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

Status
Not open for further replies.

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
The following story from Infowars claims that Obama is basically a puppet president trained by Harry Lennix, who was recruited by shadowy figures to make Obama seem more presidential. However it seems to be entirely baseless, as Lennix flatly denies he said anything like that, and old video of Obama shows that he spoke the same, and had the same mannerisms as now, way back before he met Lennix.

http://www.infowars.com/mancow-muller-obama-is-an-actor-trained-by-harry-lennix/

Report: Obama is an Actor Trained by Harry Lennix

“This is an actor that we hired”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 15, 2013

During an appearance on the Alex Jones Show, Chicago radio host Eric ‘Mancow’ Muller revealed that actor Harry Lennix told him he was hired to train Obama how to look presidential by mimicking the actor’s demeanor and body language.

Lennix, who was born and grew up in Chicago, gave frequent lectures before he became an actor, while also teaching music and civics in the Chicago Public School system. Lennix is best known for his role in the recent Superman Man of Steel movie and his part as White House Chief of Staff in the ABC television series Commander in Chief.

Muller, who knew Obama in Chicago before he became president, said Lennix told him that, “He was the actor hired to teach Obama to be Harry Lennix – watch The Blacklist and you can see Obama – this is an actor that we hired in our president.”

“He’s leaving our studio and sees a cut-out of Obama and says ‘he’s a rat bastard’ – oh because I’m black I have to like Obama,” said Muller.

“He says, Mancow do I remind you of him?….Barack Obama is me, you’ve seen me on TV, you’ve seen me on movies, he is me.”

Mancow says Lennix told him, “He mimicked me, he followed me for years, and they wanted me to train him and teach him how to act….like a an educated south side African-American,” adding that Lennix thought Obama was “very stupid” and had “been taught to act like this.”
Content from External Source
In the following video, Lennix quite plainly denies the story (skip to around 1:50 for Lennix)

saying

  • "Those are not my words".
  • "I didn't train him".
  • "I never said those words".
  • "I never said that I trained him, or anything of the kind".
  • "You know, people hear what they want to hear, I have no idea".
  • "All I said is I don't like his policies".
Content from External Source
According to Mancow, Obama became acquainted with Lennix in 1992.

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



(At 6:30 in the below clip)


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.

[Admin: This OP has been updated with information from the thread below. Original OP content below]

This comes frrom the "Obama is not one of us" crowd.

I've never been to Chicago, but I notice people from different parts of the country and world tend to share accents and mannerisms with others from their respective regions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow - politicians get groomed for the media - who wuddathunkit??:rolleyes:

Actually, there is a bit more to it than that. Obama was an unknown quantity and skyrocketed to prominence on the strength of a single speech at the 2004 convention. He was touted as a comer and come he did and his attraction was superficial and based on his dignified, intelligent bearing. If that is all the product of packaging and grooming and taking lessons on how to "play one on tv," then it says a lot about the guy and more about the folks who fell for it, of which I am embarrassed to admit that I am one.
 
What does it tell you and why?

To me it says nothing more than grooming and training work, and that the techniques that people have spent billions studying for improving public perception work

why is this news??
 
Actually, there is a bit more to it than that. Obama was an unknown quantity and skyrocketed to prominence on the strength of a single speech at the 2004 convention. He was touted as a comer and come he did and his attraction was superficial and based on his dignified, intelligent bearing. If that is all the product of packaging and grooming and taking lessons on how to "play one on tv," then it says a lot about the guy and more about the folks who fell for it, of which I am embarrassed to admit that I am one.
There have been other presidents who have gone from obscurity to the presidency in short periods of time.


Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter to name a couple.
 
Last edited:
What does it tell you and why?

To me it says nothing more than grooming and training work, and that the techniques that people have spent billions studying for improving public perception work

why is this news??

