Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Several charts have been put forward for the birth moment of America. Since these charts relate to important events in the foundation of modern America, they all have merit to varying degrees. If they did not fit, it would be difficult to make any predictions or see how past events unfolded. The charts can be divided into the following categories— 1. Independence Important dates Jul 2 and 4, 1776 2. Articles of Confederation Important dates First Signing Articles Jul 9, 1778 Approval Feb 2, 1781 Formal Ratification Mar 1, 1781 3. POTUS Inauguration of first president April 30, 1789 The Independence event has the quality of separation—leaving the past and embracing the future and becoming a separate entity. The Confederation event has the quality of Unity The Inauguration of the first president is a very important milestone but not a beginning for the nation. What is the definitive chart for America? As Ron Grimes pointed out, the Confederation is an important founding event, (probably the most important) and a chart for America should reflect this event. There is one date that has been largely overlooked in the search for the chart of America. This is the time when the first signature appeared on the Articles Of Confederation. The date is Jul 9, 1778. A process was started on this date which led to a culmination in the approval and ratification of The Articles of Confederation on Feb 2,1781 and Mar 1, 1781 respectively. Muhurtas are for beginnings not endings. .If the date of Feb 2, 1781 is important then the date of Jul 9,1778 is more important. The day the Articles became the law of the land could not have happened without the first signature. On July 9, 1778 the Articles were finally approved by a sufficient number of States to become operative. Consider the following analogy. A party is advertised to start at 5pm. The first guests arrive at 5.15pm. Latecomers are arriving at 6pm. Do the latecomers have any real influence on the party? No, the party is already in full swing. When was the starting time? It was when the first guest walked through the door, not the last one. There is a sense of completeness when the last guest arrives and it is an important moment but the arrival of the first guest is the true starting time. Similarly, the time of the first signature on the Articles of Confederation is the birth moment. Here is a chart for consideration. Chart for USA Based on first signing of Articles of Confederation Jul 9,1778 Philadelphia PA Suggested ascendent 18—20 Sagittarius I have chosen Sagittarius because it is an ascendent that resonates well with America. This country is shooting for the stars and it is using its arrows for other purposes too. Sag. is dynamic energetic and creative. This is why the Kelleher chart is popular. 1.It is based on an important event 2.It has an ascendent (Sag) that relates well to the country. I don’t have the time to research this chart now but I present it for consideration. It may be possible to discard it completely. If it shows some merit please take it for further research. Ron Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Dear Ron, I enjoyed reading your email. I would love to see the relevant points in the chart as they pertain to important events. Regarding your example, here's an apt counter example. When a woman is pregnant, it's from an act some time prior to the conception. The birth is the definitive moment that astrologers take. Certainly it is important to try to conceive a child at an auspicious time, but the birth chart, the final act is the important one. Another apt example can be seen in marriage. Two parties meet for the first time and then date for a period of however long. Only the marriage time is important to understand how overall future success of the endeavour (it's all a scale of precedence). This is also a final act that defines a brand new beginning - this dual understanding is what is often missed. Another - when companies consider a merger, only the moment of final signatures consstitutes the beginning of the new company even though the process may have taken several months. The start time of the wooing in this case is also quite irrelevant. Companies and countries are very similar for the mind to grasp as purely mundane entities. The start time only serves to illustrate the success of the process to the finality of the new beginning, i.e. the birth of a new company. Best regards, Vyas Munidas - " Ron Day " <ronkar <SAMVA > Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:41 PM A definitive chart for America Several charts have been put forward for the birth moment of America. Since these charts relate to important events in the foundation of modern America, they all have merit to varying degrees. If they did not fit, it would be difficult to make any predictions or see how past events unfolded. The charts can be divided into the following categories— 1. Independence Important dates Jul 2 and 4, 1776 2. Articles of Confederation Important dates First Signing Articles Jul 9, 1778 Approval Feb 2, 1781 Formal Ratification Mar 1, 1781 3. POTUS Inauguration of first president April 30, 1789 The Independence event has the quality of separation—leaving the past and embracing the future and becoming a separate entity. The Confederation event has the quality of Unity The Inauguration of the first president is a very important milestone but not a beginning for the nation. What is the definitive chart for America? As Ron Grimes pointed out, the Confederation is an important founding event, (probably the most important) and a chart for America should reflect this event. There is one date that has been largely overlooked in the search for the chart of America. This is the time when the first signature appeared on the Articles Of Confederation. The date is Jul 9, 1778. A process was started on this date which led to a culmination in the approval and ratification of The Articles of Confederation on Feb 2,1781 and Mar 1, 1781 respectively. Muhurtas are for beginnings not endings. .If the date of Feb 2, 1781 is important then the date of Jul 9,1778 is more important. The day the Articles became the law of the land could not have happened without the first signature. On July 9, 1778 the Articles were finally approved by a sufficient number of States to become operative. Consider the following analogy. A party is advertised to start at 5pm. The first guests arrive at 5.15pm. Latecomers are arriving at 6pm. Do the latecomers have any real influence on the party? No, the party is already in full swing. When was the starting time? It was when the first guest walked through the door, not the last one. There is a sense of completeness when the last guest arrives and it is an important moment but the arrival of the first guest is the true starting time. Similarly, the time of the first signature on the Articles of Confederation is the birth moment. Here is a chart for consideration. Chart for USA Based on first signing of Articles of Confederation Jul 9,1778 Philadelphia PA Suggested ascendent 18—20 Sagittarius I have chosen Sagittarius because it is an ascendent that resonates well with America. This country is shooting for the stars and it is using its arrows for other purposes too. Sag. is dynamic energetic and creative. This is why the Kelleher chart is popular. 1.It is based on an important event 2.It has an ascendent (Sag) that relates well to the country. I don’t have the time to research this chart now but I present it for consideration. It may be possible to discard it completely. If it shows some merit please take it for further research. Ron Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 This sentence should be corrected " Regarding your example, here's an apt counter example. When a woman is pregnant, it's from an act, the CONCEPTION some time prior to the BIRTH. " Thanks. Best regards, Vyas Munidas - " Vyas Munidas " <muni> <SAMVA > Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:38 AM Re: A definitive chart for America > Dear Ron, > > I enjoyed reading your email. I would love to see the relevant points in > the > chart as they pertain to important events. > > Regarding your example, here's an apt counter example. When a woman is > pregnant, it's from an act some time prior to the conception. The birth is > the definitive moment that astrologers take. Certainly it is important to > try to conceive a child at an auspicious time, but the birth chart, the > final act is the important one. > > Another apt example can be seen in marriage. Two parties meet for the > first > time and then date for a period of however long. Only the marriage time is > important to understand how overall future success of the endeavour (it's > all a scale of precedence). This is also a final act that defines a brand > new beginning - this dual understanding is what is often missed. > > Another - when companies consider a merger, only the moment of final > signatures consstitutes the beginning of the new company even though the > process may have taken several months. The start time of the wooing in > this > case is also quite irrelevant. Companies and countries are very similar > for > the mind to grasp as purely mundane entities. The start time only serves > to > illustrate the success of the process to the finality of the new > beginning, > i.e. the birth of a new company. > > > Best regards, > > Vyas Munidas > > > - > " Ron Day " <ronkar > <SAMVA > > Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:41 PM > A definitive chart for America > > > Several charts have been put forward for the birth moment of America. > Since these charts relate to important events in the foundation of > modern America, they all have merit to varying degrees. If they did not > fit, it would be difficult to make any predictions or see how past > events unfolded. > > The charts can be divided into the following categories— > > 1. Independence > > Important dates Jul 2 and 4, 1776 > > 2. Articles of Confederation > > Important dates > > First Signing Articles Jul 9, 1778 > > Approval Feb 2, 1781 > > Formal Ratification Mar 1, 1781 > > 3. POTUS Inauguration of first president > > April 30, 1789 > > The Independence event has the quality of separation—leaving the past > and embracing the future and becoming a separate entity. > > The Confederation event has the quality of Unity > > The Inauguration of the first president is a very important milestone > but not a beginning for the nation. > > What is the definitive chart for America? > > As Ron Grimes pointed out, the Confederation is an important founding > event, (probably the most important) and a chart for America should > reflect this event. > > There is one date that has been largely overlooked in the search for the > chart of America. This is the time when the first signature appeared on > the Articles Of Confederation. The date is Jul 9, 1778. A process was > started on this date which led to a culmination in the approval and > ratification of The Articles of Confederation on Feb 2,1781 and Mar 1, > 1781 respectively. > > Muhurtas are for beginnings not endings. .If the date of Feb 2, 1781 is > important then the date of Jul 9,1778 is more important. The day the > Articles became the law of the land could not have happened without the > first signature. On July 9, 1778 the Articles were finally approved by a > sufficient number of States to become operative. > > Consider the following analogy. > > A party is advertised to start at 5pm. The first guests arrive at > 5.15pm. Latecomers are arriving at 6pm. Do the latecomers have any real > influence on the party? No, the party is already in full swing. When was > the starting time? It was when the first guest walked through the door, > not the last one. There is a sense of completeness when the last guest > arrives and it is an important moment but the arrival of the first guest > is the true starting time. Similarly, the time of the first signature on > the Articles of Confederation is the birth moment. > > Here is a chart for consideration. > > Chart for USA > > Based on first signing of Articles of Confederation > > Jul 9,1778 > > Philadelphia PA > > Suggested ascendent 18—20 Sagittarius > > I have chosen Sagittarius because it is an ascendent that resonates well > with America. This country is shooting for the stars and it is using its > arrows for other purposes too. Sag. is dynamic energetic and creative. > This is why the Kelleher chart is popular. > > 1.It is based on an important event > > 2.It has an ascendent (Sag) that relates well to the country. > > I don’t have the time to research this chart now but I present it for > consideration. It may be possible to discard it completely. If it shows > some merit please take it for further research. > > Ron Day > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Dear list members, Several things have become clear to me in this longstanding search for an authentic chart for the USA. Let me put these forward in tersm of four main requirements or steps: 1. We IDENTIFY, on the basis of available historical information, a potential FOUNDING MOMENT OF A NATION, when it becomes a living entity. There are, as you mention, many such potential moments, depending on the understanding of the historical process. However, over time, the information has become fuller and more detailed, not least due to the contribution of John TWB. For instance, the legal formation of union (1779-1981) seems to be more important than the seperation of the colonies from the home country (1775-1776). In this regard, declaration of war or signing of peace also seem less important. The revision of the rules of play in terms of the constitution (1787-89) and its ammendments (to modern times) also seems secondary. However, this question cannot be easily resolved through debate. 2. We ANALYSE the countries chart against the historical record, to see if it has potential to explain the CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATION that have been manifest in its history. Here some clear charachteristics have emerged. The US is a POWERFUL country. The nation has a strong SENSE OF SELF and FIRM VIEWS about right and wrong. It has the MOST POWERFUL MILITARY on earth. It has has a POWERFUL HEAD OF STATE. The country has been an active participant in two WORLD WARS and innumerable REGIONAL CONFLICTS. The country has been important player in INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. Some PRESIDENTS have been ASSASINATED, the subjects of attempted assassinations or experienced difficulty in office, with some dying in office or not being re-elected to the customary second term. The nation enjoys AMPLE LAND SPACE and RESOURCES, much of which were wrested from NATURE, NATIVE PEOPLES and NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES. There has been much DOMESTIC CONFLICT in the history of the country, both at an individual level with a HIGH CRIME RATE but also with many large events of CIVIL RIOTS. Many civil rights leaders and people have been killed. The CIVIL WAR was such a trauma for the country that it took almost a century to heal. To deal with the crime and civil unrest, the country also has a well staffed and equipped POLICE FORCE and an extensive and painful PRISON SYSTEM. The country has been an forerunner in using SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY for the benefit of mankind, to wage war or to explore the deep oceans or space. These achievements have been principally based on INVENTIONS AND INNOVATIONS. The country is also a global leader in ENTERTAINMENT industry. The country has the most significant FINANCIAL MARKET in the world and a STRONG CURRENCY. However, there have been notable financial setbacks, involving significant VOLATILITY of ASSET PRICES and mass bankruptcies, involving the banks and also home ownership. In other words, the CHART should REVEAL THE HISTRORY. 3. We PREDICT, based on the chart, to establish if it has power to accurately reveal through the FUTURE EVENTS of the country. It is IMPERATIVE for the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to develop a HYPOTHESIS and then PREDICT on its basis the EXPECTED OUTCOME. Only if the outcomes are repeatedly successfully predicted can the hypothesis be considered proven and the THEORY ESTABLISHED 4. We use a SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM OF ASTROLOGY. A system that has clearly established RULES FOR PREDICTION and is CONSISTENT in their application. This has been demonstrated in the horoscopes of individulas for more than one decade, and in recent years increasingly for authentic mundane charts (as they have been established). It is a key requirement for any scientific endeavour - to posit hypothesis about future events and to accept or reject the chart based on if the outcome is as predicted or not. In many of these charts, we have gone through all these steps using the SYSTEMS' APPROACH (SA) for many countries. For some countries, authentic charts have been established, but not yet for the USA. Up until the SAMVA USA CHART (17:05 hrs, Feb 2, 1781, Annapolis, Md, 20° 59' Cancer rising) was discovered, somewhere along the way the other charts were seen to fail to meet the above requirements. If members wants to posit a new chart, I suggest they consider the above criteria. Does the chart they have in mind meet the criteria. Does the astrological system of prediction they use meet the criteria of scientific reproducibility. We will soon see if the SAMVA USA chart has predictive merit. It has passed all other requirements with flying colors. Best wishes, C SAMVA , Ron Day <ronkar wrote: > > Several charts have been put forward for the birth moment of America. > Since these charts relate to important events in the foundation of > modern America, they all have merit to varying degrees. If they did not > fit, it would be difficult to make any predictions or see how past > events unfolded. > > The charts can be divided into the following categories— > > 1. Independence > > Important dates Jul 2 and 4, 1776 > > 2. Articles of Confederation > > Important dates > > First Signing Articles Jul 9, 1778 > > Approval Feb 2, 1781 > > Formal Ratification Mar 1, 1781 > > 3. POTUS Inauguration of first president > > April 30, 1789 > > The Independence event has the quality of separation—leaving the past > and embracing the future and becoming a separate entity. > > The Confederation event has the quality of Unity > > The Inauguration of the first president is a very important milestone > but not a beginning for the nation. > > What is the definitive chart for America? > > As Ron Grimes pointed out, the Confederation is an important founding > event, (probably the most important) and a chart for America should > reflect this event. > > There is one date that has been largely overlooked in the search for the > chart of America. This is the time when the first signature appeared on > the Articles Of Confederation. The date is Jul 9, 1778. A process was > started on this date which led to a culmination in the approval and > ratification of The Articles of Confederation on Feb 2,1781 and Mar 1, > 1781 respectively. > > Muhurtas are for beginnings not endings. .If the date of Feb 2, 1781 is > important then the date of Jul 9,1778 is more important. The day the > Articles became the law of the land could not have happened without the > first signature. On July 9, 1778 the Articles were finally approved by a > sufficient number of States to become operative. > > Consider the following analogy. > > A party is advertised to start at 5pm. The first guests arrive at > 5.15pm. Latecomers are arriving at 6pm. Do the latecomers have any real > influence on the party? No, the party is