Previous month:
December 2016
Next month:
February 2017

January 2017

"The Conclusion On Whether Or Not Sandusky Was Framed"

 In conclusion to my search for the truth in the framing of Jerry Sandusky and the false charges brought against Penn State officials, this is what I believe.

   Ultimately, children were mistreated or harmed in Pennsylvania, but not in incidents concerning the PSU trials, specifically the Jerry Sandusky trial. It's a matter of whether or not Jerry Sandusky was guilty of harming children.

   If Jerry Sandusky did not actually harm children but was found guilty because he was framed (I think he was), it could still be said, that in all likelihood, some children were harmed by someone. And that, in fact, there were children harmed by a man who they thought was Sandusky.

    CONCLUSION. The man who posed as Sandusky most likely harmed children. And that crime  was covered up by authorities, but not Penn State authorities. Not coaches. Not Schultz.  

. But was there a cover up with respect to children that were harmed by unknown offenders? The answer is yes, I believe there was.

  Did an imposter harm children specifically, to  make people  believe he was Sandusky? (I would say yes.) I believe there was such a person.

  Was there a conspiracy to frame Jerry Sandusky? Yes, I believe there was.

  Was proof covered up that would lead a jury or investigators to that conclusion? Yes, I believe there was.

   If there was a framing of Sandusky by the use of an imposter and it was covered up to allow Sandusky to be charged, go to trial, and convicted, wrongly, then there were many people involved.

    People who lied in the investigations. Witnesses who lied or changed their stories. People who knew the actions of the imposter and kept silent. Papers that were taken. Reports that were covered or destroyed. Reports that were altered. It goes on.....

  Fantastic? Yes. But possible? Also, yes.

  Did it happen? Yes, I believe it did.

  Incredible crime! But I believe it did happen.

  Once you know what happened and basically how it happened, you can see the lies where the truth should be. You can tell things aren't what they appear and what they were made out to be. Not to be cliché but it is a wicked web that was weaved by some wicked people meaning to deceive. And they did.

   But the truth is still the truth. Jerry Sandusky was framed.

  

 

 

   

  

 


"Should Democrat Senators be charged with treason?" Or Should Some Be Impeached?

  Some high level Democrat Senators oppose the ban on travel that was implemented by President Trump. Trump says the ban was for security reasons. With that being the case, should Democrat Senators who act against the security measure be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy? Should they be charged with treason?

    Were travelers told to go to American airports because of the ban? And if they were told to go - or were travelers given money to travel to the United States to protest the travel ban by people working against Trump for political reasons? Is that illegal?

    If disturbances were generated purposefully and enemy combatants slipped through airport security, would their being helped be considered a treasonous act?

    Were Democrats purposely trying to cause unrest at the airports and promoting civil unrest to try and de-popularize the President?

    Knowing that the travel ban would go into effect or other restrictions when Trump took office, why didn't the Democrats prepare any counter effects to assist the travelers or others who would be affected? Is there any place for them to go set up? Were any warnings given? Did Democrats want travelers to get stranded so they could propagate racial politics? It seems that way. But if they did and openly oppose the Presidents Travel ban along with premeditated actions to cause disturbances, is that illegal and can they be impeached from their offices?

   Could they be tried for treason?

   

   


About Refining Toxic Oil In Oklahoma- Stopping Keystone and DAPL- And Oil Independence

We don't want refineries to be used in Oklahoma for refining Canadian TransCanada oil that has toxins that are left in our state and not properly disposed of.

We don't want pet coke runoff in our rivers. We don't want the toxic chemicals dumped into  the air from refineries refining oil from Alberta Canada. That oil comes through the Keystone pipeline.

We can refine Texas oil that is cleaner and safer. With 20 billion barrels of oil in west Texas we don't need dirty oil from Canada.

Canadian oil is processed by removing harmful toxins and pet coke before it is shipped out. This process produces few jobs. It's dirty. We get the pollution and they ship their oil to other countries to sell. We don't use most of the oil from Canada, and now, after the discoveries in Texas, we don't even need it.