Because in case you've missed it, the perception and the reality are light years apart and all the hope and change gloop has turned out to be pure contrivance and a swindle. Yes, it's politics as usual, so we got no one to blame but ourselves for swallowing this bunk yet again. But after thinking that there couldn't possibly be a level lower than GWB, it sucks to learn that this fraud is even worse.

That it says nothing to you than grooming and training and the investment of billions for the purpose of improving public perception work is telling. You essentially are saying that the whole process is a charade and that it backed by billions of dollars in making it work that way.

Some would call that a conspiracy, but they are deemed drivel based crazy people. Yet here you are saying it's not even newsworthy. Rabbit hole, ho.
 
Last edited:
And let's stick to verifiable facts here.

Mancow told Alex Jones that Harry Lennix told him that he did some kind of acting instruction with Obama.

Is there anything that can be verified beyond that?
 
Just looked at the available evidence:



Very weak.


Why? You just said the verifiable facts were that Mancow told Alex Jones that Harry Lennix told him that he did some kind of acting instruction with Obama.

Does this vid not support those facts? Does it present a different set of facts? What is weak about it?
 
Why? You just said the verifiable facts were that Mancow told Alex Jones that Harry Lennix told him that he did some kind of acting instruction with Obama.

Does this vid not support those facts? Does it present a different set of facts? What is weak about it?

It's weak because that's all it supports. There's no indication of what Lennix actually said, or how serious he was. There's a lot of setup there about how they hope it does not hurt Lennix (anticipating denials). There's lots of ancillary nonsense and speculation, like how Obama must be easily manipulable because his mother was supposedly in porn and he is supposedly really stupid. And a lot of general stuff about they already strongly believe that everything is fake.

In short, it looks like Mancow deliberately putting his spin on Lennix jokingly saying something like "That rat-bastard, I taught him everything he knows!", then talking about acting classes he gave Obama, and then Alex amplifying that spin.

Basically there is no evidence of anything here.
 
It's weak because that's all it supports. There's no indication of what Lennix actually said, or how serious he was. There's a lot of setup there about how they hope it does not hurt Lennix (anticipating denials). There's lots of ancillary nonsense and speculation, like how Obama must be easily manipulable because his mother was supposedly in porn and he is supposedly really stupid. And a lot of general stuff about they already strongly believe that everything is fake.

In short, it looks like Mancow deliberately putting his spin on Lennix jokingly saying something like "That rat-bastard, I taught him everything he knows!", then talking about acting classes he gave Obama, and then Alex amplifying that spin.

Basically there is no evidence of anything here.

There's nothing in what Watson said that is inaccurate, so there's no inaccuracy there, no tabloid stuff.

That being the case, you seem to be spinning this into ""Lennix jokingly saying" when nothing in the original report indicates he was joking, so this thing is whispering down the lane quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
More to the story....

Actor Lennix Coy On Claims He Trained Obama


“You’d have to ask him”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
November 18, 2013

Actor Harry Lennix reacted coyly to claims by Chicago radio host Eric ‘Mancow’ Muller that he trained Barack Obama to copy his mannerisms, denying the story as “hearsay,” yet cryptically adding, “you’d have to ask him.”

As we reported last week, Muller told the Alex Jones Show that Lennix – star of TV’s The Blacklist - reacted to seeing a cut out of Obama in Muller’s studio by proclaiming, “He mimicked me, he followed me for years, and they wanted me to train him and teach him how to act….like a an educated south side African-American.” Lennix added that he thought Obama was “very stupid” and had “been taught to act like this.”

Mancow’s producer Nathan also confirmed that he saw the conversation take place.

After an event at which Lennix appeared, a blogger asked the actor if the claims were true.

“Those are not my words,” said Lennix, who admitted he knew of the controversy, labeling the matter “hearsay.”

However, when asked, “Did Obama train to be like you or is that not true?,” Lennix coyly responded, “You’d have to ask him.”

“I knew him a long time….I have no idea what he did,” added Lennix, who was obviously being guarded with his words.




Image: Harry Lennix with Eric ‘Mancow’ Muller at Muller’s Fox News studio in Chicago last week.

