October 26, 2003
Jon Matthews off the air

Good grief, how in the world did I miss this?

Popular radio talk show host Jon Matthews is off the air and we've learned Sugar Land police are investigating him.

Houstonians have been listening to the conservative radio talk show host for more than 15 years. He's a former Marine with loyal listeners, but on Friday those listeners didn't hear him because his boss took him off the air.

"I think that was the best thing to do," said KSEV General Manager Dan Patrick.

Patrick yanked Matthews off the air after learning from Eyewitness News about the investigation and then speaking to detectives.

"I just told him, 'John, since there's an investigation going on, it's just not the wise thing for you to be on the air until all the facts are known'," said Patrick.

The Sugar Land Police Department would not talk about this case on camera, but they do say on the record that they're investigating Matthews after an allegation of indecency with a child. They are, however, reluctant to release any specifics.

Sugar Land Police Captain Mike Lund says, "We have an ongoing investigation and I'm not going to go there."

Matthews shut the door on us when we tried to talk to him on Friday. He wouldn't discuss the investigation. His boss hopes people will reserve judgment until the truth is determined by police or a jury.

"Let the investigation play out," said Patrick. "Let's see if there are any charges brought, if there are not. I don't know what else you'd like me to say."

Congressman John Culberson, who appears weekly on Matthews' show says he can't imagine the talk show host being involved in any indecency with a child. He said "I just can't even imagine…I refuse to believe it…It must be a mistake."

It's important to stress that at this time, Matthews has not been arrested or charged with any crime.

Via Atrios. Finding this story explains a comment that was left yesterday on an older post of mine, one which shows the type of discourse that Jon Matthews is famous for. I'll keep my eyes open for any updates on this.

UPDATE: Since everyone seems to be coming to this post via their Google searches, an update is posted here.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 26, 2003 to Crime and Punishment | TrackBack

No pity here. One of my students who didn't like researching the truth, called to complain to Matthews about his assignment on the 2000 presidential election. Matthews griped about "liberal" college professors all morning. Matthews then called my college to complain. My college then called me and rather than support my academic freedom, wanted to know what the assignment was before they made any comment about it. They didn't see the irony and the lack of academic freedom. Did they really think that Jon Matthews should make the assignments and use all the care his show is so well known for advocating.

Everyone did their paper and was rather amused by the incident.

I hope he gets all the due process and equal protection of which he has complained on his program.

Posted by: Jaye on October 26, 2003 2:47 PM

Matthews is off the air. It sounds like Patrick has done the right thing.

However Kuff and Jaye have nothing to base their dimwitted comments on.

All Americas have a right to due process so wait and see.

Posted by: Charles on October 26, 2003 8:05 PM


Are you making dimwitted comments again?

"All Americas have a right to due process so wait and see."

That's right, Charles, they do. Tell that to Matthews the next time he rants about Bill Clinton. Should he get another chance.

Posted by: Jaye on October 26, 2003 9:54 PM

Why are bringing Bill Clinton into this situation?

There isn't even a comparison between the two situations.

In Matthews situation we are talking about a situation that could potentially ruin a man's whole life and neither you or Kuff have one shread of evidence that Matthews did what has been alledged.

I understand partisanship and I understand politics, but wishing for a man's life to be ruined is way over the top.

If either one of you chicken shits have any evidence to back up the allegation bring it forward otherwise grow up, shut up and let the court's and government process take its course.

Posted by: charles on October 27, 2003 6:29 AM

Charles, you are getting exactly one warning. You have 24 hours to retract the phrase "chicken shits" and apologize for your rudeness, or you're going to be banned from commenting.

And please note, the only person making allegations about Jon Matthews is an unnamed person in Sugar Land. All I did was link to the story, and all Jaye did was relate her own personal experience with the man.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2003 7:38 AM

No way am I going to retract anything. So what? You ban me from posting on your Web site? So what?

It isn't my problem that you can't take criticism. It isn't my problem that you have very thin skin.

Only five people read your Web site anyway.

It's not my problem that you don't want to hear an opposite point of view because you can't take it.

I have asked both of you to come up with specific examples of how you believe that the allegation mentioned in the Channel 13 report is true. Neither one of you have brought up facts to back up the report because neither of you have any facts to back it up.

On Jaye's Web site she claims that she is attending law school--which is fine, but as a law school graduate myself 15 years ago I can tell you that she has a lot to learn.

I hope to God that when she graduates and if her attitude has not changed then none of my friends or relatives get her as a defender. She states in her post that for her there is, "No pity here."

The man's life could potentially be ruined and all Jaye is thinking about is her silly little run-in with Matthews? How lame. I hope that she learns in her criminal procedure class that all citizens, be they black, white, red or brown, Democrat or Republican, are innocent until proven guilty by the state with not just a preponderous of evidence but a beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also noticed that on Jaye's Web site that she comments about how she is offended by anti-semitic colleagues and how her father was openly racist and that her ancestors were KKK members and that she is ashamed of these facts. Good for her because unlike her I'm not a white liberal. I am a red Republican and I glad that she can see through the thoughts of her acquaintances, but bigetry can take all forms and one of them is the attitude of young lawyers to the law.

She needs to get her attitude straight and realize that Matthews--whether she agrees with his politics or not--deserves the belief on her part that he is innocent until proven guilty. She should be ashamed of her slack attitude toward the assumptions of our justice system. She said in her post that her colleagues comments scared her, but as a red man who lives in world run by white liberals like her I'm scared everyday that I read that another biased white liberal will be joining the legal profession--complete with her biased and one-sided way of looking at the world.

God I pray for her and the clients that will be stuck with her someday.

Posted by: Charles on October 27, 2003 8:43 AM


Take your Angry White Man act somewhere else, it's old and tired. Get some fresh material, for Jeebus' sake!


Posted by: DocG on October 27, 2003 8:46 AM


I'm not white.


Posted by: Charles on October 27, 2003 8:52 AM


You may have valid points to make, however, your abrasive tone is not going to help you in this situation. If you would like to continue a debate on this topic, please do so in a less inflammatory manner.

-- one of the five

Posted by: blurker gone bad on October 27, 2003 9:02 AM

Thanks for playing, Charles.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2003 9:03 AM

Wake up folks. When in history have liberals not rejoiced when accusations are made againsts conservatives (talkshow hosts, politicians, etc.). Now more than ever, they live and breath hoping some conservative stumbles because of the dwindling party loyalty.

Those that have remained loyal can't make up their mind who they want to represent their party. Gallup Polls indicated (sampled Oct. 10-12) 22% of African-American support Al Sharpton. General Clark slightly leads the "No Opinion/Other" group; 18% to 15%. Dean, Lieberman, Kerry & Gephardt are all knotted with only 3 points separating them.

It's not that different from when conservatives were in the minority. However, conservatives historically have attacked the issues, and not the person. They realize that most people who vote can read between the lines. It's easy folks: choose and issue, research it, formulate and opinion, and argue it's value. Attacking a person standing behind that issue lowers you to another standard.

I am slightly amused by the preceding threads because it doesn't matter what opinion site I see it on, the same types of attacks are launched over and over again. We'll see what happens with Matthews. I refuse to speculate for due process has not run its course. However, I would not be at all surprised to learn that the accuser has a political agenda that leans acutely left. I would also not be surprised to see, as has happened in the past, that the accusation was made solely with the intent to have Matthews taken off of the air.

No matter the outcome, there are many more standing in line to fill his on-air duties. Those with flawed agendas serve only to remove the man, and not the idea. Who do you think Dan Patrick will replace him with.....a liberal? I don't think so.

Posted by: Mike on October 27, 2003 9:22 AM

I would think that liberals and conservatives alike can agree that the presumption of innocence is a good thing. I would hope that liberals and conservatives alike can agree that every remotely credible allegation of "indecency with a child" should be carefully and thoroughly investigated. I honestly don't see protecting children, or a potentially unjustly accused man's personal and professional life, as being either a conservative or liberal issue.

Posted by: Beldar on October 27, 2003 3:21 PM


I would think that, too. However, when you have a predominantly liberal controlled television media, they cannot resist the chance to take a stab at their political foes.

They don't even know a single detail about the allegations, but they couldn't resist the temptation to report it (whatever 'it' is).

Regarding your statement that it shouldn't be a liberal or conservative issue, it became one the moment that 13 broadcast the story, and became inflamed the moment the story was a) posted on this site, and b) when Jaye took the opportunity to sound off because her feelings were once hurt. Regarding Jaye's comments, the two issues in no way parallel each other. Who doesn't remember Kenneth Starr? Who doesn't remember the special prosection? Clinton was given every ample chance to admit his guilt, which eventually came out in the wash. It could have been worse. Congress could have called have actually called him on the carpet for it. Instead, his impeachment was just a slap on the wrist. To make matters worse, he's in no way ashamed of his acts. Don't believe for a moment that he's sorry for cheating on his wife or lying to the public. With no shame, he's not concerned about his ability to procure gainful employement. Heck, he can go off to the 99% of America's colleges (with 97% and greater populations of liberal professors) and give speaches about Lewinsky, Whitewater, and mindless rhetoric until he's blue in the face (or until he can afford his library since the taxpayers won't pay for it).

