#obama farewell speech

[the-empress-7]

was it here where there was an anon who made a post about how harry is the biggest red flag of all red flags and this was from their experience from a defense background? if so may i ask if anon could give insight on what they thought on angle of why the heck did the obamas get a chopper into wc, driven back to wc by pp, get invite to kp drawing room, meet pg & why the heck was ph there 5th wheeling like no other? loveshield notice was issued when trump won 11.8.16. all happened in 2016

That was me! (That submission was to @honeytothebee and it went all over tumblr from there.) Apologies in advance; this is going to be a long one. Grab yourself a cuppa, make some dinner, get some wine, and strap in.

I liken the situation with Harry to the situation with Hunter Biden. Like Harry, Hunter has always been a mess and also like Harry, he and his family kept his mess well-hidden. (But also like Harry, if you knew where to look then you knew what Hunter’s skeletons were and where they were buried.) That is, the messes were well-hidden until A Thing happened. Before The Thing, there were leaks and rumors and one-offs, but they were all mostly blown off by the general public because of the shine from their families; the royal family in Harry’s case, the Biden-Obama Administration in Hunter’s case.

A Thing happened to Hunter and A Thing happened to Harry, and they lost control of the messes. Look at everything we know about them now that we didn’t know before these Things happened. Hunter’s Thing was his brother’s cancer (Beau was diagnosed in 2013 and died from it in 2015. Hunter first went off the rails publicly in 2013). Harry’s Thing was Meghan moving in in late 2017. In both instances, both men lost their stable family relationships to an external disruptor; Hunter – cancer, Harry – wife. Then there was a very messy handful of years. Harry’s still in the thick of it. Hunter, however, seems to have come out onto the other side now, (And to be perfectly candid, I can see the royal family looking at the Bidens’ success in rehabilitating Hunter as a model for how they might rehabilitate Harry if/when the time comes. However, like Hunter is to Joe, Harry will always be the albatross around Charles’s and William’s necks because of the damage he wrought during these messy years.)

Okay, so let’s dig into anon’s question. First I’ll share a whole lot of context for the Obamas’ visit in 2016 because it feeds into why Harry was at the dinner, then I’ll get into some more commentary about Harry’s red flags.

So first, why did the Obamas go to the UK in 2016? Officially because it’s tradition for a two-term POTUS to get a farewell tour their last year in office and these “farewell tours” almost always include a stopover in the UK for a visit with The Queen. Sometimes it’s a state dinner, sometimes it’s a private visit. Unofficially, because of Brexit, whose referendum was in June 2016. PM Cameron’s establishment were remainers. So was the American establishment. The Obamas were brought over in April 2016 to help Cameron with the campaign to remain. And during their visit, Obama gave a speech or made remarks that basically told the Brits “if you Brexit, see ya. EU comes first.” It was a not-subtle declaration that the UK/US special relationship as everyone knew it would be over if Britain left the EU which Cameron, and The Queen on Cameron's behalf, did not want happening.

Second, why did the Obamas get such special treatment from the royal family? Because they had a genuine friendship (which both Obamas confirmed in their books) and it wasn’t an official state visit. When the royals have a genuine friendship with a foreign head of state, they tend to be more informal and personal and when it isn’t an official visit, the whole mood is more relaxed. Prince Philip picking the Obamas up from the helicopter himself is the royal equivalent of you picking your friend up from the airport.

Third, if it wasn’t an official state visit, why did the Obamas get a private audience and dinner at KP? Because it was a symbolic passing of the torch. We know now that 2016ish was when William started being more closely mentored by The Queen. One of the duties as King/Queen is to host and entertain foreign heads of state, officially and privately. William and Catherine had been part of the official visits for some time, but they never had been involved in a private visit. It was thought that the Obamas were a safe, comfortable choice for William and Catherine to begin flexing those diplomatic muscles; William, Harry, Barack, and Michelle were said to be close and friendly (as one could be in that situation) so the evening was justified as a special meeting between friends, which would avoid setting a precedent and an expectation for the then-Cambridges to host every foreign head of state that visited privately.

Fourth, why was Harry at that dinner? Because he had the closer relationship with Michelle than Catherine did. Harry and Michelle have worked together on several initiatives over the Obamas’ time in office to support veterans and military families, including the Wounded Warrior Games and Invictus Games. And, William, Catherine, and Harry were still very much The Trio in April 2016. They were a package deal and, frankly, Harry wasn’t the security risk then that he is now. (Timing wise, remember that Heads Together, the pinnacle of their trio-ness, launched in May 2016.)

So now the defense stuff/red flags and insider threat commentary.

