Picture of the Day: Star Trails From the International Space Station
“Astronaut Don Pettit created this image of star trails as seen from the International Space Station approximately 240 miles above Earth. He explains, “My star trail images are made by taking a time exposure of about 10 to 15 minutes. However, with modern digital cameras, 30 seconds is about the longest exposure possible, due to electronic detector noise effectively snowing out the image. To achieve the longer exposures I do what many amateur astronomers do. I take multiple 30-second exposures, then ‘stack’ them using imaging software, thus producing the longer exposure.” The above picture combines 18 such exposures.”


Picture of the Day: Star Trails From the International Space Station

Astronaut Don Pettit created this image of star trails as seen from the International Space Station approximately 240 miles above Earth. He explains, “My star trail images are made by taking a time exposure of about 10 to 15 minutes. However, with modern digital cameras, 30 seconds is about the longest exposure possible, due to electronic detector noise effectively snowing out the image. To achieve the longer exposures I do what many amateur astronomers do. I take multiple 30-second exposures, then ‘stack’ them using imaging software, thus producing the longer exposure.” The above picture combines 18 such exposures.”

and they think lady gaga is a freak! hmmph!

and they think lady gaga is a freak! hmmph!

I went from hating to loving “Some Girls” with just one play.

Some girls are not like me

I’m better than you ever dreamed of

I got you baby on your knees

I got you begging ‘baby please’

Epistle To The Romans According to Wikipedia


  (Redirected from Romans)
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up romanin Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Roman or Romans may refer to:

  • A thing or person of or from the city of Rome



  • Ancient Rome(9th century BC – 5th century AD)
  • Byzantine Empire(330/476/629 to 1453), a Late Antiquity and medieval continuation of the Greek-speaking portion of the Roman Empire
    • Romaioi (Ρωμαίοι), Greek-speaking, Orthodox population of the Eastern Roman Empire dating to Late Antiquity (the term translates literally to “Roman”)
    • Romioi (Ρωμιοί), Greek-speaking, Orthodox population of the Rum-milet in the Ottoman Empire, or Greek-speaking Orthodox people today (the term translates literally to “Roman”)
    • Romanae or the Greco-Romans from Aetolia Acarnania that speak Romanesci
  • Holy Roman Empire (c. 900 to 1806), a medieval state in Central Europe









Family name

Given name


Other uses

See also

Note: the following entries are arranged in an etymological tree.

Disambiguation icon This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
The Book of Jeremiah According To Wikipedia

Book of Jeremiah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Book of jeremiah)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tanakh and
Old Testament Aleppo Codex Joshua 1 1.jpg [show]Tanakh Judaism portal [show]Old Testament Christianity portal

The Book of Jeremiah (Hebrew: ספר יִרְמְיָהוּ‎) is the second of the Latter Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, following the book of Isaiah and preceding Ezekiel and the Book of the Twelve. (The order is somewhat different in the Christian Old Testament). It derives its name from, and records the visions of, Jeremiah, who lived in Jerusalem in the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC during the time of king Josiah and the fall of the Kingdom of Judah to the Babylonians. The book is written in a complex and poetic Hebrew (apart from verse 10:11, curiously written in Biblical Aramaic).


Texts and manuscripts

Parts of the Book of Jeremiah have also been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in cave 4 in Qumran. These texts, in Hebrew, correspond both to the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint Text. This discovery has shed much light on the differences between the two versions; while it was previously maintained that the Greek Septuagint (the version used by the earliest Christians) was only a poor translation, professor Emanuel Tov, senior editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ publication, wrote that the Masoretic edition either represents a substantial rewriting of the original Hebrew, or there had previously been two different versions of the text.[1] Most scholars hold that the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint version is older than the Masoretic text and that either the Masoretic evolved either from this vorlage or from a closely related version.[2]


Some believe that the book of Jeremiah was edited and influenced by the Deuteronomists, or the writers of the book of Deuteronomy, who advanced religious reform.[3] This can be clearly viewed in the parallel use of language found in both Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.[4] For example in comparing Jer 11.4 and Deut 4.20, both use the metaphor of an iron furnace. Also, the impetus for religious reform appears to be aligned between Jeremiah and the Deuteronomists in ending of infant child sacrifices (see Jer 7.31, 19.5, 32.35; Lev 18.21). However, considerable debate exists as to whether Jeremiah was actually a member of the Deuteronomistc school since he does not explicitly mention Deuteronomy or Josiah’s religious reform.[5] In fact, due to the repetitious nature of some of phrases or intertextuality with Jeremiah, an argument has been put forth that the “historical Jeremiah” is hard to validate and should be abandoned.[6] By contrast, evidence based on the textual differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text has been used to argue that the context of the MT truly does depict a historical Jeremiah.[7]

Sections of the Book

The book can be divided into roughly 6 sections[8] and uses poetic, narrative, and biographical genres that are interspersed throughout the book.[9] The breakdown of sections is as follows:

  • Chapters 1-25 (The earliest and main core of Jeremiah’s message)
  • Chapters 26-29 (Biographic material and interaction with other prophets)
  • Chapters 30-33 (God’s promise of restoration)
  • Chapters 34-45 (Mostly interaction with Zedekiah and the fall of Jerusalem)
  • Chapters 46-51 (Divine punishment to the nations surrounding Israel)
  • Chapter 52 (Appendix that retells 2 Kings 24.18-25.30)

The Prophet Jeremiah

According to the book, the Prophet Jeremiah was a son of a priest from Anatot in the land of Benjamin, who lived in the last years of the Kingdom of Judah just prior to, during, and immediately after the siege of Jerusalem, culminating in the destruction of Solomon’s Temple and the raiding of the city by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. According to the book, for a quarter century prior to the destruction, Jeremiah repeatedly issued prophecies predicting God’s forthcoming judgment; advocating the Israelites to put down their idols and repent in hopes of turning away God’s judgment and fulfilling their destiny as his chosen people. Jeremiah’s fellow Israelites refused to heed his warnings and did not repent. His efforts failed and he witnessed the destruction of everything he knew, the exile of the Israelite elite to Babylonia, and the fleeing of the remainder to Egypt.

The book of Jeremiah depicts a remarkably introspective prophet, a prophet who was impetuous and often angered by the role into which he has been thrust. Jeremiah alternates efforts to warn the people with pleas to God for mercy until he is ordered to “pray no more for this people.” He engages in extensive performance art, walking about in the streets with a yoke about his neck and engaging in other efforts to attract attention. He is taunted and retaliates; he is thrown in jail as the result. At one point he is thrown into a pit to die.

