the Herbert Hoover administration, after the McNary-Watres Act of 1930. Seeing opportunities, some airlines lobbied for cancellations through postmaster general James Farley. Farley talked to Roosevelt and recommended that carriers continue mail delivery until June 1, allowing time for new bids. But FDR overruled Farley and the attorney general, and ignoring protests, issued an executive order for Army delivery of airmail. The most prominent protestor, internationally famous aviator, chair of the technical committee of Transcontinental Air Transport, and colonel in the U.S. Army Officers’ Reserve Corps, Charles Lindbergh made the front page of the February 12 New York Times for his telegram to Roosevelt condemning the cancellations and his agreement “with veteran mail pilots that the lives of men inexperienced in mail operations, and flying planes not equipped with radio or the blind flying instruments necessary for the service, may be risked.” Vowing to “get that fair-haired boy,” FDR questioned Lindbergh’s pay. (Lindbergh, in solidarity with pilots experiencing salary cutbacks, voluntarily cut his own.) After the resulting deadly crashes and delivery delays brought public outcry, FDR lied that General Staff member Douglas MacArthur had assured him about safety and asked Congress to pass a bill returning airmail delivery to private carriers (but making companies suing over contract cancellations ineligible). Lindbergh testified at a March 16 committee hearing about lack of due process (confirmed by the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 1935). Brands ignores this unflattering controversy and spins the one about the London economic conference in summer 1933, claiming that FDR’s statement, “The sound internal economic system of a nation is a greater factor in its well-being than the price of its currency in changing terms of the currencies of other nations,” was an adroit strategy of waving “the flag of nationalism.” It was really an excuse for one of FDR’s sudden reversals — on his promise to stabilize currency by establishing an internationally agreed-on price for gold. It landed like a “bombshell” in Europe. Diplomatic historian Frederick Marks III traces FDR’s disastrous foreign policy to the fact that he had “little intellectual or moral commitment to a specific strategy” and rejected “the advice of nearly all his counselors.” Indeed, even as president, FDR remained a dilettantish country squire. “Misrepresentation, ambivalence, and prevarication” resulted in “false hope on the part of Tokyo” and the view in the Third Reich that “Western policy [was] a colossal bluff built upon a militarily defunct United States,” writes Marks. Indeed, FDR’s announcement in 1933 to reduce the already small Army of 140,000 caused MacArthur to famously explode in anger. In 1937, FDR reduced the War Department’s requested appropriation by $40 million. Writes Marks, “FDR refused to carry the case for rearmament until opinion polls showed him lagging well behind Congress and the public. All at once, he became a consistent advocate of Allied resistance to Germany.” This differs from Brands’s textbook depiction of FDR monitoring Benito Mussolini’s Fascist party that spawned “bellicose nationalism” in several countries, including Spain and Germany, where Hitler “assumed the chancellorship at almost the same moment Roosevelt became the American president.” When in the summer of 1937 “Japan’s militarists escalated their occupation of Manchuria into a regular war against China,” Roosevelt hoped that Americans’ isolationism might weaken. (Actually, Japan was battling Communists in China.) Concerned about the 1938 elections, “Roosevelt kept America aloof from the crisis over Czechoslovakia” (Hitler’s invasion on September 30). “He had squandered his big win of 1936 on a failed attempt to reform the Supreme Court by adding new justices.” (Packing the court with pro-Roosevelt justices was hardly “reform.”) FDR wrote a letter to the governments of Germany, Czechoslovakia, Britain, and France, urging “negotiations” and emphasizing that the United States had no “political entanglements” — with zero effect. Meanwhile, in London, Lindbergh was writing in his journal that he did not believe that Hitler, though “a mystic and a fanatic,” would “throw Europe into a major war over the present situation.” At the time of the Munich accord Lindbergh was in Paris, invited by Ambassador William Bullitt who was seeking to circumvent American neutrality laws by having American manufacturers build warplanes in Canada for Britain and France, which Lindbergh had determined were badly needed. Largely because of concerns about incentivizing war, Lindbergh suggested that France instead buy planes from Germany. Next, Lindbergh and his wife Anne “proceeded to Germany.” Actually, Lindbergh’s visits to Germany, in 1936, 1937, and 1938 were at invitation of the United States Military Attaché in Berlin, Truman Smith — to assess German air power. The 1938 invitation was accompanied by one from Ambassador Hugh R. Wilson, who, as Duffy points out, hoped that Lindbergh would help him connect with Hermann Goering, believed to be “the most reasonable of the Nazi leaders” and potentially helpful in increasing Jewish emigration by changing German policy to allow émigrés to take their money and possessions with them. Brands quotes Lindbergh’s brief journal account about being surprised by Goering’s presentation to him of the German Eagle medal at a dinner at the American Embassy on October 19. Lindbergh accepted it politely; a protest would only have harmed the American cause. But, Ickes, in his Bastille Day speech in July 1941, put Lindbergh, whom he called the “Knight of the German Eagle,” in the company of Hitler’s “mouthpieces and fellow-travelers.” Knowing that Ickes was Roosevelt’s mouthpiece, Lindbergh sent Roosevelt a letter reminding him that the medal was received “while I was carrying out the request of your Ambassador.” This sole mention comes off as little more than pique. Brands quotes extensively from Lindbergh’s March 31, 1939, journal entry complaining about England’s passivity beginning in 1934: “She took part in Versailles. She stood by and watched Germany rearm and march into the Rhineland.