He was on a haunted tour at the time of his death

'That's tough, man'

Books Seeds of Story Apocalyptic Plagues and Anthropocene Forests: How Charles C. Mann’s 1491 Rewrote My Brain Exploring how history and other non-fiction works inspire speculative writing. By Ruthanna Emrys | Published on July 15, 2025 Comment 0 Share New Share Welcome to Seeds of Story, a new column where I explore the non-fiction that inspires—or should inspire—speculative fiction. Every couple weeks, we’ll dive into a book, article, or other source of ideas that are sparking current stories, or that have untapped potential to do so. Each article will include an overview of the source(s), a review of its readability and plausibility, and highlights of the best two or three “seeds” found there. I’m starting with Charles C. Mann’s 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Twenty years ago, this book rewrote my brain. It changed how I think about the continent where I live and the range of possible societies. While numerous more recent books examine North American history from an Indigenous perspective, Mann’s provided many non-Indigenous folks’ introduction to the field, and its success opened the door to a stream of popular publications. What It’s About U.S. education notoriously treats Native American nations as part of the country’s origin story: a small group who helped the colonies survive and were then destroyed by them. Lucky students may learn more detail about the Aztec empire, the Haudenosaunee’s role as a model for democracy, or the occasional battle won on an inevitable road to loss. Things have improved marginally since I was a kid in the ’80s, but I’ve still had to explain to my own children that, for example, native nations still exist and have their own governments. Mann’s book uses demographic and anthropological research to show that native pre-contact populations were far larger than popularly supposed. This is the common thread binding the book together, but is merely a central spine for a history of wildly diverse cultures, governance structures, ecological management approaches, and technologies. Despite the title, Mann also spends plenty of time on how pre-contact dynamics affected contact itself and the years following. The increased estimates of pre-Columbian population force readers to confront the sheer scale and horror of post-contact plagues. Earlier estimates were based on settler reports of community sizes, failure to recognize non-European indicators of human activity, and the general conviction that it couldn’t have been that bad. Also, plain wishful thinking by people who don’t want to imagine that plagues can get worse than the Black Death. Studies now place the population collapse upwards of 90%, and place modern North Americans in a post-apocalyptic landscape where we wander among half-buried monuments and half-remembered names. And this collapse was prior to more deliberate genocidal projects like biological warfare, massacre, and residential schools. Despite that, this is primarily a book about survival and creativity. Another key thread covers the anthropocene project by which native peoples dramatically shaped their environment. Colonists wondered at forests full of food, with easy paths meandering through a veritable cornucopia. Obviously, they concluded, this is a gift from the divine: Manifest destiny, Q.E.D. It can’t possibly be a manmade landscape, because we know what that looks like: neat monocropped rows and orchards. These sections will make you want to slap the Pilgrims, even more than you presumably already do, but also make you think about how we recognize—or fail to recognize—technology when we find it. There’s terraforming hidden in Northeastern forests, the engineered soil of the Amazon, and corn. Did I mention the corn? The wild version of this now near-universal staple crop is teosinte, a slender grass with a few tiny kernels sprouting sporadically up its length. Breeding teosinte into all the diverse and delicious strains of cob corn is now understood as a multigenerational breeding project, one of humanity’s first and most successful genetic engineering efforts. In among these longer threads, Mann shares stories that illustrate the drama and variability of native experiences. Many, like Tisquantum’s intercontinental adventures and the Borgia-esque tale of 8-Deer Jaguar Claw, have inexplicably not been turned into blockbuster adventure series. (It’s explicable; the explanation is racism.) Tisquantum was kidnapped twice, wrangled incompetent European sailors, survived war and mutiny, and became a vital diplomatic go-between due to his familiarity with multiple cultures and languages. I want the web serial ASAP. * * * This book changed the way I see the world, and the way I write. It made me understand, at a gut level, the possibility of humans acting as functional parts of our ecosystems—a very different thing from stereotypes about native harmony with nature. When I worldbuild future or alien technologies now, I think about flexibility versus hardness, and the difference between working iron tools and creating extraordinarily thin metal plates. I was once napping at an all-night gathering, vaguely heard someone discussing their refusal to eat genetically-engineered crops, woke up to ask if they’d brought teosinte to the potluck, and promptly fell back asleep. 