U.S. STATES: Jorge's Dramatic Revision

[Guest guest]

Dear Jorge, Now that your postings on the U.S. States have gained in number, your selection rationale for the rectified birth dates has become unmistakably apparent, however intentional on your part; a rationale based on the foundation of the U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787. Example here: The State of New York has been long recognized by competent historians to have completed the independent Union of the 'Ole' 13 on July 9, 1776, in the afternoon, Tarrytown, Westchester, N.Y. @ 14:24 hrs. [Please read George Bancroft's HISTORY OF THE U.S. (1866), Volume IX, pgs 33-34]. Since now that New York has been determined by you to have been born a State only 12 years later, in July 1788, at the time of NY's ratification of the 1787 Constitution, then one should have no choice but to infer that you have now conluded that the American nation,

once considered by you to have been born on July 2, 1776, somehow [cosmo-genetically, speaking] had been "Re-born", on September 17, 1787. ["Re-born" is a concept you have already used recently in another context.]. The logic of your position is inescapable. [Actually, I don't think that one needs necessarily resort to the concept of metempsychosis to explain this process. But you imply undoubtedly (however unintentionally) that July 2 ,1776, at least, has become in your estimation a pre-natal moment in the birth of the American States Don't get me wrong. Your change of mind is a quite defensible; the rationale that you have adopted clearly does 'work', if that is your intention. But do you have the courage to face up to the implications of your own choice of rationale ? Because, if you persist in the belief that the United States of America was born on

July 2, 1776, but all 50 States comprising this Union were born in later years, starting in late 1787 with Delaware, then you will find yourself in the embrace of one very glaring contradiction, the implications of which need no elaboration just now; for they are obvious. And the resort to an empirical defense of this embrace-in-contradiction will not help. I have offered you what amounts to the content of an exit strategy in my previous post. Since you didn't act on it, so be it; however, my inferences summarized already shall remain difficult if not impossible to dispute, without some chagrin on your side. In my humble estimation, you appear to have painted yourself into a corner with the U.S. State charts by not addressing first the question of the foundation radix for the nation State. In order to persist with your line of assessment, it necessarily

follows that the U.S.A.-qua-bodypolitic radix of July 2, 1776 was but a pre-natal conception moment for the American nation State's birth more than 11 years later, and the radix for which necessarily now becomes: SEPTEMBER 17, 1787, Philadelphia. And after long study going back 2 years, I may add in further detail: @ 15:28:02 hrs, (Lahiri) Ascendent = 07:23 Capricorn, MC = 00:13 Scorpio, Luna = 16:00 Scorpio. Co-incidentally, I've worked abit with a western sidereal astrologer who has a keen interest in the U.S. Constitution. Consistent with the results of our efforts, consider 15:28:02 hrs my voted rectified time moment

for this historic event. And read Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, pg 262, for the historical accuracy of this rectified time moment. I particularly like the radix of Sept 17, 1787: BECAUSE [01] the Lagna @ 7:23 Capricorn is in the very same exact position of the Moon on July 2, 1776, @ 16:48:05 hrs [Your rectified time, Jorge]. And [02]: the 1787 Moon @ 16:00 Scorpio is in the very same sign & degree as the Lagna of your 1776 chart, which is 15:30 Scorpio. Thanks for the fine work, by your efforts I'm now convinced that the U.S.A as a nation State was conceived July 2, 1776 @ 16:48:05; then born on September 17, 1787 @ 15:28:02. Cheers & Thanks, John

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

Dear John:

 

I have always respected your fine work and efforts.

 

I still do.

 

However, in viewing the chart of the birth of USA, using Sept. 17, 1787 at 15:28:02, it does not appear that this chart supports the growth, prosperity or military power of the country.

 

Moon is debilitated, every planet in the chart is weak on some account, and Rahu and Ketu afflict the houses they occupy and aspect, along with Mars.

 

Perhaps I am missing something and your views, as always, would be appreciated.

 

Thank you.

 

David Hawthorne

 

 

 

 

 

-

JohnTWB

samva

Monday, April 03, 2006 2:38 AM

U.S. STATES: Jorge's Dramatic Revision

 

Dear Jorge,

 

Now that your postings on the U.S. States have gained in number, your selection rationale for the rectified birth dates has become unmistakably apparent, however intentional on your part; a rationale based on the foundation of the U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787.

