Thursday, December 11, 2025

Teacher Suspended for Telling Muslim That Britain Is a ‘Christian State.’

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A London primary (elementary) school teacher was banned from working with children after telling a Muslim student that Britain is a “Christian state.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The teacher, the Free Speech Union, the Metropolitan Police, and the local safeguarding board.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The incident occurred in London, with the teacher being suspended in March 2024 and dismissed in February 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This teacher lost his job and almost ended up being barred from the profession for life just because he pointed out to a class of Muslim schoolchildren that the national religion of England is Anglicanism.” – Lord Toby Young

🎯IMPACT: The teacher successfully appealed the ban and now works part-time, but his career has been significantly derailed.

IN FULL

A London primary (elementary) school teacher was dismissed after telling a Muslim pupil that Britain is a Christian country. The teacher made the remark while enforcing the school’s policy that Islamic religious activities at the non-faith school be confined to a designated prayer room. He reportedly explained to a group of students that, because the King is the head of the Church of England, “Britain is still a Christian state,” and also suggested that students seeking additional accommodations for Islamic practices could consider a nearby Islamic school.

The situation began when the teacher found several boys washing their feet in the bathroom sinks. When he addressed them, he spoke about British values of tolerance, although he reiterated that “Britain is still a Christian state.” The comments triggered a safeguarding review, despite being literally true, with the King’s coronation oath including a vow to “maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel” and the House of Lords including Anglican bishops, among other constitutional provisions enshrining Christianity as the state religion.

The local safeguarding board concluded that the remarks had caused “emotional harm” to the child involved. London’s Metropolitan Police initially had its child abuse team examine the incident as a possible hate crime, although the inquiry was eventually dropped. The teacher was suspended in March 2024, and by February 2025, he had been dismissed for gross misconduct.

With assistance from the Free Speech Union, the teacher is now taking legal action against the local authority. Lord Toby Young, the organisation’s director, said, “This teacher lost his job and almost ended up being barred from the profession for life just because he pointed out to a class of Muslim schoolchildren that the national religion of England is Anglicanism.”

“Things have reached a pretty pass in this country if a teacher can be branded a safeguarding risk because he says something that is incontestably true,” he added.

Recent data indicates that Christianity in Britain is undergoing significant changes, particularly among younger generations. According to research, an increasing number of young adults are returning to church, and among Christians, more now identify with the Roman Catholic Church than with the Anglican Church of England. Attendance among 18 to 24-year-olds has risen sharply, with Catholic parishes in particular seeing notable growth.

Image via the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office.

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

show less
show more

Trump Admin Warns Chicago to Comply on Safety or Lose Federal Funds After Brutal Train Attacks.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: A man allegedly set a young woman on fire on a commuter train in Chicago, Illinois, prompting federal authorities to demand updated safety measures from the Chicago Transit Authority.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The victim, Bethany MaGee, and the alleged attacker, Lawrence Reed, along with federal and local officials, including Federal Transit Authority Administrator Marc Molinaro.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The attack occurred on November 17, aboard a Blue Line L commuter train in Chicago.

💬KEY QUOTE: “I will not accept the brutal assault of an innocent 26-year-old woman as an inevitable cost of providing public transportation.” – Marc Molinaro

🎯IMPACT: Federal funding for Chicago’s public transportation could be at risk if updated safety measures are not implemented by December 19.

IN FULL

A horrific attack aboard a Chicago Blue Line train on November 17 has prompted urgent federal scrutiny of the city’s transit and public safety systems. Authorities say 50-year-old Lawrence Reed poured gasoline on fellow passenger Bethany MaGee, 26, and set her on fire while the train was in service. MaGee survived but suffered severe burns. Reed, who was arrested the following morning, now faces federal terrorism charges that could result in a life sentence.

At the time of the attack, Reed was on electronic monitoring related to an active battery case stemming from an August incident in which he allegedly assaulted a hospital social worker. His criminal record spans more than 60 cases dating back to 1993, including multiple violent offenses. Federal Transit Administration Administrator Marc Molinaro sharply criticized the circumstances that allowed Reed to be free despite his history, calling it “unconscionable” in a letter sent to Mayor Brandon Johnson (D) and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D). Molinaro ordered the Chicago Transit Authority to submit updated safety reforms by December 19.

