Charlie KirkFeaturedGazaHamasisraelPalestinePodcastsPoliticsTransgenderWar

Trump Delivered for ‘Pro-Palestine’ Activists. Why No Gratitude?

admin
October 18, 2025
0Points
0
1
Trump Delivered for ‘Pro-Palestine’ Activists. Why No Gratitude?

It took only about 24 hours after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel for cries of “Free Palestine” to fill city streets as protesters waved the Palestinian flag. However, after the ceasefire and hostage deal that the Trump administration led the way in negotiating, those same protesters are suddenly, noticeably silent. 

The absence of great celebration on the part of the “Free Palestine” protesters confirms what many already knew: The pro-Palestine movement has always been more deeply rooted in a hatred of Israel than a love for the people of Gaza. 

Now more than ever, the “Free Palestine” chanters should be taking to the streets to demand Hamas be completely eliminated as the terrorist group carries out public executions of Gazans accused of being “collaborators” after the partial withdrawal of the Israeli military. 

On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we discuss the historic nature of the deal that ended the fighting between Israel and Hamas, and celebrate the return of all the living hostages. 

Also on today’s show, Erika Kirk was at the White House this week to receive the Medal of Freedom on behalf of her husband, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on Sept. 10. Plus, we bring you the latest pop culture news, including actress Keira Knightley’s recent comments on transgenderism.


Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 82
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .