July 23, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:14
3357 Donald Trump Accepts Republican Nomination at RNC | Roger Stone and Stefan Molyneux
The news cycle over the last week has been flooded with fascinating stories all related to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. Famed political operative Roger Stone joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the long read to Donald Trump’s entry into electoral politics, the political suicide of Ted Cruz, the role of Ivanka, Tiffany, Eric and Don, Jr. during the Republican convention, the Melania Trump plagiarism controversy and the truth about the confrontation between Roger, Alex Jones and The Young Turks!Roger Stone is a well-known political operative and pundit. A veteran of nine national presidential campaigns and has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents. He is author of the New York Times bestseller “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ,” as well as “The Clintons' War on Women” and “Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty.”Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty: http://www.fdrurl.com/bush-crime-familyThe Clintons' War on Women: http://www.fdrurl.com/clintons-war-on-womenThe Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ: http://www.fdrurl.com/who-killed-kennedyFor more information from Roger Stone, go to: http://www.rogerstone.com and http://www.stonezone.comFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio back with a good friend Roger Stone, political operative par excellence and author of fantastic books which we're going to link to below about Nixon, about JFK, about LBJ. Great, great stuff.
Roger, how are you doing, my friend?
Delighted to be here and yet recovering from the best convention I've ever been to.
I've been to every Republican National Convention since 1964, and this is without any question both the most exciting and the one in which I got the least sleep.
Right.
Well, you said at one point in an interview that you have worked 28 years in For this moment, and by that I would assume that you mean the acceptance speech from Donald Trump.
Give people a sense, give my listeners a sense of the scope and extent of your mission over the past, I guess almost three decades.
Sure.
I met Donald Trump in 1979 when Governor Ronald Reagan was preparing to run for president.
And I was assigned responsibility for New York State.
And he was not a fan of Jimmy Carter, to say the least.
And he and his father, Fred Trump, who was an early conservative financier, a personal friend of Barry Goldwater, a major donor to the Goldwater campaign, assigned on to the Reagan Finance Committee.
And Donald was extremely helpful in a half dozen ways.
He helped us find low-cost, unfinished, raw office space for our headquarters and a rent we could afford.
He didn't own it.
It belonged to a friend of his.
He jostled the telephone company so we didn't have a three-month wait to get our phones installed.
And he really saved our bacon when he allowed us to use his plane to fly our nominating petitions to Albany, New York to be filed with the Secretary of State.
And the Board of Elections with 15 minutes to spare.
Getting on the ballot in New York is a very complicated and onerous process.
The politicians make it that way because the Republicans and Democrats working together, they don't want any challenges, not from insurgents in their own party and most definitely not from independents of any kind.
So we had to, the laws have gotten better, but they're still not good.
They've been reformed, but not enough.
In those days, you had to have a certain number of signatures per congressional district.
And you had to have a certain geographic distribution of those districts.
And that's a Herculean task.
Some districts in the Bronx or Brooklyn could have 300 total Republicans in the entire district.
Heavily African American and Latino districts where there just aren't many Republicans.
So our petitioning process using an army of volunteers...
It took longer than we expected, and we were late.
There were no commercial flights that could get our petitions to Albany in time to file.
Donald Trump stepped up, let us use his plane.
We filed it as an in-kind contribution, and he saved the day.
Ronald Reagan would not have been on the ballot in New York but for Donald Trump.
Wow, and all of the turning points in American political history that that would...
So what was, I mean, obviously Donald Trump and the whole process of getting him to the forefront and getting him to the acceptance speech was the biggest part, I think, of the most interesting part, at least from the outside of the RNC. What else went on that was particularly of interest and excitement to you?
Well, look, this was a culmination of a long dream for me.
I wanted him to run as early as 1988.
I had a low regard for George H.W. Bush after eight years of Reagan.
I knew then that he was deeply involved in Iran-Contra, which he managed to completely escape.
And I knew that he was not a loyal Reaganite, that he believed in nothing.
He was a crony capitalist who would We abandon Reaganism at the earliest possible opportunity.
I was right.
You'll recall he got nominated by saying, read my lips, no new taxes.
Then he raised taxes, and that was the functional end of Reaganism.
So I wanted Trump to challenge George Bush in 1988.
We made an exploratory trip to Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
The crowds were, as he would like to say, huge.
They were huge, as spelled Y-U-G-E. And there was a lot of buzz.
