11 Kinds of Bible Verses Christians Love to Ignore 

11 Kinds of Bible Verses Christians Love to Ignore

Most Christians tend to ignore the awkward parts of the Bible.

By Valerie Tarico

May 26, 2014

Some Bible-believing Christians play fast and loose with their sacred text. When it suits their purposes, they treat it like the literally perfect word of God. Then, when it suits their other purposes, they conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that are—inconvenient.
Here are 11 kinds of verses Bible-believers ignore so that they can keep spouting the others when they want to. To list all of the verses in these categories would take a book almost the size of the Bible; one the size of the Bible minus the Jefferson Bible, to be precise. I’ll limit myself to a couple tantalizing tidbits of each kind, and the curious reader who wants more can go to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible or simply dig out the old family tome and start reading at Genesis, Chapter I.

ADVERTISING

1. Weird insults and curses. The Monty Python crew may have coined some of the best insults of the last 100 years: Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. But for centuries the reigning master was Shakespeare: It is certain that when he makes water his urine is congealed ice. Had John Cleese or William Shakespeare lived in the Iron Age, though, some of the Bible writers might have given him a run for his money. Christians may scoot past these passages, but one hell-bound humorist used them to create a biblical curse generator.

• She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. Ezekiel 23:20 NIV
• You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her. You will build a house, but you will not live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will not even begin to enjoy its fruit. Your ox will be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will eat none of it. Your donkey will be forcibly taken from you and will not be returned. Your sheep will be given to your enemies, and no one will rescue them. . . . The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head. Deuteronomy 28:30-31,35

2. Awkwardly useless commandments. The Bible is chock-a-block with do's and don’ts. Some of them are simply statements of universal ethical principles like, do to others what you would have them do to you, or don’t lie, or don’t covet your neighbor’s possessions. But from a moral standpoint most of them are simply useless or even embarrassing—especially if you think God could have used the space to say don’t have sex with anyone who doesn’t want you to, or wash your hands after you go to the bathroom.

• Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19
• Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Leviticus 19:27

3. Silly food rules. The early Hebrews probably didn’t have an obesity epidemic like the one that has spread around the globe today. Even so, one might think that if an unchanging and eternal God were going to give out food rules he might have considered the earnest Middle-American believers who would be coming along in 2014. A little divine focus on amping up leafy green vegetables and avoiding sweets might have gone a long way. Instead, the Bible strictly forbids eating rabbit, shellfish, pork, weasels, scavengers, reptiles, and owls. As is, Christians simply ignore the eating advisories in the Old Testament, even though they claim that edicts like the Ten Commandments and the anti-queer clobber verses still apply.

• All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 9:10
• Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk. Exodus 23:19

4. Holy hangups about genitals. God, or the Bible writers, is hung up about sexual anatomy in a way many modern Christians, fortunately, are not. In The Year of Living Biblically, the author, A.J. Jacobs, attempts to obey Mosaic laws about menstruation. When his wife finds out what those laws actually are, she gives him the middle finger by sitting on every chair in the house.

• When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Leviticus 15: 19-20
• When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12

5. God’s temper tantrums. Modern Christians may talk about God as a loving father, or even a Jesus buddy, the kind you’d want to play golf with, but in reality Bible-God goes out of his way to be intimidating. Worse, he appears to lose control of his temper at times, lashing out like an oversized thwarted three-year-old; and his earthly representatives—including Jesus—do the same.

• Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV
• Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-22 NIV

6. Times when the Bible God is worse than Satan. In the Bible, Satan is described as a roaring lion who prowls the earth, seeking whom he may devour. But if you actually read the stories, Satan doesn’t do much other than to tempt people into disobeying the dictates of Yahweh, who acts like a heavenly dictator with borderline personality disorder. God, by contrast, professes his undying love, kindness and mercy, but then commands his minions to commit brutal atrocities when he isn’t up for it himself. Some of the stories are so bad even Hollywood, with its passion for glorious biblical sex and violence, won’t touch them, especially the plentiful Bible stories about sexual slavery and human sacrifice.

• Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.Numbers 31:17-18
• He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them.... He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT

7. Instructions for slave masters. The reality is that the Bible says much more in support of slavery than against it. Even the New Testament Jesus never says owning people is wrong. Instead, the Bible gives explicit instructions to masters and slaves. Awkward.

• You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
• Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT

8. Bizzare death penalties. Years ago, I wrote an article titled, “If the Bible Were Law Would You Qualify For the Death Penalty?” It identified 35 different offenses that earn a person capital punishment in the Bible. Hint: You probably qualify. And so does the dog who belongs to your kinky neighbor.

• If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
• If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15 NLT

9. Denigration of handicapped people. The yuck factor is probably wired into humanity at the level of instinct, a way to avoid contamination and pathogens. Shit smells bad to us as does decaying flesh. Our revulsion at illness and injury fuels a whole Hollywood horror industry. The Bible writers had the same instincts, but unlike modern health professionals, who have the benefit of germ theory, they had no idea what was contagious and what wasn’t, and they blurred the ideas of physical purity with spiritual purity. Modern Christians largely escape their denigration of physical handicaps.