Prophecies of Jeremiah

  • Threats against the “unfaithful shepherds” (i.e., the false prophets), the promise of peace and of the real shepherd (after 597), and warnings against false prophets and godless priests (perhaps in the time of Jehoiakim; 23:1-8, 9-40);
  • Vision of the two baskets of figs, illustrating the fate of the captives and of those who were left behind, from the period after the first deportation by Nebuchadnezzar, in 597 (chapter 24);
  • Threats of punishments to be inflicted on Judah and the surrounding nations, the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., the year of the Battle of Carchemish (605; chapter 25);
  • The first of the historical passages recounting Jeremiah’s prophecy in the Temple (compare chapter 7), his arrest, his threatened death, and his rescue, in which connection the martyrdom of the prophet Uriah is briefly mentioned (chapter 26).
  • Protection for Israel following the period of destruction and exile
  • Utterances from the time of Zedekiah (see § II.), with an appendix, the last connected prophecy of any length, in chapter 35, treating of the fidelity of the Rechabites and of the unfaithfulness of Judah. This dates from a somewhat earlier period, that of Jehoiakim (because certainly before 597), and thus forms a transition to the first passages of the narrative sections.
  • Babylon will fall to invaders from the North. 51.

Jeremiah’s prophecies are noted for the frequent repetitions found in them of the same words, phrases, and imagery. They cover the period of about 50 years. They are not in chronological order.

The Septuagint (Greek or ‘LXX’) version of this book is, in its arrangement and in other particulars, different from the Masoretic Hebrew. The Septuagint does not include 10:6-8; 25:14; 27:19-22; 29:16-20; 33:14-26; 39:4-13; 52:2, 3, 15, 28-30, etc. In all, about 2,700 words found in the Masoretic text are not found in the Septuagint. Also, the ‘Oracles against the Nations’, that appear as chapters 46-51 in the Masoretic and most dependent versions, in the Septuagint are located right after 25:13, and in a different order.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "a comparison of the Masoretic text with the Septuagint throws some light on the last phase in the history of the origin of the Book of Jeremiah, inasmuch as the translation into Greek was already under way before the work on the Hebrew book had come to an end… The two texts differ above all in that the Septuagint is much shorter… Even if the text of the Septuagint is proved to be the older, it does not necessarily follow that all these variations first arose after the Greek translation had been made, because two different editions of the same text might have been in process of development side by side…"

The Septuagint version of Jeremiah also includes the Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah.[10]Jerome's Prologue to Jeremiah says he excluded them: “And the Book of Baruch, his scribe, which is neither read nor found among the Hebrews, we have omitted, standing ready, because of these things, for all the curses from the jealous, to whom it is necessary for me to respond through a separate short work. And I suffer because you think this. Otherwise, for the benefit of the wicked, it was more proper to set a limit for their rage by my silence, rather than any new things written to provoke daily the insanity of the envious.” But the Canon of Trent included them as “Ieremias cum Baruch” (Jeremiah with Baruch), Baruch 6 being the Epistle or Letter of Jeremiah in the Vulgate.

The “Confessions” of Jeremiah

Scholars have identified several passages in Jeremiah that can be understood as “confessions;” they occur in the first section of the book (chapters 1-25) and are 11.18-12.6, 15.10-21, 17.14-18, 18.18-23, and 20.7-18. In these passages, Jeremiah expresses his discontent with the message he is to deliver, but also his steadfast commitment to the divine call despite the fact that he had not sought it out. Additionally, in several of these “confessions,” Jeremiah prays that the Lord will avenge his persecutors [11] (for example, see Jeremiah 12.3).

Jeremiah’s “confessions” are a type of individual lament. Such laments are found elsewhere in the psalms and the book of Job. Like Job, Jeremiah curses the day of his birth (Jer. 20.14-18 and Job 3.3-10). Likewise, Jeremiah’s exclamation “For I hear the whispering of many: Terror is all around!” (Jer. 20.10) matches Psalm 31.13 exactly. However, Jeremiah’s laments are made unique by his insistence that he has been called by Yahweh to deliver his messages.[11] These laments that are attributed to Jeremiah “provide a unique look at the prophet’s inner struggle with faith, persecution, and human suffering”.[12]

Prophetic gestures

Prophetic gestures, also known as sign-acts or symbolic actions, was a form of communication in which a message was delivered by performing symbolic actions.[11] These actions were often bizarre actions that violated the cultural norms of the time (e.g. Ezekiel 4:4-8). These actions served the purposes of both drawing audience and causing that audience to ask questions, giving a prophet the opportunity to explain the meaning of the behavior. Prophetic gestures are not unique to the book of Jeremiah.

The following is a list of noteworthy sign-acts found in Jeremiah.

  • Jeremiah 13:1-11 The wearing, burial, and retrieval of a linen waistband.[13]
  • Jeremiah 16:1-9 The shunning of the expected customs of marriage, mourning, and general celebration.[14]
  • Jeremiah 19:1-13 the acquisition of a clay jug and the breaking of said jug in front of the religious leaders of Jerusalem [15]
  • Jeremiah 27-28 The wearing of an oxen yoke and its subsequent breaking by a fellow prophet, Hananiah.[16]
  • Jeremiah 35:1-19 The offering of wine to the Rechabites, a tribe known for living in tents and refusing to drink wine. This was done in the Temple, which is an important part of the breaking of societal norms.[17]

This is not an exhaustive list of the prophetic gestures found in the book of Jeremiah. It is important in one’s reading of the text of Jeremiah that one remember that the recorder of these events (i.e. the author of the text) had neither the same audience nor, potentially, the same intent that Jeremiah had in performing these prophetic gestures.[18] This is also true of most other texts containing prophetic gestures.

