May 16, 2009 – The current occupant of the White House was elected by hopeful believers in the vague promise of “change.” How’s that working out?
By The Cerebral Aesthetic Vagabond
I genuinely feel sorry for people who voted for Mr. Obama as “anyone but Bush,” even though, as my die-hard Republican mother sagely pointed out, Mr. Bush wasn’t running against Mr. Obama. Do Mr. Obama’s supporters even yet recognize the deception that’s been perpetrated upon them? Or are they obliged to keep supporting him no matter what, just as Mr. Bush’s supporters were obliged to keep supporting him no matter what?
For the record, I consider myself totally impartial. I’m an equal opportunity critic. I despised Mr. Bush (I and II, and even created a satirical web site critical of the latter), Mr. Clinton and now Mr. Obama. I voted for Mr. Reagan twice, Mr. Bush the elder once, and Mr. Clinton once before hanging up my voting spurs for good. (By the way, I didn’t much care for Mr. Reagan either. I voted for him because I was young and dumb.) I’m not a racist – I couldn’t care less what color Mr. Obama is, although also for the record, he is half white. Nor am I a Democrat or Republican. I’m not even a Libertarian although I do favor many of the principles of the Libertarian party and I may have once been a member of the Libertarian party – I don’t remember; that’s how unimportant party affiliation is to me.
I consider myself truly independent. I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em. Heck, I don’t even vote! It’s a complete waste of time. My sole act of political participation in recent years was giving money to Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, the only time I’ve ever contributed to a presidential campaign. How much more impartial could I be with respect to the two leading presidential candidates, neither of which was Mr. Paul?
All disclosures complete, I see no “change” whatsoever coming from the new administration of Mr. Obama. All I see is a continuation or acceleration of the worst of Mr. Bush’s policies.
Let’s start with the economy. Mr. Obama’s latest budget contains a deficit four times the largest deficit under Mr. Bush, with optimistic forecasts of deficits into the foreseeable future that are merely double those of Mr. Bush. Wouldn’t real “change” involve eliminating budget deficits altogether, rather than enlarging them? (I’m not so naive as to believe any of these deficit figures, massaged as they are with ample quantities of statistical slight-of-hand. Nevertheless, I’m comparing “official” figures.)
Or how about transparency in the banking system?
The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast “a stigma” on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral. (Source: Bloomberg)
It’s our tax money that’s being lent out! We have a right to know where it’s going. Although we became inured to the cloistered nature of Mr. Bush’s administration in such matters, I hoped that Mr. Obama would have offered some “change” in this regard, perhaps with a side dish of honesty.
Then again, by all accounts the recent banking “stress test” initiated by Mr. Obama’s administration was a complete and utter sham.
The bank stress tests currently underway are “a complete sham,” says William Black, a former senior bank regulator and S&L prosecutor, and currently an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. “It’s a Potemkin model. Built to fool people.” Like many others, Black believes the “worst case scenario” used in the stress test don’t go far enough. (Source: The Business Insider)
When people pointed out the absurdity of the stress test, the Federal Reserve replied that the test didn’t paint a complete picture of the banks’ health anyway. So, then, what was the point of the “stress test” to begin with? Where’s the truth? Where’s the transparency?
How does this banking stress test charade differ in principle from Mr. Bush’s WMD and “mushroom cloud” arguments in favor of the Iraq war? Are not both deliberate deceptions? Sure, Mr. Obama “inherited” a mess, but how does perpetuating the pattern of deceit and secrecy ameliorate the mess he inherited? Wouldn’t the best medicine for the mess he inherited be disclosure and honesty?
