Guest guest Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 Highly recommend a visit to the Lois Rodden website: AstroDataBank.com ..then click on to the " Research " page, scroll down and click on " USA " . There is found charts and miles of messages debating all the most commonly proposed horoscopes for the USA. As well is a good reference book, with a brief discussion od the April 30,1789 horoscope, Nicholas Campion's THE BOOK OF WORLD HOROSCOPES. ..... John Ficquette <jficquette wrote: Has anyone considered that inauguration of the first president on 4/30/1789 as the birthdate of the government?? John " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2004 Report Share Posted October 5, 2004 The first " Inagural " chart for the(POTUS) President Of The United States is the " natal " Chart of George Washington's Presidency. It is also the " natal " chart of all United States Presidentcies and the " natal " chart for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. The soul of the United States enjoys many natal charts beyound the POTUS. Juan JOHN B <jtwbjakarta wrote: Highly recommend a visit to the Lois Rodden website: AstroDataBank.com ..then click on to the " Research " page, scroll down and click on " USA " . There is found charts and miles of messages debating all the most commonly proposed horoscopes for the USA. As well is a good reference book, with a brief discussion od the April 30,1789 horoscope, Nicholas Campion's THE BOOK OF WORLD HOROSCOPES. ..... John Ficquette wrote: Has anyone considered that inauguration of the first president on 4/30/1789 as the birthdate of the government?? John " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Sometimes controversy is just plain irresistable, but as I undertand Juan's comment one is to accept the fact that the mundane entity, the " USA " is hydra-like in that it manifests multiple nativities. This is certainly a conceptualization in refreshing contrast to the much belabored arguments for some one moment in Philadelphia, sometime on Thursday July 4th 1776. Yet I must in commenting confess that an intimate familiarity with the events of 1774 to 1789 leaves me sceptical that anything " natal " happened " to the USA " either in 1789 (or, to belabor the point, in the case of the 4th that isn't better understood as dependent on more significant events of July 2nd and July 5th). Still, the concept of some one unique and determinate natal moment for the USA is just about impossible to gain-say. Juan appears to have done just that and I hope many members in the group can remain his willing listeners. But here's some considerations that Juan's position must face: that one must recognize that Geo. Washington became President-Elect on April 6, 1789 when the Senate counted the Electoral College votes and then scheduled an April 30th Oath taking ceremony. The election, the vote counting, the Inauguration, as well as the opening of Congress on March 4th were all of a package of governmental arrangements, constitutionally established and scheduled exactly on late Saturday morning, September 13, 1788, on which occasion too the Constitution itself was duly Congressionally ratified (ref. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, Vol. II (1894) pp. 262-64). If Juan is only saying that a natal chart for the Presidency is meaningful, that should be fine and unexceptionable, or if he is even more suggesting (and I think he is) that the nativity of the Presidency is effectively the nativity of the Federal government, that's certainly worth the pondering, but if still further it is argued that the Presidential nativity is to be considered as the nativity of the USA itself, then his position would here necessarily imply that the USA is effectively a elective monarchical state, which it has clearly never been. (George Bush's occasionally eccentric behavior notwithstanding). The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution make it clear that the USA is itself a " democratic state " constitutionally empowering a national " republican government " , namely, the U.S. Federal Government. At the risk of antagonizing, I see Juan's position to be unable to refute the widely acknowledged necessity of identifying a single moment of closure constituting " the birth moment " of the USA, within the calendar limits of July 2nd, 1776 and September 13th, 1788: 07/021776, when the United Colonies of North America bowed to the DAY ONE INCEPTION of the " USA " and the 09/13/1788, which marked the day of realization of the USA as a " more perfect union " . Having said all this, I wish to again declare sympathetically that any argument the casts doubt on the candidacy of July 4th deserves close respectful study, as for example