Best of The Program | Guests: Jason Whitlock & Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes | 7/21/21

Hey, Stu.

How are you doing, buddy?

Hi, Glenn.

How are you?

I'm great.

I'm really, really super great.

People are going to be excited to know that today's podcast is all in these voices the entire time-three straight hours.

You know, nobody does that anymore, and I think it's what's missing.

The secret sauce, you know, is missing this kind of beautiful, beautiful kind of.

We start with Fauci,

and we take Fauci

down

Rand Paul did such a great job I've never seen anybody's as arrogant as Fauci was in an argument with a senator when he's clearly wrong not the senator Fauci and we'll prove that to you

also we're joined by Jason Whitlock

from from his podcast now on the blaze you can get that and watch it he's great he's talking we start talking about the swimsuit edition, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit, and how they are changing history in real time.

Then we go into more critical race theory.

We have Stephen Miller on with this.

Oh, and they say we're the ones that are providing misinformation.

While they are now saying that the Texas bill on voting and CRT,

that the

CRT bill will make it so we can't teach about the Klan.

We can't even teach about Martin Luther King.

Instead of going to some talking head who was probably masturbating during a meeting on Skype or whatever, instead of doing that, what we decided to do was go to the guy who was actually using his hands to write a bill,

the Texas Senate bill and its author, all on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Glenbeck program.

This is the Glenbeck Program.

We are very glad to talk to you this morning and bring you up to speed on the lies of Dr.

Fauci, and they are verifiable lies.

We laid it all out last week in our special, and I want to go through some of it.

We just talked about the research paper that was published in November of 2015.

One year after the moratorium,

Dr.

She and the bat lady in Wuhan, as well as multiple other doctors from all over the world, including the United States, listed as authors.

This is

one year after Obama said, can't fund this stuff.

Its description is, quote, a SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.

Now what does that mean, human emergence?

That is gain of function research.

The virus they started,

they started with a SARS-like coronavirus that was present in bats in China.

It was not infecting humans at all.

So they went and they proceeded to manipulate it so that it was transmissible to humans, known as gain of function research.

in the acknowledgement section this is what stu was talking about just a few minutes ago the acknowledgement funding and i'm quoting funding and support came from the niai

the nih

that's dr fauci and usaid and from eco health alliance that's the money faux that's the organization that fauci gave the money to so they're accrediting the nih and EcoHealth.

There was a halt on this research, remember.

That's why it has a little disclaimer, as Stu pointed out just a minute ago.

These experiments were, quote, initiated and performed before the gain of research funding pause, a gain of function research funding pause, and have since been reviewed and approved for continued study by the NIH.

So it's coming out and saying a year after the funding was supposed to be shut off, it's saying we did these experiments before.

However, this has now all been reviewed by NIH,

aka Dr.

Fauci,

and he has approved this research to continue.

Gain of function research canceled for everyone else, with an exception of the Communist Party in China.

Now, they were also publishing academic studies describing the entire thing.

Money was flowing in the direction of Wuhan.

The study clearly acknowledges that, so there's no way Fauci can deny it.

But he is.

He is lying under oath.

We know that U.S.

taxpayer dollars were going to Wuhan, China through Echo Health.

But there is more evidence, more evidence of what was being done there.

Peter Dasik in March 2016, that's the guy from EchoHealth or EcoHealth, in his own words,

describing the type of research that was going on.

Do we have that sound?

Listen to this.

So we sequence the spike protein, the protein that attaches to cells.

Then we, well, I didn't do this work, but my colleagues in China did the work.

You create pseudoparticles, you insert the spike proteins from those viruses, see if they bind to human cells.

And each step of this, you move closer and closer to this virus could really become pathogenic in people.

That's the very definition of gain of function.

That's a year after the report that Senator Paul held up.

So a year later, because in that report it says this has been approved by the NIH to continue research.

Here's Peter Dasick from EchoHealth saying, this is what we're doing.

Now,

remember,

as we explained in the special last week, it's the presence of the spike proteins that is a mystery.

