Exposing the Bad Political Theater of Obama’s Theatrical Crying Trick: No It Wasn’t Onions

by Scott Creighton

Obama’s recent weeping scene during a press conference discussing his plans for “common sense” gun control was indeed a bit of stagecraft. This evaluation of the performance will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he employed a theatrical trick to achieve the appearance of grief and show exactly how he did it.

The magician and the illusionist are to the actor as the rainmaker and the psychic are to the politician. Though they all seem to practice a similar craft, the differences between them are subtle yet dangerous.

The former entertains with no pretense while the latter influences with illusions of grandeur. As one group inspires awe via an exploration of our sense of wonder, the other demands tribute through the exploitation of our fears and hopelessness.

To the general public, the successful magician, illusionist and actor are seen as gifted and dedicated practitioners of their craft. Like a featured tenor or a first chair violinist with your local symphony, they can create beautiful moments of transcendence, but not miracles. There is nothing especially extraordinary attributed to their greatness.

Sadly, we still live in a world where the same cannot be said for the second group I mentioned.

“That’s because they can easily misuse their brilliant powers of deception in order to deceive people in ways that can turn out to be extremely harmful.” Rabbi Eli Teitelbaum, Secrets of the Psychic Exposed

People always ask of the debunker “Why is it so important to cruelly crush the hope of the fooled by exposing the faith healers, the rainmakers, the psychics and the politicians? Why not leave people in peace with their delusions?”

The answer to that is simple: the Uri Gellers, the Sylvia Brownes, the Dick Cheneys and the Barack Obamas of the world don’t practice their craft for the betterment of mankind. Like any other parasite, it is their nature to extract their sustenance from the host without regard of it’s well being. The damage they create can be irreversible, even fatal. And in the case of the politicians it is often systematic.

With this in mind, I wish to show you, one more time, how the craft of my former trade is being incorporated into the current political agenda with the intention of using emotional context to subvert reason in an ongoing effort to undermine our constitutional protections. Which begs the question ” If they need to resort to such trickery and manipulation, how legitimate can their cause be?”

Today’s case in point: President Obama’s theatrical crying trick used in a press conference last week when talking about the kids who died in Sandy Hook.

Last week, President Obama hosted a group of gun-reform activists at the White House and held a press conference in which he touted the need for us all to demand from congress, his version of “common sense” gun control, which (as he has already demonstrated when he called for using the “no fly” list as a way to keep certain people from buying guns) is an unconstitutional agenda designed to use arbitrary measures like a national “mental hygiene” law to strip from certain citizens both their rights to own a firearm and that of being entitled to due process of law.

Subsequently, the right of free speech will also be infringed upon due to the fact that in large part, the “mental hygiene” determination will be based on things people write or say on social media and in forums such as this one. Once established, the punitive results of such branding of unpopular ideas will create a climate of fear, imposing the worst kind of censorship on a population: self censorship for reasons of self preservation.

To a large degree, this atmosphere already exists in the United States. Wise people understand what can and cannot be said or written in this country without suffering social, economic and even sometimes legal consequences.

Take the case of Professor Tracy for example.

Though everyone knows why he was removed from his tenured position at FAU, the administration was forced to couch it in legal maneuverings, seemingly unrelated to the nature of his work on Sandy Hook and other staged false flag events, so they could avoid sticky questions of first amendment protections (and possibly a future court battle where Tracy could bring in evidence to support his claims as a defense)

Does anyone really think he would have been fired if Prof. Tracy were to have been using university resources writing a blog praising the work of Lenny Pozner’s HONR Network (which is nothing more than online trolling of people who question the facts surrounding events like Sandy Hook. A modern day version of burning heretics.)? Of course not. The wise understand and act (speak) accordingly.

The adoption of a legal basis for the overt punishment of committing heresy, the normalization of blacklisting, has yet to be achieved and it seems it is the single most important agenda left on the president’s to-do list. And as only Nixon could go to China, only a fake progressive president could get away with enacting such a reactionary, far right-wing policy.

During Obama’s press conference, there was a moment just before demanding we demand congress pass such legislation, where he spoke of the children supposedly killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School back in late 2012. Tears began to flow from his eyes which solicited applause from the audience of “journalists”

An emotional connection was immediately bridged between the gullible audience and Obama’s “common sense” gun control agenda with the deaths of the children being used to forge it. As is the case with any form of modern marketing, emotion trumps reason as the basis of the marketing campaign itself, forming an almost religious belief in the rightness of the cause. This is why the faith healer, the rainmaker and the psychic are nearly unimpeachable in the minds of the true believer: to question them is to question one’s own core belief system and people are rarely capable or even willing to do that.

The contrived nature of the conference should lead anyone to question the authenticity of his tears. President Obama spoke for nearly 30 minutes before finally bringing up the Sandy Hook shooting and he did so just before demanding we stand behind his unconstitutional agenda. In terms of a sales pitch, he “closed” with it. Standing directly behind him was Richard Martinez, whose child was supposedly killed during the Isla Vista shootings.

