The book of Enoch has become increasingly popular among Christians in recent years. It is easy to understand the fascination. Reading the book of Enoch can sometimes feel like reading a science-fiction novel. Its elaborate accounts of fallen angels, giants, heavenly journeys, and the coming judgment naturally capture the imagination.

More importantly, New Testament authors such as Peter and Jude draw on traditions also found in the book of Enoch. For students of Scripture, the book provides valuable insight into the diverse world of Second Temple Judaism and can illuminate the historical and literary background of the New Testament.

But some Christians have gone much further. They argue that the book of Enoch is not merely interesting ancient Jewish literature but inspired Scripture that belongs in the Bible.

So, how should followers of Jesus approach the book of Enoch? Should we really consider it inspired Scripture, on par with Genesis, Isaiah, and Daniel?

In my book, Pseudo-Scripture: Why 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher Are Not Inspired Scripture, I examine this question in much greater detail.

When it comes to the book of Enoch, I believe there are three compelling reasons Christians should not consider it inspired Scripture.

1. Jesus did not consider the book of Enoch Scripture

Contrary to popular claims that the book of Enoch was “removed from the Bible,” there is no evidence that it ever belonged to the Jewish biblical canon in the first place.

By the first century, Jewish Scripture was recognized according to the familiar threefold division of the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Josephus, writing near the end of the first century, describes a fixed collection of 22 sacred books that Jews regarded as divinely authoritative. He distinguishes these books from later writings that were not considered to have the same authority (Against Apion 1.37–42). Notably, Josephus also begins his list with the five books of Moses. If he believed Enoch had written an inspired book centuries before Moses, we would expect him to include it before the books of Moses. However, the book of Enoch is nowhere mentioned.

More importantly for Christians, Jesus affirmed this same basic understanding of Scripture.

After his resurrection, Jesus told his disciples that everything written about him “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” had to be fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Luke immediately identifies this collection as “the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45). This corresponds to the traditional threefold Jewish canon — the Law, Prophets, and Writings.

Likewise, Jesus frequently appealed to “the Scriptures” in his disputes with other Jews (Matt. 22:29; John 5:39). The apostles did the same (Acts 17:2, 11). Yet neither Jesus nor his apostles ever disputed with their Jewish contemporaries over which books constituted Scripture. That silence is significant considering how readily they challenged prevailing Jewish opinions on other matters.

If the book of Enoch really belonged in Scripture but the Jewish community had wrongly excluded it, we would expect Jesus to correct them. Instead, he affirmed the Scriptures they already recognized.

For Christians, Jesus’s judgment concerning what constitutes Scripture ought to carry considerably more weight than the opinions of modern internet personalities.

2. The book of Enoch identifies Enoch as the Messiah

There is an even more serious problem.

The section of the book of Enoch known as the book of Parables (chapters 37–71) describes an exalted Messianic figure called the “Son of Man,” “Chosen One,” “Righteous One,” and “Anointed One.” This figure brings salvation, sits upon a throne of glory, judges mankind, and receives universal worship.

Understandably, Christians who believe the book of Enoch is inspired often assume these passages are prophecies about Jesus.

But there is just one problem: the book of Enoch eventually tells us who this figure is. It is Enoch himself.

In chapter 71, Enoch is taken into Heaven, where the “Head of Days” comes to him accompanied by Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and innumerable angels. Enoch is then told: “You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you” (book of Enoch 71:14).

Thus, the book of Parables identifies Enoch with the Messianic Son of Man described throughout the preceding visions.

Some defenders of the book of Enoch appeal to R. H. Charles’ old translation, which renders the statement, “This is the Son of Man,” making it appear that Enoch is being introduced to someone else.

But that is not what the Ethiopic text says. The Geʽez contains the second-person pronoun meaning “you.” Indeed, Charles himself acknowledged in his notes that the text actually reads, “Thou art.” He deliberately emended the passage because he believed the text should say something different. Subsequent scholars have rejected that emendation because it has no manuscript support.

For followers of Jesus, this creates an obvious theological problem. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the Messianic Son of Man and explicitly warns believers against accepting rival messianic claims (Matt. 24:23).

Christians cannot accept a book that identifies Enoch as the Messiah.

