Military involvement 2007, USA?

January 9, 2007

Dear Professor,

With the USA chart under study, there are many elements that point to

conflict, upset of homeland peace and financial strain in the first half of

the year. Is a new war/worsening of an old war more likely than not?

Best regards,

Vyas Munidas

-

<siha

Tuesday, January 09, 2007 8:09 PM

Re: Re: USA: May 21, 1779 to Feb 2, 1781

>

> Hello dear Mr. Cosmologer and Mr. John TWB and list members,

>

> Certainly finding this chart has been the result of the (i)masterful

> review

> of the historical records and for

> deepening our understanding further of this special event by dear Mr.

> John;

> (ii) the persisting efforts of dear Mr. Cosmologer and t(iii) the

> tremendous

> technology support.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> -

> " cosmologer " <cosmologer

> <SAMVA >

> Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:22 PM

> Re: USA: May 21, 1779 to Feb 2, 1781

>

>> Dear John,

>>

>> Thank you for the masterful review of the historical records and for

>> deepening our understanding further of this special event. It sends a

>> shiver up my spine to realise we may have long last solved this great

>> riddle. I dare say it would not have been possible without modern

>> communications technology and this list which brought together this

>> diverse knowledge of many individuals across many time zones on the

>> face of this earth. Just think, a modern distillation of the ancient

>> indian system of astrology has been brought to bear on identifying

>> the true mundane chart for the USA based on obscure historical

>> records. Again, I say thanks to you and all the esteemed list

>> members, not least . What a splendid thing this

>> chart, astrology system and discussion list are.

>>

>> Best wishes,

>>

>> C

>>

>> SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:

>>>

>>> On Friday, May 21, 1779 in Philadelphia, in the Continental

>> Congress' chambers at the Pennsylvania State House, at the opening of

>> the day's session at 10:00 am, the Maryland delegation to Congress

>> laid on the table for debate what amounted to a challenge in the form

>> of a declaration of the State of Maryland to its fellow American

>> States as to the terms and conditions of Maryland's long sought-after

>> enacting consent to joining the American Union. By this date the

>> other 12 American States had agreed to the terms and Conditions of

>> the Articles of Confederation. Only Maryland's consent was still

>> withheld, and remained in doubt, in Maryland's estimation, so in

>> order to insist that the 13 States first unanimously agree to perfect

>> the American Union and launch the national government by settling the

>> controversy of America's western lands in favor of the nation, and

>> not just any particular, interested States. The other 12 States

>> eventually came around to the terms proposed by

>>> Maryland, and as a result Maryland's consent was given, at long

>> last, on Friday, February 2, 1781. American Union, perfected, was

>> born on this day.

>>>

>>> Now, Dear List members, if you will, please cast the horoscopes:

>> for Friday, May 21, 1779 @ 10:00 hrs [LMT, Philadelphia] and compare

>> it to the SAMVA USA chart for Friday, February 2, 1781 @ 5:05 hrs

>> [LMT, Annapolis]

>>>

>>> Please observe that the Ascendant in both charts is in the same

>> sign and degree: Cancer, 21st degree. That the 1779 event's Luna, in

>> 1H Cancer, is exactly opposed to the 1781 event's Sol, in 7H

>> Capricorn. That the 1779 event's Sol, in 10H Taurus, is conjunct the

>> 1781 event's Luna, 10H Taurus. That the 1779 event's Saturn, 4H

>> Scorpio, is conjunct the 1781 event's Jupiter, 4H Scorpio. Now then,

>> furthermore, please appreciate that in Masonic pre-natal [electional]

>> astrology, this multiple concurrences of zodiacal positions is not

>> accidental but electional; that the necessary relationships of the

>> Ascendants, Lunas, Sols and Saturns are those as conception [1779] is

>> necessarily to birth [1781]. And, last but surely not least, that

>> the best organized of the American Masons in that era were Jesuit-

>> trained Catholics of Maryland. And so, once again, behind the

>> scenes, one comes across telling evidences that the politicians were

>> consulting the astrologers.

