All Episodes
Previous Next
May 29, 2025 - Dinesh D'Souza
58:47
PRESIDENT AUTOPEN Dinesh D’Souza Podcast Ep1093
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coming up, I'll talk about a judicial panel that has decided that Trump does not have the authority to impose tariffs.
Wow.
I'll also consider the names of the people who wielded Joe Biden's auto pen.
The thumbnail is President Auto Pen.
These are people pretending to be Joe Biden, acting on behalf of this figurehead president.
And terrorism expert John Guandola joins me.
He's going to explore the questionable vetting practices of the Trump administration.
He's also going to help me trace the connection between the various terrorist groups from Hamas to ISIS to the Muslim Brotherhood.
If you're watching on YouTube or X or Rumble, listening on Apple or Spotify, please subscribe to this podcast.
Hit the subscribe or the follow the notifications button.
This is the Dinesh D'Souza podcast.
In the news, a court has struck down not all but a number of Trump's trade tariffs, claiming that Trump does not have the authority And to read the judge's decision,
it appears to be a clear case that this tariff authority in the Constitution has been granted to Congress.
So Congress, let's remember, is the legislative branch.
Congress makes the laws.
The basic argument of this opinion is Congress needs to pass tariffs.
Trump can't just usurp that authority.
But is Trump really usurping it?
I want to turn to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Let's remember this is in fact a bill, a law passed by Congress.
It's a law that was relied upon by President Kennedy to make a whole series of trade agreements.
And what does this law do?
It delegates or transfers authority from the legislative branch to the president, giving the president a lot of discretion in negotiating imports, trade deals, and yes, you guessed it, The president, in particular, is allowed to consider the impact of these deals and tariffs.
And so you have a law.
There it is.
The Trade Expansion Act.
And in fact, somebody put the interpretation of the law right into kind of these AI interpretive schemes.
And sure enough, what comes out is that That Trump does, in fact, or the president does, in fact, have this kind of authority.
So what is the court doing in saying that he doesn't?
Well, basically, this is an extension of the opinion of these Biden judges and Obama judges and Clinton judges that essentially says the president has the right to be elected, but he doesn't have the right to govern.
Biden can open the border.
Trump can't shut it down.
Biden can bring him here.
Trump can't send him back.
And then pretty much everything Trump does is a violation of, well, a violation in this case not of law, because I just told you the law that authorizes Trump to do what he's doing.
Much of the other stuff that he's doing is within the bounds of what the executive branch is supposed to be doing.
But these judges are just exercising a kind of, admittedly temporary, but nevertheless, veto power.
I think this will be overturned, but again, it takes time.
It's delays.
These judges are essentially acting as a kind of tribunal that is second-guessing every single thing that Trump is doing.
Now, some people are of the view, some of the MAGA types.
Just ignore the judges.
I don't think that's a good idea for a number of reasons.
I've talked about this before, but I do confess to a great deal of frustration and outrage.
That these judges are abusing their power in this way.
It would be good for the Supreme Court to slap them down in a decisive manner, although it's not clear that John Roberts has the heart or the will to do it.
Let me now turn to a topic I've been talking about for a couple of days now, and that is the disappointment of Elon Musk.
And it isn't just Elon Musk's disappointment.
It's also mine, and I'm sure yours.
Why?
Because, look, if Elon Musk can't fix the country, if he can't stop this runaway spending, who can?
If this guy, with his level of genius and creativity and his technical abilities and the crack team that he's mobilized, if they can't break it, break the kind of...
It is kind of heartbreaking that we seem to be in a spending spiral and a debt spiral, a debt spiral that also becomes a death spiral.
It's not leading into a good place.
And in some ways, All of us, I think, have got to start preparing for what if things keep going this way.
I'm opening up some new lines of thought and research and the work I'm doing, stretching out into next year and beyond, about thinking about exactly this.
What happens if a country unwinds?
What if the Make America Great Again project runs into a wall?
And the wall is a wall of debt that breaks the dollar, that breaks our economic system, that breaks the bond market, and ultimately, well, I'm sorry to say, breaks also the country.
Trump is evidently thinking about pardoning the Whitmer kidnapping duo.
That got heavy sentences for allegedly, well, for their convicted on orchestrating this plot.
Now, here is Barb McQuaid, the left-wing legal figure.
Whitmer kidnapped plotters were represented by counsel, given due process, convicted by a jury unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt.
A pardon would reward.
Political violence.
The logic here appears to be that if you revise a decision made by a jury unanimously, you are somehow encouraging violence.
Well, let's test that proposition by asking this question.
You have a guy, let's just say, who's convicted by a jury unanimously for an allegedly violent crime, let's just say breaking into a house and murdering the people in there.