In April 2016, Harry wasn’t a public risk. The only two red flags he had then were 1) he was a high profile public individual and 2) he traveled often. Where the government was concerned, he had a slightly higher risk than William because of his time in Afghanistan. (Pause for an aside: government and military are very separate things. The military reports to the government but the military doesn’t always tell the government everything. I suspect it’s the same way in the UK.) Where the military was concerned, Harry was an enormous risk but he wasn’t their problem anymore since he had separated in 2015. Where the royal family was concerned, Harry did have problems – anger issues, the “confirmed kills” comment, and lingering trauma from Diana’s death – but those issues were counterbalanced by these stabilizing forces: his home life/relationships with his family, he was in therapy and on medication that worked, and he found meaning and purpose in his work.

But publicly? As far as the public knew, Harry wasn’t a problem. And the royal family banked on that. They bet the house that Harry’s public reputation and his popularity would keep him in line. Since Harry’s work was a big part of the counterbalance against his demons, the royal family knew that as long as he found his work meaningful and purposeful, he would tow the line. That’s why he got so much that was equal to William and Catherine.

Harry met Meghan in July 2016 and then later issued the love shield in November 2016. But neither of these really did anything to Harry’s risk assessment. Publicly it added a third red flag: high-profile public girlfriend to whom, the love shield made clear, if anything happened Harry could be easily exploited and manipulated. But Harry was still largely under the control and influence of the royal family. Even though he was spending a lot of time with Meghan, it was still a long distance relationship where Meghan went home to Toronto and Harry went home to London. And when Harry was in London without Meghan, he always went back into the royal enclave and was the Good Lad Hal the general public knew him to be.

(Aside: That is another reason why Meghan knew it was important to get Harry alone and by himself. She probably pegged him from early on – sorry, pun unintended – as someone whose personality, behavior, and attitude were influenced by whoever he is with. As long as he was around the royals, he would still be their darling boy. To get him angry, resentful, and jealous enough to “see” her side, she had to make it impossible for Harry to see them or be around them. I suspect this is why she was so eager to spend the summer at that rental in the Cotswolds – away from his friends in London and the Cambridges in Norfolk – and didn’t mind moving to Windsor. They were placeholders that separated him from his family before she could spring moving overseas on him.)

Harry’s red flags didn’t become a problem until Meghan moved in with him in late 2017 and it disrupted Harry’s status quo. He is not someone who can tolerate change (Spare makes that very clear - if Harry is not in charge of change, he cannot handle it, which is also another red flag on its own). Once Meghan moved in with him, all those stabilizing counterforces that mitigated Harry’s risks were eliminated, one by one. She disrupted his relationship with Catherine. She exploited his trauma from Diana. She got him off his medications. She got him away from his therapist and into woo-woo California alternative lifestyles. She built a wall between him and William. She cancelled his friends. But he still wasn’t that much of a security risk to the royal family because Harry still had his public reputation and that was the only change he likely cared about. As far as the public was concerned, he was still a low security risk. I would argue that Harry’s risk as an insider threat didn’t start escalating internally until late 2018, after the Australia tour. This is when Meghan started damaging his public reputation. And once Harry’s public reputation began to slide, they lost total control over Harry and the red flags began piling up. Because that was the one change Harry didn't want and hadn't expected Meghan to evoke. She promised him change for the better, but look at him now (then): changed for the worst and declining.

The thing about insider threats, and espionage in general, is that what makes them so dangerous is that you don’t know what damage they’ve done until long after it’s happened. Forget about the horse bolting out of the barn. By the time an insider threat is discovered, the horse has already jumped onto a freight train and is over international borders. Despite all the warning signs that we’re trained to watch for and observe, a good insider threat – much like a good spy – will go undetected for a long time. Till A Thing happens that blows their cover. Someone gets suspicious (William having Meghan’s number from the start), there’s a whistleblower or a turncoat (Jason’s letter to Simon Case about the bullying), they get sloppy (Waity Katy, 2018 edition), they don’t cover their tracks as well (5 People friends), their stories become inconsistent (*waves hand at everything*), their equilibrium gets rocked (William kicking them out of KP).

What makes Harry particularly dangerous and nefarious is how well his red flags were hidden from the public. It’s one thing for the government, the military, and the head of state to know about an individual’s risk assessment – that’s their job. They keep these things hidden from the public as “matters of national security” because if the truth really were to come out, it threatens the public’s trust in their institutions. And Harry’s red flags were so well hidden from the public that when they all came out, and they all came out in rapid succession one after another after another, it absolutely shook the public’s trust in the institution. Just look at the conversations we are having this week: should he be allowed at the coronation? Is Charles an effective King? Why can’t they control him? Why aren’t they responding? Why aren’t they correcting the lies? Why can’t they tell us what the truth is? What even is the truth anymore? Should we believe them when they say it’s the truth? Why can’t Charles end this once and for all? WHAT IS HE WAITING FOR?! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS RECONCILIATION SHIT?