• No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
• Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV

10. Moral edicts that demand too much.If much of the Bible gets ignored because it is morally irrelevant, immoral, outdated, or factually wrong, another portion gets ignored because it sets the bar too high, like putting divorce on par with—omg—homosexuality. If you want to send a conservative Bible-believer into a froth, try suggesting Jesus was a socialist. Then, when he goes all Jehovah on you, quote from the book of Ephesians.

• Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. Luke 3:11 NIV
• Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place. Ephesians 5:4 NIV

11. Passages that are a waste of brain space and paper. Some years ago I worked on a website called Wisdom Commons, a library of timeless quotes and stories from many traditions. I had the idea that I would go through the Bible and pull out bits that were relevant, so I started reading.
What I found was that most of the Bible was neither horrible nor inspiring. It was simply dull and irrelevant: long genealogies written by men obsessed with racial purity; archaic stories about ancient squabbles over real estate and women; arcane rituals aimed at pleasing a volatile deity; folk medicine practices involving mandrakes and dove’s blood; superstition that equated cleanliness with spiritual purity and misfortune with divine disfavor; outdated insider politics.
On top of that, it was badly written, with some stories garbled and others repeated, though rarely in complete agreement about the facts. The Bible’s supposed author seemed like a psychological mess, and I found myself irritated. With a finite number of pages to set the course of human history, this was the best He could do?
Thank God Bible-believing Christians don’t take the Good Book as seriously as they claim to.

Lou Holtz Nails It !!

Lou Holtz Nails It !!

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.
That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.
The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.
It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.
Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.
Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.
You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.
The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”
Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.
What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”
Lou Holtz
Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.

The 13 Leaders Of The Socialist Movement In Congress: Barbara Lee

The 13 Leaders Of The Socialist Movement In Congress: Barbara Lee

August 30, 2015 by Staff 

Many socialists prefer to hide behind the term “progressive,” but Barbara Lee doesn’t hide; she wears her socialism proudly on her sleeve.
Joseph Farah, the publisher of WND once stated: “The values Lee promotes – and has always promoted – are the values of socialism, communism and anti-Americanism.”
According to the website WikiKey, “Lee’s radicalism dates at least to the early 1970s when she was a confidential aide to Black Panther Party ‘Minister of Defense’ Huey Newton.”
WikiKey also mentions that Lee was an “Executive Board member of the Communist Party USA,” and David Horowitz’s website, DiscoverTheNetworks.org, lists a number of Lee’s far left affiliations and positions over the years.

Lee is not simply a Socialist, she is, without argument, one of the most dangerous socialist presently serving in Congress.
Biography:
Barbara Lee was born Barbara Jean Tutt on July 16, 1946 in El Paso County, Texas. She is the daughter of recently deceased Mildred Parish Massey and late Lieutenant Colonel, Garvin Alexander Tutt.  Her biological father, James Lewis, was a veteran of the Korean War.
Lee has two sisters, Beverly Hardy and Mildred Whitfield. A DNA analysis revealed that Lee descended from people of Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau and she grew up in the Southwest with her grandparents.
As a young girl, Lee enjoying sewing, making dresses and fencing. Her mother paid for her Catholic school tuition, piano, sewing and ballet lessons, along with Brownies and Girl Scouts activities. She attended a private Roman Catholic school, St. Joseph’s, from the first to eighth grades.
In 1960, following the death of her grandmother, Willie, Lee’s family moved to California to live near her two maternal aunts. While attending San Fernando High School, Barbara challenged a district policy that prevented her from trying out for the cheer leading team on the basis of her race. Lee’s endeavors proved successful and she became the first black cheerleader in her school district. As a teenager, Lee won two music achievement awards from the Rotary Club and the Bank of America. She graduated High School in 1964.
Prior to attending college, Lee lived in the San Francisco Bay Area with her two children. Her three person family received public financial assistance during that period. While enrolled in Mills College in Oakland, Lee became the president of the Black Students’ Association. She also acted as a leader in the region’s primary civil rights movement. In 1973, she earned her Bachelor’s degree from Mills College. Two years later, Lee was granted a Master’s degree in social work from the University of California, Berkeley.
Lee’s two sons currently work in the insurance industry. Tony Lee is the chief executive officer of one of the United States’ largest African-American owned insurance brokerage and consulting firms, Dickerson Employee Benefits. Craig Lee is a long term senior executive at State Farm. Barbara Lee continues to reside in California to this day.
Disclaimers:
Inclusion on this list is not based on the opinion of the authors or, in effect, the subjective opinions of any third party. Inclusion on this list is based upon present or past membership in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a caucus within Congress that has long-standing and deep ties and, in the opinion of a number of political scholars, was an arm of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) at the time of its inception. According to David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com website: “Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are undoubtedly socialists, though most shy away from the label. The CPC has long had ties to the far-left Institute for Policy Studies, Democratic Socialists of America (the largest Marxist group in the country), and the Communist Party USA.” Additionally, a number of authoritative articles have been written on the historical connection between the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the DSA and we encourage the reader to do independent research if the topic is of further interest.

