Best of the Program | Guests: Carol Roth & Dinesh D'Souza | 5/2/22

This podcast is supported by Progressive, a leader in RV insurance.

RVs are for sharing adventures with family, friends, and even your pets.

So, if you bring your cats and dogs along for the ride, you'll want Progressive RV Insurance.

They protect your cats and dogs like family by offering up to $1,000 in optional coverage for vet bills in case of an RV accident, making it a great companion for the responsible pet owner who loves to travel.

See Progressive's other benefits and more when you quote RV Insurance at Progressive.com today.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates, pet injuries, and additional coverage and subject to policy terms.

Great show today.

We had Dinesh D'Souza on

the program, talked a little bit about the history of

the White House correspondence dinner.

Huh.

Who would have guessed that was a pushback from this fascistic progressive movement?

I mean,

on me.

Stunning.

Yeah.

Also, we had Carol Rothon talking about your economy and things are getting spooky with Russia, including he's going under the knife, Vladimir Putin.

Really?

He's having some sort of cancer treatment?

He has to be put under for surgery?

Is there a possibility that maybe...

Oops, my hand slipped.

I'm just

saying.

Are we going to war with Russia?

And does this make this better, worse, or about the same?

All right.

All on today's podcast.

First, our sponsor is Relief Factor.

If you're one of the millions who suffer every day from pain, listen up there is hope and it comes in the form of relief factor every day on the program i talk about people that have sent in testimonials people who have tried relief factor for their pain gotten their life back

i will tell you most of them are like i didn't think this was gonna work because i didn't either a couple of years ago i would i wouldn't probably be here if it wasn't for relief factor

because about four years ago i started taking it and i have to tell you i was in so much pain.

I actually said to my wife, I can't do it anymore.

She said, Just stop whining and take Relief Factor.

And I did, and unfortunately, she was right again.

So, try it, please, get your life back.

1995, 70% of the people who try it go on to order more.

Maybe you're in that 70%.

Drug-free, natural way, get your life back, get out of pain, relieffactor.com.

You're listening to the best of the blendeck program.

Our good friend Carol Roth is here.

She's a recovering investment banker.

She is also the author of the book, The War on Small Business.

And

she worked across all kinds of industry.

She's an outsourced CCO

and a director on public and private company boards as a strategy advisor.

Welcome, Carol.

How are you?

I am doing well, Glenn, and happy National Small Business Week to you.

Yeah, thank you very much.

You know,

I never really wanted to start my own, but it's not something that I was like, hey, I can't wait to do that because my dad was a small businessman.

And it's really tough.

I mean, I saw him struggle his whole life.

And then I did it because I just didn't want to work for clowns that didn't know what they were doing.

I mean, if if I want to work for that clown, might as well be me.

You know what I'm saying?

I'm concerned that small business can't continue in a country where we are teaching our kids to be risk averse.

It's certainly very difficult,

or you get the type of entrepreneurs who are delusional, who think that it's easy.

We all know who David Hogg is,

I believe.

And he was complaining on Twitter the other day how difficult it was.

He tried to set up an LLC.

And boy, it was so difficult.

And why does the government make it so hard?

Oh, I hate these guys.

I hate these guys.

I mean, really, welcome to the party, David.

Well, I know.

And so, I mean, in a sense, it's almost a good thing.

It's almost like we should have a training program where anybody who's leaning towards socialism is required to start a small business just so they can see how difficult it is.

But certainly an aversion.

to risk,

more consolidation of power that takes away the opportunity to innovate and all the barriers that the government has put up to make it more difficult to not only start a small business, but to hire your first employee and to allow a small business owner to succeed.

It is not a good thing for economic freedom, which is one of the reasons why people come here from all over the world to try to start that business and live the American dream.

So, when the Fed is raising the interest rates to try to control inflation, the reason why

this led to an economic boom in the 80s is because at the same time,

the government said, forget all this regulation, just go out and start a business, right?

Without that part of the Reagan plan, raising interest rates while piling new regulation on, that's really

a killer, isn't it?

Yeah, I mean, if you think about the Fed's options here and what they're trying to do in terms of slowing down the economy,

given the backdrop that we have of this messed up labor market and supply chain, I mean, the only way you're really getting a slower economy,

in my opinion, is if small businesses, and to some extent big businesses, you know, just stop hiring altogether.

And I think the small businesses, since they've had such a hard time hiring, you know, can't survive or

other things that make it very difficult for a small business to survive.

So the well-capitalized big businesses are going to be able to withstand this roller coaster, which benefited them on the front.

front end and they will coast through you know come out the other end okay

and the small businesses that have been beaten up, you know, have been closed, didn't get the relief funds, and, you know, haven't been able to take advantage of that free debt because they're smaller in scale are really the ones that are going to suffer from all of this.

