Liberty Underground  

Much to the dismay of our listeners, we will not be broadcasting on Sunday as planned. We will have a 30 minute show on Saturday the 6th of September, the time to be determined. While we normally broadcast on Sunday's when everyone is around, we just can't do it....we have football to watch! Sorry gang!

Speaker of the House Pelosi in an interview this past weekend with Tom Brokaw said and I will quote "...like maybe..." Who uses this language?! The Speaker of the House!!! I don't know whether to laugh, or cry, or throw my hands up and just say "we picked 'em!" Just some food for thought until we get to our radio show on Sunday!!

After taking a week off, and having a call in show with perhaps zero callers, we return to our Sunday show!! Now with more Winte!!

So.....where do we start? The wonderful state of California, their State Attorney General as a matter of fact, is putting on trial an honorably discharged Marine. The Marine, Jose Luis Nazario, was given an honorable discharge from the military, and in so doing also left the jurisdiction of military law. For arguments sake we will zero in specifically on the taking of a life of an enemy combatant. Usually in the heat of combat, you're trained to defend, and if necessary, take a life. The Military teaches you these things, acknowledges that it's going to happen and takes no action against you. Ok, so you have some issues creep up when you are doing the wrong thing, but you are punished.

So the California AG is charging Mr. Nazario with manslaughter. WHAT?! Why are we going to spout off the fact that the military needs people when we are going to charge them with crimes upon discharge?! Ludicrous!! To be continued...

Here we start a wonderful road by resurrecting the old talk show. Let me tell you a little about myself, where I stand, and why you want to join me. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and to that end we need to keep it protected. Join me and give me your input!

While I was away there were a few things that happened that I apparently needed some catching up on. There was one significant thing in the news that really bothers me, and that was the US Supreme Court ruling on detainees. I studied Constitutional Law when I was in college, I was fascinated that a few pieces of paper brought this nation together and that to this very day is the supreme law of the land. However, the Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom decided to shi* all over it. It does not take over 100 pages of opinion to defend the high court's decision if it is within the letter and spirit of the law. However, some 100 pages later they concluded that detainees have access to our court system.

We need to dive a little deeper into some background though, All US Citizens, doesn't matter how you became one, have access to our court system by virtue of the fact that they are a US Citizen. They also have access to all freedom's and liberties that are enumerated, along with those that are not. We will omit, for the sake of brevity, state rights, equal protection and the 14the Amendment. If you are a prisoner taken into custody of the police, you are given the rights of the accused. Speedy trial, right to a trial by jury, and so on and so forth. You are protected from corruption of government.

On the other hand, if you are not a citizen, you are still protected because our forefathers and case law has allowed such a thing. This usually ends up in deportation since you are not considered a resident of our nation.

Well Jeff, what about the Geneva Convention? Glad you asked! The Geneva Convention was made by nations to protect prisoners of war, and those captured during times of war. War also means times of open rebellion by a military AND here's the catch, engagement! We are engaged with a nation's people (not the nation itself) in terrorism. This is a form of engagement! However, this particular nation was not part of the Geneva Convention and therefore, neither party has to adhere to it.

What would happen if they did? Well, for starters, terrorists do not march under an identifiable flag, they are not part of a formal military (recall your Colonial American History when the Brits complained about us and our guerrilla tactics), they also do not wear a military uniform (recall stories from Vietnam era War). You add both of these up and you come up with what a person that is a hostile. Under the laws of the Geneva Convention this person to be executed right on the spot.

Instead of following the Geneva Convention, what do we do? We detain these people! We put them in a camp where you have 8 hours guaranteed sleep, 3 meals, no torture for those that are not at the top level. 3 hours of uninterrupted prayer, a garden, all sorts of amenities....and now access to our courts.

When you give one person a right, you inevitable give them all sorts of rights. When this country gives people an inch, they really want a mile. Which leads to the next big thing...gay unions. Stick with me here people, it's ok, I'm not going to say anything bad.

I'm all for gay unions, I think two men or two women can take care of each other just as much as a straight couple. I believe that they can raise children, make each other's medical decisions, and do other things that a married couple does. I think that they should have the same access to retirement funds, welfare, food stamps, and anything like that. However, what we're missing is that it's not really a marriage. Society defines marriage as a contract, between a man and a woman. Ok, nothing wrong with that. In that theory, gay couples do not have a marriage, they have a union. We need to change the law and keep marriage what it is and allow civil unions. Marriage is a term that needs to be reserved to protect the dignity of a man and a woman entering into a contract.

Marriage is between man and a woman, because men and women get married to become monogamous. They dedicate the rest of their life to each other, and they also bring forth children. Men and women have intercourse to procreate, not to recreate. Now I know a majority of us have engaged in the premarital horizontal tango, nothing wrong with that. However, we have to keep in mind that the reason we can do that is to keep this world going...hence marriage.

We need to get this country back to where it's supposed to be, because right now it's in the shi**er. Let's tweak a few laws, get rid of some people in other countries that have influence over us and move on. We need to reduce our dependence on other countries, and we need to appoint justices that know what the hell they are doing, because that court case is just downright wrong.

I know a lot of you might have comments for me after this one, and I welcome them, I will reply logically to all of you. :)