But it was very early.
You know, he was a national figure.
He was not yet an international figure.
I wanted him to run again in 2000 for the Reform Party nomination.
Both he and I were unoppressed with George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Two neocons with identical views on every issue from two different political dynasties.
Again, both crony capitalists.
Al Gore is not really a progressive.
George W. Bush is not really a conservative.
And we did look hard at it.
Today I think there's a little revisionist history when he says, well, I never really considered it.
We did consider it.
Largely because there was $58 million in federal funds available to the Reform Party nominee based on the strong performance of Ross Perot four years prior.
I was actually the chairman of the Donald J. Trump Presidential Exploratory Committee in 2000, which you're required to file.
And we spent, I don't know, half a million, three quarters of a million dollars just kind of looking into the process and getting on the ballot in every state and so on.
But he correctly decided that He wasn't ready.
The country wasn't ready.
Then three years ago, with the prospect of Mitt Romney, who I spotted very early as a fraud.
I mean, Mitt Romney is not a conservative.
He's never been a conservative.
He ran for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy to his left, to Kennedy's left.
Believe me, to the left of Ted Kennedy, you might fall off the globe.
There's no space out there, but Nonetheless, he had run to the left of Kennedy and then suddenly he reinvents himself and says he's severely conservative.
No one who's really a conservative would describe themselves as severely conservative.
Mitt Romney was never a conservative.
His father, of course, was among those who knifed Barry Goldwater in the back in 1964, a la Ted Cruz.
And I never thought he could win.
The guy was a country club stiff.
He had no ability to relate to working people or Latinos or African Americans.
This is the great thing about Trump.
Although he is a billionaire, he's not an elitist.
Although he has an Ivy League education, he would rather hang out with bricklayers and carpenters and cab drivers, just like his father.
These are the people that he's comfortable with.
He finds most of his nouveau riche or old money friends that belong to his club, he takes their money gladly but that's not his chosen company.
So I wanted him to run three years ago.
He decided not to.
In retrospect, he was probably right.
Now we're at a time where, in my view, Stefan, the times and the man come together at exactly the right time.
This country is in desperate, desperate trouble.
Our leaders don't want to even admit how bad things are.
We have a flat economy.
There are no jobs.
We seem to be running off to endless war.
We've seen erosion of our civil liberties, massive debt and borrowing, bailouts for the crooks and swindlers on Wall Street, but the average person can't find a job because jobs are not plentiful.
African Americans, particularly hard hit by the economy, they actually cook the numbers by taking people who are looking for work off the roll so they don't get counted because things are actually much worse than the government says they are.
A young black person, a young black male in this country literally has no chance to get a job if they are prepared to join the workforce.
So the country's in trouble.
We are plagued by Islamic terrorism.
We've seen it all over the globe.
We're now seeing it weekly.
It seems to be open season on our police officers.
They're sitting ducks for black militants.
It's time for something entirely different.
It's time for a leader.
I'm just convinced that Donald Trump is that man.
He's not perfect.
He doesn't claim to be perfect.
But he is not in any way connected to the failed policies of the past.
He's not connected to the failed two party duopoly that have run this country into the ditch.
Well, the last time I remembered an insurgent this big was Barry Goldwater, and it always struck me that Trump is Goldwater plus internet, you know, in terms of being able to get the real message to the people.
But one of the things that I found really amazing, Roger, in this was watching the political seppuku of Ted Cruz on stage in front of a crowd of, I guess, in the RNC and online, millions and millions of people just watching somebody – Be such an unbelievable douchebag, not to put it too mildly.
But what was your take on that speech?
He was like a Tibetan monk immolating himself.
I mean, he is so obtuse and so unwilling to see beyond his own narrow, selfish interests.
I mean, there was a path here by which he could have emerged a hero.
Examine the lesson of history.
In 1964, the party nominated Barry Goldwater in a bitter campaign.
Nelson Rockefeller, like Ted Cruz, refused to endorse the ticket.
George Romney refused to endorse the ticket.
Bill Scranton, the governor of Pennsylvania, refused to endorse the ticket.
Convention is coming to the Cow Palace in San Francisco.
My mentor, Richard Nixon, sees only opportunity.
He goes to the convention, and he not only endorses Goldwater, he introduces Goldwater for his acceptance speech, and then he goes out and visits 38 states to campaign for the Goldwater Miller ticket, more states than Barry himself gets to.