The Blue Line attack has become a flashpoint in a broader political battle over crime and governance in the city of Chicago. President Donald J. Trump seized on the case to accuse the city’s leadership and judicial system of endangering residents through lenient policies. “They burned this beautiful woman riding in a train. A man was arrested 72 times. Think of that. And they’ll let him out again,” Trump said in recent remarks.

The attack follows months of escalating tensions between the Trump administration and Chicago’s Democratic leadership, including the withholding of $2.1 billion in federal infrastructure funds over concerns related to public safety and race-based contracting.

Chicago has also drawn national attention for immigration controversies. A Joe Biden-appointed judge recently ordered the release of more than 600 migrants detained during the “Midway Blitz” operation, prompting criticism from conservative lawmakers who argue that the city’s leadership is opposed to immigration laws. Mayor Johnson has defended his administration’s approach, previously calling the term “illegal alien” “racist.”

CTA officials confirmed receipt of Molinaro’s demand letter and stated that they will provide a formal response by the federal deadline. Neither Johnson nor Pritzker has issued detailed comments on the federal safety directives or on potential changes to monitoring and supervision policies highlighted by Reed’s case.

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

show less
show more

Pritzker Enacts Law to Expand Protections for Illegal Immigrants in Illinois.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed HB 1312, a bill aimed at shielding illegal immigrants from deportation and limiting civil immigration enforcement in certain state institutions.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Governor J.B. Pritzker, community advocates, White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson, and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The bill was signed on Tuesday at Little Village in Chicago, Illinois.

💬KEY QUOTE: “With my signature today, we are protecting people and institutions that belong here in Illinois.” – Gov. Pritzker

🎯IMPACT: The law creates new protections for illegal immigrants, restricts civil arrests near courthouses, and imposes privacy rules on institutions such as hospitals and universities.

IN FULL

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed HB 1312 on Tuesday at Chicago’s Little Village. The radical law aims to shield illegal immigrants from deportation by limiting civil immigration enforcement at courthouses, hospitals, day cares, and university campuses. It also allows people to sue officers if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

“With my signature today, we are protecting people and institutions that belong here in Illinois. Dropping your kid off at day care, going to the doctor, or attending your classes should not be a life-altering task,” Gov. Pritzker said in a press release. The governor also used the bill signing to criticize  President Donald J. Trump and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, claiming they appealed to “lesser instincts.”

The law prohibits civil arrests in and around courthouses for those attending certain state proceedings. It also strengthens privacy rules at hospitals, requiring policies governing interactions with law enforcement, and restricts universities and day care centers from sharing immigration status unless required by law. Institutions are required to adopt protocols for handling federal agents by early 2026.

Critics of the bill, including White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson, slammed the move. “If Pritzker the Slob focused on fixing crime in his own state instead of defending criminal illegal aliens, Illinois residents would be much safer,” Jackson said in a statement. She added that cracking down on crime and deporting criminal illegal immigrants “should not be a partisan issue.”

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin also criticized the legislation, stating that it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. “By signing this law, Pritzker violated the Supremacy Clause, his oath he took as Governor to ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’” McLaughlin said.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

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

show less
show more

Mamdani Defends Choice of Convicted Armed Robber for NYC Public Safety Role.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani (D) appointed a convicted armed robber, Mysonne Linen, to his public safety transition team.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, Mysonne Linen, and the Until Freedom organization.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The announcement was made on November 26 via Instagram; Mamdani addressed the decision on December 9.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We will take all of their experiences and their analysis into account as we build a city for each and every person.” – Zohran Mamdani

🎯IMPACT: The decision has prompted increased scrutiny of Mamdani’s incoming team.

IN FULL

New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani (D) has defended appointing Mysonne Linen, a 49-year-old former armed robber, to advise him on criminal justice policy as part of his mayoral transition team. Mamdani described the inclusion of Linen among the more than 400 New Yorkers across 17 committees as an effort to draw on “diverse experiences and analyses from New Yorkers,” adding, “We will take all of their experiences and their analysis into account as we build a city for each and every person.”