3. Jews and Christians historically rejected the book of Enoch as Scripture

If the book of Enoch belongs in the Bible, why did the communities responsible for preserving the Scriptures overwhelmingly reject it?

Jewish tradition never included the book of Enoch in the Tanakh. Early Christian writers likewise repeatedly affirmed an Old Testament canon that excluded it.

Origen, for instance, was familiar with Enochic literature but acknowledged that these books were not considered authoritative among the Jews. Even more explicitly, he wrote that “the books which bear the name Enoch do not at all circulate in the Churches as divine” (Contra Celsum 5.54). Later Christian writers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Rufinus, and Jerome likewise affirmed canonical lists excluding the book of Enoch.

There were exceptions. Tertullian accepted the book of Enoch, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church preserves it in its broader canon. But Tertullian himself acknowledged opposition to his position among other Christians. The historical evidence simply does not support the popular narrative that the book of Enoch was accepted as Scripture until someone later removed it from the Bible.

But doesn’t Jude quote the book of Enoch?

This is probably the strongest objection.

Jude 14–15 undeniably contains material also found in the book of Enoch, and Peter likewise draws upon Enochic traditions (1 Pet. 3:19–20; 2 Pet. 2:4). Does that prove that the apostles considered the book of Enoch inspired?

No, it does not.

First, the book of Enoch is not a single work written at one time. It is a collection of writings composed and compiled over centuries. Jude’s and Peter’s references are associated with the book of the Watchers (chapters 1–36), not every section of the collection now called the book of Enoch. Their use of those traditions therefore cannot establish the inspiration of the entire book.

More importantly, quoting a source does not canonize it. Paul quotes the pagan poet Aratus in Acts 17:28 and Epimenides in Titus 1:12. Nobody concludes that the works of Aratus and Epimenides therefore belong in the Bible.

The same principle applies to Jude. His use of an Enochic tradition can tell us that he considered that particular tradition useful and true without requiring us to believe that every text collected under the title “book of Enoch” was divinely inspired.

The value of the book of Enoch

None of this means that Christians should be afraid of the book of Enoch.

Quite the opposite. It is an important ancient Jewish work that helps us better understand the religious and intellectual world in which the New Testament was written. Christians interested in biblical studies can profit from reading it.

But appreciating an ancient text is not the same thing as recognizing it as Scripture. The historical evidence indicates that the book of Enoch originated in the Second Temple period rather than with the patriarch Enoch himself. Jesus affirmed a Jewish canon that did not contain it. One section identifies Enoch as the Messianic Son of Man. And Jews and Christians throughout history overwhelmingly declined to recognize it as inspired Scripture.

So read the book of Enoch. Just don’t add it to your Bible.

David Wilber, Christian Post

David Wilber is an author, Bible teacher, and CEO of Pronomian Publishing LLC. He has written several books and theological articles and has spoken at churches and conferences across the country. David’s articles, teaching videos, and debates are available at DavidWilber.com.

Oddly enough, Islamists and Marxists have much in common.

They both look at anyone who isn’t a member of their outsized cults as an “infidel.” And they both feel the urge to convert, enslave, or kill the non-believers.

Oh, there is no doubt that, absent a rapid, thorough, and fundamental recovery of Western values, culture, sanity, and confidence, Islamist Muslims and Marxists will one day have a “reckoning” as they carve up the carcass of the erstwhile West.

But for now, they share the desire to decapitate Western nations, their relatively free markets, and any remaining rights and freedoms their citizens might still possess. 

Leftists enslave people? Yes, via endless taxation, the confiscation of their hard-earned property, the fruits of their labor. And by telling those in the underclass that there is no way they can succeed, so they should just continue to rely on government alms and get used to their positions. Which means, of course, that they must continue to vote for the leftists.

Both Islamists and Marxists will have no truck with any agenda but their own. As for Marxists’ willingness to kill, see also Steve Scalise, Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, and a host of others. Both groups refuse to tolerate those who disagree with them, and neither will fully assimilate into a culture that they do not dominate.

Rather, if they are inconvenienced, they simply seek abortions, whether it be a baby, an adult, or anyone in between. Or even an entire night club, society or nation.

That nary a Islamist or Marxist nation has been both successful and free matters not. In fact, that is the point. The two ideologies share an enormous appetite for destruction. And the West seems utterly — if bizarrely — committed to seeing they are completely sated.