Posted by: Mike on October 27, 2003 4:02 PM

Beldar says it for me, and says it well... and unlike Beldar, I'm about as liberal as it gets within the mainstream of American political thought. I'm glad there are a few things all thinking Americans can agree on unreservedly, and I'm especially glad that the need for due process and the need to protect children from assault are two of them. It's those unthinking Americans I worry about.

Mike, the shoe you offer me doesn't fit, so I'm not going to wear it. Pointing out hypocrisy is an old conservative tradition, and I see no reason why it should be any less valid for those of us who call ourselves liberal to do so than it is for you. There is no liberal agenda manifested in removing a suspected child molester from a radio hosting job; you are correct, and you make my point, when you say that there is no way he will be replaced with a liberal... so how can his removal be a liberal plot? And as far as I'm concerned, he's innocent until a court of law says otherwise.

As for the more famous, less local conservative talk show host who stumbled recently (and eventually admitted it), however much I despise him, however much I point him out as a raving hypocrite, I nonetheless wish him the best in rehab, and I do not advocate jailing him or any other drug addict. Maybe feelings like that are why no one ever needs to say the phrase "compassionate liberal"; compassion just comes with the territory.

Other charles, you of the ambiguous capitalization of your first name, you who hurl epithets all too readily... thank you for reminding me why I don't have a comment facility on my own blog.

Posted by: Steve Bates on October 27, 2003 4:03 PM

Just so we're all clear here, I certainly agree that Matthews (who hasn't even been arrested yet, fer goodness' sake), is certainly entitled to the full presumption of innocence. Beldar is quite right about this being neither a liberal nor conservative issue, and I appreciate his bringing it up. I didn't say this explicitly, but you'll note I did quote the whole story, which certainly makes a good effort to stress this. As such, especially since I made no further comment on this (dimwitted or otherwise), I presumed this was implied. Apparently, that was too much to ask of some people.

If this is a politically motivated accusation, it's not only 100% wrong, it's pathetic and will do way more harm to those of us who dislike guys like Jon Matthews than anything he could have ever done on his own. For a variety of reasons, I doubt this is the case but one never knows. Frankly, I hope it turns out to be a misunderstanding, since otherwise it means a child has been victimized. Clearly no one wants that.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2003 4:17 PM

"However, conservatives historically have attacked the issues, and not the person."

Now that is funny. Keep these guys on, Kuff. They are a laff riot.

Obviously there is something to it if they took him off the air. In addition to the concern over the man's career maybe there should be some concern for the minor.

Posted by: CN on October 27, 2003 4:54 PM

Note when I say "something to it" I am not saying that makes him guilty. I do think it means the accusation isn't of the crackpot variety.

Posted by: CN on October 27, 2003 5:30 PM

Jon "Cat Daddy" Matthews may be a stick-in-the-mud Goldwaterite --- but I love him, man! He's always been decent to me and let me have my liberal say on his program. Cat Daddy is innocent, I know in my heart of hearts! I'd like to hear the full story when all this hoopla is over. I say, we're shakin' with ya, Cat Daddy!

Posted by: DeLloyd on October 27, 2003 8:26 PM

Jon "Cat Daddy" Matthews may be a stick-in-the-mud Goldwaterite --- but I love him, man! He's always been decent to me and let me have my liberal say on his program. Cat Daddy is innocent, I know in my heart of hearts! I'd like to hear the full story when all this hoopla is over. I say, we're shakin' with ya, Cat Daddy!

Posted by: DeLloyd on October 27, 2003 8:27 PM

Whether it's Bill Clinton or Jon Matthews, anyone accused of anything deserves justice. The bad thing about Matthews, if he is innocent the stigma will be carried by him forever. With Bill Clinton,
he was proven guilty and there was no punishment nor was there a stigma attached.

If Matthews is innocent I have much sympathy for him, if he is guilty he deserves to be locked up forever.
With no key.

The difference in liberal and conservatives is that liberals are tolerant of any behavior (i.e. Michael Jackson, Clinton, etc) and conservatives are not so tolerant, even (and sometimes especially) in their own ranks.

Posted by: Debbie on October 28, 2003 8:57 AM

Wow, seems that most people here are angry over who is liberal and who is conservative. Matthews is "Innocent til proven guilty" period. That is the law of the land.

Bill Clinton was proven guilty, Rush Limbaugh admitted to drug abuse and Nixon did know about Watergate. These are facts, not presumptions.

Liberals do publicly take great joy and gloat when conservatives fall; conservatives feel the same joy they just don't seem to gloat as publicly.

Liberals will defend a guilty liberal far after their guilt has been proven. They will blame everyone except the guilty party. (Clinton)

Conservatives usually will hang out to dry anyone within their ranks who is guilty of even an error in political correctness. (Trent Lott)

Lastly, if Jon Matthews is guilty of something he should be proceuted to the full extent of the law. But can't you wait until he has even been charged?

Posted by: Rick on October 28, 2003 10:39 AM

It appears everyone has forgotten the newest law which is unwritten in American Jurisprudence and that is called "Trial By Media"!

It really doesn't matter if you are "innocent untill proven guilty". It is a wonderful concept but unfortunately it is basically a fantasy. Do you think O.J. was innocent? I think he is guilty as H..., but he was found innocent by a jury of his peers (he was found guilty in the Civil court), and while he was found not guilty do you think he was able to continue his career on TV and the movies? Absolutely not.

Clinton lied through his teeth, get it? For the umpteenth time to all the Libs out there it was not about SEX! HE LIED to all of us, and he was given a pass. Even though he admitted to what he did. He was even disbarred for his actions. But because he was the "liberal" medias' prodigal son, they went after Ken Starr instead, and HE was just doing his job. Think of all the money we could have saved if Clinton would have just told the truth. But that was not important.

Do you think Scott Peterson is innocent? Most people don't. Why? He has not even been to trial yet. Do you think Kobe Bryant can return to all the lucrative endorsements he had before the rape charge, especially if he is found innocent? Not likely. Was John Condit, the Congressman from California who was accused in the media of being responsible for Chandra Levys' disappearance, innocent untill proven guilty? Not a chance! There are many,many more cases I and other people could list here but I think I have made the point.

The only persons that I can think of that were able to return to popularity, even after being found guilty were Mike Tyson and Ted Kennedy (found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, a misdemeanor, although Mary Jo Kopechne lost her life).

So it is not whether you are guilty or not but how popular you are with the media.

Posted by: Darrell on October 28, 2003 11:40 AM

Shorter Mike and Debbie:

The Clenis! The Clenis!!! Good God, who will save America from the Clenis!!!!!!!??????

Posted by: DocG on October 28, 2003 3:32 PM

Conservatives just don't get it. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Libs (generally) understand that human beings aren't perfect, and preach compassion. Conservatives preach fire and brimstone - lock 'em up and throw away the key. Then when one of them gets busted (yeah, I know, innocent until proven and all that), conservatives whine that holding these clowns to their own standards is somehow unfair. Bullshit.

Posted by: edzo vt on October 28, 2003 4:34 PM

For starters it isn't the conservatives that support NAMBLA so the libs have no legs. With that said, nobody thought that Ed Brandon was guilty either. I am not saying that Jon is guilty. There is evidence that he is either guilty or innocent. That is what needs to be waited for.

Posted by: Unique on October 28, 2003 9:15 PM

This is in response to the posts regarding the Matthews matter.

On 10/27/2003, Charles wrote [on a link to a old post on Matthews] that "For the last two years they [the Sugar Land police department] have been running around acting like Nazis and he [Jon Matthews] had the courage to say it out loud." Presumably he was attempting to infer that the Matthews investigation is somehow a "payback" from the S.L. police.

It was interesting to note that it was approximately two years ago that the former mayor of Sugar Land, the one Matthews referred to as "Mayor Osama", was defeated and replaced by the current mayor, "Wonder Wally".

Matthews, true to form, vilified the then Mayor Hrbacek and, without facts, thought or the exercise of any intelligence, lauded "Wonder Wally" and professed him to be the greatest thing since sliced bread; a new Messiah for Sugar Land. If Charles has a problem with the S.L police, perhaps he should look no further than Jon Matthews himself. As Charles points out, the "Nazis" Sugar Land police have only appeared in the last two years and Matthews' lies, laziness and stupidity were a major factor.

With regard to the "credibility" of the accuser, which I assume to be the alleged victim; why has not Matthews simply professed his innocense and stated that the alleged victim is either mistaken or a liar? Innocent men shout their innocence from the hill tops! Granted we do not have many "hill tops" in this area but innocent men certainly do not slam doors in the face of people asking for a comment on the allgations.

Matthews had an opportunity to profess his innocense and he chose to slam the door.

Finally, in case you do not know it, Matthews also publishes a column in a local weekly. His first column after the election of "Wonder Wally" was one of glee and he wrote something to the effect that "Mayor Osama should take a hint and leave Sugar Land"...definately the sign of a tolerant, thoughtful and intelligent person.

Hummmm.....I wonder if his neighbors are beginning to think that maybe Matthews should take his own advice and relocate.

Posted by: Jim on October 29, 2003 3:37 AM

Well, it looks like another right-winger mouthy talk show host will have to hoist himself out of the pondscum of his own making. ROFL
What is it with conservative males? They are so self-righteous. They condemn everyone for their failings, but they walk around like they can walk on water and raise the dead. We have Rush. Windbag lying self-righteous pill popper. Then you have this loud mouth male who rants about patriotism, etc. being caught with fondling a child. Ever ask how long this has been going on, because you never get caught the first time. :)
Rev. White another self-righteous Republican....this week was arrest for asking a 14 year boy for a blowjob.