How This New Government Ruling Destroys the Franchise Business Model

James Sherk / @JamesBSherk / August 28, 2015 

Signs for an assortment of fast food franchises located in one storefront in New York (Photo: Richard B. Levine/Newscom)

Commentary By

James Sherk @JamesBSherk

As a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, James Sherk researches ways to promote competition and mobility in the workforce rather than erect barriers that prevent workers from getting ahead. Read his research.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) just issued a ruling likely to destroy the franchise business model.
To understand how far-reaching this could be, it should be noted that almost 9 million Americans work at over 780,000 franchised businesses.
From Jiffy Lube to Terminex to Wendy’s, franchises enable many Americans to run their own small businesses without having to design and market everything from scratch. Franchising is a particularly important opportunity for minority entrepreneurs.
Franchises are almost 50 percent more likely to be minority-owned than non-franchised businesses. If this ruling stands, minority Americans won’t get that chance.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

The recent ruling will probably force local franchises to give up total control of day-to-day business decisions to their corporate sponsors, turning thousands of investor entrepreneurs who currently own and manage a local business into middle managers in a giant corporate entity.
Until now, the NLRB has always defined an employer as the firm that hires, fires, pays wages, disciplines, promotes, and makes work assignments. That’s just common sense and comports with most Americans’ understanding of whom they work for.
The NRLB is now saying that companies that contract with others firms for services or set quality standards in exchange for brand licensing implicitly influence the other firms’ employees and should be required to bargain collectively with them.
If allowed to stand, this new interpretation will effectively destroy the franchise model of business.
How Franchises Work
Franchised businesses typically work like this. Corporate brands develop and market products, like Taco Bell’s Fiery Doritos Locos Tacos. The corporation licenses the right to sell those products to franchisees. In fact, 85 percent of Taco Bells are locally owned small businesses, not corporate-run stores.
In exchange for the benefit from the brand’s marketing and product development efforts, the franchise agrees to meet price, quality, and service standards. Anyone going to a Taco Bell franchise across the country knows what the food will taste like and about how much it costs. But the local businesses decide how to meet these standards. They decide whom to hire, what those employees will do, and how much to pay them.
The corporate brand doesn’t employ the workers or control the job. Yesterday, the NLRB decided it actually does both.
Overturning decades of precedent, the Board held that anyone who exercises direct or indirect control over employment conditions, or has the potential to exercise such control, jointly employs workers along with his main employer. Because the corporate brand sets price and quality standards it potentially “indirectly” controls working conditions. Hence, the corporate brand will, in the future, be required to bargain with a union representing the franchise’s employees.
The Goal Is to Unionize Franchise Employees
The slim NLRB majority that imposed this decision in a party-line vote appears to hope that it will aid union organizing efforts.
Unions have largely failed to organize franchise employees. They have not persuaded the workers that the benefits of union representation outweigh the cost of union dues. Now they hope to be able to organize from the top down, pressuring large corporate management through public relations campaigns to accept unionization without having to go to the trouble of actually convincing workers that it will be to their benefit.
In fact, such “corporate campaigns” have become a major unionizing tactic. As United Food and Commercial Workers Secretary/Treasurer Joe Crump explained:

Who do we really need to convince of the advantages of being union? Employees or employers? … Organizing without the NLRB [secret ballot elections] means putting enough pressure on employers, costing them enough time, energy and money to either eliminate them or get them to surrender to the union.

Unions have waged a public relations campaign against McDonald’s.
Organizers of the “Fight for $15” have confessed to reporters that the main goal is to unionize the company.
However, getting a corporate brand “to surrender to the union” is not enough. Until now, the brand had no role in unionizing elections. Moreover, franchise contracts typically run for decades. The corporate brand cannot just insert new requirements. It can at most suggest to its franchises that they disavow a secret ballot election—a suggestion they would likely reject.
The Board’s ruling making corporate brands co-employers changes that. The corporate brand can recognize the union without a secret ballot election, even if the franchisee does not. The ruling will make anti-corporate campaigns a lot easier in franchised businesses.
The ruling comes at the cost of blowing up the franchise business model. If the NLRB holds corporate brands legally responsible for their franchisees’ employment decisions, they need to control those actions. They cannot leave themselves liable for unfair labor practice violations someone else committed. The most likely result is that corporate brands will simply stop franchising and run all stores directly themselves.
That would facilitate union organizing, but it would also shut off access to the American dream.

The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it | Watts Up With That?

The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it 

The Epistemology of Explaining Climate Forecasting so an 8 Year Old Can Understand it

August 31, 2015

Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page

 1.  Introduction
Dr. Leif Svalgaard said in a comment on a WUWT post:
August 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm    

“If you cannot explain your finding to an [attentive] eight-year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”

I agree entirely.

Miriam – Webster defines Epistemology as

” the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity “

2.  Granddaughter – You asked – Is the world going to burn up and how do we know?

Ava – Lets  think about when  the temperature is warmer and colder outside. It is hotter when the sun shines during the day and colder at night when our part of the earth is turned away from the sun .You know already that it takes 24 hours for the earth to turn around once to make what we call a cycle from warm to cold and back again.

You also know that it is much hotter in summer than winter and that is because the sun shines longer   and is higher in the sky in summer than in winter. Each year there is a cycle  from warm to cold and back again which takes 365 days.Scientists have  measured or estimated in various ways what the earth’s temperature was  back for hundreds and thousands of years and  can see that there are other hot – cold cycles. Two of the most important ones have cycle lengths of about 60 and 1000 years. Here is a picture showing some of the 1000 year cycles.

