Socialist Mamdani’s $65M plan to turn NYC into ‘gender-affirming’ sanctuary for ‘transgender youth’



Despite his radical policy ideas, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani seems to be the front-runner in the New York City mayoral race, according to several polls. His remaining opponents include former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, following the recent withdrawal of current NYC Mayor Eric Adams from the race over the weekend.

Mamdani's platform includes a slew of controversial far-left programs for the city, including investing tens of millions of dollars in so-called "gender-affirming care" for adults and children.

'New York City must be a refuge for LGBTQIA+ people, but private institutions in our own city have already started capitulating to Trump’s assault on trans rights.'

During a June interview with actor Laverne Cox, who identifies as transgender, Mamdani declared he would ensure that New York City is a "sanctuary city" for the "LGBTQIA+" community.

If elected mayor, he vowed to establish an office for "LGBTQIA+ affairs" and invest $65 million in "gender-affirming care." Mamdani told Cox that to fight the Trump administration, New York City must fully fund its own services, which he plans to accomplish by "taxing the wealthiest New Yorkers and corporations."

Mamdani's "LGBTQIA+ Protections" sheet offered a breakdown of the $65 million, revealing that $57 million would be provided directly to hospitals and clinics offering these services to "both transgender youth and adults." He also plans to take action against facilities that refuse to provide such services, claiming that they are violating the New York Constitution and other state and city laws.

"The Mamdani administration will coordinate with the NYS Attorney General and District Attorneys to investigate and hold public hearings on hospitals that deny trans youth their rightful healthcare and hold them accountable to the law," the policy sheet read.

RELATED: NYC mayor race shake-up: Adams drops out, boosting Cuomo’s fight against Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani. Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Mamdani intends to allocate $87 million for various LGBTQIA+ "support and services," including $30 million for housing programs, $20 million for mental health services, and $10 million for organizations providing "transgender" services.

"Queer and trans people across the United States are facing an increasingly hostile political environment. New York City must be a refuge for LGBTQIA+ people, but private institutions in our own city have already started capitulating to Trump’s assault on trans rights," Mamdani's website states.

RELATED: Trump slams Hochul’s endorsement of ‘communist’ Mamdani: ‘No reason to be sending good money’


Photographer: Stephanie Keith/Bloomberg via Getty Images

His plans appear to directly violate the Trump administration's January executive order, "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," which states that the federal government will withhold funding from institutions that support the use of puberty blockers or surgical procedures for children.

Mamdani has run on the platform of "Trump-proofing NYC," which involves a greater reliance on local funding rather than federal support. To achieve his goals, he would implement an 11.5% tax on corporate profits, increase income taxes by 2% for households earning over $1 million per year, and hire additional staff for the Department of Finance. These workers would be responsible for enforcing tax laws, including collecting $2.1 billion in unpaid fines.

Blaze News contacted Mamdani and the White House for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Dana Bash bafflingly dismisses trans partner's relevance in Tyler Robinson probe



More and more disturbing information about Tyler Robinson, the alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk, is surfacing as the investigation progresses. One of the most significant revelations is that Robinson’s roommate, who has been cooperating with the FBI, is also his romantic partner.

Although authorities have not confirmed the name of this person, despite many X posts claiming his name is Lance Twiggs, they have confirmed that he is a biological male who identifies as transgender and is currently in the process of “transitioning” to a female.

This is a critical piece of information. Between the Nashville Covenant and Annunciation Catholic School shootings, as well as other trans-perpetrated crimes, we cannot ignore the clear tie between transgender ideology and violence.

But CNN’s Dana Bash prefers we do exactly that and pretend the correlation doesn’t exist.

In a recent interview with Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R), Bash asked how Robinson’s partner’s sexual identity was relevant to the investigation.

BlazeTV Sara Gonzales, alongside contributor Matthew Marsden and guest Adam Johnson, reacted to the clip on a recent episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

“Well, some outlets are reporting that the suspect lived with a transgender partner. Is that accurate? And are investigators looking at this part of his life as a possible motivation?” Bash asked.

