IRAQ, IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY & chart POTUS

[Guest guest]

Dear Jorge & List Eight years after the birth of the perfected American Union [see: SAMVA USA chart] this Union fathered yet another child in its family, under the Union's second constitution [The "Constitution of the United States"]. The child's identity being that of the AMERICAN PRESIDENCY [POTUS] So much of the current story of the uninvited Americans in Iraq is about George W Bush and his Presidency. So I took a look at the chart for the Presidency, and another look at the the February 2, 1781 chart. I hope List members will care to comment on how well SAMVA USA presages the advent of the American Presidency [POTUS]. And of course it should, because constitutionally POTUS [ = President of the United States] is HEAD OF STATE. So just consider, for purposes of American foreign policy, the birth event of POTUS as

the offspring of the Feb 2, 1781 BODY-POLITIC's second sponsored government, under the second constitution. I suspect you won't be disappointed in the comparative assessment of these two charts. [However, as background, please bear in mind that the BODY-POLITIC born of the event of SAMVA USA has sponsored [thus far in national history] two constitutiuons [March "1", 1781 & September 13,

1788] and two resulting national governments [March "2", 1781 & May 1, 1789, where these respective dates for the "governments" designate actuality, when full governing proceedings commenced functioning under the respective two constitutions.] BUT, TOO, A CAUTION first: The POTUS chart is no respect a candidate for the birth chart for the USA. Please do not confuse POTUS and USA. Think of USA as parent; POTUS as child. There are a number of POTUS natal charts posted around the internet, almost all confusing the USA with the Presidency; furthermore, all appear to be cast for the right event date but most really are off the mark as regards the record of the actual time moment. For intance, just today I saw the latest message dealing with the TOB of POTUS, in a thread at another astrology group. The posted natal time moment there is off [late] by one full hour. So

logically, whether or not rectified is of absolutely no matter when the history is disregarded. The dusty archive records for the historic day, April 30, 1789, show the inquiring minded that a FULL ONE HOUR BEFORE the actual TOB "General" George Washington was sitting in the

living room of his house on Franklin Square in lower Manhattan [NYC], waiting for the Inaugural Committee to come and escort him to the ceremonies at Federal Hall, Wall Street. And then two hours later, a FULL ONE HOUR AFTER the actual TOB "President" George Washington was sitting in his designated family pew in Trinity Church on Broadway, no doubt asking God for the blessings of strength and integrity to carry on successfully and compassionately for the next four years of the very first term of

POTUS.. The record is precise enough for you all to rely on the following data. [And, alas, I shall spare you, for this time, posting excerpts from my extensive file on the subject. But rest assured, the history of the record has the event reported precisely enough to estimate the TOB within a 5-minutes most-probable-range of time moments] The birth chart data for POTUS: April 30, 1789 @ a moment in the 5 minute range of 13:00 hrs up to 13:05 hrs [LMT, Wall Street, New York City] I hope Jorge will encourage List members to discuss the comparative implications of both charts, as this ongoing relationship is one of Parent USA [1781] to its own Child POTUS [1789]. And what a family it has turned out to become. [And, sorry Jorge, a personal remark, "Praying that the Iraqi people may soon be free of the American armed forces occupation."] Sincerely, JOHN jorge angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: Dear Vyas,Thanks for clarifying that Ve/Sa starts only in 2009. My mistake...Regarding retrograde Mercury, I am just bringing it to you attention. SA gives no special relevance to retrogrades, as you know.In the rectified chart, from June to September, things will not be easy due to the stationary transit of Rahu/Ketu axis over MEP4/MEP10, but due to the change of bhukti, after September there will be an overall change for the worse.Best wishes,Jorge SAMVA [sAMVA ] On Behalf Of Vyas Munidasquarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2007 21:12SAMVA Subject: Re: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?Dear Jorge,In the SAMVA USA chart, the first half of this year indicates challenges with the axis on the MEP afflicting all even houses and Saturn and Jupiter are troubling all odd houses in this Ve/Ju period. In the USA rectified chart, the first half of this year isn't challenging. The trigger for long standing tensions in the Sc ascendant would be caused by long term afflictions to MEPs or natal positions by the axis. No affliction is caused by the axis to MEP's and slow moving FB's Ju and Sa are well placed. The only tension is caused by tr Ra to badly placed natal