Hey, guys......how about your Henry Hyde, Newt, Tim Hutchison, Livinging, Armey, JC Watts, Barr, Delay, and other right-wingers, caught in adulterous affairs and have children by other women. Gee, and remember most of these guys were still screwing around, when they were on the hill screaming for Clinton's impeachment. Talk about hypocrites. At least Clinton's blowjob didn't cause the death of over 200 young men/women in the military or thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afganstian.......nor cause over 2,000 wounded/injured soldiers.

Face it guys.........when you want to reach down the the sewage pits.......you will be dragging out alot of self-righteous Republicans. Hypocrites......every last one of them.

Just wait.........Rush and Matthews. Ever wonder what secrets OReilly and Hannity are hiding. It always comes out and bites you on the ass.

Posted by: Strawhat on October 29, 2003 2:21 PM

This is precisely why the "victim protection" laws out there are so pernicious.

Jon matthews gets his name dragged through the mud on the basis of wholly anonymous accusations -- and we cannot even assess the credibility of the accuser. Could it be someone connected with the school board or former administration of Sugar Land making good on their threats to silence Jon? We do not, and cannot, know, because the law silences the police and PC attitudes silence the press in the interest of protecting a "victim" who may not even be one.

By the way -- if Jon doesn't speak out on his innocence, maybe it is out of a desire to avoid the "nuts and sluts" defense employed by Bill Clinton. After all, what would "compassionate liberals" say if he lambasted the alleged victim and the family.

Posted by: TonyScott on October 29, 2003 2:34 PM

Jon, and Rush are the one who need to be reminded to respect “that a person is innocent until proven guilty”. Jon and his cohort had ‘on the air” convicted Bill and Hillary Clinton of several crimes long before he met Monica. They are still convicting Hillary almost weekly of something. Belittling, viscous gossip and worst-case scenarios is the product they sell too the people who will listen. Jon is only another case of “he that lives by the sword dies by the sword.”

Posted by: Steve Lewis on October 29, 2003 3:56 PM

Amen, Steve!

Since Clinton's zipper was not involved, a crime could not have occurred with Rush and Jon Matthews, or JC Watts, or Joe Scarborough, or the Bush family, etc.

Joe in Kemah

Posted by: Joe Wilsop on November 3, 2003 2:18 PM

Can anyone give a current update on the status of investigation against Mr. Matthews?

Posted by: Mike on November 3, 2003 11:22 PM

I have been out of town and found out that Jon is not on the air. Can someone tell me what he is being accused of?

Posted by: majboyd on November 5, 2003 7:31 AM

Majboyd - Jon is off the air while an investigation is being conducted for alleged indecency with a child. I think Dan Patrick and Jon have made the right decision in doing this; otherwise, the phone lines would be jammed with liberals calling him and asking if he's raped any more children lately.

I know Jon personally. I find it very hard to believe that the allegation has any basis in truth. I also know that he has been lighting up the SLPD for some time, and I find it interesting that they are the ones "investigating" this allegation. I think there's a severe conflict of interest there, and that this should be turned over to a different agency, such as the Texas Rangers, to investigate.

My $0.02 worth.....

Posted by: Clothahump on November 5, 2003 8:52 AM

I was stunned too. I heard on KFPT, the pacifica station, of all places. Truthfully, I'm a bit dissapointed though in the station. I know Dan had to mention what was going on when he filled in, but I listened all day and never heard another word on Mike or Dan's show. I was expecting at least a quick word on the situation for the afternoon listener's in the interest of disclosure. I'm from Colorado and on KOA the big talk station they immediately reported, and throughout the day repeated, a report that their financial reporter was arrested for spousal abuse. Likewise, a TV anchorman in Denver once reported his own DUI on air when he didn't have to. Maybe I'm being to harsh, but it does hurt KSEV's credibility with me since they seemed to set such high standards. I didn't expect an entire show discussion, but just a 'this is the situation, we'll wait for the investigation' notice to the afternoon listeners.
Furthermore, they further lost my faith when I didn't hear a single word about John Culberson's numbers on Metro. Maybe someone can correct me, but I listen all day at work and never heard one worda bout Culberson's alleged numbers being from the Fed. Transportation Dept. I'm really dissapointed.

Posted by: Jason on November 5, 2003 10:21 AM

Hang in there, Cat Daddy Jon! I'm a true-blue liberal but I think you're the greatest! I want you back on the air so you can sing Happy Birthday to me next February! And you have a good Kwanzaa, hear?

Posted by: DeLloyd on November 5, 2003 3:24 PM

How do we find out what is going on? I thought some folks were going to use Freedom of Information Act to get us more info. I enjoy the show and would like more frequent updates. Has anyone seen him about in Sugarland. Where in Sugarland does he live?

Posted by: Mike on November 5, 2003 6:19 PM

Okay, I admit I'm interested in the charges against Mr. Matthews. Why haven't we heard anything?

However, more alarming than this news blackout on the subject, is the sheer joy of some, and jokes by others about the possible rape or molestation of a child. Whether this guy is guilty or not, there is nothing funny about it.

Sorry, the "Bill Clinton" defense of bad behavior doesn't apply for child or alleged child molesters.

Adultery and drug abuse (ie. Clinton/Limbaugh), jokes accepted. Screwing a kid, sorry, way out of bounds.

Susan "Child Abuse isn't funny even if you don't like a person"

Posted by: susan on November 6, 2003 11:06 AM

In no way do I celebrate the destruction of anyone. However, Jon and Rush will get their rep's cleared up with two phone calls to the cops (one by Rick Perry, the Hair to the Throne, and the other by Jeb in Florida for Rush's hillbilly heroin).

Posted by: Joe Hardy on November 6, 2003 4:48 PM

Well this reminds me of the Jethro Tull song "Aqualung." I have heard that Jon asked those in the neighborhood if anyone "liked gladiator movies? "
Anyway, I have a gut feeling, having been a broadcast journalist, that Jon has made someone or somebody angry in Sugar Land and Ft. Bend County and framed him. Additionally, it is also suggested that someone in that community wants a law suit settled out of court because these people possibly think that Jon has lots of money or KSEV has lots of money. That's why Dan Patrick, Mike Richards, and Edd Hendy are placing themselves in the far distance and leaving Jon out to dry. That's very Christian of Dan, Mike, or Edd, isn't it. Dan and the boys talk real tough but are really cowards.....Rod!

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 6, 2003 11:29 PM

One thing about the conservative talk radio....they are very controlling in content just as the liberal media, even more so.
Would the conservative media mention that we have a draft? No. The liberal media hasn't. So, hasn't the conservative media.
And now the draft that no one knows about:
Jon or Dan or Edd or Mike speaks no evil about anyting except Liberals, Democrats, etc.



1st Session

H. R. 163

To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services



To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


(a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the `Universal National Service Act of 2003'.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. National service obligation.

Sec. 3. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 4. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 5. Induction.

Sec. 6. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 7. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 8. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 9. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 10. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 11. Relation of Act to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 12. Definitions.


(a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act.

(b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.

(c) INDUCTION REQUIREMENTS- The President shall provide for the induction of persons covered by subsection (a) to perform national service under this Act.

(d) SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- Based upon the needs of the uniformed services, the President shall--

(1) determine the number of persons covered by subsection (a) whose service is to be performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services; and

(2) select the individuals among those persons who are to be inducted for military service under this Act.

(e) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons covered by subsection (a) who are not selected for military service under subsection (d) shall perform their national service obligation under this Act in a civilian capacity pursuant to subsection (b)(2).


(a) GENERAL RULE- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this Act shall be two years.

(b) GROUNDS FOR EXTENSION- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this Act may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) EARLY TERMINATION- The period of national service for a person under this Act shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reverse component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve
on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.


(a) IN GENERAL- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act.

(b) MATTER TO BE COVERED BY REGULATIONS- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed for a person's national service obligation under this Act.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this Act, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this Act and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this Act, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this Act through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this Act.

(c) USE OF PRIOR ACT- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this Act the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.


(a) IN GENERAL- Every person subject to induction for national service under this Act, except those whose training is deferred or postponed in accordance with this Act, shall be called and inducted by the President for such service at the time and place specified by the President.

(b) AGE LIMITS- A person may be inducted under this Act only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 26.

(c) VOLUNTARY INDUCTION- A person subject to induction under this Act may volunteer for induction at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

(d) EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION- Every person subject to induction under this Act shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service. The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.


(a) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this Act postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) HARDSHIP AND DISABILITY- Deferments from national service under this Act may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) TRAINING CAPACITY- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this Act as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) TERMINATION- No deferment or postponement of induction under this Act shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.


(a) QUALIFICATIONS- No person may be inducted for military service under this Act unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) OTHER MILITARY SERVICE- No person shall be liable for induction under this Act who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States
Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes two years training therein.


(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.


(a) DISCHARGE- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this Act, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this Act.

(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.


(a) REGISTRATION REQUIRED- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking `male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting `or herself' after `himself'; and

(3) by striking `he' and inserting `the person'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking `men' and inserting `persons'.


(a) REGISTRATION- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

`(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.

(b) INDUCTION- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking `now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting `inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2003.'.