Once again, Glenn, once again.

So

if I read this one more time, my head will pop.

I keep reading that the economy is, I mean, people are spending money like it's, there's no tomorrow because the average American just has so much money in their bank account.

I know that's not true.

Common sense will tell you that's not true.

Can you please put this to bed?

So the average, and we've talked about before, average is not necessarily the median.

It's often dragged up by the wealthy at the top end.

But the average American is in better shape going into this potential recession or stagflation or whatever, whatever it is that we're about to face and kind of in the middle of than they have been in other recessions.

The personal saving rate is around, I think, 6.2, 6.3%

as of the end of March, which was the last number that came out.

Now, that is worse than where we were in 2019 and 2020 going into

the pandemic decisions, but it's not sort of horrible on a historic level.

We had people pay down a lot of their credit card debt

with the relief funds and whatnot since they were staying home during the pandemic.

Now that's starting to creep back up again.

So today they are in better shape, but the trajectory, particularly with the inflation, as we know, is eating away at that.

So I would imagine that the personal saving rate will continue to decline.

We will continue to see balances increase on their credit cards.

And at some point, the consumer won't have that strength in their balance sheet and probably will also be making decisions to just punt certain expenditures because their core expenditures of living every single day have gone through the roof.

So we had some questions come in from the audience, and I want to go over a couple of them.

Stephen Mary wrote in, you can write in, by the way, glennbeck.com

question.

I keep hearing about food shortages.

Some say that famine is coming.

My wife and I keep arguing back and forth.

She says this is really the rest of the world and not us.

Yes, food will be more expensive because of inflation, but we won't have shortages.

Which one of us is right?

So probably splitting that down the middle.

Certainly there is a ginormous crisis across the globe.

We heard that clip that you played from the fantastic Samantha Power, who doesn't seem to care that potentially, you know, 40 to 65% of the world could be food insecure or, you know, face starvation because, you know, we don't have enough fertilizer.

Certainly we are in a better position in the United States, but it depends on things going the right way.

I mean, we've seen that we had, you know, a bout of avion flu that we had to contend with.

You know, it depends on crop yields.

It depends on our government not just doing stupid things.

I mean, we're seeing them pulling, you know, feed out of, you know, of the farm in order to put it into gasoline so that they don't have to drill for more oil.

I mean, they don't make the best decisions.

So I wouldn't say that there isn't a possibility that we're going to have issues here because I think there is that possibility.

It just probably isn't as stark as it is in the rest of the world.

That being said, nobody's ever been upset for being too prepared.

So be prepared for that.

Worst case scenario.

Ron in New York wrote,

I think my job is secure, but so did my grandfather or my great-grandfather during the Great Depression.

How do we know what's coming?

What is the difference?

And how do we prepare?

Is it smart for me to buy a house at this point?

So

again, this is not financial advice, just some food for thought for you.

It really depends on your personal financial situation.

You know, if you're somebody who's still sort of living paycheck to paycheck or building up your reserves, we don't know what is coming down the pike.

You know,

there are a lot of issues.

The big thing right now, geopolitically, is:

are these stupid statements from the Biden administration going to pull us into some sort of a nuclear war?

At that point,

all bets are off.

If we're just looking at sort of the inflation picture and the recession, I think the one benefit that we do have is that we have so few people in the labor market.

Now, granted, it may get many people off the sidelines as they see their 401ks shrinking and have to deal with more inflation.

But if you have a job that you are secure in, you are probably in a better position.

But it's always good, again, to kind of think through what are your second and third options.

What could you do if that worst case scenario comes about?

And then, you know, again, look at sort of the risk-reward on the home front situation.

We are underbuilt as a nation in terms of homes, and that is long-term, probably going to support housing prices, but it doesn't mean there isn't going to be some variability in the meantime, especially with the increase in mortgage rates.

So I would just spend a lot of time doing the little pros and cons and putting that plan together for your plan B and plan C, and wish you a ton of success.

I remember my parents, again, small business in the 70s.

It was a nightmare because it was a lot like this.

what do you

I mean, what do you think is coming?

Is it like the 1970s and it just stays like this?

I mean, nobody knows.

You know what I mean?

No, Americans have no

benchmark.

Yeah, but no benchmark to go back and say it will be like this.

We've never seen this.

No,

there are just a number of factors that are all coming together.

