Beck-led Fox News "czar" witch hunt moves to ridiculous smear of Anita Dunn
In attacking Anita Dunn, claiming that she "worships" her "hero" Mao Zedong, Glenn Beck has targeted yet another Obama administration official in his Fox News-assisted witch hunt of President Obama's so-called "czars." Beck and Fox News have previously attacked with falsehoods and spurious claims White House officials Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, Harold Koh, and Van Jones.
Beck identifies latest target: White House communications director Anita Dunn
Beck falsely claimed Dunn "worships" Mao Zedong, "her hero." Throughout most of his October 15 Fox News program, Beck falsely claimed that Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. In fact, in the video that Beck aired as evidence to support his claims, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or atrocities -- rather, she commented that Mao and Mother Teresa were two of her "favorite political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally."
Beck ignored numerous conservatives who previously spoke similarly of Mao. In airing footage of Dunn calling Mao and Mother Teresa two of her "favorite political philosophers" and using those comments to falsely link Dunn to the murder of tens of millions of Chinese under Mao's reign, Beck ignored numerous conservatives -- including Barry Goldwater's "alter ego" Stephen C. Shadegg, Cato Institute president Edward H. Crane, and GOP strategist Ralph Reed -- who have approvingly cited the tactics of Mao, Vladimir Lenin, and the Viet Cong, stating that they had used those tactics in their political work, or have otherwise highlighted their philosophies. Moreover, in a 2008 presidential campaign speech, Sen. John McCain stated that "there was a lot of people who said that my political career was not going to succeed. In fact, in the words of Chairman Mao, it's always darkest before it's totally black" [emphasis added]," as The Washington Independent noted.
Attack on Dunn follows extended Fox News smear campaign against Obama advisers
Fox News' Hannity repeatedly smeared Kevin Jennings with the false claim that he ignored statutory rape and supported NAMBLA. During his relentless attack of Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, Sean Hannity repeatedly ignored evidence to falsely claim that Jennings ignored the statutory rape of a 15-year-old student, even advancing the falsehood after the claim had been widely debunked. Hannity also advanced the falsehoods that Jennings supported NAMBLA and sought to indoctrinate students about homosexuality.
Beck falsely claimed that Sunstein advocated for forced organ donation. Beck previously falsely claimed that Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, "believes that everyone must be an organ donor." In fact, in a book, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler advocated for approaches to organ donation policies that "would be likely to save many lives while also preserving freedom" (emphasis added) and did not advocate for mandatory organ donation. Beck and Fox Business host Eric Bolling have both identified Sunstein as targets in their witch hunt against people they have identified as Obama administration "czars," and Sunstein was also on Hannity's "top 10" list of dangerous "czars."
Beck falsely claimed Sunstein argued that "you should not be able to remove rats from your home." Beck also claimed on September 9 that Sunstein said "you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain." In fact, in the introduction to a book of essays he co-edited, Sunstein did not advocate against rat removal, but rather said, "At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes distress and suffering." Sunstein also stated that, from a utilitarian perspective, "[i]f human beings are at risk of illness and disease from mosquitoes and rats, they have a strong justification, perhaps even one of self-defense, for eliminating or relocating them."
Beck falsely claimed Van Jones is a "convicted felon." On August 11, Beck accused Van Jones, who he described as Obama's "green jobs czar," of being a "convicted felon ... who spent, I think, six months in prison after the Rodney King beating." In fact, as Eva Paterson, president and founder of the Equal Justice Society, has explained, "Van [Jones] has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime."
Fox News hosts falsely claimed Holdren called for forced abortion, forced sterilization. Fox News hosts including Beck, Hannity, and Jim Pinkerton have attacked Obama science and technology adviser John Holdren, claiming that he supports forced abortion or forced sterilization as a method of population control. Holdren was also on Beck's and Bolling's target lists and Hannity's "top 10" czars list. Responding to Beck's claim that Holdren "proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population," the website PolitiFact.com concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions." PolitiFact gave Beck's claim "pants on fire" status. Indeed, Holdren and his co-authors advocated for noncoercive means of population control.
