Democratic Party reveals it's true colors at the convention. Delegates say no to God and turn their back on Israel

This is just unbelievable! How can someone of faith logically support a political party that clearly mocks our religious values. A party that struggles to agree to add God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel to their party's platform.


My favorite quote is "I guess ah, I guess ah, let me do that one more time". Classic! After watching this, how confident are Americans in President Obama's and the leaders of today's democratic party can lead us forward?

I guess that famous President Obama quote, "They cling to guns or religion", quote now has a whole new meaning for us here in Pennsylvania. Just further evidence that today's democratic party at the core doesn't support the average American, our traditions, our christian faith, or our way of life.

NCAA's use of Freeh Report to punish Penn State questioned

Guest Column by Travis Waldron

That the NCAA relied heavily on the report produced by former FBI director Louis Freeh and his team to level the Penn State football program earlier this week is hardly a shock or a secret — the report, as NCAA president Mark Emmert said, was “vastly more involved and thorough than any investigation we’ve ever conducted.”

But the Freeh Report, commissioned by Penn State’s Board of Trustees, was never meant to investigate whether the football program violated NCAA rules, according to a source from Freeh’s team reached by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The Freeh Report, the source said, was an investigation into “how Penn State operated, not how they worked within the NCAA’s system,” and it “was not meant to be used as the sole piece, or the large piece, of the NCAA’s decision-making.” Instead, the source said, the report “was meant to be a mechanism to help Penn State move forward. To be used otherwise creates an obstacle to the institution changing.”

Looking through the Freeh Report, it’s hard to dispute that point. The report is a legal investigation meant to lead to changes that prevent another such institutional failure, and it includes specific recommended changes to Penn State’s administrative and academic culture to achieve that goal. In no way does it examine Penn State’s role within NCAA bylaws or whether it might have broken NCAA rules.

Given that, it seems a thorough investigation into whether, and how, Penn State violated NCAA rules should have been in order, especially before the program was hit with massive fines, bowl bans, and scholarship reductions. Some sort of investigation was begun — Emmert delivered questions to Penn State in November, and the university was reportedly set to deliver its formal response around the time Emmert handed down the sanctions — but it was abruptly aborted, a fact that always seemed odd, especially when Emmert struggled to name specific bylaws Penn State had violated. The reasoning the NCAA uses to justify going forth with the sanctions before it conducted an investigation is shoddy, at best, as Emmert said the Freeh Report provided all the information he and the organization’s Executive Committee needed to know.

The fact is, there are multiple investigations going on at Penn State. To produce the Freeh Report, investigators combed through millions of emails and conducted a thorough investigation. The Department of Education is now carrying out its own investigation into whether Penn State violated federal law by not reporting crimes committed on campus, and deep investigations will continue to take place involving the federal charges facing two former Penn State officials. And the NCAA has even reserved the right to conduct a more complete investigation and bring more punishments to the table for individuals once the legal process is completed.

For whatever reason, though, the only organization to have punished Penn State thus far did not conduct its own investigation and instead relied on a document we now know was used outside its stated purpose. That’s a step that, frankly, does absolutely nothing to dispel the notion that the NCAA has overstepped its legal bounds to hand down a punishment because it felt it had to do something and because, with football season just weeks away, doing nothing might have seemed like an abdication of its duties, even if that something ignored its own role in the creation and fostering of the culture it says it wants to change.

Travis Waldron is a reporter/blogger for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Freindly Fire: Corbett’s Response On Sandusky Fails To Answer Questions

Guest Column by Chris Friend

In a speech before the world’s press, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said, “We must keep in mind that when it comes to the safety of children, there can be no margin for error, no hesitation to act.” It was the same authoritative tone he took when chastising Joe Paterno for not doing more to stop Jerry Sandusky.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

It is Tom Corbett himself who is most guilty of hesitating. Hesitating to appropriately staff the Sandusky investigation, and hesitating for years to make an arrest - both of which may have jeopardized the safety of children. That hesitation, and the stonewalling that Corbett has now employed, has created an intense firestorm around the governor.

Given the unprecedented nature of the Penn State scandal, this issue is not going away. In fact, if Corbett doesn’t come forward with answers, it promises to be the Number One issue in his 2014 re-election campaign.

Last week, the Governor responded to Freindly Fire’s Open Letter, which had requested specifics on key issues. But rather than answering any questions, the Corbett response raised even more red flags.