The Keystone was built to be used to transport American oil. But as soon as it was built and the right of ways and eminent domains were ordered in completing the pipeline, TransCanada oil bought it to transport the dirty oil from Canada to ports. This oil is toxic. The process to get the oil in Alberta Canada is enormous in size and is the greatest polluter in the world. The lands will never be reclaimed. The waters will always be unfit to drink. The water kills animals al the time. Scarecrows are set up to scare off animals and birds like it's a joke.

The Canadian government has taken advantage of our laws in order to get the pipeline that wasn't meant for their use.

The rights of American communities and landowners are not supposed to be suspended by our government to benefit a foreign government. Rights were set aside for the Keystone pipeline. Canadian oil doesn't TRUMP our rights in America.

The DAPL is the same thing. It's just another pipeline for the benefit of transporting Canadian sludge oil through our land to a convenient port to ship their product out to other nations. Leaving us with the mess and clean up. And with the toxins. We don't want it!

Our government lied to us about our ability to produce oil in the United States. The government kept the volumes of oil in west Texas a secret. Land was taken. Huge amounts of accessible lands with Permian Basin oil fields were set aside for foreign interests. This helps to keep us dependent on foreign oil.

DAPL and Keystone pipelines  help those interests that have already harmed us. That have already cost us thousands of jobs. And helped to keep us dependent on toxic foreign oil. Oil that strengthened their anti American politics and religious rhetoric against freedom. Oil that served to help socialists look stronger in Canada, while politicians in America propagated the supremacy of a socialist medical system in Canada.

A system that our dependence on Canadian oil paid for. How treacherous is that?!

Pipelines in America should be used to transport American oil, only. Period. That will stop the DAPL and Keystone pipelines.

There should also be limits to how much oil is taken by foreign companies out of west Texas Permian Basin fields or Alaska. Regardless of the land they stole from people.

 

 

 

  

 


Could the 2001 Lasch Building Incident Be A Fabrication To Frame Sandusky?

   Could the 2001 Sandusky Lasch Building  incident be something that never really happened? It's a classic case of presenting the truths that are there but leaving the whole truth out of the picture. A few truths along with some made up truths. As much of the truth as they want you to know, trying to get people to believe a lie. In this case a lie that would frame Jerry Sandusky and lead to false accusations against the officials at Penn State. The lie made up about the 2001 incident in the Lasch building, on the PSU campus.  

   The 2001 incident became famous when the prosecutors and investigators claimed that Ex PSU Coach, Jerry Sandusky, raped a child in a shower room at PSU in the Lasch building, in February of 2001 after hours. They claimed that an assistant coach under Paterno saw Sandusky in the shower room with a child. They further claimed that the coaches and officials were made aware of suspicious behavior and suppressed the information. Claiming that information about the incident and Sandusky was hidden and covered up. This began the trials against the officials. Sandusky stood trial for the charges stemming from the accusations by investigators and the prosecution centered around the 2001 incident.

    The prosecution claimed that the dates of the incident were altered in an attempt to cover the incident. But the truth is that the incident that was covered up was an incident that happened, where information was taken from records and used to fabricate the Lasch building incident. The reports on that incident have never been seen since around the time of the original incident. Those reports included police reports. Security reports. Notes by administration. Notes on the incident by Paterno.  And a brief description written by a student who was with Schultz, in Paterno's small office space in the Student Athlete Services Building. I know the description was written there.

    None of that information has ever been found or released. Knowing it happened, and then trying to figure out where all the reports and information went to became puzzling to me. I could only conclude that if there was any reports available, the prosecutors did not want them to be found. They were covered up, internally in the police department, or altered and covered up in Schultz's office, maybe years after the incidents were forgotten.

    One thing I knew that no one else seemed to know, not Curley, Schultz, Paterno, was that the paper in Schultz's office was a description of the incident. I knew it was there. No one remembered it, but I did.

    Then how did the prosecutors know there was a paper in Schultz's office that described an incident so similar to that one? How did the incidents match so close? I mean the Morgan Building incident and the Lasch Building incident?

   I reasoned that someone found the paper and used the information to fabricate the Lasch Building incident. They took information from reports on the Morgan Building incident and the brief. Then, made up the story about the Lasch Building incident.