>>>

>>> WESTERN LANDS EXPLAINED

>>>

>>> The issue was the then western lands beyond the original borders

>> of the 13 colonies. As the nation grew and pushed west, would these

>> lands be the political preserve of only certain contiguous States, or

>> the common domain of the nation. Maryland insisted as a condition of

>> its consent that the western lands must be held in common for the

>> Union. If the western territory was to be retained and utilized, but

>> two courses were open: to allow all the states to engage in a general

>> scramble for it, in which each state should secure as much of its

>> claims as it could enforce; or to accept it as national property,

>> defend it by national force, and govern it by national authority. To

>> allow the national bond to break altogether, through the default of

>> the articles of confederation, would have had the former result; and

>> in this instance, as in others, the prejudices of the people at last

>> gave way to their common sense, and they chose the latter. But the

>> process by which they were

>>> brought to this conclusion made up one of the vital issues of

>> American politics from 1778 until 1781.

>>>

>>> THE OFFICIAL RECORD

>>>

>>> Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789

>>> The State House, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

>>>

>>> FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1779

>>>

>>> 10:00 am: The delegates of Maryland informed Congress that they

>> have received instructions respecting the articles of confederation,

>> which they are directed to lay before Congress, and to have entered

>> on their journals; the instructions being read are as follows:

>>>

>>> Instructions of the general assembly of Maryland, to George

>> Plater, William Paca, William Carmichael, John Henry, James Forbes

>> and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, esqrs;

>>>

>>> Gentlemen, Having conferred upon you a trust of the highest

>> nature, it is evident we place great confidence in your integrity,

>> abilities and zeal to promote the general welfare of the United

>> States, and the particular interest of this state, where the latter

>> is not incompatible with the former; but to add greater weight to

>> your proceedings in Congress, and to take away all suspicion that the

>> opinions you there deliver, and the votes you give, may be the mere

>> opinions of individuals, and not resulting from your knowledge of the

>> sense and deliberate judgment of the state you represent, we think it

>> our duty to instruct you as followeth on the subject of the

>> confederation, a subject in which, unfortunately, a supposed

>> difference of interest has produced an almost equal division of

>> sentiments among the several states composing the union: We say a

>> supposed difference of interests; for, if local attachments and

>> prejudices, and the avarice and ambition of individuals, would give

>>> way to the dictates of a sound policy, founded on the principles

>> of justice, (and no other policy but what is founded on those

>> immutable principles deserves to be called sound,) we flatter

>> ourselves this apparent diversity of interests would soon vanish; and

>> all the states would confederate on terms mutually advantageous to

>> all; for they would then perceive that no other confederation than

>> one so formed can be lasting.

>>>

>>> Although the pressure of immediate calamities, the dread of their

>> continuance from the appearance of disunion, and some other peculiar

>> circumstances, may have induced some states to accede to the present

>> confederation, contrary to their own interests and judgments, it

>> requires no great share of foresight to predict, that when those

>> causes cease to operate, the states which have thus acceded to the

>> confederation will consider it as no longer binding, and will eagerly

>> embrace the first occasion of asserting their just rights and

>> securing their independence. Is it possible that those states, who

>> are ambitiously grasping at territories, to which in our judgment

>> they have not the least shadow of exclusive right, will use with

>> greater moderation the increase of wealth and power derived from

>> those territories, when acquired, than what they have displayed in

>> their endeavors to acquire them? we think not; we are convinced the

>> same spirit which hath prompted them to insist on a

>>> claim so extravagant, so repugnant to every principle of justice,

>> so incompatible with the general welfare of all the states, will urge

>> them on to add oppression to injustice. If they should not be incited

>> by a superiority of wealth and strength to oppress by open force

>> their less wealthy and less powerful neighbors, yet the depopulation,

>> and consequently the impoverishment of those states, will necessarily

>> follow, which by an unfair construction of the confederation may be

>> stripped of a common interest in, and the common benefits derivable

>> from, the western country.1 Suppose, for instance, Virginia

>> indisputably possessed of the extensive and fertile country to which

>> she has set up a claim, what would be the probable consequences to

>> Maryland of such an undisturbed and undisputed possession? They

>> cannot escape the least discerning.