Well, this is the stuff that nurtures rebellion, dissent, and revolution. That Charles is missing the forest (his country) for the trees (his darling boy), it’s long past time for the government to step in. I’ve said this before but this is a perfect gift to Sunak. Be the bad guy, kick Harry out of the coronation, and maybe the public will remember this too next time at the polls, not just your scandals like the cost of living crisis and the mail/rail/NHS strike.

If this was an espionage movie – say, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – this is the chase scene. The spy is stuck. His cover his blown. The enemy is closing in. His girl is gone and oh, by the way, she emptied his safe and stole his passport while he was sleeping. Does his handler intervene to help him escape? Does the enemy get him? Or does he turn out to be a double-agent who gets a hero’s welcome and a victory parade on his return home? In other words, does Charles rescue Harry and invite him to the coronation? Or does Charles leave Harry to suffer the consequences of his actions and lets the government block him from the coronation? Or does Harry flip on Meghan and expose her skeletons to protect himself?

Because that’s the other power of an insider threat with as many red flags as Harry’s got. Whether the insider threat realizes it or not, there’s always someone worse off than they are. And they always offer that person up in exchange for their freedom. That’s why Spare is so potent. Harry knows and understands there are threats against him, but he doesn’t understand that it’s coming from inside the house. He thinks the threat is William and Charles, which is why he attacks them in Spare and why he’s blackmailing them with Spare 2. He does not yet realize that the threat is Meghan. But Meghan does. She knows that her problems are taken care of if/when Harry becomes the bigger, more dangerous, threat and target. That’s why I feel she is keeping a low profile now. His red flags are finally bigger than hers.

But long story short – Harry wasn’t the same kind of threat and didn’t have the same red flags in April 2016 so he was included in the Obama visit. It probably would have been more of a public relations disaster for him to be excluded from the visit given how high his popularity was and how globally well-known his friendship with Michelle was over their mutual interest in supporting veterans and military families.

If Harry was the same threat in April 2016 with the same red flags that he has now, he absolutely would not have been part of the Obama visit. And I don’t even think there would have been a private audience/dinner at KP. It would have just been the private lunch at Windsor Castle with The Queen and Prince Philip. Any other meetings the Obamas had with any of the other royals, William and Catherine included, wouldn’t have been publicized till after the fact or it would have just been William meeting with Barack for 10 minutes (the way William met with Joe at Earthshot).

Because the bottom line is it wouldn’t have been just the UK concerned about Harry’s red flags, the US would have been concerned as well. And given the state of affairs in 2016, to paraphrase Disney – the UK needed the US more than the US needed the UK because of Brexit. If the Americans had concerns about Harry being in a meeting with Obama, the Queen would have blocked Harry’s involvement because she understood the UK needs our special relationship to survive Brexit. (And that is why we got all those royals coming to the US last year after The Queen’s funeral. I think it was within the span of four weeks, we had visits from Anne, Sophie, The Duke of Gloucester, William’s UN visit that turned into a virtual speech, and later, Earthshot.)

This deserves a standing ovation. I agree with your assessment which is deeply insightful and thoroughly well rounded. A huge thank you to you for sending this in.

In the end, it all comes down to the special relationship between US and UK. As of right now, Charles risks not only losing his own public's support but that of the UK's closest ally as well. Washington is watching, by the same token so are our joint enemies. If a Head of State is too inept to handle treasonous son, it creates beaucoup opportunities for those who loathe democracies. Charles might as well post a sign outside of BP saying "Here are all the chinks in my armor, aim your arrows this way".

[absolute-immunities]

Larry Tribe’s 2005 farewell to the treatise lifts the line from Barack Obama’s 2004 DNC speech and somehow makes it even hammier:

bad

[mixtapemag]

2023 OBAMA FOUNDATION DEMOCRACY FORUM.

Photos by Christopher Hall.

On the eve of the 15th anniversary of his first presidential election, President Barack Obama and the Obama Foundation convened the 2023 Democracy Forum in Chicago.

This year's Democracy Forum explored the issues critical to strengthening democracy worldwide. The Democracy Forum focused on four pillars identified by President Obama as areas to strengthen democracy including 1) Detoxifying our discourse, 2) Developing models for a more sustainable and inclusive system of capitalism, 3) Revitalizing our institutions so that people believe participation is worth the effort, and 4) Building democratic culture. 

President Obama's remarks

Following the Forum, the Obama Foundation hosted a celebration with alumni of President Obama’s campaigns and Administration to celebrate the 15th anniversary of President Obama’s 2008 election and his victory speech in Grant Park. The celebration included remarks by former First Lady Obama, Jen Psaki and Kal Penn in addition to a performance by Jon Batiste and a live taping of Crooked Media’s Pod Save America with President Obama. 

