Some, just a little more equal than others Pt. II (UPDATED...again!)

(please scroll down for updates)

Article here makes the case for hate crime laws. It’s not a bad article but it presents a couple of points that re-enforces our case against hate crime laws. The author brings up perhaps the most visible and celebrated hate crime and that is the torture and murder of Matthew Shepard back in 1999. The author argues that the horrific nature of the crime against Matthew Shepard is cause for the enhanced penalties of hate crime legislation. We counter: precisely what is it about being tied to a stake, beaten and eventually murdered that does not warrant being prosecuted to the full extent of the law and then being served the harshest sentencing possible? That Matthew Sheppard was gay matters not one iota – and isn’t that the whole idea of justice?

Secondly, is a point the author fails to mention. Author gives several examples of what he would consider hate crimes including the Holocaust museum shooter and the Fort Dix terror cell. But guess which still-recent but apparently not-so-high-profile assassination he fails to mention? Yep, it’s the terrorist attack on our own soil just one month ago that dare not speak its own name. It’s this unfathomable air-brushing of a murder of a U.S. service member by an Islamic jihadist that bolsters our contention that despite their good-intentions, hate crime laws will be used as political footballs.

But do you know why else you should reject hate crime laws and in particular, the hate crime legislation that is being considered in the Senate right now? Because the Attorney General says it’s un-constitutional, that’s why.

In Testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee Attorney General Eric Holder was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) if the federal hate bill S. 909 will equally protect all Americans from violent crimes? Holder explicitly says the hate bill will not provide equal protection to most Americans. Holders says that the bill is to protect specific groups that have a history of being targeted by violence because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation.

(italics, ours)

Now, that does not seem to possess the empathy that we were hoping for. What more reason do you need to reject this excrable piece of garbage than for the top law enforcement official of the land to verify that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. We appreciate Mr. Holder's forthrightness in this matter.

We’ve been shouting this from the mountaintop for years now and here it is in black and white: Hate crime laws are driven by agenda politics, nothing more, nothing less.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

(UPDATE #1):Here’s something you might want to consider when you are pondering the true nature of hate crimes

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.
But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The Marshalls, who are white, say the crowd of teens who attacked them and two friends June 27 on Girard Street numbered close to 50. The teens were all black.

Read more, here.

The amount and degree of subjectivity, alone, in deciding who does and who does not get prosecuted under hate crime laws should be enough to drop them like a bad habit.

(UPDATE #2):So, how do you get a little hate-crime legislation passed? You include it as an amendment to a $680 million defense appropriations bill and schedule a vote on it for 1 in the morning, that’s how.

Here’s Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina speaking on the appropriateness of this amendment and its logic.

Gays: just a little bit more important than the rest us. (UPDATED)

(UPDATE #1):On the floor of the House last week, Virginia Foxx (R-VA) had this to say on the hate crime legislation that bore Matthew Shepard’s (the gay Wyoming teenager who was robbed and beaten to death by a couple of methed-out savages back in ’98) name:

"The hate crimes bill was named for [Shepard], but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills,"

Oops. Not quite a public image-enhancing move, Ms. Foxx.

This utterance was seized upon by the usual suspects with the predictable ferocity and Foxx was compelled to apologize, saying “hoax” was a poor choice of words. Apparently, though, slipping up in one’s terminology was not the real wrongdoing – merely harboring sentiments that run counter to the legislation’s M.O. is the real crime.

Here’s Matthew Shepard’s mother:

Mrs. Foxx has been "apologizing for semantics, but not her sentiment, her insensitivity or her ignorance," Mrs. Shepard told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "Everyone knew Matthew's murder was a hate crime, but it couldn't be prosecuted as a hate crime. We couldn't call it a hate crime. Getting this bill passed in the House brings gay rights up to the level of equality."

With all due respect to Mrs. Shepard, she gives evidence to more mis-interpretation of that term “equality” as in, how does the “gain of new federal protections” above and beyond other groups translate to “equality”.

And whether or not the murder of Matthew Shepard was actually a hate crime is up for some considerable debate as linked article details.

The two murderers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson are currently serving life sentences for their crime.

Exit question: How would’ve hate crime legislation altered the ultimate outcome and results of the trial and sentencing beyond what it was and is?

(here endeth the update)






… at least in the eyes of the House of Representatives.

Gay victims of violence would gain new federal protections under a revived and expanded hate crimes bill passed by the House on Wednesday over conservatives' objections.