He works harder for the Goldwater ticket than Goldwater himself.
Four years later, We're good to go.
Kind of a low-key bid for the nomination, but they're all committed to Richard Nixon.
Why?
Because he was there in the party's biggest battle, because he didn't cut and run and head for the tall grass.
Ted Cruz had an opportunity to be a hero, and he could have inherited the Trump mantle by merely endorsing the ticket and then campaigning his ass off for congressional candidates and Trump.
Instead, he's the new Nelson Rockefeller.
He is a pariah.
The guy is a sanctimonious, duplicitous, treacherous prick.
I ask this question.
Why do people instantaneously dislike Ted Cruz?
They're saving time.
That phrase, that's a very good way of putting it.
Now, the one thing that struck me in watching this race, Roger, I want to get your thoughts on this, is seeing Hillary kind of struggle her way forward against a not hugely stellar competition in the form of Bernie Sanders.
With all of the support of the mainstream media, with the support, as we've been finding out from these WikiLeaks, with incredible collusion and support between the DNC and the media, she struggled for months to knock out one relative newcomer.
Compared to Trump, who had some considerable opposition from the RNC, considerable opposition from the mainstream media, of course, and 17 other contenders, seeing Trump kind of barrel his way through all of this opposition and achieve what he achieved versus seeing Hillary struggle with all of the support that she's getting.
Just seeing the two of them in a debate, it's going to be, I'd like to say ugly, but I think it's going to be relatively short as far as helping voters decide.
Well, you're exactly right.
I mean, it's, you know, the she to steal the nomination, the same way she and her husband are stealing all this international foreign government money and corporate money through the Clinton Foundation.
Trump is exactly right when he says that the system is entirely rigged.
The sad thing is that Bernie Sanders, instead of standing on principle, he pulls a Ted Cruz and endorses him, endorses her.
Now we have to conclude that Bernie was only kidding.
All that conversation about progressive values and principles and opposition to Wall Street, now he's endorsed the Wall Street candidate.
I don't know if they promised him a job.
I don't know if they promised him a haircut.
I don't know what they promised him, but it's disappointing.
Look, I was not impressed with him early.
I made some jokes online, which I later regretted, but I do think he's a socialist.
And then when he declined to criticize the Cuban or Sandinista government, when asked, were there anything wrong with those governments?
He said, well, I have my own opinions, but I don't want to discuss them.
So he may, in fact, be a communist.
Who knows?
But I thought he was at least a well-meaning, principled liberal, a guy running on principle.
To now watch him fold like this, it's truly pathetic.
The comments from the media, I'm sure you saw them all, and it seemed to be like everyone got the same memo about how to describe Trump's speech.
It's dark, it's gloomy, it's doom and gloom and so on.
Now, this coming from liberals who've been telling us that everything nature produces is going to kill us by tomorrow morning, whether it's alar apples of the ozone layer or global warming, the idea that this guy...
What on earth does it mean to characterize something as dark without actually questioning any of the facts?
That just seems, even by media standards, less than hugely responsible.
Yeah, no, you're exactly right.
From the time I left the hall to the time I got back to my hotel with a stop at a terrific place called Pizza 216, which I highly recommend if you get to Cleveland, the number of reporters use that exact word.
Don't you think Trump's speech was rather dark?
Folks, the future we're facing is rather dark.
I prefer to describe his speech as stark.
We're in trouble.
Desperate trouble.
Hillary doesn't seem to think so.
Islamic terrorism is no problem.
We have them on the run.
John Kerry says air conditioners are more dangerous than ISIS. The veterans hospital, the veterans medical system in this country, it works fine.
All those people who are dying, don't worry, don't look at that, that's meaningless.
These liberals are deluding themselves.
Hillary Clinton represents four more years of exactly what we have now.
And to me, There were several telling phrases here that I particularly liked but when he went through the status of every country in the Middle Eastern region where they were before Hillary and where they are today you see that we have systematically We've double-crossed our allies and replaced them with our enemies.
We have willfully helped our enemies take power in Egypt.
We helped them take power in Libya.
We helped them take power.
We helped them take power.
We're trying to help them take power in Syria.
I'm not trying to tell you Qaddafi was a great guy, but he had renounced his nuclear ambitions.
He was sharing all of his intelligence with Al Qaeda.