Hannity repeatedly smeared Koh, claiming Koh "advocates the use Sharia law in America." Hannity has also claimed that Harold Koh, the State Department's legal adviser, "advocates the use of Sharia law in America" and that Koh has said "Sharia law can be applied in American courts." The claim has been denied by Koh himself during Senate testimony, Koh's spokesman, and the organizer of the event at which Koh supposedly made the remarks about Sharia law. In addition, University of California-Davis law professor Anupam Chander wrote in an April 2 blog post that "[i]n the 71 articles penned by Harold Koh that appear in the Westlaw law review database, there is but one article that mentions Sharia," and in that article, Koh "denounces the government of Iran for 'impos[ing] a strict form of Sharia law that denies basic rights to women and minorities.' " Koh was also on Hannity's "top 10" list czars list.
Then they went back to work, peddling their garbage to the gullible.
BTW, I think the despicable Richard Nixon was one of the greatest political minds of the 20th Century.
In fact it seems most of your post is nonsense actually.
"bitter envy"
In what way?
"irrational parasites"
What?
"extort from better competitors instead of do the work to compete better yourself"
Huh?
"Do us a favor and either get in the game and compete instead of bribing the scorekeeper"
What the hell?
"either that or just kill yourself and stop parasiting off of others."
Really, "parasiting?" You had to make up a word to continue your string of incoherent insults?
Reading your post it seems that you think people that defend Dunn are:
Jealous parasites that don't know what fairness is and try to "extort" from their "betters" so they don't have to work. And to justify this they cheat the system?
Did you make your post after flipping through an "Insult Word-of-the-Day" Calendar?
Probably another Republican trust fund baby who has nothing to do but sit around all day imagining that working people are living large off of his taxes. Or just a crazy guy on welfare because of illegal aliens.
I prefer the commentary at the end of this clip as a more rational reaction to the mention of communism.
How about... this is our country, we win the elections, and YOU get out.
When you guys get a majority of Americans to sincerely agree to your beliefs without LYING to them day in and day out, then maybe we can talk about you guys telling us where to go.
Until then, shut up. If you hate America so much - the American people and the leaders that the American people pick for themselves... shut up and go somewhere else.
The rest of us are tired of your bitching.
Who the hell do they think is going to pay for their lazy azzes if all of the liberals leave?
I think a self-governing body of journalists should create a vibrant coalition, something like the American Medical Association, to represent the fundamental ethical code that used to be enforced by the desk editors in news organizations. If they can't police themselves, journalists should be singled out and held to account for ethics violations like yellow journalism, failing to cite sources, redacting quotes, and flat out making crap up. This is a function that cannot, on Constitutional grounds, be fulfilled by the Government, so its up to the profession to pick up that slack. Either that, or we can continue sniping at them from MMfA and The Daily Kos and (occasionally) Politico.
Kind of like with Limbaugh, right?
"We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view."
Mao Tse-Tung
Mao Tse-Tung
I'm assuming you missed this quote from Dunn:
This is ridiculous. If Mao said that he liked tea, does that mean everyone should stop drinking tea because a mass murderer drank it?
Do you have any idea how ignorant you sound when you say these silly things? How can you admire his philosophies? Then Mary shows you. So his philosohpies excuse his killings? What the-?
I ask you stark, do you disagree with the quotes mary gave you as examples? Why do you disagree with them?
Rush (a real civil rights leader)
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."
"I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve."
Rush (a real racist liar)
As Chairman Mao has said, "Conclusions invariably come after investigation, and not before. Only a blockhead cudgels his brains on his own, or together in a group to 'find a solution' or 'evolve an idea' without making any investigation. It must be stressed that this cannot possibly lead to any effective or any good idea."
It sure can be a smear when a person's words are presented, but the context is left off. The hypocrisy of blaming her for these beliefs without noting that many on the right have expressed similar sentiments without being criticized is the problem here.
And we know that they wouldn't/didn't criticize those others on the right for saying the same thing, and so that's the issue.
Doing what they did here to Anita Dunn is comparable to the old Mad Magazine back covers where you'd fold it up and discover a second image. Viewers of that folded page wouldn't be seeing the real, full back cover, and so to say that you'd shown them the back cover wouldn't be accurate or reliable info!
