Debunked: Infowars' & Mancow's claim that Harry Lennix trained Obama

[qed]

He's odious.

That would make him a modern US president.

 

[Bill]

Yup. Which, given the contempt in which the breed is held by so many, makes the cult of personality and the constant smearing of those who are pointing this out a little hard to understand.

I admit I got sucked into it and got suckered, but once the bubble burst, I can't defend the guy at all. He's odious and I have to admit that all those supposed crazy people who I mocked as being wingnuts had a clearer gaze than the gauzy one I had.

Yeah-But hey---"Change"---right?
Everybody gets suckered in by a politician at one time or another. John Anderson got me.

 

[Bill]

So what standard of "journalism" are you judging Jones against?

Any standard that endorses fact checking over rumor and innuendo.

 

[Joe]

Trained by an actor or an actor like Reagan?

Now Reagan was a Better president than a Actor . Obama is neither .

 

[AluminumTheory]

According to Mancow, Obama became acquainted with Lennix in 1992.

Here are some clips of Obama from when he attended Harvard in 1990.








Obama would have been about 28 or 29 at the time of those recordings and I would say speaks and acts just like he does today.

I suppose anyone with any journalistic ethics to speak of would have brought this up in an article discussing Obama's mannerisms and style.

 

[Mick West]

Stick to the topic please. The topic is if Obama was "Trained" by Lennix, not Obama actions and policies.

This is not a politics forum.

 

[Mick West]

I have updated the OP with Lennix's denial, and the older videos showing Obama was like this before he met Lennix, but of which effectively debunk the story.

 

[Joe]

Stick to the topic please. The topic is if Obama was "Trained" by Lennix, not Obama actions and policies.

This is not a politics forum.

Only Obama and Lennix would know that . Lennix wouldn't admit to it either even if it were true . So this whole post is pointless other than making it political

 

[Mick West]

Only Obama and Lennix would know that . Lennix wouldn't admit to it either even if it were true . So this whole post is pointless other than making it political

It's about evidence. The evidence we have is:

• The Mancow/Infowars claims
• Lennix's quite detailed denial
• Obama not actually changing since before he met Lennix.

Given the known level of bunk that comes from the two sources of the first point, I'd say that at least is nullified by the second point. Then the third point makes it obvious that the entire thing is nonsense.

 

[mynym]

Trained by an actor or an actor like Reagan?

I had a few paragraphs of a ramble on that. The basic idea being that it probably would actually be best if the handlers and producers of the Presidential Show by which some aspects of America are being governed (depending on the ratings for each episode) would simply find an actual actor to play the part of the president again. Put Rove Inc. on the job, etc.?

Supposedly there were reports of Obama wanting to "go Bulworth" in order to try to begin acting authentic too, a few months ago. So the idea that he's an actor or has been groomed and trained as an actor can't be debunked, as even Obama realizes the nature of the business he's involved in. It would be interesting to have better investigative reporting than Jonestown with respect to what the technical details of the process of becoming the entertainer in chief are. But when the corporate media is busy with asking Obama what his favorite color is and so forth, well... there you go. You're left with Jones.

 

[mynym]

Then the third point makes it obvious that the entire thing is nonsense.

You can probably file it under debunked.

 

[Mick West]

Obama is no more an actor than anyone else in power. Saying "he's an actor" is disingenuous. He's a politician, a former lawyer. He understands the importance of presenting things well.

The act of public speaking or debating always contain an element of acting. Politicians practice how to respond on particular issues. This is nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing unique to Obama.

 

[mynym]

Ooh. Bitchslap. Wish I'd spotted that gap.

Ironically just an illusion caused by Metabunk programming. I had another ramble on Mr. Plausible Deny Ability himself, etc. You're forgetting the rules of Metabunk programming where all that matters is the technical details of the production of the Big Picture. A Picture that its compartmentalized producers apparently may not see even if they've been incorporated in creating it.

Too bad the Big Picture often impinges on and changes one's perceptions and ability to see or look for technical details too though. Not to mention the fact that the only way to really answer a perspective is by filling it in with another, i.e. a technical debunking is often leading nowhere and may even cause "nothing to see here" distortions in perceptions. But at least no one in the thread went beyond the technical details and tried to "debunk" the fact that within the big picture Obama is, in fact, an actor. So an interesting question arises from this debunking, if Lennix didn't train Obama to be an actor... then who did?

 

[Mick West]

if Lennix didn't train Obama to be an actor... then who did?

Nobody trained him to be an actor.