Sun, but this isn't exact for the current 4 months that Rahu is stationary and the Sun is well placed in transit until mid April.From around the beginning of June until the middle of July, the MEPs of all even houses are within 2 degrees of the axis in the rectified chart.The concern would be Ve in an afflicted H10 by Ke. Tr Ve and Ke never become exact in this period - at the end of July, they are mildly close. Since Ve/Sa period is running, we look to Saturn's position as well. It enters H10 Leo at the end of July and is exact with retrograde Venus for only 6 days (Aug 10-16th). Quick contacts are there with the Sun and Mercury as well - the movement is into Leo whose MEP is no longer afflicted by Ke, but close and separating. Into the end of the year, more tensions are caused to the natal positions of Ju and Ve by the axis. They are both well placed in transit.In my humble opinion, the rectified chart does

not indicate serious concerns in this 2007, whereas the SAMVA USA chart does.Ve/Sa does not start until Jan 2009 in the SAMVA USA chart - you've mentioned that Sep 2007 is when it starts.You've also mentioned the retrograde action of Me in the rectified chart. Perhaps I have missed a further discussion on it - what's the SA relevance to retrograde planets?Best regards,Vyas Munidas- "jorge angelino" <jorge.angelino ><SAMVA >Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:36 AMRE: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?Dear John,I agree with you.In both US charts, we can see that things will not be easy during 2007.In US rectified chart, Ve/Me will start on September 6, 2007. Natal Mercury is

combust, retrograde, and L6 in D8, bringing conflicts and death.In SAMVA USA chart, Ve/Ju is running, which may bring an escalation in war. In the beginning of September, 2007, Ve/Sa will start, bringing also very serious concerns.After September 2007, things will be very difficult.Best wishes,JorgeSAMVA [sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWBquarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2007 10:51SAMVA Subject: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?Dear List members:Apropros the number of messages posted ingroup regarding America’s decidedly unpopular [both home and abroad] crusade-like wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I thought appropriate to post this

[non-astrological] news report by Michael Klare, which report's negative implications generally accord with what the SAMVA USA chart appears to indicate for later on this year, just 3 months from now and beyond.The author, Michael T Klare, concludes this report with this telling, final paragraph:“The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon [to command the American armed forces in Afghanistan & Iraq], along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.â€Ominous Sign of a Wider WarBy Michael T. KlareThe NationMonday 08 January 2007On January 5 Defense Secretary

Robert Gates announced that he was replacing Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central Command (Centcom) - the body responsible for oversight of all US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater Middle East - with Adm. Richard Fallon, currently the commander of the Pacific Command (Pacom). Fallon is one of several senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being shaped by President Bush.The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more

surprising, Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual American withdrawal. "The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi troops," not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the New York Times. For this alone Abizaid had to go.But there's more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need for a regional solution to the crisis in Iraq - one that inevitably requires some sort of

engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group. "You have to internationalize the problem, you have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he told the Times. "You just can't apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad ... and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism."If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces and strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forte. Fallon began his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with carrier-based

forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years later. More recently, Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault - and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind.The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of

catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.--Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007 13:37--Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007 13:37

[Guest guest]

Dear John (and List),

 

Here's a link to a chronological list of all the US Presidential

inaugurations that may aid in a study of the POTUS and SAMVA USA charts:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_inaugurations

 

 

Best regards,

 

Vyas Munidas

 

 

-

" JohnTWB " <blazingstar1776

<SAMVA >

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:54 PM

IRAQ, IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY & chart POTUS

 

 

> Dear Jorge & List

>

> Eight years after the birth of the perfected American Union [see: SAMVA

> USA chart] this Union fathered yet another child in its family, under the

> Union's second constitution [The " Constitution of the United States " ]. The

> child's identity being that of the AMERICAN PRESIDENCY [POTUS]

>

> So much of the current story of the uninvited Americans in Iraq is about

> George W Bush and his Presidency. So I took a look at the chart for the

> Presidency, and another look at the the February 2, 1781 chart. I hope

> List members will care to comment on how well SAMVA USA presages the

> advent of the American Presidency [POTUS]. And of course it should,

> because constitutionally POTUS [ = President of the United States] is HEAD

> OF STATE. So just consider, for purposes of American foreign policy, the

> birth event of POTUS as the offspring of the Feb 2, 1781 BODY-POLITIC's

> second sponsored government, under the second constitution. I suspect you

> won't be disappointed in the comparative assessment of these two charts.

>

> [However, as background, please bear in mind that the BODY-POLITIC born

> of the event of SAMVA USA has sponsored [thus far in national history] two

> constitutiuons [March " 1 " , 1781 & September 13, 1788] and two resulting

> national governments [March " 2 " , 1781 & May 1, 1789, where these

> respective dates for the " governments " designate actuality, when full

> governing proceedings commenced functioning under the respective two

> constitutions.]

