#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)

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

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

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

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

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

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

Should Starbase become its own city?

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

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

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

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

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

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep