Buck Sexton: It's time to stand up for the cops who protect us

Hello, America. Welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and TheBlaze. I’m Buck Sexton. Just over a week ago, protesters marched the streets of New York chanting this:

VIDEO

[What do we want it? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now.]

Just a few days later, two NYPD officers, police officers from the City of New York, were ambushed and brutally executed by a 28-year-old who acted on the sick, twisted calls for death, it seems. “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of hours….Let’s take 2 of theirs.” That’s what he wrote.

In most cases, protesters cannot reasonably be held liable for the actions of a crazed individual, but in this case, it appears the attacker, the assassin, did exactly what the protesters wanted someone to do. They were screaming out for someone to do this. So where’s the outrage? Where’s the universal condemnation? Where are the demands for justice?

If you recall, the left was up in arms after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. They blamed the Tea Party and Sarah Palin because there was a map that targeted political races, “targeted” political races. So it was on them that this complete lunatic shot Gabrielle Giffords. These guys, these protesters we were just talking about, they called for dead cops, and someone actually did it. Shouldn’t there be some sort of call for those who incited violence to be held accountable, at least in our discourse, at least in our debates over these issues?

People want to talk to me about how we should take this movement seriously. This movement for what, for police reform? How? In a sane world, there would be accountability for this. Yes, there would be, but instead of universal condemnation and calls for actual justice, we’re being told that the act, this murder, double murder, the act of one crazy gunman, that shouldn’t take our attention away from the cause. The movement is what matters, not the dead officers.

They haven’t even had their funerals yet, and there are so-called civil rights leaders and community organizers who are saying maybe we should take some time to think about how this will affect the movement. Oh, we don’t want any backlash against the movement. A movement for what? We’re told that we should focus on healing now. The president actually came out and said that we should have a dialogue. What does that mean? We should be addressing awareness…no thanks.

This country is fractured almost to the point of no repair. We’re on the verge of civil unrest and the kind of violence we haven’t seen since the 1960s. Anti-police sentiment has been simmering beneath the surface for a while, but it has been rising and getting hotter, and it could boil over at any moment. We’re on a powder keg right now, and if you want me to essentially ignore the people who are in the streets calling for the murder of innocent cops, I’m not going to just ignore this. I’m sorry, they’re the problem.

There are millions of people who don’t believe there is such a thing as innocent cops. This is a very big problem. This hatred for police is being stoked, and it’s being stoked every day. The police acted stupidly. It started with that, if you will recall, and then there was Occupy Wall Street where protesters insisted on calling cops pigs and saying that there was all this police brutality. I was there. I saw it. The police in New York acted admirably in a vast majority of cases when dealing with Occupy Wall Street, 99 out of 100.

In the wake of Mike Brown and Eric Garner, now the anti-police rhetoric has reached new lows. On Saturday night, following the shootings, Ferguson protesters took to the streets of St. Louis to taunt local cops. It’s not just a bunch of imbeciles running around in the streets screaming at those who protect us day and night. It’s actually coming, this anti-police venom, is coming from the highest offices in the land.

Americans are being left with the impression that cops are a bunch of raging maniacs who murder minorities for sports. Look, do cops make some bad calls sometimes? Yeah, of course they do. I’ve seen cops who made bad calls. I worked with cops. Are there bad cops? Yes, of course. They have a name for them, the cops. They call them perps in uniform.

Now, how to get rid of bad police behavior or police brutality is a conversation worthy of discussion—how to limit it really, because you will never get rid of it because people are imperfect. But what is not worthy of discussion is any talk that paints a broad picture of cops as just bad, inherently bad, bad in general bad.

These are men and women who put their lives on the line every single day. If a cop lets their guard down for even an instant during a routine traffic stop, it could be fatal. Every 911 call responded to, every request from dispatch, every disabled vehicle on the side of the road has the potential for violence. Officers never know when they are coming across someone so desperate to remain out of jail that they’re willing to shoot anyone who stands in the way of their freedom.

Most cops, the cops, are amazing people, and we should be proud of them. The term finest is not a stretch. When something goes wrong, when there is a threat, when things go bad, when people are running for cover, it’s cops who are running to the scene. I’ll say this to protesters who want to see dead cops, I will say this to anyone, when things go bad for you, guess what, they’re still going to show up. The cops are still going to show up and help, regardless of any disdain shown for them and no matter how big of a cowardly dirtbag some protester may be. That’s the kind of people the cops are.

For their willingness to do what they do, they deserve our respect, but you protesters filled with hatred, lies, and repulsive blood lust for vengeance, deserve neither our attention nor our respect. Anyone who marches alongside scum like this or in any way stands in solidarity with them should be condemned as well. The call to murder any group of human beings is beyond reprehensible. What’s lost in all of the mindless rhetoric is probably just that.

Police officers are people too. They are human. They are parents, siblings, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, friends. Ralph Ramos, one of the two officers killed this weekend, he leaves behind two sons. One of them, Jaden Ramos, recently posted this image on his Facebook wall for his dad’s 40th birthday with the caption, “Happy birthday to the best dad in the world, you are always there for me even when it’s almost impossible.

We have so many good times it’s not even funny, I love you so much. How does it feel to be 40? You’re getting old dad but you still look good. Hope you have the best birthday, you deserve it.” Jaden’s father was a man of faith who recently shared this image on Facebook, “My unknown future is in the hands of the all-knowing God.” The very day he was murdered, he was set to be officially commissioned as a lay chaplain. His family has said they’ve already forgiven the killer, and they don’t believe in vengeance. This was a good man taken far too soon.

So many people place a lot of trust in officers like Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, and that’s because they stand guard day and night to protect us. Now it’s time that we stand up for them.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.