But the guy sending U.S.

tax dollars to the Wuhan lab is explaining exactly what's going down.

He was on C-SPAN explaining what they were doing with a spike proteins.

That explains everything.

Why is this a debate?

Why is this even a mystery?

He's explaining it.

Then, in November 2019, three researchers at the Wuhan lab fell ill with an illness that matches the COVID

symptoms.

We didn't know this until May, just a couple of months ago.

And all of a sudden, that's when we started seeing the scientists and the doctors and the media start backtracking on their narrative because we received proof that at least three researchers at the Wuhan lab fell ill with what appears to be COVID-19

before COVID-19 was eaten in bat soup.

How's that possible?

So let's skip ahead.

December 9th, 22 days before China would report a pneumonia-like virus breaking out in Wuhan.

That's December 9th.

Doctors and scientists are meeting

from all over the world, met in Singapore at the Virus International Congress.

If you look at the attendees, you have Peter Dasik of EchoHealth.

You have Danielle Anderson, who was working at the Wuhan lab.

And she, by the way, was the one that really wrote the fact check trying to disprove the lab leak theory.

So when you hear that it didn't come from a lab,

she's the one who built that case.

She was working there

while they were working with the spike proteins on a bat coronavirus paid for by the NIH.

And then the other person that was at the conference was the bat lady.

That's quite a collection of people that, you know, before the pandemic officially began, they were all talking about what they were doing.

In fact, Peter Dasick even introduced Dr.

She and tweeted photos of her.

Followed the tweet up with a comment of how you can get on and and train at the Wuhan lab.

As soon as the coronavirus broke out and they started questioning where did it come from, he deleted all of those tweets, which isn't suspicious at all.

The conference was put on by an organization called the Coalition of

Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

They were launched in 2017 at Davos of all places.

And you know who they are?

The World Economic Forum.

They've received funding from Norway, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Along at with this conference,

at this conference, along with the people from the World Economic Forum, the conference was co-sponsored by the World Health Organization and Dr.

Fauci's NIH.

So you have all of the players who have everything to lose and quite honestly, you have at least one of the players,

World Economic Forum, who has everything to gain.

These guys are the ones that Rand Paul is really going after.

We're going after

Dr.

Fauci because he was the liar.

And it will probably, if he even has to pay a price, it'll probably stop there.

But it goes all the way.

They have national governments, big business, huge organizations.

Who do you have in the fight?

Okay, there's one other thing.

On the special I did last week, there's arguments on whether this is natural or not.

And what they're saying is they can't explain the the spike

proteins well

spike proteins they can be explained as they were

by

the report that went to Fauci and the Peter Dasik audio I just played for you it explains they were manipulating those

That's a sign that it's been a manipulated vaccine, and they can't explain it any other way.

And so they're going back and forth.

No, but it can't be that because Fauci and everybody else says it can't be that.

We weren't doing that.

So, how do we explain these?

So, the two arguments is that it was a lab leak.

And

just looking at the evidence, it seems to be the most likely.

You know, the virus started 277 meters from where the bat soup was.

Unfortunately,

they didn't sell those bats at the Wuhan market.

There's no evidence of anyone buying that.

That bat that has this coronavirus is from 1,200 miles away in China.

You're not going, you know, you're not taking

your little Chinese truck and

you're a bat salesman and getting the bats in a cave 1,200 miles away to bring it to a local market.

It's not happening.

Now,

you'll hear this from the Chinese and Dr.

Fauci and anyone trying to disprove the lab leak.

They'll say, sure, parts of the virus make it easily transmissible and it looks odd, but it was likely involved in an animal and jumped from there.

But we haven't found the animal.

And we have done 50,000 tests on animals, and we can't find the virus in any animal in that area.

None.

We can't find the original animal and we can't take this virus and inject it into bats and bats get sick from it.

The bats are rejecting it.

So why would they reject something that was incubated in them?

Okay.

The other thing is

it was labs, but we can't find the animal there either.

I would like to suggest we're looking for the wrong animal.

