Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

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.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts


  1. Jaye says:

    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.

  2. Charles says:

    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.

  3. Jaye says:


    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.

  4. charles says:

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. Charles says:

    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.

  7. DocG says:


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


  8. Charles says:


    I’m not white.


  9. blurker gone bad says:


    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

  10. Thanks for playing, Charles.

  11. Mike says:

    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.

  12. Beldar says:

    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.

  13. Mike says:


    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).

  14. Steve Bates says:

    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.

  15. 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.

  16. CN says:

    “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.

  17. CN says:

    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.

  18. DeLloyd says:

    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!

  19. DeLloyd says:

    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!

  20. Debbie says:

    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.

  21. Rick says:

    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?

  22. Darrell says:

    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.

  23. DocG says:

    Shorter Mike and Debbie:

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

  24. edzo vt says:

    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.

  25. Unique says:

    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.

  26. Jim says:

    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.

  27. Strawhat says:

    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.

  28. TonyScott says:

    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.

  29. Steve Lewis says:

    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.”

  30. Joe Wilsop says:

    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

  31. Mike says:

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

  32. majboyd says:

    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?

  33. Clothahump says:

    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…..

  34. Jason says:

    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.

  35. DeLloyd says:

    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?

  36. Mike says:

    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?

  37. susan says:

    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”

  38. Joe Hardy says:

    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).

  39. Rod Serling says:

    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!

  40. Rod Serling says:

    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.

    108th CONGRESS

    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


    A BILL

    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.

  41. Rod Serling says:

    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)

    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

    Here is a PR release

    Second page of the PR release

    FOIA request

    FOIA request

    Postcard confirming document shipment

  42. Carlos says:

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

  43. Joe Sanders says:

    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.



  44. Rod Serling says:

    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.

  45. Rod Serling says:

    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

  46. Rod Serling says:

    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……

  47. Rod Serling says:

    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.

  48. Mike says:

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

    Can anyone give some details on JM incident?

  49. Rod Serling says:

    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)

  50. Roger T. Yokubaitis says:

    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.