The Corbett response stated, “Grand juries take time. Evidence in decades-old molestations must be reassembled. A moral certainty of conviction must be reached … Where does Mr. Freind think that decade's worth of evidence came from? It had to be gathered, reluctant witness-by-reluctant witness, with accompanying corroborating evidence.”

Absolutely correct - and precisely Freindly Fire’s point. Corbett is admitting that this high-profile case required a tremendous amount of work. So why were so few investigating it?

Here’s the bottom line. The Sandusky investigation took three years, was reportedly staffed by a single investigator at the outset, and later spearheaded by two narcotics agents, neither of whom had any experience in child molestation cases. Compare to this to the army of investigators Corbett used in the Bonusgate political corruption probe, including, sources say, agents from child predator units.

Given those facts, it seems logical that there can be only one of two explanations:

1) Politics

It doesn’t take a genius to know that sullying the reputation of the state’s largest university and taking down its legendary football coach would be a monumental challenge to any candidate running for governor. This would have been particularly true in Corbett’s case, given that his opponent, Dan Onorato, was a Penn State alumnus.

And the might of Penn State’s massive alumni network was just illustrated, where 76,000 alumni donated much of the $208 million the university raised this year.

So was the understaffed investigation dragged out in such a fashion that the arrests were not made until after the 2010 gubernatorial election?

2) Priorities

Or was the Sandusky case mishandled because Tom Corbett did not prioritize catching child predators?

If politics played no role, then Tom Corbett clearly prioritized corrupt politicians, who we will always have, over taking a serial child rapist off the street. One can only wonder how many more victims Sandusky molested while he was under investigation.

There are a number of quotes, some by Corbett himself, that are quite telling.

Randy Feathers, the head of the Attorney General’s Bureau of Narcotics Office in State College who eventually headed the investigation, stated, "During the Bonusgate investigation, we had a shortage of investigators in Harrisburg." (Altoona Mirror, June 24, 2012)

Corbett was obviously proud of the fact that he pulled no one from Bonusgate, stating, “We used a completely different unit from Bonusgate … (the agents working the Sandusky case) were pure narcotic investigators from up in that region.” (Corbett press conferences, July 12, 2012, and July 14, 2012).

And Corbett admitted worrying that Sandusky could still be victimizing boys during the lengthy investigation, stating, “It was a calculated risk.” (CBS Philadelphia/KYW New Radio, June 26, 2012)

So Corbett knew of the risk, and yet decided that investigating a child-victimizing monster was worthy of only two investigators.

What’s even more telling is the fact that, upon Corbett becoming governor, he immediately ordered state police resources to the case. Why wasn’t that done before? So again, the question has to be asked whether Corbett, as attorney general, ever requested additional assistance from then-Gov. Ed Rendell, himself a highly respected former prosecutor. It’s not a trick question, and only requires a Yes or No answer.

And did Corbett ask the Feds for assistance, especially if additional state police resources were denied by Rendell and no one could be pulled from Bonusgate?

If the answers are in the negative, as they appear to be, what were Corbett’s motives in choosing to stay with such a bare-boned investigative staff?

No one has suggested that Sandusky should have been arrested before evidence was gathered. Common sense dictated that at least two or three solid cases be assembled before an arrest was made, and numerous prosecutors with no ax to grind have stated that strategy would have been a viable one.

But, as has been stated in the media, Corbett waited to have at least 10 cases before making an arrest, which just boggles the mind.

Once several victims were identified and an arrest was made, with the spotlight on Sandusky, more witnesses would come forward. More importantly, Sandusky would have been closely watched and children would have been safe. But that didn’t happen.

Instead, a predator was given three more years to victimize his prey.

No wonder the governor doesn’t want to answer questions.

So the stonewalling continues. There are still no answers as to why Bonusgate investigators were not ordered to work the Sandusky case, and why, sources say, Attorney General agents, including those in child predator units, were pulled from other cases to assist with that corruption probe.

Gov. Corbett also failed to answer the Open Letter’s other questions, including why he did not consider it a conflict of interest to serve on the Penn State Board of Trustees while simultaneously investigating it, and why he approved the $3 million taxpayer grant to Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, when he could have simply done nothing or vetoed it without raising one eyebrow.

The latter is particularly compelling since $640,000 in campaign contributions were made from Second Mile board members and affiliates to Corbett’s Attorney General and gubernatorial races.

