28:15 to 32:19:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wkBFiM8JYo
- - - Updated - - -
How Radical Leftist Howard Zinn Poisoned the Minds of Two Generations
June 17, 2016
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Like I said in the previous hour, I don't care what you think of social media, and I don't care what you think of the people that comment there, but they are real people, and they are insane.
And they are enraged, and they are unstable, and they are everywhere. And, I'm telling you, they are not mad at Al-Qaeda. They are not mad at ISIS. They are not mad at Mateen. Mateen is a victim just like they are. They are a victim of this country. These angry, irrational Looney Tunes on social media -- be it people who are commenting or originally posting -- these people think they're victims of this country, too. They have been taught that!
They feel a connection to a guy like Omar Mateen. But they clearly are not angry at him. A lot of people say, "Ah, Rush, don't read the comments. You can't. This is loony..." You can't ignore this stuff. These people vote, and they are huge in number, and every social media app you can find from Twitter to Facebook, to LinkedIn, whatever the hell it is, they dominate. People say, 'Well, they're so insane, nobody pays any attention to 'em."
I don't care whether you pay attention to 'em or not; you can't ignore the numbers. "But what about, Rush, you've even said that the people attacking you are 10 people made to look like 10,000." Yes, that's true. The Stop Rush movement, we found the 10 people using an algorithm at Twitter to send out emails and Twitter posts making it look like they were 10,000, 15,000 people. Totally bogus. But not all are that way.
And even if they are, even if it is 10 people made to... Let's say it's no more than a million people being made to look like 150 million. They're still affecting business, commerce, liberty, freedom. And I'm just telling you, they're not angry at Obama. They're not angry at the Democrats. They're not angry at Al-Qaeda. They're not angry at ISIS. They hate us. They hate Christians. The more devout, the bigger the hate. They hate conservatives.
It's real, and it's concentrated. Now, I mentioned previous hour that we now have two generations whose minds have been totally perverted, polluted, and destroyed by the American public education system, and, in particular, the history curriculum. Breitbart has a story on how this has happened. As left appeases Muslims. Public schools are teaching students to hate America. Public schools teaching students to hate America as the left appeases Muslims with "religious literacy training."
This is all about a curriculum, a history text that has been written by somebody by the name of Howard Zinn. Now, Howard Zinn ran what is called the Zinn Education Project. It is a radical, radical bunch of insane lunatic leftists. And there is a project at the Zinn Educational Project: A People's History of Muslims in the United States -- What School Textbooks and the Media Miss. And this program is teaching your high school student, juror junior high or middle school student.
They've been doing this for two generations, a vision of Muslims as an integral part of the fabric of the progressive movement in the US with a presence in every social justice struggle along the way. So your kids have been taught that there is a more equivalence between Martin Luther King and today's Muslims -- a moral equivalent between today's aggrieved gays and lessons and Muslims. They're all victims of an evil and ill-formed United States of America. Let me read to you from Howard Zinn.
This is from a textbook that many schools are using here and have been for a while, two generations, on the founding of America. And this comes from Mike Gonzalez at the Daily Signal: Zinn's history "set the stage for the grievance mongering that passes for history classes today, and is still widely used. It has sold over 2 million copies since it was first published in 1980 and continues to sell over 100,000 copies a year because it is required reading at many of our high schools and colleges. That's a lot of young minds." Two million copies, a hundred thousand copies a year. "This is how Zinn described the founding:
"'Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.'"
It goes on to describe how this manifested itself was that a bunch of rich white people essentially took over the colonies, stole them from the British under the guise of liberty and freedom, and all that happy nonsense in the Constitution. Nothing more than a trick for the already wealthy rich white people that set up a country that they owned for themselves and their descendants. And in the process, they had to make sure that people of color and gays and lesbians are relegated to second and tertiary status. They fooled everybody into thinking that they were divinely inspired by God when they were nothing but a bunch of pigs.
Okay, if your kids are exposed to this and your kids taught about... This why we do the Rush Revere books, by the way. A kid grows up learning this, and probably comes home and tells you about it. You laugh and say, "No, Little Johnny. No, no, no." You follow up and you think nothing of it. You think there's no way. This is some way out- weird thing. But they're back at it the next day, then the next grade, then the next level of school, all the way to college.
They just amplify on all of this. "Progressives are concerned about reports of Muslim students feeling 'marginalized' and discriminated against after the shooting massacre by an Islamic terrorist in Orlando, but there is little concern that -- for years -- students in the United States have been taught to dislike their country." And that's where we are. That's exactly where we are. And you see it demonstrated on social media every day. I think it's long past the time we can ignore it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: By the way, Howard Zinn's History of America is front and center at the gift shop of the New York Historical Society. The New York Historical Society is deluged with school kids on a daily basis, and right there is Howard Zinn's book. Remember John Silber, the former president of...? It was not Boston College. Boston University. He said he had done a study of all American history textbooks. He was appalled at what he found. This is back to the nineties.
He said the single longest reference he could find to Abraham Lincoln was two paragraphs. That was Howard Zinn. Would you like to hear how Ronaldus Magnus is portrayed? I'm just gonna tell you. "In the proposed California 11th grade framework, Reagan is presented as a leader who appealed to 'social conservatives,' a segment that is characterized as opposing 'safety net' programs." That is it. That is how Reagan is taught. One or two paragraphs on Abraham Lincoln. Try this from the Washington Post.
