Summary: A person can be a “Jewish Christian” if they are ethnically Jewish by heritage but Christian by religious belief, or if they belong to modern theological movements like Messianic Judaism which deliberately blend the two practices.

• Wikipedia

Now wait a second. As the beloved prophet John Wayne (Hallowed be his name) said, “Hold your horses”.

I am an ordained minister in the ULC (Universal Life Church - I know it sounds like a life insurance policy gig - but I did pay like $75 for the full Reverend package), does that make me non-Christian.

In truth, there are Jewish Christians, Hindu Christians, Scientology Christians, Latter Day Saint Christians, secular Christians, Wiccan Christians, Islamic Christians, even female, gay and black Christians (NOOOOOO! )

I don’t think you can pigeon-hole anybody into anything. There are literally 8.3 billion religions in the world right now. Your perspective/interpretation of God, Christianity, atheism, creationism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islamism, feminism,… is completely different than mine.

Thanks for your honest perspective from another country. He is a king alright: The king of tyrants. He has done more to damage America and the world than anyone in my 64 year lifetime. He is a failure as a human being.

Too funny 😁 !

I’m with you. I’ve been emailing Cornyn and Cruz every week about Trump. Everything from USAID , to Iran, to Venezuela, to Cuba, to Iceland, to the Lincoln center, the arch, the East Wing, the whales in the gulf of Mexico, the slush fund, the $250 dollar bill… on and on. I always get a form letter back but I know their staffs have to keep a tally of how many voters feel each way about every issue. This libertarian republican is voting straight Democrat this fall. This maniac has to be stopped.

I won’t “argue with you” but Roth did argue the point under the theory of “non- redressability”. While some make think it’s purely speculative, I say no it’s not.

It is just as preposterous for the president to destroy the East Wing of the Whitehouse (a national monument (landmark) that he doesn’t own or have legal authority to damage) as it is to raze the Statue of Liberty. Both are kept in the trust of the National Park service, which he controls.

Damaging the Whitehouse is equal to damaging any other national monument. He did it in a rush so no one could/would stop him. It is absolutely no different than blowing up mount Rushmore so he could put his face there.

It’s not his to destroy!

I’m done arguing.

Well played!

You are right. I misread the order of the responses. He did completely demolish the East Wing (i mistakenly said West Wing) as a temporary tenant of the Whitehouse, without permission. That is a fact. His lawyers (DOJ) spuriously argued that he could pretty much destroy whatever he wanted to, provided he did it quickly enough and without notice, regardless of its legality. Therein lies the danger with this man.

1. He just does illegal shit without permission, before anyone is even aware of it.

2. The DOJ defends his illegal actions as though they were his personal lawyers, by offering specious arguments.

The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it. Those attorneys at the DOJ who argued for this on behalf of the the Whitehouse should be disbarred with prejudice.

Like hypothetically taking over Greenland? The dude is off his rocker. If he, or his cabinet even hints at doing something, you can bet he’s already discussed it, and probably had someone draw up plans for it.

No. It was a great and kind and beautiful gift. We’ll keep it. Thank you all the same. Instead we’ll get rid of the current tennant of the Whitehouse by impeachment or 25th amendment or whatever works.

No it didn’t happen.

But you’ve got to nip this guy in the bud, because he will do some crazy ass shit before you know it. Before he tells you.

Iran war, west wing, no audits, 1.776 billion dollar slush fund… kind of come to mind.

Yeah. I guess he hypothetically decided to tear down the West Wing of the Whitehouse, without permission, where he was just a tennant. Hypothetically speaking.

Dude. You tear down a part of my house where you are a temporary guest and we’ll see how that goes.

Hypothetically speaking.

Well the Epstein files are bad, no doubt, but the chubby Cheeto-in-Chief just keeps getting worse and worse by killing more and more people.

I don’t think that the acts of his last 2 administrations can be compared to the Epstein files. I think they are just a furtherance of his psychopathic personality.

Sexual slavery is really, really, really, really bad. No doubt. Murdering people (like the Venezuelan boat strikes, Iranian school girls…) and starving people (like the Cuban embargos) is just a whole 'nuther level of evil, that is just a further step into a mountainous shit load of psychopathy.

It’s not one (Epstein files) or the other (Iran war, boat strikes, starving Cubans); it’s both and!