That nary a Islamist or Marxist nation has been both successful and free matters not. In fact, that is the point. The two ideologies share an enormous appetite for destruction. And the West seems utterly — if bizarrely — committed to seeing they are completely sated.

Eric Utter, American Thinker

Don’t believe the hype about the Supreme Court ending Trump’s effort to clean up mail-in ballots. He’s got every bureaucrat nervous and careful—and you can help.

Jack Gleason | September 24, 2026

If you read media headlines about the Supreme Court’s September 14, 2026, ruling on the Post Office’s handling of mail-in ballots, it’s easy to think the Supreme Court completely stopped Trump’s effort to secure our national elections.

Pundits, activists, and state officials claimed total victory. They pointed to federal district court injunctions issued by Judges Indira Talwani and Carl Nichols, arguing that because the Supreme Court didn’t lift those stays, Executive Order 14399 is permanently dismantled. They want you to believe federal oversight was turned back, leaving local election practices completely untouched for the midterm cycle.

Don’t buy it.

To understand why this mainstream narrative is wrong, let’s look beyond the media hype to legal history and statutory text.

On March 31, 2026, the administration issued EO 14399 to enforce citizenship verification and administrative integrity in federal elections. The U.S. Postal Service finalized regulations requiring uniform envelope designs, standardized Intelligent Mail barcodes, and mandatory state voter-list uploads to a centralized Federal Ballot Mail Portal. The order instructed USPS to hold or return ballot envelopes that lacked proper tracking or failed verification.

Using the Postal Service to stop mailing ballots to dead addresses, vacant lots, and unverified locations was a brilliant idea that eliminates potential fraud before it starts.

A coalition of Democrat attorneys general and election officials sued, arguing that Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states—not federal agencies—authority over election rules.

The press immediately touted this as a shattering defeat for election integrity. But focusing strictly on whether a postal worker scans a barcode misses the true power of Executive Order 14399. Key provisions remain untouched.

The biggest impact from EO 14399 wasn’t at a post office but on the personal risk calculation of every local official and poll worker handling our ballots.

For decades, a major vulnerability in election administration was the lack of direct personal accountability. Loose local practices, informal rule-shaving, and gray-area procedures were routinely accepted. If a local worker accepted noncompliant ballots, ignored statutory deadlines, or skipped signature-verification protocols, the worst they faced was a polite warning or a routine post-election review.

That dynamic is over.

Buried beneath headlines about postal stays is the core enforcement framework established in Sections 1 and 3 of the order, which explicitly instructs the Department of Justice to prioritize direct criminal investigations and prosecutions of state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible individuals or violate election laws.

What does this mean? Suppose an election administrator mails absentee ballots to deceased voters or to addresses known to be vacant or invalid. In the past, officials hid behind “poor list maintenance” or “administrative backlog.” Now, if the DOJ proves an official knowingly violated election rules, that official faces severe federal criminal statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): A federal felony statute making it a crime for two or more people to conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise of a constitutional right—including diluting valid votes with bad ballots.
• 18 U.S.C. 1341 (Mail Fraud): A federal statute carrying heavy prison time for using the U.S. Mail system to execute any scheme to defraud.
• 52 U.S.C. 20511 (Criminal Penalties for Voter Fraud): Explicit federal penalties for anyone—including election officials—who knowingly procures, submits, or tabulates materially false or fraudulent ballots.

When a local bureaucrat realizes that turning a blind eye to procedural violations no longer results in a slap on the wrist but instead brings personal legal fees, a federal investigation, and potential prison time, the incentive structure flips. The bureaucrat’s approach changes from “what can we get away with?” to “we’d better follow every statute strictly by the book.” This creates a self-policing mechanism at the lowest levels of administration, where decisions are made.

Federal court stays can temporarily pause specific operational mandates imposed on postal workers, but no district judge can grant local election workers or election boards immunity for breaking federal criminal law.

The emergency Supreme Court stay is a temporary procedural hold for the current election cycle. It continues the status quo while full appeals proceed through the federal judicial system. SCOTUS hasn’t issued a final ruling on the constitutional merits of the Postal Service regulations.