Online text, translations, and commentaries

See also


Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:

  1. ^ Tov, Emanuel: “The Septuagint and Literary Criticism”, The Folio: Bulletin of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, 22(2):1-6
  2. ^ Williamson, H. G. M., “Do We Need A New Bible? Reflections on the Proposed Oxford Hebrew Bible”, Biblia, vol. 90 (2009), p. 168.
  3. ^ Coogan, M. A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its Context. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2009. p.300.
  4. ^ Hyatt, JP. Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Vol. 1, No. 2 (Apr., 1942), pp. 156-173
  5. ^ Holt, EK. The Chicken and the egg –or was Jeremiah a Member of the Deuteronomist Party? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Vol.44. pp109-122. (1989)
  6. ^ Carroll, RP. “Intertextuality and the Book of Jeremiah: Adimadversions on text and theory. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. pp. 55-78. 1993. Sheffield Academic Press. - books.google.com.
  7. ^ Diamond, A R Pete. 1990. “Jeremiah’s confessions in the LXX and MT : a witness to developing canonical function?.” Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 1: 33-50
  8. ^ Coogan, M. A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its Context. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2009. p299.
  9. ^ Robert Davidson “Jeremiah, The Book of” The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. Oxford University Press Inc. 1993. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Northwestern University. 20 October 2010 [1]
  10. ^ An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Henry Barclay Swete, Cambridge University Press, 1914, Part II, Chapter III, Section 6, [2], “Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah were regarded by the Church as adjuncts of Jeremiah, much in the same way as Susanna and Bel were attached to Daniel. Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books; they are cited as ‘Jeremiah’ (Iren. v. 35. I, Tert. scorp. 8, Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus i. 10, Cyprian, Testimonia ii. 6); with Lamentations they form a kind of trilogy supplementary to the prophecy.”
  11. ^ a b c Coogan, M. A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in its Context . Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2009. pp.303.
  12. ^ Perdue, Leo G. Harper Collins Study Bible, Revised Edition . HarperCollins: New York, 2006. pp.1021.
  13. ^ Friebel, K.G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1999. pp. 99-114
  14. ^ Friebel, K.G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1999. pp. 82-99
  15. ^ Friebel, K.G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1999. pp. 115-124
  16. ^ Friebel, K.G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1999. pp. 136-
  17. ^ Friebel, K.G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1999. pp. 124-136
  18. ^ Friebel, K.G. Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, England, 1999. p. 13

External links

This article incorporates text from Easton’s Bible Dictionary (1897), a publication now in the public domain. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainJewish Encyclopedia. 1901–1906.

Jeremy Michael Walbert’s Presidential Announcement Speech

My Official Announcement to Run for the Office of the President of the United States of America


Jeremy Michael Walbert


The Humanitarian Party


-       1 –

My name is Harvey Milk, err I mean Jesu — Jeremy Michael Walbert, err I mean Jeremyah Roman Michael Yeshua Walbert Wallace Presley Jackson Ciccone Dimaggio Onassis – ahh, fuck who am I kidding?  My name is Jeremy Michael Walbert and I’m here to recruit you!  I would like to quote from some of my all-time Heroes, so please bear with Me:


-          “I’ve been saying this one for years. It’s a political joke. I can’t help it—I’ve got to tell it. I’ve never been able to talk to this many political people before, so if I tell you nothing else you may be able to go home laughing a bit.


-          This ocean liner was going across the ocean and it sank. And there was one little piece of wood floating and three people swam to it and they realized only one person could hold on to it. So they had a little debate about which was the person. It so happened that the three people were the Pope, the President, and Mayor Daley. The Pope said he was titular head of one of the greatest religions of the world and he was spiritual adviser to many, many millions and he went on and pontificated and they thought it was a good argument.


-          Then the President said he was leader of the largest and most powerful nation of the world. What takes place in this country affects the whole world and they thought that was a good argument. And Mayor Daley said he was mayor of the backbone of the United States and what took place in Chicago affected the world, and what took place in the archdiocese of Chicago affected Catholicism. And they thought that was a good argument. So they did it the democratic way and voted. And Daley won, seven to two.


-          About six months ago, Anita Bryant in her speaking to God said that the drought in California was because of the gay people. On November 9, the day after I got elected, it started to rain. On the day I got sworn in, we walked to City Hall and it was kinda nice, and as soon as I said the word “I do,” it started to rain again. It’s been raining since then and the people of San Francisco figure the only way to stop it is to do a recall petition.


-          That’s the local joke.


-          So much for that. Why are we here? Why are gay people here? And what’s happening? What’s happening to me is the antithesis of what you read about in the papers and what you hear about on the radio. You hear about and read about this movement to the right. That we must band together and fight back this movement to the right. And I’m here to go ahead and say that what you hear and read is what they want you to think because it’s not happening. The major media in this country has talked about the movement to the right so the legislators think that there is indeed a movement to the right and that the Congress and the legislators and the city councils will start to move to the right the way the major media want them. So they keep on talking about this move to the right.”

-          Title: Harvey Milk - Description: http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2006/12/05/320x240/images_sizedimage_339153906.jpg


-          “In 1977, when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official in the United States. Less than one year later, on November 27, 1978, Milk was gunned down along with San Francisco Mayor George Moscone. The shooter was Supervisor Dan White, a conservative board member who had campaigned on a platform of law and order, civic pride, and family values.


-          White, packing a gun and extra bullets, climbed through a window in City Hall in order to confront Milk and Moscone about his troubled tenure on the Board of Supervisors. After shooting Moscone four times at close range, White reloaded his gun, walked to the other side of the building, and invited Milk into his former office. White shot Milk in the arm, the chest, and twice in the head. He then fled the building the same way that he had entered. A few hours after Diane Feinstein, who became Acting Mayor, named him as a suspect, White turned himself in.


-          On May 21, 1979 after White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to five to seven years in prison for killing both men, protestors gathered at City Hall to vent their outrage over the verdict. In what has come to be known as “White Night,” demonstrators broke windows at City Hall, burned police cars, and clashed with police at various flashpoints throughout the city.


-          In 1985, after serving just over five years in Soledad prison and one year of parole in Los Angeles, White returned to San Francisco despite Mayor Feinstein’s public objections. On October 21, 1985, seven years after the assassinations, White killed himself in the garage of his wife’s home. White’s suicide did not provoke any significant public reaction.”


-          “So let’s look at 1977 and see if there was indeed a move to the right. In 1977, gay people had their rights taken away from them in Miami. But you must remember that in the week before Miami and the week after that, the word homosexual or gay appeared in every single newspaper in this nation in articles both pro and con. In every radio station, in every TV station and every household. For the first time in the history of the world, everybody was talking about it, good or bad. Unless you have dialogue, unless you open the walls of dialogue, you can never reach to change people’s opinion. In those two weeks, more good and bad, but more about the word homosexual and gay was written than probably in the history of mankind. Once you have dialogue starting, you know you can break down prejudice. In 1977 we saw a dialogue start. In 1977, we saw a gay person elected in San Francisco. In 1977 we saw the state of Mississippi decriminalize marijuana. In 1977, we saw the convention of conventions in Houston. And I want to know where the movement to the right is happening.


