this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you from new york. today on program, as a difficult year comes to a close, we look at the biggest challenges facing president biden. from the middle east, china, the war in ukraine, to the border. political dysfunction. >> this is a colossal waste of time. >> and the u.s. economy. i'll talk about it all with ezra klein and richard haass. >> and holding terror to account. a french company sued in u.s. courts by american citizens for funding isis in iraq.

amal cooney and the lead plaintiff nadia murad nobel peace prize winner join me exclusively to explain the stunning legal story and the tragedy behind it. >> the terrorists are brazen and the financiers are brazen and they'll continue to do so as long as they're not being punished. but first, here is my take. 2023 has turned out to be a year that has seen a fundamental challenge to world order. the rules-based international system built by america and others over the decades, is now under threat in three regions. in europe, russia's war on ukraine shatters the longstanding norm that borders should not be changed by force. in the middle east, the war between israel and hamas threatens a dangerous radicalization of the region

with iranian-backed militias fighting american-backed allies from lebanon to yemen to iraq to syria. and in asia, china's rise continues to unsettle the balance of power. each of these challenges has its peculiarities, but they have in common the need for a mixture of deterrence and diplomacy. the joe biden has set agendas and rallying allies and talking to adversaries. success will depend on whether it could execute the policies it has adopted and that might depend on america's domestic politicals more than grand strategies. in europe, they have emphasized combatting russian aggression. this is easier said than done. russia has an economy that was nine times the size of ukraine's before the war and a population today almost four times larger. that basic mismatch could only be addressed through continuous

large-scale western assistance to ukraine coupled with pressure on kyiv to develop a more manageable military strategy and to reform its politics and economics so it could genuinely become a part of the west. in the middle east, the challenge is more in the realm of diplomacy than deterrence. israel has overwhelming power compared to hamas. there is no doubt that it will win in the military sense the word, but to leave israel more secure, with meaningful new alliances with the gulf arab states, the u.s. must get israel to address an underlying unavoidable reality. about 5 million palestinians live in lands occupied with israel without rights and a state of their own. china is the largest challenges and the one in long run will shape the international order. determining whether the open international system collapses into a second cold war with arms races and nuclear weapons and space and a.i.

the strategy the biden administration has adopted is nuanced, emphasizing competition and deterrence wild also trying to build a working relationship with beijing. in the last few months, that strategy seems to have yielded results. including a more conciliatory tone from the chinese. the shift has much to do with beijing's economic troubles and the realization that xi jinping wolf warrior philosophy has backfired producing animosity across asia. but tough measures have encouraged dialogue and diplomacy. despite well-designed policy, the biden administration confronts the reality that american domestic politics could derail all progress. if american support for ukraine waivers, european resolve will also weaken and putin will be confirmed in his prediction that

he could outlast the west. large constituents still support ukraine, but the u.s. is experiencing growing opposition from a newly isolationist right and the republican party is poised to nominate donald trump as its presidential candidate, a man who has made no bones about his dislike of ukraine and admiration for putin. in the middle east, biden faces benjamin netanyahu who is highly adept at pocking american support and resisting all advice. since the days of the oslo accords in the 1990, they have feigned support for a peace process while actually gutting it. the last time washington tried to pressure him, he made an end run around barack obama and mobilized support through congress. perhaps recognizing this, the biden administration's seems to be trying to marshal arab states, chiefly saudi arabia to influence israel. with china, the administration's careful mix of deterrence and

diplomacy can only work if domestic policy does not up end it. there is no perceived downside to bashing beijing. the house select committee just recommended even more severe measures against china including a slew of tariffs that would according to a estimate, cost the u.s. economy up to $1.9 trillion over the next five years. and could lead to a broad rupture in the global economy. as i've recently written in an essay in foreign affairs, the most worrying challenge to the rules-based international order does not come from china, russia or iran. it comes from the united states. if america retreats in each of these three areas, aggression and disorder will rise. 2024 might be a year in which the ugly polarized politics on capitol hill ends up shaping the

future of the world in which we will live for decades to come. go to cnn.com/fareed to a link to my "washington post" column this week, and let's get started. ♪ as the biden administration heads into an election year, it faces a complex set of challenges both at home and around the world. i have two excellent guests with me to talk about these compounding crises and richard haass is from the council on foreign relations and a former top state department official and ezra klein is "the new york times" columnist and host of the terrific podcast, the ezra klein show. he is also the author of the book, "why we're polarized." richard, let me start with you.