Here's something you never hear about.

A research paper published in May, May 2020.

The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2

in transgenic mice.

This came from Vanity Fair.

The research was published in 2020, but it was actually conducted, listen to this, sometime in the summer of 2019.

And it was conducted in the Wuhan lab.

and the paragraph explains in Vanity Fair, it's very complex, but

what it explains is how the Wuhan lab and the bat lady were artificially humanizing lungs in mice.

So they, I don't even know how this works, but they were humanizing the lungs so it was more of a human lung in the mice.

And then they injected them with COVID to see if it was more transmissible in humans.

So should we be looking for a mouse?

Because they were using mice with humanized lungs in the summer of 2019 and they were injecting this COVID with a spike proteins into these mice in the summer of 2019.

And then before anybody got sick, three researchers that were working on this project in the Wuhan lab show up at the hospital two months before anybody else gets sick, two months before that, and they're sick with COVID-like symptoms.

Gee, how is this not an open and shut case?

How is this not clear?

And how is Fauci

getting away with lying

in front of Congress with this much evidence?

Is there anybody in the media that will hold him responsible

and not take off the kit gloves

and actually start asking some tough questions.

Dr.

Fauci is welcome on this program.

My office is going to be

sending yet another request today,

and we

will be demanding either acceptance or a rejection letter.

No more stonewalling.

Senator, I mean, Dr.

Fauci, we would love to have you because if you're not lying, you just have to explain this.

Just explain it.

And I may not understand it, but there'll be somebody in the audience that will.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

One of my favorite guys is Jason Whitlock.

And when I first heard Jason Whitlock, his name, I thought, I'm not going to have anything in common with him.

He's a sports guy.

He's not a sports guy.

I mean, he is a sports guy, but he's not a sports guy.

He is so much deeper than that.

He's a culture guy and a really good man who admits his faults and is trying to be a better man.

Is there anything better than that?

Isn't that what we all should be doing?

Working every day to be better than we were yesterday?

He is the now Blaze TV host of Fearless, and he is on with us now.

Hello, Jason.

How are you, sir?

How are you, Glenn?

I'm good, man.

How are things

in our Nashville studios?

They're going well.

We're working hard and producing a lot of content and trying to be an asset.

Yeah, well, you are.

Yeah, well, you are.

The show is great.

It's really great.

I wanted to get your thoughts on the swimsuit issue because you were saying this is another historic moment in the rewriting of American history.

So tell me about it.

Well, look, the left is obsessed with being on the right side of history.

And so they keep writing about all these historic moments.

And allegedly, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, which features two black women and a transgender black woman on the cover.

This is now history, and it's a history-making deal.

Three black women or two black women and a transgender woman on the cover of Sportillistray.

And what they're doing is telling you the history they plan to write in the future.

And so in the future,

they plan to write a history that defines Christian values as evil

and they, the left, the left-wing media, they were ahead of the curve, and we embraced

the whole transgender movement, and

men that feel like women and go through this surgery, and now we consider them women,

and men can have babies, and all of this stuff.

They plan to write all this in the future, and

they're squashing dissent very cleverly by writing this history-making events all in a racial narrative so that anybody that criticizes it, if they're white, you're a racist.

If you're black, you're a sellout and an Uncle Tom.

It's very clever what they're doing, how they're attacking Christian values, wrapping it in black packaging to silence us from saying like, hey man, this is wrong.

You're putting a biological man who more power to him, has had surgery, and is now a woman, but

no, no, no, he's not a woman, biologically, scientifically not a woman.

He's calling himself a woman, and

out of deference to him and, you know, whatever, we can call him a woman, but he is not a woman.

Totally agree.

And they want us afraid to say what you just said.

Correct.

Because, oh my God, Glenn Beck is racist.

No,

first of all, I don't know.

I think I would be biphobic or what is the transphobic?

Transphobic, yeah.

I just think that we need to be very careful, especially those of us who are in some sort of a leadership role, and I say that almost

barely being able to keep a straight face.

