Moyers Exchange

213 thoughts on “Moyers Exchange”

1. Wow. Can’t wait to see what Cal Beisner says.

2. Is the Pope really one of your laywers? Just curious.

3. Moyer’s ratings must be slipping.

4. LOL at Ed. Jimmy’s law firm knows whose representatives have experience with justice.

5. Does Moyers actually believe that nobody realizes he’s an eager gun-slinger for any and all liberal/leftist causes? Or does he not himself realize he is?

6. What I find interesting in this is that BM, who alleges harm to his reputation, unleashes his New York lawyers on JA as his first solution to his problem. I certainly have no beef with a man who wants himself accurately portrayed in public, nor do I object to involving attorneys (obviously) in dispute resolution. But why assume there is a dispute in the first place? I know Jimmy; he is scrupulously fair, unlike some major players in the MSM. If BM’s office had copied JA in on his personal note to ECB, Jimmy would certainly, at a minimum, have noted it in public.
   Anyway, hats off to Jimmy and his counsel: it sometimes galls to the right thing when the right thing –which one would have done anyway– is the subject of such an off-putting demand.

7. What’s with the Supersized signatures these attorneys are using? Is that an intimidation tactic or some way of indicating virility? It almost seems as if JA’s lawyer made a point to demonstrate that his signature was bigger and even more outlandish than Bill’s …
   Sorry for focusing on the mundane …

8. Boy, do these guys really have nothing better to do…?

9. Bill Moyers’ lawyers sound the way they do because that’s the way lawyers sound. If you’ve ever received a stern, threatening letter after publishing the words “kitty litter” when you meant generic cat box filler rather than the trademarked product, you know what I mean.
   They probably sent out the same letter to every web site that reprinted the Beisner claim without individually checking whether the person who runs the web site is ethical or otherwise. Fact is, though, that you can be guilty of libel or slander simply by reprinting or repeating somebody else’s slanderous comment. Sort of reinforces that injunction not to gossip, eh?

10. Love the MACON, GA boys opening a can of whup-a** on them NEW YORK CITY fellas.

11. Go Feddie

12. Oh, and it looks like the letterhead and signatures of both law firms were scanned in.

13. The irony is that complying with Bill Moyers’ demand has brought substantial additional attention to the allegedly defamatory remarks. I knew nothing about it until I learned of this entertaining exchange via Amy Welborn’s site.

14. If it were anyone other than Ed Peters that posted it, I might be tempted to think that the reference to the “journalist” in question as “BM” was a coincidence and not a bit of toungue in cheek commentary.

15. Isn’t the issue whether or not someone lied and in so doing attempted to smear another human being?
    No? I guess it has to do with the size of signatures having something to do with the cahones.
    It’s good to see such clarity.

16. Isn’t the issue whether or not someone lied and in so doing attempted to smear another human being?
    It should be. As it is, it seems like it is word against word. I not sure they can make a defamation case out of that.

17. Ditto to what Ed Peters said in his comment above, dated Oct 19, 2006 12:23:29 PM. All Mr. Moyers had to do was to e-mail his side of the story to Jimmy, and I’m sure that Jimmy would have been happy to publish it. There was no need for lawyers to get involved.
    When Moyers threatens legal action without first pursuing other less severe remedies, it makes him look rather desperate and petty.

18. Sorry, the anonymous post above was me. I didn’t mean to leave my name off.

19. Dan Crawford,
    Beisner may have lied, resulting in defamation to Moyer. But Jimmy published his post in good faith based on the information he had at the time. For Moyer’s lawyers (fun, that rhymes) to send this letter was out-of-proportion and directed at the wrong source, proving that what it’s REALLY about is intimidation.

20. I should also point out that Moyers’ act of resorting to lawyers first, rather than simply contacting Jimmy first, conveys the impression that Moyers thinks that Jimmy is not willing to let all sides of this dispute be heard on his blog. In other words, it sounds as if he simply assumes that Jimmy’s coverage of various issues is not fair and balanced.
    It is only natural then to conclude that perhaps Moyers is projecting his own lack of objectivity onto Jimmy, and just assuming that because he (Moyers) does not always allow all sides to be heard, that others must follow the same practice. I’m not saying that this conclusion is necessarily true or not true — for one thing, I don’t watch Bill Moyers’ show very often, and so I can’t say just how badly slanted his coverage is or is not. But I do think that this is a conclusion that one could logically reach based on Moyers’ actions.

21. Right.
    Btw, Carny, that is NOT how all lawyers sound. I’ve seen plenty far less obnoxious notes on legal letterhead. In fact, plenty get resolved with a phone call. Also, do you have any evidence for the “this got sent to everybody” line? Curious to know. Finally, you need to brush up on libel law, there is considerably more to it than “repeating gossip”, much as that might be morally wrong to do. JA’s lawyers would have little problem defending in this case. Really.

22. I remember when Bill Moyers was huffing and puffing about a quote he swore that James Watt said.
    Guess what? Moyers was lying. And got caught.
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009475.php
    Sue that, Moyers.

23. “But Jimmy published his post in good faith based on the information he had at the time. For Moyer’s lawyers (fun, that rhymes) to send this letter was out-of-proportion and directed at the wrong source, proving that what it’s REALLY about is intimidation
    This kind of reminds me of ‘Ben-Hur’, where Judah Ben-Hur, although innocent, was punished by Messala in order to have him be made an example of, although Messala was aware of Judah’s innocence.

24. If I call Moyer an idiot, I will not be sued.

25. I gave up taking anything BM said seriously back in the Reagan administration.
    And isn’t it surprising that Moyers, Steffy, Salinger, Andrea Mitchell et al have had access to demoncRAT administration either through their own efforts or through spousal influence (Mitchell is married to former Fed chair Greenspan)? And they say the MSM isn’t biased…
    Sue that, Moyers.
    Regards,
    Peter H.

26. BM an “independent”? That’s just about as funny as letting BM stand for Bill Moyers….
    This is the same BM who put together the anti-Goldwater daisy political ad. The arrogance of these left-liberal commentators is amazing! Another example of loving freedom of speech — as long is you’re speaking.

27. In the spring of 1969 I was a high school newspaper reporter. My class went to hear Bill Moyers speak on journalism at what was then North Texas State University.
    Mr. Moyers told us words to the effect that there was no such thing as objective journalism, and that the reporter had a duty to report in such a way as to support progressive causes.
    I don’t have a tape recording of that speech, but it has stuck with me all these years, I hear it every time I see Mr Moyers on TV.

28. Did anyone actually see that “Godly Green” thing? I did.
    http://www.coalitionoftheswilling.net/archives/2006/10/not_only_is_god.html
    If Moyers wasn’t a such tool for the liberal left in that amazingly ready-just-before-election hit piece, no one would give a crap what anybody said. Lawyers ~ jeez. If you’re gonna put it out there, Bill Old Boy ~ people are gonna talk.
    (I’d sign my name real big like, but I don’t have a pen.)

29. I get the chance to view Mr. Moyer’s program each week. It is invariably critical of the Republican party or of conservative causes or individuals. I simply do not see how it is possible to be objective and yet always produce reports that are critical of the right, unless it were the case that no cause or individual on the left were ever wrong.

30. Did He of Didn’t He:
    “When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats.”
    Can Dr. E. Calvin Beisner provide unequivocal evidence of Mr. Moyers making the statement or not? Was the conversation taped and, if so, is there a transcript? If a lie was told, that needs to be the issue under discussion.
    The rest is balderdash.

31. Jim Howard:
    Mr. Moyers told us words to the effect that there was no such thing as objective journalism, and that the reporter had a duty to report in such a way as to support progressive causes.
    Careful there, Jim. You’ll be sued next. 😉

32. Clearly, Jimmy’s laywer has the MUCH cooler signature.

33. Back in 2000, during one of Mr. Moyers’s watermelon pieces on his PBS show, he aired with a straight face the claim by an ecologist that the shifting of the water table for irrigation purposes would cause such an imbalance that the Earth’s orbit and rotation would be altered. That was the first and last time this Astrodynamics-trained engineer watched NOW.

34. Don’t worry, Jimmy. For it to be libel, it has to actually DAMAGE Moyer’s reputation for impariality.

35. There is no defamation on Jimmy’s part. According to Electronic Frontier Foundation- http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php -defamation has to involve a knowledge on Jimmy’s part that the statement was false. This would be impossible for BM to prove in a court of law.
    Quote:
    “A public figure must show “actual malice” — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. ”

36. It looks like Moyers’s lawyers are hoping that Mr. Akin and his lawyers have never heard of the “actual malice” test of New York Times v. Sullivan.

37. Wait a minute!
    “Mr. Moyers’s integrity as a journalist”.
    I think “journalistic integrity” is an oxymoron!

38. It looks like Mr. Moyers lawyers were hoping that Jimmy did not have a lawyer. The letter is ridiculous.

39. Don’t be so hard on journalists in general. They fulfill a necessary social function, and many do take integrity and trying to be as unbiased as possible very seriously.