Fig 1 (http://www.climate4you.com/)  -(See Humlum’s overview section)

ADVERTISEMENT

To know what is going to happen in the future we first  have to know where the earth is in the 1000 year temperature cycle. Here is another picture that shows what the temperatures were in the northern part of the earth over the last 2000 years. Look especially at what happened during the last 1000 years.

Fig 2  http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

See the warm peak at the year 1000 – then look where we are now at the right hand side of the picture. You can see that the earth is just getting near to, is just at or just past the peak warmth of a 1000 year cycle.

How can we tell which it is. We know that the amount of sunshine which reaches our bit of the earth often changes the temperature by tens of degrees between night and day and as much as 100 degrees sometimes between cold winter nights and the hottest summer days. We also know that the sun itself puts out more energy and its magnetic field is stronger at the activity peaks of its various  cycles.

What is the sun doing now? Here is a picture that shows us what has been going on.

You can see that sun itself also has cycles of activity of 11-12 years in length. When the red line gets nearer to the bottom of the picture the sun is more active, its magnetic field is stronger and fewer Galactic Cosmic Rays hit the earth.

Fig 3 ( http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/       )

You can see that  solar activity was increasing , that is, the red line  got closer to the bottom of the picture, in each cycle until about 1991 and that the solar  cycle peaks and lows since then are closer to the top of the picture showing a decline in solar activity. This suggests that the 1000 year peak in solar activity may  now be behind us in about 1991.

Because it takes some time for the oceans to warm up and cool down, there is a delay before  the peak in solar activity  shows itself in the earth’s temperature. The best measure we have of global temperatures is made by satellites. Here is a picture of how temperatures have changed in the satellite age.

Fig 4

You  can see how the 1991 peak in solar activity in Fig 3 shows up in the peak in the average global temperatures  ( the green rising  and blue- falling lines) about 12 years later  at 2003 in Fig 4. and that the earth has been cooling slightly since then just as the solar activity declined from 1991 to today.

Ava – you ask.- What about the future.?

Well the simplest and most likely  guess for starters  is that the 1000 year cycle from 2003 – 3003 will have a temperature curve whose general shape is similar to the cycle from 1000 – 2003. see  Fig 2 .

If you look at that Figure again you can see that the Northern Hemisphere average temperature cooled by a bit under 2 degrees from 1000 to about 1635 so that we might expect a similar cooling from 2003 to 2638 – of course with various ups and downs along the way .

The warm peak at about 1000 was a good time for people when the Vikings were able to live  in Greenland.  Harvests  were good and  people in Europe had time  and money to spare to start building cathedrals  The cold period around 1635 – to 1700 is called the Maunder Minimum when the Sun was so quiet that the Sun  spots disappeared. Most people living before about 1850 grew their own food. Before then, if  just a few extra- cold years followed one after the other, millions of people starved to death because their harvests failed.

Man made CO2 had no effect on these temperature changes. In fact President Obama is very wrong to call CO2 a pollutant. It is the absolutely essential plant food. Without it life as we know it could not exist. Plants grow better as CO2 increases. About 25% of the increase in food production in the 20th century was due simply to the increase in CO2 in those years –  a great benefit to mankind.

Ava asks – the blue line is almost flat. – When will we know for sure that we are on the down slope of the thousand year cycle and heading towards another Little Ice Age.

Grandpa says- I’m glad to see that you have developed an early interest in Epistemology. Remember ,I mentioned the 60 year cycle, well, the data shows that the temperature peak in 2003 was close to a peak in both that cycle and the 1000 year cycle. If we are now on the downslope of the 1000 year cycle then the next peak in the 60 year cycle at about 2063 should be lower than the 2003 peak and the next 60 year peak after that  at about 2123 should be lower again, so, by that time ,if the peak  is lower,  we will be pretty sure that we are on our way to the next little ice age.

 That is a long time to wait, but we will get some useful  clues a long time before that.Look again at the red curve in  Fig 3 – you can see that from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2009 solar activity dropped to the lowest it has been for a long time. Remember the 12 year delay between the 1991 solar activity peak and the 2003 temperature peak, if there is a similar delay in the response to lower solar activity , earth  should see a cold spell from  2019 to 2021 when you will be in Middle School.

It should  also be noticeably cooler at the coolest part of the 60 year cycle – halfway through  the present 60 year cycle at about 2033.

We can watch for these things to happen but meanwhile  keep in mind that the overall cyclic trends can be  disturbed  for a time in some years  by the El Nino weather patterns in the Pacific and the associated high temperatures that we see in for example  1998 and 2010  (fig 2) and that we might see  before the end of this year- 2015.

3. Ava says -It looks like the Earth is going to cool down- Why is my teacher and  President Obama saying the earth is going to get very hot and the Polar Bears are all going to die

unless I walk to school ?

Well Ava – I would have to write a book to explain how so many different people came to be so wrong for so long about so much- sometimes with the best of intentions. Here is a short story telling what happened.

In 1968 a man called Ehrlich published a book called the Population Bomb. He thought the number of people on earth was growing so fast that there soon wouldn’t be enough food to feed everybody, He said in the book.

“ In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate” 

Some people at the time got very worried and put their guesses about such things as future population growth, food production ,oil supplies, industrial production and mineral reserves into a computer program.. They intended to look at possible future problems and also  explore the possibility  that the peoples and governments of the earth could agree on a way of running the worlds economy  that could besustainable, that is, go on for a long time. They put all this in a book called The Limits to Growth published in 1972.

