Saturday, July 12, 2025

Pharrell Williams Trashes Celebrity Political Endorsements: ‘Shut Up. Nobody Asked You.’

Prolific music producer and recording artist Pharrell Williams is expressing annoyance with celebrities endorsing political candidates. His comments follow pop star Taylor Swift‘s Instagram post backing Kamala Harris’ presidential bid.

“There are celebrities that I respect who have opinions, but not all of them. I’m one of those people who says, ‘What the heck? Shut up. Nobody asked you,'” Williams told The Hollywood Reporter in response to a question regarding whether he allows presidential candidates to utilize his music on the campaign trail. He continued: “When people get self-righteous, roll up their sleeves, and start marching around with placards: ‘Shut up!'”

The 13-time Grammy Award winner added: “I prefer to stay out of the way, though I will vote according to my views. I care deeply about my people and the country, but I see a lot of work that needs to occur, and I’m all about action.”

Numerous music recording artists are demanding that former President Donald J. Trump‘s campaign cease using their songs during events. While some artists may have legal recourse in instances where the use of a song is not properly authorized through the license holder, the demand a politician cease playing their music is often merely performative.

Musician Jack White, formerly of The White Stripes, is currently pursuing legal action against former President Trump’s campaign after a video montage featuring their song ‘Seven Nation Army’ was posted online by Margo Martin, Trump’s deputy director of communications. White filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, accusing the campaign of “flagrant misappropriation” of the song. The lawsuit was registered last week in the Southern District of New York.

Image by Monika Flueckiger.

show less
Prolific music producer and recording artist Pharrell Williams is expressing annoyance with celebrities endorsing political candidates. His comments follow pop star Taylor Swift's Instagram post backing Kamala Harris' presidential bid. show more

Top Investor Warns of Mass Investment Pullout If Kamala Wins.

Hedge fund billionaire John Paulson intends to withdraw his investments from the stock market should Kamala Harris win the presidential election. “If Harris was elected, I would pull my money from the market… because I think the uncertainty regarding the plans they outlined would create a lot of uncertainty in the markets and likely lower markets,” said the Republican donor.

“The difference between the Trump administration and Harris is very, very different,” he explains in a Fox Business interview. “The Biden-Harris group wants to change the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent, and the capital gains rate from 20 percent initially to 39 percent, now back to 28 percent.”

Paulson is especially concerned about Harris’s proposed tax on unrealized gains, saying: “[I]f they do implement a 25 percent tax on unrealized gains that would cause mass selling of almost everything. Stocks, bonds, homes, art. I think it would result in a crash in the markets and an immediate, pretty quick recession.”

Taxing unrealized gains would mean that, for instance, shareholders would be taxed on the assumed value of their shares without them being sold. If they were ultimately sold at a loss, the shareholder would essentially have been legally overtaxed on the asset.

Even Democrat-aligned economists are worrying about Harris’s economic agenda. Jason Furman, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council under Barack Obama, warns her price control plans are “not sensible policy.”

show less
Hedge fund billionaire John Paulson intends to withdraw his investments from the stock market should Kamala Harris win the presidential election. “If Harris was elected, I would pull my money from the market... because I think the uncertainty regarding the plans they outlined would create a lot of uncertainty in the markets and likely lower markets,” said the Republican donor. show more

Kamala Allies Admit She’s Lying About Securing the Border to Win Election – ‘It Won’t Come Up When She’s in Office.’

Democrat-aligned and progressive activist groups are reassuring their supporters that Kamala Harris’s tough talk on the border is merely a 2024 election ploy to win over critical swing voters. While Harris has vocalized support for the weak Senate border bill—which primarily deals with military funding for Ukraine—pro-open borders left-wing groups insist that if the Democrat wins the White House, she will drop her support for the legislation.

“We all know and trust Harris to make the right decisions when she’s in office. I don’t think this bill will ever come up again, as is,” Kerri Talbot, who serves as the executive director of the Immigration Hub, said in a recent interview. Despite Harris’s campaign trail rhetoric supporting the legislation, Tablot says she is still backing the Democratic Party nominee.

