U.S. Presidential Inaugurations/Not Always @ 12:00 noon

January 11, 2007

Thanks Vyas, Just a word of caution here to our List members about that Wikipedia Inauguration list: BEWARE READER: DO NOT ASSUME THAT EACH AND EVERY QUADRENNIAL U.S. PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL CEREMONY FEATURES THE SWEARING OF THE OATH OF OFFICE AT 12:00 NOON. There are a number of exceptions, starting with the first in 1789 as indicated in my previous post. The George Washington oath swearing was scheduled for 12:00 noon, but there were delays on the part of the Congressional Inaugural Committee who were directed to fetch the General at his home, delays eating up 60 or so minutes. I'm sure the General was mighty pissed off C.E.O.-elect on that occasion. Considering that he was renowned for his punctuality, decorum, courtesy to the ladies, and iron-hard discipline. For another Example. Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural oath

swearing was scheduled for 1:00 pm, and for AFTER THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS, not as has usually been the case, before the address. On March 4, 1861 [LMT, Washington, D.C.] Lincoln was ready and kept waiting, as was General Washington 72 years earlier. In 1861, then lame-duck Democratic Party President James Buchanan gave a snub to the Republican President-elect Abraham Lincoln, by Buchanan's arrival an hour late to pick up Lincoln for the carriage ride to the ceremony's site. Lincoln soon after arrival stood up and gave his address, only then after, was he sworn in. ESTIMATED TIME OATH TAKEN & SWORN: 13:55/14:00 hrs. Thanks, Vyas JOHN Vyas Munidas <muni> wrote: 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_inaugurationsBest regards,Vyas Munidas- "JohnTWB" <blazingstar1776 ><SAMVA >Sent:

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>>

January 11, 2007

Dear John,

If we were casting a new chart for each inauguration, then this would be

very significant. For the purpose of studying transits of the POTUS or the

SAMVA USA charts, a few hours difference for each inauguration transit

wouldn't make a significant difference.

Further, we have to see the value of the POTUS chart. If the premise is

correct that the swearing in of the first US president is important to the

study of the highs and lows of the office and it falls inline with the USA

natal chart, then the value is very great and has many applications to

future events.

Best regards,

Vyas Munidas

-

" JohnTWB " <blazingstar1776

Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:23 AM

U.S. Presidential Inaugurations/Not Always @ 12:00 noon

> Thanks Vyas,

>

> Just a word of caution here to our List members about that Wikipedia

> Inauguration list:

>

> BEWARE READER: DO NOT ASSUME THAT EACH AND EVERY QUADRENNIAL U.S.

> PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL CEREMONY FEATURES THE SWEARING OF THE OATH OF

> OFFICE AT 12:00 NOON.

>

> There are a number of exceptions, starting with the first in 1789 as

> indicated in my previous post. The George Washington oath swearing was

> scheduled for 12:00 noon, but there were delays on the part of the

> Congressional Inaugural Committee who were directed to fetch the General

> at his home, delays eating up 60 or so minutes. I'm sure the General was

> mighty pissed off C.E.O.-elect on that occasion. Considering that he was

> renowned for his punctuality, decorum, courtesy to the ladies, and

> iron-hard discipline.

>

> For another Example.

>

> Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural oath swearing was scheduled for 1:00 pm, and

> for AFTER THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS, not as has usually been the case, before

> the address. On March 4, 1861 [LMT, Washington, D.C.] Lincoln was ready

> and kept waiting, as was General Washington 72 years earlier. In 1861,

> then lame-duck Democratic Party President James Buchanan gave a snub to

> the Republican President-elect Abraham Lincoln, by Buchanan's arrival an

> hour late to pick up Lincoln for the carriage ride to the ceremony's site.

> Lincoln soon after arrival stood up and gave his address, only then after,

> was he sworn in. ESTIMATED TIME OATH TAKEN & SWORN: 13:55/14:00 hrs.

>

> Thanks, Vyas

>

> JOHN

>

> Vyas Munidas <muni> wrote:

> 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 Date:

>> 09.01.2007

>> 13:37

>>

>> --

>>

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

>> 09.01.2007

>> 13:37

>>

January 11, 2007

Dear Vyas, You have stated the situation perfectly. I look forward to the posted results of the empirical investigations you and other contributors shall contribute on this List Best wishes, JOHNVyas Munidas <muni> wrote: Dear John,If we were casting a new chart for each inauguration, then this would be very significant. For the purpose of studying transits of the

POTUS or the SAMVA USA charts, a few hours difference for each inauguration transit wouldn't make a significant difference.Further, we have to see the value of the POTUS chart. If the premise is correct that the swearing in of the first US president is important to the study of the highs and lows of the office and it falls inline with the USA natal chart, then the value is very great and has many applications to future events.Best regards,Vyas Munidas- "JohnTWB" <blazingstar1776 ><SAMVA >Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:23 AM U.S. Presidential Inaugurations/Not Always @ 12:00 noon> Thanks Vyas,>> Just a word of caution here to our List members about that Wikipedia >

Inauguration list:>> BEWARE READER: DO NOT ASSUME THAT EACH AND EVERY QUADRENNIAL U.S. > PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL CEREMONY FEATURES THE SWEARING OF THE OATH OF > OFFICE AT 12:00 NOON.>> There are a number of exceptions, starting with the first in 1789 as > indicated in my previous post. The George Washington oath swearing was > scheduled for 12:00 noon, but there were delays on the part of the > Congressional Inaugural Committee who were directed to fetch the General > at his home, delays eating up 60 or so minutes. I'm sure the General was > mighty pissed off C.E.O.-elect on that occasion. Considering that he was > renowned for his punctuality, decorum, courtesy to the ladies, and > iron-hard discipline.>> For another Example.>> Abraham Lincoln's Inaugural oath swearing was scheduled for 1:00 pm, and > for AFTER THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS, not as has

usually been the case, before > the address. On March 4, 1861 [LMT, Washington, D.C.] Lincoln was ready > and kept waiting, as was General Washington 72 years earlier. In 1861, > then lame-duck Democratic Party President James Buchanan gave a snub to > the Republican President-elect Abraham Lincoln, by Buchanan's arrival an > hour late to pick up Lincoln for the carriage ride to the ceremony's site. > Lincoln soon after arrival stood up and gave his address, only then after, > was he sworn in. ESTIMATED TIME OATH TAKEN & SWORN: 13:55/14:00 hrs.>> Thanks, Vyas>> JOHN>>>>> Vyas Munidas <munidas (AT) rogers (DOT) com> wrote:> 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>>>> -->> No virus found in this

outgoing message.>> >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release >> 09.01.2007>> 13:37>>>>