RE: The chart for Bush's second term in office

[Guest guest]

This should possibly be on the political list but I wish to see a sidereal

astrological analysis of the theme so I'm posting this here:

 

" DEBKAfile's Military and US sources reveal: Bush has ordered US Iraq

commander Gen. Casey to prepare February attack on Syria. Assad sends Syria'

s chief of staff Gen. Habib to establish command post on Iraqi border.

Israel braces for Hizballah backlash. "

http://www.debka.com/

 

 

 

Full article:

 

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964

 

Now, Debka have a tendency to post unsubstantiated rumors so I don't know if

this is true or not, but in light of Fannin's post on Bush I have to ask, is

the above plausible seen from an astrological point of view ?

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Steinar

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steinar wrote:

 

>This should possibly be on the political list but I wish to see a sidereal

>astrological analysis of the theme so I'm posting this here:

>

> " DEBKAfile's Military and US sources reveal: Bush has ordered US Iraq

>commander Gen. Casey to prepare February attack on Syria. Assad sends Syria'

>s chief of staff Gen. Habib to establish command post on Iraqi border.

>Israel braces for Hizballah backlash. "

>http://www.debka.com/

>

>

>

>Full article:

>

>http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964

>

>Now, Debka have a tendency to post unsubstantiated rumors so I don't know if

>this is true or not, but in light of Fannin's post on Bush I have to ask, is

>the above plausible seen from an astrological point of view ?

>

>

>

>Best wishes,

>

>Steinar

>

>

>I am on both lists and forwarded it to the political astrology list.

>

>

 

Bert

 

> "

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It would be easy to conjur up such a possibility except we don't have

the military or the equipment for such a mission. When solgiers are

are pulling three tours and equipment costs are skyrocketing with

only taxpayers to foot the bill it ain't gonna happen... Dubya's

agenda is to change Social Security and fighting another war and

opening another front besides Afganistan, Korea and Iraq would be

suicide for the Republicans in the mid-term elections....

 

 

Bert...

 

progressed moon huh? I agree with your astute observation but to read

you suggest progressions made me laugh.... FYI.. The Progressed Moon

in opposition to natal and progressed Mars occurs in Oct/05 when the

transiting Sun is square to the natal(inaguration) Sun....

Expect a victory of sorts at that time...

 

Its the Progressed moon to natal and progressed Pluto that has the

fireworks in Mar/06... yeow... Progressed Saturn will be rising and

transiting Mars will conjunct the progressed Moon as it is in

opposition with Pluto... Transiting Saturn will be moving back and

forth in opposition with the natal and progressed Sun in 2005 & 2006.

I think Dubya will be responsible for faliure in Iraq... The people

have no reason for gratitude because we will have failed to win

their " hearts and minds " . In this age of technology and very smart

people how could such a poor effort of diplomacy have taken place....

Do you wonder why he(Dubya) failed as a businessman? The pullout from

Iraq will take place and the US will be seen to have been nothing but

an occupying force. We probably will leave the Iraqi's vulnerable and

periled with civil war. We will learn some of the same lessons that

were learned in Vietnam. Unfortunately it seems we are doomed to

repeat the same mistakes because some " leaders " fail to understand

history. All they know is that they're here to make it... Enough of

the soapbox....other charts such as Dubya's, the POTUS and the

various USA charts need to be reviewed... News at 11.

 

Looking at the 11:53 am chart for inaguration sends up the red flag

that Dubya's future is a bleak one... Careful what you wish for!

 

Juan

 

, Bert Fannin

<bwfannin@e...> wrote:

> Steinar wrote:

>

> >This should possibly be on the political list but I wish to see a

sidereal

> >astrological analysis of the theme so I'm posting this here:

> >

> > " DEBKAfile's Military and US sources reveal: Bush has ordered US

Iraq

> >commander Gen. Casey to prepare February attack on Syria. Assad

sends Syria'

> >s chief of staff Gen. Habib to establish command post on Iraqi

border.

