Search This Blog, All Links Referenced In All Posts, & Paranoid Links At The Bottom Of The Page

08 April, 2009

Mercury square Neptune Obama Bulletin Final Notice

This is a "tough-love" message from Francis D. Grabau concerning "The People Of The Lie."

More of Obama's DECEIT and further evidence that what I've called the American Public's "Obama-Trance" is dangerous, real, and about to totally enslave and victimize those Americans still persisting in seeing Barack Obama as a "good" man with "good" intentions. NO HE IS NOT. This DECEIT he regularly indulges in (both personal self-deceit and deceit toward the public) "appeared" to be a possibility with his Natal Mercury+Sun square Neptune but it is now PROVEN to be the case and despite the concrete in-your-face actions Obama keeps taking too many Americans persist in wanting to PRETEND he's NOT DOING what, in fact, HE IS DOING.

This man is far more dangerous than G.W.Bush.

What I'm saying here may sound hard and offensive to you, but consult the links I'm providing and think about it ...if you still need to. And if you still do need to think on these things I suggest you also question your mental state for signs of severe denial and willful delusion. I'd also suggest that you are seriously depressed.

I've explained my astrological analysis of Obama here:


People, use your reason, open your eyes, stop grinning at the bullshit image (totally media-Hollywood created) of Barack, Michelle, and those two daughters as good people. The simple fact is that they are NOT ... these folks are total sell-outs, droids, -they've been hired as shills and enjoy the role. Please open your eyes and stop condemning those of us who are saying what is factually true: Barack Obama is a Corporate President and that last election was NO revolution and produced NO change at all beyond the merest of superficial appearances.

This man, Obama, is NOT A FRIEND OF DEMOCRACY ... will you just keep falling for his rhetoric and media image and refuse to WITNESS what he's actually doing? For Christ's sake, even Bill Moyers (the ever polite) is beginning to get it!

I've tried pointing out that Americans, -ALL Americans are these days under a "Finger Of God" or "Yod" configuration indicating extreme adjustments needed in our Mercury-Neptune functions collectively as a People ...that means Reason (Mercury) in stressful relationship to Imagination (Neptune). It's also a Reason vs Glamor problem, a Reality vs Escapism issue. To continue, as so many of my friends do, to praise and defend Obama is to self-victimize. He is party to the destruction of this Nation, and he is a willing, knowing, DELIBERATE partner in this work. He's actively destroying the economy with Bank Bailouts and he's extending the Police State legislation beyond what Bushco accomplished and -he's a LIAR. That's it, plain and simple, Barack Obama is a LIAR. Do NOT trust this man. I cannot be any clearer, and I will not soften this truth because Obama's actions speak for themselves. He's a feel-good stooge for folks who want to "feel good" as they surrender their minds to escapist avoidance. To support him is to support deceit. Got it? YOU are responsible for what he's doing and you are aiding and abetting it unless you SPEAK OUT IN OPPOSITION AND DENOUNCE it/him. It is imperative that we all wake up and actively speak these truths to each other before we fall into total stupor!

Sorry, pardners, them's the sad facts! And I don't want to hear another whining word about how I'm being "negative" and "cynical" or depressing. To be negative, cynical, and depressing is to play along with Obama's LIES just because you want to pretend, to indulge yourself in the lie that you're actually "feeling good".

Don Grabau

ps ... It feels very "lonely" out here ....If you have already come to these same conclusions yourself I would very much appreciate hearing you say so, but I'm under the distinct impression that most of you are still supporting Obama and his Rahm Emmanuel, Corporate America Presidency.

Monday April 6, 2009 14:33 EDT
Submitted by davidswanson on Tue, 2009-04-07 14:05.
Commentary from Glenn Greenwald
New and worse Secrecy and Immunity Claims from the Obama DOJ (DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE).

When Congress immunized telecoms last August for their illegal participation in Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program, Senate Democratic apologists for telecom immunity repeatedly justified that action by pointing out that Bush officials who broke the law were not immunized -- only the telecoms. Here, for instance, is how Sen. Jay Rockefeller justified telecom immunity in a Washington Post Op-Ed:

Second, lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House's year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Taking them at their word, EFF -- which was the lead counsel in the lawsuits against the telecoms -- thereafter filed suit, in October, 2008, against the Bush administration and various Bush officials for illegally spying on the communications of Americans. They were seeking to make good on the promise made by Congressional Democrats: namely, that even though lawsuits against telecoms for illegal spying will not be allowed any longer, government officials who broke the law can still be held accountable.

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.

There are several notable aspects to what happened here with this new court filing from Obama:

(1) Unlike in the prior cases where the Obama DOJ embraced the Bush theory of state secrets -- in which the Obama DOJ was simply maintaining already-asserted arguments in those lawsuits by the Bush DOJ -- the motion filed on Friday was the first response of any kind to this lawsuit by the Government. Indeed, EFF filed the lawsuit in October but purposely agreed with Bush lawyers to an extension of the time to respond until April, in the hope that by making this Obama's case, and giving his DOJ officials months to consider what to do when first responding, they would receive a different response than the one they would have gotten from the Bush DOJ.