And as I I said I think that geopolitical wildcard is the the biggest wildcard right now if it assuming that we can get that piece under control because as I said if that that goes off the rails all bets are off here I think the likelihood is that we see a recession but because of the way the recession has come about and some of the other you know weird things that are happening in the economy I think at least in the United States it's probably a shallower recession than we have seen

in previous periods.

Not to say that that won't cause real pain for people.

It will.

There will be people probably who lose their jobs.

Small businesses will end up closing, but

I think that it will be shorter in duration

than it otherwise would have been if we didn't have some of these other structural issues going on at the same time.

That's fingers crossed, but you know, there are a number of factors here: the Fed between raising rates and shrinking their balance sheet, the geopolitical issues, and some of the other kind of issues that we're contending with.

That's just sort of a best guess right now, but we've got to stay on top of this real time because things could change really quickly.

888-727-BECK is the phone number, Jen in Texas.

Welcome to the Glen Beck program.

Glenn, thank you for taking my call.

My question is:

just recently, within the last 30 days or so,

my husband and I completely paid off our mortgage.

Was this a dumb thing to do?

Because now

we've totally, we're now debt-free now,

and that's a wonderful thing, but now we miss out on that tax advantage.

So, you know, I have to tell you, being debt-free is probably the best thing you can ever do.

But I hear this question, Carol, from so many people.

A, I don't get the tax advantage.

And B, if

we go into real inflation, doesn't that help me pay down a debt I had use of dollars that are worth a lot more?

I mean, they play this game.

Can you answer this?

Yeah, so I mean, it really depends on

how sophisticated you are financially and how on top of things you are.

I mean, the reality is that for most Americans, you're not going, oh, well, you you know, on a on a real interest rate basis, this is a negative interest rate on my house.

And I'm really glad I have this capital to do these other things.

I never think it's a bad thing to get rid of your debt because that's just money that's going out the window.

And unless you have some other great investment that is replacing that same kind of return,

and right now, like, I'm just not sure where you're getting that.

You know, we're having that the stock market is in turmoil.

You certainly aren't getting that in your bank accounts.

So now you have it in that asset.

You don't have to worry about it.

You're not putting that extra money out each month.

And then on the tax benefit side, I mean, you go, again, I'm not a tax accountant, but they've changed a lot of the rules.

Like you're not getting that much of a benefit the same way that you used to.

They put a lot of caps around these things.

So certainly talk to your tax accountant.

But from my perspective, perspective, for just kind of the average person who's trying to do the right thing, getting out of debt is a phenomenal, phenomenal move.

And again,

unless you've got some other amazing investment that you know is going to return you more than what it is you're paying on your debt, net net, you've won.

Thank you so much, Jen.

I appreciate it.

That is the hard thing to, I think, for people to figure out or to really understand

how it's not not that prices are going up, it's that your dollar is losing value.

And that causes people to raise prices because their dollar doesn't go as far to buy all of the things that they need to buy, right?

Yeah, I mean, if you have a business, you have all of your vendors who have higher wages, higher cost of inputs.

So that means whatever it is that they're selling to you is higher in costs.

You're contending with higher wages and higher operating costs, and you put all those together, and all of a sudden your profit margins, which in most industries aren't that big, sometimes they're in the single digits,

starts to erode.

And so you say, well, either I have to pass this on to the consumer, or in some cases, they shrink the product that they're offering called shrinkflation.

The pizza that you get that used to be huge, all of a sudden kind of looks like it's half the size, or they end up going out of business.

There are only so many different levers that can be pulled.

And that's how it ends up seeping through the economy.

And

it's why it ends up impacting all of us and being a permanent tax.

Carol Roth, she is the author of The War on Small Business.

You can ask her anything

that you want.

You can follow her on her website at CarolRoth.com or Carol J.S.

Roth

on Twitter, but you can ask any questions and we'll have her on again to answer questions at glenbeck.com/slash question.

Glenbeck.com/slash question.

Carol, thank you so much.

We'll talk to you again.

Always a pleasure.

Have a great week.

God bless.

This is the best of the Glenbeck program.

I mean, I don't want to be a worry word here.

So, Stu, I'm just looking to you to, you know.

Sure.

So, Germany said, you know, we can't, we cannot outright ban

oil from Russia because it would destroy Germany's economy and it would destroy the economy on the continent as a whole.

And now he's changed his mind and he's saying we're going to stop all oil.

They've changed their mind on quite a bit recently.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Their entire philosophy of foreign affairs for the past multiple decades.

Yeah.

So

nothing to see there, right?

I mean, that's no big deal.

It's pretty new.

It's a pretty big deal, it seems like to me.

Oh, I mean, sorry.

Not a big deal.

Who cares?

It's way over there.

Right.

