Friday, September 19, 2025

Federal Court Upholds Ban on Critical Race Theory in Schools.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A ban on critical race theory (CRT) in Arkansas schools has been successfully defended before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a three-judge panel from the 8th Circuit, and students challenging the law.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on Wednesday by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

💬KEY QUOTE: “With its ruling today, the 8th Circuit continues to ensure that the responsibility of setting the curriculum is in the hands of democratically elected officials who, by nature, are responsive to voters.” – Tim Griffin

🎯IMPACT: The ruling vacates a prior injunction and reinforces the state’s authority to determine school curricula.

IN FULL

The State of Arkansas successfully defended its ban on critical race theory in its schools before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel issued a ruling against a legal challenge brought by a group of students who contend the state ban violates their First Amendment rights.

“Since the Free Speech Clause does not give the students the right to compel the government to say something it does not wish to, they cannot show a likelihood of success,” the 8th Circuit ruling reads. Notably, there are long-standing legal precedents for schools and both the state and federal governments to limit the free speech rights of students.

The ruling was met with praise by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R), who stated on Wednesday: “With its ruling today, the 8th Circuit continues to ensure that the responsibility of setting the curriculum is in the hands of democratically elected officials who, by nature, are responsive to voters.”

Image by college.library.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more

Could This SCOTUS Case Limit the Need for SuperPACs and Dark Campaign Cash?

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court has agreed to review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, questioning whether these restrictions violate the First Amendment.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Republican Party political committees, Vice President J.D. Vance, former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Justice Department (DOJ).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Supreme Court will hear the case during its next term, with a decision expected before the 2026 midterm elections.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.” – GOP appeal filing

🎯IMPACT: The case could reshape campaign finance rules and affect the role of political parties in U.S. elections.

IN FULL

The Supreme Court announced it will review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, raising questions about whether such restrictions violate the First Amendment. The case will be heard in the court’s next term, with a decision anticipated just months before the 2026 midterm elections.

The case was brought by Republican political committees, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), along with Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). The Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined the GOP in arguing that the limits are unconstitutional. Democratic Party committees have been allowed to intervene to defend the law, as the government has declined to do so in this instance.

Notably, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Republican challenge, the legal changes would likely empower campaign committees directly under the control of political parties and actually reduce the influence of SuperPACs and dark money groups like the far-left Sixteen Thirty Fund. Since the high court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, outside political spending in elections has been taken over by well-financed consulting operations like the politically progressive Arabella Advisors, which controls a network of nonprofits—like the Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund—and political PACs.

The limits in question stem from a 50-year-old provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act. For the 2024 election cycle, coordinated spending limits range from $123,600 to $3.7 million for Senate candidates and $61,800 to $123,600 for House candidates. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit decision upheld these limits, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that supported an earlier version of the restrictions.

In their appeal, Republicans argued that the spending limits violate the First Amendment by restricting political parties’ ability to coordinate with candidates. They asked the Supreme Court to either clarify or overturn its 2001 decision, describing it as “plainly wrong the day it was decided.”

“Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,” the GOP filing contends, adding: “The result is a more polarized process in which political parties—an institutional force almost as old as ‘the formation of the Republic itself’—have been supplanted by less-restricted speakers.”

The DOJ, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stated that the expenditure limits burden the rights of political parties and candidates, calling the restrictions a significant impediment to political speech. Democratic Party committees stepped in to defend the law after the government sided with the Republicans. Noel Francisco and Don McGahn are representing the Republican campaign committees.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more

Trump DOJ Takes Democrat State to Court for Trying to Force Priests to Break Seal of Confession.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: The Department of Justice (DOJ) is launching legal action against Washington State for trying to force Catholic priests to violate the Seal of the Sacrament of Confession.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Washington State, Governor Bob Ferguson (D), the Roman Catholic Church, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The DOJ announced the lawsuit on June 25.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society.” – Harmeet K. Dhillon.

🎯IMPACT: The legal challenge could stop more states from attempting to force priests to violate the sacrament in the future by setting a legal precedent.

IN FULL

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched legal action against the State of Washington for trying to force Roman Catholic priests to break the Seal of Confession, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and religious freedom. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division explained that the bill forces Catholic priests to face criminal consequences for upholding their faith.

“Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,” Dhillon said.

Washington’s Senate Bill 5375 demands that Catholic priests violate the Seal of Confession if a confession pertains to child abuse or neglect. Importantly, Catholic priests are bound to the Seal of Confession and face excommunication and possible removal from the priesthood for breaking the seal. Nevertheless, those who refuse to violate the seal in Washington State could face prison time.

