The horoscopes of Hillary Clinton, the Benghazi incident ,and the Benghazi Congressional hearing is on the bottom of the page. I've ignored advanced Uranian applications; the basic transits seem to speak very well by themselves.
Twelth house transits can challenging. Even vedic astrology calls the twelth house a "house of dusthana," which means it can be difficult and challenging at times. I have learned that twelth house transits represent a time of service and sacrifice, as well as unfortunate actions that can result in hospitalization and conflicts with authorities. It is good that one be at best behavior during twelth house transits, and not take foolish risks. This is especially true if such twelth house transits involve planets (and planatoids) beyond Jupiter.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens lost his life on September 11, 2012 during an attack on a U.S. consulate storage facility in Benghazi (AND WHY DO THESE GUYS PICK THESE "anniversary" DATES? FIRST IT WAS WACO AND NOW IT'S 9/11). The question that remains is whether or not the U.S. Secretary of The State (Hillary Clinton, at that time) knew an attack on the U.S. Ambassador was going on and failed to call out for U.S. air support from Tripoli to fight off the attack (didn't JFK do something like this with Bay of Pigs?)
The horoscope of Hillary Clinton reveals a Saturn placement that is high in the sky, near the MC (Midheaven). JFK and Hitler had similar "nearly overhead" Saturn placements on their horoscopes. I have noticed that one can be promoted professionally at a very rapid pace with this Saturn placement, as well as take a big fall from power with this placement (especially if due to corruption or overlooked details). But for natal placements, the placement of Neptune in the eleventh house on Hillary's horoscope is the real current point of focus (see chart below). It may also be revealing a more disturbing side: deceptive actions by friends and associates; friends and associates becoming dishonest or disapointing; association with glamorous people. A more positive side of Neptune in the eleventh is service with groups of people committed to a higher purpose. Unfortunately, this aspect of Neptune in the eleventh may be something extremely difficult for a real estate attorney to commit to.
Here's the horoscope of the Benghazi attack on 09/11/12 "on top" of Hillary Clinton's natal horoscope. This basic chart doesn't confirm or disavow any knowledge she may have had with the Benghazi attack. But if she did have such knowledge at that time, it could be a future problem with Saturn's new entrance into her twelth house, and Mars in transit in the twelth house forming a square to Mars (and Pluto, at the same time. Astrologer Jayj Jacobs defined Mars/Pluto combinations as "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead"). Also note the late Saturn trine Uranus transit, which can represent "constructive arrangement with friends and associates." And with natal Uranus in the eighth house, Hillary's friends may be secretive and related to banking and finance.
Here's the 05/08/13 hearings. Notice that Mars on that day was forming a square with Hillary's natal Mars placement, and was 180 degrees from the previous Mars placement on 09/11/12!! Also notice Hillary's natal Neptune has Pluto in the sky forming a 90 degree square angle to it, and Uranus in the sky is forming a 180 degree opposition to natal Neptune at the same time (ouch!) Finally, Neptune in the sky is forming a 180 degree opposition to Hillary's MC (midheaven, or "overhead" point). Neptune rules deception, disappointments, and service, and is in a hard tradeoff with the midheaven point (which represents one's reputation). This may define trying times for Hillary Clinton, but she aint gonna live in sewage pipes in Las Vegas.
Replies
"I like dogs." - shootist/mechanic Mr. Smith, from the hysterical shoot-em-up movie "Shoot 'Em Up." Hope you are well Kat.
Nice to see you, Malcolm, great work!
Thanks Kelly. Charley Manson is my next horoscope for analysis; basic and advanced. Best, Malcolm
Manson-don't want to miss that!
It's just a systemic failure...and a normal but unfortunate series of events. The real issue isn't the response on the night, or the response by the administration afterwards, all normal protocol was followed. The real issue is the lack of security in Libya for US personnel there in the first place. The real scandal is the refusing of security requests from Stevens and other personnel in Libya, in the weeks before the attack, by the State Department.
And millions of cables go in and out of the State Department all the time, so it's unreasonable to assume the Secretary of State is responsible for knowing about all those cables, and she said she wasn't made aware of the extra security calls from Libya. The people responsible for overseeing the Libyan cables, and refusing the call for more security, should be reprimanded, and they have been. Could she have done more to be more aware of what was happening in Libya in terms of security, sure. That's hardly sinister intent though, as some people try to make it out to be. And even the staunchest critics in the Republican party don't try to say that there was any sinister motive involved in anything, but they do think there was a failure of leadership and judgment, and for that there needs to be some reprimanding, and they might have a point.
So it's important to be clear about things, and know what you're talking about before you talk about it. There is no evidence of a cover up....or a lie. That may be the opinion of some people, who don't understand protocol, and don't know all the facts about what transpired with the whole thing, but opinions are just opinions. The truth is, what happened in Libya was a tragedy. It was an unfortunate series of events, made possible by systemic failures. Circumstances and variables were such, that the attack happened and resulted in the deaths of those 4 men, without adequate response. There was no sinister intent, or motives....it's just how it played out, according to all the circumstances and variables.