-          What that is is a record of what happened last year. What we must do is make sure that 1978 continues the movement that is really happening that the media don’t want you to know about. That is the movement to the left. It’s up to CDC to put the pressures on Sacramento—but to break down the walls and the barriers so the movement to the left continues and progress continues in the nation. We have before us coming up several issues we must speak out on. Probably the most important issue outside the Briggs—which we will come to—but we do know what will take place this June. We know there’s an issue on the ballot called Jarvis-Gann. We hear the taxpayers talk about it on both sides. But what you don’t hear is that it’s probably the most racist issue on the ballot in a long time. In the city and county of San Francisco, if it passes and we indeed have to lay off people, who will they be? The last in, and the first in, and who are the last in but the minorities? Jarvis-Gann is a racist issue. We must address that issue. We must not talk away from it. We must not allow them to talk about the money it’s going to save, because look at who’s going to save the money and who’s going to get hurt.


-          We also have another issue that we’ve started in some of the north counties and I hope in some of the south counties it continues. In San Francisco elections we’re asking—at least we hope to ask— that the U.S. government put pressure on the closing of the South African consulate. That must happen. There is a major difference between an embassy in Washington which is a diplomatic bureau and a consulate in major cities. A consulate is there for one reason only — to promote business, economic gains, tourism, [and] investment. And every time you have business going to South Africa, you’re promoting a regime that’s offensive.


-          In the city of San Francisco, if every one of 51 percent of that city were to go to South Africa, they would be treated as second-class citizens. That is an offense to the people of San Francisco and I hope all my colleagues up there will take every step we can to close down that consulate and hope that people in other parts of the state follow us in that lead. The battles must be started some place and CDC is the greatest place to start the battles. I know we are pressed for time so I’m going to cover just one more little point. That is to understand why it is important that gay people run for office and that gay people get elected. I know there are many people in this room who are running for central committee who are gay. I encourage you. There’s a major reason why. If my non-gay friends and supporters in this room understand it, they’ll probably understand why I’ve run so often before I finally made it. Y’see right now, there’s a controversy going on in this convention about the gay governor. Is he speaking out enough? Is he strong enough for gay rights? And there is controversy and for us to say it is not would be foolish. Some people are satisfied and some people are not.


-          You see there is a major difference—and it remains a vital difference—between a friend and a gay person, a friend in office and a gay person in office. Gay people have been slandered nationwide. We’ve been tarred and we’ve been brushed with the picture of pornography. In Dade County, we were accused of child molestation. It’s not enough anymore just to have friends represent us. No matter how good that friend may be.

-          The black community made up its mind to that a long time ago. That the myths against blacks can only be dispelled by electing black leaders, so the black community could be judged by the leaders and not by the myths or black criminals. The Spanish community must not be judged by Latin criminals or myths. The Asian community must not be judged by Asian criminals or myths. The Italian community must not be judged by the mafia, myths. And the time has come when the gay community must not be judged by our criminals and myths.


-          Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay, those who are visible. For invisible, we remain in limbo—a myth, a person with no parents, no brothers, no sisters, no friends who are straight, no important positions in employment. A tenth of the nation supposedly composed of stereotypes and would-be seducers of children—and no offense meant to the stereotypes. But today, the black community is not judged by its friends, but by its black legislators and leaders. And we must give people the chance to judge us by our leaders and legislators. A gay person in office can set a tone, con command respect not only from the larger community, but from the young people in our own community who need both examples and hope.

-          The first gay people we elect must be strong. They must not be content to sit in the back of the bus. They must not be content to accept pablum. They must be above wheeling and dealing. They must be—for the good of all of us—independent, unbought. The anger and the frustrations that some of us feel is because we are misunderstood, and friends can’t feel the anger and frustration. They can sense it in us, but they can’t feel it. Because a friend has never gone through what is known as coming out. I will never forget what it was like coming out and having nobody to look up toward. I remember the lack of hope—and our friends can’t fulfill it.


-          I can’t forget the looks on faces of people who’ve lost hope. Be they gay, be they seniors, be they blacks looking for an almost-impossible job, be they Latins trying to explain their problems and aspirations in a tongue that’s foreign to them. I personally will never forget that people are more important than buildings. I use the word “I” because I’m proud. I stand here tonight in front of my gay sisters, brothers and friends because I’m proud of you. I think it’s time that we have many legislators who are gay and proud of that fact and do not have to remain in the closet. I think that a gay person, up-front, will not walk away from a responsibility and be afraid of being tossed out of office. After Dade County, I walked among the angry and the frustrated night after night and I looked at their faces. And in San Francisco, three days before Gay Pride Day, a person was killed just because he was gay. And that night, I walked among the sad and the frustrated at City Hall in San Francisco and later that night as they lit candles on Castro Street and stood in silence, reaching out for some symbolic thing that would give them hope. These were strong people, whose faces I knew from the shop, the streets, meetings and people who I never saw before but I knew. They were strong, but even they needed hope.


-          And the young gay people in the Altoona, Pennsylvanias and the Richmond, Minnesotas who are coming out and hear Anita Bryant on television and her story. The only thing they have to look forward to is hope. And you have to give them hope. Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right. Without hope, not only gays, but the blacks, the seniors, the handicapped, the us’es, the us’es will give up. And if you help elect to the central committee and other offices, more gay people, that gives a green light to all who feel disenfranchised, a green light to move forward. It means hope to a nation that has given up, because if a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone.

-          So if there is a message I have to give, it is that I’ve found one overriding thing about my personal election, it’s the fact that if a gay person can be elected, it’s a green light. And you and you and you, you have to give people hope. Thank you very much.”

And to quote from another All-Time Hero of Mine, this being from Grover Cleveland during His State of The Union Address on December 6, 1887:

“To the Congress of the United States:

You are confronted at the threshold of your legislative duties with a condition of the national finances which imperatively demands immediate and careful consideration.

The amount of money annually exacted, through the operation of present laws, from the industries and necessities of the people largely exceeds the sum necessary to meet the expenses of the Government.

When we consider that the theory of our institutions guarantees to every citizen the full enjoyment of all the fruits of his industry and enterprise, with only such deduction as may be his share toward the careful and economical maintenance of the Government which protects him, it is plain that the exaction of more than this is indefensible extortion and a culpable betrayal of American fairness and justice. This wrong inflicted upon those who bear the burden of national taxation, like other wrongs, multiplies a brood of evil consequences. The public Treasury, which should only exist as a conduit conveying the people’s tribute to its legitimate objects of expenditure, becomes a hoarding place for money needlessly withdrawn from trade and the people’s use, thus crippling our national energies, suspending our country’s development, preventing investment in productive enterprise, threatening financial disturbance, and inviting schemes of public plunder.

This condition of our Treasury is not altogether new, and it has more than once of late been submitted to the people’s representatives in the Congress, who alone can apply a remedy. And yet the situation still continues, with aggravated incidents, more than ever presaging financial convulsion and widespread disaster.