Democrat Governor Bob Ferguson, supposedly a Catholic himself, claimed he was “very familiar” with the sacrament when he signed the law last month. However, local Spokane Bishop Thomas Daly was defiant, saying no priest will break the Seal of Confession regardless of the law.

Assistant Attorney General Dhillon argued, “Where does it stop? Can we force everyone to report everything? That becomes compelled speech, which is unconstitutional. This country was built on protecting religious expression, not dismantling it.”

Image by Cottonbro Studio.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more

Vance Suspended by Bluesky After Praising SCOTUS Ruling on Transing Kids.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Vice President J.D. Vance’s account on Bluesky was suspended within minutes of its creation after his first post discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning the use of gender transition procedures on minors. It was later reversed.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Vice President J.D. Vance, Bluesky platform representatives, and the Supreme Court.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Wednesday, June 18, 2025, on the Bluesky social media platform.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I found Justice Thomas’s concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating. He argues that many of our so-called ‘experts’ have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth.” – J.D. Vance.

🎯IMPACT: The account suspension highlights concerns that Bluesky, a popular bolthole for leftists incensed by the less censored regime on X (formerly Twitter) under Elon Musk, is radicalizing users by fostering a far-left echo chamber. However, Bluesky contends the Vice President was suspended in error, and that they “welcome” him to “join the conversation.”

IN FULL

Vice President J.D. Vance was briefly suspended from Bluesky, a social media platform regarded as an explicitly leftist alternative to X (formerly Twitter), shortly after making his first post on Wednesday. The post addressed the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning the use of transgender medical treatments and surgeries on children.

Vance’s post included images of the 6-3 majority opinion, which stated that the regulation and legality of transgender treatments should be left to the individual states and not the federal government. He wrote, “I found Justice Thomas’s concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating. He argues that many of our so-called ‘experts’ have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth.”

Bluesky representatives claim that the suspension, which was eventually reversed, occurred due to automated systems mistakenly flagging Vance’s account as an impersonation attempt. Once reinstated, the account was given a verified badge to confirm its authenticity. A spokesman stated, “The account was quickly restored and verified so people can easily confirm its authenticity. We welcome the Vice President to join the conversation on Bluesky.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to impact similar laws in other states, with 25 states either enacting or proposing comparable legislation. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “The Court’s role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of [the Tennessee law], but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. It does not.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more

Trump Admin Threatens to Deny Visas to UK Government Censors.

PULSE POINTS:

What Happened: The Trump administration announced a visa ban targeting British officials involved in censoring American citizens, warning that foreign actors who trample free speech rights will no longer be welcome in the United States.

👤Who’s Involved: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, British media regulator Ofcom, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, and Lucy Connolly, a British mother imprisoned for a social media post.

🧾Key Quote: “We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech,” said Rubio.

⚠️Fallout: British officials were blindsided by the announcement and are scrambling for answers from the White House, as pro-censorship authorities face mounting scrutiny from Washington.

📌Significance: The move marks a sharp escalation in the Trump administration’s effort to push back against globalist speech controls and defend the First Amendment from foreign interference.

IN FULL:

British government officials involved in censoring American citizens could soon be barred from setting foot in the United States under a sweeping new measure from the Trump administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the visa restrictions on Wednesday, directly targeting foreign bureaucrats and regulators deemed “complicit in censoring” Americans online.

The policy appears to be aimed at Ofcom, the British government media regulator responsible for enforcing the controversial Online Safety Act—a law that critics say enables sweeping censorship and punishes American tech companies with massive fines. Under the legislation, platforms that fail to remove so-called “harmful content” face penalties of up to £18 million (~$24.4 million) or 10 percent of annual revenue, placing U.S.-based firms in the crosshairs of British law.

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio said. “It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil.”

The Trump administration has taken particular offense at the British government’s attempts to impose extra-territorial censorship, with Rubio adding: “It is… unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States.”

The announcement reportedly caught British officials off guard, with diplomats urgently seeking clarity from Washington. The warning comes just days after it was reported that the White House is actively “monitoring” the case of Lucy Connolly, a British mother sentenced to 31 months in prison for a social media post about a mass stabbing targeting young girls in Southport, England, perpetrated by the son of two African asylum seekers.

That case drew international concern after British officials threatened to prosecute or extradite Americans who violated their hate speech laws online. “We will throw the full force of the law at people,” warned Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley at the time. “Whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.”