 

Example here: The State of New York has been long recognized by competent historians to have completed the independent Union of the 'Ole' 13 on July 9, 1776, in the afternoon, Tarrytown, Westchester, N.Y. @ 14:24 hrs. [Please read George Bancroft's HISTORY OF THE U.S. (1866), Volume IX, pgs 33-34]. Since now that New York has been determined by you to have been born a State only 12 years later, in July 1788, at the time of NY's ratification of the 1787 Constitution, then one should have no choice but to infer that you have now conluded that the American nation, once considered by you to have been born on July 2, 1776, somehow [cosmo-genetically, speaking] had been "Re-born", on September 17, 1787. ["Re-born" is a concept you have already used recently in another context.]. The logic of your position is inescapable. [Actually, I don't think that one needs necessarily resort to the concept of metempsychosis to explain this process. But you imply undoubtedly (however unintentionally) that July 2 ,1776, at least, has become in your estimation a pre-natal moment in the birth of the American States

 

Don't get me wrong. Your change of mind is a quite defensible; the rationale that you have adopted clearly does 'work', if that is your intention. But do you have the courage to face up to the implications of your own choice of rationale ? Because, if you persist in the belief that the United States of America was born on July 2, 1776, but all 50 States comprising this Union were born in later years, starting in late 1787 with Delaware, then you will find yourself in the embrace of one very glaring contradiction, the implications of which need no elaboration just now; for they are obvious. And the resort to an empirical defense of this embrace-in-contradiction will not help.

 

I have offered you what amounts to the content of an exit strategy in my previous post. Since you didn't act on it, so be it; however, my inferences summarized already shall remain difficult if not impossible to dispute, without some chagrin on your side.

 

In my humble estimation, you appear to have painted yourself into a corner with the U.S. State charts by not addressing first the question of the foundation radix for the nation State. In order to persist with your line of assessment, it necessarily follows that the U.S.A.-qua-bodypolitic radix of July 2, 1776 was but a pre-natal conception moment for the American nation State's birth more than 11 years later, and the radix for which necessarily now becomes: SEPTEMBER 17, 1787, Philadelphia. And after long study going back 2 years, I may add in further detail: @ 15:28:02 hrs, (Lahiri) Ascendent = 07:23 Capricorn, MC = 00:13 Scorpio, Luna = 16:00 Scorpio.

 

Co-incidentally, I've worked abit with a western sidereal astrologer who has a keen interest in the U.S. Constitution. Consistent with the results of our efforts, consider 15:28:02 hrs my voted rectified time moment for this historic event. And read Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, pg 262, for the historical accuracy of this rectified time moment.

 

I particularly like the radix of Sept 17, 1787: BECAUSE [01] the Lagna @ 7:23 Capricorn is in the very same exact position of the Moon on July 2, 1776, @ 16:48:05 hrs [Your rectified time, Jorge]. And [02]: the 1787 Moon @ 16:00 Scorpio is in the very same sign & degree as the Lagna of your 1776 chart, which is 15:30 Scorpio.

 

Thanks for the fine work, by your efforts I'm now convinced that the U.S.A as a nation State was conceived July 2, 1776 @ 16:48:05; then born on September 17, 1787 @ 15:28:02.

 

Cheers & Thanks, John

 

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

My dear John,

 

As we know, on July 2, 1776, the decision for

independence became official. One new entity

was born in Philadelphia, at 4:48 PM LMT . This Scorpio rising chart is the seed chart for

all the events that happened in USA since that time, including the birth of all the different states.

Each state (a new entity in itself) was born as a state only after being

officially admited by the first entity, and what I am seing is that the chart

for the moment of admission, calculated for the capital of the new born “stateâ€,

is explaining the events in that particular “stateâ€.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWB

segunda-feira, 3 de Abril de

2006 09:38

samva

U.S. STATES:

Jorge's Dramatic Revision

 

 

Dear Jorge,

 

 

 

 

 

Now that your postings on

the U.S. States have gained in number, your selection rationale

for the rectified birth dates has become unmistakably apparent,

however intentional on your part; a rationale based on the foundation of the

U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787.

 

 

 

 

 

Example here: The State

of New York has been long recognized by competent

historians to have completed the independent Union of the 'Ole' 13 on

July 9, 1776, in the afternoon, Tarrytown, Westchester, N.Y. @ 14:24 hrs.

[Please read George Bancroft's HISTORY OF THE U.S. (1866), Volume IX, pgs

33-34]. Since now that New York has been determined by you to have been

born a State only 12 years later, in July 1788, at the time

of NY's ratification of the 1787 Constitution, then one should have no

choice but to infer that you have now conluded that the American nation,

once considered by you to have been born on July 2, 1776, somehow

[cosmo-genetically, speaking] had been " Re-born " , on

September 17, 1787. [ " Re-born " is a concept you have already used

recently in another context.]. The logic of your position is inescapable.

[Actually, I don't think that one needs necessarily resort to the

concept of metempsychosis to explain this process. But you imply

undoubtedly (however unintentionally) that July 2 ,1776, at least, has

become in your estimation a pre-natal moment in the birth of the American

States

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong.