He probably had a lot of help for a wide variety of people, preparing and practicing how to be a better politician. How to answer questions well. How to present himself. But this is something all politicians do.

It's no more training to be an actor than this is:

 

[mynym]

Obama is no more an actor than anyone else in power.

So even if Lennix had trained him, it wouldn't be worth reporting on?

Saying "he's an actor" is disingenuous.

Not really, he's disingenuous... so saying that he's an actor is just acting like that's the case.

He's a politician, a former lawyer. He understands the importance of presenting things well.

Indeed. At least he's a better actor than "I can hear the babies in the womb." John "But now lets have them torn limb from limb." Edwards.

The act of public speaking or debating always contain an element of acting.

It seems like you're saying that if someone that disagrees with you on politics repeats what you've said in a negative light, then that's "disingenuous."

He is an actor. But so long as we're saying he's a good actor, it's fine.

This is nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing unique to Obama.

Off topic question, is anything ever new or surprising to you? Just curious.

 

[Pete Tar]

By what definition are you calling him an actor? By having a public-speaking persona? You must have some evidence of what he's like when he isn't acting?
Aren't we all different people in different situations?

 

[Mick West]

Or this, from 2,300 years ago.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

The structure of Rhet. I & II is determined by two tripartite divisions. The first division consists in the distinction among the three means of persuasion: The speech can produce persuasion either through the character of the speaker, the emotional state of the listener, or the argument (logos) itself (see below §5). The second tripartite division concerns the three species of public speech. The speech that takes place in the assembly is defined as the deliberative species. In this rhetorical species, the speaker either advises the audience to do something or warns against doing something. Accordingly, the audience has to judge things that are going to happen in the future, and they have to decide whether these future events are good or bad for the polis, whether they will cause advantage or harm. The speech that takes place before a court is defined as the judicial species. The speaker either accuses somebody or defends herself or someone else. Naturally, this kind of speech treats things that happened in the past. The audience or rather jury has to judge whether a past event was just or unjust, i.e., whether it was according to the law or contrary to the law. While the deliberative and judicial species have their context in a controversial situation in which the listener has to decide in favor of one of two opposing parties, the third species does not aim at such a decision: the epideictic speech praises or blames somebody, it tries to describe things or deeds of the respective person as honorable or shameful.

 

[Mick West]

The thread is getting off topic. The original claim that Lennix trained Obama has been debunked. If there are new claims of evidence, then they can go in a new thread, following the posting guidelines.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

 

[Hingefactor]

You seem to be saying that people are like sheeple.



And "Wrap yourselves in this false flag... never mind those flag draped coffins."/Fox News or "Here's Syrian Danny with another report..."/CNN or "Watch out, flying incubator babies!"/ABC or "Here's another ad for Boeing and Lockheed Martin."/NBC and so forth aren't?

What if the political/ideology involved in journalism like this is just more obvious in the case of Jones because his media empire isn't as refined or produced as well as other forms of media, yet?

I'd also argue that Jones is less likely to get people killed than the corporate media and Murder Inc. There's been talk on Metabunk about how Jones is likely to get people killed with his crazy talk. Yet the corporate media is already getting people killed and then running reports on how they're getting people killed based on lies that they continually fail to investigate or report on, between their ads for Boeing Inc. and so forth. Point being, the military industrial media is far more likely to get people killed with their irresponsible reporting at this point. So what standard of "journalism" are you judging Jones against?

Yet fans of Jones have been known to harrass people such as the grandfather in Newtown, and the poor guy who got his legs blown off in Boston, because Jones was one of many who pushed the idea they were actors. Meanwhile, a Jones fan killed somebody at LAX.

Jones doesn't fit any standard of journalism other than tabloid. He's a fear monger preaching to people. End of story. All one has to do is read through the comments on any Jones story to get an idea at what his fans are capable of.

 

[Mick West]

Yet fans of Jones have been known to harrass people such as the grandfather in Newtown, and the poor guy who got his legs blown off in Boston, because Jones was one of many who pushed the idea they were actors. Meanwhile, a Jones fan killed somebody at LAX.

Jones doesn't fit any standard of journalism other than tabloid. He's a fear monger preaching to people. End of story. All one has to do is read through the comments on any Jones story to get an idea at what his fans are capable of.

I don't think it was shown he was a Jones fan, however this is all off-topic.

 

[Hingefactor]

I agree with Mick. It's been debunked. Time to move on.

 

[Pete Tar]

It still leaves the question of why the article deliberately tried to insinuate and mislead.