Hate crimes - as defined by the bill - are those motivated by prejudice and based someone's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Thought crimes, pure and simple because “motivated” when used in this context can also be translated as “what you happened to be thinking”.

These so-called hate crime laws would also appear to be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as it elevates the status of gays above other groups.

And proving what passes for logic here’s Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who voted in favor of this legislation, chasing his own tail:

"We in America have said we believe all people ought to be treated equally. If America stands for anything it stands for equality under the law."

...and some just a little more equally than others.

But, wait… it gets even better:

The bill, which passed 249-175, could provide a financial bonanza to state and local authorities, with grants for investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. The federal government could step in and prosecute if states requested it or declined to exercise their authority.

A freaking financial bo-nanza! Hot damn!

Let’s just call this stimulus through thought crime prosecution. Nice to see we have a tax-payer funded cottage industry that will spring-up as a result of this bill.

Your little po-dunk town doesn’t have the resources to prosecute hate crimes? No problem, here’s some money to gin-up, err…. investigate that little incident a bit further to help you achieve the desired results. Better yet, just let the Feds come in and do it for you.

We commend Congress, though, for packing a boatload of stink into a single piece of legislation. Feats like that do not happen by accident but are achieved, rather, by years of disingenuous and intellectually lazy thinking.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

House (hearts) military pay raises and hate crime laws (UPDATED)

This one kind of snuck underneath the radar what with all the excitement of the President sharing honors bestowed upon the likes of Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat.

A long-debated bill to broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays was approved Thursday by the Democratic-controlled House in what would be the first major expansion of the law in more than 40 years.

The measure, which is expected to go before the Senate within days, had faced a veto threat from President George W. Bush, but it has President Obama's support.

And speaking of flying under the radar, Congress must’ve caught the 6 Sigma bug as these hate-crime provisions were attached to a $680-billion defense policy bill which included a pay raise for the military and authorization for the development of a new engine for the next-generation jet fighter among other things. It's all about streamlining the process, don't you know?

The measure passed by a vote of 281 to 146, with Republicans complaining that they had been put in the politically awkward position of voting against a defense bill.

"We should not be doing social engineering on this bill," Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said.

"Shame on you," he told Democrats.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said that Democrats had needlessly introduced a "partisan matter in an otherwise bipartisan defense bill for our troops."

"No member should be forced to vote for a partisan social agenda in order to provide for our troops," he said.

While all this is true, perhaps the Republicans should’ve been thinking about the consequences of elections sometime prior to 2006.

You all know how we feel about hate crime laws. We hate them. Again, it would seem that the term “equality” is being confused with “gaining federal protections above what other groups receive.”

The two killers of Matthew Shepard (the gay man who was tortured and killed 11 yrs. ago in Wyoming and who has been the rallying point for gays wanting to be treated just a little more equally than others) are sitting in prison at this moment serving life terms. Just how would hate crime legislation change the outcome of their trial and/or “enhance” their punishment?

We would not have any problems if these two savages were given the death penalty and we don’t see why you would need specific (gay) hate crime law for that.

How about a simple the "Tie a person to a wooden stake to beat, torture and kill him and... get the electric chair” law?


(UPDATE #1): Greetings, racists! Slipped into the Senate version of this "defense policy bill" is wording that broadens the scope of the hate crime provisions in the House bill. The Senate bill would leave it up to the Attorney General to determine if a group is “associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government”. Some language from the bill:

(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILATION WITH HATE GROUP.—The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:

(A) Individuals possessing tattoos or other body markings indicating association or affiliation with a hate group.
(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group.
(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group’s extremist or violent views and goals.
(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, written testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group. Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hateinspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General.

(italics, ours)

(H/T: Foxfier)

We're clean on the tatoo front but considering some of the rhetoric thrown around by this country's taste-makers and politicians we may be guilty on all the other fronts.

Exit question: In what sort of jeopardy does this place Che t-shirt-wearing barristas around the country and their inherent advocacy of violence and homo-phobia?

Your decline of Western civilization update

If you read nothing else today...


J. Christian Adams ties together the mob violence in England with what has been happening here in America over the summer.

We also now know the Mob has visited America in recent days and years.

Consider the Wisconsin State Fair last week. The 911 tapes reveal a nightmare. “We’re outside the Wisconsin State Fair and there’s a white guy being beaten up by about 100 black people,” the panicked caller cries. “They’re jumping on our cars. . . . My mom just got attacked by a black mob.” Multiple eyewitnesses describe white fairgoers being pulled from cars and beaten by the Mob, all black. The evidence establishes a strong presumption that race was a motivating factor in the attacks. This is America?