… and was about to guarantee Polish integrity.” FDR Cautious on Hitler But we do not learn about Roosevelt’s appeasement efforts, which, except for the Four Power Pact, was “the keynote of Roosevelt’s approach to Hitler,” according to Marks. For example, in September 1935, Roosevelt sent business friend Samuel Fuller to “ascertain Hitler’s price for a comprehensive peace settlement.” Fuller met Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht at the American embassy. But the resulting possible “return of German colonies, currency stabilization, and a new trade treaty with the United States” was rejected by the British. When German troops entered the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, the White House was silent. The First Lady’s March 19 column even downplayed the situation: she was sure everyone had a “lighter heart” knowing that Hitler would meet with the League of Nations. A couple days later, FDR sought liberalized world trade and multilateral disarmament in exchange for canceling debts and reducing American tariffs. Stalin and the Soviet Union are barely mentioned. Bullitt began his tenure as ambassador in Moscow starry-eyed, but, as George F. Kennan wrote, was soon advocating a hard line against the Communist regime, “which most of us in the embassy whole-heartedly supported but which FDR, caring little about the specific issues involved, had no intention whatsoever of adopting.” In 1936, Roosevelt reassigned Bullitt to France. Brands reveals that the German government was funding Lindbergh’s ally, Senator Ernest Lundeen, but ignores Stalin’s role in influence operations. Brands quotes from Lindbergh’s journal during his third visit to the Soviet Union, in 1938. Lindbergh found the Soviet warplanes “not as good as the similar designs of the United States, Germany, and England,” though “effective in a modern war.” Lindbergh recounts that Igor Sikorsky told him that 30 to 40 million Russians had been killed since the Revolution, but did not give a source for the figures. Brands fails to confirm that, indeed, tens of millions had been killed. Such verification (and the fact that many of those killed were Jews) would allow the reader to better understand Lindbergh’s statement that he would “rather see my country ally herself with England or even with Germany, with all her faults, than with the cruelty, the godlessness, and the barbarism that exist in Soviet Russia.” After Senator Key Pittman had rebutted Lindbergh’s June 15, 1940, radio address by mocking Lindbergh’s claim that an American “invading army would be sent to Germany” (imagine!), Roosevelt received a slew of letters, many unsigned. Roosevelt forwarded them to the FBI. Brands fills four pages with quotations from those condemning Lindbergh. Brands at the end reveals The Moral of the Story. Lindbergh is a “reactionary,” although he “got much right in his campaign against modernity”: his prediction of Britain losing much of her power and empire, of “half of Europe” being under communist rule, and the abdication of Congress’s war-making powers to the Executive resulting in international military entanglements. But what Lindbergh got wrong was the American people: they had few “regrets” about interventionism and becoming a superpower. As part of Lindbergh’s legacy, “isolationism remain[s] a concept approachable only at peril to one’s reputation for seriousness in foreign policy,” as evidenced in Trump’s loss in 2020. Brands’ selections lead to this conclusion. But, for one thing, Pearl Harbor was not evidence of Roosevelt’s “savviness.” FDR, as was his wont, failed to heed the warnings about the fleet’s vulnerability. FDR’s latest presidential heir has proven to be similarly dangerously undisciplined. So the America First candidate won in 2024. READ MORE from Mary Grabar: New York’s Devious and Dangerous Prop. 1 The History of Communism Must Not Be Repeated The post Partial History: FDR and America First appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Trump 2025: Xi on the Couch, an editorial cartoon by Shaomin Li for The American Spectator The post Trump 2025: Xi on the Couch appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Since Donald Trump’s decisive victory in last month’s presidential elections, the Democrats and their corporate media partners have insisted that it would be a grave mistake for him to pardon the J6 “insurrectionists.” To do so, they tell us, would be an unprecedented abuse of the clemency powers granted to presidents under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Inevitably, various “news” outlets have commissioned polls purporting to show how unpopular these pardons would be with the public. Recently, for example, Newsweek reported on a Monmouth poll allegedly confirming the proposition that a majority of Americans do not support pardons for the J6 prisoners. Trump has long made it clear that he intended to pardon many if not all of the J6 prisoners, and 77.3 million voters cast ballots for him last month. Even if one accepts such surveys at face value — not a particularly wise policy — popularity and justice are not synonyms. Morerover, no one in possession of the facts surrounding the J6 riot can credibly claim that the protestors have received anything resembling justice or even due process under the law.  