And women in Libya Could go to school, could go to college, could own property, could choose their own husband, could drive a car, could make their own life choices, could appear in public without avail.
And if a woman was raped, The rapist would be prosecuted.
Today in Libya, if a woman is raped, she'll be stoned to death and her rapist walks free.
So this is very sick.
You also have the exploitation of young boys in the Islamic world.
Nobody wants to talk about how vile this is, where young boys are being used, you know, their own like chattel.
And when they reach puberty, there are three choices.
They can be killed.
They can be given away to somebody else whose standards aren't as high, or they can be set free.
They're almost never set free.
This is the Muslim world.
So many Americans, in the media particularly, have blinders on.
You have obviously known Trump's kids for...
I guess almost as long as they've been alive.
And their speeches received almost universal acclaim.
And it is one of these weird things where everyone says they love Trump's kids, but they have a big problem with Trump.
It's like, you know, he's not exactly uninvolved in how they turned out, to put it mildly.
What was your impression of Trump's kids as you saw them growing up?
Well, I've known all of them since they were, you know, toddlers.
I'm not an intimate, but I met them when they were kids, and I've watched them over time.
Ivanka went out into the workforce and learned her business skills working for somebody other than her father and then came back to work for her father and now really is an important executive, really kind of leading the Trump organization so that her father has the time to go out and focus on running for president and saving this country.
You know, I do remember a...
An interview that I think he did some years ago, and he was asked, would you ever run for president?
He said, no, I don't think so, unless things get so bad that I have no choice.
Unless things get so bad that I have no choice.
That's where we are today.
The fact that the Trump children are as impressive, as normal, as balanced, as polite, as well-mannered, as industrious, as involved, this is a credit to their parents.
This is a credit to Ivana and Donald and Melania.
And, you know, given the fishbowl existence that they would have as the children of a mega wattage celebrity...
These are perfectly normal American kids that are growing into perfectly normal American adults.
There is a big movement now out in Westchester, one of the suburbs of New York, for Donnie Jr.
to run for Congress.
Chelsea Clinton, if she's not in prison, has been making moves about the very same seat.
So you could have a Trump-Clinton congressional race, although I think Donnie Jr., who's a very impressive fellow, has said that he has five children and he will wait until his children are grown as his father did.
This was really a major factor in Trump not running in 2000 and in 1988 because it wasn't time.
There was nobody to run his company and the company had not yet achieved all the great things he wanted to do.
He had not yet built The greatest resorts, the greatest hotels, the greatest residential buildings in the world.
Now he has.
There's no more mountains for him to climb in the real estate industry.
We used to have this running joke in 2000.
He said, well, if I run for president, he would say, how do you think I'll do?
I said, well, why don't we test you in a poll?
Against Zeckendorf and Lefrak.
He said, I don't get it.
I said, well, Zeckendorf and Lefrak are probably the number two and three biggest real estate developers in Manhattan.
And he said, but nobody's heard of them.
I said, precisely.
He's a Manhattan real estate developer and he's an international figure.
There is no one on the face of the globe who doesn't know who Donald J. Trump is.
That is a testimony to his salesmanship and his understanding of communications, mass communications in the modern world.
He's not just a man.
He's a brand.
The brand stands for excellence, success, perseverance, quality.
That's the Trump brand in the real estate world and really everything that he touches.
Melania Trump speech controversy, which is one of the most insanely overblown and ginned up supposed controversies I've seen in the media in quite some time.
You know, this whole WikiLeaks dump of the DNC emails, you think would get just a little bit more attention than three days of people obsessing about a couple of similar phrases, some speechwriter, I think, copied and pasted, maybe forgot.
Such a non-controversy, but I actually consider that enormously positive because if that's all they can find to pick at the entire RNC, I think it's an unqualified success.
Well, I totally agree.
First of all, we now know that the person who made these alterations in the speech, first of all, they were well-meaning.
They weren't trying to plagiarize.
They were trying to include the speech.
They don't work for the campaign.
Turns out they work for the Trump Organization.
And there is no...
The reason why voters should care about this.
Melania Trump didn't write her speech.
Guess what?
Barack Obama didn't write his book.
No one cares.
This is process stuff.
It has nothing to do with, you know, the voters.
The voters could care less.
The voters don't think these political figures all wrote every word themselves, so it's a tempest in a teapot.
