Obama's Maoist media controller

What does it say about Barack Obama and his devout supporters that his White House communications director is a big fan of Mao Zedong?

I know. I know. She said her two favorite philosophers were Mao and Mother Teresa. How's that for moral and intellectual disconnect?

Were there two people in the history of the world more opposite that Mother Teresa and Mao?

One's worldview was shaped for her reverence for God. The other's was shaped by his denial, even hatred, of God.

Welcome to the strange world of Anita Dunn, Obama's self-proclaimed media controller...

Mao, though, co-opted his line about power coming from the barrel of a gun from the founding fathers of the United States. Might may not make right, but being right without the might is just another name for being a victim.

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29
- Alexander Hamilton

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” Abe Lincoln

Which is why folks in any government try their best to remove the means of power from the hands of all they believe would oppose them. The principal means of power are:

1. communication (against which is used propaganda, attacks on news organizations, monitoring of phone calls, email, etc, laws against "hate speech", McCain-Feingold),

2. property (eroded by confiscatory taxation, laws telling you what you can and cannot do with your own property, agencies such as the EPA defining away your use of and the value of your property, asset-forfeiture laws, etc, the Supreme Court's Kelo decision),

3. institutions not controlled by the government such as the family, the church, and business, (too many things here to mention them all but Ruby Ridge, Waco, single payer health care, and the pay czar spring to mind) and

4. sheer firepower (gun control laws of all sorts).

We literally are more oppressed as a people by government than the founders were when they declared independence.

I think everyone’s missing the point about her Mao reference.

She doesn’t admire his mass killings. She admires his willingness to DO ANYTHING to win.

This is the world of community activism. I’ve come to realize they live in an alternate universe I didn’t even know existed. In that world laws are merely an inconvenience, something to be skirted or used against one’s enemies. Think: ACORN’s total disregard for keeping public money out of political coffers. Extorting banks, Wall Street, mortgage companies etc by protesting in their lobbies and even in front of their private homes. Auto company bondholders were squashed by ignoring bankruptcy law and tradition. Fraudulent voter registrations...what’s wrong with THAT?!

As for what they do...they don’t produce anything. All their energies are used to collect ever more taxpayers’ money. Then they spend it to elect more politicians who will give them even more money. Theirs is a grievance society. They’ve taken civil disobedience to a new level, one where they simply ignore the law altogether.

And now they’re in the White House, the Justice Department, all over the government. Like Mao, they ADMIRE those willing to use rough tactics to crush an opponent.

When she mentioned Mao, I started thinking about this. Did Mao inspire Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? And could Alinksky’s tactics have been born anywhere but Chicago...a place where political favors are traded like handshakes?

Now we have it all in our federal gov’t: Mao’s deadly tactics, Alinsky’s rules, Chicago’s hardball politics. It’s clear to me their objective is to re-make in Washington what they have in Chicago: a patronage based, taxpayer funded political machine with the power to make enemies “disappear”. Their goal is to make themselves a permanent ruling majority. Justice won’t prosecute vote fraud. Electoral offices will be corrupted. The Census will be dirty. And they’ll create tens of millions of new reliable voters when they give citizenship to illegals.

It might just work. It did for Mao. That’s why they admire him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.