“I don’t like Barack Obama or his policies but I never said I trained him or anything of the kind,” added Lennix, who said he heard of the controversy surrounding the interview but not the interview itself.

Whereas Lennix was reportedly more candid with Muller – calling Obama a “rat bastard” – in the clip above he admits only to not being a supporter of the president.

Lennix’s body language and demeanor is remarkably similar to Barack Obama’s, which is why many have called for Lennix to play the president in a biopic. The actor has also been pictured with Obama in numerous photos.

However, the fact that Lennix reportedly turned down such a role suggests that he is aware of the irony of playing a character who mimics his own behavior – meaning Lennix would essentially be playing himself.

Watch the original interview with ‘Mancow’ Muller below, during which he outlines what Lennix reportedly told him about training Obama to act presidential.
Content from External Source
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's nothing in what Watson said that is inaccurate, so there's no inaccuracy there, now tabloid stuff.

That being the case, you seem to be spinning this into ""Lennix jokingly saying" when nothing in the original report indicates he was joking, so this thing is whispering down the lane quite nicely.


I can think of one thing that is inaccurate.

The headline in the first article. Report: Obama is an Actor Trained by Harry Lennix

That's misleading right off the bat, a REAL journalist would never write that kind of headline. It should have been something more along the lines of "Radio Personality Claims Obama is an Actor". The duty of a journalist is to look for facts, not hearsay.
 
Lennix: "Those are not my words". "I didn't train him". "I never said those words". "I never said that I trained him, or anything of the kind".

"You know, people hear what they want to hear, I have no idea".

"All I said is I don't like his policies".

Case closed?
 
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...

Just suggesting that he is coyly denying it seems like a stretch. Lennix was very polite and professional during the entire incident despite being repeatedly pestered about the allegations.


The whole thing just seems weird. Mancow makes these claims about Lennix training Obama, and Lennix denies those claims.

Now if Lennix was 'afraid' why would he even reveal something like that and if Mancow valued his relationship with Lennix (whatever that might be) why would he run right to Alex Jones and tell the story on his show?

I don't know Mancow, but Alex Jones and infowars have a reputation for dishonesty, and its really hard to swallow something this weak coming from them.
 
I can think of one thing that is inaccurate.

The headline in the first article. Report: Obama is an Actor Trained by Harry Lennix

That's misleading right off the bat, a REAL journalist would never write that kind of headline. It should have been something more along the lines of "Radio Personality Claims Obama is an Actor". The duty of a journalist is to look for facts, not hearsay.

REAL journalists don't write headlines, period.

However, if your definition of the duty of a journalist is the bar, as I believe it should be, you just wiped out most of the msm and certainly the WH press pool. They are far closer to stenographers than journalists.
 
This thread illustrates why I don't believe anything coming out of infowars. They are like a stopped clock; you need another clock to make sure they are right. At that point, why not rely on that other clock?
Alex Jones CONSTANTLY misleads his audience with sooooooper incendiary headlines guaranteed to get traffic to that story. He's just another incarnation of PT Barnum with a circus and hokum to get people to him. Who wouldn't want to see the Bearded Lady or Lizard Boy or others? Only you get there, and it's a fat bearded guy in a dress and a kid with a bad skin rash.
Like another example is when he tried to spin authorities citing some lady for violating civil code about the height of weeds in her front yard as some nefarious UN Agenda 21 plot to enslave the whole world.
 
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pseudojournalism.1890/
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

  • — Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
  • — Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
  • — Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
  • — Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
  • — Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
  • — Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
  • — Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
  • — Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
  • — Never plagiarize.
  • — Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
  • — Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
  • — Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
  • — Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
  • — Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
  • — Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
  • — Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
  • — Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
That would be a good thing though, considering a stenographer's job is to write down exact words. Would you prefer they misquoted and spun people's words?

Yeah, I think it's a great idea that the press just writes down what the WH press secretary says and calls it news.
 
