For generations, Columbus Day stood as a proud national holiday, celebrating the Italian explorer’s daring voyage across the Atlantic, which set the stage for the later establishment of the North American colonies that birthed the United States. His legacy includes the District of Columbia, which hosts the nation’s capital, and the state capitals of Columbus, Ohio, and Columbia, South Carolina—but the man, and his holiday, faced a sustained, relentless assault from woke activists and academics over recent years.
Democrats enthusiastically encouraged and even participated in this assault, with Joe Biden proclaiming the rival Indigenous Peoples’ Day on his first year in office, following Democrat-led states such as California, Maine, and New Mexico. Sometimes, the tearing down of Columbus’s legacy has been literal rather than merely figurative, with at least 33 statues of the explorer pulled down by mobs or removed by craven local officials during the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020.
In many ways, the elevation of Indigenous Peoples’ Day as a de facto Anti-Columbus Day was the high point of the leftist culture of national self-loathing, smearing the United States as not just a country with a shameful, ugly history, but as a country that should not even exist. That’s why President Trump’s pledge to bring the holiday “back from the ashes” in April was so significant, and why the presidential proclamation that followed through on that pledge last week was so important.
The proclamation is unambiguous: Columbus is “the original American hero,” who “carried thousands of years of wisdom, philosophy, reason, and culture across the Atlantic into the Americas — paving the way for the ultimate triumph of Western civilization less than three centuries later on July 4, 1776.”
The anti-Columbus movement is denounced in no uncertain terms as a “vicious and merciless campaign to erase our history, slander our heroes, and attack our heritage.”
Politics, as the saying goes, is downstream from culture. The polluted waters of the old culture of self-loathing were producing a polluted politics in America, characterized by trampled borders and a loss of national confidence, national identity, and national cohesion.
The reclamation of Columbus Day is a standing rebuke to that era of decline, and you should make sure you celebrate it today.
President Trump just signed a proclamation bringing back Columbus Day:
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.
show less
For generations, Columbus Day stood as a proud national holiday, celebrating the Italian explorer’s daring voyage across the Atlantic, which set the stage for the later establishment of the North American colonies that birthed the United States. His legacy includes the District of Columbia, which hosts the nation's capital, and the state capitals of Columbus, Ohio, and Columbia, South Carolina—but the man, and his holiday, faced a sustained, relentless assault from woke activists and academics over recent years.
show more
Somewhere along the way, Taylor Swift told an entire generation of women they don’t need a man. She began her career with hopeful love songs — the kind that believed in happy endings — and then, like much of culture, pivoted. Her music shifted from soft romanticism to the soundtrack of grievance: albums about how she’d be more famous if she were a man, how her exes were villains, and how girl power was the supreme virtue.
This past week, Swift released The Life of a Showgirl, right after getting engaged to the man she plans to spend her life with. The tone is completely different. She’s writing lyrics like, “When I said I don’t believe in marriage, that was a lie,” and “I just want you, have a couple kids, got the whole block looking like you.”It’s a love letter to commitment — to home, family, and peace. She even draws from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, styling herself as Ophelia, only this time rewriting her fate: she doesn’t drown. She chooses to live.
It’s not that Swift never wrote about love before. But her previous “romantic” eras were laced with self-focus and politics — songs like “ME!” and “You Need to Calm Down” — the latter a not-so-subtle anti-Trump anthem. Even when she sang about love, it was filtered through control, independence, and self-image. Her song “Peace” confessed, “Would it be enough if I could never give you peace?” But on this new record, we hear something we have never heard: humility. Reverence. A woman who finally sounds at peace with wanting traditional things.
Taylor Swift is brilliant at marketing, and much of her career is predicated on existing culture, but the responsibility of leaning into this is enormous. She is a large part of the culture that made her the feminist prophet of a generation. Artists evolve, yes — but for years, her message helped steer millions of women toward isolation and resentment disguised as empowerment. Many of those women are now in their 30s, wondering why “doing it all” feels so empty. They were told independence was freedom — when in reality, it often became loneliness. And now, Taylor Swift, of all people, seems to be quietly confessing that she wanted what they were told not to: true, lasting love.