    Here are some particulars about the incident. *It happened at 9:30 AM. (It was in a shower room. *People heard and suspected a child was being harmed in the shower room. *It happened in the Morgan Building, not the Lasch Building. (People reported hearing sounds that they believed came from a child being harmed by a man.)

    The assistant coach did not testify, originally, that he heard sounds like a child being raped coming from the shower room, in the Lasch Building.  But the prosecution said that he did. Saying that, in court, matched the Morgan Building incident events. At that point I knew that they knew about the Morgan Building incident information.

     I also realized that there was only ONE incident, not two. Only ONE. And the actual incident had to be the Morgan Building incident. I knew that information on the Morgan Building incident was being called the Lasch Building information. Shower room. 9:30. Screams.

     Could the incidents have happened at 9:30 AM and 9:30 PM? A coincidence? Both incidents involved screams? Was there two incidents that closely matched? NO. There wasn't. Only one.

     Information was erased on the actual incident and some information or reports were spared but altered to suggest that an incident happened that never happened.

     The Lasch Building incident 2001 was a fabrication. The Morgan Building incident was erased. The people who claimed the Lasch Building incident happened knew it was a lie. They covered the information on the Morgan Building incident. Some information was most likely altered to appear as though it was altered to cover up the fabricated incident. And the people who had the information claimed that the altered information validated the Lasch Building fabrication. But no one has ever seen that information. But we know they knew the information about the original incident. Very smart, very complicated. But still just a lie.

    Knowing the incident was a lie. Knowing they lied tells you that they had witnesses lie. And knowing that, the testimony of the witness was altered. Knowing that it is assumable that the imposter was placed in the shower room to trick the assistant coach into believing it was Sandusky. Was it possible? Was it possible, knowing that the imposter had tricked so many people up to that point, to trick the coach into believing he was Sandusky? The answer is YES.

     Ultimately, the assistant coach was led to lie on their behalf against the accused or he was fooled into thinking that Sandusky was the person in the shower room, in 2002. Not 2001.

     Altering his testimony did not change the fact that he saw a man who he thought was Sandusky in 2002 in the Lasch Building, at or around 9:30 PM. Not 9:30 AM in the Morgan Building in 2001. Not 9:30 PM in the Lasch Building in 2001.  In 2002.

     He did not see the man in the shower room in the Lasch Building in 2001. And the information on the Morgan Building incident had to be purposely overlooked by the investigators.

     The 2001 incident was fabricated.

     The 2001 Morgan Building incident was never reported in the trial or in the investigations.

     Fabricating the 2001 incident, had to do with framing Sandusky. They did. He was framed. Man, was he ever framed.... When you realize that, when you understand that, it's hard to keep from crying. You have seen evil. Pure evil. But that evil hasn't won yet. The truth can still set Sandusky free.

     Pray that the truth prevails. Sandusky was framed.

    
     

How Could It Be Possible That Jerry Sandusky Is Innocent? - (1.)

    If it was possible that Jerry Sandusky was innocent of the crimes he was accused of, how would it be, possible? Think about how someone could frame Jerry Sandusky. Conspire and frame Sandusky and go after the Penn State officials and Coach Paterno. What would it take to do that?

    Let's start off with the idea that it would take an imposter posing as Sandusky, tricking children into thinking he was Sandusky. Is there such an imposter? Was there evidence of an imposter? Wait.....Wait....Wait....

    YES! There was. Was the evidence suppressed?  YES. Were records of incidents concerning the imposter covered up or destroyed? YES. Was evidence altered or fabricated? YES.

    Were testimonies altered? YES. Could testimony have been given by someone who had been abused by the imposter but thought it was Sandusky? I believe so.

     Was there an indication that the imposter took part in attempting to frame Sandusky by making a fake molestation tape in a shower room at Penn State? YES. Where? At the Student Athlete Services Building in 1998. Who saw it?  Myself - Calhoun the janitor- the security guard.

      Were reports filed? YES. Were the reports shown in the trial? NO.

      Were reports about the imposter tapes mentioned in the trial or investigations? NO.

      Were police reports also missing about the imposter? YES.

