No two people born with Sun in Leo are remotely alike - so why, even in books by some of the best astrologers, do the authors insist on referring to Leos, Aquarians, Taureans, Geminis....and the rest? They know well enough that there's no such thing as, say, "A Leo" but carry on promulgating the myth. No wonder astrology has become such an easy target for eager skeptics. I complain about this each month as I begin to write about the sign into which the Sun has just moved. Boring, I know, but someone has to do it. (wink)
The Sun has moved from Cancer into the sign of Leo now. Leo, Fixed Fire sign. Sign sandwiched between Cardinal Water Cancer and Mutable Earth Virgo, with very different attributes, atmosphere, characteristics from its neighbours. Being ruled by the lifegiving Sun itself gives Leo a kind of "king of the signs" subtitle, I guess. Some keywords for the sign of Leo's characteristics: vitality (from ruler the Sun), authority, generosity, loyalty (Fixed sign), leadership (Fire sign).
From Leo's darker side: arrogance, vanity, ostentatiousness. These characteristics, though, are subject to modification, blurring, and even being over-ruled completely by other strong factors in any natal chart.
A person born between (approximately) 22 July and 22 August when the Sun is in Leo will often display some of the traits associated with the sign. Some would say that this makes that person "A Leo". An astrologer (Jonathan Cainer, I think) once wrote that calling someone "A......." (fill in zodiac sign of choice) is akin to calling someone "An Italian" or "A German", "A Greek" etc. Pretty darned meaningless and sure to promote stereotyping of which we already have more than enough. Yes, I know JC's a Sun sign astrologer, but he does mention the truth of this point quite often. It's a kind of shorthand for writers and speakers, and as long as it's kept in mind that's what it is, all is well.
I've written about Leo in 7 different archived posts (and perhaps fallen into the shorthand trap myself occasionally). Those posts can be reached by clicking on "Leo" in the sidebar Label Cloud.
For today - another look at "A Leo" often in the news: President Barack Obama.
In several posts before the 2008 General election I mentioned a "Neptunian fog" surrounding Barack Obama which, in spite of his obviously Leo connected charisma and air of authority, was sensed by many people. This came via natal Neptune in Scorpio squaring his Leo Sun. (Chart available at Astrodatabank.) I'd forgotten just how "foggy" the now president and his aims had seemed to me. Extract from a 2008 post:
Two years on, it has become clearer that (b) was nearer to the truth, but with the word "Corporate" susbstituted for "Republican". Manipulation of public opinion by the use of corporate money, ensuring the corporate elite never loose the stranglehold they have achieved here in the US. It's scary to think that the public can be so easily deluded (Neptune), more easily now than in days gone by in fact, due to the internet's tentacles and expanded opportunities for subversive input.
Some would say that what has happened is part of a wider event involving some kind of "New World Order" conspiracy by a small bunch of Powerful Ones who aim to take over government of the whole planet. I do not subscribe to that belief, I see it as delusion of a different sort.
In February 2012 transiting Neptune will move from Aquarius (Obama's rising sign) into Pisces, its home sign, and in trine to Obama's natal Neptune in Scorpio. Whether this has any significance or not remains to be seen. So.....what can we expect next? Will Obama be voted in for a second term?
A scoot around the net threw up Astrology and Beyond - website of astrologer Cheryl Lee Terry and her Political Prognostications. I like her view that Obama has a "lucky aspect" (probably his natal Jupiter close to ascendant - powerful position for the planet of luck?) She sees his "lucky aspect" as indicating that...."it’s not that he wins his races — it’s that his opponents lose the race". Good point! My only quibble with Ms Terry's piece is that she refers to the current presidency as "revolutionary":
The Sun has moved from Cancer into the sign of Leo now. Leo, Fixed Fire sign. Sign sandwiched between Cardinal Water Cancer and Mutable Earth Virgo, with very different attributes, atmosphere, characteristics from its neighbours. Being ruled by the lifegiving Sun itself gives Leo a kind of "king of the signs" subtitle, I guess. Some keywords for the sign of Leo's characteristics: vitality (from ruler the Sun), authority, generosity, loyalty (Fixed sign), leadership (Fire sign).From Leo's darker side: arrogance, vanity, ostentatiousness. These characteristics, though, are subject to modification, blurring, and even being over-ruled completely by other strong factors in any natal chart.
A person born between (approximately) 22 July and 22 August when the Sun is in Leo will often display some of the traits associated with the sign. Some would say that this makes that person "A Leo". An astrologer (Jonathan Cainer, I think) once wrote that calling someone "A......." (fill in zodiac sign of choice) is akin to calling someone "An Italian" or "A German", "A Greek" etc. Pretty darned meaningless and sure to promote stereotyping of which we already have more than enough. Yes, I know JC's a Sun sign astrologer, but he does mention the truth of this point quite often. It's a kind of shorthand for writers and speakers, and as long as it's kept in mind that's what it is, all is well.
