Nattering Nabobs of Negativity
13 October 2008 - 15 תשרי 5769 by Huw
EALITY SANDWICH Points out some disturbing astrological parallels between Obama and Lincoln. If you’ve been reading closely for, oh, the last 10 years, you know I think Lincoln may have freed the slaves (on paper, at least) but he enslaved the rest of us. Thus hearing that Obama has some kind of newage Karmic link to King Abe is nearly enough to make me endorse Ron Paul.
For those of you who read astrology with interest, Elections Astrology: Obama, Lincoln, JFK, Bailout Games, and Palin’s Potency may offer some intrigue to you.
The Fathers rejected Astrology because it impinges on the free will of humans created in God’s image. But, back in my pagan days, I confess the one time I managed to pull a “time sensitive chart” (the moment of Dick Grein’s Enthronement as Episcopal Bishop of NY) I predicted, nearly dead on, the course of his Episcopacy. So… Caveat Lector.
The few friends I have who do follow the planets will find the following lines especially interesting (before the writer swoons off into “Bilderberg” and other such conspiracies):
ALSO, Mercury will be retrograde during Inauguration. These two points are extremely important. They reveal that the next administration will be born under a void-of-course Moon and a Mercury Retrograde, two of the worst moments in time to birth any projects, especially an administration of U.S. governance. This may be the curtain call for the model of governance or even the definition of the United States itself, which will play out over 2009-2012.
I mention this because the happiest candidate come Inauguration day will very likely be the one NOT taking office. Because of the socioeconomic unrest and many volatile astrological factors in the next four years, including a repetition of “Great Depression” era astrological alignments, and the above points about Inauguration day, the job of President of the U.S.A. will be fraught with overwhelming challenges, hostilities, and dangers.
Remember: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The question is not “is he nuts” but rather “does that mean everything he says is lunacy”?