The thing that's happening that's bad is really far away.

Right.

And they changed their mind, as you said, on a lot of things lately.

And what could that mean?

I don't know.

Certainly all good things.

Of course.

You know, I believe it was the philosopher Cheryl Crowe who said, a change will do you good.

Amen.

So in the last few days,

Russia, you know, has stopped all the gas supplies

as well.

And then again, over the weekend, said the risk to nuclear war is very real,

which I like.

Coming from Putin, who we found out now over the weekend does have cancer, does have to go under the knife, and he's going CPC for we don't know how long as they do whatever to remove the cancer from him.

So you got a guy who

is probably going to die, knows he's going to die, wants to go out with a bang,

going under the knife.

There's a tad bit of speculation in there.

We don't know.

That he's probably going to die.

I mean, he's going to die someday, I suppose, but we don't know that that's not necessarily the belief here, right?

The belief is this is just a minor, minor surgery.

And

the fact that it would explain all of the actions that have occurred over the past couple of months is totally separate.

Right.

And the fact that they've had like 56 visits from the radiology department.

Just the 56, though.

Yeah.

Just the 56th.

That's like saying you think Joe Biden is, you know,

incoherent.

You know, what evidence do you have other than all the evidence?

You know, it's just the constant stream of evidence.

But other than that, what do you have?

Okay, so

he also

said over the weekend that any foreign intervention in Ukraine would provoke what he called lightning-fast response from Moscow.

Now, I'm not sure what he deems

as

foreign

intervention.

I feel like we're pretty involved.

Now, we don't have troops theoretically on the ground in the country.

We don't seem to be firing these weapons ourselves.

We're just giving them to the people next to us who are firing themselves.

In all seriousness, Glenn, if you were, how would you take this if Russia was doing this to us in another country?

If we were in the middle of the Iraq war, let's say.

And Russia is not only doing things, which we know they were involved in some of the

Afghanistan, and we know they had involvement, but they weren't doing press conferences every day, bragging about how they were sending weapons to

we have, we've donated 10,000 IEDs to the resistance in Iraq, and they've killed all of these soldiers.

It's going really well.

No, it would not go well.

We would not accept that.

We would not be thrilled about it.

Now, I'm not saying that

it's insane to help.

I do think it's insane to keep talking about it.

I don't understand why we're announcing that we're sending them weapons.

I'm kind of with you on that one.

Let there be an air of mystery as to where these weapons came from.

Yep.

You know, we, we

officially,

Israel does not have nuclear weapons.

And when we're asked about that, we say, what?

What are, I don't even know what weapons you're talking about.

What country are you talking about?

And that should be the appropriate response to this is, I'm not sure what you mean.

That's what when someone asks you, are you sending weapons into Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers?

You say, I don't know what you mean.

Is there something going on there?

So they had a bloodbath this weekend in Ukraine.

I mean, things did not go well for Russia again this weekend.

And they are just a few days away from May 9th.

Yeah, which is a big day for them.

Big day.

That's called Victory Day.

And they don't want to have record numbers of soldiers coming home in body bags on Victory day

uh so

that would be suboptimal be suboptimal for them and probably for us meanwhile uh the military uh has now gotten an order at least i shouldn't i shouldn't say this uh representative kinzinger

uh said on i don't know abc or whatever this weekend something that nobody was watching that he has He's now drafted a bill and it's gone to Congress to authorize the president so he has better flexibility.

Believe me, that guy hasn't been flexible in a long time.

If they use weapons of mass destruction of any kind, the president has a right to go to war.

I totally trust Joe Biden's judgment on this important matter.

Yeah, I don't think we should just write that check.

No, and I don't think that will happen, by the way.

I don't think Kinziger is out on his own on this one for the most part.

I don't know.

But it could change.

I mean, look,

you know, if they actually use, which, by the way, there's no evidence they're going to use chemical weapons in Ukraine.

I mean, they may.

I wouldn't be stunned if Vladimir Putin did it.

But remember, even in Syria,

they did what we did, right?

Where we're doing in Ukraine right now.

They kind of stood around and backed up the Syrians, but the Syrians were the ones using the chemical weapons.

They didn't even use them there.

Now, look,

that doesn't mean they won't do it here.

I would not be stunned if Vladimir Putin did something else crazy.

He's done many crazy things in a second.

He seemed to be losing badly.

Yeah, and one of the things that's interesting about the structure of this war with us giving them all these weapons, which we can talk about because they've publicly announced it.

Oh, have you heard about the Phoenix Ghost kamikaze drones we've sent?

Yes, yes.

Oh, I love that.

Yep.

Let's get that on the front page.