ukraine. everyone feels like things look much more grim than people had thought. is that true, and you have been arguing that the ukrainians need to fairly substantially change strategy? >> and grim is way too negative. if two years ago we had this conversation, you said after two years, they would be where they are, we would have said where do we sign. pretty good. but no, there are some things to worry about. they're churning up an awful lot of ammunition and a lot people are dying and u.s. support is obviously somewhat wavering. this is the reason i think they need to go to a less resource-intense strategy and focus on holding what they own and what they have. and put aside for the time being probably talk of liberation. it is not i'm against it. i don't think this is realistic and i don't like it when people in washington say why should we throw good money after bad. ukraine ought to keep and protect what it has and some ties with nato, and long-term support agreements.

it doesn't mean they give up the long-term goals, but for the moment they have to focus on what is realistic. >> i'm sure you read about putin's press conference he does. he seemed very unrelenting. he seems like there was no compromise. he said ukraine is getting freebies and the freebies have got to stop. >> i don't think he's -- i think he's waiting on the november election. and you want to make it much more difficult for him to accomplish anything. if he were to go on the of ferns -- we've seen russian forces are good at that. in general, in warfare, it is more pressure on offense and less on the defense. it is not a bad outcome if putin can succeed. he wanted to eliminate ukraine as a sovereign country with ties to the west. well, guess what? it is a sofin country with increasing ties to the west. let's keep that going. >> ezra, what would you make of the politics of supporting

ukraine? we know all of the congressional stuff, you pull back how should we understand it? >> i think it is sometimes hard to decompose what is driving the republican party at any given moment. there is donald trump and the cult of personality and factions including more isolationalist factions and anti-biden and anti-internationalist and anti-nato sentiment. so which of these is dominant? if you have a republican nominee, if something unusual happened and say, haley wins iowa and then wins new hampshire and makes a credible run and she ends up the nominee, what does the republican look like? i don't know. but right now i think it is hard to tell. at any given moment, how much is really anti-biden and pro-trump and how much is the republican party ending up in a fixed place that is different from the republican party that we saw 10 or 15 years ago. under different management, does

it have a different view? it's hard to say. >> we will support ukraine as long as we get serious stuff on border control. >> i think there is a lot to not like about leveraging ukraine's freedom or even its existence for unrelated border control arguments. there are many places where the republican party could cut a deal with democrats. they could give something democrats want on anything from climate change to the economy. kevin mccarthy could have remained speaker if he made concessions to democrats on how bills came to the floor. for the thing to hold in the balance here, to be whether ukraine survives, it doesn't strike me as a highly moral way of running that negotiation. >> what do you think of your former party? >> it is the reason it is my former party. i don't recognize it. i work for george herbert walker

bush and ronald reagan and george w. bush, they believes in alliances. this is different. i don't think the idea that we leverage support for a country under attack, the most fundamental rule of the world, you shouldn't be able to acquire territory by force, they would link it to something unrelated and the only thing i would say is each party would do the same for the other if the party could come together. joe biden's policy on the border makes no sense. i don't understand why the democrats are supporting an open uncontrolled border. massive people -- numbers of people coming here, and the republicans don't want to get to be the party that sold out ukraine. so actually by linking this, they may be doing one another a political favor even if it is for the wrong reasons. >> do you want to respond to democrat's open uncontrolled border policy. >> i don't think it is an open and uncontrolled border, but i think democrats have been trying and believing for a long time they could create a big comprehensive immigration

package, bill, deal. it is not seem to me that that this is in the offing any time soon. it might not be in the offing any time ever given how far apart the parties are on it now. i think it would make sense for democrats to make sure what they want on immigration and how to achieve it. i don't think in terms of policy or rhetoric, i don't believe that it is open borders, i don't think they're making enough of a clear argument of what they do want and such that any is breaking through. >> part of the problem is, whatever biden does on immigration and he's tightened and he can't say it because he's scared that it will alienate his left wing. >> i think there is something to to that.t. >> we hahave to pause there. when we e come back,k, the midd east a and collegege campuses.s. when we e come back.k.

