Doc Thompson: NYC Mayor de Blasio among those putting "overheated rhetoric that angers and divides people" in wake of NYPD shootings

TheBlaze Radio’s Doc Thompson and Skip Lacombe took over The Glenn Beck Program this morning and started things off with a look at one of the weekend’s biggest stories - the execution of NYPD police officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. The killings were done seemingly in retaliation for the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. With tensions between police and the communities they serve so strained, are leaders like NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio doing more harm than good?

Below is a rough transcript of this segment

DOC: I was leaning against the wall waiting for my smoothie. The lady about 60, 65, says to me, excuse me, sir. Are you in line? And I said, no, no, I'm sorry. I'm waiting for my smoothie. And she said, oh, okay, thank you. Merry Christmas. And she walked over and got in line with what I assumed was he grandson. She's Christmas shopping on Saturday. This was a black woman. And I thought to myself, having just gotten a text message minutes earlier about the huge protests that were going on at the mall of America over the Ferguson and Eric Garner cases out of New York and St. Louis. This woman didn't have a problem with me because I'm white. She didn't assume the worst. I didn't assume the worst about her. It was two people going through their lives respecting one another and saying, are you in line? No. I'm sorry. Line is right over there. Okay, thank you. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. It was a pleasant exchange. Because we were individuals. We weren't a white guy, a black lady. We weren't being divided up by that -- at that moment by the race baiters who seek to divide us for their own good. About 20 minutes after that, I was standing in the middle of this mall in Dallas where they have a huge like three-foot, two-foot pool of water. And as an attraction, kids can get inside these inflatable balls and they run in them on the water. And there's like four or five of them running and they'd fall down inside the ball and the water splashes up around it. It was really brought entertaining. I stopped with my wife and we're watching them, laughing at the kids. And a couple came up, stood next to me. They didn't have any kids that were playing. And started laughing at the kids as well and talking about it and said how much fun it looked and I engaged them in a conversation. And I they really need to make some of these for adults.

SKIP: I was going to say. I've seen the bouncy things on the water. They look like fun.

DOC: And the man, a black man and his wife, I was just telling her the same thing. And we engaged in a pleasant conversation the fun the kids were having a Saturday before Christmas. And it wasn't a black guy or a white guy trying to keep each other down, yelling at each other. We wrapped up the conversation by wishing each other a Merry Christmas. And this is what I experienced all day Saturday. And I kept thinking in my mind, juxtaposing that with all of the reports I'm getting out of New York in the Mall of America and other protests everywhere else. And I'm just walking through the mall going, why? And it comes down to what I said a few moments ago, and that is because when we think in those terms about what's going on in New York with the cops being shot and the protests and everybody upset, we're thinking in terms of groups of people. We're actually doing some of the very things that we're critical of people like Al Sharpton. We're thinking in groups. We say, stop segregating us, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Stop race baiting. But if I allow them to do to to me, I'm doing the same thing. I'm thinking in terms of those people are marching because they're ticked off about something, instead of looking at each person as an individual. That's the key right there. Is unfortunate he all across our approximately all across our society we don't look at individuals. The courts don't. What happened to looking at each case and saying, you know what, there's mitigating circumstances here. It's not just three strikes and you're out. Looking at each case judging them based on the actions of that person and that case. That is the fail right now. We're allowing these race baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and President Obama to do this to us. We're allowing Mayor de Blasio to do this to us. If you're not familiar with the story there, were two police officers who were shot execution style point blank by some nut with a gun. And he made references to shooting pigs, killing comes to, as some sort of retaliation for Ferguson and also Eric Garner. That's where we're at right now. It reached that level. Just days before Christmas that's where we're at. My name is Doc Thompson, along with my cohost Skip LaCombe, pinch-hitting for Glenn today. We're regularly heard on the radio six to nine eastern time. You can get it on I-Hart radio and the apps as well for it. Skip, what are the names of the Officers? The two officers that were shot, and this is really important, that we say their names. I don't know their names off the top of their head but Michael Brown, I know Eric Garner. We know their names. But we don't know the Officers off the top of our head.

SKIP: It was Rafael Ramos and then Wenjian Liu. I know I'm slaughtering the names.