While very few condone the mayhem at the Capitol that day, it is all but impossible to justify the four-year jihad Merrick Garland’s justice department launched against nearly 1,600 Americans, many of whom never set foot inside the building. Nonetheless, the DOJ’s persecution of the protestors has continued apace after the election, despite President-elect Trump’s widely-publicized pledge to pardon most of them. Julie Kelly provides an example at RealClear Investigations: The day after the election, an attorney representing Christopher Carnell, who was convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors following a bench trial in February 2024, asked the judge in his case to delay a scheduled hearing based on the possibility of a pardon. “Throughout his campaign, President-elect Trump made multiple clemency promises to the January 6 defendants, particularly to those who were nonviolent participants,” attorney Marina Medvin wrote on Nov. 6. “Mr. Carnell, who was an 18-year-old nonviolent entrant into the Capitol on January 6, is expecting to be relieved of the criminal prosecution that he is currently facing.” The judge immediately rejected the request for the delayed hearing. Still, according to a CBS News report, “Waves of U.S. Capitol riot defendants are citing Donald Trump’s election in requests to delay their criminal prosecutions because of his public pledge to pardon some of the people convicted of crimes on Jan. 6, 2021.” The DOJ has resisted such delays by perverting the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial as follows: “There is a public interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice.” If the prosecutors had a genuine interest in prompt administration of justice, the DOJ would not still be prosecuting J6 cases nearly four years after the event that prosecutors continue to call “the capitol siege.” The DOJ has not merely pushed forward with J6 prosecutions after the election, it has continued to make arrests pursuant to the riot. CBS quotes Joseph McBride, a defense attorney who has represented a number of J6 defendants: “The Justice Department Is still arresting people, which is nuts and pointless.” It is indeed. Yet, the government prosecutors proudly post their latest arrests on X. At least two people have been arrested this month. The posts can be found here and here. It’s clear that this will continue indefinitely until Merrick Garland is gone, the  DOJ is fumigated by a new AG, and Trump aggressively exercises his pardon power starting Jan. 20. He should ignore the advice of pundits like Dan McLaughlin: Trump has survived the Democrats’ four-year drumbeat over January 6, which dominated the campaign, to secure the biggest Republican victory in a generation. He even survived a January 6 indictment by Biden’s special Justice Department prosecutor Jack Smith. Clearly, voters are happy to consign the whole sorry chapter to history … But they also elected Trump to end the disorder that prevailed under Biden, and bring sanity to a weaponized justice system which has committed itself to political witch hunts while letting violent criminals go free. Trump needs to break the rotten cycle and end the madness — not perpetuate it. McLaughlin has it backwards. By issuing pardons to hundreds of people who have clearly been abused by the justice system, Trump will be taking a major step toward ending the madness. If he breaks his pledge to pardon the J6 prisoners, it will allow an egregious injustice to stand and wreck his credibility with the people who voted for him. These people are not insurrectionists — not one has been charged with that crime — nor are they criminals. None carried firearms into the Capitol and the only one who died that day was Ashli Babbitt, a veteran shot by a capitol police officer to whom she presented no serious threat. A majority of the J6 prisoners are guilty of little more than trespassing and disorderly conduct. Moreover, it’s obvious that millions of Americans agree with this assessment. Trump has long made it clear that he intended to pardon many if not all of the J6 prisoners, and 77.3 million voters cast ballots for him last month. The Democrats, the corporate media, and some weak-kneed Republicans insist that it would be a mistake for him to pardon these people. They’re wrong. Jan. 6, 2021 was hardly America’s finest hour, of course. Nonetheless, the best way to move beyond it is to shut down the endless series of prosecutions, release the political prisoners and get rid of the thugs who put politics before justice. READ MORE from David Catron: Pathetic Corporate Media Targets Tulsi Gabbard The Indefatigable California Vote Factory The post J6 Pardons: Trump Must Not Go Wobbly appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

