Trump and the Art of the Surrender with Ben Rhodes

are turning against him after his unequivocal unconditional surrender to Iran.

“As one account notes, it takes truly keen political instincts to alienate your party's”

senatorial class just before selling out the U.S. to Iran and needing them to run cover for you. Top notch stuff that was reposted by right-winged guy name Eric Erickson. Now we've heard from mega Republican senators like Roger Wicker after Donald Trump announced his surrender to Iran after Trump promising that Iran would be the one that did an unconditional surrender, but Trump did an unconditional surrender and gave Iran everything they want and

including 25 billion dollars control over the straight of hormones and that Trump has agreed. He won't even talk about nuclear issues with Iran for another 30, 60 days.

Here's what mega Republican senator Roger Wicker says.

“The rumored 60 days ceasefire with the belief that Iran will ever engage in good faith”

would be a disaster. Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for not. Let me just fact check him right there. In fact check a lot of this. We should never have been in this unlawful and catastrophic war at all period full stop. Donald Trump and Netanyahu are war criminals. They're genocide on maniacs. I'm just simply pointing out that Donald Trump promised a set of criteria that he said would show success and he's failed in each and every one of them. Ben Rhodes,

former president Obama's speech writer and deputy national security director wrote the following. Nothing was accomplished by Operation Epic Fury except putting the IRGC in charge of Iran and the straight of hormones. Then we heard from Lindsey Graham, Warmonger, Lindsey Graham. He writes, "If it is perceived in the region that a deal with Iran allows the regime to survive

and become more powerful over time, we will have poor gasoline on the conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq.

A deal that is perceived to allow Iran to survive and possess the ability to control the straight in the future will put his Ebola in Lebanon and the Shi'ai militias in Iraq on steroids." He then goes on to say, "If a deal is struck to the Iranian conflict, because it is believed the straight of removes cannot be protected from Iranian terrorism and Iran still possesses the capability to destroy major Gulf oil infrastructure, then Iran will be perceived as being a dominant

forest requiring a diplomatic solution. This combination of Iran being perceived as having the ability to terrorize the straight in perpetuity and the ability to inflict massive damage to Gulf infrastructure is a major shift of the balance of power in the region and over time will be a

nightmare for Israel, I guess Israel first for Lindsey Graham." Also, it makes one wonder why the war

started to begin with if these perceptions are accurate. I personally am a skeptic of the idea that Iran cannot be denied the ability to terrorize the straight and the region cannot protect

“itself against Iranian military capability. It is important that we get this right. Then you had”

Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz posted as well that he thought that this was catastrophic, that the outcomes would be terrible and he said that you couldn't have a worse solution to which you then had Donald Trump's "magant influencers" and people in the White House like Alice Bruzowitz said "Cool Ted no one asked you, bro, stop trying to undermine the president and his administration, Cruz wrote, "I'm deeply concerned about what we are hearing about in Iran deal,

being pushed by some voices in the administration and then in response to Trump official Alex Bruzowitz calling him out, Ted Cruz goes, "Hush child, the adults are talking, I'm not your bro, and young political grifters pushing Iran appeasement are not remotely helping the president, one commentator, no, then when you're having to tell Ted Cruz to shut up and be more obedient to Trump, probably not a great sign for nor-me voters." Then you had Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump's own

former secretary of state. He posted the deal being floated with Iran seemed straight out of the Wendy Sherman Robert Mally Ben Rhodes playbook, pay the IRGC to bill a WMD program and terrorize the world, not remotely America first. It's straight forward, open the damn straight, deny Iran access to money, take out enough Iranian capability so it cannot threaten our allies

then you had Stephen Chung, Donald Trump's communication director, attack Mike Pompeo, and he said, Mike Pompeo has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. He should shut his stupid mouth. This is Donald Trump's head of communications in the White House. This guy's the top communications person in the White House. Leave the real work to the professionals. He's not read into anything that's

“happening. So how would he know? I think the only thing that people know is that Donald Trump said,”

here's what we're going to do. Regime change. We're going to get rid of all the nuclear material.