In this Act:

(1) The term `military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reverse component of the uniformed services.

(2) The term `Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to matters concerning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to matters concerning the Public Health Service.

(3) The term `United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(4) The term `uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 6, 2003 11:46 PM

One last final thing before retiring for sleep in the hay. The conservative media will not discuss W's military record. I have heard it mentioned elsewhere in the country and here it is. I ask listeners to pose the question to Mike, Dannie Scott Goeb aka Dan Patrick or Edd-where's-my-arrogant-attitude Hendy about the prez's military record. If I were a talk show host I would bring out these questions.....


The following documents were obtained using the processes outlined in the Freedom Of Information Act

The Military records of George Walker Bush

Document 2 - ( doc2.gif)-Second Bush request for temporary transfer

Document 4 - ( doc4.gif) -Annual Officer Effectiveness Report part 1

Document 5 - (doc5.gif)-HQ disallows transfer

Document 6 - ( doc6.gif)-lt. Colonel Brickens Response

Document 7 - ( doc7.gif) -First transfer request

Document 9 - ( doc9.gif)-Annual Officer Effectiveness Report part 2

Document 10 ( doc10.gif)- Chronological Listing

Document 11 - ( doc11.gif)-HQ approval.

Document 12 - (doc12.gif)-HQ request for more information

Document 14 - ( doc14.gif)-Bush duty assignments

Document 16 - (doc16.gif)-1973 days credited.

Document 17 - ( doc17.gif)-Orders to report for active duty.

Document 20 - ( Doc20.gif)- Bush request for discharge from Texas Air NationalGuard and Transfer to inactive reserves

Document 21 - ( Doc21.gif)- Texas Air National Guard OK for transfer to inactive reserves

Document ANG22 -( ang22.gif) - Bush discharge papers

Document 23 - ( doc23.gif)-Penalty for bad attendance

Document 24 -( doc24.gif) -Statement of intent: "Flying is lifetime goal."

Document 25 - ( doc25.gif)-TXANG Request to be notified if Bush is assigned to reserves. May 72

Document 26 -( doc26.gif)- Contract of Service

Document 27 -( doc27.gif)- Request Discharge

Document 28 - ( doc28.gif)-"Not available for administrative reasons."

Document 30- ( grounded.gif)- Bush's suspension from flying.

This is a cover letter from the National Guard Bureau (I wrote to the pentagon and they sent the request to the NGB) http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/cover2.gif

Here is the unaltered Document 99 Note that there is no handwriting applied to this document. The one used by George Magazine has been altered at a later date.

This is the cover letter from the Reserve Personnel Center in Denver CO http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/Den_cov_letter.gif

Here is a PR release http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/He_gets_high_PR_release.gif

Second page of the PR release http://www.cis.net~/coldfeet/afterburners.gif

FOIA request http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/FOIApg1.gif

FOIA request http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/FOIApg2.gif

Postcard confirming document shipment http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/pcd_reply.gif

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 6, 2003 11:52 PM

Wow !! Charles, Graduated from law school ?
with that atrocious spelling ???

Posted by: Carlos on November 7, 2003 10:45 PM

What is this drivel?

Mine and other's concern is Jon Matthews. My suspicion is a frame by nazi-like Sugar Land politicos, which I've experienced.

Your input and anonymity suggest you and your ilk have no useful benefit to society.

I respect your right to rant about Bush, but this is the wrong forum and contributes nothing to the discussion.



Posted by: Joe Sanders on November 8, 2003 1:13 PM

With all due respect to you; however, Jon Matthews and the KSEV connection plays into this discussion as a whole. Even when Rush Limboe is mentioned the back door as it were opens the whole can of worms in this discussion such as the Nationalist Socialist movement in AmeriKa the Neo-Cons such as what Jon and the KSEV gang of four promote....they are all Liars. Yes, sir, this the right forum.

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 8, 2003 9:31 PM

2nd point, after thought....while the Republicans et al. Jon, Mike, Edd, and Dannie, etc., etc., call the Democrats and Liberals Socialist and Communist. Let us not forget how Jon and KSEV promote divide and conquer. While the pot calls the kettle black, the Republicans and Conservatives lead us down the road to globalism or World Communism or Fabian Socialism with their arrogance. Maybe they just got stung or (I could be wrong) test the waters without Jon with a bogus claim with association with the Sugar Land Police to see how KSEV reacts without Jon, NO? Or just maybe Dannie Patrick wanted to test the waters around election time with Edd-I'm-so-arrogant-Christian-Hendee to promote the elections we just had, NO?
So Joe,with all due respect with your right to exist and think your comment, "Your input and anonymity suggest you and your ilk have no useful benefit to society" suggest that I have no right to exist.
I have a sociolgical curiosity of Democrat vs Republican which are now one in the same.
As Will Rogers once said, "We have a two-party system, both the Democrats and Repubicans are one of them.
Back to Jon Matthews...if he did what the news media says then he need help; however, If he didn't do what the media says then he should go back on the air. I personally do not think that he did what everyone says. Also, I don't like his politcs. And additionally, I do not like the Democrats politics either.
So, Joe, My input on a apolitical obersavation level along with mo broadcasting experience is need here......Rod

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 8, 2003 9:48 PM

A new view and supposition with Jon Matthews and KSEV in mind:
Dannie Scott Goeb aka Dan Patrick wants to run for Congres in the new district.
Jon Matthews is in the way (such as he has no big money, Edd Hendee does).
Dan Patrick can't just give up his lease on KSEV.
Edd Hendee has mucho moneyo.
Patrick signs over KSEV to Edd Hendee for save keeping so Dan Patrick can run for the Congress.
Jon Matthews is asked to take a dive with the main stream media involved in this hoax to Dan's plot "to run for the congress."
So, Jon Matthews is out. Edd Hendee is in. All is left is Mike-the-retard-Richards.
Therefore, it is decided to run national shows in Dan Putrick's absence with only two local live Republican Propaganda shows at al. Edd-I'm-an-arrogant-pot-calling-the-kettle(Democrats)-black-Hendee and Mike-the-retard-Richards "Believe Me or Don't" Yuck Yuck show!
Then again, I could be wrong as Dennis Miller would say......

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 9, 2003 11:54 AM

One more notation from the article above: et al. Jon Matthews & KSEV...
Breaking News..."at the end of the day" as Dannie Patrick likes to say.
"At the end of the day, Jon Matthews is asked to 'take a dive.'"
Jon Matthew's story has vanished from the radar screens. Everyone including the Houston main stream media is playing-along with the hoax.
Speculation and supposition:Jon Matthews has done no wrong.

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 9, 2003 12:08 PM

Why all this stuff about GW...this has nothing to do with Jon Matthews.

Can anyone give some details on JM incident?

Posted by: Mike on November 11, 2003 10:44 PM


High profile investigations move forward in Ft. Bend County
ABC13 Eyewitness News
(11/11/03 - FT. BEND CO) — It was a busy day in Fort Bend County as grand jurors heard evidence from a pair of high profile investigations.
Conservative radio talk show host Jon Matthews is under investigation, accused of indecency with a child. He answered questions for more than an hour Tuesday afternoon. Matthews has been off the air since the investigation first surfaced.

Also, Fort Bend County Treasurer Jeanne Parr appeared before the grand jury Tuesday. Parr is accused of taking thousands of dollars from a local Four-H club. She eventually repaid the money but could still face criminal charges.

It's now up to the grand jury to determine if enough evidence exists to indict Parr or Matthews or both.
(Copyright © 2003, KTRK-TV)

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 12, 2003 1:26 PM

A presumption of innocence does not exist under our system of law. No court in the US requires a defendant prove he is "innocent," only that he simply is "not guilty," if he elects to prove anything at all, which he is quite free to elect not to do under our Constitution. For the same reasons, no US defendant ever is “exonerated” in a criminal trial; at best, a defendant is found only "not guilty." The gulf of culpability between "innocent" (or “exonerated”) and "not guilty" is huge!

The presumption of “not guilty” is a principle of law applicable solely in a court of law. For example, if I so much as don't like the way a political candidate parts his hair, I can vote against him. If the same political candidate is arrested and indicted, I am quite free to presume he should be found guilty and, again, can vote against him without having to wait until he is tried and found guilty in a court of law.

Mr. Matthews enjoys a presumption of “not guilty” solely in a criminal court, not in the political arena, in the entertainment field on on chat boards.

Posted by: Roger T. Yokubaitis on November 12, 2003 2:15 PM

I have been a conservative talk radio fan since early 1989, when I discovered Rush by accident on KSEV while scanning for stations on a
new car radio.

I have also listened to Jon Matthews at times, and consider him to be our local Rush.

I was saddened by this article:


Ironically, I have been working in the Beaumont area (Jon's hometown), and was not aware of this situation.

Given Rush's and Jon's situations, it is a dark time for conservative radio hosts, and I'm sure the libs are licking their chops!

Politics aside, both preached a moral message and were quick to come down on those that did what they ended up doing. These are the types
the public most enjoys seeing fall.

On the contrary, those that are openly less than perfect, such as Clinton, are always given more slack.

Posted by: Richard on November 12, 2003 8:17 PM

On the contrary Richard
as a "true liberal" I dont lick my chops...
I will not judge and condemn Mr. Matthews as
a human... I do not advocate, promote nor justify
indecent sexual behaviour with children...
on the contrary I feel it is one of the most pathetic states of affairs... however I, as a true liberal immediately feel sorry for Mr. Matthews as well as the child victim.