Then the media wanted to say, oh, you know, Trump, he's not reaching out to his...
He's not trying to achieve unity.
But when he does reach out to Ted Cruz, then they say, oh, well now he can't have unity because Cruz double-crossed it.
It's really extraordinary.
It's a media double standard.
Here is the truth.
Trump invited every one of his opponents, including Jeb Bush, to address the convention on the condition that they would support the entire ticket.
Chris Christie and Scott Walker and Marco Rubio took him up on it.
Rubio spoke by video and the other two spoke live and they all endorsed the ticket.
Ted Cruz made the same commitment.
He didn't agree to use the word endorse.
He agreed to support the ticket and say he was voting for the ticket.
He's a weasel.
He's a backstabber.
He cares only about himself.
I guess he thought that his rhetoric would be so convincing that he was Ronald Reagan.
He looks in the mirror and he sees Reagan, but he's not Reagan.
He's sweaty and shifty-eyed, more like the guy whose tattoo is on my back.
Okay.
Well, let's close off with...
I mean, it was a fascinating bit of media when you and Alex, Alex Jones that is, Ended up, and you'll tell the whole story, ended up on the set of The Young Turks.
And, you know, we'll link to the video below.
People should have a look at it.
It is, to me, kind of shocking for a variety of reasons.
But I've heard a variety of stories.
Now, you are the guy who was there, so I wonder if you can set the record straight from your viewpoint about how this came about and what happened and what aftermath there has been.
Yeah, it was pathetic.
First of all, this was a setup.
Alex Jones and Roger Stone did not crash the set of The Young Turds.
I would never crash somebody's TV show because it shows poor manners.
I mean, I'm a kamikaze, but I also was raised by my parents.
It's rude.
It isn't done.
I wouldn't want it done on one of my podcasts.
You wouldn't want it done on yours.
I would never do that.
We were asked by a producer.
Alex was asked.
I was a few steps behind him.
Alex has been on the show at least eight times.
They thought it would be great TV. We got up there.
Look at the video.
Alex is smiling.
We're trying to get a dialogue.
And then this guy, Sinkhole, or whatever his name is, It goes out of his mind.
Just out of his mind.
Starts screaming, you know, at Alex.
It threatens Alex.
Grabs Alex's microphone.
You can see Alex means this guy no harm.
We were invited onto the set.
I never actually got on the set.
I'm kind of hanging back out of camera range.
And the guy spots me out of the corner of his eye.
He starts yelling, liar, liar.
There's the biggest liar.
Stone's a liar.
Everything he writes is a liar.
You see...
On the left, when they have no facts, when they can't refute your arguments, they resort to name-calling.
And I, of course, said, what am I lying about?
He said, Elliot Spitzer, which is ironic because Elliot Spitzer, only a month ago, a woman in a New York hotel called the police because Elliot Spitzer tried to choke her.
When the police arrived, Spitzer was gone.
She had bruise marks on her throat.
Then that very night, she left the country so she couldn't testify.
Last week, Spitzer announced that he was suing her, presumably to get his payoff back, because I would bet that he gave her money to leave the country.
This guy was forced to resign in disgrace.
What have I lied about?
The part about him liking hookers or the part about him choking hookers?
Now both proven beyond any doubt.
My problem, by the way, as a libertarian is not...
That he was patronizing prostitutes.
I think prostitution should be legal.
My problem was he was prosecuting other guys for visiting prostitutes.
He was prosecuting prostitution rings.
The issue here is hypocrisy.
Just like he illegally financed his campaign for attorney general by taking an illegal $9 million loan from his father and then lying about it under oath in a civil suit.
That's called perjury.
But there's a separate set of rules for billionaires in this country, as you know.
And from what I saw on the video, somebody who was part of the Young Turks, he was on the set, I don't know who he was, did he actually spit at Alex?
Astounding!
It's just juvenile.
It's because they can't refute our arguments.
The whole central issue here that was on the table, or I should say on the floor, was whether Bill Clinton is a serial rapist.
You know, Alex and I had just done a radio show for Sirius with Jonathan Alter, who is a friend of mine, a leftist, has written for Time magazine, has written an unbelievably good book on the Roosevelt administration that I highly recommend.
In one breath, when Alex challenges him on some Second Amendment rights, he starts yelling, we're trivializing his views.
And then a few minutes later, he says, our views about the Kennedy assassination are harebrained.
