Thoughts on Trump's Temper Tantrum & Walking Out on His Interview with Kristen Welker

 

I would be remiss if I didn't offer a brief comment concerning President Trump's temper tantrum in which he walked out of an interview with NBC Meet the Press host Kristen Welker. The conversation took place in Wisconsin on Friday but aired on Sunday. 

Trump's nerves were frayed as the interview was interrupted by rain and audio issues. But Welker hit a raw nerve when she asked Trump about the apparently abandoned anti-weaponization fund. Trump refused to answer Welker's question as to whether J6ers who assaulted Capitol police officers should receive compensation. Trump then claimed the FBI had invited the J6ers into the Capitol. Welker told him he had no evidence and reminded him that many of the J6ers had pled guilty. Trump said the J6ers were scared and then went on a rant about the California gubernatorial election being rigged and his 2020 election loss being rigged. When Welker wouldn't have it, Trump called her "stupid" and "crooked" and soon walked off the set. You can read the transcript here.

Prior to Trump, the idea of a sitting U.S. President storming out of an interview like a toddler would have been inconceivable. He is not a well man. Unfortunately, given the fact that we gave him a second chance at the White House after January 6th indicates that we are not well either.

While many Americans are appalled and embarrassed by Trump's behavior, there are also many Americans who are delighted with what Trump did today especially considering that his interlocutor is a woman and a person of color. 

Of course, we have short memories and selective ones at that. In a week from now, hardly anyone will remember Trump did this just as hardly anyone remembers Trump telling the world he was glad that Robert Mueller had died.

Perhaps we elected the President we deserve.

NY Dem Congressional Candidate Endorsed by Mamdani Defends Presence at Pro-Hamas Rally Day After October 7th

 

Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is challenging incumbent Congressman Adriano Espaillat for the Democratic Party nomination in NY's 13th Congressional District and has received the endorsement of NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, has defended her participation in a pro-Hamas march in New York City the day after the October 7th attacks.

Chevalier claims that she partook in the pro-Hamas march for "the human rights of Palestinians." This was the infamous march in which participants chanted, “Resistance is justified when people are occupied”. There were also chants of "700" in reference to the number of Israelis killed during the attack at the time with others making throat slitting gestures. Perhaps this was Chevalier's way of supporting the human rights of Palestinians. Perhaps Chevalier's presence at this pro-Hamas march is why Mamdani endorsed her.

After all, Congressman Espaillat had endorsed Mamdani, but Mamdani did not reciprocate. Like President Trump, Mamdani demands loyalty but don't count on him to share his loyalty in return.

The 13th Congressional District covers Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx and is predominantly Hispanic. As one of the safest Democratic congressional districts in the country, if Chevalier supplants Espaillat for the nomination she will invariably be elected to Congress. 

Electing someone who participated in a pro-Hamas march to Congress is every bit as despicable as electing someone who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. While Democrats are right to decry the election of J6ers to Congress their credibility is in question if they turn a blind eye to candidates who support Hamas and the murder of Jewish civilians in Israel.

If Democrats are smart, they will pull out all the stops to ensure Espaillat's nomination. 

Unfortunately given Democratic support for the likes of Graham Platner, Adam Hamawy, Abdul El-Sayed and, for that matter, Mamdani, I cannot be assured where it concerns their intelligence.

Farage, Musk & Vance Do Not Care About Henry Nowak or His Family

In recent days, violence has broken out in the UK following the release of video recorded in December 2025 showing an 18-year-old man named Henry Nowak being arrested in the last moments of his life while protesting that he had been stabbed.

In fact, Nowak had been stabbed by one Vickrum Digwa, a Sikh man who falsely accused Nowak of committing a racist attack against him. Digwa was subsequently tried for Nowak's murder and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

Unfortunately, the release of the Nowak video has resulted in violence against police and attacks against members of the U.K. Sikh community despite Digwa's conviction and sentence.

Never one to miss an opportunity, UK Reform Leader Nigel Farage, Elon Musk and U.S. Vice-President JD Vance have seen fit to add fuel to the flames despite pleas from the Nowak family to refrain from doing exactly that. 

While Farage has praised Nowak's family for handling this "in the most extraordinarily dignified way", he has failed to muster any dignity of his own. Farage called upon the public to respond with "pure, cold rage." The result has been violence against police and the Sikh community. Meanwhile, Elon Musk's AI platform Grok has wrongly identified the officers involved in Nowak's arrest forcing these officers into hiding.

Perhaps most disgustingly of all, VP Vance has claimed that Nowak's murder is a result of "a mass invasion of immigrants." Vickrum Digwa is responsible for Henry Nowak's death, not the Sikh community. Most Sikhs manage to go through life without stabbing someone to death. No one in the U.K. Sikh community condones Nowak's death. Why would they?