For ten years, half of them in this magazine, I have rung the death knell for Hollywoke. Earlier this month, the unlikeliest source joined the bellringing — the New York Times. And when the Gray Lady backs up a conservative outcast like me, you know it’s the end of Hollywood as we know it, and I predicted it. But the current James Bond is just the ultimate manifestation of the dying art of cinema. As a movie writer and critic, I understood that once leftist ideology sublimated art, the whole business would collapse like the Soviet Union. Because it required driving out true artists, including the liberal kind who value storytelling over messaging, then replacing us with feminist hacks that despise normal men and traditionalist women. Most of my peers in the screen trade cheered my expulsion, a good number of them my former friends. They forgot the unspoken rule of their philosophy, “You can never be woke enough.” When the grim reaper came for their jobs, it didn’t matter that they’d cursed Trump and supported baby murder. They were straight white males, thus personae non grata. Now they can’t find work. Though, to add to their pain, Donald Trump did — 47th President of the United States. The feminist women and beta males who displaced us in the last two decades had little of our talent, only a mandatory anti-man, anti-white, pro-queer agenda. But they inherited one enormous advantage from liberal weaklings: Centuries of narrative art they could never have created yet now control, a treasure trove of epic heroes and romantic heroines to corrupt and exploit — the legacy of Hans Christian Anderson, the Brothers Grim, J. R. R. Tolkien, Walt Disney, Ian Fleming, Stan Lee, Gene Rodenberry, George Lucas, and countless others. And despoil them they have, in a long dissembly line of minority-inclusive woke garbage: The Little Mermaid featuring a black starlet, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power de-Christianizing and confusing Tolkien’s masterpiece, the sexless Avengers movies (the stars of which humiliated themselves in a cringeworthy political ad for Kamala), fake female-driven mutations of Star Wars, Star Trek, and Indiana Jones, and the forthcoming embarrassment Snow White, starring the most obnoxious actress of the century, Latina Rachel Zegler. All of these travesties are meant to reorient fans of the original properties to the new matriarchy. In advancing such an idiocy, their caretakers deny normal boys and girls the fun their predecessors enjoyed from the initial versions. Yet they keep expecting kids, parents, and grandparents to subsidize their garbage. Naturally, they have stayed away in droves, except when conned by a pretty bauble like Barbie. As I’ve stated for years, no fictional icon has been more emasculated this century than the greatest male hero of the Twentieth, James Bond. In my review here of the last 007 atrocity, No Time to Die, starring overrated asexual mope Daniel Craig, I chronicled every politically correct subtraction of the character. And now even the leftist New York Times agrees with me — and my long communicated view on the screen trade — in a recent piece, “Is the Awkward ‘Diversity Era’ of Hollywood Behind Us?”, sub-headlined The past decade’s clumsiest attempts to cram new faces into old stories now feels like a moment, and a genre, of their own. Article writer Kabir Chibber echoes my criticism of the James Bond devolution via the wretched No Time to Die. Other films tried too hard to correct the past, judging their original white male protagonists far more harshly than anyone in the audience did. In the final James Bond film from Daniel Craig, “No Time to Die,” Bond has been replaced as Agent 007 by a Black woman, played by Lashana Lynch (can you remember her name or her drink of choice?); he obsesses over girlfriends dead and alive; he is unable to seduce. (A much younger Ana de Armas laughs at the thought.) By the end, you’re just happy that this poor man, now totally out of time, has been put out of his misery. The old Bond films are distinctly of their era but feel timeless; what’s surprising is how quickly this one, in its desperation to be modern, has come to feel dated. I had to read the last line twice to make sure I hadn’t written it. The old Bond films are distinctly of their era but feel timeless; what’s surprising is how quickly this one, in its desperation to be modern, has come to feel dated. In fact, I have written the very same thought many times. The magnificent, enduring film creation of producers Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, director Terence Young, and brilliant actor Sean Connery fell into the hands of Broccoli’s untalented feminist daughter Barbara Broccoli, who couldn’t have imagined such a hero, and has done much to destroy him. She actually killed him off in the last film, to no real fan’s regret. But the current James Bond is just the ultimate manifestation of the dying art of cinema. The sad woke lot killing it off have no idea how to resuscitate it and wouldn’t if they could, because it would mean going against the Message. That women are no physical match for men, don’t wish to be, appreciate real ones, and desire to be romanced by them. The Pre-Woke 1980s Past filmmakers knew these truths to be self-evident. Practically every movie shown on Turner Classic Movies (TCM) has more human insight and verve than any dark anti-human effort made this century. And many of their writers were women who understood the world, and didn’t dream about reshaping it into something impossible. Some could even write fine Westerns validating male camaraderie, as Leigh Brackett did in two of the best, Rio Bravo and El Dorado. I remember how wonderful moviegoing was shortly after Reagan got elected. In 1982, my friends and I went to the movies every night. We saw E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial, Tootsie, An Officer and a Gentleman, Rocky III, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Poltergeist, Diner, Conan the Barbarian, Blade Runner, The Thing, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Year of Living Dangerously, First Blood, and The Verdict. I knew then it could never get any better. But who knows? Maybe with another revolutionary conservative President, and the end of Hollywoke, it will be. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Trump and the Advent of the Pax Americana MAGA Animal House Want to really enjoy this merry post-election Christmas, and find out how it may have turned out the way it did? Read and or gift my new political thriller, The Washington Trail, available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever fun mysteries are sold. The post Is the <i>New York Times</i> Shaking Off Woke? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