We're going to get rid of the conventional weapons that are a shield to the nuclear material, like the ballistic missiles and the Shahid drones. Right? Trump said, hero, all regime change, all these things were going to happen and none of them happen. And Trump showed that America's security umbrella in the Middle East was a complete and utter failure. And now, you know, you have Donald Trump's sick offence, like magamike Johnson posting. President Trump is the only

one who could have gotten around the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. To an negotiating table, we are, we are greatly encouraged to learn of a peace deal in Iran as underway and look forward to learning more about the specifics. Under Trump's leadership, our nation is stronger, more respected on the global stage and safer than ever before, you know, to which Eric Erickson, very right wing guy says, Obama got Iran to the negotiating table. And boy, doesn't the JCPOA

seem like a great deal. I always thought the JCPOA was a great deal. Iranian enrichment,

taking the uranium down to what under four percent enrichment weapons grades like 90 percent enrichment. It had all these international mechanisms to ensure that Iran wouldn't get weapons grade, but could use for civilian purposes. There was the buy-in by the international atomic energy agency, the IAEA, and there was all of these mechanisms, like for dough was turned into a

“research center. That's what you had there. Here, Donald Trump's base after all of this, after the”

war crimes, after menab, after Lebanon, after all the horrors that were unleashed in the world. After all of this, after Donald Trump's saying, here's what I'm going to do. Here's how we're going to win. Donald Trump got a deal that was way worse, not even in the same league as Obama's.

If the Obama deal was the major leagues, this Trump deal was the PV leagues. That's who Trump always is,

though. You know, who I want to talk to about all of this, I want to talk to the person who you had Pompeo and Cruz are all attacking. Someone who worked in the Obama administration, Ben Rhodes, as Ben Rhodes just wrote to Lindsey Graham. Also, this guy helps create a global catastrophe, and then notices that his dumb policy has left Iran stronger. So of course, what's needed is even more war right there. Oh, and Ben Rhodes posted DCs around Hawks got two wars, nearly every

“conceivable sanction designation of blockade through a wrench in the global economy, and we'll still claim”

that just a little more pressure, a little more war, a touch of more bombing will magically yield the concessions they still won't be satisfied with. So right before this deal by Donald Trump was announced, probably another market manipulation thing as well. I spoke with Ben Rhodes, and I had a great conversation with him about everything that's going on in the world in the Middle East. This is an exclusive interview I've done with Ben Rhodes. Let me bring in my interview with Ben Rhodes.

You don't want to watch this. I mean, this was I thought a really powerful interview with Ben Rhodes. Let's bring in Ben Rhodes, former president Obama, speech writer, former deputy national security advisor. Great to see you, Ben, you're out with the new book. All we say, the battle for American identity, a history in 15 speeches, but I got to ask you from the outset with this geopolitical environment going on. You've been in the room with Vladimir Putin before you've been in the most

high level meetings with former president Obama. So we got a dig in there to start, but there's definitely a link with the book because projecting who we are as Americans is what pervades your book. So I'm trying to distill for our audience the kind of moment that we're in, which is filled with this kind of existential dread about domestic issues and foreign policy kind of being intertwined and when you think about foreign policy, it seems if there's any consistency which there isn't,

it is attack our allies, whether it's Canada, NATO, Denmark, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, who, whoever, just attack them and then heap praise on the authoritarian, the adversaries who are working

meeting with G, which to me looked utterly pathetic. Putin then shows up in China and then gets a hero's welcome where they announce a new multi-polar world. You had foreign minister Iraq, she's showing up right before Donald Trump goes there in Beijing. And so let's just talk macro and then let's drill down a little bit, then let's get into the book macro. What are you seeing right now about what America's doing to me? It's not projecting strength. It's projecting

being like a predator and then attacking our allies and making us weaker.

“Yeah, that's a good summary. I think one way to approach this is Trump clearly feels most at home”

in the autocrat club. The people that he wants to spend time with are not even Republican members of Congress. Certainly not ally leaders. It's Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin and BB Netanyahu and people like that. But if you pull the camera back, Russia has wanted to destroy the US-led international order for some time now in the Putin. Xi Jinping and China would like to replace that order with something that is dominated by the Chinese. And Donald Trump

is the most useful winning or unwitting partner in that project. Because everything he is doing is accelerating the dismantling and unraveling of that international order. So essentially the international system doesn't function anymore when you ever hear about the United Nations. He's dismantling US allies. He clearly has no regard for NATO. That's our comparative strength by the way to the Chinese Russians. And it's no coincidence that at that precise time, you have

a massive war in Ukraine that shows a no sign of ending despite Trump's promises ended on day one. You have this bizarre totally pointless and unnecessary and destructive war in Iran that is accelerating the loss of faith that people have in America around the world. And at the same time and this is where it becomes kind of existential to people. In this country, capitalism doesn't work, inequality is run amuck. AI is coming online and creating all this uncertainty about the future.