40. Bill Moyers is a silly old woman.

41. There is a big difference between Jimmy’s quote of the ISA news letter and Mr. Moyer’s lawyers quote from the ISA news letter.
    Jimmy’s quote: He forthrightly told me before our interviews that he, as a liberal Democrat, hoped to use this program to divide the evangelical vote and return control of Congress to the Democrats in November’s elections.
    Mr. Moyer’s lawyers quote: When Moyers interviewed me for the documentary last spring, he very candidly told me that he is a liberal Democrat and intended for the documentary to influence the November elections to bring control of Congress back to the Democrats. Don’t expect good science, economics, or ethics–or even journalistic balance.
    Now the difference is Jimmy’s quote says that Mr. Moyer’s confession was done before the interview. Mr. Moyer’s lawyers quote says that Mr. Moyer’s confession occurred during the interview.
    If the confession was done before the interview, it may not have been recorded and therefore could not be reproduced as requested by Mr. Moyer’s lawyers.
    Is it defaming someone by falsely accusing them of defaming you?

42. As my dad would say, “Bill Moyers can go pound sand!”

43. Ben N., good catch on the difference in the quotes.
    JRS: “(Journalists) fulfill a necessary social function…” Don’t tempt me with straight lines like that. Several unsavory critters that “fulfill a necessary social function” just came to mind.

44. “Is it defaming someone by falsely accusing them of defaming you?’
    Sure, it can be.
    And Tim’s post is correct on the law. BM is a public figure, and there is no way that BM or his lawyers would ever be able to establish that our blog host published something he knew to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The “demand letter” was typical lawyer behavior. All too many of us law school grads earn our living thumping our chests and making threats. This is because (i) this is what our clients ask us to do and (ii) sometimes it works.
    As far as Dr. Cal is concerned the issue is tougher. The legal question really simply distills into whether he was lying, “mis-remembering” or telling the truth. If a jury thinks he lied, then he loses. If they think he is telling the truth, he wins. If they think he made an honest mistake, then they will have to decide whether it was “reckless.” Ties go to Dr. Cal, but not every “he said/she said” results in a tie. Juries can decide to believe one person and not the other.

45. bill912 and Joe Gloor,
    Sorry, but my kinda-sorta girlfriend is a newspaper journalism major, so this is touching a bit close to home. Sure, there are unsavory journalists, and if you ask newspaper people broadcast journalism is pretty bad (apparently they don’t check their facts), but it is not charitable or accurate to condemn a whole profession because of them.

46. Where is the offending post? It looks like Jimmy’s lawyers advised its removal. Heh. This is the internet. IT’s already copy/pasted in hundreds of other places. Let Freedom of Speech reign!

47. Mia,
    The “offending post” is where it always was. Just below “Monogenism and Science.” It has of course been bumped off the list of 10 most recent posts but click on October 2006 and scroll down below the most recent posts and you will find it, including an update about this issue.

48. J.R.
    Thanks, I see it now! That’s great, it still gives us ample time to copy/paste it everywhere!

49. I have just 2 words to say about Bill Moyers’ alleged reputation for “integrity”:
    “Daisy Ad”

50. I am reading a book about negotiating written by an attorney – it is remarkably clear and easy to understand.
    Today at lunch I read this quote from the book:
    “For the most part if you get an attorney involved in the early stages of a dispute, the likelihood that the dispute will get worse instead of better is very high”
    Mr. Moyer’s involvement of his attorney, the letter from him, and the resulting posts/responses on the blogs illustrates this point very nicely.
    Jimmy Akin had no choice but have his attorney respond.

51. The point is: Did Dr. E. Calvin Beisner tell a very serious, intentionally damaging lie?
    Whatever one may think of Moyers is irrelevant.

52. While the claim made by Beisner is hardly unique, it’s a statement against the professed integrity of the target. One either has to has evidence supporting the claim, or not make it. Otherwise, it’s just hearsay.

53. Bill Moyers has just embarassed himself way more than Dr. Beisner possibly could have done.
    This post needs a good round in the blogosphere. If Moyers doesn’t like it when he is portrayed as a leftist enthusiast, there is no telling how he will react when he is exposed as a lawyer-loving sleazeball.

54. It looks like Jimmy’s blog gets more readership than previously thought.
    I believe Cyrano de Bergerac would respond, “Is that all, young(old) sir? There are so many things you might have said, had you any tinge of letters or wit to color your discourse. But wit, no, sir, you never had an atom. And of letters, you need but three to write you down: A-S-S.”

55. You need a paypal account so we can contribute $ to your defense.
    Kick his liberal Donk

56. Moyers really doesn’t understand the new media, does he ? Well, this may be a lesson. Good lawyers usually tell a client when not to act the fool. These are either not very good lawyers or Moyers is determined to act the fool.

57. Jay, what does the Daisy Ad have to do with Mr. Moyer?

58. Moyers doth protest too much. He elevates the quote to the valid. His supposed words are damaging only because they are believable. If they were so outlandish there would be no need for Moyers to react. BM has stepped in it and it’s gonna stick. It’s all damage control from this point.

59. He denys trying to split the evangelical vote with his documentary — something he doesn’t steer clear of even in the smarmy letter to you.

60. I’m no lawyer, but perhaps the real problem is the last sentence of Beisner’s comment, i.e., the sentence that begins with “Don’t expect” and ends with “journalistic balance.”
    In the context, it could be interpreted that Beisner was reporting that Moyers said something like that. I’ll guess Beisner was just been giving his own personal opinion and that (in my non-lawyer opinion) a clarification on that point would be sufficient.

61. Jealous much?
    Bill Moyers has had his statements read on the floor of the Senate, has a journalism degree, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Journalist Crush Dissent?” His comments often lead to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after just 9 months of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.
    I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.

62. Are we supposed to think that this EEEMcW character is Mr. Moyers himself?

63. Actually that would be hilarious if Bill Moyers were posting such nonsense under a pseudonym!

64. Just so everyone knows what the lawyers are talking about:
    Defamation is a false written or oral statement that injures another’s reputation.
    Most jurisdictions would require Mr. Moyer to prove by clear and convincing evidence (since he is a public figure)that:
    1. Mr. Akin made the alleged statement; and
    2. the statement was about Mr. Moyer; and
    3. the statement was false; and
    4. that the statement caused special harm to M.r Moyer (because there is nothing inherently defamatory in saying that he is not impartial or that he is a liberal); and
    5. the statement was published to one or more persons other than Mr. Moyer; and
    6. Mr. Akin acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth against Mr. Moyer.
    A statement is false when it is not substantially true. It is substantially true when the gist, substance or scheme of the statement is true, or is justified by the facts, taking the statement as a whole. The words must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, taking into consideration the circumstances in which the statement was made.
    “Special harm” is an injury that is caused by the conduct of persons other than the plaintiff or the defendant acting as a result of the alleged defamatory statement. Special harm includes not only injury to reputation and exposure to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame, or disgrace, but also loss of income or business, loss of society, companionship and friendship. Mr. Moyer would also have to show that such injuries were proximately caused by Mr. Akin’s statements and not some other source.
    “Actual malice” occurs when a defendant makes a false statement either with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it is false or not.
    ———————————————
    Of course, truth is an affirmative defense. Mr. Akin might well enjoy a qualified immunity that members of the press might enjoy.
    Finally, it would be interesting to see how Mr. Moyer or anyone else could prove that Mr. Akin was malicious or acted with reckless disregard. They would have to show that he had prior knowledge of the falsity of the statement or at the very minimum serious doubts as to the truth of the statement BEFORE he published the entry on his blog.
    BTW~ and this is only my opinion if you ever read this Mr. Moyer, your program is a prime reason why the government should cease funding PBS.

65. Forget defamation by falsely accusing someone of defamation:
    Doesn’t misrepresenting the facts by misquoting the ISA amount to something actionable (ethical charges?) against Moyers’ lawyer, and perhaps Moyers?

66. “Jay, what does the Daisy Ad have to do with Mr. Moyer?”
    “The ‘Daisy’ spot – which aired only once during the Movie of the Week on September 7, 1964 – was created by Tony Schwartz of the Doyle Dane Bernbach advertising agency in New York. The ad was green-lighted by Democrat Bill Moyers who later found fame as a television journalist for the PBS network.“

67. JRS, triple E is hiding behind a sock puppet. How very brave. OTOH, how very laughable.
    When this post first went up, it occurred to me that the demand for the prominent display of the letters etc. would only demonstrate Moyers’ overreaction. Thus is Romans 8 proved all over again, that all things work towards good for those who love God. (that’s from memory so probably not word perfect)

68. Is BM stepping in it, becoming a man-bites-dog story?

69. Ha ha! Another sign that Moyers’ cheese has definitely slipped off its cracker! How this guy, who is on the record as a “liberal” hater and moonbat, can think he will prevail in a libel suit is a testament as to his arrogance and cluelessness.
    In fact, the suit is nothing more than an attempt to silence a critic. Using the legal system in a pathetic attempt to establish a specious legal claim comes damn close to the kind of “censorship of the powerful aka government” that the First Amendment was designed to protect against.
    Moyers is doing nothing more than raising tiny little Fists of Fury against a blogger who has nailed his hate-contorted ass.

70. If I were a lawyer responding to the threats, my letter would read, simply:
    “Puh-leeeeasse!”
    I think that would be awesome.

71. There goes all that taxpayer PBS money paid to this man. On lawyers! What would a Dem do without one. Mr. Moyer has always used PBS as his platform and he is now throwing it away for his fragile ego. If he does not think he has an agenda then let him live in his bubble of love.

72. Ah, so that’s why you needed the day off. 🙂

73. “Another sign that Moyers’ cheese has definitely slipped off its cracker!”
    This is one of the best analogies ever…and comming from a southerner, and therefore a lover of analogies, that’s a heck of a compliment.
    I will certainly add that to my list!