“Yes, definitely. And yes, I can confirm that. I know that has been reported and that the FBI has confirmed that as well — that the roommate was a romantic partner, a male transitioning to female,” Cox replied, noting that Robinson’s partner has been “incredibly cooperative” in the investigation.

“And how is that relevant to the investigation when it comes to the motive?” Bash retorted.

Sara is appalled. “I don’t know, Dana. Do you have two brain cells to rub together? Like, it would be completely obvious to anyone who’s listening to the left continue today, this very moment, continue telling all of us that Charlie Kirk was a transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, enter keyword here,” she says.

“The mental gymnastics these people are doing to not have to admit what we already see in front of us is true is truly spectacular,” she continues.

How about “the fact that it was written on the freaking bullets!” adds Marsden, referring to the disturbing inscriptions on some of Robinson’s bullets.

“The LGBTQIA+2 community is a death cult. They cannot exist without coming after our youth and convincing them to also be a part of their group. And that is why Charlie was the target,” Johnson says.

“Charlie went after the hearts and minds of those that were captured in our schools with Marxist ideology from a very young age. And he recaptured their minds. He broke them free. He allowed them to understand that there is truth, there is morals, and that living our lives in a Christian way — in a way that serves our Lord and Savior, in a way that serves our community — is the right way to live,” he continues.

“And that is why they took him out. Because if we recapture our youth, we recapture our country.”

To see the footage of Bash’s ignorant comments and to hear more of Sara and the panel’s discussion, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

FBI unveils damning new evidence against accused Charlie Kirk assassin



FBI Director Kash Patel announced newfound evidence that strengthens the case against Charlie Kirk's suspected assassin.

Patel confirmed that the FBI found and processed DNA evidence from the towel wrapped around the firearm found discarded in a wooded area near the Utah Valley University campus, as well as on a screwdriver found on the rooftop where the shooter is believed to have been. Both samples were identified as a positive match to the suspect in custody, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, according to Patel.

'He claimed that he had an opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk.'

"I can report today that the DNA hits from the towel that was wrapped around the firearm and the DNA on the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody," Patel told "Fox & Friends" Monday.

This development will be instrumental in building the case against Robinson, who is likely facing charges for aggravated murder, obstruction of justice, and felony discharge of a firearm.

RELATED: Alleged bomb plot near Charlie Kirk assassination lands Pakistani native and son with terrorism charges

Photo by Trent Nelson/the Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

Although Robinson has not confessed or made clear his motive for allegedly assassinating Kirk, the facts surrounding the case appear to suggest a political or ideological motivation.

In recent days, it was confirmed that Robinson was living with his trans-identifying boyfriend, a biological male who claimed to be a woman. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox also revealed the writing inscribed on bullet casings found at the crime scene, one of which read, "Hey fascist! Catch!"

"His family has collectively told investigators that he subscribed to left-wing ideology, and even more so in these last couple of years," Patel said.

RELATED: TPUSA plans historic memorial for Charlie Kirk

Photo by Office of the Governor of Utah via Getty Images

"He claimed that he had an opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and he was going to do it because of his hatred for what Charlie stood for," Patel added.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It’s Time To Eradicate Transgenderism From Public Life

We don’t have to tolerate a demonic ideology that destroys lives, tears families apart, and keeps producing mass shooters.

A rare win for women's sports — but it could vanish overnight



Last month, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee silently complied with President Donald Trump’s February executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” The committee amended its policies to define women’s sports categories on the basis of biological sex and directed its affiliate national governing bodies “to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment.”

This policy change is cause for celebration.

As it turns out, 'the thing that never happens' has happened tens of thousands of times.

For more than a decade, Concerned Women for America and a few partners have been sounding the alarm on the dangers of male participation in women’s sports. But even as the USOPC moves to protect women in its sports and spaces, CWA will not allow the women and girls who have lost medals, missed scholarships, and endured sexual harassment in locker rooms to be quickly forgotten.