Your change of mind is a quite defensible; the rationale that you

have adopted clearly does 'work', if that is your intention. But do you

have the courage to face up to the implications of your own choice of rationale

? Because, if you persist in the belief that the United States of

America was born on July 2, 1776, but all 50 States comprising this Union

were born in later years, starting in late 1787 with Delaware, then you will

find yourself in the embrace of one very glaring contradiction, the

implications of which need no elaboration just now; for they are

obvious. And the resort to an empirical defense of this embrace-in-contradiction

will not help.

 

 

 

 

 

I have offered you what

amounts to the content of an exit strategy in my previous post. Since you

didn't act on it, so be it; however, my inferences summarized already shall

remain difficult if not impossible to dispute, without some chagrin on your

side.

 

 

 

 

 

In my humble estimation, you

appear to have painted yourself into a corner with the U.S. State charts

by not addressing first the question of the foundation radix for the

nation State. In order to persist with your line of assessment,

it necessarily follows that the U.S.A.-qua-bodypolitic radix of July 2, 1776

was but a pre-natal conception moment for the American nation

State's birth more than 11 years later, and the radix for which

necessarily now becomes: SEPTEMBER 17, 1787, Philadelphia. And after long

study going back 2 years, I may add in further detail: @

15:28:02 hrs, (Lahiri) Ascendent = 07:23 Capricorn, MC = 00:13 Scorpio,

Luna = 16:00

Scorpio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Co-incidentally, I've worked

abit with a western sidereal astrologer who has a keen interest in the

U.S. Constitution. Consistent with the results of our

efforts, consider 15:28:02 hrs my voted rectified time moment for this

historic event. And read Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT

PHILADELPHIA, pg 262, for the historical accuracy of this rectified time

moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I particularly like the

radix of Sept 17, 1787: BECAUSE [01] the Lagna @ 7:23 Capricorn is

in the very same exact position of the Moon on July 2, 1776, @ 16:48:05

hrs [Your rectified time, Jorge]. And [02]: the 1787 Moon @ 16:00

Scorpio is in the very same sign & degree as the Lagna of your 1776

chart, which is 15:30 Scorpio.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the fine work, by

your efforts I'm now convinced that the U.S.A as a nation State

was conceived July 2, 1776 @ 16:48:05; then born on September 17, 1787 @

15:28:02.

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers & Thanks, John

 

 

 

 

New Messenger with

Voice. Call

regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release 31.03.2006

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release 31.03.2006

[Guest guest]

Hello Arun, David and List,

 

After looking at the chart proposed here, the (if I'm not mistaken we

are looking at) Sept. 17 1787, at 15:28:02 PM date as a U.S. birth

chart..

 

I noticed a few things. Mars is weak and the assumption is

it's inaccurate, contrarily, the fact that it is somewhat strongly

aspecting both the sixth and the twelfth houses, signifying losses and

accidents overseas, along with Ketu which brings extra volatility,

tells me maybe a weak Mars is more accurate since the U.S. doesn't seem

to show much forbearance when it comes to war like behavior.

 

Jupiter as well aspects both, signifiying losses overseas which

is accurate for war expenses and again overseas interests.

 

Ketu afflicts the sixth house, health care is atrocious from my point

of view, as many Americans suffer it's lack and others accessibility

and affordability.

 

Saturn ruling status and wealth is well placed in it's own mool sign,

albeit weak ( I don't see leadership as being so strong-looking after

our best interests is not the most altruistic approach and therefore

could be considered a low approach). The status may come

from the Sun, chart lord , signifier of leaders and dispositor of both

Venus (American presence in the world) and Mercury (American fortune as

clout). Saturn also aspects the eighth house for status and

eleventh for gains and aspirations!

 

Rahu is in the twelfth, showing an obsession with overseas interests.

 

There is an interesting combination of the ninth and tenth lord

conjunct in the eighth signifying some public philosophical influence

on the beliefs of the people. (status quo, propaganda), (hidden

agenda-Rahu in twelve)

 

The chart lord, Sun is eighth lord, (a Mars influence), is well placed in the ninth house.

 

Just my observations on this interesting discussion.

 

Aloha,

 

SallyOn 4/3/06, arunrao9 <arunrao9 wrote:

Dear SAMVA List,Mr. Hawthorne is right; this chart is utterly weak in every respect,with multiple afflictions as well. Rahu and Ketu afflict theirdusthana houses of placement as well as their aspected houses, same

with the badly placed Jupiter, and MMP Sun afflicts as well. Mars isbadly placed, and closely conjunct the Rahu/Ketu axis. Six out of ninegrahas are badly placed, with only one planet, weak malefic Sun,placed in an angle or trine. Other than infant Saturn's placement in

its own MT-sign, there is nothing in this chart to support the USA'spower, wealth, and military might.One could vouch for Saturn's placement in the 2nd house, being thelord of status/wealth in its own MT-sign, as being supportive of

America's high international status. However, Saturn, when acting asdeterminant of status, usually does not bestow such results,especially when placed in one of its signs. Such a placement (in oneof its own signs) tends to make Saturn act more like its own nature,

being the planet of lowest status. Saturn in such a case will protectits MT-house with whatever strength it retains. However, I don't thinksuch a Saturn will promote a country's status/wealth.Any other comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best Wishes,Arun RaoSAMVA , " David Hawthorne " <david wrote:>> Dear John:>> I have always respected your fine work and efforts.