Most importantly, this stay applies narrowly to Postal Service operational rules—such as portal uploads and barcode-scanning requirements. The broader executive enforcement framework, including federal criminal oversight under Title 18, remains fully active and operational.

Take back your votes! If you spot election rules being broken, notice local irregularities, or witness staff ignoring statutory mandates, you can take direct action:

• Document Everything Clearly: Record exact dates, times, precinct locations, and names of officials involved. Keep precise written notes and preserve any physical evidence.
• Notify Local and State Authorities: Report procedural violations directly to your county board of elections or your state election division. For verified guidance on finding local contacts, refer to the National Association of State Election Directors.
• Report Potential Crimes to Federal Law Enforcement: When statutory violations occur—such as deliberate mailing of ballots to known fake addresses—report them directly to federal authorities:
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): Call 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324) or submit details online via FBI Tips.
  • DOJ Civil Rights Division: Report direct voting rights violations or intimidation to the U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section at 1-800-253-3931.
  • U.S. Attorney’s Office: Contact the designated Election Day Coordinator at your local district’s U.S. Attorney’s Office.

It’s easy to get discouraged reading headlines claiming court after court is striking down election integrity measures. But when you look past media framing and examine the actual mechanics of law and human behavior, the truth is clear.

The postal barcode rule was a strong operational concept, but it was always secondary. The real heart of Executive Order 14399 was re-establishing the rule of law and personal accountability for the people running elections.

That accountability framework hasn’t been struck down. It’s active, potent, and changing the behavior of election officials right now. When the people handling your ballot know they’re personally accountable to federal law, game-playing stops—and every lawful, legitimate vote gets the protection it deserves.

Election integrity isn’t dead; it’s alive and well. Your vote will count, and election officials are on notice to follow the law or else. Share this article with your friends and bring five of them with you to the ballot box on November 3.

Imagine watching your country get sicker, weaker and more infertile by the year … Then watching politicians attack the only guy asking what the hell is going on.

That’s where we are.

— Scott Agner

Argentina’s libertarian President Javier Milei struck again, this time in a fiery speech to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, calling the body “useless” and made up of “fatally arrogant parasites.”

Milei began by commending the U.N.’s founding mission of resolving conflict peacefully and promoting universal freedom and dignity as “noble words.” However, he went on to say that “today, regrettably, it is time to acknowledge that, in practice, that sacred covenant has been broken.”

“That’s to say, it has become a useless organization whose only purpose is to sustain a caste of fatally arrogant parasites masquerading as well-intentioned bureaucrats,” he charged.

To make his case, he pointed to the U.N.’s role in restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, which he called a type of “genocide,” and the “gender agenda, environmental extremism and unchecked immigration.”

Milei said, “During the pandemic, bodies under the auspices of this house put themselves before scientific evidence and the sovereignty of nations and promoted forced lockdown policies throughout the world.

“Where some allege a public health policy error, we see a global experiment in social control disguised as science. And when a state wearing public health blinkers deprives its population of the right to work, to receive an education and to bid farewell to their dead, this results in millions of avoidable deaths; there is a word for it, genocide.”

He charged that “every time [the U.N.] failed, rather than reviewing the model or apologizing, they doubled down.”

“Those who were supposed to guarantee collective security and human rights failed in their task. They allowed chaos, violence and international terrorism to flourish,” he said.

“The alleged defenders of human rights have sheltered bloodthirsty dictatorships and regimes that stone women in the streets; they have systematically voted against Israel.

Peter Pineto, Fox News

The 50th anniversary of the death of Mao Zedong has just passed. (He died on September 9, 1976.). I did not see large amounts of commentary about Mao on the occasion of the anniversary, but everything that I did see was either neutral or positive, with the majority being praise. And as I looked around for any commentary I could find from around the date of the anniversary, most of what I found is again praise.

How could that be? This man was a monster. Certainly, the death toll for which Mao was responsible was a large multiple of anything ever attributed to Hitler, and also a multiple (although a smaller one) of the carnage committed by Stalin. Does any self-respecting person give effusive praise of either of those two? And if not to them, then why to Mao? And it’s not just the death toll. Mao’s frankly ignorant and stupid extreme Marxist economic “theories,” if you want to call them that, caused decades of abject poverty, needless suffering and misery and often starvation for hundreds of millions of Chinese. And then there was the ruthless suppression of dissent (or even the slightest disagreement), which obstructed all efforts to introduce any sanity to counter the economic destruction. I can’t even think of a coherent defense for what Mao did to China and its people.

