Black Lives Matter Leader Threatens NYC Mayor-Elect Adams with Violence


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Black Lives Matter leader Hawk Newsome threatened NYC Mayor-elect Eric Adams that there will be “bloodshed” in New York if the new mayor goes “back to the old way of policing.”

“If they think they are going back to the old ways of policing, then we’re going to take to the streets again. There will be riots. There will be fire, and there will be bloodshed,” Newsome said.

“I am not threatening anyone,” Newsome said immediately after making his threat. “I am just saying that it’s a natural response to aggressive oppression – people will react.”

The BLM leader’s comments came after a contentious sit-down meeting with Adams where they discussed possible reforms for the incoming Adams administration.

“There’s one thing that we do agree on, that we need to change conditions that people are living in, historical conditions. And the conditions have not changed,” Adams said in the meeting.

“If Black lives truly matter, then we must address violence in our communities while we address bias in policing,” Adams added. “Yelling and not listening gets us nowhere.”

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)


  1. If a white, right wing person would talk like that they would be arrested already and slapped with many charges such as threatening to commit violence and whatever else they can find to throw the book at them. But black leftists get away with murder, literally.

    Adams will be a second Dinkins, you read it here first. A liberal cannot be a law and order official regardless of what he promised to do about crime.

  2. If a white, right wing person would talk like that they would be arrested already and slapped with many charges

    No, they wouldn’t. There is no possible charge that could be made against a white person and there is no possible charge that can be made against this terrorist. Every word he said is completely protected by the first amendment, and if he were arrested for it he would sue the cop and the city, and win. The cop would lose his house — no qualified immunity. The prosecutor who brought the charges would be at risk of losing his law license. And the same would happen with a white person.

    As for Adams, he’s been a race hustler since the beginning of his career, but he’s not actually pro-crime, as De Blasio was. He will push stupid and destructive “reform”, as he has been calling for since he joined the NYPD, but not to the extent of letting crime run rampant. Compared to Dinkins he may even be worse, but compared to De Blasio he will be better, while most of his primary rivals would have been even worse than De B.

  3. This is truly a test for Eric Adams. It was very clear, that because of his anti-crime stance during the campaign, Adams received a lot of support from the Jewish community. Now is not the time for Eric Adams to allow himself to be intimidated. In the past year, during earlier BLM-sponsored riots and looting, DeBlasio proved himself to be the ultimate failure. Not only didn’t he stop the violence, but looters and other lawbreakers were NEVER prosecuted. Eric Adams can be fair and play both sides up to a point. New Yorkers will not tolerate a return to the bad old days, Anything less – will doom the Adams Administration even before it starts!

  4. > aymdock

    The question of better or worse is a question of not only when but also of WHERE (geographically). Major non-White dominated areas around New York were relatively free from violence and was home to thriving non-White businesses and and non-White cultural life. People could sleep outdoors without fear, walk through the park at night and so forth. Education for non-Whites was top rate. What changed is that non-Whites from the South came in with their own agenda and the Democrats pushed their agenda and ruined everything. So yeah, it used to be a paradise compared to today, but continuing with the very policies that ruined it in the first place (namely, Democrat policies) cannot rationally be expected to fix it.

  5. > Milhouse
    > There is no possible charge that could be made against a white person

    You miss the point. It is not a question of whether the speech “as is” is protected speech. The “powers that be” would simply arrange for the person in question to be “framed” for whatever.

    Take, as a recent example, James O’keefe of “Project Veritas”, a real big “thorn in the side” of Democrats. Whatever one may think of him and his organization, it is *all* protected speech as well as “freedom of the press”. So what happens? The FBI under the Biden administration raid his offices and his home and those of his employees and take cell phones (which contained confidential and legally protected sources as well list of donators) and all other materials they can find. What was the excuse the FBI used to get a warrant? Allegedly transporting some material across a state border (I assume the state border allegation gave the FBI the excuse to get involved). What material could that be? It seems to be an alleged diary of the President’s daughter Ashley Biden, which an anonymous person had handed over to “Project Veritas” a year ago. The interesting part is that “Project Veritas” then proceeded to hand it over to the authorities about a year ago. So recently the FBi decided that this somehow proves “Project O’keefe” must have stolen that diary and the FBI could then violate constitutionally protected “freedom of the press”.

    Even if “Project Veritas” wins in court eventually, the damage is done: donors list are exposed, confidential and protected sources are exposed, the facilities with which to continue their constitutionally protected activities have been severely hampered and blocked, and so forth ad infinitum.

  6. Milhouse

    Just as the woman who was ejected from a game just because of her “Lets Go Brandon” t-shirt. Free Speech protected under the law?, I think not!

  7. So if a WHITE heterosexual male gets up in front of a school board in Freeport, Kansas and disagrees with them and says he doesn’t want his children to be forced to learn CRT or “Heather has 2 mommies”, he is immediately branded as a domestic terrorist and Merrick Garland will sick the FBI on him, but if a BLACK BLM thug gets up and actually physically threatens innocent citizens with violence, oh he has free speech protected and we must send out the thought police to prevent any backlash against blacks by those white folks. What a sign of the times. Everything opposites. Hopefully Eric Adams will do what’s right and not cower to the Karen Woke cancel cloture crowd. Give him a chance. Let’s see.

  8. This farshtukina piece of garbage is correct about one thing. His baseball cap says Soul Not For Sale? That’s true, because a behaimah doesn’t have a soul! Sorry, to compares this filth to a behaimah, it’s a busha for the the animal kingdom.

  9. Natural reaction for animals of course. However, unrestrained wild animals need to be locked up in cages in order to maintain a normal civilization.

  10. Threats, inciting violence and dangerous destructive behavior… this is Black Lives Matter (they call it “natural”). This is outside the protection of ‘Free speech’. They are no Martin Luther King. May all those who supported BLM be ashamed.

  11. Just as the woman who was ejected from a game just because of her “Lets Go Brandon” t-shirt. Free Speech protected under the law?, I think not!

    Yes, of course it’s free speech protected under the law. What on earth makes you think otherwise? She can wear that shirt anywhere she likes, and the law cannot touch her.

    And what has her being ejected from a game got to do with the freedom of speech?

  12. NGi, first of all it’s “sic”, not “sick”. But “branded a terrorist” is just name-calling. You can call this guy a terrorist too. I did, because it’s what he is. What he isn’t, at least based on the information available in this article, is a criminal.

    And Garland will assure you, as he did the senate, that he did not sic the FBI on that father, or on anyone like him, but only on those who engage in violence or make actual threats of violence. The fact that he can’t actually name any such people, or point to any such incidents, or explain why, even if they exist, they’re a federal problem, is just a minor problem. If there were any such incidents they would be criminal, and would properly be the police’s business, though not necessarily the FBI’s.