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)

5 SURPRISING ways space tech is used in your daily life

NASA / Handout | Getty Images

Is your vacuum cleaner from SPACE?

This week, Glenn is discussing his recent purchase of a Sputnik satellite, which has got many of us thinking about space and space technology. More specifically, we've been wondering how technology initially designed for use outside Earth's atmosphere impacted our lives down here on terra firma. The U.S. spent approximately $30 billion ($110 billion in today's money) between the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the Moon Landing in 1969. What do we have to show for it besides some moon rocks?

As it turns out, a LOT of tech originally developed for space missions has made its way into products that most people use every day. From memory foam to cordless vacuums here are 5 pieces of space tech that you use every day:

Cellphone camera

LOIC VENANCE / Contributor | Getty Images

Have you ever seen a photograph of an early camera, the big ones with the tripod and curtain, and wondered how we went from that to the tiny little cameras that fit inside your cellphone? Thank NASA for that brilliant innovation. When you are launching a spaceship or satellite out of the atmosphere, the space onboard comes at a premium. In order to make more room for other equipment, NASA wanted smaller, lighter cameras without compromising image quality, and the innovations made to accomplish this goal paved the way for the cameras in your phone.

Cordless vacuums and power tools

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

When exploring the moon, NASA wanted astronauts to use a drill to collect samples from the lunar surface. The problem: the moon has a severe lack of electrical outlets to power the drills. NASA tasked Black & Decker with developing a battery-powered motor powerful enough to take chunks out of the moon. The resulting motor was later adapted to power cordless power tools and vacuums in households across America.

Infrared ear thermometer

BSIP / Contributor | Getty Images

What do distant stars and planets have in common with your eardrum? Both have their temperature read by the same infrared technology. The thermometers that can be found in medicine cabinets and doctors' offices across the world can trace their origins back to the astronomers at NASA who came up with the idea to measure the temperature of distant objects by the infrared light they emit.

Grooved pavement

Bob Riha Jr / Contributor | Getty Images

This one may seem obvious, but sometimes you need a massively complicated problem to come up with simple solutions. During the Space Shuttle program, NASA had a big problem: hydroplaning. Hydroplaning is dangerous enough when you are going 70 miles an hour in your car, but when you're talking about a Space Shuttle landing at about 215 miles per hour, it's an entirely different animal. So what was NASA's space-age solution? Cutting grooves in the pavement to quickly divert water off the runway, a practice now common on many highways across the world.

Memory foam

BERTRAND LANGLOIS / Stringer | Getty Images

If you've ever slept on a memory foam mattress, it probably won't come as a shock to find out that the foam was created to cushion falls from orbit. Charles Yotes was an astronautical engineer who is credited with the invention of memory foam. Yotes developed the technology for the foam while working on the recovery system for the Apollo command module. The foam was originally designed to help cushion the astronauts and their equipment during their descent from space. Now, the space foam is used to create some of the most comfortable mattresses on Earth. Far out.

5 most HORRIFIC practices condoned by WPATH

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Whatever you know about the "trans movement" is only the tip of the iceberg.

In a recent Glenn TV special, Glenn delved into Michael Schellenberger's "WPATH files," a collection of leaked internal communications from within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Glenn's research team got their hands on the WPATH files and compiled the highlights in Glenn's exclusive PDF guide which can be downloaded here. These documents reveal the appalling "standards" created and upheld by WPATH, which appear to be designed to allow radical progressive surgeons to perform bizarre, experimental, and mutilating surgeries on the dime of insurance companies rather than to protect the health and well-being of their patients. These disturbing procedures are justified in the name of "gender-affirming care" and are defended zealously as "life-saving" by the dogmatic surgeons who perform them.

The communications leaked by Schellenberger reveal one horrific procedure after another committed in the name of and defended by radical gender ideology and WPATH fanatics. Here are five of the most horrifying practices condoned by WPATH members:

1.Trans surgeries on minors as young as 14

One particular conversation was initiated by a doctor asking for advice on performing irreversible male-to-female surgery on a 14-year-old boy's genitals. WPATH doctors chimed in encouraging the surgery. One doctor, Dr. McGinn, confessed that he had performed 20 such surgeries on minors over the last 17 years!

2.Amputation of healthy, normal limbs

BIID, or Body Integrity Identity Disorder, is an “extremely rare phenomenon of persons who desire the amputation of one or more healthy limbs or who desire a paralysis.” As you might suspect, some WPATH members are in favor of enabling this destructive behavior. One WPATH commenter suggested that people suffering from BIID received "hostile" treatment from the medical community, many of whom would recommend psychiatric care over amputation. Apparently, telling people not to chop off perfectly healthy limbs is now considered "violence."

3.Trans surgeries on patients with severe mental illnesses

WPATH claims to operate off of a principle known as "informed consent," which requires doctors to inform patients of the risks associated with a procedure. It also requires patients be in a clear state of mind to comprehend those risks. However, this rule is taken very lightly among many WPATH members. When one of the so-called "gender experts" asked about the ethicality of giving hormones to a patient already diagnosed with several major mental illnesses, they were met with a tidal wave of backlash from their "enlightened" colleges.

4.Non-standard procedures, such as “nullification” and other experimental, abominable surgeries

If you have never heard of "nullification" until now, consider yourself lucky. Nullification is the removal of all genitals, intending to create a sort of genderless person, or a eunuch. But that's just the beginning. Some WPATH doctors admitted in these chatlogs that they weren't afraid to get... creative. They seemed willing to create "custom" genitals for these people that combine elements of the two natural options.

5.Experimental, untested, un-researched, use of carcinogenic drugs 

Finasteride is a drug used to treat BPH, a prostate condition, and is known to increase the risk of high-grade prostate cancer as well as breast cancer. Why is this relevant? When a WPATH doctor asked if anyone had used Finasteride "to prevent bottom growth," which refers to the healthy development of genitals during puberty. The answer from the community was, "That's a neat idea, someone should give it a go."

If your state isn’t on this list, it begs the question... why?

The 2020 election exposed a wide range of questionable practices, much of which Glenn covered in a recent TV special. A particularly sinister practice is the use of private money to fund the election. This money came from a slew of partisan private sources, including Mark Zuckerberg, entailed a host of caveats and conditions and were targeted at big city election offices— predominantly democratic areas. The intention is clear: this private money was being used to target Democrat voters and to facilitate their election process over their Republican counterparts.

The use of private funds poses a major flaw in the integrity of our election, one which many states recognized and corrected after the 2020 election. This begs the question: why haven't all states banned private funding in elections? Why do they need private funding? Why don't they care about the strings attached?

Below is the list of all 28 states that have banned private funding in elections. If you don't see your state on this list, it's time to call your state's election board and demand reform.

Alabama

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Arizona

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Arkansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Florida

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Georgia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Idaho

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Indiana

Photo 12 / Contributor

Iowa

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kansas

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Kentucky

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Louisiana

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Mississippi

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Missouri

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Montana

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Nebraska

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

North Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

North Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Ohio

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Oklahoma

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Pennsylvania

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Carolina

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

South Dakota

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Tennessee

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

Texas

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Utah

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Virginia

Photo 12 / Contributor | Getty Images

West Virginia

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

Wisconsin

Encyclopaedia Britannica / Contributor | Getty Images

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?