1491 is extraordinarily readable and extraordinarily memorable. It’s full of things you’ll want to talk about at parties (even when awake). It writes human agency back into the landscape of the Americas. And by doing this, it made it easier for more people, including Indigenous authors, to get published on all these topics. The failure mode for a non-Indigenous author can be to miss cultural context and shape stories to their own expectations—while I’m obviously not in a position to speak to this directly, I haven’t encountered the same sorts of native critiques of 1491 that I have, for example, of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel or Pekka Hämäläinen’s Indigenous Continent. Mann is careful about the limits of his evidence, avoids broad generalizations, and makes events accessible without turning them into neat or familiar narratives. The Best Seeds for Speculative Stories Alternate Plagues. Several years ago, an alternate history book posited Americas full of megafauna, but never populated by Pleistocene humans—thus making a conveniently guilt-free new frontier. It was unusual in the arguments that followed, but not in the ease with which it considered mammals more central to the continent than humans. I’m not sure anyone could read this book and not have the first branch point on their minds be, “Could we have avoided the worst plague in human history?” The number of options is vast. For example, there’s a relatively brief period between Eurasians evolving minimal resilience to smallpox et al. and developing vaccines. Earlier contact would’ve led to, at least, more symmetrical effects across continents; later contact would’ve involved less exposure. It could have also involved better treatments and cures—you can’t count on genocidal empires to share their medical acumen, but imagine someone like Tisquantum fitting a little medical tech espionage in amid all his hairbreadth escapes. Or what if native nations managed to domesticate more local megafauna, thus developing their own set of zoonotic diseases to share—and perhaps earlier protective options? The oddest method of mitigating the plagues, in a surprising number of books, has been dragons. Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series, for example, shows a North America in which plague decimated the human population, but less-affected draconic symbionts have managed to protect against invaders while humans slowly recover their numbers. And while the dragons in Moniquill Blackgoose’s To Shape a Dragon’s Breath haven’t prevented invasion, they’re helping hold the line on the western side of the continent—and are perhaps helping change the dynamic in the east. A Different Sort of City. Most people—unless I’m having a Feldspar problem—know something about Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital on the current site of Mexico City. Mann lays out exactly how impressive it was, and even before it became commonplace to trip over ancient cities in the region, pointed out that it was far from unique. What’s surprising is that cities north of the Rio Grande were almost unheard of, with one exception. Cahokia Mounds was, at its peak in the 11th-12th centuries CE, bigger than any city in the eventual U.S. would be again until the late 1700s. It was a center for religion, leadership, and trade—and we know relatively little about it. The name comes from later locals who may not be related to its builders, and unlike Mayan cultures, they didn’t leave written records. Cahokia’s fall has been attributed to authoritarian overreach, ecological collapse, sanitation failures, and/or a gradual cultural rejection of city life. It’s full of untapped story ideas. Though not entirely untapped: W. Michael and Kathleen O’Neal Gear’s People of the Morning Star builds on the real history, while Francis Spufford’s Cahokia Jazz plays with a version of the city that survives into the 1920s. Flexible Technologies. Split up a sapient species at the hunter-gatherer stage, and wildly different routes of technological development result. While Andean settled agriculture has recognizable similarities to Mesopotamian settled agriculture, the Americas by 1492 saw a wider spectrum of possible land management strategies than Eurasia and Africa. Food forests were human-shaped, but did not require intensive tending or harvesting. Controlled burns maintained ecosystems from grassland to salmon runs. In the Amazon, rich terra preta incorporated charcoal and broken pottery to increase fertility; we’re still trying to replicate its methods. Many native technologies also emphasized flexibility and tensile strength over the advances in hardness preferred by Europeans. European houses were brick and stone; northern American houses tended toward tight weaving and easy revision. The rule doesn’t generalize everywhere—a Mayan pyramid is plenty hard and the English did complicated things with wool—but is a good guide to central tendencies.  