So there's a sense that everything is kind of unraveling. And that the beneficiary of that

is basically going to be a combination of Xi Jinping and the Chinese alternative. And then the

people that are kind of looting the system in this country that tech oligarchs and Trump cronies. And it's just, I just don't think it's a sustainable dynamic. It's going to require a pretty massive correction in the next couple of years. Talk about the damage that you see arising out of this

“war that may not be so obvious. I think some of the obvious things which I'm not downplaying are”

the rise in gas prices, inflation, increasing the cost of the war in the hundreds of billions. 1.5 trillion military budget because 1 trillion couldn't control the straight of hormones. The loss of life, most significantly, of our brave men and women who were out there. There's that. And then there's the kind of American standing in the world, though, that to me is not getting enough attention because that is when you think about your administration with Obama

handing off a stable, predictable, certain kind of world that Trump used to say, look how great I am

for the first two or three years. And then try to blame the remainder on COVID. The point is

you're a temporary occupant of the White House. And you're supposed to pass on a better situation or a stable situation. And what I see and you probably have a better perspective of this than just about anybody, the security umbrella, America's standing both in terms of NATO in the Middle East and Southeast Asia is gone. Having an American military base in your country is a liability and is not even a strength anymore. And it makes you subject to American extortion. And it makes

you a target of other nations as well. And the offensive capabilities that America once projected were demonstrated one to be not reliable. But two, a defensive posture with all of these drones

“in the way modern warfare has taken place. I think we've been exposed there as well that these”

billion dollar billion dollar fat and patriot systems are important. But it's also not reflective of

the modern warfare that we've seen in playout in Ukraine and in Russia and now and Iran. So what do you see about the standing and a more significance in kind of a global world order structure? Well, first of all, there's some other unseen short-term costs and then they're the longer-term costs that you're speaking to. I just say that we've also not been told the truth by the Pentagon

in the Middle East, the extent of the damage to U.S. bases, facilities, embassies across the region. We just, we have no sense of the price tag, the amount of devastation, how long some of those facilities are going to be offline. And to your point, we've also spent down an extraordinary amount of U.S. munitions that we brought from places like Asia, leaving South Korea more vulnerable

“to try to defend all of these facilities and in our allies. And what have we learned to your point?”

Shazad Iranian drones that you can make in your garage have hit our bases, have hit our golf Arab allies. An aircraft carrier cannot stop a speedboat from closing the straight-of-war moves. And so it undermines the entire concept that America is a security guarantee, both in terms of our predictability and reliability, and are not doing something stupid as launching a regime change war against Iran, but also just in terms of our capacity in our understanding of where war is moving.

As you said, after Ukraine and Iran, then I think there are going to be massive geopolitical shifts here. First of all, the Iranian regime, because of the war and the assassination of Al-Aqamani, this spring-lear, nobody is shedding a tear for, but it's actually more hard-line now. Iran is now

run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that is demonstrated that they can control

the straight-of-war moves through which 20% of the world's fossil fuel energy flows. That is a huge deal, right? The Gulf Arab allies have played along with a concept in which we provide their security, and they provide the energy, and that's kind of how the whole global economy works. Well now, their dependence on America has put them at risk. They were attacked because they are American allies, and we could not defend them,

“and that is going to lead them, I think, to start hedging against the United States and looking”

towards China. And then if you look around the world more broadly, to include our Asian allies, and to include potentially in our European allies, who looks like a more stable and predictable actor right now? The Chinese Communist Party that maybe you don't like the terms of the deal,

maybe you think they're bullies, but the terms never change. Or the United States,

where you have a president who's been imposing tariffs, launching wars, shaking you down for essentially, you know, tribute payments like he's done to the Gulf. America is not the stable bet. We are kind of the rogue nation in the world. And so I think what you're going to see in the long run, it puts at risk the dollar as the world reserve currency, the dollar, I think most Americans are realize what allows us to sustain our standards of living,