and we are back on "gps" with "new york times" columnist ezra klein and richard haas, president a emeritus of the council on foreign relations.

richard, as i said in my opening, bibi netanyahu is very about at pocketing support and resisting pressure. is he going to be able to do that? because the administration is clearly in a very different place than israel right now on this war? >> he's going to try. what is so interesting, fareed, in all of my time in government, there is pressure for the israeli prime minister to get along with the american president. often the israeli public will measure a prime minister by how well he would manage that relationship. bibi netanyahu is going to do just the opposite. he's going to go to the israeli people and say i'm all that stands between you and extremists, be it hamas or a front for hamas. so he's going to take joe biden on. because their fundamentally different places about the management of gaza and what

comes after. i could see this framing an election sometime in 2024. and what is good about this for bibi netanyahu, it allows him to frame the election about the future. it is about him and the potential avoiding of a palestinian state, what have you, as opposed to the past, he is the person responsible for the tragic failures, intelligence of october 7th. so this is going to get really entering over the next six months. >> what about the politics here? what do you think -- how do you think you've heard people say that biden is going to lose a certain number of arab americans and lose young americans because of this unwavering support for israel that so far has been his policy? >> i think the substance is the issue here. ten months from now, it is hard to say, nine months from now, if people in america are going to be thinking about israel and thinking about gaza and the west bank. we'll see where the world is and where the conflict it. but it is an actual substantive issue, which is that biden tried to, one, reboot, the democratic party if nothing else, its relationship with israel. there what a period under the

obama administration, where he tried to challenge on settlements. netanyahu went behind obama and to congress and obama backed down. so biden sort of rebooted here. democrats, unlike what trump was pushing on israel, they care about some kind of more meaningful palestinian state and biden became the world's biggest ally of israel. and the implicit assumption was that by backing israel like that, biden would have influence he could use when he needed to use it. and what it becoming immediately clear is netanyahu did not see that deal the same way. and so then you get into the question, did biden mean it? influence only matters if you're willing to use it in both directions. and if netanyahu is going to go against the biden administration on everything they care about here, including the idea that palestinians will be governing in gaza and what people call the day after, though we don't know what the day after will be, then is there any kind of red line at all?

is america going to be funding perennial israeli control of gaza and activity and expansion and eventually annexation in the west bank? so the problem is the politics in nine months. we'll see what that is. that politics will be dependent on whether the substance of what america ends up seeming to have signed on to, backed or financed, seems to his own coalition to worked out or been just. >> what do you make of the argument that a younger generation including a younger generation of jews are much more critical of israel? the polling data does seem to suggest and i'm asking why? >> there are three generations here. there is a older generation and biden is part of it, that sought israel as an impossibility and a miracle and saw it founded and when it tried to get wiped off the map and survive and in 1967 fend off an attack like that in

1 1973. they see what israel could have been and how unlikely it is. but they remember it as weak and vulnerable too. they have a generation, gen x, older millennials and myself for that matter who saw israel as strong. they had control of gaza. had control of the west bank. where in many ways an occupying force. there was much that was immoral in all that. but also saw and remember an israel trying to create something different, saw a peace process and an israelttrying to find some way to a two-state solution and what people are missing in the campus protests, of which there is anti-semitism and extremism, but a lot of people are there because if you're younger, all you've seen is netanyahu's israel, that is an oppressive force in gaza and the west bank and is completely comfortable allowing those things to remain under control or the borders under the control and is in no way trying to, in the last 10, 15 years to find its way to something different

and that generation is not pro israel. you could see this sliding down the polling an that is in the long-term a significant security risk that they should take seriously because joe biden generation is not going to be if power in america for ever. >> what do you think about the college campus issue? >> i agree. it is not just that israel is seen as goliath more than david. as in charge. but i think the american jewish establishment has dropped the ball. they have played the inside game. how many votes could you get on the hill for aid and so forth and look the other way at settlement activity. they've lost the larger debate. israel has lost the intellectual imagination debate in this country, and that is really, really shortsighted. so when they played the inside game, and they've lovett the outs game and the proof is on campuses. that is the future. and what is interesting, is most

israelis, like the netanyahus, don't care. there's a certain contempt for americans and american jews. and they're saying, you don't get it and i think they're willing to go their own way or they think they could have their cake and eat it. and stand up to president biden and somehow they could continue to get sufficient american support. >> we'll have to leave it at that. thank you, guys. this was really terrific. next on gps, amal clooney and her client nadia murad that aims t to get monenetary restitutution, real l cash into pockcket of isisis victims l li mumurad. how?w? wewe will explplain.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this,

it restores a lot of faith in humanity. goli, taste your goals. in recent days, yazidi women and men and children have fled for their lives, and i believe the united states of america cannot turn a blind eye. we could act to prevent a potential act of genocide.