Like in England, the law is also failing the victims in Wisconsin. “My wife comes home with a fricking black eye, and you guys ain’t doin’ (expletive) about it?” another 911 caller complains. “You need to get the (expletive) riot squad over there and haul them off to jail.”

We know that something similar happened in the town of California, Pennsylvania this year. We know that Darnell Harding, a linebacker for the local college football team, and Toni Whiteleather, a defensive back, were charged with attacking Michael Chambers. Chambers was an innocent bystander who had the misfortune of running into the two athletes just before Harding, the linebacker, said he was going to “hit the first white person he saw.”

As in London, the law has failed Chambers. Prosecutors dropped the state hate crimes charges in June after they failed to subpoena the victim to give evidence for a preliminary hearing. The Obama administration has also failed Chambers, as we shall see.

The law has failed Marty Marshall and his Akron, Ohio, family. On the Fourth of July in 2009, he was watching fireworks in his front yard with his wife and children. A mob of 30 to 50 black teenagers went onto his property and beat up Marshall, his wife, his children and two adult male friends. “This is our world. This is a black world,” they taunted the injured victims. Marshall spent five nights hospitalized in critical care.

Of course there are federal hate crimes laws designed for these violent racially motivated attacks, right? But a law is only as good as the people enforcing it. The Justice Department under Eric Holder has little interest in bringing hate crimes charges to protect white victims. The corrupt dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, which I brought, made that plain.

The criminal section of the civil rights division has the responsibility to prosecute racially motivated violence. But Mark Kappelhoff, the chief of the criminal section of the civil rights division, is unlikely to act if the victims are white. He was angry that the DOJ enforced the law on behalf of white victims in the voting rights case of United States v. Ike Brown. According to the sworn testimony of former voting section chief Christopher Coates, Kappelhoff complained equal enforcement of the law to protect whites was causing problems with “its relations with civil rights groups.” He placed greater importance on political relations with civil rights groups than ending discrimination against white voters.

Selective application of hate crime laws are just one of the many, many things we hate about hate crime laws.

The longer they are on the books, the more the evidence mounts that whatever good intentions they started with, it's all too apparent they now are being used, not for justice, but rather to curry favor with favored political classes.



Adams finishes with this:

Whatever has fractured, whatever has failed, we need to discover and right it. Law, informed by a reverence for human dignity, has lifted our nation, our civilization, out of the darkness of history. The mayhem and violence we are witnessing provides a glimpse of an uncivilized age beyond our memory, before law ruled.

Perhaps the civilized will outnumber the uncivilized. Or, perhaps the burning and looting provides instead a preview of our future.

Sir Winston Churchill understood this. “Civilization will not last,” he said at the University of Bristol in 1938, “freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them and show themselves possessed of a constabulary power before which barbaric and atavistic forces will stand in awe.”

That we have a President that contemptuously expelled this great man’s bust from the Oval Office only increases our task.

Europe continues to kiss free speech good-bye

It seems that Great Britain has a little “context” dust-up of their own. British TV Channel 4, as part of a year-long investigation, featured in a program some remarks made by the preachers of the Religion of Peace inside their mosques.

The police, after initially investigating some of the individuals featured in the program, turned their sights on Channel 4. The police claimed that Channel 4 was taking the comments out of context and thus may have been possibly guilty of stirring up racial hatred.

Channel 4 stuck to their guns and eventually got a public retraction and apology from the police and prosecutors. Story here.

And this all points to the stupidity and ultimately the danger of these so-called “hate speech laws”. The very ambiguity of the letter and intent of these types of laws allows for their twisting and abuse. Similar to slimy operatives in Canada that post hate comments on websites of which they disagree in order to get those same sites investigated by various Canadian human rights commissions, the very hatred and intolerance that Channel 4 was exposing was turned right back around on them by the (thought) police as inciting hatred, themselves.

And actress, Brigitte Bardot has been fined once again by the French government for “inciting racial hatred”. Bardot, an animal rights activist wrote a letter to then-French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, arguing that Muslims should stun animals before slaughtering them during the Aid al-Kabir holiday.

“I’ve had enough of being led by the nose by this whole population which is destroying us, and destroying our country by imposing their ways.”

She wrote to prosecutors: “I’m sickened by how anti-racist groups are harassing me.” We would like to challenge her description of these groups.

She was fined 12,000 pounds but considering about whom she was running this smack, we believe she got off easy.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

Cartoon of the week

.