Perhaps Mr. Obama isn’t interested in actually “fixing” things, but in pursuing another agenda, such as totalitarianism. He has aggressively intervened in areas that have traditionally been off limits to the government, and each of his maneuvers seems to garner a little more authority or control for the federal government. For example, Mr. Obama apparently ordered the ouster of GM’s CEO:
The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said. (Source: Politico)
Some have claimed that Mr. Obama also threatened various bank executives with reprisal if they didn’t go along with his bank bailout plans. Not content with meddling in the corporate sector, Mr. Obama decided to meddle in the affairs of the state of California, ordering the restoration of wages cut in response to that state’s budgetary problems:
In a victory for its labor union friends, the Obama administration has ruled that budget-strapped California cannot cut the wages of in-home care givers since it is accepting federal stimulus funds. (Source: CNSNews.com)
Is it not a prudent course of action for a state that is “budget-strapped” to cut costs, even labor costs? I’m one of the first to decry the relentless assault on labor in this country. The government-corporate fascist alliance has successfully targeted wages in this country for years, and I loath that. But if one is coping with a budgetary crisis – and California certainly has one – then cuts have to be made. In the real world there is no wage fairy that comes along and pays people even when there’s no money. It’s precisely that sort of childish thinking that has brought us to the brink of fiscal destruction where we now find ourselves.
Finally, Mr. Obama wants to convert the government’s equity interest in banks that received bailout funds into voting shares:
In a significant shift, White House and Treasury Department officials now say they can stretch what is left of the $700 billion financial bailout fund further than they had expected a few months ago, simply by converting the government’s existing loans to the nation’s 19 biggest banks into common stock.
Each conversion of this type would force the administration to decide how to handle its considerable voting rights on a bank’s board. (Source: New York Times)
Regardless of whether one agrees with the outcomes at GM, the banks or in California, the pertinent issue is that Mr. Obama is meddling in the affairs of corporations and states as if he’s a monarch, in defiance of our heritage both as a free market economy and a constitutional republic. Do we really want the government to run GM and the banks? I think they had a system like that in the old Soviet Union.
Along with the nationalization of commerce, now Mr. Obama is moving to nationalize the nation’s resources as well:
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold reintroduced legislation today to restore protections for waterways throughout the country that impact the drinking water of more than 100 million Americans. (Source: Common Dreams)
Now, I’ve long admired Russ Feingold as a defender of civil liberties, but I think this law is a dangerous one, despite it being portrayed as a “benefit” to us. (Hmm, haven’t we heard that one so many times before?) It gives too much control to the federal government, not only usurping the rights of states, but allowing the federal government to dictate how each and every person uses their own water source, perhaps even including private wells. It’s just another step in the progression toward a totalitarian state, in which the state owns and controls everything, literally including the air we breathe (Mr. Obama is also attempting to classify the product of our respiration, CO2, as a “dangerous pollutant”). Interestingly enough, such total control is also part of the broader Marxist doctrine, of which some have claimed Mr. Obama to be a disciple.
None of Mr. Bush’s repressive, anti-civil liberties measures, such as sweeping, even illegal wiretapping have been rescinded or reigned in. Neither of the two Patriot Acts has been rescinded or scaled back. In fact, already during Mr. Obama’s administration the DHS has issued three reports (discussed here and here, with a link to the third one addressing “left wing extremists” here), which together classify virtually every American as an “extremist”!
Mr. Obama is pursuing several different initiatives to restrict access to guns and ammunition, from banning certain guns, to imposing onerous rules for the purchase of ammunition, mandating psychological examinations for gun and ammunition buyers, prohibiting the U.S. military from selling its spent cartridges to the private sector, requiring manufacturers to stamp serial numbers on bullets and prohibiting private individuals from reloading their own ammunition. These proposed rules would also require people to discard or use up any old, “noncompliant” ammunition, in effect turning formerly law abiding people who held onto such ammunition, even unwittingly, into criminals, not unlike those individuals who held onto their gold after FDR issued his confiscation directive in 1933. As an aside, when I was a kid younger than ten years of age I began to help my father reload ammunition. I’d clean the cases, he’d melt the lead and cast the bullets, and then we’d load the cartridges together. Then we’d go the shooting range and shoot it. It was a lot of fun and I don’t seem to have been harmed by it. I pay considerable respect to collective wisdom, so what is the unprecedented “run on ammunition” since Mr. Obama assumed office telling us? I think the collective wisdom is that Mr. Obama, the “Constitutional scholar,” is serious, more serious than any prior president about restricting our access to guns. Of course, why he seems intent on doing that is an intriguing and potentially alarming questing in itself.
