Tweet of the day – 1/29/17 #365project

I received inquiries from about 1.6 million people about not having posted a tweet of the day yesterday. To my yuuuge audience, I apologize; I had some technical/server issues that knocked out my site throughout the day yesterday. A good webcraftsperson, though, never blames her/his host; I’ll take the blame. My deepest apologies…

Yesterday’s tweet of the day came from Daniel Kreiss who is a professor at, get this, UNC. Ugh.1. #GoDuke. Silly partisanship aside, the analysis of Breitbart.com that Kreiss conducted is really useful if you’re trying to understand the worldview behind the Executive Order (#MuslimBan) issued on Friday. I have pulled no punches in claiming that Steve Bannon (and to a lesser extent Stephen Miller, who, I must confess, is also a Duke alum… sigh) is the puppetmaster of this administration. Thus, given Bannon’s association with Breitbart.com in the past, the major themes of the text on the site are, if not surprising, certainly revealing. “Breitbart’s writers very explicitly rejected the three pillars of multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and globalism they claimed represented Obama’s presidency and candidacy…” And, here’s the kicker:

Breitbart is, in part, about defining the symbolic border of the nation and protecting the white, Christian body politic in a way that is premised on exclusion.

Yeesh. When I put my (dusty, lightly used) law degree hat on, I’m interested in the legal case against the Excecutive Order. In particular, I’m interested in what sorts of evidence can and will be used to make the argument against the EO. Can and will Rudy Giuliani’s interview on Fox News be used to prove legislative intent? Can President Trump’s tweet from this morning, wherein he himself, uses the word “ban” be used for the same purpose? And then I think about Kreiss’ analysis. IF it can be argued that Bannon was a significant party to the drafting of the EO, do the words of Breitbart.com, a media outlet he helped found and oversee, serve as evidence of legislative intent? It’s probably a stretch. Nevertheless, thank you Professor Kreiss for your cogent analysis. For that, you get the honor of having produced the tweet of the day (yesterday).

  1. Go to hell, Carolina, go to hell!!! []

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.