Obama's Tears: Real or Manufactured?

January 06, 2016

Writer

Another day, another executive order by the president of the United States. Who needs Congress when you can bypass the legislative process with the stroke of a pen and a few tears?

Yesterday, at President Obama's press conference on gun control, the commander-in-chief openly wept when talking about the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, one of the most horrific crimes ever committed on U.S. soil. Admittedly, as co-host Stu Burguiere pointed out Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program, if ever there was a cry-worthy event, Sandy Hook would be it.

However, one might ask given the president's typical emotionless demeanor---and some interesting physical gestures during the press conference---were those tears genuine or manufactured?

Thanks to a liberal photographer from a GQ photo shoot, Glenn knows a thing or two about real tears versus fake tears.

"Now, the only reason why I know tricks about making yourself cry is because a liberal photographer set me up on a GQ photo shoot," Glenn said.

Back in 2009, photographer Jill Greenberg staged a photo shoot to show the theatrical faces of comedy and tragedy to coincide with a live theatre event Glenn was holding.

Skeptical of Greenberg's true intentions, Glenn asked for her "word as an artist," and she gave it. The result was a secret video of her team applying Vick's VapoRub under Glenn's eyes to manufacture tears on demand. The video was then used as propaganda against Glenn (see video below).

Due to that enlightening experience, Glenn watched the president's remarks with keen interest.

"I was fascinated by the the fact that he [Obama] reached up to touch his eye before there were any tears," Glenn said. "He reached up to his eye, and he was like, 'And I'm really feeling horrible now, and I have to reach up to my eye where there is no tear,' and then suddenly that eye would not stop tearing. It was fascinating."

What do you think? Were those tears real or manufactured? Watch the press conference again, and comment below.

Listen to a segment below:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Hello, America. The president of the United States wept openly like a man. Now, I have a few things to say about this. And I'm going to give them all the benefit of the doubt that they gave me. Here is Barack Obama in a very tender moment yesterday at a press conference.

OBAMA: Our unalienable right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, those rights were HEP script from college kids in Blacksburg, in Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine and -- and from first graders.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

OBAMA: In Newton.

GLENN: Oh, boy. Oh, no.

PAT: He's wiping tears now.

GLENN: No, not yet.

OBAMA: First graders.

GLENN: Now. Now there's no tears. Now there's tears suddenly after he's touched his face.

OBAMA: And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

GLENN: Listen to the cameras. Oh, my gosh. Oh, he's wiped another tear. Here are the cameras. There's another tear. Here are the cameras.

STU: Did it start raining at this point?

GLENN: No, it's just the shutters closing of the cameras.

OBAMA: Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad.

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: It gets him mad.

OBAMA: And, by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.

(applauding)

GLENN: Oh, my -- he finally said it.

PAT: He said it. He said it, and they applauded it.

GLENN: And they applaud. And it's beautiful, and it was lovely.

Now, here's the question that I have. First of all, I'm not one to poke a finger at somebody who openly weeps as a man because I actually believe that you can and it is manly to have emotions and it's okay to shed a tear, when you actually feel it.

My question is, when I was talking at Fox or, you know. You've listened to this program a long enough time. You know what's going to set me off.

The boys used to do it all the time. We can make him cry.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: Just get him to talk about this. So there's some consistency in tears. How many times has the president talked about this? How many times has he talked about what happened in Connecticut?

PAT: Many. Including like the day after or a few days after.

GLENN: Many times. Yeah, you would think the day after, if you were really thinking about those kids, the day after would be a time that you would probably shed a tear.

I'm not saying it's manufactured, but I'm not not saying that either. Because I've never seen him well up like this before, even when he was talking about somebody who could been his own child. He's never welled up before. But suddenly, at this crucial moment, where this moment can actually change the course, he cries. And he says that he's been thinking about it a lot.

Now, I will tell you that there's a possibility that he actually does care. I hate to make him out to a complete monster. So he actually does care. But there's also a possibility that he does care, but also understands the power of a tear at this critical moment.

See, when I was at Fox, I didn't want to cry. I didn't want to. I kept saying -- I would be like, "Oh, jeez. Jeez." My head -- I would feel it come on. And I would be like, "Oh, God, no, no, no." The exact opposite would be going off in his head.