On July 22, 2025 — the same day the press stumbled upon the USOPC’s hush-hush policy change — Concerned Women for America released groundbreaking research on male participation in women's sports. Analyzing data compiled from an international women’s sports database, the study found that trans-identifying males have stolen over 1,941 gold medals from women and girls in the U.S., pushing each rightful champion down to second place.

That figure includes just gold medals — and with every gold, an entire podium of girls displaced.

CWA also found that:

  • Trans-identifying male athletes have stolen over $493,173 in prize money from women in professional sports.
  • In California alone, over 521 women and girls have taken silver below a biological man.
  • Trans-identifying males have competed in more than 10,067 female sports events, amateur and professional.
  • The most frequent violations occurred in USA Track and Field events, USA Cycling races, NCAA events (in all sports), and Professional Disc Golf Association championships.

We have all seen the photos: hulking, muscular men with long hair, a touch of makeup, and victoriously lifted arms at the top of a podium with apprehensively grinning women dwarfed at second and third place to his right and left.

We have all heard the stories. Paula Scanlon was forced to change with a man in a women’s locker room. Payton McNabb suffered an almost-deadly concussion from a man’s volleyball spike, and Stephanie Turner was disqualified from a fencing championship for refusing to face a man.

Still, progressives call trans-identifying male participation in women’s sports a “non-issue.”

Just one day after the USOPC’s decision hit the press, Sports Illustrated’s Michael Rosenburg reported, “The so-called ‘problem’ of transgender athletes dominating women’s sports is a ruse.” Rosenburg is wrong, and the left is wrong.

Numbers do not lie. Trans-identifying males do dominate in women’s sports.

RELATED: Aaron Rodgers drops truth bomb with Joe Rogan

Kirby Lee/Getty Images

The USOPC policy change will benefit the women and girls competing under its authority. But this change may not last. As soon as Democrats have the White House, President Trump's executive order protecting women's and girls' sports is likely to be reversed, and the USOPC will be free to scrap its new policy.

Though the new policy is a huge step in the right direction for at least the next three years, women’s rights to safe sports should not waver with coming administration changes. Congress must pass the Protecting Women in Olympic and Amateur Sports Act. This bill is a simple amendment to existing legislation that will stipulate that the USOPC and its affiliate NGBs cannot receive federal funds if males are permitted to compete in women’s categories.

The fight for women’s rights in sports is far from over.

Every woman and girl who lost a gold medal, podium placement, cash prize, record, or scholarship to a male must have restored her rightful honors and accolades, and every leaderboard must be changed to reflect biological reality and female accomplishments. CWA will continue to urge the NCAA and all independent and nonprofit NGBs to follow in the USOPC’s footsteps and reverse any discriminatory policies that allow males to participate in women’s sports.

As it turns out, “the thing that never happens” has happened tens of thousands of times. The USOPC has made a historic decision to protect female athletes, and the fix must be made permanent by law.

This issue is not a “ruse,” and tens of thousands of women can agree that not one more woman or girl should lose a hard-earned medal to a male.

Congressman ‘Sarah’ McBride Missed The Real Reason Why Support For The Trans Movement Was A ‘Mirage’

The unpopular and dangerous extremes were always the logical conclusion trans ideology was hurtling toward.

D.C. Libraries Still Want To Indoctrinate Your Child With Radical Gender Ideology

One 'children's' book frames parents and teachers as adults who don't understand the complexities of kids wanting to trans-identify and use the opposite sex bathroom.

Did Christianity birth the trans craze? Exposing the left's shocking historical hit job



Every so often, an academic wrapped in the robes of theory decides to rewrite history — not to correct it, but to commandeer it.

The latest example comes from the Conversation, in which a University of Iowa scholar, Sarah Barringer, claims that Christianity has a “transgender” heritage. You heard that right: Saints who renounced the world to live in chastity and devotion are now being posthumously enlisted in a modern identity crusade they never chose.

The modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos.

Let's acknowledge the truth up front: There is no such thing as a “transgender saint.” There are saints who disguised themselves, fled arranged marriages, and shaved their heads and donned robes to live among men in monasteries because that was the only place they could escape danger, obligation, or temptation.

But calling this “transness” is like calling Joan of Arc gender-fluid because she wore armor. It’s historical trespassing and spiritual identity theft dressed up as scholarship.

Faith, not fluidity

Consider St. Eugenia, St. Euphrosyne, and St. Marinos.

They weren’t confused teenagers raised on TikTok and identity slogans but were devout individuals who, in a brutal and hierarchical world, did what they had to do to escape danger, avoid forced marriage, or pursue a life of monastic devotion. Dressing as a man wasn’t some statement about “true gender” or an inner identity waiting to be expressed. Rather, it was strategy and self-preservation.

More than anything, they chose the path of intense spiritual focus in a world that gave women few choices.

They weren’t rewriting Genesis or making statements about biology. They were rejecting the noise of their time — power, status, family expectations — to live lives of sacrifice and submission to God.

These saints didn’t “identify” as anything — but only with Christ.

Leftists can't comprehend it

To retrofit their stories into modern trans narratives isn’t just ahistorical — it’s grotesque. It’s a desecration of the very virtues they lived for: humility, chastity, obedience, and detachment from self. They weren’t looking inward to define themselves. They were looking upward to lose themselves.

That is the difference. That is what today’s leftist ideologues can’t comprehend, and it's why they have no right to co-opt these lives for their own agendas.

The argument hinges on a dishonest conflation. Barringer admits these stories were “morality tales,” symbolic journeys about rejecting the world and embracing God. Yet somehow rejecting arranged marriage becomes an early form of identity politics and running from Roman militarism becomes evidence of internalized gender non-conformity.

It’s the theological equivalent of reading "The Iliad" and diagnosing Achilles with toxic masculinity.

The saints in question lived in monastic communities that demanded celibacy and asceticism. They weren’t changing genders; they were erasing self — not affirming identity, but crucifying it. Their bodies were temples, not canvases for self-expression.

To call this "transgender" is to confuse spiritual transformation with a social rebrand. One seeks union with God, but the other seeks alignment with self.

Desecrating the dead

Therein lies the real tension. Christianity, at its core, is not about affirming the self. It’s about dying to it.

“I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” the apostle Paul wrote (Galatians 2:20) — not “I live my truth.”

But the modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos. You are not your urges. You are not your emotions. You are a soul, and you are called to holiness like Jesus Christ.

The irony is laughable. The same scholars who sneer at scripture’s authority now claim ownership of its saints. They reject Christianity as bigoted and outdated, yet raid its tombs for ideological mascots. It's not a demonstration of reverence for Christianity's ancient saints, but an attempt to rewrite the past to control the present.

Let the saints rest

We can't pretend this is harmless. Redefining religious tradition to fit modern ideologies amounts to spiritual counterfeiting. It muddies doctrine, breeds confusion among believers, and turns the sacred into just another stage for performance politics.

If you want to find affirmation for trans identity, look to modern movements. Don’t twist the lives of ancient saints who had no concept of gender theory and would likely be horrified by what’s being done in their names.

Christianity welcomes the broken, the wounded, the uncertain — but not by sanctifying confusion.

So no, Christianity does not have a transgender heritage. It has a long and rich tradition of souls rejecting worldly labels to pursue something higher than themselves. That’s not a forerunner to modern identity politics. It’s the antidote to it.

Let the saints rest. Let the church speak. And let the past remain sacred.

Dylan Mulvaney, 'The View' try doing theology — but it goes comically wrong



It should go without saying: Don't tune into "The View" for lessons on God and theology.

But that didn't stop the progressive talk show from recently veering into theology while interviewing transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, using the assertion that "God doesn't make mistakes" to defend and promote transgender ideology.

