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

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

November 16, 2016
Lori Hanes

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)

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

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

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.