Faux Noise draws its own, pre-conceived, pre-packaged, GOP-talking-points conclusions - and then beats its viewers and listeners over their heads with them.
Cheney's entire argument seems to be that something can not possibly be out of context if it's the actual words of somebody used selectively- the very definition of "out of context".
If words that were never said were used, that would be something else entirely. Fabrication, lying, just plain making sh*t up.
...the wingnuts are trying to educate people who are immune to the propaganda...
C-O-N-T-E-X-T, moron, M-E-A-N-I-N-G! WHAT WAS THE PERSON'S POINT?!
What Beck has done here, once again, as is par for the course with all of you losers, is to cut and crop a quote so that some small portions of someone "words" can be used against them, or make appear as [Beck] desires. You idiots fall for this all the time. The average con has an out, but you regular MMFA con's should have been educated to recognize this by now. (Once again: IOKIYAAR)
By contrast, nothing Limbaugh has ever siad, that has been presented on MMFA, has ever been presetned misleadingly or without enough of the audio, or the transcript so that we CAN, in fact, DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. IOW: MMFA does it the RIGHT WAY, and Glenn Beck (and every other RW Broadcaster) does it WRONG because they KNOW they simply can't win on the facts.
What Beck has done is taken 5 words from a longer speech, ripped them out of all context, TELLS his [mindless drones] audience what she's "really saying" and they all hit the deck to starp lapping up this verbal incontinence with unjustified enthusiasm. It's sick, and you people who play along are either evil or stupid: Either lying or buying.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post exemplifies everything that's wrong with how you people think. (To say nothing of WHAT you people think.)
Once again Beck has proven nothing other than that he can make someone look stupid/evil/radical/unamerican/whatever buy cropping their quote and selectively editing the video. (He's learned as m uch from Hannity as much as he has from Rush.) The difference is that Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity/etc... actually sond WORSE when you include the full context.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Better to say less and let them think you're a fool than to say more and remove all doubt.
The clip I saw seemed entirely free from editing.
You know - kind of like what you lot do with temperature data to "disprove" global warming?
The clip was not played in it's entirely. It was stopped before the broader point could be made, just so his audience would hear only exactly what he wanted them to.
------------------------------------------------------------
And you know it.
He, along with others like him, are doing a horrid disservice to this country. He should be ashamed of himself for cashing in on spreading misinformation to his viewers.
Does that make McCain a communist??? Socialist? Perhaps it is Obama's fault for running against McCain, making McCain spew these Maoist thoughts??
While we're on the topic, I'd like her to define "mass murderer" for us. Does "Operation Shock and Awe" fall into that category?
The woman said that Mao is one of her favorite political philosophers. Period. Trying to create a smokescreen around that quote by attacking Beck for his exaggerations is quite frankly, sad and ignorant. Yeah, I said it...
http://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/4899962970
Yeah, ok. Watch the actual video again. Does she really sound like she's joking? Is she joking about Mother Teresa too?
Give me a break.....stick to facts, MMFA, not finding ways to trash non-liberal pundits. Well, if you did, this site would be pretty barren, wouldn't it?
For instance, Van Jones was alleged...no, proven... to have signed a petition blaming 9/11 on Bush, for claiming that US farmers spray poison on immigrants, and that "white polluters" are steering poison into colored communities. These statements lead directly to Reverend Wright.
For my part, 6 months in jail or not, this guy was/is certifiable.
There can be no question that Beck's dramatic hyperbola often leads him into the realm of imagination. But disprove the core allegation, not the unimportant hype!
You guys complained(with a great deal of justification) about the last president's successful attempts to concentrate more power in the executive. Even more power has been consolidated in the Executive at the expense of Congress. Power has been consolidated at the federal level over many decades at the expense of state and local governments, and the Executive has benefitted disproportionatley from this as well. This new administration makes all previous administrations going back to FDR look like pikers in this regard.
Where is the criticism from the left coming from about this? If a Republican president were doing this, there would be justified howls coming from the left. But when a fellow traveler does it, he just gets a pass because he's your guy. Hypocrisy anyone?
Also, please list the number of czars and what department they show their czar power over. We will wait....
And, yes, you are clearly an ill-informed hypocrite. Anyone?
