When this family visits Cape Cod, it must always include a trip to see Dakota, the local face-painting artist. Britt and her husband, Mike, have two daughters who are polar opposites in the face-painting camp. Lily loves getting painted and always asks for the scariest design possible. Violet is terrified of being painted and usually runs away screaming. @brittikitty @Limelightptown was the FIRST thing Lily wanted to do on vacation! She loves being creepy Dakota is the best face painter in all of Cape Cod!! ♬ original sound – brittikitty Lily sat on the stool and explained to Dakota what she wanted. He tried, ineffectively, to talk her into something less scary, but the tiny tot was adamant. With the preliminaries done, Dakota set to work. He began with black outlines around her eyes, then applied a white base layer. Her mom was a little stunned when Lily asked for blood dripping from her eyes and mouth. As he worked, Dakota kept up a steady stream of banter. At one point, he told Lily she was so scary that babies were crying around her. While not entirely true, her scary face was shaping up as he continued adding creepy details. Another Daughter: Another Face Painting Violet is the shy daughter who has never let anyone paint her face before. She sat on Dakota’s stool, bravely waiting as Lily cavorted around in a black cape, scaring everyone. Beginning with some rouge on her cheeks, Violet was still smiling as Dakota shifted her hair to add a blue headband to her forehead. @brittikitty @Limelightptown was so amazing with little Violet She’s NEVER let anyone paint her face before and this was soooo so funny and sweet!! He is the best face painter ♬ original sound – brittikitty Dakota was aware of Violet’s history with face painting, so he was extra cautious. He took time to explain everything he was doing, from adding “earrings” to the small pendant “necklace” he painted. When she seemed to be getting scared, he stopped and took time to reassure her. His ability to read each child while working is amazing. Holding up the mirror to show Violet her finished look was priceless. The tiny girl had to touch her face to make sure that was her staring back in the mirror. While still hesitant, Violet fought through her fears and got her first successful face painting. To see more of this adorable family with the polar opposite daughters, follow brittikitty on TikTok. You’ll find wholesome, family-oriented content and plenty of smiles. Please share. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post “POV: Your Daughter Always Asks For The Scariest Face Painting Possible” appeared first on InspireMore.

Faith No More originated in San Francisco in 1979, initially performing under the name Sharp Young Men before adopting the Faith No Man moniker in 1982 and finally settling on Faith No More in 1983. The band has released seven studio albums across their career, experiencing two significant hiatuses from 1998 to 2009 and again from 2015 to present. Their commercial breakthrough came with “The Real Thing” in 1989, which sold over four million copies worldwide and produced the hit single “Epic” that reached number nine on the Billboard Hot 100. The band’s lineup has undergone several notable changes throughout The post Complete List Of Faith No More Band Members appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

A sea of fuchsia-colored flowers now adorns the Llanos de Challe National Park.

Can't sleep? Good news! You also have terrible mental health.