I've written about Leo in 7 different archived posts (and perhaps fallen into the shorthand trap myself occasionally). Those posts can be reached by clicking on "Leo" in the sidebar Label Cloud.
For today - another look at "A Leo" often in the news: President Barack Obama.
In several posts before the 2008 General election I mentioned a "Neptunian fog" surrounding Barack Obama which, in spite of his obviously Leo connected charisma and air of authority, was sensed by many people. This came via natal Neptune in Scorpio squaring his Leo Sun. (Chart available at Astrodatabank.) I'd forgotten just how "foggy" the now president and his aims had seemed to me. Extract from a 2008 post: Barack Obama has fed on, and profits from, the despair of the ordinary people of the USA, that is clear, his motivation is not. There are several theories. Variations on:
a) that he is actually a rabid left-wing socialist/communist, biding his time before showing his true colours, or
b) he has been financed and pushed ahead by Republican manipulation, and will be their tool, changing nothing once in power, but bringing the nation ever nearer to being a fascist state.
Two extremes with variations of them taking in everything inbetween. How many times in the history of US presidential elections has it been possible to talk in such terms about the leading candidate? I don't know, being a newcomer, but I'd bet that this year's experience is pretty unique.
Two years on, it has become clearer that (b) was nearer to the truth, but with the word "Corporate" susbstituted for "Republican". Manipulation of public opinion by the use of corporate money, ensuring the corporate elite never loose the stranglehold they have achieved here in the US. It's scary to think that the public can be so easily deluded (Neptune), more easily now than in days gone by in fact, due to the internet's tentacles and expanded opportunities for subversive input.Some would say that what has happened is part of a wider event involving some kind of "New World Order" conspiracy by a small bunch of Powerful Ones who aim to take over government of the whole planet. I do not subscribe to that belief, I see it as delusion of a different sort.
In February 2012 transiting Neptune will move from Aquarius (Obama's rising sign) into Pisces, its home sign, and in trine to Obama's natal Neptune in Scorpio. Whether this has any significance or not remains to be seen. So.....what can we expect next? Will Obama be voted in for a second term?
A scoot around the net threw up Astrology and Beyond - website of astrologer Cheryl Lee Terry and her Political Prognostications. I like her view that Obama has a "lucky aspect" (probably his natal Jupiter close to ascendant - powerful position for the planet of luck?) She sees his "lucky aspect" as indicating that...."it’s not that he wins his races — it’s that his opponents lose the race". Good point! My only quibble with Ms Terry's piece is that she refers to the current presidency as "revolutionary":
even as Revolutionary as President Obama’s presidency has been and continues to be....The only revolutionary factor, as I see it, is that President Obama is the first non-white president of the USA. In all else - it's very much business as usual.
17 comments:
Neptune may be trine his natal Neptune beginning February 2012, but Saturn will be moving in and out of a t-square with his natal Jupiter/Mercury, square his Progressed Jupiter and conjunct his Progressed Mars/Mercury conjunction for much of Primary Season as well as around Election Time. He'll also have Tr Mars square his Natal Mars in early-November, possibly on Election Day.
Of course, there's also Tr North Node traveling through his 10th House and conjunct his Midheaven. Now, ordinarily I'd think this would be a saving grace. But Gordon Brown lost the election with that aspect, so I'm not so sure anymore. And with these difficult aspects in Obama's chart, I wonder if a bit of North Node action will be enough.
So, I suspect Saturn will make it very difficult for Obama to coast by on platitudes and cleverly crafted speeches or on the mistakes of his opponents. Saturn will demand he work hard, take responsibility for decisions he's made (something he's proven reluctant to do), answer to his critics with accurate information (and not fudge the facts -- Saturn will bust him if he does), and focus on "reality" and not some Jupiter-like Yes We Can fantasy.
My politically-minded friends and I have been wondering aloud how Obama will be able to "re-brand" himself for the 2012 race. Hope and Change won't work this time around and his record isn't one the People seem to be supporting or excited about right now. But now I believe Saturn will prevent him from "re-branding" and demand the truth.
Personally, I strongly suspect there will be a very, very strong Primary threat from within the Democratic Party. Someone who the People will respond to and believe in and who could actually snag the Nomination!
It'll be interesting nonetheless.
You are right, it is point b) that is true... To believe that Republicans condition politics is to re-enter the old political logic of two - **appearently** - opposing parties...
The Neptunian Fog is something far beyond Barack Obama, but it appears that he undergoes it more than others, due to his chart...
Therefore he is not much Leo in some good part of the sign, he is it as a sort of actor, a good actor, but the screnplay has been written elsewhere... I always called him the Democrat response to Ronald Reagan, and, as his predecessor, he is starting a new phase in the Global system...