And taking away all their stuff.
And this guy is convicted by a jury, but it emerges later through DNA evidence that he quite clearly didn't do it.
And so as a result, an appellate court throws out his conviction, or the president, realizing this, pardons that guy.
According to Barb McQuaid, this is, quote, rewarding political violence, because she is specifying a principle where once a jury convicts you, You are guilty.
In other words, there's no distance between the jury vote that you're guilty and your guilt itself.
The guilt is in some ways now ineradicable, and any kind of attempt to overthrow that or erase it through a pardon is nothing more than encouraging what you are convicted for doing.
I want to submit that this is preposterous.
You can't say this with a straight face today when lots of people have in fact been exonerated because of things they didn't do.
And of course, let's look at the Whitmer case itself.
Julie Kelly, of course, is here our reliable authority on this.
A bunch of these defendants They were only convicted on the second trial.
And if you follow the second trial, convicted in a sham process in which the jury was not allowed to be told the full extent of the FBI and other agencies having infiltrated these groups, not only infiltrated them, but was directing the action.
Let's go check out Governor Whitmer's vacation home.
Hey, let's meet.
We'll pay for all the arrangements.
We can concoct our plans over there.
So these were essentially guys, somewhat innocent, somewhat redneck, angry for legitimate reasons over COVID, and they were essentially roped in, drawn in, conned by the U.S. government in an entrapment scheme.
So I hope that they are pardoned.
That is not an encouragement of violence.
On the contrary, it would be a just outcome.
And finally, I want to say a word about the thumbnail of today's podcast, which is called President Autopen.
Now, obviously, the Autopen can't be the president.
It's the people who are running the Autopen.
And I'm very happy to see that the pardon attorney, Ed Martin, It's very clear that if not only are illicit signatures on pardons and indication that these pardons are not valid, but just as important, if anybody abused the power of the auto pen, they need to be tried and convicted and sent away, and he is determined to do it.
I was listening to James Comer, the congressman, talking about oversight on this matter.
Comer is responding to Trump, and Trump, of course, is all over this.
Here's Trump.
Other than the rigged presidential election of 2020, i.e.
2000 mules, the biggest scandal in American history is the auto pen.
And Trump goes on to make the point that not only is the auto pen being used to Trump gives the example.
He goes, I don't think Joe Biden wanted to open up the border like this, but other people did.
And so they did it using his name and using his, quote, pen.
But the point that James Comer was making is that, look, we kind of know who are the people who were Manipulating the auto pen.
So, for example, we know that the auto pen was controlled by the kind of core staff.
People like Ron Klain, he was Biden's chief of staff.
Anita Dunn, a left-wing, almost a communist.
Bob Bauer.
These are some of the names of the auto pensters or auto penmen or penwomen, if you want to put it that way.
Very interestingly, in the last couple of days, Project Veritas did a kind of hit or secret recording of David Hogg, and he identified Jill Biden's chief of staff, Anthony Bernal, as one of the key figures.
In fact, a shadowy figure wielding a lot of power in the Biden White House and power over the auto pen.
Somewhat on a different track, I saw David Sachs on Fox, and David Sachs was saying Elizabeth Warren.
At least on banking, matters of banking and finance and cryptocurrency, she was the one wielding the auto pen.
Now, I don't think David Sachs is saying that Elizabeth Warren was handling the auto pen or was the one presiding over the mechanics of the auto pen.
I think what he's getting at, and this may really be a key question, Who is directing the use of the auto pen?
In other words, it's not a matter of who in the White House is turning on the power, making sure the document is properly inserted, reviewing it.
Who is telling those guys what to do?
This is, I think, why Comer is going to need to haul these people before Congress and extract out of them.
The information.
Who was the one telling you what to do?
Who opened the border?
Who made the decisions on Afghanistan?
Who decided to pardon the January 6th committee?
Who directed people to sign that pardon using the auto pen?
So, once again, it's not just the foot soldiers on the auto pen.
It is the Wizard of Oz, the wizard himself, the man behind the curtain, or the men behind the curtain.
Could it be Obama?
Could it be someone?
Also delegated by Obama, who really has been running the country for the past four years?
I think we have the right to know.
Looking to do something to better your health?
Well, look no further than Kim Chi-won from Brightcore Nutrition.
I talked yesterday to Kim Bright, the founder of Brightcore.
Kimchi One packs all the fermented nutrition of kimchi in convenient capsules, arming your gut with over 900 unique strains of probiotics, supporting gut flora and digestion.
I highly recommend this product because all health starts in the gut.
So putting the right fermented superfood in your gut improves every aspect of your health, your skin, your hair, your mental performance.
Kimchi has even been shown to reduce your risk of obesity.