What's interesting here is that Russia has a...

Pretty strong military, but not as strong as maybe we believed beforehand.

But it is what it is, right?

They've had a lot of their important people killed, a lot of their best soldiers killed, a lot of their weapons utilized already.

They're constantly, I mean, there's all sorts of rumors of them pulling people off the streets, basically, for this effort.

So their military is getting worse as this goes on.

The opposite is happening with the Ukrainian military.

It's getting stronger because we keep sending them hundreds of millions of dollars of brand new shiny weapons.

So

their resistance is actually increasing in its ability to execute the the war, which we've seen happen over just the past week, where now targets inside of Russia,

inside Russian borders, are being hit by Ukrainians with missiles and drones sent to them by Western countries.

Again, on military installations,

not targeting civilians like the Russians are doing in many places across Ukraine.

But still, again,

this is a country who went to its people this week and said, hey, you know, Adolf Hitler was probably Jewish.

Seriously, this is what they're saying.

They do not need a lot of justification

to do all sorts of crazy things.

And they will

clearly would utilize this for their own propaganda purposes and have, honestly, what you would probably consider if you were completely neutral in this battle as a good argument that we are involved in this, that we are helping their soldiers die.

And while I agree that they should not be able to roll over the border of Ukraine and kill

tons of civilians like they're doing,

I can understand why the Russian people are looking at this and saying, wait a minute, we just had a special military operation going on here, and now they're hitting us inside of our borders with missiles and drones from the United States of America.

It shows they want regime change.

Well, and we've also added something really super special.

There's now, I think, two or three countries that are like,

I know it's Sweden and Finland who have now said, you know what,

we really want in on that NATO thing.

Oh, that's good.

That's good.

So we got them

as well.

So now that's going to make the Russians even more convinced.

I mean, I, you know, look, I think peace through strength, but I also think you also have to look at your enemy.

And I think our enemy is wounded and nuts.

Absolutely nuts.

And think of that.

We've talked about this a lot in the framework of Islamic extremism when it comes to humiliation, that factor.

That is one of the most important times to Vladimir Putin and Russia.

Big time.

That's been his entire desire this entire time.

They were humiliated by what happened with the fall of the communist regime.

We need to bring ourselves back, not even to communism, but back to the czar days, right?

And he,

when, if this goes the way it's going, this country, they thought they could roll over and be welcomed as liberators, if it goes the way it's going, he is not going to just take it sitting down unless he's under from cancer surgery.

That's the only way that happens.

And man, I

think

that bothers me.

The possibilities here are ugly.

You know what bothers me is the press whipping everybody up into a frenzy.

That's what I don't like.

And this is from a friendly conservative paper, Washington Examiner.

Russia is upping its World War III rhetoric.

Vladimir Putin has threatened any nation that directly intervenes in Ukraine with retaliation via strategic weapons.

Strategic meaning nuclear.

At the same time, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavarov says the risks of nuclear war are now very significant.

Russian state media, prominent commentators this week, suggested that nuclear war with the West wouldn't be too problematic because the Russians would go to heaven, whereas Westerners would just die.

Yet, this is not the time to bow before Russian threats.

Indeed, Biden must respond to Russian aggression forcefully.

This moment is also shaping a message about what America and, by association, what the free world will tolerate in the 21st century.

If Biden wavers, he will be sacrificing the relative peace and cooperation that was hard won in World War II.

So he's going on.

This writer is going on.

Do Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mark Milley, like their forebears in World War II, share a willingness to stare down the threat and to win?

I think this is a really important discussion, but does it feel like this is a discussion that Americans are having?

No.

It feels like it's happening in the ether up with the elites, and we're not really engaged in it.

I think a lot of people just see this as this, you know, this thing that's far over there and not really our concern.

We need to be worried about what's going on here.

And we do.

There's a lot to worry about here.

We have a completely incoherent president, a massive inflation, the border situation's out of control, CRT, gender stuff.

All of this is real and a big problem.

When you talk about the entire human civilization and it is existence, this problem is right there.

And especially since, you know, you never want an emergency to go to waste.

The things that can be enacted and done during a massive war are staggering and you never come back from them.

When you're looking at a party that is acting as reckless as they are, not listening to the average American, not watching the poll numbers, and they are just going over the cliff with our finances, with our dollar, with freedoms, all of these things.

These chickens are coming home to roost.

And what is their plan?

Yeah, it's scary because if everyone acts somewhat reasonably here, meaning like logically, you could see this escalating out of control.

Each side has reason to believe the other side is acting aggressively.

And I remember the Breonna Taylor situation where she was shot was one of the Black Lives Matter things.