Mr. Obama is also championing a downright chilling new trend with his gradually encroaching mandatory youth brigade, not unlike that of Adolph Hitler. As a former Boy Scout, I find this article particularly disturbing:
Homeland Security and the FBI are behind the effort to indoctrinate and train the Boy Scouts to become tomorrow’s Gestapo. “Our end goal is to create more agents,” April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent, told the Times. “Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.” (Source: Prison Planet)
Scary looking Boy Scouts (Source: New York Times)
While recruiting Boy Scouts into the “security” apparatus is ominous enough, even the innocuous sounding GIVE Act lays the groundwork for a troubling future of mandatory service to the state:
Passed by the House of Representatives with a 321-105 margin, HR 1388: the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, dubbed the “GIVE” act, would require the US government to develop a plan to implement a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people”. (Source: Republic Broadcasting Network)
Of course, no totalitarian political system would be complete without a means to silence its critics, and Mr. Obama’s got that covered too:
There's a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended. (Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation)
Notice how the bill would give the government “unprecedented power” while not actually “improving security,” the ostensible purpose of a bill named the “Cybersecurity Act”? What is the real objective of this bill, “security” or “power”? The rationales for shutting down the Internet in response to various vague “emergencies” are just like the rationales for imposing martial law in response to various vague “emergencies,” and this proposed new law is entirely consistent with the broader trend toward granting the government more and more power under the premise that we must have faith that it will use this power wisely and justly. Surely the eight years under the last would-be emperor disabused people of the notion that government can be trusted with unlimited power?
Should shutting down the Internet prove insufficient to quell the “civil unrest” erupting in response to imperial malfeasance, there’s always mandatory vaccination, a civil liberties issue that we came dangerously close to testing during the recent “swine flu” hysteria. The impatience of “officials” itching to break out the needles containing god-knows-what was palpable. Are you willing to take the government’s word for it that the fluid it’s about to inject into your body is good for you? Lest you think my fear of mandatory vaccinations emanating from Mr. Obama’s administration is overwrought, here’s Mr. Obama in his own words:
Last Friday evening, September 5, 2008, I had the opportunity to ask Senator Barack Obama about childhood vaccine safety/choice. His response, “I am not for selective vaccination, I believe that it will bring back deadly diseases, like polio.” (Source: Age of Autism)
And don’t forget that pharmaceutical companies, which are controlled by the same elites that installed Mr. Obama in office, have been angling for years to use the power of government to impose mandatory vaccinations on the populace. Witness profit-seeking pharmaceutical firms pushing for mandatory HPV vaccination of not only young girls, but now young boys too! How on earth did the human species manage to survive all these millennia without pharmaceutical drugs?
Not content to control our guns, our labor, the Internet and our “health,” efforts are also under way to control our food and water as well (I discussed control of water above). The infamous H.R. 875 proposes to grant the federal government extensive new controls over the production of food:
Affects anyone growing food, even if they are not selling it but consuming it. (Source: Educate-Yourself)
Just like the Patriot Acts, this “food safety” bill is lengthy, vague and was largely unread by members of the Congress that voted for it. It gives the government unspecified, but probably far reaching powers to regulate every aspect of food production, including backyard gardens. Oh, they won’t go after backyard gardens at first, but after employment of the standard government tactic of incremental overreach (mission creep), eventually even backyard gardens will be regulated under this bill. I’m sure the government will kindly make a dispensation for those who insist on growing their own food. Such people will merely have to sign an affidavit swearing under penalty of perjury not to distribute their produce to anyone else and will probably have to pay an administrative fee (tax) for a license to grow food. Who knows, the food growing tax may even be so high as to eliminate any cost saving from growing one’s own food, thus encouraging people to buy factory-produced food from corporations.