74. I just happened onto this blog and this little debate by accident. You guys seem to be intelligent, thoughtful conservatives who appear to be legitimately concerned about protecting the right of freedom of speech. So I wonder: Do you really vote Republican? If so, WHY???? I don’t get it…seems like all of your cheese has slipped off your collective crackers.

75. Here is a transcript of the Moyers/Beinstein interview, although as noted above, the Moyer’s declaration of intent my have come before the tape was rolling:
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/print/beisner_print.html
    FWIW, “Triple-E” is a joke inspired by the Greenwald sock-puppetry, but I bet most people knew that.

76. So being called a “liberal Democrat” is defamatory?
    T

77. I’m from Canada and don’t understand any of this.Will Jimmy go to jail?Will Moyers become a multi-millionnaire?I’m told the border between us and the US is quite porous and a lot of baddies are going ‘down there’ from ‘up here’..Jimmy: If you make a run for it now I could meet you at the border and you’ll be safe.Canadians are also the biggest bloggers in the world so you could keep it going from up here…

78. Fight the good fight, Jimmy. These guys have nothing but air, and the fact that BM (oh, such great initials – how was it that I’ve missed this before?) thinks threats and intimidation will help his case is hilariously mis-guided, belying his lack of character.
    I find the idea of that BM reading these comments and harrumphing and harroopmhing in indignation rather funny, as uncharitable as that may be. 🙂
    Prayers for you from Texas, Jim-Bo!
    Chris

79. Seems to me like BM has more money than brains if his knee-jerk reaction is to unleash the New York lawyers.

80. Tom, yet another instance of how out-of-the-loop I am with popular culture. Thanks for the info. Guess I’ll go crank up the Victrola now.

81. I just happened onto this blog and this little debate by accident. You guys seem to be intelligent, thoughtful conservatives who appear to be legitimately concerned about protecting the right of freedom of speech. So I wonder: Do you really vote Republican? If so, WHY???? I don’t get it…seems like all of your cheese has slipped off your collective crackers.
    I’m not sure what you mean. My state is running semi-decent Republicans, so I will likely vote for them. Are you implying that the Republicans are against free speech in general? I don’t see this as a particularly Republican shortcoming given that awful gift from the Left called politcal correctness.

82. What the hell is up with Dillard’s signature? Who does he think he is, Zorro?

83. Scott, under the new “Terrorist Interrogation” law recently passed by your Republicans (with the help of a few immoral Democrats) the President can declare anti-abortion activists to be terrorists lock them up, keep them locked up without filing formal charges, not allow them to petition a court for freedom, waterboard them until they “confess”, and then use that “confession” to prosecute them in a military tribunal to either be sent away for a very long time or executed, all legally.
    Like I say, you people have lost your cheese!

84. Matt, you seem to have a rich fantasy life.

85. Here’s a quote I stumbled across recently. I don’t particularly like applying the political party labels. It goes much deeper than that; maybe the humble and the arrogant.
    “When caught the Republicans resign in shame (Gingrich, Foley, Livingston) the Democrats lawyer up.”
    Interesting how BM has lawyer’ed up.

86. “Posted by Jimmy Akin in News Media:”
    Perhaps a new category is in order:
    Posted by Jimmy Akin in Pride and Prejudice
    sub-category: Egos and Lawyers

87. Hey, Jimmy. You’ve got linked at both The Corner and Instapundit.

88. An apologist named Jimmy Akin
    Had attorneys hailing from Macon
    So when journalist Moyers
    Called forth New York lawyers
    It was Jimmy who cooked Billy’s bacon

89. “Scott, under the new “Terrorist Interrogation” law recently passed by your Republicans (with the help of a few immoral Democrats) the President can declare anti-abortion activists to be terrorists lock them up, keep them locked up without filing formal charges, not allow them to petition a court for freedom, waterboard them until they “confess”, and then use that “confession” to prosecute them in a military tribunal to either be sent away for a very long time or executed, all legally.
    Like I say, you people have lost your cheese!”
    You see folks, what Matt has tried to do here is appeal to our pro-life tendencies in hopes that we will finally see the evil ways of President Bush and the Republican party. If any of his claims be based in fact, rather than democrat rhetoric, it might have worked.
    The act to which he refers protects us from terrorists–and not just the muslim ones. Good thing too, because we all know how unethical profiling is.
    Sadly, the title of terrorist can be applied to some radical anti-aborition groups–the one’s that miss the irony in bombing clinics to protect life. These are the one’s the act can apply too–not your everyday life loving, rosary praying Catholics, who peacfully assemble in front of death clinics to pray for an end to baby killing.
    Matt, with all due respect, I get enough liberal spin from my newspaper. How about a real representation of the facts for a change.

90. Oops, forgot to add:
    (c) 2006 The Franksta. All rights reserved. Quote me without permission and I’ll sue you, because that’s what Jesus would do.

91. Every once in a while I see something that appeals to the 8th grader in me when it comes to humor.
    “BM”
    I can’t stop snickering at that one. 🙂

92. I love how Moyer’s smear of James Watt is based on “The Rapture”.
    This is why it is so important to teach everybody (Catholic, Christian, and otherwise) that “The Rapture” is not only no excuse for a carpe diem attitude that is anti-stewardship – “The Rapture” itself is not an article of faith to begin with!
    “My people suffer for lack of knowledge…”

93. “Matt, you seem to have a rich fantasy life.”
    Bill and Kris, this blog seems to have a lot of lawyer types worked up over BM, why don’t they comment to see if what I say is true? Under the law passed by peopel you support, the President can declare ANYONE a terrorist, lock him or her up, and you have no legal recourse. That is the fact, son. Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin’s anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?
    And you people are staying up late over BM…
    Silly.

94. Oh, BTW I got over here from the Corner link.

95. Matt, these may be “facts” in the alternate reality you inhabit, but everything you posted is false in the real world.

96. I wonder what Akin thinks about what I’m saying…He seemed awfully worried about a suit from little old BM. What about when the Feds come a knockin?

97. “I wonder what Akin thinks about what I’m saying…He seemed awfully worried about a suit from little old BM. What about when the Feds come a knockin?”
    What has Jimmy said or done which gives the impression that he is worried about legal action from Mr. Moyers? I certainly haven’t gotten that impression at all.

98. “Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin’s anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?”
    What universe did you just step out of?
    Talk about a ‘slippery slope’!
    I hear North Korea’s nuclear tests were also the result of Jimmy Akin’s anti-abortion stance as well! Kim Jong-il essentially wanted to put an end to people like Jimmy Akin and so he was endeavoring to solve the problem by trying to devise a way to get rid of America all together by developing nuclear capabilities in order to make certain of this!
    Sorry… A vain attempt in trying to be just as ridiculous…

99. Gee, I don’t know, he lawyered up awful fast and gave Moyers everything he asked for and then proceeded to publish everything on his Blog so we could all see how he is being bullied by the big bad BM. Boo hoo! Yet any real legal protections for his right to say what he pleases has just been eliminated by the Repubs. Is this really that hard?

100. Paul, that’s because Matt sounds like a troll. No one else except Matt has gotten that impression and it’s probably wishful thinking on Matt’s part.

101. “Gee, I don’t know, he lawyered up awful fast…”
     What would you have done?
     Rolled over, played dead, and become a doormat for these folks to step on?

102. Folks, I’ve got work to do, but this has been fun. A little weird but fun. I’ll visit later to see if any of the legal experts who have been griping abou BM have anything to say about my posts.

103. “Your(sic) telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile president decides that Jimmy Akins’ anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?”
     Nope. I can never get the tinfoil tight enough to imagine that.

104. I may be really dumb, but I don’t get why the initials “BM” are funny.

105. I am pround to have gotten in with the first “Daisy” reference to BM!
     Matt, go back to Democratic Underground, or the Huffington Post, or Salon. You’re not going to take in any cultural conservatives here. We know who our political enemies are and they’ve got BM all over them.
     See ya at the polls!

106. “Your(sic) telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile president decides that Jimmy Akins’ anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?”
     Nope. I can never get the tinfoil tight enough to imagine that.
     – CLASSIC!

107. Ah, my public! How they love me!

108. Bill912,
     I just wished I thought of it! ;^)

109. “I may be really dumb, but I don’t get why the initials “BM” are funny.”
     Beats me — I don’t get this either…

110. BM also stands for something that happens in the bathroom.

111. Thank you, Publius. I just had a V-8 moment.

112. BM is abbreviation for “bowel movement”.

113. “Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin’s anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?”
     I suppose I could imagine that…perhaps if the president is a Clinton or another fan of baby killing.

114. “Gee, I don’t know, he lawyered up awful fast and gave Moyers everything he asked for and then proceeded to publish everything on his Blog…”
     Um, first of all, I’m pretty sure that Jimmy’s lawyer is a friend of his who is a Catholic / conservative blogger — though I’m open to correction if I’m wrong about Jimmy’s lawyer’s identity. So I don’t think that Jimmy actually went out and hired a lawyer just for this exchange — I think it’s more likely that he simply enlisted the help of a friend and fellow blogger (who really is a lawyer though). That piece of information (if I’m right about it) might help you put Jimmy’s response in perspective.
     Second, based on my experiences as a regular reader of this blog for a couple of years now, I can say with confidence that had Moyers simply contacted Jimmy privately, Jimmy would have been happy to publish Moyers’ side of the story here on the blog. But since Moyers chose to get lawyers involved from the get-go, I would guess that Jimmy figured a more appropriate response would be not only to publish Moyers’ side of the story in the interests of fairness (which he almost definitely would have done anyway), but also to publish the whole exchange in order to demonstrate how ridiculous Moyers is being about this whole thing.