You can watch the 2023 Democracy Forum in its entirety below and read more about the Obama Foundation and the Democracy Forum over here.

Previously on Mixtape:

Photos from the 2022 Obama Foundation Democracy Forum.

Photos of President Obama Campaigning for Gov. Phil Murphy.

Photos of President Obama Campaigning for Wisconsin Democrats.

Photos of the Inaugural Obama Summit.

Photos of President Obama's Farewell Address to the Nation.

Photos of President Obama and Prime Minster Renzi's Joint Press Conference in The Rose Garden of The White House.

Photos of President Obama Departing Chicago, IL on Air Force One.

Photos of Secretary Hillary Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama's Campaign Rally in Winston-Salem, NC.

[suchananewsblog]

James Corden speaks of a 'divided America' in goodbye to 'Late Late Show'

James Corden used part of his farewell speech on Thursday’s final episode of CBS‘ ” The Late Late Show” to address the deep rift in America over hot button issues including politics and ideology. “We started this show with Obama, then Trump and a global pandemic. I’ve watched America change a lot. I’ve watched divisions grow and I’ve felt a sense of negativity boil over,” said the host. He…

[bestooair]

The Last Speech Of As USA President Barack Obama || Farewell ||

#usa #president #barackobama #bestoo #speech The Last Speech Of As USA President Barack Obama || Farewell || #shorts #trending #trendingshorts #friendship #brother #like #share #subscribe #views #watch #youtubeshorts #instagram #facebook #viral #movie #hollywood #obemenoticia #politics #trendingshorts #trend

[mossyoak78552]

An article in Newsweek on Trump's claims about Veterans 1-20-21

Fact Check: Did President Trump Pass the VA Choice Act, as He Says?

In his final days in office, President Donald Trump made several speeches highlighting the achievements of his presidency. Trump gave a final speech at Joint Base Andrews after leaving the White House for the final time Wednesday morning prior to the inauguration.

The Claim

During a taped farewell address Tuesday, Trump boasted his accomplishments in health care and claimed credit for the passage of the VA Choice Act.

"We passed VA Choice, VA Accountability, Right to Try, and landmark criminal justice reform," Trump said.

On Wednesday, he added, "We took care of the vets, 91 percent approval rating. They've never had that before the vets have given us the VA. The vets have given us an approval rating like it has never been before. We took care of our vets and our beautiful vets, they were very badly treated before we came along. And as you know, we get them great service and we pick up the bill and they can go out and they can see a doctor if they have to wait long periods of time."

The Facts

The VA Choice Act, or the Veterans Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act, was passed in 2014 under President Barack Obama.

According to The Hill, the bipartisan bill expanded the number of options veterans have for receiving care and granted the United States Secretary of Veteran Affairs more power to fire executives. It included "choice cards" for veterans to see non-VA providers if they could not get appointments with the agency within 30 days or live more than 40 miles from a clinic and added nearly $500 million for hiring additional nurses and doctors. Senators Bernie Sanders and John McCain were the main architects of the legislation.

The bill came after the major VA scandal in which VA staff had been instructed to falsify their waiting lists to cover up lone wait times for basic care. The issue was especially prevalent at the VA medical center in Phoenix, where veterans waited 115 days on average for an initial primary care appointment, according to an interim independent report by the VA's inspector general at the time.

In June 2018, Trump signed the Mission Act, which made it easier for veterans to seek private care. This was an update of the VA Choice Act and consolidated the existing health care programs under the Veteran Affairs Department into one central program. This measure expanded the eligibility requirements for private care based on certain criteria so that veterans are able to seek a non-VA doctor if their VA wait is 20 days, if they live 30 minutes away from the nearest VA facility or if "a veteran and the veteran's referring clinician agree that furnishing care or services in the community would be in the best medical interest of the veteran," according to the New York Times.

According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, an additional 640,000 veterans each year will seek care outside the VA system, and the legislation requires VA to negotiate a contract for veterans to seek care at private walk-in clinics.

Trump repeatedly has claimed credit for passing the VA Choice Act. According to the Washington Post, Trump has mentioned some version of his VA Choice Act mistruth more than 156 times.

While speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in 2018, Trump conflated the act passed under Obama and the Mission Act expansion.

"We passed Veterans Choice, the biggest thing ever, the biggest thing. That's got to be the biggest improvement you can have. So now, if you can't get treatment that you need in a timely manner—people used to wait two weeks, three weeks, eight weeks, they couldn't get to a doctor—you will have the right to see a private doctor immediately and we will pay for it," he said.