Long before backyard gardens fall under the scrutiny of the nanny state, though, farmers markets will be a thing of the past, as may small farms themselves. The only entities that will be able to sell food will be those corporate food producers that made generous campaign contributions to get this bill passed, and probably had a hand in writing it. Of course, control over food production meshes neatly with control over water supplies and everything else. (Hmm, is a pattern starting to emerge?)
The final frontier of totalitarian control is the air we breathe, and sure enough, Mr. Obama has his fingers in that pie as well. Although frequent chemtrail spraying seems to have escaped the purview of the Clean Air Act, CO2, it appears, will not be so fortunate.
Not only is Mr. Obama preposterously proposing to declare CO2 a “dangerous pollutant,” (even though it’s exhaled by human beings and is vital to plants), but initial estimates place the annual cost of this carbon regulation upwards of $3,000 per family. Coincidentally, consummate elitist and chief proponent of carbon regulation, Mr. Gore, has a huge financial (conflict of) interest in carbon regulation. Worse, such a declaration would give the government sweeping new powers to regulate our behavior. Like threats from “swine flu,” “food safety” and “terrorism,” the threat from “global warming” is nothing more than a farce being perpetrated by the elites of the world in order to control and tax us, a fact unrecognized by the myriad naive adherents to this new “climate change” religion.
While campaigning for the presidency, Mr. Obama sang a pleasant tune of withdrawal from Iraq:
Obama said there is no military solution in Iraq and added that the best way to pressure Iraqi leaders into political reconciliation is to begin immediately removing U.S. troops.
Obama proposed drawing down one to two U.S. combat brigades each month until all combat troops are withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2008. (Source: Voice of America)
Granted, Mr. Obama wasn’t even in office at the end of 2008, but based on the words above, one could reasonably expect that he’d begin withdrawing the troops immediately after assuming office in early 2009. Yet once safely ensconced within the White House, Mr. Obama began singing a different tune:
"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Mr. Obama declared at Camp Lejeune, a sprawling military base in North Carolina that houses the largest concentration of Marines and Navy personnel in the world. (Source: The Washington Times)
Let me say this as plainly as I can: After August 31, 2010, the U.S. will continue to have troops in Iraq. Of course, they won’t be called “combat” troops and Mr. Obama will claim to have followed through on his most recent promise. Such is the utility of political language wielded by shrewd attorneys. Not only is there to be no immediate withdrawal from Iraq, presidential campaign promises and the 2006 congressional election mandate notwithstanding, but the war front is being expanded in Afghanistan and now spreading to Pakistan! How many war fronts does a country need to have before it can be described as waging a “world war”?
Afghan officials reveal that 95 children are among the civilians killed in a US-led strike that is surrounded with the controversy over use of white phosphorous. (Source: Press TV)
Not content to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending an additional 21,000 troops there, Mr. Obama’s administration also promises to increase, or at least not decrease airstrikes there:
Gates said in Washington on Thursday that an influx of more than 21,000 US troops would not reduce the demand for airstrikes across the conflict-torn country. (Source: Press TV)
As if the U.S. didn’t already have its hands full with two wars, Mr. Obama is continuing and escalating the “action” in Pakistan to that of full blown war:
The United States began staging drone attacks in Pakistan with greater frequency a year ago. There has been no let-up since President Barack Obama's administration took office in January, despite complaints from the Pakistani government. (Source: South Africa’s News 24)
All three wars are succinctly summarized by the highly esteemed Paul Craig Roberts, who writes:
Americans elected Obama because he said he would end the gratuitous criminal wars of the Bush brownshirts, wars that have destroyed America’s reputation and financial solvency and serve no public interest. But once in office Obama found that he was ruled by the military/security complex. War is not being ended, merely transferred from the unpopular war in Iraq to the more popular war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Obama, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, continues to attack “targets” in Pakistan. In place of a war in Iraq, the military/security complex now has two wars going in much more difficult circumstances. (Source: Information Clearing House)
Dennis Kucinich also sums things up with this eloquent one-minute speech (video) before Congress, in which he says plainly enough,
Democrats were elected on a promise to end the war in Iraq.