The Open Letter received an astounding response from across the political spectrum. It was Facebooked and Tweeted thousands of times, published in media outlets and websites across the nation, and was the hottest topic on talk radio, with Freindly Fire discussing it from coast to coast. Most telling is that 99.9 percent of that dialogue had one common theme: why was there so much hesitation to act by Attorney General Corbett?

Rather than invoking “space aliens,” as he did in his response, Gov. Corbett would be better served by coming clean with the only thing that matters: the truth.

There is no such thing as “fair and balanced.” There is only truth and accuracy. It is time for Tom Corbett to tell the whole truth - accurately - regarding the very troubling Jerry Sandusky investigation.

The best place to start? Answer the questions. And the truth shall set you free.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett isues statement on NCAA sanctions for Penn State

"The appalling actions of a few people have brought us once again into the national spotlight. We have taken a monster off the streets and while we will never be able to repair the injury done to these children, we must repair the damage to this university.

Part of that corrective process is to accept the serious penalties imposed today by the NCAA on Penn State University and its football program.

However, as governor, I am grateful that the NCAA did not impose the 'death penalty,' which would have also had a severe detrimental impact on the citizens of State College, Centre County and the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I also want assurance from Penn State that no taxpayer dollars will be used to pay the $60 million fine imposed on the university today.

Penn State is more than football -- it is a world-class university, providing an outstanding education to our young people in a variety of areas from scientific research and engineering, to the arts and humanities.

I am confident that the university will move forward from this experience, complete the healing process and once again be worthy of its great reputation."

Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship's letter to the NCAA regarding sanctions

Subject: Pennsylvania State University
Date: July 22, 2012

Dr. Emmert,

The undersigned is counsel to Penn Staters for Responsible Stewardship ("PS4RS"), a group of over
5,000 individuals affiliated with Pennsylvania State University (the "University") as alumni, students,
benefactors, and friends. This email is in relation to your proposed announcement of "unprecedented"
sanctions against the University in connection with certain criminal actions of a former Assistant Football
Coach and tenured professor emeritus at the University.

Time and space prevent me from outlining that which you already know - your organization is wholly
without power to sanction the University for the events related to the above. It is beyond comprehension
how the NCAA can possibly believe it has the power to control events that do not violate NCAA rules,
nor how the NCAA can issue punishment without ever even launching an investigation in accordance
with your own rules. However, we can, at this point, agree to disagree on that issue, though you can be
most certain that the issue will be addressed.

The immediate issue relates to the concept of imposing sanctions on the University based, in whole or in
part, upon the findings of an internal investigation commissioned by the University's Board of Trustees
("BoT") and conducted by the private law firm of Freeh, Sporkin & Sullivan ("FSS"). The investigation
culminated in a 267 page report (the "FSS Report") which was issued on July 12, 2012.

My client has engaged our firm to conduct a comprehensive review of the FSS Report. While we have
only begun our work, upon even a cursory review, we have determined that the FSS Report is fraught
with factual and legal errors, filled with opinions and unsupported conclusions, and, in a word, faulty. To
rely on such a report to issue punishment of any kind would be beyond reckless.

Lest you be misled by the frenzied media reports, the FSS Report, and the individuals who were paid to
conduct it, are far from infallible. In this regard, I would refer you to the recent decision of the Court of
Arbitration for Sport in connection with an alleged election bribery case involving a former FIFA
presidential candidate. In its decision, that Court lifted a lifetime ban on the individual based, in part,
upon the fact that that an internal investigation by FSS on behalf of FIFA, which led to the ban, was "not
complete or comprehensive enough to fill the gaps in the record." These same concerns, and more, are
most certainly present here.

On behalf of my client, I urge you to reconsider your position. Knee-jerk reactions based upon faulty and
incomplete information have been the hallmark of the events that have transpired at the University over
the last 8 months. The FSS Report is less than 10 days old, and the 2 other University employees charged
with crimes have not even had their day in Court. Should the NCAA move forward tomorrow, whether
with the concurrence of the University's administrators or not, you will add yet another sad chapter in a
saga that simply has not been fully reviewed and, unfortunately, your actions will set in motion litigation
that could be avoided if appropriate consideration is given to the actual facts.

Please be guided accordingly.