Well I don't trust one persons interpretation of an astrological reading, that may or may not be accurate. What I've done, is study the case, through and through, and use a bit of common sense. The truth is, this isn't about Benghazi. As if people really care what happened in Benghazi. This isn't about Benghazi, and finding out what happened. This is about people using this, as a tool to try and stick it to the administration, that's all it is. It's just a tool....people look and go, oh cover up, bad administration, they need to be punished, that's all it is. This amounts to a political witch hunt, and to me, that's not a pure motivation.
As for what actually happened in Benghazi, it's clear, now, what happened and all you need to do is look into it, to find out what happened. At the time though, no one knew what exactly happened, there was alot of confusion....and because of that confusion, and the lack of information and proof, the intelligence given to the President and his administration didn't reflect what really happened. Nonetheless, that was the assessment at the time, so the President laid out that assessment to the American people. And that's understandable. As time went on, and the investigation ensued, and more information came in, they changed their assessment, hence why it took the administration 2 weeks to acknowledge it was an act of terror, a planned operation, by a radical group.
People, especially right wingers, say, well they lied to the American people for 2 weeks. No, they relayed the information given to the them by the intelligence community, and as time went on and more information was gathered, they changed the assessment. That's a normal course of events, no lie, no misleading, nothing like that.
As for calls to stand down, in Tripoli, there were 4 men as part of the CIA security force, who were stationed there. They asked for permission to go back up the annex and consulate, and were told not to go yet, because they were still assessing the situation and finding out exactly what was going on. Again, that's normal protocol, you want to know what you're sending people into, or you might be sending them all to their deaths. 2 men ignored the directive, and went anyways...and lo and behold, went right to their deaths.
As for the troops stationed in Italy being told not to respond, that's not true. There were no troops in Italy at the time the attack started, there were special forces training operations going on in Croatia. When it was known the attack was happening, the AFRICACOM commander recommended troops there be mobilized to respond, and the Secretary of Defense ordered the pre-positioning of those troops to Italy, to be in position to respond when it was more clear what was happening on the ground, because at the time, the nature of the events on the ground were unknown. Moreover, by the time the troops arrived in Italy, the attack was already over.
And also, they couldn't send US military aircraft and forces into Libya, a sovereign nation, without permission by the State Department, and permission from the government of Libya. Also, at that time, the information coming in was so confusing, they weren't sure whether it was worth the risk to send in US troops, they wanted to wait until more information came in, to get a clearer picture of what was happening. Again, that's normal protocol.
Moreover, none of these decisions are made the the Secretary of State, no military operation is conducted or overseen by the Secretary of State, that would be the Secretary of Defense responsible for that. So to say, Hilary Clinton refused requests from Tripoli to go help, is absurd, and just shows a lack of basic understanding of how protocol is set up. She may recommend help to the Defense Department and the Pentagon, ultimately it's their decision though, whether that help is sent or not.
good to see your back Malcolm-astrology really is telling if you know what your doing. as you obviously do-I can read the Tarot cards pretty well(I'm not equating the Tarot with Astrology)-Hillary will not go down with this and neither will bama, they own the media-if this were a repub, even a liberal like Rubio, as the Sec of State he would have had to resign from the pressure and his pres would not have been re-elected or it would have been real close-the media would have the average punk on the street yapping about the attack and deriding the Sec just as they turned bush into hitler (I don't care for bush, he' a globalist) anyway real cool stuff here Malcolm
Thanks. I need to get back to writing and practicing writing, as I may be doing research papers in the near future. I really feel good when I write about astrology, but the topics and people you pick must be interesting to draw people in. It's sort of like playing guitar on the streets, which I've done once (and made $110.00 from 9PM to 2AM): pick artists that will turn people's heads walking by, like Hendrix, Clapton, and Muddy Waters. And remember if you screw up, they will continue to walk on by (and no money gets thrown in your guitar case). Best, Malcolm
This "Benghazi Gate" amounts to nothing more than a political witch hunt by the Republican party, that's clear. And here's the proof. During the Bush Administration, there were 12 separate attacks on US embassies and consulates, resulting in the deaths of 44 people. Under the Reagan Administration, there were 3 attacks on US embassies and consulates, resulting in the deaths of 79 people. But there were no calls, from the right wing, or the left wing for that matter....for impeachment, there weren't even calls of incompetence and neglect by the administration. There wasn't a political witch hunt, like we're seeing now with Obama.
So it's clear, this scandal and fuss is politically motivated. And by the way, Marco Rubio is a Republican, not a Democrat lol This is why it's important to know things, and have your facts straight, before forming opinions on things, because then you can form an informed opinion based on what's real.
I think you are correct about the political-thing. The Republicans are now trying to market Rand Paul for 2016, but I also believe the financial establishment (and Wall Street especially) may be throwing Rand Paul in at this point as a response to the Independants and to the Ron Paul supporters whereby "we won't give you Ron Paul, but we will give you his son" (AND RAND PAUL IS NOTHING LIKE HIS DAD). Best, Malcolm
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next