The dominant leftist media and much of the right wing media don't seem to care about consolidation of power in the executive branch so long as their guy controls things. They trust their guy to "do the right thing." But this sets the precedent for the following presidents to not only do the same thing, but to expand on what their predeccessors did.
Sadly, most of the political class and those in the press corp actually advocate consolidation of power at the federal level. They advocate the idea of a centralized government. The statists are hostile to the old federated constitutional republic that our Founders bestowed upon us. The Old Constitution, as opposed to the Shadow Constitution that we are actually governed by, created a federal government that was supposed to be powerful within a very limited sphere. The states and local governments were intended to enact the vast majority of the legislation. We don't have that anymore though. We have a heavily centralized federal government where the states are no longer legitimately sovereign, but are, in fact, vassal states to the federal government.
Jefferson, de Tocqueville and other classical liberals warned us presciently that if the three branches of the federal government alone were to determine the constitutionality of laws then they would inevitably side with whatever expanded federal power in the long run. This is exactly what has happened. This is why our Founders held the concepts of state nullification and secession in such high regard. These were the last protections that the states and individuals had in the event of an oppressive federal government. A secesionist movement in Vermont rears its head form time to time. Good for Vermonters! If they no longer want to be a part of the union then they should have every right to secede as should any other state. The original states would have never joined the union without this protection.
Cheers!
Seriously, get an editor.You may be able to be interesting for a sentence or two. And if you're really starving for criticism of this administration for things that right wingnuts (not "independents" like you **wink wink**) were silent about during GOP terms, I'd recommend Freerepublic or Sean Hannity's Forum. You'll find many like -minded, non-partisan rugged individualists like yourself there.
The whole idea that these advisors, whom the press has termed "czars" are part of a consolidation of power is silly. I'd take repeating welfare's point more if it wasn't all mixed up with a bunch of conspiracy stuff and nonsense.
The Bush administration was the most egregious example of Executive branch trying to assume powers not constitutional.
I agree - certainly in modern times. The most ironic part, none of this power grab had ANYTHING to do with his "czars" or advisors. How much of a Beck sycophant do you have to be to think these "czars" are the expansion of executive power that we need to be worried about?
There are many expansions of power that took place under G-Dub that Obama has shown sign of continuing and they are just as egregious under Obama as they were under G-Dub. Clearly, WarfareonWelfare is WAY beyond that intelligent conversation. They have NOTHING to do with how he chooses his advisors. This is child's play for the slow kids in class - which is what Beck specializes in.
I think the unkind thing would be to not let him know that his act has been done many times before. I don't like to see people waste a lot of energy, especially very boring people.
As chairman mao, the philosopher/lunatic has said, "To behave like 'a blindfolded man catching sparrows' or 'a blind man groping for fish', to be crude and careless, to indulge in verbiage, to rest content with a smattering of knowledge -- such is the extremely bad style of work that still exists among many of comrades...."
Meeting canceled!
"Santa Claus wears a red suit, he's a Communist, has a beard and long hair, must be an anarchist. What's in the pipe that he's smoking?"
Funny song, which he dedicates to all the FBI agents in the audience, who can't stand up and be recognized, of course.
And you, too, are free to keep identifying yourself as a liberal when you are no such thing by the standards of the original meaning of the word. I suspect the reason that I always manage to get you guys so flustered is because I don't fit neatly into your caricatured conservative box.
By the way, I am heartened that you got all the way through my last post despite your complaints about its length. I guess I'm to blame, though. A speaker or poster should always know his audience. From now on, I will only post only that which could fit on a bumper sticker. I'll also make an effort to write in "see Jane run" stlye.
And, you think you get people flustered? I think what you get flustered is definitions of words like dictator, or czar, or socialism.
And you are correct that you are no independent. We know exactly what you believe....whatever Beck tells you to.
I didn't derive my philosophy from newsoutlets, opinionmedia or any other such thing. My intellectual influences are classical liberals. J.S. Mill, Bastiat, Say, Adam Smith, Mises, Hayek and Rothbard are my main influences among many others. The last book I read was Christopher Hitchens' book 'God is not Great.' I recommend it to anyone.
And what's this stuff about you guys "knowing" exactly what I believe? Are you talking with other posters about me? I didn't realize that I was so popular.