Pretty much indicative pretzel-twisting logic progressives have put themselves in regarding the "demography" and motives of the two Boston Marathon bombers.


Prior to yesterday, there was a fervent hope among many on the left that it would be a white male and preferrably the left's favorite bogey-caricature: the white, pro-gun, anti-government, male (and any association with the tea party, however tenuous, would constitute a royal flush).


Given that the Tsarnaev brothers we're definetely 3 of those 4, you'd think our lefty friends would be pretty ecstatic. Alas, very credible evidence is emerging that the two gentelmen in question might've been possibly motivated by Islamist influences/impulses has suddenly changed the narrative: now, we must not rush to judgement. The very David Sirota who was hoping to get whitey (linked above) is now Tweeting that "demography" and motivation are not important factors in this act of terrorism. (We had the tweet but our timeline from Thursday evening up until 2 hours ago has disappeared)


Indeed, if Tsarnaev is to be tried in civilian court, demography and motivation* do not matter but that's not the point he is making with respect to the broader issue of radical Islam and its ability to turn citizens and residents of this country against this country.


Once again, the left of this country confronts the inconvenient truth that radical Islam represents an existential threat to Western liberalism and most of all, it's standard-bearer, the United States of America. To say that they have in the past and continue to shy away from contact on this issue is an understatement of epic proportions.


Exit question for any legal beagles out there: How does Tsarnaev being tried in civilian court effect our ability to get information out of him regarding who he was in contact with, who he may have been working with, anyone else operating within his "cell" and any or all info that will hopefully help prevent future terror attacks?

.


* There should be hate crime considerations given to the charges against Tsarnaev, should there not? We hate the whole concept of hate crime laws but if they're on the books, should they not be applied across a level playing field?

Catchin' up with Ezra

Smack of the day...

"I think I'm going to file a hate speech complaint against myself," I told her. "Who do you think would win that one?"

That from our Canadian home-boy, Ezra Levant, filling a little awkward silence while on the elevator with the Chief Commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Jennifer Lynch and which was in reference to a speaking engagement later that evening that included Mark Steyn.

It's been a while - far too long. Other posts on the free-speech champion can be found here

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

So What Would Dr. King Make of All This?

We’ve been reminded on numerous occasions that white males, particularly conservative white males, invoking Martin Luther King is a purely self-serving exercise that cherry-picks elements of his legacy to bolster arguments against institutionally racist programs like affirmative action and hate crime laws. So we’re just gonna keep our mouths shut and let Hitch' take the hit for this one.

Beers with Demo’s favorite boozing, pro-Western, neo-con liberal misanthrope, Christopher Hitchens is at it again, this time taking Obama and Hillary to task for their use of identity politics. Click here for story from Wall Street Journal.

Canada is experiencing some "separation of mosque and state" problems.

We were alerted to this via Hot Air. Attached video is from a hearing conducted by something called the Alberta Human Rights Commission in Canada. The subject of this inquisition is a gentleman named Ezra Levant. What human rights violations did Levant possibly commit, you ask? Levant, as the editor of the now-defunct Western Standard reproduced in that publication those infamous Danish cartoons that made a lot of Muslims very, very angry and which we proudly link to here, via Levant’s website.

We don’t know Levant from Adam but after watching his performance at his “hearing”, he’s got some new fans. We loved his rant because every last bit of it was 100% spot-on. And if you’re wondering what the bureaucratic thug sitting opposite him could’ve possibly been scribbling down on her legal tab while Levant was taking her to the woodshed, we think it might have been, “I wish there was a rock in this room that I could crawl under”. Too bad, sugar. You gotta suffer a little to make the world a kinder, gentler, bend-over(backward)-for-Mohammed sort of place.

Damn, makes us want to throw a link to Weasel Zippers just for the hell of it.

Embrace the hatred of hate crime laws.

Video clip of the day and some related thoughts

.

Penn and Teller break down the gun control debate in this near-30 minute video. Yes, a tad long for our ADHD society but well-worth the time.


(NSFW warning)

"Gang members like myself, like gun control laws because we know they are a joke."

It is duly noted, however, that having some poodle-walking/snuggling, sweater-wearing, city-dwelling dandy to advocate on the gun control side is some sort of set-up, right?



The notion that gun ownership is not just for protection from others but also from our government is one that is not brought up in public that often (conversation not fit for polite society?) but perhaps should be.

After all, the American Defense Authorization Act, a bipartisan affair, gives the executive branch the power to detain U.S. citizens without cause. This is fundamentally at odds with the freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the constitution, the same constitution that guarantees our right to bear arms.





