Coin Toss's Blog

A former police officer and FBI official who retired due to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder claims she saw angels when she first responded to the Pennsylvania crash of hijacked Flight 93 during the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The angels started appearing on the perimeter of the crash site,” Lillie Leonardi said in an interview with Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

“They were dressed as if they were in warrior garb like a Roman centurion, and there were so many of them, you couldn’t see their faces.”

Leonardi has just published a book about her account, titled, “In the Shadow of a Badge: A Spiritual Memoir.”

In a video on her own website, she gives more details of what she saw at the crash site, explaining, “All of a sudden, I kept seeing this flicker of light. You saw all these angels manifest. One in particular, in front, that I knew, it was Michael. He knew I was there to do something. I just didn’t know what it was at that moment. He’s the conduit to God as far as I’m concerned. I’m then the conduit for other people to listen to what has to be said. And then it’s their choice to decide what to do.”

At the time of the disaster, Leonardi was the community-affairs coordinator for the FBI in its Pittsburgh division.

When she initially arrived at the crash site, she told the Associated Press that “the biggest thing for me is that that there were no bodies.”

“I’m used to crime scenes but this one blew me out of the water. It just looked like the ground had swallowed up” the plane, she noted.

“That’s when I started seeing like shimmery lights … and it was kind of misty and that’s when I first saw, like, the angels there,” Leonardi said. “And I didn’t say anything to the guys because you can imagine if I would have said, ‘I just saw angels on the crash site,’ they’d have called the office and they’d have said, ‘She lost her mind and tell her to go home.’”

Leonardi kept what she saw to herself for nearly two years, but as emotional and physical ailments surfaced that she would later learn were PTSD-related, she told others, including her former FBI supervisor Kenneth McCabe.

“I believe her. I read the whole book,” McCabe told AP. “I know she believes 100 percent that’s what she saw. I know she’s a sane person so I’m not going to discount what she says she saw.”

Rev. Ron Lengwin, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, is a personal friend of Leonardi, and he interviewed her on his weekly radio show, Amplify.

“I have no reason to believe that she did not see angels,” Lengwin told AP. “I think it’s not surprising to me that God could choose to say that he was present there to give comfort to people, and to give comfort to the people who were there to give comfort to other people.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/fbi-agent-i-saw-angels-at-flight-93-crash-site/

Schalfly: Why does Obama censor God from the Declaration?

Phyllis Schlafly writes,

Who does President Barack Obama think he is that he can change the wording of the Declaration of Independence? Again and again he presumes to quote the great Declaration while making a significant change: he omits the word “Creator.”

Americans know that the Declaration of Independence proclaims as a matter of fact that they “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But when Obama recites this line, he omits the word “Creator.”

Listen carefully to how Obama censors that famous line. Here are his own words: “all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights.” He doesn’t say who endowed us.

Obama has done this so often that it can’t be a slip of the tongue or a glitch of the teleprompter. Changing the words of the Declaration of Independence is part of Obama’s determination to remove everything religious and every mention of God from every aspect of our public life in order to fundamentally transform us from “one nation under God” into one nation under the Federal Government, especially the executive branch, with no higher power recognized.

http://americanvisionnews.com/4000/schalfly-why-does-obama-censor-god-from-the-declaration

Saleha Mahmood Abedin, the mother of Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, reportedly served in the women’s division of the Muslim Brotherhood alongside the wife of Egypt’s new president, the Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/hillary-tied-to-new-muslim-brotherhood-president/

Feds label liberty lovers 'terrorists' ... again!

Warns of right-wingers 'suspicious of centralized federal authority'

The study and related data were recently produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, at the University of Maryland. START was launched with a $12 million grant from DHS and is recognized by the organization as one of its “Centers for Excellence.” In December, DHS announced it was renewing START’s funding with another $3.6 million.

START recently released a study titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008.”

The report noted that nearly one-third of all terrorist attacks from 1970 to 2008 occurred in five metropolitan counties run by Democrats.

The counties were Manhattan, New York, Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, San Francisco County and Washington, D.C. The report went on to list groups by ideology such as right-wing, left-wing, religious and single issue.

