‘This Is Going To Stop’: Leo Terrell Warns Elite Schools Over Anti-Semitic Protests
'We’re gonna use every tool to eradicate this'
Cross-examining Christ: Biden judge distorts Jesus to slam Trump — but at what cost?
WWJD: What would Jesus do?
Based on a concept that St. Augustine developed — and then was popularized centuries later in the 1990s — WWJD became a topic of debate in a federal courtroom last month when U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, asked Justice Department attorney Jason Lynch how Jesus Christ would respond to one of President Donald Trump's executive orders defending women from trans ideology.
Reyes posed the bizarre question after reading aloud an email that she had received from a Christian who sought to evangelize her.
Reyes said:
Now, that email assumes that I don’t have a relationship with Jesus already. But let’s assume that I don’t, and I want to know what Jesus would think about something because I want to have a closer relationship with him, as I’ve been told to do.
What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless, that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, “Sounds right to me”? Or do you think Jesus would say, “WTF? Of course let them in”?
To his credit, Lynch, though dumbfounded, refused the bait and told Reyes, "The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."
Though Reyes acknowledged that her question is "unfair" and "impossible," she declared, "But you can't tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against today."
Shocking as it may be, this exchange actually took place in a federal courthouse last month — and the problems are obvious.
DOJ files complaint
After the hearing, the DOJ filed a complaint against Reyes that accused her of violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
The complaint, among other allegations, accused Reyes of questioning Lynch about his "religious beliefs and then using him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics."
That specific accusation raises an important question: Did Reyes' question violate the Constitution?
Constitutional law professor Josh Blackman thinks it does. Citing the Religious Test Clause (Article VI, Section 3) — which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" — Blackman argued that Reyes asked Lynch a "purely theological question."
"It is, in every sense, a test about religious belief," he explained. "And the question is premised on the existence of Jesus as a deity."
Jesus, defiled
Potential misconduct aside, Reyes, acting like an anti-Trump activist, tried to use Jesus as her prop, stripping the risen Christ of his identity and reforming him into her own image: a political activist.
But Jesus is not a foul-mouthed LGBTQ activist.
The question is nothing more than a rhetorical sleight of hand full of irony.
When Reyes invokes Jesus, she is attempting to use Jesus' moral authority to bolster her case that the Trump administration is immoral. But her mischaracterization of him shows that she rejects Jesus' actual teachings.
Yes, Jesus preached a gospel of love; loving God and loving your neighbor is the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40). But Reyes neglects the other side of the equation: To love in the biblical imagination is not simply affirmation — but necessarily includes obeying Jesus' teachings.
"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching," Jesus said (John 14:23).
Importantly, Jesus does not abrogate the Old Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is clear that he is not abolishing the Old Testament but fulfilling it, later explicating the true meaning of many of the Old Testament commandments, including laws related to sexuality. Jesus, moreover, reaffirms what Genesis teaches about men, women, and human sexuality.
"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Matthew 19:4-6).
While Reyes thought she was appealing to Jesus' moral authority, what she really did was recast Jesus into a progressive mold. She ignored the fact that Jesus came to redeem the world from sin, she ignored the fact that Jesus called for repentance, and she ignored the fact that Jesus told his followers to take up a cross and follow him through death to eternal life.
Ultimately, Reyes' argument is build on a false dichotomy: that Jesus either would have demonstrated her version of compassion, which in this case means affirming transgender ideology, or he would be cruel.
What we're left with is a "Jesus" who looks nothing like the King of Kings, the righteous Lord who demands repentance and faith.
What would Jesus do?
For a moment, let's entertain Reyes' question because it's clear that Jesus neither would have said "Scram!" nor "You're just fine as you are."
First, Jesus would not intentionally mischaracterize his interlocutor because his kingdom is build on truth.
To that point, the Trump administration has not described trans-identifying persons as "worthless," and neither would Jesus. Sin doesn't make us worthless. Rather, God created every human with such incalculable value that he took on human flesh and stood in our place to reconcile us to himself. And because we are valuable, Jesus would probably meet the real needs of those presenting themselves to him, as he repeatedly did throughout his earthly ministry.
Second, Jesus would share the good news about his kingdom.
"The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" Jesus said (Mark 1:15).
It goes without saying: Repenting and believing the good news definitionally means turning away from all behavior that is incongruent with the kingdom of God. This includes all sexual immorality, which is not only a sin against God but a sin against ourselves.