>> that was president obama in 2014 talking about a tragedy that was then unfolding in northern iraq as isis attacked the yazidis, a religious minority. they sought safety from the terrorists from a top of a mountain but isis surrounded the mountain and left them with two choices as obama explained. descend the mountain and be slaughtered or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger. at the same time, one of the world's largest concrete manufacturers, a french company called la farj, was paying isis so that it could continue to operate a cement plant in the area that isis had seized. the two events collided last year by the u.s. department of justice which ended in la farj pleading guilty and paying $800 million in fines.

this week a landmark civil lawsuit was filed seeking refugee for the victims of isis crimes. joining me now for an exclusive interview with human rights lawyer amal clooney, one of the lead lawyers and the lead plaintiff, a yazidi woman named nadia murad. she's the author of the last girl, my story of captivity and my fight against the islamic state. >> i'm pleased to welcome you both back to the show. this is such an important case. just give us as you're the lawyer, give us the facts of the case, what did la farj do. >> thank you for having us, the facts of this case is really shocking. so as you said, just when the genocide against the yazidis was beginning in iraq, that isis committed, this company that had

already been funding isis for a year ramped up its support for isis. and the invasion began on the 3rd of august, 2014. just days later la farj was negotiating a new deal with isis, not just to keep the factory going but to split the profits and give them a share of the cake as they put it. they were negotiating the terms of this deal on the 15th of august when isis attacked nadia's village, when six of her brothers and mother was executed. they agreed, this cement company, one of the largest in the world, agreed to giving isis better terms in this profit-sharing arrangement that they were entering into. ultimately agreeing to give isis 10% of its cement and 25% of the value of the raw materials. they're watching the images unfold in front of them. the factory that la farj was

operating through its subsidiary in syria was just 52 miles away from raqqah which was the center of the slave trade that the yazidis became subjected to, the women and young girls. the department of justice brought against this company, the company admitted that it gave almost $6 million to isis and to a related group on the front. they admit that they agreed to provide cement, which reportedly was used by isis to build tunnels and in which western hostages and yazidis were held and tortured. so this is an absolutely shocking set of circumstances. we commend the department of justice for criminally prosecuting this company and in what was the first ever prosecution under a statute that allows prosecutors to go after companies that provide materials support and conspire with terrorist groups. but the prosecution resulted in this huge fine, $3.25 billion

and not one dollar has gone to the victims. so the attorney general has the discretion to redirect some funds to the victims, and we hope he will do so. we've made a request for that. but we've also filed this lawsuit in the eastern jurisdiction of new york seeking on behalf of nadia as the lead plaintiff but over 400 other yazidi americans to get compensation from la farj for assisting in terrorist violence. >> nadia, what would you do with the money? let's assume the attorney general -- let's assume the suit is successful. what are the needs of the people who have been affected so terribly by isis? >> you know, having this company holding them accountable and having them compensate those who have suffered because of their support to isis, it is really important.

so many of these people in the u.s., yazidis, they have family members still -- some of them have family members in captivity, and who are returned back to their homeland but they struggle to rebuild their lives. and i'm hoping that this will help them to -- their family members to rebuild their lives and also to be able to go back. because it is been almost 10 years and more than 200,000 yazidis are still displaced in their own country in iraq. they can't afford to go back and rebuild their houses. >> amal, this is quite an effort as you've pointed to the size of the suit, but also the complexity. you went to nebraska to find plaintiffs for this suit. tell us about that. >> that is right. so the plaintiffs, all of the

u.s. citizens and we sort of had worked out the legal theory of the case and we're tracking what is happening in the criminal proceedings and we were ready to go with the case. we just needed to find our clients and plaintiffs. and we discovered there is a big community of yazidis in nebraska. so, i think yazidis know that i've been working with this community on multiple accountability efforts for years now. we didn't tell them what it was about and we said you could gather in this hall at this time, this lawyer is coming to lincoln and i started to explain what was possible. this is the first meaningful chance for compensation for -- for these victims of isis. more and more people started coming and filling the hall and i extended the trip. and it's amazing to see sort of laid out in this court document 427 names and we expect that more people will come forward as well. >> next up, how did nadia manage to go from a victim of isis terror to a powerful figure holding the group supporters to account? more from nadia murad and amal clooney when we come back.

