>> ^MaxWilder:
Anyone who is screaming at police officers on their front lawn is clearly causing annoyance and alarm, displaying tumultuous behavior, and quite likely qualifying for several other points. Being on your own property is not a "sanctuary" zone, where you can do whatever the hell you feel like. You still have to maintain some modicum of civility.

From the link brain provided, a section you did not quote providing generic legal defense advice:

Being angry and yelling at someone, even if that person is a police officer, is not sufficient cause to sustain a disorderly conduct charge. You are absolutely permitted to express yourself and your first amendment rights to free speech.

The simple fact is that you are probably more likely to be arrested for a disorderly conduct offense if you personally annoy a police officer. But that doesn't mean that you are guilty by any means.

That, plus the fact that the police department dropped the charge, seems to indicate it was not a proper arrest.

As someone else put it, "there's no such thing as contempt of cop." You're allowed to be mad at cops, and you're allowed to yell things at them. It's generally a stupid and counterproductive thing to do, but it's not against the law in and of itself.

Judge Napolitano seems to go even further, and says that in addition, Crowley entered the home illegally.

There's plenty to ponder here about how much race played a role in this, and who should be considered more at fault, but the illegitimacy of the arrest seems somewhat a settled issue.

My take is that Crowley got angry. Understandable, given that he was accused of racism essentially immediately when he was just responding to a call, but that doesn't make arresting Gates justified. A bigger man would have simply apologized for the misunderstanding on the spot in order to defuse the situation. Instead Crowley has refused to apologize even after the President (stupidly) makes it a national story, and even after the "beer summit."

Neither man should feel proud or justified about their behavior, and they both have something to apologize for. In my opinion Crowley has more to apologize for, because his transgression wasn't merely being rude and yelling; it was arresting someone whose only crime was being mad about a wrongful accusation made against him.

Crudely put, exaggerated, and using loaded language - but I think the fundamental analysis is sound. Obama is a racist. A black racist, and he holds many racist views and opinions about white people. It's sad to say, you can't examine his words and his record without arriving at this conclusion. The man is uncomfortable around white people and holds many prejudices against them. That's racism.

Look at how he treated the whole Beergate issue. He blatantly admitted that he "didn't know the facts", but went ahead and made the assumption that the white police officer "acted stupidly". Well, thanks to a smart police officer we know that's total bullcrap. Gates was belligerent, offensive, insulting, and WAY out of line and it was all on tape. The officer did everything by the book, and was more than forbearing with the obviously racist Mr. Gates who routinely refused to cooperate with simple, common sense requests just because he was dealing with a white cop (who happened to be an expert on racial profiling).

So Obama weighs in without any facts and ASSUMED that this was all the officers fault for no reason except that in his racist brain "White cop + black citizen = white person bad". Well it all blew up in his face because when you make a STUPID RACIST ASSUMPTION based on your negative prejudices then it doesn't hold up. The facts proved that not only was Crowley right, but that Gates was a class-A jackass racist.

So what does Obama do? Does he apologize to the cops that he maligned and insulted. Nope. He has the cheek and gall to go out and say how he 'regrets that people mis-interpreted his comments". He doesn't even have the guts to admit when he's wrong because in his racist mind he thinks he's RIGHT. He's such a racist that he can't even bring himself to admit that Gates was totally 100% wrong in how he handled himself, and that Crowley was 100% right. Instead he clings to his prejudices and his biases and pretends that the cop still could have handled things better. That's RACISM.

So's crap like saying his own grandma is a 'typical white person'. So's going to Reverend Wright's little race palace for 20 years and not walking out when he rails against all the whiteys. So's writing a freaking BOOK called "A story of RACE and inheritance" in which he talks about the 'act' he puts on around white people.

Face facts folks. Glenn Beck isn't exactly very eloquent about it, and he tries to make it sound worse than it probably is, but when you get right down to it his basic accusation is correct. Obama is a racist who holds a TON of prejudices against white people. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up. It doesn't mean Obama 'hates' white people. It just means that when he bumps into a white person that the little wheels in his brain paint a picture of that white guy which is colored with the palate of his biases. The result is that he 'treats' that person as if they're the "white man" caracature he's created in is brain. It doesn't mean he's going to joing the Blu Blax Blan or torch whitey homes. But when he's faced with a situation like the Gates/Crowley fiasco you better believe it makes him side with the jackasses like Gates 100% of the time for no reason except the other guy is white.

And that's sad. Pathetic and sad. I like to hope that intelligent people have more sense than that. But I have to shake my head and reluctantly conclude based on the preponderance of evidence (Obama's actions & words) that our President is a small, petty, prejudiced man.

^ Your supposed irony seems to hinge on the belief that Beck is right, or has some sort of valid point.

Neither are true.

My point isn't that it's impossible for minorities to level racial prejudice against whites, just to point out that a party that has spent the last 3 decades riding into power on the back of racial backlash seems to have decided that the key racial issue in America in 2009 is that our black President, and latina Supreme Court Justice are grinding white people under their heels.