So let’s see what we can find in the press on the occasion of the anniversary of this man’s death.

The South China Morning Post had a piece on September 9 with the headline “Young Chinese turn to Mao Zedong for life advice, 50 years after his death.” (SCMP, based in Hong Kong, is owned by the Alibaba Group, and has no official relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. However, their independence in today’s Hong Kong is highly dubious.). Excerpts:

When you are denied a pay rise, when you feel anxious about your children’s education, or when you are alienated by colleagues, Chairman Mao can help. At least, that is what China’s online influencers and their hundreds of thousands of followers believe. Wednesday marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Mao Zedong, founding father of the People’s Republic of China.

SCMP notes that there was no official celebration in China of the anniversary of Mao’s death, but that Mao’s popularity is on the rise, with the clear encouragement of the state:

[I]t is hard to ignore the quiet comeback of Mao’s popularity in the country. In recent years, younger generations of Chinese have rediscovered Mao as their life coach. They organise online book clubs devoted to his works, spread the gospel through artificial intelligence-narrated videos, and affectionately refer to him as jiaoyuan, or “teacher”, a title Mao himself once said he preferred. . . . [M]uch of this youthful sentiment aligns with China’s official narrative about Mao as a symbol of national independence.

Here from the SCMP is a picture of two young men taking selfies with a large portrait of Mao:

And from the (Hong Kong) Standard on the same date, we have “’Long live Chairman Mao’: Supporters pay respects to founder of Communist China.” (Like the SCMP, the Standard is a theoretically-independent Hong Kong based outlet that somehow does not deviate from the CCP line.). Excerpt:

Fifty years after his death, diehard fans of the Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong lined up Wednesday in his hometown to pay homage, holding portraits, flags and huge floral tributes. Chairman Mao’s . . . life and legacy [were] being commemorated fervently this week by those who still revere him as a visionary leader. . . . The night before, around 1,000 ardent admirers — some in the short, tunic-style suits famously worn by Mao — held an emotional ceremony at the statue. . . . “Long live Chairman Mao!” the group roared repeatedly, some pumping their fists in the air and singing revolutionary songs.

Here in the U.S., the press mostly stayed silent on Mao — even as the lesser murderer Hitler is mentioned in the news almost every day. But there is one influencer with a large following who is closely allied with the Democratic Socialists of America and with their current Congressional candidates, and who makes a point of frequently praising Chinese Socialism and by extension Mao. That’s Hasan Piker. Piker has recently made several favorable remarks about Mao (not explicitly tied to the anniversary of his death). The Washington Examiner had a summary on September 18, with the headline “Hasan Piker defends praise of Mao despite millions of deaths under his rule.” Excerpt:

The popular left-wing streamer previously said he would “never criticize” Mao and called him “one of the great leaders of this world,” comments Piker told the outlet were partly made in jest after a brief encounter with police while visiting Tiananmen Square in Beijing. But Piker stood by his broader assessment of Mao’s reign when asked whether he considered the communist revolutionary a great leader. “When I say Mao is a great leader, I mean he’s a great man of history,” Piker said. Piker conceded that there was an “excess” of deaths under Mao, which he attributed to being “born out of mismanagement and famine.”

“Mismanagement and famine.” A few mistakes were made! No Hasan, the famines (multiple over the course of decades), not to mention millions of murders by execution, were not mistakes, but fully intentional.

As I have previously mentioned, I am currently reading Frank Dikötter’s trilogy about Mao’s takeover and rule in China. There are hundreds of excerpts to choose from, but I’ll provide a few.

From The Tragedy of Liberation, pages 58-59, describing what happened in Shanghai and other major cities after the Communist takeover in 1949:

{C]adres vented their hatred in consultation meetings with representatives of trade and industry that degenerated into “struggle sessions” where people were mocked, humiliated and beaten. Soon nobody dared say a word. . . . Within a matter of months, bustling Shanghai was a dying city. Tianjin slipped into slow decay. Guangzhou almost went bankrupt. Factories were idle, trade ceased. Many firms, small and big alike, were driven into the red.