      Security guard reports and police reports were both missing and never mentioned during the investigations and or during the trials? YES.

       Was there an indication that the imposter was at or near the Sandusky house at any time that you know of? YES. In 1998.

       You saw the imposter at the Sandusky house? YES.

        When? In 1998- On a news report with George Steinbrenner.

        Was George Steinbrenner in the shower room with the imposter while the fake molestation tape was being made? YES.

        Were tapes used to frame Sandusky?

 


Alternate Reality News For Forty Years - Does Truth Mean Anything Anymore?

    How often does the news media actually report on real situations? Alternate Reality News For Forty Years has led to a completely confused generation of people. Lies in the news. Lies in politics. Lies in school. Lies promoted as truth. Lies protected. Actions based on lies. Reports based on lies. Lies based on lies. Truth turned into lies. The convenient truth lies. Lies are the convenient truth of the news media? Is that the secret to specious journalism? Truth suppression. Lies promotions. Regulated media bias. Is there a separation of the powers of lies? The international organization of global lies is now the government?

     Do we actually even have a government? Is everything a lie run by liars? Does truth mean anything anymore?

   Za8

     


They Are Standing UP! At Standing Rock. NOW! Video. DAPL- Keystone

 

 During CBS interview Native Leader gives interview and discusses the decision to go back to Standing Rock and stand up to the Trump Executive Order to continue construction.

   Trump doesn't get it. We don't want pipelines that need to be repaired to leak more and more oil into the water in America. And new pipelines to endanger more water resources. We don't want deregulations on pollution in the oil pipeline industry or in toxic waste from Canada. We need guarantees and common sense to regulating the oil pipeline industry.

    DAPL endangers the water supply of millions of people. The oil sands operations in Canada that Trump's associates have investments in - along with the DAPL - has polluted whole lakes and rivers in Alberta Canada. It is the worst polluter on earth. That type of allowance in openly polluting vast areas of land and destroying water supplies without any consideration for land or people has to be stopped.

    Be informed about what is happening. It's happening now.

 


The Truth About Obamacare- The Flim Flam Disaster

Lied to Democrats,

 

    Your wrong. First, Medicaid already covered 15 million or more poor people in the states they lived in. Obamacare just sent a piece of paper to them congratulating them on their (new) Medicaid coverage they were already technically covered under.

   The other 5 million you mentioned were over the poverty line or working poor. The bar was raised on qualifications to allow about two or two and a half million more onto Medicaid. Nothing was changed on the policies to cover testing that wasn't covered before or specialized care. That leaves a couple of million. Hhjjuh

  Because of policy changes in coverage those two million could be covered under the law on insurance premiums that were adjusted in the exchange. Making the coverage affordable for them - in part. At lower level policy coverages. The policies were guaranteed in the exchanges. The care you get depends on the policy.

Cheap inadequate care replacing criteria:

   This is where the major problem begins. Changes were made in the law so that your treatment was based on policy coverage not standard care. So, in reality, when you received care, (which was not universal care) you got what you paid for, not what the standard of care would be for all under criteria. If you don't know what criteria is - please read about criteria.

   The government, not doctors, the government under this system could order certain treatments not covered or certain testing by state, such as in state Medicare or Medicaid programs. *Medicaid could be required to cover testing that was unnecessary whether the doctors ordered it or not.

   See this: V.A. Administration ordering the same tests over and over and over on a heart patient with heart disease that was dying from the failure of his heart. The tests did not determine the condition of his heart. No other testing was done until he was dying in the emergency room of a hospital. Not a VA hospital. OBAMACARE - This is an example of Obamacare.

  And yet, the government could order such tests for every Medicaid patient in every state. Even if the tests were completely unnecessary and so expensive that it literally bankrupted the states! That's Obamacare. With their buddies raking in billions (BILLIONS) from the mandates, how long do you think it would be before the corruption set in? And testing was ordered over and over because money was conned out of the system at the expense of the patients. SEE THIS: Veterans Administration. As an example. [ If your not familure, read up on it.]