>> I still do.>> However, in viewing the chart of the birth of USA, using Sept. 17,1787 at 15:28:02, it does not appear that this chart supports thegrowth, prosperity or military power of the country.

>> Moon is debilitated, every planet in the chart is weak on someaccount, and Rahu and Ketu afflict the houses they occupy and aspect,along with Mars.>> Perhaps I am missing something and your views, as always, would be

appreciated.>> Thank you.>> David Hawthorne>>>>> -> JohnTWB>

samva > Monday, April 03, 2006 2:38 AM> U.S. STATES: Jorge's Dramatic Revision>>> Dear Jorge,>> Now that your postings on the U.S. States have gained in number,your selection rationale for the rectified birth dates has becomeunmistakably apparent, however intentional on your part; a rationalebased on the foundation of the U.S. CONSTITUTION of 1787.

>> Example here: The State of New York has been long recognized bycompetent historians to have completed the independent Union of the'Ole' 13 on July 9, 1776, in the afternoon, Tarrytown, Westchester,

N.Y. @ 14:24 hrs. [Please read George Bancroft's HISTORY OF THE U.S.(1866), Volume IX, pgs 33-34]. Since now that New York has beendetermined by you to have been born a State only 12 years later, inJuly 1788, at the time of NY's ratification of the 1787 Constitution,

then one should have no choice but to infer that you have now conludedthat the American nation, once considered by you to have been born onJuly 2, 1776, somehow [cosmo-genetically, speaking] had been " Re-born " , on September 17, 1787. [ " Re-born " is a concept you have

already used recently in another context.]. The logic of yourposition is inescapable. [Actually, I don't think that one needsnecessarily resort to the concept of metempsychosis to explain thisprocess. But you imply undoubtedly (however unintentionally) that

July 2 ,1776, at least, has become in your estimation a pre-natalmoment in the birth of the American States>> Don't get me wrong. Your change of mind is a quite defensible;the rationale that you have adopted clearly does 'work', if that is

your intention. But do you have the courage to face up to theimplications of your own choice of rationale ? Because, if youpersist in the belief that the United States of America was born onJuly 2, 1776, but all 50 States comprising this Union were born in

later years, starting in late 1787 with Delaware, then you will findyourself in the embrace of one very glaring contradiction, theimplications of which need no elaboration just now; for they areobvious. And the resort to an empirical defense of this

embrace-in-contradiction will not help.>> I have offered you what amounts to the content of an exit strategyin my previous post. Since you didn't act on it, so be it; however,my inferences summarized already shall remain difficult if not

impossible to dispute, without some chagrin on your side.>> In my humble estimation, you appear to have painted yourself intoa corner with the U.S. State charts by not addressing first thequestion of the foundation radix for the nation State. In order to

persist with your line of assessment, it necessarily follows that theU.S.A.-qua-bodypolitic radix of July 2, 1776 was but a pre-natalconception moment for the American nation State's birth more than 11years later, and the radix for which necessarily now becomes:

SEPTEMBER 17, 1787, Philadelphia. And after long study going back 2years, I may add in further detail: @ 15:28:02 hrs, (Lahiri)Ascendent = 07:23 Capricorn, MC = 00:13 Scorpio, Luna = 16:00 Scorpio.>

> Co-incidentally, I've worked abit with a western siderealastrologer who has a keen interest in the U.S. Constitution.Consistent with the results of our efforts, consider 15:28:02 hrs myvoted rectified time moment for this historic event. And read

Catherine Drinker Bowen's MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA, pg 262, for thehistorical accuracy of this rectified time moment.>> I particularly like the radix of Sept 17, 1787: BECAUSE [01] theLagna @ 7:23 Capricorn is in the very same exact position of the Moon

on July 2, 1776, @ 16:48:05 hrs [Your rectified time, Jorge]. And[02]: the 1787 Moon @ 16:00 Scorpio is in the very same sign & degreeas the Lagna of your 1776 chart, which is 15:30 Scorpio.>> Thanks for the fine work, by your efforts I'm now convinced that

the U.S.A as a nation State was conceived July 2, 1776 @ 16:48:05;then born on September 17, 1787 @ 15:28:02.>> Cheers & Thanks, John>