It will not do to neglect this situation because its dangers are not now palpably imminent and apparent. They exist none the less certainly, and await the unforeseen and unexpected occasion when suddenly they will be precipitated upon us.

On the 30th day of June, 1885, the excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying with the annual requirement of the sinking-fund act, was $17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such excess amounted to $49,405,545.20, and during the year ended June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54.

The annual contributions to the sinking fund during the three years above specified, amounting in the aggregate to $138,058,320.94, and deducted from the surplus as stated, were made by calling in for that purpose outstanding 3 per cent bonds of the Government. During the six months prior to June 30, 1887, the surplus revenue had grown so large by repeated accumulations, and it was feared the withdrawal of this great sum of money needed by the people would so affect the business of the country, that the sum of $79,864,100 of such surplus was applied to the payment of the principal and interest of the 3 per cent bonds still outstanding, and which were then payable at the option of the Government. The precarious condition of financial affairs among the people still needing relief, immediately after the 30th day of June, 1887, the remainder of the 3 per cent bonds then outstanding, amounting with principal and interest to the sum of $18,877,500, were called in and applied to the sinking-fund contribution for the current fiscal year. Notwithstanding these operations of the Treasury Department, representations of distress in business circles not only continued, but increased, and absolute peril seemed at hand. In these circumstances the contribution to the sinking fund for the current fiscal year was at once completed by the expenditure of $27,684,283.55 in the purchase of Government bonds not yet due bearing 4 and 41/2 per cent interest, the premium paid thereon averaging about 24 per cent for the former and 8 per cent for the latter. In addition to this, the interest accruing during the current year upon the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the Government was to some extent anticipated, and banks selected as depositories of public money were permitted to somewhat increase their deposits.

While the expedients thus employed to release to the people the money lying idle in the Treasury served to avert immediate danger, our surplus revenues have continued to accumulate, the excess for the present year amounting on the 1st day of December to $55,258,701.19, and estimated to reach the sum of $113,000,000 on the 30th of June next, at which date it is expected that this sum, added to prior accumulations, will swell the surplus in the Treasury to $140,000,000.

There seems to be no assurance that, with such a withdrawal from use of the people’s circulating medium, our business community may not in the near future be subjected to the same distress which was quite lately produced from the same cause. And while the functions of our National Treasury should be few and simple, and while its best condition would be reached, I believe, by its entire disconnection with private business interests, yet when, by a perversion of its purposes, it idly holds money uselessly subtracted from the channels of trade, there seems to be reason for the claim that some legitimate means should be devised by the Government to restore in an emergency, without waste or extravagance, such money to its place among the people.

If such an emergency arises, there now exists no clear and undoubted executive power of relief. Heretofore the redemption of 3 per cent bonds, which were payable at the option of the Government, has afforded a means for the disbursement of the excess of our revenues; but these bonds have all been retired, and there are no bonds outstanding the payment of which we have a right to insist upon. The contribution to the sinking fund which furnishes the occasion for expenditure in the purchase of bonds has been already made for the current year, so that there is no outlet in that direction.

In the present state of legislation the only pretense of any existing executive power to restore at this time any part of our surplus revenues to the people by its expenditure consists in the supposition that the Secretary of the Treasury may enter the market and purchase the bonds of the Government not yet due, at a rate of premium to be agreed upon. The only provision of law from which such a power could be derived is found in an appropriation bill passed a number of years ago, and it is subject to the suspicion that it was intended as temporary and limited in its application, instead of conferring a continuing discretion and authority. No condition ought to exist which would justify the grant of power to a single official, upon his judgment of its necessity, to withhold from or release to the business of the people, in an unusual manner, money held in the Treasury, and thus affect at his will the financial situation of the country; and if it is deemed wise to lodge in the Secretary of the Treasury the authority in the present juncture to purchase bonds, it should be plainly vested, and provided, as far as possible, with such checks and limitations as will define this official’s right and discretion and at the same time relieve him from undue responsibility.

In considering the question of purchasing bonds as a means of restoring to circulation the surplus money accumulating in the Treasury, it should be borne in mind that premiums must of course be paid upon such purchase, that there may be a large part of these bonds held as investments which can not be purchased at any price, and that combinations among holders who are willing to sell may unreasonably enhance the cost of such bonds to the Government.

It has been suggested that the present bonded debt might be refunded at a less rate of interest and the difference between the old and new security paid in cash, thus finding use for the surplus in the Treasury. The success of this plan, it is apparent, must depend upon the volition of the holders of the present bonds; and it is not entirely certain that the inducement which must be offered them would result in more financial benefit to the Government than the purchase of bonds, while the latter proposition would reduce the principal of the debt by actual payment instead of extending it.

The proposition to deposit the money held by the Government in banks throughout the country for use by the people is, it seems to me, exceedingly objectionable in principle, as establishing too close a relationship between the operations of the Government Treasury and the business of the country and too extensive a commingling of their money, thus fostering an unnatural reliance in private business upon public funds. If this scheme should be adopted, it should only be done as a temporary expedient to meet an urgent necessity. Legislative and executive effort should generally be in the opposite direction, and should have a tendency to divorce, as much and as fast as can be safely done, the Treasury Department from private enterprise.

Of course it is not expected that unnecessary and extravagant appropriations will be made for the purpose of avoiding the accumulation of an excess of revenue. Such expenditure, besides the demoralization of all just conceptions of public duty which it entails, stimulates a habit of reckless improvidence not in the least consistent with the mission of our people or the high and beneficent purposes of our Government.

I have deemed it my duty to thus bring to the knowledge of my countrymen, as well as to the attention of their representatives charged with the responsibility of legislative relief, the gravity of our financial situation. The failure of the Congress heretofore to provide against the dangers which it was quite evident the very nature of the difficulty must necessarily produce caused a condition of financial distress and apprehension since your last adjournment which taxed to the utmost all the authority and expedients within executive control; and these appear now to be exhausted. If disaster results from the continued inaction of Congress, the responsibility must rest where it belongs.

Though the situation thus far considered is fraught with danger which should be fully realized, and though it presents features of wrong to the people as well as peril to the country, it is but a result growing out of a perfectly palpable and apparent cause, constantly reproducing the same alarming circumstances—a congested National Treasury and a depleted monetary condition in the business of the country. It need hardly be stated that while the present situation demands a remedy, we can only be saved from a like predicament in the future by the removal of its cause.

Our scheme of taxation, by means of which this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into the public Treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon importations from abroad and internal-revenue taxes levied upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking, necessaries. There appears to be no just complaint of this taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship to any portion of the people.