 A very energetic business man called Maurice Strong who knew a lot of very influential people persuaded the United Nations that, as he himself believed and indeed still strongly believes,  this sustainability problem was very serious.The UN and Sweden organized a meeting in 1972 in Stockholm to discus the interaction of humans with the environment. Strong was appointed  by his UN friend U Thant , to be  the General Secretary of the meeting. Strong,  by nature, is very determined and action oriented and he and the conference produced an incredibly detailed 109 point  action plan designed to give the UN input and even control over individual Government environmental  policies world wide. As  one of the actions, the United Nations Environmental Program  ( UNEP) was organized in 1973 with Mr Strong himself as Executive Director.

Ten years later it was obvious that the predictions of imminent death and disaster were wrong. The people at UNEP still wanted to take global control of the worlds economy. They realized that if they could show that the CO2 ( carbon dioxide) produced by burning coal and oil to make electricity and drive our cars might cause a dangerous warming of the earth they would  be able to scare the Governments and people into writing laws giving the UN ( and them) control over the world’s economy by controlling the type of energy used and its price.

UNEP organized a meeting of scientists at a place called Villach in Austria in 1985 to see if they could show that CO2 was dangerous. The scientists said

“Although the observed global-scale warming experienced over the past ~100 years is compatible with model estimates of the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, unequivocal, statistically convincing detection of the effects of changing CO₂ and trace gas levels on climate is not yet possible. An important problem in the positive identification of a greenhouse gas effect on climate is to explain the medium to long time scale (~decades or more) fluctuations in the past record. Attempts to model such changes have, to date, suffered from a number of deficiencies.”

Ava – In other words they couldn’t prove  any effects of man made  CO2 on climate.

But whoever  wrote the official summary statement and recommendations said:

“As a result of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, it is now believed that in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history. “

The report made two important recommendations. As a result of one ,the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to select from the  evidence and from time to time produce reports which would show that CO2 was the main driver of dangerous climate change and a second recommendation resulted in a meeting in Rio in 1992 chaired by Maurice Strong himself which produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , later signed by 196 governments.

The objective of the treaty is to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed  would prevent dangerous man made  interference with the climate system.

This treaty is really a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.

It says :

“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the

causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures”

In other words if the models show there  is even a small chance of very bad things happening the Governments who signed the treaty should act now  to stop it. But how good are the  computer Models?

The successive five  reports of the IPCC  in the Summaries for Policymakers written by Government representatives  have clamed increasing certainty for the outcomes of their Model based projections  of future temperature which is not supported by  the Science sections of the reports or the actual data.

Remember the Villach meeting said

 “in the first half of the next century a rise of global mean temperature could occur which is greater than any in man’s history.”

All the models and projections made since 1985  were built in the assumption that CO2 was the main climate change driver- for that and for many other reasons they are in reality useless for forecasting future temperatures.

Here is a picture of what really happened as CO2 levels rose rapidly in the 21st century

As you can see there has been no global warming at all since about 1997.

The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year cycles so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers  approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.

 The temperature  projections of the IPCC –  UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money.  As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.

 Here is a picture which shows the sort of  thing  they did when they projected a cyclic trend in a straight line..

 

 A new forecasting method needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at

 http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

(Section 1 has a complete discussion of the uselessness of the climate models.)

“In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. The fourth of these were described as :

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.”

Climate science has fallen victim to this fourth type of idol.

Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post

Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to reject Iran nuclear deal

1

25 August, 2015

Hon

.

John A. Boehner

Speaker of the House

United States House of Representatives

1011 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

-

3508

Hon

.

Nancy Pelosi

Minority Leader

United States House of Representatives

233 Canno

n House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

-

0512

Hon

.

Mitch McConnell

Majority Leader

United States Senate

317 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

-

1702

Hon

.

Harry Reid

Minority Leader

United States Senate

522 Hart Senate Office Bui

lding

Washington, D.C. 20510

-

2803

Dear Representative

s

Boehner and Pelosi and Senators McConnell and Reid:

As you know, o

n July

14, 2015, the United States and

five

other nati

ons announced that a

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has

been reache

d with Iran to prevent it from

developing nuclear weapons

. In our judgment as former senior

military officers

,

the agreement

will not have that effect.

Removing sanctions on Iran and releasing billions of dollars to

its

regime

over the next ten years is

inimical to the security of Israel and the Middle East. There is

no credibility within JCPOA’s inspection process or the ability to snap back sanctions once

lifted, should Iran violate the agreement.

In this and other respects, the JCPOA

would threaten

th

e national security

and vital

interests

of the United States and

,

therefore

,

should be disapproved

by the Congress.

The agreement as constructed

does not

“

cut off every pathway

”

for Iran to acquire

nuclear weapon

s

. To the contrary

, it

actually provides

Iran with a

legitimate

path to

doing that

simply

by abiding

by the deal

.

JCPOA allows

all

the infrastructure

the Iranians need

for a

nuclear bomb

to

be pres

erved and enhanced.