 

[Hingefactor]

It still leaves the question of why the article deliberately tried to insinuate and mislead.

If you view Infowars as tabloid journalism than that question answers itself. Is it any different from wondering why The National Enquire misleads when it posts articles such as "Three headed alien elephant baby seen shopping at Walmart?"

 

[Pete Tar]

Fair enough, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mick West]

Fair enough, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Indeed, it's just par for the course. It's what they do.

 

[Joe]

I agree with Mick. It's been debunked. Time to move on.

Well if you listened to it you would have heard where Mancow said his comments were off the record . (after the interview ) Which means Mancow wasn't to repeat it . So we will never know if it was or wasnt said . Does not make it DEBUNKED . Just unknown at this time .

 

[JRBids]

Yeah, I think it's a great idea that the press just writes down what the WH press secretary says and calls it news.

Wouldnt the alternative be writing down what the secy DIDN'T say and calling THAT the news?

 

[Hingefactor]

Well if you listened to it you would have heard where Mancow said his comments were off the record . (after the interview ) Which means Mancow wasn't to repeat it . So we will never know if it was or wasnt said . Does not make it DEBUNKED . Just unknown at this time .

You won't know. Case closed for the rest of us.

 

[Joe]

Lennix as president

 

[Joe]

You won't know. Case closed for the rest of us.

I really could care less anyway . as Hillary would say " What difference does it make "?

 

[JRBids]

I'd also argue that Jones is less likely to get people killed than the corporate media and Murder Inc. There's been talk on Metabunk about how Jones is likely to get people killed with his crazy talk. Yet the corporate media is already getting people killed and then running reports on how they're getting people killed based on lies that they continually fail to investigate or report on, between their ads for Boeing Inc. and so forth. Point being, the military industrial media is far more likely to get people killed with their irresponsible reporting at this point. So what standard of "journalism" are you judging Jones against?

Such as? How are people being killed by the corporate media?

 

[JRBids]

Right. It's not that they are some kind of outfit beyond reproach, but that they touch stuff I'm never going to find out about from the msm. That said, this heavily marketed meme that everything they put out is bullshit or that they are completely worthless is also irresponsible and smacks of concerted propaganda.

YEah, however would we know about all those FEMA camps and the New World Order, certainly not from the MSM.

 

[Joe Newman]

Wouldnt the alternative be writing down what the secy DIDN'T say and calling THAT the news?

No, the alternative would be to say that a line repeated three dozen or more times was "misspeaking." And then spinning it to death while having your folks make sure they knew who the real fake journalists were. Or something that.

 

[Joe Newman]

YEah, however would we know about all those FEMA camps and the New World Order, certainly not from the MSM.

Heh. It's would be interesting to hear you guy do the not a problem/it's just shuffle with this TPP agreement.

 

[AluminumTheory]

And they're often irresponsible.

The only problem being, they're often the only people that will challenge the official story or have whistle blowers on and so forth. Perhaps we ultimately need alternative media to emerge that does a better job, all the way around.

They can't be the only people taking a perspective that causes them to be willing to report on possible details about how the president is an actor. Especially given all the evidence that the president is, in fact, an actor.

That would make him a modern politician.

Yup. Which, given the contempt in which the breed is held by so many, makes the cult of personality and the constant smearing of those who are pointing this out a little hard to understand.

I admit I got sucked into it and got suckered, but once the bubble burst, I can't defend the guy at all. He's odious and I have to admit that all those supposed crazy people who I mocked as being wingnuts had a clearer gaze than the gauzy one I had.

The current narrative from conspiracy circles is that Obama just came from nowhere and ascended to the presidency overnight due to lack of MSM scrutiny. But as I pointed out earlier, Obama is not the first president to have emerged from obscurity shortly before his inauguration. Obama was a 1 term junior senator from Illinois, and a 3 term state senator. He also didn't have much of a voting record as he abstained on about half of bills during his brief tenure. This was all pointed out years ago during the 2008 DNC against Hillary. Obama was scrutinized, the problem is that there wasn't much yet to scrutinize leaving Obama able to fill in the gaps and frame himself as what he wants to be while also allowing his adversaries to portray him as what they want him to be (i.e. Muslim, Socialist, CIA/KGB double agent, Communist, Fascist etc) In 2008, it was already clear that our next president would be a Democrat, and the fact is that Obama managed to beat Hillary in the primary. Obama's disadvantage with his inexperience was also an advantage because candidates with long public careers such as McCain, and Romney tend to be less successful due to the excessive "baggage' which leads to bad press. Having a short political career as a presidential candidate is more of an asset than a burden in many ways. George Bush (43), Dwight Eisenhower, and Jimmy Carter had little to no experience in elected office prior to their presidencies. Obama's ascension to the presidency is not historically unusual and as JFK once said "There's no certain road to the presidency". Obama is not some CIA creation or mysterious double agent. He's just an intelligent, oratorically gifted but politically inexperienced man trying to run a disenfranchised nation.