We are trying to show you how silly you look when you write these same things about others. Clearly, it went over your head.
But, at least I do agree with your reading material. Too bad your reality is so skewed.
good work sew we won't get so flustered by your brilliance.
From now on, I'll wear sunglasses when one of your posts appears.
I've never really identified myself as a liberal ( I know, you make things up, I'll point them out"), or anything else, except as shorthand, in a context where the meaning should be understood.You probably have no idea where I'd fit politically, considering you're going only on a few comments here. It's as ridiculous for you to imagine that you can define me as it is for you to imagine you're lecturing others here, based on some of the comments you've posted.
I don't see anybody getting flustered. "Bored" would be more accurate, and trying to relieve that boredom as I pop into the site occasionally by having a little fun with you, and encouraging you to tighten up the act a little bit.
You seem fairly bright, if a little misled, and this site can always use some dissenting views and posters pretending to be "Classic Liberals", "Concerned Liberals", "Fair liberals", "Former Democrats", or wearing any number of other costumes to spark some discussions.
In case you really don't understand, my criticism (constructive, I hope) about your post was not about its length. I've seen comments here three times as long that were riveting. What they had was substance, facts, maybe some new information, and (as Mike Huck mentions) paragraphs.
I'm going to be honest and blunt, because that's the way I am in real life, and I don't see any need to coddle an anonymous stranger on the internets. I'm also going to repeat myself, only because you seem to need it;
You're boring. You haven't really posted anything interesting, original or new here. It's all been seen before, and most of the people here are able to see through it.I'm not faulting you for buying into it, just letting you know that you're trying to sell it to people who know it's a joke.
As for the "See Jane Run" style, move the other way. You're currently working the same 5th grade level propaganda used so successfully by Levin and Hannity, go the other direction, away from the simplistic and emotional, and more towards the complex.
Damn, now I'm being long-winded and boring.
So I'm going to have to pass on your site suggestions. I like this one just fine. It's doubleplusgood!
Here's something you might make note of, Welfy. See how you put "other sides" in quotes, then seem to accuse me of setting up the false dichotomy? You're attacking yourself here.I'm not accusing you of being dishonest, or deliberately creating a strawman, you probably just subconsciously fell into that left/right paradigm that you're projecting onto me. Don't feel bad, happens to "independents" all the time.
Your other mistake (also common among conservatives and independents) is in thinking that "anyone who dissents from the collectivist line is always deemed a Sean Hannity fan". I only saw you desperately searching a website dedicated to conservative misinformation, confused as to why you weren't finding it filled with attacks on the Obama administration. I recommended some sites where you could find what you were looking for.
When I want to vent my criticism of the current administration, I know of some other sites I like to visit,but I didn't recommend them because of the right wing radio scent you give off (try as you might to cover it up) and I'm pretty sure they'd be too far classically liberal for your tastes.You probably would view them as "socialist", but that's all perspective.
But, finally what you are saying is...
You have no evidence of ANYONE ever complaining about these "czars" before Obama.
You have no evidence to support your contention that there is a difference in the number of "czars" that G-Dub had compared to the number of "czars" that Obama has nor any other modern president.
You have no understanding of what the term "czars" means in the context used by presidents.
You do not know that the first "czar" was actually during the time of FDR.
You do not understand the term socialism - which is actually a fairly simple term.
Anything else?
"Bush's 3 or 4 unconstitutional czars"
"this new statist in the Oval Office has created more of them than the last 4 presidents combined"
"If a Republican president were doing this, there would be justified howls coming from the left."
You cannot prove ANY of your nonsense. No one complained about Bush's "czars" and you know it. You know why? Because most people are not so ignorant as to believe that these advisors have some dictatorial, executive power.
You sound ridiculous. And you can cover it up with your references to The Ludwig von Mises Institute and de Tocqueville all you want. It does not change the obvious. You know next to nothing about that which you speak. Bring some facts to support the talking points your regurgitate next time.
Actually, all the states have to do is stop accepting the Federal Government's money and then they can just ignore all of those pesky rules that come with it. No need to secede.
"The original states would have never joined the union without this protection."
State's rights was about keeping and spreading slavery. Nothing more.
