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.

Four Questions About Scott Pelley's Response to CBS Firing Him

As I am sure you are fully aware, CBS fired Scott Pelley after 37 years with the network on Tuesday evening after he blasted the credentials of newly appointed 60 Minutes executive producer Nick Bilton while accusing the network's editor-in-chief Bari Weiss of "murdering" 60 Minutes. 

For me, to this point, the most interesting aspect of this story is Pelley's response to being fired. Pelley sent a statement to the Washington Post. I am particularly struck by this passage.

For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. 

Given the specificity of Pelley's assertions, I believe these warrant some follow up questions. Four to be exact. 

1. On which politically sensitive story did CBS management ask Pelley to inject falsehoods and bias?

2. What were the falsehoods and bias that Pelley was asked to inject?

3. On what other stories was Pelley asked to include unverified assertions?

4. Which politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews?

Questions 1 & 2 go hand in hand. Pelley has cited a specific story in which accuses network management of asking him to inject falsehoods and bias. We just don't know which story. 

Question 3 is worth if for no other reason to see what distinguishes between unverified assertions and falsehoods and bias. It also appears that Pelley work around such inquiries however potentially improper they may have been. However, he might not have been so lucky with the mysterious "politically sensitive story" in Questions 1 & 2.

As to Question 4, it is a matter of public record that Weiss gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the choice between being interviewed by Lesley Stahl and Major Garrett which Bibi choosing the latter. However, Pelley uses the term "politicians" which would suggest that Weiss have offered this option to other elected officials. In which case, it is well worth knowing who they might be. Were these American politicians or are there others from abroad? If it is American politicians, then was this reserved exclusively for Republicans or for members of the Trump Administration?

Getting back to Bibi, I do remember when Stahl interviewed him on 60 Minutes back in December 2016 and being rather perturbed by it. In her report, Stahl claimed, "Netanyahu took the provocative step of lobbying against the Iran nuclear deal and by extension President Obama in a speech before Congress." Provocative step? Netanyahu was invited by Congress to speak before them. It's not as if he just showed up on Capitol Hill and demanded to speak.

And let us consider this exchange:

Lesley Stahl: You have a friendship with Mr. Putin, and a friendship with China. You seem to be inching toward an anti-American bloc.

Benjamin Netanyahu: God, no.  Let me tell you something—

Lesley Stahl: Well, talk about that ‘cause I think there’s an impression of that.

Benjamin Netanyahu: That’s a false impression.  First of all, there is, there is an irreplaceable ally.  It’s called the United States of America.

Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but here you are making friends with our adversaries—

Benjamin Netanyahu: So no. You have relations with Russia and you have relations with China. We can have relations, economic relations, trade relations with other countries as you do.  Why not?

Now I think Netanyahu handled this line of questioning more than adequately. Nevertheless, Stahl's assertion that Bibi's cordial relationship with Russia and China constituted "an anti-American bloc" and that "there's an impression" of a such a thing isn't a statement of bias, then I don't know what is. In which case, I can understand why Bibi would prefer to talk to Garrett rather than Stahl.

But if permitting an elected or public official to choose who interviews him represents is not within the practices or protocols of American journalism and Weiss breached this practice and protocol, then I share Pelley's objections even if I think if Stahl's previous interview of Bibi was dubious.

I also don't think CBS or any other TV network should become an apparatus for state propaganda. Indeed, I vividly remember when Weiss killed the CECOT story last December because her decision came only hours after I watched All the President's Men during the Robert Redford tribute at the Brattle Theatre. 

Nevertheless, Pelley has made some specific allegations but has not provided the details. And the devil is very much in the details.

Students for Justice in Palestine Chapter Praises Boulder Terrorist on Anniversary of Attack

On the anniversary of the attack on Jews in Boulder, Colorado marching for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas which later claimed the life of a Holocaust survivor, the local chapter for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) praised the man who carried out the attack:

One year ago today, Mohamed Sabry Soliman took direct action against the Zionist death cult festering in our city. He struck against the colonist procession that gathers weekly to celebrate the pretext for ongoing genocide.

The state would have us believe that Mohamed took the action he did because he is insane – a fanatic, a terrorist, guilty of a hate crime – but we know the truth, and we reject the state’s inversion of it.