It is not unusual for public figures to have been trained or 'groomed' for public life. News anchors receive speech training to remove all traces of 'regionalism' from their accent which is why they all sound the same. As superficial as it sounds, presidents need to act 'presidential'. It has been true since at JFK who is widely revered as the first modern president. Politics is a nasty business and it often requires that candidates pander to certain crowds, and make promises that they can't keep, and even lie in order to achieve success. This is true regardless of the nature if a candidate's intentions. I feel that alot of people have unreasonable and over glorified expectations of their leaders and often have romanticized views of former presidents going all the way back to the founding fathers. People need to remember that these men are just human beings. Flawed human beings who are just as capable of fault as any one of us. Sometimes compromises and unpopular decisions have to be made. On that note, Ron Paul is often highly regarded by some to be a man of character, honest and consistent in the sense that he believes and his policy reflected that. But what most people fail to point out is that Ron Paul has remarkable achieved very little legislatively speaking despite his long tenure(s) and relative popularity. I think his son Rand Paul sees that and has made efforts to be more like a politician even despite the criticisms from his conservative-libertarian base. To quote an often recited bible verse "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul" I would suggest that the key to becoming successful in politics is trying to find a balance in between without succumbing to the evils of the system.

 

[AluminumTheory]

Well if you listened to it you would have heard where Mancow said his comments were off the record . (after the interview ) Which means Mancow wasn't to repeat it . So we will never know if it was or wasnt said . Does not make it DEBUNKED . Just unknown at this time .

Just based on the way that article is written. I can just about ascertain that the next rebuttal will be that he's denying it because he doesn't want to get in trouble...

So if somebody makes a claim, and there is no proof to back it up and there is even evidence to support the contrary, all that person (who makes the claim) has to say is that his comments were "off the record" and it becomes undebunkable.
It sounds to me like Mancow knew he was full of crap so he made up that disclaimer so that his story will still have credence in case Lennix denies it which he probably knew that he would. If Obama had the same persona before he met Lennix (according to Mancow's statment that the met in 1992), than how is it possible that Lennix "trained" him to act in a way that he already did? Where does Lennix come into play. They're two educated individuals who come from Chicago which is why they seem to act very alike.

 

[qed]

You're forgetting the rules of Metabunk programming where all that matters is the technical details of the production of the Big Picture. A Picture that its compartmentalized producers apparently may not see even if they've been incorporated in creating it.

• This is not my experience of Metabunk.

I bet I am at least as sceptical as you, and many times have found myself on the opposite side to Mick etal.

But, anyone with an open rational mind will eventually find the truth on this forum or convince many here of the truth.

Perhaps try shorter sentences, and not linking us to your blog page as "evidence".

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

I think often the problem is false moral equivalency. Alex Jones/Prison Planet/Mancow all have severe believability issues. If you do think Alex Jones is spot on, we've had various threads showing his outlandish behavior, his blatant bigotry (just watch the Piers Morgan interview), and the shameless self promotion. Also while the MSM "gets it wrong", when they are caught, they tend to fess up. They say they screwed up and apologize. To my knowledge Alex Jones hasn't recanted on any number of things he's gotten wrong, and he's been VERY spectacularly wrong.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

I was about to point out that mynahmynah still had not presented any of the reams of evidence that the president is an actor, and instead had managed to come out with

He is an actor. But so long as we're saying he's a good actor, it's fine.

He did come back to edit out

At least no one on this thread seems to be denying that the president is, in fact, an actor.

But as has been observed, it's off topic.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

I was about to point out that mynahmynah still had not presented any of the reams of evidence that the president is an actor, and instead had managed to come out with

He is an actor. But so long as we're saying he's a good actor, it's fine.

He did come back to edit out

At least no one on this thread seems to be denying that the president is, in fact, an actor.

But as has been observed, it's off topic.

To wit, some may mangle Shakespeare and reply that all the world's a stage, and we are all actors with parts to play. I feel my roll is more of an extra/walk on. I don't think the script even gave me any damn lines.