Posted by: Modus_Ponen on November 12, 2003 10:39 PM

In reference to comment above...
...and likewise for Rush... I just hope both Rush and Jon learn a valuable lesson about judging others...

Posted by: Modus_Ponen on November 12, 2003 11:38 PM

I use to be a conservative et al. Republican since my young Republican college dayz. I soon discovered that the Republicans now the neo Commies just want your money for their power.
It's sad that I soon discovered by "Reading their lips" that they are liers. Even more so than the Democrats. "Oh the pain, the pain," Dr. Smith (Lost in Space). Now Lost in AmeriKa...Rod.

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 13, 2003 7:58 AM

See what I mean???


Commander-in-chief blasted on Rockford air waves

Friday, November 07, 2003

- David Hale, Rockford correspondent
ROCKFORD -- An Illinois National Guardsman at home on leave blasted the President today on a Rockford area radio show, saying the President lied about his reasons for American military going to Iraq.

Sergeant Jessica Macek of Rockford, Illinois has been serving in Iraq for six-months with the National Guard's 333rd MP Company, and while home on leave, during an interview on WNTA 1330 AM Radio in Rockford said she believes that President Bush lied about the reasons for going to war.

"I believe it is in the forefront in the minds of many soldiers that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war," Macek told the radio audience.

The bulk of Macek's criticism comes over what she said was a lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction. "We have been there for six months now, and we have not found any weapons," said Macek. "If there were weapons it seems we should have found them by now."

In a subsequent interview Macek said she may not have used the best wording when she offered her criticism of Bush and that she "can't always think of the best words to use at the best times."

Macek was on leave for nine days and was scheduled to go back to Iraq on November 8th, where according to her she is located 80 miles south of Baghdad. She said she has seen much progress in the reconstruction of Iraq but that lately she has not seen the "smiles on the faces" of the Iraqi people.

"There has been a change since the first time I arrived, it is just different," said Macek. "It used to be welcoming but the attitude has changed to a more negative attitude toward American soldiers."

She offered no specific reason as to why there may have been a shift in their attitude but that it was just her feeling of the situation.

Macek's strident criticism of President Bush may have opened her up to disciplinary action according to US Central Command Spokesmen Major Pete Mitchell based at McDill Air Force Base in Tampa Florida.

"If she has said these things about the Commander-in-Chief she has opened herself up to disciplinary action," said Mitchell. "Just what that action is would have to be determined by her unit commander."

Mitchell said there is a mechanism to use for soldier's concerns by approaching it through the soldier's chain of command. "We don't publicly air our differences, we have a recourse through the chain of command," said Mitchell.

The chain of command is chain of authority that progressively increases in military rank up to the President of the United States who is at the top of the chain as the Commander-in-Chief.

According to Mitchell, morale among soldiers in Iraq is much different than Macek's account. "I was on the ground in Iraq and I can tell you that the men and women there are dedicated professionals, and I heard no grumbling while I was there," said Mitchell. "We are proud of the work they are doing in Iraq."

Macek said her criticism of Bush is her right as a private citizen and that she said she is happy to do her duty in Iraq. "As an American I have a right to speak out against the war if I choose," said Macek.

"At the moment she is not a private citizen. She is serving her country and while she wears the uniform she voluntarily agreed to curtail her behavior for the purpose of maintaining discipline and cohesion," said Mitchell. "As a non-commissioned officer, and as a leader, she has had this explained to her at some point in her career."

Macek's comments come at a time when President Bush is facing increasing pressure over what to do next in Iraq. Last week, sixteen soldiers were killed in a helicopter attack, one from Genoa, Illinois which brought out some of the worst criticism of his administration since the war began.


Posted by: Rod Serling on November 13, 2003 8:01 AM

By Spelling "Amerika' with a "K" is that a reference to Kafkas Amerika ? ive seen it spelled
that way frequently in various leftist rags but always dubious about its origin ?

Posted by: Modus_Ponen on November 13, 2003 9:54 AM

Reference AmeriKa

The ABC mini-series "AmeriKa" showing how the United States of America was taken over by Russia also known as the U.S.S.R. China place aid in this take over....

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 13, 2003 12:10 PM

I don't live in Houston anymore, but learned about the Jon Matthews investigation on the Chronicle's website. Can someone give me a bi-partisan view of the public opinion on the matter and also is it being talked about by other stations or show hosts.

Posted by: Jeff Smith on November 13, 2003 1:51 PM

Jon Matthews was the anchor or KSEV.
Sociologically speaking, KSEV will decline in the ratings....

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 13, 2003 5:39 PM

How old is the girl Jon exposed himself to. Why did he do this? does anyone have the real story?

Posted by: Mike on November 13, 2003 7:16 PM

the media keeps saying " she was under 17"

Posted by: Modus_Ponen on November 13, 2003 9:34 PM

Cat Daddy Jon Matthews is INNOCENT!!! He was framed by the Sugar Land Police and I think Danny Boy Patrick oughta rehire him!!! That is, when all this foolishness is over with!!! He's SMARTER than Danny Boy or old Cornpone Mike Richards. This is the kind of thing---this vendetta, as I suspect it be---that can ruin a man's life. It makes me wanna upchuck to think that the Sugar Land power structure would want to pin the charges of flashing against this fine upstanding old Goldwaterite from Beaumont!!! You hang in there, King Cat Daddy!!! I'm with ya!!!!

Posted by: DeLloyd on November 13, 2003 10:13 PM

Yes, DeLloyd, I, too, believe that Jon was framed. Someone or somebody dosen't like him. Ya think, Dannie Scott Goeb aka Dannie Patrick and the arrogant Ed Hendee and Jon's Republican friends would help him out instead of hanging him out in the cold. Old Gomer Mike isn't too bright either. They are all two faced at KSEV...like George W. letting our troops out for being the target for target practice in Iraq!

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 14, 2003 7:07 AM

Seems to me that being framed on that level in this day and age....not gona happen. When there is smoke there is fire. Maybe the girl came on to him and he thought...get down tonite....and then she maybe said, Jon I am under age. She might have baited him. Nothing makes a Marine feel better than killing an Iraqi or getting down with a good looking woman. I bet when we find out who she is she looks like she is 30. I had a feeling something was wrong when Jon never made any comments. What about his wife. Give us more details....Sugarland insiders.....it could be payback time. Those folks in politics, in Sugarland are loving what he is going through. I hate to see him spend time in jail, on TV he sure doesn't look remorseful. Maybe he didn't do nothing or he is real poor. It would have been smart to pay the girl and her family off. Is Jon wealthy?

Posted by: Mike on November 14, 2003 6:34 PM

I have listned to Jon for years. I have listened to Jon when he was with Moby on 97 rock. I have also met him personlly on a number of occassions. This is totally out of his character. I support him totally and will wait to see what the jury says.

Posted by: Jeff on November 14, 2003 8:12 PM

Perhaps Jon was cutting down the Democrats too much.
Just perhaps this was a MKULTRA project on Jon to put him away. Perhaps....
CIA Projects:
Project Moonstruck, 1952, CIA:
Electronic implants in brain and teeth
Targeting: Long range Implanted during surgery or surreptitiously
during abduction
Frequency range: HF - ELF transceiver implants
Purpose: Tracking, mind and behavior control, conditioning,
programming, covert operations Functional Basis: Electronic Stimulation of the Brain, E.S.B.

Project MK-ULTRA, 1953, CIA:
Drugs, electronics and electroshock
Targeting: Short range
Frequencies: VHF HF UHF modulated at ELF Transmission
Reception: Local production
Purpose: Programming behavior, creation of "cyborg" mentalities
Effects: narcoleptic trance, programming by suggestion Subprojects: Many.
Pseudonym: Project Artichoke
Functional Basis: Electronic Dissolution of Memory, E.D.O.M.

Project Orion, 1958, U.S.A.F:
Drugs, hypnosis, and ESB
Targeting: Short range, in person
Frequencies: ELF Modulation Transmission and Reception: Radar, microwaves, modulated at ELF frequencies
Purpose: Top security personnel debreifing, programming, insure security and loyalty
Pseudonym: "Dreamland"

MK-DELTA, 1960, CIA:
Fine-tuned electromagnetic subliminal programming
Targeting: Long Range
Frequencies: VHF HF UHF Modulated at ELF Transmission and Reception:
Television antennae, radio antennae, power lines,
mattress spring coils, modulation on 60 Hz wiring.
Purpose: programming behavior and attitudes in general population
Effects: fatigue, mood swings, behavior dysfunction and social
criminality, mood swings
Pseudonym: "Deep Sleep", R.H.I.C.