In 1951-52, there was a campaign of terror against the “bourgeoisie.” From page 171:

In the orgy of false accusations and arbitrary denunciations, few escaped with their reputations intact. By February [1952], no more than 10,000 of a total 50,000 “capitalists” in Beijing were considered honest. Similar figures came from other parts of the country. To punish all would wreck the economy. Mao had a solution to this conundrum. He came up with a quota, ordering that a few should be killed to set the tone, while exemplary punishment should focus on 5 per cent of the most “reactionary” suspects. Across most cities, by a rough rule of thumb, about 1 per cent of the accused were shot, a further 1 per cent sent to labour camps for life, and 2 to 5 per cent imprisoned for terms of ten years or more.

The longer things continued, the more the category of “enemies of the Party” expanded. From page 189:

[T]eachers, doctors, engineers and scientists suspected of possessing “counter-revolutionary” links with foreign powers were persecuted. Luo Ruiqing, who now pitched in as head of security, brought the inquisition to bear upon 85,000 teachers in middle schools. One in ten was purged as a deviant element who sabotaged socialism, plotted against the party or encouraged student unrest. In primary schools the number was double. In total, across the country, over a million people were forced to confront accusations of plotting against the state in 1955. . . .

And all this is before we even get to the Great Leap Forward (1958-62) or the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), where Mao and his henchmen cranked up the terror and caused intentional mass famines and racked up really big numbers of starvations and murders in the tens of millions.

The current rulers of China are the successors of Mao, and go around spouting his doctrines as if there is something admirable about them. They seem to have moved on from a mass-murder state to a mass-surveillance state, and at least so far that seems to be working to keep the population suppressed. We’ll see how long that can continue.

Anyway, I didn’t want to let this anniversary of Mao’s death pass without expressing my total revulsion at this man, his successors, and anybody who expresses admiration for them.

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

A lesbian minister at James Talarico’s longtime church doubts Jesus ever existed, rejects the virgin birth, and believes Christ “didn’t die to save our sins,” according to undercover footage obtained by The Daily Wire.

Rev. Babs Miller, minister to the parish at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, flatly rejected core tenets of the Christian faith, even as fellow congregant James Talarico, the Democratic Senate nominee, routinely invokes his fringe view of the Gospel to appeal to voters in the Bible Belt’s largest state.

Speaking to an undercover journalist, Miller was caught saying she believes the virgin birth was made up while describing her approach to religion as similar to a 12-step program: “Take what you want and leave the rest.”

“Mary and the Virgin Birth comes out of the pagan belief that the gods came down and impregnated people,” Miller told the undercover journalist. “We have no way of knowing if Jesus really existed any more than we have of knowing that the original Buddha ever existed. And whether or not Jesus existed doesn’t really matter to me.”

But among mainstream historians, there is near-universal agreement that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was a historical figure, regardless of whether those scholars are Christian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or otherwise. Within decades of His lifetime, Jewish and Roman historians mentioned Jesus, providing independent evidence for aspects of the New Testament’s account of His life and crucifixion, according to history.com.

“It could have all been made up, for all I know,” Miller said in the footage. “The God in the Old Testament is not a loving God; it’s a vengeful, killing-people kind of God. This is a lot of mythology.”

Historians almost universally agree that Jesus was a real person who walked the earth around 2,000 years ago. Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor of Judaic studies at Duke University, said: “I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus.”

“The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure,” Meyers told National Geographic.

Miller’s church bio says she has been part of the St. Andrew’s community since the mid-1990s and was ordained there in 2014 as an “out” lesbian chaplain. She retired shortly before the COVID pandemic but returned in 2022.

Biblical teachings, archaeological evidence, and scholarly accounts aren’t enough for the leftist minister, who cloaks herself in the faith while also dismissing the central New Testament teaching that Jesus died on the cross to save humanity from sin, telling the undercover journalist: “He didn’t die to save our sins.”

“Jesus was political. Jesus was put on that cross not to save us. Jesus was put on that cross because Rome hated him and they thought he was a threat to their domination of that area. So they killed him. He didn’t die to save our sins,” she argued, framing Jesus as a social justice martyr rather than the biblical teaching of Him being the “Savior of the world.”

“That makes a whole lot more sense to me than to say that some God would kill his son for us. That doesn’t make sense. How does that make up for all the things I can do? No, it doesn’t.”