Linen spent seven years in state prison after being convicted in the late 1990s of two armed robberies involving Bronx taxi drivers. Prosecutors say that in 1997, he struck one driver with a beer bottle during a robbery, and in 1998, held another driver at gunpoint, allegations both victims testified to. Linen’s defense at the time argued he had no motive, claiming he was focused on a budding music career. He had reportedly worked as a songwriter for prominent artists such as Lil’ Kim and Mase. Ultimately, he served seven years of a possible 25-year sentence and maintains that he was wrongfully accused.

The appointment of Linen, co-founder of the organization Until Freedom, has stirred sharp criticism. Some law enforcement groups and political opponents argue that entrusting criminal justice policy to someone with a serious felony conviction undermines the credibility of the incoming administration.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old Democratic Socialist and Ugandan immigrant, will assume office on January 1, 2026, having won office on a sweeping “affordability” platform that included rent freezes, fare-free public transit, universal childcare, city-owned grocery stores, and a plan to build 200,000 affordable housing units. To fund these proposals, he has called for steep tax increases on corporations and “whiter” neighborhoods.

Some of his proposals have already met resistance from state leadership. Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul, who had backed Mamdani’s candidacy, is reportedly weighing whether to raise the state corporate tax rate despite her longstanding opposition to tax hikes, as New York faces an estimated multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.

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

show less
show more

Supreme Court Considers Striking Down Campaign Finance Limits in Republican-Led Case.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of federal limits on coordinated political spending by parties in the case NRSC v. FEC.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Vice President J.D. Vance, former Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and court-appointed lawyer Roman Martinez.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Arguments took place on Tuesday at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The parties have been weakened overall, and this case… starts to restore the strength of parties,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

🎯IMPACT: A decision could reshape campaign finance laws and is expected by mid-2026.

IN FULL

The Supreme Court on Tuesday examined the legality of federal caps on coordinated political spending by parties, a case that could further alter campaign finance restrictions. The dispute, NRSC v. FEC, challenges limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates financing for federal campaigns.

For the current election cycle, coordinated spending limits range from $61,800 to $123,000 for House races and up to $3.7 million for Senate races. The plaintiffs, including Vice President J.D. Vance, former Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), argue that these limits violate the First Amendment. A federal appeals court previously upheld the caps, relying on a 2001 Supreme Court ruling.

During oral arguments, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh seemed inclined to strike down the limits. Kavanaugh expressed concerns about the weakening of political parties compared to outside groups like super PACs, stating, “The parties have been weakened overall, and this case… starts to restore the strength of parties.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned lawyers sparingly, while Justice Neil Gorsuch remained silent. Liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, warned that removing the caps could lead to corruption. Sotomayor criticized the court’s past rulings on campaign finance, saying, “Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse.”

Roman Martinez, the court-appointed lawyer defending the restrictions, argued that overturning the caps could unravel decades of campaign finance law. He cautioned, “You’re going to be deluged with petitions, the dominoes are going to fall, and you’re going to have to reconstruct campaign finance law from the ground up.” The court is expected to issue its decision by mid-2026, ahead of next year’s congressional midterm elections.

Image by Billy Wilson.

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

show less
show more

Trump Addresses Thomas, Alito Retirement Speculation.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump expressed hope that U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito remain on the bench during an interview released on Tuesday.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The comments were made during an interview released on Tuesday.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Well, I hope they stay, ’cause I think they’re fantastic, OK? Both of those men are fantastic.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, remains a significant factor in shaping U.S. policies.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump expressed his admiration for Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, stating his hope that both remain on the bench. During an interview with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns, Trump remarked, “Well, I hope they stay, ’cause I think they’re fantastic, OK? Both of those men are fantastic.”

The Supreme Court currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, bolstered by three justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—appointed during Trump’s first term. This majority has played a pivotal role in rulings on immigration enforcement and federal agency reforms.

Speculation about retirements has surfaced, but neither Justice Thomas, 77, nor Justice Alito, 75, has announced any plans to step down. Reports from Reuters and The Wall Street Journal last year indicated that both justices intend to remain on the bench, with sources close to Alito noting that his decisions are not politically motivated.

Justice Thomas, the longest-serving member of the current court, was nominated by former President George H. W. Bush in 1991. Justice Alito joined the court in 2006 after being nominated by former President George W. Bush. Historically, justices such as Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, and John Paul Stevens served well into their eighties or beyond before retiring.