The conservative movement this week lost an elder statesman, its dean. He was Lee Edwards, 92 years old. Edwards was so very important and dear to both the conservative movement and to me personally. In fact, I’ve dreaded writing this tribute because I feared it would take me thousands of words to adequately express his impact. I’ll try to be concise. I can almost hear Lee urging me to do just that, smiling and pleading, “Please, Paul. Please be brief.” Lee Edwards: Distinguished in All Things Years ago, Lee Edwards was bestowed the title “Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought” by the Heritage Foundation. When I first heard that, I laughed appreciatively. No one better deserved the title. As we said goodbye, the devout Catholic shook my hand and said, “I’ll see you again, my friend, on the other side.” Lee had many titles and impressive credentials and rich experiences, too many to list here. Among them, he was particularly proud of the title of Distinguished Lecturer at the Catholic University of America, where he taught for decades. He wrote 25 books, on subjects like conservatism, communism, the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, Jr. His was literally the first biography of Ronald Reagan, published in early 1967, mere months into Governor Reagan’s first term. Regarding his biography of Goldwater, Lee told me last August: “I feel it was my most important work, and the work I put the most time into.” He said that humbly, regretting that the book didn’t get the recognition it deserved. Lee made that observation as I noticed the book stacked on the floor of his Arlington apartment among piles of other works. I confessed to him, “I’m sorry, but I had no idea that you had written a biography of Goldwater.” When I got back to Grove City College, I immediately checked out the book. It’s indeed a significant contribution. That was true of so much of Lee Edwards’ work, including his founding of the tremendous organization, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is now in the good hands of its president and CEO, Dr. Eric Patterson, and its chair and founding director of the accompanying museum, Dr. Elizabeth Spalding. Elizabeth is one of two lovely daughters of Lee, and a personal and dear friend. She will carry on her father’s legacy. I worked a lot with Lee Edwards through Victims of Communism, including on a curriculum we did together to teach the horrors of communism to high school students. It was a great honor when the organization in September presented me with the first Lee Edwards Award for Scholarship. I was truly unworthy. Lee in his final months suffered from stage 4 pancreatic cancer, though he didn’t look it. Elizabeth said that her dad did a good job hiding it. When I saw him in August, the only indication I had seen of any pain was when he suggested we sit down as we talked about his life, work, and when we first met. We had first met at a coffee shop in Grove City, Pennsylvania in 1999, when he was in town researching his book, Freedom’s College, a history of Grove City College. He had wanted to know about my interest in writing a book on Ronald Reagan and the Cold War. I was in my early 30s and had never published a book before. Lee advised me on what to do and where to find funding to make a research trip to the Reagan Library. He suggested two names for me to contact, William F. Buckley, Jr. and the late Pittsburgh businessman B. Kenneth Simon. Both men came through with support, thanks to Lee’s endorsement. That book ultimately became the movie Reagan, which ironically was being released that August 2024, as Lee and I spoke. We also talked that day about Lee’s ongoing writing and (as usual) various historical nuggets about Ronald Reagan and communism that he wanted to ensure ended up preserved in print somewhere. We talked about his next article for The American Spectator. There was still much he wanted to write about. He wanted Eric Patterson and I to know about the location of the recordings of his 1965 interviews with Ronald Reagan at Reagan’s home in California. For this conservative, there was much to be conserved. Lee was all about that. Prior to the cancer arriving in his early 90s, the man was indefatigable, seemingly ageless. He always looked good. But as he told me at his apartment, eventually time runs out for all of us. At some point, it is time to go. Saying Goodbye I last spoke to Lee on the afternoon of September 25 at the Victims of Communism Memorial Museum, when we posed for photos together. As we said goodbye, the devout Catholic shook my hand and said, “I’ll see you again, my friend, on the other side.” I promised I’d pray every day for him and his family and asked him to pray for me when he gets to Heaven — to help ensure I’ll get there someday as well. I need all the help I can get. Lee Edwards (right) and The American Spectator Editor Paul Kengor (left) Aug. 7, 2024 (Photo courtesy of Paul Kengor) When I exited the VOC building that afternoon with my wife Susan and Spectator colleague Leonora Cravotta, I caught in the distance a glimpse of Lee getting into his car curbside with a walker. Would it be the last time I saw him? It turns out, yes. It was time to go. He passed on December 12, 2024, joining his elegant, gracious, beloved late wife of 57 years, Anne. Lee Edwards leaves behind a wonderful legacy: his children, his 11 grandchildren, his memorial to communism’s millions of victims, his books, and his life of truly distinguished conservative thought. READ MORE In Memoriam: Thankful for Instant Friends Like Michael Valentine ‘We Win, They Lose’: Remembering Richard V. Allen The post Lee Edwards, Dean of Conservatism, RIP appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