>>>

>>> Virginia, by selling on the most moderate terms a small

>> proportion of the lands in question, would draw into her treasury

>> vast sums of money, and in proportion to the sums arising from such

>> sales, would be enabled to lessen her taxes: lands comparatively

>> cheap and taxes comparatively low, with the lands and taxes of an

>> adjacent state, would quickly drain the state thus disadvantageously

>> circumstanced of its most useful inhabitants, its wealth; and its

>> consequence in the scale of the confederated states would sink of

>> course. A claim so injurious to more than one half, if not to the

>> whole of the United States, ought to be supported by the clearest

>> evidence of the right. Yet what evidences of that right have been

>> produced? What arguments alleged in support either of the evidence or

>> the right; none that we have heard of deserving a serious refutation.

>>>

>>> It has been said that some of the delegates of a neighboring

>> state have declared their opinion of the impracticability of

>> governing the extensive dominion claimed by that state: hence also

>> the necessity was admitted of dividing its territory and erecting a

>> new state, under the auspices and direction of the elder, from whom

>> no doubt it would receive its form of government, to whom it would be

>> bound by some alliance or confederacy, and by whose councils it would

>> be influenced: such a measure, if ever attempted, would certainly be

>> opposed by the other states, as inconsistent with the letter and

>> spirit of the proposed confederation. Should it take place, by

>> establishing a sub-confederacy, imperium in imperio, the state

>> possessed of this extensive dominion must then either submit to all

>> the inconveniences of an overgrown and unwieldy government, or suffer

>> the authority of Congress to interpose at a future time, and to lop

>> off a part of its territory to be erected into a new

>>> and free state, and admitted into the confederation on such

>> conditions as shall be settled by nine states. If it is necessary for

>> the happiness and tranquility of a state thus overgrown, that

>> Congress should hereafter interfere and divide its territory; why is

>> the claim to that territory now made and so pertinaciously insisted

>> on? We can suggest to ourselves but two motives; either the

>> declaration of relinquishing at some future period a portion of the

>> country now contended for, was made to lull suspicion asleep, and to

>> cover the designs of a secret ambition, or if the thought was

>> seriously entertained, the lands are now claimed to reap an immediate

>> profit from the

>> sale.

>>

>>>

>>> We are convinced policy and justice require that a country

>> unsettled at the commencement of this war, claimed by the British

>> crown, and ceded to it by the treaty of Paris, if wrested from the

>> common enemy by the blood and treasure of the thirteen states, should

>> be considered as a common property, subject to be parcelled out by

>> Congress into free, convenient and independent governments, in such

>> manner and at such times as the wisdom of that assembly shall

>> hereafter direct. Thus convinced, we should betray the trust reposed

>> in us by our constituents, were we to authorize you to ratify on

>> their behalf the confederation, unless it be farther explained: we

>> have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject; we have

>> weighed probable inconveniences and hardships against the sacrifice

>> of just and essential rights; and do instruct you not to agree to the

>> confederation, unless an article or articles be added thereto in

>> conformity with our declaration: should we succeed in

>>> obtaining such article or articles, then you are hereby fully

>> empowered to accede to the confederation.

>>>

>>> That these our sentiments respecting the confederation may be

>> more publicly known and more explicitly and concisely declared, we

>> have drawn up the annexed declaration, which we instruct you to lay

>> before Congress, to have it printed, and to deliver to each of the

>> delegates of the other states in Congress assembled, copies thereof,

>> signed by yourselves or by such of you as may be present at the time

>> of the delivery; to the intent and purpose that the copies aforesaid

>> may be communicated to our brethren of the United States, and the

>> contents of the said declaration taken into their serious and candid

>> consideration.

>>>

>>> Also we desire and instruct you to move at a proper time, that

>> these instructions be read to Congress by their secretary, and

>> entered on the journals of Congress.

>>>

>>> We have spoken with freedom, as becomes freemen, and we sincerely

>> wish that these our representations may make such an impression on

>> that assembly as to induce them to make such addition to the articles

>> of confederation as may bring about a permanent union.

>>>

>>> A true copy from the proceedings of December 15, 1778.

>>>

>>> Test, J. Duckett, C. H. D.

>>>

>>> ******************************

>>>

>>

January 9, 2007

Hello dear Vyas,

The worsening of an old war is more likely with number of casualities

rising.