The big Millennial lie is that you cannot “have it all” as a woman, as reflected in Swift’s songs. I recently gave an interview to a large outlet about the so-called “trad-wife” movement in culture. I was asked what it meant, how I balanced aspects of my own life, how I could have a career while advocating for traditional gender roles, whether I thought marriage and kids got in the way of that career (spoiler: they do not), why I think seemingly arbitrary acts, like making dinner for your significant other despite busy schedules, are vital to building a home to return to, and why I believe women can, in fact, have it all.
The women misled by the feminist movement are either utterly fascinated, harshly critical, or both, about the choices women make to pursue happiness, the conservative push to get married and have children, often calling it archaic or misogynistic. Yet, most women I know, of all opinions and creeds, consider the most attractive thing a man can do is to have the desire and leadership to marry you, raise children with you, and grow old with you.
Taylor Swift is at the absolute height of her career: the biggest tour in history, a record-breaking concert film, TIME’s Person of the Year, and a self-made billionaire. With all of those accolades to her name and arguably the most successful period of her career, what was her highest priority this past year? Showing up for her boyfriend’s football games. To the outrage of sports fans and the surprise of feminists — she’s choosing love. And rightly so.
With all the freedom and resources in the world, Swift is choosing what matters most — a life of family and stability, not perpetual self-worship. She’s led a generation to cat-lady level acceptance of loneliness, but she herself is choosing a home at the end of a cul-de-sac, a basketball hoop in the driveway, and kids who look like both of them. In all fairness to her, it seems she is also struck at how she’s changed from finding someone she truly loves, noting in an October 6th interview on SiriusXM that she had captioned a July 4th post with the caption “independent girlies” and saying, “how deranged is that post?” as all of the women in the photo found love shortly after, notably Swift, who met Travis four days after.
This raises the question – maybe those who are so angry about love and domesticity just haven’t found it yet?
The left, naturally, is calling this album a departure from the Swift they know and love, with one online account even posting that she sounds like a “whiny white Republican” now, surrounded by conservatives. Politically speaking, I’m glad this person associates family and good values with a particular party. Yet, I’m saddened for society that we’ve drifted so far as to tie tangible love and happiness to one side, and perplexed that the left finds the shift to traditional values a betrayal.
Here’s the truth: finding a partner who leads and supports you, building a home together, and raising children if you’re able — those are the deepest forms of fulfillment. No amount of career success or independence can replicate the joy of belonging to someone and something bigger than yourself. Feminism robbed women of that by design. It wasn’t about freedom — it was about control. Encouraging women to leave the home and making them grateful for it was one of the most successful social engineering projects in modern history.
And now, whether she meant to or not, the architect of feminist culture herself is helping undo it.
I see this as a glimmer of hope that culture, upstream from politics, will turn even the most anti-traditionalists into believers, continuing to usher in the most conservative boom we’ve seen in decades. It is common sense to reject a culture that tells you that you will be happier alone and angry.
Thank you, Taylor Swift. You’ve just reminded a generation that the truest form of rebellion isn’t rage — it’s love, being a hopeful romantic isn’t outdated; it’s timeless, and the new punk rock is going to the farmers market and making sourdough for your family.
Alexis Wilkins is a political commentator, contributor, and recording artist whose work bridges media, policy, and cultural influence. Operating at the intersection of communications and cultural movement, Alexis has advised national organizations and political leaders on strategy, crisis management, and cultural messaging. Alexis has also played a key role in advancing initiatives such as American Border Story, which highlights the human and national security costs of America’s border crisis, is a Senior Fellow with The American Principles Project, and additionally, she serves on the board of the National Rifle Association, where she contributes to efforts aimed at modernizing outreach and expanding engagement with women, young people, and emerging audiences.
show less
Somewhere along the way, Taylor Swift told an entire generation of women they don’t need a man. She began her career with hopeful love songs — the kind that believed in happy endings — and then, like much of culture, pivoted. Her music shifted from soft romanticism to the soundtrack of grievance: albums about how she’d be more famous if she were a man, how her exes were villains, and how girl power was the supreme virtue.
Amidst so much negativity, especially online, I decided to honor my friend Charlie Kirk last weekend in a slightly more upbeat way: by raising over $20,000 for U.S. service veterans via the Tunnel to Towers run in New York.