To wit: He did all of that shit to children and sex slaves AND did all of that other crap to other human beings. It is additive, not exclusive or separate or explanatory.

Hope I’m clear.

Apparently there’s a paywall. Here is the entire article:

You could try this link:

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/05/white-house-ballroom-donald-trump-00951892

Or: here’s the text:

Trump could also tear down the Statue of Liberty, DOJ argues in defense of White House ballroom Justice Department lawyers said the courts are powerless to intervene in the dispute over the former East Wing.

The White House, including the West Wing and construction of the new ballroom, is seen from the Old Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Tom Brenner) The White House, including the West Wing and construction of the new ballroom, is seen on Feb. 25. | Tom Brenner/AP

By Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein 06/05/2026 01:22 PM EDT

A federal appeals court panel expressed skepticism Friday about the Trump administration’s view that courts are powerless to stop the construction of the White House ballroom now that the East Wing had been demolished.

Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit repeatedly pressed administration lawyers about its argument that President Donald Trump’s pet project — now well underway — could not be stopped by the courts even if it was found to be illegal, because it was too far along and involved significant national security interests.

“When did it become a fait accompli?” Judge Patricia Millett asked. “If this were complete lawlessness by the government … it couldn’t be stopped?”

“On these theories, I think that’s right,” replied Yaakov Roth, a Justice Department attorney.

Millett, an Obama appointee, peppered Roth with questions about the extent of the Trump administration’s view of its power to “move fast and break things” without being subject to legal challenge.

“If the government decides, very quickly, to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty — the people whose ancestors that was the first thing they saw coming to this country, but the government moved too fast — nothing can be done?” the judge asked.

“I think that’s right, yes,” Roth responded.

A federal judge in March halted construction on the ballroom during the legal battle, but the D.C. Circuit quickly paused the ruling, allowing construction to continue while the litigation is ongoing.

The Friday exchange underscored the Trump administration’s full-throttle effort to defend Trump’s massive reconstruction project, which the president has made clear is a personal priority, along with other aesthetic and architectural ambitions he has across Washington. Millett was joined in her skepticism by Judge Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee.

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, questioned whether the plaintiff in the lawsuit, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, had a basis to sue in the first place, especially when set against Trump’s claim that the ballroom would serve as a critical national security bulwark in addition to an event space.

Roth told the panel that the Trust’s “aesthetic” concerns about the White House must take a back seat to the security issues at stake.

Watch: The Conversation Play Video33:01 Brian Armstrong on Dimon, Trump, and crypto’s future “The balance of harms and public interest are so lopsided in favor of this project,” Roth said. “It’s an architectural preference on one hand and the safety and security of the president of the United States on the other hand.”

Roth also asserted that it would be overreach for the courts to take any steps to halt the ballroom project at its outset or now, even if it was clearly illegal under federal law. Rather, he said, if a court found the project illegal, the only remedy would lie with Congress.

“Congress can figure out how to deal with that, given the fact that we have these national security imperatives,” Roth said. “It’s well along. They’ve installed like 3 million pounds of steel rebar. … Congress would be the appropriate entity to decide: How do we balance these considerations at this juncture?”

The National Trust’s lawsuit argues that the White House grounds, a designated national park, cannot be updated without congressional approval. The park, like Yellowstone, they contend, can’t simply be repurposed at the whims of the administration.

“They just don’t want to go to Congress,” the trust’s attorney, Tad Heuer said, stressing that, under the Constitution, “Congress controls federal property.”

While other, more modest changes at the White House, such as the installation of tennis courts and a pool, may well have been unauthorized, they were never challenged in court, Heuer said. But the ballroom, which required the demolition of the White House’s entire East Wing, is of a different scale.

Trump has repeatedly ridiculed the lawsuit over the project, asserting in a social media post that it was “brought by a woman walking her dog, who has absolutely No Standing to bring such a suit.” In fact, the National Trust has claimed standing through Alison Hoagland, a historian and retired professor who has volunteered on various preservation boards and regularly visits the area.

Hoagland’s court declaration says nothing about a

The chubby Cheeto-in-Charge is gonna be bigly mad! Just wait till those truths come flying out of his chubby little fingers in the wee hours of the morning. Just make sure your kids are safely in bed asleep.

So. All they have to do is say that they suspect you of a crime, then they get to seize your bank account. It doesn’t even have to matter whether they think it’s true or not, as long as they say that they think it’s true.