And promote smaller waistlines.
That's a good thing.
Kimchi 1 is all natural, made in the USA, non-GMO.
And today, an exclusive offer for my viewers and listeners, 25% off with code Dinesh by going to mybrightcore.com forward slash Dinesh.
Or even better, there's a special incentive if you call.
50% off your order and free shipping.
So, hey, what do you have to lose?
Go ahead and call 888-927-5980.
Their educated staff will talk you through it.
Make sure that Kimchi One is right for you.
Call 888-927-5980.
If you've been here a while, you know Debbie and I are always looking for ways to live well and stay active.
Now Juvent is a breakthrough for anyone serious about long-term health.
It supports bone strength, circulation, and joint mobility, but it also boosts energy and coordination, helps your body produce stem cells, even supports your natural recovery processes.
It's no pills, no appointments, no strain.
You just have to stand on it.
When I first came across it, I had to look into it.
I could hardly believe it.
I stand on this thing for about 15 minutes a day, Debbie about 20, and it's perfect for those of us who want to keep up with grandkids, travel, or just move without discomfort.
Juven comes with a 10-year limited warranty, a six-week buyback promise.
Don't wait until stiffness or pain slows you down.
This is the remedy.
Go to juvent.com slash Dinesh.
Use code Dinesh.
You get $300 off.
It's changed my routine.
See how it can change yours.
Go to juvent.com slash Dinesh.
Guys, I'm really happy to have back on the podcast our friend John Guandolo.
He's a fellow at the Claremont Institute.
But this is a guy who knows a lot, is in fact an expert on terrorism.
On communist and jihadi networks.
He served for 13 years in the FBI.
He's also done work, strategic analysis for the Department of Defense.
He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, served as an officer in the Marine Corps.
By the way, his website, johnguandolo.com.
You can follow him on x at jguandolo54271.
John, thank you for joining me.
Really appreciate it.
I have learned through Debbie that you have been taking a look at some of these guys who have been named to various positions in the Trump administration, sometimes positions that are quite influential, and yet nevertheless they have a suscet.
Let's look at a couple of those cases and dive into them.
Who are these guys?
What have they been appointed to?
And what is the concern?
Yeah, so I'll start with the easiest ones.
Raboul Chaudhry is the first who's on the executive board of an organization called CARE, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
CARE is a Hamas organization as a matter of legal fact.
They were created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee in the 1990s.
There were four organizations created.
And the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee is Hamas.
And so they created four non-profit organizations, three of which were shut down.
Because they're Hamas organizations.
Somehow CARE has survived, mostly due to lack of desire by the federal government to shut them down and unwillingness to do so.
But CARE is Hamas.
They're not just affiliated with they are Hamas.
It's a Hamas organization.
And a guy who sits on the executive board is incredibly close to Mr. Trump, is working in the Trump organization.
Based on at least some evidence, it appears he traveled to Qatar with Mr. Trump as well.
So the question is, why is a Hamas guy working in the Trump administration?
So there's one.
The second guy that, I mean, there are quite a number of people, but I'm going to start with the easiest ones first.
Mr. Trump recently named three Muslims to his Religious Commission on Liberty.
And one of them is a guy named Hamza Yusuf, who's a senior Hamas Muslim Brotherhood scholar.
But the other one of the three is Randall Todd Ishmael Royer, who's a Muslim convert, who's a terrorist.
And a friend of mine actually sent me the list, a colleague of mine.
To show that Hamza Youssef was on the list.
And I looked and I said, yeah, but what about the guy below him?
And they're like, I don't know that guy.
And I'm like, well, I do because when I was in the FBI, my squad worked that case.
And Randall Todd Royer went overseas to Bosnia and fought as a Mujahideen in combat as a jihadi.
He went to Pakistan.
To work with Lashkari Taiba, a designated terrorist organization, and went through one of their terrorist training programs, camps, and came back.
It was a six-week camp.
Came back to the United States to recruit people to be terrorists, to fight for the designated terrorist group Lashkari Taiba.
And the group became known as the Virginia Jihadi Network, and they were doing paintball training.
In Northern Virginia to prepare for going overseas to fight in the jihad over there.
That group was, you know, rounded up and prosecuted.
He was essentially the leader of that group, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, and he served 14 years in prison.
And he didn't get charged with some of the more significant crimes because he actually cooperated to some degree.
The problem is he's being treated as if none of that ever happened.
And when you ask people why, the answer is because he says he's reformed.
I mean, this is crackpot logic.
He's still a jihadi.
He's still a bad guy.
He just says he isn't.
So now he's welcomed into Christian and Jewish circles in the religious community because he says he's no longer that guy.