Those of us who are in the media, we have to be very, very clear.

If I'm with that person in

a private situation or at a party or whatever,

I will refer to her as she, if that's what makes her feel better.

But if something happens at the party and she has to be going to the hospital, I am going to tell the hospital she's a guy.

Because biologically, that may make a difference

on what is happening and how they treat her, actually him.

I just think we need to be compassionate and and also accurate and we need to be more accurate in the media

so people understand we can be compassionate but also scientifically correct

totally agree with you I think the left believes though

People are less fearful of being called transphobic because the facts are so clearly on your side, regardless of what they say, that's a man, born a biological man.

Yes, they have gender dysphoria and confusion and identity, but that is a man.

And so I think they feel like, well, Glenn Beck, he can argue factually.

Hey, I'm not transphobic.

I'm just stating facts.

They weaponize it, and that's why Sports Illustrate intentionally,

because the goal is to push the transgender.

There's all these different gender identities.

And so they intentionally chose a black transgender to package this as some black history making event because

the accusation of racism is very subjective in the public space.

And anybody can argue anybody's racist and there are no facts, there's no pe people could care less.

And so that's the ultimate weapon that they're trying to silence all of us.

Glenn Beck,

Jason Whitlock's a sellout.

He doesn't understand.

He's not on the side, the right side of history on this historic black issue of blah, blah, blah.

Glenn Beck, you know, of course, he's conservative and he believes in God, and that makes him racist, and Christianity is racist, and it justified slavery.

And

I mean, all factually wrong,

but they seem to have won this argument over Twitter and social media.

And it's just frustrating.

So I just see what Sports Illustrated has done and a lot of legacy media.

They're just very clever and calculating.

I have to tell you, though, you know,

and I would like you to explain this because I think I understand what you're saying.

And I think we're saying the same thing,

but we should make it clear.

You've said a couple of times, they believe they're on the right side of history, and this is why they're doing it.

They're changing their, they're writing history for tomorrow, today.

And,

you know, I actually am glad that they're putting all of this down on paper.

As somebody who is compiling a museum, we have, I mean, I have an entire, I could fill the vault just with the papers that I have on eugenics, the papers that I have on dismantling America and how wrong they are.

The people who were for fascism here in America or for communism, they were shamed by 1950 because it was shown to be a deadly, deadly killer.

But fascism wasn't a dirty word.

Eugenics, not a dirty word, until you saw what happened at the end.

When this society falls apart and when it when it completely breaks down and we have to start all over again

these people will be on the record of being on the wrong side

and uh i i'm actually glad that they are they are clear on what they believe is

is right and normal and natural because it's not

glenn i think you're accurate i think what they're arguing to their camp is we're going to win.

Look at this massive lead we have.

We just put Joe Biden, a corpse, in office in the White House.

We got a massive lead.

Glenn Beck, Jason Woodlock, they're so far behind us.

We're winning this culture war.

And as we all know, winners write history.

So they see themselves as the winners.

They're going to write the history that Glenn Beck, Jason, were like, they were wrong about the transgender issue.

They're wrong about everything else.

America doesn't need Christian values.

America needs Marxism, communism, equity, and all these other things.

And I'm telling, they believe your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be reading their book of history.

I do.

And you will be the bad guy.

Correct.

And I believe there is a chance of that because I don't know how long it's going to take to reset back to common sense and eternal truths.

But I want to ask you what they specifically think we're wrong about when it comes to transgender.

I'd like to hear your opinion on where we're wrong, because I think we're with most Americans when they actually, not when we're spun, but when it's exposed on what we actually believe.

I don't think we're off base with the vast majority of Americans.

Back with Jason Whitlock in just a second.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.

This is the Glenn Beck program

where we just don't let you know who we are.

We don't let you know that we're conservatives.

And that way we can brainwash people and feed them all kinds of misinformation.

Or it's the exact opposite of that, but you'll have to decide.

The media right now is coming after Texas

with both barrels, but

they're filled with fraud.

I mean,

everything they're saying about the Texas bill on voting is not true.