Trump also criticized Democratic efforts to pack the court with ideological progressives, stating, “I will say this, the Democrats want to pack the court. They want to have 21 justices. That would be a terrible thing for this country.”

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

show less
show more

Billionaire Eyes CNN Overhaul in Bid to Win Trump’s Favor Amid Mega Merger Battle.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: Paramount launched a counterbid for Warner Bros Discovery, promising changes at CNN.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: David Ellison, Larry Ellison, President Donald J. Trump, Netflix, and Warner Bros Discovery.

📍WHEN & WHERE: December 2025, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California.

💬KEY QUOTE: “None of them are particularly great friends of mine.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: Potential changes at CNN and a significant shift in the media landscape.

IN FULL

Paramount CEO David Ellison has reportedly promised Trump officials that he would push for major changes at CNN if Paramount succeeds in acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD). Paramount, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison, is offering $77.9 billion in cash, outbidding Netflix’s $72 billion proposal.

David Ellison told Trump’s team he would implement a “significant overhaul” at CNN, a network the President frequently calls “fake news.” The potential changes could include firing hosts such as Erin Burnett and Brianna Keilar. The younger Ellison has been publicly seen with Trump at the Kennedy Center Honors in recent days.

President Trump responded to the proposed media deal on December 8, saying, “None of them are particularly great friends of mine.”

President Trump slammed CNN and The New York Times for misreporting on U.S. strikes in Iran earlier this year, calling the coverage “fake news.” Meanwhile, CNN has admitted to underreporting aspects of former President Joe Biden’s health.

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has also been engaging with the White House, though he reportedly did not meet Trump during his recent visit. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern over the proposed merger. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) have warned that consolidation could limit competition and consumer choice, while Republicans have raised concerns about antitrust issues.

The battle for WBD has drawn significant attention because of its potential impact on the U.S. media landscape. Analysts say the deal could reshape television news, streaming, and entertainment content, influencing how Americans receive information. Paramount’s offer represents one of the largest all-cash bids in recent media history, signaling high stakes for both companies.

The Trump administration has not publicly taken sides in the bidding war, instead monitoring potential antitrust implications.

Image by Gregor Smith.

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

show less
show more

BBC Knew It Peddled False Story Claiming Trump Wanted Liz Cheney Shot, But Issued No Correction.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: The BBC admitted to misleading viewers about Donald J. Trump, falsely claiming he suggested political opponent and former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) be shot.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: BBC News, Donald Trump, Liz Cheney, and BBC board members.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The admission was made in an internal memo presented to the BBC board in October 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “In the latest spat, Donald Trump has been accused of being petty, vindictive, and a wannabe tyrant, because he suggested that one of his political opponents should face guns, have them trained on her face.” – Sarah Smith, BBC News’s North America Editor

🎯IMPACT: There have been resignations within the BBC and ongoing questions about media bias.

IN FULL

The BBC confessed to inaccurately reporting that U.S. President Donald J. Trump called for former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) to be shot, but the claim was never publicly corrected. This admission came in an internal memo acknowledging the error.

The controversy revolved around comments made by Trump about Liz Cheney, where he labeled her a “radical war hawk” and criticized her foreign policy stances. BBC presenters misrepresented these comments, suggesting Trump called for violence against Cheney.

“In the latest spat, Donald Trump has been accused of being petty, vindictive, and a wannabe tyrant, because he suggested that one of his political opponents should face guns, have them trained on her face,” claimed Sarah Smith, BBC News’s North America Editor, during a Six O’Clock News segment shortly before the November 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The internal memo—authored by the broadcaster’s director of the editorial complaints unit, Peter Johnston—was presented to the BBC board after concerns about bias were raised by Michael Prescott, an independent adviser. The memo was later leaked, revealing the BBC’s flawed coverage.

The BBC’s Panorama program has also faced scrutiny for editing a Trump speech to imply he incited violence resulting in the January 6 Capitol riots, an assertion the program’s producers defended. This incident contributed to the resignations of BBC executives Tim Davie and Deborah Turness.

Image by Paul Harrop.