Robert J. Tribeck, Esquire
Rhoads & Sinon LLP
One South Market Square, 12th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
www.rhoads-sinon.com

Paterno family statement on NCAA sanctions

Sexual abuse is reprehensible, especially when it involves children, and no one starting with Joe Paterno condones or minimizes it. The horrific acts committed by Jerry Sandusky shock the conscience of every decent human being. How Sandusky was able to get away with his crimes for so long has yet to be fully understood, despite the claims and assertions of the Freeh report.

The release of the Freeh report has triggered an avalanche of vitriol, condemnation and posthumous punishment on Joe Paterno. The NCAA has now become the latest party to accept the report as the final word on the Sandusky scandal. The sanctions announced by the NCAA today defame the legacy and contributions of a great coach and educator without any input from our family or those who knew him best.

That the President, the Athletic Director and the Board of Trustees accepted this unprecedented action by the NCAA without requiring a full due process hearing before the Committee on Infractions is an abdication of their responsibilities and a breach of their fiduciary duties to the University and the 500,000 alumni. Punishing past, present and future students of the University because of Sandusky’s crimes does not serve justice. This is not a fair or thoughtful action; it is a panicked response to the public’s understandable revulsion at what Sandusky did.

The point of due process is to protect against this sort of reflexive action. Joe Paterno was never interviewed by the University or the Freeh Group. His counsel has not been able to interview key witnesses as they are represented by counsel related to ongoing litigation. We have had no access to the records reviewed by the Freeh group. The NCAA never contacted our family or our legal counsel. And the fact that several parties have pending trials that could produce evidence and testimony relevant to this matter has been totally discounted.

Unfortunately all of these facts have been ignored by the NCAA, the Freeh Group and the University.

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier's letter to the board of trustees

ESPN is reporting that Former President Graham Spanier wrote a letter to the Penn State board of trustees Sunday night criticizing the Free Report and providing members with more details regarding the University's role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

Dear Members of the Board of Trustees:

I write to you with great regret about the situation that the entire University finds itself in following the conviction of Jerry Sandusky and the release of the Freeh report. Upon release of the Grand Jury presentment last November I was shocked and continue to be deeply troubled to have learned that a child predator victimized children while associated with the University, even after his retirement. I can assure you that I hadn't the slightest inkling until reading the Grand Jury presentment that Sandusky was being investigated for more than a single incident in a shower in 2001, something that was described to me only as "horsing around."

Had I known then what we now know about Jerry Sandusky, had I received any information about a sexual act in the shower or elsewhere, or had I had some basis for a higher level of suspicion about Sandusky, I would have strongly and immediately intervened. Never would I stand by for a moment to allow a child predator to hurt children. I am personally outraged that any such abusive acts could have occurred in or around Penn State and have considerable pain that it could perhaps have been ended had we known more sooner.

You need to understand and hear from me some important facts: I was apparently copied on two emails in 1998, the first, from Gary Schultz to Tim Curley on May 6 saying that "the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday." The second email, from Schultz to Curley on June 9, says "They met with Jerry on Monday and concluded that there was no criminal behavior and the matter was closed as an investigation. He was a little emotional and expressed concern as to how this might have adversely affected the child. I think the matter has been appropriately investigated and I hope it is now behind us." I have no recollection of any conversations on the topic or any other emails from that era sent to me or by me. It is public knowledge that the District Attorney decided there was no crime to pursue. I don't understand how one could conclude from such evidence "concealment" of a known child predator.

My knowledge of the 2001 incident is fully explained to the best of my recollection in the materials I provided to Mr. Freeh and that are appended to his report (enclosed again here). I never heard a word about abusive or sexual behavior, nor were there any other details presented that would have led me to think along those lines. McQueary's name was never mentioned to me, and it is clear that Curley and Schultz had not spoken to him yet when they gave me their initial heads up. I was in fact told that the witness wasn't sure what he saw, since it was around a corner. Dr. Jonathan Dranov's Grand Jury and trial testimony appear to corroborate that nothing sexual was reported to him in his meeting with McQueary on the night of the 2001 incident.

The Freeh report is also egregious in its incomplete and inaccurate reporting of my 2011 discussions with certain trustees, advice and reporting from the University's General Counsel, and the recounting of unfolding events in November, 2011. I want to be clear that the Chair of the Board of Trustees was kept informed by me throughout 2011 to the fullest extent I was able, beginning on the Sunday after my Grand Jury appearance and in other discussions with trustee leaders.