115. “…(Jimmy Akin) lawyered up awful fast…”
     Actually, it was Moyers who “lawyered up awful fast”. As Ed Peters pointed out, Jimmy would have posted BM’s reply had BM just e-mailed him a copy simply because that’s what a man of integrity does.

116. Still no response to the substance of my arguments. A lot of silly avoidance of the subject though, and, of course, a quickie Google to post my work phone number. Nice touch. There’s more out there should you bother to look.

117. “Still no response to the substance of my arguments.”
     Hi Matt,
     OK, I’ll bite. I’ll respond to the substance of your argument, which seems to be as follows, if I understand it correctly: How can we vote for Republicans, considering that their anti-terrorism policies violate basic civil rights, and considering that these policies could later be used against conservative activists rather than against real terrorists?
     Ok, well first of all, I would dispute your premise. I think that you are stretching credulity almost to the breaking point with your examples. However, I do agree with you one on thing: I do agree that there are many very valid reasons not to vote for many Republicans, even if I think that the particular reason that you gave is not one of them, or at most is low on the list. I agree that many individual Republicans, including President Bush, have enacted many bad policies, have made many mistakes, and are misguided in their approach to a number of issues.
     Second, I have no idea how the folks who have commented here vote, so I can speak only for myself. And I don’t consider myself a Republican. When I vote, I take the following approach: I consider each candidate for each office, and I pick the one who I think is the best, or the one who is the least bad — sometimes excluding any third-party candidates who probably don’t have a legitimate chance to win.
     But here’s the kicker: When I take this approach, I find that (at least for non-local offices) the Republican candidate — for all the faults that he may have — is a better choice (or a less bad choice) than the Democrat candidate, at least 95% of the time. And that’s because while the list of reasons not to vote for many Republicans is a mile long, the list of reasons not to vote for most Democrats is about 50 to 100 miles long. And that’s the sad truth of our current political landscape, as I see it.

118. “Still no response to the substance of my arguments.”
     I think Paul H had done just that.
     Besides, do you really think any respectable legal type folks (i.e., law students, actual lawyers) would really waste their time on a legal technical analysis on what you just posed?
     Most of it borders on the edge of outrageous fantasy and just plain ridiculous. It’s surprising that you didn’t go as far as to say that the sitting president was actually ‘Tony Soprano’.
     I mean look at what you just said:
     “Your telling me that you cannot imagine a scenario where a hostile President decides that Jimmy Akin’s anti-abortion rants are causing people to attack clinics, declare that he is provoking and aiding the attacks and LOCK HIM UP?”
     Really now, does that accurately reflect reality?

119. “Really now, does that accurately reflect reality?”
     I think he really believes it does, Esau.

120. Also, Matt, I would like to point out that your scenario implicitly assumes that at some point after Bush leaves office, a liberal, pro-choice (thus most likely Democrat) president is elected, and chooses to use Bush’s anti-terrorism policies as a means for harrassing pro-life activists by labelling them as terrorists.
     But if the hypothetical Democrat president is the one who is abusing these policies by prosecuting pro-life activists, then what conclusion should we draw from this scenario? Should we conclude that it is stupid to vote for Republicans because they enacted these policies in the first place? Or should we conclude that it is stupid to vote for Democrats, because apparently they are going to horribly abuse these policies at some point in the future? It seems to me even if I take your scenario completely at face value, and assume that it is 100% credible, that the Democrats come out looking far worse than the Republicans in this scenario, and far less deserving of votes.

121. Hey Paul, thanks for that. And so we disagree on a substantive matter: I think the Republicans are a threat to our basic rights as American citizens and have acted to make our country more like the fundamentalist islamic regimes who supposedly hate “our liberties”. Well, under the Republicans there is one less liberty for them to hate.
     I have been insistent on this thread because what has been lost affects not just the “terrorists” but you, me, Jimmy Akin, and every other citizen. There are some lines which should never be crossed and the Republicans have blown through it. BM’s baseles threats to Jimmy pale in comparison to what may come in the future. Keep the faith.

122. “Folks, I’ve got work to do, but this has been fun.”
     From his first words to his last, Matt demonstrates that he is a troll, seeking only to divert the discussion from what’s wrong with Bill Moyers and to have a little fun insulting those he disagrees with. As friends sometimes have to remind me, “please do not feed the troll.”

123. Matt,
     a) Give people time to respond. I may be able to sneak some blog time at work, but I don’t have the time to construct lengthy replies except on lunch, and that has to fit around silly things like eating.
     b) You are coming across as a bit of a troll. That makes it less likely that people will take you seriously and respond with any thought to what you’ve written, apart from ridicule.
     Whoever Googled him and posted his full name and work number:
     That doesn’t seem cricket to me. Respond to him at his e-mail address, by all means, since he was decent enough to use it instead of hiding behind anonymity and a pseudonym, but don’t go Googling someone and posting their contact info. If he wanted all of us to have it, he’d have posted it himself.
     That said, it’s Jimmy’s blog and if he has the opportunity to read these comments (I know he doesn’t always), he’ll make his own judgment. Just had to chip in my two cents.
     End of lunch hour, end of message.

124. “I remember when Bill Moyers was huffing and puffing about a quote he swore that James Watt said.”
     Thanks for reminding us of that. Moyers has a long history of, er, um, “creative” reporting.

125. Kasia, um, don’t take anything Matt says at face value. I didn’t search (is it possible to Google search an email address?). However, I do know that the 506 area code is in New Brunswick. As in Canada.
     Let me repeat the good advice given above:
     *Please Do Not Feed the Troll*

126. Now that all my BM jokes have passed, I think I’ll return to what ought to be the thread of this exchange.
     It is outrageous that Moyers should be using legal thugs to stifle free speech (which disagrees with him). Here we are seeing the soft fascism of the liberal left. This ain’t trivial stuff. Jimmy is having to waste his own money and time to defend himself against this legal thuggery. People like BM have deep pockets for attacking innocents. This strategy is a great one for silencing enemies. Notice we haven’t seen any real blog posts from Jimmy in 2 days because of this garbage. Courage, Jimmy!

127. Hi Mary Kay,
     Actually, I did Google the e-mail address to see whether it was possible before I posted. It does work. That’s why I said it didn’t seem cricket. I didn’t know it was a Canadian phone number, though – maybe he went there seeking asylum from the Republicans. 🙂
     Anyway, good point – trolls should not be fed. Thanks for reiterating. I was thinking just this morning about a former professor of mine who told me that I don’t have to confront every bad argument I come across…

128. “Scott, under the new “Terrorist Interrogation” law recently passed by your Republicans (with the help of a few immoral Democrats) the President can declare anti-abortion activists to be terrorists lock them up, keep them locked up without filing formal charges, not allow them to petition a court for freedom, waterboard them until they “confess”, and then use that “confession” to prosecute them in a military tribunal to either be sent away for a very long time or executed, all legally.”
     Matt:
     Do you even recall all the harm and injustice that was done to peaceful pro-life people who under the justice system of the Clinton Administration suffered tremendous injustices.
     Look at what happened to Dr. Paul Schenck.
     Dr. Paul Schenck was a Protestant pastor (who later became Catholic) in New York. Back then, a parishioner brought him a bag from an abortion clinic near her house. In them were the remains of 4 unborn children, little babies that would fit in the palm of your hand, little baby faces, hands and feet, little depressions where their toenail, fingernail would grow. They could tell the sex on two of the children. But, these babies were dismembered, eviscerated, decaptitated; one little boy’s spine was sticking out of his back, arms and legs severed away. One little girl — dimple in her cheek, her head cut straight in half.
     Since then, Dr. Schenck participated in pro-life activities like praying in the front of abortion mills and handing out bibles there. For the latter, under the justice system of Clinton Administration, he was sent to two years in federal prison and fined $300,000. Furthermore, he actually went on to endure seven years of court hearings, serving several times in federal prison, placed under house arrest, and spent some $788,000 in legal defense expenses. In fact, President Clinton sent Walter Dellinger, his solicitor general, to argue against Schenck. Schenck though finally won in his case against the Pro-Choice Network following a 8-1 vote by the Supreme Court in 1997.
     For those truly interested in hearing his story, go to:
     http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp
     Look for the Journey Home program where Marcus Grodi had interviewed him regarding his conversion which mentions some of the events.

129. I’m gonna stop because you guys either can’t get my point or don’t want to acknowledge my point. Along these lines I respond to Esau: the Republicans just gave a future President Clinton the legal right to declare Dr. Schenck a “terrorist”, apprehend him, waterboard him until he “confesses” to being a part of a terrorist anti-abortion network, prosecute him using that confession and using hearsay claims of abortion clinic employees (“He said he was going to blow up a clinic”), and send him away to jail for the rest of his life without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
     The scenario I have just presented to you can occur under the legislation just passed. It is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy is your stubborn belief that it could never happen to you.
     And as for me being a troll, I am posting legitimate concerns within the thread of a post about some wealthy bully legally threatening a blogger’s freedom of speech. You folks have no business making complaints about some supposed threat to freedom of speech as you have (apparently) willingly given up your constitutional rights in the name of…I don’t know what!

