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)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.