Obama's Tears: Real or Manufactured?

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)

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.