already in full swing. When was > the starting time? It was when the first guest walked through the door, > not the last one. There is a sense of completeness when the last guest > arrives and it is an important moment but the arrival of the first guest > is the true starting time. Similarly, the time of the first signature on > the Articles of Confederation is the birth moment. > > Here is a chart for consideration. > > Chart for USA > > Based on first signing of Articles of Confederation > > Jul 9,1778 > > Philadelphia PA > > Suggested ascendent 18—20 Sagittarius > > I have chosen Sagittarius because it is an ascendent that resonates well > with America. This country is shooting for the stars and it is using its > arrows for other purposes too. Sag. is dynamic energetic and creative. > This is why the Kelleher chart is popular. > > 1.It is based on an important event > > 2.It has an ascendent (Sag) that relates well to the country. > > I don't have the time to research this chart now but I present it for > consideration. It may be possible to discard it completely. If it shows > some merit please take it for further research. > > Ron Day > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Hello Mr. Ron Day, The natal chart has to show the commanding position of US in the international affairs, its commanding position in the intellectual properties in the world, its financial strength, its assertive attitude including use of force in international affairs, the conflicts raised by its assertive attitude, problems in domestic peace felt by its citizens, setbacks in the matter of wealth of the nation, the number of assassination made on the life of the heads of state, and important intervention in foreign policy around the world. The identification of the past events through sub periods or triple transit influences comes next to the natal chart. The assertive/aggressive attitude is governed by the sixth house. In the proposed chart there is no MT sign in the sixth house nor there is any planet in the sixth house. Best wishes, - " Ron Day " <ronkar <SAMVA > Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:11 AM A definitive chart for America Several charts have been put forward for the birth moment of America. Since these charts relate to important events in the foundation of modern America, they all have merit to varying degrees. If they did not fit, it would be difficult to make any predictions or see how past events unfolded. The charts can be divided into the following categories— 1. Independence Important dates Jul 2 and 4, 1776 2. Articles of Confederation Important dates First Signing Articles Jul 9, 1778 Approval Feb 2, 1781 Formal Ratification Mar 1, 1781 3. POTUS Inauguration of first president April 30, 1789 The Independence event has the quality of separation—leaving the past and embracing the future and becoming a separate entity. The Confederation event has the quality of Unity The Inauguration of the first president is a very important milestone but not a beginning for the nation. What is the definitive chart for America? As Ron Grimes pointed out, the Confederation is an important founding event, (probably the most important) and a chart for America should reflect this event. There is one date that has been largely overlooked in the search for the chart of America. This is the time when the first signature appeared on the Articles Of Confederation. The date is Jul 9, 1778. A process was started on this date which led to a culmination in the approval and ratification of The Articles of Confederation on Feb 2,1781 and Mar 1, 1781 respectively. Muhurtas are for beginnings not endings. .If the date of Feb 2, 1781 is important then the date of Jul 9,1778 is more important. The day the Articles became the law of the land could not have happened without the first signature. On July 9, 1778 the Articles were finally approved by a sufficient number of States to become operative. Consider the following analogy. A party is advertised to start at 5pm. The first guests arrive at 5.15pm. Latecomers are arriving at 6pm. Do the latecomers have any real influence on the party? No, the party is already in full swing. When was the starting time? It was when the first guest walked through the door, not the last one. There is a sense of completeness when the last guest arrives and it is an important moment but the arrival of the first guest is the true starting time. Similarly, the time of the first signature on the Articles of Confederation is the birth moment. Here is a chart for consideration. Chart for USA Based on first signing of Articles of Confederation Jul 9,1778 Philadelphia PA Suggested ascendent 18—20 Sagittarius I have chosen Sagittarius because it is an ascendent that resonates well with America. This country is shooting for the stars and it is using its arrows for other purposes too. Sag. is dynamic energetic and creative. This is why the Kelleher chart is popular. 1.It is based on an important event 2.It has an ascendent (Sag) that relates well to the country. I don’t have the time to research this chart now but I present it for consideration. It may be possible to discard it completely. If it shows some merit please take it for further research. Ron Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 dear ron... thank you for your post. your logic is good, but here are a couple of points to consider. a child can be born, but until it takes its first breath, he or she is not alive. as for your party analogy, if only one person shows up, then maybe it is not really a party.. so a certain number of people are required in order to call it a party, and a certain number of signatures are required in order to create a quorum, or legal entitty. in terms of the chart, although Sagittarius could be a good rising sign for USA, this particular chart may not be strong enough. Jupiter, ruling the chart, is ruled by a weak and afflicted Sun, and is under the aspect affliction of Ketu, which therefore make Jupiter and the chart weak. Venus, ruling income and gains, is badly placed. Sun, ruling good fortune, is weak and afflicted, etc. Your efforts, however, are appreciated, and maybe others will also want to weigh in on this... best wishes to you and yours, david hawthorne - Ron Day SAMVA Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:41 PM A definitive chart for America Several charts have been put forward for the birth moment of America. Since these charts relate to important events in the foundation of modern America, they all have merit to varying degrees. If they did not fit, it would be difficult to make any predictions or see how past events unfolded.The charts can be divided into the following categories—1. IndependenceImportant dates Jul 2 and 4, 17762. Articles of ConfederationImportant datesFirst Signing Articles Jul 9, 1778Approval Feb 2, 1781Formal Ratification Mar 1, 17813. POTUS Inauguration of first presidentApril 30, 1789The Independence event has the quality of separation—leaving the past and embracing the future and becoming a separate entity.The Confederation event has the quality of UnityThe Inauguration of the first president is a very important milestone but not a beginning for the nation.What is the definitive chart for America?As Ron Grimes pointed out, the Confederation is an important founding event, (probably the most important) and a chart for America should reflect this event.There is one date that has been largely overlooked in the search for the chart of America. This is the time when the first signature appeared on the Articles Of Confederation. The date is Jul 9, 1778. A process was started on this date which led to a culmination in the approval and ratification of The Articles of Confederation on Feb 2,1781 and Mar 1, 1781 respectively.Muhurtas are for beginnings not endings. .If the date of Feb 2, 1781 is important then the date of Jul 9,1778 is more important. The day the Articles became the law of the land could not have happened without the first signature. On July 9, 1778 the Articles were finally approved by a sufficient number of States to become operative.Consider the following analogy.A party is advertised to start at 5pm. The first guests arrive at 5.15pm. Latecomers are arriving at 6pm. Do the latecomers have any real influence on the party? No, the party is already in full swing. When was the starting time? It was when the first guest walked through the door, not the last one. There is a sense of completeness when the last guest arrives and it is an important moment but the arrival of the first guest is the true starting time. Similarly, the time of the first signature on the Articles of Confederation is the birth moment.Here is a chart for consideration.Chart for USABased on first signing of Articles of ConfederationJul 9,1778Philadelphia PASuggested ascendent 18—20 SagittariusI have chosen Sagittarius because it is an ascendent that resonates well with America. This country is shooting for the stars and it is using its arrows for other purposes too. Sag. is dynamic energetic and creative. This is why the Kelleher chart is popular.1.It is based on an important event2.It has an ascendent (Sag) that relates well to the country.I don’t have the time to research this chart now but I present it for consideration. It may be possible to discard it completely. If it shows some merit please take it for further research.Ron Day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Thanks David and Others, I have the question, " What are the criteria for other country charts in terms of the exact time of countryhood " ? Thanks. SallyOn 1/21/07, David Hawthorne <david wrote: dear ron... thank you for your post. your logic is good, but here are a couple of points to consider. Waves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear Sally, I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual rulers. Best wishes, Jorge On 1/23/07, Sally Spencer <sally234 wrote: Thanks David and Others,I have the question, " What are the criteria for other country charts in terms of the exact time of countryhood " ? Thanks. Sally On 1/21/07, David Hawthorne <david > wrote: dear ron... thank you for your post. your logic is good, but here are a couple of points to consider.Waves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Jorge, In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny. SallyOn 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: Dear Sally, I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual rulers. Best wishes, Jorge -- Sally Spencer, Jyotish KovidA Gentle Journey to Deep Healing Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,Western Astrology reports www.Devi3.byregion.netsally234 *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science, which determines, strengthens or propitiates planetary results. Waves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear Sally, I am in the process of rectifying the exact minute and second of the February 2, 1781, chart. So far, I have already checked 15 events in both charts, but more than 150 will be carefully examined. At this stage, let me share some ideas with you and all the other list members: 1) The two charts explain all the events, but under different perspectives: the 1776 chart explains the events under the country perspective, and the 1781 chart explains the events also under this perspective but more under the national administration perspective; 2) The 1781 event can be seen in the 1776 chart. It happened under Mo/Ju/Me, all FBPs. The Moon (the Administrator) rules H9 (Law) and is placed in H3 (initiatives). In transit, it is placed in H7 (agreements) under the aspect of Jupiter, and in exact trine aspect with natal Moon. Jupiter (Law) rules and exactly aspects H2 (status) from H8 (transformations), and is significator of H9 (Law). In transit, it is placed in H1 (state of law and order), exactly aspecting natal Mercury (documents) and closely aspecting transit Moon. Mercury (treaties and written agreements) rules H11 (future plans) and is placed in H9. In transit, it is closely conjunct with natal Moon, and transit Jupiter aspects its natal position. In my view, this event was the climax of giving to the country a proper administration (Moon), making and approving the necessary internal laws (L9, Jupiter) that would bind together all the 13 states, putting in a writen form (Mercury) the hopes and aspirations (H11) voted on June 2, 1776, when they decided to become independent; 3) When we look to both charts, we can see that the MMP in the 1776 chart, Venus, is the MBP in the 1781 chart, and the MMP in the 1781 chart, Saturn, is the MBP in the 1776 chart. Besides, during most of the time both charts are in sama dasha, which means that they are going through the same main dasha ruler. When there is pressure in the 1776 chart (dasha and bhukti of FMPs), usually there is not such pressure in the 1781 chart. For example, in September 11, 2001, the 1776 chart was in Ve/Ra/Ma and the 1781 chart was in Ve/Mo/ Me. The Administration has been accused of being slow in their reaction to the attack. When USA invaded Iraq, on March, 20, 2003, the 1776 chart was in Ve/ Ju/Ve, and the 1781 chart was in Ve/Ma/Ve. The Administration has been accused of not respecting the UN resolutions. Another example, on August 6, 1945, when the atomic bomb exploded in Hiroshima, the 1776 chart was in Ju/Ma/Ju, and the 1781 chart was in Ju/Ve/ Su. In the 1776 chart, Mars signifies war and death as it rules H6 and is the L1 in D8. In the 1781 chart, Venus rules H4 and is placed in H6. Even though the transits have priority over the dashas, SA also says that 80% of the results are due to the bhukti ruler and 20% due to the main period ruler. The 1776 chart suggests that they have used the top of the knowledge (Jupiter) about death (Jupiter placed in H8) to solve the war (Mars, L6). Besides, on this date, all the functional planets are afflicted in the 1776 chart, but not in the 1781 chart. Here, transit Jupiter forms a mere sextil aspect with natal Jupiter and is not afflicted according with SA rules. 4) Still thinking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only a country with a chart with Ketu/Rahu axis exactly over its MEP3 could have taken this kind of action over its neighbours. Ketu (fire) over MEP3 (neighbours). Besides, natal Mars, L6, is placed in H7. FM Mars in H7 generally gives very unpleasant results. Its influence in that house is very powerful. It shows danger of war, international disputes, disagreement with foreign powers and bad relations with other countries. This has created a constant wave of conflicts of USA all over the world. .... So, and to make it short, it seems that the USA natal chart of 1776 may be not so strong (with all the odd houses afflicted by the Rahu/Ketu axis) but it was able to generate an excellent Administration chart in 1781, with very strong planets that show enormous ambition (strong exalted Moon, L1 in H11) but with an administration character (Venus, L4 in H6) prone to create conflicts all around. I am sure that in future both charts will be very useful for correct predictions, but as I can very well be wrong in my reasoning, let me continue with the analysis of the remaining events to consolidate, or to give up, my opinion... Best wishes, Jorge On 1/23/07, Sally Spencer <sally234 wrote: Jorge,In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny.Sally On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino > wrote: Dear Sally, I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual rulers. Best wishes, Jorge -- Sally Spencer, Jyotish KovidA Gentle Journey to Deep Healing Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,Western Astrology reports www.Devi3.byregion.netsally234 *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science, which determines, strengthens or propitiatesplanetary results. Waves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Hi Jorge & Sally & List members FUNDAMENTALS FIRST There are four organic law documents recognized by the U.S. Government as binding and fundamental, before and informing where relevant all legislation, as by the People binding its Governors. They are: [1] the Declaration of Independence; [2] the Articles of Confederation; [3] the Northwest Ordinance [authenticated, July 13, 1787; enacted September 7, 1789, and truly as conception is to birth, as conception's Moon is linked to birth's Ascendant, so to is the Northwest Ordinance born of the Articles of Confederation]; and [4] the Constitution of the United States ["for the USA"] *********************************************************************** Because the Articles of Confederation is easier for me to deal with, than to deal with the Declaration of Independence, I do so in this order because the record is pellucidly clear regarding the ARTCLES: THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY: [1] "adopted" by Congress, November 13, 1777; [2] "authenticated" by Congress' signatures, November 15, 1777; [3] "proposed" to the 13 States by the President of Congress, November 17, 1777; and then long after: [4] "ratified" unanimously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in the State of Maryland on February 2, 1781; and [5] "confirmed" unaninmously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in Congress, in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, which final "confirmation" came a month after the final "ratification" in Annapolis, Maryland. The verbs highlighted in the previous paragraph, are used by me just as did Congress, evidenced in state papers, from time to time. For the empowering event of nationhood, the 13 States finally having "ratified"; the Congress did not partake after November 1777. As each of the said 13 States ratified the ARTICLES, so soon after said ratification was "confirmed" by the signatures of the respective State delegations in the halls of Congress; confirmed on various dates, up and to March 1, 1781. Precisely, "confirmation" is evidence of an act by a person with "limited power of attorney", and so in this case, on the part of those signing, tose who were, as attorney here, exercising a delegated power under the authority of a prior act of "ratification". From a different angle, the "ratifications" when finalized was the fulfillment of the event of birth of the nation state; whereas, the "confirmations" when finalized were the fulfillment of the event of the birth of the first constitutioin. Or looked at YET another way. The final ratification of February 2, 1781 empowered the very basis, the prior foundations necessary for enacting a constitution, and consequently, after the constitution, then constitutional government itself. This necessary and ultimate foundation is the nation state itself, the American State. Then only after, the final, the 13th "confirmation" in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, coming after and because of the event of February 2, 1781, so empowered the constitution itself, the constitution being the child; the nation state being the parent or sponsor. Ratifications are the decisive events; ratifications come before confirmations of ratifications, as it were. A Nation State sponsors its constitution, which national constitution then frames its national government. And so we see the trend line, step by step: so from Feb 1, 1781, STATE; so to March 1, 1781, CONSTITUTION; so to March 2, 1781, GOVERNMENT. March 2 being, more precisely, the start date of constitutional central government, as the "UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED" . *********************************************** The Declaration of Independence [the broadside, dated July 4, 1776] presents in some key respects a confusing problem for mundane astrologers. It appears to me that the vast majority think (naively) that America gained her independence on July 4th. And why not; the date has been written into America's legislation countless times over the centuries. The instances are truly innumerable. But the historian looking for the authentic past must say until demonstrated otherwise, "So what !". The issue is not what everybody thinks is so; the issue is not what the federal government wants its people to think is so. The overriding issue is what actually happened to be so. When Congress "actually" declared independence, on Tuesday, July 2, 1776, the 44 delegates in attendance that Tuesday had the benefit of free time over the previous weekend so to study Jefferson's broadside Declaration, submitted to Congress the previous Friday morning [And given that Saturday was taken off by Congress; this was the first 2-day weekend in a long while, and still many delegates were there doing committee work.]