New Jersey doesn’t get much respect and, frankly, it doesn’t deserve much. The state consistently shows up in polls as one of the worst states to live in or retire to because of its high taxes, lousy roads, and hilariously inept government. So why is it worthwhile for some nation or group to harass its residents with drone flights? President-elect Trump has said that these drones should be brought down. January 20th can’t come soon enough. Because President-elect Trump has a golf club there? Or maybe because there are at least a couple of military bases there and possibly a couple of secret facilities? We know far too little about the drones that have been flying over New Jersey at night since mid-November. Some are reportedly the size of an SUV and some are smaller. One congressman, Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), said that there was an Iranian “mother ship” off the coast of New Jersey from which the drones were flying. Van Drew’s statement was quickly — and specifically — denied by the Pentagon. Other reports say that the drones are coming in from the sea, but none are of sufficient credibility to rely on. Drone sightings aren’t limited to New Jersey. They have become common across the East Coast from Connecticut to Maryland. Some have been spotted in California. The drone problem is multi-faceted and complex. Why not just shoot them down? Because the FAA’s regulations threaten fines and imprisonment for anyone shooting down a drone. So why doesn’t the military do it? Why indeed? The military could and should shoot a bunch of them down if they were over restricted or prohibited airspace such as airports or military bases. The drones could then be analyzed to determine where the drone operators are and what they’re trying to do. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said that drones had prevented aircraft from taking off from Stewart Airport in the Hudson Valley. She also demanded that the Biden administration do something. Good luck with that. Biden & Co. have made a political calculation to not interfere with the drones just like they didn’t interfere with the Chinese reconnaissance balloons that were allowed to take pictures and record radio traffic over military bases in 2023. Biden is still president — 37 more days to go before we get rid of Joe & Co. — and he and whoever is running the show want our country to be left defenseless. Do they know who is operating the drones and are afraid of “escalating” a conflict? It’s entirely possible, given the Biden regime’s history of failure. We have to remember the Chinese reconnaissance balloons that few over the U.S. in 2023, spying on several military sites, and broadcasting the information they’d gathered before the Biden regime saw fit to shoot them down over the ocean after their successful spy mission. Is China or some other adversary operating the drones? Worse still, there have been many reports of drones flying over top-secret military installations as far back as last year. Langley Air Force Base in Virginia is the home of Air Combat Command and half of the Air Force’s F-22 fifth-generation fighters. In December 2023, for more than two weeks, drones flew through prohibited airspace at Langley taking pictures and listening to radio transmissions. (READ MORE from Jed Babbin: The President Isn’t Done With Pardons) The Pentagon said that the drones showed no “hostile intent” so they were allowed to continue what they were doing. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? On Tuesday, the head of the FBI’s critical incident response group told a congressional committee that the FBI had no evidence of “nefarious motives” but said it couldn’t rule that out. How comforting. New Jersey’s Democrat governor, Phil Murphy, said that the drones were “sophisticated” and “went dark” once detected. One report said one of the Jersey drones chased a Coast Guard cutter. Belleville, New Jersey Mayor Michael Melham told CNN that the drones would not be taken down, according to the Coast Guard and New Jersey State Police, because of the fear of what is on them. If there’s a fear of what the drones contain, there must be more information on that subject but no one is sharing anything with the public. Some of the drones reportedly fly in groups, perhaps exchanging information which more powerful drones can send to some controller in China, Iran, Russia, or North Korea. On Thursday, two federal agencies — the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security — said that most of the New Jersey drone sightings were lawfully-flown manned aircraft. Most, not all. Their statement said, “We have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus.” Maybe shooting down a bunch of them would give them a clue. We know we’re being gaslighted because DHS Secretary Alejandro (the border is secure) Majorkas said on Friday that, “we have not seen anything unusual.” From all this we have to conclude that the feds — the FBI, DHS, the FAA, and the Defense Department — don’t know who is flying the drones or what they’re up to and are trying hard to conceal it. Are the Feds lying or incompetent? Are they lying to conceal their incompetence or are they incompetently lying? It’s typical Biden regime ineptness, and the Biden crew seems intent on not doing anything about the drone incursions whether at Langley AFB or over New Jersey. At this point, it’s anybody’s guess. We know, for example, that among the two million “gotaways” — people who have evaded the Border Patrol while illegally immigrating into the U.S. — are thousands of Chinese citizens. Among them are certainly members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army or its Ministry of State Security. Others have come in through Border Patrol checkpoints. Lower numbers of Russians and other nationalities have come in as well. Have the Chinese migrants — or the Russians or people from any of our other enemies — been building drones since they came here and using them now with the intent of providing reconnaissance information to hostile forces? It’s complicated to bring down a drone without shooting it down. You can’t shoot them down over populated areas where they are flying because, obviously, people on the ground could be injured or killed. (READ MORE: Biden Is Trump-Proofing the World) You can jam a drone’s signals, but that requires knowing what frequencies it is receiving on. Scanners can do that, but they need to be deployed when and where the drones are flying. The Israelis have a system to jam drone signals causing them to land or shooting them down with lasers. But the Biden crew doesn’t seem interested in obtaining those systems. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La) reportedly received a classified briefing on them on Saturday. What did he learn that isn’t available to the public? Why make the briefing classified if there’s no threat? America has a vital national security interest in protecting our people and our skies not only from dangerous drones but from spy drones as well. President-elect Trump has said that these drones should be brought down. January 20th can’t come soon enough. The post Doing Nothing About Drones in Jersey appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

No, this is not about the 1982 horror movie starring Adrienne Barbeau, but those who mean to “drain the swamp” should take heed — danger lurks in an unlikely place, and, left unchecked, the beast could well destroy even the best intended efforts of DOGE and its allies in Congress. We need to return the federal government to that handful of missions that are indubitably national in character. I keep reading about the need to shrink the federal government and the corollary need to regain the “people’s agenda,” taking the government out of the hands of unelected bureaucrats and returning it to our elected representatives. I agree wholeheartedly that the federal government has become a monster and that slaying the beast is essential, not only as an exercise in fiscal responsibility, but also as a matter of restoring a functioning democracy, one responsive to the will of the people. Can this be done? I’m sure that it can. Will it be easy? Far from it, and not at all if we ignore the ways in which the administrative state actually operates. There are many good ideas floating about. The first is to simply do away with agencies that either serve no worthwhile purpose, or which actually do harm. The Department of Education should be at the top of the list. Created in a fit of Carter administration madness in 1979, it long ago outlived any pretense of useful purpose. Prior to 1979, education was understood to be primarily the province of local governments, and secondarily that of the individual states. Anyone familiar with how education actually worked prior to 1979 understands that, in most parts of the country, it worked quite well without the involvement of the Feds. Some school districts had more resources, some had less, but by and large, they were responsive to the people who paid the bills — that is, local taxpayers, the parents, or grandparents, or aunts and uncles of the schoolchildren being educated. My small town school district lacked many of the resources of the bigger schools in nearby Atlanta, but we did just as well on almost every measure of performance. We don’t need a federal department whose chief purpose is to promulgate woke regulations and to promote a progressive agenda by taking taxpayer dollars and then doling them out to favored groups. The great argument of the 1960s, that we needed to ensure that all children benefited equally in the educational sweepstakes, turned out over the years as a recipe for rewarding big city teachers unions, without noticeable improvement in pupil performance. As a general proposition, the most efficient use of tax dollars consists of raising taxes locally and spending them locally, where all involved have a clear idea of the relationship between tax and expenditure. There may be other agencies that could similarly be axed, and I think everything should be on the table. Similarly, one should look carefully at functions within agencies. When I first started working at my agency’s DC headquarters, the office in charge of “equal employment,” was on a corridor right around the corner from mine, and its staff was accommodated behind a handful of doors. By the time I retired a decade later, this same office, already fully invested in promoting DEI, occupied both sides of a corridor the length of a football field, and that was before the Biden era DEI