In response, U.S. State Department officials from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor traveled to London in March. The diplomats reportedly met with pro-life activists—imprisoned for as little as silently praying inside their heads near abortionist clinics under laws restricting freedom of expression and religion.

The Vice President has taken a personal interest in censorship in Britain and Europe more broadly, warning during a speech in Germany, “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more

EU Funded $750M Anti-Free Speech Campaign.

PULSE POINTS:

What Happened: A report reveals the European Commission has spent nearly €649 million (~$736m) on projects aimed at regulating online speech under the guise of combating “hate speech” and “disinformation.”

👥 Who’s Involved: The European Commission, MCC Brussels think tank, and Dr. Norman Lewis, a digital communication and regulatory policy expert.

📍 Where & When: European Union (EU); report released recently by MCC Brussels.

💬 Key Quote: “This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus, where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission,” the report warns.

⚠️ Impact: The report alleges EU-funded programs erode free expression, prioritize censorship, and promote ideological conformity through taxpayer-funded initiatives.

IN FULL:

A newly released report alleges that the European Commission, the European Union’s unelected executive, has funneled the equivalent of around $736 million of taxpayer money into hundreds of projects designed to regulate online speech under the pretext of combating “hate speech” and “disinformation.”

The document, titled Manufacturing Misinformation: The EU-Funded Propaganda War Against Free Speech, was authored by Dr. Norman Lewis, a specialist in digital communication and regulatory policy, and published by the Hungarian think tank MCC Brussels. It accuses the Commission of promoting a “soft authoritarianism” by funding 349 projects through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and universities.

According to the report, this spending exceeds the EU’s annual budget for transnational cancer research by over 30 percent, a discrepancy the authors describe as deliberate. “The EU Commission regards stemming the cancer of free speech as more of a priority than the estimated 4.5 million new cancer cases and almost two million cancer deaths in Europe in 2022,” the report warns.

“This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus, where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission,” the report states.

The report criticizes the Commission’s use of vague, euphemistic language—dubbed “NEUspeak”—to obscure its intentions. Project names like FAST LISA and VIGILANT are described as deliberately misleading, with MCC Brussels stating that such initiatives aim to suppress politically undesirable speech in real time using artificial intelligence (AI).

“VIGILANT is an AI surveillance suite aimed at monitoring, classifying, and profiling speech, users, and networks,” the report states, contradicting claims from its designers that the system is ethical and user-focused.

The report further highlights programs targeting young people, which it describes as indoctrination disguised as civic education. These initiatives allegedly train youths to act as “speech police” in a system designed to enforce narrative compliance.

Dr. Lewis argues that taxpayer-funded research is being used to affirm political orthodoxy rather than encourage genuine inquiry. “Research that systematically ‘proves’ this assumption is not research; it is the manufacturing of propaganda,” he writes.

The alarming report comes as the EU routinely regulates speech on social media platforms. Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, previously stated that the EU had offered him an illegal secret deal to censor posts on the platform.

Image by dimitrisvetsikas1969.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more

UK Govt Tries to Force Foreign Companies to Curtail Free Speech.

PULSE POINTS:

What Happened: The United Kingdom’s (UK) government is enforcing its Online Safety Act 2023 globally, targeting foreign platforms like Gab and Kiwi Farms to comply with its online safety standards. Gab refuses to comply, facing potential penalties.

👥 Who’s Involved: The British government; U.S. social platform Gab and forum Kiwi Farms; the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom); Gab CEO Andrew Torba; the U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer; and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

📍 Where & When: The enforcement has started internationally in 2023; a specific notice was sent on March 26, 2025, for Gab to reply bizarelly by March 16.

💬 Key Quote: Gab’s statement declares, “We will not pay one cent,” emphasizing the refusal to comply with UK demands.

⚠️ Impact: The UK’s law attempt sets a precedent that could affect global platforms, leading to potential international trade retaliation and impacting the future of free expression online.

IN FULL:

The British government’s Online Safety Act 2023 is extending its reach beyond the country’s borders by asserting compliance demands on foreign-based platforms. Notable among these platforms are Gab and Kiwi Farms, both vocal advocates of free speech.

Critics argue that this campaign, under the guise of “online safety,” represents a form of government control over thought. The National Pulse previously reported that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance called out Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to his face for the “infringements on free speech” in the United Kingdom, as he pledged he would do in an exclusive interview with Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, in February.

Gab, an American company dedicated to First Amendment rights, is directly challenging the UK’s demands. The British Office of Communications (Ofcom) has threatened significant penalties against Gab, potentially amounting to £18 million (over $23 million USD) or 10 percent of worldwide revenue, for non-compliance with British regulations. In response, Gab has approached the United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and the Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking trade-related actions against the UK.