. The Act of July 2 was made in the full knowledge and confident expectation of those 44 voters of July 2nd that the broadside Declaration would be published immediately after, in order to faithfully "explain" the Act to the public, both domestically and internationally. It was no one's intent in Congress that the broadside document itself was to be the means of enactment, the act of Independence, contrary to what legions of commentators have misunderstood the crux of this matter to be over the years [bUT, I urge all to read Professor at Northwestern University, Gary Wills on this point, and then all that I have said here becomes even more clear]. Or in other words, the Declaration was not considered by the delegates to be as the "instrument" of the Act, apart from Independence declared on July 2. These confusions were partly the result of problems of timing, problems which took over to beset the process and mislead many historians. Once the delegates faced the reality of the independence enacted on July 2, a few strong voices among them said that we had better take a closer look at the text now and see if we can't improve upon Jefferson's handywork. And so, with the kitchen overflowing with chefs at this juncture, it is truly amazing that they were alble to be ready just two days later to send it off to the printer. Agreement reached on July 4th to the revised text was recorded in the Journal of Congress as the second executed agenda item of the day. Scholars have time-placed that between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. It was simply reported as "passed", not "passed as resolved". The difference between the two is that the "passed resolved" of July 2 means a Congressal enactment; where by contrast, the simple "passed" of July 4 was administrative only following from July 2nd's enactment. AND,significantly for popular history, there were no public celebrations this July 4th day, no Liberty Bell ringing, no partying in the taverns of Philadelphia. Simply because, as reported in the Philadelphia newspapers earlier, and in other cities soon after, Independence was already 2 days old on July 4th. Cash flows at the taverns must have been handsome on the evening of July 2nd. That evening of the 4th and in the next day's very early morniing printer John Dunlap worked his trade on behalf of Congress, setting the type and preparing the master-copy. He sent the master-copy to Jefferson at his residence for a final edit at breakfast time. These last minor correcting revisions to the master-copy [called the "printer's proof copy"] were performed by Jefferson, pursuant to the instructions of Congress as recorded in the Congress Journal for the previous day, the 4th. As it played out, the printer himself had placed the date of July 4th at the top of the broadside [in the "title legend"]. Since it appears that nobody told John Dunlap that the date was to have been printed as "July 2, 1776", the master printer did the natural thing and dated it for the time he received it, which was July 4th. [Eminent authority on Philadelphia, historian David Freeman Hawke has made this very point. which should be the seed pod for an essay entitled, "The Mis-dating of America's Birth, by John Dunlap, humble Scottish printer".] AND NOW FOR THE SIGNATURES STORY John Hancock's first "autographic" signature of record was on Friday afternoon when he "autographically" signed a few covering letters for the distribution to the States of copies of "A Declaration", the title of the first edition. I must emphasize AUTOGRAPHICALLY signed because there is no record that he autographed any copy of the Declaration of Independence before the signing ceremony for the famous second edition, "The Unanimous Declaration . . ." which took place on for the August 2nd edition, the famous one in the National Archives; the second edition which should not to be confused with the first edition of July 5th. The printed copies of July 5th do feature, towards the bottom, the words "Signed by order of Congress, John Hancock, President" But, shocking as it may be to some patriots to hear, this printed reference to President Hancock's authenticating signature denotes that he was simply allowing the use of his "John Hancock" for the purpose of verifying that the text of this broadside Declaration is truly the statement of the authors, who are, quote "the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled" unquote. This authenticating signature is printed, not autographed. Again, there remains to this day no evidence that Hancock "autographed" a broadside of the Declaration before August 2nd. Nobody among 44 delegates to Congress ever mentioned, either in diary or correspondence, in the days weeks and months after, a signing by anyone on July 4th. Only decades later did Jefferson claim to witness such an event, attended by most of the delegates. Trouble is, scholars don't believe him. If he had said [but in fact didn't] that only Hancock, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson had signed on the evening of July 4th, undoubtedly history would have believed Jefferson. However, subsequent notations in the man's own diary raise questions about his claim that he recorded the events of his diary "as they happened". In conclusion, it seems that only those American children poorly taught in grammar school, and most American mundane astrologers (adults, I think so) want to believe the memory of the by then old-aging statesman Jefferson. A truly great American, nonetheless. And, too, more complicating history here: Until the opposing political parties in the 1790s, the Federalists and the Republicans, started going at each others throats, America's second generation seems to have forgotten all about the DECLARATION. In and after 1781 the Masons were largely in agreement in recognizing that the nation was born by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. In commemorating the groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in September 1793, the Masons celebrated with among other things a silver plate on which was engraved a testimonial to the day's event, dated as falling quote "in the 13th year of Independence." unquote. Now take a second and count the years on your fingers, class. Did the Masons mean the March 1781 ARTICLES or the October 1781 Victory at the Battle of Yorktown ??, as constituting the natal event of Independence as they saw it, or, were they really just saying that only a "true Independence" constitutes the necessary condition of nationhood, and that it took the arrival of the year 1781, not 1776, in which to achieve it. Sally Spencer <sally234 wrote: Jorge,In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny.Sally On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino > wrote: Dear Sally, I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual rulers. Best wishes, Jorge -- Sally Spencer, Jyotish KovidA Gentle Journey to Deep Healing Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,Western Astrology reports www.Devi3.byregion.netsally234 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science,which determines, strengthens or propitiatesplanetary results. Waves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear John, I just have to say what a wonderful thing it is that you are able to continue to surprise us with ever more interesting historical caveats to this story. You are able to bring in new details and present them in such a way as to create an air of suspense rivaling a good Agatha Christie detective story. The fact that you have uncovered this engraving by the Free Masons is fascinating additional detail. Well done and thanks for another masterful underpinning for the historical case for the birth of the United States. In time, the SAMVA USA chart will be cited as an example of a balanced and in-depth research into both the historical and astrological evidence. You have single-handedly presented a clear case for the historical foundation of this Feb 2, 1781 event. When I saw the chart for this event, I just knew we had " hit paydirt " , to use the language of miners, after so much digging! It has been our good fortune that we found each other and were able to pursue this search for the authentic chart of the USA on the basis of our discussions on and around SAMVA. Best wishes, Thor SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote: > > Hi Jorge & Sally & List members > > > FUNDAMENTALS FIRST > > There are four organic law documents recognized by the U.S. Government as binding and fundamental, before and informing where relevant all legislation, as by the People binding its Governors. They are: [1] the Declaration of Independence; [2] the Articles of Confederation; [3] the Northwest Ordinance [authenticated, July 13, 1787; enacted September 7, 1789, and truly as conception is to birth, as conception's Moon is linked to birth's Ascendant, so to is the Northwest Ordinance born of the Articles of Confederation]; and [4] the Constitution of the United States [ " for the USA " ] > > > ********************************************************************** * > > Because the Articles of Confederation is easier for me to deal with, than to deal with the Declaration of Independence, I do so in this order because the record is pellucidly clear regarding the ARTCLES: > > THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY: [1] " adopted " by Congress, November 13, 1777; [2] " authenticated " by Congress' signatures, November 15, 1777; [3] " proposed " to the 13 States by the President of Congress, November 17, 1777; and then long after: [4] " ratified " unanimously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in the State of Maryland on February 2, 1781; and [5] " confirmed " unaninmously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in Congress, in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, which final " confirmation " came a month after the final " ratification " in Annapolis, Maryland. > > The verbs highlighted in the previous paragraph, are used by me just as did Congress, evidenced in state papers, from time to time. For the empowering event of nationhood, the 13 States finally having " ratified " ; the Congress did not partake after November 1777. As each of the said 13 States ratified the ARTICLES, so soon after said ratification was " confirmed " by the signatures of the respective State delegations in the halls of Congress; confirmed on various dates, up and to March 1, 1781. Precisely, " confirmation " is evidence of an act by a person with " limited power of attorney " , and so in this case, on the part of those signing, tose who were, as attorney here, exercising a delegated power under the authority of a prior act of " ratification " . From a different angle, the " ratifications " when finalized was the fulfillment of the event of birth of the nation state; whereas, the " confirmations " when finalized were the fulfillment of the event of the birth of the first > constitutioin. Or looked at YET another way. The final ratification of February 2, 1781 empowered the very basis, the prior foundations necessary for enacting a constitution, and consequently, after the constitution, then constitutional government itself. This necessary and ultimate foundation is the nation state itself, the American State. Then only after, the final, the 13th " confirmation " in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, coming after and because of the event of February 2, 1781, so empowered the constitution itself, the constitution being the child; the nation state being the parent or sponsor. Ratifications are the decisive events; ratifications come before confirmations of ratifications, as it were. A Nation State sponsors its constitution, which national constitution then frames its national government. And so we see the trend line, step by step: so from Feb 1, 1781, STATE; so to March 1, 1781, CONSTITUTION; so to March 2, 1781, GOVERNMENT. March 2 being, more > precisely, the start date of constitutional central government, as the " UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED " . > > *********************************************** > > The Declaration of Independence [the broadside, dated July 4, 1776] presents in some key respects a confusing problem for mundane astrologers. It appears to me that the vast majority think (naively) that America gained her independence on July 4th. And why not; the date has been written into America's legislation countless times over the centuries. The instances are truly innumerable. But the historian looking for the authentic past must say until demonstrated otherwise, " So what ! " . The issue is not what everybody thinks is so; the issue is not what the federal government wants its people to think is so. The overriding issue is what actually happened to be so. > > When Congress " actually " declared independence, on Tuesday, July 2, 1776, the 44 delegates in attendance that Tuesday had the benefit of free time over the previous weekend so to study Jefferson's broadside Declaration, submitted to Congress the previous Friday morning [And given that Saturday was taken off by Congress; this was the first 2-day weekend in a long while, and still many delegates were there doing committee work.]. The Act of July 2 was made in the full knowledge and confident expectation of those 44 voters of July 2nd that the broadside Declaration would be published immediately after, in order to faithfully " explain " the Act to the public, both domestically and internationally. It was no one's intent in Congress that the broadside document itself was to be the means of enactment, the act of Independence, contrary to what legions of commentators have misunderstood the crux of this matter to be over the years [bUT, I urge all to read Professor at Northwestern > University, Gary Wills on this point, and then all that I have said here becomes even more clear]. Or in other words, the Declaration was not considered by the delegates to be as the " instrument " of the Act, apart from Independence declared on July 2. These confusions were partly the result of problems of timing, problems which took over to beset the process and mislead many historians. > > Once the delegates faced the reality of the independence enacted on July 2, a few strong voices among them said that we had better take a closer look at the text now and see if we can't improve upon Jefferson's handywork. And so, with the kitchen overflowing with chefs at this juncture, it is truly amazing that they were alble to be ready just two days later to send it off to the printer. > > Agreement reached on July 4th to the revised text was recorded in the Journal of Congress as the second executed agenda item of the day. Scholars have time-placed that between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. It was simply reported as " passed " , not " passed as resolved " . The difference between the two is that the " passed resolved " of July 2 means a Congressal enactment; where by contrast, the simple " passed " of July 4 was administrative only following from July 2nd's enactment. > > AND,significantly for popular history, there were no public celebrations this July 4th day, no Liberty Bell ringing, no partying in the taverns of Philadelphia. Simply because, as reported in the Philadelphia newspapers earlier, and in other cities soon after, Independence was already 2 days old on July 4th. Cash flows at the taverns must have been handsome on the evening of July 2nd. > > That evening of the 4th and in the next day's very early morniing printer John Dunlap worked his trade on behalf of Congress, setting the type and preparing the master-copy. He sent the master-copy to Jefferson at his residence for a final edit at breakfast time. These last minor correcting revisions to the master-copy [called the " printer's proof copy " ] were performed by Jefferson, pursuant to the instructions of Congress as recorded in the Congress Journal for the previous day, the 4th. As it played out, the printer himself had placed the date of July 4th at the top of the broadside [in the " title legend " ]. Since it appears that nobody told John Dunlap that the date was to have been printed as " July 2, 1776 " , the master printer did the natural thing and dated it for the time he received it, which was July 4th. [Eminent authority on Philadelphia, historian David Freeman Hawke has made this very point. which should be the seed pod for an essay entitled, " The Mis-dating > of America's Birth, by John Dunlap, humble Scottish printer " .] > > AND NOW FOR THE SIGNATURES STORY > > John Hancock's first " autographic " signature of record was on Friday afternoon when he " autographically " signed a few covering letters for the distribution to the States of copies of " A Declaration " , the title of the first edition. I must emphasize AUTOGRAPHICALLY signed because there is no record that he autographed any copy of the Declaration of Independence before the signing ceremony for the famous second edition, " The Unanimous Declaration . . . " which took place on for the August 2nd edition, the famous one in the National Archives; the second edition which should not to be confused with the first edition of July 5th. > > The printed copies of July 5th do feature, towards the bottom, the words " Signed by order of Congress, John Hancock, President " But, shocking as it may be to some patriots to hear, this printed reference to President Hancock's authenticating signature denotes that he was simply allowing the use of his " John Hancock " for the purpose of verifying that the text of this broadside Declaration is truly the statement of the authors, who are, quote " the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled " unquote. This authenticating signature is printed, not autographed. Again, there remains to this day no evidence that Hancock " autographed " a broadside of the Declaration before August 2nd. Nobody among 44 delegates to Congress ever mentioned, either > in diary or correspondence, in the days weeks and months after, a signing by anyone on July 4th. Only decades later did Jefferson claim to witness such an event, attended by most of the delegates. Trouble is, scholars don't believe him. If he had said [but in fact didn't] that only Hancock, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson had signed on the evening of July 4th, undoubtedly history would have believed Jefferson. However, subsequent notations in the man's own diary raise questions about his claim that he recorded the events of his diary " as they happened " . In conclusion, it seems that only those American children poorly taught in grammar school, and most American mundane astrologers (adults, I think so) want to believe the memory of the by then old-aging statesman Jefferson. A truly great