DOC: These officers were just doing their job. Out on patrol. And as critical as I am over the race baiting -- it's important you remember, yeah, they may have contributed to the anti-cop sent minutes that some people have. They may have ginned some people up, gotten some people excitable. But this is not a fire in a movie theater situation. Did they contribute to it? Maybe. But the ultimate blame for what happens is on this nut who shot them. He has a history of mental illness. It is ultimately his fault. What I find so frustrating from the race baiters is how they started back pedaling and saying, oh, wait a minute. I -- categorically deny or categorically reject that this should have happened. The president said I categorically condemn the shooting of these police officers and it certainly wasn't necessary.

SKIP: Of course they are going to come out and say this. They can't give a quick little nod and say, yeah well, that's what happens.

DOC: It's unfortunate in a time of great tragedy, some would resort to irresponsible overheated rhetoric that angers and divides people. This is the criticism you should be heaping on President Obama and de Blasio and Eric Holder. See, everybody is failing at this. It's not just the cops being shot. It's not just Michael Brown. It's not just Eric Garner. It's all of it. And everybody is failing somewhere. There's enough fails in getting this wrong to go around. They're all missing this. President Obama did not pull the trigger. Did he gin some people up? Yeah. His biggest fail is by now back pedaling and saying, unconditionally condemning the murder of the two New York police officers and there's no justification for the slayings. Yes, there is a justification for the slayings if you listen to everything else Obama has said in the past. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. He talks about the fails. He supported the wearing of the "I can't breathe" shirt by people like L e Bron James. What is that saying, then?

You're saying that it's true. You're saying if -- by supporting LeBron James wearing the t-shirt and the other protestors out there, you're saying it's true, that police officers are shooting black kids. And it's epidemic.

SKIP: Indiscriminately.

DOC: Right. And you know how you know? Because that's what the protestors have said. You cannot as president separate yourself from the protesters and say, well, I believe in some of what they say but all the other stuff is comploong.

SKIP: He likes to come around and say in a round-about way I'm not going to go and comment on these types of things but he will come out and talk about Lebron James wearing the "I can't breathe "shirt or people holding their hands up coming out of a football game. So he is come, saying I do stand with you and the supports. I can't breathe either or whatever.

DOC: There's no justification in the slayings? No, based on what Obama said. I there is justification. But he obviously does. When you stand with the protestors and say there are cops killing black kids and it's epidemic, which is part of their mantra, you can claim you want peaceful demonstrations all you want but who is going to say it's not justified to stop people even using deadly force if you believe they're going to kill people. Case in point. You're at your home sleeping. Minding your own business. A guy breaks in your house tonight. And attempts to kill you. Are you justified in using deadly force to stop him?

SKIP: Absolutely.

DOC: Absolutely. If cops are out there randomly shooting black kids, isn't it justified to stop them? With deadly force? Again, if you buy in to this crap President Obama and Eric Holder and others are saying. That cops are killing black kids simply because they're black. De Blasio is even worse. De Blasio said if it's unfortunate that in a time of great tragedy, some would resort to the irresponsible overheated rhetoric that angers and divides people. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Overheated rhetoric? What did de Blasio say? What did de Blasio say after Eric Garner? Do you remember? Both in press conference and in interviews, official interviews, he said, that he has warned his son to be careful.

That cops may shoot him because he's black.

SKIP: It's different for the black kids out there. You know, it's different if you're going out there. I'm worried about sending my kid out there with the horrible Officers -- this is from the mayor. The mayor of New York is saying the NYPD officers are indiscriminately attacking black people. What do you expect is going to happen? That is dangerous talk.

DOC: Mayor de Blasio said, police officers are shooting black kids. Or are inclined to shoot black kids simply because they're black. That's what he said. So who is really putting overheated rhetoric that angers and divides people? It's not me. I'm the one who said, reasonably, if you resist arrest, police are going to use force to arrest you and what happens? Sometimes it ends up being deadly. It's not pleasant. It's not fun. I feel bad for anybody who suffers. And their families as well. But the fact is both of those men resisted arrest. That's it. It's tragic. Maybe you need some better training. I don't balk at that. But you know who else needs training? Not just the police. Citizens.

SKIP: People, absolutely.

DOC: All people.

SKIP: Eric Garner and Michael Brown would still be alive today if they did just one thing. Listen. Listen to instructions from a police officer. If a cops tells you to do something, do it. Take them back in the legal court next year if it's some sort of a problem and you think they're in the wrong and you're in the right. Hell, the ACLU will probably help defend knew that case. But if a cop tells you to do something, you do it.

DOC: Right. Did he tell his son, did de Blasio tell his son that? Just listen to police officers? Did he tell white kids that? Because what, they're going to let off white kids if they resist arrest? It's asinine.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

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.