Thomas Friedman and Raul Castro Agree: Barack Obama Is So Brilliant,

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | April 13, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

RUSH: Did you hear what Thomas Friedman said? Well, before I tell you what Thomas Friedman said, do you remember what Ronald Reagan said when he was asked about policy toward the Soviet Union? (interruption) What is going on in there? Are you mad at somebody, or are you excited at somebody? Snerdley started pointing and shouting in there and I thought something is going nuts. He's screening a call that he likes. That's what it was.

Anyway, Ronald Reagan, when discussing policy, foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union, said, "My policy's very simple: We win, they lose." And that was another one of Reagan's statements that sent the left into orbit. They thought it was simplistic, they thought it was naive, they thought it was impossible, and they thought it was ill advisable. They didn't like getting rid of the second superpower in the world. The left thought that two superpowers, us and at the time it was the Soviets, was balancing, that was good. They had no concept of good guys and bad guys, therefore no concept of us as the good guys. A lone superpower, even if it's us, that's not good, that promotes destabilization in the world. Reagan just laughed at 'em.

Thomas "Loopy" Friedman of the New York Times, back at it again, says that one of the great things -- contrast this with Reagan. Reagan on foreign policy with the Soviets, "Very simple: We win, they lose." Thomas "Loopy" Friedman describing Obama's foreign policy with Iran says that, quote, "[Obama] actually knows what America looks like from the outside in. And he can actually see America even to some point from the Iranian perspective."

This is supposed to comfort us. This lunacy is somehow supposed to tell us that we are being led by a leader and a president many cuts above all of us ordinary plebes. Obama can see America from Iran's perspective, and that's why Obama is so good. Now, that can only mean one thing. What is Iran's perspective of the United States? I could sum it up in three words: Death to America! Death to America! Death to America! That's the Iranian perspective of the United States. And here comes Thomas Friedman saying Obama's so brilliant he can see America from Iran's perspective.

Now, I don't mean that Obama's out there shouting, "Death to America." What I mean is Thomas "Loopy" Friedman says Obama understands. Obama has this ability to put himself inside the minds and the heads of the ayatollahs, and he understands their perspective on America. What does that mean? That Obama understands why we're hated? He understands why we are considered to be such a threat? What does that matter, when you boil it all down?

Does it matter that Barack Obama can see America from Iran's perspective? "Yes, Mr. Limbaugh." This is the voice of Mr. New Castrati. "Mr. Limbaugh, it would no doubtedly assist the president with foreign policy and nuclear weapons, a policy that would work, since he understands how the Iranians see us." And knows what to do to make sure that we don't threaten 'em, right? What caca.

Here's Thomas Friedman, one of the acknowledged elites -- he'll tell you he's one of the acknowledged elites inside the New York-Washington corridor, the best and the brightest, smarter than all the rest of us, can see things that the rest of us can't. And the nuance that Obama can see America from Iran's perspective is somehow to supposed to comfort us. It's somehow supposed to tell us how special Obama is. What does it matter? It doesn't matter. The proper perspective would be if Thomas "Loopy" Friedman would write that Obama is able to understand what Iran is all about, rather than preface it or predicate it by saying that Obama's real great quality is that he can see America from Iran's perspective.

If he can see it from Iran's perspective, he can see it from Putin's, and he can see it from Raul Castro's, and Raul Castro just over the weekend ripped the United States to shreds again, as you would expect him to do, but he exempted Obama. Oh, yes, Obama's had nothing to do with the bad America. So we know what this means. Obama, like Iran, like the Castros, he sees America's flaws, he understands and agrees with the way these are seen.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: No, no, I'm just saying I would rather have a president who sees issues from America's perspective, not Iran's. Sorry. I know I'm an oddball here, but I don't think it's any kind of a positive to say that Obama can see America from Iran's perspective. That can't be good. What in the world could that possibly lead to? There's Tom Friedman, New York Times, singing Obama's praises, he's so good, he's so smart, he's so in touch, he can see America from Iran's perspective.

So can we. All we have to do is listen to them: Death to America! They build IEDs, kill our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know who they are. We know they're state sponsors of terrorism. We know their best buds are Hezbollah. We don't need any brilliant president to see America from their perspective. We already know what it is. What would be great would have to have a president who sees issues from America's perspective. I can't believe I even have to point that out. But I do.

[PapaNew]

Maybe it’s the difference between the use of facts and certain unchanging truths. Facts, in the sense of the details of circumstances around us, are temporal but certain truths never change. How facts and truth are used seem to depend on certain underlying values and beliefs of the user.

It seems like at some point most people develop and are guided by their values and beliefs more than by the apparent facts. They are aware of the facts but they are not guided by them, at least long-range. Both Reagan and Obama had preset values and beliefs that guided their Presidency. I don’t think either one ignored the facts, but both wanted to change circumstances (facts) by implementing their values and beliefs.

Popular culture, especially the Left, loves to evaluate people and public figures on their intelligence. But more important than intelligence IMO is the degree that person believes in the truth or believes in falsehood.

Ultimately truth works and lies don’t. The results of Reagan’s and Obama’s presidency isn’t so much a matter of intelligence as it is about belief. The reason Reagan’s Presidency was so successful is it was guided by beliefs in certain fundamental, unchanging truths. The reason Obama’s presidency fails or will ultimately fail is the same reason socialism always fails: they are both based on belief in falsity.

[Kaslin]

You hit the nail square on it’s head

[Kaslin]

The smartest president ever. Yeah right, only in that idiots mind.

He's evil that id what he is

[Kaslin]

You said it

[Kaslin]

Neither do I

[windsorknot]

The current occupier of the White House is not brilliant in the least; he is a useful idiot for leftist dictators and causes.

[navyguy]

Friedman’s Ego is at least 6,000 times larger than his tepid IQ. He isn’t a quarter the genius he thinks he is.

[Iron Munro]

And yet I had to de-DVR Imus, as his frequent and increasing, emotional, versus logical, vile and nasty reviews of Ted Cruz showed cracks in his sanity

I agree with you.

I used to enjoy Imus but can't stand him anymore.

Yes, he has changed a lot.

Remember how he ripped both Bill and Clinton at the 1996 White House Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2013/04/22/flashback-imus-rips-clinton/

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20103215,00.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1880988/posts?page=80

He and the Clintons, especially Hillary, were near mortal enemies in those days - Now he is kissing up to them and attacking their critics and opponents.

It must be that all that money and city living have turned him into just another smarmy liberal.

[gingerbread]

Every Cuban alive during the Castro take over of that country will tell you that Raul Castro is a “MARICON”. For all these people that doesn’t understand Spanish, it means that Raul prefers young boys. this was well known, and yet this person we call our president had no problem with shaking hands with this “MARICON”. Would any one out there shake hands with some one who prefers young boys?

[MrB]

One of the basic assumptions of the leftist ideology is the rejection of objective truth.

They do this because of the “founding lie” of their religion of Humanism - YOU will be as gods, knowing [deciding] good and evil.

[MrB]

That’s often the way it is with intellectuals.
They believe they are far more capable than they are,
and that other “lessers” are too incompetent to breathe.

[PapaNew]

You got it.

That’s why the Left loves to emphasize “intelligence” as to the details of the facts and circumstances surrounding us but ignore the great leaps of irrationality of their conclusions because their basic beliefs are falsehoods.

The Left amounts to irrational intelligence.