37 by granny_skot LOL Well I'm a woman who tends to be more interested in Presidents and war, they are more predictable than love and less painful! IMO (insert humor here) Besides Andrew is Still Married(last I heard) so how can he tell you whether or not it is successful until it ends? I've looked at the Data, seems to me the 12:51 is more relevant, now how do I input a spreadsheet? G. Quote Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:06 pm
39 by ea Gjiada wrote: And about Ascendant for 12:00 we have 14.03 Taurus, for 12:05 15.46 Taurus, and 12:06 16.06 Taurus. In the first case Ascendant is in Mercury terms, then in Jupiter ones. I also noticed that the chart made for 12:00 has the evil fixed star Menkar on the Ascendant. Menkar is at 14.27 Taurus these days. If we allow the usual orb for fixed stars of one degree both the chart of 11:58 for vice-president Biden and the chart for president Obama narrowly escape it. Let's hope this is the case. This is what Robson writes about this star: 'It causes disease, disgrace, ruin, injury from beasts, sickness, and loss of fortune If rising: Legacies and inheritances attended by much evil' One could of course make a case of Robson's interpretation of Menkar rising, but let's hope Menkar will stay clear of this new presidential term now. ea Quote Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:13 pm
40 by granny_skot I wouldn't be the only one to say they had inherrited some Evil Legacies! but one hopes they will fix them! Granny Quote Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:25 pm
41 by granny_skot The Oath of office lacks so much Import that Obama had it Readministered today... wonder what the time was.... Granny http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_ ... th_do_over WASHINGTON ? Chief Justice John Roberts has administered the presidential oath of office to Barack Obama for a second time just to be on the safe side. The unusual step came after Roberts flubbed the oath a bit on Tuesday, causing Obama to repeat the wording differently than as prescribed in the Constitution. White House counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts again out of an "abundance of caution." The chief justice and the president handled the matter privately in the Map Room on Wednesday night. Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:25 am
42 by Astraea According to CNN's website, the second oath-taking took place at 7:35 PM EST Wednesday evening (1-21-09), before several witnesses from the press. Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:59 am
43 by granny_skot Giving a 00Virgo 27 Asc, reflecting the Detail oriented nature of the event. and a 25 Taurus 33 MC, a tad close to Algol there, SAturn in the first house, gives a very hard work ethic attitude. Retrograde, having to undo things, Venus uranus in 7th, Venus Exalted Pluto Mars Mercury in 5th... terring down and rebuilding primary education? maybe? Sun in 5th but very close to 6th cusp so possibly read in 6th, though child health care bill signed so possibly reflects that strattling of two houses. Jupiter, NN, Chiron and Neptune all in 6th gee wounded healer in the 6th who would have thought it... being aquarian wonder if it means great strides in Medicine? Moon in middle of 4th well Mother in Law living in the white house with them, could well represent that... hmmmm well I think the 12:05 one was fairly decent but this definitely brings up ideas... Granny Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:47 am
44 by Andrew Bevan Obama give oath for a second time Due John G. Roberts reading the wrong oath and getting a word wrong during the inagurational cermony, Obama gave his oath a 2nd time at the White House, time 19.45, Jan. 21 (02.25 GMT Jan. 22). While this says something about the symbolic importance of the oath, I would say that with Mercury retrograde this was more like a second checking of the papers. Obama made no mistake. Personally, I go for the first time. No change, I just find this interesting. Last edited by Andrew Bevan on Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total. http://www.astronor.com Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:58 am
45 by margherita ea wrote: I also noticed that the chart made for 12:00 has the evil fixed star Menkar on the Ascendant. Menkar is at 14.27 Taurus these days. I try to stay with more traditional sources than Robson, but in any case according my astronomy software Menkar - alpha Cetus arises at 12:53 PM so at least to me it's very far from the Ascendant. Margherita Traditional astrology at http://heavenastrolabe.wordpress.com Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 am
46 by ea granny_skot wrote:Giving a 00Virgo 27 Asc, reflecting the Detail oriented nature of the event. and a 25 Taurus 33 MC, a tad close to Algol there, And Regulus is on the Ascendant. How very interesting that two such heavy stars are present. If we also consider the 12:00 chart, when the term actually began, we can add Menkar to the lot and this sounds pretty disheartening. I hope Mr Obama isn't familiar with astrology A good thing about this 7:35 PM chart is that the Moon has gone into Sagittarius and its next aspect is to Jupiter, a benefic. Btw, there is a strange thing about the Ascendant. Janus gives indeed 00Virgo27, but Solar Fire gives 29Leo38. Which one is it, I wonder. Mercury retro really messes up here, doesn't he? ea Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:40 am
47 by pankajdubey Los Angeles Times has something to say:(emphasis mine) http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2579.story "...The president's lawyer and constitutional experts agreed that taking the oath a second time was unnecessary. Under the Constitution, Obama became president at noon Tuesday, a few minutes before he placed his hand on a Bible to take the oath. "We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately" Tuesday, White House Counsel Greg Craig said in a statement. "But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time." ============================================ Obama reads Skyscript mundane forum;he is already known to be superstitious or atleast believe in charms and talismans.No Bible the second time PD Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:15 am
48 by ### OK, so far it looks like the oath may or may not have been all that important. Perhaps it depends on which oath we're talking about. Oath A or oath B? Hard to tell. Also, a fixed star or two may be giving some weighty significance to the matter. Or maybe not. Lawyers have voiced their opinions. They sometimes do that. Do women truly want the fruits of marriage or do they secretly wish to speak of presidents and war? That covers the first 3-and-a-half pages. Where do we go from here? -- ... ............................... Quote Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:07 pm