At Fulcrum Aesthetics in Chicago’s Lakeview neighborhood, education and training are at the heart of delivering exceptional aesthetic services. One of their standout initiatives is the Staff Experience Day, where every team member, regardless of their role, has the opportunity to experience the procedures offered. This firsthand knowledge allows them to make better recommendations, ultimately […]

'The flight was a distressing experience'

'Increasing the deficit'

'We're now going to officially move into a theocracy'

'Would be meaningless'

A Department of Homeland Security advisory board characterized supporters of former President Donald Trump, as well as those who are in the military and religious people, as posing potential domestic terrorism risks, according to internal documents obtained by America First Legal. The board, called the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group, was created in September 2023 to provide DHS with “expert” analysis on subjects such as terrorism and fentanyl trafficking. The panel included former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former CIA Operations Officer Paul Kolbe, all of whom signed an October 2020 letter casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop and suggesting its release was a Russian disinformation ploy. Internal documents obtained by America First Legal show the board characterizing “supporters of the former president” as constituting “most of the Domestic Terrorism threat” in the United States. The documents also classified traits such as having served “in the military” and being “religious” as “indicators of extremists and terrorism,” citing unnamed research. Military personnel are less likely to be supporters of radical political causes than other Americans, according to a 2023 RAND Corp. study. Nevertheless, suspicions of extremism in the military were popular among Democrats in the wake of the Jan. 6 riots, as 15 Democrat lawmakers signed a letter in 2021 urging Inspector General Sean O’Donnell to “take action on this wave of violent extremism” in the military. America First Legal on Thursday released the first collection of documents that detailed the committee’s desire to increase information collection on Americans, including getting “mothers” and “teachers” to report on children suspected of extremism under the pretext of “public health.” The committee cited the model of the “See Something, Say Something” campaign after 9/11, which was an initiative by the DHS to encourage American citizens to report potential terror threats. /1?EXCLUSIVE?Internal docs from Biden’s DHS show their plans to target Trump supports as domestic extremists. The Brennan-Clapper intel group discussed how “most of the domestic terrorism threat now comes from supporters of the former president.” #DeepStateDiaries PART 2: pic.twitter.com/q2HcoAe2Kd— America First Legal (@America1stLegal) June 21, 2024 The DHS panel was shut down following a lawsuit from America First Legal in conjunction with former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell. The lawsuit alleged the group violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs how federal advisory committees can legally operate. Brennan and Clapper were also signatories of the 2020 letter that alleged the Hunter Biden laptop contents may have been part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The contents of the laptop were verified by the Daily Caller News Foundation along with other media outlets. The DHS did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Biden DHS Board Painted Trump Supporters, Military, and Religious People as Potential Terror Risk, Docs Show appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Jilly From Philly Campaigns for Abortion on Second Anniversary of Dobbs Decision

Now the Climate Protesters Are Angry About... Golf?

Beware the liberal networks when they turn to "presidential historians" to preview a presidential debate, because the experts are dependably Democrats. On Sunday's This Week on ABC, host Martha Raddatz brought out Doris Kearns Goodwin and Jon Meacham, and she at least explained Meacham has been a Biden adviser and speechwriter. Pollster Frank Luntz rounded out the panel.  What you could expect, then, is Meacham's usual lecture about how this is not democracy on display with two sides. Democracy is behind one podium (his candidate Biden) and Autocracy has a menacing glare behind the other (Trump). One side has a statesman, and the other side has a spoiled child. The spin is that aggressive.  “What Pres Biden’s done is he has successfully child-proofed the debate stage for former President Trump who is responsible for this uncivil tone on the stage...This is not a both sides issue...We have defined deviancy down, but that is not Biden’s fault” – Jon Meacham #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/1m9m0JFio8 — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) June 23, 2024 MARTHA RADDATZ: And, Jon, I want to go to you. As we said, you have informally been advising President Biden. It was his proposal to change the rules, early debate, muted mics, no audience. How big a difference do you think that will make? JON MEACHAM, ': I think it will be huge because it actually -- what President Biden's done is he has successfully child-proofed the debate stage for former President Trump who is responsible for this uncivil tone on the stage. Let's be very clear here. This is not a both sides issue. Martha, you've moderated debates with President Biden -- Vice President Biden in them. There has been as Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out, we have defined deviancy down, it’s true, but that is not President Biden's fault. And I think what he has done is rendered a public service, he and his team, in bringing some constraints to the debate to actually allow there to be a conversation that is not simply performative.  American democracy is not a reality show, and Donald Trump has treated it that way for almost ten years now. So, let's not -- let's not kid ourselves here. This is a vital election. Both sides are not equally at fault. President Biden, seems to me, what he has to do is show people that he is fully in command which I believe him to be, and remind us that there is a way in which the presidency should operate, that is -- one’s dignified and decent, and delivers for the American people. Biden is eternally "dignified and decent," no matter how many times he smears Republicans, or how many times he enabled his son to make millions in foreign influence-pedding that was wasted on crack and hookers.  Raddatz then repeated "I know you're advising Biden," but asked what advice he would give Trump who "needs moderates, but he's a hard guy to moderate."  “I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican.” More of the usual BS from “informal” Biden adviser Jon Meacham on @ThisWeekABC: “I have a personal...devotion to, if I may, the Constitution, the constitutional order....That’s what’s at stake here.” #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/vhaW2MW5Xl — Brent Baker ?? ?? (@BrentHBaker) June 23, 2024 MEACHAM: I think that may win the understatement of the week award. Donald Trump's hard to moderate. I don't think President Trump would welcome my counsel, but I think you just answered the question. If he can (INAUDIBLE) to show that perhaps his illiberal, anti-democratic impulses are, in fact, in check, then perhaps that reaches people. I have to say – look, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I voted for candidates of both parties. He's advising the Democrat, but he's not a Democrat? Always throw a follow-up on this claim. Which Republican have you ever voted for, sir? With a secret ballot, would we ever know if he's lying? But it gets worse. Meacham says he's for the Constitution, not so much for Biden!  MEACHAM: I have a personal – as does everyone here – devotion to, if I may, the Constitution, the constitutional order that Doris has written about so beautifully for so long. That's what's at stake here. It's not just a set of policies here and policy there. This is not about marginal tax rates at this point. It's about which vision of America. And a vision of America, where we are, in fact, pursuing a more perfect union, or is it about conceding that one party, one interest, one man should be in control of everything? And it's not a choice that we faced before. Although liberals tag Frank Luntz as a Republican, he seemed incapable of offering anything but his own worries about how the debate might hurt democracy. He didn't offer any opposition to Meacham's huffy hot takes. 