More recently, Trump began to distinguish the two pieces of legislation in a way that disparaged Obama's version and bolstered his update.

"For more than 45 years, they were trying to get Choice," Trump said in a video posted on his personal Twitter account. "Obama gave you a weak version that didn't work. It was a joke. I gave you the Mission Act, which is phenomenal, and it's worked out fantastically well."

However, Trump returned to taking credit for the Choice Act shortly before the 2020 presidential election.

"And for our great veterans, we passed VA Choice and VA Accountability," Trump said at an event in Erie, Pennsylvania.

His press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, also cited false statistics about when the update was signed.

"After finding in 2015 that as many as 307,000 veterans could have died waiting for care on Obama and Biden's watch, another 2017 VA Inspector General report found that President Obama created 'several barriers' to veterans receiving outside care," McEnany wrote in a statement. "President Trump fixed Obama's broken VA and offered actual, permanent choice to millions of veterans."

The Ruling

False.

Trump falsely took credit for passing the VA Choice Act several times during his term in office. The Choice Act was passed under Obama. Trump passed an update and expansion of that bill known as the Mission Act in 2018.

I'll expand on the way Trump has treated Veterans. Because of his hatred for John McCain, he has stated numerous times that John McCain isn't/wasn't a hero. Everyone knows that McCain was captured and tortured by the Viet Cong and spent years in prison. Trump told people that he doesn't like people who get caught. Trump's Daddy bought him a "Fake" deferment for bone spurs so he wouldn't have to go fight in Viet Nam while the rest of us got drafted because our Daddies weren't rich enough to buy us a deferment.

FUCK TRUMP! and FUCK YOU!

Stop flirting with me. I’m not gonna date you.

[tittagolf]

Red herring fallacy in animal farm

Legal disclaimer: The interdisciplinary Marie Curie CogNovo program has been intentionally designed by the European Union and the University of Plymouth (United Kingdom) to discuss and disseminate a wide view on a diverse spectrum of topics including psychology, neuroscience, current affairs, basic science, humanities, and the arts, inter alia. → Primary goals of research and innovation policy as defined by the European Comission: Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World. The project was funded by the EU Marie Curie Initial Training Network FP7-PEOPLE-20164 Germann (PhD, MSc, BSc, Marie Curie Alumnus) URL: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. §Dataprotection according to GDPR Digital cryptocurrency donations to support (BTC): or alternatively via PayPal The "conspiracy meme" as a linguistic tool for memetic hegemony.Pictorial sedation for the public mind: Merkel & Obama at G7.Bertrand Russel on education and freedom of thought.The Age of Acquiescence: The Life and Death of American Resistance to Organized Wealth and Power.David Hume – “Essays Moral, Political, Literary” (1777).State Terrorism as a tool for social control.The next million years by Charles Galton Darwin.Tavistock institute for human relations.Orwell’s unpublished preface to Animal Farm.Metacognition – Thinking about thinking.Hieronymus Bosch – Sleights of hand, sleights of mind.Genetic factors involved in psychopathy.Fractional Reserve Banking as Economic Parasitism.Eisenhower Farewell Address – ‘Military Industrial Complex’ Darwin-Huxley-Garlton-Wedgewood ‘s genealogy.Aldous Huxley – The Ultimate Revolution (Berkeley Speech 1962).Effect of electromagnetic radiation from cell phone usage on various human systems.The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

[jmreyes9]

 VISITING NELSON MANDELA’S PRISON CELL IN SOUTH AFRICA

By Jesse Reyes

          On Dec. 10, 2013, a memorial service was held in Johannesburg, South Africa for Nelson Mandela, world-renowned liberator of the people of South Africa, a worldwide symbol of an indomitable human spirit.  Hundreds of heads of state from all over the world, including US President Obama and 3 former U.S. presidents (George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter), congregated for the celebration of Mandela’s life.  In his eulogy, Obama waxed eloquent and stated that Mandela “would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations....reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done…understood the ties that bind the human spirit.”  At the end of his speech, Obama quoted the poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley, the words that gave Mandela comfort in his prison cell: 

          “It matters not how strait the gate,

          How charged with punishments the scroll,

          I am the master of my fate;

          I am the captain of my soul.” 

           When I went to Cape Town, South Africa in 2006 to attend the World Congress of Radiology, I took a tour of Robben island, about 7 miles west of Cape Town on the Atlantic. Here I saw first hand the prison, dubbed as the “Alcatraz of South Africa,” where Mandela spent 18 of his 27 years of incarceration as a political prisoner for plotting to overthrow South Africa’s racist apartheid government system.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 

          We were led to his cell, 2 square meters (yards) in size with a concrete floor. There was no bed or other furniture. He slept on a mat.  All he had for a toilet was a bucket which he would empty everyday.  It was in this cell that he would secretly write at night what would become the basis for his memoir, “Long Walk to Freedom.” (I am reminded of Jose Rizal, national hero of the Philippines, writing his  “Mi Ultimo Adios,”-–“My Last Farewell”, in his prison cell the night before he was to be executed by a firing squad.)