Never mind that in the underlying case we're talking about, the white police officer violated the 4th amendment, and made an unjust arrest (at least, according to Fox News).

I usually agree with Bill, but this time he is dead wrong on the Gates issue.

Tell me if I'm wrong about these facts: Gates broke into a house. Officer Crowley came to investigate. Crowley questioned Gates about his identity. Gates initially refused to cooperate and started screaming about racism. Crowley pressed the issue, and Gates eventually showed ID, while continuing to berate the officers. The officers present argue with Gates for a little about the validity of their investigation and whether it's racist or not, then start to leave. Gates follows them outside and starts creating a more public spectacle. Officers tell him to calm down, but he keeps escalating his tantrum. Officers arrest him in his front yard for disorderly conduct.

From brain's link:

A "disorderly person" is defined as one who:

- with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
- recklessly creates a risk thereof
- engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
- creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Anyone who is screaming at police officers on their front lawn is clearly causing annoyance and alarm, displaying tumultuous behavior, and quite likely qualifying for several other points. Being on your own property is not a "sanctuary" zone, where you can do whatever the hell you feel like. You still have to maintain some modicum of civility.

It is totally possible that the police could have defused the situation if they had been better trained at handling upset people, but they are *not allowed* to leave until everybody has calmed down and the situation has clearly been resolved. Obviously Gates was refusing to calm down.

So where was it that the police officers did something stupid? Well obviously it was when they arrested somebody who knew the president, right? I just don't see anything else they did wrong.

But please, if I missed something, enlighten me.

No one faults the officer for paying a visit to the house. No one faults the officer for figuring out who Gates was and if he lived there. If Gates was difficult with the officers beforehand, it's unfortunate that the officers had to deal with that. But both sides agree that identification was eventually shown that showed that Gates was in his own home. The disorderly conduct charge came afterwards. At that time, there was definitely no reason to "take action". There's no reason they should even be there.

Everything else you mention is meaningless. It doesn't matter if he has a chip on his shoulders. It doesn't matter if he jumped to the conclusion that it was a racial issue. It doesn't matter if he has history of making such claims. It doesn't matter if Crowley has a history of working against racism and racial profiling. Once you realize none of that matters, it all seems pretty cut and dried.

I think I figured it out. Maybe people are asking the wrong question. Maybe people are asking the question "Who had the right to be offended?" While I'm asking the question "Was the arrest and charge of disorderly conduct justified?" I could see the police officers having a pretty good case for being annoyed or offended. But I don't think that matters one bit. I think police officers need to be well trained to swallow their pride, identify crimes, and help convict people for those crimes, and not get into arguments and arrest people for disorderly conduct. This disorderly conduct charge was legally completely unfounded. It was just the officer desperately trying to come up with something to arrest someone he didn't like, which is an unethical abuse of the legal system.

There's rude, and then there's preventing an officer from fulfilling his duty. If an officer is called out for a home invasion call, and can't report back to the dispatcher (for whatever reason), that is a serious problem. When the reason is someone screaming questions (especially questions that have been answered more than once), there's a definite reason to take some sort of action.

As far as I can see, Gates would seem to have a huge chip on his shoulder (perhaps not without -some- justification), and immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was a racial issue. Gates has something of a history of making these sorts of claims, while Crowley has a history of working -against- racism and racial profiling. It's hardly a cut-and-dried situation...and Maher's not helping a damned thing by rushing to judgment.

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
Ok, good points about the non-humanness of angels. I can accept that Gabriel was very androgynous in that scene/movie. But what about Lucifer then? He is most definitely a masculine character. Kinda seems like they're attempting at having both interpretations instead of one or the other.

^enoch:

this is why gabriel is known as the angel of resurrection,and his punishment/duty is to stand watch over the four watchtowers- north(might be south,too lazy to check)and will utter no sound until the end-times(book of john,gabriel blows his horn).

Sorry to single you out enoch, but the idea that Gabriel blows the trumpet in the end times is not found anywhere in scripture, the earliest source for this is from an Armenian manuscript from 1455, and it reached the English language in Milton's Paradise Lost. As for not uttering a sound until the end times, the Bible specifically names Gabriel and the angel who announces the births of John the Baptist and Jesus (Luke 1:5-20 and Luke 1:26-38 respectively) hence his title as the Archangel of Annunciation.

Yes there are many different stories about angels, many of which contradict each other, but the standard beliefs as written in the Bible and accepted by the major churches stand on their own.