What he lacks of the good side of Leo, that is the faith in himself, that warming sense of force coming from the inside, for which you can have the entire world against you but continue of the path you feel and perceive to be right, instead of pleasing others, especially the dominating forces of the Agencies in charge in this world...
He totally lacks of this quality, he has much of the quality of an actor instead...
For the non-astrologers reading this blog, one might call the "Neptunian" factors surrounding Obama, especially that they increasingly become unpleasant, the legendary "fly in the ointment". Let me explain:
- In the early days of the Mexican Gulf spill, the American press was reporting that O. had received over 20 million $ in contributions from BP. And that starting already in his Chicago days. I also read that BP happened to be O's single most important contributor. There must be some truth to that. For me at least, re-enforced by the fact that all of a sudden, any such reports were "suppressed". O. at that time was talking about British P. - that then also ceased...
Practically all astrologers today assume that O.s birth hour or place make him having his AS at around 18 dergres AQ.
I am not a "birther" but some past deals, the ineptness of birthers like Dobbs etc, the early "deal" about Mc Cains birth rights being born in Panama, recent legislation in Hawaii, lack of accessibility to O.'s student records etc. permit in my view, for "sports sake at least", to try to draw O.s map for the same day, same hour but at Mombasa, Kenya.
His AS then would be at 27-28 degr. AQ. - right around where Neptune presently is - or where the "fly in the ointment" may be buried.
Possible that BP one day (in these days of corporatism...) may get someone moving in that old British colony down there in Africa.
All conjectures appear permitted, and I am not using any teleprompter.
Jonathan ~~~ Many thanks for those observations. Saturn in the picture will bring about a different atmosphere, perhaps clear some of the Obamafog for us.
I think many will see through any re-branding attempt, as you point out.
Any candidate from the Democratic party who presents strong opposition to Obama would have to be "in the pocket" of the corporations before receiving the necessary media coverage and their financial support though.
This is what is so awful and dis-spiriting about current situation here.
We need a third party - stronger Greens or semi-socialist. But even if a brilliant leader came forward for a 3rd party they'd be supressed by media and unable to get very far because of lack of funds.
Corporate stranglehold is too strong.
Anon ~~ I agree with everything you've said. Good point about Obama as actor - fits him like a glove (puppet)! ;-)
Depressing indeed. Not sure what will bring about change, but sooner or later (probably later) change is gonna come.
gian paul ~~~ "Fly in the ointment" is a nice alternative to "the fog". :-)
In 2008 I was befuddled by the "birther" thing, but eventually came to the conclusion that it didn't matter much where he was born. Constitutionally it does, I know. But someone was pushing O forward. I didn't quite see that as clearly then as I do now. Whoever was doing the pushing either knew he was born in the USA or had the power to cover up any other evidence. So it really was a waste of time investigating.
Aquarius still on his ascendant if born in Africa though, and in a degree significant right now is an intriguing find
"Interesting" times!
I would usually agree with you, Twilight, that someone would need to be in the pocket of corporations and such in order to have a fighting chance.
But did you notice what happened in the 2008 Primary?
Obama was the obvious Favored Son, yet the people kept on voting for Hillary! The Media would order her to drop-out -- as she won contest after contest --, but the People would ignore them and still vote for her time and again. It was as if there were those who could see through the Neptunian Fog of Obama and knew they -- and We, the People -- were being played.
So, in the end, we ended up with a Democratic Nominee who couldn't win ONE large Democratic Primary State (except for his own, Illinois). First time in history that's happened.
The point is, the Media was obviously pulling for Obama and the People, in direct contradiction, were pulling for Hillary. In the end, the Media "won", but it was a clear indication that the People -- as Pluto marches through Capricorn and destroys then redefines who and what our "Authority Figures" are -- no longer trust the Media and are striving to decide for themselves.
Jonathan ~~~ Oh, I hope you're right, that more and more people are seeing through the fog.
I supported Hillary myself, after Dennis Kucinich dropped out (a good example of what happens when a candidate states truly populist policies which would work against what the corporations and elite need to happen. He was ridiculed or ignored routinely by media, talking heads, pundits etc.)
Those better informed than I on US politics say that Hillary Clinton would have been just as much in the pockets or the corporations as Obama. I suspect she'd have done a wee bit more for "The People", while keeping t'others happy as well. She had better connections and experience than O, can be a lot more determined and less likely to compromise.
We'll see how things progress from now on. More people are "waking up" and that's a very, very good thing.
Jonathan, in his comment, mentions O. as the "favourite son" - in 2008. Son of the Saudi King?
I would not be surprised that what the Israeli PM said the other day has not a connection with that. It's full of "inuendos" these days. Nathanyiahu publicly stated that the USA is "easy to manage"...
Like in poker: "tell" - an unconscious (or double bluff?) action that let others believe they know what's going on...
