Obama Psychology 101

This morning on radio played an audio reel put together by CNS News – a compilation that highlights how much emphasis President Obama puts on himself, his opinions, and his beliefs in his speeches.

“He only said it [I] 113 times in a 25 minute speech,” Pat pointed out. “That’s only once every 13 seconds.”

“That’s incredible,” Glenn responded.

Glenn went on to point out that this is a personality trait with Obama, and pointed out the danger that it can lead to if the American people aren’t careful. Glenn noted that the main reason communism usually outlasts fascism is because fascism typically centers on the personality of the dictator – that can only last a lifetime. Communism tends to be about having a dictator. A dictator is replicable, a personality isn’t. Communists can create the illusion that everything is about the people. Glenn noted several examples of how a cult of personality has built around the President and the patterns history shows us repeating.

“Remember when he first, when he was first running?” Glenn asked. “Everybody was like, 'Okay, let's not put the seal on the edge of the desk and make it into yours?' That's why, when he did become the president elect, he decided that, "I can just change the seal of the presidency and make it the seal of the president elect of the United States." I've never even seen that before. It's why his followers put his face on our flag – you didn't see that with Ronald Reagan. Did you see Ronald Reagan's face on the flag when he was running? No. Of course not, because it was about America. It was about the workers. It was about the people. It was about the ideas. A good leader will never make it about him. He'll make it about the ideas. Why would the 9/12 project outlast any other of these grassroots? If it would outlast, it would outlast because of the values and the principles. Make it about the values and the principles. Not the personalities. Not about the election, not about let's get this guy out, but the values and principles. The values and principles are the only thing that will ever last. That's not what this man is creating.”

Glenn pointed back to audio he played earlier in the show of Obama senior campaign advisor Robert Gibbs spreading lies about Mitt Romney in an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN. This administration knows that their followers are not going to look up the facts, and that’s all that really matters to them.

After hearing this, Steven, a psychiatrist in Indiana, called into the show and told Glenn and his listener how well known this behavior is in the world of psychiatry – it would be too uncomfortable for Obama’s followers to find out their leader was lying to them.

“I agree with you that the truth is the heart of what we need to point out, but when the truth is not being told, what the people are telling from the Obama administration is, 'You need to believe, believe, believe, believe. Believe me, I was just handed a can of worms that I couldn't possibly turn the ship around in less than four years. I didn't know how bad it was. Believe me.' The word "believe" means there is no proof,” Steven pointed out. “He says the word "believe" more than any president I've ever hold, and I'm an old man, I think.”

“It’s disturbing how much he says 'believe me',” Glenn added, “and 'trust me.' I learned early on from my grandfather anybody who says 'trust me, don't trust them.'"

The caller also pointed out the other key factor about using terms like “trust” and “believe” is that they can’t be looked up.

“You cannot look up, "Is there a god." I mean, if you use the truth and honesty and facts, I always say to people never let facts get in the way of a good argument but, you know, I mean, the fact is Jesus should never have been crucified. It was left up to the people. And the people at that time went with their gut. And that's what's happening with our country. We go more with the gut than we do the fact,” Steven said.

Next, Glenn put America on the psychiatrist’s couch. “We're a patient. You know, the United States of America is a patient that walks into your office and says, 'I believe in this guy. He's not abusing me. He tells me he loves me.' You as a shrink, how do you get them to see the truth and lead them there so they become a stronger person?” Glenn asked.

“It's more personality, and that's one thing that Romney has to get involved in is developing his personality that he becomes likeable,” Steven answered.

He later added, “In going away from somebody who's abusing you, you've got to first look at the fact that there is an alternative. Is there something else out there and why would it attract me. And so you've got to become attracted to the individual, the idea, and that's what happened with Obama back in 2007 2008. Everybody got attracted to hope and change. Believe, you know. As you said, the use of the free election heel on his plane was a genius. It was almost like he was preordained to become our minister, our savior, our president. So he was a genius at psychology.”

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.