Who's trivializing who?
No one with an ounce of intelligence can read the Warren Commission and believe it.
It's got so many holes in it.
It's like Swiss cheese.
No reasonable person can believe that.
Put aside the question of who had the motive to kill Kennedy and who did it, Oswald could not get off three shots from an unsighted $79 rifle in the time sequence required, and then hide the rifle and run down four flights of stairs to be, undisputably, seen by a Dallas police officer six minutes later.
And the Warren Commission had a witness, Victoria Adams, who was on the staircase between flights six and two, and she saw and heard no one on a wooden staircase.
So, ipso facto, Oswald did not kill Kennedy.
So, in any event, this guy likes to denigrate our views.
We are conspiracy theorists.
Stefan, when they call you that, they don't mean it as a compliment.
This is a way to try to discredit anyone who questions the government's version of events.
And of course, it's not an argument to say that something – people honestly saying that rich people all desiring power never work together to achieve and maintain power.
I mean that power doesn't exist without collusion.
So – and I really want to recommend the book that you wrote, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Case Against LBJ. I hadn't thought about the JFK stuff.
I actually had a teacher in high school who brought in a full-day presentation and I saw it.
I hadn't really thought about it in a while.
But you make a very, very strong case.
And anybody who's interested in this or who just wants to understand LBJ's nature, which seems to be entirely, you know, like the line from, what is your major malfunction, sir?
What is wrong with LBJ? Because he just seemed to be a complete psychotic and lunatic.
But the man who killed Kennedy, the case against LBJ, we'll put a link to it below, highly, highly recommended to take and really lift the sewage lid on certain aspects of American politics.
It is a very, very strong case.
And Well, Lyndon Johnson is a psychopath.
He's mentally unbalanced.
As I make the case in the book, he's killed before.
It's part of his MO. I think he's responsible for the murder of Henry Marshall, a U.S. agriculture agent who was investigating corruption on behalf of Lyndon Johnson.
This is an epic tale.
Of corruption, assassination, power politics, money.
He's epically corrupt.
But personally, he's a pill popper.
He's an alcoholic.
He's a womanizer.
He is a pathological liar.
That's why in Texas they called him Lying Lyndon.
The Johnsons took him because they played a very clever game in 1960.
John Kennedy would travel through the country saying that he was for civil rights and his running mate would travel right behind him and wink and say, don't worry about Jack, he's only kidding.
He's not going to do anything for those Negroes.
It was a clever act and it worked for the last time.
The Democrats carried the Deep South in 1960 for the last time because Lyndon Johnson was reassuring the crackers and segregationists that Kennedy was only kidding.
P.S., when he got to the White House, Good old Jack Kennedy didn't do anything for black people.
No Voting Rights Act, no Fair Housing Act, because the whole thing had been an act.
He was afraid of offending the old bull Southerners in the U.S. Senate.
There's a terrific book called The Bystander, which I highly recommend.
talks about John Kennedy's inaction on all of the important civil rights acts.
Lyndon Johnson, of course, keeps telling Kennedy, no, it's too soon, it's too soon, it's too soon, knowing that as soon as he's gotten rid of Jack Kennedy, he's going to sign those things into law.
And he goes overnight for being a segregationist, a lifelong segregationist, the man who killed every piece of civil rights legislation or anti-lynching legislation or voting rights legislation through the 50s, overnight he becomes a great friend of the black people.
If you have not seen the movie Selma, which was roundly criticized, it's right on the money.
Lyndon Johnson did not support, nor did he come up with the Selma march.
Martin Luther King wrote a letter to Richard Nixon, his vice president, saying that you, Mr.
Vice President, you and the Republicans passed this civil rights bill.
Beautiful.
All right.
Well, thanks so much for your time today, Roger.
I really want to remind people to look at Roger's books, excellently researched, very well written, very engaging, and very powerful.
RogerStone.com and StoneZone.com, that's where you can go to get the latest and the greatest, and of course, you can see his interviews on YouTube.
Thanks a lot so much for your time.
It's always a great pleasure.
I'm sure we'll talk again soon.
The most exciting thing is that Time Magazine today has a piece on the T-shirt I was wearing that has a picture of...
Bill Clinton and the word rape.
So it has now been memorialized.
And you can go to Infowars.com right now and get your very own genuine copy of this t-shirt.
Get it now because after the election it'll be in the Smithsonian.
