There’s A Double Standard When It Comes To Domestic Terrorism

The FBI is selective when it comes to who is classified as domestic terrorists, the parents of children in public schools, or radical activists who threaten to riot, burn down, and shed blood.

The November 2 elections were focused nationally on two specific races, governor of New Jersey and Virginia. Although there were numerous other contests throughout the nation, one in particular that also drew much attention was for the office of mayor of New York City. The Democratic candidate, Eric Adams, who won the election, ran on a platform of aggressively dealing with law and order, and that he would reintroduce policies that would in effect reverse those of his predecessor. What made this race so significant and worth mentioning is that it reverberated, and sent a message across the land that even a progressive Democrat has finally seen the light, and perhaps others will rethink their governing policies.

The mayor-elect will assume office on January 1, 2022. Eric Adams is black, and is a former police captain, state assemblyman, and currently Brooklyn borough president. On November 10 Mr. Adams sat down with one Hawk Newsome, the so-called self-appointed leader of the chapter of Black Lives Matter/Greater New York, which according to the BLM Global Network, “Hawk Newsome has no relation to the global network.”

Why then did the mayor even bother to sit down with this troublemaker, and give him any attention? It is what followed their meeting; however, that has caused a fusillade of outrage and condemnation. As I said earlier, Adams campaigned on a promise to restore law and order in a city under siege with the gun-toting criminal element running wild in the streets.  

One of Adams' first priorities is to restore the NYPD’s plainclothes anti-crime unit, which was disbanded under his predecessor’s executive order. Following the November 10 meeting, Newsome stormed out to a waiting press, and delivered this threatening statement, “If they (the city leaders) 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.”

Following Newsome’s violence-threatening screed, the mayor-elect stood fast and firm, “I made it clear on the campaign trail: I’m going to put in place, not only the Anti-Crime Unit, I’m going to put in place a Plain Clothes Gun Unit. We must zero in on gun violence in our community. This is what I’m going to do, and that was my promise, and I’m going to keep it.” When asked, Adams referred to Newsome’s threat of violence as “silly,” and added “I think New Yorkers should not allow rhetoric like that, and this city is not going to be a city of riots.” 

The outrage, as you would think, would be intense, and in many sectors that was the case, except among Democrats and many in the media. There was little if any condemnation and contempt for the dangerous and inflammatory rhetoric spoken by Newsome. Not among the mayor and city council, the governor, the attorney general, New York State assembly and senate members, the national party, prominent Democrats, and sadly even the police commissioner. But were we to expect anything else, from a party that condoned the 2020 riots.

The people of New York, in an overwhelming majority, voted for Eric Adams as their mayor. When a scoundrel like Newsome makes the threat he did, it is not just an idle outburst from a radical activist directed at the newly elected mayor and other city leaders, to intimidate and create a climate fear. Newsome was in effect directing his threat at the residents of the city; the people he thinks he speaks for, who are clamoring for justice, help, safe streets, and to live without fear for themselves and their families, and in most cases, it is these same innocent people who are hurt or killed by rampaging thugs. 

Some weeks back, the FBI was activated by the attorney general at the behest of the White House to investigate parents attending public school board meetings. It seems their sons and daughters were being subjected to a curriculum that the parents considered objectionable. Yes, there were some angry outbursts, and the discussions became heated at times, but why was the federal government involved in a matter that should involve local authorities, in this particular case, Loudon County in Virginia. 

This begs the question; will the FBI investigate Newsome for his threatening outburst, which goes far beyond anything an angry and outspoken parent is accused of? Who are the real domestic terrorists?