Anita Dunn, Were You Also Joking About Mother Teresa? – by Jamie Glazov


Visit NewsReal

So President Obama’s White House communications director, Anita Dunn, is off the hook just like that? She praises Mao Zedong, the greatest mass murderer in history, and when confronted on it says she was joking and that’s it. Why is that just it? Would it be just it if any politician or any person in a responsible position out there verbalized an admiration for Adolf Hitler?

The key issue here is that Dunn was clearly not joking. Watch her videotaped speech to high schoolers and see for yourself. With the utmost earnestness, she calls Mao “one of the two people that I turn to most” and goes into a detailed and completely serious explanation of why she holds both Mao and Mother Teresa in high regard in the context of perseverance and choosing one’s own path.

Anita Dunn should not be let off the hook so easily, let alone let off the hook at all. And here at NewReal Blog we are not going to let her off the hook. We’re not going to let an adviser to the President of the United States off the hook for articulating a veneration of a communist despot who murdered 70 million of his own people.

And so today at NewsReal we are starting a campaign. And that campaign consists of one question to Anita Dunn that we want answered: Were you also joking about Mother Theresa being “one of the two people that I turn to most”? Because you did mention Mao in combination with Mother Teresa. So if you were joking about Mao, were you also joking about Mother Teresa? We want our question answered. And we are asking for all members of the media to join us in this campaign to get an answer from Anita Dunn. Please support us and demand an answer to this question.

Editor’s note: Get the whole story on why leftists venerate communist mass murderers in Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.

United in Hate cover

  • Proxywar

    Mother Theresa was a sick bitch as well. She feelt it was better for people to be poverty striken. Fuck her and Mao.

  • Carterthewriter

    The problem with the Obama administration is the dummies couldn't wait to run their mouths having pulled a fast one over on the Wmerican people, but they also forgot that we can shove them out and subjegate their bravado in the process.

  • avidyananda

    Not only vulgar (a sign of the writer's intelligence and character), but also stupid.


  • LindaRivera

    Did her publicly broadcast Leftist, radical beliefs secure her position of power? As Anita Dunn, so deeply admires Mao who murdered 70 million Chinese innocents, what implications does that have for millions of American innocents?

    Every American has reason to be very concerned. This is no longer the America we once knew.

  • LindaRivera


    The mainstream media are BETRAYING Americans by their silence. It is easy to take over a country when the media cooperate in the take over.

  • Tony Kondaks

    What makes Mao's murder of so many 10s of millions of his fellow citizens so scary — aside, of course, from the sheer numbers of it — is the fact that he didn't really set out to do so (I'm referring to the famine murders of the Great Leap Forward, not the many others killed during the Cultural Revolution which he is also responsible for). The road to hell was truly paved with good intentions.

    What killed those many 10s of millions was the communist system itself; the idea of the centrally planned economy. That's what makes it even more frightening than what Hitler did; at least with Hitler the evil was obvious: he targeted identifiable groups for death and this sort of racism and hatred is at least easy enough to recognize, if not oppose.

    Not so with the type of horror that Mao and communism rendered because it was cloaked in do-gooding. Mao had devised a system of planting crops that he claimed would result in much greater yields. From on high in his central location he deigned that all farms now plant in this fashion. So, naturally, his minions in charge of collective farms reported back that the high yields Mao predicted came true (there was no downside in not telling the truth and they were all there to curry favor with Mao and the party), leading the central authority in demanding a percentage of those yields be sent to them. But since the originally tally was overinflated, what was sent out of the countryside was 100% of what was actually harvested, leaving zero for the peasants who, ultimately, starved to death…in the 10s of millions.

    This is the stereotypical example of the horror of central planning.

  • trodaball

    I was wondering the same thing. A. Dunn is pathetic. The whole B.O. regime is a cancerous gang of anti-American commie bass-turds. They should all be in orange jumpsuits. How can that many people be so blind to what we knew we were getting with the Obama Fraud.

  • Gylippus

    Dunn seems to have mastered the Orwellian skill of 'doublethink'. She fulfills her own life-hating and totalitarian yearnings by worshiping a mass murderer, while unconsciously denying his crimes. It's a good question Jamie, but she would simply find some 'newspeak' manner of sidestepping the contradiction you are attempting to highlight. You can't win with these people, concepts are like plastic to them, they mold them to suit their needs.