Location: Montauk, Long Island
(Electronic multi-directional targeting of
select population groups)
Targeting: Medium range
Frequencies: Radar, microwaves. EHF UHF modulated
Power: Gigawatt through Terawatt
Purpose: Loading of Earth Grids, planetary sonombulescence to stave off
geological activity, specific-point earthquake creation, population
programming for sensitized individuals
Pseudonym: "Rainbow", ZAP
[other locations on harmonic geographical regions using the earth as a
transmitter, i.e., Pine Gap, Australia and other locations]

Electronic directed targeting of individuals or populations
Targeting: Large population groups assembled
Display: Black helicopters flying in triad formation of three
Power: 100,000 watts
Frequency: UHF
Purpose: Large group management and behavior control, riot control
Allied Agencies: FEMA
Pseudonym: "Black Triad" A.E.M.C

RF MEDIA, 1990, CIA:
Electronic, multi-directional subliminal suggestion and programming
Location: Boulder, Colorado (Location of main cell telephone node,
national television synchronization node) [21st Frame Sync - television]
Targeting: national population of the United States
Frequencies: ULF VHF HF Phase modulation
Power: Gigawatts
Implementation: Television and radio communications, the "videodrome" signals
Purpose: Programming and triggering behavioral desire, subversion of
psychic abilities of population, preparatory processing for mass electromagnetic control
Pseudonym: "Buzz Saw" E.E.M.C. [The Buzz]

TOWER, 1990, CIA, NSA: [Telephone Cell Towers]
Electronic cross country subliminal programming and suggestion
Targeting: Mass population, short-range intervals, long-range cumulative
Frequencies: Microwave, EHF SHF
Methodology: Cellular telephone system, ELF modulation
Purpose: Programming through neural resonance and encoded information
Effect: Neural degeneration, DNA resonance modification, psychic suppression
Pseudonym: "Wedding Bells"

HAARP, 1995, CIA, NSA, ONR: [High-frequency Active Aroral Research Program]
Electromagnetic resonant induction and mass population control
Location: Gakona, Alaska
Frequencies: Atmospheric phase-locked resonant UHF VHF
Potential: DNA code alteration in population and mass behavior modification
Power: Giga-watt to Tera-watt range Step-Down reflective frequencies:
Approx 1.1 GHz, Human DNA resonant frequency, cellular system phase-lock

To get to the HAARP site go to

Electromagnetic resonant induction and mass population control
Location: Nationwide
Frequencies: Emotional wavelengths, data gathering through helocopter
probes following media events - rebroadcast in order to
restimulate population emotional levels for recreation of event scenarios. Ref: LE#108, March 1998
Potential: Mass behavior modification
Power: Unknown. Possibly rebroadcast through GWEN network or cellular
tower frequencies, coordinated from NBS in Colorado.

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 14, 2003 10:18 PM

Or perhaps Jon was the subject of Operation Midnight Climax: (?Ya think?)


Beginning in the mid 1950s, the house at 225 Chestnut Street on Telegraph Hill was used by the United States government to test the effects of LSD and sex. With complete cooperation from the SFPD, unwitting johns were dosed with the powerful drug before consummating business with hookers here, where they were monitored by an agent from behind two-way glass. The research known as Operation Midnight Climax was a spin-off of the CIA program MKULTRA, in which acid experiments were conducted at top universities including the Stanford Research Institute. Ken Kesey, one of the icons of psychedelic culture, took his first acid trip during a Stanford experiment. Agents also dosed themselves and others with LSD, attempting to determine the drug's feasibility as a weapon in the spy game. The Telegraph HIll experiments were conducted on unsuspecting men from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. After a full decade of acid sex tests, the CIA pulled the plug on Operation Midnight Climax in 1965 and admitted the project was unethical. LSD was criminalized the following year.

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 14, 2003 10:22 PM

Hey Rod
Sounds like Politics of Ecstasy...
Listen to what the dharma said...
Feed your head ...

Posted by: Modus_Ponen on November 15, 2003 8:29 AM

When you think you hear the phone ring or hill those Hell's Bells then you have "the Buzz!"
Don't go flashing anyone when something in your head says to do so either......Rod

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 15, 2003 9:14 AM

Good Comments.
Good Thoughts.

Posted by: Mike on November 15, 2003 9:15 PM

Oh one more thing.
If the CIA is involved in this frame up of Jon, could it be because they want to hurt Congressman Delay. I think that Jon was a fan of Delay. I wonder if Jon reads this stuff. If you do Jon, HI.
I wish you would let us know some information. I hate getting second hand info.
You are hated by lots of folks who like to spend tax dollars. I bet you wish they will spend alot now to prove your a clean Marine. What do we do if he is found guilty. I guess we can post his pic....on the web as a child abuser. I guess then everyone will know where he lives. I wonder if the city of Sugarland will enforce the sign ordinace Jon always protested about if found guilty he is made to put a sign in his front yard. Great comments from all commentators.

Posted by: Mike on November 15, 2003 9:25 PM

Cat Daddy Jon is innocent! I don't like it that he resigned and that old Aryan Dan Patrick accepted his resignation off the bat. Patrick is a religious fanatic and a puritan. I'll bet you an Indian-head nickel that that had something to do with it! Also, Matthews was critical of His Most Serene Highness Robert Eckels, who is about as much of a fiscal conservative as Joe Lieberman is a peacenick! Aryan Dan and Cornpone Mike Richards, another theocratic zealot, take their orders from Eckels and the GOP establishment. Cat Daddy Jon may be one of those folks who think that Ronnie Reagan created the universe in four days, but he's more independent and he ain't been dunked in Ed Young's tank! I want Cat Daddy back on the air.

Posted by: DeLloyd on November 16, 2003 8:32 PM

Whatever one may think of Jon Matthews, he is innocent until proven guilty. The Sugar Land Police Department, which has a checkered history, and is responsible for advancing the accusation that led to the indictment, is not what you would call a credible witness. Matthews is known to have enjoyed the company of younger women, and "Aryan Dan", as DeLloyd calls him, was aware of this. The priggish and intolerant Patrick may well have asked for Matthews' resignation, or Matthews anticipated Patrick's doing so and stepped slightly ahead of the axe. If I were Patrick, I would refuse to accept Matthews' resignation and also refuse any public comment on the affair except something like "Jon has been indicted, not convicted; and, as such, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have no further comment on the matter. Let's let the truth prevail in court." Matthews also has a right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers, a jury that would not be inclined to be biased because of Matthews' notoriety but sworn to base its decision solely on the facts presented in court. A word about cases of men exposing their genitalia to female children: my youngest sister, when she was 12, had a man expose himself to her as she walked home from school. All that was on her mind was, first, the shock of seeing such a thing and, second, run like hell! When a police officer came minutes later to interview her, she was unable to recall his height, approxiate weight, what race he was, how long he wore his hair and what color it was, what kind of clothing he wore and so on. She only remembered that he was a young man. The policeman was very patient with her and gave her time to think, but in the end gave up because my sister just couldn't recall. The shock was too much. No one had ever perpetrated such a stunt on her before. She remembered being afraid that he might pursue her and become assaultive, and, if so, how hard could she kick? It's quite possible that the girl who accused Jon Matthews made an honest mistake in identifying Matthews as the man who exposed himself to her. It's also possible that Matthews actually exposed himself as he is accused of doing. I have never thought much of Matthews, but I somehow -- in my gut--- feel that it is out of character for him to do such a thing. I think Patrick was wrong to accept his resignation. I agree with DeLloyd.

Posted by: TUPTI on November 16, 2003 8:48 PM

Good Comment

Posted by: Mike on November 16, 2003 10:01 PM

Dannie Patrick is only concerned with Danie Patrick...he is running from this like a scalded dog.
I have quit listening to KSEV. Jon Matthews is innocent.Rod...

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 17, 2003 2:36 PM

Dannie Patrick is only concerned with Dannie Patrick...he is running from this like a scalded dog.
I have quit listening to KSEV. Jon Matthews is innocent.Rod...

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 17, 2003 2:37 PM

Hmmmm I will think about what you said.

Posted by: Mike on November 18, 2003 10:29 PM

Please continue.

Posted by: Mike on November 19, 2003 11:20 PM

I think it is unfair to kill Jon's career until clear evidence emerges to "convict" him in media. Dan's action in letting jon go is a precautionary business decision, it's not enough to "convict" jon in media.

Posted by: AK on November 20, 2003 10:24 AM

Jon Matthews was pulled off the air because the puritanical Dan Patrick believed in his heart of hearts that an indictment for an offense was tantamount to guilt, and because Matthews was critical of County Jedge Bob Eckels and the inept Sugar Land P.D.

Posted by: Howard on November 20, 2003 1:20 PM

I suggest we NOT vote for Dannie "the Coward" Patrick when he runs for Congress. He's moving to Magnolia don't cha know? Rod

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 22, 2003 7:59 AM

Concerning Mr. Matthews legal situation, I would like to offer the following comments. One, no one has mentioned the welfare of the child involved, which to me is a no-win situation for her. If she is telling the truth can you imagine the horror of an adult exposing themselves to her? If she is lying, which I doubt, then someone has put her up to this, someone to whom she trusts? Both can have horrible consequences for the child. Plus, since the accussed is high profile, it will be a very long time, before she will be able to forget it. I would encourage some sympathy and compassion for the CHILD, who, I'd be willing to bet, is niether a liberal or conservative, but she just wants to allowed to have a descent childhood! Now concening Mr, Matthews, I am betting he will be found not guilty--a big reason being he can afford a great defense lawyer! I reference OJ, Cullen Davis, and that creep who just got off in Galveston. Innocence or guilt had nothing to do with it, but money did--don't you think? Finally, if Mr. Matthews is innocent, there will be some who will always admit to his guilt,which is sad, but if he is truly a pedafile, I would be willing to bet this was not the first time!