One vivid speculative depiction of this kind of technology is most certainly not influenced by Mann—but Mann’s book does change how I watch the work of noted non-deep cross-cultural thinker George Lucas. Take a look at that Ewok village, and tell me it’s actually low-tech, as opposed to tech-unrecognizable-to-spaceship-people. For that matter, take a look at how quickly Ewoks figure out hoverbikes, and how well arrows work against mass-produced helmets. Lucas was working with stereotypes, but accidentally got something right. Janet Kagan’s Hellspark is a first contact novel that, more deliberately, depicts the common failure to recognize technology that doesn’t look like ours. The book is built around the question of how we figure out that other people are people, and whether that might be something we can get better at. Monica Byrne’s The Actual Star braids three timelines: ancient Mayan, modern-day, and a future culture. The latter draws on Mayan heritage and technology for a flexible and portable lifestyle, one that bears more resemblance to post-contact northern nomadism than settled cities. It does an impressive job of depicting how dramatic societal changes can be over time. Arkady Martine’s A Memory Called Empire draws on the same history, as well as on Martine’s scholarly background in Byzantine history, combining rigid and flexible aspects of technology with fascinating results. New Growth: What Else to Read 1491 opened the way for books such as Kathleen DuVal’s Native Nations, Ned Blackhawk’s The Rediscovery of America, Robin Wall Kimmerer’s books on native ecological management and philosophy, and numerous more tightly-focused histories and biographies. Mann’s own sequel, 1493, isn’t quite as groundbreaking as 1491; however, it remains a fascinating overview of the Columbian Exchange that altered foodways and ecologies around the world. Annalee Newitz’s Four Lost Cities goes in-depth on what we know about four ancient, abandoned cities, including Cahokia. And David Graeber and David Wengrow’s recent The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity dives into the diversity of governance options explored on all continents prior to written records and settled agriculture. It makes some dubious assumptions, but also points out assumptions that other researchers are making, and will probably show up in this column at some point—if “seasonally-variable government” sounds like a tempting plot bunny, you want to read it. Have you read 1491, and if so what did you think? Share your thoughts, and recommendations for both fiction and non-fiction playing with and expanding on these ideas, in the comments section.[end-mark] The post Apocalyptic Plagues and Anthropocene Forests: How Charles C. Mann’s <i>1491</i> Rewrote My Brain appeared first on Reactor.

At the latest session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which just concluded last week, delegates dialogued with two U.N. human rights experts who have written reports focused on gender ideology. These two experts’ views on “gender questions,” and their recommendations for how countries can protect human rights, reflected radically different views on society and “gender.” Gender ideology—which centers on the idea that one’s subjective “gender identity” can differ from one’s biological sex—is a polarizing issue throughout the world. What began as a radical theory in Western ivory towers a few decades ago has now spread into every nook and cranny of everyday life, from education and medicine to politics and entertainment. And it’s increasingly the subject of heated debate in the field of international human rights. Graeme Reid, the “Independent Expert” on sexual orientation and gender identity, wholeheartedly endorses gender ideology. His most recent report focused on sexual orientation and gender identity in relation to forced displacement. Its recommendations read like a wish list of the most ardent gender ideologue. According to Reid, states should provide “gender-appropriate accommodation for transgender and gender-diverse persons.” In effect, this would mean that displaced persons seeking government housing could be placed with other immigrants based on how they “identify.” This could result in men who identify as women, or as “gender-diverse,” sharing rooms with vulnerable displaced women.  