130. “…the Republicans just gave a future President Clinton the legal right to declare Dr. Schenck a “terrorist”, apprehend him, waterboard him until he “confesses” to being a part of a terrorist anti-abortion network, prosecute him using that confession and using hearsay claims of abortion clinic employees (“He said he was going to blow up a clinic”), and send him away to jail for the rest of his life without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
     The scenario I have just presented to you can occur under the legislation just passed. It is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy is your stubborn belief that it could never happen to you.”
     You’re missing the point: whereas the hypothetical situation you’ve come up with can resides only in pure conjecture and outrageous fantasy whereas what happened to Dr. Paul Schenck is actually real and DID HAPPEN to him under the auspices of the Clinton Administration.

131. Matt,
     You are making huge assumptions about who we are and our political affiliations. Plus, you are being incredibly patronizing about your overwhelming brilliance and our cosmic stupidity. Here’s half your original post:
     “Do you really vote Republican? If so, WHY???? I don’t get it…seems like all of your cheese has slipped off your collective crackers.”
     Aside from that, you have hijacked this post to focus on your bitter, myopic political agenda. This is not a political forum so why don’t you go light a candle at your Nancy Pelossi shrine and leave us alone!

132. Kasia, thanks, I learn something new everyday.
     Matt, if you want a serious discussion, you might want to present yourself in a less troll-like manner.
     You can’t blame liberal lunacies on on Republicans or the recently passed terrorist interrogation act. For a number of years, abortion advocates have unjustly and inappropriately used existing laws to intimidate and harass pro-lifers.

133. “I’m gonna stop because you guys either can’t get my point or don’t want to acknowledge my point. Along these lines I respond to Esau: the Republicans just gave a future President Clinton the legal right to declare Dr. Schenck a “terrorist”, apprehend him, waterboard him until he “confesses” to being a part of a terrorist anti-abortion network, prosecute him using that confession and using hearsay claims of abortion clinic employees (“He said he was going to blow up a clinic”), and send him away to jail for the rest of his life without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.”
     Let me try again to make my previous point in a slightly different way:
     So you are advocating that we vote for the Democrats who (according to you, with your example of a future President Clinton) will abuse these anti-terrorism policies. Apparently, such abuse of these policies must then be a lesser evil than what the Republicans have done by putting these policies in place, since you think we should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans.
     Let me accept your scenario at face value for a moment (but only for a moment). In doing so, I come to a different conclusion. If I see a man give another man a weapon, where that weapon could be used for good or for evil, and then if I see the second man use the weapon for evil — well in that case, I may blame both men, but I would give much greater blame to the one who actually used the weapon.
     If you are so convinced that a future Democrat president is going to misuse anti-terrorism legislation to go after pro-life activists, then can you please explain again exactly why this is an argument in favor of voting for Democrats??? Sorry, but I’m just not following your logic, at all.

134. OK, ok. I give up. Your cheese is obviously firmly planted on your cracker and 506 is the country code for Costa Rica. Shalom.

135. Heh heh, BM.
     Crap, I’m too late..
     Heh, heh, crap..

136. And please let me make one further attempt at simplifying my point:
     Republicans, according to Matt:
     Create anti-terrorism policies which could potentially be abused.
     Democrats, according to Matt:
     Abuse such policies to prosecute innocent non-terrorists.
     Matt, please explain to me how the Democrats are the lesser of two evils in your scenario.

137. “Jimmy is having to waste his own money and time to defend himself against this legal thuggery. People like BM have deep pockets for attacking innocents. This strategy is a great one for silencing enemies. Notice we haven’t seen any real blog posts from Jimmy in 2 days because of this garbage. Courage, Jimmy!”
     I think Curious might have the right idea where we have got to encourage Jimmy in these times.
     I should take Mary Kay’s advice and “*Please Do Not Feed the Troll*”.
     It is indeed rather unjust that Jimmy, who is an innocent, got hammered with all this. Earlier I had brought up the Ben-Hur analogy where in this case Jimmy, the innocent Judah Ben-Hur, is being punished by Messala, BM and his cadre of legal goons, all, it seems, to make an example of him for other folks who might otherwise commit a similar action, in spite of their innocence in the matter.
     Jimmy, if there’s anything we can do, say somethin’, brutha!

138. I just logged in (after work for me… yay!) and I see that no one has mentioned “watchdog” legal representation yet. That is, once Bill Moyers hired his lawyer to deal with the issue between him and Dr. Beisner, the law firm would go on automatic pilot. A cursory search of the Internet would pull up Jimmy’s post, which then would automatically be a cause for the firm to send out their letter.
     It’s not much different with what happened after Spaggo’s restaurant managed to dupe the copyright office into giving them proprietorship over the word “spaggo” (which is “snack). They systematically threatened any restaurant with that name. A little restaurant off Woodward in Detroit had to change its name, even though it had been Spaggo since it opened when my dad was a kid.

139. Oops, posted too soon. What I meant to add is that most law firms don’t follow up on these threatening letters. Jimmy is no danger of being sued by Bill Moyers, unless Mr. Moyers’ lawyer doesn’t mind making his client look like a fool and/or a villain.

140. Exactly — I never thought that Moyers’ lawyers had any intention of actually taking legal action. They probably just figure that a threatening letter will accomplish their goal — even though a friendly letter would have accomplished it even better.

141. “Exactly — I never thought that Moyers’ lawyers had any intention of actually taking legal action. They probably just figure that a threatening letter will accomplish their goal — even though a friendly letter would have accomplished it even better.”
     But let’s be thankful that they did the send the letter. Without this whole incident, we would have never been exposed to “BM”. 🙂

142. Matt, thanks for the clarification about the country code. Please remember that at the time, I had no idea that you worked in Costa Rica.

143. Matt,
     Do you have a link to the new Act?

144. Upon studying the new Act, I’ve yet to find anything in it that hasn’t been allowed in the past. Most if not all the tactics outlined in the act have been used at some time or another against organized criminals and gang…why not terrorists?

145. I think the other thing to bear in mind is that just about any legislation can be used to harass and intimidate. Anything can be abused. And for what it’s worth, I seem to recall that one of the sticking points was waterboarding, so they (the sponsors) took it out.
     Mark Shea does extensive discussion of torture and why we as a nation should not try to justify it, and John McCain is a Republican who is prominently against torture. I don’t think it’s as simple as breaking down to “you support the Republicans so you support torture (or this act specifically)” or “you support the Democrats so you support welfare and abortion”. There are exceptions on both sides, and as someone pointed out early on, I think most people break it down to the least-worst candidate rather than the the nonexistent one who aligns perfectly with their views. It’s a line of best-fit; it doesn’t hit all the points.

146. “Oops, posted too soon. What I meant to add is that most law firms don’t follow up on these threatening letters. Jimmy is no danger of being sued by Bill Moyers, unless Mr. Moyers’ lawyer doesn’t mind making his client look like a fool and/or a villain.”
     Welcome to the discussion, Miss Jean. Unfortunately, Jimmy can’t assume that these threats are empty. He has too much to lose. That’s why this legal intimidation is so chilling to free speech. The mere act of making the threat, even if it is silly, requires some defense, which sucks away time and resources.
     Also, from what little understanding I have of the law, ignoring the threat could give grounds for further, more damaging, legal attacks.
     Bill Moyers is such a woosey. He can dish it out on TV just fine, but heaven forbid that someone in the new media challenge him at all!

147. >I’ve yet to find anything in it that hasn’t been allowed in the past…why not terrorists?
     Who gets to say they’re “terrorists”? With no review at all? I think that’s Matt’s point, even though he didn’t make it very well.
     Paul’s turnabout on Matt’s argument is clever but, as I’m sure he knows, really does miss the real issue. I think it’s not that one party would be any more likely to abuse power than another. It’s that even if the current guy can be trusted, you don’t know who the next dude will be, or the chick after that. Matt was just being ham-handed and condescending by trying to hit the abortion hot button. Bad Matt.
     And yeah, Moyers’s Lawyers need a refresher in diplomacy. And handwriting.
     PS: Whoever posted Matt’s personal information is reprehensible.

148. Paul’s turnabout on Matt’s argument is clever but, as I’m sure he knows, really does miss the real issue.
     I’m not sure that I see how it does miss the real issue. One point that I’m trying to get at is that if you are worried about the President (or Congress, or a state governor, etc.) abusing power, then it seems that there are two things that you can do to avoid such abuse:
     (1) You can try to limit the power of the office, so that there is less power to abuse, or
     (2) You can try to elect good people to the office so that they are less likely to abuse whatever power they have.
     I think that BOTH (1) and (2) are important. But I have become convinced over the years that (2) is *more* important. As someone else pointed out above, if you have someone who is determined to abuse power, they’ll find a way to do it. If they are determined to abuse power, then they probably don’t care what the law says that they can or can’t do; they only care about what they can get away with. So I’d like to see us do our best on points (1) and (2), but my own experience as a political observer has convinced me that (2) is more important than (1).

149. “Also, from what little understanding I have of the law, ignoring the threat could give grounds for further, more damaging, legal attacks.”
     Actually, this is truer than you know.
     Now, this might not be precisely the same predicament that Ole Jimmy might be in, but anyone heard of the news story where a blogger ended up with a judgment against her for $11 Million?
     A Law University consultant had informed the news radio station that aired it that it was that big primarily because (now, please correct me if this isn’t the precise term) it was a ‘default judgment’ that the judge had to render on the case since the defendent didn’t defend herself.
     Had that person (the blogger) actually defended herself in court, it may not have come to that. However, this person understandably couldn’t defend herself in court because, as it was explained by the News folks, she couldn’t even afford a lawyer to defend her since she happened to be one of the victims of New Orleans and, furthermore, had to be relocated elsewhere and couldn’t even go back to that venue where the case was being held.
     Talk about adding insult to injury!

