Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Stu Bashes France's New Ban on Unlimited Soda Refills

January 30, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What's the most important thing going on in the world right now? It involves a ban --- but not the one about traveling to America.

The media have glossed over this one, but the soda-obsessed hosts at The Glenn Beck Program would never miss an opportunity to keep their audience informed.

"France has banned unlimited soft drinks and refills. Now, this is the sort of thing that concerns me and will actually affect my life," co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on radio.

It is now illegal to sell unlimited soft drinks at a fixed price or offer them for free in France. Just another example of a progressive government run amok.

"They've taken something that a business has done to help their customer have a better experience, and because they think the customer is using it incorrectly . . . they are taking it away," Stu said.

Vive la France!

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I say to Stu, so what's been on your mind on the news? He says, well, I've got a good soda story.

Of course, you do.

STU: Well, it's the most important thing going on in the world right now.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Hello.

STU: And, again, you want to talk about bans, bans that are damaging to our world.

JEFFY: Particularly unacceptable bans.

STU: Yeah. How about France? France has banned unlimited soft drinks and refills. Now, this is the sort of thing that concerns me and will actually affect my life. It is now illegal to sell unlimited soft drinks at a fixed price or offer them unlimited for free in France.

Number of overweight or obese people in France is below the EU average, but is on the rise. The World Health Organization recommends taxing sugary drinks. Oh, well, that's a good reason for it. Linking them to obesity and diabetes, which is so stupid.

You know, we've gone over these arguments before. But it's like -- it's not just drink -- they just picture -- they take one little category that they want to vilify. It's the old Saul Alinsky thing. They separate it, and then they just vilify it. They target it, and they try to make it into a big thing. For whatever reason, soda is the example here.

But this is another example of progressive governments around the world in this case, but it's happened many times, that decide they know what's better for you than you.

This is a customer benefit. Remember, this is somewhat new in the United States. I mean, as a kid, I remember growing up, you had to pay every time you wanted a soda. Now there is the availability to walk up to the little soda machine and fill it back up, as I do every time I go wherever I go and get extra sodas and enjoy them. And they've taken something that a business has done to help their customer have a better experience, and because they think the customer is using it incorrectly, their choice, the government's choice -- not the consumer's choice. They are taking it away.

In this case, in France. But this will come here, obviously. And it has come here in the form of taxes and other things.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

STU: And it's the same thing with net neutrality. Net neutrality technically would ban what I think T-Mobile has done, which is give you free streaming of Hulu and Netflix and Amazon Video and all these things. A great benefit to the consumer.

However, net neutrality says, "Well, you're not treating all companies equally when it comes to data, so you can't do that."

And the activists have fought to try to get that overturned, so far unsuccessfully.

But, I mean, these are benefits. These are making your life better. You're getting more for your money, and yet government wants to come out and take these things away from you.

And while, yes, sure, all I care about is soda, it is a much larger problem than that. And we see this in every aspect of our lives right now.

GLENN: And already, tastes are changing.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: The traditional soda is going the way of sarsaparilla. Slowly.

STU: Very slowly.

JEFFY: Eh.

STU: You're right, this is what a lot of people are talking about in the beverage world, if I may.

GLENN: Right.

STU: However, I think what you're doing is getting more choices more than soda, right?

GLENN: That's what I'm saying.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The traditional soda choice is going to Little Ponies, which I hate.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And getting fragmented so much. It's a thing of the past. So as they go after soda, well, what about all the other drinks that are coming out now? I mean, you look at Coca-Cola --

STU: For example, energy drinks, which are just soda with more caffeine in it, theoretically, they complain about even more than soda.

GLENN: Burst your heart.

STU: But, oh, well, people are moving from soda to energy drinks.

What the hell do you think a Monster is? It's just a soda. It's a soda with more caffeine in it than old-timey sodas. That's the same product.

GLENN: No, they've done something no man has ever done before.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: They have made some -- they have made the worst taking product into a successful product.

STU: Well, I think you're more focusing on Red Bull with that analysis.

JEFFY: Yeah, because some of the other Monsters are not bad.

GLENN: Really? Are there any of them that are good?

STU: Yeah. A lot of the Monster drinks -- I would say, yeah. I mean, the Monster -- they have a Monster Absolute Zero line, including the orange one, Sunrise, which I absolutely adore.

JEFFY: Yeah, that's really good. That is really good.

STU: That's really good. There's a lemonade one. The citrus one is really delicious --

GLENN: I need to try one. Because I had Red Bull, oh, my Gosh.

STU: That whole line is good.

JEFFY: No. Red Bull is -- is distinctly different than the Monster Zero line.

STU: Yes, the Monster Zero line --

GLENN: How was Red Bull ever successful?

STU: I don't know. My theory on this -- because you're right. It tastes like antifreeze.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, it does. It tastes like jet fuel or something.

STU: And you can get to a point where you get used to it, but why would you need to? There's no reason for that.

GLENN: Why? Right.

STU: I honestly thought maybe they marketed it as --

JEFFY: I think they do --

STU: They market it -- they actually intentionally made it taste bad so you thought you were doing something like, wow. Like, I am really downing some caffeine here. Like, it's almost to stand out, they made it taste a little strange. Because they just had --

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: It would be interesting to find out if that's what they did.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Because whatever they did, it worked.

GLENN: Because there's no way -- you can make soap taste better than that.

STU: Right.

And now, they've gone -- Red Bull has released several other flavors. And they're much better tasting, though still not as good as like the Monster or the Amps or Venoms of the world. I mean, but we could talk about this all day. Is that what you want?

GLENN: The Venoms. Not really.

STU: Because the Venoms, they're only 99 cents, which is really what gives you the big benefit there.

GLENN: The cost.

JEFFY: Yeah, cost-effective.

STU: They're very strong though, if you don't like sweet flavors. Because they're almost Jolly Rancher-ish at times. So they're pretty strong, but if you can deal with that, cost-effective. And delicious.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Well, good thing I can't get a refill. But on the way home, I can stop by my 7-Eleven and get a Monster. Twice the caffeine. Twice the sugar --

STU: Oh, much more than twice.

GLENN: Twice everything that's bad for you.

STU: Let's talk about Amp and Rock Star.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.