Interestingly, the report appears to have key data missing when it comes to Islamic terrorism.

On Page 22, Table 4 lists “hot spots” for religious terrorism by decade. For the 1990s, it shows there was no religious terrorism in New York or Los Angeles and only two terrorist attacks during the 2000s.

Patrick Poole, writing in PJ Media, noted that the report apparently does not consider the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to be terrorism. Also omitted was a 1994 shooting by Rashid Baz, who killed 16-year-old Jewish student Ari Halberstam and attempted to murder dozens more in a van on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The report also ignores the 2002 shooting at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport. Following the attack, which killed two and wounded four others, the FBI and Justice Department concluded that the shooter, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, was an Egyptian terrorist who wanted to be a Muslim martyr.

Also, by cutting the report off at 2007, it was able to omit events such as the Fort Hood massacre by Maj. Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people and wounded 29 others, and the Little Rock Army recruiting center, where a Muslim convert shot soldiers in front of a recruiting office.

When defining “left-wing,” START said it wanted “to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish ‘a dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political system (anarchists).”

This description would appear to apply to members of Occupy Wall Street, who have called for violence to achieve their ends. A speaker at a Los Angeles OWS rally said in order to achieve its goals, the organization would need to engage in violence similar to what was done in the French Revolution with mass beheadings. The groups have also received the endorsements of the Nazi and communist parties.

In a video, the speaker said, “One of the speakers said the solution is nonviolent movement. No, my friend. I’ll give you two examples: French Revolution and Indian so-called Revolution. Gandhi today is, with respect to all of you, Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us,” he said. “The French Revolution made fundamental transformation, but it was bloody. India, the result of Gandhi, is 600 million people living in maximum poverty. So, ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”

The report appears to be at odds with the Southern Poverty Law Center – which, while listing WND as a hate-group, ignores the Occupy Wall Street movement’s violence.

However, examples of what START considers to be “right-wing” include “groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.” The report also goes on to describe right-wing “terrorists” as those who are reverent of individual liberty and suspicious of centralized federal authority.

Under such a definition, the Founding Fathers might have been considered right-wing terrorists.

WND contacted START about the designations and was told that, unlike previous reports by other government entities claiming that members of groups such as the tea party are terrorists, the START study was intended to refer only to those who actually committed terrorist acts.

The report also defines as potential terrorists those who want to “forcibly insert religion into the political sphere” and are opposed to abortion.

This is not the first time a government report has listed conservative groups such as evangelical Christians and tea-party members as potential terrorists.

WND has reported on how the DHS had previously issued another report listing returning veterans and Christians who believed in end-time prophesies as potentially dangerous right-wing extremists.

A report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center warned law enforcement agencies to watch for individuals with bumper stickers for third-party political candidates including Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. It also identified those opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes as possibly harboring radical ideologies.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/feds-label-liberty-lovers-terrorists-again/

Definition of Irony

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to 
be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, 
asks us to "please do not feed the animals," because the animals may grow 
dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

I find it odd to come to LP and see these:

• Sell Your Lottery Payment 1-855-324-2274, Call Today! Get a Cash Lump Sum For Payments 123lumpsum.com/LotteryLumpSum

Obama Campaign Wants Your Wedding Gifts

Wayne Allan Root is a former Libertarian Vice-Presidential nominee and a Las Vegas oddsmaker. Root states up front that he won’t vote for either Obama or Romney. Being a Libertarian, his first choice is Ron Paul, but since Paul is not running as a third-party candidate, Root’s going to vote for Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson. Even so, Root thinks Romney will win in a landslide.

