#MAGA: We Demand More Artificial Blueberries in Krispy Kreme Donuts!

November 16, 2016

Writer

This is a public service announcement: Krispy Kreme blueberry doughnuts are perfectly fine just as they are, artificial flavors, colors and all. In fact, if you're expecting your doughnuts to be healthy, natural and chock-full of real fruit, you might want to make them from scratch or locate a bakery run by Millennials.

"BuzzFeed is reporting today that Krispy Kreme has been lying to us, and they're being sued. I don't even think I want to know about this. Krispy Kreme, you can keep lying to me all day long," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

It's true. An overzealous, litigious-friendly health nut (yes, he's from California), shockingly discovered that there are unhealthy ingredients in doughnuts.

The host and co-hosts of The Glenn Beck Program were having none of it.

"I want more artificial blueberries! I demand it! Come on, Trump, make America great again with that," Co-host Stu Burguiere exclaimed.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these all-natural questions:

• Are Krispy Kreme blueberry doughnuts freaking delicious or what?

• Would real blueberries ruin the freaking delicious taste of Krispy Kreme blueberry doughnuts or what?

• Should there be penalties for frivolous and nuisance lawsuits, especially as regards doughnuts?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: BuzzFeed is reporting today that Krispy Kreme has been lying to us. I -- and they're being sued. I don't even think I want to know about this. Krispy Kreme, you can keep lying to me all day long.

STU: Well, it's a ridiculous lawsuit. The guy is claiming that Krispy Kreme is doing something horrifically awful because their blueberry doughnuts, which, by the way, are freaking delicious. I just had one the other day.

GLENN: The cake doughnuts?

STU: The cake doughnuts, the blueberry cake doughnuts don't actually have real blueberries in them.

GLENN: Who thought they did?

STU: This idiot apparently thought they had real blueberries in them. Now, they're little tiny specks of blue that are colored. It's just a blueberry flavoring. But who cares? They're delicious.

JEFFY: They're doughnuts.

STU: Yeah, and he wants $5 million.

GLENN: Shut up.

JEFFY: Oh, my God.

STU: Because you didn't get real blueberries in your doughnuts?

GLENN: Shut up.

STU: You know if there were real blueberries in the doughnuts, they would be worse, and then they should be sued. I want more artificial blueberries. I demand it. Come on, Trump, make America great again with that.

(laughter).

[break]

GLENN: Welcome to the program. You know, we were sitting here talking about Krispy Kreme being sued. And Pat said, "They're going to throw this out." I bet you this guy gets at least $200,000.

JEFFY: Absolutely.

PAT: No. They got throw it out of court. Come on.

JEFFY: No way.

GLENN: They won't. They won't.

PAT: That's ridiculous.

STU: On this one, I tend to side with Pat on that because they're going to -- this is a ridiculous claim.

PAT: If Krispy Kreme put razorblades in the doughnuts, he's got a case. Putting artificial flavoring in the doughnuts, get out of here. Get out --

GLENN: I have a completely different point of view now. I have always been the guy you fight it and fight it and fight it --

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: It's not even your choice anymore. A lot of times it's the insurance companies. Krispy Kreme has an insurance company for lawsuits. It's not going to be Krispy Kreme that decides. And all that -- the only thing that decides lawsuits now, actuary tables. That's it. They just look at the tables, and they're like, "Okay. If we keep going this way, it's going to cost us this, and if there's a judgment against it, it will cost us this. We settle right now, it will cost us this. Offer him $200,000. He'll go away."

PAT: You sound like you might have some experience with that.

GLENN: I do. And it's despicable.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: It's despicable. And sometimes -- like Krispy Kreme -- Mr. Kreme -- I like to call him Krisp, but --

STU: I don't think that's --

GLENN: He may not -- they may not even have a choice. It may just go to the insurance company.

STU: Yeah, there's a first layer of litigation though --

PAT: Your lawyer goes and he says, "Your Honor, this is -- there's no merit here."

GLENN: If it's a frivolous lawsuit, we need penalties for frivolous lawsuits.