150. Also, as a follow-up to my previous comment: Regardless of whether my “turnabout on Matt’s argument . . . does miss the real issue” or not, I have yet to hear a good response to it.

151. Also, there was an assumption made that what Matt posted was true (or might be). I just don’t see that.

152. Also, there was an assumption made that what Matt posted was true (or might be). I just don’t see that.
     Exactly. I tend to agree.

153. Whoever posted Matt’s personal information is reprehensible.
     Matt’s personal information is gone. I wouldn’t want that done to me; I won’t have it being done to others on my blog.

154. >(1) You can try to limit the power of the office, so that there is less power to abuse, or
     (2) You can try to elect good people to the office so that they are less likely to abuse whatever power they have.
     Option no. 1 = The whole point of the United States in the first place.
     Option no. 2 = See option no. 1.
     PS: Good on ya, Jimmy.

155. Another example of the chilling of free speech which this legal intimidation causes is the fact that Jimmy is not commenting on the situation at all. He has probably been advised by counsel to make no comment on ongoing litigation. Thanks again BM!

156. Hey, knock off the cracks about BM. He’s a champion of free speech. He’ll fight to the death for your right to agree with him!

157. Jimmy, hope you’re okay. This has got to be stressful.
     –Ann

158. “Matt’s personal information is gone. I wouldn’t want that done to me; I won’t have it being done to others on my blog.”
     Kudos. As my dad would say, Jimmy, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.

159. He’ll fight to the death for your right to agree with him!
     LOL! 🙂
     Actually though, I did catch a bit of a PBS documentary the other night which I think Moyers was involved with, on “internet neutrality”. And to his/their credit, I have to point out that the documentary used a pro-Second Amendment group as one example of a group whose free speech could be stifled if the big bad Republicans and the big bad telephone and cable corporations get their way. Ok, they didn’t exactly use the words “big bad”, but those words were implied. 🙂
     Anyway, while I thought that this documentary was probably making too big a deal out of the whole issue, I was impressed that they at least gave the appearance of being concerned with the free speech rights of conservative groups.

160. “Hey, knock off the cracks about BM. He’s a champion of free speech. He’ll fight to the death for your right to agree with him!”
     bill912,
     You’re outta control, brutha!
     You’ve been on a role since this morning!

161. Matt:
     You may be gone by now, but I think the main problem people have responding to your posts is that all you have done is made an assertion — that some Republican-supported anti-terrorism act can be used to proclaim anyone a terrorist and take away his right to a fair trial, etc. But you have not provided any actual text from the act that says so.
     Both people who work in the legal field and people who work in Catholic apologetics are accustomed to dealing with actual texts from source materials — whether scripture verses or code sections — and not merely people’s assertions of what the texts say. If the act means what you say it means, then presumably few people here would favor it. So prove to us that it means what you say: quote chapter and verse, so to speak, so that we have something of substance to argue about and are not simply asserting and denying.

162. “Kudos. As my dad would say, Jimmy, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
     Was there any doubt?!?! ;^)

163. Esau,
     Well, I’ve not met Jimmy, but I’d suspected as much from reading his blog. This just confirmed my suspicions. 😉
     (And if I may take one swipe at a dead horse, it’s one more piece of proof that Moyers’ lawyers went completely overboard. Had to say it…)

164. Can’t resist, I’m still here. Here you go Mark:
     http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/Docs/MCA_Signing_Briefing_Paper.pdf
     If BM’s letter has caused this much concern just imagine if Jimmy had received just the threat of being called an “unlawful enemy combatant” by the NSA. Heck you don’t even have the option of bringing in your buddy the attorney. NW has it right, just because you think the power isn’t going to be abused now is no excuse for accepting such an atrocious attack on our rights.

165. “If BM’s letter has caused this much concern”
     Matt, you seem to have missed what several people have posted above: that the “concern” expressed has not been excessive, but simply the normal and appropriate response to the letter that Moyer’s lawyers sent.
     It does seem that you are making an attempt to stir the pot.
     The second thing is that I checked CCR. On several issues, it has taken positions contrary to Catholic teaching.
     I’ve looked through the five pages that you linked to. I get that you are concerned about the recently passed act. However, one wonders why you are attempting to introduce such a political topic to a blog that is primarily about Catholic apologetics.

166. Matt:
     The link you provided is nothing but a list of further assertions about what the anti-terrorism act means. I don’t see the point in arguing about what you think the act means, or what the Center for Constitutional Rights says it means, rather that what it does in fact mean. And the only way to argue about that is to cite chapter and verse *from the act itself*.
     If you and I were to argue about the meaning of the Gettysburg address, would we do so by me citing Stephen Douglas’s interpretation of it, and you citing your own interpretation of it, without looking at the address itself?
     Since you started out making assertions about what the act means, it’s incumbent on you to cite chapter and verse from the act to support your assertions. However for the heck of it I looked it up for myself (just by Googling “military commissions act”) and found that it contains this statement which seems to contradict what you said the act does: “Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.” Sec. 948c. So those subject to the act are not American anti-abortion protesters, but *alien* *enemy* *combatants*.
     Sure, the Bush administration can claim that an anti-abortion protester is an alien enemy combatant, but for that matter he could claim that my grandmother is a trolley car. If you are worried about people ignoring the true definitions of words, then you may as well worry about every law on the books because in that case any law can mean anything the president says it means, and there’s no more reason to worry about this law than about an anti-jaywalking law.

167. I will offer one more argument to Matt and then quit this topic at least on this thread, since it is off the topic of the thread. Matt (or anyone else), feel free to e-mail me if you want to continue the debate in private.
     My argument is this: If you think Republicans are nuts for supporting the Military Commissions Act because it could be misused by this or future administrations — and it makes no sense to not be worried simply because we believe the current administration to be benign, because after all some future administration may not be benign — then I can’t for the life of me figure out why you Democrats favor gun control. If you are so worried about the government currently or in the future oppressing and persecuting its own people, then why on earth would you want the people to be disarmed in the face of an oppressive government?
     This is precisely the reason — one reason anyway — why the NRA opposes gun control (the other major one being the right of self-defense against criminals). Democrats who profess to be shaking in their boots when they contemplate how fascistic our government has become must be completely looney to favor gun control.

168. I never understood why Moyers does not have the integrity to put himself out there as a pundit like many other liberal and conservative COMMENTATORS have. A simple, “Hi, I am Bill Moyers, I am a Democrat and this is why… here I stand, this is what I believe, this is who I am” approach. Agree or disagree with his points, at least I could respect that as an action of someone not trying to pose as something he is NOT – an objective journalist.
     Pat Buchanan has a journalism degree. Would anyone think of him as being an objective journalist? NO. He makes arguments for what he believes and is open about espousing it. Agree or disagree, that is what he thinks and he is telling the world just that.
     If PAT were to approach PBS about doing a show as an “objective journalist” rather than what he is – a writer with a distinct political philosophy who has run for president and is active in politics, he would get laughed out of the joint.
     Yet we are to believe that BM, a staff member of two Democratic White Houses, is an unbiased objective journalist? Sure, and Karl Rove has been thinking about getting a gig as a cub reporter for TIME.
     Bill, just come out of the closet. You support liberal politics, you advance liberal causes, you are….
     (DRUM ROLL)
     a liberal commentator.
     Just call a spade a spade.

169. Mary Kay:
     Most people in the world have taken positions against “Catholic teaching” In fact, there is a raging debate among Catholics yourselves about what Catholic teaching, correct? Please don’t shoot the messenger.
     Mark:
     From the link I found via the Wash. Post:
     “Could American citizens be held as “enemy combatants” or as “unlawful enemy
     combatants?
     
     Yes. The MCA includes language that states that persons who “materially
     support” hostilities against the U.S. can be labeled and held as ‘unlawful enemy
     combatants.’ This might include, for instance, someone who donates money to a
     charity in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or Al
     Qaeda, or even the organizer of an anti-war rally, without regard to actual hostilities.
     The definition also presumptively includes members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or
     “associated forces.” ”
     As I commented earlier, I would add someone blogging in support of “anti-abortionist terrorists.” They CAN come for you under this law and neither you nor your family will have any way of getting you out of prison, or even communicating with you.
     Simple Sinner: “Good night and good luck”