In all the talk about David Maraniss’ new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,” the chattering classes seem to have overlooked the most significant of Maraniss’ revelations, namely that the story on which Obama based his 2008 candidacy is “received myth, not the truth.”
“My parents shared not only an improbable love,” said Obama famously in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote, “they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.” This concept of multicultural romance shaped his persona and his campaigns.
At the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Obama leaped into the story in the very first sentence. “Four years ago,” he began, “I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.”
As Maraniss concedes, these two young people shared very close to nothing. “In the college life of Barack Obama in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby.”
Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”
Only Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie claims to have seen the pair together during the presumed courtship stage, but he is not close to credible.
“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times in December 2010, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’” This was pure lie, no other word for it.
A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.” Another lie.
Maraniss should have quoted Abercrombie with the stated qualifier that he has proved unreliable on all things Obama, but he did not. Abercrombie was too important. Without Abercrombie, there is no contemporary witness to any kind of relationship. Maraniss, however, knew enough not to quote Abercrombie on his claim to having seen the baby with his parents.
Despite his Herculean digging into the dung of Obama’s life, Maraniss’ shovel comes up empty on the couple’s alleged February 1961 wedding. He footnotes his comments thusly: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.”
There is no doubt that both Ann Dunham and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited both their purposes, Obama to extend his visa and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.
As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the country. The INS believed her to be married to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.
Like all other biographers of either Obama or his parents, Maraniss is totally silent on Dunham’s whereabouts from the February marriage to the August birth. He adds one detail, however, that deepens the mystery.
According to the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements, the young family lived at 6085 Kalanianole Highway where Dunham’s parents lived. Obama Sr. clarified to the INS that mother and baby lived there without him.
Maraniss definitively states that “[Dunham] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].” There was no room. The senior Dunhams shared the house with the Pratt family. The Pratt daughter “has no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.”
And yes, finally, an Obama biographer admits what the blogosphere has known for the last four years: “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital, he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland. …”
“This period, Washington State revisited,” Maraniss writes, “is missing from the memoir the son would write decades later.” In fact, as recently as Father’s Day 2012, Obama was claiming that his father left home when he was 2.
What Maraniss does not say is that he missed the Seattle hegira story himself in the 10,000-word Washington Post article he wrote on the eve of the 2008 election.
He was hardly unique. No one in the mainstream media wanted to blow the whistle on the fraudulent family fable that got Obama elected president.
The New Yorker’s David Remnick chose to overlook it in his 2010 Obama bio. The New York Times’ Janny Scott overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s mother. The Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s father, and the Times’s Jodi Kantor overlooked it in her 2012 book on the whole extended family.
Worse, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza chose not to report the fraud in his disingenuous best-seller, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As D’Souza explains, Obama was “his father’s son.” Dunham served largely as the vehicle through which the absent Obama exercised his will on the young Obama, she being “Obama Sr.’s first convert” to anti-colonialism.
D’Souza should have known this was nonsense. Conservative writer Michael Patrick Leahy had broken the Seattle story as early as 2008 in his book, “What Does Barack Believe.” It was accepted knowledge in the conservative blogosphere by 2009.
What Maraniss has laid bare, perhaps without meaning to, is a journalistic scandal of historic proportions in which, alas, he himself has played a part.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/biographer-admits-there-was-no-obama-family/

Original Proverb: 
“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish… and you feed him for a lifetime.”

  Latest Proverb Import: 
“Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, 100 weeks of unemployment checks, Disability Checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes… and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime."
 

DIVORCE AGREEMENT -- This is so
incredibly well-put, and I can hardly
believe it's by a young person, a student!!
Whatever he runs for, I'll vote for him!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, regressive, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et. al.:

We have stuck together since the late
1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.
I know we tolerated each other for many
years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America
cannot and will not ever agree on what
is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

1. Our two groups can equitably divide
up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides had such distinct and disparate tastes.

2. We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

4. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

5. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore,
and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however,
responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

7. We'll keep capitalism, greedy
corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

8. You can have your beloved lifelong
welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

9. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

10. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..

11. You can make nice with Iran and
Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

12. You can have the peace-niks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

13. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

15. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

16. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors..

17. We'll continue to believe healthcare is an earned luxury and not a right.

18. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the
Republic" and "The National Anthem."

19. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya," or "We Are the World".

20. We'll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

21. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our constitution and our flag.

22. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in
15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S..: And you won't have to "Press 1 for English" when you call our country.

Forward this every time you get it! Let's keep this going; maybe some of it will start sinking in!

**If you can't stand behind our Military, Please feel free to stand in front of them! **

• Unlike