And now the Trump administration brings him in on the Religious Commission for Liberty.
I mean, this is craziness.
So he's a guy.
Now, there are other problematic people.
The jihadi, Amir Ghalib, who was his last position was as the mayor of Hamtramck, where they're imposing Sharia and an Islamic community there.
Mr. Trump named him as the U.S. Ambassador to Kuwait.
And so we can keep going on, but the question is, who's vetting these people?
The answer is nobody.
I want to make one other practical example that I have firsthand knowledge of, is when the schedule for Mr. Trump's inauguration came out, I looked at it.
It was leaked to the public.
I looked at it, and there's a name on there, Imam Hussaini, who's a Hizballah guy.
And so I just put out something on social media like, what are we doing here?
I mean, he hasn't even begun his administration already.
We're inviting a Hezbollah guy to the inauguration.
And I got a call from somebody who said, can you give me a couple bullet points?
And I'm like, this guy's easy.
I mean, he publicly on the Sean Hannity show professed his support for Hezbollah.
So is that the kind of guy we want to have?
At the Trump inauguration to lead a prayer?
And I would say no.
But this person who contacted me directly contacted the president's chief of staff.
And then I got a call back saying, okay, they're freaked out.
They have a name to replace him with.
And before they gave me the name, I said, he's a bad guy.
And they said, how do you know?
You don't even know the guy.
I'm like, do you understand at that level?
The only people that are going to be doing these things are bad guys.
But I said, give me the name.
And I didn't recognize the name, but I did my research, and he's a bad guy.
And so I gave them a one-pager, which then they sent in, and then they just decided, okay, we're just not going to replace him with anybody.
And then, of course, the inauguration was transitioned into the indoor, and it was a little different.
But here's a couple points.
Number one, How do these two bad guys get brought in?
Number two, who allowed them in and why aren't they fired?
And three, what about all these other bad guys who's inviting them in?
And we know who they are.
Rick Grinnell and Mossad Boulos are the ones bringing these guys into the administration.
And so the question has to be asked, are they dumb?
Or are they bad guys?
And in either case, they should be fired and have no position in the administration because they're bringing jihadis and terrorists into the Trump administration.
John, if I can have you put on, I won't call it your devil's advocate hat, but sort of thinking of it from the Trump administration's side, they must have some sort of selection process.
Is this a case?
I mean, a couple of possibilities occur to me.
Is this a case where they go, hey, We're putting some guy on a religious freedom committee.
This is going to be an advisory role about allowing each religious group to kind of have its say.
This has nothing to do with the State Department or sort of...
The other possibility is that they go, hey listen, this is a political deal.
We got a bunch of Muslims to vote for us in Michigan and some of the critical swing states.
The Muslim donors who are behind this are putting these names forward.
In other words, I'm trying to figure out what you think is the motivation and the rationale for this to happen.
Usually when there's sloppiness, it's not random sloppiness.
There is some underlying motive.
Do you have any thoughts about what that might be?
Because it just seems so baffling and stupid.
Yeah, so I have a lot of thoughts about that.
That's a really good question, Dinesh.
So, first of all, let's address it as you asked it.
I think, first of all, we're in a war.
And I think there's a failure in the Trump administration to actually recognize that.
We have adversaries.
You and I have discussed this previously.
There are hostile nation states that are waging war through U.S. proxies.
There's a communist movement in the United States that is being driven by hostile foreign powers.
And there's a U.S. Islamic movement in the United States that's identifiable, that has published doctrine, strategies, a network, and hundreds of lines of operation.
All identifiable.
All as a matter of fact and evidence.
Because if you know that, and you understand their modus operandi, they operate 90 plus percent in the non-violent realm.
It's much more a counterintelligence.
Espionage, propaganda, information operation, war from the enemy's perspective.
So if you knew that, then you would understand the kinds of things you described.
The Muslim donors who create a narrative and then get their guys in.
Well, if their guys are getting into the administration, then it's not just a random political hat tip.
Part of a plan that's organized and coordinated to achieve their objective and their state of objective is to overthrow the U.S. government and establish an Islamic state under Sharia.
And when we look at their success from 1992 to today, we, I mean, this is what I do for a living, you can track it, that their success has continued to mount their penetration of the U.S. government in the military and civilian Government and all the key components of the government to include having access to our classified systems.
Their role right now, before it goes kinetic at a much more significant level, is to get intelligence and push disinformation into the system and into these leaders.
So when I name people like Rick Grinnell and Masoud Boulos, I'm not necessarily saying that they're bad guys, meaning they wittingly know that they're bad guys.
I'm saying that just like many other leaders in six administrations, this is a counterintelligence operation where the jihadis in suits, the suit-wearing jihadis, are literally doing a recruitment operation.