Reid also recommends that governments use “gender identity and preferred names as identifiers rather than only sex and name at birth,” and that governments ensure that their “national policies and legal systems guarantee non-discrimination on all grounds, including sexual orientation and gender identity.” Of course, that overlooks the fact that places that have included “gender identity” as a category of non-discrimination have experienced numerous threats to freedom of speech and belief. Ignoring that, Reid took special aim at the U.S. in his report, writing that “legislative efforts have disproportionately focused on transgender persons, who remain vulnerable to scapegoating, discrimination and violence.” His report lamented the limited access to state-funded and private health care in many of the countries that host displaced people. However, it praised Mexico City, where “individuals are guaranteed public health services, including … gender affirming care for transgender individuals regardless of their immigration status.” In reality, the ghoulish and irreversible medical interventions euphemistically called “gender-affirming care” are a frontal attack on human rights, not a praiseworthy example of health care.   That view is shared by the other expert, Reem Alsalem, the special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, who clearly sees gender ideology as an assault on the rights and protections of women and girls. She delivered her report on “sex-based”—rather than gender ideologues’ “gender-based”—violence against women to the U.N. delegates. “I never imagined the day would come where my mandate would deem it necessary to prepare a report affirming that the words ‘women’ and ‘girls’ refer to distinct biological and legal categories,” she said. In responding to criticism from European and U.N. officials, Alsalem noted that sex is “an innate, immutable and fundamental aspect of human existence for men and women alike,” pointedly remarking, “sex is actually not a social construct, gender is.” In her report, Alsalem noted that “gender identity” is a term that “lacks a codified definition in international law.” On the other hand, international law is unambiguous in its defense of sex-based protections. She urged governments to protect female-only spaces and insisted that “[f]orfeiting female-specific terminology under the pretext of inclusion is not justified in international law.” The report highlighted the loss of single-sex spaces and the denial of freedom of belief and of speech as just two of the many consequences of erasing sex-specific considerations. In her spoken remarks, Alsalem noted that some international groups and governments have called her “regressive, racist, colonial, transphobic, fascist and nazi” for her views, but that those verbal attacks pale in comparison to the violence and hatred directed at many others who have taken a stand against gender ideology. Her report made several bold recommendations, including that governments prohibit efforts to “transition” children through “legal, social, and experimental, irreversible medical interventions.” It called upon states to provide “effective remedies, accountability mechanisms, and robust support services” for anyone harmed by such interventions in the past, and particularly for detransitioners. Unlike Reid, who praised government support for “gender-affirming care,” Alsalem expressed outrage that “no U.N. agency that has a mandate on human rights nor the rights of children has spoken out about the documented long-term harms of so-called pediatric gender transitions and how they violate the human rights of children.” Yet despite the failure of the U.N. human rights apparatus writ large, opposition to gender ideology is growing on both sides of the Atlantic. Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. has taken a strong stance against gender ideology in its international engagements. Before the session adjourned, the Human Rights Council voted to renew Reid’s sexual orientation and gender ideology mandate, despite opposition from several African and Islamic countries. But Alsalem remains outspoken in her defense of women and confident in her opposition to gender ideology. When each side of the gender debate makes its arguments out in the open, it’s clear which will better protect the human rights of women and girls. As Alsalem argued, “you cannot protect what you cannot define.” The post UN Experts Duel Over ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’ at Human Rights Council appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Will Trump and Netanyahu Convince Arab States to Relocate Gazans?