This thread illustrates why I don't believe anything coming out of infowars. They are like a stopped clock; you need another clock to make sure they are right. At that point, why not rely on that other clock?
Alex Jones CONSTANTLY misleads his audience with sooooooper incendiary headlines guaranteed to get traffic to that story. He's just another incarnation of PT Barnum with a circus and hokum to get people to him. Who wouldn't want to see the Bearded Lady or Lizard Boy or others? Only you get there, and it's a fat bearded guy in a dress and a kid with a bad skin rash.
Like another example is when he tried to in authorities citing some lady for violating civil code about the height of weeds in her front yard as some nefarious UN Agenda 21 plot to enslave the whole world.

Prison Planet/Info Wars is far from a perfect site, but the idea that everything they put up is not to be trusted is ludicrous and shows a lack of discrimination. Regardless of what source one goes to, checking up on what is put forth is necessary.

The rest of your post is overheated bunk. All sites drive traffic based on their audience. PP has nothing on Huffpo or countless others in that regard. I'm not a fan of hype and no fan of PP hype any more than Huffpo hype or any other. It all goes back to discrimination. Sifting is required.

The idea that PP is somehow a special case of bad is nothing more than preaching to a choir that wants to believe such bunk and the idea that it is less trustworthy than msm sources is curious. MSNBC alone should dispel such a rumor. Talk about spinning to beat the band.

The choir is getting smaller. MSM is in decline and alternative media is on the rise to fill the void. It's not something you can blame on that boogeyman AJ.
 
Actually, there is a bit more to it than that. Obama was an unknown quantity and skyrocketed to prominence on the strength of a single speech at the 2004 convention. He was touted as a comer and come he did and his attraction was superficial and based on his dignified, intelligent bearing. If that is all the product of packaging and grooming and taking lessons on how to "play one on tv," then it says a lot about the guy and more about the folks who fell for it, of which I am embarrassed to admit that I am one.

If only they had made "The King's Speech" a decade earlier, eh?
 
From what I gather, he's still considerably less hated than Bush, but that's one very high bar. The relentless persecution of whistle blowers, the upsurge in drone strikes, the rather dubious attempt to get involved in the Syrian situation; none of these have painted him as particularly better than his predecessor. Still, he does speak rather well, and that godawful smirk that GW could never quite hide is a thing of the past. He'd probably have fallen a bit further if he didn't have to contend with the tea-bagging lunatics in congress. When Europeans read the stuff they come out with, well ... you can guess the rest.
 
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...

Just suggesting that he is coyly denying it seems like a stretch. Lennix was very polite and professional during the entire incident despite being repeatedly pestered about the allegations.


The whole thing just seems weird. Mancow makes these claims about Lennix training Obama, and Lennix denies those claims.

Now if Lennix was 'afraid' why would he even reveal something like that and if Mancow valued his relationship with Lennix (whatever that might be) why would he run right to Alex Jones and tell the story on his show?

I don't know Mancow, but Alex Jones and infowars have a reputation for dishonesty, and its really hard to swallow something this weak coming from them.


Virtually every Infowars story has a built in disclaimer, but I tend to doubt that Infowars fans actually read the articles. Instead, they jump right to the comments in hopes of being the first to shout "false flag".

Case in point, the conspiracy theory of Andrew Breitbarts death. In the very first paragraph, it's was stated that a coroner "who may..." have been involved with Brietbarts death had mysteriously died. The operative word is "may", but, apparently those 3 little words were ignored. The reality is that the coroner had nothing to do with Breitbart, and only happened to work in the same large office building. But, to this day, and similar death prompts infowars fans to call it being "Breitbarted".
 
In short, it looks like Mancow deliberately putting his spin on Lennix jokingly saying something like "That rat-bastard, I taught him everything he knows!", then talking about acting classes he gave Obama, and then Alex amplifying that spin.

Basically there is no evidence of anything here.

Even if that report could serve as evidence that the entertainer in chief is an actor, it probably wouldn't be a big deal worth "reporting" on or seeing as evidence of something from your perspective. What would evidence that the president is an actor look like to you?

