I thought you did very well. I applaud your comments, your convictions, and your “Malkins”.

Please be careful. We need more of your voice out there. I fear that you may be getting so visible, and so potent a force for Good and Principle in this country, that you will be targeted specifically because you are what is most dangerous to the forces of intolerance in this country.

A minority woman with a brain and an opinion which doesn’t follow whatever the Left insists is the outrage of the day.

Of course, perhaps I give them too much credit. They are all Cowards anyway. Who amongst them would have the Malkins to actually carry out a physical attack on you?

Anyone who was demented enough to believe that wiping Israel off the face of the map is an action worthy of serious pursuit, ma’am.

Be careful. I value your voice highly amongst the Angels who Defend the Home of the Brave.

Subsunk

- The Cat

Catie, I got on them repeatedly because the corporation I worked for owned them and encouraged us to take them, whenever it was feasible. I fly commercially a lot and it doesn’t bother me one way or another.

MM used it as an example, I believe, to rib the hypocritical Gore & Co. for flying them privately, while lecturing us to save. At least that’s what I believe it was. I also don’t know who spoke ahead, or if that was meant for anyone of those speakers.

This Part II was DEFINITELY worth waiting for.

But, then again, you are worth waiting for.

The Krazy Kos Kids who left early… were they on your payroll or something? Because your powerful oratory with their ridiculous symbolism was such a meaningful juxtaposition….. Can’t script that kind of stuff any better.

Beautifully done, “Firecracker”. ;-)

Points very much on the mark, and very much against the grain of the politically correct. Much of higher “education”, funded by taxpayers, has turned into a method to politically indoctrinate students to the “correct thinking” of the Left. I applaud your efforts to bring this to light.

The laundry list of foreign lands where freedom of the press is lacking took away from the power of the message. If the topic of the speech was the First Amendment, the question that kept coming to mind was, “Aren’t these foreign countries that she’s referring to?”

you realize don’t you that American journalists go to these various countries and report the news of what is going on in various countries? You realize that they parrot the line, and we don’t get facts of what is going on, and the true threat to our way of life?

Somehow I doubt if you will get any positive response. It would be great if you got a letter saying, “We here at Loyala realize we have been intolerant towards conservative points of view and effective immediately, we are going to turn that around.”

“We here at Loyola realize that we have been guilty in the crime of sitting back and allowing atrocities to take place around the world as we have sat back and said or done nothing. From now on we will lead the way in exposing violence against those who try to tell the truth about radial Islam or defend Israel.”

“We at Loyola will lead a national outcry and demand that right-wing speakers can speak without being attacked or shouted down.”

THAT would be a most satisfying post and I hope you will be able to write something like that.

Michelle, thanks again for fighting for the First Amendment rights of ALL people, I pray you woke some liberals up.

We all could use a little constructive criticism from time to time.

This is very true. Practicing in front of the video camera always helped me.

But Michelle hit a home run with the content of the speech in my view. The fact that those foreign countries do not have our 1st (or 2nd) amendments is pointless. Personal freedom of speech is protected here but those leftist “I hate America” professors view that fact as an inconvenient truth. For those young skulls full of mush to go through their college experience believing that President Bush would/has suppressed their freedom of speech because those old burned out hippie half wits said so, well, that needs to be countered. Michelle did just that.

Great finish, MM. Whatever they’re paying you….it ain’t enough.

All I can say is, good job, Young Lady.

Michelle is refreshing and wonderful and may the Good Lord Bless her and keep her.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with Spurius “Constructive criticisms”. We all could use a little constructive critcism from time to time. Otherwise we only become more like the intolerant left.

Frankly, the whole bit with the loony leftists walking out just made the speech that much more effective. It was actually a wonderful dramatic device, emphasizing the true meaning of free speech in a way no mere words could match.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think Michelle had paid the liberals to work that hard to prove her point …

Sounds like someone who walked out because they knew it all or thinks they do.

Wade on May 21, 2007 at 1:25 PM

- ??

Be sure to let us all know the next time you’ll be giving a major speech in front of a hostile audience, where you are wondering if you’ll be physically attacked on stage, so that we can all show up and see how a real master handles such a speech.

TheBigOldDog on May 21, 2007 at 1:46 PM

No need to get so touchy…

First of all, if an audience member is set upon doing physical violence to you, then the podium isn’t going to make any real difference. In this instance, though, it seems that the resident lefties had already made their intentions clear that a walk-out was planned instead of an assault.

But that’s rather beside the point.

My basic intent remains that of constructive criticism from one who has given several prepared as well as extemporaneous speeches before small and large audiences, and who has successfully given persuasive presentations in courtroom adversarial proceedings.

I won’t call myself “a real master,” but I know something of which I write.

Having now seen two videos of Michelle giving a formal speech, certain things jump out at me that I’d wager aren’t apparent to those who watched the same video and simply say, “awesome,” “great,” “terrific,” “powerful,” “courageous,” “brilliant,” “excellent,” “moving” etc.

Yes, she was good … but she wasn’t that good.

Again, don’t get me wrong here. One can make suggestions for improvement and still be on “your” side. Michelle is an accomplished writer as well as public speaker – the latter especially in free-wheeling, give-and-take formats. Those who have seen her on O’Reilly’s program, or who have watched her “Vents,” know this.

And anyone who can keep her poise and continue when audience members pull a stupid stunt in the middle of her speech has undeniable moxie.

She doesn’t seem as comfortable in set-piece speeches, though, and that is where my observations are directed. She’s good … she can get better.

This person was in the bathroom washing off the cake on his face and protest sign. He also appeared bruised. This person was gearing up for round two.

This person may not have had the message that you prefer but he did have his rights that allowed him to offer it.

When I tell this story I’m often immediately asked “Who was this person (* eagerness in their tone – almost angry – recall “controversial religious person”)”.

My stomach usually drops when I’m asked – why should someone ask an inane Q?

I usually respond “it doesn’t matter, does it?”

This person was a person that worked for Phelps or it was Phelps himself. At the time I wasn’t too familiar with the name Phelps.

What hapless souls that attacked Phelps or his following that day.

Nonetheless, we should all have an ability to speak freely.

Spurius Ligustinus on May 21, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Be sure to let us all know the next time you’ll be giving a major speech in front of a hostile audience, where you are wondering if you’ll be physically attacked on stage, so that we can all show up and see how a real master handles such a speech.

Spurius Ligustinus on May 21, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Sounds like someone who walked out because they knew it all or thinks they do.