In reporting to the Trustees, I was guided by and followed all instructions from the University's General Counsel. She told me very little about how she was handling the Grand Jury investigation. She never told me anything about the content of the interviews with athletic department staff or the Curley and Schultz Grand Jury testimony or the interview of Curley and Schultz by the Attorney General when she was present. She did tell me on at least three occasions, however, that this was the third or fourth Grand Jury on this matter, that there appeared to be no issue for the University, and that the Attorney General did not seem to have any evidence to suggest that something happened involving Penn State. She had, she said, spoken several times to Attorney General staff. I was never told by her of any materials being subpoenaed from the University, or even that I had been subpoenaed to testify. She told me I was going voluntarily, as I had previously agreed to do, and she accompanied me before the judge and in the Grand Jury room and sat through my testimony. I had no preparation or understanding of the context. As I was being sworn in for my Grand Jury appearance, much to my surprise she handed over to the judge a thumb drive containing my entire history of emails back to 2004.

I note that the Freeh report concluded that the General Counsel failed to seek the advice of a law firm with quality criminal experience to advise her of how to deal with the Attorney General and the Grand Jury investigation. I have learned this is a standard procedure when corporations or other large entities are served with Grand Jury subpoenas.

It is unfathomable and illogical to think that a respected family sociologist and family therapist, someone who personally experienced massive and persistent abuse as a child, someone who devoted a significant portion of his career to the welfare of children and youth, including service on the boards of four such organizations, two as chair of the board, would have knowingly turned a blind eye to any report of child abuse or predatory sexual acts directed at children. As I have stated in the clearest possible terms, at no time during my presidency did anyone ever report to me that Jerry Sandusky was observed abusing a child or youth or engaged in a sexual act with a child or youth.

This conclusion should have been abundantly clear to Mr. Freeh and his colleagues who interviewed me for five hours before their report was finished and interrogated scores of employees about me. Yet the report is full of factual errors and jumps to conclusions that are untrue and unwarranted. I have identified many errors in the report that pertain to me, which my attorneys will share confidentially with University legal counsel for your records and consideration. Moreover, I look forward to the opportunity to set the record straight with representatives of the Board of Trustees as you might desire.

As my attorneys have pointed out, another investigation of my conduct, an investigation by federal officials responsible for my national top secret security clearance, was carried out simultaneously with the Freeh investigation. This clearance required a re-review when the Sandusky matter surfaced in November. Federal investigators then conducted a four-month investigation of their own in which they interviewed many of the same individuals the Freeh Group interviewed and other relevant individuals Freeh did not interview. The investigation was significantly focused on any possible role I might have played in the Sandusky matter.

At the conclusion of the investigation, my top secret clearance was reaffirmed. Although I told Mr. Freeh directly about the federal investigation and its result, there is no mention of it anywhere in his report.

Comments from the Freeh report and some trustees about my leadership of Penn State over more than 16 years are confusing to me. I tried to keep the trustees informed of all of the most relevant issues. Following our prior tradition of "Chairpersons Meetings," I instituted a pre-board dinner with trustee leadership, Trustee Seminars, and a morning report in public session with ample time for questions on any topic. We initiated Board subcommittees, an audit committee, a governance committee, and numerous other reforms to improve governance. I also believe his report is unfairly critical of the Board of Trustees in parts.

I worked with seven board chairs, received stellar annual reviews following surveys of all board members, and four contract renewals. I had an open door policy with trustees, returned all calls and answered all board members' emails on a same-day basis. I never hesitated to bring to board leadership discussion of any sensitive issue. I believe my record as president of Penn State speaks for itself. Together, we accomplished a great deal of good during my 16-year presidency of Penn State. Yet I find myself excoriated by the Freeh report and individual trustees speaking negatively of me in public. My reputation has been profoundly damaged.

In light of my 26 years of service to Penn State, my contributions as president for more than 16 years, and my continuing service even after I left the presidency, I would ask to have an audience with representatives of the board to answer any questions you might have. I write you with sincere respect, with a heavy heart for the children who were victimized by Sandusky, and with regret for the difficult challenges ahead for this great University.

Sincerely,

Graham Spanier

I hate to say it but I agree with Spanier here but why wait until the night before the NCAA destroys the football program to try and clarify the record? But it Seems like Spanier is the only one with the balls to stand up and fight these NCAA sanctions.

