Chicago Police Bang On Church Doors To Stop Services, Film Everyone Who Arrived

This caught my eye in this story of at best clumsy regulation-(I won’t say law’) enforcing at this church with worshipers behind locked doors, in part to keep the ‘hood’s marauders barging in:

After the incident, Lewis [the pastor] wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney John Lausch to complain about what happened and ask for assistance, saying Lightfoot “is defiant of the U.S. Constitution and our freedom to worship” and “has a history of defying the law.”

“She is one of few former US Prosecutors in the US to be censured by the 7th Circuit Judge Rovner and the entire 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for defying their order,” he noted.

Say wha’? Our mayor defied an order? We should hear more about this aspect of her law-related history.

Twitter Adds Fact-Check Notices to Trump Tweets on Mail-In Ballots

WSJ does nice, calm enough job reporting and dissecting this story, at the end with this key notation:

The mistake [in its own fact-check] raised questions about Twitter’s ability to serve as an independent service to fact check statements by Mr. Trump or other political figures . . . Late Tuesday, Twitter updated its language [changed its story] to remove reference to Nebraska [which mailed applications for
ballot, because of Covid, and not ballots] and instead stated that “five states already vote entirely by mail and all states offer some form of mail-in absentee voting.”

Yes. Its ability is one issue, it’s becoming a commentator is another. But free market of ideas (freedom of speech) is at the heart of even anti-social media, namely the assumption that everything said is target for rebuttal and God knows what else.

White House defends, but does not explain, watchdog firings – AOL News

AP editorial has chapter and verse about Trump’s firing IG’s, but reports without pursuing White House defense that points up AP’s interest less in firings than in Trump:

“When the President loses confidence in an inspector general, he will exercise his constitutional right and duty to remove that officer — as did President Reagan when he removed inspectors general upon taking office and as did President Obama when he was in office,” [White House lawyer] Cipollone wrote.

Reagan and Obama did it? Why wouldn’t the AP editorial/opinion piece, thorough in spelling out the current situation, not be thorough in the White House defense of itself? Slippery fellows, and I mean the AP writers and editors.