does Helen Boyd's JULY 6, " 1775 " horoscope. .... My best regards to Juan Juan Oliver <jivio wrote:The first " Inagural " chart for the(POTUS) President Of The United States is the " natal " Chart of George Washington's Presidency. It is also the " natal " chart of all United States Presidentcies and the " natal " chart for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. The soul of the United States enjoys many natal charts beyound the POTUS. Juan JOHN B <jtwbjakarta wrote: Highly recommend a visit to the Lois Rodden website: AstroDataBank.com ..then click on to the " Research " page, scroll down and click on " USA " . There is found charts and miles of messages debating all the most commonly proposed horoscopes for the USA. As well is a good reference book, with a brief discussion od the April 30,1789 horoscope, Nicholas Campion's THE BOOK OF WORLD HOROSCOPES. ..... John Ficquette wrote: Has anyone considered that inauguration of the first president on 4/30/1789 as the birthdate of the government?? John " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 I find that the " soul " of the USA is found in the copulative involvement of at least a half dozen charts... The Boyd " War " chart, the POTUS chart followed by the July 4th chart of 1776 being the " most " important. In my previous post I wrote... " the " natal " chart(POTUS) for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. " The words " with regard " were used to demonstrate that the POTUS chart can be viewed as a " government " chart in issues relating to the three branches of government which comprise the US of A. When issues arise within govenment due to authority or questions of responsibility between the three branches, look to this chart for answers. Juan JOHN B <jtwbjakarta wrote: Sometimes controversy is just plain irresistable, but as I undertand Juan's comment one is to accept the fact that the mundane entity, the " USA " is hydra-like in that it manifests multiple nativities. This is certainly a conceptualization in refreshing contrast to the much belabored arguments for some one moment in Philadelphia, sometime on Thursday July 4th 1776. Yet I must in commenting confess that an intimate familiarity with the events of 1774 to 1789 leaves me sceptical that anything " natal " happened " to the USA " either in 1789 (or, to belabor the point, in the case of the 4th that isn't better understood as dependent on more significant events of July 2nd and July 5th). Still, the concept of some one unique and determinate natal moment for the USA is just about impossible to gain-say. Juan appears to have done just that and I hope many members in the group can remain his willing listeners. But here's some considerations that Juan's position must face: that one must recognize that Geo. Washington became President-Elect on April 6, 1789 when the Senate counted the Electoral College votes and then scheduled an April 30th Oath taking ceremony. The election, the vote counting, the Inauguration, as well as the opening of Congress on March 4th were all of a package of governmental arrangements, constitutionally established and scheduled exactly on late Saturday morning, September 13, 1788, on which occasion too the Constitution itself was duly Congressionally ratified (ref. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, Vol. II (1894) pp. 262-64). If Juan is only saying that a natal chart for the Presidency is meaningful, that should be fine and unexceptionable, or if he is even more suggesting (and I think he is) that the nativity of the Presidency is effectively the nativity of the Federal government, that's certainly worth the pondering, but if still further it is argued that the Presidential nativity is to be considered as the nativity of the USA itself, then his position would here necessarily imply that the USA is effectively a elective monarchical state, which it has clearly never been. (George Bush's occasionally eccentric behavior notwithstanding). The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution make it clear that the USA is itself a " democratic state " constitutionally empowering a national " republican government " , namely, the U.S. Federal Government. At the risk of antagonizing, I see Juan's position to be unable to refute the widely acknowledged necessity of identifying a single moment of closure constituting " the birth moment " of the USA, within the calendar limits of July 2nd, 1776 and September 13th, 1788: 07/021776, when the United Colonies of North America bowed to the DAY ONE INCEPTION of the " USA " and the 09/13/1788, which marked the day of realization of the USA as a " more perfect union " . Having said all this, I wish to again declare sympathetically that any