Blog

Cop Who Avoided Jail After Killing 6-Month-Old Baby, Arrested Again… For Biting a Toddler

Former Fairfield County Police Department officer Jason Michael Colley, who escaped jail time for the 2017 death of his infant daughter due to a lenient plea deal, has once again been charged with child abuse. After finally coming to terms with the fact that this man is a threat to children, a Maryland judge recently denied bail on these new charges.

As The Free Thought Project initially reported in 2018, Colley was indicted on charges of first-degree child abuse resulting in death, first-degree child abuse causing severe physical injury, and first-degree assault following the death of his 6-month-old daughter, Harper Colley. Authorities were alerted to the infant’s injuries on September 17, 2017, and she tragically succumbed several weeks later due to “abusive head trauma.”

Frederick County’s State’s Attorney Charles Smith explained that “Abusive head trauma can detail slamming a baby down on the ground, slamming a baby on maybe a table or against a wall, something along those lines.” Smith highlighted that in Harper’s case, there was “severe brain bleeding…with that, taken together with his conflicting statements, we felt we had proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Despite maintaining his innocence, Colley conceded to the state’s evidence and entered an Alford plea. Consequently, he was handed a reduced 50-year sentence, with all but eight years suspended. In August 2022, Frederick County Circuit Judge Julia A. Martz-Fisher permitted Colley to serve his time on private house arrest, plus five years of supervised release — a deal fit for an Epstein.

Keep reading

‘Color-Blind’ Supreme Court Bars Consideration Of Race In College Admissions

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to consider race in university admissions.

In Thursday’s 6-3 decision (along ideological lines), the justices rejected arguments by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina that their admissions programs are warranted to ensure campus diversity.

The high court majority effectively overturned a 2003 decision, known as Grutter v. Bollinger, that had reaffirmed the right of universities to consider race as one of many admissions factors.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said that ruling “is, for all intents and purposes, overruled.”

As The Wall Street Journal reports, the ruling will force a reworking of admissions criteria throughout American higher education, where for decades the pursuit of diversity has been an article of faith.

Specifically, The 14th Amendment ensures that individuals receive equal protection of the laws from state agencies including public universities, a standard that also applies to most private colleges that receive federal funding.

In general, the court has permitted racial preferences only to remedy specific acts of illegal discrimination, not compensate for general social injustices said to stem from historical practices.

Does it really need SCOTUS to decide this? Of course, race should not be considered!

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“And the Equal Protection Clause, we have accordingly held, applies ‘without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality’—it is ‘universal in [its] application.’”

The court’s three liberals dissented. Society “is not, and has never been, colorblind,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“The Court ignores the dangerous consequences of an America where its leadership does not reflect the diversity of the People.”

The dissenters exclaimed that the court’s conservative majority was “entrenching racial inequality in education.”

“Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits,” wrote Sotomayor.

“In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter.”

Brace for the snowflakes to unleash their hatred of this color-blind ruling…

Keep reading

Now They Are Actually Working On A Plan To Block Out The Sun

What are they thinking?  Without enough sunlight, life on this planet would not be able to survive for long.  So when global leaders start talking about blocking out the sun or “re-engineering the atmosphere”, we should all get really, really nervous.  Plants need sunlight in order go grow.  So less sunlight would mean less food for all of us.  And considering the fact that we are already in the early stages of a horrifying global food crisis, growing enough food should be a very high priority. Unfortunately, the globalists see things very differently.  They are apparently willing to implement extremely risky measures in a desperate attempt to get temperatures back into a range that they consider to be “normal”.  The following comes from a Bloomberg article entitled “EU Looks Into Blocking Out the Sun as Climate Efforts Falter”…

The European Union will join an international effort to assess whether large-scale interventions such as deflecting the sun’s rays or changing the Earth’s weather patterns are viable options for fighting climate change.

The bloc will announce a framework Wednesday for assessing the security implications of a rapidly warming planet, such as the potential for scarce water or food to trigger conflict and migration, according to a draft document seen by Bloomberg. Part of that assessment includes studying the potential dangers of re-engineering the atmosphere.

This is madness.

Blocking out the sun isn’t going to solve anything.

In fact, it would have the potential to create far bigger problems than we are facing now.