American, nonetheless. > > And, too, more complicating history here: Until the opposing political parties in the 1790s, the Federalists and the Republicans, started going at each others throats, America's second generation seems to have forgotten all about the DECLARATION. In and after 1781 the Masons were largely in agreement in recognizing that the nation was born by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. In commemorating the groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in September 1793, the Masons celebrated with among other things a silver plate on which was engraved a testimonial to the day's event, dated as falling quote " in the 13th year of Independence. " unquote. Now take a second and count the years on your fingers, class. Did the Masons mean the March 1781 ARTICLES or the October 1781 Victory at the Battle of Yorktown ??, as constituting the natal event of Independence as they saw it, or, were they really just saying that only a " true Independence " constitutes the necessary > condition of nationhood, and that it took the arrival of the year 1781, not 1776, in which to achieve it. > > > Sally Spencer <sally234 wrote: > Jorge, > > In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny. > > Sally > > On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: Dear Sally, > > I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual rulers. > > Best wishes, > > Jorge > > > > > -- > > Sally Spencer, Jyotish Kovid > A Gentle Journey to Deep Healing > Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*, > Western Astrology reports > www.Devi3.byregion.net > sally234 > > *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science, > which determines, strengthens or propitiates > planetary results. > > Waves of Love > Entering the Planet > It's inevitable. It's contagious~ > > > > > > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear THOR . . . THOR ! We say goodbye to Mr Cosmo Loger; may he ever Rest in Peace !!! YES! I too thought that the historic event for the birth of the UNITED STATES would never be identified historically, AND, even if one got to that goal, it would never measure up to the demanding standards of any one school of thought among the rivalrous schools of mundane astrology. BTW: I had the hunch for long now that some one among the "siderealist" schools would get to the authenticity of the right event which we have been looking, and faster than the "tropicalists" would, if ever, but that's only because I think the sideralists are, generally, less tolerant of fuzzy mindedness in the pursuit of their science. [Am I preaching to the choir yet?] That SAMVA has finally struck "the vein of the motherlode" on the matter of America's STATE is becoming day-by-day more apparent. I humbly submit that thank God, or thank all those other pantheons of gods, that we so arduously took opposing views regarding the Ron Grimes chart. You kept returning to it, despite its manifest imperfections, and I kept asking myself: "Just what is Mr Cosmologer really driving at??"", with this faux natal event set for 3:00 p.m. on the day of the signing of the Articles of Confederation, when the Journals and Letters of Congress that day clearly disclose that at 3:18 p.m. on March 1, 1781, many of the delegates to Congress were already dining at the Philadelphia home of the President of Congress, Mr Samuel Huntington of Connecticut. Earlier that day, the Congressional shop was shuttered shortly after the signing of the Articles by the delegates from Maryland, therefore shortly after 12:12 p.m., or roughly three hours ahead of the Grimes chart's time moment. Shortly after christmas last, it just struck me all of a sudden that what if Cosmologer, somehow has the right Confederation but the wrong event date. I checked my files, found Friday, February 2, 1781 and went directly to the internet and searched for the state of Maryland Archives, wherein, the records of the proceedings of the State Assembly. There it was towards the close of the afternoon session [roughly 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 pm.= afternoon session] on the final day of the Assembly's season. The Assembly, both houses that is, adjourned after that historic signing and went on two months break.They all went home. Conserving the taxpayers resources in the process On the very next day, Saturday, in Philadelphia [where they usually worked on Saturdays], certain delegates moved a very historic resolution, to demand of the United States the necessary governing powers to impose an ad-valorem national import duty, in order to defray the expenses of the central government. Please appreciate just how literally revolutionary this was, Revolutionary for a government that had all along, since 1774, survived on what amounted to "donations" from the constituent States.To elect to introduce such a measure, just one day after the birth of the Union, and a Saturday as well, February 3, was not in the least serendipitous. They new exactly what they were doing, regarding the timing of the resolution. After the State of Virginia enacted, on January 2, 1781, its agreement to cede to Congressional control its historic claims to the rights over the hotly contested northwest territory, Maryland's last unsatisfied condition for its joining the Union was then removed. By January 20 Congress started behaving more like a national government than the past two years had evidenced, and word came down to Philadelphia from Annapolis that the ratification is assured before the Marylanders adjourn for the season, on February 2. After all, one of the arch stones among those stones representing a government's sovereign empowerment is the "power to tax". And so this day, February 3, 1781, the first working day in the life of the government sponsored by the newly sovereign union of the United States, marked the pre-natal (conception) moment in what was much later born federal taxation. [They didn't waste any time, so it would seem.] P.S. A CONFESSION: In my previous post, I deliberately took the posture that July 4, 1776 is a contrived myth for Americans. And I deliberately over-stated my case, by stopping the analysis well short of any effort to account for its manifest higher meaning and significance to not only America, but educated "democrats" throughout the world.. In order to make amends to my very own American patrimony I wish to point out that SALLY's earlier post today gets at another truth about America, politically speaking, that is not "directly" captured in the charts for July 2, 1766 and February 2, 1781. And that is the human rights consideration, the natural rights of the individual person in society at large, irrespective of gender, race and creed. As in the great Thomas Jefferson's immortal phrasing: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ." I maintain that this historic document is a "charter of individual rights" in its own metaphysical category, where the universal joins the particular, and as a charter must be judged apart from considerations of national independence and nationhood, as such. Metaphysically, in the orders of existence charters precede constitutions. This charter does just that, it addresses the core constituency of any Nation and any State, that core being the unalienable rights of the individual person everywhere and anywhere. Yes, of course. The Declaration wasn't completed on July 4th and it wasn't "autographed" by John Hancock. But over and above all of this, true as it is, the Declaration was brought to life at the hands of its author, in his follow-up role as Declaration committee editor, after the Committee of the Whole Congress had made their less than substantial emendations the previous day. This historic document's birth had to wait until Jefferson finalized the printer's proof copy, on Friday morning, by initialing the final proof changes for John Dunlap's press. Early morning of Friday, July 5, 1776. It was by Jefferson's own hand that the Declaration saw first life. Yes, Independence was born on the afternoon of July 2, 1776; the State was born on February 2, 1781, but the Declaration, as Charter, was born THE DAY AFTER July 4th, that is, on the 5th, however mis-dated the final result. Unquestionably, cosmologically [Thor??] considered, this charter is inextricably connected with the U.S. Bill of Rights. That the two are connected by the soul of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, both revolutionary heroes of Virginia, is karmically manifest. And that the realization of the Bill of Rights came with its final State ratification, by that of Jefferson's own "home country", the State of Virginia, in Richmond, on December 15, 1791, should come as no surprise. Consider this data comparison in closing: July 5, 1776, Philadelphia @ 07:40:35 a.m., LUNA 15Aq11, 8H; ASC 28Ca58 December 15, 1791, Richmond @ 11:23:25 a.m. ASC 15Aq11; LUNA 28Ca58, 6HCheers, John cosmologer <cosmologer wrote: Dear John,I just have to say what a wonderful thing it is that you are able to continue to surprise us with ever more interesting historical caveats to this story. You are able to bring in new details and present them in such a way as to create an air of suspense rivaling a good Agatha Christie detective story. The fact that you have uncovered this engraving by the Free Masons is fascinating additional detail. Well done and thanks for another masterful underpinning for the historical case for the birth of the United States. In time, the SAMVA USA chart will be cited as an example of a balanced and in-depth research into both the historical and astrological evidence. You have single-handedly presented a clear case for the historical foundation of this Feb 2, 1781 event. When I saw the chart for this event, I just knew we had "hit paydirt", to use the language of miners, after so much digging! It has been our good fortune that we found each other and were able to pursue this search for the authentic chart of the USA on the basis of our discussions on and around SAMVA. Best wishes,Thor SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:>> Hi Jorge & Sally & List members> > > FUNDAMENTALS FIRST> > There are four organic law documents recognized by the U.S. Government as binding and fundamental, before and informing where relevant all legislation, as by the People binding its Governors. They are: [1] the Declaration of Independence; [2] the Articles of Confederation; [3] the Northwest Ordinance [authenticated, July 13, 1787; enacted September 7, 1789, and truly as conception is to birth, as conception's Moon is linked to birth's Ascendant, so to is the Northwest Ordinance born of the Articles of Confederation]; and [4] the Constitution of the United States ["for the USA"]> > > ***********************************************************************> > Because the Articles of Confederation is easier for me to deal with, than to deal with the Declaration of Independence, I do so in this order because the record is pellucidly clear regarding the ARTCLES: > > THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY: [1] "adopted" by Congress, November 13, 1777; [2] "authenticated" by Congress' signatures, November 15, 1777; [3] "proposed" to the 13 States by the President of Congress, November 17, 1777; and then long after: [4] "ratified" unanimously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in the State of Maryland on February 2, 1781; and [5] "confirmed" unaninmously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in Congress, in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, which final "confirmation" came a month after the final "ratification" in Annapolis, Maryland.> > The verbs highlighted in the previous paragraph, are used by me just as did Congress, evidenced in state papers, from time to time. For the empowering event of nationhood, the 13 States finally having "ratified"; the Congress did not partake after November 1777. As each of the said 13 States ratified the ARTICLES, so soon after said ratification was "confirmed" by the signatures of the respective State delegations in the halls of Congress; confirmed on various dates, up and to March 1, 1781. Precisely, "confirmation" is evidence of an act by a person with "limited power of attorney", and so in this case, on the part of those signing, tose who were, as attorney here, exercising a delegated power under the authority of a prior act of "ratification". From a different angle, the "ratifications" when finalized was the fulfillment of the event of birth of the nation state; whereas, the "confirmations" when finalized were the fulfillment of the event of the birth of the first> constitutioin. Or looked at YET another way. The final ratification of February 2, 1781 empowered the very basis, the prior foundations necessary for enacting a constitution, and consequently, after the constitution, then constitutional government itself. This necessary and ultimate foundation is the nation state itself, the American State. Then only after, the final, the 13th "confirmation" in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, coming after and because of the event of February 2, 1781, so empowered the constitution itself, the constitution being the child; the nation state being the parent or sponsor. Ratifications are the decisive events; ratifications come before confirmations of ratifications, as it were. A Nation State sponsors its constitution, which national constitution then frames its national government. And so we see the trend line, step by step: so from Feb 1, 1781, STATE; so to March 1, 1781, CONSTITUTION; so to March 2, 1781, GOVERNMENT. March 2 being, more> precisely, the start date of constitutional central government, as the "UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED" .> > ***********************************************> > The Declaration of Independence [the broadside, dated July 4, 1776] presents in some key respects a confusing problem for mundane astrologers. It appears to me that the vast majority think (naively) that America gained her independence on July 4th. And why not; the date has been written into America's legislation countless times over the centuries. The instances are truly innumerable. But the historian looking for the authentic past must say until demonstrated otherwise, "So what !". The issue is not what everybody thinks is so; the issue is not what the federal government wants its people to think is so. The overriding issue is what actually happened to be so. > > When Congress "actually" declared independence, on Tuesday, July 2, 1776, the 44 delegates in attendance that Tuesday had the benefit of free time over the previous weekend so to study Jefferson's broadside Declaration, submitted to Congress the previous Friday morning [And given that Saturday was taken off by Congress; this was the first 2-day weekend in a long while, and still many delegates were there doing committee work.]. The Act of July 2 was made in the full knowledge and confident expectation of those 44 voters of July 2nd that the broadside Declaration would be published immediately after, in order to faithfully "explain" the Act to the public, both domestically and internationally. It was no one's intent in Congress that the broadside document itself was to be the means of enactment, the act of Independence, contrary to what legions of commentators have misunderstood the crux of this matter to be over the years [bUT, I urge all to read Professor at Northwestern> University, Gary Wills on this point, and then all that I have said here becomes even more clear]. Or in other words, the Declaration was not considered by the delegates to be as the "instrument" of the Act, apart from Independence declared on July 2. These confusions were partly the result of problems of timing, problems which took over to beset the process and mislead many historians. > > Once the delegates faced the reality of the independence enacted on July 2, a few strong voices among them said that we had better take a closer look at the text now and see if we can't improve upon Jefferson's handywork. And so, with the kitchen overflowing with chefs at this juncture, it is truly amazing that they were alble to be ready just two days later to send it off to the printer.> > Agreement reached on July 4th to the revised text was recorded in the Journal of Congress as the second executed agenda item of the day. Scholars have time-placed that between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. It was simply reported as "passed", not "passed as resolved". The difference between the two is that the "passed resolved" of July 2 means a Congressal enactment; where by contrast, the simple "passed" of July 4 was administrative only following from July 2nd's enactment. > > AND,significantly for popular history, there were no public celebrations this July 4th day, no Liberty Bell ringing, no partying in the taverns of Philadelphia. Simply because, as reported in the Philadelphia newspapers earlier, and in other cities soon after, Independence was already 2 days old on July 4th. Cash flows at the taverns must have been handsome on the evening of July 2nd.> > That evening of the 4th and in the next day's very early morniing printer John Dunlap worked his trade on behalf of Congress, setting the type and preparing the master-copy. He sent the master-copy to Jefferson at his residence for a final edit at breakfast time. These last minor correcting revisions to the master-copy [called the "printer's proof copy"] were performed by Jefferson, pursuant to the instructions of Congress as recorded in the Congress Journal for the previous day, the 4th. As it played out, the printer himself had placed the date of July 4th at the top of the broadside [in the "title legend"]. Since it appears that nobody told John Dunlap that the date was to have been printed as "July 2, 1776", the master printer did the natural thing and dated it for the time he received it, which was July 4th. [Eminent authority on Philadelphia, historian David Freeman Hawke has made this very point. which should be the seed pod for an essay entitled, "The Mis-dating> of America's Birth, by John Dunlap, humble Scottish printer".]> > AND NOW FOR THE SIGNATURES STORY > > John Hancock's first "autographic" signature of record was on Friday afternoon when he "autographically" signed a few covering letters for the distribution to the States of copies of "A Declaration", the title of the first edition. I must emphasize AUTOGRAPHICALLY signed because there is no record that he autographed any copy of the Declaration of Independence before the signing ceremony for the famous second edition, "The Unanimous Declaration . . ." which took place on for the August 2nd edition, the famous one in the National Archives; the second edition which should not to be confused with the first edition of July 5th.> > The printed copies of July 5th do feature, towards the bottom, the words "Signed by order of Congress, John Hancock, President" But, shocking as it may be to some patriots to hear, this printed reference to President Hancock's authenticating signature denotes that he was simply allowing the use of his "John Hancock" for the purpose of verifying that the text of this broadside Declaration is truly the statement of the authors, who are, quote "the Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled" unquote. This authenticating signature is printed, not autographed. Again, there remains to this day no evidence that Hancock "autographed" a broadside of the Declaration before August 2nd. Nobody among 44 delegates to Congress ever mentioned, either> in diary or correspondence, in the days weeks and months after, a signing by anyone on July 4th. Only decades later did Jefferson claim to witness such an event, attended by most of the delegates. Trouble is, scholars don't believe him. If he had said [but in fact didn't] that only Hancock, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson had signed on the evening of July 4th, undoubtedly history would have believed Jefferson. However, subsequent notations in the man's own diary raise questions about his claim that he recorded the events of his diary "as they happened". In conclusion, it seems that only those American children poorly taught in grammar school, and most American mundane astrologers (adults, I think so) want to believe the memory of the by then old-aging statesman Jefferson. A truly great American, nonetheless.