Carter just lost his #1 spot, Obama now holds title of worst President

Obama’s Job Approval Drops Below Carter’s

November 29, 2011

President Obama’s slow ride down Gallup’s daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.

Since March, Obama’s job approval rating has hovered above Carter’s, considered among the 20th century’s worst presidents, but today Obama’s punctured Carter’s dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama’s job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter’s 51 percent.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter’s ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

According to Gallup, here are the job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:

— Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.

— Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.

— Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.

— Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.

— Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.

— George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.

— Bill Clinton: 51 percent.

— George W. Bush: 55 percent.

What’s more, Gallup finds that Obama’s overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama’s team is using as a model.

[Vote now: Will Obama be a one-term president?]

Many pundits believe that job approval ratings are the key number to look at when determining if a president will win re-election. Generally, they feel that a president should be higher than 47 percent to win re-election.

Obama’s troubles have revived talk in Democratic circles that Vice President Joe Biden should be replaced by the politically popular Hillary Clinton. She plans to leave as secretary of state at the end of Obama’s term no matter what happens in the re-election.

A key Democratic source said that Clinton could help revive the Democratic base and bring in Clinton backers, with whom the administration has had a cool relationship. Clinton has repeatedly rejected talk of her swapping roles with Biden, but Democratic operatives eager to keep the president in office believe that she would be the key to winning educated white voters and liberals upset with the administration’s actions.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/obamas-job-approval-drops-below-carters

It Passes….Military can detain Americans in America

Seems that has been in effect for some time now, remember Jose Padilla?

Senate defies Obama veto threat in terrorist custody vote

By Stephen Dinan

Defying a veto threat from President Obama, the Senate voted Tuesday to preserve language that would give the U.S. military a crack at al Qaeda operatives captured in the U.S., even if they are American citizens.

Led by Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, senators voted 61-37 to preserve the language that gives the military custody of al Qaeda suspects, rather than turning them over to law enforcement officials.

“We are at war with al Qaeda and people determined to be part of al Qaeda should be treated as people who are at war with us,” Mr. Levin said.

He and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on his committee, had struck a deal earlier this month on giving the military priority custody, while allowing the administration to waive that and give civilian authorities priority if it deems the waiver in the interests of national security.

The White House and its Senate allies objected and tried to block the changes, instead calling for the issue to be studied further.

They argued giving the military priority could complicate investigations into terrorist suspects in the U.S., and said it opens the door to indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.

“We’re ignoring the advice and the input of the director of the FBI, the director of our intelligence community, the attorney general of the United States,” said Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, who led the effort to block the compromise.

The White House earlier had threatened to veto the bill over the provisions, saying they amounted to an effort to micromanage the war on terror.

“Any bill that challenges or constrains the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt the president’s senior advisers to recommend a veto,” the White House said in a statement.

But 16 Democrats, one independent and 44 Republicans joined together to defy Mr. Obama’s threat. Two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois — voted to strip out the detainee language.

The fight was part of a broader debate over the annual defense policy bill, which is considered one of the few must-pass pieces of legislation Congress considers each year.

The House has already passed its version with strict detainee language, so the Senate vote makes it likely whatever final bill reaches the president’s desk will contain the provision.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/senate-defies-obama-veto-threat-terrorist-custody-/

 

Sens. Paul, McCain clash over terrorist detainee amendment

By Josiah Ryan – 11/29/11 11:29 AM ET

Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and John McCain (Ariz.) battled on the Senate floor Tuesday over a proposed amendment to the pending defense authorization bill that could allow American citizens who are suspected of terrorism to be denied a civilian trial.

Paul argued the amendment, which is cosponsored by McCain, “puts every single American citizen at risk” and suggested that if the amendment passes, “the terrorists have won.”

“Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won,” Paul argued, “[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American.

McCain, however, who has spent hours of floor time in the last weeks promoting his amendment, hurried to the floor to defend it against Paul’s onslaught.

“Facts are stubborn things,” McCain repeated from the floor several times. “If the senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people who are released go back in to the fight to kill Americans, he is entitled to his opinion.”

The amendment, offered by McCain, who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, would technically allow the executive branch discretion on whether a terrorism suspect ought to be tried in civilian courts or the military tribunal system.

Paul fired back that his opposition to the amendment did not meant that he believed prisoners of war sitting in Guantánamo Bay ought to be released.