The day after the conference, a morning show on Fox News had a panel of pundits sitting around talking about it. They showed a clip from the conference of tears and one of the hosts suggested “we all cried” over the kids from Sandy Hook while another could only take exception that Obama didn’t also cry about ISIS™ in an effort to get the leftist behind more bombing campaigns across the globe.

But there was one who said maybe we should look for a “raw onion” on the podium as she seemed to sense the affected nature of his performance. Her opinion wasn’t shared by all of the “Obama opposition” on the panel, who skillfully turned the discussion back to the more comfortable realm of Islamaphobia.

The most reasonable thing the Fox talking heads said was… “It just felt like bad political theater”

That’s because it was theater.

Some of you might recall another time President Obama ‘wept” over the kids from Sandy Hook.

He wiped away tears that didn’t exist in a theatrical effort that might work onstage with the audience 40 feet away but certainly didn’t in the age of high definition television.

Seems like with that little faux pas in mind, his handlers decided to get some professional help with this sales pitch. Here’s how they did it.

No, there was no onion on the podium. Notice how silly that makes this evaluation seem. Also notice, the Fox News folks showed the clip of the “weeping” scene, without showing the all important moments leading up to it.

I have taken the full video of the conference and started it right at a point where it’s important to notice two things:

Where are Obama’s eyes?

What do you hear at the 29:50 mark?

Observe. Watch it a couple of times. Notice where his eyes are and what you hear coming from the podium at that very same moment. Listen closely. Turn it up and listen.

After attempting to achieve the desired results through the use of emotional recall, Obama when talking about “first graders from Newtown” doesn’t seem to be able to hit the emotional state he needed. You can see he is visibly aware of that moment, so he decides to go for the cheat.

He takes a moment, decides, repeats the “first graders” line… looks down for a flash to orient himself with something on the podium and then his right hand moves out of sight on the podium and you hear something placed on the wooden surface. His eyes look down, something else is moved and placed on the wooden surface and he looks back up. It’s subtle, but it’s there. You can hear it.

He’s not turning pages because his speech is on the teleprompters on the left and right side of the proscenium arch of the stage.

He’s taking the lid off of something and placing it back down beside a container. It could be what’s called a “tear stick”. It’s a mentholated substance designed to put into or under the eye in order to generate real tears for actors on screen.

However, here’s a video of Glen Beck’s make-up artist applying some Vicks to his face in order to get him to appear to cry on screen. Notice the little metal container and the lid?

Here are some screen capture stills taken from the video above and another showing a close up view of the president. This shows the decision and application process the president went through during the conference. Click on images for larger views.

What he is doing is a well established theatrical trick. In a film it’s a shortcut, like a green-screen. Nothing more sinister than that. But this isn’t a movie. It’s a politician arguing for an extremely unconstitutional shift in the thinking of the American people and thus it’s slight of hand in a three-card monty game. An illusion by a psychic to move a table or flicker the lights in a seance. A handful of liver “extracted” from a cancer patient by a faith healer. It’s false and dishonest at it’s core reflecting the lack of a moral center of the man perpetrating it to his own ends.

And that ladies and gentlemen, is your president.

Some might argue the ends justifies the means. If children are saved, his performance is for our betterment, not our detriment.

I tend to disagree.

If he believed in the rightness of his cause, there would be no need for script writers or cheap theatrics. He wouldn’t need to pretend to weep and the mere thought of doing so would be so distasteful to him (as it should be to anyone considering the subject matter) as to prevent him from even attempting it. Perpetrating such a falsehood in the memory of dead children in order to use their deaths for a political agenda?

You expect rainmakers like Glen Beck or Alex Jones to resort to cheap theatrics whenever they have to in order to mesmerize their gullible audience. The same is true of religious charlatans or psychics who pray on the fears of their flocks.

You should never expect or accept such behavior from political leadership though.

Politicians lie. That is understood. Has been that way since Greece invented them.

But when they feel empowered to the point of fabricating such scenes right in front of our eyes with little regard to exposing the dishonest nature of performances, we should pause for a second and ask ourselves how far we are going to let this facade of democracy continue to slide down the slippery slope of that Shining City on the Hill. Because what’s at the bottom of it, is a dark and scary place and climbing back up is not as easy as it might seem.

As we marvel at the spectacle of the illusionist, the technical expertise of the magician and the seemingly flawless authenticity of the naturalist actor, we appreciate being draw into their world for a moment. It shows us what we are capable of and allows us, if only briefly, to believe in the wonder of the human experience.

The greedy rainmaker, the conniving psychic and the lying politician aren’t offering us a glimpse into their world for the same uplifting reasons. They work to empower themselves at our cost. They always want and their magic is employed to that end. Never forget that. Never confuse it.

Argue about gun rights all you want. Argue about shootings, staged or not, false flags or not. These aren’t the questions today.

Today we have to ask do we want or accept a leader who pisses on our legs and tells us it’s raining. Today we ask just how much we are willing to accept before we have to stand up and say that’s enough.