Since assuming office, there has been no move to close any of our 700+ foreign military garrisons that anchor our global empire. And although Mr. Obama intimated during his presidential campaign that he would prosecute Bush Administration officials for “war crimes” pertaining to the abuse and torture of “detainees,” he seems to have lost all interest in such pursuits:
President Obama's decision to spare CIA torturers from prosecution stands the Nuremberg principles on their head. (Source: The Huffington Post)
Not only that, he’s jumped headlong into efforts to prevent the release of “detainee” abuse photos, even to the point of defying the orders of a judge who ordered them to be released:
President Obama’s repudiation of his promise to comply with a court order and release Pentagon torture photos marks a qualitative deepening of the cover-up of the crimes carried out under Bush as well as their continuation under the new administration in only slightly altered form. (Source: World Socialist Web Site)
And despite it becoming ridiculously apparent that most of the “detainees” are innocent and harmless, and that whatever confessions were extracted were supplied to halt the torture of the confessors, and that intelligence insiders have come forth recently to admit that torture doesn’t work, the “detainees” are not to be released, but held indefinitely:
The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Source: FOX News)
“Indefinitely and without trial”? Is not that the very sort of capricious punishment the authors of our Constitution sought to guarantee would never happen in this country? Obviously, the objective behind infinite incarceration is to save the government (and the former emperor) the embarrassment of having to admit that it made an egregious mistake. So Mr. Obama has decided to cover up one egregious mistake with another. Where’s my “change”?
Not only is no effort being made to close the shameful prison at Guantanamo, but efforts are being made to resume the military tribunals that had been lambasted by the courts:
Breaking a key promise from his campaign, President Barack Obama is expected to announce Friday the return of military commission trials for a small number of terrorism suspects. Obama had previously promised to abolish them. (Source: The Raw Story)
Everywhere one looks, Mr. Obama is breaking campaign promises and continuing or even accelerating the policies of his predecessor, which were the policies of global elite. Mr. Obama even makes use of emperor-like “signing statements,” just like his predecessor. Nowhere do we see any sort of reversal of prior policies toward a correction of past mistakes. Quite the contrary, in reviewing the above list, it’s clear that Mr. Obama really did mean “change” after all, a blitzkrieg of accelerated change down the very same path as before! What’s also clear in many of the articles cited above is that Mr. Obama is not completely in charge, something that many people have said from the beginning. Mr. Obama was installed in his position by the elites to be a smiley face concealing their global agenda of tyrannical plutocracy for them and enslavement for the rest of us.
And please don’t assume that I’m a Republican or a supporter of Mr. Bush; I’m neither. I not only criticized Mr. Bush’s policies regularly and vehemently, but considered him to be one of the worst, if not the worst president in our nation’s history, until now. I daresay the current occupant of the White House may be the worst and most dangerous president ever. And if you don’t want to accept my opinion, please read this long, but excellent (and frightening) essay, titled Stealing The World.
People may complain that I’m being premature in judging Mr. Obama. I disagree. Considering the actions he’s taken so far and his other initiatives in progress, it’s relatively easy to identify a troubling pattern already and logically deduce where things are headed, which should scare the pants off anyone who’s paying attention.
If I had the opportunity, I’d tell Mr. Obama to keep the change.
One thing about Mr. Obama that has surprised me is the brevity of his “honeymoon.” Even before he was sworn into office in January of 2009, I sensed a marked decline in public enthusiasm for him, a trend that has accelerated since he took office. Finding articles that are deservedly critical of Mr. Obama is so easy, like shooting fish in a barrel, that I feel guilty by taking advantage of the facile opportunity. Nevertheless, here is a smattering of more such articles I ran across just yesterday and today! I could just as easily find ten times this many. What surprises me too is the dearth of supportive articles. I don’t look for critical articles in particular – I simply note the tone of the articles I run across.