> >Israel braces for Hizballah backlash. "

> >http://www.debka.com/

> >

> >

> >

> >Full article:

> >

> >http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=964

> >

> >Now, Debka have a tendency to post unsubstantiated rumors so I

don't know if

> >this is true or not, but in light of Fannin's post on Bush I have

to ask, is

> >the above plausible seen from an astrological point of view ?

> >

> >

> >

> >Best wishes,

> >

> >Steinar

> >

> >

> >I am on both lists and forwarded it to the political astrology

list.

> >

> >

>

> Bert

>

> > "

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Juan,

 

I don't think money is a valid argument. See the attached graph for the

development of US spending on defense, it does not only represent the

ongoing war effort but also the replenishment of weapons and equipment.

 

For the period 4q2003 - 3q2004 the US spent 1.914 billion dollars over the

defence budget.

For a comparison Syria spend less that 1 billion annually. (from the CIA

world fact book) I believe those numbers says a lot about the military odds.

 

Manpower is a possible issue, although the retrained and reequipped Iraq

army will function as gun-fodder and Israel will tie up Syria's forces in

the west. Israel spends 9 times as much as Syria on defence annually. From a

military perspective I'd say Syria looks like an easy grab.

 

The mid-term election is however as you suggest a more important

consideration. Personally I don't see how an attack could be politically

feasible, but then again, we are talking about the man who titles himself " A

war president " .

 

But this is fundamentals, I'm looking for a pure astrological analysis of

the topic, I would have done it myself if I was able to.

 

Sources of statistics:

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=6 & FirstYear=20

03 & LastYear=2004 & Freq=Qtr

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sy.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

 

 

All the best,

Steinar

 

 

jivio [jivio]

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 11:20 AM

Re: The chart for Bush's second term in

office

 

 

 

It would be easy to conjur up such a possibility except we don't have

the military or the equipment for such a mission. When solgiers are

are pulling three tours and equipment costs are skyrocketing with

only taxpayers to foot the bill it ain't gonna happen... Dubya's

agenda is to change Social Security and fighting another war and

opening another front besides Afganistan, Korea and Iraq would be

suicide for the Republicans in the mid-term elections....

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Juan wrote:

 

>Looking at the 11:53 am chart for inaguration sends up the red flag

>that Dubya's future is a bleak one... Careful what you wish for!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

What's with the 11:53 time? I thought the swearing in was always 12:00

noon, usually a minute or two afterward. Also I've read that the

presidencey takes effect precisely at 12:00 noon no matter how many minutes

different the swearing-in is.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese Hamilton wrote:

 

>Juan wrote:

>

>

>

>>Looking at the 11:53 am chart for inaguration sends up the red flag

>>that Dubya's future is a bleak one... Careful what you wish for!

>>

>>

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>What's with the 11:53 time? I thought the swearing in was always 12:00

>noon, usually a minute or two afterward. Also I've read that the

>presidencey takes effect precisely at 12:00 noon no matter how many minutes

>different the swearing-in is.

>

>Therese

>

> Don't know. That was the time listed for the Prez to take the oath. It came

from an government web site.

>

>

 

Bert

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> What's with the 11:53 time? I thought the swearing in was always

> 12:00 noon, usually a minute or two afterward. Also I've read that

> the presidencey takes effect precisely at 12:00 noon no matter how

> many minutes different the swearing-in is.

 

 

You're right Therese. Here's an interesting perspective on this

12:00 noon swearing in:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/inauguration/history_forum_smith.html#12

 

Besides, I've never looked at an inaugural chart to make my

predictions in the past, and I don't feel I've been handicapped by

it. All charts (Bush's transit, solar arc, progressed, and inaugural

charts) are all subject to the overriding dictates of the natal

chart. No event will show in any event related chart that doesn't

show in Bush's natal chart as well.

 

Rony

[Guest guest]

Dear Rony

What do you think about the Mars transit to W's 10th from mid July through

Jan 2006. It sure looks war like, or at least fiercely strong. I notice

that the Mars station <a big deal in my experience are stations> in October

is tightly square Venus and 8th to his natal Ketu.

 

Do you see factors such as these relevant???? Just trying to learn

 

BTW have you checked into the discussion on Michael Moore's chart at

astrodatabank?