On Tuesday morning, conservatives on X were set ablaze with a lunkheaded work of potbellied partisanship by NBCNews.com that insisted a scandal of rank hypocrisy was afoot: “Lead investigator into Biden's use of an autopen signed letters with a digital signature.” The man in question? House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) using Adobe Sign (or a similar software) to sign letters. NBC correspondents Ryan Nobles and Melanie Zardona almost certainly took this story right from the hands of Biden flacks or some other liberal operative and published a lame, nearly-1,1 00-word story when they intentionally missed the point of Comer’s investigation, which is whether former President Biden actually knew what was being signed by staff in his name. Nobles went on MSNBC in the 1:00 p.m. Eastern hour to trumpet this supposed bombshell: He also went on NBC’s free streaming channel NBC News NOW shortly after the article went live. Speaking of the piece, try and not laugh at the absurdity of how serious they sound (click “expand”): Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has been leading the probe into Joe Biden’s cognitive state during his presidency, with Republicans alleging that Biden's occasional use of an “autopen” to sign documents — a practice other presidents have done as well — demonstrated that he wasn’t fully in control or aware of what his administration was doing. But documents show that some of the letters and subpoena notices Comer has sent out in connection to his investigation have been signed using a digital signature — not written by the congressman himself. (....) Comer’s committee has taken up Trump’s push in Congress. He has sent 16 letters to former Biden White House officials requesting transcribed interviews. In all 16 of those letters, metadata reveals his signature was a digital picture inserted into the letter. In addition to the 16 letters requesting voluntary appearances, Comer sent letters to former White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Conner and Anthony Bernal, who served as a senior aide to then-first lady Jill Biden, forcing them to appear via subpoena. The cover letters for the subpoenas were both signed with digital images, rather than Comer writing out his name by hand — what’s known as a “wet signature.” But, wait, there was more: “While the committee released copies of the letters, it released only a photo of the actual subpoena, which does appear to show a wet signature from Comer. A look at the metadata of the letters shows that they were created by someone besides Comer. And hovering over Comer’s signature in Adobe Acrobat shows that it is a digital image.” The indefatigable RedSteeze on X tweeted about this absurd passage: “So just to get this straight, instead of investigating the president United States possibly not knowing who he's pardoning, you guys are investigating a PDF and Adobe Acrobat?” At least they ran huge chunks of a statement from a Oversight Committee spokeswoman fact-checking them on the difference between “digital signatures for official correspondence” being “a common practice for both Republicans and Democrats” while the issue with Biden is whether there was “unauthorized use of an autopen in the Biden White House for legally binding executive actions.” Nobles and Zardona went onto explain the common practice of designated staff using “digital copies of signatures” of their boss to help move correspondences along, but went back to making this a problem with help from former longtime House GOP aide Brendan Buck calling this “not...sustainable[.]” The two took Biden at his word that he was in full command of what his staff was using his signature to sign, but closed by pivoting back to Comer as some sort of raging hypocrite (click “expand”): There is precedent for sending letters with digital signatures like the ones Comer is sending. Most of the ones sent to investigatory targets in the Jan. 6 Select Committee investigation were signed digitally, and committee staff argue the chairman is adhering to a long-held congressional standard. But Democrats argue that the same standard exists in the White House, and Comer picking and choosing when he physically signs something is arbitrary at best and hypocritical at worst. (....) House Oversight Republicans are attempting to prove that the use of the autopen was directly connected to Biden's not being aware that something was being signed on his behalf. At this point, the committee has not specifically said what, if any, documents would fall in that category, and they still have yet to reveal evidence that would back up their theory. A source with direct knowledge of the committee’s work told NBC News that the focus of their witness interviews has been to understand the process by which presidential decisions were made and communicated to officials who affixed Biden’s signature to official documents. It is the committee’s belief that affixing the president’s signature to a legally binding document without providing him with the necessary background information is inappropriate. Feel free to disagree, but using DocuSign like one would for signing mortgage documents is not the same as the feeble-minded President not knowing where he is. Moreover, NBC should be embarrassed for seemingly discovering that every legally biding court filing is also signed this way. In fact, our friend Matthew Foldi at the Washington Reporter noted parent company NBCUniversal’s most recent Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings were signed by....DocuSign: Imagine having such little substantive work experience that you successfully pitched your bosses on writing a story scandalizing digital signatures.  