"If I cry at this press conference, there's a chance I move the country to tears. They see how deeply I mean it, and I can tell a story like nobody's business."

I was fascinated by the fact -- and I don't know if anybody else saw this, I was fascinated by the the fact that he reached up to touch his eye before there were any tears. Did anybody notice that?

PAT: Uh-huh. Yes.

GLENN: He reached up to his eye, and he was like, "And I'm really feeling horrible now, and I have to reach up to my eye where there is no tear," and then suddenly that eye would not stop tearing. It was fascinating. Now, the only reason why I know tricks about making yourself cry is because a liberal photographer set me up on a GQ photo shoot. Yes, there was a time when I was in GQ. Think about that, ladies. You can have a slice of this, and there's plenty to go around.

So, anyway, the only reason why I know this is because she asked me. And you can find this video on the web. She is a completely dishonorable individual. And she was supposed to be doing -- she told me she was doing a photo shoot for the happy face and the sad face of the masks of theater because I was doing a theater stage show.

And I said, "I don't think I believe you." And she said, "No, I give you my word." And I said, "Look, I admire you for your art. Please understand that in my own way, I am that too. And I have -- I have my credibility, just like you have your credibility. I will take your word as an artist. Do you give me your word that's what you're doing?"

Oh, absoultely. Oh, my gosh. Absolutely.

Okay.

She said, "Can you make yourself cry?" And I said, "Of course not. If I could make myself cry, I should be paid a lot more money than I'm being paid now. I'm in the wrong business."

And she said, "Well, I didn't know." And I said, "No, I can't make myself my cry." And she said, "Well, here's how they do it in the theater. They put Vick's under their eye." And I said, "Okay." And she said, "It's the menthol." Now, I didn't know that they wre recording the whole time. I had no idea they were recording videotape of all this. She goes and she cleverly edits. As she leaves the photo shoot, about 30 minutes later, she tweets: I've got Glenn Beck. I've got him.

And they edited this video to make it look like I was putting on Vick's for no -- before a show or whatever. And that I was showing her how to cry on television. And all you have to do is just a have a little bit of Vick's HEP or a little bit of onion or anything on your finger, and then you reach up and you teach your eye.

That then is underneath your eyelid, and the vapor goes up and you can't stop crying. And I'm just saying that I've seen that done. I was taught by a liberal how to do that. I'm not sure if that's what the president did. I would assume not. I would assume that he's genuine. But I also want to figure him and the left all of the benefit of the doubt that they gave me.

STU: A little problem with what you just did is they did not give you the benefit of the doubt of, "I'm sure he didn't do this, but." You can't give him that.

GLENN: Then he's a lying sack of crap.

STU: That's exactly --

JEFFY: There you go.

GLENN: Gave them exactly what they gave to me. He's a lying sack of crap. He has no heart. He doesn't care. He's manufacturing this only to make money and to get his way.

STU: There you go.

PAT: Well, you remember when he wept over the four Americans lost in Benghazi. You remember that?

GLENN: No, I don't.

PAT: No, I don't either.

GLENN: Do you remember when he wept over these particular children that he's giving speech after speech after speech on?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Do you remember when he wept the day after? Do you remember when he wept the day of this massacre while he was talking about it?

PAT: No. Or how about when he wept for the 1 million babies every single year slaughtered by abortion who will never become first graders. First graders. They'll never become first graders.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't remember that.

PAT: How about the time he wept for them? 52 million since 1972.

GLENN: No, I don't think so. How about the Special Forces that we've lost in tragic accidents?

PAT: I don't remember that either.

GLENN: How about when our -- when San Bernardino happened? You remember when he cried about that?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Oh, that's weird.

PAT: That is weird. Huh.

Featured Image: U.S. President Barack Obama wipes away tears as talks about the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and about his efforts to increase federal gun control in the East Room of the White House January 5, 2016 in Washington, DC. Without approval from Congress, Obama is sidestepping the legislative process with executive actions to expand background checks for some firearm purchases and step up federal enforcement of existing gun laws. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.