In case you hadn’t yet seen it, here’s my behind-the-scenes video of the entire weekend. I hope you can like it, share it, leave a comment, and subscribe on YouTube – and I especially hope you will consider a donation to Tunnel to Towers, an excellent A+ rated charity that I have supported for half a decade now.
show less
Amidst so much negativity, especially online, I decided to honor my friend Charlie Kirk last weekend in a slightly more upbeat way: by raising over $20,000 for U.S. service veterans via the Tunnel to Towers run in New York.
show more
Senate Republicans have an incredible opportunity to help advance the Second Amendment by confirming Professor Jennifer Mascott to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before October 15. On that date, the court will hear arguments in an “assault weapon” ban case with enormous implications for our right to keep and bear arms. The argument concerns whether New Jersey’s ban on AR-15s, semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity magazines is constitutional. Confirming Mascott would give Republican appointees a 9-6 majority on that court. A Second Amendment victory in the case would create a circuit split among lower courts, likely compelling the Supreme Court to take up the “assault weapon” ban issue.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered rehearing en banc in the consolidated cases of Cheeseman v. Attorney General of New Jersey and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey (together, “Cheeseman”). These cases arguably implicate the hottest Second Amendment questions percolating in the courts: the constitutionality of bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines.
Although there is now a slight Republican majority on the Third Circuit, confirming Mascott by October 15 might be helpful. If she is not confirmed by then, the court will be split 8-6 for Republicans going into the Cheeseman hearing. Thus, if even one Republican judge voted to uphold New Jersey’s gun ban, the law would be upheld by a 7-7 vote, thereby affirming a lower court’s earlier ruling. But if Mascott is confirmed promptly, the ban might be struck down (8 votes to 7) even if one Republican votes for the ban.
To break down the court’s composition, there will be eight Republican appointees on the Third Circuit en banc panel: Chief Judge Michael Chagares (W. Bush), Thomas Hardiman (W. Bush), D. Brooks Smith (W. Bush), Stephanos Bibas (Trump), David Porter (Trump), Paul Matey (Trump), Peter Phipps (Trump), and the newly-confirmed Emil Bove (Trump). Despite his “senior status,” Judge Smith can participate on the en banc panel because he sat on the three-judge panel initially presiding over the case.
The Third Circuit’s six Democratic appointees are Patty Shwartz (Obama), Cheryl Krause (Obama), Felipe Restrepo (Obama), Arianna Freeman (Biden), Tamika Montgomery-Reeves (Biden), and Cindy Chung (Biden).
Winning in the Third Circuit is especially important for the right to bear arms because a decision favorable to the Second Amendment would create a circuit split over whether ordinary semi-automatic rifles and magazines may be constitutionally banned. The Third Circuit’s decision would directly conflict with decisions from the First, Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. Such a split of authority in the lower federal court would dramatically increase the chances of SCOTUS agreeing to hear an “assault weapon ban” case to resolve the split.
The Third Circuit is uniquely situated to protect the Second Amendment. It is the only court where you have a Republican majority overseeing a progressive “blue state” known for being vehemently anti-gun, i.e., New Jersey. There’s no other similar “federal appeals court-to-state” dynamic. The best circuit for the Second Amendment is the Fifth Circuit. Still, that court covers the red states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, three states that would never pass a blatantly unconstitutional law as an AR-15 ban. Thus, winning at the Third Circuit is crucial to maximizing the odds of Supreme Court review. This makes Mascott’s speedy confirmation imperative.
Mascott’s nomination should sail through the U.S. Senate given her elite credentials. She serves in the White House Counsel’s office, previously clerking for Justice Clarence Thomas and then-Judge Kavanaugh when he served on the D.C. Circuit. Before joining the Catholic Law School, she was a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. Mascott has strong originalist bona fides and has even praised Justice Thomas’s desire for the Supreme Court to take more Second Amendment cases, noting that the Second Amendment is “often undervalued by the judiciary.” If confirmed, Mascott will likely be a strong voice for restoring the Second Amendment as originally understood by our Founders to modern American life.
From the Senate’s point of view, Mascott’s nomination presents a perfect opportunity for Majority Leader John Thune and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to reaffirm their commitment to expediting important judicial nominees through the process.