The key point in this letter that I find interesting is that Spanier says that in 2001 he consulted and was advised by the University's general counsel regarding the allegations. Sounds like a cover up to me. This is very interesting. A lot of the details in this letter are left out of the Freeh Report. Why? That is the question that should be on your minds.

More: Spanier says university lawyer kept him in dark on Sandusky investigation Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Breaking down the NCAA's sanctions against Penn State

 Source: NCAA.Org


$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program, to be paid over a five-year period beginning in 2012 into an endowment for programs preventing child sexual abuse and/or assisting the victims of child sexual abuse. The minimum annual payment will be $12 million until the $60 million is paid. The proceeds of this fine may not be used to fund programs at the University. No current sponsored athletic team may be reduced or eliminated in order to fund this fine.

Four-year postseason ban. The NCAA imposes a four-year postseason ban on participation in postseason play in the sport of football, beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2015-2016 academic year. Therefore, the University's football team shall end its 2012 season and each season through 2015 with the playing if its last regularly scheduled, in-season contest and shall not be eligible to participate in any postseason competition, including a conference championship, any bowl game, or any postseason playoff competition.

Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year, the NCAA imposes a limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 25 allowed) and for a period of four years commencing with the 2014-2015 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2017-2018 academic year a limit of 65 total grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 85 allowed) for football during each of those specified years. In the event the total number of grants-in-aid drops below 65, the University may award grants-in-aid to non-scholarship student-athletes who have been members of the football program as allowed under Bylaw 15.5.6.3.6.

Five years of probation. The NCAA imposes this period of probation, which will include the appointment of an on-campus, independent Integrity Monitor and periodic reporting as detailed in the Corrective Component of this Consent Decree. Failure to comply with the Consent Decree during this probationary period may result in additional, more severe sanctions.

Vacation of wins since 1998. The NCAA vacates all wins of the Penn State football team from 1998 to 2011. The career record of Coach “Joe” Paterno will reflect the vacated records.

Waiver of transfer rules and grant-in-aid retention. Any entering or returning football student-athlete will be allowed to immediately transfer and will be eligible to immediately compete at the transfer institution, provided he is otherwise eligible. Any football student-athlete who wants to remain at the University may retain his athletic grant-in-aid, as long as he meets and maintains applicable academic requirements, regardless of whether he competes on the football team.

Individual penalties to be determined. The NCAA reserves the right to initiate a formal investigatory and disciplinary process and impose sanctions on individuals after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings related to any individual involved.

Corrective

Adoption of all recommendations presented in Chapter 10 of the Freeh Report. The NCAA requires the university to adopt all recommendations for reform delineated in Chapter 10 of the Freeh Report. The university shall take all Reasonable steps to implement the recommendations in spirit and substance by December 31, 2013.

Implementation of Athletics Integrity Agreement. The Freeh Report includes a number of recommendations related to the University's athletics department. Specifically, in Chapter 10, Section 5.0, the report addresses the integration of the athletics department into the greater university community. Within 10 days of this consent decree, the university will be required to enter into an “Athletics Integrity Agreement” (AIA) with the NCAA and the Big Ten Conference, which obligates the University to adopt all of the recommendations in Section 5.0 of the Free Report as described in the above paragraph and, at a minimum, the following additional actions:

• Compliance Officer for Athletics. Establish and select an individual for a position of a compliance officer or equivalent who is, at a minimum, responsible for the ethical and compliance obligations of the athletics department.

• Compliance Council. Create a Compliance Council (or Council Subcommittee) composed of faculty, senior university administrators and the compliance officer for athletics, which shall be responsible for review and oversight of matters related to ethical, legal and compliance obligations of the athletics department.

• Disclosure Program. Create a reporting mechanism, including a hotline, for named or anonymous individuals to disclose, report or request advice on any identified issues or questions regarding compliance with (i) the AIA; (ii) the athletics department's policies, conduct, practices or procedures or (iii) the NCAA Constitution, bylaws or the principles regarding institutional control, responsibility, ethical conduct and integrity reflected in the Constitution and bylaws.

• Internal Accountability and Certifications. Appoint a named coach, manager or administrator for each of the university's NCAA-sanctioned intercollegiate athletics teams who shall be assigned to monitor and oversee activities within his or her team and shall annually certify to the Compliance Council that his or her team is compliant with all relevant ethical, legal, compliance and university standards and obligations.