In other words, Jesus not only meets our physical needs but our eternal needs, too. And in so doing, Jesus invites us to live in truth.
Third, Jesus would probably turn the question back onto Reyes as he often did to those questioning him. Perhaps, he would even challenge Reyes with the same question he asked his disciples: Who do you say that I am?
The real question isn't "What would Jesus do?" or "What would Jesus say?" The question is: Are we willing to follow Jesus instead of using him to bolster our own agendas?
Bondi has the power to take down Goliath — will she use it?
I spent 20 years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia, including 12 years as U.S. attorney from 1981 to 1993. During that time, I worked with five attorneys general across President Reagan’s two terms and President George H.W. Bush’s term. I also spent an additional six months working with the Clinton administration.
When I was first named U.S. attorney, the situation was very different. However, many of the challenges recently confirmed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi will face in Washington, D.C. — including issues related to drugs, organized crime, and immigration — are similar to those I confronted during my tenure. For instance, we dealt with the invasion of Jamaican criminal “posses” in cities across the country, including Martinsburg, West Virginia. Today, the United States faces a comparable threat from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
America has spoken. Now, Pam Bondi must answer the call by reshaping the Department of Justice into a David willing to take on Goliath, rather than a Goliath victimizing countless Davids.
Maybe times haven’t changed as much as we think.
During my time as U.S. attorney, I pioneered the use of multi-jurisdictional task forces. These teams, composed of federal, state, and local law enforcement, worked together to take down criminals who had previously been untouchable. For Bondi, building and maintaining that kind of interdepartmental cooperation and communication is crucial — especially with the Trump administration’s focus on addressing illegal immigration. The more local and state law enforcement officials she enlists, the smoother the process will be. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true.
I also strongly advise the attorney general not only to allow but also to encourage each individual U.S. attorney’s office across the country to operate independently, without fear of reprisal or interference.
The best attorney general I ever worked under was Ed Meese. He gave us the freedom to pursue the cases and criminals we deemed most important. He never imposed marching orders or pushed us to follow any agenda other than what was best for our districts. U.S. attorneys excel when they pursue their own agendas.
I would urge Bondi to continue her efforts in the vigorous fight against the opioid epidemic. This crisis continues to devastate thousands of lives across the country every year. Recognizing the urgent need for action, Bondi’s efforts in Florida led to substantial settlements that provided much-needed resources for addiction treatment and prevention programs, including medication-assisted treatment. We need that same approach on the national level. I can think of no one better equipped to lead the charge in winning the war on drugs than this administration, with Pam Bondi at the helm.
I also hope Bondi prioritizes the fight against human trafficking nationwide, as she did in Florida. The initiatives she championed in the Sunshine State — increasing awareness, improving victim services, and enhancing law enforcement’s ability to combat trafficking — should be emulated across the country.
Similarly, her work in Florida against mortgage and financial fraud is just as important on a national scale. Her dedication to consumer rights and commitment to holding powerful entities accountable is more critical now than ever, especially after four years of misguided policies.
Most importantly, we must rely on Bondi to avoid the judicial overreach of her predecessor, Merrick Garland, who allowed special counsel Jack Smith to run roughshod over the Department of Justice. Independence should not have meant that Smith could disregard traditional judicial norms and practices, undermining the very system he was supposed to uphold while investigating former President Trump.
America has spoken. Now, Pam Bondi must answer the call by reshaping the Department of Justice into a David willing to take on Goliath, rather than a Goliath victimizing countless Davids. And she will have more than just a slingshot at her disposal to achieve victory.
Judge Chutkan Should Be Disqualified From Hearing Trump Cases After Defying His J6 Order
Chutkan's order refusing to dismiss the charges against John Banuelos is a mishmash of confusion, defiance, and intellectual incoherence.The Violent Dems Turning Up The Heat In Escalating War On Trump
House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries on resistance movement against MAGA: 'We're going to fight it in the streets.' We've seen this movie.Outrage over the J6 pardons flows from malicious misinformation
The post-pardon outrage from leftist pundits, politicians, and D.C. judges and prosecutors is as dramatic as it is predictable. No amount of reason or logic will stop them from rushing to the cameras to stoke fear and loathing over President Trump’s sweeping pardons and commutations for nearly every January 6 defendant. The pardons included nonviolent offenders and those who, frankly, were significantly otherwise. But every pardon and commutation was justified.