Of course, Vance (as well as Farage and Musk) knows this but why let a crisis go to waste? They have chosen to stoke violence against the authorities and are willfully promoting hatred against the Sikh community instead of engaging in constructive measures like improving police training or reforming the U.K.'s knife laws.

In so doing, not only have Farage, Musk and Vance demonstrated how little they care for public order and the Sikh community, but they have also demonstrated how little they care for Henry Nowak and his family. They have wronged Henry Nowak every bit as much as the man who killed him and the police who neglected to care for him.

Carney Cannot Address Anti-Semitism in Canada By Appointing Anti-Semites

Last Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney gave an address concerning the surge of anti-Semitism in Canada at Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto:

Carney admitted that "Canada's civic compact is failing Jewish Canadians."

In an effort to address this failure, Carney announced the establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion.

However, Carney appointed two members who will do little to address Canadian anti-Semitism. Indeed, their presence will very likely exacerbate it.

One of the members appointed by Carney is Omar Alghabra, a former Liberal cabinet minister and onetime President of the Canadian Arab Federation, has publicly questioned whether Hamas, Hezbollah and the al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades are terrorist organizations and intend to destroy Israel. It is worth noting that Alghabra also publicly refused to condemn the October 7th attacks.

Carney has also appointed Avish Nanda, an attorney who is representing those (including two Palestinian students) who organized an encampment at the University of Alberta at Edmonton back in 2024. Nanda will attempt to argue that the dismantlement of the encampment is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Freedom. 

Let us remember that the surge in anti-Semitism in Canada (and indeed the world over) began on October 7, 2023, a day that saw more Jews killed since the end of WWII. Yet Alghabra refuses to condemn the attack while Nanda represents those who support Hamas.

If Mark Carney were serious about ending the scourge of anti-Semitism in Canada, he would not have appointed such scoundrels to a committee intended to combat it.

NJ Dem Congressional Candidate Hamawy Has "No Regret" For Support of Blind Sheikh Responsible for '93 WTC Attack

Last Tuesday, Dr. Adam Hamawy won the Democratic Party primary in New Jersey's 12th Congressional District.

This development is troubling to former world chess champion and Russian dissident Garry Kasparov:

Hamawy’s most alarming attribute is his affiliation with the late Omar Abdel-Rahman, the so-called “Blind Sheikh” convicted for his role in a series of terrorist plots following an investigation into the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.

Hamawy stood by Rahman when the latter proclaimed his innocence in the aftermath of the February ‘93 attack, and later served as a defense witness for the infamous Sheikh.

Why does this matter? As a moral question, if Democrats are going to condemn Republicans for instigating chaos and political violence, they ought to be consistent. There would be much justified outrage if a Republican candidate was found to have been involved in January 6—OK, unsurprisingly, several Republican candidates actually have been insurrectionists, and I think most readers of The Next Move recognize this as a bad thing.

You might say Hamawy was young, misguided. Yet, of his association with Rahman, Hamawy recently told one journalist: “I don’t know how I could have regret.”

One need only look at Hamawy’s closing rally to see how little he has changed since the heady days of the early 1990s. The rally headliners included pro-China “Orthodox Jews are inbred” streamer Hasan Piker and Chris Rabb, a Pennsylvania congressional nominee who shared a social media post describing the massacre of Jews at Bondi Beach, Australia as a Zionist false flag. (Rabb’s claim that the post was the work of a rogue staffer doesn’t pass the smell test.)

This is not someone who has seriously reckoned with extremism. You can tell a lot about a person by the company that they keep, and it is fair game to question Hamawy’s judgment and worldview accordingly.

Hamawy made the comment about having "no regret" concerning his association with Blind Sheikh,  in a recent profile of him by Tom Moran of the Philadelphia Inquirer: 

But his association with the Blind Sheik deserves a careful look. According to testimony at the 1995 trial, the sheikh was openly advocating terrorism during the period Hamawy was following him, preaching that Muslims have a duty to attack Americans, along with Jews of any nationality. This was a genuinely bad guy, on par with leaders of the Ku Klux Klan.

Hamawy concedes he personally heard the sheikh advocate violence. “He did speak about violent things that I think most people disagree with and most people condemn, including myself,” he told me. “But it wasn’t the only thing he spoke about.”

But what drew him to the sheikh in the first place? And why did he stick with him, even after the bombing?

I sat with Hamawy for an hour at his West Windsor, N.J., office, where he now practices plastic surgery, and I got no clean answers.

Why didn’t he object when the sheikh advocated violence? “I was a young man,” Hamawy said. “I wasn’t like a large person in the community to go up and talk to them, you know?”

Why did he stand with the sheikh at that April news conference? “He was a well-known figure in the community at the time. There were many people there.”