170. I would like to tie this in with another big event related to free speech that is very fresh in our Catholic minds: Regensberg.
     The pope makes a speech touching on the violent reputation of Muslims and outraged Muslims respond by killing a helpless nun working for charity and then donning masks and standing in front of Catholic churches around Europe with the intention of intimidating Catholics GOING TO WORSHIP.
     The media’s reaction? Vociferously denounce the pope and demand he apologize for calling a bunch of spazzes a bunch of spazzes.
     How the media could blame the pope for the killing and intimidation is beyond us. Talk about chilling. This was a watershed moment when we all realized the media could give a rat’s butt about their much-vaunted position as defenders of free speech as well as a glimpse of their pathological hatred of the Church.
     Since then, for most Catholics at least, the media has been shown for what it is: an irredeemably biased and secularist-agenda driven entity that even cannot be trusted for something as innocuous as weather reports.
     If you saw the writing on the wall then, none of this comes as a surprise now.
     Jimmy Akin has posted a valid of criticism of a journalist widely-known for his total disregard for objectivity. The information comes second hand but the person in question has as much, if not more, to lose reputation-wise as BM if he were to be publicly implicated in a lie.
     So BM rouses his lawyers in an attempt to save his flagging reputation. He does nothing to redeem himself in terms of the facts. He only wants to crush any voices of criticism.
     Are you all seeing the pattern here? I mean, aside from the blatant disregard for truth, facts, and history? Say Muslims are violent and they violently tell you they are not. Call Moyers a liberal drone and he defends himself by taking a swipe at your right to free speech.
     This is madness. This Romulan-interrogator “you see three fingers”, Petruchio “I’ll tell you the color of the sky” weirdness. This is “It’s weird watching Moyers/Fingal create his own reality around him” insanity. This is “that depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is” lunacy. This is an attempt to assert a false version of reality in spite of the plain truth of the matter.
     The new rule is: no talking about things the way they are.
     I would not be surprised if, as the dinosaur media enters its death throes, we wouldn’t see more instances of even greater legal and political intimidation before the end.
     I think Moyers is of the mind that Rathering out will not do his cause any good. Instead, he has decided to Reuter down and wait it out and hope for more favorable weather. I bet all the so-called journalists will react similarly when their true nature is exposed from now on.
     If you think the Dan Brown, Ron Howard, Sony Corp, Border’s anti-Catholic DaVinci code media alliance was overkill, you haven’t seen anything yet. Expect more lawyers and expect more politicians. Expect more random, malicious attacks like in the previous related post.
     Today’s forecast: darker skies ahead. Will be clearing again, someday …

171. Do you think if we were to hide our faces in masks, burn Moyers in effigy in front of PBS, and threaten PBS employees not to malign our peace-loving ways the media would be sympathetic to our cause?
     Do you think if we pointed out the 6,700 innocent Americans murdered everyday without trial the media would take a harsher stance against those who would keep America’s abortion laws more liberal than those of France?
     Do you think by characterizing the media as corrupt corporate tools who valiantly defend vulgarity and spinelessly attack the Church that the media will engage in some self-criticism for a split second?
     Ha ha ha ha!!! No, neither do I. Just needed to interject some humor there…
     When Dan Brown came out with an endless stream of lies about the Church, did the Church sue him? Nope. How about Opus Dei? Nope. In the end, Brown was sued by his “brave” sources. My point? The Church cares more about the freedom of speech than very people who make their living under that umbrella of Free Speech.
     Who is the real hero here?

172. Most people in the world have taken positions against Catholic teaching”
     Yet another assertion, another opinion, without facts. You can say that some people in the world, you can say that most people in your circle, but your original statement does not stand.
     In fact, there is a raging debate among Catholics yourselves about what Catholic teaching, correct?Please don’t shoot the messenger.
     By describing the viewpoint of the organization you linked to is seen as “shooting the messenger?” Ohhh-kay. Very illuminating.
     About your response to Mark about your addition of “someone blogging in support of ‘anti-abortion terrorists.'” So is that the next thing the liberals plan to use to intimidate and harass pro-lifers? Abortion advocates have misused existing laws until the court told them to stop.
     Funny, the pattern here is liberal groups with big money harassing and trying to silence those who disagree. Not unlike Moyers bringing out his big gun lawyers when a much lower keyed response would have sufficed.
     And to Simple Sinner, a movie quote?
     Speaking of “shooting the messenger,” you’re doing a good job of shooting yourself in the foot.

173. italics off

174. Erm, StubbleSpark? Not to be nitpicky, but is your Star Trek reference referring to the episode where Captain Picard is tortured? If so, the correct reference is not “This Romulan-interrogator ‘you see three fingers'” but “This Cardassian-interrogator ‘you see five lights.'”
     If not, carry on.

175. Most people in the world have taken positions against “Catholic teaching”
     Yes, man has for the most part shown his tendency to rebel against God. You might recall the first book of the Bible for some very good examples. Thankfully the Lord doesn’t give up on us. Thus we have Christ as our Savior and “Catholic teaching” inspired by the Holy Spirit.

176. Jeffrey, you’re right that man has shown his tendency to rebel against God.
     To clarify my response, Matt’s sentence sounds as if “most people of the world” know Catholic teaching and have taken an active stance against it. Given the millions who don’t even know Catholic teaching, that can’t possibly be true. Thus, it was an opinion reflecting the world of his own circle.

177. Guys, come on. Seriously. Don’t feed the troll. He’s already demonstrated he won’t go away. He continually diverts the topic when he can’t address the point. He’s either a democrat plant or a libertarian who reads too many conspiracy rags.
     If the former, you will convince him of nothing, because he’s been trained to resist counter-arguments, just like the talking heads on TV.
     If he’s the latter, he may at least be sincere, but seriously, how many conspiracy types have any of you seen converted via internet?
     It’s time to let Matt go.

178. JoAnna: Are you sure? I was certain it was fingers and not lights. I don’t have the episode on hand, though and haven’t seen it in probably a decade at least. I do agree with you about the Cardassian. For some reason the spoon-head in my memory was classified as a Romulan. How embarrassing! Even worse, I could not remember the exact quote from Taming of the Shrew.
     I swear I am not trying to sound smart, it is just that this has reminded me of so many moments that should resonate within the public’s pop culture consciousness.
     I did accurately quote from Overdrawn at the Memory Bank and I offer this as proof that I am, in fact, somewhat of a moron.

179. I’ve seen the episode recently and it was lights, not fingers.

180. May I offer a few more words about (about, not to) the troll to complement what Sifu and all the others who have wisely advised against feeding it.
     I say this knowing that I have somewhat of a reputation for confronting trolls.
     I would like to put forward the following point: it is not worth it.
     The topic of this post is BM — a famously biased reporter who has decided to bring legal force to bear on anyone who says so. Topics related to this post would include the law on slander and defamation and our constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
     If you follow his slimy trail all the way back to our troll’s appearance, you will notice how he has consistently demanded everyone draw their attention away from the issue at hand and focus on him.
     This is pure childishness. Perhaps he suffers from some issues brought on by his upbringing but this is not how adults hold discussions. Especially in a formatted context where the topic has been decided such as blogs.
     Our troll may or may have the civility to go away when we ignore him, but one thing would be sure: there would be far too few posts humoring his calls for attention.
     This topic is too important to highjacked by a troll. I had to read 160 posts before I could finally comment and far too many of them had no substantive bearing on BM or Jimmy Akin.
     This topic has been and is going to attract more new visitors than usual and I think we owe it to them not to get bogged down off-topic and turn this into some sort of mushy free-for-all.
     Bottom line: when you feed the troll, the troll wins because the troll takes control of the conversation.
     Ignore him if you want or, if you really want to engage in troll evisceration, please do it via email.
     That is just my two cents. I am not Jimmy Akin but I come here often enough to know that he has a policy to avoid political discussions. The original BM post was about the manipulation of coreligionists via a defamatory and agenda-driven media. The second post was about that same media’s attempt to crack down on Jimmy, specifically in his capacity as a Catholic commentator.
     It is not that we should give up on the likes of our troll, it is just that in this case especially, he is not worth it.

181. Beisner’s response from the latest ISA newsletter is posted here.

182. Where’s Jimmy?
     This isn’t like him to not blog without sending us a post, is it?

183. Tim, in my experience Jimmy rarely posts in the more serious comboxes, and still rarer are his substantial contributions to the discussions.

184. Curious, I realize that Jimmy has taken the time to respond to Moyers’ lawyers. However, it’s not the same as being served a subpoena and refusing to appear in court.
     Personally, I don’t think that Moyers has much of a case even against the man he says slandered him. Public officials and public figures like Moyers have a bigger burden to prove actual damages in this sort of case. Gertz vs. Welch (1973 or ’74) set a precedent that noted public figures who have access to media channels are more likely to be able to counteract false statements.
     The only exception was in Firestone v. Time, which was a pretty weird decision. In that case, Time Magazine had printed a notice about the divorce of a Florida socialite. Mrs. Firestone had actually held a press conference during her divorce proceedings, then turned around and declared she was NOT a public figure and had been damaged by the publication. (She was a “vortex” public figure, pulled into notoriety against her will. Now the decisions seem to make it hard for vortex public figures to sue for defamation, e.g the Duke players who weren’t charged.)

185. Jordan, thanks for the link. Makes Moyers smell like last month’s limburger.

186. Ok ok…so Moyers is really just an angry liberal (have yet to meet a real happy one), Jimmy didn’t do anything wrong and we shouldn’t feed trolls.
     Time for something new…

187. Dear Jimmy,
     Great Site. Very Informative.
     I am an Indian Catholic who lives in India and was an avid watcher of E.W.T.N. but I no longer have any access to it as E.W.T.N. has been banned in India for “allegedly” not meeting some licensing requirements but I feel that’s not the real story.
     I do not have access to any solid catholic stuff anymore as we have no idea when E.W.T.N. will be able to return to India and when ?
     I was wondering if you could help me with this request. I love the awesome and inspirational talks of Father John Corapi on several issues but i have drawn a blank as regards getting them any where so far on the web.
     Could you please tell me where on the internet I could have access to “MP3 Audio Talks” by Father John Corapi on “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Eucharist, Our Lady, etc.
     I would be most grateful for any info that you can give me in this regard.