I believe it’s starting to dawn on people that they’ve been duped. The next step is for them to admit it to themselves. Unfortunately, by the time that happens it may be too late to exercise any meaningful action.
This is just too easy, yet, like a sore tooth I cannot help but wiggle, I can’t stop accumulating these links about Mr. “Change” Obama.
Is it just me, or does Mr. Obama sound exactly like Mr. Bush, only more cunning? To be fair, Mr. Obama is apparently going to “order” car makers to increase fuel economy standards. (I thought Congress was supposed to pass such legislation, but I guess Congress has completely abdicated any role in our government other than collecting a paycheck and perks.) Of course, the car makers will have plenty of time and wiggle room within which to comply with the emperor’s edict, and I suspect the fuel economy edict will ultimately have no more teeth to it than the “deal” the emperor made to save $2 trillion on health care costs. That one was a real side splitter. Want to know how the emperor saved $2 trillion? By getting the health insurance companies to agree to slow their rate of cost increases over the next ten years. In other words, they will reduce their profit margins from the obscene to the merely outrageous, but oh, so gradually as to be almost imperceptible.
I guess I’m done now. It’s no longer entertaining to point out the obvious: there is no “change” here, unless “change” refers to the acceleration of past trends. I would like to conclude by saying that it would be nice if all of Mr. Obama’s naive supporters would wake up before it’s too late, but unfortunately, it’s already too late and now we’re all going to have to sleep in the bed we’ve made. Cross your fingers and watch your backs (and your mouths too unless you want to become a guest in one of Mr. Obama’s “preventive detention” facilities).
Well, I said I wouldn’t add any more links, but this one is just too good to pass up. What surprises me is just how much the author’s views and my own overlap.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent to people why Mr. Obama is moving so swiftly with his agenda of “change”: to get it underway on an irreversible course before people realize what has happened.
I can’t help myself, but it’s not my fault. Mr. Obama just won’t cease following in the footsteps of his predecessor, indeed, he’s making every effort to surpass his predecessor. Now that the courts have ordered the government to release the “detainee abuse photographs,” Mr Obama’s compliant Congress is set to pass a law that would retroactively thwart the Freedom Of Information Act under which the court ordered the release of the photographs. Congress is proposing to pass a law (H.R. 2346), which contains a section titled the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. Yep, they’re passing a law specifically to counter the court’s order to release the photographs. Had Mr. Bush attempted such a stunt, as I’m sure he would have liked, there would have been howls of outrage, yet when Mr. Obama does it nobody says a thing. Perhaps the “change” Mr. Obama was referring to was the ability to get laws passed that his predecessor could only fantasize about.
Mr Obama’s pace of “change” is breathtaking. After striking the word “mandatory” from his pre-election written agenda, the GIVE Act (described above) and now this new bill (H.R. 1444) bring the “mandatory” back into the lexicon. The relevant section of H.R. 1444 reads:
SEC 4 (b) (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
People may scoff and assert that mandatory service to the state builds character and other such drivel. However, according to the highest law of the land, the Constitution, mandatory service is illegal and may not be overruled by a mere act of Congress, but only by means of a Constitutional amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment reads:
Neither Slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Quick, someone call Mr. Clinton about a semantic question, if “mandatory service” is different from “involuntary servitude.” Consider, too, the irony of a black man promoting involuntary servitude, contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment, which was passed immediately after the U.S. Civil War in order to bring an end to the enslavement of blacks.
Although we’re seeing ample “change” in ominous new directions, the repressive measures of Mr. Obama’s predecessor remain firmly intact, as succinctly explained by the headline, Obama Administration Targets Environmental and Animal Rights Activists As Eco-Terrorists, the body of which closes with these promising words:
Clearly it's the wrong time to be Muslim in America as well as an environmental or animal rights activist. It was true under George Bush and no different under Barack Obama.
While Mr. Obama is certainly delivering some unwelcome “change,” the people who supported him erroneously assumed “change” meant for the better.