But our present tariff laws, the vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws, as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty by precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these home manufactures, because they render it possible for those of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens that while comparatively a few use the imported articles, millions of our people, who never used and never saw any of the foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon into the public Treasury, but the great majority of our citizens, who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at least approximately equal to this duty to the home manufacturer. This reference to the operation of our tariff laws is not made by way of instruction, but in order that we may be constantly reminded of the manner in which they impose a burden upon those who consume domestic products as well as those who consume imported articles, and thus create a tax upon all our people.

It is not proposed to entirely relieve the country of this taxation. It must be extensively continued as the source of the Government’s income; and in a readjustment of our tariff the interests of American labor engaged in manufacture should be carefully considered, as well as the preservation of our manufacturers. It may be called protection or by any other name, but relief from the hardships and dangers of our present tariff laws should be devised with especial precaution against imperiling the existence of our manufacturing interests. But this existence should not mean a condition which, without regard to the public welfare or a national exigency, must always insure the realization of immense profits instead of moderately profitable returns. As the volume and diversity of our national activities increase, new recruits are added to those who desire a continuation of the advantages which they conceive the present system of tariff taxation directly affords them. So stubbornly have all efforts to reform the present condition been resisted by those of our fellow-citizens thus engaged that they can hardly complain of the suspicion, entertained to a certain extent, that there exists an organized combination all along the line to maintain their advantage.

We are in the midst of centennial celebrations, and with becoming pride we rejoice in American skill and ingenuity, in American energy and enterprise, and in the wonderful natural advantages and resources developed by a century’s national growth. Yet when an attempt is made to justify a scheme which permits a tax to be laid upon every consumer in the land for the benefit of our manufacturers, quite beyond a reasonable demand for governmental regard, it suits the purposes of advocacy to call our manufactures infant industries still needing the highest and greatest degree of favor and fostering care that can be wrung from Federal legislation.

It is also said that the increase in the price of domestic manufactures resulting from the present tariff is necessary in order that higher wages may be paid to our workingmen employed in manufactories than are paid for what is called the pauper labor of Europe. All will acknowledge the force of an argument which involves the welfare and liberal compensation of our laboring people. Our labor is honorable in the eyes of every American citizen; and as it lies at the foundation of our development and progress, it is entitled, without affectation or hypocrisy, to the utmost regard. The standard of our laborers’ life should not be measured by that of any other country less favored, and they are entitled to their full share of all our advantages.

By the last census it is made to appear that of the 17,392,099 of our population engaged in all kinds of industries 7,670,493 are employed in agriculture, 4,074,238 in professional and personal service (2,934,876 of whom are domestic servants and laborers), while 1,810,256 are employed in trade and transportation and 3,837,112 are classed as employed in manufacturing and mining.

For present purposes, however, the last number given should be considerably reduced. Without attempting to enumerate all, it will be conceded that there should be deducted from those which it includes 375,143 carpenters and joiners, 285,401 milliners, dressmakers, and seamstresses, 172,726 blacksmiths, 133,756 tailors and tailoresses, 102,473 masons, 76,241 butchers, 41,309 bakers, 22,083 plasterers, and 4,891 engaged in manufacturing agricultural implements, amounting in the aggregate to 1,214,023, leaving 2,623,089 persons employed in such manufacturing industries as are claimed to be benefited by a high tariff.

To these the appeal is made to save their employment and maintain their wages by resisting a change. There should be no disposition to answer such suggestions by the allegation that they are in a minority among those who labor, and therefore should forego an advantage in the interest of low prices for the majority. Their compensation, as it may be affected by the operation of tariff laws, should at all times be scrupulously kept in view; and yet with slight reflection they will not overlook the fact that they are consumers with the rest; that they too have their own wants and those of their families to supply from their earnings, and that the price of the necessaries of life, as well as the amount of their wages, will regulate the measure of their welfare and comfort.

But the reduction of taxation demanded should be so measured as not to necessitate or justify either the loss of employment by the workingman or the lessening of his wages; and the profits still remaining to the manufacturer after a necessary readjustment should furnish no excuse for the sacrifice of the interests of his employees, either in their opportunity to work or in the diminution of their compensation. Nor can the worker in manufactures fail to understand that while a high tariff is claimed to be necessary to allow the payment of remunerative wages, it certainly results in a very large increase in the price of nearly all sorts of manufactures, which, in almost countless forms, he needs for the use of himself and his family. He receives at the desk of his employer his wages, and perhaps before he reaches his home is obliged, in a purchase for family use of an article which embraces his own labor, to return in the payment of the increase in price which the tariff permits the hard-earned compensation of many days of toil.

The farmer and the agriculturist, who manufacture nothing, but who pay the increased price which the tariff imposes upon every agricultural implement, upon all he wears, and upon all he uses and owns, except the increase of his flocks and herds and such things as his husbandry produces from the soil, is invited to aid in maintaining the present situation; and he is told that a high duty on imported wool is necessary for the benefit of those who have sheep to shear, in order that the price of their wool may be increased. They, of course, are not reminded that the farmer who has no sheep is by this scheme obliged, in his purchases of clothing and woolen goods, to pay a tribute to his fellow-farmer as well as to the manufacturer and merchant, nor is any mention made of the fact that the sheep owners themselves and their households must wear clothing and use other articles manufactured from the wool they sell at tariff prices, and thus as consumers must return their share of this increased price to the tradesman.

I think it may be fairly assumed that a large proportion of the sheep owned by the farmers throughout the country are found in small flocks, numbering from twenty-five to fifty. The duty on the grade of imported wool which these sheep yield is 10 cents each pound if of the value of 30 cents or less and 12 cents if of the value of more than 30 cents. If the liberal estimate of 6 pounds be allowed for each fleece, the duty thereon would be 60 or 72 cents; and this may be taken as the utmost enhancement of its price to the farmer by reason of this duty. Eighteen dollars would thus represent the increased price of the wool from twenty-five sheep and $36 that from the wool of fifty sheep; and at present values this addition would amount to about one-third of its price. If upon its sale the farmer receives this or a less tariff profit, the wool leaves his hands charged with precisely that sum, which in all its changes will adhere to it until it reaches the consumer. When manufactured into cloth and other goods and material for use, its cost is not only increased to the extent of the farmer’s tariff profit, but a further sum has been added for the benefit of the manufacturer under the operation of other tariff laws. In the meantime the day arrives when the farmer finds it necessary to purchase woolen goods and material to clothe himself and family for the winter. When he faces the tradesman for that purpose, he discovers that he is obliged not only to return in the way of increased prices his tariff profit on the wool he sold, and which then perhaps lies before him in manufactured form, but that he must add a considerable sum thereto to meet a further increase in cost caused by a tariff duty on the manufacture. Thus in the end he is aroused to the fact that he has paid upon a moderate purchase, as a result of the tariff scheme, which when he sold his wool seemed so profitable, an increase in price more than sufficient to sweep away all the tariff profit he received upon the wool he produced and sold.