Even while claiming she supports tougher border and immigration policies, Harris has engaged in some counter-signaling during her campaign.

“We have to have immigration policy that understands that we can fight for our Dreamers, provide a pathway to citizenship for those who have earned it,” Harris said during a radio interview.

Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA), a key Harris ally, has added further credence to suspicions that the Democrat nominee will revert to her former open borders policies should she win in November. In May, Padilla blasted the Senate immigration bill, claiming it “contains some of the same tried and failed policies that would actually make the situation worse at the southern border.”

Despite his opposition to the legislation, Padilla insists Harris “is the only candidate in this race who also values keeping families together and providing a pathway to citizenship for long-term residents. And I’m proud to support her.”

show less
Democrat-aligned and progressive activist groups are reassuring their supporters that Kamala Harris's tough talk on the border is merely a 2024 election ploy to win over critical swing voters. While Harris has vocalized support for the weak Senate border bill—which primarily deals with military funding for Ukraine—pro-open borders left-wing groups insist that if the Democrat wins the White House, she will drop her support for the legislation. show more

Kamala Refuses to Discount Executive Action on Reparations.

Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party’s 2024  presidential nominee, says she won’t discount the use of executive action to begin implementation of reparations for black Americans. Speaking with the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) yesterday, Harris was asked whether she would use presidential authority or defer to Congress to create a commission to study proposals for financial restitution.

“I’m not discounting the importance of any executive action,” Harris said. “But ultimately, Congress, because if you’re going to talk about it in any substantial way, there will be hearings, there will be a level of public education and dialogue.”

The National Pulse reported earlier this year that Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) is floating reparations in the form of exempting black Americans from federal taxes for a set period. “One of the things they propose is black folk not have to pay taxes for a certain amount of time because then again that puts money back in your pocket,” the freshman Democrat said.

Crockett’s proposal received immediate pushback, with the lawmaker eventually acknowledging that black Americans reliant on government assistance already pay little to no federal income taxes, meaning an exemption would do little for them.

The Texas Democrat is not alone in her push for reparations, however. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY)—ousted in a primary earlier this year—has pushed for the government to print $14 trillion for black Americans and give prisoners and felons the vote as a form of “reparations” for slavery. Additionally, Democrats in New York established a commission to study how the state might implement slavery restitution in late 2023.

Harris, who is of Indian-Jamaican heritage, is herself the descendant of a notorious European slave owner.

show less
Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's 2024  presidential nominee, says she won't discount the use of executive action to begin implementation of reparations for black Americans. Speaking with the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) yesterday, Harris was asked whether she would use presidential authority or defer to Congress to create a commission to study proposals for financial restitution. show more
migrants

DATA: Majority of Americans, Independents Support MASS Deportations.

An outright majority of American citizens, including a majority of independents, support former President Donald J. Trump’s policy of mass deportations. Fifty-four percent of respondents in a new Scripps News/Ipsos survey said they “strongly” or” somewhat support” the “mass deportation of undocumented [sic] immigrants,” including 86 percent of Republicans, 58 percent of independents, and even 25 percent of Democrats.

The poll also found that 69 percent of Americans support “Restrictions that limit the number of migrants who can claim asylum,” including 88 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats. Sixty-two percent of Americans support granting local law enforcement the power to detain migrants, including 58 percent of people in the swing state of Arizona, specifically. Fifty-eight percent of respondents in the Grand Canyon State also said they support making crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally a state-level crime.

Scripps and Ipsos also found high voter concern about election integrity. Fifty-one percent of respondents said they are concerned about noncitizens voting illegally in November, and 50 percent and 49 percent said they are concerned about widespread voter fraud and their votes not being counted, respectively.

House Republicans are advancing the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act to prevent noncitizens from voting through enhanced citizenship checks. However, the Biden-Harris government has vowed to veto the legislation if it reaches the White House.

show less
An outright majority of American citizens, including a majority of independents, support former President Donald J. Trump's policy of mass deportations. Fifty-four percent of respondents in a new Scripps News/Ipsos survey said they “strongly” or” somewhat support” the "mass deportation of undocumented [sic] immigrants," including 86 percent of Republicans, 58 percent of independents, and even 25 percent of Democrats. show more

Kamala’s Running Mate Tim Walz Drove THOUSANDS of Families Out of Minnesota.