I know I am picking at a movie you guys enjoy immensely, I'm not trying to attack your taste/choice, I just think it's a little odd the way they chose to portray it. Either way, I don't really know anything about the movie or its universe so I'll shut up about it now .

lol..naw..you got me..you got the tater.my fault for being lazy and just posting stuff offa my head.didnt know about the paradise lost deal..thats a nice lil nugget.

gabriel has been many things in scriptures,messenger,voice and teacher(muhammhed).
the incarnation i am most fascinated with is the arch angel gabriel of the resurrection,who along with uzriel,rapheal and michael gaurd the four watchtowers.the apocryphal books have a much richer history concerning gabriel than canonized scripture ever will.
if you are interested in such things allestier crowley and don milo duquette are fascinating reads.

This film is the first in a series of three films discussing various aspects of shamanism. This first film, Manifesting the Mind, is a broad look at psychedelics in general. Why are psychedelics so brutally suppressed in our culture? What exactly are some of the psychedelic plants and chemicals and how can they benefit us? With philosophy and insight from Denis McKenna, Daniel Pinchbeck, Alex Grey, and many others, this film is not to be missed by anyone interested in psychedelics and shamanism.

Interviews include - Robert Bussinger, Mike Crowley, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, Alex Grey, Clark Heinrich, Nick Herbert, John Major Jenkins, Dennis McKenna, Terence McKenna, Daniel Pinchbeck, Dr. Rick Strassman, and others.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kenneth anger, jimmy paige, crowley, manson, marianne faithful, cult, film' to 'kenneth anger, jimmy page, crowley, manson, marianne faithful, cult, film' - edited by rasch187

Thank God I'm an Atheist!! (Previously stated by Aleister Crowley)

There really isn't any educational value in this film, aside from the correct claim that the church instituted holidays around the time of pagan holidays. (Which doesn't at all mean that the holidays remained pagan; they kept the trappings, but changed the substance.)

Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar. The name of the goddess of Easter was Eostre. It's probable that Eostre was the goddess of the sunrise, like the Roman Aurora; her name seems to be cognate with, e.g., the Greek goddess of the dawn Eos.

His explanation of the meaning of Easter is based on the Wiccan celebration of Ostara. (Ostara is a possible Germanization of Eostre, though the name is not to my knowledge found in any extant ancient or medieval texts.) Wiccan practices are not the same as those of ancient paganism. Wiccan rites borrow heavily from Ceremonial Magick (Aleister Crowley, Israel Regardie, and the like). That said, there are modern pagans who have revived the ancient holiday of Eostre to the best of their ability.

15. Thelemism or "Do what thou wilt"?
By Crowley?
I´m sure you are past all that because it sure seems more like
"Do what KKL wilt", by crawling.

ObsidianFire always has the last words on their talks, which are "sorry hun".
Either that or she will end up on her knees, saying "get out from under the bed right now you creep!"

>> ^choggie:
The ninth circuit is NOT an example of the process at work for anything more than agenda, bias, power and influence.....follow the $$$, hunny-Look at their track record-At face value, a lot of what they, lawyers for the ACLU, hell, The United Nations(oxymoronic) do, looks great. One has to look at the inception, evolution, and effects of what they actually accomplish, to see that the sandwich, with fresh, whole grain bread and veggies hangin' out to make you approach it, eyes-agape and mouth-watering....contains a shitburger served cold under all the dressing...
Code Pink, Moveon.org, mediamatters.org perhaps in their ranks, some well-meaning and no doubt thoughtful souls in their ranks, but agian, these folks tend not to understand the true mechanisms of what shaped their agendas, their virulent distaste for universal truths and ideals...nor could most of them work a shovel, change a tire, grow their own food or wipe their own asses without a choice between plys, scents, embossing and colors.
But hey man, Howard the Duck and Lord Whorfin, FTW, we all helped to make this world what it has become, a big chessboard on which a few influential, toxic, and un-human people play-
Now to the homosexuals-"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."-Crowley


Mind backing up any of your accusations with references?

The ninth circuit is NOT an example of the process at work for anything more than agenda, bias, power and influence.....follow the $$$, hunny-Look at their track record-At face value, a lot of what they, lawyers for the ACLU, hell, The United Nations(oxymoronic) do, looks great. One has to look at the inception, evolution, and effects of what they actually accomplish, to see that the sandwich, with fresh, whole grain bread and veggies hangin' out to make you approach it, eyes-agape and mouth-watering....contains a shitburger served cold under all the dressing...
Code Pink, Moveon.org, mediamatters.org perhaps in their ranks, some well-meaning and no doubt thoughtful souls in their ranks, but agian, these folks tend not to understand the true mechanisms of what shaped their agendas, their virulent distaste for universal truths and ideals...nor could most of them work a shovel, change a tire, grow their own food or wipe their own asses without a choice between plys, scents, embossing and colors.

But hey man, Howard the Duck and Lord Whorfin, FTW, we all helped to make this world what it has become, a big chessboard on which a few influential, toxic, and un-human people play-

Now to the homosexuals-"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."-Crowley

Crowley wrote about how he practiced following people until he affected them with the energies directed at them.....fuck that, "Stop following me ya drug-addled Ouija board fuck!!"