• External Compliance Review/Certification Process. The athletics director shall annually certify to the Compliance Council, the board of trustees and the NCAA that the athletics department is in compliance with all ethical, compliance, legal and university obligations. If the department fails to earn a certification, the board of trustees ( or subcommittee thereof) or an appropriate university administrator shall take appropriate action against the athletics department, including the possibility of reduction in athletics funding.

• Athletics Code of Conduct. Create or update any code of conduct or the athletics department to codify the values of honesty, integrity and civility.

• Training and Education. In addition to Chapter 10, Section 5.5 of the Free Report, require all student-athletes and university employees associated with the athletics department, including faculty and staff to complete a yearly training course that addresses issues of ethics, integrity, civility, standards of conduct and reporting of violations. Each person who is required to complete training shall certify, in writing, that he or she has received such training. All training shall be overseen by the Compliance Council. The board of trustees also should receive training and education on these issues, including its relationship, role and responsibilities regarding the athletics program.

If the NCAA determines, in its sole discretion, that the university materially breached any provision of the AIA, such action shall be considered grounds for extending the term of the AIA or imposing additional sanctions, up to and including a temporary ban on participation in certain intercollegiate athletic competition and additional fines. The NCAA shall be permitted to accept as true and take into consideration all factual findings of the Freeh Report in imposing additional sanctions related to breach of the AIA and may initiate further NCA investigative and administrative proceedings. The NCAA will provide the university notice of the allegation of a material breach and an opportunity to respond, but the final determination rests with the NCAA.

Appointment of an independent Athletics Integrity Monitor for a five-year period. The NCAA requires that the university appoint an independent Athletics Integrity Monitor for a five-year period, at the university's expense. The monitor will prepare a quarterly report to the university's board of trustees, the Big Ten Conference, and the NCAA regarding the university's execution and maintenance of the provisions of the AIA. The monitor will make recommendations to the university to take any steps he or she reasonably believes are necessary to comply with the terms of the AIA and to enhance compliance with NCAA rules and regulations. The Monitor will operate under the following conditions:

• He or she will be selected by the NCAA, in consultation with the university and the Big Ten Conference.

• He or she will have access to any university facilities, personnel and non-privileged documents and records as are reasonably necessary to assist in the execution of his or her duties. The university shall preserve all such records as directed by the monitor.

• He or she will have the authority to employ legal counsel, consultants, investigators, experts and other personnel reasonably necessary to assit in the proper discharge of his or her duties. His or her expenses will be paid by the university, and the university shall indemnify and hold harmless the monitor and his or her professional advisors from any claim by any third party except for conduct: a) outside the scope of the monitor's duties; b) undertaken in bad faith; or c) constituting gross negligence or willful misconduct.

NCAA's full statement on "unprecedented" sanctions against Penn Sate University

Source: NCAA.Org

By perpetuating a "football first" culture that ultimately enabled serial child sexual abuse to occur, The Pennsylvania State University leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, resulting in a breach of the NCAA constitution and rules. The NCAA Division I Board of Directors and NCAA Executive Committee directed Association President Mark Emmert to examine the circumstances and determine appropriate action in consultation with these presidential bodies.

"As we evaluated the situation, the victims affected by Jerry Sandusky and the efforts by many to conceal his crimes informed our actions," said Emmert. "At our core, we are educators. Penn State leadership lost sight of that."

According to the NCAA conclusions and sanctions, the Freeh Report "presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education, and most disturbingly the values of human decency."

As a result, the NCAA imposed a $60 million sanction on the university, which is equivalent to the average gross annual revenue of the football program. These funds must be paid into an endowment for external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.

The sanctions also include a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins from 1998 through 2011. The career record of former head football coach Joe Paterno will reflect these vacated records. Penn State must also reduce 10 initial and 20 total scholarships each year for a four-year period. In addition, the NCAA reserves the right to impose additional sanctions on involved individuals at the conclusion of any criminal proceedings.

The NCAA recognizes that student-athletes are not responsible for these events and worked to minimize the impact of its sanctions on current and incoming football student-athletes. Any entering or returning student-athlete will be allowed to immediately transfer and compete at another school. Further, any football student-athletes who remain at the university may retain their scholarships, regardless of whether they compete on the team.

To further integrate the athletics department into the university, Penn State will be required to enter into an "Athletics Integrity Agreement" with the NCAA. It also must adopt all Freeh Report recommendations and appoint an independent, NCAA-selected Athletics Integrity Monitor, who will oversee compliance with the agreement.