> > And, too, more complicating history here: Until the opposing political parties in the 1790s, the Federalists and the Republicans, started going at each others throats, America's second generation seems to have forgotten all about the DECLARATION. In and after 1781 the Masons were largely in agreement in recognizing that the nation was born by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. In commemorating the groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in September 1793, the Masons celebrated with among other things a silver plate on which was engraved a testimonial to the day's event, dated as falling quote "in the 13th year of Independence." unquote. Now take a second and count the years on your fingers, class. Did the Masons mean the March 1781 ARTICLES or the October 1781 Victory at the Battle of Yorktown ??, as constituting the natal event of Independence as they saw it, or, were they really just saying that only a "true Independence" constitutes the necessary> condition of nationhood, and that it took the arrival of the year 1781, not 1776, in which to achieve it. > > > Sally Spencer <sally234 wrote:> Jorge,> > In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny.> > Sally> > On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: Dear Sally,> > I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual rulers. > > Best wishes,> > Jorge > > > > > -- > > Sally Spencer, Jyotish Kovid> A Gentle Journey to Deep Healing > Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,> Western Astrology reports > www.Devi3.byregion.net> sally234 > *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science,> which determines, strengthens or propitiates> planetary results. > > Waves of Love> Entering the Planet> It's inevitable. It's contagious~ > > > > > > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.> Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Small Business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Dear John, Thanks for one more nail in the coffin of all other charts - the exercise of US taxing powers on Feb 3. 1781. If that don´t beat all!! You are not one to be outdone, except by yourself! Actually, by late October 2006 I was contemplating that the Mar 1 1781 chart, despite having what amounted to the right ascendant and some interesting placements - so similar to the Feb 2 chart - I was giving it up. It was not giving the predicted outcome I had suggested in August 2006. Share prices were not budging from their high levels despite the massive afflictions in the chart. So, I was becoming convinced that it was not the right chart - and I had allowed the scientific method of making predictions decide the matter. As I had earlier asked you to investigate other important dates in the founding history of the USA, and you had obliged me with several other events, I was also contemporaneously studying those and making predictions on the list. Those charts all left me feeling cold; they just didn't seem to ring true. Their fit to historical events was only mediocre. Still I went through the motions to predict based on them, while not believing they would amount to much. Hence, it was such an unbelievable feeling when you sent me the Feb 2 1781 event, almost as it was just one more thing to check - " TRY: " was the only thing you said. Perhaps we were both starting to think this was a futile search. We had looked in so many placed and come up with nothing. However, when the same ascendant and rising degree as the Mar 1 1781 chart came up on the screen - and the placements began to express themselves to my eyes and mind, finally all the pieces began to fall into place... Best wishes, Thor SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote: > > Dear THOR . . . THOR ! > > We say goodbye to Mr Cosmo Loger; may he ever Rest in Peace !!! > > YES! > > I too thought that the historic event for the birth of the UNITED STATES would never be identified historically, AND, even if one got to that goal, it would never measure up to the demanding standards of any one school of thought among the rivalrous schools of mundane astrology. > > BTW: I had the hunch for long now that some one among the " siderealist " schools would get to the authenticity of the right event which we have been looking, and faster than the " tropicalists " would, if ever, but that's only because I think the sideralists are, generally, less tolerant of fuzzy mindedness in the pursuit of their science. [Am I preaching to the choir yet?] > > That SAMVA has finally struck " the vein of the motherlode " on the matter of America's STATE is becoming day-by-day more apparent. I humbly submit that thank God, or thank all those other pantheons of gods, that we so arduously took opposing views regarding the Ron Grimes chart. You kept returning to it, despite its manifest imperfections, and I kept asking myself: " Just what is Mr Cosmologer really driving at?? " " , with this faux natal event set for 3:00 p.m. on the day of the signing of the Articles of Confederation, when the Journals and Letters of Congress that day clearly disclose that at 3:18 p.m. on March 1, 1781, many of the delegates to Congress were already dining at the Philadelphia home of the President of Congress, Mr Samuel Huntington of Connecticut. Earlier that day, the Congressional shop was shuttered shortly after the signing of the Articles by the delegates from Maryland, therefore shortly after 12:12 p.m., or roughly three hours ahead of the Grimes > chart's time moment. > > Shortly after christmas last, it just struck me all of a sudden that what if Cosmologer, somehow has the right Confederation but the wrong event date. I checked my files, found Friday, February 2, 1781 and went directly to the internet and searched for the state of Maryland Archives, wherein, the records of the proceedings of the State Assembly. There it was towards the close of the afternoon session [roughly 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 pm.= afternoon session] on the final day of the Assembly's season. The Assembly, both houses that is, adjourned after that historic signing and went on two months break.They all went home. Conserving the taxpayers resources in the process > > On the very next day, Saturday, in Philadelphia [where they usually worked on Saturdays], certain delegates moved a very historic resolution, to demand of the United States the necessary governing powers to impose an ad-valorem national import duty, in order to defray the expenses of the central government. Please appreciate just how literally revolutionary this was, Revolutionary for a government that had all along, since 1774, survived on what amounted to " donations " from the constituent States.To elect to introduce such a measure, just one day after the birth of the Union, and a Saturday as well, February 3, was not in the least serendipitous. > > They new exactly what they were doing, regarding the timing of the resolution. After the State of Virginia enacted, on January 2, 1781, its agreement to cede to Congressional control its historic claims to the rights over the hotly contested northwest territory, Maryland's last unsatisfied condition for its joining the Union was then removed. By January 20 Congress started behaving more like a national government than the past two years had evidenced, and word came down to Philadelphia from Annapolis that the ratification is assured before the Marylanders adjourn for the season, on February 2. After all, one of the arch stones among those stones representing a government's sovereign empowerment is the " power to tax " . And so this day, February 3, 1781, the first working day in the life of the government sponsored by the newly sovereign union of the United States, marked the pre-natal (conception) moment in what was much later born federal taxation. [They didn't waste any > time, so it would seem.] > > P.S. > > A CONFESSION: > > In my previous post, I deliberately took the posture that July 4, 1776 is a contrived myth for Americans. And I deliberately over- stated my case, by stopping the analysis well short of any effort to account for its manifest higher meaning and significance to not only America, but educated " democrats " throughout the world.. > > In order to make amends to my very own American patrimony I wish to point out that SALLY's earlier post today gets at another truth about America, politically speaking, that is not " directly " captured in the charts for July 2, 1766 and February 2, 1781. And that is the human rights consideration, the natural rights of the individual person in society at large, irrespective of gender, race and creed. As in the great Thomas Jefferson's immortal phrasing: > > " We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . . " > > I maintain that this historic document is a " charter of individual rights " in its own metaphysical category, where the universal joins the particular, and as a charter must be judged apart from considerations of national independence and nationhood, as such. Metaphysically, in the orders of existence charters precede constitutions. This charter does just that, it addresses the core constituency of any Nation and any State, that core being the unalienable rights of the individual person everywhere and anywhere. > > Yes, of course. The Declaration wasn't completed on July 4th and it wasn't " autographed " by John Hancock. But over and above all of this, true as it is, the Declaration was brought to life at the hands of its author, in his follow-up role as Declaration committee editor, after the Committee of the Whole Congress had made their less than substantial emendations the previous day. This historic document's birth had to wait until Jefferson finalized the printer's proof copy, on Friday morning, by initialing the final proof changes for John Dunlap's press. Early morning of Friday, July 5, 1776. It was by Jefferson's own hand that the Declaration saw first life. Yes, Independence was born on the afternoon of July 2, 1776; the State was born on February 2, 1781, but the Declaration, as Charter, was born THE DAY AFTER July 4th, that is, on the 5th, however mis-dated the final result. > > Unquestionably, cosmologically [Thor??] considered, this charter is inextricably connected with the U.S. Bill of Rights. That the two are connected by the soul of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, both revolutionary heroes of Virginia, is karmically manifest. And that the realization of the Bill of Rights came with its final State ratification, by that of Jefferson's own " home country " , the State of Virginia, in Richmond, on December 15, 1791, should come as no surprise. > > Consider this data comparison in closing: > > July 5, 1776, Philadelphia @ 07:40:35 a.m., LUNA 15Aq11, 8H; ASC 28Ca58 > > December 15, 1791, Richmond @ 11:23:25 a.m. ASC 15Aq11; LUNA 28Ca58, 6H > > Cheers, > > John > > > > cosmologer <cosmologer wrote: > Dear John, > > I just have to say what a wonderful thing it is that you are able to > continue to surprise us with ever more interesting historical caveats > to this story. You are able to bring in new details and present them > in such a way as to create an air of suspense rivaling a good Agatha > Christie detective story. The fact that you have uncovered this > engraving by the Free Masons is fascinating additional detail. Well > done and thanks for another masterful underpinning for the historical > case for the birth of the United States. > > In time, the SAMVA USA chart will be cited as an example of a > balanced and in-depth research into both the historical and > astrological evidence. You have single-handedly presented a clear > case for the historical foundation of this Feb 2, 1781 event. When I > saw the chart for this event, I just knew we had " hit paydirt " , to > use the language of miners, after so much digging! > > It has been our good fortune that we found each other and were able > to pursue this search for the authentic chart of the USA on the basis > of our discussions on and around SAMVA. > > Best wishes, > > Thor > > SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776@> wrote: > > > > Hi Jorge & Sally & List members > > > > > > FUNDAMENTALS FIRST > > > > There are four organic law documents recognized by the U.S. > Government as binding and fundamental, before and informing where > relevant all legislation, as by the People binding its Governors. > They are: [1] the Declaration of Independence; [2] the Articles of > Confederation; [3] the Northwest Ordinance [authenticated, July 13, > 1787; enacted September 7, 1789, and truly as conception is to birth, > as conception's Moon is linked to birth's Ascendant, so to is the > Northwest Ordinance born of the Articles of Confederation]; and [4] > the Constitution of the United States [ " for the USA " ] > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > * > > > > Because the Articles of Confederation is easier for me to deal > with, than to deal with the Declaration of Independence, I do so in > this order because the record is pellucidly clear regarding the > ARTCLES: > > > > THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY: [1] " adopted " by Congress, November 13, > 1777; [2] " authenticated " by Congress' signatures, November 15, 1777; > [3] " proposed " to the 13 States by the President of Congress, > November 17, 1777; and then long after: [4] " ratified " unanimously > over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in > the State of Maryland on February 2, 1781; and [5] " confirmed " > unaninmously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by > the event in Congress, in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, which > final " confirmation " came a month after the final " ratification " in > Annapolis, Maryland. > > > > The verbs highlighted in the previous paragraph, are used by me > just as did Congress, evidenced in state papers, from time to time. > For the empowering event of nationhood, the 13 States finally > having " ratified " ; the Congress did not partake after November 1777. > As each of the said 13 States ratified the ARTICLES, so soon after > said ratification was " confirmed " by the signatures of the respective > State delegations in the halls of Congress; confirmed on various > dates, up and to March 1, 1781. Precisely, " confirmation " is > evidence of an act by a person with " limited power of attorney " , and > so in this case, on the part of those signing, tose who were, as > attorney here, exercising a delegated power under the authority of a > prior act of " ratification " . From a different angle, > the " ratifications " when finalized was the fulfillment of the event > of birth of the nation state; whereas, the " confirmations " when > finalized were the fulfillment of the event of the birth of the first > > constitutioin. Or looked at YET another way. The final > ratification of February 2, 1781 empowered the very basis, the prior > foundations necessary for enacting a constitution, and consequently, > after the constitution, then constitutional government itself. This > necessary and ultimate foundation is the nation state itself, the > American State. Then only after, the final, the 13th " confirmation " > in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, coming after and because of the > event of February 2, 1781, so empowered the constitution itself, the > constitution being the child; the nation state being the parent or > sponsor. Ratifications are the decisive events; ratifications come > before confirmations of ratifications, as it were. A Nation State > sponsors its constitution, which national constitution then frames > its national government. And so we see the trend line, step by step: > so from Feb 1, 1781, STATE; so to March 1, 1781, CONSTITUTION; so to > March 2, 1781, GOVERNMENT. March 2 being, more > > precisely, the start date of constitutional central government, as > the " UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED " . > > > > *********************************************** > > > > The Declaration of Independence [the broadside, dated July 4, > 1776] presents in some key respects a confusing problem for mundane > astrologers. It appears to me that the vast majority think (naively) > that America gained her independence on July 4th. And why not; the > date has been written into America's legislation countless times over > the centuries. The instances are truly innumerable. But the historian > looking for the authentic past must say until demonstrated > otherwise, " So what ! " . The issue is not what everybody thinks is so; > the issue is not what the federal government wants its people to > think is so. The overriding issue is what actually happened to be so. > > > > When Congress " actually " declared independence, on Tuesday, July > 2, 1776, the 44 delegates in attendance that Tuesday had the benefit > of free time over the previous weekend so to study Jefferson's > broadside Declaration, submitted to Congress the previous Friday > morning [And given that Saturday was taken off by Congress; this was > the first 2-day weekend in a long while, and still many delegates > were there doing committee work.]