And they gain the trust and favor of people who have influence, like Rick Grinnell, who then opens doors for them.
And he does it because he believes these are genuinely good people.
But factually, they are not.
And once you understand the modus operandi and how these guys operate, you recognize none of these people I've just talked about are good.
And in fact, they're senior operators for the jihadi movement in the United States.
When we come back, I want to go through with John Guandolo the different terror groups, but specifically focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood to find out whether this organization has any benign aspects to it whatsoever.
There's been a national focus on eating only the healthiest of foods, and that's a good thing, and it's great news for Balance of Nature.
Their method of producing a vibrant nutritional supplement is second to none.
While so many others use chemicals, additives, Balance of Nature is made solely from whole food ingredients.
It's fruit and veggies in a capsule, just like this.
Now, while other methods sacrifice nutritional quality for the sake of profits or volume, balance of nature's advanced vacuum cold process involves freeze-drying the fruits and veggies into a fine powder, helping to retain as much nutritional value as possible compared to other inferior methods, which cut corners at...
That's the whole reason for taking Balance of Nature.
You get the most nutrition for the sake of your health.
Use my discount code AMERICA.
You get 35% off plus free shipping and a money-back guarantee.
Call 800-246-8751.
That's 800-246-8751 or go to balanceofnature.com.
Use discount code AMERICA and you'll get 35% off.
And free shipping.
As you know, our friend Mike Lindell has a passion to help everyone get the best sleep of your life.
And he didn't stop just by creating the best pillow.
He also created the best bedsheets ever.
Debbie and I love these.
They look and feel great means an even better night's sleep for me, which is Mike is offering a heck of a deal.
The best deal on his Giza Dream bedsheets.
Any size, any color.
Just $49.98.
That's right.
You can get Queens, Kings, Split Kings, Cal Kings.
Again, any size, any color.
Just $49.98.
Order now because when they're gone, they're gone.
And for a limited time, when you order over $100, you get $100 in free digital gifts.
Here's how you do it.
Call 800-876-0227.
That's 800-876-0227.
Or go to MyPillow.com.
Use promo code Dinesh.
You get the amazing offer.
$49.98 on the Giza Dream Sheets.
Any size.
Any color.
Once again, go to MyPillow.com.
The promo code D-I-N-E-S-H Dinesh.
I'm talking to the one and only John Guandolo, who is an expert on terror networks and jihadi movements.
His website, johnguandolo.com.
Follow him on x at jguandolo54271.
John, I know you to be a very sober and reliable guy.
You don't use words.
Like terrorists or terrorists sell casually or lightly or even metaphorically.
You're talking about really bad guys who have declared their intentions.
They are part of movements that have manifestos and state their objectives and sort of, as you said, operations, manuals.
And it's quite dismaying to contemplate.
I mean, I somewhat would expect that these groups would have a heyday with the Biden-Harris administration, partly because they have some overlapping goals.
The Biden people seem quite casual about letting these people right into the middle of the shop.
But with the Trump administration, you would expect this not to be the case.
Let me ask you this.
There's such a kind of wide array of these terror groups.
There's Al-Qaeda.
There's ISIS.
There's Al-Shabaab.
There are the Houthis.
There's Hamas and Hezbollah.
And then, of course, there is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the oldest of these organizations going all the way back almost 100 years ago in the early 19 or mid 1920s.
And this organization, it seems to me, has a sort of...
Maybe it is more subtle.
Maybe it gives lip service to democracy.
Maybe it functions somewhat as a charity organization, although, of course, I know Hamas has claimed to do the same.
Can you identify, is there something different about the Muslim Brotherhood, or is it as dangerous as some of these other groups, or maybe because of its subtlety, more dangerous?
Yes.
Okay, first of all, great question.
And secondly, the latter part.
I think they're more dangerous because they're really the strategists behind the global Islamic movement.
And groups like al-Qaeda, all the senior leadership, are Muslim brothers.
So there's a difference.
So first of all, you know, if you think, and maybe not sure, How much of your audience can relate to this?
But, you know, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, you know, you've got the revolution now, baby, and you've got the group that's like, hey, the slow subversion, right?
And this is the same relationship between the Islamic movements, capital M, and the military jihadi organizations that you mentioned, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.
But the key to remember, Just like the nation states, they're all on the same sheet of music.
And this is what I think people have a very hard time grasping.
So I want to first take a minute or two to lay that out and then let you unpack it as you wish.
So when we talk about the movements like Tablighi Jamaat, Jamaati Islami, the Muslim Brotherhood, the leading Islamic movement in the world is the Muslim Brotherhood.
