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)

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Sponsored Message

Medicare costs are a silent thief—thousands of your dollars just vanish if you pick the wrong plan...

And there are a lot of Americans out there who have been taken in by slick advisers promising great plans, only to find out later that things like co-pays are now bleeding them dry, or that the doctor they trust is no longer on their plan.

Chapter is different.

I’ve met with these people personally, and I know that they founded their whole company specifically because their own parents got taken in with terrible Medicare programs, and they wanted to do something to change that, so it doesn’t happen to you.

At Chapter, they don’t just guide you—they search every plan, from every carrier, with technology so sharp it cuts through the noise.

These are licensed advisors with no hidden agendas.

Other Medicare advisers might cherry-pick plans that pad their pockets—Chapter puts you first.

So, if you are turning 65 or are already on Medicare, contact the good people at Chapter. Chapter is your move for anything related to Medicare.

Dial #250 and say key word “Chapter” or go to askchapter.org/beck.

- Glenn Beck

POLL: Are foreign hackers behind 2025 bridge crash?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A Mexican Navy ship crashing into the Brooklyn Bridge has left the nation stunned, and Glenn is demanding answers.

Are recent devastating ship collisions—first Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge in 2024, now Brooklyn in 2025—really just accidents, or is something far more sinister at play? Glenn recently warned that these incidents, both involving foreign vessels losing power near critical U.S. infrastructure, could be “shark bumps” by foreign adversaries testing our defenses through cyber sabotage. With the government and media quick to dismiss concerns, Glenn is calling for urgent investigations into possible hacking, independent audits of our ports and bridges, and a serious look at whether our enemies are exploiting vulnerabilities in our digitized systems.

Glenn wants to know what you think: Are these crashes coincidental, or are we under attack? Let us know in the poll below:

Could the recent ship crashes into American bridges be the result of cyber attacks by foreign adversaries?

Should the US government investigate these incidents for possible foreign interference?

Is our critical infrastructure adequately protected from cyber threats?

Are you concerned that foreign adversaries might be targeting US infrastructure through cyber means?

Do you think the media and government are properly addressing the security concerns raised by these incidents?

Glenn: Biden’s autopen scandal rocks White House

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Top Democrats knew Biden’s health was deteriorating but covered it up to keep power. Jake Tapper’s book finally lifts the lid on their deception.

Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s new book confirms what we suspected all along: Joe Biden’s health was rapidly declining, and the Democratic Party establishment knew it. Rather than be honest with the American people, they chose to cover it up, to prop up Biden just long enough to survive the election cycle. And the media helped them do it.

For years, any mention of Biden’s cognitive decline was framed as a “right-wing smear,” a baseless conspiracy theory. But now, Tapper and Thompson reveal that Biden’s top aides privately discussed the need for a wheelchair after the election — because the man can hardly walk.

We had no functioning president for much of the past administration.

And while Biden’s closest aides were planning that, they and their allies in the press were publicly spinning the fantasy that Joe Biden’s halting gait was due to a heroic foot fracture from a dog-related incident four years ago. They said his frailty was due to his “vigor.” That’s not a joke. That’s a quote.

And while they said this, they were having special shoes made for him with custom-made soles to help him stand. They weren’t planning for a second term. They were planning how to prop him up — literally — just long enough to survive the election. That is a cover-up.

It doesn’t bother me that Biden might need a wheelchair. What bothers me — what should bother every American — is that his aides talked about hiding it until after the election.

Biden wasn’t leading

Needing a wheelchair in your 80s is not a moral failing. It’s human. I own President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wheelchair — it sits in my museum. That chair represents the strength and resilience of a man who, despite paralysis, led this nation through World War II against a dictator who was gassing the disabled and infirm. He hid his disability out of fear the public wouldn’t accept a leader who couldn’t walk. But he led.

Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images

But Joe Biden wasn’t leading. He was a puppet played by faceless swamp creatures whose only concern was maintaining their iron grip on power.

Whatever you think of Tapper, the book reveals the chilling reality that we had no functioning president for much of Biden’s administration. Our commander-in-chief wasn’t just aging — he was declining. And the people around him — government employees, funded by your tax dollars — weren’t honest with you. They lied to you repeatedly and willfully because the truth would have guaranteed a second Trump term. That’s what this was all about.

Who signed the pardons?

Consider the implications of this revelation. We had a president signing documents he didn’t read — or even know about. We had an autopen affixing his name to executive actions. Who operated that autopen? Who decided what got signed or who got pardoned? Who was in charge while the president didn’t even know what he was doing?

Those are not minor questions. That is the stuff of a constitutional crisis.

The problem isn’t Biden’s age. The problem is that the people you elected didn’t run the country. You were governed by unelected aides covering up your elected president’s rapid cognitive decline. You were fed a lie — over and over again. And if anyone tried to blow the whistle, they got buried.

Don’t get distracted by the wheelchair. The chair itself is not the scandal. The scandal is that people inside your government didn’t want you to know about it.

They made a bet: Lie until November, and deal with the fallout later. That is an insult to the American people — and a threat to the republic itself. Because if your government can lie about who’s running the country, what else are they lying about?

We need further investigation and to hold these crooks accountable. If we don’t, it will happen over and over again.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.