and we are back with human rights lawyer amal clooney, a lead lawyer on a new case against a french company for aiding and abetting isis. joining her is the lead plaintiff in the case, nadia murad. >> nadia, when you think about the -- all of the challenges you have had. i mean, you have managed to -- you were sold into the sex trade by isis. and now look at you. you're obviously won the nobel prize, but also a student at american university. i think about the first time i met you. you could barely speak a word of english and you're now writing

papers in sociology in english. what do you think made it possible for you to have the kind of grit and determination to move out of this -- out of the shadows of this tragedy and into the kind of work that you're doing now? >> i've decided to share my story at the very beginning when i survived because i saw the evil of isis. and it was important for the world to -- to remind the world about horrific crimes isis committed against yazidis, and in order to prevent this from happening again, i had to share my story. and a -- and i felt responsible, because my nieces that were with me were killed by isis in captive its and they didn't make it. and when you survive, you feel this burden. and the guilt of going out there and sharing your story. and later, to learn that such corporations directly supported isis in their crimes, war

crimes, it was just sickening and unbearable. >> to me -- >> i think one of the sort of really shocking features of this whole sort of episode is that, you know, neither the armed groups nor their financiers expect to face accountability, and you could see that by how brazen they are. literally wrote down its plan. they explained why under the warped interpretation of islam it was okay to rape and destroy yazidis and this company was brazen in its support and we've looked at the documents on isis letterhead and it has the name of the company on it. one of the documents is literally signed by the amir of the investment office of islamic state. they weren't even trying to cover their tracks initially. but, yeah, i mean, the

terrorists are brazen, and the financiers are brazen and they will continue to do so so long as they're not being punished. >> what is so interesting about that is what both of are you trying to do is we forget, what happened with isis was horrendous and the world rose up in horror, but once it was defeated militarily on the battlefield, it passes and what you're trying to do is to remind people, what you're trying to do is hold people accountable. how hard is that? when you go and talk to people in governments, do you find it is a hard sell to remind them of the things that they had been so repulsed by just a few years ago? >> i think it is what amal and i will talk about. after isis was defeated, the pain and the trauma was not done. but it was there. and soon after that, we saw a new cycle, just moving on and going to another story and covering another story.

but we still have more than 2,000 yazidi women and children missing in captivity. so far we have uncovered more than 83 mass graves and it is been almost ten years, i've had my mother and four brothers and two nieces, 11 cousins and nephew that were all kill and some of them are now in a building in baghdad and they've been exhumed but have not been identified, and there is no closure without a proper burial for those families. >> amal, what do you think are the implications for all of this? you know there is conversation now about sexual war crimes committed by hamas. there are -- there are things going on in the world now, when you look at that with all of the knowledge, what is your -- what are the lessons? >> i think the lesson is it

costs money to commit crimes like this and crimes at this scale. and we have to continue to pursue justice in every forum. so, we -- as lawyers, we're not governments, we can't prevent these atrocities, but at least, after they happen, we could work with survivors and build cases. anything that can move the needle towards accountability and away from impunity, meaning perpetrators have to face prosecution and victims have to get some assistance in rebuilding their lives. they deserve compensation at the very least and i think that cuts across the board for victims of sexual violence, whether it is sudan or victims of the international crimes taking place now in the middle east. >> thank you both, this is such important work you're doing. amal and nadia, pleasure to have you on.