When the number of farmers engaged in wool raising is compared with all the farmers in the country and the small proportion they bear to our population is considered; when it is made apparent that in the case of a large part of those who own sheep the benefit of the present tariff on wool is illusory; and, above all, when it must be conceded that the increase of the cost of living caused by such tariff becomes a burden upon those with moderate means and the poor, the employed and unemployed, the sick and well, and the young and old, and that it constitutes a tax which with relentless grasp is fastened upon the clothing of every man, woman, and child in the land, reasons are suggested why the removal or reduction of this duty should be included in a revision of our tariff laws.

In speaking of the increased cost to the consumer of our home manufactures resulting from a duty laid upon imported articles of the same description, the fact is not ever looked that competition among our domestic producers sometimes has the effect of keeping the price of their products below the highest limit allowed by such duty. But it is notorious that this competition is too often strangled by combinations quite prevalent at this time, and frequently called trusts, which have for their object the regulation of the supply and price of commodities made and sold by members of the combination. The people can hardly hope for any consideration in the operation of these selfish schemes.

If, however, in the absence of such combination, a healthy and free competition reduces the price of any particular dutiable article of home production below the limit which it might otherwise reach under our tariff laws, and if with such reduced price its manufacture continues to thrive, it is entirely evident that one thing has been discovered which should be carefully scrutinized in an effort to reduce taxation.

The necessity of combination to maintain the price of any commodity to the tariff point furnishes proof that someone is willing to accept lower prices for such commodity and that such prices are remunerative; and lower prices produced by competition prove the same thing. Thus where either of these conditions exists a case would seem to be presented for an easy reduction of taxation.

The considerations which have been presented touching our tariff laws are intended only to enforce an earnest recommendation that the surplus revenues of the Government be prevented by the reduction of our customs duties, and at the same time to emphasize a suggestion that in accomplishing this purpose we may discharge a double duty to our people by granting to them a measure of relief from tariff taxation in quarters where it is most needed and from sources where it can be most fairly and justly accorded.

Nor can the presentation made of such considerations be with any degree of fairness regarded as evidence of unfriendliness toward our manufacturing interests or of any lack of appreciation of their value and importance.

These interests constitute a leading and most substantial element of our national greatness and furnish the proud proof of our country’s progress. But if in the emergency that presses upon us our manufacturers are asked to surrender something for the public good and to avert disaster, their patriotism, as well as a grateful recognition of advantages already afforded, should lead them to willing cooperation. No demand is made that they shall forego all the benefits of governmental regard; but they can not fail to be admonished of their duty, as well as their enlightened self-interest and safety, when they are reminded of the fact that financial panic and collapse, to which the present condition tends, afford no greater shelter or protection to our manufactures than to other important enterprises. Opportunity for safe, careful, and deliberate reform is now offered; and none of us should be unmindful of a time when an abused and irritated people, heedless of those who have resisted timely and reasonable relief, may insist upon a radical and sweeping rectification of their wrongs.

The difficulty attending a wise and fair revision of our tariff laws is not underestimated. It will require on the part of the Congress great labor and care, and especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire country.

Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are subject to duty. Many of these do not in any way compete with our own manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be greatly cheapened.

The radical reduction of the duties imposed upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to reduce the price of these necessaries. It would not only relieve them from the increased cost caused by the tariff on such material, but the manufactured product being thus cheapened that part of the tariff now laid upon such product, as a compensation to our manufacturers for the present price of raw material, could be accordingly modified. Such reduction or free importation would serve besides to largely reduce the revenue. It is not apparent how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material. Thus our people might have the opportunity of extending their sales beyond the limits of home consumption, saving them from the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a glutted domestic market and affording their employees more certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and contentment.

The question thus imperatively presented for solution should be approached in a spirit higher than partisanship and considered in the light of that regard for patriotic duty which should characterize the action of those intrusted with the weal of a confiding people. But the obligation to declared party policy and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective action. Both of the great political parties now represented in the Government have by repeated and authoritative declarations condemned the condition of our laws which permit the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue, and have in the most solemn manner promised its correction; and neither as citizens nor partisans are our countrymen in a mood to condone the deliberate violation of these pledges.

Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade. This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition which confronts us, not a theory. Relief from this condition may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free trade is absolutely irrelevant, and the persistent claim made in certain quarters that all the efforts to relieve the people from unjust and unnecessary taxation are schemes of so-called free traders is mischievous and far removed from any consideration for the public good.

The simple and plain duty which we owe the people is to reduce taxation to the necessary expenses of an economical operation of the Government and to restore to the business of the country the money which we hold in the Treasury through the perversion of governmental powers. These things can and should be done with safety to all our industries, without danger to the opportunity for remunerative labor which our workingmen need, and with benefit to them and all our people by cheapening their means of subsistence and increasing the measure of their comforts.

The Constitution provides that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union.” It has been the custom of the Executive, in compliance with this provision, to annually exhibit to the Congress, at the opening of its session, the general condition of the country, and to detail with some particularity the operations of the different Executive Departments. It would be especially agreeable to follow this course at the present time and to call attention to the valuable accomplishments of these Departments during the last fiscal year; but I am so much impressed with the paramount importance of the subject to which this communication has thus far been devoted that I shall forego the addition of any other topic, and only urge upon your immediate consideration the “state of the Union” as shown in the present condition of our Treasury and our general fiscal situation, upon which every element of our safety and prosperity depends.

The reports of the heads of Departments, which will be submitted, contain full and explicit information touching the transaction of the business intrusted to them and such recommendations relating to legislation in the public interest as they deem advisable. I ask for these reports and recommendations the deliberate examination and action of the legislative branch of the Government.

There are other subjects not embraced in the departmental reports demanding legislative consideration, and which I should be glad to submit. Some of them, however, have been earnestly presented in previous messages, and as to them I beg leave to repeat prior recommendations.

As the law makes no provision for any report from the Department of State, a brief history of the transactions of that important Department, together with other matters which it may hereafter be deemed essential to commend to the attention of the Congress, may furnish the occasion for a future communication.”