. The Act of July 2 was made in the > full knowledge and confident expectation of those 44 voters of July > 2nd that the broadside Declaration would be published immediately > after, in order to faithfully " explain " the Act to the public, both > domestically and internationally. It was no one's intent in Congress > that the broadside document itself was to be the means of enactment, > the act of Independence, contrary to what legions of commentators > have misunderstood the crux of this matter to be over the years [bUT, > I urge all to read Professor at Northwestern > > University, Gary Wills on this point, and then all that I have > said here becomes even more clear]. Or in other words, the > Declaration was not considered by the delegates to be as > the " instrument " of the Act, apart from Independence declared on July > 2. These confusions were partly the result of problems of timing, > problems which took over to beset the process and mislead many > historians. > > > > Once the delegates faced the reality of the independence enacted > on July 2, a few strong voices among them said that we had better > take a closer look at the text now and see if we can't improve upon > Jefferson's handywork. And so, with the kitchen overflowing with > chefs at this juncture, it is truly amazing that they were alble to > be ready just two days later to send it off to the printer. > > > > Agreement reached on July 4th to the revised text was recorded in > the Journal of Congress as the second executed agenda item of the > day. Scholars have time-placed that between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. > It was simply reported as " passed " , not " passed as resolved " . The > difference between the two is that the " passed resolved " of July 2 > means a Congressal enactment; where by contrast, the simple " passed " > of July 4 was administrative only following from July 2nd's > enactment. > > > > > AND,significantly for popular history, there were no public > celebrations this July 4th day, no Liberty Bell ringing, no partying > in the taverns of Philadelphia. Simply because, as reported in the > Philadelphia newspapers earlier, and in other cities soon after, > Independence was already 2 days old on July 4th. Cash flows at the > taverns must have been handsome on the evening of July 2nd. > > > > That evening of the 4th and in the next day's very early morniing > printer John Dunlap worked his trade on behalf of Congress, setting > the type and preparing the master-copy. He sent the master-copy to > Jefferson at his residence for a final edit at breakfast time. These > last minor correcting revisions to the master-copy [called > the " printer's proof copy " ] were performed by Jefferson, pursuant to > the instructions of Congress as recorded in the Congress Journal for > the previous day, the 4th. As it played out, the printer himself had > placed the date of July 4th at the top of the broadside [in > the " title legend " ]. Since it appears that nobody told John Dunlap > that the date was to have been printed as " July 2, 1776 " , the master > printer did the natural thing and dated it for the time he received > it, which was July 4th. [Eminent authority on Philadelphia, historian > David Freeman Hawke has made this very point. which should be the > seed pod for an essay entitled, " The Mis-dating > > of America's Birth, by John Dunlap, humble Scottish printer " .] > > > > AND NOW FOR THE SIGNATURES > STORY > > > > > John Hancock's first " autographic " signature of record was on > Friday afternoon when he " autographically " signed a few covering > letters for the distribution to the States of copies of " A > Declaration " , the title of the first edition. I must emphasize > AUTOGRAPHICALLY signed because there is no record that he autographed > any copy of the Declaration of Independence before the signing > ceremony for the famous second edition, " The Unanimous > Declaration . . . " which took place on for the August 2nd edition, > the famous one in the National Archives; the second edition which > should not to be confused with the first edition of July 5th. > > > > The printed copies of July 5th do feature, towards the bottom, > the words " Signed by order of Congress, John Hancock, President " But, > shocking as it may be to some patriots to hear, this printed > reference to President Hancock's authenticating signature denotes > that he was simply allowing the use of his " John Hancock " for the > purpose of verifying that the text of this broadside Declaration is > truly the statement of the authors, who are, quote " the > Representatives of the United States of America in Congress > Assembled " unquote. This authenticating signature is printed, not > autographed. Again, there remains to this day no evidence that > Hancock " autographed " a broadside of the Declaration before August > 2nd. Nobody among 44 delegates to Congress ever mentioned, either > > in diary or correspondence, in the days weeks and months after, a > signing by anyone on July 4th. Only decades later did Jefferson claim > to witness such an event, attended by most of the delegates. Trouble > is, scholars don't believe him. If he had said [but in fact didn't] > that only Hancock, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson had signed on the > evening of July 4th, undoubtedly history would have believed > Jefferson. However, subsequent notations in the man's own diary raise > questions about his claim that he recorded the events of his > diary " as they happened " . In conclusion, it seems that only those > American children poorly taught in grammar school, and most American > mundane astrologers (adults, I think so) want to believe the memory > of the by then old-aging statesman Jefferson. A truly great American, > nonetheless. > > > > And, too, more complicating history here: Until the opposing > political parties in the 1790s, the Federalists and the Republicans, > started going at each others throats, America's second generation > seems to have forgotten all about the DECLARATION. In and after 1781 > the Masons were largely in agreement in recognizing that the nation > was born by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. In commemorating the > groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in > September 1793, the Masons celebrated with among other things a > silver plate on which was engraved a testimonial to the day's event, > dated as falling quote " in the 13th year of Independence. " unquote. > Now take a second and count the years on your fingers, class. Did the > Masons mean the March 1781 ARTICLES or the October 1781 Victory at > the Battle of Yorktown ??, as constituting the natal event of > Independence as they saw it, or, were they really just saying that > only a " true Independence " constitutes the necessary > > condition of nationhood, and that it took the arrival of the year > 1781, not 1776, in which to achieve it. > > > > > > Sally Spencer <sally234@> wrote: > > Jorge, > > > > In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of > Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny. > > > > Sally > > > > On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino@> wrote: Dear > Sally, > > > > I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the > moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some > countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual > rulers. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sally Spencer, Jyotish Kovid > > A Gentle Journey to Deep Healing > > Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*, > > Western Astrology reports > > www.Devi3.byregion.net > > sally234@ > > > > *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science, > > which determines, strengthens or propitiates > > planetary results. > > > > Waves of Love > > Entering the Planet > > It's inevitable. It's contagious~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > > in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit. > > > Get your own web address. > Have a HUGE year through Small Business. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 dear thor, john, jorge, vyas, professor choudhry, and all those who have participated in this long-going exercise... CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL.... IT APPEARS WE FINALLY HAVE THE TRUE CHART FOR USA. TIME WILL TELL... BUT WELL DONE and in the spirit of cooperation. David Hawthorne - cosmologer SAMVA Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:40 AM Re: A definitive chart for America Dear John,Thanks for one more nail in the coffin of all other charts - the exercise of US taxing powers on Feb 3. 1781. If that don´t beat all!! You are not one to be outdone, except by yourself!Actually, by late October 2006 I was contemplating that the Mar 1 1781 chart, despite having what amounted to the right ascendant and some interesting placements - so similar to the Feb 2 chart - I was giving it up. It was not giving the predicted outcome I had suggested in August 2006. Share prices were not budging from their high levels despite the massive afflictions in the chart. So, I was becoming convinced that it was not the right chart - and I had allowed the scientific method of making predictions decide the matter. As I had earlier asked you to investigate other important dates in the founding history of the USA, and you had obliged me with several other events, I was also contemporaneously studying those and making predictions on the list. Those charts all left me feeling cold; they just didn't seem to ring true. Their fit to historical events was only mediocre. Still I went through the motions to predict based on them, while not believing they would amount to much. Hence, it was such an unbelievable feeling when you sent me the Feb 2 1781 event, almost as it was just one more thing to check - "TRY:" was the only thing you said. Perhaps we were both starting to think this was a futile search. We had looked in so many placed and come up with nothing. However, when the same ascendant and rising degree as the Mar 1 1781 chart came up on the screen - and the placements began to express themselves to my eyes and mind, finally all the pieces began to fall into place... Best wishes,Thor SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:>> Dear THOR . . . THOR !> > We say goodbye to Mr Cosmo Loger; may he ever Rest in Peace !!! > > YES!> > I too thought that the historic event for the birth of the UNITED STATES would never be identified historically, AND, even if one got to that goal, it would never measure up to the demanding standards of any one school of thought among the rivalrous schools of mundane astrology.> > BTW: I had the hunch for long now that some one among the "siderealist" schools would get to the authenticity of the right event which we have been looking, and faster than the "tropicalists" would, if ever, but that's only because I think the sideralists are, generally, less tolerant of fuzzy mindedness in the pursuit of their science. [Am I preaching to the choir yet?] > > That SAMVA has finally struck "the vein of the motherlode" on the matter of America's STATE is becoming day-by-day more apparent. I humbly submit that thank God, or thank all those other pantheons of gods, that we so arduously took opposing views regarding the Ron Grimes chart. You kept returning to it, despite its manifest imperfections, and I kept asking myself: "Just what is Mr Cosmologer really driving at??"", with this faux natal event set for 3:00 p.m. on the day of the signing of the Articles of Confederation, when the Journals and Letters of Congress that day clearly disclose that at 3:18 p.m. on March 1, 1781, many of the delegates to Congress were already dining at the Philadelphia home of the President of Congress, Mr Samuel Huntington of Connecticut. Earlier that day, the Congressional shop was shuttered shortly after the signing of the Articles by the delegates from Maryland, therefore shortly after 12:12 p.m., or roughly three hours ahead of the Grimes> chart's time moment. > > Shortly after christmas last, it just struck me all of a sudden that what if Cosmologer, somehow has the right Confederation but the wrong event date. I checked my files, found Friday, February 2, 1781 and went directly to the internet and searched for the state of Maryland Archives, wherein, the records of the proceedings of the State Assembly. There it was towards the close of the afternoon session [roughly 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 pm.= afternoon session] on the final day of the Assembly's season. The Assembly, both houses that is, adjourned after that historic signing and went on two months break.They all went home. Conserving the taxpayers resources in the process> > On the very next day, Saturday, in Philadelphia [where they usually worked on Saturdays], certain delegates moved a very historic resolution, to demand of the United States the necessary governing powers to impose an ad-valorem national import duty, in order to defray the expenses of the central government. Please appreciate just how literally revolutionary this was, Revolutionary for a government that had all along, since 1774, survived on what amounted to "donations" from the constituent States.To elect to introduce such a measure, just one day after the birth of the Union, and a Saturday as well, February 3, was not in the least serendipitous. > > They new exactly what they were doing, regarding the timing of the resolution. After the State of Virginia enacted, on January 2, 1781, its agreement to cede to Congressional control its historic claims to the rights over the hotly contested northwest territory, Maryland's last unsatisfied condition for its joining the Union was then removed. By January 20 Congress started behaving more like a national government than the past two years had evidenced, and word came down to Philadelphia from Annapolis that the ratification is assured before the Marylanders adjourn for the season, on February 2. After all, one of the arch stones among those stones representing a government's sovereign empowerment is the "power to tax". And so this day, February 3, 1781, the first working day in the life of the government sponsored by the newly sovereign union of the United States, marked the pre-natal (conception) moment in what was much later born federal taxation. [They didn't waste any> time, so it would seem.]> > P.S.> > A CONFESSION: > > In my previous post, I deliberately took the posture that July 4, 1776 is a contrived myth for Americans. And I deliberately over-stated my case, by stopping the analysis well short of any effort to account for its manifest higher meaning and significance to not only America, but educated "democrats" throughout the world..> > In order to make amends to my very own American patrimony I wish to point out that SALLY's earlier post today gets at another truth about America, politically speaking, that is not "directly" captured in the charts for July 2, 1766 and February 2, 1781. And that is the human rights consideration, the natural rights of the individual person in society at large, irrespective of gender, race and creed. As in the great Thomas Jefferson's immortal phrasing:> > "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."> > I maintain that this historic document is a "charter of individual rights" in its own metaphysical category, where the universal joins the particular, and as a charter must be judged apart from considerations of national independence and nationhood, as such. Metaphysically, in the orders of existence charters precede constitutions. This charter does just that, it addresses the core constituency of any Nation and any State, that core being the unalienable rights of the individual person everywhere and anywhere. > > Yes, of course. The Declaration wasn't completed on July 4th and it wasn't "autographed" by John Hancock. But over and above all of this, true as it is, the Declaration was brought to life at the hands of its author, in his follow-up role as Declaration committee editor, after the Committee of the Whole Congress had made their less than substantial emendations the previous day. This historic document's birth had to wait until Jefferson finalized the printer's proof copy, on Friday morning, by initialing the final proof changes for John Dunlap's press. Early morning of Friday, July 5, 1776. It was by Jefferson's own hand that the Declaration saw first life. Yes, Independence was born on the afternoon of July 2, 1776; the State was born on February 2, 1781, but the Declaration, as Charter, was born THE DAY AFTER July 4th, that is, on the 5th, however mis-dated the final result. > > Unquestionably, cosmologically [Thor??] considered, this charter is inextricably connected with the U.S. Bill of Rights. That the two are connected by the soul of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, both revolutionary heroes of Virginia, is karmically manifest. And that the realization of the Bill of Rights came with its final State ratification, by that of Jefferson's own "home country", the State of Virginia, in Richmond, on December 15, 1791, should come as no surprise.> > Consider this data comparison in closing:> > July 5, 1776, Philadelphia @ 07:40:35 a.m., LUNA 15Aq11, 8H; ASC 28Ca58> > December 15, 1791, Richmond @ 11:23:25 a.m. ASC 15Aq11; LUNA 28Ca58, 6H> > Cheers,> > John> > > > cosmologer <cosmologer wrote:> Dear John,> > I just have to say what a wonderful thing it is that you are able to > continue to surprise us with ever more interesting historical caveats > to this story. You are able to bring in new details and present them > in such a way as to create an air of suspense rivaling a good Agatha > Christie detective story. The fact that you have uncovered this > engraving by the Free Masons is fascinating additional detail. Well > done and thanks for another masterful underpinning for the historical > case for the birth of the United States. > > In time, the SAMVA USA chart will be cited as an example of a > balanced and in-depth research into both the historical and > astrological evidence. You have single-handedly presented a clear > case for the historical foundation of this Feb 2, 1781 event. When I > saw the chart for this event, I just knew we had "hit paydirt", to > use the language of miners, after so much digging! > > It has been our good fortune that we found each other and were able > to pursue this search for the authentic chart of the USA on the basis > of our discussions on and around SAMVA. > > Best wishes,> > Thor > > SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776@> wrote:> >> > Hi Jorge & Sally & List members> > > > > > FUNDAMENTALS FIRST> > > > There are four organic law documents recognized by the U.S. > Government as binding and fundamental, before and informing where > relevant all legislation, as by the People binding its Governors. > They are: [1] the Declaration of Independence; [2] the Articles of > Confederation; [3] the Northwest Ordinance [authenticated, July 13, > 1787; enacted September 7, 1789, and truly as conception is to birth, > as conception's Moon is linked to birth's Ascendant, so to is the > Northwest Ordinance born of the Articles of Confederation]; and [4] > the Constitution of the United States ["for the USA"]> > > > > > > **********************************************************************> *> > > > Because the Articles of Confederation is easier for me to deal > with, than to deal with the Declaration of Independence, I do so in > this order because the record is pellucidly clear regarding the > ARTCLES: > > > > THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY: [1] "adopted" by Congress, November 13, > 1777; [2] "authenticated" by Congress' signatures, November 15, 1777; > [3] "proposed" to the 13 States by the President of Congress, > November 17, 1777; and then long after: [4] "ratified" unanimously > over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in > the State of Maryland on February 2, 1781; and [5] "confirmed" > unaninmously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by > the event in Congress, in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, which > final "confirmation" came a month after the final "ratification" in > Annapolis, Maryland.> > > > The verbs highlighted in the previous paragraph, are used by me > just as did Congress, evidenced in state papers, from time to time. > For the empowering event of nationhood, the 13 States finally > having "ratified"; the Congress did not partake after November 1777. > As each of the said 13 States ratified the ARTICLES, so soon after > said ratification was "confirmed" by the signatures of the respective > State delegations in the halls of Congress; confirmed on various > dates, up and to March 1, 1781. Precisely, "confirmation" is > evidence of an act by a person with "limited power of attorney", and > so in this case, on the part of those signing, tose who were, as > attorney here, exercising a delegated power under the authority of a > prior act of "ratification". From a different angle, > the "ratifications" when finalized was the fulfillment of the event > of birth of the nation state; whereas, the "confirmations" when > finalized were the fulfillment of the event of the birth of the first> > constitutioin. Or looked at YET another way. The final > ratification of February 2, 1781 empowered the very basis, the prior > foundations necessary for enacting a constitution, and consequently, > after the constitution, then constitutional government itself. This > necessary and ultimate foundation is the nation state itself, the > American State. Then only after, the final, the 13th "confirmation" > in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, coming after and because of the > event of February 2, 1781, so empowered the constitution itself, the > constitution being the child; the nation state being the parent or > sponsor. Ratifications are the decisive events; ratifications come > before confirmations of ratifications, as it were. A Nation State > sponsors its constitution, which national constitution then frames > its national government. And so we see the trend line, step by step: > so from Feb 1, 1781, STATE; so to March 1, 1781, CONSTITUTION; so to > March 2, 1781, GOVERNMENT. March 2 being, more> > precisely, the start date of constitutional central government, as > the "UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED" .