Why did he join the sheikh at a conference on Islamic economics in Detroit, sitting with him in a van for 13 hours? “From what I remember, it was a last-minute carpool. I was in there with several community members.”

Does he regret his association with the sheikh? “Yes, I mean, I regret not saying something. Again, I condemn the violence … But I didn’t do anything wrong, so I don’t know how I could have regret.”

Hmmm.

Hmmn, indeed. 

Hamawy concedes he heard the Blind Sheikh advocate violence, but stated that the Blind Sheikh said other things too.

What other things could the Blind Sheikh could have persuaded Hamawy to remain by his side if he truly abhors and condemns violence against civilians?

Absent an unconditional contrition of his association with the Blind Sheikh and unequivocal condemnation of the bloodshed the Blind Sheikh caused, Mr. Hamawy is unfit to serve in Congress and represents a danger to our national security.

The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center claimed the lives of six people and would inspire al-Qaeda to attack the WTC yet again just over 8 years later with far more calamitous results.

It is true that there is no evidence to suggest that Hamawy was directly involved in the 1993 attack. Nevertheless, the fact that he has stood by the Blind Sheikh for more than three decades makes him part of the problem where it concerns attacks against American civilians by terrorists inspired by Islamic fundamentalism.

Purple Rain: The Music is Good, The Movie is Bad

 

On Saturday night, I attended a screening of Purple Rain starring Prince at the Brattle Theatre with my friend Don Hammontree.

The screening took place in tribute to Prince who would have turned 68 tomorrow. 

I have seen bits and pieces of Purple Rain on TV over the years but had never seen the film from start to finish. As it my want, when I see a movie, I prefer to see it in a theatre with a crowd.

About tonight's crowd. They were very vocal and not in a good way. Most of the scenes involving dialogue were received with copious amounts of derisive laughter. Even much of Prince's physical movements evoked howls of disdain. 

Of course, most of the players in the film were not actors - Prince, Appolonia, Morris Day although the latter was mildly amusing as the film's main antagonist. Clarence Williams III, best remembered for playing Link on The Mod Squad, played Prince's physically abusive father and did not receive derisive laughter during his scenes.

Naturally, the strength of Purple Rain came through in the music. Of course, Prince was at his zenith in 1984. Purple Rain would have been a much better movie had it strictly been a concert film. With songs like "Let's Go Crazy", "Take Me With U", "When Doves Cry", "Darling Nikki" and the titular "Purple Rain", I remember why it was the very first cassette I ever bought with my own money on my 12th birthday. 

Perhaps the most powerful scene was Prince's performance of "The Beautiful Ones" when he directs his attention to Appolonia sitting with Morris Day:

Do you want him?
Or do you want me?
'Cause I want you
Said, I want you

Tell me, babe
Do you want me?
I gotta know, I gotta know
Do you want me?

The lyrics are simple and not much different from Paul Revere and The Raiders' "Him or Me - What It's Gonna Be?" But Prince delivers these words as a matter of life and death. Appolonia, overcome with tears, bolts out of the club. That was far more effective than any of the dialogue spoken between them during the entire film.

Yet as Don told me after the film, the late Roger Ebert absolutely loved Purple Rain and compared it to Citizen Kane. I could not believe what I heard. Ebert did indeed like the film and put it on his Top 10 list for 1984. But he did not compare it to Citizen Kane. Rather he called Purple Rain “the best rock film since Pink Floyd The Wall.” Ebert also found Appolonia's acting to be "electric". Well, her body was electric (Warning: NSFW). The rest of her was far less stimulating.

Nevertheless, when Prince left this world for the afterlife in 2016, Purple Rain was the centerpiece of his musical legacy. That legacy will live on far beyond the film.

Khanna is Basically Telling Us Platner is a SOB But He's Our SOB

 

Yesterday, California Democratic Congressman appeared at a rally in Bar Harbor with presumptive Maine Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner amid a report in the New York Times of Platner's behavior towards ex-girlfriends including allegations of physical abuse.

In an interview with Fox News prior to the rally, Khanna addressed the report. Although Khanna acknowledged that Platner's behavior was "wrong and toxic" it did not deter his support. 

Khanna told Martha MacCallum, "The people of Maine deserve a senator who is going to stand up to the billionaire class, against genocide, and for the working class."

In other words, Khanna is telling us that Platner is a SOB, but that he is our SOB.

Of course, when Khanna uses the word "genocide" he is talking about Israel and Jews, not the plight of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar or Uighur Muslims in China.

Platner can basically beat his wife within an inch of her life. As long as he blames Israel for the world's problems then he will have Ro Khanna's support.

That tells you a great deal both about Graham Platner and about Ro Khanna.