“I don’t think it necessarily follows I am arguing of the release of prisoners,” Paul said.  “I am simply arguing that particularly American citizens should not be sent to a foreign prison without due process.”

But McCain ended the conversation by suggesting the junior senator from Kentucky did not understand the gravity of the danger the U.S. faces from terrorism.

“An individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat,” said McCain. ” We need to take every stop necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women who are out there risking their lives … in our armed services.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

BREAKING NEWS: Lebanon fires rockets into Israel

http://www.jpost.com/

IDF fires on Lebanon after at least 3 rockets land in North
By YAAKOV LAPPIN AND JPOST.COM STAFF
11/29/2011 02:02

Police say projectiles land in Biranit and Netua, in Western Galilee; some damage, but none hurt; Police, IDF search Kfar Vradim area for additional rocket after explosion heard; IDF on full alert in North.

The IDF returned fire on the source of at least three rockets fired into northern Israel from Lebanon overnight Monday.

Three rockets fired from Lebanon landed in the Western Galilee, with police searching for a possible fourth rocket. No injuries were reported in the attacks.

One rocket landed in Biranit, 700 meters from the Lebanese border. No damage or injuries were reported in the attack.

Two additional rockets landed in the Western Galilee town of Netua , causing some damage to a chicken coop and a gas tank, but no injuries.

Police were searching for a possible fourth rocket in a wooded area near Kfar Vradim, just south of Ma’alot, also in the Western Galilee. Residents reported hearing an explosion in the area.

The IDF said in a statement that it views the rocket attacks as a severe incident and it holds the Lebanese government and the Lebanese military responsible for preventing such actions.

The IDF Northern Command has gone on full alert and is holding continuous evaluation in light of the events, the statement added.

Army Radio reported that the projectile which landed in Biranit was a Katyusha rocket. The police clarified in a statement that it remained unclear whether the projectile was a Katyusha or a different type of rocket. Police bomb squad units and the IDF were investigating the incident.

The Western Galilee was a target of Hezbollah rocket attacks during the 2006 Lebanon War, but the front has been largely quiet for the past several years.

Adventures of Mr. G guy

As you all know, he’s in Florida working like a dog so not much excitement for him, early days, late nights.   I don’t remember how many trees they sold last year but it looks like it’s going to exceed that this year, don’t know if it’s because of 2012 and people thinking this may be their last Christmas.

They park the trucks at the warehouse and last year they had gas stolen, this year they’re stealing tires, leaving the rims, just taking the tires.  Apparently an eye witness reported seeing 3 black guys jumping a fence to get to the trucks.  Mr. G said last night that he was going to go on a scouting mission but I told him to take someone with him, either someone who won’t run or someone who’s expendable.  😀   He just called and said he did take someone expendable with him.  😀

He’s back early tonight, they ran out of trees, the big rigs just aren’t moving as fast as they should be.

He said he’s taking lots of pictures but since they aren’t internet ready down there, for whatever reason, he’ll post them at a later date, probably when he gets back home but I don’t know that for sure so keep checking his site so he doesn’t think I sabotaged him for the views.  Even though I have passed his views…finally….I told him I wouldn’t cheat and would link to him, the things I have to do for love.   So here’s his link….  http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/

Cain is such a stud muffin…. 13 year affair revealed

Who knew by looking at him that he was such a stud!

 Woman alleges long affair with Cain
APBy HENRY C. JACKSON | AP – 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Georgia businesswoman said Monday she and Herman Cain had a 13-year extramarital affair, an allegation the Republican presidential hopeful denied as strongly as earlier allegations of sexual harassment.

“Here we go again. I didn’t do anything wrong,” Cain said on CNN. He acknowledged he knew the woman who was behind the accusation.

Moments after Cain issued a preemptive denial, an Atlanta television station posted a story to its website quoting a woman identified as Ginger White as saying, “It wasn’t complicated. I was aware that he was married. And I was also aware I was involved in a very inappropriate situation, relationship.”

Cain’s candidacy was soaring in the polls until he was hit less than a month ago with accusations that he sexually harassed several women and groped one while he was a high-ranking official at the National Restaurant Association. He has since fallen back in the surveys, and been eclipsed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in the race to emerge as the principle conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

In this case, unlike the others, Cain took the unorthodox step of issuing a denial in advance.