A new study released by demographer Lyman Stone and sociologist Brad Wilcox reveals that a significant number of families left Minnesota in 2021 and 2022. The exodus occurred under the tenure of Kamala Harris’s 2024 running mate, Tim Walz, who has served as the state’s governor since 2019. Stone and Wilcox’s research challenges claims by some left-leaning commentators that Walz’s policies have been beneficial for families and children.

The report, published by the Institute for Family Studies, concludes that Minnesota experienced a net loss of families with children during the two years. Stone and Wilcox’s analysis of the American Community Survey data shows that the state ranked among the worst third in the nation for family migration, one of 18 states where more families left than moved in.

According to the research, Minnesota saw a net loss of 4,000 families from 2021 to 2022, a 0.3 percent decline, placing it 13th among states with the highest percentage of family migration losses. Among the top 12 states with the most significant declines, 10 had supported President Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

In their report, Stone and Wilcox note that parents are increasingly moving away from states with far-left family, as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. States like New York, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon, all known for their leftist political agendas, saw substantial family outflows. For instance, New York lost 71,000 families, a 1.9 percent decrease, while California saw a net loss of 92,000 families, a 1.2 percent decline.

In contrast, states that voted for former President Donald J. Trump in both 2016 and 2020 saw gains in family migration. The study points out that deeply Republican states, such as Idaho, reported the most significant percentage increase in family population, with a 2.3 percent rise from 2021 to 2022. Texas and Florida also saw considerable gains, with 53,000 and 38,000 families, respectively.

Stone and Wilcox suggest that COVID-19 partly drives this movement as families sought suburban and rural areas offering more space. Additionally, states with quicker school reopenings, new school choice laws, lower taxes, and strong job growth have become more attractive to parents. Cultural factors, such as resistance to far-left gender theory in schools, also contribute to the red state appeal.

show less
A new study released by demographer Lyman Stone and sociologist Brad Wilcox reveals that a significant number of families left Minnesota in 2021 and 2022. The exodus occurred under the tenure of Kamala Harris's 2024 running mate, Tim Walz, who has served as the state's governor since 2019. Stone and Wilcox's research challenges claims by some left-leaning commentators that Walz’s policies have been beneficial for families and children. show more

Media Demands More Migrants Settled in Pro-Trump Counties.

Globalist media conglomerate Bloomberg is pushing for recent migrants to the United States to be settled in Republican-voting counties across the country. In a story ostensibly about the economic need for migrants in red-leaning localities, Bloomberg subtly alludes to the potential electoral impact the migrants could have.

Founded by former New York City Mayor and Democrat mega-donor Michael Bloomberg, the corporate news outlet laments that in “battleground states that will decide this November’s election, about 72 [percent] of migrants in 2023 went to Biden counties while less than a third went to Trump counties.” The authors go on to note that “[s]wing states received 12 percent of all migrants, with most going to blue counties like Philadelphia, home to Pennsylvania’s largest city, and Gwinnett, which is outside Atlanta.”

The Bloomberg story goes on to note that “[t]hese newcomers are unlikely to become U.S. citizens before the election, so they won’t be casting ballots of their own. But their arrival will nonetheless reverberate in the presidential contest…”

What the authors don’t acknowledge is that some of these migrants could potentially cast ballots in November’s election illegally. The National Pulse has reported on numerous instances of noncitizens illegally voting in federal and state elections around the country, largely due to poor vetting of voter registrations.

Proponents of mass immigration, including Bloomberg, often contend that settling migrants in economically depressed areas with declining populations provides benefits to locals. The migrant workers, they argue, serve as a tax revenue base and provide cheap labor for local businesses. In reality, these migrants often undercut the wages of native residents and place increased strain on municipal services. Cities like Springfield, Ohio, which has seen a massive influx of Haitian migrants, have experienced rapid increases in housing costs and ballooning budgets for city services.

show less
Globalist media conglomerate Bloomberg is pushing for recent migrants to the United States to be settled in Republican-voting counties across the country. In a story ostensibly about the economic need for migrants in red-leaning localities, Bloomberg subtly alludes to the potential electoral impact the migrants could have. show more

Judge Refuses to Remove RFK Jr’s Name from Swing State Ballot.