“which already feel like they're at risk because of rising prices, is the fact that we can take on”

so much debt because the whole world transacts through the dollar. Well, and that includes oil trades importantly, you're already seeing some nations begin to move away from that. And if that is the case, then that is truly the end of not just kind of American hegemony, but America's capacity to sustain its fiscal situation. So this, this a lot happening right now. Yeah, I want to, I'm going to put a little pin in that because I want to talk about that because what do we do when the next

Democratic administration comes into power in DC? And all of this, these issues then get blamed and the arsonism blame the firefighter for trying to put it out. And then you have a corporate news of trillions of dollars that just push the day-to-day game of, well, I won't put a pin in it. I'll jump in it now and then I'll get back to the next point. But then it gets back to the gamification of, you know, oh, look, you know, all these, it problems are happening. But this is this

mounting Ponzi scheme that we're seeing, you know, this, the shell game right now that we're seeing where things are bad right now. But in the future, 10, 20, 30, 50 years, they can get significantly worse and trumps handing the successor a pile of crap in the, though, the worst possible situation. And then that person gets blamed for it. And then all of these mega people who are going along with

golden ball rooms and arches and $1.8 billion, J6 settlements where Trump waves claims against

his self for, like, audits and all, all these people then are like, we're so against this. And wow, dare you, you know, Democratic president, you know, then they become China Hawks and Taiwan, the exact things they were, how do you see having the perspective of an Obamaman? How do you combat when that happens? So we don't get into this constant sea saw of the Democratic president gets blamed and a new Republican like Trump emerges, then a Democrat fixes it. Obama had a fixed

George W Bush's best took him a while, but fixed it handed it over. Trump created a mess. Biden started to fix it. It's the blame for those first three years. Things were going good. Trump Brexit. How do

last two times, because there are things that we're done right, but there are also things that we're

“done wrong. If you look at Obama comes in and there's a global financial crisis, remember that one,”

as well as the catastrophic war in Iraq. And, you know, while I think Obama did a lot of right, there was also a sense that hey, we're not going to look back, we're not going to kind of go after people were here to look forward and to build new things and to try to work together with Republicans. And that obviously left Obama in a situation where there was both a sense there wasn't accountability for those failures, but there's also a sense that, well, he owned things now,

because he's saying, well, this is normal. I'm taking a hand-off and doing what I'm doing. Biden very similarly came in with COVID and a lot of economic disruption, obviously, a lot of, you know, diminished U.S. standing in the world. And the idea was, we're kind of returning to normal here, we're getting like the adults back in charge, and the same thing, there wasn't kind of a relentless effort to kind of spotlight just how much things had gone wrong and who was to blame for that and hold

them accountable. Look, I think that the next Democratic president has come in, things are going

to get worse in the next couple of years. So, first of all, I think it's going to be very apparent

to Americans just how deep of a hole for him by the time of the next presidential election.

“I think you have to come in with speed. You're not coming to restore normalcy. You're coming”

in an emergency situation. I mean, I think the analogy would be, and I just spent four years in American history because of work on this book. The analogy would be FDR, who was one of the chapters in my book, but when he came in, it was not normal. We're moving fast. We're doing huge things. And I think that we have to come in whole people accountable. We have to review all the corruption. Don't hesitate from looking back. I mean, I'll leave it to the justice system to deal with people

of COVID-19 crimes. But beyond that, I think there should be a relentless focus on spotlighting

the grift and corruption and dismantling of the US government that was done. There has to be a rapid

effort to uproot anything that is entrenched in the US government that is MAGA ideology or grift. There has to be a reconstruction of how the US government works. There has to be an enormous reform agenda. And this is another thing I found in my book. After the guilty age is when you got the direct election of senators, you have women's suffrage, a similar level of ambition in just transforming how politics is financed, how politicians are held accountable in this country,

how you can assure Americans that the government is actually going to work for them and not just

“to set a special interest. And then globally, I think a real effort to say this is over.”