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

show less
show more

Religious Decline in America Shows Signs of Stabilizing.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: New research suggests a potential stabilization in the number of Americans identifying as religious, following decades of decline.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Pew Research Center, Gregory A. Smith, Conrad Hackett, and other researchers tracking religious trends.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Perhaps in the future we’ll look back and see that we were at a pivotal moment in 2025,” said Pew’s Gregory A. Smith.

🎯IMPACT: The stabilization could influence social, cultural, and political life, potentially slowing the pace of religious and civic transformation in the U.S.

IN FULL

After years in which Americans steadily became less religious, new findings from the Pew Research Center show that this downward movement has flattened since 2020. The shift stands out because previous surveys had consistently recorded declines across religious identity, practice, and belief. Gregory A. Smith, Pew’s Senior Associate Director of Research, described the recent pattern as “striking.”

Christianity remains the nation’s largest religious tradition, claimed by 62 percent of U.S. adults, and its historical influence on American society and politics continues to be significant. Several indicators of religious engagement, including how often people pray, how important they say religion is, and how frequently they attend services, have held steady in recent years. Despite steep drops in religiosity over the past decade noted by Gallup, about seven in ten adults still say they belong to a religion.

Generational contrasts remain sharp: 55 percent of adults in their twenties report a religious identity, compared with 83 percent among the oldest Americans. Their practices differ as well; older adults are far more likely to pray every day (59 percent) than younger adults (30 percent). Smith pointed out that young people frequently adopt the religious routines of the households in which they grow up, though those habits may shift as they move through adulthood.

According to Pew demographer Conrad Hackett, global trends in religious change do not follow a single pattern; as he put it, “This secular transition isn’t completely uniform, and it may not be inevitable everywhere.” Researchers note that the current leveling off could persist, yet the future direction of religious affiliation in the United States remains uncertain.

“Perhaps in the future we’ll look back and see that we were at a pivotal moment in 2025,” Smith said adding, “But historical data suggests the patterns we see today are a normal result of the youngest adults possibly following the religiousness of their parents for a few years past the age of 18, after which their religiousness begins to drop.”

Some trends have shown an increased enthusiasm for Christianity among young people, particularly young men. Following the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, some observed that young men were attending Church more frequently and expressing more interest in Christianity. In Britain, young men have been flocking to the Roman Catholic Church in large numbers as well.

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

show less
show more

Trump Blasts ‘Disaster’ Sadiq Khan, Says He Owes Mayoralty to Mass Migration.

PULSE POINTS

WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump criticized London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, calling him a “disaster” who owes his position to mass migration.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, Mayor Khan, and London residents.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Trump’s comments were published on December 9, 2025, in POLITICO.

💬KEY QUOTE: “He’s a disaster. He’s a disaster. He’s got a totally different ideology to what he’s supposed to have.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: A spokesman for Khan, who has smeared Trump as racist, Islamophobic, and so on for years, called the America First leader’s latest remarks “appalling and bigoted.”

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump has said that Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan, of Britain’s governing Labour Party, owes his office to mass migration. Speaking to POLITICO, the America First leader called Khan a “a horrible mayor… an incompetent mayor… he’s a horrible, vicious, disgusting mayor.”

“I think he’s done a terrible job. London’s a different place. I love London. I love London. And I hate to see it happen,” Trump continued, saying of Khan: “He’s got a totally different ideology to what he’s supposed to have… he gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now because you know, it’s like… it’s one of those things.”

Trump also criticized European leaders more broadly, accusing “politically correct” politicians of refusing to deport illegal migrants and allowing cities such as London and Paris, France, to lose their traditional identity.

Notably, London is only around one-third White British, according to the last official census, and over 40 percent of the city’s residents were born overseas. In some London boroughs, such as Tower Hamlets, residents are complaining that their Bangladeshi heritage elected officials are not performing their duties adequately because they are preoccupied with parallel political careers in Bangladesh.

A spokesman for Mayor Khan condemned the remarks as “appalling and bigoted.” Khan, a son of Pakistani immigrants, has long championed increased immigration, claiming it is benefits the economy despite strong evidence that most lower-immigrant migrant workers are a net drain on the public finances, with migrants who do not work being an even bigger drain.

Khan has a long history of accusing Trump of racism, sexism, and so-called Islamophobia, and backed a campaign to block a state visit during Trump’s first term.

Image by John Clempner.

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

show less
show more