When you look at that situation in depth,

one thing you notice is both sides acted really logically for what happened in the moment.

The police came to the door.

They had a warrant to go in.

They believe something was going on.

They bang through the door.

The guy has a legal permit.

He wakes up in the middle of the night.

What are you going to do in that situation?

You're going to shoot the guy who's breaking into your room.

Yep.

The police officer gets shot.

Well, of course the police officer is going to fire back into the room and then Breonna Taylor gets hit.

Totally logical on both sides.

On both sides, every action, except for maybe the idea that the warrant should have not been presented that way, but that was a decision made before the interaction happened.

Kind of the same thing here.

You know, Russia makes, I think, an irrational decision in going into Ukraine, but it's setting off a bunch of

series of actions of people acting relatively logically for the moment that keeps escalating the situation.

And that's where real danger lies.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Dinesh D'Souza, how are you, sir?

I'm doing great, thank you.

Very excited about this movie, which

will be seen for the first time tonight.

So I know so many people who have seen it.

I've seen it.

People are talking about it.

I wanted to go over with you some of the things that you would hear from friends that are just tired of hearing about the election being stolen on the other side.

So

tell me, first of all,

the theory that you are proposing and what you found.

Sure.

So the

FOIL, the thing we're arguing against is the mantra that this was the most secure election in history.

This is dogmatically asserted pretty much everywhere you look.

And it's the basis for calling disputes about the election to be a big lie.

It's also the basis for digital censorship.

So a lot is riding on this claim.

And

I work in this film with a group, an election intelligence group that is called True the Vote.

And at the time when lots of charges of fraud were flying around, many of them sincerely meant but unsubstantiated.

True the vote got a kind of a genius idea, which was, let us test a hypothesis.

And the hypothesis is that if the Democrats are going to cheat, they're going to cheat exactly where the rules changed.

In other words, it's kind of like saying that there were new vulnerabilities created by the sudden mushrooming of all these mail-in Dropboxes, the mailing of not just millions, tens of millions of mail-out ballots.

So if it's going to happen, it doesn't mean it did happen, but if it did happen, this is probably how it it would happen.

And so what True the Vote did is they bought

cell phone geospatial data, which is cell phone geo-tracking, in all the key areas where the election was decided.

Atlanta, Georgia, Phoenix, Arizona, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia.

10 trillion pings of cell phones.

And our cell phone Glenn has apps that enable the exact location in a given moment of time to be known about that phone.

And if you buy the cell phone data, you can track the movement of phones.

By the way, this is used by law enforcement, it's used by intelligence agencies.

Frankly, if you walk into a mall and you get a notification saying, hey, there's a special at the Apple store, well, how do they know you're there?

They're tracking your phone.

So it's this exact same technology.

And what True the Vote did is they ran a search algorithm.

And they were looking for mules.

Now, what's a mule?

A paid political operative hired to deliver fraudulent votes to mail in boxes, by the way, typically in the middle of the night.

And they were looking for mules who went to 10 or more drop boxes.

Now, this is key, and it's key because you might have a legitimate reason to go to two drop boxes, right?

You went to one, you dropped off your ballot, you went to the second, and by mistake, you just had to tie your shoelace, and so you're found at the second location.

But who has a rational reason to go to ten or more drop boxes?

So the idea is, let's try to catch the most egregious or most industrious mules.

And in these five areas that I mentioned, there are at least 2,000 mules.

That's where I get the title for the movie, 2,000 mules.

The actual number of mules is, of course, much greater.

Because if you look for people who went to five or more drop boxes, the number of mules increases exponentially.

So that's the first line of evidence.

It's geotracking.

The second line of evidence is surveillance video.

And we're talking here not about some guy in his truck, you know, turning on his iPhone and capturing some guy dumping ballots.

No, we're talking about the official surveillance video from the states themselves and what it shows, and this is probably the highlight of the movie, it's almost eerie.

You're taken back to the days leading up to the election, early voting, election day.

You can see these criminals, and they are criminals,

jumping out of their car, they look to the left and right, make sure no one's looking, and then they start dumping these ballots into mail and drop boxes.

So we, in a sense, the audience can see the crime being committed.

They become eyewitnesses to a coordinated network of illegal ballot trafficking.

So they, I mean, I was shocked to see, I mean, wearing gloves.

They know exactly what they're doing.

They know exactly what they're doing, and so do you, just by watching.

Just by watching.

And, you know, initially when I saw the gloves, I thought, could it be, could it be that these mules are wearing gloves because of COVID?

They don't want to touch the drop box.

But then this is what crushes it.

You realize that the the mules initially aren't wearing gloves.