Check out this from Glenn Reynolds writing for USA Today:

Is Hate A Liberal Value? A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who's to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it's . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn't even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.)

The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call -- later deleted -- for NRA head Wayne LaPierre's "head on a stick." People like author Joyce Carol Oates and actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a "terrorist organization," and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a "terror baby."

Nor were reporters, who are supposed to be neutral, much better. As The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg commented, "Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever. "

Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA -- like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood -- exists to advocate policies its members want. It's free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

Hey, Glenn, don't you know that civility and courteous discourse are only for us knuckle-dragging, bitter-clingers in fly-over country. Hatred emitted from the ruling class is just their awesomeness leaking out.

Video clip of the day

.

Reason.com presents their 5th annual year-end Nanny of the Year:







We're it not for term limits, one could probably safely retire this award with Bloomy. Unfortunately, just because he will no longer be mayor of NYC, doesn't mean he won't be around to nag after people as his hilariously ineffective and expensive Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) has proven.


And while we can perhaps sympathize with the plight of Ms. Berry and others in wanting to protect their children, the results of this legislation will create special protections for a separate class of people. This is undemocratic (and is why we are fiercely opposed to hate crime laws which is a story for another time), ergo, we are against it. Besides, who is going to come up with the legal definition of “celebrity” by which people can be prosecuted? The potential vagaries and potential for abuse (no pictures of pols’ kids?) makes this a complete non-starter in our book.



Our vote, however, is with cigarette boy up there in Oregon. The de-normalizing of smoking and smokers continues apace and as Mayor Bloomy has amply demonstrated, once you start criminalizing cigarettes, it’s an easy path to trans-fats, salt or any another item a petty tyrant finds personally distasteful.



With that goes a Holiday message to Nannies all across the fruited plain of this beautiful country of ours:

“Quit banning s**t we like!”

The pitchfork-wielding mob is back!

A series of blunders and missteps at the beginning of the Obama administration last spring temporarily slowed-down the Congressional/Obama administration lynch mob’s pursuit of Big Finance but they have regrouped and are back this year with a vengeance:

Mindful of soaring deficits and an anti-Wall Street mood, President Barack Obama wants a new 10-year tax on the country's largest banks to cover a projected $117 billion shortfall in the government's financial crisis bailout fund.

The president planned to propose Thursday a levy of 15 basis points, or 0.15 percent, on the liabilities of large financial institutions to make sure every dollar spent from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue Wall Street firms, auto companies and mortgage holders is either repaid or paid for. Congress would have to approve the tax.

A senior administration official said the tax, which officials are calling a "financial crisis responsibility fee," would apply only to financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion. Those firms - estimated to amount to about 50 institutions - would have to pay the fee even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most others already paid back their government infusions.

(italics, ours)

Unlike our current judicial system that views the law through the prism of race, gender and sexual orientation as obliged by hate crime laws, mob justice is indeed blind such that even if you never received a single dollar of TARP money, if you are above that wholly arbitrary $50 billion threshold…. You are still guilty. It’s a beautiful thing.

General Motors, as would be expected, is spared the rod.

Bankers did not hide their objections.

"Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., told reporters even before details of the tax were known.
"It would be very hard for the industry to pay for the auto companies," Dimon added. "I mean, at one point you have to be a little fair."

Come now, Mr. Dimon, don’t be such a poor sport. After the President, just yesterday, finished greasing the unions to get them to support Obamacare, did you actually think the mob would take anything out on the auto manufacturing unions.

And really it would be entirely consistent with the fact that under Obamacare, we will by paying for someone’s else’s healthcare who was lucky enough to be in a favored and thus exempted political class.

This practice of fanning the flames of enmity and antagonism against a particular class such as the Wall St. bankers and simultaneously favoring another class such as the unions is perfectly in keeping with the fascist and Marxist characteristics of perpetual class warfare.

What you only read about in history books, you get to see live, right before your very eyes!




Once again, we will take an operational pause to reach out to friends who bought into Hope’n’Change. With a generosity of spirit and with malice towards none, we extend the hand of friendship to those who really did think it would no longer be “business as usual”.

Unfortunately, as we now know, we have been dealt a hand of that same “business as usual” but on human growth hormones with an exploding of government influence and power that devoured large portions the auto and financial sectors and which stands poised to take over the healthcare industry in a process so cynical, so secretive and so rendered by bribery, corruption and outright backroom whoring that it symbolizes the very antithesis of what Barack Hussein Obama promised and has indeed come to symbolize the Obama presidency itself.