This episode is brought to you by my friend Rebecca Walzer, Rebecca's a financial expert who can help you protect your wealth during this volatile market.

Book your complimentary call with her team by going to friendofdenesh.com.

Now today I'm going to talk about the latest fact check on 2000 Mules, which claims that the movie can't be trusted, you know why?

On account of its blurring of the image of a dog.

I've got an example with NPR, National Public Radio's rage of state laws that are limiting people like Mark Zuckerberg from putting up all this money to infiltrate election offices and control election practices around the country.

Also Dr. Simone Gold is going to join me. We're going to talk about her January 6th or Deal. This is the Dineshtus Uza Show.

America needs this voice. The times are crazy and the time of confusion, division and lies. We need a brave voice of reason, understanding and truth. This is the Dineshtus Uza podcast.

The latest fact check on 2000 Mules is written by a guy named Will Nevin. He's assistant professor and program coordinator for communications media.

This is actually ironic as we're going to examine his ability to communicate, which let's just say is not superior.

But why should it be? He's after all at Alabama A&M University.

I guess that's where you go after you graduate from night school. Alabama A&M University. I've heard of Texas A&M everyone has, but Alabama A&M really.

Anyway, every university does have to hire professors and I guess they found this guy somewhere.

So he claims that quote experts have thoroughly debunked the claims of 2000 Mules. Blah blah blah. That's just the usual recycled boilerplate.

And then he goes, but even though it's been debunked, there's an interesting moment. He goes, yeah, doesn't mean the film is without some interesting moments or rather an interesting moment.

He finds only one moment in the film that interests him. And what is that? Well, it's a scene involving what in the movie is called Dog Guy.

Now, let's imagine the scene here and I'm just quoting from the movie here. We see a guy with a dog and Catherine Engelbrecht says he's got the ballots under his arm. Now he's got the rest. He pulled out of the bag.

You can see all this going on. So clearly something fishy and corrupt is going on. You've got a guy with a backpack of ballots who's pulling the mouth and stuffing into the box.

And then Philip says, and he's going to get his camera ready to take the pictures as he puts them in there.

And if you consider the brazenness of this, it's in the middle of the day. Now the professor, this is Will Nevin Waysen to say,

the film claims without evidence that the procedure for mules included taking pictures of ballots in order to be paid, excluding more reasonable explanations like say people sharing pictures of their participation in democracy on social media.

Let's pause right there. We have not a single picture, not a single case of a mule taking his own picture.

Now if you had mules shooting themselves in front of the ballot box, yeah, I can see posting that on Instagram, posting on Facebook, I voted, I haven't I voted sticker.

...