> > > > ***********************************************> > > > The Declaration of Independence [the broadside, dated July 4, > 1776] presents in some key respects a confusing problem for mundane > astrologers. It appears to me that the vast majority think (naively) > that America gained her independence on July 4th. And why not; the > date has been written into America's legislation countless times over > the centuries. The instances are truly innumerable. But the historian > looking for the authentic past must say until demonstrated > otherwise, "So what !". The issue is not what everybody thinks is so; > the issue is not what the federal government wants its people to > think is so. The overriding issue is what actually happened to be so. > > > > When Congress "actually" declared independence, on Tuesday, July > 2, 1776, the 44 delegates in attendance that Tuesday had the benefit > of free time over the previous weekend so to study Jefferson's > broadside Declaration, submitted to Congress the previous Friday > morning [And given that Saturday was taken off by Congress; this was > the first 2-day weekend in a long while, and still many delegates > were there doing committee work.]. The Act of July 2 was made in the > full knowledge and confident expectation of those 44 voters of July > 2nd that the broadside Declaration would be published immediately > after, in order to faithfully "explain" the Act to the public, both > domestically and internationally. It was no one's intent in Congress > that the broadside document itself was to be the means of enactment, > the act of Independence, contrary to what legions of commentators > have misunderstood the crux of this matter to be over the years [bUT, > I urge all to read Professor at Northwestern> > University, Gary Wills on this point, and then all that I have > said here becomes even more clear]. Or in other words, the > Declaration was not considered by the delegates to be as > the "instrument" of the Act, apart from Independence declared on July > 2. These confusions were partly the result of problems of timing, > problems which took over to beset the process and mislead many > historians. > > > > Once the delegates faced the reality of the independence enacted > on July 2, a few strong voices among them said that we had better > take a closer look at the text now and see if we can't improve upon > Jefferson's handywork. And so, with the kitchen overflowing with > chefs at this juncture, it is truly amazing that they were alble to > be ready just two days later to send it off to the printer.> > > > Agreement reached on July 4th to the revised text was recorded in > the Journal of Congress as the second executed agenda item of the > day. Scholars have time-placed that between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. > It was simply reported as "passed", not "passed as resolved". The > difference between the two is that the "passed resolved" of July 2 > means a Congressal enactment; where by contrast, the simple "passed" > of July 4 was administrative only following from July 2nd's > enactment. > > > > > AND,significantly for popular history, there were no public > celebrations this July 4th day, no Liberty Bell ringing, no partying > in the taverns of Philadelphia. Simply because, as reported in the > Philadelphia newspapers earlier, and in other cities soon after, > Independence was already 2 days old on July 4th. Cash flows at the > taverns must have been handsome on the evening of July 2nd.> > > > That evening of the 4th and in the next day's very early morniing > printer John Dunlap worked his trade on behalf of Congress, setting > the type and preparing the master-copy. He sent the master-copy to > Jefferson at his residence for a final edit at breakfast time. These > last minor correcting revisions to the master-copy [called > the "printer's proof copy"] were performed by Jefferson, pursuant to > the instructions of Congress as recorded in the Congress Journal for > the previous day, the 4th. As it played out, the printer himself had > placed the date of July 4th at the top of the broadside [in > the "title legend"]. Since it appears that nobody told John Dunlap > that the date was to have been printed as "July 2, 1776", the master > printer did the natural thing and dated it for the time he received > it, which was July 4th. [Eminent authority on Philadelphia, historian > David Freeman Hawke has made this very point. which should be the > seed pod for an essay entitled, "The Mis-dating> > of America's Birth, by John Dunlap, humble Scottish printer".]> > > > AND NOW FOR THE SIGNATURES > STORY > > > > > John Hancock's first "autographic" signature of record was on > Friday afternoon when he "autographically" signed a few covering > letters for the distribution to the States of copies of "A > Declaration", the title of the first edition. I must emphasize > AUTOGRAPHICALLY signed because there is no record that he autographed > any copy of the Declaration of Independence before the signing > ceremony for the famous second edition, "The Unanimous > Declaration . . ." which took place on for the August 2nd edition, > the famous one in the National Archives; the second edition which > should not to be confused with the first edition of July 5th.> > > > The printed copies of July 5th do feature, towards the bottom, > the words "Signed by order of Congress, John Hancock, President" But, > shocking as it may be to some patriots to hear, this printed > reference to President Hancock's authenticating signature denotes > that he was simply allowing the use of his "John Hancock" for the > purpose of verifying that the text of this broadside Declaration is > truly the statement of the authors, who are, quote "the > Representatives of the United States of America in Congress > Assembled" unquote. This authenticating signature is printed, not > autographed. Again, there remains to this day no evidence that > Hancock "autographed" a broadside of the Declaration before August > 2nd. Nobody among 44 delegates to Congress ever mentioned, either> > in diary or correspondence, in the days weeks and months after, a > signing by anyone on July 4th. Only decades later did Jefferson claim > to witness such an event, attended by most of the delegates. Trouble > is, scholars don't believe him. If he had said [but in fact didn't] > that only Hancock, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson had signed on the > evening of July 4th, undoubtedly history would have believed > Jefferson. However, subsequent notations in the man's own diary raise > questions about his claim that he recorded the events of his > diary "as they happened". In conclusion, it seems that only those > American children poorly taught in grammar school, and most American > mundane astrologers (adults, I think so) want to believe the memory > of the by then old-aging statesman Jefferson. A truly great American, > nonetheless.> > > > And, too, more complicating history here: Until the opposing > political parties in the 1790s, the Federalists and the Republicans, > started going at each others throats, America's second generation > seems to have forgotten all about the DECLARATION. In and after 1781 > the Masons were largely in agreement in recognizing that the nation > was born by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. In commemorating the > groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in > September 1793, the Masons celebrated with among other things a > silver plate on which was engraved a testimonial to the day's event, > dated as falling quote "in the 13th year of Independence." unquote. > Now take a second and count the years on your fingers, class. Did the > Masons mean the March 1781 ARTICLES or the October 1781 Victory at > the Battle of Yorktown ??, as constituting the natal event of > Independence as they saw it, or, were they really just saying that > only a "true Independence" constitutes the necessary> > condition of nationhood, and that it took the arrival of the year > 1781, not 1776, in which to achieve it. > > > > > > Sally Spencer <sally234@> wrote:> > Jorge,> > > > In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of > Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny.> > > > Sally> > > > On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino@> wrote: Dear > Sally,> > > > I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the > moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some > countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual > rulers. > > > > Best wishes,> > > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sally Spencer, Jyotish Kovid> > A Gentle Journey to Deep Healing > > Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,> > Western Astrology reports > > www.Devi3.byregion.net> > sally234@> > > > *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science,> > which determines, strengthens or propitiates> > planetary results. > > > > Waves of Love> > Entering the Planet> > It's inevitable. It's contagious~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > > in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.> >> > > > > > > > Get your own web address.> Have a HUGE year through Small Business.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 dear thor, john, jorge, vyas, professor choudhry, and all those who have contributed and participated in this long-going exercise... CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL.... IT APPEARS WE FINALLY HAVE THE TRUE CHART FOR USA. TIME WILL TELL... BUT THIS IS WELL DONE and in the spirit of cooperation! By the way, I just looked at the transits for the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and was amazed at how well and effortlessly the chart works for this event. (in the past, when i would try to find significant events in the proposed charts of usa, it would take a lot of work to make a case, whereas with this chart, transits just fall right in place.) I think Thor did some previous email on JFK, but i did not get a chance to read his post, so I hope I am not duplicating his efforts... Using the SAMVA chart, we see that on the day of the assassination, the USA was in the Saturn main period (which is the most malefic planet, ruling the eighth house of death and violence), and the Sun sub period, ruling the president and leadership. On the fatal day, transit Sun was closely conjunct natal and functional malefic Jupiter, ruling the sixth house of enemies, while Saturn, ruling the eighth house of death, was transiting natal Sun, ruling presidents. Rahu and Ketu were also transiting close to the MEP and were afflicting the second, fourth, sixth, eighth, tenth and twelfth houses, etc. Transit Mars and Venus were also under the affliction of natal Saturn... So this is very good... that the transits are easily matching the events, with no effort or strain. I will be checking other events in the coming days and weeks and will let you know the results. Again, best wishes and congratulations to all parties involved. David Hawthorne - cosmologer SAMVA Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:40 AM Re: A definitive chart for America Dear John,Thanks for one more nail in the coffin of all other charts - the exercise of US taxing powers on Feb 3. 1781. If that don´t beat all!! You are not one to be outdone, except by yourself!Actually, by late October 2006 I was contemplating that the Mar 1 1781 chart, despite having what amounted to the right ascendant and some interesting placements - so similar to the Feb 2 chart - I was giving it up. It was not giving the predicted outcome I had suggested in August 2006. Share prices were not budging from their high levels despite the massive afflictions in the chart. So, I was becoming convinced that it was not the right chart - and I had allowed the scientific method of making predictions decide the matter. As I had earlier asked you to investigate other important dates in the founding history of the USA, and you had obliged me with several other events, I was also contemporaneously studying those and making predictions on the list. Those charts all left me feeling cold; they just didn't seem to ring true. Their fit to historical events was only mediocre. Still I went through the motions to predict based on them, while not believing they would amount to much. Hence, it was such an unbelievable feeling when you sent me the Feb 2 1781 event, almost as it was just one more thing to check - "TRY:" was the only thing you said. Perhaps we were both starting to think this was a futile search. We had looked in so many placed and come up with nothing. However, when the same ascendant and rising degree as the Mar 1 1781 chart came up on the screen - and the placements began to express themselves to my eyes and mind, finally all the pieces began to fall into place... Best wishes,Thor SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote:>> Dear THOR . . . THOR !> > We say goodbye to Mr Cosmo Loger; may he ever Rest in Peace !!! > > YES!> > I too thought that the historic event for the birth of the UNITED STATES would never be identified historically, AND, even if one got to that goal, it would never measure up to the demanding standards of any one school of thought among the rivalrous schools of mundane astrology.> > BTW: I had the hunch for long now that some one among the "siderealist" schools would get to the authenticity of the right event which we have been looking, and faster than the "tropicalists" would, if ever, but that's only because I think the sideralists are, generally, less tolerant of fuzzy mindedness in the pursuit of their science. [Am I preaching to the choir yet?] > > That SAMVA has finally struck "the vein of the motherlode" on the matter of America's STATE is becoming day-by-day more apparent. I humbly submit that thank God, or thank all those other pantheons of gods, that we so arduously took opposing views regarding the Ron Grimes chart. You kept returning to it, despite its manifest imperfections, and I kept asking myself: "Just what is Mr Cosmologer really driving at??"", with this faux natal event set for 3:00 p.m. on the day of the signing of the Articles of Confederation, when the Journals and Letters of Congress that day clearly disclose that at 3:18 p.m. on March 1, 1781, many of the delegates to Congress were already dining at the Philadelphia home of the President of Congress, Mr Samuel Huntington of Connecticut. Earlier that day, the Congressional shop was shuttered shortly after the signing of the Articles by the delegates from Maryland, therefore shortly after 12:12 p.m., or roughly three hours ahead of the Grimes> chart's time moment. > > Shortly after christmas last, it just struck me all of a sudden that what if Cosmologer, somehow has the right Confederation but the wrong event date. I checked my files, found Friday, February 2, 1781 and went directly to the internet and searched for the state of Maryland Archives, wherein, the records of the proceedings of the State Assembly. There it was towards the close of the afternoon session [roughly 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 pm.= afternoon session] on the final day of the Assembly's season. The Assembly, both houses that is, adjourned after that historic signing and went on two months break.They all went home. Conserving the taxpayers resources in the process> > On the very next day, Saturday, in Philadelphia [where they usually worked on Saturdays], certain delegates moved a very historic resolution, to demand of the United States the necessary governing powers to impose an ad-valorem national import duty, in order to defray the expenses of the central government. Please appreciate just how literally revolutionary this was, Revolutionary for a government that had all along, since 1774, survived on what amounted to "donations" from the constituent States.To elect to introduce such a measure, just one day after the birth of the Union, and a Saturday as well, February 3, was not in the least serendipitous. > > They new exactly what they were doing, regarding the timing of the resolution. After the State of Virginia enacted, on January 2, 1781, its agreement to cede to Congressional control its historic claims to the rights over the hotly contested northwest territory, Maryland's last unsatisfied condition for its joining the Union was then removed. By January 20 Congress started behaving more like a national government than the past two years had evidenced, and word came down to Philadelphia from Annapolis that the ratification is assured before the Marylanders adjourn for the season, on February 2. After all, one of the arch stones among those stones representing a government's sovereign empowerment is the "power to tax". And so this day, February 3, 1781, the first working day in the life of the government sponsored by the newly sovereign union of the United States, marked the pre-natal (conception) moment in what was much later born federal taxation. [They didn't waste any> time, so it would seem.]> > P.S.> > A CONFESSION: > > In my previous post, I deliberately took the posture that July 4, 1776 is a contrived myth for Americans. And I deliberately over-stated my case, by stopping the analysis well short of any effort to account for its manifest higher meaning and significance to not only America, but educated "democrats" throughout the world..> > In order to make amends to my very own American patrimony I wish to point out that SALLY's earlier post today gets at another truth about America, politically speaking, that is not "directly" captured in the charts for July 2, 1766 and February 2, 1781. And that is the human rights consideration, the natural rights of the individual person in society at large, irrespective of gender, race and creed. As in the great Thomas Jefferson's immortal phrasing:> > "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."> > I maintain that this historic document is a "charter of individual rights" in its own metaphysical category, where the universal joins the particular, and as a charter must be judged apart from considerations of national independence and nationhood, as such. Metaphysically, in the orders of existence charters precede constitutions. This charter does just that, it addresses the core constituency of any Nation and any State, that core being the unalienable rights of the individual person everywhere and anywhere. > > Yes, of course. The Declaration wasn't completed on July 4th and it wasn't "autographed" by John Hancock. But over and above all of this, true as it is, the Declaration was brought to life at the hands of its author, in his follow-up role as Declaration committee editor, after the Committee of the Whole Congress had made their less than substantial emendations the previous day. This historic document's birth had to wait until Jefferson finalized the printer's proof copy, on Friday morning, by initialing the final proof changes for John Dunlap's press. Early morning of Friday, July 5, 1776. It was by Jefferson's own hand that the Declaration saw first life. Yes, Independence was born on the afternoon of July 2, 1776; the State was born on February 2, 1781, but the Declaration, as Charter, was born THE DAY AFTER July 4th, that is, on the 5th, however mis-dated the final result. > > Unquestionably, cosmologically [Thor??] considered, this charter is inextricably connected with the U.S. Bill of Rights. That the two are connected by the soul of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, both revolutionary heroes of Virginia, is karmically manifest. And that the realization of the Bill of Rights came with its final State ratification, by that of Jefferson's own "home country", the State of Virginia, in Richmond, on December 15, 1791, should come as no surprise.