Here, for your reference, are the 47 czars during the Bush Administration:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2009/09/the_bush_czars.php
By the way, I couldn't find anything in your post that actually refuted anything I posted. That's telling enough in its own right.
n.
1. also tsar or tzar (zär, tsär) A male monarch or emperor, especially one of the emperors who ruled Russia until the revolution of 1917.
2. A person having great power; an autocrat: "the square-jawed, ruddy complacency of Jack Farrell, the czar of the Fifteenth Street police station" (Ernest Hemingway).
3. Informal An appointed official having special powers to regulate or supervise an activity: a racetrack czar; an energy czar.
Some words have more than one meaning, WWS.(note #3). You seem very limited in your thinking.
You also mention that you can't find anything in your post refuted, which you incorrectly interpret as "telling", I assume meaning that you feel validated. There are probably a couple of reasons you don't see point by point refutation of your comments;
1. You're very long-winded, boring and predictable. I've rarely read past the first sentence or two of your posts, as they're easily recognizable as the same old BS that's been posted here hundreds of times by "concerned individualists" like yourself. In short, you don't say much. If you want something refuted, try going with a little more substance.
2. They're mostly opinions. I can't refute the guy in the soiled pants in front of the liquor store when he claims that the government has implanted a chip in his brain. He probably finds that pretty "telling" as well. Good for him. Good for you.
Best of luck to you.
Here comes wws' lesson on how "classical liberal" as a term has been usurped by you "socialist/collectivist" types to become the modern day "liberal".
What ever happened to AA?
Anyway, I'm just trying to prevent another overly long post which posits the exact same things every other long winded screed he/she has submitted. But I don't want to get in the way of any of the possible masochists on this board who may derive some sort of pleasure from those wws posts, so carry on.
I'm not sure what happened to Barney. I don't think anybody ever flagged his posts, so I doubt he got banned. He seemed to be melting down pretty bad the last few times I saw him here. maybe he snapped, or morphed into one of the current trolls.
Props to him, though, he went a few years without changing his screen name, despite the humiliation he suffered here. Most don't last that long.Courageous or oblivious.
Neoliberalism is often associated with first-world nationalism, but it is increasingly associated with a post-national globalism, as well, because the role of the nation-state is diminished as economies become subsumed under global commodity flows.
For the best writing on this, see David Harvey.
No, it goes back much farther than that. I personally recall references to Nixon's czars, but some sources say the term's been applied as far back as FDR.
Nonsense. He's pretty close to equal to the number attributed to WPE Bush. The problem is that there is no consistent definition of who qualifies as a czar, so your accusation manages to be both false and meaningless.
Do tell. What power is it exactly that Anita Dunn wields? Similarly, what power is wielded by those "czars" unconfirmed by the Senate?
Outside of your "statism" charge, (which by the way begs for a definition from you-I'm unclear on the meaning of the term as used by you and the Glenn) what exactly do these czars make you do that you find unacceptable?
Surely this power grab by the executive has some impact on your daily life. I,frankly, haven't noticed any but that may be because I am, as you put it, a fellow traveler (what is it with you and these Mccarthyist sayings?) but I am curious about your specific objections. Do, pray, enlighten us, unworthy though we be.
Mao murdered about ten times as many as Hitler.
First, Socrates is pretty universally regarded as as a great philosophical mind. He also pursued sexual relationships with teenage boys. Does this mean that anyone who says that Socrates is one of their "favorite philosophers", approves of adults having sex with teenage boys? Obviously not.
Second, one of my close friends is a history major, and Hitler is one of her favorite subjects for study. She finds him fascinating. Does this mean that she thinks Hitler is awesome and that everything he ever did was awesome? Again, obviously not. Yet, Hitler is one of her favorite historical subjects to study.
Come on, people. Use your brains.
Also, in her quote she is using his idea of "Fight your own war" - an idea that many military and political strategists have used over time. In fact, it could be said that the guerilla warfare used in the American revolution was along the same lines. Do not let others set your military agenda, fight the war that you can win.