Notably,

Iran

is allowed

to

: continue to enrich

uranium;

develop and test

ad

vanced centrifuges

;

and continue work on

its Arak heavy

-

water

plutonium

reactor

. Collectively, these concessions afford the Iranians, at worst, a ready breakout

option and, at best, an incipient nuclear weapons capability a decade from now. 

 

2

The agreement

is unverifiable.

Under the terms of the JCPOA and a secret side

deal

(to

which the United States is

not privy

)

, the International Atomi

c Energy Agency (IAEA) will be

responsible for inspections under such

severe limitations

as to prevent them from

reliab

ly

detecting

Iranian cheating.

For example, i

f Iran and the inspectors

are unable to reach an

accommodation with respect to a given site, the result could be a

t least a 24

-

day delay in IAEA

access

.

T

he agreement

also

requires inspectors

to inform Iran in

writing as to the basis for its

concerns about an undeclared site

, thus further delaying access. Most importantly, these

inspections do not allow access to Iranian military facilities, the most likely location of their

nuclear weapons development efforts.

In the JCPOA process,

there is substantial

risk of

U.S.

intelligence being compromised, since the IAEA often relies on

our

sensitive data

with respect to

suspicious and/or

prohibited activity.

While

failing

to

assure prevention of

Iran’s nuclear

weapons

development capabilities,

the

agreement provides by some estimates $15

0 billion

dollars

or more

to Iran in the form of

sanctions relief.

As military officers, we find it

unconscionable

that such a windfall could be

given to

a regime that

even

the

Obama a

dministration has

acknowledged

will

use

a portion of

such

funds

to

continue to

support

terrorism

in Israel, throughout the Middle East and globally

,

whether directly or through proxies

. These actions

will be made all the more deadly

since

the

JCPOA will li

ft

international embargoes

on Iran’s access to advanced conventional weapons and

ballistic missile technology

.

In summary,

this agreement

will enable Iran to become far more dangerous

,

render

the

Mideast

still more unstable

and

introduce

new threats to A

merica

n interests as well as our allies.

In our professional opinion, f

ar from

being an alternative to war, the Joint Comprehensive Plan

of Action

makes it likely that the

war

the Iranian regime has waged against us since 1979

will

continue, with far highe

r risks

to our national security interests.

Accordingly, we urge the

Congress to reject

this

defective accord.

Sincerely,

1.

Admiral David Architzel, US Navy, Retired

2.

Admiral Stanley R. Arthur, US Navy, Retired

3.

General William Begert, US Air Force,

Retired

4.

General

J.B. Davis,

US Air Force, Retired

5.

Admiral

William A. Doughert,

US Navy, Retired

6.

Admiral Leon A. “Bud” Edney, US Navy, Retired

7.

General Alfred G. Hansen US Air Force, Retired

8.

Admiral Thomas Hayward, US Navy, Retired

9.

Admiral James Hogg, US Na

vy, Retired

10.

Admiral Jerome Johnson, US Navy, Retired

11.

Admiral Timothy J. Keating, US Navy, Retired

12.

Admiral Robert J. Kelly, US Navy, Retired

13.

Admiral Thomas Joseph Lopez, US Navy, Retired

 

3

14.

Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, US Navy, Retired

15.

Admiral

Richard Macke,

US Navy, Retired

16.

Admiral Henry Mauz, US Navy, Retired

17.

General

Lance Smith,

US Air Force, Retired

18.

Admiral Leighton Smith, US Navy, Retired

19.

Admiral William D. Smith, US Navy, Retired

20.

General Louis C. Wagner, Jr., US Army, Retired

21.

Admiral Steve White, US Navy

, Retired

22.

General Ronald W. Yates, US Air Force, Retired

23.

Lieutenant General Teddy G. Allen, US Army, Retired

24.

Lieutenant

General

Edward G. Anderson, III, US

Army, Retired

25.

Lieutenant General Marcus A. Anderson, US Air Force, Retired

26.

Lieutenant

General

Spe

nce M. Armstrong, US Air Force, Retired

27.

L

ieutenant

General Harold W. Blot, US Marine Corps, Retired

28.

Vice

Admiral

Michael Bowman,

US Navy, Retired

29.

Lieutenant

General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, US Army, Retired

30.

Vice

Admiral Edward S. Briggs, US Navy, Retired

31.

Lieutenant

General

Richard E. “Tex” Brown III, US Air Force, Retired

32.

Lieutenant

General

William J. Campbell,

US Air Force, Retired

33.

Vice

Admiral Edward Clexton, US Navy, Retired

34.

Vice

Admiral Daniel L. Cooper, US Navy, Retired

35.

Vice Admiral William A. Doughe

rty, US Navy, Retired

36.

Lieutenant

General

Brett Dula, US Air Force, Retired

37.

Lieutenant General Gordon E. Fornell, US Air Force, Retired

38.

Lieutenant General Thomas B. Goslin, US Air Force, Retired

39.

Lieutenant

General Earl Hailston, US Marine Corps, Retired

40.

Vic

e Admiral Bernard M. Kauderer, US Navy, Retired

41.

Lieutenant General Timothy A. Kinnan, US Air Force, Retired

42.

Vice Admiral J. B . LaPlante, US Navy, Retired

43.

Vice Admiral Tony Less, US Navy, Retired

44.

Lieutenant

General Bennett L. Lewis, US Army, Retired

45.