>

> BUT, TOO, A CAUTION first: The POTUS chart is no respect a candidate for

> the birth chart for the USA. Please do not confuse POTUS and USA. Think of

> USA as parent; POTUS as child. There are a number of POTUS natal charts

> posted around the internet, almost all confusing the USA with the

> Presidency; furthermore, all appear to be cast for the right event date

> but most really are off the mark as regards the record of the actual time

> moment. For intance, just today I saw the latest message dealing with the

> TOB of POTUS, in a thread at another astrology group. The posted

> natal time moment there is off [late] by one full hour. So logically,

> whether or not rectified is of absolutely no matter when the history is

> disregarded.

>

> The dusty archive records for the historic day, April 30, 1789, show the

> inquiring minded that a FULL ONE HOUR BEFORE the actual TOB " General "

> George Washington was sitting in the living room of his house on Franklin

> Square in lower Manhattan [NYC], waiting for the Inaugural Committee to

> come and escort him to the ceremonies at Federal Hall, Wall Street. And

> then two hours later, a FULL ONE HOUR AFTER the actual TOB " President "

> George Washington was sitting in his designated family pew in Trinity

> Church on Broadway, no doubt asking God for the blessings of strength and

> integrity to carry on successfully and compassionately for the next four

> years of the very first term of POTUS..

>

> The record is precise enough for you all to rely on the following data.

> [And, alas, I shall spare you, for this time, posting excerpts from my

> extensive file on the subject. But rest assured, the history of the record

> has the event reported precisely enough to estimate the TOB within a

> 5-minutes most-probable-range of time moments]

>

>

> The birth chart data for POTUS:

>

> April 30, 1789 @ a moment in the 5 minute range of 13:00 hrs up to 13:05

> hrs [LMT, Wall Street, New York City]

>

> I hope Jorge will encourage List members to discuss the comparative

> implications of both charts, as this ongoing relationship is one of Parent

> USA [1781] to its own Child POTUS [1789].

>

> And what a family it has turned out to become.

>

> [And, sorry Jorge, a personal remark, " Praying that the Iraqi people may

> soon be free of the American armed forces occupation. " ]

>

> Sincerely,

>

> JOHN

>

>

>

>

> jorge angelino <jorge.angelino wrote:

> Dear Vyas,

>

> Thanks for clarifying that Ve/Sa starts only in 2009. My mistake...

>

> Regarding retrograde Mercury, I am just bringing it to you attention. SA

> gives no special relevance to retrogrades, as you know.

>

> In the rectified chart, from June to September, things will not be easy

> due to the stationary transit of Rahu/Ketu axis over MEP4/MEP10, but due

> to the change of bhukti, after September there will be an overall change

> for the worse.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Jorge

>

>

> SAMVA [sAMVA ] On Behalf Of

> Vyas Munidas

> quarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2007 21:12

> SAMVA

> Re: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

>

> Dear Jorge,

>

> In the SAMVA USA chart, the first half of this year indicates challenges

> with the axis on the MEP afflicting all even houses and Saturn and Jupiter

> are troubling all odd houses in this Ve/Ju period.

>

> In the USA rectified chart, the first half of this year isn't challenging.

> The trigger for long standing tensions in the Sc ascendant would be caused

> by long term afflictions to MEPs or natal positions by the axis. No

> affliction is caused by the axis to MEP's and slow moving FB's Ju and Sa

> are

> well placed. The only tension is caused by tr Ra to badly placed natal

> Sun,

> but this isn't exact for the current 4 months that Rahu is stationary and

> the Sun is well placed in transit until mid April.

>

> From around the beginning of June until the middle of July, the MEPs of

> all

> even houses are within 2 degrees of the axis in the rectified chart.The

> concern would be Ve in an afflicted H10 by Ke. Tr Ve and Ke never become

> exact in this period - at the end of July, they are mildly close. Since

> Ve/Sa period is running, we look to Saturn's position as well. It enters

> H10

> Leo at the end of July and is exact with retrograde Venus for only 6 days

> (Aug 10-16th). Quick contacts are there with the Sun and Mercury as well -

> the movement is into Leo whose MEP is no longer afflicted by Ke, but close

> and separating. Into the end of the year, more tensions are caused to the

> natal positions of Ju and Ve by the axis. They are both well placed in

> transit.