Former NewsBusters intern Alec Sears also had some fun mocking NBC: Over at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson tore the peacock network a new one: “The issue is that Biden’s staff was making decisions via autopen while his brain was mashed potatoes. The press MUST realize this (or they’re dumber than I thought) so I’m not sure what the heck this is supposed to be.” At the end of the day, they certainly know the difference, but have chosen to care more about helping fellow Democrats than they do about preserving the institution of journalism that they claim to care so much about. JustTheNews’s Jerry Dunleavy said this as well, going after MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Jonathan Lemire:  

Election officials in one of the bluest cities in Michigan may soon have to give answers under oath about an election-related imbalance that always seems to favor Democrats.In 2022, the Michigan GOP and the Republican National Committee sued various officials in Flint, Michigan, after the city hired just a fraction of the number of Republican polling inspectors required by state law.'It’s about making sure that courts are open to decide important questions about people’s rights.'The state statute demands that "board of election commissioners shall appoint at least 1 election inspector from each major political party and shall appoint an equal number, as nearly as possible, of election inspectors in each election precinct from each major political party."However, of the 562 inspectors appointed by the Flint election commissioners, just 57 were Republicans, court documents said.RELATED: Trump order leads to investigation of 33 potential incidents of noncitizen voting, AG Paxton says Photo by GEOFF ROBINS/AFP via Getty ImagesDespite the gross disparity, lower courts in Michigan dismissed the lawsuit, claiming that the state and national Republican parties lacked standing. These Republican organizations "cannot show that they are interested parties who are entitled to a declaratory judgment," the majority opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals determined in 2024. The 2-1 decision added that the groups "do not have a legally protected interest in the enforcement of" the applicable statutes.A supermajority of the decidedly liberal Michigan Supreme Court disagreed.On Monday, the state's highest court ruled 5-1 that the Michigan Republican Party and the RNC do in fact have "a unique interest in ensuring the fair and equal treatment of party-affiliated candidates during voting and the counting of ballots." The ruling added that such "fair and equal treatment" "is fulfilled through party-affiliated election inspectors."The ruling gives new life to the GOP lawsuit, allowing it to proceed at the lower courts. Should it be retried, "Flint officials will be forced to explain themselves under oath," Rod D. Martin, tech entrepreneur and CEO of Martin Capital, noted."Democrats stacked the deck in Flint," Martin continued on social media. "Now they’ll have to answer for it."Michael Whatley, chairman of the RNC, likewise cheered the ruling as "another major win for election integrity!""Every voter deserves transparency and fairness — and that starts with equal representation among poll workers," he continued in a statement posted to social media.Republican state Rep. Bryan Posthumus of Rockford is likewise pleased."The Supreme Court made the right call in overturning the lower court's ruling," Posthumus said in a statement to Blaze News. "The fight to ensure free, fair, and transparent elections is a continuous one, and this is a big battle to win."Even the ACLU of Michigan celebrated the decision. ACLU attorney Phil Mayor claimed that the GOP lawsuit "really deserved to be heard.""The underlying case may be about politics, but the standing question that the Michigan Supreme Court decided today is not about politics. It’s about making sure that courts are open to decide important questions about people’s rights," Mayor said, according to Michigan Public.RELATED: 16 noncitizens apparently voted in Michigan in 2024 — and liberals are cheering about it Michael Whatley and President-elect Donald Trump meet in Arizona in December 2024.Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty ImagesFlint is not the only heavily Democratic city in Michigan to be sued for failing to hire enough Republican election inspectors. In August, the RNC sued Detroit on similar grounds.At that point, only 335 of the more than 500 precincts in Detroit had provided legally required information about polling workers. Of those 335, at least 202 "did not have any Republican election inspectors," the lawsuit said, even though the Detroit clerk had received in May a list of nearly 700 Republicans willing to serve.Though the city had hired at least 250 Republicans, those supposed Republicans were not nominated by the party.Detroit settled that lawsuit just before the 2024 general election, agreeing to adjust "processes and protocols" to accord with state law.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Just like BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey, founder of Live Action Lila Rose is a fierce pro-life advocate.However, while they agree on social issues that concern morality, when it comes to their perspectives on faith, they differ slightly.