"Wild Bill"

Posted by: Wild Bill taylor on November 23, 2003 12:01 AM

Is Dan Patrick's real name Goeb?

Mr. Goeb/Patrick, or whatever his name is, is clearly a bigoted, intolerant man----thinkskinned and somewhat effeminate, prim and entitled to react rather than act. I have heard this in the way he responds to callers who seem to be adversarial. He "uses" callers as puppets in his Punch 'n' Judy show, as foils for his own narcissistic monologues. His running for Congress is much like Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent misadventure (with Kennedy money) or, from an earlier time, like Jimmy Walker as Mayor of New York. (NOT the Jimmy Walker who screamed "dyn-o-MITE!") Probably right about the semi-illiterate restauranteur Edd Hendee (hee-hee-hee!). Special Edd has money; Matthews, in all fairness, was probably not the most scintillating intellect in broadcasting (but, these days, who is), but he seemed like an honest and sincere man, not a grandstander.

Posted by: Earl Hamner on November 24, 2003 7:51 PM

Right on Earl....may add the term "Pussy."
Dannie Patrick is a Pussy!
Or how about Coward.....

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 26, 2003 2:44 PM

Will Conservative Talk tell you about this?
I bet Jon Matthews would...Dannie Patrick nor Mike "Gomer" Richards nor "Tee-Hee-Hee" Edd Hendee would not!
Tommy Franks: Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror Attack


Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine's December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn't speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks' scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.

Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a “soldier's general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.'s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.

Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.

Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:

President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he's not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he's very, very bright. And I suspect that he'll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we'll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”

On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president's decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.

“I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.

“If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?”

The Pentagon's deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, “it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ‘Aha, this will be the ace of spades.'”

Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.

“The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won't say that'll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.”

Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. “It's not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we'll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”

Posted by: Rod Serling on November 29, 2003 1:44 PM

Whats the latest on John?

Posted by: Mike on December 4, 2003 3:37 PM

Tommy Franks is among the most dangerous men in America. The others are Bill Clinton (who said, "when the guarantees of individual freedoms in our Constitution impede the ability of the government to govern the people, we should look at limiting those guarantees"), George W. Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Henry Kissinger, James Carville, Donald Rumsfeld, L. Lowery Mays (Clear Channel Communications), Colin Powell's son who is the head FCC Commissioner and a defender of Mays, Bill White, Bob Lanier, Sheila Jackson Lee, Tom Daschle, Orrin Hatch, Mary Landrieu, Chester Trent Lott, Arlen Specter, John F. Honey Fitz Kerry, Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark (Ashley Wilkes), Rush Limbaugh (the Garret Hobart of the 21st century), John Warner, Daniel Inouye, John McCain, John Edwards, Maxine Waters, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Albert B. Gore, Jr., Rick Perry----just to name a few. Lyndon Johnson was the first U.S. president in recent times who seriously aspired to be a tyrant; Richard Nixon had similar hankerings, but both men foiled themselves because of personal neuroses which made them liars of the kind whose lies were meant to be found out. Georgiekins Bush, while not being especially bright, is crafty and seemingly without the guilt complexes that lead to a master criminal's self-destruction. Dick Cheney is the de facto president in this administration. "Mista Bush", as the whiny-voiced Mark Knoller of CBS Gnus calls him, could be said to be both the Chester Alan Arthur and the Leonid Brezhnev of our time: he is an unabashed lackey of big business and an apostle of big government; he espouses an imperialistic foreign policy based on the expedient of conquering nations whose natural resources (spell that O-I-L) would be beneficial to the U.S. and whose links to Al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations are at best tenuous. "Mista Bush" wishes to implement his new American fascism, taking it up where his predecessor left off, by creating an Orwellian atmosphere of continual warfare. Enough said of Mista Bush. I invite you to study LBJ's 1967 State of the Union, in which this tender-loving Texan who was responsible for the murder of two FBI agents investigating Texas real estate fraud proposed a cabinet-level department of business affairs, which would absorb the Commerce Department, and which would oversee the nation's economic development. There's a name for that----communism. Read Johnson's speech---it's online. As for Jon Matthews, he is going through the travail he is now going through because he rattled the Establishment's cage. Matthews is not, as I have previously asseverated, the brightest or cleverest man alive. The electronic media do not look favorably on those who understand things or see them too clearly. Nor, for that matter, do the mass tabloids---I mean TIME and NEWSWEEK rather than the supermarket scandal sheets. The seeds of tyranny have already been planted. Remember what Ben Franklin, 81 years old, said of the Constitution he had just helped to formulate in 1787: "I do not entirely agree with all of its provisions, but it will give us good government while it lasts. It will not last forever. Its demise will come about through the corruption of the people, who will give themselves over to the rule of despots." A dire and chilling prophecy. Wake up, America, before it's too late!!!!

Posted by: Earl Hamner on December 6, 2003 11:34 PM

It's been several weeks since Jon was put off the air after the Grand Jury issued their decision. What puzzles me is all this talk from his fans about "innocent until proven guilty." - From all the dirt Jon used to throw at the moderates day after day, hour after hour ad nauseum, the idea of not talking about someone until all the facts are in, or until they are "proven guilty" in court, never crossed his mind. In fact, had he actually taken that approach, he wouldn't have filled half his time. Seems to me that the whining, pontificating conservatives who are crying "not guilty until proven guilty" and criticising any speculation on the situation (the guy has been indicted by a grand jury, after all) are actually dishonoring Jon's own philosophy and placing a cloud on the free-wheeling conversational approach he so obviously enjoyed. - In other words, I seldom heard him say that, until all the facts were known about this liberal or that liberal stumbling, etc., he was going to keep his mouth shut. - Just the opposite!


Posted by: Jim on December 7, 2003 10:28 PM

I recently sent a note concerning Jon Matthews. The note appeared on your ng for a day or so, and was then removed, with no explanation. - The gist of the note was that, in honor of Jon's uninhibited and often sarcastic approach to the criticism of others on the air over the past years, we shouldn't in effect dishonor his philosophical approach by shutting up those who want to discuss the recent events with finger pointing and cries of "innocent until proven guilty." After all, Jon has been idicted by a Grand Jury, for gosh sakes.

On the air, when he heard that one of his favorite liberal "targets" may have stumbled, he was all over him, up one side and down the other. I seldom heard Jon say: "Well, I hear that Mr. [liberal________] may be having some problems, but until all the facts are in, I'm going to keep my mouth shut." - Just the opposite!

Jim Cate

Posted by: Jim Cate on December 9, 2003 7:45 AM

I recently sent a note concerning Jon Matthews. The note appeared on your ng for a day or so, and was then removed, with no explanation.

For the record, I have no idea what this is referring to. I have not removed any comments except for a couple of duplicates. Jim Cate's comment of December 7 is still here, immediately above the one from today.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on December 9, 2003 8:34 AM

I know someone can give an update on John?

Also, what the heck happen to Orlando, did he not get the minority vote?

Who did finally vote for hom?

Posted by: Mike on December 9, 2003 6:26 PM

I guess Jon Matthews just vanished without a trace....maybe it was all hype dreamed up so Jon could vanish from the air per Dannie Patrick.
Anyway, KSEV now sucks big time. KSEV is truly the worst Radio Station in AmeriKa. We all have NO voice...Dannie said it best, "No one deserves the right to have access to the 'Mike.'"

Posted by: Rod Serling on December 12, 2003 11:17 PM

Hello Again...whats the latest on King John?

Posted by: Mike on January 31, 2004 1:23 AM

I started listening to Jon 5 years ago, mainly because I drive around a lot for my work, and was looking for something different than mass-produced force-fed commercial music crap. I was not interested in politics much at the time, didnt listen to Rush hardly at all, and didnt really know who to vote for or why. My first thoughts of Jon were, "Wow! This guy really hates Clinton!"

I am a registered Independent, and for the first time in my life, I did something I never dreamed I would do: In the Bush-Gore election, I actually went in and pulled the Republican lever. I know that because of my constant listening to Jon, Dan, etc., I bought into what they were selling. Looking back, I feel kinda bad about that now. Not like I was brainwashed, because I do tend to agree with the right way more than the left, but I'm still disappointed with Republicans, and all politicians in general.
I'll probably go back to voting for Libertarians.
But Jon was the main guy who got me interested and aware of politics to the level I am now.

If Jon really is a horny old goat, it wouldnt surprise me. I, like everyone else, am anxiuosly awaiting more details on the situation. This is a great site, except we still do not know the details.

Dannie does seem like a wuss to me, Jon was much more a mans-man. I couldnt listen to M.Richards, too corny (I couldnt change the station quick enough everytime he went into that "That's the dynamic of talk radio, etc.) I enjoy O'Reilly, he's my kinda guy, not bent to the pro-right, I feel he truly and fairly talks about both sides. And I definitely can only take the KPFT wackos in very small doses. But I'm glad KSEV is out there, doing what they do. I think they believe in doing best for America.

I hope the best for King Cat Daddy, and I hope for the best of the girl and her family. I'm just waiting for more info.

I'm also a huge Walton and Johnson fan.

Posted by: nincompoop on February 11, 2004 6:50 PM

Good comments....I am very interested in what happened because I enjoyed listening to him on Radio. It goes to show no one is perfect.

Posted by: Mike on February 12, 2004 8:14 PM

Whats the latest on King Jon

Posted by: Mike on March 25, 2004 10:32 PM

Anyone still interested in this subject?