explosion. There are many reasons to take on DEI bureaucracies, but not least among them that they have spread — expensively — throughout government like an aggressive tumor. Still, eliminating agencies will require legislation, and even with majorities in both houses, this takes a level of heavy lifting that Congress has seemed loathe to do. Eliminating offices and functions within agencies will also encounter congressional roadblocks. Most such activities came into existence with either the acquiescence of legislators or their outright insistence. However worthless a function, it will have its allies on Capitol Hill. Similarly, firing individual federal employees, almost inevitably, will invite a raft of lawsuits, which in many cases will be successful, so long as the existing statutory protections remain in place — yet another challenge for Congress. There is, however, a much easier target for those who would  shrink the federal government, something that’s only rarely mentioned in most “drain the swamp” discussions. While figures vary, the general consensus is that something like 40 percent of the federal workforce, perhaps 3.7 million workers, are not federal employees at all, but rather agency contractors. Cancel contracts or, when cancellation is problematic, simply let them expire — soon you’ve eliminated vast swaths of the federal workforce. This promises enormous savings. When company profits and employee pay and benefit packages are fully considered, contractor staff are frequently as expensive — and often more expensive — than a Fed performing similar work. And make no mistake. In today’s government, in spite of regulations requiring that only Feds perform “essentially governmental functions,” contractors are frequently engaged in the work that ordinary people would think of as “governing.” I spent two years of my government career wrangling this issue as it pertained to the protection of nuclear materials. The lines are far more blurry than even most federal contracting officers can adequately comprehend, or than the typical federal manager is willing to address. Ironically, one objection to cutting contractors is that this simply shifts the workload back to federal staff, who are much harder to fire for poor performance. It’s also argued that the typical contractor works harder and more productively, because they aren’t afforded the usual gamut of civil service protections. To be sure, contractors often do work hard and are often measurably more productive. But that’s beside the point. If the issue is one of shrinking government by eliminating unnecessary functions, then it makes no difference if a contractor performs these more efficiently than a Fed. Instead, simply recognize that cutting contractors is the easier path for a new administration bent on shaking up an agency. Ironically, part of the growth of contracting came about in response to previous efforts to “cut the size of government” or, in our current parlance, to “drain the swamp.” Cutting federal jobs has been done before, although typically through attrition, leaving positions unfilled when employees leave. Rather than downsizing expectations, the agency response, abetted by congressional friends, has been to outsource jobs to contractors. It would be bitterly ironic if, for example, federal DEI positions were eliminated only to have their functions contracted out. I worked in government for the better part of forty years, serving both as a contractor and as a Fed. That’s a long time spent in the belly of the beast, a long time coming to understand what works and what doesn’t. I’ve seen Feds doing good work, and I’ve seen some contractor companies that provide great services. There’s a place for both in doing the people’s work. But I’ve also seen a lot of laziness and incompetence. Worse, I’ve watched the energy and industry with which entirely wrongheaded tasks are performed. Again, think of the ghastly impact of those hardworking employees at the Department of Education or, during Covid, at Health and Human Services. We need to return the federal government to that handful of missions that are indubitably national in character, things such as national security and foreign policy. For the rest, we should return to true federalism, where government is centered at the state and local level. We can and should make a start on January 20th, and we should pursue the task relentlessly. This isn’t simply an exercise in budget cutting, but instead vital to the business, ahem, of “Making America Great Again.” But let’s not make the mistake of waiting for the perfect solution to “draining the swamp,” and let’s not get bogged down while the legislative stars are aligned — that was the mistake made with respect to replacing Obamacare during the first Trump administration. Go after the 40 percent-sized “swamp thing” in the federal workforce, even as we pursue the more challenging downsizing tasks. READ MORE from James H. McGee: Chinese Threat Looms at the Open Border The Lie Behind the ‘Hearts and Minds’ Plea James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His recent novel, Letter of Reprisal, tells the tale of a desperate mission to destroy a Chinese bioweapon facility hidden in the heart of the central African conflict region. A forthcoming sequel finds the Reprisal team fighting against terrorists who’ve infiltrated our southern border in a conspiracy that ranges across the globe. You can find Letter of Reprisal on Amazon in both Kindle and paperback editions, and on Kindle Unlimited. The post The Federal ‘Swamp Thing’ Cut Down to Size appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.