And their network, developed from the 1920s, as you mentioned, to today, is extensive and is in over 100 countries.
And they have very intense networks and a very significant command and control apparatus in place so that from the international level down to local mosques across Europe and the United States, they communicate anytime they want to change direction.
It's impressive.
Military or violent jihadi groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, et al., all have the same purpose, to establish an Islamic state under Sharia.
Again, it's the friction between these groups and the Brotherhood and other movements is usually the timing aspect.
And remember, when Muslim nations or Muslim organizations have Conflicts or friction, it's always over one of two issues, matters of Sharia or power, who's going to be in control, and they're always jockeying for who's going to get to be the guy in charge.
All of the 56 Islamic nations on the planet are a party to the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, largest voting bloc in the United Nations, and all have It was approved and served to the UN in 1993, the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights and Islam.
Remember, this was approved at the head of state and king level of every Muslim nation on the planet.
And it says, and I summarize by the last article in the declaration, Article 25, Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for our understanding Of any article of this declaration, which is the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights and Islam.
So the entire Muslim world at the head of state and king level is on record, officially, at the geopolitical level, saying our understanding on human rights, how we treat other human beings and how we relate with other nation states, only through the lens of Sharia.
And 100% of all authoritatively published Sharia mandates that non-Muslims either convert to Islam or be killed, that Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians must convert to Islam or submit to Islamic law and pay the non-Muslim poll tax or be killed.
100% of authoritatively published Islamic law requires those who apostatize from Islam to be killed.
Those who commit adultery to be killed.
Those who are, you know, homosexuals to be killed.
Those who commit thievery to have their hand cut off.
Those who commit treachery in the land to be crucified.
All kinds of things that are part of normative and authoritative Islamic law, which, by the way, is taught to 10, 11, and 12-year-olds in U.S. and European and Asian and Middle Eastern Islamic schools.
And as a reminder for those who may have forgotten, it is a capital crime in Islam for Muslims to teach Muslims anything about Islam that's not true, and it is obligatory for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims if it advances Islam.
And again, the Islamic movements, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood, the military Islamic groups, and every Muslim nation on earth, Agrees with the singular objective of Islam, which is to establish a global Islamic state under Sharia.
So from a national security perspective, we have to begin all analysis with that knowledge.
And I would argue there seems to be plenty evidence on the table that the Trump administration does not understand this.
So those things that you...
And do they actually understand the enemy and their doctrine?
And I would propose the answer is no, based on everything we see and that they're doing.
Well, what you've said is so comprehensive and in some ways so alarming.
I have to say, even I am trying to wrap my head fully around it.
And let me raise a couple of questions that I think will probe this a little bit further.
The first one is it seems that what you're saying is that the differences between the sort of Shia and Sunni wings of Islam are somewhat cosmetic.
I remember going back to the 2000s and the 1990s.
We'd be lectured by all kinds of academics.
Well, you realize, of course, that Hamas is Sunni and the Iranians are Shia.
This does not appear to make a big difference right now.
The second thing I want to ask you is, of course, we have major Muslim countries around the world from Indonesia to, of course, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others.
Do they, in fact, implement the Sharia that you're talking about?
Because if all these Muslim countries are committed to Sharia, how come they don't have it?
I mean, do Christians in Indonesia pay a special tax for not being Muslim and do they have to follow?
Are they under the thumb of Sharia law right now?
Or is this some kind of a, hey, we're not doing it ourselves right now, but this is our global aspiration.
Make no mistake, we're headed in that direction.
Okay, so that is a fantastic question.
Let me start with the last part of there.
That is the stated objective of Islam.
And here's the key to the other part of that.
Like, why are different nations...
Why are they not all on the same sheet of music as far as the implementation?
And here's the answer to that.
Sharia is always the answer.
Sharia is not only what the Islamic nations use as their battle plan, the Quranic concept of war.
That's what it is.
But it's what they seek to impose.
And it drives everything they do.
It is all about Sharia.
And so what does Sharia say about your question?
Well, the understanding of extremism in Islam is that the Muslims cannot go in a particular region or nation.
They can't go too far or too fast because they risk a couple dangers.
Number one, if they go too far too fast in implementing Sharia and establishing the caliphate, they lose Muslims.
Who don't understand what's happening.
Number two, if you go too far too fast, you expose the Muslim community to the non-Muslims who will see what you're doing if you go too far too fast.
And they'll realize, oh, you've been lying to us.
And then they will attack the Muslim community.
So that's the understanding.
You have to understand so they can only go as far as they can go.
Now, there are other practical Things to this.
Like there are leaders of Muslim nations who like living the soft, comfortable life.
And this is why in history, the imposition of Sharia rises and then wanes.