Effective immediately, the university faces five years of probation. Specifically, the university is subject to more severe penalties if it does not adhere to these requirements or violates NCAA rules in any sport during this time period.

"There has been much speculation on whether or not the NCAA has the authority to impose any type of penalty related to Penn State," said Ed Ray, Executive Committee chair and Oregon State president. "This egregious behavior not only goes against our rules and constitution, but also against our values."

Because Penn State accepted the Freeh Report factual findings, which the university itself commissioned, the NCAA determined traditional investigative proceedings would be redundant and unnecessary.

"We cannot look to NCAA history to determine how to handle circumstances so disturbing, shocking and disappointing," said Emmert. "As the individuals charged with governing college sports, we have a responsibility to act. These events should serve as a call to every single school and athletics department to take an honest look at its campus environment and eradicate the 'sports are king' mindset that can so dramatically cloud the judgment of educators."

Penn State fully cooperated with the NCAA on this examination of the issues and took decisive action in removing individuals in leadership who were culpable.

"The actions already taken by the new Penn State Board of Trustees chair Karen Peetz and Penn State President Rodney Erickson have demonstrated a strong desire and determination to take the steps necessary for Penn State to right these severe wrongs," said Emmert.

Update: NCAA sanctions for Penn State

Update on Penn State sanctions: Penn State prepares for a 5-7 year bowl ban with 7 years losing scholarships. It is also being reported that Penn State's President Rondey Erickson and the BOT agreed to the NCAA sanctions yesterday which is one of the reasons Joe Paterno's statue came down today.

NCAA set to gut the Penn State football program Monday morning

ESPN is now reporting that the death penalty will not be the sanction levied against Penn State. But then comes this eerie statement from a NCAA source:

“NCAA president Mark Emmert has decided to punish Penn State with severe penalties likely to include a significant loss of scholarships and loss of multiple bowls, a source close to the decision told ESPN’s Joe Schad on Sunday morning.

But Penn State will not receive the so-called ‘death penalty’ that would have suspended the program for at least one year, the source said.

The penalties, however, are considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable, the source said.”

Well, the NCAA seems hell bent on levying sanctions against the football program and the university that sources call “unprecedented.” It’s hard to imagine anything worse than the death penalty, which, when one thinks of the SMU situation, is not unprecedented, so we’re curious what these sanctions will involve, exactly.

We do know, however, that Emmert has been granted the power to use “non traditional methods” of punishment. Whatever that means. The decision will be announced tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.

I guess we can say goodbye to the Penn State football program as we know it. NCAA President Mark Emmert and the NCAA Executive Board is basically going to gut the program Monday morning. Rumors are the sanctions will be something like a 5 to 7 year bowl ban. A 5 to 7 year TV ban. A large number of scholarships taken away over 7 years.

So if you own a house in the State College area get ready for the value of your house to drop significantly during the next five years. If you are a small business owner you might as well close up shop now.

Considering the Freeh Report is basically garbage and has no concrete evidence of a cover up, I only hope that state officials step in at this point and challenge the NCAA on what can only be described as a sever overreach of NCAA authority. Considering the economic ramifications of these sanctions, residents of State College might want to obtain a lawyer and file a class action lawsuit against the NCAA.

Paterno Family statement on taking down the statue

Tearing down the statue of Joe Paterno does not serve the victims of Jerry Sandusky's horrible crimes or help heal the Penn State Community. We believe the only way to help the victims is to uncover the full truth. The Freeh report, though it has been accepted by the media as the definitive conclusion on the Sandusky scandal, is the
equivalent of an indictment - a charging document written by a prosecutor - and an incomplete and unofficial one at that.

To those who truly want to know the truth about Sandusky, it should matter that Joe Paterno has never had a hearing; that his legal counsel has never been able to interview key witnesses, all of whom are represented by lawyers and therefore unavailable; that there has never been an opportunity to review critical evidence which has not been made public; that selective evidence and the opinion of Mr Freeh
is treated as the equivalent of a fair trial. Despite this obviously flawed and one-sided presentation, the University believes it must acquiesce and accept that Joe Paterno has been given a fair and complete hearing. We think the better course would have been for the University to take a strong stand in support of due process so that
the complete truth can be uncovered.

It is not the University's responsibility to defend or protect Joe Paterno. But they at least should have acknowledged that important legal cases are still pending and that the record on Joe Paterno, the Board and other key players is far from complete.