>> thank you so much, fareed. next o on "gps", d david br will t tell us howow to preservr humanity in dark times, after the break.

society has gotten so polarized that people seem to feel there are two sides to every issue. the right one and the wrong one. and the other side must be defeated. too often people are dehumanized others instead of trying to understand them and find common ground. a few years ago, "new york times" columnist david brooks set up to learn how to really understand another human being. and he has useful lessons in this through book "how to know a person, the art of seeing others deeply and being deeply seen." david, welcome. as always, what you write is fascinating.

you know, everyone said they want to do this. everyone said you need to understand the trump voter and you know, but it is actually quite hard, right. >> yeah. well, i wrote this book, i thought i would try to be a better person, a better human being and we live in such bitter and polarized times and so many people feel invisible. and i thought the only way to aggressively defeat that was by making other -- by understanding other people and making them seen and heard and understood and that is part of it is just being open-hearted. but you also need skills. and these are basic social skills like how to listen well and how to debate well and disagree well and host a dinner party and sit with someone suffering from depression and how to break up with someone without crushing their heart and these are basic social skills and i should know how to do this stuff. but i was a social idiot and so i spent the four years learning how do i do these skills. and in the book i try to walk them from the first when they gaze at each other to arguing across political difference.

>> what's striking is what you're doing is reminding us that all of the education tends to be about our intellectual intelligence and not our emotional intelligence. and then when i think about what a.i. is going to do to us, it is going to be better at intellectual intelligence and we'll have to rely more on emotional intelligence and we're less equipped for it. >> i think a.i. will reveal what it can't do. when i meet for the first time, we only understand what is going on in the first conversation 20% of the time. we just don't know. but one thing i could do, is when i'm meeting you, i could give you a gaze that said you're a person to me, you're a priority to me and so much is in that first gaze. so i tell the story in the book, i'm having a breakfast with a lady named lerue dorsey in waco, texas and she is a strict disciplinary. i'm a little scared of her. in walked a friend of ours, he said you're the best and i love

you, and she suddenly is up bright and a eyes shining 9-year-old girl. the power to change somebody. and the key thing for jimmy, he's a pastor and when he sees a person made in the image of god and with a soul of infinite value and you could be christian or jewish or atheist or agnostic, but seeing every person you meet with that level of respect and reverence is a respect and reference is a condition for seeing them well. you have to extend that basic level of respect to every person you meet. >> what is the biggest obstacles to our -- some of what you're saying seems obvious and easy. what is that prevents us? >> we're not as good at conversation as we think we are. having a conversation where i really see the world from your point of view, how do i do that? again, it's skills. i list a bunch of the ways to do that in the book.

for example, treat attention as an on and off switch, don't be a topper. if you tell me i had this terrible flight and the tarmac and i know what you're going through i was on the tarmac for eight hours and it sounds like i'm trying to relate, but let's talk about me and my superior circumstances. >> so the ego is very important here. >> it is a moral act. attention is the ultimate generous act, and only about 30 to 40% of the people i meet are question askers. they are not curious about you, they don't ask questions and so the quality of the questions determines the quality of your conversation. and so we should be asking bigger questions. and some of them, when i get to know someone, it is like where are you from. and as i get to know them better, it is something a little fun like tell me your favorite

unimportant thing about you. and i learn from academic that he loves to watch a lot of trashy reality tv show. but then as we get to know each other, i want to ask you big questions. if this five years in your life was a chapter, what is the chapter about? what talent do you have that you're no longer using? what crossroads are you at? and then you could drill down and have a great conversation, just exploring the answers and you will leave with a sense of human connection but you also learn about human nature and learn about the world. it is just a more fun way to go in the world but you have to have the questioning skills to get inside of someone else's brain. >> this is a real warm and wonderful book. david d brooks, itit is a honor hahave you on.n. >> it t is great to be with h y > and thanknks to all o of y being papart of my p program th week.. i wiwill see you next week.

i was born ten weeks early without my left arm. with my polio, i have tough days and my pain just pops out, out of nowhere. there's nothing to be afraid of because all the doctors are all so nice. when somebody sees these commercials there'll be a phone number on a screen and all they have to do is call

and make a donation to help kids like me. thanks to a generous donor, every dollar you give can help twice as many kids like me and have double the impact. when you join with us, we'll send you one of these adorable blankets as a thank you and reminder of all the abilities you are helping make possible. merry christmas! please call the number on your screen and give just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day or whatever you can to help kids like us this christmas. and when you do, your gift will have two times the impact. hello and thank you very much for joining me this sunday. i'm fredicka whitfield. happening right now, former president donald