Now they're actually saying that we're never going to be able to teach, you know, about Martin Luther King

or Susan B.

Anthony.

If the Republicans have their way, you'll never hear about those people in school.

Let me tell you something.

Critical race theory disagrees with Martin Luther King.

You keep critical race theory in, and you will lose.

Martin Luther King.

That's not what is in the Senate bill.

And instead of going to some expert who has read the bill and knows about the bill and I got to tell you, this is what I read, let's go to the guy who actually wrote the bill.

The guy who can set the record straight straight is Brian Hughes.

He's a Texas state senator.

He's the author of Senate Bill 3.

Welcome to the program.

Glenn, thank you for having me.

I'm so glad to be on.

You bet.

It must be so frustrating for you to see these

quote-unquote trusted voices

talk about the bill and just lie about it like they are.

Glenn, it's just beyond words.

We've dealt with media bias for a long time.

Everybody gets that.

But to falsely state objective facts and to do it again and again and then to have this echo chamber.

And I'll tell you this, you don't have to take my word for it.

Anyone can go to chapter 113 of the Texas Administrative Code.

That's where our curriculum elements are found.

Chapter 113, Texas Administrative Code.

That's before my bill.

That's after my bill.

It's still there.

And you will find many specific references to difficult subjects like slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, eugenics, bright things like the women's suffrage movement.

A lot of that Dr.

King, we adore and look up to Dr.

King so much.

You'll find many references to him, to Susan B.

Anthony, the Civil Rights Movement, the Underground Railroad.

The very things, the very things that we are accused of removing are specifically set out in the curriculum standards today.

Today, that has not changed.

It's remarkable.

So what happened?

What are they basing this on?

How could you possibly, how can an honest person read your Senate bill

three

and come up with that?

Can an honest person do that?

I can see how you could look at the bill from last session.

There was a critical race theory that came out of the House last session, a bill about critical race theory, and it had a long, exhaustive reading list.

Topics on the left and the right, all kinds of American history.

And we heard from teachers and from the State Board of Education, and they said, hey, leave us the specifics, leave us the details in your bill.

Just put the broad topics.

So Senate Bill 3 removes those specific items from the statute, but it leaves them where they belong over in the curriculum in Chapter 113.

I have not seen a single story, a single story about this.

Look at chapter 113 in the law in Texas, Texas Administrative Code, that lists Dr.

King, Susan B.

Anthony, Underground Railroad.

So what are the categories?

What does this new bill say?

Oh, we're so excited about this bill because this says we're going to teach our students to judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

It specifically says that in Texas public schools, we do not teach that one race is inherently superior to another, that one sex is inherently superior.

It specifically rejects white supremacy or any racial supremacy or inferiority.

It also says, Glenn, that one race, members of one race, are not inherently racist and unable to overcome their racism.

Do we have problems in America's past?

Of course.

And we teach American history and Texas history, good, bad, and ugly.

But we teach our students how we overcome it by coming together as Americans, not by being racist.

I don't know if you feel the same way, Brian, but I am shocked that we have to outline this in every every state in the union.

I can't believe this has been so well crafted and is so far down the road that we have to have these bills.

And I'm also shocked at the people who are standing up fighting against them.

Goodness, remarkable.

And perhaps one of the worst elements, we had this during the debate on this bill last week.

One of the worst elements, there is a teaching that meritocracy and work ethic and working hard, that that's a racist construct.

What is the worst thing we could teach our children, regardless of their race, color, gender?

What's the worst thing we can teach them?

That hard work doesn't matter.

That's the essence of the American dream.

That's how everyone can succeed in this country like no place in the world.

And these people are suggesting that we should teach hard work and meritocracy is racist?

That's horrible.

I have to tell you, it's one of the things, I mean, there's, you know, obviously a lot of things like I don't want my kids to be criminals and I don't, you know, all the things that you worry about.

I'd love my kids to have a great relationship with God, et cetera, et cetera.

But as a dad, I worry all the time about teaching my children work ethic.

