This week, I watched a segment on “The View” that felt less like a conversation and more like a fever dream. The topic, of course, was Donald Trump, prompted this time by an image circulating online that depicted him in a Christ-like form. The reaction was predictable — outrage, mockery, moral posturing, stacked in real time. But around the table, they argued about the identity of Jesus until Whoopi Goldberg mercifully moved the conversation to another topic. Trump brushed off the criticism, but the explanation felt thin. When a man plays loose with small things, it raises questions about the larger ones.

But that was not the strangest part.

Around the same time, tensions surfaced between Trump and the Vatican over Iran. Statements were issued. Concerns were raised. The familiar choreography of international moral authority began again. Yet for all the urgency, the moral clarity felt selective. For decades, the regime in Iran has wreaked havoc, killed, and brutalized even its own people in full view of the world. Yet many religious leaders have not spoken with the same force or urgency about those evils.

Because in the span of a few days, Jesus was invoked as an image to be shared, a symbol to be argued over, a moral reference point in international conflict, and a talking point in media commentary.

The church leaders making the talk-show circuit aren’t wrong to call this an unjust war. They’re just facing west when they should have been looking east, 47 years ago. Their tardiness doesn’t get a pass.

Then, as if the moment needed one more voice, Tucker Carlson entered the conversation and remarked that many Americans do not realize that Muslims love Jesus.

“The View,” Trump, the Vatican, Tucker. It sounds less like a serious public conversation than a strange collision of modern media and politics. And yet, for a brief moment, all of it circled the same question, whether anyone meant for it to or not.

Jesus.

Scripture makes clear that there is no more important question. And for a moment, the culture stumbled into it almost by accident.

Because in the span of a few days, Jesus was invoked as an image to be shared, a symbol to be argued over, a moral reference point in international conflict, and a talking point in media commentary. Everyone seemed eager to bring His name into the discussion. Almost no one seemed eager to define who He is. And that matters.

When someone says Muslims love Jesus, it sounds, on the surface, like a bridge-building statement. In one sense, it points to something real. In Islam, Jesus is honored as a prophet and born of a virgin. He is respected, even revered. But He is not confessed as the Son of God, nor as the crucified and risen Savior who takes away the sins of the world.

That is not a minor difference. It is the difference between a prophet and the Christ.

So when the conversation settles for saying that “we all love Jesus,” it often passes over the very question that gives such a statement meaning. The real issue is not whether Jesus is admired, referenced, or respected. The real issue is who He is.

And Jesus did not leave the matter of love undefined.

In the Gospel of John, He says, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (14:15). Not admire. Not reference. Not invoke. Keep.

That means love, as Christ defines it, is not measured by sentiment but by obedience.

That is where the conversation becomes serious.

People say, “Just give me Jesus,” as though that settles the matter. But the moment you ask, “Which Jesus?” or “Who is Jesus?” the conversation changes. It must. Because a Jesus who can be reshaped to fit the needs of the moment is no longer someone to be followed. He becomes something to be used.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus asked His disciples a question that still cuts through all the noise: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (16:13). They answered with names that sounded respectful and reasonable: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, one of the prophets. Close enough to sound reverent, far enough to miss the truth. Then Jesus made the question personal: “But who do you say that I am?” (16:15).

Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

That was not sentiment. It was a confession.

And Jesus did not correct him. He affirmed him.

We live in a time when Jesus is frequently mentioned and rarely defined. He appears in political imagery, on social media, and in public argument. His name is used freely. His identity, far less so.

A Jesus who can be remade according to our preferences is no Jesus at all. He becomes a reflection of ourselves rather than the Savior of the world, a tool for our purposes rather than the Lord to whom we must bow.

And that applies to politicians, commentators, and religious leaders. It applies to all of us.

Jesus did not ask, “What do you admire about Me?” He did not ask, “How would you like to interpret Me?” He asked, “Who do you say that I am?”

And He did not leave love open to our private interpretation.

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”

Which brings us back, strangely enough, to that panel discussion.

A table full of people arguing about Jesus. A politician posting images that invoke Him. Commentators speaking about Him. Religious leaders referencing Him.

Everyone talking.

Very few obeying.

And that may be the clearest answer of all.

​Savior, Scripture, Son of god, The view, Opinion & analysis 

Centralized smartphone app storefronts, like Apple’s App Store for iPhone and the Google Play Store for Android, make apps feel like they all come from the same safe place online, but the developers behind these apps are spread out all over the world. This month, the FBI brought attention to international developers, warning that installing apps built by foreign nations could pose a major threat to user privacy and security. Are they right? Let’s find out.