    I myself am curious about how she would respond to the question: “do you support Mao's extermination of 30 million + peasants, and if not, how do you reconcile his political philosophy and his deeds?” That one would be a bit harder to dodge.

  • Steven L

    It is amazing to see so many communists, in Europe, still today when the 2 greatest mass murderers of all time were communist leaders!

  • Robert Wargas

    Tony Kondaks,

    Your analysis is not really correct. Mao cared about communism only insofar as it satisfied his lust for power and domination. He had an almost sexual desire to rule–pure megalomania. He also had contempt for the peasants. Read Jan Halliday's and Jung Chang's biography of Mao. Some scholars have criticized it as too biased and polemical but you can still see Mao's self-centered philosophy in the way he lived. He would stay in bed for weeks on end, have servants wait on him hand and foot, and request large harems of girls and boys to serve his vast sexual appetite. A pure dedication to Marxism, in my opinion, played a relatively moderate role in true Maoism.

  • Robert Wargas

    It's sad how every time some liberal moron praises or otherwise pardons a radical communist murder, one must trot out Adolf Hitler as the perennial counterpoint, as in, “What would happen if I praised Hitler….”

    As I see it, this is sad for two reasons: (1) left-liberals are so morally bankrupt as to need a perpetual history lesson in the crimes of communism; and (2) Hitler is the only example that works on them because he is a “right-wing” dictator, and thus politically incorrect, as opposed to a left-wing dictators, who are politically correct because they presumably believe in “social justice.”

    Little do they know that Hitler had wayyy more in common with the socialist Left than he did with the American Right.

  • jamieglazov

    Jan Halliday and Jung Chang show, in their biography of Mao, that Mao set out to kill millions. He said on many occasions that death was a great thing and he wanted a huge percentage of the Chinese people to be slaughtered. This was part of his plan to transform the universe and to start a clean slate. This is part of the historical record. Read their biography or my chapter on China in my book where I demonstrate Mao's lust to exterminate millions; he himself vocalized this plan very honestly.

  • Robert Wargas


    Thanks for your comments. I want to go back and re-read those parts in the biography as well as read your book. His desire for a “clean slate” is very similar to Pol Pot's desire to press the reset button, as it were, on Cambodian society.

    Mao also had pretty much a fetish for torture.

  • Tony Kondaks

    Mr. Wargas,

    Thanks for the feedback.

    Whatever motivations Mao had and whatever his true dedication or feelings for Marxism, I believe the dynamics behind what happened during the Great Leap Forward are nevertheless examples of what happens when a market economy is taken over by central planning. And it is this that is the greatest danger of all. Indeed, it overshadows any personal failings of individuals, such as Mao, because it is a system that, like a repeatable scientific experiment, can be adopted again and again, and lead to great horror each and every time.

  • Tony Kondaks

    Individual tyrants, mass murderers, etc. is one thing. A system that can be lead by the most well-meaning “saints” in the world yet create horrors in its results each and every time is a much worse proposition.

    I”ll stand corrected about Mao's individual character failings but the point shouldn't be lost: it is the communist system and its ideas about central planning that is the worst culprit of all.

  • GJTryon

    “She feelt (sic) it was better for people to be poverty striken. (sic) ” Indeed, she got the notion from Jesus. I suppose He was a “sick bitch as well?” Another day, another egregious post from internet clunkers…

  • Robert Wargas

    Absolutely. Central planning NEVER works. Why it doesn't work has been explained beautifully by thinkers like Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.

    Communism, in my opinion, is the most evil and pernicious ideology ever to exist on this Earth. I would say without one moment's worth of hesitation that it is much more evil–and, indeed, much more dangerous–than Nazism. Why? Nazism could never have the type of worldwide appeal that communism/socialism/Marxism has; it could never fool the whole world. It is VERY easy to fool people with communism. It has a veneer of perfection to it, whereas Nazism is overtly violent, crude, and racist–communism's violence, crudity, and racism is hidden beneath layers of rhetoric, theory, and knee-jerk emotion.

  • rockta

    A uncontaminated commitment to cute status Marxism, in my exams status estimation, played a comparatively moderate responsibility in true facebook jokes communalism.