Posted by: Mike on April 27, 2004 9:34 PM

Come on people.

Posted by: Mike on June 7, 2004 10:22 PM

Anyone aware of other sites discussing Jon's case? Not much here.....what is the latest?????

Posted by: Fred on June 9, 2004 7:48 AM

I havent heard anything and I am interested. Let me know if you find anything out.

Posted by: Mike on June 11, 2004 10:24 PM

as far as I know his case is still set for trial on the 26th or the 28th of June, down in Ft. Bend COunty

Posted by: Tony on June 16, 2004 2:56 PM

News out on Jon...doesn't sound good. Oh well, we were all hoping for some good news but sounds like things are as bad as originally reported. It's disappointing but there's no defending this type of thing...liberal or conservative, you got to suffer the consequences.

Posted by: Fred on June 21, 2004 2:20 PM

This is just terrible alot of you where so concerned about poor Mr. Matthews, but not one time did anyone ever have any concern for the Child. The man is sick & I dont think he should ever be back on the air again. Talking about Two face Balled lair sex addick, I do feel sorry for his family but not him I beleaved in what he said I was a big fan from day one but now......... LOCK HIM UP

Posted by: NOMOE on June 21, 2004 2:43 PM

After this plea bargain I am amazed that this pedofile will have his record wiped clean if he stays out of trouble. Record expunged or not, Jon Matthews should be kept away from all children ... As Rush should be kept away from your medicine cabinet.

Posted by: Raymond on June 21, 2004 4:07 PM

I still believe King Cat Daddy is innocent!!!! Why he accepted that plea-bargain is beyond me. I still say he was framed. He probably committed the incredibly dumb mistake of urinating in his yard and some kid saw him and got all bent out of shape. I wish there was something I could do for you, Cat Daddy!!! Deferred adjudication is always on your record---it ain't wiped away. Cat Daddy, I know you got heart trouble---jail ain't no good for you. Man, you shouldn't ever plead guilty to something you ain't done! I'm crying, man.

Posted by: DeLloyd on June 21, 2004 7:28 PM

Guilty is guilty. Watch out for your neighbors; that friend that you have known for years and years. No telling what they will do. My God have justice on Mr. Matthews soul.

Posted by: Steve on June 22, 2004 5:56 AM

Deloyd I can see if they make you happy they can never do no wrong........I guess that what you do
take a leak by the fence and saying hiii little becky hows the world treating you. Man get outtttttt of here REDNECK hero got caught you to if not careful. lolol now the Cat Dady got caught
with his tail out, next time cat let your meat loaf.

Posted by: Nomoe on June 22, 2004 7:06 AM

Ex-radio host pleads guilty to child indecency
Jon Matthews accepts previously rejected deal

RICHMOND -- Just one week before he was to go to trial on charges that he exposed himself to an 11-year-old girl, former radio talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty Monday to indecency with a child.

Matthews, 59, a fixture on the Houston radio dial for nearly 20 years, decided to accept a plea bargain after turning it down last week, said Fort Bend County District Attorney John Healey.

The plea bargain of seven years' deferred adjudication means no jail time for the former radio personality. However, the terms of the agreement call for him to register as a sex offender, perform community service and move from his home because it is too close to a school.

In a pre-trial hearing Monday in the court of state District Judge Brady Elliott, Matthews' attorney, Stephen Doggett, said he wanted to reconsider the plea offer.

Healey said prosecutors were surprised by the decision.

"It was always a possibility, but it was not anticipated," Healey said.

After pleading guilty, Matthews left the courtroom with his attorney and declined to explain why he decided to accept the plea bargain.

"I'm really not able to say anything right now," Matthews said.

According to court documents, the victim -- a neighbor of Matthews -- went to Matthews' home to play with his new puppy and he answered the door in his underwear.

The girl told investigators Matthews sat on the floor and that his genitals were exposed.

Court documents state Matthews then left the room to put on a pair of shorts.

"Upon his return to the living room, the defendant pulled his shorts and underwear down and exposed his genitals to Sara Post (pseudonym), then he said `whoops.' Sara Post demonstrated how far down the defendant pulled his shorts and underwear. The defendant told Sara Post not to tell what he had done."

Although Matthews pleaded guilty, the judge deferred the sentencing and the finding of guilt until Aug. 2.

The judge can approve the plea arrangement or reject it.

Matthews could withdraw the plea and ask for a trial if the judge were to reject the plea.

Defendants who successfully complete the terms of deferred adjudication, a form of probation, avoid final conviction, but the charge remains a part of their record.

The arrangement calls for him to register as a sex offender during the term of the deferred adjudication and for 10 years afterward.

He must perform 160 hours of community service and move from his Sugar Land house.

Prosecutors said Matthews can no longer reside at the house on Rolling Mill because it is too close to Sugar Land MIddle School. State law prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

Matthews must also make a $5,000 donation to Crime Stoppers, undergo sex offender counseling and write a letter of apology to the victim.

Meanwhile, Healey said the parents of the girl were consulted about the plea bargain and approved the terms.

"The agreed punishment is suitable under the circumstances," Healey said, adding that avoiding a trial spares the victim from having to testify in court.

"Yet, she was ready to take the witness stand in the event that it became necessary to try the case," Healey said.

Matthews was indicted Nov. 11 on a charge of exposing himself to the girl on Oct. 9. He was arrested two days after the indictment and released on a $10,000 personal recognizance bond.

After he was indicted, the conservative talk show host resigned from his position at KSEV-AM 700 where he had a 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. weekday program and also stopped writing a column for the weekly newspaper Fort Bend Star.

Matthews has been on the air in Houston since the mid-1980s working at KSRR-FM and KPRC-AM before moving to KSEV-AM in March 2001.

Dan Patrick, the owner of KSEV-AM 700 and host of an afternoon talk show on the station, talked about the guilty plea on the air Monday afternoon.

"The law has worked through its course. Justice apparently has been done. I pray for the victim and I pray for Jon," Patrick said.

Posted by: Julie on June 22, 2004 2:34 PM

The End.

Posted by: Nomoe on June 28, 2004 10:14 PM

Boy-oh-boy. What a totally stupid thing to do. At first I thought it was just an accident, but to come back in the room then drop your drawers, what the heck is that? Stupid, and sick. I am glad he didnt molest her, but what a deranged moronic fool. If it would have been my grand-daughter, boy-oh-boy, I may have taken a tire iron and lost my mind. How sad. That's digusting and disturbing. From someone who is always talking about how right he is and all, pointing out and laughing about other people doing "bad" things, well, he just joined the club of sickos, right along with Bill Clinton. How sad.

Posted by: nincompoop on June 30, 2004 10:25 PM

I'm still numb.

Posted by: Lisa on July 10, 2004 9:17 AM

The system works again the politically and wealthy connnected people get away without Jail time. Jon Matthews was a big law and order guy when it was someone else when it was him is trying to stay out of jail. It amazes me how the commuinty is not outraged this Sex Offender is not going to jail. Since he pled guilty there is no doubt of his guilt. This scumbag should have been put in JAIL, anyone that does that to a child should be put in JAIL. I did ont hear this as a topic of any of the talk shows. THey tried their best to keep it quiet. I WONDER WHY.

Posted by: Anthony McBride on July 12, 2004 10:29 PM


Posted by: Mike on July 14, 2004 6:29 PM

I was a big fan of John Matthews I have called his shows in the past. I am not going to beat a Dead horse in the ground but he had it all, the fame in a sort, money and then when all is going well they want to drop there Draws go figure. He needs to be in jail he preached one thing and did the other. Pass the tire Tool please POOP!!!

Posted by: Bugger on July 15, 2004 10:12 PM

I got this site by asking "George W Bush's state-
ment in January, 2000 concerning going after Saddam Hussein the first time Hussein stubbed his toe"
Len Ackerman

Posted by: Leonard Ackerman on July 23, 2004 7:30 PM

Dear friends,
I have been a victim of injustices and torture stemming over 35 years from all of these corrupt organisations,Police,social services,solicitors,judges,amongst others,my injuries are massive,and the mental damage for life.All my injustices have taken place in Scunthorpe, N.Lincolnshire,Great Britain,obviously when I was on the net a few months ago I found I was the biggest survivor of injustices for 2 years.
The judicial system is corrupt,and the courts run a political policy of kill the innocent to protect the guilty,or "Habeus CorpuS"(Habeus Corpus,Latin "Take the body away")towards victims,the biggest threat to "Mutter courage und ihre kinder"(German,Mother courage and her children)is the corrupt court officials who break all the laws set down by law to hurt,and torture men,women and children.But for people who think they know the future,you must remember that on average 800 species a year become extinct,now logic dictates that man is also in this equasion,I mean look at the internet,probably the best communication tool man has ever made,but yet it is full of dangerous and evil criminals who have destroyed the best communication tool in the world,when people compare our times with times of the past,these people are the biggest fools of all,man must realise that everything changes including behaviour,language,thoughts,transport,infact the list is endless.Anyway if you think todays problems are bad you watch these children who have grown up in a violent world grow up,yours "Tom Thumb"(Tom Thumb,buried In N.Lincolnshire,Great Britain,for reference www.jaredstory.com)Thank you.

Posted by: David Marsh on August 8, 2004 3:20 PM