Vice

A

dmiral

Michael Malone,

US Navy, Retired

46.

Vice

Admiral John Mazach, US Navy, Retired

47.

Lieutenant

General

Thomas McInerney, US Air Force, Retired

48.

Lieutenant

General Fred McCorkle, US Marine Corps, Retired

49.

Vice

Admiral Robert Monroe, US Navy, Retired

50.

Vice

Admir

al Jimmy Pappas, US Navy, Retired

51.

Vice

Admiral

J. Theodore Parker,

US Navy, Retired

52.

Lieutenant

General

Garry L. Parks,

US Marine Corps, Retired

53.

Lieutenant

General

Everett Pratt, US Air Force, Retired

54.

Vice

Admiral John Poindexter, US Navy, Retired

 

4

55.

Lieutenan

t General Clifford "Ted" Rees, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

56.

Vice

Admiral William Rowden, US Navy, Retired

57.

Vice

Admiral Robert F. Schoultz, US Navy, Retired

58.

Lieutenant

General

E.G. “Buck” Shuler, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

59.

Lieutenant General Hubert 'Hugh" G.

Smith, US Army, Retired

60.

Vice

Admiral

Edward M. Straw,

US Navy, Retired

61.

Lieutenant

General

David J. Teal,

US Air Force, Retired

62.

Vice

Admiral

D.C. "Deese" Thompson,

US Coast Guard, Retired

63.

Lieutenant General William E. Thurman, US Air Force, Retired

64.

Lieuten

ant

General

Billy Tomas,

US Army, Retired

65.

Vice

Admiral

John Totushek,

US Navy, Retired

66.

Vice

Admiral Jerry Tuttle, US Navy, Retired

67.

Vice

Admiral Jerry Unruh, US Navy, Retired

68.

Vice

Admiral Timothy W. Wright, US Navy, Retired

69.

Rear Admiral William V. Alford,

Jr., US Navy, Retired

70.

Major General Thurman E. Anderson, US Army, Retired

71.

Major General

Joseph T. Anderson,

US Marine Corps, Retired

72.

Rear Admiral Philip Anselmo, US Navy, Retired

73.

Major General Joe Arbuckle, US Army, Retired

74.

Rear Admiral James W. Austin, US

Navy, Retired

75.

Rear Admiral John R. Batzler, US Navy, Retired

76.

Rear Admiral John Bayless, US Navy, Retired

77.

Major General

John Bianchi,

US Army, Retired

78.

Rear Admiral Donald Vaux Boecker, US Navy, Retired

79.

Rear Admiral Jerry C. Breast, US Navy, Retired

80.

Rear Ad

miral

Bruce B. Bremner,

US Navy, Retired

81.

Major General Edward M. Browne, US Army, Retired

82.

Rear Admiral Thomas F. Brown III, US Navy, Retired

83.

Rear Admiral Lyle Bull, US Navy, Retired

84.

Major General Bobby G. Butcher, US Marine Corps, Retired

85.

Rear Admiral

Jay

A. Campbell,

US Navy, Retired

86.

Major General

Henry D. Canterbury,

US Air Force, Retired

87.

Major General Carroll D. Childers, US Army, Retired

88.

Rear Admiral

Ronald L. Christenson,

US Navy, Retired

89.

Major General John R.D. Cleland, US Army, Retired

90.

Major General

Richard L. Comer, US Air Force, Retired

91.

Rear Admiral

Jack Dantone,

US Navy, Retired

92.

Major General William B. Davitte, US Air Force, Retired

93.

Major General

James D. Delk,

US Army, Retired

 

5

94.

Major General

Felix Dupre,

US Air Force, Retired

95.

Rear Admiral Philip A

. Dur, US Navy, Retired

96.

Major General Neil L. Eddins, US Air Force, Retired

97.

Rear Admiral Paul Engel, US Navy, Retired

98.

Major General Vince Falter, US Army, Retired

99.

Rear Admiral James H. Flatley, US Navy, Retired

100.

Major General

Bobby O. Floyd,

US Air Force, R

etired

101.

Major General Paul Fratarangelo, US Marine Corps, Retired

102.

Rear Admiral Veronica "Ronne" Froman, US Navy, Retired

103.

Rear Admiral R. Byron Fuller, US Navy, Retired

104.

Rear Admiral

Frank Gallo,

US Navy, Retired

105.

Rear Admiral Albert A. Gallotta, Jr., US Navy,

Retired

106.

Rear Admiral James Mac Gleim, US Navy, Retired

107.

Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley, US Navy, Retired

108.

Rear Admiral William Gureck, US Navy, Retired

109.

Major General Gary L. Harrell, US Army, Retired

110.

Rear Admiral

Donald Hickman,

US Navy, Retired

111.

Major Gener

al

Geoffrey Higginbotham,

US Marine Corps, Retired

112.

M

ajor

Gen

eral

Kent H. Hillhouse, US

A

rmy,

Retired

113.

Rear Admiral Tim Hinkle, US Navy, Retired

114.

Major General Victor Joseph Hugo, US Army, Retired

115.

Major General James P. Hunt, US Air Force, Retired

116.

Rear Admiral Grady L. Jackson, US Navy, Retired

117.

Major General

William K. James, US Air Force, Retired

118.

Rear Admiral John M. “Carlos” Johnson, US Navy, Retired

119.