“I did not have an affair, and until I see and hear exactly what’s going to be, what accusations are going to be made, let’s move on,” he said.

Asked if he suspected his accuser had emails, letters, gifts or other possible evidence of an affair, he replied,”No.”

The Fox 5 television station in Atlanta also posted a statement it said it received from Cain’s lawyer, Lin Wood. The statement said the former businessman has no obligation to “discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

The posting quoted the statement as drawing a distinction between “private alleged consensual conduct between adults” and a case of harassment. It did not include an explicit denial of an affair along the lines that Cain himself provided in his television interview.

http://news.yahoo.com/woman-alleges-long-affair-cain-222218960.html

Church abandons King James Version

The Future of the Obama Coalition

November 27, 2011, 11:34 pm

The Future of the Obama Coalition

By THOMAS B. EDSALL

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:

Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizeable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”

In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”

Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.

Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.

The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

“My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

— Cliff Zukin

As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.

The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/

Barney Frank’s Christmas gift to all

Barney Frank to Announce Retirement

Published November 28, 2011

Longtime Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will announce his retirement Monday at an afternoon press conference in Newton, Mass.

The 16-term lawmaker, whose name is emblazoned on the banking reform law that passed Congress last year, had long been rumored to be ready for retirement. He was previously chairman of the House Financial Services Committee but is now ranking member when Democrats lost the majority in the 2010 midterm election.

Republicans made a valiant effort to knock off Frank in the last election cycle, nominating Sean Bielat, a 35-year-old businessman and former U.S. Marine, who had made waves, but had little chance of knocking off a powerful incumbent in a strongly Democratic leaning district.

President Obama won 61 percent of the vote there in 2008. Sen. John Kerry, the home state senator who ran for president in 2004, pulled in 62 percent in the district.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/28/barney-frank-to-announce-retirement/#ixzz1f0vOTPgN

Syracuse Coach Fine’s wife watched him molest a boy

These sick pigs, Fine, his wife and Sandusky and his associates, all should go to jail. 

Video and audio at link.

 

Syracuse fire sex abuse scandal coach as tapes reveal his ‘wife watched husband molest boy… and she seduced one victim years later’

By Michael Zennie

Last updated at 2:26 AM on 28th November 2011

Bernie Fine

Denial: Bernie Fine, the associate head basketball coach at Syracuse University, rejected allegations by three men that he molested them when they were boys

The Syracuse University basketball coach accused of sex abuse has been fired after damning new evidence suggested his wife watched him molest a boy who was staying at their house.

Laurie Fine allegedly told one of her husband’s three accusers in a recorded phone call that she suspected he had done the same to other boys – but that she never did anything to stop it.

She is also said to have revealed that she slept with one of the victims, as well, once he turned 18 – as it emerged that the tapes had been in the hands of police and ESPN for nearly ten years and no action was taken.

One of the alleged victims Bobby Davis, now 39, says he secretly taped the conversation in 2002 in an effort to collect proof that the longtime college basketball coach had abused him, starting when he was in seventh grade – 12 years old.

‘I know everything that went on, you know,’ she says on tapes played by ESPN’s Outside the Line program.

‘I know everything that went on with him. Bernie has issues, maybe that he’s not aware of, but he has issues. And you trusted somebody you shouldn’t have trusted.’

Mr Fine has denied the allegations as ‘patently false.’ However, the university today fired the 65-year-old coach after putting him on administrative leave earlier this month.

‘At the direction of Chancellor Cantor, Bernie Fine’s employment with Syracuse University has been terminated, effective immediately,’ said Kevin Quinn, the school’s senior vice president for public affairs.

SCROLL DOWN TO HEAR THE TAPE
Bobby Davis
Laurie Fine

Evidence: Bobby Davis (left) says he recorded a phone call with Mr Fine’s wife, Laurie, (right) in 2002 in an effort to collect proof that he was molested

Authorities have said if any crimes were committed, they are likely beyond the statute of limitation and cannot be prosecuted.

The phone conversation was verified by a voice-recognition analyst hired by ESPN.

Mrs Fine talks about the alleged abuse against Mr Davis in a matter-of-fact tone and suggests she has known about it for many years.

‘But you never had any [sex act] with him?’ she asks Mr Davis, who is an adult at the time of the phone call.