Mohamed chose the only sane response available to a rational human being confronted with the normalization of genocide. He refused the comfortable position of the grateful immigrant and the role of obedient subject, choosing confrontation with a violent system over passive proximity to the comfort of empire.

We reject the distinction between speech and material force. The Run for Their Lives procession functions as a mechanism for normalizing the celebration of mass killers, rendering ordinary the sight of war criminals treated as heroes on streets that sit upon stolen land.

Mohamed refused their normalization with direct action. He chose to treat the manifestation of Zionist violence as the lethal threat it actually constitutes.

These words are sickening. It would probably be even more so had these words been uttered in German.

If this is sanity, then there is no such thing as reason.

But these words are also illuminating because SJP and organizations like it are telling us who they are.

When these people tell you an elderly Holocaust survivor murdered in cold blood with a Molotov cocktail was part of a "Zionist death cult festering in our city" you should take them at their word.

Why?

Because they are not only telling you that killing Jews is a good thing but that they would like to see more of it in Boulder and beyond.

In the wake of these evil words, most elected officials in Colorado have chosen to remain silent. Sadly, this should not come as a surprise as the people of Boulder turned their back on the Run for Their Lives marchers and Boulder's Jewish community.

It is attitudes such as these which allow voices like SJP and their praise of terrorists to flourish.

The $1.776 Billion "Anti-Weaponization" Fund is Gone But Trump's Protection From The IRS Remains

Amid a deep backlash from Republican Senators, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the $1.776 "anti-weaponization" fund which would have been used to compensate J6ers and those who broke the law the behest of President Trump will not proceed after all.

But one aspect from President Trump's settlement with the IRS and the Treasury Department will remain. Trump, his family and his businesses will also remain exempt from all future IRS audits in perpetuity.

This is every bit as egregious as the slush fund for J6ers. Trump, his family and his businesses are beyond the reach of the IRS. Indeed, when it came right down to it, Trump (through Blanche) sacrificed his supporters for his own interests. Not that the J6ers deserved a penny of it. But this is the best-case outcome for Trump. He will take that deal any day of the week.

The idea of people storming the U.S. Capitol receiving taxpayer money as compensation for their actions is offensive to most people. One would also think that being above the law when it comes to paying one's taxes would also be offensive to most people. But not being subject to an IRS audit doesn't quite paint the vivid image of people assaulting police officers and getting paid for it.

While crime does not pay for most people, it does for President Trump. Not only is he immune from prosecution for unlawful presidential acts, but he is also immune from prosecution for cheating on his taxes. 

Of course, it doesn't hurt when your Acting Attorney General is also your personal attorney.

The Burdens of Claude Lemieux

A couple of days ago, in the wake of NHL legend Claude Lemieux's suicide, I asked what drove him to take his own life scarcely 48 hours after receiving cheers from Montreal Canadiens fans prior to Game 3 of the NHL Eastern Conference Final between the Habs and Carolina Hurricanes:

When I look at the scene in which Lemieux is greeted by thunderous applause, it is only natural to wonder what happened in the final hours of his life. 

Lemieux was found by one of his sons in the warehouse of their family business. Were there financial problems? Had he been recently diagnosed with an incurable illness? Or has Lemieux been battling depression his whole life despite being a four-time Stanley Cup champion and just decided he couldn't take it anymore? If this was the case, was going from thunderous applause to isolation his breaking point? Did he talk to anyone or did he feel too ashamed to do so?

Well, it would appear that Lemieux had been suffering from long-term depression. According to an article from the New York Post, Lemieux had been estranged from his children and was distressed that he had never been selected for the Hockey Hall of Fame. Longtime Montreal hockey columnist Réjean Tremblay also suggested, after speaking with Lemieux's close friends, that the applause he received on Monday night at the Bell Centre might have been too much to bear. "It’s possible that surge of love, that wave of love on Monday evening, triggered an emotion that was too intense,” Tremblay said, “It might have reawakened old pains, old suffering.”

For their part, Lemieux's family has announced that the hockey legend's brain will be donated to Boston University's CTE Center and has given the institution permission to release their findings. If it can be determined that Lemieux had CTE, it could shed some light on his decision to take his own life. 

Whatever their findings, it is clear that Claude Lemieux had burdens with which he could not cope.