But the globalists are desperate.  Even though they have been imposing unthinkable mandates on their populations, carbon emissions just aren’t going down fast enough to meet their goals.  For example, the Dutch government is actually forcing thousands of farmers to turn over their farms…

Keep reading

Supreme Court Refuses To Expand the ‘True Threats’ Exception for Free Speech

SCOTUS ruling in Facebook threats case “neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats.” For statements to be considered true threats, unprotected by the First Amendment, the person making them must have some understanding the statements could be construed as threatening, the Supreme Court held yesterday. The case—Counterman v. Colorado—involves a defendant convicted of stalking after sending a bevy of Facebook messages to someone identified as C.W.

In a 7-2 ruling issued yesterday, the Court vacated the conviction and remanded the case back to the lower court. The court’s three liberal justices were joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.

“True threats of violence are outside the bounds of First Amendment protection and punishable as crimes,” noted Justice Elena Kagan in the majority’s opinion:

Today we consider a criminal conviction for communications falling within that historically unprotected category. The question presented is whether the First Amendment still requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements. We hold that it does, but that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient. The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. The State need not prove any more demanding form of subjective intent to threaten another.

In this case, Billy Counterman sent C.W.—a singer and musician who lived in his community—hundreds of Facebook messages between 2014 and 2016. “Some of his messages were utterly prosaic (‘Good morning sweetheart’; ‘I am going to the store would you like anything?’)—except that they were coming from a total stranger,” notes Kagan. “Others suggested that Counterman might be surveilling C. W.,” and some expressed anger at her.

“Fuck off permanently,” said one message. Another read: “You’re not being good for
human relations. Die.”

Understandably, the messages frightened C.W., who worried that Counterman was following her and might hurt her. She contacted local police, who charged him under a Colorado stalking statute that prohibits “repeatedly . . . make[ing] any form of communication with another person” in “a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.”

Counterman argued that his messages were not true threats and thus were protected by the First Amendment.

The trial court weighed whether Counterman’s messages were true threats using a “reasonable person” standard: would some hypothetical, objective “reasonable person” find them threatening? It found that they would, meaning the messages were not protected speech. The case was put before a jury, which found Counterman guilty under the stalking statute.

The Colorado Court of Appeals then affirmed this decision, holding that “a speaker’s subjective intent to threaten” is not necessary to convict the speaker for threatening communications. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to review the case.

“Courts are divided about (1) whether the First Amendment requires proof of a defendant’s subjective mindset in true-threats cases, and (2) if so, what mens rea”—that is, level of intent or knowledge—”standard is sufficient,” noted Kagan. Thus, the Supreme Court decided to hear Counterman’s case.

Keep reading

Not just public schools: Ohio PRIVATE school reports mothers to FBI for questioning leftist curriculum

Amy Gonzalez and Andrea Gross are suing Columbus Academy in Ohio for launching a retaliation campaign against them following complaints they made about the private school’s leftist curriculum.

According to reports, Columbus Academy reported Gonzalez and Gross to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), calling them “dangerous to the health and wellbeing of the entire Academy community. Administrators also allegedly attempted to destroy the two mothers’ reputation out of spite.

Filed on June 12, the lawsuit claims Columbus Academy overreacted to questions the two women had about critical race theory (CRT) concepts being embedded into their children’s curriculum, which they believe is “indoctrination.”

“And so, when I say an overreaction, I mean an overreaction of calling the police on us, alerting almost 900 faculty members that they had alerted the FBI that we were dangerous,” Gross told Fox News Digital.

“Just things that were so far beyond the pale that it would lead one to ask why? Why is the reaction so extreme?”

Keep reading

Top US Officials Have ‘First-Hand Knowledge’ of Secret UFO Program: Rubio

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has claimed that multiple senior government officials—including Pentagon employees with “high clearances”—are aware of a secret UFO craft crash retrieval program being run by the United States.

The Republican lawmaker made the claims in an interview with NewsNation on June 26, shortly after Air Force veteran and former intelligence officer David Grusch alleged that the Pentagon had discovered dead alien bodies from spacecraft that had crashed.

“There are people that have come forward to share information with our committee over the last couple of years … I want to be very protective of these people,” said Rubio, who serves as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“A lot of these people came to us even before protections were in the law for whistleblowers to come forward,” Rubio said, adding that many of those claimed to have “first-hand knowledge” of the alleged extraterrestrial retrieval program.