Do you use these popular Chinese apps?

On the final day of March, the FBI issued a warning “to highlight data security risks associated with foreign-developed mobile applications (apps) frequently used in the United States.”

Privacy labels reveal the secret parameters embedded in your favorite apps.

The FBI was especially critical of apps developed in the heart of China. Although it didn’t go out of its way to list some of the most dubious offenders, you may have heard of these popular candidates:

TikTok, before its USDS joint venture, was made and owned wholly by ByteDance in Beijing.Temu and Shein, two popular online discount stores, are Chinese-owned with the former belonging to PDD Holdings Inc. in Shanghai and the latter founded by Chris Xu, who moved his company’s headquarters from China to Singapore earlier this decade, though there are talks that Xu may relocate back to the mainland for an IPO.CapCut, a popular mobile video editing app, is also developed by ByteDance, especially to help users create more engaging TikTok videos.RedNote (aka Xiaohongshu), a TikTok alternative that briefly garnered public attention in the USA after TikTok’s USDS joint venture launch, is also based in Shanghai.Tencent, a technology giant out of Shenzhen, owns the popular texting app WeChat. The company also invests in many U.S.-based game companies, including Epic Games (makers of Fortnite), Larian Studios (the group behind Baldur’s Gate 3), and FromSoftware (the developers of Elden Ring).

Needless to say, Chinese companies — and by extension, the Chinese government — have their hands in many apps and games that U.S.-based users enjoy daily.

New warning, same old threat

The FBI’s warning noted that downloading and installing apps from Chinese companies could potentially leave users open to China’s mass data collection practices, which would inevitably put users’ security and privacy at risk for monitoring and abuse.

RELATED: Is downloading Trump’s new White House app a security risk?

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Unfortunately, while the FBI’s warning is new, foreign-made apps have long had the ability to gather user data at scale. This is partially the reason both Apple and Google implemented mandatory “Privacy Nutrition Labels” on all third-party apps in their digital stores.

How to check apps’ ‘Privacy Nutrition Labels’

The best way to protect yourself from apps with malicious data-gathering practices is to understand the kinds of data your apps can access and how the information is processed. You can find these details on the “Privacy Nutrition Label” included on any given app page.

Much like the nutritional label on a box of food displays hidden ingredients, privacy labels reveal the secret parameters embedded in your favorite apps.

Let’s look at TikTok on iOS and Android. If you click on one of those links on your mobile device and scroll down, you’ll find the “App Privacy” area on iPhone and the “Data safety” section on Android. Both of these clearly detail which bits of data the app collects and links directly to your identity.

Zach Laidlaw/TikTok/Apple App Store

As you can see, TikTok gathers a lot of personal information, including your location, contacts, search history, browsing history, device IDs, usage habits, and more. It’s a treasure trove of personal data all used to create digital user profiles and strengthen TikTok’s algorithm. This information is better protected now that all of it is stored on Oracle servers in the USA — thanks to the USDS joint venture — but before that, the CCP-influenced ByteDance saved and analyzed all of it on its servers in China.

Zach Laidlaw/TikTok/Google Play Store

Protect yourself from intrusive apps

China’s intrusive data-collection practices are the exact reason President Trump spearheaded the deal that moved TikTok’s U.S.-based user data to U.S. soil. Without it, China would continue to collect, analyze, and monetize U.S. users for reasons that benefit the Chinese government.

The unfortunate truth, however, is that TikTok is only one of many Chinese apps that can gather personal information on U.S. customers, and they do it usually without users’ knowledge. There are a few things you can do to keep yourself safe though:

Be sure to check and verify the apps you install on your smartphone before you download them. Don’t just install anything to your device. Do some research and confirm that every app — and its developer — is legitimate and safe by reading the app’s terms of service and privacy policy, as well as checking out app reviews.Limit permissions so the app can only access the features on your phone that it needs to operate. Refrain from enabling location, microphone, camera, or photos access, and never provide other sensitive information, unless you know you can trust the app.Always download the latest software updates for your phone and the app itself. Updates regularly patch security vulnerabilities to keep your device safe.

At the end of the day, the best way to secure your data and your device is to use your best judgment. Only download the apps you absolutely need. For everything else, you’re much safer accessing online services through your web browser.