A Dane County, Wisconsin judge has ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s name will stay on the state’s presidential ballot despite his request to be removed. Circuit Judge Stephen Ehlke stated Wisconsin law only permits presidential candidates to be removed if they die after submitting valid nomination papers.

Judge Ehlke emphasized the clear language of the statute, remarking, “The statute is plain on its face.”

“Mr. Kennedy has no one to blame but himself if he didn’t want to be on the ballot,” he added. With the deadline for printing ballots approaching this Wednesday, there is limited time for Kennedy to pursue further legal action.

Kennedy appealed to a state appellate court last week, ahead of Ehlke’s ruling. The Second District Court of Appeals is considering the case but was awaiting Judge Ehlke’s decision. Earlier in the month, the Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5-1 to include Kennedy on the ballot, rejecting efforts by Republicans to remove him. #

Democrats were able to remove Joe Biden‘s name from the Wisconsin ballot earlier this summer, supposedly because he had yet to be certified as the party’s official nominee.

The presence of independent candidates in Wisconsin’s election could significantly impact the results. The state has experienced narrow margins in four of the past six presidential elections, ranging from 5,700 to about 23,000 votes.

Although Kennedy suspended his campaign in August and endorsed former President Donald J. Trump, he continues to seek removal from battleground state ballots, believing his presence increases Kamala Harris’s chances of winning.

Earlier this month, Kennedy succeeded in getting his name removed from North Carolina ballots through a court order.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

show less
A Dane County, Wisconsin judge has ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s name will stay on the state's presidential ballot despite his request to be removed. Circuit Judge Stephen Ehlke stated Wisconsin law only permits presidential candidates to be removed if they die after submitting valid nomination papers. show more

‘Suspicious Packages’ Sent to Election Officials Turns Out to be Flour.

Suspicious packages were distributed to election officials in at least six states on Monday. The states targeted were Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Postal Service are currently conducting an investigation into the matter.

This incident marks the second time within a year that multiple states have received suspicious packages aimed at election officials, causing disruptions during a critical voting period. The scare comes as early voting is underway in key elections, including the presidential race and various congressional and statehouse seats.

Several states identified a white powder in the envelopes sent to their election offices. Tests on the material revealed it was mostly harmless substances. In Oklahoma’s case, officials confirmed the substance to be flour. However, Wyoming has not yet disclosed the composition of the material received.

The packages prompted an evacuation of the Lucas State Office Building in Des Moines, Iowa. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate indicated that their emergency protocols were immediately implemented. “We immediately reported the incident per our protocols,” Pate said following the evacuation.

Similar evacuation procedures took place in Topeka, Kansas, where both the secretary of state’s and attorney general’s offices were targeted. Topeka Fire Department says field tests showed no hazardous materials.

Previous similar incidents occurred last November, affecting several states. Some of those letters contained fentanyl.

Image by Aranami.

show less
Suspicious packages were distributed to election officials in at least six states on Monday. The states targeted were Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Tennessee, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Postal Service are currently conducting an investigation into the matter. show more

HEIL HARRIS! – Kamala Endorsed by Billion-Dollar Publishing Giant With ‘Dark’ 1930s Nazi Collaborator History.

Vice President Kamala Harris has won the endorsement of Scientific American magazine, which broke with its long tradition of avoiding political endorsements in 2020 when it first backed now-ousted President Joe Biden. Scientific American, as The National Pulse revealed in 2020, is owned by the controversial Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, or Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, based in Stuttgart, Germany.

The multi-billion-euro conglomerate simply describes its early history as “track[ing] back to the book-club business,” adding: “In the 1930s, the company founder Georg von Holtzbrinck began with the sale of subscriptions to books and periodicals.”

But decades-old research revealed a much darker side to Holtzbrinck, the man and his company, who were eventually found to be willing fellow travelers of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party, which Georg von Holtzbrinck first joined in 1931, two years before Hitler came to power.

NAZI COLLABORATOR.