The Cheeseman case offers a golden opportunity for Second Amendment advocates to win on whether the Constitution protects the most popular rifle in America. The obvious answer is yes, and the Third Circuit has a chance to say as much. However, there is no margin for error with an 8-6 split on the court. As such, the Senate must confirm Jennifer Mascott before October 15 to increase the odds of victory and vindicate our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
show less
Senate Republicans have an incredible opportunity to help advance the Second Amendment by confirming Professor Jennifer Mascott to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals before October 15. On that date, the court will hear arguments in an “assault weapon” ban case with enormous implications for our right to keep and bear arms. The argument concerns whether New Jersey’s ban on AR-15s, semi-automatic rifles, and standard capacity magazines is constitutional. Confirming Mascott would give Republican appointees a 9-6 majority on that court. A Second Amendment victory in the case would create a circuit split among lower courts, likely compelling the Supreme Court to take up the “assault weapon” ban issue.
Big Tech companies have enveloped every aspect of our lives. There is no escaping them. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, these platforms are “the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”
Unfortunately, platforms can use their respective monopoly power to remove you based on your skin color, sexual orientation, or political views. Why? Because there exists no true competition to their services. As Justice Clarence Thomas lamented in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, we can’t get our news anywhere else as Big Tech’s “network effects entrench these companies” to be our only providers to our news and information. Worse, we give them legal immunity via Section 230 of the Communications Act when doing so.
This concentration needs to be broken up.
One of the most effective tools to address this type of corporate gatekeeping is to treat these firms as common carriers. That designation prevents monopolies from arbitrarily or wantonly denying us access to vital public services, such as public squares.
For the unfamiliar, a common carrier is a person or entity that transports people or property and one that publicly advertises that it does so impartially.
The concept may seem foreign, but you have already benefited from common carriage regulations, especially if you have ever ridden in an airplane or sent a package. For example, an airline (one type of common carrier) cannot refuse you service based on your race, gender, or even political affiliation. Nor can FedEx (another example of a common carrier) deny you service or discriminate against you based on your political beliefs.
Applying those same obligations to Big Tech platforms that have a strong track record of denying services or censoring based solely on their political leanings is long overdue.
The good news is that states are waking up.
Indeed, Ohio’s Attorney General Dave Yost sought a declaratory judgment to treat Google as a common carrier to ensure Buckeyes get fair and honest results when using its Search. AG Yost’s case asks a foundational question: why should it be the case that Google, a bona fide monopolist, be allowed to force-feed you biased feeds or deny you access to information that you want to see?
AG Yost isn’t tilting at windmills here. Google’s total dominion over the search market is tantamount to it having total dominion over our access to vital information. Worse, Google exercises its self-serving censorship abilities with reckless abandon. Given that Google has positioned itself as the arbiter of what information we receive, we need guardrails, like common carrier obligations, to quell the concern.
Yet, Ohio Judge James Schuck doesn’t think Google is a common carrier and has halted AG Yost’s case. He listed two rationales as to why. He first contended that Google “doesn’t transport property.”
But that’s an absurd proposition as Google transports tons of property. Your data being chief among them. Yes, your data is your property and the law recognizes it as such. For example, we enact privacy laws and protect intellectual property to entitle us to dictate how companies can use our data. Our data is the currency of the internet. Even Google recognizes it as property, because if they didn’t, then they would have no need for you to sign a privacy policy or terms of service to hand your data over to them.
Judge Schuck’s second justification was that Google doesn’t hold itself out to be indifferent.
Again, this is another odd claim as it directly contradicts Google’s representations in other court proceedings. Especially in those proceedings where Google invokes legal immunities reserved for passive communications systems, specifically Section 230 (located in the “Common Carrier” title of the Communications Act mind you). As Former Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)—generally credited as the authors of Section 230—explain: “Section 230 is not the source of legal protection for platforms that wish to express a point of view.” Thus, Google’s immunity sought under Section 230 requires its indifference.
Even better for Yost’s case, Google goes further by fervently arguing that it does not materially contribute to the speech on their platforms—even when they engage in promoting, blocking, elevating, highlighting, monetizing, de-monetizing, or otherwise pushing that content. Google argued that precisely in Gonzalez v. Google where it asserted that it was not engaging in speech when using its editorial discretion to push ISIS videos nor was it engaging in speech activities when the platform failed to delete those videos.
The Judge in this case flagrantly ignored all of this when issuing his opinion.