 

You might find it entertaining

 

smiling

 

cynthia

rd_grimes [rongrimes]

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 6:30 PM

Re: The chart for Bush's second term in

office

 

 

 

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

> What's with the 11:53 time? I thought the swearing in was always

> 12:00 noon, usually a minute or two afterward. Also I've read that

> the presidencey takes effect precisely at 12:00 noon no matter how

> many minutes different the swearing-in is.

 

 

You're right Therese. Here's an interesting perspective on this

12:00 noon swearing in:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/inauguration/history_forum_smith.html#12

 

Besides, I've never looked at an inaugural chart to make my

predictions in the past, and I don't feel I've been handicapped by

it. All charts (Bush's transit, solar arc, progressed, and inaugural

charts) are all subject to the overriding dictates of the natal

chart. No event will show in any event related chart that doesn't

show in Bush's natal chart as well.

 

Rony

 

 

 

 

 

 

" 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:

/

 

 

 

----------

--

[Guest guest]

Dear Cynthia,

 

, " cynthianovak "

<cynthianovak@s...> wrote:

> Dear Rony

> What do you think about the Mars transit to W's 10th from mid

> July through Jan 2006. It sure looks war like, or at least

> fiercely strong.

 

I don't see it that way. See my post a few days back

(/message/4810). I

think this transit is simply once again supportive of my prediction

that this will be a health/death issue surrounding one of his

parents.

 

In terms of Mars in the 10th in Aries, I would defer to Grimes'

principle #(fill in number), which states:

 

* A planet acting in a malefic capacity prefers not to defecate in

his own house/sign (ie, no ill event will befall 10th house

matters).

 

In addition, the planet is a functional benefic, which takes

priority over its natural status due the following:

 

* Mars is well-placed natally

* Mars is in its own sign transit-wise and therefore in a place of

harmony

* Mars is strong transit-wise through dig bala and unafflicted.

 

> I notice that the Mars station <a big deal

> in my experience are stations> in October is tightly square

> Venus and 8th to his natal Ketu.

 

I can see your point, but again Mars is operating from

a " magnanimous position because he is in his glory in that position.

 

I see natural malefics in this fashion. Evil arises out of either

anger or fear, which often arise out of feeling one's sense of

survival or self-worth is being put at risk. Even malefic

individuals are known to act magnanimously when they feel everything

is going their way and there is no threat to the factors mentioned.

Consquently, for any natural malefic to act from his lower side,

there must be a functional or transit cause to activate that side of

his being. I don't see this here. Secondly, Mars is aspecting Ketu,

which is Mars-like, and again produces a harmonization of fire

energies because both planets are in a preferred safe-zone.

 

The danger that DOES exist is one that has been there quite a while:

transit Pluto conjoining natal Ketu, which, incidentally,

synchronizes with my USA Chart's transit Pluto to natal Saturn.

This, of course, makes sense, since their destinies are conjoined

right now.

 

> BTW have you checked into the discussion on Michael Moore's

> chart at astrodatabank?

> You might find it entertaining

 

Entertaining, maybe. ;-)

Personally, I find Michael to be a complete moron. Not surprisingly,

his 4th lord (ruling the mind) is in extreme infancy, and his

Mercury (ruling discrimination and judgment) is debilitated. And,

again, not surprisingly, his factors for fame are strong - all

indicating a mental midget rising to great fame.

 

Rony

[Guest guest]

Dear Rony

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm printing this one off to keep.

I do believe you are right in terms of dumping in his own house, I just

thought that the station square would be struggles for peace.

 

To W.'s health, I think the greatest stress will be the Uranus transit

inconjunct Mercury lord of 3 and 12 as it opposes Mars lord of 5 and 10.

Mars is indeed a functional benefic but that Mercury and ASC and Pluto

taking the inconjunct from Uranus May through July are tricky. At least in

my humble and wary opinion. I need to go back in time to previous Uranus

transits and see how they play out. I'm sure he is getting the best medical

care and I do not believe he will be assasinated as a frined of mine does.