First, Mulvaney claimed "God doesn't make mistakes" while explaining that his "conservative Catholic" family has come to terms with his decision to be transgender after he allegedly discovered his transgender identity at age 4. Later, while discussing transgender athletes, Whoopi Goldberg doubled down on the astounding theological claim.

  • Mulvaney: "I think my mom said something along the lines of, ‘God doesn’t make mistakes.’ ... I don’t think God sees me as a mistake, and I actually am still really trying to keep a relationship with the higher power because I think that, you know, trans and queer people are entitled to that if that’s what they’re looking for."
  • Goldberg: "I'm not sure what's going on or why this is an issue. The same for me as when people say, 'Oh, you know, I don’t know how I feel about you.' You do. God doesn’t make mistakes. And the challenge is not to the trans people. It’s to the people who are not trans. That’s what God is looking to see, how you treat people."

Not so fast

On the surface, their claim about God is true.

Make no mistake about it: God doesn't make "mistakes." God creates every human being in His image with inherent worth, dignity, and purpose. This is an elementary understanding of Christian theology in general, and with regard to human bodies specifically, the basic claim of Christian anthropology.

Instead of defending trans ideology, they showed how God's perfect design and the trans agenda cannot coexist.

But a closer examination of their assertion reveals a blinding contradiction: affirming trans ideology stipulates that God does make mistakes. That's because the framework of trans ideology is built on the idea that a trans-identifying person is "born in the wrong body" and that their "true" self is distinct (and different) from the truth of their biological body.

Not only does trans ideology assume that God makes mistakes, but the ideology necessarily affirms the idea that human intervention is required to remedy God's "mistakes."

Trans ideology attempts to overturn divine sovereignty and replace it with the secular god of human self-perception, a principle of our post-truth age.

But here is the truth: Our biological sex is not an accident, and our bodies are not mistakes that require human intervention to "correct." And because God is sovereign and because He doesn't make mistakes, it is our responsibility and duty to trust Him — especially when we don't understand or when our internal perception about our identity (and biological sex) is confused.

Every human is fearfully and wonderfully made, crafted by the hand of a loving God.

Commandment, broken

What Mulvaney and Goldberg claimed about God, when analyzed in its context, is a clear violation of the second law of the Ten Commandments.

"You shall not bear the name of the Lord your God in a vain and empty manner," Exodus 20:7 declares.

The command is not limited to our speech acts about God but certainly includes them. To use God's authority, as Mulvaney and Goldberg did, to defend an ideology contrary to God's design is a clear violation of the commandment because they are promoting a lie about God Himself (i.e., that transgenderism is congruent with His will and His plan for humanity).

Saying that "God doesn't make mistakes" in defense of trans ideology is a clear misrepresentation of God. They twisted a divine truth for their own means, ultimately using God as a rhetorical prop for the pro-trans agenda.

In other words, they bore the Lord's name in a vain and empty manner.

Irony alert

Claiming that "God doesn't make mistakes" to defend and promote trans ideology actually undermines the trans agenda.

If God's creation is without mistake, then the core idea of trans ideology — that a trans-identifying person was "born in the wrong body" and requires human intervention to correct the "mistake" — is wrong. If God doesn't make mistakes, then He did not mistakingly put anyone in the "wrong body."

The irony is strong.

Mulvaney and Goldberg want to use God's authority and His perfection to defend trans ideology, but they instead expose a flaw in their own worldview: If God's design of each human is intentional and without mistake, then the idea that a trans-identifying person needs to "correct" their body is an admission that trans ideology is built on a false premise, a lie. If God doesn't make mistakes, then there is no need for trans "corrective" measures.

The weight of the contradiction dismantles their argument.

In the end, their attempt at theology failed and backfired. Instead of defending trans ideology, they showed how God's perfect design and the trans agenda cannot coexist.

The only mistake here is the ideology that demands humans "correct" God's mistake-free design.

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?