As Americans, we fight against concentrated authority, not embrace it. Just look at the structure of our Constitution, which is premised on the need for a separation of powers to ensure that not one branch of government can run roughshod on our democratic process. The same is true for private monopolies—or, as James Madison described them, the “greatest nuisances in Government.” The framers felt that, if left unchecked, monopolies could amass more power than the government itself. It is why we have legal tools and principles, such as common carriage obligations, to thwart the threat they pose to our way of life, especially the ones presented by Google’s monopolization.
For these reasons, the judge is wrong here. Google is a common carrier by every conceivable metric.
show less
Big Tech companies have enveloped every aspect of our lives. There is no escaping them. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, these platforms are “the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”
Two weeks ago, Britain’s tabloid Daily Mail, which has offices and a surfeit of staff across America, popped a “silly season” story about an anonymous source telling them that Stephen K. Bannon was “plotting a sensational run for president in 2028.” These stories aren’t new, with POLITICO running a similar piece in March. It should…
Two weeks ago, Britain's tabloid Daily Mail, which has offices and a surfeit of staff across America, popped a "silly season" story about an anonymous source telling them that Stephen K. Bannon was "plotting a sensational run for president in 2028."
show more
Nigel Farage deserves to become Prime Minister in 2029, and the British people deserve him in return. But before he reaches the door of 10 Downing Street, he’ll have to make some headway in public perception on Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).
Right now, polling shows that while Britons back Farage and his Reform party on immigration, law and order, and Brexit, they have some way to go on healthcare, education, and the economy in general.
But instead of the usual political tributes to what has long been a national religion in the United Kingdom, the NHS, Farage and his team should start talking about what’s killing Britons: a government that refuses to spend responsibly on life-saving drugs.
The public already knows the NHS is broken. Still, the mindrotting propaganda regarding workable solutions has progressed so much that even four in 10 Reform Party voters recently said they would be “less likely to support Nigel Farage’s party if it proposed to change the NHS to an insurance-based model.”
That indicates a remarkably intransigent voting public, attached more to the founding concept of the 77-year-old institution than its outcomes or current state. In many cases, people don’t know much better. They hear tell of skyrocketing American healthcare costs and are told, usually by those with a vested interest in the socialized system, that this is their only other choice. That is nonsense, of course. But the specter of privatization looms too perilous to conceive of alternatives. Better to grin and bear it. Stiff upper lip. The old blitz spirit.
But Britain isn’t being bombarded by the Luftwaffe. And yet, there’s rationing, eight million people on waiting lists, 14,000 deaths in Accident and Emergency queues last year alone, drug shortages, and no accountability for decades.
Reform for Britain’s health system is still the third rail for many politicians. But if the Reform Party is going to be true to its purpose, it must seek to reform all of broken Britain, not just what is politically easy.
NOT SO NICE.
For decades, NHS drug policy has been governed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which uses a crude cost-effectiveness formula to decide whether a medicine is “worth” funding. If a new treatment doesn’t deliver one year of “perfect health” for less than £30,000 ($40,000), it is rejected.
That threshold was set in 1999 and hasn’t been adjusted for inflation in 25 years. Today, it would be over £53,000 — a change that could’ve saved countless lives.
Instead, NICE blocked an Alzheimer’s drug that slows progression. It denied a breast cancer drug that doubled survival rates. It stood between British patients and the treatments transforming outcomes in the United States and beyond.
People are forced to ration cystic fibrosis pills because they’re afraid of running out. ADHD patients are self-medicating. Pancreatic cancer survivors trade black-market Creon on Instagram because NHS supply chains are so brittle that they collapse at the first strain.
TRUMP’S TRADE DEAL.
Earlier this year, President Donald J. Trump penned a trade deal with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, including a bold provision: the NHS would review its drug procurement rules to allow greater access for American-made, cutting-edge drugs.
Derided by the usual suspects — Guardian columnists, bureaucrats, even some Tories — as a backdoor for “American pharma greed,” the deal simply removes artificial barriers that prevent Brits from accessing treatments already available to Americans, Israelis, and Australians, to name a few.
Starmer agreed to “endeavour to improve the overall environment, ” which, for him, is actually a pretty good start. But it will take real political courage to go further — to reform NICE, diversify procurement, raise the cost thresholds, let pharmacists prescribe alternatives during shortages, and stop pretending you can run a modern healthcare system like it’s the early 1950s.
MAHA INTERNATIONAL.