You know, how do you, I learned that, I think, through osmosis because my father was doing it.

We were all just expected to go to work with him.

We owned our own business.

So at eight years old, I'm working.

Well, I don't have that kind of business for my children.

And

that scares me that they may not have the right work ethic.

And here we have our schools wanting to teach that work ethic is racist.

That dismantles everything in our society.

Glenn, you said it dismantles everything.

You and I and people that grew up in America understand this American dream, right?

That even if you fail before, no matter the color of your skin, no matter what your parents did, no matter where you were born, if you work hard and trust the Lord and play by the rules, you can succeed and you lift others up when you do that.

This critical race theory, this toxic evil doctrine, attacks the very heart of the American dream.

And let me just say this, Glenn, this is pretty obvious and I haven't heard people talking about this.

In critical race theory, they're teaching little white children that they should feel guilty.

about bad acts by previous generations of white folks.

But even worse, they're telling little children from from minority communities, little black children, brown children, they're telling them, oh, you can never make it in America.

America is so racist.

It's so against you.

You'll always be second class.

What a horrible message to teach those children.

Let's teach them that we can all succeed.

Are there problems?

Yes, we'll overcome them together as Americans, but everyone gets a chance.

Everyone can succeed in America.

And critical race theory, as you said, undermines the very heart of the American dream.

Teachers are already reporting.

They say that they're the very beginning of seeing some of the early results of teaching critical race.

They say that they are already seeing white kids being rejected from play groups and

they're being ostracized.

And, you know, we did a study.

What was the name of that study back in the 1950s or 60s where they taught children

that if you have blue eyes, you are inferior and you're to be feared.

And if you have any other color eye, you're fine.

And they classified the children of blue eyes and they only did it in one day.

And they said by the end of the day, the children were already separating themselves and breaking friendships.

Can you imagine?

I mean, we know the results of this.

Can you imagine teaching this all throughout our country?

for even just a year, what an impact this would have.

Oh, Glenn, what a nightmare.

You made the great point, and that study demonstrates that racism has to be taught.

And we have challenges in our history, difficult challenges with racism even today.

But most folks would agree we are making progress.

We've got a long way to go, but we're making progress.

That's what Dr.

King said.

This teaching, this critical race theory, pushes us back generations.

It creates new racism in our country, the last thing we need at a time like this.

So is this going to pass?

This bill is going going to pass.

It has passed the Texas Senate.

As you know, over in the Texas House, right now, we don't have a quorum because a number of our Democratic colleagues have left to go to Washington.

And so we don't know exactly what their plans are, but they're going to come back at some point.

They've got homes and families here.

And Governor Abbott says when they come back, he'll call us back for another special session.

And I can say for my part that I'll stay here as long as it takes and come back to Austin as many times as it takes to get these bills done.

Glenn, there's this bill, there's election integrity you talked about, there's free speech online, helping our retired teachers, children in foster care, property tax relief, so many good bills we want to get passed, but we can't do it right now because we don't have a quorum in the Texas House.

Are you convinced that if we pass these bills, that they're not just going to change the names or they're not just going to wink and a nod with

the

real radical teachers, and they'll just teach it anyway?

Well, I'm glad you brought it up because if you read this bill, it doesn't use the phrase critical race theory.

Rather, it describes in detail those pernicious doctrines.

But yes, we're going to have to watch.

That question has come up.

We have great teachers in Texas.

We're thankful for them.

And most of them reject this, the vast majority.

In fact, I've heard from a number of teachers that support the bill.

And teachers have sent me examples of where they see this creeping into curriculum.

So the good news is we have great teachers in Texas that don't believe this.

We want to make sure that they're supported and they're not being pushed to teaching lies like this to our children.

Brian, thank you so much for being on with us.

This is Brian Hughes.

He's a Texas state senator setting the record straight and telling you exactly what's in the bill, not the lies from the mainstream media, Texas Senate Bill number three.

Brian, thank you so much.

God bless.

Thanks for having me.

You bet.

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band.

And from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.