​Tech, China, Privacy, Security, Apps 

Less than 100 days into his administration, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been forced to slam the brakes on his signature campaign pledge. Instead of the citywide no-cost transit he promised, New Yorkers are being offered a scaled-back pilot covering three bus lines per borough. That is, if the state legislature can pass a budget, which is already a week past its deadline.

Here’s the part that really stings: Mamdani sabotaged his own policy. He and state Sen. Michael Gianaris (D) successfully launched a Queens free-bus pilot in 2023. It worked. But when Mamdani picked a fight with Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D) over a housing dispute, Heastie yanked the expansion from the budget.

What does a socialist mayor do when his promises collapse? He makes bigger ones.

Mamdani killed his own program, then ran for mayor promising to bring it back citywide. He campaigned on cleaning up a mess he made.

Now he’s calling a three-line pilot “a first step.” Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Janno Lieber has been critical of the plan. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), who has committed an additional $1.5 billion to bail out the city, is making it clear that buses rank below housing and auto insurance on her list.

The reception in the state legislature has been, generously speaking, chilly.

So what does a socialist mayor do when his promises collapse? He makes bigger ones.

This week, Mamdani announced that La Marqueta in East Harlem will become New York City’s first government-owned grocery store. The plan outlines one in each borough, where prices are “fair” and New Yorkers can “actually afford to shop.”

The man who couldn’t deliver free buses now wants to compete with Costco. He even challenged the private sector directly: “I look forward to the competition.”

What he doesn’t seem to understand is that the competition has already won. Decades ago. And the proof is everywhere.

It will cost $30 million just to open the East Harlem location, with a $70 million budget for all expected stores. That’s $70 million in taxpayer money going into a business where even the best-run private grocery stores average margins under 2%.

Every major retailer in America has spent decades perfecting supply chains and slashing spoilage, and yet they’re still barely breaking even. Mamdani, fresh off failing to stop charging $2.90 for a bus ride, thinks he can do better.

The real-world track record is telling. Baldwin, Florida, opened a city-run grocery in 2019, struggled to break even, and shut down in 2024. Erie, Kansas, ran its only grocery store at a loss for years before handing it to a private operator. Those towns had zero private competition, and they still couldn’t make it work.

In New York City, the sequence is even more dangerous. The government store moves in, undercuts private competitors with taxpayer subsidies, and drives out the corner bodegas and family grocers who actually pay rent and taxes.

RELATED: The liberal guide to committing national suicide

Blaze Media Illustration

Then, as history guarantees, the government store collapses too. The Soviet Union, Venezuela, and Cuba all tried it. Every time: empty shelves, shortages, black markets. You don’t end up with affordable groceries. You end up with a food desert and no private stores left to fill the gap.

The reason is simple: Politicians are not personally responsible for the losses their policies create, so they have no incentive to operate efficiently. The losses get folded into next year’s budget and repackaged as progress.

Three out of four young voters put this man in office. Voters who had lived in New York City less than five years backed him 85% to 14%. They voted for the TikTok version of governance: big promises, great optics, someone else’s problem. Free buses sounded great in a Trevor Noah interview.

City-owned grocery stores sound great at a rally in East Harlem. Governing eight million people with real money and real consequences? That’s where the fantasy ends.

New York City doesn’t have a bus problem or a grocery problem. It has a mayor with a socialism problem. And unlike his buses, the bill is running right on schedule.

​Bus lines, Campaign promises, City run grocery stores, Citywide transit, East harlem, Food desert, Free buses, New york mayor, Socialist mayor, Taxpayer money, Zohran mamdani, Opinion & analysis 

CNN’s chief international anchor, Christiane Amanpour, was ridiculed after she posted an unhinged response to criticism from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth compared some of the mainstream media to the Pharisees of the Bible during a media briefing Thursday morning.

‘You have *never* been in the United States military, and you should be absolutely drummed out of journalism for attempting to equivocate (sic) yourself to an [actual] member of the military.’

Amanpour fired back in a lengthy rant on social media, where she appeared to claim that she had a similar rank as Hegseth when he left the military.

“Using the Pentagon podium to lash out at journalists in extreme biblical terms is unprecedented, misguided, and frankly wrong on the substance,” she wrote.

“Ever since Sunday School Catholic classes, I have been well aware of the Scribes and the Pharisees. They were the bad guys against Jesus, the good guy … in current U.S. good v evil war parlance. Bearing witness to the truth is what we journalists are commanded to do, without fear nor favor,” she added.