            Food in prison was meager.  They were allowed only two letters a year.  There was a room in the prison where the prisoners were notified of important news about their family.  Mandela was called there only twice—once when notified of the death of one of his sons and the other when his mother died.  He was not allowed to attend the funeral of either one.

            They then took us to slightly bigger rooms where the prisoners would eat and also hold classes, Mandela being their teacher.  He felt a great reverence for education.  His  leadership was legendary and his tolerance was outstanding.  He encouraged others at the prison to study and take correspondence courses.  The prisoners would form small groups for Socratic seminars. Lionel Davis, a fellow prisoner, called the jail “The University of Robben Island.”  The prisoners even helped educate the prison guards, who needed education so they could be promoted.  For Mandela, “education was the enemy of prejudice,” the prison guards being white and the prisoners mostly black.

             Outside the prison, we rode a bus that took us to the limestone quarry.  For 12 years Mandela worked everyday in the quarry and as a result, developed permanent vision and lung problems which caused him trouble for the rest of his life.  Flash pictures of Mandela are not allowed because of his visual problems.  By the time he left the prison, he had forgotten some of the daily routines such as tying his shoe, because shoelaces were banned in prison. 

          Within the confines of the prison, Mandela was successful in elevating his status of an inmate by building meaningful relations with the prison guards, at first to improve the conditions for the prisoners and then later on to make the necessary negotiations to put an end to apartheid. The jailers were hoping to break the spirit of the political prisoners but were not successful.  The white rulers in the apartheid government, after being subjected to international boycotts and sanctions gave in and reached out to Mandela to negotiate an exit.  Although limited by the prison walls for what seemed like eternity, his dream of having a free and democratic South Africa remained entrenched in his mind until the day that it became sweet reality.

               So in 1994, after successful negotiations that led to the end of apartheid, Mandela was elected president of South Africa, the first black executive of this country.  It was indeed a “Long Walk to Freedom” (the title of his book—his autobiography).  The hardship he had endured in prison had now been greatly rewarded. 

          About 2000 years ago, there was another man who endured the embarrassing ridicule, the pain and agony from the merciless lashes of the whips on his back, blood dripping from his forehead from a crown of thorns which had been mockingly placed on his head and finally being nailed to the cross, a Roman soldier piercing his side with a spear.  He died a shameful death on the cross, a punishment rendered to only the worst of criminals, so that we may gain freedom from the slavery of sin.  His name is Jesus, our Savior and our Redeemer.

The lessons learned here are:

Never give up your dream. With sheer persistence and belief in yourself, and with God’s help, even against all odds, you will achieve your goal.

Always strive to learn and keep your mind sharp.

Have a positive attitude in everything you do or plan.

Never forget Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary.  He died for you and for me.

Revised on 7/21/20 in Chicago, IL. Originally written on Dec. 10/2014 posted on FB 7/21/20 published in Cyberlink Aug. 2020.

[shannonvallecillo]

Barack obama's final speech five valuable lessons for communicators : a critical discourse analysis of the obama administration's

: rhetorical analysis of obama speech

It is easy to evaluate and analyze the hypothesis when the speech has the same topic of discussion while the audience is different. Why it worked A rhetorical analysis of Obamas speech. The speech signifies that Obama will be ready to incorporate the efforts of everybody in the road to recovery. He said, Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our. AP English Language and Composition Student Samples from. Interrogative sentences always make people think and resonate with the speaker. And how we meet these challenges to our democracy will determine our ability to educate our kids and create good jobs and protect our homeland. poorest nationstoo black or not black enoughthe doctor and the welfare momthe model student and the former gang-banger.raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humorpolitical correctness or reverse racismyour dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams. President Obama speaks during his farewell address in Chicago on Tuesday. Barack Obama gave a big, thoughtful speech about serious things. The words, the structure, the delivery, the gestures,. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need cite it. It is, therefore, no doubt that Obama was able to maintain his credibility in his arguments during his inauguration speech.