You know, we're dismantling this forever war apparatus. We're not just drawing down some troops. We're taking the whole thing apart. We're an anti-war party now. We're not going to do the dumb-worth thing anymore. And we're going to re-engage the world as a country that wants to deal with issues that people care about. Like how do you put guardrails about our official intelligence? How do you deal with the threat of climate change? So I think all that adds up to

the Democrats needing to not come in and try to make things feel normal. But to come in and act as FDR did with the sense that there is an emergency that is of a scale that everything is going to have to be different going forward. I think about the state of the union address that you put in January 6, 1941 FDR when he says the nation, which had looked inward, was now committed to an all-inclusive national defense to defending not just the Western Hemisphere, but people who are

resisting aggression and to rejecting any negotiated peace with dictators. These principles as you right, would not shape, not just America's approach to World War II, but its policies for 80 years as you talk about the speech that he gave. And here we are now seeing a complete reversal of that Donald Trump coddling with dictators. And as I go through, as I go through your book, I mean, as you say, these words, these speeches have a way of redefining setting the direction and tone

of American history and just how important words are. I mean, you as a speech writer, were very careful when you would be drafting these speeches. I can't even imagine the amount of work that went into the famous speech that you and Obama did in Cairo. I mean, these are every word, comma, had a meaning that was embedded, that was past looking forward, looking, present looking, that communicated messages to parties that understood it. And in this particular

moment right now, as you also pivot in the book to talk about Trump's assault on democracy, it's also an assault on on words and language. And to me, and by when he does these speeches, if you even want to call him that, which is just verbal diarrhea, and it's all over the place, it is kind of an affront to the idea of words matter, what America says matter, and in and of itself,

through the verbal diarrhea. That's one of the things I took out of the book, even if that's not that's not what you said. Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. And look, it's a connect these

“conversations because I think it's really important how you framed it. Trump has kind of dismantled”

the idea that we have a shared national identity, or even a shared reality in this country.

Now, underpinning that is a deeply reactionary story that has always been part of the American

story, right? It's a kind of white Christian nationalism that rejects or subordinates other identities, and basically says that there's a group of people in this country with Trump, it's a very small group of people who are allowed to do whatever they want. And then alternatively, there's a more progressive sense of national identity, a progressive story that I trace all the way back from the Constitution through the abolitionist movement and Lincoln and through FDR and Kennedy and

King up through Obama that says what America is about is country that is founded on a creed, an idea that we pursue equality, and we're extending that effort across the United States and around the world. And I think that this has been missing in this country and in how this country talks

to the world. Right now, there's a sense that people have everywhere that it's not working,

that the American experiment is in some ways unraveling, that I don't think that the life of my kids is going to be better than my life, that I don't know how the economy is going

“to function with AI. I don't know what we stand for in the world anymore. That's how people are”

feeling. That is much more existential than just even important things like I want my ACA, healthcare subsidies, or I want the government to build more housing. Those are important things. I think what's missing for Democrats is what is the story? Obama launched in 2004 because he came along when Democrats were feeling on the back foot and he told the story about America, what American identity means, that allowed him to become president of the United States. That's

how important speeches and words can be. And I think right now, we need political leaders

in the Democratic Party or even in movements who are engaging in this bigger question about what is American identity, what is it all about and where are we going? And by the way, when we've done that well in the past, that shapes what we mean and stand for in the world. You know, and that FDR speech, that for Freedom Speech, he didn't just lay out the case against isolationism and for support for Britain against Nazi Germany, he said this country stands for something.

We stand for four freedoms in this world, freedom to say what you want, freedom to believe what you want, freedom from fear of war and freedom from want as well. And those four freedoms became the basis, not just of what America stood for in opposition to fascism and the war. They literally became the basis for the entire post-war war for two international order. They're really written into the United Nations Charter in the Declaration of Human Rights,

Kennedy and Martin Luther King, their words around civil rights around the purpose of the United States. Well, that gave us an advantage of the Soviet Union, because people said, look at what people can do in a democracy. They can write wrongs. They can stand for things. They can even deal with their own problems like systemic racism segregation. We are in a moment where we're going to need similar storytelling about what is the purpose of the United States, but also about

what is the next world order? Because the whole house is being blown down right now. We're not renovating this country or the international order. We're going to have to rebuild it on the other side of Trump. And that there has to be a story at the center of that from which policy and relationships grow like branches. No, it's fascinating when I see Prime Minister Carney's speeches very intentional, very Obama-like, frankly almost like you've written

some of those speeches in a way, but he probably has speech writers like you. But it definitely sets out a vision of what Canada looks like in the future, reliable, predictable, turning to Europe. This is a rupture. This isn't just a mere temporary. I mean, it's a very consistent message. And it sets out what Canada is going strong. So I would be remiss if I didn't, you know, conclude this interview with you. As we talk about your book, which everybody needs to get by the way,

all we say, the Battle for American Identity, a history in 15 speeches to ask you. And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I've got you. Probably one of the most of not the most preeminine speech writer of our time right here who wrote these Obama speeches that changed the

“world for good. What would you tell someone who's running for office in 2028 right now?”