‘No,’ Mr Davis says. ‘I think he wanted to, but…’
Taped calls transcript

‘Why’: Even as he questions whether there were other victims, Mr Davis wonders why he seemed to be the primary target

Mrs Fine: ‘Oh, of course he would! Why wouldn’t he?’

Mr Davis lived with the Fines in the basement of their house on and off throughout his childhood. He says Mr Fine began abusing him in 1984 when he was just 12 years old and in seventh grade.

He says Mrs Fine always knew something was going on and even caught her husband touching him when she peered through the blinds one night as she pretended to take out the trash.
Bobby Davis

Innocence: Mr Davis says he was just 12 years old when Mr Fine started to molest him. He stayed in the coach’s basement on and off throughout his childhood

It wasn’t until that incident, when Mr Davis was in high school but still a minor, that Mrs Fine approached him and told him to stand up for himself. However, she never called police.

In the conversation, Mrs Fine seems to accept that her husband has predilections for boys and that there is nothing she can do about it.

‘You know what, “Go to a place where there’s gay boys. Find yourself a gay boy,”‘ Mrs Fine says.

‘”Get your rocks off, and have it be over with.” He needs that male companionship that I can’t give him.’
Conversation between Davis and Fine

Complicit? Mrs Fine says she always knew that her husband was abusing Mr Davis

She explains that her husband is no longer interested in her sexually, instead preferring boys. And she isn’t interested in him, either, she says.

Which could explain why she ALSO became sexually involved with Mr Davis. In the tape she confirms that she had sex with the former Syracuse University ball boy when he was 18 and a high school senior.

But Mrs Fine claims she couldn’t help Mr Davis when he was younger.

‘Because I care about you, and I didn’t want to see you being treated that way,’ she says.

‘And, it’s hard. If it was another girl… it would be easy to step in because you know what you’re up against. If it’s another guy, you can’t compete with that. It’s just wrong, and you were a kid. You’re a man now, but you were a kid then.’
Bobby Davis

Not alone: Mr Davis feared he wasn’t the only one Mr Fine touched inappropriately

If the allegations Mr Davis are making prove true, Mrs Fine did nothing to stop the abuse while it occurred.

But she wasn’t the only one who didn’t step in to help Mr Davis. He reported the incident to Syracuse police in 2002 and turned over the tapes when the detective said he needed proof.

But police apparently never investigated any farther.

In 2003, Mr Davis turned the tapes over to ESPN, but the sports network never did anything then because reporters couldn’t find ‘anyone else to corroborate the story.’

Mr Davis and his step-brother Mike Lang have both accused Mr Fine of abusing them when they were ball boys for the Syracuse University men’s basketball team.

A third man, 24-year-old Zach Tomaselli, says Mr Fine molested him in a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, hotel room in 2002.

However, Mr Tomaselli is currently facing sex abuse charges of his own in Maine and his own father has told news media that he is lying.

But federal agents found Mr Tomaselli’s statements compelling enough to raid Mr Fine’s home in upstate New York on Friday, carrying away his trash as well as filing cabinets.
MOTHER OF PENN STATE VICTIM SAYS ABUSED SON WATCHED VIGIL

A vigil was held on Saturday to support Penn State’s alleged child sex abuse victims, one of whom watched from a parked car a short distance away.

As a crowd of 50 gathered in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, the mother of ‘Victim 1’, as the high school boy was identified in a grand jury presentment, told ABC News he watched from afar.

The boy is among alleged victims who claim to have been abused by former defensive assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

According to testimony obtained by ABC, the boy was 11 or 12-years-old when he had his first sexual encounter with Sandusky, now 67.

The boy’s mother told authorities she was suspicious in 2009, prompting a two-year investigation that led to the arrest of the former coach on 40 counts of child sexual assault.

Her son later withdrew from his school as a result of intense bullying, as Sandusky’s supporters and the boy’s fellow high school student blamed him for setting the scandal in motion that led to the firing of beloved head coach Joe Paterno earlier this month.

According to the grand jury report, ‘Victim 1’ originally met Sandusky through The Second Mile program for at-risk youth, founded by Sandusky.

As the network reports, he ‘suffered sexual abuse while he would stay overnight at Sandusky’s home in a bedroom in the coach’s finished basement and at least once other time in his school gymnasium, where Sandusky would volunteer’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066909/I-know-Phone-recordings-reveal-wife-Syracuse-basketball-coach-knew-husband-molested-boy-house.html#ixzz1exvYP9Um