This speech was delivered on April 15, 2010, at the Kennedy Space Center. His passionate speech, employing rhetoric that soars and excites, instigated the people of America to restore their confidence in the nation and strive to fulfill their personal dreams and yet still form part of the larger American family. Hill, Theon E. "Sanitizing the struggle Barack Obama, Selma, and civil rights memory.". The main idea of the speech is to explain to people how strong the American nation should be to overcome any possible difficulty and challenge. Within this speech, Obama underlines the issues which worry a lot of people and helps to define the main ideology of this life to respect each member of society. Works Cited Obama, Barak. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need cite it. The concluding word in this paragraph, answer, is the start of the next triple and gives an indication of the resolution of the tension. They [feel] theyve worked hard all their lives.They are anxious about their future, and they feel their dreams slipping away [and] resentment builds over time. through protests and struggleson the streets and in the courtsthrough civil war and civil disobedienceI am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas.white and blackblack and brownbest schools. Barack Obama A Semiotic Analysis of his Philadelphia Speech. Simultaneously, he is reaching out to the secular world as well. From this quote, the audience is being persuaded by the classical theoretical concepts of opposing arguments. A More Perfect Union Speech Analysis - Barack Obama's Speech. Accompanying the Speaker of the House was the President of the United States Senate, Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States. Obama's first victory speech from 2008 is considered to be one of the most successful speeches of our century.

Address to the Nation by the President, 2015[edit]

speech is the use of personal anecdotes from the late Senator's life. [2] Throughout the eulogy, Barack Obama uses causal analysis to explain how the. To Joe Biden, the scrappy kid from Scranton who became Delawares favorite son. Ethos is accomplished on intellectual, social, spiritual, and biological levels. As mentioned before, style of the speech has the potential to portray many social meaning using it indexical field. Showing how great things come from small actions and hence encouraging future mass contribution. An Analysis On Barack Obamas Speech Viewed From. The main idea of the speech is to explain to people how strong the American nation should be to overcome any possible difficulty and challenge. Within this speech, Obama underlines the issues which worry a lot of people and helps to define the main ideology of this life to respect each member of society. Works Cited Obama, Barak. The use of person In public speech, the first person is most common. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. He exemplifies the Constitution, his pastor, and his family, leaving everyone deeply impressed. Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. Analysis of Barack Obama's 2008 Victory Speech. Dionne and MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid was published by Bloomsbury Publishing. Did you know that we have over 70,000 essays on 3,000 topics in our database?

nessI could argue that Obamas speech is a meditation upon DuBois theory of a dual experience of race in America. Nevertheless the pattern is also detected in the speech of President Obama in front of the non-black audience. The great speechwriter, Peggy Noonan, once wrote, When big, serious, thoughtful things must be said, then big, serious, thoughtful speeches must be given. The topic of race, within itself, evokes strong emotions, even to this very moment, this very second. 82) which emphasizes the strengths with which the women stands for her country because there were many things which she had seen but it is an example which says that she never lost her faith and that everyone else should act like her. Making Sense of Messages A Critical Apprenticeship in Rhetorical Criticism. by O Fitria Ningsih 2019 Analysis on Grammatical Cohesion of Barack Obamas Speech Based on. Halliday and Hasan Theory (Barack Obama Speech on November 2016). 1. Prof. Here is a short overview of the main points in our analysis. He tries to get the attention by addressing the audience (If there is anyone out there. He was received by thousands of enthusiastic delegates, waving blue and white campaign signs and chanting his name. Analysis of Obama's Victory Speech. The effectiveness of Obama's speech rests upon four related rhetorical strategies 1. The power of allusion and its patriotic associations. 2. The oratorical resonance of parallel constructions. 3. Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obama's First Inaugural.

It was never reviewed so thoroughly previously. by A Aschale 2013 Cited by 20 Barack Obama, President of the United States of America since 2008 has made customary to deliver relatively longer remarks when it comes to issues of turmoil. Word structure According to M. A. K. Hallidays concept of register, word structure is seriously affected by the mode of discourse, the tenor of discourse, the relationship between speaker and listeners, the field of discourse and what being said. I agree, our trade should be fair and not just free. When inspected with the eye, these moves become more apparent, like reading a piece of sheet music for a difficult song and finally recognizing the chord changes. we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction. President Obama's Inaugural Speech Analysis Free. Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama's Political Discourse. Meanwhile, members of the GOP couldn't agree more, saying it's time to put aside the bitter partisanship that some say has occupied the capital city - and the nation - for much too long. In Obamas speech, he used many parallelisms here. e. g. (1)This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed. (2)I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

He exclaims as a proud American In no other country on Earth is my story possible, describing his successful career in politics and law and raising a family at the same time (2). That happens to meat least before I was a senator. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was chosen as the designated survivor and did not attend the speech.[20]. What comes next is "Two hundred and twenty one years ago," an opening that places him in the tradition of Lincoln at Gettysburg and Dr. King at the Lincoln Memorial "Five score years ago.". Analysis of Obamas Victory Speech , 809 404 The presidential victory speech delivered by Barack Obama who is the president to be was held on November 4, 2008, in Grant Park, Chicago. It is about his won election for the office as the president. I will take a closer look on how Obama emphasizes his speech with stylistic devices. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 47.4 (2017) 295-312. online. Rhetorical Analysis of Obama's Speech - 943 Words Essay. Alliteration partisanship and pettiness, poisoned our Politics. Finally, Senator Obama gains ethos by explaining his own genetic makeup. Why it worked A rhetorical analysis of Obama's speech on race. Barack Obama's speech to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2012 took place on September 25. He demonstrated a lot of honesty in his speech inand did not shy away from the unrelenting problems that affected our country. The length of a word often has a close relationship with the formality of the text. And while the congressman insists he's optimistic both parties will rally behind the nation's 43rd president, "the proof will be in the pudding," Upton said. by V West 2013 the final paper I began to look for research that was more specifically focused on Barack Obama and his speeches; however, there were some challenges in. CORRECTION An earlier version of this post incorrectly attributed the phrase, "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union" to the Declaration of Independence. Fair or not, this perception has produced a hope that our next president will be a more powerful communicator, a Kennedy or Reagan, perhaps, who can use language less as a way to signal ideology and more as a means to bring the disparate parts of the nation together.

Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama's Political Discourse Juraj Horváth Abstract This paper examines the persuasive strategies of President Obama's public speaking as well as the covert ideology of the same, enshrined in his inaugural address. Our analysis is grounded in Norman Fairclough's assumptions in critical discourse. He states We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. Your victory today is your responsibility tomorrow. A Linguistic Analysis of Obama's Inaugural Address - DiVA. What makes Obama give great speeches is because he uses a lot of rhetorical question. He uses them to make a significant comment about whatever speeches. (2)I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. When received in the ear, these effects breeze through us like a harmonious song. The speech responds to the video clip of Barack Obamas pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, making racially charged comments against America and Israel. Order custom essay Analysis of Obamas Victory Speech with free plagiarism report. Rhetorical Analysis of Barack Obamas 2004 Dnc Keynote Speech.

Birth Certificate statement, 2011[edit] : analysis of obama's speeches

We will write a custom essays specifically for you. Therefore, the repetition of the slogan seems to stress that the country has transformed over the years in terms of acceptance of the role of women in the society as well as how it tackles times of economic turmoil (Maclnnis, 56). We, the people, give it meaning with our participation, and with the choices that we make and the alliances that we forge. by L Batluk 2011 Cited by 4 In his speech, Obama cites other famous orators both directly and indirectly. Chapter 4.5 draws parallels between some points in the address and speeches of Dr. The percentage of the ratio for Hampton University and Kings Church speech was 55.1% and 60.4% respectively while ratio for CBC and Perfect Union Speech was 26.8%. Barack Obama's Final Speech Five Valuable Lessons For. In his speech, Obama was seen to take advantage of any opportune moment while addressing his main concerns to comprehensively tackle a particular topic. This way, he was able to address his main topics exhaustively. He mainly addressed issues concerning, the economy, unemployment, and lack of confidence in Americas political system (Walker 8). Final words A whole string of god words wealth, power, democracy, liberty, opportunity, hope. If one really looks closely at the definition, it is also a definition of America as well as the Black church. This is seen in the following clause, That we are a nation of different believes, but we are all united in the prosperity of America, we are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers. Analysis of Obama's Victory Speech - 1615 Words Essay. Secondly, inaugural speech always has many derivational words. And "what would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part.

Conceptual and Linguistic Representations of Kinds and Classes

(4) We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. Furthermore, he acknowledges the complexities of race in America have never been resolved. In 10 days the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy. Yes we can! Analysis of Barack Obama's speech - Reprezent. Stylistic Analysis of Obamas Inaugural Speech Example. Essay title Rhetorical Analysis of Barack Obamas 2004 Dnc Keynote Speech. During his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama introduced himself as a skinny kid with a funny name. The rising star of Illinois politics was elected to the U.S. Senate three months later. His delivery, using rhetoric that soars and. [Important, but politicians have been saying the same thing for years.]. Its not just dishonest, its selective sorting [Good alliteration.]. by J Horvath Cited by 143 This paper analyzes discourse of political speaking, namely the inaugural address of President Barack Obama. Given the enormous domestic and global significance. When received in the ear, these effects breeze through us like a harmonious song. [Full] of kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love [as well as] the bitterness and biases (Obama, par.

since there39s no help by michael drayton tonecritical analysis of romeo and juliet pdf

[micdotcom]

And then there was this moment. More from Obama’s farewell speech.

[yahoonews]

Audience interrupts Obama’s farewell speech with “Four More Years” chant

[blackgirlfitblrr]

Mood

[lostinhistorypics]

[figuringoutfeminism-blog]

[ninjatengu]

Yes, we will.