Looks like something unusual and unexpected. Right now an assasination

attempt is expected by lots of folks

 

trying to smile

cynthia

rd_grimes [rongrimes]

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 8:00 PM

Re: The chart for Bush's second term in

office

 

 

 

Dear Cynthia,

 

, " cynthianovak "

<cynthianovak@s...> wrote:

> Dear Rony

> What do you think about the Mars transit to W's 10th from mid

> July through Jan 2006. It sure looks war like, or at least

> fiercely strong.

 

I don't see it that way. See my post a few days back

(/message/4810). I

think this transit is simply once again supportive of my prediction

that this will be a health/death issue surrounding one of his

parents.

 

In terms of Mars in the 10th in Aries, I would defer to Grimes'

principle #(fill in number), which states:

 

* A planet acting in a malefic capacity prefers not to defecate in

his own house/sign (ie, no ill event will befall 10th house

matters).

 

In addition, the planet is a functional benefic, which takes

priority over its natural status due the following:

 

* Mars is well-placed natally

* Mars is in its own sign transit-wise and therefore in a place of

harmony

* Mars is strong transit-wise through dig bala and unafflicted.

 

> I notice that the Mars station <a big deal

> in my experience are stations> in October is tightly square

> Venus and 8th to his natal Ketu.

 

I can see your point, but again Mars is operating from

a " magnanimous position because he is in his glory in that position.

 

I see natural malefics in this fashion. Evil arises out of either

anger or fear, which often arise out of feeling one's sense of

survival or self-worth is being put at risk. Even malefic

individuals are known to act magnanimously when they feel everything

is going their way and there is no threat to the factors mentioned.

Consquently, for any natural malefic to act from his lower side,

there must be a functional or transit cause to activate that side of

his being. I don't see this here. Secondly, Mars is aspecting Ketu,

which is Mars-like, and again produces a harmonization of fire

energies because both planets are in a preferred safe-zone.

 

The danger that DOES exist is one that has been there quite a while:

transit Pluto conjoining natal Ketu, which, incidentally,

synchronizes with my USA Chart's transit Pluto to natal Saturn.

This, of course, makes sense, since their destinies are conjoined

right now.

 

> BTW have you checked into the discussion on Michael Moore's

> chart at astrodatabank?

> You might find it entertaining

 

Entertaining, maybe. ;-)

Personally, I find Michael to be a complete moron. Not surprisingly,

his 4th lord (ruling the mind) is in extreme infancy, and his

Mercury (ruling discrimination and judgment) is debilitated. And,

again, not surprisingly, his factors for fame are strong - all

indicating a mental midget rising to great fame.

 

Rony

 

 

 

 

 

 

" 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:

/

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " cynthianovak "

<cynthianovak@s...> wrote:

> Dear Rony

> Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm printing this one off

> to keep. I do believe you are right in terms of dumping in his

> own house, I just thought that the station square would be

> struggles for peace.

 

Oh, I do think you're right about that - struggles for peace. No

question about that.

 

Btw, what do you think of the mid-July time frame? Notice, in

addition to what I've already cited, that transit Sun gets utterly

hammered as it is hit by transit Saturn, natal Saturn, and the

square of transit Mars.

 

Again, this could certainly be circulation problems and/or chest

pain for W himself, or it could be an immediate family member.

What's worse is this occurs during a Sun pratyantardasa. If I had to

give my best " guess " , based on the astrological factors at play, I

would say it is the father that is of concern here.

 

What do you think? We'll compare notes later on this year and see

what went right and what went wrong.

 

Rony

[Guest guest]

Therese scores a decisive point on the precise time of the Oath-taking.

 

The event is orchestrated to complete the Oath-takings, first the VP, then the

President @ 12:00 noon.

 

To suggest that the time-moment of cosmic closure is the first recited word of

the Oath, not the last, is ............... WRONG!!!!!!!

 

John

 

Therese Hamilton <eastwest wrote:

Juan wrote:

 

>Looking at the 11:53 am chart for inaguration sends up the red flag

>that Dubya's future is a bleak one... Careful what you wish for!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

What's with the 11:53 time? I thought the swearing in was always 12:00

noon, usually a minute or two afterward. Also I've read that the

presidencey takes effect precisely at 12:00 noon no matter how many minutes

different the swearing-in is.

