It started with this typically inane and wrong take from James Surowiecki. Nothing new there, it's kind of his brand.
A government agency endorsing Christianity is blatantly, comically unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality is par for the course for this administration. https://t.co/l5iVfCP48C
— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) December 25, 2025
That post is in the context of Trump's Christmas address, which has the left in a meltdown (again).
But that's not what this post is about. It's about what followed that's of interest. Dan McLaughlin retorts with a simple reality check.
I have news for you about two centuries of public proclamations by presidents & other federal officials, especially on the occasion of Christmas. You may dislike it, but it's a deeply embedded tradition & not at all an establishment of religion in the constitutional sense. https://t.co/8AEqNTJDLL
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) December 26, 2025
And here is where it gets really interesting.
Knowing history helps. Go read some presidential Christmas messages. This is just the tip of the iceberg. pic.twitter.com/m3sdcXrqPM
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) December 27, 2025
Historical context, what is it? If your starting and ending points are always Orange Man Bad, you don't have a lot of wiggle room for intelligent thought up there in the noggin.
Which brings us to the main attraction. This:
Which previous administrations had issued a statement declaring that Christ is our Savior?
— i/o (@avidseries) December 27, 2025
Unless this is a ham-fisted engagement-bait post, it is a very stupid question to ask. By all appearances, this account is pretty smart and very reasonably centrist.
Recommended
That said, do smart accounts ask 'gotcha' questions without knowing the answer? AvidSeries was quickly set straight.
"It is another step upward and onward to a higher and grander Christian civilization. It is another recognition of the Master who rules over all, a worthy tribute to Him who came on earth to save fallen man and leave him to a higher plain."
— Cogitatus Lutrae (@otter_blues) December 27, 2025
– William McKinley
“Here, at home, we will celebrate this Christmas Day in our traditional American way — because of its deep spiritual meaning to us; because the teachings of Christ are fundamental in our lives; and because we want our youngest generation to grow up knowing the significance of…
— Charles (@JiffjoffI) December 27, 2025
this tradition and the story of the coming of the immortal Prince of Peace and Good Will.” - FDR
“In a few days we shall all celebrate the birth of His Holiness on earth. We shall recreate in our minds, once more, the ancient coming of that Spirit who remains alive for millions in our time. We shall acknowledge the Kingdom of a Child in a world of men.”
— Charles (@JiffjoffI) December 27, 2025
- Eisenhower
'Yeah yeah, OK, all those Dead White Guys with the funny hats did it, but no one is this enlightened age does it,' you cleverly retort.
Clinton did. Any number of other presidents used other inherently religious titles in Christmas Day statements. Why do this?
— Matt Muldowney (@muldowney_matt) December 27, 2025
“The Christmas story is dear and familiar to us all — shepherds and angels, Wise Men and King Herod, Mary and Joseph, and, at the heart of it all, a Child. This Child was born into poverty … and yet this Child brought with Him riches so great … the assurance of God’s love and…
— Charles (@JiffjoffI) December 27, 2025
and presence in our lives and the promise of salvation.” - Clinton
This was in Bush's 2002 Christmas address to the country. pic.twitter.com/T4InPqEHGB
— Stache Autonomy (@StacheAutonomy) December 27, 2025
Oops.
The real gripe liberals have is that they thought they pushed all this magical thinking out of the public sphere since the Obama / Biden 'fundamental transformation' of our culture.