Hegseth pointed out that the Pharisees had ignored the miracles that Jesus Christ was performing and instead waited to catch him breaking the laws of the Old Testament. He compared that to the media ignoring the president’s accomplishments to criticize him.

“I am also well aware of the Ten Commandments, and therefore urge any government radical anywhere, to follow the 9th … against bearing false witness,” Amanpour continued.

“And finally an observation: the current Secretary of War, f/k/a Defence, left the military with the rank of Major,” she added. “I recall my dogtag in the first Gulf war had the rank of major … the very same rank. Just sayin’!” she concluded.

She was immediately mocked online for the bizarre statement.

“Read the last paragraph, folks. If @CNN had any editorial standards, Christiane Amanpour would be fired for her bizarre attack on @SecWar‘s military service,” one response reads. “Why is a journalist mocking the rank of major, which @PeteHegseth earned while risking his life in Iraq & Afghanistan?”

RELATED: Hegseth goes viral for ‘Pulp Fiction’ prayer at the Pentagon

“A Major, really? Perhaps, a major pain in the ass, but definitely not Major,” another user said.

“You have *never* been in the United States military, and you should be absolutely drummed out of journalism for attempting to equivocate (sic) yourself to an [actual] member of the military. Quite literally the definition of stolen valor,” another detractor said.

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

​Christiane amanpour, Hegseth attacks the media, Amanpour vs hegseth, Media pharisees, Politics 

A dog attack near a homeless camp led to the death of the dog owner, a dead dog, and the search for a suspect, according to Florida police.

Lake County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the shooting near a homeless camp in Leesburg on Friday at about 7:20 a.m. and found a man with gunshot wounds.

The dog owner stepped in between the dog and Pasco and was struck by the gunfire instead.

The man was transported to a hospital, where he later died.

Police said they were searching for an armed person of interest identified as 43-year-old Matthew Lee Pasco, a homeless man believed to have shot the dog owner.

The dogs were attacking a woman outside the homeless camp when Pasco intervened and fired at a dog, according to police. The dog owner stepped in between the dog and Pasco and was struck by the gunfire instead.

The woman, who was bitten numerous times, was also transported to a hospital.

Two dogs were shot, and one was killed.

Police said Pasco fled the scene on foot, and they are searching the area to locate him. They said the homeless man has a distinctive scar on the right side of his face.

The investigation into the shooting led to a lockdown at Carver Middle School.

One person named Leilei told reporters that the shooting came about after her friend’s girlfriend kicked one of Leilei’s dogs. She said her boyfriend intervened and was shot.

RELATED: Homeless man found tied up in vacant home was brutally beaten with signs of torture, police say

Animal services took control of more than one dog, police said.

Police asked for help locating Pasco but warned the public not to approach him and instead contact them.

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

​Homeless florida killing, Matthew lee pasco, Dog biting leads to shooting, Shooting death dog attack, Crime 

When it comes to the impending AI takeover, two main camps of belief get the most attention: those who welcome technological singularity, believing it will deliver humanity into a utopia of universal basic income, freedom, and prosperity, and those who deeply oppose it, fearing it will render humanity useless and usher in the apocalypse.

But is there a middle ground — a reasonable center that embraces the good AI offers but opposes the dystopia it threatens?

BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman believe there is.

On a recent episode of “Rufo & Lomez,” the duo spoke with Samuel Hammond, an artificial intelligence researcher at the Foundation for American Innovation, about the “sweet middle ground” of artificial intelligence.

Hammond acknowledges the dual nature of artificial intelligence. “It’s the thing that’s going to build us all-new efficient defended software, but also in the meantime enable hackers to hack that software; it’s a thing that will discover new drugs but also create new viruses. And to be able to hold both those realities in your mind is incredibly taxing.”

In the same way that the Industrial Revolution created both wealth and the administrative and welfare states, so the AI takeover will have both benefits and drawbacks, he says.

Keeperman inquires about the regulatory measures being taken by AI developers to mitigate the potential damage.

Hammond admits that regulation is difficult because of the sheer scope of AI. Like electricity, “it’s this massive umbrella term,” he says.

“The areas where people have legitimate concerns are easier to gerrymander, right? It’s things like designing novel bioweapons or very powerful, autonomous malware that could hack into your program and go rogue. These things are difficult to keep in a box,” he explains.

On the upside, however, “getting to advanced AI first will have major national security implications.”