 

Therese

 

 

 

" 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:

/

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

John T W B wrote:

 

> Therese scores a decisive point on the precise time of the

> Oath-taking.

>

> The event is orchestrated to complete the Oath-takings, first the VP,

> then the President @ 12:00 noon.

>

 

Time of last oath takings on Jan 20, 2001: Cheney @ 11:56, Bush @

12:02---these were the last words as I remember.

 

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Steven

 

Nice follow-up

 

I just think one should keep in mind that the organizers of the Presidential

Inaugural schedule work from an outline such as provided by Bert in an earlier

posting. If it all goes exactly as desired (if ever exactly) the Presidential

Oath is completed at 12:00 noon; then it's time for the Inaugural Address.

 

FYI: In 1789 the first Presidential Oath-taking ceremony in New York City was

delayed for over one hour. See the Hague Chart rectification for 1:20 pm,

prepared in 1850 (according to Dane Rudhyar). In 1793 the second Inaugural,

George Washington's second, was on-time at 12:00 noon in Philadelphia. In 1797

the third, John Adams in Philadelphia, went ahead as scheduled for 11:00 am. In

1801 the fourth, Jefferson's in Washington, DC, was on-time at about 12:00 noon.

From then on the 12:00 noon timetable became the traditional standard. (However,

I haven't tracked the 19th centuryceremonies for possible exceptions).

 

John

 

Steven Stuckey <shastrakara wrote:

 

 

John T W B wrote:

 

> Therese scores a decisive point on the precise time of the

> Oath-taking.

>

> The event is orchestrated to complete the Oath-takings, first the VP,

> then the President @ 12:00 noon.

>

 

Time of last oath takings on Jan 20, 2001: Cheney @ 11:56, Bush @

12:02---these were the last words as I remember.

 

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Folks ,

 

I've looked into this question a bit. One recent swearing in that went off

schedule was JFK's in 1961. As I recall, there was problem findnig the

correct Robert Frost passage to be read and so the oath was delayed by

about 30 minutes. If you look at the chart, this later chart for

12.30/12.40 or so was significant in its greater correspondence with

various malefic patterns that day and perhaps forecasted the

assassination. (sorry, it's not handy at the moment)

 

So I would be reluctant to cast a de jure noon chart. For now, I'm

sticking with the actual time of the swearing in whenever it may be.

 

If it's exactly noon, then that makes 10H Neptune, planet of illness,

exactly squaring the Ascendant. This isn't good for Bush's health at all.

 

 

Chris

 

 

 

--- John T W B <jtwbjakarta wrote:

 

> Hi Steven

>

> Nice follow-up

>

> I just think one should keep in mind that the organizers of the

> Presidential Inaugural schedule work from an outline such as provided by

> Bert in an earlier posting. If it all goes exactly as desired (if ever

> exactly) the Presidential Oath is completed at 12:00 noon; then it's

> time for the Inaugural Address.

>

> FYI: In 1789 the first Presidential Oath-taking ceremony in New York

> City was delayed for over one hour. See the Hague Chart rectification

> for 1:20 pm, prepared in 1850 (according to Dane Rudhyar). In 1793 the

> second Inaugural, George Washington's second, was on-time at 12:00 noon

> in Philadelphia. In 1797 the third, John Adams in Philadelphia, went

> ahead as scheduled for 11:00 am. In 1801 the fourth, Jefferson's in

> Washington, DC, was on-time at about 12:00 noon. From then on the 12:00

> noon timetable became the traditional standard. (However, I haven't

> tracked the 19th centuryceremonies for possible exceptions).

>

> John

>

> Steven Stuckey <shastrakara wrote:

>

>

> John T W B wrote:

>

> > Therese scores a decisive point on the precise time of the

> > Oath-taking.

> >

> > The event is orchestrated to complete the Oath-takings, first the VP,

> > then the President @ 12:00 noon.

> >

>

> Time of last oath takings on Jan 20, 2001: Cheney @ 11:56, Bush @

> 12:02---these were the last words as I remember.

>

>

> Best,

> Steve

>

>

>