Obviously, I'm not going to ask you to sculpt the full speech. But what do you think that

stadiums right now in the Democratic Party on all four years? And what message is resonating?

“I'm listening very carefully to those Bernie rallies and the fight the oligarchy tour that”

draw 20,000, 30,000 people in Utah, you know, and in West Virginia. And I'm listening to what those people are saying when AOC is out there speaking in front of huge crowds. I'm listening to what those people are saying and they're drawing crowds who are Democrats, Republicans, magas, independents, people who don't like politics. And I'm listening carefully to those speeches. And I'm saying I see how that's resonating with those people. But what's your view to looking

forward? What does it look like? Do you think? I love the question. And actually, I will point to

a few Democrats who are doing something interesting in the way they speak. Because I think we can draw

from them, some of the answers to your question. If you look at a John Ossuff, for instance, when he speaks about corruption, he connects it to why things are so broken and how things could get better. In the Democratic Party, there's also often been like, we're either talking about democracy and corruption, kind of process issues, or we're talking about health care and policy issues. And what Ossuff is saying is he's telling a story about how this whole system has become

“corrupted. And not just Trump, the entire political system has become corrupted. That's why you,”

the rotor, are getting bad outcomes. That's why the prices are too high. That's why you can't afford health care. That's why AI is coming for your jobs. It's a coherent and complete story that connects the need to fundamentally reform our democracy to the outcomes that people care about in their lives, their jobs, their health care, their prices. So that it's not just a kind of pointy head, you know, an op-ed page, democracy argument. It's an argument about how to make government work.

If you look at James Tolerico in Texas, he's talking about, you know, and I found this and going back and looking at what makes these speeches consequential and connect. It's when there's also truly authentic. When you're the only person on earth who could be delivering this message. And then I think that's something everybody who runs for president needs to keep in mind. Not just what's my five point plan. Why are you running? Why are you? And when Tolerico talks about why he's running

for Senate, he talks about his faith and how his faith compels him to want to care for his neighbor and to want to have a different kind of conversation in this country. I think people are ready for that kind of message. A more kind of not just policy again, like who are we as Americans? How do we connect with one another? What motivates the people to go into public life? And then to your point about the rallies, I think AOC, what she does, it is so important, is she's fearless

and joyful in how she refuses to be intimidated by all these forces that are arrayed against her. Joy is really important. I was on the 2008 Obama campaign. That was the most joyful exercise I've been a part of. People wanted to be a part of it. And I think in the Trump era, we fall into a trap the last three presidential campaigns where we're so angry. And we're kind of gripped. We should

“be, by the way. But you need to kind of have AOC's angry about the same things we are, right?”

She's angry about the oligarchy. She's angry about inequalities. She's angry about racism, discrimination. But there's a kind of joy to her politics. And so I think if you take those three examples, the kind of coherence of an asof, the kind of core values proposition of a talerico. And then that kind of joyful, fearless sense of NaOC, you have the ingredients of what we need. Again, the common thread, and I saw this through all the speeches that I found to be the most

impactful in my book, is they're not just policy proposals. You know, they're about something bigger than that. They're telling a story about what is happening in this country, why it's happened, why I, the speaker, uniquely care about it, and a motivated to do something about it, and then laying out a vision that other people can be a part of. And I think we're beginning to see, and notably asof AOC, Talerego, they're younger. I also think there's a generational people

ready to hear someone come along, who's, you know, my age or younger, and say, let's just turn

the page on all of this, which can also often be the most powerful message in the world, one of

generational change. Everybody, if this interview didn't convince you to get the book, I frankly don't know what else will, but we had seven million subscribers, so y'all need to get this book. All we say, the battle for American identity, a history in 15 speeches, it's great to see the

all of the mightest mightest book reading experience. I know they'll enjoy it the way I did,

“and then also looking forward to seeing what you're up to next. Thank you so much, and I love what”

you guys are doing. It's really inspiring to watch, so thanks. Hey, everybody, hit subscribe,

and let's get to that seven million subscriber more.