Because Sharia is barbaric and evil and it's contrary to human nature.
And so when there are times in history when there are movements and leaders that are Pushing in on the Muslim community first to adhere to Sharia, then you see there's friction there, but in the end, they either give in or they're killed.
The Muslims are killed by the movement for not adhering to Sharia, because what al-Qaeda and ISIS are saying are absolutely core doctrine inside of Sharia, Islam.
So that's why you see different nations imposing it at different levels.
Because if you're in this part of the world and able to advance it, you're required to.
And if you don't, especially now, if we go back to 2010, and by the way, me and Steve Coughlin were the only two on the planet that briefed the predictive analysis in October, November 2010, that within 60 to 90 days, the Muslim Brotherhood was going to launch a global revolution.
And we laid it out how it was going to be done.
And part of that was watching what the Muslim Brotherhood was saying.
We are going after Muslim leaders first who are failing to impose Allah's divine law on their own people.
And what did they do?
That's exactly what they did.
And who helped them?
The United States.
The Muslim Brotherhood got the United States to kill or remove from power the four leaders on the planet.
Who were doing the most damage to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Movement?
Saddam Hussein, Hassani Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, who had killed more al-Qaeda fighters than anyone else, and Bashir al-Assad.
And I'm not saying that's a group of really good dudes.
I'm saying they were putting the boot on the Islamic Movement, on the Brotherhood, on these guys.
Why?
Because they wanted to maintain their own power.
They so have penetrated the U.S. national security decision-making process that they got us to do their bidding for them.
And what you're saying, John, and just nod if I'm saying it right, is that they were clever enough.
They're not going to come to the United States and say, hey, you need to strike a blow for Sharia.
They're going to say, hey, United States, you need to strike a blow for democracy.
And then, of course, Obama goes, oh, yes, let's have democracy in Egypt.
We got to yank away this dictator.
and the same with Saddam Hussein and the same with Gaddafi.
So it looks to me like you're I think you're quite right that that has not happened, and it desperately needs to happen.
Guys, I've been talking to John Guandolo, former FBI agent, fellow at the Claremont Institute.
The website, johnguandolo.com.
Follow him on XJGuandolo54271.
John, very eye-opening, and thank you for joining me.
Thank you for having me, Dinesh.
Really appreciate it.
I'm picking up on my discussion of Reagan and the early phase of his presidency, in fact, of his first term.
So we're talking about early 1981 through early 1982.
Reagan comes into the White House and says, He stops by to see Tip O 'Neill, the Democrat, rotund, jovial, but also kind of harsh Speaker of the House.
And Reagan says, hey, we should have a good working relationship in California when I was governor.
Reagan says, I had a Democratic California legislature.
I was able to get along with them.
And instead of saying, sure, let's do it, O 'Neill replies, well, that was the minor leagues.
You're in the big leagues now.
It's kind of a rude and I think insulting thing to say.
It kind of implies that Reagan is, quote, out of his league.
But interestingly, Reagan didn't seem, you know, offended or he just seemed a little taken aback, but took it in stride.
The view of the cognoscenti, the elite, the people in the know, was that we don't have to worry too much about Reagan.
Because, first of all, he's lazy, he's not very effective, and not only that, people didn't really vote for him.
They voted against Carter.
They voted against the circumstances of the late 1970s, inflation, stagnant growth, the reversals in foreign policy, the collapse in Iran.
So people are like, let's do something different.
Let's go with the other guy.
But they didn't particularly care about that guy or his agenda.
But Reagan showed that he could move swiftly, resolutely.
Interestingly, I think Reagan's speed of movement is resembled not so much by Trump 1, but more by Trump 2. And what I mean by that is that if I remember the first few months of the Trump administration in 2017, Absolute chaos.
Almost a little bit of shock at even being there.
All kinds of crazy people getting appointments, being fired five days later.
Think of a guy like Scaramucci.
He's given a senior position.
He starts using the F word in various interviews.
He gets thrown out on his heels.
And so this kind of amateurism, this kind of disorganization.
You didn't see this with Reagan.
Reagan came in almost like he had a blueprint.
He knew what he was doing.
We see this, as I mentioned, with Trump now.
And when Reagan was asked, like, what are you doing?
And, you know, everybody seems to be kind of...
Reagan was like, here's Reagan.
We made quite a stir, he says.
Everybody found out we were going to do just what we said we were going to do.
So, the beauty of this is that when a politician runs on something and then just decides, I've been campaigning on this for many months, I'm now just going to do it, it gives you a certain kind of focus and clarity.
You don't have to sit around going, well, those were my campaign promises.
Now, which one of those are I going to implement?
Well, let's see, maybe this one, but maybe not that one.
I've got some new ideas since the campaign.