And then what happens is there's a big arrest in Arizona where the FBI busts some people for illegal vote dumping, ballot harvesting, and the FBI was able to find their fingerprints on multiple ballots.

The moment that happened, the mules start wearing gloves.

So the word goes out among these left-wing organizations that deploy the mules.

Wear gloves.

That way you don't leave your fingerprints on the ballots.

So very often when you're trying to decide whether to believe a theory, it's little details like this.

You also know from seeing the movie,

people taking photos of the ballots being dropped in.

Not a selfie, not sort of a I voted, but who takes photos of themselves putting in multiple ballots if not to show their employers, hey, I was there, I did the work, I need to get paid.

So let me just go through this.

I'm quoting the Washington Post.

So let's walk through this.

First, the changes in the rules that were allowed, that allowed the election heist, they have those in quotes.

They are changes

that made it easier to vote.

That's at the heart of D'Souza's complaint and the Trump allies broadly.

Often the allegation isn't that fraudulent ballots were cast, but just that the Democrats made it easier to vote, and that was the election theft.

It's like complaining that your computer sold more widgets illegally because it lowered its prices.

That's not your case at all.

That's not our case at all.

What he's saying is something like this.

You have a bank, and what the Democrats have done is they have made sure by filing lawsuits that the security guards get three hours off every night, and they turn off the surveillance video when they take a break.

And they've told the tellers, don't be too rigorous about matching signatures.

Just make sure that the scrawl is roughly similar.

So now, I agree with the Washington Post that that does not prove a heist.

That simply proves that the bank is more vulnerable to a heist.

The beauty of our movie is we don't just show the vulnerability, we actually show the heist.

So he says, the writer, then D'Souza crosses a bright line in his allegation.

He's not saying that those collecting ballots and submitting there were violating state laws.

He's saying that the ballots themselves were fraudulent, that this amounted to hundreds of thousands of illegal votes.

If he has evidence to this, he's cracked the voter fraud thing wide open.

But there's no reason to assume he does.

Right.

So actually, Philip Bump, the guy who wrote this article, has not seen the movie.

In fact, he's been begging me to give him an advanced copy of the movie.

I'll probably send him one today.

Here's what he's saying, and it's a little bit of guesswork on his part.

What he's basically saying is that there is a difference.

What he's saying is that vote harvesting, which is essentially giving your ballot to somebody else to return,

is legal under some circumstances.

And that's true.

26 or so states allow some form of vote harvesting.

Now California, which has not surprisingly the most liberal law, you can give your ballot length to anyone and say, hey, you return it.

You drop it off.

And that would explain people coming

with a whole bunch of ballots.

I just collected them from everybody in the office.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Now, in the five states we're talking about, the rules are not like that.

None of them allow that kind of unlimited harvesting.

So in Georgia, for example, this is pretty typical.

You can give give your ballot to a family member or if you are in a confined facility to a caregiver, but not to anyone else.

It is strictly forbidden.

I can't give my ballot in Georgia to my neighbor and say drop it off.

Now, even though those laws vary a little bit from state to state, here's the crushing key point.

In no state is it legal to pay anyone, let alone a mule, to go deliver a ballot.

The moment that money changes hands, you have corrupted the process.

So even in California, if I say to my neighbor, hey Tom, go drop off my ballot, no problem.

Hey, Tom, go drop off my ballot, and here's $100 to do it, that becomes a fraudulent vote, an illegal vote.

It cannot and must not be counted.

I'm going to quote from the thing again.

What's more, even True the Vote doesn't allege the ballots themselves were fraudulent.

When the website, Just the News, covered the Georgia story, it noted that True the Vote was not making such a claim.

When True the Vote representatives testified in front of Wisconsin Legislative Committee, the group's Catherine Engelbrecht said so publicly.

I want to make it clear, we're not

suggesting the ballots were cast were illegal ballots.

What we're saying is the process was abused.

It's the difference between making and selling a product legally and have someone smuggle that product into another country without your realizing it.

If D'Souza's film shows that the ballots were fraudulent, that's a massive deal, one would assume, would have to quickly be presented to law enforcement.

But there's been no such investigation, and

the group whose data he's using says that's not what happened.

That suggests then that D'Souza's claim to Kudlow is not backed up, that the 400,000 illegal votes, itself a remarkable ascertation of scale, were not that.

So I think what's going on here is that Philip Bump is

confusing the difference between a fraudulent ballot and a ballot fraudulently cast.

Here's what I mean.

No one is claiming, and true the vote is not claiming, and this is the distinction they're trying to make, no one is saying that the actual ballot, the piece of paper, is fraudulent.