Equally unsurprising, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) eagerly joined the leftist choir. But plenty of other spineless Republicans have also condemned the pardons, mostly RINOs from states or districts where voters only elect Republicans who side with Democrats half the time.
Even the most unsavory characters and reprehensible actors had their constitutional rights trampled. That fundamental injustice justified Trump’s blanket pardons.
Meanwhile, many in Congress remain willfully ignorant of the Biden Justice Department’s lawless prosecutions of nearly 1,600 J6ers. The scale of their indifference is not just stunning — it’s downright disconcerting.
How could they ignore the blatant abuses of due process and basic legal rights? Prosecutors manufactured evidence, suborned perjury, and exaggerated or outright lied about individual behaviors. Courts handed down absurdly harsh sentences, especially compared to similar or worse crimes committed during left-wing protests and riots in the same city less than a year earlier. On top of that, J6ers in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system endured inhumane treatment for years.
Sunday morning “news” programs last week were a font of ignorance and disinformation. Near the conclusion of CBS News’ “Face the Nation” interview with Vice President JD Vance, Margaret Brennan repeated a persistent media falsehood about convicted J6er Ronald “Colt” McAbee. She claimed, “Ronald McAbee hit a cop while wearing reinforced brass knuckle gloves, while he held one down on the ground while other rioters assailed the officer for over 20 seconds, causing a concussion.”
Courtroom evidence and testimony contradict every word Brennan read from her prepared notes about McAbee, making her claims false and potentially defamatory. At the time, McAbee, a Tennessee deputy sheriff, wore motorcycle gloves with plastic reinforcement to protect his hands in an accident — not “brass knuckles.” He never held down a cop to allow others to cause a concussion.
Two exhaustive reports for Blaze Media by my colleague Joe Hanneman expose how federal prosecutors lied, manipulated evidence, and withheld material from a judge to keep McAbee behind bars. A thorough review of video footage confirms McAbee never assaulted Metropolitan Police Department Officer Andrew Wayte, as alleged. Instead, he shielded the officer and helped him return to the police line.
Vance delivered a response every Republican should learn and remember. “There’s an important issue here,” he said. “There’s what the people actually did on January 6 — we’re not saying everyone acted perfectly — and then,” he continued, “what did Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice do in unjustly prosecuting well over a thousand Americans in a politically motivated way?”
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), another waste of ample Republican flesh, told Martha Raddatz on ABC News’ “This Week,” “I think the pardons by Joe Biden were disgraceful, and I think Donald Trump has taken it to another level as well.” He didn’t stop there. “These are the two most selfish politicians in the presidency in my lifetime. Joe Biden pardoning his family proves it, and Donald Trump trying to whitewash January 6 proves it.”
The real “disgraceful” and “selfish” act is Christie's desperation to stay relevant while pontificating about cases he clearly hasn’t reviewed. His criticism ignores glaring examples of Justice Department overreach and excessive sentencing by D.C. judges, making his commentary more about political positioning than legal integrity.
Many GOP and Democrat legislators display blatant ignorance, but the claim that all Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police feel “disgraced and insulted” by these pardons is false. Capitol Police officers I’ve interviewed and built relationships with over the past three years have shared a different perspective, as evidenced by the many messages in my inbox.
Active-duty, retired, off-the-record, and whistleblowing Capitol Police officers have congratulated me on the dismissal of my January 6 case. They recognize the department’s failures and the “setup” that occurred that day — their words, not mine.
On January 6 of this year, exactly two weeks before President Trump’s second inauguration, I entered the Capitol to cover the certification of the Electoral College vote count. Two other Blaze Media correspondents witnessed several uniformed and plainclothes Capitol Police officers recognizing and stopping me. They thanked me for exposing “the corruption of the white shirts upstairs.”
Make no mistake: About 140 police officers suffered injuries from assailants wielding sticks, bats, flagpoles, and bear spray that day. Calling violent perpetrators and provocateurs “patriots” or “heroes” is wrong. But even the most unsavory characters and reprehensible actors had their constitutional rights trampled by the Justice Department, the FBI, the courts, and their prison guards. That fundamental injustice justified Trump’s blanket pardons, commutations, and case dismissals.
Previously untold stories are now circulating through honest press coverage and social media revelations. These stories will gain further traction as newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin advances his investigation and as a new House select committee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), begins its work.
But much remains to be done — not only to prevent another January 6 riot but also to ensure that no future administration weaponizes the legal system to attack basic rights and emasculate due process.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com