Gab CEO Andrew Torba has made the company’s position clear by publicly rejecting the demands. “We will not comply. We will not pay one cent,” Torba wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). He added, “We will defend our UK users’ right to speak freely and reject any law that compels censorship.”

A notice from Ofcom to Gab, issued on March 26, 2025, gave an impossible deadline of March 16, which Gab used to underscore its criticism of the oversight’s perceived arbitrary nature.

On a similar note, Kiwi Farms, known for its unmoderated content, has responded by cautioning UK visitors about the potential loss of privacy. The site warns users that British authorities could monitor their online actions without IP masking services like Cloudflare. It advises using VPNs or Tor and explicitly states its rejection of foreign censorship.

Supporters of free speech have criticized the Online Safety Act as part of broader efforts to control dissent online. Gab warns that yielding to such efforts could risk similar impacts across U.S. tech companies.

Image by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street.

show less

PULSE POINTS:

show more

Catholics Push Back Against Satanic ‘Black Mass’ at State Capitol.

Kansas is set to witness a confrontation over a satanic “black mass” planned to take place at the State Capitol in Topeka on March 28. The event, organized by The Satanic Grotto, has stirred opposition from local Catholics and the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP), a national Catholic group.

TFP has launched a nationwide petition urging Kansas Governor Laura Kelly to prevent the event, highlighting that it disrespects the beliefs of millions of Catholics worldwide and other religious groups. The petition, which as of now has gathered over 28,000 signatures, asserts that sacrilege should not be considered free speech. TFP has also planned a “rally of reparation” outside the Capitol for simultaneous prayer and atonement.

Chuck Weber, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, noted that bishops in the state are evaluating both spiritual and legal responses to the scheduled event. He emphasized that, if it proceeds, it signifies blatant anti-Catholic sentiment and insults people of good will. The group behind the event plans to use the grounds for satanic rites, as stated in a Facebook post.

TFP’s John Horvat publicly expressed his dismay over the use of the State Capitol Building for what he calls severe blasphemy. Horvat urged Americans to join in peaceful protest, sign the petition, and offer prayers, defending their faith against this occurrence.

Historical success in opposing similar events gives TFP hope; previous protests have led to the cancellation of a Harvard University “black mass” in 2014 and influenced a satanic conference to avoid Boston in 2024. Weber added that the Catholic Bishops of Kansas are calling for prayers for both the conversion of the event’s participants and for personal introspection during Lent.

show less
Kansas is set to witness a confrontation over a satanic “black mass” planned to take place at the State Capitol in Topeka on March 28. The event, organized by The Satanic Grotto, has stirred opposition from local Catholics and the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP), a national Catholic group. show more

WATCH: Vance Calls Out UK PM for ‘Infringements on Free Speech’ to His Face.

Vice President J.D. Vance has called out Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer for the “infringements on free speech” in the United Kingdom to his face, as he pledged he would do in an exclusive interview with Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, earlier this month.

“[W]e… know that there have been infringements of free speech that actually affect not just the British—of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them—but also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens, so that is something that we’ll talk about today at lunch,” the Vice President said at a media event alongside Starmer and President Donald J. Trump.

“We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in, in, the United Kingdom, and, uh, uh, it will last for a very, very long time,” Starmer stammers in response. “Certainly, we wouldn’t wanna reach across U.S. citizens, and we don’t, and that’s absolutely right,” he adds.

Britain does not, in fact, have free speech, with British citizens regularly being arrested, charged, and sometimes imprisoned for various speech crimes. These include sending “grossly offensive” messages and, in at least one case, simply sharing “a social media post containing inaccurate information.”

The country’s previous Conservative Party government explicitly rejected a petition for a Free Speech Act abolishing “hate speech” laws and bestowing First Amendment-style protections on British citizens, claiming that “The Government is committed to upholding free speech [but] this freedom cannot be an excuse to cause harm or spread hatred.”

Britons’ theoretical right to free speech is based on the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 of the Convention bestows a theoretical right to “freedom of expression” but notes that this right can be abridged “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Contrary to Starmer’s claim that British speech restrictions do not extend to American citizens, England’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, threatened to try to extradite foreign nationals for online speech crimes in 2024.

WATCH:

show less
Vice President J.D. Vance has called out Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer for the "infringements on free speech" in the United Kingdom to his face, as he pledged he would do in an exclusive interview with Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, earlier this month. show more