One way you can demonstrate the liberal networks run on dunking Republicans is how they cover congressional hearings. For weeks, House Oversight Committee chair James Comer has been probing how the Biden White House staff covered up Biden’s mental decline, and all the liberal TV networks can’t locate it. But on Tuesday, Senate Democrats were throwing hardballs at Attorney General Pam Bondi, and CNN and MSNBC were covering it live, and then the evening newscasts all ran stories. Republicans are in control of Congress, and Democrats are still considered the more newsworthy members. NPR’s online headline for its evening news report was “Democrats press Bondi over concerns DOJ is being weaponized to target Trump's foes.” PBS’s headline was similar: “Bondi dodges Democrats’ questions on weaponizing DOJ in Senate hearing.” Few things are more frustrating to Republicans than the falsehood that Biden’s Justice Department was pristinely independent and wasn’t weaponized against Trump -- and his staffers and supporters, not to mention against pro-lifers, traditional Catholics, and parents who disturb liberals at school board meetings.  On NBC Nightly News, anchor Tom Llamas touted “that fiery hearing on Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats grilling Attorney General Pam Bondi over DOJ investigations and questions over the Epstein files.” Reporter Kelly O’Donnell spotlighted Democrats Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal. At least, they included Bondi’s reply to Durbin about deploying the National Guard to Chicago: “They are working to protect you. I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.” But the Republican half of the hearing drew a few words at the end. On ABC’s World News Tonight reporter Pierre Thomas ran soundbites from five combative Democrats, including Sen. Mazie Hirono quipping that Trump turned the Justice Department into the “Department of Revenge and Corruption.” That was “balanced” by one Ted Cruz soundbite. On the CBS Evening News, reporter Scott MacFarlane featured Democrat senators Dick Durbin, Peter Welch, and Sheldon Whitehouse (who pushed hard on the Epstein matter). This was “balanced” by Republican Sen. John Kennedy asking a different set of Epstein questions.  Several of these stories at least mentioned that Biden’s Justice Department was exposed for analyzing the phone records of eight Republican Senators in their partisan investigation of Trump’s 2020 election denial. Several also floated the unproven claims that border czar Tom Homan accepted a bribe when he was a private citizen. The newspaper reporters couldn’t avoid snarky editorializing. The front-page Washington Post story, headlined “Combative Bondi Is Pressed On Her Record,” featured reporter Jeremy Roebuck describing the attorney general “lashing out” at Democrats, responding “with personalized, non sequitur attacks.” The New York Times put the Bondi hearing on page A-11 under the headline “By Attacking, Bondi Avoids Hard Queries About Agency.” Reporters Glenn Thrush and Devlin Barrett described Bondi’s approach to Democrats as “simple and brutal: Don’t answer, just attack.” As if the Democrat questions weren’t attacks? The Times duo insisted Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have testified in an unprecedented fashion, “characterized by a contemptuous refusal to even cursorily address inconvenient questions and the use of prepared attacks against Democrats to change the subject and drown out criticism.”   Could they be any more obvious in sounding like press aides to the Democratic minority? It’s flabbergasting that these networks and papers always find the Democrats and their talking points to be the most important thing that the public must absorb, even after they lose elections. Boldly resisting their arguments is dismissed as too personal, too nonsensical, and too diversionary. Everyone can see the “news” is rigged against Republicans.

In the world of preparedness, it is easy to be distracted by shiny new gadgets. Solar chargers, water purifiers, radios, and even GPS units often take center stage. Yet there is a tool that plays a far more consistent and vital role: the sharpener. Without it, your knives, axes, and cutting tools are little more […]

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?One‑sided freedomKaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.Censored beliefI believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.Faith on trialIn Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.RELATED: Free speech is a core American value stellalevi via iStock/Getty ImagesThat’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.The real testNo matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth. Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Joe Rogan mocked and ridiculed California Gov. Gavin Newsom for his presidential aspirations, and the Democrat tried to defend himself in a post on social media.Newsom has appeared to be increasing his national exposure and fueling speculation that he is looking to mount a presidential campaign in 2028 after being termed out of the California governor's office.'Everybody's leaving! You have the highest unemployment. You have the highest homelessness. Money's missing. You killed Hollywood. Like, Hollywood doesn't exist anymore. It's literally gone!'Rogan hammered Newsom on his podcast while interviewing Jack Carr, a retired Navy SEAL and author."[Democrats] don't have any faith in Gavin Newsom, which is kind of funny because he wants to be president so bad," Rogan laughed."You can't ruin a city and then go on to ruin a state and say, 'Guys, that was just practice. Once I get in as president, I'm gonna fix it. Fix it all,'" he added.Carr called it "crazy" but added that Newsom was a "great politician," to which Rogan immediately disagreed."No, he's not. ... He has low competition. There's no one who's good that's competing against him. There's no sincerity," Rogan responded.Carr reframed his characterization and called Newsom "smooth" instead."He's a good bulls**t artist. ... The things that he says when he gets confronted with anything — 'We have the highest this and the highest that!'" Rogan replied."Like, everybody's leaving! You have the highest unemployment. You have the highest homelessness. Money's missing. You killed Hollywood. Like, Hollywood doesn't exist anymore. It's literally gone!" he continued. "You mandated vaccines for kids that didn't need them. You guys, he did horrible s**t!"Video of the exchange was posted to social media, where it garnered more than 10 million views.The governor didn't seem to appreciate the comments, and he challenged Rogan on social media."Joe Rogan is too [chicken] to have me on his show and expose his listeners to the truth, so I'll put it here," Newsom posted on social media.RELATED: Gavin Newsom threatens California universities that 'bend to the will' of Trump after latest demand Newsom listed several indicators of success from the state of California:4th largest economy in the world #1 in manufacturing #1 in farming #1 in new business starts#1 for tech and VC investments #1 for Fortune 500 companies #1 public higher education "I could continue ... invite me on any time," he added.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