RR was quite good at that, genuine.
He caught Gorbi by his bluff.
O. so far caught no-one, except BP. And that because they were unlucky. Or negligent. But isn't that the same? O. wins because others loose, as was the case in Chicago when he became Senator.
In my personal expreience, people with Jupiter and Saturn both retrograde in their birth maps, especially when receiving other strong planetary aspects (O. has a grand trine there with Moon/Mars), end getting caught in their own net. Here it may be his wife Michele. She appears to be a very strong hidden influence. So her map may be politically more important in coming days.
I also think Hillary wouldn't have been as intimidated by and/or as impressed with Power as Obama is. She has more of a spine and isn't as much of a blushing neophyte people pleaser as he seems to be. She can make the tough decisions without deflecting the blame or voting Present.
And I wouldn't rule her out for 2012. There are A LOT of Democrat Congresspeople (according to my friends in DC who are intimately familiar with what's going on behind-the-scenes) who have been used by, then dropped and finally ignored by Obama -- as so many have before; it's all about Obama, you know -- who are not feeling as ready to give him their support as they were in 2008.
But Hillary remains well-respected, well-liked, and appreciated. She's got, by all accounts, a thankless job without any support from the WH and she's still managing to carve out a strong resume as SoS. And with no help or support from The One either.
People on The Hill see this, see how she deals with it and still plods along, and respect her even more while liking him even less. Come 2012 there may not be as many people willing to go to the mat for him as there are for her. And that's what we may see shaping up in the Primary Season.
And let's not forget the American People here. In a recent Poll a month or so ago, 62% believed she had what it takes to be President while only 51% thought he did. And this is after 2 years in Office.
Again, interesting times.
We have a similar situation in the UK with Cameron deemed to be the "heir to Blair" by a lot of the left wing MSM and annointed by Peter Mandelson as well.
Saying that the Coalition is not getting an easy ride. Cameron has made some gaffes on his visit to the US that has not played well in the media at home and his deputy the Lib Dem Clegg has denounced the war in Iraq as illegal at PMQs yesterday, which also is being raked over in the press.
While ostensibly we have a 3 party system in actuality it is only 2 as the Lib Dems only got into power via the Coalition deal with the Tories.
To be honest is is one great big yawn for a lot of the people as most of us know we are run by a foreign government in a foreign country so this is just political grandstanding and posing which the majority of the electorate laugh at.
What we are not laughing at is the cost of the policies implemented by any government of any colour or persuasion. As the austerity measures start to bite there will be more of a backlash than ever before.
We Brits are slow to burn and when are backs are against the wall we come out fighting. I still think there is more to come and can only hope we the "common man" can weather the "perfect storm" to come.
Ooohh spelling mistake. I meant "our backs" in the last paragraph. Too much Aussie Shiraz with the duck risotto for dinner.
Jonathan ~~~ If HC runs in 2012, and if the DNC is behind her (they weren't in 2008) yes, I think she'd stand a good chance, and even better if Sarah Palin dares to throw her hat into the ring for the Republicans.
I'm thinking that in 2008 whoever it was pushing Obama forward chose him because, first it'd be a feather in the USA's cap to hve a "black" prez for a change, and second because there is still a lot of anti-Clinton feeling around. I've been very surprised about that. Some people, even Democrats, absolutely hate both Bill and Hillary and all they stand for.
I wonder about Al Gore.....no, don't think he'll risk it.
gian paul ~~~ Yes, I often think that politics is more like a game of poker than actually running the country for the good of its people - which is the proper job description.
Rossa ~~~ I didn't think the coalition of Conservative and Lib-Dem would last. I have a lot more faith in the British public standing on their hind legs and demanding change than I have in the US people. There's far too much complacency here. "I'm alright Jack" - and a lot of 'em are alright, in spite of the recession.
I haven't looked at the charts of the Brit leaders at all so can't say whether Neptune is sculling around there too. It seems significant that there's some unrest in both places.
It is such pleasure to come here T and read both your post and your commenters.
I sure hope that the Americans outweigh the "Theocorporatocracy" in the upcoming elections and also in 2012 but the hope is thin and foggy much like BO himself.
I had the thought recently that perhaps he is in the way of a bookmark for the Reps. Someone to duddle around, not keeping any of his 'promises' engendering a backlash and then SP would slide in - have you seen the number of women supporting her?
Argh and bleurgh.
XO
WWW
WWW ~~~ It's always a pleasure to see you here, WWW. :-)
You might well be right on that bookmark thought.
There are so many ways to see or rather imagine things in a fog. I haven't been in a true atmospheric fog since the 1960s, in Blackpool of all places. My mother and I stepped out of a shop to find that a thick, clammy pea-soup fog had descended while we were shopping.
It was one of the scariest things I've experienced couldn't see anything at all, but more fog.....very strange feeling.
Post a Comment