THE RIP-OFF   Runoff

   Intially, the government gave money to states but after a period of time the states were required to cover each patient eligible for Medicaid on federal standards with respect to income. That means the government could also raise the bar as high as it wanted. Your state would be required to pay Medicaid costs and mandate costs (unnecessary testing and procedures) without assistance from the government. Literally, your state could wind up paying for 80% of all patients in your state under Medicaid. "Should I go on?"

Socialized Medicine An Objective

   So, in fact no real changes were made in Medicaid except for administrative powers and controls that were from tactics inspired by dictatorship into complete failure resulting in a necessity for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, which was the true objective. (Can you see the plot unfolding now?) Lay the foundation, lie to people, give false hope, and systematically cause the collapse of the system while instituting socialized medicine as a fix to the problems caused by the government under Obamacare.

    Ultimately, Obamacare was a socialist trick to destroy the medical system we knew in America and replace it with socialized medicine.

Socialized Politics

     Democrats even went as far as to protect socialist oil production and favor their interests in the American market over American oil production and capabilities. To ensure that Canada's system looked better than it was by helping the Canadian government to meet financial goals in their socialist system by selling more socialist oil in America and letting the Canadians pump oil sand oil through our nation to ports. So, what's all the concern for their socialist oil in America about? Making socialized medicine look better, while they continually interfere with any real progress in maintaining and improving the American system. Having a system like Canada's was the ultimate objective of Obamacare and the Democrats. Biden was especially fond of the Canadian system, in case you hadn't noticed.

    No real improvements were made for the care of poor people under Obamacare.  Research and judge for yourself.

Costs

     That brings us to my favorite subject and Rand's concern on the topic of COST TRANSFERENCE. I don't know who initially coined the phrase but I think I might have decades ago when I first started studying how the system actually works. *If you are not familiar with cost transference, please read up on the cost transference studies.

     Cost transference affects insurance costs. In a negative way.  Why? (That's a good question.) After a few months or years of study and research you might have an answer. My answer involved making a determination on the relationship between cost and facility.

     When you cover costs by transferring some of the costs onto other services - the ultimate costs of those services makes a difference in the end result. When more cost is transferred the cost of the insurance premiums goes up. Ultimately. But there is also a reverse effect because it costs way more in one place to provide care in a particular procedure that it does in another place, depending on the facility. In an EMERGENCY ROOM for example. To check somebody for one thing in the ER might cost five times as much as in a normal doctors office.

     This results in more and more costs incurred that are in turn covered by transference. Obamacare did nothing to actually address the issue. In fact the exchanges were based on the idea of cost sharing in the insurance exchanges, which is basically, in financial terms, the same as affecting things financially with cost transference.

     Also, cutting back on Peter to give better care to Paul might be OK if your Paul and the government could claim that it was being fair but really..... Cutting operations on heart patients to save money on non life threatening care procedures just to make Obamacare look better? Is that really better care. More fair. Consideration for those who are actually in need of care?

Is Obamacare Actually Fair? Tralips

    Remember what I said about the Veterans Administration care? Inadequate, and then after you wind up in the hospital, (in my case dying) then Obamacare cuts back on the procedures that I need in order to live? You think that is fair? That's better than standard care that would have caught my heart palpitations in the first place and guaranteed that I got the same care in the hospital as anyone else having the same heart surgery?

    In a system of criteria, before Obamacare, that wouldn't have happened. In case you didn't know that. I worked in patient care, checking criteria on each case, so I know what I'm talking about.

    The amount of money spent in criteria and standard care is well spent with respect to the recovery times and preventative care resulting in cost savings. Obamacare destroyed that system. The rights of quality care people had under that system was not based specifically on policy coverage or modified as a discount type coverage. Keep that in mind. When your dying from neglect of care and your life depends on it - criteria is necessary. Obamacare isn't. Obamacare at that point become a killer, not a life saver.

    In real terms of rights and patient protections, that point alone should have been the reason Obamacare would not legally, or Constitutionally,  be implemented.

    Insurance dictation is another matter. But if your not convinced that Obamacare should have never been in the first place, your just a Democrat that has been lied to, too many times and believed the lies too many times. Obamacare was ill conceived, a flim- flam waiting to happen, a disaster in progress.  

    There is better care than Obamacare.