>

> In my humble opinion, the rectified chart does not indicate serious

> concerns

> in this 2007, whereas the SAMVA USA chart does.

>

> Ve/Sa does not start until Jan 2009 in the SAMVA USA chart - you've

> mentioned that Sep 2007 is when it starts.

>

> You've also mentioned the retrograde action of Me in the rectified chart.

> Perhaps I have missed a further discussion on it - what's the SA relevance

> to retrograde planets?

>

> Best regards,

>

> Vyas Munidas

>

> -

> " jorge angelino " <jorge.angelino

> <SAMVA >

> Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:36 AM

> RE: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

>

> Dear John,

>

> I agree with you.

>

> In both US charts, we can see that things will not be easy during 2007.

>

> In US rectified chart, Ve/Me will start on September 6, 2007. Natal

> Mercury

> is combust, retrograde, and L6 in D8, bringing conflicts and death.

>

> In SAMVA USA chart, Ve/Ju is running, which may bring an escalation in

> war.

> In the beginning of September, 2007, Ve/Sa will start, bringing also very

> serious concerns.

>

> After September 2007, things will be very difficult.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Jorge

>

>

> SAMVA [sAMVA ] On Behalf Of

> JohnTWB

> quarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2007 10:51

> SAMVA

> IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

>

> Dear List members:

>

> Apropros the number of messages posted ingroup regarding Americaâ?Ts

> decidedly

> unpopular [both home and abroad] crusade-like wars in Afghanistan and

> Iraq,

> I thought appropriate to post this [non-astrological] news report by

> Michael

> Klare, which report's negative implications generally accord with what the

> SAMVA USA chart appears to indicate for later on this year, just 3 months

> from now and beyond.

>

> The author, Michael T Klare, concludes this report with this telling,

> final

> paragraph:

>

> â?oThe recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon [to command

> the

> American armed forces in Afghanistan & Iraq], along with other recent

> moves

> announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone

> concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to

> the

> advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a

> wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual

> and dignified withdrawal from the region.â?

>

> Ominous Sign of a Wider War

> By Michael T. Klare

> The Nation

> Monday 08 January 2007

>

> On January 5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was

> replacing

> Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central Command (Centcom) - the body

> responsible for oversight of all US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the

> greater Middle East - with Adm. Richard Fallon, currently the commander of

> the Pacific Command (Pacom). Fallon is one of several senior officers

> recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being

> shaped by President Bush.

>

> The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several

> respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion:

> As

> head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at

> Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all

> combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave

> Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as

> commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon

> is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of

> Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against

> insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

>

> Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White

> House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey

> who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting

> greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting

> a

> gradual American withdrawal. " The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi

> troops, " not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the

> New

> York Times. For this alone Abizaid had to go.

>

> But there's more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a

> tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need for a

> regional solution to the crisis in Iraq - one that inevitably requires

> some

> sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study

> Group. " You have to internationalize the problem, you have to attack it

> diplomatically, geo-strategically, " he told the Times. " You just can't

> apply

> a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad ... and say that

> somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, you are

> going

> to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism. "

>

> If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid

> is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces

> and

> strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're

> thinking

> instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is

> exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.

>

> Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forte. Fallon began

> his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with

> carrier-based forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a

> carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval

> group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years

> later. More recently, Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations

> before

> becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to

> oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President

> give

> the green light for such an assault - and the fact that Fallon has been

> moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's

> mind.

>

> The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with

> other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep

> pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq

> War.

> Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be

> planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure -

> not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --

>

>

> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007

> 13:37

>

> --

>

>

> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007

> 13:37

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear John,

 

Thanks for another excellent contribution.

 

Even before rectifying it, Leo is rising (a

sign that is fixed, so not flexible). Rahu and Ketu are debilitated (with the

possibility of creating scandals). Jupiter is weakly placed in H12 (luck and

common sense are not abundant). Transit Sun and transit Mercury are about to enter

in H6. Transit Venus is already there. Possible dasha: Ra/Ra/Ve.

 

Having the MMP, the Moon as the ruler of

H12, makes the POTUS to imagine all foreign countries as possible enemies. As

the Moon is a volatile planet, every now and then, “problems†are arising to

the POTUS, connected with H12, hence the NEED to defend themselves…and the best

defense is always to attack before, if possible…and the list of wars abroad is

very long indeed.