PAT: I agree with that.

STU: The question is, how do you determine --

GLENN: And nuisance lawsuits.

PAT: I agree with that.

STU: How do you determine what that is?

GLENN: I don't know. I don't --

PAT: Common sense.

GLENN: No, there's no common sense anymore.

PAT: Where you say, shut up.

GLENN: I am not one that believes -- I don't necessarily believe in the justice system anymore. I mean, I just think it's so corrupted by fancy lawyers, and there's no common sense anymore.

STU: And very unfancy lawyers, by the way. We watched something on -- it was a documentary that some guy put together. Because he kept getting sued by this group of lawyers who were -- I think it was a patent issue, if I remember correctly. And so he decided to try to figure out what this was. It had nothing to do -- he did something completely disconnected. Like, he posted something on Facebook. And this company was suing -- saying Facebook used some sort of technology that was his. So it was the company's.

So he -- he's like, "I just posted -- what are you talking about? I just posted it on Facebook. I have nothing to do with the way they set up their technology." But this guy was going to individuals who posted things on Facebook and saying, "We're suing you. We're suing you. We're suing you. We're suing you."

Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people got sued, and most of them wound up getting to that point where they couldn't fight it anymore. They didn't want to get a lawyer. So they paid out $1,000, $500, and they were getting this from all over the place, to the point where this guy decided, you know, the only thing I can do -- because it dragged -- dragged on for years -- was to go and try to investigate this. And he made a documentary of this story. And he went to offices all over the country that there weren't even lawyers in them. The places these were being filed from weren't even legitimate offices. They were just like set up to file frivolous lawsuits and hope people would settle with them. And there is an entire industry --

JEFFY: Love America.

GLENN: I have a friend who owns a company. And I'm not going to tell you anymore than this because I don't want to now be on the lawsuits. But he owns this company. Guy has sued him five separate times, all slightly different. Five separate times. Thrown out each time.

He's -- his company has been in court with the same guy for almost two years. Off and on for, like, two years.

He finally just said, "Look, I'll give you $200,000. Will you just sign this paper, say you'll never sue us again, and just go away?" Yep. And he's just going to go -- and he knows, he's just going to go -- he's going to go to another company and do the same thing. I mean, it's just obscene. It's obscene.

STU: There has to be -- that would be something that would be great if they would actually take on. I don't know what you do.

JEFFY: I don't either.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I don't think -- I think you're going to see lawsuits against the press. I think you're going to start seeing major lawsuits which will be the worst, bone-chilling thing especially for the --

PAT: There was someone who said that they were going to open up the libel laws.

JEFFY: Who was it?

GLENN: I think you're going to see it.

PAT: If he does that, you'll bet you'll see it. You'll absolutely see it.

GLENN: You will see it. And it will be bone-chilling. You will not get the news. No one will ever be challenged. Because then you want to talk about freedom of speech, it just won't -- it will not be there.

PAT: It won't exist if they do not that.

GLENN: It will not exist. It will not exist. And I think the crowds will cheer. If it was Barack Obama that did it, the crowds would cheer.

PAT: How about the little darlings that want their safe spaces, of course, they're going to cheer.

GLENN: Yep. They're going to cheer. They won't cheer now. But if it was a Democratic president, if it would happen in 2020, and, you know, whoever -- I don't even know who they have, Al Gore, as president in 2020 and he passed it, those people would cheer.

STU: Right.

GLENN: If Donald Trump passed it, they will not cheer.

STU: This is why you have a thing called a Constitution.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Which is supposed to set guidelines that it doesn't matter if one side is pissed off or not, those things don't happen.

GLENN: Justice is supposed to be blind.

STU: Yeah.

Featured Image: Krispy Kreme doughnuts are displayed in a shop in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2016. (Photo Credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

#MAGA: We Demand More Artificial Blueberries in Krispy Kreme Donuts!

Washington Post EXPOSED: How Watergate editors almost published a fake Pulitzer Prize-winning story

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November?

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?