Talarico has been part of the Austin religious community since he was a toddler. The congregation’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jim Rigby, baptized Talarico, who has called Rigby “one of the biggest influences on me as a Christian, as a human being.” In a Christmas Day Facebook post from 2015, Rigby suggested that Jesus’ resurrection could actually be understood as “a poem about the whole life process.”

“Apparently, because I don’t believe in a literal resurrection, I’m not really Christian. This unfortunately also means I won’t be going to heaven with many of you,” he said.

St. Andrew’s is part of the Presbyterian Church (USA), a denomination known for its liberal positions on gender and sexuality. There, the Texas Democrat has delivered controversial sermons, declaring that “God is not a Christian” and that “our trans community needs abortion care too.”

Miller’s comments come as scrutiny grows over the theological views of Talarico’s home church and their potential impact on his campaign in a state where evangelicals, who polls show are most opposed to Talarico, make up the largest religious group. Last week, The Daily Wire revealed Miller saying Talarico’s shift toward the political center was merely for show, predicting the Democrat — who is racing to moderate his positions on transgender issues and walk back his declaration that “God is non-binary” — would return to his previous rhetoric once elected.

“He’s getting some advice that I don’t think he should be following,” Miller said in the viral clip. “I can guarantee you that once he gets elected, he’ll change his tune back to where he was.”

The Daily Wire reached out to Talarico’s campaign and St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Jacob Wheeler, Daily Wire

Former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday slipped on the stairs outside of the upper chamber, after confirming Scott Turner to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

McConnell, who led the Republican conference in the upper chamber from 2007 to 2025, appeared to fall as he was headed to a GOP lunch meeting in the Mansfield Room. Some senators told The Hill that he also fell during the lunch.

The latest incident comes after the 82-year-old Kentucky senator fell in December, following a lunch meeting held by Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso.

McConnell has not publicly commented on the incident so far. But he was escorted to his old Capitol Building office by his aides and security after the meeting, and was later spotted being pushed through the Capitol in a wheelchair, per The Hill.

Misty Severi, Just the News

At the conference, a CCP official urged America to drop the “enemy narrative” about China.

DNC Chairman Emeritus Howard Dean delivered the American welcome address at a China dialogue involving the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a think tank identified in congressional commission testimony as “run by Chinese intelligence.”

The Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, which co-organized the event⁠, has an equally explicit allegiance. Its charter⁠ says it:

“upholds the comprehensive leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.”According to the American organizer’s account⁠, Dean delivered his welcome virtually on June 23, 2026. The meeting took place in Wenzhou, China. Lu Kang, a vice minister of the CCP’s International Department, delivered the keynote.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, was named DNC chairman emeritus in 2009⁠.

The think tank at the dialogue, known as CICIR, was specifically named by China intelligence specialist Peter Mattis in 2016 testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission⁠. He described it among:

“think tanks run by Chinese intelligence.”

The peace association, known as CPAPD, says it jointly organized the event with the American Arsenault Family Foundation.

The association’s commitment to CCP leadership is written into its governing rules. Its charter requires it to establish a Communist Party organization, conduct Party activities, and provide the conditions necessary for those activities.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, was named DNC chairman emeritus in 2009⁠.

The think tank at the dialogue, known as CICIR, was specifically named by China intelligence specialist Peter Mattis in 2016 testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission⁠. He described it among:

“think tanks run by Chinese intelligence.”

The peace association, known as CPAPD, says it jointly organized the event with the American Arsenault Family Foundation.

The association’s commitment to CCP leadership is written into its governing rules. Its charter requires it to establish a Communist Party organization, conduct Party activities, and provide the conditions necessary for those activities.

Dean, a former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, was named DNC chairman emeritus in 2009⁠.

The think tank at the dialogue, known as CICIR, was specifically named by China intelligence specialist Peter Mattis in 2016 testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission⁠. He described it among:

“think tanks run by Chinese intelligence.”

The peace association, known as CPAPD, says it jointly organized the event with the American Arsenault Family Foundation.

The association’s commitment to CCP leadership is written into its governing rules. Its charter requires it to establish a Communist Party organization, conduct Party activities, and provide the conditions necessary for those activities.

And the Party official speaking at Dean’s event had a message for the Americans.