And, last but far from least, the final quote from My First and Last All-Time Hero, Madonna, Who portrayed Eva Peron in the Motion Picture Adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Weber’s Classical Musical “Evita”:

“It won’t be easy, You’ll think It strange
When I try to explain how I feel
That I still need Your love after all that I’ve done

You won’t believe Me
All you will see is a [Boy] you once knew
Although [He’s] dressed up to the Nines
At Sixes and Sevens with You

I had to let it happen, I had to change
Couldn’t stay all My life down at heel
Looking out of the window, staying out of the Sun

So I chose Freedom
Running around, trying everything New
But No Thing impressed Me at All
I never expected It to


Don’t cry for Me [Eden]
The Truth is I never left You
All through My wild Days
My mad Existence
I kept My Promise
Don’t keep Your distance

And as for Fortune, and as for Fame
I never invited them In
Though it seemed to the World they were all I desired

They are Illusions
They are not the Solutions They Promised to Be
The Answer was here All the Time
I Love You and Hope You Love Me

Don’t cry for Me


Have I said too much?
There’s No Thing more I can think of to say to You.
But all You have to Do is look at Me to Know
That Every Word is True…”

                I’m ready to get to Work!  Are You?  Thank You.  You’re Welcomed.  Hello!  I Love You!  What Is Your Name and How You DO-In’?!  Thank You, You’re Welcomed, God Bless You, God Bless America and MAY GOD BLESS THE WORLD!


Jeremy Michael Walbert Throws in the Proverbial Towel

After sustaining a concussion from a severe blow to the head, Jeremy Michael Walbert, otherwise known as the author of this blog, officially ends his “unofficial” run for the Office of the President of the United States today, Tuesday, May 8, 2012.

Since his previous attempts to get media attention from various news sources, social media outlets, and his fellow peers always produced zero to near zero interest, Jeremy has come to a simple realization:  “FUCK IT!  I’d be happier working at Walmart as a door greeter than this shit!”

Jeremy didn’t come to this realization easily.  It wouldn’t be until he sustained a concussion from a severe blow to the back and front of his head on Thursday, April 26th, and lost his memory and sense of self, and found himself in a proverbial dark room that didn’t seem to have any walls or other inhabitants.  Jeremy best expressed this experience as “trying to put the puzzle back together without knowing what the final picture looked like in the dark.”

Jeremy — ahh, fuck it!  I’m Jeremy, and I’m tired of referring to myself in the third person!

I also have felt completely abandoned and distanced by my family and friends who apparently don’t understand what the fuck I have been going through these last five months.  It’s a fucking shame too!  I MUST SAY!  Would a fucking simple phone call hurt?  FUCK!  Just a suggestion!  God forbid you get the impression I’m trying to shove a fucking belief down your fucking throat!

I apologize to God for using such harsh language, but to Him only!  Everybody else can just go to … well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where, if ya know what I mean!

I mean, does any of my so-called friends or family or online “friends” care to ask to even see the fuckingREAL NOT FUCKING FAKEdocumentary I made?  No!  Do they even pretend to care?  No!

Do they even bother to realize that for some queer reason thousands — thats 3 zeros not 2 not 1 — of people around the world are following me on twitter, facebook, youtube, blah, blah, blah — or the fact that someone as famous asMADONNAand someone as unfamous asMUAHtalk to each other?  Well, on twitter for the most part.  Heck, even I ain’t special enough to get a phone call.  Not that I am complaining, because unlike everybody else, I know (or at least I’m mostly convinced) that she gets where I am coming from, and can maybe possibly appreciate it!

Anyway, life is to short and precious to be woken up at 3:00 am with the weight of the world’s problems on your shoulders.  I mean, God forbid we have a faggot in the White House anyway, right?  Well, who the fuck do you think suggested it to me in the first place??  Do you think I just pulled this out of my fucking ass one day and just went with it?  Puh-lease!

Anyway, do I sound fucking pissed, hurt and completely disappointed?  You bet your mother fucking ass I do!

So with that said, I officially announce I am no longer pursuing one of my life-long dreams — to be that one person who took a stand for the “Little People” — or as the rich and the richer wanna refer us as … “those whiny, selfish, lazy drug addict whores who live off of taxpayer’s money.”

Keep on believing what you want to believe!  Keep on living the life you wanna live!  My intent was never to come to change the law or your personal beliefs — my intent was to come and deliver His promise to His people.

Apparently, Lord, God of Hosts — your People choose what they keep seeming to choose time and time again.  Who knows, maybe I will be proven wrong!  But, honestly right now I don’t have the mental capacity or the motivation to try.

I remain loyal and devoted to You, my Lord.  I know that my path is right and just.  I no longer need to rely on faith alone — I have tangible concrete evidence of Your Existence and of Your Love.  You have shown me Wonders of the Universe that, quite honestly, I think only a rare few have seen.

I have tried to share these wonderful experiences with the World, but keep getting kicked in the proverbial groin — or perhaps bashed in the proverbial head, in my case.

Consider this my Prayer of Guidance to You, My Lord.  I hurt, and I cry — and quite honestly I don’t know what else I have to do — die and come back?  Sorry, already been there, done that!  More than once!

Life is too short and precious to be woken up at 3:00 AM with the weight of the world’s problems on your shoulders.
Jeremy Michael Walbert, on Tuesday, May 8, 2012 during his announcement that he will no longer be “running” for the Office of the President of the United States (also known as P.O.T.U.S.) — not that he ever officially was in the first place.


Dogvengers Assemble! | BuzzFeed

Primary Care Physician Follow-Up Visit

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 10:00 AM PT, one week after the severe blow to my head, I had a follow-up visit with my Primary Care Physician.  This was the first time my doctor has seen me since the incident, and he wasn’t aware of the situation until I showed up.

Shortly after arriving and checking in, I was called back up to the reception area for them to inform me of some changes that were made to my Medi-Cal coverage.  Since I hadn’t gotten around to changing my address from Palm Springs to Lancaster, the Medi-Cal office had sent me a package to my old address.  Since they heard nothing back from me, they automatically changed my Medi-Cal coverage to PPO and assigned me a Primary Care doctor somewhere in the Inland Empire, making me automatically disqualified to receive care from where I have been receiving it in Lancaster.

As the receptionist was trying to tell me about this, I felt the ground get swept out from under me, and the next thing I knew I was on the ground, barely conscious.

My doctor, along with his assistant, examined me and determined that I had severe damage and bruising to my brain.  As per both of their orders and assessments, I will be on “brain-rest” for the next couple of weeks and have been advised to stay off the computer.  I am allotted 15 minutes per day maximum, but nothing too involved or stressful.

Therefore, I have put my second documentary, “The Masterpiece In Wunderland”, on temporary hiatus until further notice.

I have spoken with my parents, and will be setting up Power of Attorney over to them and my partner, Jacob.  I also informed them how I was mistreated by the EMTs and they will be pursuing legal action.