 

Connecting the POTUS chart with the SAMVA USA chart, POTUS lagna falls

in SAMVA USA H2 (family, male

children). Connecting the POTUS chart with the US rectified chart, POTUS lagna

falls in US H10 (executive, administration, the President). H2 and H10 both

indicate the leader of the country, but H10 has more to do with leadership.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWB

quinta-feira, 11 de Janeiro

de 2007 02:55

SAMVA

IRAQ, IMPERIAL

PRESIDENCY & chart POTUS

 

 

Dear Jorge & List

 

 

 

 

 

Eight years after the

birth of the perfected American Union [see: SAMVA USA chart] this Union

fathered yet another child in its family, under the Union's second constitution

[The " Constitution of the United States " ]. The child's

identity being that of the AMERICAN PRESIDENCY [POTUS]

 

 

 

 

 

So much of the current

story of the uninvited Americans in Iraq is about George W Bush and his

Presidency. So I took a look at the chart for the Presidency,

and another look at the the February 2, 1781 chart. I hope List

members will care to comment on how well SAMVA USA presages the

advent of the American Presidency [POTUS]. And of course it should, because

constitutionally POTUS [ = President of the United States] is HEAD OF

STATE. So just consider, for purposes of American foreign policy, the

birth event of POTUS as the offspring of the Feb 2, 1781

BODY-POLITIC's second sponsored government, under the second

constitution. I suspect you won't be disappointed in the comparative

assessment of these two

charts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[However, as background,

please bear in mind that the BODY-POLITIC born of the event of SAMVA

USA has sponsored [thus far in national history] two constitutiuons [March

" 1 " , 1781 & September 13, 1788] and two resulting

national governments [March " 2 " , 1781 & May 1, 1789,

where these respective dates for the " governments " designate

actuality, when full governing proceedings commenced functioning under the

respective two constitutions.]

 

 

 

 

 

BUT, TOO, A CAUTION

first: The POTUS chart is no respect a candidate for the birth chart for

the USA. Please do not confuse POTUS and USA. Think of USA as parent; POTUS as

child. There are a number of POTUS natal charts posted around the internet,

almost all confusing the USA with the Presidency; furthermore, all appear

to be cast for the right event date but most really are off the mark as

regards the record of the actual time moment. For intance, just today I

saw the latest message dealing with the TOB of POTUS, in a thread at another

astrology group. The posted natal time moment there is off

[late] by one full hour. So logically, whether or not

rectified is of absolutely no matter when the history is

disregarded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The dusty archive records

for the historic day, April 30, 1789, show the inquiring minded that a

FULL ONE HOUR BEFORE the actual TOB " General " George

Washington was sitting in the living room of his house on Franklin Square

in lower Manhattan [NYC], waiting for the Inaugural Committee to come

and escort him to the ceremonies at Federal Hall, Wall Street. And then two

hours later, a FULL ONE HOUR AFTER the actual TOB " President " George

Washington was sitting in his designated family pew in Trinity Church on

Broadway, no doubt asking God for the blessings of strength and

integrity to carry on successfully and compassionately for the next four

years of the very first term of POTUS..

 

 

 

 

 

 

The record is precise

enough for you all to rely on the following data. [And, alas, I shall

spare you, for this time, posting excerpts from my extensive file on the

subject. But rest assured, the history of the record has the event

reported precisely enough to estimate the TOB within a 5-minutes

most-probable-range of time moments]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The birth chart data for

POTUS:

 

 

 

 

 

April 30, 1789 @ a moment

in the 5 minute range of 13:00 hrs up to 13:05 hrs [LMT, Wall Street, New

York City]

 

 

 

 

 

I hope Jorge will

encourage List members to discuss the comparative implications of both charts,

as this ongoing relationship is one of Parent USA [1781] to its own

Child POTUS [1789].

 

 

 

 

 

And what a family it has

turned out to become.

 

 

 

 

 

[And, sorry Jorge, a

personal remark, " Praying that the Iraqi people may soon be free of the

American armed forces occupation. " ]

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

JOHN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jorge angelino <jorge.angelino

wrote:

 

 

 

 

Dear

Vyas,

 

Thanks for clarifying that Ve/Sa starts only in 2009. My mistake...

 

Regarding retrograde Mercury, I am just bringing it to you attention. SA gives

no special relevance to retrogrades, as you know.

 

In the rectified chart, from June to September, things will not be easy due to

the stationary transit of Rahu/Ketu axis over MEP4/MEP10, but due to the change

of bhukti, after September there will be an overall change for the worse.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ]

On Behalf Of Vyas Munidas

quarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2007 21:12

SAMVA

Re: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

 

Dear Jorge,

 

In the SAMVA USA chart, the first half of this year indicates challenges

with the axis on the MEP afflicting all even houses and Saturn and Jupiter

are troubling all odd houses in this Ve/Ju period.