“The fact that we have a friendly U.S.-based company that built a system like Mythos first that could, in principle, hack into all these different critical pieces of infrastructure is an incredible fortune for us, right?” says Hammond, noting that this allows the U.S. to “patch up and harden [its] systems” before other countries reach the same capabilities.

On the other hand, the U.S. government currently has little control over the companies that are leading AI development.

As of now, these companies “are being benevolent with their use of this and certainly have the intentions to try to be sort of trustworthy and good stewards of this technology, but as a matter of state governance, do we actually have any greater control over this technology than, let’s say, China?” Keeperman asks.

Hammond admits that we’re on precarious terrain.

“I think of us as sort of on this knife edge between a Chinese-style panopticon or some kind of anarchy where things kind of fall apart,” he says, advocating for a “third way.”

“We need a strong state to enforce property and contract and our rights, but that state can’t be completely divorced from rule of law,” he says. At the same time, however, “democracies have committed genocide,” whereas “private corporations just want to maximize shareholder value.”

In the end, Hammond urges us to reject both utopian dreams and apocalyptic fears in favor of a pragmatic middle course: building institutions strong enough to govern AI’s immense power, yet constrained enough to prevent it from becoming a tool of tyranny or disorder.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Ai, Ai boom, Ai developers, Ai takeover, Artificial intelligence, Blaze media, Blazetv, China, Chris rufo, Foundation for american innovation, Jonathan keeperman, Lomez, Mythos system, National security, Rufo & lomez, Samuel hammond, Singularity, Technological singularity, Universal basic income 

On a recent episode of “The Drive with Lauren and Karl,” we had a conversation that was a little different — but just as telling about car culture today.

It started with something unexpected: Lego. Not just as a toy, but as a way to connect automotive history to a new generation.

For an industry that often focuses on what’s next — EVs, software, autonomy — it’s easy to overlook how important the past still is.

Our guest, Ford heritage brand manager and archivist Ted Ryan, shared the story behind a new Lego model of the Ford Model T — and what went into getting it right. And the level of detail may surprise you.

To a T

This wasn’t just a half-baked licensing exercise. According to Ryan, the designer behind the set spent months researching the Model T, even reaching out directly to Ford’s archives to verify historical details.

Where was the fuel tank located? How many lights did the car have? What year-specific features mattered?

Those details were checked, corrected, and refined — sometimes multiple times — before the final design was approved.

The whole process took a year of back-and-forth, with emails and revisions to make sure the finished product reflected the real car, not just a simplified version of it.

That’s a level of effort you don’t usually associate with something that ends up on a toy shelf.

Wheeling and dealing

There’s a bigger idea behind it.

As Ryan explained, Lego has shifted in recent years to focus on things that matter culturally — music, film, architecture, and increasingly, cars.

That last one makes a lot of sense.

From Formula 1 to classic American vehicles, automobiles are a huge part of global culture. They’re also a way to tell stories — about innovation, design, and how people lived at a particular moment in time.

And what better example than the iconic Model T.

This is the vehicle that put America on wheels, transforming transportation and making mobility accessible to millions. Bringing that story into a Lego set makes that history visible — and tangible — for people who might never read about it otherwise.

RELATED: The EPA just proved it can lower gas prices overnight — so why wait for a crisis?

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Pieces of history

What stood out in the conversation is how much these sets are now aimed at adults as well as kids.

Lego calls them “AFOLs” — adult fans of Lego — and it’s a growing category. They want builds that are more complex, more detailed, and more likely to be display pieces than playthings.

In this case, the Model T set also includes historical context, helping explain why the car mattered — not just what it looked like.

It’s all part of a broader trend. Car culture isn’t just happening at racetracks or car shows anymore. It’s happening in living rooms, offices, and hobby spaces — through collectibles, models, and even digital experiences.

A classic you can keep

For an industry that often focuses on what’s next — EVs, software, autonomy — it’s easy to overlook how important the past still is.

Projects like this show there’s still real demand for that connection.

Not everyone is going to restore a classic car or attend a concours event. But a lot of people will build a model, display it, and learn something along the way.

For younger enthusiasts, this may be their first introduction to a crucial moment in history; for longtime car fans, it’s a potent reminder of what cars mean to them.

Either way, it goes to show that car culture — despite the carping of the environmental doomsayers — isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

​Auto industry, Automotive history, Culture, Ford, Ford model t, Lego, Lifestyle, Ted ryan, Align cars