Washington state's Republican-backed Initiative 2081, referred to as "A Parents' Bill of Rights," was approved earlier this year by the state legislature in two landslide votes. The Democrats who control both chambers apparently permitted it through knowing they will likely be able to transmogrify it in the next legislative session. Nevertheless, to the chagrin of leftists and other groups ostensibly keen on cleaving children from their parents, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh's Initiative 2081 became law on June 6. The law declares 15 rights that parents and guardians of public school children necessarily have, such as the right to: examine textbooks and curricular materials used in their kid's classroom; inspect their kid's public school records, including their health, academic, mental health counseling, vocational counseling, and disciplinary records; receive prior notification when medical services are being offered to their child, except in the cases of emergency medical treatment; receive immediate notification if their child is being taken or removed from campus without their permission; receive assurance that their kid's school won't discriminate against their child based on the family's religious beliefs; and receive written notice and opt out of student engagements that include questions about the child's sexuality and sexual experiences or the family's moral and political views. Walsh underscored that the focus of all the elements of the bill was information. "Custodial parents and guardians cannot be kept in the dark about what their minor children are going through in their lives," Walsh said last month. "Parents have to be told — whether it's things happening at school or things happening in the healthcare or mental healthcare space connected with school, or really anything affecting a minor child." The legal acknowledgement of such natural rights in a state where the family is otherwise under siege prompted legal action from a number of radical LGBT organizations, represented ultimately by the activist firms QLaw and Legal Voice along with the ACLU of Washington. They sued last month to halt the implementation of the initiative. This week, a judge granted them a minor victory. Upon filing their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the legislation in the Superior Court of Washington for King County on behalf of various LGBT groups, the pair of legal outfits and the ACLU of Washington recycled debunked rhetoric intimating that a failure to allow kids to transition at school behind their parents' backs and receive "affirmation" with the help from adults outside the family would result in "irreparable harm." Adrien Leavitt, staff attorney for the state chapter of the ACLU, claimed, "The initiative passed because of deception and confusion, and it will cause life-altering negative outcomes for queer and trans students if it is implemented." According to their complaint, the Parents' Bill of Rights "undermines, contradicts, and amends numerous laws that protect students' rights to privacy, healthcare, education, and an affirming and inclusive school environment." On Friday, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott, appointed to the bench by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee in 2018, granted a temporary block against parts of the law. Specifically, Scott blocked the requirement that parents are to be granted access to all of their children's medical and mental health counseling records and the requirement that school districts promptly turn such records over, reported the Washington State Standard. Most parts of the Parents' Bill of Right will, however, remain in place for the time being. While Scott figured the plaintiffs had done enough to demonstrate harm and potential unconstitutionality, he stressed, "It's not this court's position to determine whether that's good policy or not." In response to Scott's ruling, Leavitt intimated in a statement it's not enough for parents to only partially be left in the dark. 'It is the student's decision when and if their gender identity is shared, and with whom.' "We are pleased with this ruling as it will prevent parts of I-2081 from causing further harm while we seek a final decision in this case — but this is not the end," said Leavitt. "We will keep fighting this case in hopes of a final judgment that shows this harmful law violates the State Constitution and should not be implemented or enforced." Walsh, meanwhile, indicated he was "encouraged that the judge left the bulk of the parents' bill of rights in place," reported the Seattle Times. Democratic State Superintendent Chris Reykdal indicated that while the court did not block the remainder of Initiative 2081, he would effectively usurp the power of lawmakers and instruct Washington school districts not to apply aspects of the law. "Until additional clarity is provided on the areas where the initiative conflicts with existing state and federal law, school districts should not make changes to any policies and procedures that are implicated by the conflicting sets of law," Reykdal said in a statement. "When in doubt, school districts should follow federal privacy laws." In his statement, Reykdal also emphasized that schools don't have to disclose a student's transvestism at school to their parents. “Our state's guidance has maintained that, in order to protect student privacy and safety, schools should communicate with students who disclose they are transgender or gender expansive about the student's individual needs, preferences, and safety concerns," Reykdal continued. "It is the student's decision when and if their gender identity is shared, and with whom." Brian Heywood, a businessman from Redmond who helped bankroll the effort to advance Initiative 2081, suggested Reykdal was actively "shredding democracy." "WA state Superintendent of Schools believes he is above the law and that the state knows better than parents what is best for your children," added Heywood. "In November he needs to go." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!