In other words, they're not saying that somebody went to a high-quality copying machine and made hundreds of thousands of ballots.

That would be a fraudulent physical ballot.

What they are saying is that these ballots are not legal votes.

And the way we know this, by the way, is

you look at these nonprofit organizations.

And it's worth mentioning here, by the way, that many of these so-called 501c3 organizations are strictly forbidden by law and by IRS rules from engaging in any kind of explicit electioneering.

They can urge people generically to go out and vote, but the idea that they campaign or they collect votes for the Democrats or they try to advance a candidate to a party, this is strictly forbidden.

So here's the question.

How would 400,000 legal votes somehow end up in the hands of these far left-wing groups that would then need to hire mules to go out in the middle of the night and secretly dump them?

Why would they act in that manner if these were legitimate votes, plausibly picked up, they just got them from people who said, yeah, here's my vote, you drop it off.

Somehow they ended up with hundreds of thousands of these votes.

Then the question becomes, why hire the mules?

So

the other thing about this is, Glenn, is that this can be easily resolved, this ambiguity, if you will, by federal agents raiding these nonprofit centers, by cops arresting the mules, and all you have to ask them is, where did you get the ballots?

Who gave them to you?

Where did they get them?

Who paid you?

Who organized this operation?

Obviously, we're not law enforcement.

We can't do that in the movie.

That's the logical next step.

But it's ridiculous to say, since we don't know where an individual ballot came from, it's kind of like if I were to show you a murder, and I'm actually showing you the murder.

And then the Washington Post is like, but where'd he buy the gun?

Where did he get the gun?

And I'm like, there are 10 gun stores that he could have gotten from any of those.

They're like, yeah, but if he can't prove which gun store he went to, all he's saying is he can't show you where the ballot came from, or where in this case, the gun came from.

True, but there is an easy way to take that next step, and it's called Law Enforcement Needs to Spring Into Action.

We're here with Dinesh Souza talking about his new movie.

Dinesh, I'm curious if

because you're talking about the prosecution of real standing laws, laws that are on the books.

Is there a little tiny bit of motivation here that just because the only time I can think of anybody going after any of these laws is when they came after you.

And then here's a real situation where an election might be on the line and people are very worried about the integrity of the election.

And here they don't seem to have any interest in it whatsoever.

One of the most fascinating questions for me is going to be what comes next?

Here's this movie.

And by the way, in my earlier movies, I always took a certain pleasure in people standing up and applauding in the theater when the movie ended.

That's not going to happen here.

I predicted tonight and then Wednesday night when we do our second theatrical showing, be dead silence in the theater as people sort of take it in because we do a very careful computational math.

In other words, it's not just 400,000 illegal votes, therefore the election was stolen.

No, you have to look at each individual state and see if the volume of fraud was large enough to have moved that state from one camp into the other camp.

So all of this is in the movie, and it puts us into constitutionally uncharted territory because while the Constitution lays out a procedure, the electors vote, both houses of Congress affirm and ratify, the president is inaugurated, the Constitution does not contemplate what happens if it comes out later that the guy in the White House got there because of not episodic, but coordinated planned fraud in the key states.

It's never happened before in American history, as far as I know.

So when we're looking at this, you know, the real reason, because the Constitution doesn't say this, you know, what we do in this case, but it can

help us make sure the midterms and the next presidential election, this doesn't happen.

Where do we stand on any of that, Dinash?

Well, I think that the voter integrity laws that some of the states have passed do contain some good things.

So, for example, they strengthen voter ID requirements, or they say things like there needs to be more rigorous signature matching, or you can't let a private individual, Mark Zuckerberg, come in with $400 million

and essentially muscle these counties and states.

Hey, listen, I got a bunch of money to give you, but in order to get it, you've got to put in these mail and drop boxes.

The media portrayed it like the cities wanted to do it, and Zuckerberg gallantly agreed to pay for it.

No, he used his muscle, the financial leverage, to make these places do that.

So, this all created the infrastructure for the heist.

And

yes, there are important things that can be done to prevent it from happening again.

In a weird way, this depends on the Republican Party and the Republican establishment.

Because if Republicans indulge in their, let's not look over there, we all want to move on, we don't want to really deal with this, we want to be the wildebeest that is eaten last by the lion.

If all that, if that's the mentality, then we are in deep trouble.

But if the Republicans say, what can we do to prevent this the next time?

There are lots of simple things that can be done, one of which is just have surveillance on every male in Dropbox.

Should be done.

Should be done.

Dinesh, as always, thank you so much.

God bless you.

The name of the movie is 2000 Mules, a must-see.

No, no, no, no.