 

In the USA rectified chart, the first half of this year isn't challenging.

The trigger for long standing tensions in the Sc ascendant would be caused

by long term afflictions to MEPs or natal positions by the axis. No

affliction is caused by the axis to MEP's and slow moving FB's Ju and Sa are

well placed. The only tension is caused by tr Ra to badly placed natal Sun,

but this isn't exact for the current 4 months that Rahu is stationary and

the Sun is well placed in transit until mid April.

 

From around the beginning of June until the middle of July, the MEPs of all

even houses are within 2 degrees of the axis in the rectified chart.The

concern would be Ve in an afflicted H10 by Ke. Tr Ve and Ke never become

exact in this period - at the end of July, they are mildly close. Since

Ve/Sa period is running, we look to Saturn's position as well. It enters H10

Leo at the end of July and is exact with retrograde Venus for only 6 days

(Aug 10-16th). Quick contacts are there with the Sun and Mercury as well -

the movement is into Leo whose MEP is no longer afflicted by Ke, but close

and separating. Into the end of the year, more tensions are caused to the

natal positions of Ju and Ve by the axis. They are both well placed in

transit.

 

In my humble opinion, the rectified chart does not indicate serious concerns

in this 2007, whereas the SAMVA USA chart does.

 

Ve/Sa does not start until Jan 2009 in the SAMVA USA chart - you've

mentioned that Sep 2007 is when it starts.

 

You've also mentioned the retrograde action of Me in the rectified chart.

Perhaps I have missed a further discussion on it - what's the SA relevance

to retrograde planets?

 

Best regards,

 

Vyas Munidas

 

-

" jorge angelino " <jorge.angelino >

<SAMVA >

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:36 AM

RE: IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

 

Dear John,

 

I agree with you.

 

In both US charts, we can see that things will not be easy during 2007.

 

In US rectified chart, Ve/Me will start on September 6, 2007. Natal Mercury

is combust, retrograde, and L6 in D8, bringing conflicts and death.

 

In SAMVA USA chart, Ve/Ju is running, which may bring an escalation in war.

In the beginning of September, 2007, Ve/Sa will start, bringing also very

serious concerns.

 

After September 2007, things will be very difficult.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jorge

 

 

SAMVA

[sAMVA ]

On Behalf Of

JohnTWB

quarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro de 2007 10:51

SAMVA

IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

 

Dear List members:

 

Apropros the number of messages posted ingroup regarding America’s decidedly

unpopular [both home and abroad] crusade-like wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,

I thought appropriate to post this [non-astrological] news report by Michael

Klare, which report's negative implications generally accord with what the

SAMVA USA chart appears to indicate for later on this year, just 3 months

from now and beyond.

 

The author, Michael T Klare, concludes this report with this telling, final

paragraph:

 

“The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon [to command the

American armed forces in Afghanistan & Iraq], along with other recent moves

 

announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone

concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the

advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a

wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual

and dignified withdrawal from the region.â€Â

 

Ominous Sign of a Wider War

By Michael T. Klare

The Nation

Monday 08 January 2007

 

On January 5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was replacing

Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central Command (Centcom) - the body

responsible for oversight of all US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the

greater Middle East - with Adm. Richard Fallon, currently the commander of

the Pacific Command (Pacom). Fallon is one of several senior officers

recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being

shaped by President Bush.

 

The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several

respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As

head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at

Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all

combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave

Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as

commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon

is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of

Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against

insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White

House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey

who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting

greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a

gradual American withdrawal. " The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi

troops, " not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the

New

York Times. For this alone Abizaid had to go.

 

But there's more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a

tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need for a

regional solution to the crisis in Iraq - one that inevitably requires some

sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study

Group. " You have to internationalize the problem, you have to attack it

diplomatically, geo-strategically, " he told the Times. " You just

can't apply

a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad ... and say that

somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, you are going

to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism. "

 

If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid

is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces and

strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're thinking

instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is

exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.

 

Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forte. Fallon began

his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with

carrier-based forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a

carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval

group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years

later. More recently, Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before

becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to

oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give

the green light for such an assault - and the fact that Fallon has been

moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's

mind.

 

The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with

other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep

pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War.

Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be

planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure -

not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007

13:37

 

--

 

 

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007

13:37