Rear Admiral Pierce J. Johnson, US Navy, Retired

120.

Rear Admiral Steven B. Kantrowitz, US Navy, Retired

121.

Major General Maurice W. Kendall, US Army, Retired

122.

Rear Ad

miral

Charles R. Kubic

, US Navy, Retired

123.

Rear Admiral Frederick L. Lewis, US Navy, Retired

124.

Major General

John D. Logeman, Jr.,

US Air Force, Retired

125.

Major General Homer S. Long, Jr., US Army, Retired

126.

Major General Robert M. Marquette, US Air Force, Retired

127.

Rear Admiral Robert B. McClinton, US Navy, Retired

128.

Rear Admiral

W. J. McDaniel, MD

,

US Navy, Retired

129.

Major General

Keith W. Meurlin,

US Air Force, Retired

130.

Rear Admiral Terrence McKnight, US Navy, Retired

131.

Major General John F. Miller, Jr., US Air Force, Re

tired

132.

Major General Burton R. Moore, US Air Force, Retired

133.

Rear Admiral David R. Morris, US Navy, Retired

134.

Rear Admiral Ed Nelson, Jr., US Coast Guard, Retired

135.

Major General George W. "Nordie" Norwood, US Air Force, Retired

136.

Major General Everett G. Odgers,

US Air Force, Retired

 

6

137.

Rear Admiral

Phillip R. Olson,

US Navy, Retired

138.

Rear Admiral Robert S. Owens, US Navy, Retired

139.

Rear Admiral Robert O. Passmore, US Navy, Retired

140.

Major General

Richard E. Perraut, Jr.,

US Air Force, Retired

141.

Rear Admiral W.W. Pickavance

, Jr., US Navy, Retired

142.

Rear Admiral L.F. Picotte, US Navy, Retired

143.

Rear Admiral Thomas J. Porter, US Navy, Retired

144.

Major General H. Douglas Robertson, US Army, Retired

145.

Rear Admiral W.J. Ryan, US Navy, Retired

146.

Rear Admiral Norman Saunders, US Coast Guard,

Retired

147.

Major General John P. Schoeppner, Jr., US Air Force, Retired

148.

Major General Edison E. Scholes, US Army, Retired

149.

Rear Admiral Hugh P. Scott, US Navy, Retired

150.

Major General Richard Secord, US Air Force, Retired

151.

Rear Admiral James M. Seely, US Navy, Re

tired

152.

Major General Sidney Shachnow, US Army, Retired

153.

Rear Admiral William H. Shawcross, US Navy, Retired

154.

Rear Admiral Bob Shumaker, US Navy, Retired

155.

Major General Willie Studer, US Air Force, Retired

156.

Major General Larry Taylor, US Marine Corps, Retired

157.

Re

ar Admiral Jeremy Taylor, US Navy, Retired

158.

Major General Richard L. Testa, US Air Force, Retired

159.

Rear Admiral Robert P. Tiernan, US Navy, Retired

160.

Major General Paul E. Vallely, US Army, Retired

161.

Major General Kenneth W. Weir, US Marine Corps, Retired

162.

Major

General

John Welde,

US Air Force, Retired

163.

Rear Admiral

James B. Whittaker,

US Navy, Retired

164.

Major General Geoffrey P. Wiedeman, Jr., MD, US Air Force, Retired

165.

Rear Admiral H. Denny Wisely, US Navy, Retired

166.

Brigadier General John R. Allen, Jr., US Air For

ce, Retired

167.

Brigadier General John C. Arick, US Marine Corps, Retired

168.

Brigadier General Loring R. Astorino,

US Air Force, Retired

169.

Rear Admiral Robert E. Besal, US Navy, Retired

170.

Brigadier General

William Bloomer, US Marine Corps, Retired

171.

Brigadier General

George P. Cole, Jr.,

US Air Force, Retired

172.

Brigadier General Richard A. Coleman, US Air Force, Retired

173.

Brigadier General James L. Crouch, US Air Force, Retired

174.

Rear Admiral Marianne B. Drew, US Navy, Retired

175.

Brigadier General

Philip M. Drew, US Air Force,

Retired

176.

Brigadier General

Larry K. Grundhauser, US Air Force, Retired

177.

Brigadier General Thomas W. Honeywill,

US Air Force, Retired

 

7

178.

Brigadier General

Gary M. Jones, US Army, Retired

179.

Brigadier General

Stephen Lanning, US Air Force, Retired

180.

Brigadier General

Thomas J. Lennon,

US Air Force, Retired

181.

Rear Admiral Bobby C. Lee, US Navy, Retired

182.

Brigadier General

Robert F. Peksens, US Air Force, Retired

183.

Brigadier General Joe Shaefer,

US Air Force, Retired

184.

Brigadier General Graham E. Shirley, US Air Force, Retired

185.

B

rigadier General

Stanley O. Smith, US Air Force, Retired

186.

Brigadier General

Hugh B. Tant III, US Army, Retired

187.

Brigadier General Michael Joseph Tashjian,

US Air Force, Retired

188.

Brigadier General

William Tiernan, US Marine Corps, Retired

189.

Brigadier General

Rog

er W. Scearce, US Army, Retired

190.

Brigadier General Robert V. Woods,

US Air Force, Retired