“Something that I hear a lot," says Stuckey, "is that the church has always been so clear on this ... and Protestantism has given way to division. And the Catholic Church is unified, but Protestantism, the fruit of it is this dissension and all of these denominations.”“And yet when you look at, statistically, what professing Catholics say they believe and what professing Protestants say they believe, it seems to me, if we are to believe a Pew research or something like that, that Protestants, when it comes to things like abortion, when it comes to things like homosexuality, statistically we’re a lot more united on ‘This is what the Bible says,’” she continues.Meanwhile, Stuckey says that according to these Pew Research studies, 68% of Catholics “say that they’re pro-choice” and 70% of Catholics believe that “non-Christians can go to heaven.”“So my question is if the Catholic Church is a bastion of unity, why are professing Catholics so disunified when it comes to these really big moral, theological issues?” she asks Rose.“These words might mean even different things to people, and might be lending some of the confusion,” Rose responds, noting that the Catholics who view missing weekly mass as a mortal sin will be a different story.“They’re going to be pretty pro-life and pretty down the line, largely speaking, on sexual ethics,” she says. “There’s still going to be confusion even on contraception and IVF, things of this nature.”“But I think that cohort, they’re doing the weekly gathering as God has commanded of worship, of the Mass, right? So I think it would depend on the groups we’re comparing, quite frankly, because I do know the idea of ‘I’m a believer, I’m a Christian, or I’m an evangelical’ can be very watered down, here in the United States and globally in terms of what that means with morality,” she adds.Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Mike Waltz is in the hot seat as the Senate kicks off his contentious confirmation hearing to serve as ambassador to the United Nations. Waltz, who previously served as national security adviser to President Donald Trump, was removed from the role following a string of scandals. Most notably, Waltz accidentally added the editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a private Signal group chat with other administration officials where they discussed and coordinated an imminent airstrike against the Houthis in Yemen. 'I was hoping to hear you had some sense of regret.'Although Waltz has taken full responsibility for the "embarrassing" slipup, "Signalgate" was the Democrats' cannon fodder of choice on Tuesday.Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware pressed the nominee over the use of Signal to communicate about ongoing military operations, saying it is "not an appropriate, secure means of communicating highly sensitive information." Coons also asked Waltz if he had been investigated over the incident."The use of Signal, as an encrypted app, is not only authorized, it was recommended by the Biden-era CISA guidance," Waltz said in defense of the chat.RELATED: Scott Jennings shreds media's narrative around Trump admin Signal group chat Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images"Of course, there was no classified information exchanged," Waltz added.Coons reiterated his concerns over the "demonstrably sensitive information" that was leaked by the chat, asking Waltz again if he had been investigated for it. "The White House conducted an investigation, and my understanding is that the Department of Defense is still conducting the investigation," Waltz said. "At the time, you took responsibility for adding a journalist to the Signal chat," Coons said in response. "But it doesn't seem to me that the administration's taken any action to make sure this doesn't happen again. ... I was hoping to hear you had some sense of regret."RELATED: Senate Democrats set to grill Mike Waltz over 'Signalgate' during confirmation hearing Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesSenator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) also grilled Waltz over the alleged sharing of sensitive information on Signal. Waltz confirmed when pressed that “Signal has not been approved for use by U.S. government officials for the sharing of classified information."Senator Kaine didn’t stop there. He pressed Waltz on the ongoing investigations surrounding the alleged Signal leak of classified information. Waltz responded: "I shouldn't and can't comment on an ongoing investigation, but what I can do is echo Secretary [Pete] Hegseth's testimony that no names, targets, locations, units, routes, sources, method … no classified information was shared."Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) accused Waltz of avoiding responsibility, saying that it was not an acceptable excuse to say that Jeffrey Goldberg was "sucked in" to the message group. Booker continued, "Instead, in a moment when our national security was clearly compromised, you denied, you deflected, then you demeaned and degraded those people who objectively told the truth and criticized your actions.""It shows profound cowardice. ... Even after weeks, if not months, of reflection, you couldn't sit before this committee and take some responsibility."Waltz faced pressure from his own party as well. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned Waltz on where his loyalties exactly lie: "I guess it just worries me that you come more from the Liz Cheney wing of the party than the Donald Trump wing of the party." Waltz, a former U.S. representative from Florida, affirmed his loyalty to President Trump, citing his voting record in Congress: "Senator, I am squarely with the president. I've been with him in every single election I've participated in."Mike Waltz needs a majority vote in the 53-47 Republican-controlled Senate to be confirmed as the new U.N. ambassador. A vote on his nomination is expected before the U.N. General Assembly opens on September 9.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Pastor John MacArthur has gone home to be with the Lord.A pastor and theologian, MacArthur preached the gospel to millions. He faithfully served as pastor of Grace Community Church in Southern California for nearly 60 years. He founded "Grace to You," a media ministry, and the Master's Seminary. His impact on American Christianity is undeniable. He influenced generations of American pastors and Christians.'That's just a straight question: Do you believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God?'But what stands out most about MacArthur's legacy is that he refused to compromise. He always defended biblical truth — and he refused to apologize for it.In a culture of confusion and compromise, MacArthur was uncompromising.He not only pastored his flock and exposited the Bible line by line, but MacArthur helped millions of Christians navigate our increasingly anti-Christian culture. He did not back down from conflict — especially if it meant proclaiming God's truth.When news broke over the weekend that MacArthur's health had declined, an old video of MacArthur debating none other than Gavin Newsom — then the mayor of San Francisco — went viral. The clip, which aired on CNN in 2004 (practically ancient in the age of social media), embodies MacArthur's faithfulness to Jesus and the Christian witness.As mayor of San Francisco in 2004, Newsom ordered the city-county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Newsom later appeared on CNN, identifying as a "practicing Catholic," and defended the LGBTQ agenda.But his anti-Christian justifications were no match for MacArthur, who needed only one question to unravel Newsom's logic."I would just like to ask the mayor: As a practicing Catholic, do you believe the Bible is the word of God?"Newsom clearly hated the question."Pastor, I'm not going to get into a theological debate with you," the Democrat huffed.MacArthur fired back, "That's not a theological debate. That's just a straight question: Do you believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God?"When Newsom affirmed the Bible as the authoritative word of God, MacArthur quickly exposed the contradiction between Newsom's support for the LGBTQ agenda and Christianity."Then the Bible says when God created man, He said 'one man, one woman, cleave together, for life.' That's a family. Jesus, in the New Testament, reaffirms that. All of the writers of the Old and New Testament affirm it. Adultery, bestiality, homosexuality was punishable by death according to the Old Testament law because it was so serious in those early years because it literally shattered the hope of civilization," MacArthur explained. "The New Testament offers us, of course, grace — those sins, our sins, they are forgivable. Jesus died to redeem us from those sins. We're all sinners."RELATED: Christian Pastor John MacArthur issues scathing rebuke of California Gov. Gavin Newsom for running pro-choice billboards MacArthur was not only concerned about declaring God's truth in the face of lies. He also cared about Newsom's salvation.In 2022, MacArthur wrote a letter to Newsom, then and now governor of California, rebuking him for "rewarding evildoers and punishing the righteous." Newsom's policies, the pastor warned, reflect an "unholy, upside-down view of honor and morality." Politics aside, the goal of the letter was to plead with Newsom to "hear and heed what the Word of God says to men in your position."The letter, indeed, warned Newsom about his responsibilities as a leader and God's judgment. But it also called Newsom to repentance and offered him the gospel."One day, not very long from now, you will face that reality. Nothing is more certain," MacArthur wrote, referring to the judgment of God. "You will stand in the presence of the Holy God who created you, who is your Judge, and He will demand that you give an account for how you have flouted His authority in your governing, and how you have twisted His own Holy Word to rationalize it. As you look over the precipice of eternity, what will your answer be?"My plea to you, Sir, is ... that you would not go to that day of judgment apart from receiving forgiveness and righteousness through faith in Christ alone," he went on to write. "So there is salvation for those who repent. Christ purchased full redemption for all who will turn from wickedness, forsake their evil thoughts and actions, and trust fully in Him as Lord and Savior."Our church, and countless Christians nationwide, are praying for your full repentance. Please respond to the gospel, forsake the path of wickedness you have pursued all your life, turn to Christ, ask for forgiveness, and use your office to advance the cause of righteousness (as is your duty) instead of undermining it (as has been your pattern)," MacArthur pleaded.Uncompromising. Bold. Full of truth. A lion of the faith. This is MacArthur's legacy. A faithful servant of his Lord, Jesus Christ, now home for eternity.