> > Consider this data comparison in closing:> > July 5, 1776, Philadelphia @ 07:40:35 a.m., LUNA 15Aq11, 8H; ASC 28Ca58> > December 15, 1791, Richmond @ 11:23:25 a.m. ASC 15Aq11; LUNA 28Ca58, 6H> > Cheers,> > John> > > > cosmologer <cosmologer wrote:> Dear John,> > I just have to say what a wonderful thing it is that you are able to > continue to surprise us with ever more interesting historical caveats > to this story. You are able to bring in new details and present them > in such a way as to create an air of suspense rivaling a good Agatha > Christie detective story. The fact that you have uncovered this > engraving by the Free Masons is fascinating additional detail. Well > done and thanks for another masterful underpinning for the historical > case for the birth of the United States. > > In time, the SAMVA USA chart will be cited as an example of a > balanced and in-depth research into both the historical and > astrological evidence. You have single-handedly presented a clear > case for the historical foundation of this Feb 2, 1781 event. When I > saw the chart for this event, I just knew we had "hit paydirt", to > use the language of miners, after so much digging! > > It has been our good fortune that we found each other and were able > to pursue this search for the authentic chart of the USA on the basis > of our discussions on and around SAMVA. > > Best wishes,> > Thor > > SAMVA , JohnTWB <blazingstar1776@> wrote:> >> > Hi Jorge & Sally & List members> > > > > > FUNDAMENTALS FIRST> > > > There are four organic law documents recognized by the U.S. > Government as binding and fundamental, before and informing where > relevant all legislation, as by the People binding its Governors. > They are: [1] the Declaration of Independence; [2] the Articles of > Confederation; [3] the Northwest Ordinance [authenticated, July 13, > 1787; enacted September 7, 1789, and truly as conception is to birth, > as conception's Moon is linked to birth's Ascendant, so to is the > Northwest Ordinance born of the Articles of Confederation]; and [4] > the Constitution of the United States ["for the USA"]> > > > > > > **********************************************************************> *> > > > Because the Articles of Confederation is easier for me to deal > with, than to deal with the Declaration of Independence, I do so in > this order because the record is pellucidly clear regarding the > ARTCLES: > > > > THE PERTINENT CHRONOLOGY: [1] "adopted" by Congress, November 13, > 1777; [2] "authenticated" by Congress' signatures, November 15, 1777; > [3] "proposed" to the 13 States by the President of Congress, > November 17, 1777; and then long after: [4] "ratified" unanimously > over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by the event in > the State of Maryland on February 2, 1781; and [5] "confirmed" > unaninmously over time by each of the 13 States, then finalized by > the event in Congress, in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, which > final "confirmation" came a month after the final "ratification" in > Annapolis, Maryland.> > > > The verbs highlighted in the previous paragraph, are used by me > just as did Congress, evidenced in state papers, from time to time. > For the empowering event of nationhood, the 13 States finally > having "ratified"; the Congress did not partake after November 1777. > As each of the said 13 States ratified the ARTICLES, so soon after > said ratification was "confirmed" by the signatures of the respective > State delegations in the halls of Congress; confirmed on various > dates, up and to March 1, 1781. Precisely, "confirmation" is > evidence of an act by a person with "limited power of attorney", and > so in this case, on the part of those signing, tose who were, as > attorney here, exercising a delegated power under the authority of a > prior act of "ratification". From a different angle, > the "ratifications" when finalized was the fulfillment of the event > of birth of the nation state; whereas, the "confirmations" when > finalized were the fulfillment of the event of the birth of the first> > constitutioin. Or looked at YET another way. The final > ratification of February 2, 1781 empowered the very basis, the prior > foundations necessary for enacting a constitution, and consequently, > after the constitution, then constitutional government itself. This > necessary and ultimate foundation is the nation state itself, the > American State. Then only after, the final, the 13th "confirmation" > in Philadelphia, on March 1, 1781, coming after and because of the > event of February 2, 1781, so empowered the constitution itself, the > constitution being the child; the nation state being the parent or > sponsor. Ratifications are the decisive events; ratifications come > before confirmations of ratifications, as it were. A Nation State > sponsors its constitution, which national constitution then frames > its national government. And so we see the trend line, step by step: > so from Feb 1, 1781, STATE; so to March 1, 1781, CONSTITUTION; so to > March 2, 1781, GOVERNMENT. March 2 being, more> > precisely, the start date of constitutional central government, as > the "UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED" .> > > > ***********************************************> > > > The Declaration of Independence [the broadside, dated July 4, > 1776] presents in some key respects a confusing problem for mundane > astrologers. It appears to me that the vast majority think (naively) > that America gained her independence on July 4th. And why not; the > date has been written into America's legislation countless times over > the centuries. The instances are truly innumerable. But the historian > looking for the authentic past must say until demonstrated > otherwise, "So what !". The issue is not what everybody thinks is so; > the issue is not what the federal government wants its people to > think is so. The overriding issue is what actually happened to be so. > > > > When Congress "actually" declared independence, on Tuesday, July > 2, 1776, the 44 delegates in attendance that Tuesday had the benefit > of free time over the previous weekend so to study Jefferson's > broadside Declaration, submitted to Congress the previous Friday > morning [And given that Saturday was taken off by Congress; this was > the first 2-day weekend in a long while, and still many delegates > were there doing committee work.]. The Act of July 2 was made in the > full knowledge and confident expectation of those 44 voters of July > 2nd that the broadside Declaration would be published immediately > after, in order to faithfully "explain" the Act to the public, both > domestically and internationally. It was no one's intent in Congress > that the broadside document itself was to be the means of enactment, > the act of Independence, contrary to what legions of commentators > have misunderstood the crux of this matter to be over the years [bUT, > I urge all to read Professor at Northwestern> > University, Gary Wills on this point, and then all that I have > said here becomes even more clear]. Or in other words, the > Declaration was not considered by the delegates to be as > the "instrument" of the Act, apart from Independence declared on July > 2. These confusions were partly the result of problems of timing, > problems which took over to beset the process and mislead many > historians. > > > > Once the delegates faced the reality of the independence enacted > on July 2, a few strong voices among them said that we had better > take a closer look at the text now and see if we can't improve upon > Jefferson's handywork. And so, with the kitchen overflowing with > chefs at this juncture, it is truly amazing that they were alble to > be ready just two days later to send it off to the printer.> > > > Agreement reached on July 4th to the revised text was recorded in > the Journal of Congress as the second executed agenda item of the > day. Scholars have time-placed that between 10:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. > It was simply reported as "passed", not "passed as resolved". The > difference between the two is that the "passed resolved" of July 2 > means a Congressal enactment; where by contrast, the simple "passed" > of July 4 was administrative only following from July 2nd's > enactment. > > > > > AND,significantly for popular history, there were no public > celebrations this July 4th day, no Liberty Bell ringing, no partying > in the taverns of Philadelphia. Simply because, as reported in the > Philadelphia newspapers earlier, and in other cities soon after, > Independence was already 2 days old on July 4th. Cash flows at the > taverns must have been handsome on the evening of July 2nd.> > > > That evening of the 4th and in the next day's very early morniing > printer John Dunlap worked his trade on behalf of Congress, setting > the type and preparing the master-copy. He sent the master-copy to > Jefferson at his residence for a final edit at breakfast time. These > last minor correcting revisions to the master-copy [called > the "printer's proof copy"] were performed by Jefferson, pursuant to > the instructions of Congress as recorded in the Congress Journal for > the previous day, the 4th. As it played out, the printer himself had > placed the date of July 4th at the top of the broadside [in > the "title legend"]. Since it appears that nobody told John Dunlap > that the date was to have been printed as "July 2, 1776", the master > printer did the natural thing and dated it for the time he received > it, which was July 4th. [Eminent authority on Philadelphia, historian > David Freeman Hawke has made this very point. which should be the > seed pod for an essay entitled, "The Mis-dating> > of America's Birth, by John Dunlap, humble Scottish printer".]> > > > AND NOW FOR THE SIGNATURES > STORY > > > > > John Hancock's first "autographic" signature of record was on > Friday afternoon when he "autographically" signed a few covering > letters for the distribution to the States of copies of "A > Declaration", the title of the first edition. I must emphasize > AUTOGRAPHICALLY signed because there is no record that he autographed > any copy of the Declaration of Independence before the signing > ceremony for the famous second edition, "The Unanimous > Declaration . . ." which took place on for the August 2nd edition, > the famous one in the National Archives; the second edition which > should not to be confused with the first edition of July 5th.> > > > The printed copies of July 5th do feature, towards the bottom, > the words "Signed by order of Congress, John Hancock, President" But, > shocking as it may be to some patriots to hear, this printed > reference to President Hancock's authenticating signature denotes > that he was simply allowing the use of his "John Hancock" for the > purpose of verifying that the text of this broadside Declaration is > truly the statement of the authors, who are, quote "the > Representatives of the United States of America in Congress > Assembled" unquote. This authenticating signature is printed, not > autographed. Again, there remains to this day no evidence that > Hancock "autographed" a broadside of the Declaration before August > 2nd. Nobody among 44 delegates to Congress ever mentioned, either> > in diary or correspondence, in the days weeks and months after, a > signing by anyone on July 4th. Only decades later did Jefferson claim > to witness such an event, attended by most of the delegates. Trouble > is, scholars don't believe him. If he had said [but in fact didn't] > that only Hancock, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson had signed on the > evening of July 4th, undoubtedly history would have believed > Jefferson. However, subsequent notations in the man's own diary raise > questions about his claim that he recorded the events of his > diary "as they happened". In conclusion, it seems that only those > American children poorly taught in grammar school, and most American > mundane astrologers (adults, I think so) want to believe the memory > of the by then old-aging statesman Jefferson. A truly great American, > nonetheless.> > > > And, too, more complicating history here: Until the opposing > political parties in the 1790s, the Federalists and the Republicans, > started going at each others throats, America's second generation > seems to have forgotten all about the DECLARATION. In and after 1781 > the Masons were largely in agreement in recognizing that the nation > was born by the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. In commemorating the > groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in > September 1793, the Masons celebrated with among other things a > silver plate on which was engraved a testimonial to the day's event, > dated as falling quote "in the 13th year of Independence." unquote. > Now take a second and count the years on your fingers, class. Did the > Masons mean the March 1781 ARTICLES or the October 1781 Victory at > the Battle of Yorktown ??, as constituting the natal event of > Independence as they saw it, or, were they really just saying that > only a "true Independence" constitutes the necessary> > condition of nationhood, and that it took the arrival of the year > 1781, not 1776, in which to achieve it. > > > > > > Sally Spencer <sally234@> wrote:> > Jorge,> > > > In this case wouldn't it be the signing of the Declaration of > Independence then? The thrust was independence as destiny.> > > > Sally> > > > On 1/22/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino@> wrote: Dear > Sally,> > > > I have been rectifying almost all the country charts based on the > moment they decided to take care of their destinies. Some > countries/states are born by enactment of their previous/actual > rulers. > > > > Best wishes,> > > > Jorge > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sally Spencer, Jyotish Kovid> > A Gentle Journey to Deep Healing > > Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,> > Western Astrology reports > > www.Devi3.byregion.net> > sally234@> > > > *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science,> > which determines, strengthens or propitiates> > planetary results. > > > > Waves of Love> > Entering the Planet> > It's inevitable. It's contagious~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels > > in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.> >> > > > > > > > Get your own web address.> Have a HUGE year through Small Business.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Thanks Jorge, I have not perused all your reasoning here. I wanted to thank you for your efforts, clarification and all. I look forward to more. Aloha, SallyOn 1/23/07, Jorge Angelino <jorge.angelino wrote: Dear Sally, I am in the process of rectifying the exact minute and second of the February 2, 1781, chart. So far, I have already checked 15 events in both charts, but more than 150 will be carefully examined. At this stage, let me share some ideas with you and all the other list members: Waves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 It was by Jefferson's own hand that the Declaration saw first life. Yes, Independence was born on the afternoon of July 2, 1776; the State was born on February 2, 1781, but the Declaration, as Charter, was born THE DAY AFTER July 4th, that is, on the 5th, however mis-dated the final result. John, When I read this, I actually wept. You clinched the moment, the one that Jefferson himself was inspired and given birth to accomplish ultimately. Sally P.S. July 5, 1776 Chart: Venus and Jupiter are conjunct, showing civil unrest at home and abroad! I LOVE the Aquarius Moon! The Sun! Status abroad!! nearly on top of the MEP! Aspects the sixth too...explains expensive health care, status in fighting. Mars! On TOP of the eleventh mep! Shows the desire for war!, at the very least action and plus it gives me the satisfaction of the ruler of the fifth, a nation of creativity!! too. thank you John. It hits the second house;), fifth house of creativity!, yes!, sixth house of war!!!, and surgical health care! Saturn on top of the third MEP..? Can you describe this? To me, it denotes problems with the infrastructure. Maybe they are there despite appearances??? Ruled by despots and tyrants, at best men of the people..like FDR. Maybe it describes the constant renewal of the roads, airlines.. Saturn only 20 percent afflicting third, fifth, ninth and twelfth, which isn't bad. It does afflict the Sun exactly however, which describes the status getting such a beating.. Mercury is well placed which helps the infrastructure too as well as combust a benefic Sun. Mars is 80 percent in infancy..that's alot..does this show wild abandon like a child, as in still learning!! With that wars should be a fiasco, and look at the civil war, so many losses! etc.etc. etc., even though we win many abroad. It gets a royal ascendant such as Cancer, the global caretaker. Wonderful!! ALOHA! SOn 1/23/07, JohnTWB <blazingstar1776 wrote: Dear THOR . . . THOR ! We say goodbye to Mr Cosmo Loger; may he ever Rest in Peace !!! YES! IUnquestionably, cosmologically [Thor??] considered, this charter is inextricably connected with the U.S. Bill of Rights. That the two are connected by the soul of Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, both revolutionary heroes of Virginia, is karmically manifest. And that the realization of the Bill of Rights came with its final State ratification, by that of Jefferson's own " home country " , the State of Virginia, in Richmond, on December 15, 1791, should come as no surprise. Consider this data comparison in closing: July 5, 1776, Philadelphia @ 07:40:35 a.m., LUNA 15Aq11, 8H; ASC 28Ca58 December 15, 1791, Richmond @ 11:23:25 a.m. ASC 15Aq11; LUNA 28Ca58, 6HCheers, John -- Sally Spencer, Jyotish KovidA Gentle Journey to Deep Healing Ascension work, Vedic Astrology*,Western Astrology reports www.Devi3.byregion.net sally234 *Vedic Astrology, a co creative sacred science, which determines, strengthens or propitiates planetary results. www.EnlightenedLiving/AscensionJoysWaves of LoveEntering the PlanetIt's inevitable. It's contagious~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2007 Report Share Posted January 23, 2007 Thanks David, and John, (on chart of Charter, July 5, 1776) As you say here, the idea of freedom, the twelfth house with four planets, while not looking promising by incurring losses, (speaks to our immense debt) it also speaks to freedom, ultimate freedom as you so deftly propose here: As in the great Thomas Jefferson's immortal phrasing: " We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . . " It also speaks to the break with the ties of the past extremely well! Maybe this is the chart for the initial pure intent of Jefferson's. Aloha, Sally I am moved by this finding in and of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.