The Florida Republican alleged that some of the whistleblowers who have stepped forward with similar claims to Grusch are public figures with “high clearances” and “high positions within our government.”

“We’re trying to gather as much of that information as we can … Some of these people still work in the government,” Rubio said. He added that many of them are fearful of losing their jobs, losing their clearances, and being harmed.

Rubio’s comments come amid an ongoing investigation—led by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.)—into the alleged secret military UFO program. The committee is expected to hold a hearing on the matter soon.

Keep reading

A State of Martial Law: America Is a Military Dictatorship Disguised as a Democracy

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”—Thomas Jefferson

The government is goosestepping all over our freedoms.

Case in point: America’s founders did not want a military government ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.

Yet sometime over the course of the past 240-plus years that constitutional republic has been transformed into a military dictatorship disguised as a democracy.

Most Americans seem relatively untroubled by this state of martial law.

Incredibly, when President Biden bragged about how the average citizen doesn’t stand a chance against the government’s massive arsenal of militarized firepower, it barely caused a ripple.

As Biden remarked at a fundraising event in California, “I love these guys who say the Second Amendment is—you know, the tree of liberty is water with the blood of patriots. Well, if [you] want to do that, you want to work against the government, you need an F-16.  You need something else than just an AR-15.”

The message being sent to the citizenry is clear: there is no place in our nation today for the kind of revolution our forefathers mounted against a tyrannical government.

For that matter, the government has declared an all-out war on any resistance whatsoever by the citizenry to its mandates, power grabs and abuses.

By this standard, had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

This is no longer the stuff of speculation and warning.

Keep reading

Pfizer Vaccine Batches in the EU Were Placebos, Say Scientists

Scientists have uncovered startling evidence that a substantial portion of the batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine deployed in the European Union may in fact have consisted of placebos – and that the German regulator knew this and did not subject them to quality-control testing.

The scientists, Dr. Gerald Dyker, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Ruhr University Bochum, and Dr. Jörg Matysik, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Leipzig, are part of a group of five German-speaking scientists who have been publicly raising questions about the quality and safety of the BioNTech vaccine (as it is known in Germany) for the last year and a half.

They recently appeared on the Punkt.Preradovic online programme of the German journalist Milena Preradovic to discuss batch variability. Their starting point was the recent Danish study showing enormous variation in the adverse events associated with different batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, or BNT162b2 per its scientific codename. The below figure from the Danish study illustrates this variation.

Keep reading

Midtown Gets Paywall: Feds Approve NYC Congestion Toll

The US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration approved the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s congestion tax scheme to charge drivers entering New York City’s midtown Manhattan. The tax is the first of its kind in the nation, expected to fleece hardworking Americans between $9 and $23 per day to drive through the district, reported Bloomberg.

“Congestion pricing will reduce traffic in our crowded downtown, improve air quality and provide critical resources to the MTA,” said Gov. Kathy Hochul. 

Hochul said, “I am proud of the thorough environmental assessment process we conducted, including responding to thousands of comments from community members from across the region.”

She added: “With the green light from the federal government, we look forward to moving ahead with the implementation of this program.”

The MTA operates NYC’s subways, buses, and rail lines. It’ll be responsible for implementing the tax scheme as soon as April 2024. Bloomberg said motorists driving south of 60th Street would be able to use an E-ZPass.

The new tax aims to fleece motorists and raise $1 billion of new annual revenue for the MTA. NYC officials want to reduce the number of daily vehicles entering the district by up to 20%.

Keep reading

NBC News DEFENDS ‘we’re coming for your children’ chant at NYC drag march, arguing it’s ‘been used for years at Pride events’

The Drag March in Manhattan’s East Village featured topless women and plenty of drag performers chanting “We’re coming for your children.” A clip from Timcast of the event, the chanting, and the festivities went viral on social media, infuriating many who value childhood innocence. In response, NBC defended the chant, saying that it was just for fun, and is a way for LGBTQIA+ people to “own” the slurs that have been leveled against them.

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children,” they sang to each other.

NBC asserted that the drag marchers were saying “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re not going shopping,” and that it’s only “one voice that is louder than the crowd” who said, “We’re coming for your children.” They quote the drag march organizer, Brian Griffin, who said that they chanted obscene things to basically own the slurs. 

Keep reading