188. The “right wing” conspiracy is as strong as ever and certainly Bill Moyer will always be a target .

189. Prof. C,
     I do hope that was meant to be satirical. If not, well it’s completely rediculous.

190. Indian Catholic,
     Perhaps if you go to http://www.EWTN.com you can download some of the talks. That is how I used to listen to The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi

191. Simple Sinner, you read too fast. He’s saying that he doesn’t have access to EWTN.

192. Dear Indian Catholic,
     Fraternal greetings from a brother in faith in California! I am also a fan of Fr. Corapi and am blessed to hear his talks on radio. You might look for EWTN on short wave. You can look this up on http://www.ewtn.com as our simple sinner suggested.
     Fr. Corapi has an extensive website at http://www.fathercorapi.com/ His various series can be ordered there and are rather pricey. I think these sales are the main source of his support. There are clips available for free, but not whole talks, as far as I saw.
     http://www.catholic.com has essentially all of the mp3s of Catholic Answers which is an excellent Q&A show on catholic teaching. They are all downloadable for free at http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php
     Blessings to you!

193. Stoodley said: “Tim, in my experience Jimmy rarely posts in the more serious comboxes, and still rarer are his substantial contributions to the discussions.”
     No, I mean why hasn’t he posted for days now? He usually announces any breaks from blogging. I don’t like this.
     Silence is not golden.

194. Tim, it’s only one day actually. Jimmy put this up last Thursday I think and said he’d leave it up for 24 hours. That takes it into Friday and the weekend and he never blogs on the weekend. So it’s only the Sunday night/Monday morning one.
     Who knows why. Anytime lawyers go thumping their chests is a pain. Not because there’s any substance but because of the hassle of having to deal with an annoying distraction.
     In the overall picture, that’s the problem. Jimmy and people like him are doing the real work in this world. Moyers and his ilk remind me of Wormtongue (in the book TTT, not the movie) when Gandalf tells Theoden that Wormtongue is using tactics to delay Gandalf. If that makes sense. Moyers et al are simply part of the harassment.

195. Jimmy, hope you’re alright.

196. Perhaps he has been hawled away to court….

197. Doesn’t Michelle Arnold work with him? Perhaps someone can e-mail her.

198. The reason you haven’t heard from Jimmy in days is because Jimmy almost never posts on the weekends.

199. Poor Jimmy, no blogs!
     This must have really upset him…
     Jimmy, it’s ok! Don’t worry! We’ll bust you out of the pokey no problemo.

200. Jimmy is in NYC working on the final details with CBS for a full time gig on “60 Minutes” as their Christian Commentator.

201. Jimmy, it’s ok! Don’t worry! We’ll bust you out of the pokey no problemo.
     If only Jimmy were here to tell us whether it is ever licit to bust him out of jail, and if so, when!

202. Canon 23515 of the 1198 Code of Canon Law states:
     “It is always licit to spring a Catholic Apologist from the Pokey (Pokeium in the Latin) if he is being held by either infidels or those of a doubtful legal standing. Hence when in doubt spring the apologist.”

203. Dear Indian Catholic,
     You can find some Fr. Corapi mp3 files on this site…
     http://www.catholicaudio.us/
     Specifically, click on “online library”, then click on “EWTN programs”, then click on “Fr. John Corapi”. Or to avoid all those clicks, just go directly to this URL…
     ftp://217.160.246.215/pub/audionet/EWTN_programs/Fr._John_Corapi/
     You should see that there is a short series of talks for the Easter Triduum, as well as a much longer series on the teachings of Jesus. The sound quality is not terrific, but it’s fairly good (the encoding is at 32 kbps, at least for one file that I downloaded as a test).
     You can also go to this page…
     http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp
     … and do a search for “corapi” in the SECOND search field on the page (the one for EWTN programs rather than EWTN series). It should return 14 programs by Fr. Corapi, though these are in RealAudio format rather than mp3.
     Also, I’m very sad to hear that EWTN is no longer available in India. This is very bad news if it applies to India as a whole, since that means that a very large number of people no longer have access to this great voice for orthodox Catholic teaching. Let us all pray that EWTN will be available there again soon.
     Paul

204. Canon 23515 of the 1198 Code of Canon Law states:
     “It is always licit to spring a Catholic Apologist from the Pokey (Pokeium in the Latin) if he is being held by either infidels or those of a doubtful legal standing. Hence when in doubt spring the apologist.”
     Then what are we waiting for?!? Everyone grab your halberds and colorful costumes and march on New York and LA. Those east of the Mississippi go to the former, those west go to the latter. We won’t stop till Jimmy’s free!

205. Dear Paul,
     Greetings from India. Many, Many, Thanks for the extremely useful info that you have given me.
     I am extremely grateful and I appreciate it.
     I live in one of the major cities in India.
     E.W.T.N. is not available in any part of India except through the Internet and only if you have a good fast “Broadband Connection”.
     More about me.
     I am an Indian Catholic of Portuguese Descent from the Former Portuguese Colony of Goa on the West Coast of India.
     My Ancestors were evangelized to Catholicism from Hinduism in the late 16th Century by Zealous Portuguese Jesuit Missionaries that followed in the footsteps of Saint Francis Xavier. In Goa, at a Basilica known as “The Basilica of Bom Jesus” we still have the incorrupt Body of Saint Francis Xavier.
     E.W.T.N. was asked to leave India in May 2006 for supposedly not meeting some licensing requirements by the Federal Government as is required for “Foreign Television Networks”.
     But, i feel that some Hindu radicals put pressure on some Federal Government Officials and asked them to leave the country.
     What is also odd is that while an Evangelical Protestant Television Station has been permitted to televise its programs in the country known as “GOD TV” the same permission has not been extended to E.W.T.N.
     Yes, indeed it is a very sad, sad, sad, day.
     E.W.T.N. was the only abode of solid, orthodox, Catholic Teaching on virtually every Topic under the Sun.
     I used to regularly watch the Programs of Mike Aquilina, Dr. Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, Reruns of Archbishop Sheen’s Series, etc.
     Here is a link that explains to a certain extent why E.W.T.N. is not in India any more.
     “June 28,2006
     Catholics seek govt help to resume religious channels”
     http://www.theindiancatholic.com/newsread.asp?nid=2140
     Also, check out:
     “INDIA: CSF Petitions to Restart EWTN
     Friday, July 07, 2006”
     (The Blogspot below is an “Ethnic Catholic Community Website)
     http://konkanicatholics.blogspot.com/2006/07/india-csf-petitions-to-restart-ewtn.html

206. If anyone believes that Bill Moyers would have made the personal remark stating his political leanings as well as his confession that he (Moyers)planned to use the story to affect the Nov. 7 election is not thinking clearly. Or perhaps, the readers w/this inclination should pay less attention to right winged zealots and more attention to your own common sense.

207. Simple Sinner, my apologies. I was the one reading too fast. I thought Indian Catholic meant that he couldn’t get it on the computer. I didn’t even consider that he meant tv as I don’t get EWTN on tv either.

208. Woody,
     Don’t be so sure. Perhaps in his excitment to undermine some “right winged zealots” he let his evil scheme slip. Crazier things have happened.

209. What I think is most likely, Woody and Kris (and anyone else who may care), is that they were talking about the show and about politics in general. At some point maybe Beisner said “But you’re a Democrat, right?” or “But you’d like to see X, Y and Z come about – personally of course, not professionally” and maybe Moyers allowed as how he didn’t like the Republican direction in Washington and he hoped that the elections would change it. I seriously doubt Bill Moyers would have said explicitly and unsolicited that he wanted this program to help oust the Republicans in November, but I can readily believe that in the course of a conversation he could have said a lot of things that a reasonable person could add up to mean that.

210. Dear MaryKay, ASimpleSinner, and Curious,
     Greetings.
     My Apologies for not clarifying in time what I really meant by saying that “E.W.T.N. is not available in India”.
     I guess you Guys have understood now.
     E.W.T.N.Television is not available in India at all, one can listen to or watch E.W.T.N. Programs via the Internet if you have installed the “Real Audio and Video Player on your P.C.” but I have discovered the hard way that is really expensive.
     My Internet Bills were really shooting up as aresult of watching E.W.T.N. on the Internet.
     So, I abandoned watching E.W.T.N. on the Internet.
     Many Thanks for all the links.
     If the situation continues to deteriorate in India, as regards the eventual return of E.W.T.N. — I will not be surprised if E.W.T.N. does return after a period of 5 years or perhaps never.
     There is a lot of animosity in India against Christians and Catholics by Hindu Nationalists/Radicals and when Pope Benedict, The XVI made some comments in May 2006 against “Draconian and Unjust Anti- Conversion Laws” that have been passed in some States in India –they burnt effigies of the Pope in many parts of the Country.
     That is why, I am happy that some MP3 Audio Files are available of speakers like Father Corapi, Father Bill Casey, Dr. Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, etc.
     P.S. Many Thanks to Curious and to ASimpleSinner for telling me about “Catholic Answers” and their awesome MP3 Archive.
     I believe that Jimmy is quiten often a Guest Speaker there.
     Thanks again everyone.

211. Indian Catholic, you have my prayers and I’m sure of others here.

212. Dear MaryKay and Friends in Chrsit,
     Many Thanks for your prayers as well as of those at the Blog here.
     They are appreciated.
     If you are interested in knowing, anything about the “Persecution of Catholics” in India — Direct or indirect you can always drop me a line.
     I will be happy to give you some info on the situation as it exists.

213. Costa Rica Real Estate.
     To find a property in Paradise visit http://www.firstrealtycr.com a name you can trust in Costa Rica Real Estate