Of course, it’s not just about drugs. But an overall healthier Britain should be high up the Reform Party’s agenda. A ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement for the UK. Ditch the seed oils. Ban harmful chemicals. Encourage exercise. Let Britons be masters of their own bodies again.
Healthcare reform — genuine, honest, radical reform — is the last great unclaimed battlefield in British politics. Labour won’t touch it. The Tories did little in 14 years of government besides raising general budgets and hoping the bureaucrats would solve the problems.
This allows Nigel Farage to walk right through the gap and speak to a national truth no one else will: “I’m not here to privatize the NHS. I’m here to make sure it can save your life.”
That’s how you win the “bills and blue lights” voters, who are currently telling pollsters they are most concerned about two major policy areas: the economy and emergency services.
That’s how you fix a country on the brink. And that’s how Farage can take his already successful movement into government.
Picture credit: @IncMonocle, Stuart Mitchell, used with permission.
show less
Nigel Farage deserves to become Prime Minister in 2029, and the British people deserve him in return. But before he reaches the door of 10 Downing Street, he'll have to make some headway in public perception on Britain's National Health Service (NHS).
The National Pulse surveyed its readers this week, asking how the long-standing MAGA base feels about the second Trump administration, six months into its job.
Our goal was simple: assess the base—not the polling average or the Beltway influencers—the base—the people who show up, remember, and expect.
Of those surveyed, 70 percent said the Trump administration is doing “great,” with 13 percent calling it “perfect,” per their expectations. A further 14 percent went with “good/decent.” Only one percent each said “below average” or “poor.”
However, support was rarely unqualified. Many of the most engaged responses came from people who supported the administration and demanded more.
Another wrote: “Waiting for arrests of many government officials who committed fraud or treason.”
A third: “The courts need to be reigned in. Roberts needs to do a better job or put someone in as Chief who will.”
And a fourth: “NO ONE in DC has ANY sense of urgency in this deep state matter. It has been 6 months and Trump still doesn’t have his entire administration in place, how many appointments is the Senate sitting on? Why? No sense of urgency.”
The National Pulse has thousands of members all across America and the Western world. Join here for exclusive e-mail insights to your inbox, invitations and offers, a members-only comment section, a Discord chat channel, and more…
PRIORITIES.
Immigration and deep state prosecutions appeared frequently, with one respondent stating: “Deport more illegals and arrest more anti-American enemies of the state.”
Another: “No Amnesty, but I think he said that. [Fewer] H1B visas. Not sure why we’re still supporting Ukraine.”
Another added: “FULL EPSTEIN DISCLOSURE!!! Let the [chips] fall where they may. Redacting names of the innocent is okay, but clearing them by name is better. My preference is to seek Deep State indictments immediately (outside D.C. where possible): otherwise, to appoint a high-level Special Counsel approved by Trump AND Tom Fitton for a time-limited one-year action-oriented investigation.”
Despite the forcefulness of that comment, many also expressed sympathy towards the admin on the subject.
EPSTEIN.
“Epstein needs better explanation for the memo. If documents have been destroyed, say so,” one of you wrote, with another adding: “Trying to bury the Epstein files is a disaster for Trump and the MAGA movement.
“Such an avoidable self own in regards to Epstein, a sad letdown from an admin that campaigns itself on ridding us of the deep state. Epstein and his ilk ARE the deep state. The handling of Epstein has shaken my confidence in holding the Obama admin accountable.”
Another wrote: “I’m conflicted re Epstein, mad that the mishandling by Bondi has given the Dems so much narrative. X is full of lefties calling Trump a pedo and MAGA pedo lovers.”
Others amongst you take a different view: “I think the latest on the Obama cover-up is far more important than Epstein. I also believe that the Obama cover-up will reveal more into Epstein. And we need to remember, children are being rescued by our, now awesome, FBI, under Patel and Bongino. I am a ‘trust the plan’ person. I have watched Trump over the last 10 years and he’s been right about everything. I have not wavered in my support. The greatest crime in history is what Obama and company did to this country. Epstein, while sick and demented, is just a small piece. I think the goal has always been to reveal Obama and company as the true traitors to this country.”
One respondent wrote: “Far too much emphasis by the MAGA ‘influencers’ on the Epstein files—not a hill to die on—have to pick their battles—much more important issues like potential DOJ prosecution of Clapper et al.”