No.
For Reagan, it was like, I'm laying out my blueprint.
I'm asking the American people to vote for it and thus give me a mandate.
Now I have a mandate and it's time to carry it out.
Kind of pristine simplicity to the whole thing.
And so Reagan comes in.
He had promised to abolish the, quote, Council on Wage and Price Stability.
This was basically some council aimed at keeping gas prices down.
Reagan abolishes it.
And all the Democrats are screaming.
They're like, gas prices are now going to go through the roof.
Get ready, America.
Your gas prices are going to double.
Reagan goes, no.
Far from doubling, your gas prices are going to go down.
And what happened?
Gas prices immediately plummeted.
Why?
Free markets, competition, wage and price controls are almost always a bad idea.
They were a bad idea under Carter.
No surprise.
And so with one stroke of his pen, almost casually, Reagan ended the energy crisis.
If I think of an analogy to that now, it would be Trump shutting down the border.
Biden says it can't be done.
Biden's got all kinds of legislation.
You've got some, you know, pliant Republicans like Lankford.
Oh, yeah, we need to have legislation.
Otherwise, we can't shut the border down.
Trump comes in, signs an executive order.
The border is shut down.
With one stroke of his pen, Trump, in a sense, ends the border crisis.
Not the border crisis of the people who are already here.
That's a whole different problem, and they're dealing with that now.
But blocking new entrants from coming in, that goal has been largely accomplished.
Now, Reagan proceeds to demonstrate very quickly on that he can get something really big.
Through the Congress.
And the reason he's able to do it is partly he won the election decisively, 44 states to Carter 6. And so he had the Republicans marching to his chorus.
Trump right now has the same.
But I would say to a little bit of a lesser degree, because you see, for example, with the big, beautiful bill, you've got Republicans holding out, bargaining for more benefits.
Each one wants something for their own district.
The New Yorkers want the so-called state and local income tax exemption so that you can take your hefty New York taxes and take it off of your federal.
So Trump gets extorted by Republicans who are indiscriminate.
to press him, and it's because the Republican majority in the House is slim.
Reagan had the benefit of the so-called conservative Democrats, sometimes called the boll weevil Democrats, sometimes called the blue dog Democrats, sometimes called the scoop Jackson Democrats after the hawkish senator from Washington.
So Reagan was able to play on all this and take advantage of it to get a massive tax program and tax cut through the Congress.
And he got it through 238 to 195.
So look at that.
That's a 40-seat, 40-vote majority.
Ultimately, it sailed through the Senate.
Reagan did have a narrow majority in the Senate.
But it was a Democratic majority in the House.
And people watching Reagan had to admit, hey, listen, we probably underestimated this guy because we thought he wouldn't be able to get anything done.
Here he sort of sails in, aweshocks, cocks his head, gives a couple of speeches, gets out there, and boom, he gets this massive tax bill through.
What I want to do here, and I do this in the chapter called A Walk on the Supply Side, is I begin to look at the logic, the underpinning of what Reagan is doing.
And this is going to be a very relevant discussion because right now we are dealing with the same fundamental issues of economics.
We're dealing with a lopsided situation regarding the budget.
We're dealing with creeping inflation.
By the way, inflation is always creeping because the government is always printing money.
We're dealing with the issue of debt.
We're dealing with the issue of economic growth and the pace of economic growth.
We need a rather rapid pace of economic growth.
I think I saw this morning a calculation by the economist Peter St. Ange.
We need about 6.5% economic growth.
to be able to comfortably to generate enough tax revenue so that we can overcome this annual $2 trillion deficit that keeps kicking up our national debt, $34 trillion, $36 trillion, $38 trillion, and up and up it goes heading northward toward $40 trillion and ultimately $50 trillion.
Tomorrow, of course, I'll have my weekend roundup with Debbie.
So we won't be doing the Reagan book, but we're picking it up on Monday.
And I just want to mention here that the big problem in 1980s, And this was a big problem for Keynesian economics.
The prevailing school, at least the school of economics that had guided FDR and the welfare state Democrats, they didn't know how to make sense of this.
And I'll tell you why that is the case.
But interestingly, on the Republican side, there were two rival camps.
There was the camp of the monitorists, led by Milton Friedman, and the camp of the supply-siders.
They didn't have a single leader, but they were...
So you had the monetarists on the one side, the supply-siders on the other.
As you'll see when we pick this up on Monday, the recommendations of these two camps appeared to push in opposite directions.
So Reagan knew he wanted to do something bold about stagflation.
But it was like, who do I go with?
Do I go with Milton Friedman or do I go with Jack Kemp?
Do I go with monetarism or do I go with supply-side economics?
▲
Export Selection