argument the casts doubt on the candidacy of July 4th deserves close respectful study, as for example does Helen Boyd's JULY 6, " 1775 " horoscope. .... My best regards to Juan Juan Oliver wrote:The first " Inagural " chart for the(POTUS) President Of The United States is the " natal " Chart of George Washington's Presidency. It is also the " natal " chart of all United States Presidentcies and the " natal " chart for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. The soul of the United States enjoys many natal charts beyound the POTUS. Juan JOHN B wrote: Highly recommend a visit to the Lois Rodden website: AstroDataBank.com ..then click on to the " Research " page, scroll down and click on " USA " . There is found charts and miles of messages debating all the most commonly proposed horoscopes for the USA. As well is a good reference book, with a brief discussion od the April 30,1789 horoscope, Nicholas Campion's THE BOOK OF WORLD HOROSCOPES. ..... John Ficquette wrote: Has anyone considered that inauguration of the first president on 4/30/1789 as the birthdate of the government?? John " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 " SIGNIFICANT AMERICAN NATIONAL BIRTH MOMENTS " : (1) USA: (ASTROLOGERS COMPETE IN ADVOCATING VARIOUS DATES FROM THE DAY THE STILE " USA " WAS FIRST " EMPLOYED " BY CONGRESS (BUT NOT YET FORMALLY " ADOPTED " ), ON JULY 2ND, 1776; VARIOUS DATES HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED COVERING THE PERIOD RIGHT UPTO THE DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT). (2) GOVERNMENT: September 13, 1788 (Government's Components): (2a) LEGISLATURE: March 04, 1789 (2b) PRESIDENCY: April 30, 1789 (2c) JUDICIARY: September 24, 1789 One should readily acknowledge the efficacy of the concept SYNASTRY as it may be employed between and among birth moments, but one is nonetheless obliged to be clear when one is talking about the USA, as distinct from THE GOVERNMENT, as distinct from any one COMPONENT of THE GOVERNMENT. Juan's employment of " Copulative Involvement " is suggestive but I'm left wondering just what it really means. Does it mean more than the synastries among and between numbers 1...2....2a...2b....2c......????? E.g. Dane Rudhyar in his book, THE ASTROLOGY OF AMERICA'S DESTINY, confuses GOVERNMENT and LEGISLATURE and USA. As he chose March 4, 1789 as the birth moment of the USA, he confused LEGISLATURE (thinking it GOVERNMENT) for STATE. Doubly confusing, as it it doubly fallacious. P.S. The widespread confusions evident in the work of other astrologers as well, apropos failing to properly distinguish among the nos. 1...2....2a....2b...2c, is a not insignificant matter. Thanks again, Juan Juan Oliver <jivio wrote: I find that the " soul " of the USA is found in the copulative involvement of at least a half dozen charts... The Boyd " War " chart, the POTUS chart followed by the July 4th chart of 1776 being the " most " important. In my previous post I wrote... " the " natal " chart(POTUS) for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. " The words " with regard " were used to demonstrate that the POTUS chart can be viewed as a " government " chart in issues relating to the three branches of government which comprise the US of A. When issues arise within govenment due to authority or questions of responsibility between the three branches, look to this chart for answers. Juan JOHN B <jtwbjakarta wrote: Sometimes controversy is just plain irresistable, but as I undertand Juan's comment one is to accept the fact that the mundane entity, the " USA " is hydra-like in that it manifests multiple nativities. This is certainly a conceptualization in refreshing contrast to the much belabored arguments for some one moment in Philadelphia, sometime on Thursday July 4th 1776. Yet I must in commenting confess that an intimate familiarity with the events of 1774 to 1789 leaves me sceptical that anything " natal " happened " to the USA " either in 1789 (or, to belabor the point, in the case of the 4th that isn't better understood as dependent on more significant events of July 2nd and July 5th). Still, the concept of some one unique and determinate natal moment for the USA is just about impossible to gain-say. Juan appears to have done just that and I hope many members in the group can remain his willing listeners. But here's some considerations that Juan's position must face: that one must recognize that Geo. Washington became President-Elect on April 6, 1789 when the Senate counted the Electoral College votes and then scheduled an April 30th Oath taking ceremony. The election, the vote counting, the Inauguration, as well as the opening of Congress on March 4th were all of a package of governmental arrangements, constitutionally established and scheduled exactly on late Saturday morning, September 13, 1788, on which occasion too the Constitution itself was duly Congressionally ratified (ref. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, Vol. II (1894) pp. 262-64). If Juan is only saying that a natal chart for the Presidency is meaningful, that should be fine and unexceptionable, or if he is even more suggesting (and I think he is) that the nativity of the Presidency is effectively the nativity of the Federal government, that's certainly worth the pondering, but if still further it is argued that the Presidential nativity is to be considered as the nativity of the USA itself, then his position would here necessarily imply that the USA is effectively a elective monarchical state, which it has clearly never been. (George Bush's occasionally eccentric behavior notwithstanding). The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution make it clear that the USA is itself a " democratic state " constitutionally empowering a national " republican government " , namely, the U.S. Federal Government. At the risk of antagonizing, I see Juan's position to be unable to refute the widely acknowledged necessity of identifying a single moment of closure constituting " the birth moment " of the USA, within the calendar limits of July 2nd, 1776 and September 13th, 1788: 07/021776, when the United Colonies of North America bowed to the DAY ONE INCEPTION of the " USA " and the 09/13/1788, which marked the day of realization of the USA as a " more perfect union " . Having said all this, I wish to again declare sympathetically that any argument the casts doubt on the candidacy of July 4th deserves close respectful study, as for example does Helen Boyd's JULY 6, " 1775 " horoscope. .... My best regards to Juan Juan Oliver wrote:The first " Inagural " chart for the(POTUS) President Of The United States is the " natal " Chart of George Washington's Presidency. It is also the " natal " chart of all United States Presidentcies and the " natal " chart for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. The soul of the United States enjoys many natal charts beyound the POTUS. Juan JOHN B wrote: Highly recommend a visit to the Lois Rodden website: AstroDataBank.com ..then click on to the " Research " page, scroll down and click on " USA " . There is found charts and miles of messages debating all the most commonly proposed horoscopes for the USA. As well is a good reference book, with a brief discussion od the April 30,1789 horoscope, Nicholas Campion's THE BOOK OF WORLD HOROSCOPES. ..... John Ficquette wrote: Has anyone considered that inauguration of the first president on 4/30/1789 as the birthdate of the government?? John " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Keep wondering.... you might get it clearly.....all over again...... Juan JOHN B <jtwbjakarta wrote: " SIGNIFICANT AMERICAN NATIONAL BIRTH MOMENTS " : (1) USA: (ASTROLOGERS COMPETE IN ADVOCATING VARIOUS DATES FROM THE DAY THE STILE " USA " WAS FIRST " EMPLOYED " BY CONGRESS (BUT NOT YET FORMALLY " ADOPTED " ), ON JULY 2ND, 1776; VARIOUS DATES HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED COVERING THE PERIOD RIGHT UPTO THE DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT). (2) GOVERNMENT: September 13, 1788 (Government's Components): (2a) LEGISLATURE: March 04, 1789 (2b) PRESIDENCY: April 30, 1789 (2c) JUDICIARY: September 24, 1789 One should readily acknowledge the efficacy of the concept SYNASTRY as it may be employed between and among birth moments, but one is nonetheless obliged to be clear when one is talking about the USA, as distinct from THE GOVERNMENT, as distinct from any one COMPONENT of THE GOVERNMENT. Juan's employment of " Copulative Involvement " is suggestive but I'm left wondering just what it really means. Does it mean more than the synastries among and between numbers 1...2....2a...2b....2c......????? E.g. Dane Rudhyar in his book, THE ASTROLOGY OF AMERICA'S DESTINY, confuses GOVERNMENT and LEGISLATURE and USA. As he chose March 4, 1789 as the birth moment of the USA, he confused LEGISLATURE (thinking it GOVERNMENT) for STATE. Doubly confusing, as it it doubly fallacious. P.S. The widespread confusions evident in the work of other astrologers as well, apropos failing to properly distinguish among the nos. 1...2....2a....2b...2c, is a not insignificant matter. Thanks again, Juan Juan Oliver wrote: I find that the " soul " of the USA is found in the copulative involvement of at least a half dozen charts... The Boyd " War " chart, the POTUS chart followed by the July 4th chart of 1776 being the " most " important. In my previous post I wrote... " the " natal " chart(POTUS) for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. " The words " with regard " were used to demonstrate that the POTUS chart can be viewed as a " government " chart in issues relating to the three branches of government which comprise the US of A. When issues arise within govenment due to authority or questions of responsibility between the three branches, look to this chart for answers. Juan JOHN B wrote: Sometimes controversy is just plain irresistable, but as I undertand Juan's comment one is to accept the fact that the mundane entity, the " USA " is hydra-like in that it manifests multiple nativities. This is certainly a conceptualization in refreshing contrast to the much belabored arguments for some one moment in Philadelphia, sometime on Thursday July 4th 1776. Yet I must in commenting confess that an intimate familiarity with the events of 1774 to 1789 leaves me sceptical that anything " natal " happened " to the USA " either in 1789 (or, to belabor the point, in the case of the 4th that isn't better understood as dependent on more significant events of July 2nd and July 5th). Still, the concept of some one unique and determinate natal moment for the USA is just about impossible to gain-say. Juan appears to have done just that and I hope many members in the group can remain his willing listeners. But here's some considerations that Juan's position must face: that one must recognize that Geo. Washington became President-Elect on April 6, 1789 when the Senate counted the Electoral College votes and then scheduled an April 30th Oath taking ceremony. The election, the vote counting, the Inauguration, as well as the opening of Congress on March 4th were all of a package of governmental arrangements, constitutionally established and scheduled exactly on late Saturday morning, September 13, 1788, on which occasion too the Constitution itself was duly Congressionally ratified (ref. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, Vol. II (1894) pp. 262-64). If Juan is only saying that a natal chart for the Presidency is meaningful, that should be fine and unexceptionable, or if he is even more suggesting (and I think he is) that the nativity of the Presidency is effectively the nativity of the Federal government, that's certainly worth the pondering, but if still further it is argued that the Presidential nativity is to be considered as the nativity of the USA itself, then his position would here necessarily imply that the USA is effectively a elective monarchical state, which it has clearly never been. (George Bush's occasionally eccentric behavior notwithstanding). The Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution make it clear that the USA is itself a " democratic state " constitutionally empowering a national " republican government " , namely, the U.S. Federal Government. At the risk of antagonizing, I see Juan's position to be unable to refute the widely acknowledged necessity of identifying a single moment of closure constituting " the birth moment " of the USA, within the calendar limits of July 2nd, 1776 and September 13th, 1788: 07/021776, when the United Colonies of North America bowed to the DAY ONE INCEPTION of the " USA " and the 09/13/1788, which marked the day of realization of the USA as a " more perfect union " . Having said all this, I wish to again declare sympathetically that any argument the casts doubt on the candidacy of July 4th deserves close respectful study, as for example does Helen Boyd's JULY 6, " 1775 " horoscope. .... My best regards to Juan Juan Oliver wrote:The first " Inagural " chart for the(POTUS) President Of The United States is the " natal " Chart of George Washington's Presidency. It is also the " natal " chart of all United States Presidentcies and the " natal " chart for the government of the United States with regard to the first time the Legislative and Judicial branches of Government are united with the Executive. The soul of the United States enjoys many natal charts beyound the POTUS. Juan JOHN B wrote: Highly recommend a visit to the Lois Rodden website: AstroDataBank.com ..then click on to the " Research " page, scroll down and click on " USA " . There is found charts and miles of messages debating all the most commonly proposed horoscopes for the USA. As well is a good reference book, with a brief discussion od the April 30,1789 horoscope, Nicholas Campion's THE BOOK OF WORLD HOROSCOPES. ..... John Ficquette wrote: Has anyone considered that inauguration of the first president on 4/30/1789 as the birthdate of the government?? John " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " ----- Post message: Subscribe: - Un: - List owner: -owner Shortcut URL to this page: / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.