FOREIGN POLICY.
Foreign policy—particularly Iran, Ukraine, and Israel—came up frequently.
It’s important to remember that this survey was fairly open-ended. Respondents were able to write paragraphs outlining their views rather than being confined to a narrow set of multiple-choice answers like in a political poll. This allows for greater nuance and sentiment analysis.
One member wrote: “Bombing Iran has been a hard sell to the 25 yr old set. And the continued enthusiastic support of Israel. It’s hard to explain to [people] who just expect a magic wand and make it all better right away. (I look at my oldest son to gauge things—I’m more pragmatic…I think he’s great, we need more deportations and [fewer] missteps with Iran, Ukraine, and Israel. Same with Epstein. It’s a symbol of the corruption, and it overshadows all the good happening.)”
Others were more succinct: “Ukraine!!! The Boss getting sucked in. WTF???”
Suggestions from a “below average” respondent: “Epstein, holding people accountable in previous administrations, holding people accountable for censorship, accountability for January 6 lies, stopping covid lies, pushing religious freedom.”
WHAT STANDS OUT.
Respondents were also asked about things that stood out to them, and who they either distrust and want removed, and who deserves more praise.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Vice President J.D. Vance were all on the receiving end of repeated praise across the data set.
Conversely, The National Pulse’s members appear least happy with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.
“Fire Susie Wiles. Cut off all funding for all wars.We are witnessing a purge of the non-interventionist antiwar faction from MAGA.Elon Musk will pick these folks up,” warned one long-standing MAGA supporter.
Praise was also forthcoming for border chief Tom Homan, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, ‘MAHA’ czar RFK Jr., and Senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt.
WATCHING. WAITING.
All in all, readers of The National Pulse seem pleased with the start, but don’t believe the administration has gone far enough yet, which is fair given the amount of time and roadblocks experienced. For those unfamiliar with the inner workings of the first Trump term, believe us, it was a lot slower out of the starting blocks which in turn led to Democrats and the deep state being easily able to block Trump at almost every juncture. This time, it’s different.
“I’m waiting for the U.S. Marshals to raid Obama’s, Hillary’s, Comey’s, etc, houses in the middle of the night and make Big Mike stand out in the road in her nightgown in front of CNN & God! Republicans are failing miserably,” said one. But not everyone is so skeptical.
“I am trying to trust Trump knows what he’s doing and how to do it,” said another, with a separate message stating: “I want to see people arrested, put on trial and if convicted appropriate consequences.”
In amongst the critiques, there are plenty of messages of support, not just for Trump, but for people like Steve Bannon, and indeed for The National Pulse.
THANK YOU.
Only by supporting The National Pulse can you keep this website up and keep this information unbiased.
“Keep up the great reporting.I am very satisfied with the investment I have made in your efforts albeit a modest one within my means.May you continue to succeed and prosper,” one of you kindly said.
“I enjoy your publication, as it doesn’t have constant ads popping up. Additionally, you are quite objective,” adds another.
“You are doing a great job Raheem and I always enjoy your email updates, thanks for letting us peek inside the machine,” another wrote, with some of you writing things that we can’t publish, to spare our blushes!
As for the person who asked, “What is Raheem’s favorite beverage of choice?” The answer at this point in life is Guinness. And for the person who wrote, “What about the identity of the J6 pipe bomber?” we agree entirely. What happened to that?
If you’re not already a member, join The National Pulse here, and remember to tell a friend if you are. Additionally, you can support us with one-off donations or recurring gifts here.
show less
The National Pulse surveyed its readers this week, asking how the long-standing MAGA base feels about the second Trump administration, six months into its job.
show more
Share Story
FacebookTwitterWhatsappTruthTelegramGettrCopy Link
Real News Fan? Show It!
Many people are shocked to learn that because of active censorship, we currently have to spend more time making sure you can even see The National Pulse, than on producing the news itself. Which sucks. Because we do this for the truth, and for you.
But the regime doesn’t want you being informed. That’s why they want us to go away. And that will happen if more people don’t sign up to support our work. It’s basic supply and demand. So demand you get to read The National Pulse, unrestricted. Sign up, today.
We don’t sell ads, and refuse corporate or political cash. It all comes down to you, the reader. I hope you can help.