According to the CCP International Department’s readout⁠, Lu urged participants to:

“move beyond the ‘enemy narrative’”

He also called on them to:

“foster a correct strategic perception”

The CCP then portrayed American participants as ready to translate the strategic-stability framework announced after the Trump-Xi summit into:

“practical and feasible policy measures”

The following day brought another forum organized by the same Chinese association. The American delegation’s opening speakers included⁠ Center for American Progress senior fellow David Rank and foundation leader Marcel Arsenault, who spoke by video.

Lu again made public perceptions a priority. He blamed “cognitive biases and groundless suspicions” for obstructing relations and urged exchanges that would:

“guide the peoples of both countries to objectively view each other’s development achievements”

Natalie Winters

At noon on September 22, a small ceremony will take place at the foot of a bronze statue in Manhattan’s City Hall Park. A color guard will stand at attention, a wreath will be laid and most New Yorkers walking by probably will not notice.

They should.

The statue is of Nathan Hale, one of America’s first spies. Two hundred and fifty years ago, the British hanged him. He was 21 years old.

Hale hardly seemed destined for spy work. He was a Yale graduate, class of 1773, and a schoolteacher from Coventry, Connecticut – tall, fair and, by contemporary accounts, somewhat guileless.

After the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, Hale joined a Connecticut regiment. In the summer of 1776, he served with Knowlton’s Rangers, an elite reconnaissance unit organized under George Washington after the American defeat on Long Island.

Washington desperately needed intelligence about British troop strength and positions in New York. He asked for a volunteer to go behind enemy lines.

Hale was the only one to step forward. Friends tried to dissuade him, but he insisted on going. In mid-September 1776, disguised as a schoolmaster, he crossed Long Island Sound and entered British-held territory. He gathered information about troop deployments and fortifications, but within days his mission unraveled.

According to one account, British Maj. Robert Rogers, commander of the Queen’s Rangers, became suspicious of Hale, pretended to share his Patriot sympathies and induced him to reveal himself. Hale was arrested and brought before British Gen. William Howe.

There was no trial; A spy caught behind enemy lines and out of uniform faced execution.

The following morning, September 22, Hale was taken to the British artillery park, believed to have been near what is now Third Avenue and East 66th Street. He asked for a Bible and a clergyman. Both requests were denied.

British officer Frederick Mackenzie later recorded that Hale “behaved with great composure and resolution,” saying that he believed it was the duty of every good officer to obey the orders of his commander-in-chief and urging those around him to be prepared to meet death whenever it came.

The British orderly book was more clinical: “A spy from the enemy (by his own full confession) apprehended last night, was this day executed at 11 o’clock in front of the Artillery Park.” Far better known are the words generations of Americans have associated with Hale: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

Whether that was his final utterance is uncertain. The sentiment closely resembles a passage from Joseph Addison’s “Cato,” a play Hale and many of his generation knew well, and the famous formulation was recorded later rather than at the scene.

Whatever his precise words, Hale went to the gallows with remarkable calm and courage. Accounts say his body was left hanging as a warning before being buried in an unmarked grave whose location remains unknown.

When he went to the gallows, American independence was barely two months old. Washington’s army had been driven from Long Island, New York had fallen to the British and there was no guarantee that the new nation would survive. Hale gave his life not for a victorious country, but for the possibility of one.

Hale did not command an army or draft a founding document. His intelligence mission failed. But the Revolution depended on more than the famous men whose portraits now hang in museums and government buildings.

It depended on thousands of Americans – soldiers, farmers, sailors, tradesmen and, in Hale’s case, a young schoolteacher – who were willing to risk everything to secure the independence their leaders had declared.

As America marks 250 years of independence, it is worth remembering that the words of the Declaration meant little unless Americans were willing to fight and die for them.

More than a century after Hale’s death, the Sons of the Revolution gave New York the statue that now stands in City Hall Park. Its location is fitting. The young Connecticut schoolteacher faces City Hall in a town that was once under British military occupation, a reminder that the freedom New Yorkers take for granted came at a heavy price.

Nathan Hale had only one life. At 21, with his country’s future hanging in the balance, he was willing to give it. Two hundred and fifty years later, America should honor and remember that.

Michael Freund is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a columnist for The Daily Signal.