“This is an Orwell nightmare coming to life right in front of our face. And no one’s flinching.” In a recent episode of his podcast, Joe Rogan raised the alarm about the onrushing global implementation of digital ID, singling out the over 12,000 U.K. arrests due to officially unsavory internet posts.London states that the British digital ID will simply be used to “curb the prospect of work for illegal migrants, a significant factor driving small boat crossing.” For students of that old conspiracy theory standard the Hegelian dialectic (or the Problem-Reaction-Solution model, whereby the conspirator creates a problem in order bring about a previous unpalatable “solution”), this is solid gold. It’s textbook.The good news? Polling of U.K. citizenry suggests resounding resistance to implementation of digital ID. Yet the U.K., along with governments around the world, seem to be less concerned with worn-out notions of rights and more interested in redoubling their efforts to establish digital surveillance.If accomplished at the state level, it’s a short leap to full acceptance. The September 26 U.K. government press release stating the intent to roll out digital ID touts similar measures established in Estonia, Denmark, India, and Australia. Even though the release suggests the U.K. needs digital ID for immigration purposes, the benefits of such a tool are different for each of the above countries. We can assume that once a tailored excuse for each region has been established and the ID rolled out, the rest of the pieces will fall relatively swiftly into place.For the British, however, there is no clear answer to the issue of integration into the so-called EUID, the parallel scheme run by the European Union. It’s about centralized data collection and analysis. It will be shared to whatever degree and for whatever purpose government (or its corporate sponsors) deem necessary, and once again, it’s designed to coordinate across systems. Ecosystems. Ecosystems of finance and taxation, plus others cobbled together from salable health or habit data. All with zero guarantees about how this is handled in the future.Europe goes darkIn Europe, an enormous rollup of private comms is a sneeze away, with the crucial firewall country Germany now wavering. The German government is poised to drop its free-speech stance and cave to the so-called Chat Control policy, driving representatives from the hugely popular chat app Signal to issue a stern press release: “Under the guise of protecting children, the latest Chat Control proposals would require mass scanning of every message, photo, and video on a person’s device, assessing these via a government-mandated database or AI model to determine whether they are permissible content or not.”It’s estimated that 57 countries already have digital ID in rollout phase. Couple this with the 93 countries that have digital payment systems in place. And consider that 103 countries have installed cross-sectional, national-level, active data exchange systems installed. It isn’t a stretch to see how close we are, at a global level, to Rogan’s “nightmare.”RELATED: Arizona’s AI policing tool threatens civil liberties Photo by Bloomberg / Contributor via Getty ImagesThis nightmare has zombies too. Consider that all those monsters that the MAGA coalition ostensibly fought and vanquished are still pushing for digital ID, from international corporate behemoths like Cisco and Google to "non"-governmental organizations like the World Economic Forum. Imagine digital ID is mandated. Algorithms coordinate with phone data. Everything is processed through one gov/corp-AI or another. Would the stock market be even a little bit legitimate? No. Would consumer information ever be reliable? No. Could checks and balances of any sort ever make it through bought politicians and corporations with access to every trend down to the minute? No. Most versions of digital ID seek to coordinate all personal information into a central, individualized hub available to government and, of course, corporate partners with government.On to the US?In America, Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) has been, according to his own website, "one of the leading advocates in Congress for enhanced federal participation in digital identify ecosystems." What exactly would possess Foster to love digital ID, especially when its parameters are so uncertain and its anecdotal favorability rankings are so low? It might be worth examination. Patterns detectable elsewhere may appear. In the U.S., digital ID has already been pushed at the state level. Twenty-one states have adopted some form of "mobile" (digital) driver's license, Real ID, and so forth. If accomplished at the state level, it’s a short leap to full acceptance. The Department of Homeland Security has already built, funded, and set into motion the Fusion Centers concept. Here we have the federal government vacuuming up (criminal and related) information from state, local, and county-level sources. Recall that the federal government is, by any standard, furiously divided. What seems fair to 50% of the nation today will not, in circumstances where incompatible ideologies and opinions are in contest, seem fair when a new administration takes over.We’ll soon have to decide: Do we need digital ID today to crush cartel and domestic terrorist activity in the United States? With top-tier Trump backers like Oracle's Larry Ellison fully in favor of digital IDs, citizens may soon be asking whether American greatness in the digital age requires a greater sacrifice than they could have imagined.