Prediction on GWB

[Guest guest]

>Ron Grimes wrote:

>Bert and group,

> " possible violence " . Cute. Glad he was specific. LOL.

 

 

Yeah that is not exactly a sterling example of exactness. But possibility

exists, never the less and to a greater degree then the day

to day danger. January/February jumps out in this regard.

 

 

 

>I have noticed a tendency that, no matter who is in office, for some

>reason, astrologers love to predict some danger to the president. I

>remember the same being true when Clinton was in office. The fact of the

>matter is, every day of his presidency, there is ALWAYS " possible

>violence " to the president because he's the most prized target of our

>enemies.

 

True enough, but there are times when it is just more dangerous then others,and

it refers to the man himself,and not to those around

him. .This is indicated by transits to the WIC, and by the solunars of W

himself.

 

As for loving.it.......NOT! I remember all to well what the assassination of

JFK did to this nation. I would never want us to have to go

though that again,regardless of how much I revered Kennedy and loath the present

holder of the office.

 

 

 

 

>

>This reminds me of when Choudhry predicted ill health to Bush a couple

>years back, and I responded by saying it wouldn't affect Bush himself,

>but a near death accident would befall his younger sibling, which is

>what happened: his brother's airplane had a hole struck through it by

>lightning while traveling. I think people see danger in a president's

>chart and automatically assume it's going to befall him.

 

Now that is very interesting. What was it that allowed you to make that sort of

fine distinction between the naive himself and those

closest to him? The WIC refers to the office holder, his solunars likewise refer

him, and should be read that way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>Having said that, while I don't predict death (because I feel it is

>extremely bad karma), perhaps what these astrologers are seeing as an

>event befalling President Bush is actually health issues surrounding his

>parents that affects the president deeply.

 

I agree, an astrologer should never make that sort of prediction lightly. But

mundane astrologers see what they see, and have a duty

to report what they see,so that possible remedial precautions can be put into

place. No one, with any sense enjoys being a Jeremiah or

Kasandra. But it does go with the territory. We are called by the times we live

in, to do what those times demand of us.

 

 

 

 

>P.S. I'm using a 7:26am time for GWB, giving Cancer 14d 0'32 " rising.

 

That is the time I have as well. It is listed at rated at AA +/- 1m and from

written record.

 

 

Bert Fannin

[Guest guest]

Bert and Group,

 

 

Bert Fannin [bwfannin]

 

>>I think people see danger in a president's chart and automatically

>>assume it's going to befall him.

 

> Now that is very interesting. What was it that allowed you to

make >that sort of fine distinction between the naive himself and those

>closest to him?

 

My assessment keys in on the parents due to both dasa and divisional

chart usage. I wouldn't be able to do most of my predictions without

those two tools.

 

Rony