That didn't happen. This brief and this case are exclusively the Obama DOJ's, and the ample time that elapsed -- almost three full months -- makes clear that it was fully considered by Obama officials. Yet they responded exactly as the Bush DOJ would have. This demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used -- not only when the Obama DOJ is taking over a case from the Bush DOJ, but even when they are deciding what response should be made in the first instance. Everything for which Bush critics excoriated the Bush DOJ -- using an absurdly broad rendition of "state secrets" to block entire lawsuits from proceeding even where they allege radical lawbreaking by the President and inventing new claims of absolute legal immunity -- are now things the Obama DOJ has left no doubt it intends to embrace itself.

(2) It is hard to overstate how extremist is the "soverign immunity" argument which the Obama DOJ invented here in order to get rid of this lawsuit. I confirmed with both ACLU and EFF lawyers involved in numerous prior surveillance cases with the Bush administration that the Bush DOJ had never previously argued in any context that the Patriot Act bars all causes of action for any illegal surveillance in the absence of "willful disclosure." This is a brand new, extraordinarily broad claim of government immunity made for the first time ever by the Obama DOJ -- all in service of blocking EFF's lawsuit against Bush officials for illegal spying. As EFF's Kevin Bankston put it:

This is the first time [the DOJ] claimed sovereign immunity against Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. In other words, the administration is arguing that the U.S. can never be sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes, whether FISA, the Wiretap Act or the SCA.

Since EFF's lawsuit is the first to sue for actual damages under FISA and the Wiretap Act, it's arguable whether this immunity argument applied to any of the previous lawsuits. What is clear, though, is that the Bush DOJ, in any context, never articulated this bizarre view that all claims of illegal government surveillance are immunized in the absence of "willful disclosure" to the public of the intercepted communications. This is a brand new Obama DOJ invention to blanket themselves (and Bush officials) with extraordinary immunity even when they knowingly break our country's surveillance laws.

(3) Equally difficult to overstate is how identical the Obama DOJ now is to the Bush DOJ when it comes to its claims of executive secrecy -- not merely in substance but also tone and rhetoric (at least in the area of secrecy; there are still important differences -- no sweeping Article II lawbreaking powers and the like -- which shouldn't be overlooked). I defy anyone to read the Obama DOJ's brief here and identify even a single difference between what it says and what the Bush DOJ routinely said in the era of Cheney/Addington (other than the fact that Bush used to rely on secret claims of national security harm from Michael McConnell whereas Obama relies on secret claims filed by Dennis Blair). Even for those most cynical about what Obama was likely to do (that's me, Don Grabau)or not do in the civil liberties realm, reading this brief from the Obama DOJ is so striking -- and more than a little depressing -- given how indistinguishable it is from everything that poured out of the Bush DOJ regarding secrecy powers in order to evade all legal accountability.

Every defining attribute of Bush's radical secrecy powers -- every one -- is found here, and in exactly the same tone and with the exact same mindset. Thus: how the U.S. government eavesdrops on its citizens is too secret to allow a court to determine its legality. We must just blindly accept the claims from the President's DNI that we will all be endangered if we allow courts to determine the legality of the President's actions. Even confirming or denying already publicly known facts -- such as the involvement of the telecoms and the massive data-mining programs -- would be too damaging to national security. Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."

What's being asserted here by the Obama DOJ is the virtually absolute power of presidential secrecy, the right to break the law with no consequences, and immunity from surveillance lawsuits so sweeping that one can hardly believe that it's being claimed with a straight face. It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior. As EFF's Bankston put it:

President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties. But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a "secret" that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again.

This is the Obama DOJ's work and only its work, and it is equal to, and in some senses surpasses, the radical secrecy and immunity claims of the Bush administration.

See more weblinks which Don attached to his email:


  1. It is a lonely life we lead,Mr. Grabau. Just wanted to make you feel a bit better by letting you know I agree with you. I also think that it would not matter which person is elected president.In the end, each final choice of candidates we have has already been groomed to bring us closer to world government. Imho,our votes are worthless.

  2. Mr Grabau,
    I believe as do many others that no one gets anywhere near high elected office without either coming from within the 'trusts' or 'combinations' or been compromised in some way.

    Straight-up employee: An obvious midpoint.
    Barak Obama seems to have been raised for this.
    A Pharmakos. Raised from birth. Perhaps.

    At any rate he's perfect for the role.
    The Teflon Of A Ron.
    Slickest model since Hillbilly Clinton.
    Left Cover, covering a line of legislation from administration to administration, from Carter (or Johnson) to this next, unprecedented step.
    ByteMe is right. To vote is but a joke.
    This time round anyway.
    60 year blip on the radar.

    ByteMe's right.
    You are not alone Mr. Grabau, and we have the solid rock of history on our side.
    History is like a bone, they can cover it up, bury it, plant frikkin' flowers on it. Slash. Burn. Pave it over.
    But it doesn't go anywhere, grows even more solid with time and perspective.
    The mist of history is a myth made by those who wish to cloud the past and ones mind.
    History calcifies, becomes fossil; that any group of school children can dig up someday.

    I agree with you that it should be much sooner than much too late.
    Remembering a child thinks last year is ancient history I believe there's a tap to that we can find somewhere.
    I think William Black with his 'Mr WhatHisNose who teaches civics at FillInTheBlank High' affinity, and Daniel Estulins hip multi lingual explainations of the destruction of currency(s) are great places, on tape, to get folks to watch something that will explain all of the background and the foreground lies in short order.
    (I've given up on getting people to read)