Holtzbrinck, born in Schöplenberg in 1909, was just 22 years old when he joined the Bund Deutscher Arbeiterjugend, or Nazi-Jungarbeiter known interchangeably as the “Nazi Young Workers” or “League of German Worker Youth” in English. His joining of a college student group which appeared to have had run-ins with Jewish students and academics has led researchers to conclude his commitment to the groups was not “youth sins,” but rather, signified a willingness to collaborate with the Nazi Party and return receive millions for his propaganda work.

By 24, he was a fully-fledged member of Hitler’s movement and remained so for all 12 years of its existence, being formally subjected to denazification proceedings in the aftermath of the war.

The company enjoyed prosperity under the Nazi regime, per research conducted after Georg von Holtzbrinck’s death in 1983 and upon the firm’s rapid expansion into the United States. They published books for the army as well as a plethora of Nazi-approved magazines, including Freude der Arbeit (The Joy of Labor), Schonheit der Arbeit (The Beauty of Labor), Kolonie und Heimat (Colony and Homeland), and Berlin-Rom-Tokio, which was formally approved by Nazi Party’s Foreign Ministry.

COMING TO TERMS WITH HOLTZBRINCK.

In articles written in the late 1990s and early 2000s, outlets such as Vanity Fair, the New York Times, the Observer, and Forbes wrote scathingly about Holtzbrinck’s history and influence on U.S. publishing.

The Times itself has a murky history with Hitler, as revealed by The National Pulse in 2020.

Archived 2002 NYT article, accessed by The National Pulse, 2024.

German media, as well as an independent investigation into Holtzbrinck’s Nazi past, portrays the original publisher of the firm now responsible for Kamala Harris’s endorsement as someone who “cleverly took advantage of a favorable economic situation” of Nazi Germany, earning around one million dollars a year by 1942, in today’s money. The firm is now worth billions.

The “denazification” prosecutor accused Holtzbrinck of being “a convinced follower of the National Socialist authoritarian dictatorship,” and the publisher himself admitted he originally joined because “the people there made a lot of big promises that appealed to me.”

“As far as I can judge, von Holtzbrinck was a good Nazi and above all a profiteer who made a lot of money through sole management of various Nazi periodicals,” one witness testified during the proceedings.

And while Holtzbrinck himself appeared to have no direct line to Nazi leadership, the man he placed in charge of a postwar magazine was an infamous SS stormtrooper who had worked for Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Chancellor and Propaganda Minister.

But the history of the firm, which now has a footprint in over 100 countries, has been largely ignored for the past several decades, despite its ownership of some of the most revered publications and journals in the world, including Die Zeit (Germany), Palgrave Macmillan books (US), St. Martin’s Press (US), Nature (UK), Scientific American (US), and dozens more.

DAMAGE TO SCIENCE.

A more 21st-century critique of Scientific American actually emerged right before the millennium, when Commentary magazine writer Jeremy Bernstein lamented its sharp turn away from science and intellectual rigor at the hands of Holtzbrinck leadership.

“Now we have a magazine that disguises itself as Scientific American, just as the New Yorker disguises itself as the New Yorker,” Bernstein wrote, adding: “They wear some of the same clothes and hats, featuring the old typefaces and even a few of the old contributors. But in an almost desperate attempt to ‘sell,’ they have been dumbed down to the point where more and more they are becoming less and less. And to compound the folly, the strategy seems to be failing even on its own terms.”

A 2023 study into the politicization of magazines such as Scientific American, Nature, and the Lancet – all of which endorsed Joe Biden in 2020 – revealed a predictable decline in trust amongst Trump supporters, with researcher Floyd Jiuyun Zhang of Stanford University concluding: “The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered.

“The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.”

The National Pulse reached out to the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group for more information about the company’s background and the lack of transparency on its website. At the time of publication, we had not heard back.

show less
Vice President Kamala Harris has won the endorsement of Scientific American magazine, which broke with its long tradition of avoiding political endorsements in 2020 when it first backed now-ousted President Joe Biden. Scientific American, as The National Pulse revealed in 2020, is owned by the controversial Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, or Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, based in Stuttgart, Germany. show more