It sounds to me like she was using it in the context of telling high school graduates that they do not always have to be the best at doing what others before them have done. They can change the game. Set their own standards. Pretty applicable to young people about to graduate high school. That there are things that even Mao and Mother Theresa can agree on - be a leader not a follower.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Ahmahdenajad, Chavez ....just the kind of mentality we need taking over this country!
Coming soon to a theater near you.....Hail Obama...the GREAT ONE! Or possibly the next great exterminator?
And Mike Huck is right, your posts is frightening in its resemblance to Mao's incitement of the masses.
All sane people think Mao was a philosopher. How stupid can Cons be?
Dunn didn't say she worships Mao. Dunn didn't say she loves Mao. Dunn didn't say she believes in communist philosophy.
Given that she didn't say anything that was remotely close to those things, what is your point?
a Yup.
She also said:
It sounds to me as though Dunn has a good dry sense of humor. That was the impression I got the first time I saw the video of her making the Mao reference.
Firstly Mother Teresa WASN'T a Philosopher.Nor a Theologian.
She didn't proselytize or make lenghty speeches.
She just did God's work.
So for a hack in Obama's Hack-ridden employ,to cite
her as a Political philosopher is what it is.
Just dopey.Which a Dopey's Agenda,wraps nicely around.
Obama is just a Creep with a Dope's agenda.
An agenda that true Dopes can admire,afford and
sychophant around.Like a Renfield in frenzied adoration
of Dracula's every movement.Following his every move as
if immortal,and therefore placing him in the nicest light.
But the trick being,Only Nite light.Nothing save damp soil
an underground cavern,the better to hide and wait till
dusk beckons.
I can seed where this Zedong guy had a point.
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung
" Liberalism is extremely harmful.It is a corrosive
which disrupts unity .... It deprives the revoluntionary
ranks of compact organization and discipline. "
-- "Combat Liberalism," Sept.7,1937
The rest of that paragraph boils down to "Me no like Obama. Me no like Obama supporters."
Anyone with a modicum of education knows that liberalism had a very different meaning in 1937 than it does in modern day America. I'm a generous guy, though, so I forgive you for your ignorance.
What a moron Anita Dunn is, whatever the intent of her message, the fact that she is the United States of America's White House Communications Director and brought up Mao Zedong to convey her point was not very smart. She committed a faux pas that deserved some explaining, albeit one that is as frivolous as stating it was irony - good work "Communications" director. While I don't listen to Glen Beck, Rush or any of the right wing fanatics, as an independent who voted for Barrack, I just wish he would have been more selective with the people he associates with. As for Anita, next time try to bring home your point with just Mother Teresa and leave it at that. Boy, some "Communications" director - jeez-whiz....way to "communicate" your message - moron!
RE-TRAITOR-RISTS
Republican, Traitors and Home Grown Terrorists
They have started an all out campaign to discredit Obama and the recovery and have launched their usual fear & smear campaign that Obama will ruin the country with his policies aimed at confusing the blind sheep. The brain washing campaign to influence the swing voters has already started and its fierce as if the elections were this November, they are not playing. They are going to pound us with lies because some will stick and it's working. We can't sit back and watch. Just like in marketing, advertising works and they know it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuV1XG517cc
Anita dunn ain't going anywhere.
This attack on Glenn Beck and "defense" of Anita Dunn is dishonest and laughable.
"my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung ..."
Nothing ironic, satiric, or ambiguous about Dunn's use of the word "favorite".
Mark Steyn brilliantly skewers it in his column today:
"If you say, “Chairman Mao? Wasn’t he the wacko who offed 70 million Ch!nks?”, you’ll be hounded from public life for saying the word “Ch!nks.” But, if you commend the murderer of those 70 million as a role model in almost any school room in the country from kindergarten to the Ivy League, it’s so entirely routine that only a crazy like Glenn Beck would be boorish enough to point it out...."
What are we to make of this?
Anita Dunn is a communist, she adores chairman Mao and Kim Jon, not to mention Hugo. Did you know my brother changed his name, it used to be Hugo, I wonder why he did that.
I really don't care about her political views, but last time I looked we are a Republic of states, not a democracy. I really despise her after indoctrinating the graduating class she spoke to. What is it with marxist, don't they think, we the people, have a working brain?
blake_braesicke@netzero.net
Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, clearly, vegetarianism is evil.