ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND AND THE JUSTICE DEPT. TO SUE THE STATE OF GEORGIA FOR CHANGING ELECTION LAWS, BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF BLACK VOTERS.

BREAKING: Garland: "Today, the Department of Justice is suing the state of Georgia," alleging "changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color."

VIDEO ADDRESS:

http://abcn.ws/3x1IRKE

U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRATS LEAD THE WAY, AGAIN. Pelosi announces select committee to investigate Jan. 6 Capitol riot

(AS HAS HAPPENED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THE PAST FEW YEARS, HOUSE DEMOCRATS LEAD THE WAY IN CONFRONTING, EXPOSING AND BEATING BACK THE FASCIST AGENDA PUSHED BY TRUMP AND THE GOP. SENATE DEMOCRATS? DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR THEM TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE.)

ALLAN SMITH AND OLIVIA OLANDER

June 24, 2021, 11:27 AM

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday that the House will establish a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

"This morning, with great solemnity and sadness, I am announcing the House will be establishing a select committee on the January 6th insurrection," Pelosi said at a news conference.

Last month, Senate Republicans blocked House-passed legislation to establish a bipartisan commission to probe the attack. That legislation failed a key procedural hurdle after 54 senators voted in favor of it, short of the needed 60 votes.

That bill passed the House last month by a 252-175 vote, with 35 Republicans voting in favor of it. It was the product of negotiations between House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y., the ranking member of the committee.

While Democrats have long pushed for an investigation akin to the 9/11 commission, many Republicans have argued it would become an overly political process that could damage them in next year's elections without information that goes beyond what inquiries by federal law enforcement will uncover.

On Thursday, Pelosi, D-Calif., said there is no timeline for the committee to release findings and she is not yet announcing its composition or leadership.

"January 6th was one of the darkest days in our nation's history," Pelosi said. "It is imperative that we establish the truth of that day and ensure an attack of that kind cannot happen, and that we root out the causes of it all. The select committee will investigate and report on the facts and the causes of the attack" and report recommendations.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., signaled this month that he would seek to “force the Senate to vote" again on the commission.

Pelosi said Thursday she sees the establishment of this committee "as complementary, not instead of" the bipartisan commission passed in the House, adding she is hopeful that that still comes to pass.

"The select committee is about our democracy, and about ensuring that the Capitol dome remains a symbol of freedom, about preserving America's role as an emblem of resilience, determination and hope," Pelosi said. "That is our purpose. That is what the select committee will be about, and that is about seeking and finding the truth."

"It is clear that the Republicans are afraid of the truth," she added.

New York court suspends Rudy Giuliani’s law license. ASSOCIATED PRESS.

 NEW YORK (AP) — An appeals court suspended Rudy Giuliani from practicing law in New York because he made false statements while trying to get courts to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the presidential race.

An attorney disciplinary committee asked the court to suspend Giuliani’s license saying he had made false statements to the courts, the public and lawmakers as he pushed theories that the election was stolen through fraud.

“This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and of our current president, Joseph R. Biden,” the court wrote in its decision granting the request. “The hallmark of our democracy is predicated on free and fair elections. False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society.”

The ruling, signed Thursday, will prevent Giuliani from representing clients as a lawyer.

RELATED STORIES

• – Michigan Senate GOP probe: No systemic fraud in election
• – Judge appoints ex-judge to oversee Giuliani devices' review
• – Giuliani search warrant resolved Justice Department dispute

Giuliani’s attorneys said in a statement that it was “unprecedented” for Giuliani to be suspended before “being afforded a hearing on the issues that are alleged.”

“We believe that once the issues are fully explored at a hearing Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years,” attorneys Barry Kamins and John Leventhal wrote.

In the decision, the court wrote that Giuliani “communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large” as a lawyer for Trump.

Giuliani had claimed that the investigation into his conduct violated his First Amendment right of free speech and that he did not knowingly make false statements, according to the decision.

The court rejected those arguments, noting that in Pennsylvania, Giuliani failed to “provide a scintilla of evidence for any of the varying and wildly inconsistent numbers of dead people he factually represented voted in Philadelphia during the 2020 presidential election.”

Giuliani was the primary mouthpiece for Trump’s lies after the 2020 election, standing at a press conference in front of Four Seasons Total Landscaping outside Philadelphia on the day the race was called for Biden and saying they would challenge what he claimed was a vast conspiracy by Democrats.

The lies around the 2020 election helped push an angry mob of pro-Trump rioters to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in a shocking effort to stop the certification of President Biden’s victory. And since that time, Republicans have used that lie to push stricter voting laws nationwide.

The suspension comes as Giuliani is under scrutiny by federal prosecutors over his interactions with figures in Ukraine while he was trying to get that country to launch an investigation of Biden’s son.

Federal agents raided Giuliani’s home and office in April, taking electronic devices including phones and computers.

The investigation includes an examination of whether Giuliani was required to register as a foreign agent in the U.S. Some of the Ukrainian figures Giuliani was worked with were also interested in getting his help lobbying the Trump administration to dismiss the U.S. ambassador to that country.

That investigation was not a factor in the suspension of his law license.

The suspension won’t affect Giuliani’s ability to act as a lobbyist or do security consulting, but will likely will prevent him from practicing law in jurisdictions even beyond New York, said David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor.

Giuliani would be obligated to tell other states about the suspension, he said, which “in all likelihood will cause them to say, ‘You won’t be able to practice here.’”

__

This story has been updated to correct the attribution on the decision. It was made by the court, not the attorney disciplinary committee.

HERE WE GO AGAIN: FAITH ATTACKING FREEDOM.

The Decision of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. to possibly deny President Biden, and other Politicians who are members of the Church, Communion if they do not renounce and alter their views on Abortion is another attempt to FORCE INDIVIDUAL CHURCH DOCTRINE INTO LAW, MAKING IT BINDING ON ALL AMERICANS. 

In the recent past, it was usually SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE FAITHS EMPHASIZING EVANGELISM, WHICH OFTEN MEANT STRICT ADHERENCE TO THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANINGS OF "GODS WORD" CONTAINED IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE, THAT SOUGHT TO CREATE A LEGAL SYSTEM ENFORCING SPECIFIC BELIEFS THAT WOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF FAITH. 

The Catholic Church in the U.S. may now be attempting to do the same thing, possibly seeking an alliance with those BELIEF SYSTEMS THAT WISH TO CREATE A THEOCRACY IN THE U.S., ABOLISHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ARTICLE I WROTE THAT ADDRESSES CERTAIN PARTS OF THE CONTROVERSY. I WILL EXPAND UPON THESE ISSUES IN A FUTURE POST.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ETHICS AND MORALITY. PERSONAL ETHICS VS INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS, OR FINDING GOD VS FORCING GOD. PT 1.

Why is it that people with certain Moral Beliefs, automatically feel it is their mission to see that others also adopt this same ETHICAL SYSTEM?

What is even more Disturbing, is their desire to see it instituted into Law, either by Statute or Judicial Decree.  Unfortunately, the Lack of Freedom to Choose never seems to bother them, unless it inhibits their own ability to make Individual Decisions.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AS A RIGHT, INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO OBEY OR DISOBEY ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.  IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SELECTING WHICH FORMS OF FAITH CAN BE LEGALIZED, AND ADJUSTING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO CONFORM. NONE OF THEM ARE TO BE PART OF ANY CODE OF LAW, BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF 'FREEDOM OF RELIGION' WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. 

A Response to this is could be something like: "The Word of God is Absolute, we must Convert or Convince others that their only hope for Salvation is accepting Scripture, and Submitting to Gods Will."

This type of Response makes the following Assumptions;

-  DEFINING "GOD" IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST BE ACCEPTED.

-  That Their DEFINITION OF GOD IS THE CORRECT ONE.

-  THAT FAITH ALONE IS REQUIRED AND NECESSARY.  NO LOGICAL PROOFS OR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS NEEDED TO "KNOW THE TRUTH."

-  That GOD HAS REVEALED INSTRUCTIONS FOR A MORAL LIFE, THROUGH INTERPRETATIONS OF SPECIFIC TEXTS, WHICH MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND INFALLIBLE.

-  "SALVATION" IS A DESIRABLE GOAL, THAT CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED BY OBEYING THESE INSTRUCTIONS.

Now there is nothing UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL about believing any of the above.  A FREE SOCIETY allows each of us to find answers on our own and being able to share our BELIEFS OR FAITH with others. 

HOWEVER, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVERTING OR CONVINCING SOMEONE TO ACT OR BELIEVE CERTAIN RELIGIOUS DEFINITIONS OR ABSOLUTES VOLUNTARILY, AND FORCING THEM TO THROUGH THREATS OF CRIMINAL OR CIVIL SANCTIONS INSTITUTED INTO LAW.