Remember, now, what Zinn does and what this curriculum is doing is linking every aggrieved minority group, linking them together as having common identities, being discriminated against by the vast white elite majority. And Muslims have been included here as members of the aggrieved, and wildly discriminated against by a vastly unfair white America.
The Washington Post reports the following, quote:
"At one point, while about two dozen hostages were in the bathrooms inside Pulse, Carter said the gunman asked if there were any black people in the room. When one man said yes, the shooter said, '"You know I don’t have a problem with black people. ... This is about my country. You guys suffered enough."'" He didn't want to kill any black people, even if they were gay. Born in America. Who knows if this guy ran into the Howard Zinn curriculum, but I wouldn't be surprised, based on that quote. And why is that quote there? They're trying to humanize this guy.
He's a great guy, didn't want to shoot blacks!
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to read this Washington Post quote again. It talks about a woman named Patience Carter. She's a witness. It doesn't matter who she is. I don't want you stopping paying attention to me when you hear a name that doesn't... When you hear the name "Carter," ignore it. Washington Post: Quote, "At one point, while about two dozen hostages were in the bathrooms inside Pulse, Carter said the gunman asked if there were any black people in the room. When one man said yes, the shooter said, '"You know I don’t have a problem with black people,"' Carter recalled during a news conference. She said he added: "'This is about my country. You guys suffered enough."'"
He's looking at black people. He's obviously been taught that he's got something in common with black people. They've both been discriminated against. He loves America. Now, what's the Post doing here? They're trying to humanize this guy. They're trying to say, "You know what? This guy's not nearly as bad as Christians or conservatives! Why, he didn't want to kill any blacks. He's a great guy! He might be misunderstood."
They are trying to humanize a mass murderer in the Drive-By Media. Here's the next line in the Washington Post article: "These comments further add to the uncertainty regarding what may have inspired the gunman." You know, maybe since he was willing -- he tried -- to spare African-Americans, maybe he had a more justifiable purpose than we originally thought he was trying to spare a minority! He only wanted to hit the white gays.
That's unwritten.
The implication is clear.
So the guy's less of a monster now, because he had sympathy for blacks and hoped that none of them had been caught in his fire. And this incident has been completely ignored by the rest of the Drive-Bys, even though it was said at a news conference. The Drive-Bys didn't want to move off their original narrative, that Omar was not only a homophobe; he was a racist. But the Post says (paraphrased), "Wait a minute! Maybe he wasn't. Maybe he wasn't a racist. Maybe he's not nearly as bad as we thought at first."
They're still conflicted. It's bad enough he wanted to kill gays, but it's mitigated by the fact that he didn't want to kill blacks. You see how convoluted...? Not even the Washington Post understands humanity. They're trying to humanize this guy based on this silly notion that we are different because of our skin color. It's sick. And who writes for the Washington Post? Where did they come from? Who educated them?
They come out of the Howard Zinn School of America Sucks from the Days it Was Founded? That's what... Every institution that people have grown up relying on, thinking you can trust... I doesn't care what it is, some government bureaucracy, some institution of the media, wherever. There are people have grown up with implicit trust. Law enforcement, you name it. It's all gone. There's doubt about everything now. And this is not accidental.
Like I say, if Obama really, really wanted to use the law to stop acts of militant terrorism, he would get hold of the architects of Sharia, as the American president, and he'd say, "You know, you guys, you're gonna have to moderate this. This is not good. It's not right." It wouldn't go anywhere, but that's... Now an American president like Reagan wouldn't have a meeting, wouldn't have a summit. He'd give 'em a warning and then -- or Bush would give 'em a warning and then -- whatever would happen.
Because you don't allow the murder of American citizens. You just don't permit it. But we do. Innocent Americans are murdered. I don't care, gay, straight, black, white, Martian. Innocent Americans are murdered, and what happens? An entire political party and an amendment to the US Constitution gets blamed. And implicit in that is, "Well, what do you expect's gonna happen? You got these Republicans out there won't change the law, and won't get rid of guns! What do you expect's gonna happpen?"
Okay. Wayne LaPierre once was on the ABC Sunday show, This Week with David Brinkley. He said, "You know, I think President Clinton is comfortable with a certain level of violence because it helps him advance his agenda." This is 1990. The media, everyone lost their minds over that. I thought when I heard about it, you talk about dropping a bomb on a TV show? You say something like that back in 1993 or '4, whenever it was, that a Democrat president is comfortable with a certain level of violence?
What are we gonna do? Every time we have a mass murder we're gonna go to the memorial or we're gonna grade the president's performance at the memorial to determine whether or not we're being effective in dealing with it? Even in this case, whatever it is, it's about Obama. "How did Obama do at the memorial? Did Obama come off well? Will Obama's poll numbers go up? Did he really reach people?" The hell that there are 53 people dead. Nobody cares about them, like nobody cared about the four dead in Benghazi. All the media cared about, how did Obama do?
"Do you think he did better than Trump would have done? Do you think Obama had the right amount of empathy here? Do you like the way Obama really jammed the Republicans and the Second Amendment? Wasn't that great?" That's what they're saying. This is how we honor 53 dead, innocent people who had nothing to do with their deaths. They just were in the wrong place at the wrong time, when a bigot decided to take 'em out. And all of a sudden we're judging the aftermath as to whether or not Obama's an effective president? For crying out loud!