Because it seems to me like there are reams of evidence that he is an actor, usually more concerned about the ratings/polls and reviews of his performances on the political stage or with fundraising for the next show than with what's actually going on in reality and so forth.

On the other hand, even if there is almost no evidence in this specific report of exactly how the process of grooming, handling and training an entertainer in chief takes place... it would probably still be a big apocalyptic deal from Jones' perspective. No surprise there. But if the big picture clearly shows that the president is, in fact, quite similar to an actor on the political stage then Jones' perspective is closer to the truth than his "debunker."

I wish that Infowars would do a better job and investigate or interview the actual people responsible for producing the show and handling the entertainer in chief. After all, their overall perspective is clearly closer to the truth than the "please tell me your favorite color"/corporate media or the "nothing to see here because Jonestown is crazy, no evidence of anything at all..."/debunkers of Jones.
 
Prison Planet/Info Wars is far from a perfect site, but the idea that everything they put up is not to be trusted is ludicrous and shows a lack of discrimination. Regardless of what source one goes to, checking up on what is put forth is necessary.

The rest of your post is overheated bunk. All sites drive traffic based on their audience. PP has nothing on Huffpo or countless others in that regard. I'm not a fan of hype and no fan of PP hype any more than Huffpo hype or any other. It all goes back to discrimination. Sifting is required.

The idea that PP is somehow a special case of bad is nothing more than preaching to a choir that wants to believe such bunk and the idea that it is less trustworthy than msm sources is curious. MSNBC alone should dispel such a rumor. Talk about spinning to beat the band.

The choir is getting smaller. MSM is in decline and alternative media is on the rise to fill the void. It's not something you can blame on that boogeyman AJ.

I think you are illustrating the reality that people don't know what the difference between news, opinion, and propaganda are. In my opinion, the Alex Jones websites are the farthest thing from the news possible. It's just political/ideology based tabloid journalism, which exists only because it's audience exists. AJ knows how to make money off of his fans. PT Barnum would have been proud of him.
 
Virtually every Infowars story has a built in disclaimer....

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.
 
Because it seems to me like there are reams of evidence that he is an actor, usually more concerned about the ratings/polls and reviews of his performances on the political stage or with fundraising for the next show than with what's actually going on in reality and so forth.

Reams. That's quite a lot, isn't it? Don't suppose you'd care to share some of the reams of evidence that the US president is an actor?
 
Because it seems to me like there are reams of evidence that he is an actor, usually more concerned about the ratings/polls and reviews of his performances on the political stage or with fundraising for the next show than with what's actually going on in reality and so forth.
That would make him a modern politician.
 
I think you are illustrating the reality that people don't know what the difference between news, opinion, and propaganda are.
In my opinion, the Alex Jones websites are the farthest thing from the news possible. It's just political/ideology based tabloid journalism, which exists only because it's audience exists. AJ knows how to make money off of his fans. PT Barnum would have been proud of him.

So yet again, you just blather on with emotive mush. You haven't been able to back up anything with substance of any kind. This is bunk. If you think I am illustrating anything, quit telling me so and start showing me. The only reason I got in this thread is because you jumped on here with a blanket assertion you didn't bother to substantiate. You still haven't been able to do so. Just more of how you feel.

I drop by PP to see what is going on re stuff the msm isn't going to bother with. I see something I am interested in learning about, I go and check for other sources. I sift out whatever editorializing and go from there. I never, ever bother with the comments because when I did drop down there a few times early on, I found too many people making the same kind of sweeping, empty assertions that you are making here, just aimed in a different direction. I don't like that sort of herd mentality regardless of where it comes from. It's as odious there as it is here.
 
Last edited:
I think you are illustrating the reality that people don't know what the difference between news, opinion, and propaganda are. In my opinion, the Alex Jones websites are the farthest thing from the news possible.

You seem to be saying that people are like sheeple.

It's just political/ideology based tabloid journalism...

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top