The

C H A N G E

on

T R I A L Project

About Me—

 

 

First off, let me make this perfectly clear:

 

I’m not a Republican, I’m not a Democrat, I’m not a Liberal, and I’m not a Conservative. I’m a freelance writer and an independent thinker—period. My name is Gary Lee Villeneuve.

 

For my own part, I believe the entire “left wing-right wing” political paradigm in America is “a good cop-bad cop” routine being performed on behalf of a much more powerful and influential global elitist agenda in order to wrestle U.S. economic and political autonomy away from the American public and keep us from catching on. In other words, I think they're playing us against one another, and stealing our country in the process. And I think they've been doing it for years. We all know politics is business, and business is politics. Divide and conquer. You get the picture.

 

I was absolutely opposed the Bush-Cheney agenda and remain that way. You don’t have to be, by any means, but all the statistics available say that you most likely are, too. Regardless of your own personal politics, I encourage you to actively engage the issues raised by this project and lend your perspective to the discussion.

We need solutions. Badly.

 

As far as my present take on President Barack Obama goes, let me just put it this way:

 

I was on the front lines of the ‘Obama movement’ precisely because, for the first time in my life, I heard a truly powerful politician promising to deliver the type of change I had always wanted to see. He spoke often to a return to the Constitution and to national priorities over supranational corporate monetary priorities. I campaigned and even canvassed for him—and I had never campaigned in any way, for anybody. But I did so exactly because I understood all too well (as did most of the rest of the American public) that we couldn't afford to allow the brand of international corporate fascism embodied in the Bush-Cheney doctrine and their New American Century Plan to continue in any way, shape, or form.

 

However, I’m sad to say at this point that I am starting to have my doubts about Obama’s sincerity and/or capability to deliver as he must.

 

But that’s just me.

 

You, on the other hand, are you, and we need to hear what you have to say.

 

 

 

 

About the Project—

 

 

The basic idea goes something like this:

 

What if the Bush-Cheney agenda were allowed to continue unimpeded for the next four years? The next eight years? The next sixteen years?

 

I think we can assume a relatively universal public consensus:

 

It wouldn’t be pretty.

 

If the historically low Bush-Cheney approval ratings have taught us anything, it’s that it really is possible for the vast majority of Americans to agree on something.

 

Namely, in this case, it’s that “change” is vitally needed.

 

The crux of the argument goes something like this:

 

The prospect that the “change” that was promised by Obama could fail to be delivered in earnest, for any reason whatsoever, should be cause for GREAT alarm to the American public.

 

Thus, we must force the issues:

 

Regardless of how you feel about him, we can ALL agree it would be much better to keep President Obama’s ‘feet to the fire’ on the issues of “change” and, in doing so, lend him the most powerful possible lobby on the face of the earth—us—than it would be to sit back faithfully and assume that he will take care of everything for us or that it is even possible for him to do so without our help.

 

With that in mind, here is the essential question we hope to address:

 

Q. If the Bush-Cheney agenda is to be kept from advancing now that Bush and Cheney are out of office, what is it, exactly, that needs to change in American foreign and domestic policy, in what ways does it need to change, and how can we be certain whether or not such change is truly being delivered?

 

A. We must be aware of ALL of the issues at hand and the details of the Obama administrations’ handling of them in order to understand what sort of change, or lack thereof, is truly shaping up in Washington.

 

The American political process was not meant to be one in which the people voted once and then sat back and did nothing to make sure they got what they voted for.

 

That’s lazy, weak, and stupid.

 

And if that’s what we do; and if nothing changes; and if the trends actually continue to worsen rather than improve; and if the system starts to collapse in around us; it will have been our fault.

 

Disempowerment is an excuse.

And we’re better than that.

 

Having said that, here is what we intend to do about it:

 

We aim to compile a collection of articles meant to highlight some of the most consequential and telling issues at which we must look in order to accurately assess the Obama agenda and the way in which it differs, or doesn't, from that of the Bush-Cheney agenda--not only in principle, but also in practice.

 

In turn—regardless of people’s differing takes on President Barack Obama’s personal allegiance to either we, the people, on one hand, or to the same global monetary elite for whom Bush and Cheney obviously worked, on the other—it is my hope that this project will paint a much clearer picture of the incredible scope of the task that we, as Americans, must face up to if we wish to defeat the continuation of the corporate fascist agenda exemplified in the policies of the Bush-Cheney administration.

 

And we must defeat that agenda.

 

The process is simple:

 

 

We think it would make for a very well-rounded, impactful, and timely endeavor if the other wonderful writers here at hubpages.com, or from any and everywhere else on the web, are willing to take on one or more of the issues listed below and produce articles of their own.

 

If you wish to do so, simply post a comment to this thread indicating which of "THE ISSUES" listed below that you’d like to tackle, with a link to your respective hub on the topic. Feel free to add topics of your own, or to further expound upon the topics listed.

 

I propose that you create your own hub title for your particular article(s), but make sure the subtitle of your hub reads:

 

The Change on Trial Project

 

Doing so will help us keep track of the project and everyone’s related contributions.

 

Note:

 

The purpose of this project is NOT merely to either vilify or glorify Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Rather, it is to honestly and truly search a significant cross-section of the collective American psyche for answers at a time in which they are desperately needed.

 

 

 

 

The Final Product Will Consist of Two Parts—

 

 

A Living Document:

 

One facet of the final product will be a living document in which ALL accepted entries are catalogued according to the particular issues they address and published for to the public to view freely as a series of interconnected hubs at hubpages.com.

 

An Official Volume:

 

Once the collection has grown to sufficient size, the best and brightest articles of the bunch will be selected and compiled into a final, single-volume manuscript entitled, Change on Trial, and submitted to a range of publishers for consideration. At that time, all potential selected authors will be contacted seeking permission to include their work in the final volume to be submitted to publishers for consideration.

 

 

 

THE ISSUES—

 

 

Below is a rough and preliminary list of some of the topics I hope for the project to explore, all of which are subjects I consider to be crucial components to the continued success or ultimate failure of the extremely dangerous—and still ever present—globalist agenda exemplified by the Bush-Cheney administration. As I said, feel free to add any additional topics you may feel are important and relative, or to expound on those listed below. In most cases, you’ll have to do your own research, though a few reference points are supplied:

 

First, we'll take a look at questions and issues related to policy decisions we can actually see being dealt with RIGHT NOW, such as—

 

1) Hub Request: http://hubpages.com/request/10300/best

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned institution. What do the 'Bailout' packages, the unprecedented nationalization of U.S. banks and infrastructure, and the unparalleled inflation of the U.S. dollar mean in the larger context of The Federal Reserve System, the global national banking system, and the Trilateral Commission/Bilderberg Group global agenda? In the context of the way Fractional Reserve Banking works, are the bankers who own The Fed simply stealing our money, or is it truly being used to help the people of the United States? Why or why not? Do the bailouts, themselves, contribute more to a globalist or to a nationalistic agenda, and in what ways?

 

Find preliminary information on the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, and the Internationalist Agenda here:

 

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/The_Proud_Internationalist_2006.pdf

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_Commission

 

 

2) Given Obama's overt and/or discreet connections to the global corporate power elite and those of his cabinet appointees—i.e. their multiple meetings with prominent foreign bankers and nationalists at secretive globalist ‘think-tank’ gatherings such as the Bilderberg conferences, Bohemian Grove, the Alfalfa dinner, and others; Carol Brown’s open and active ties to internationalist-socialist political figureheads; the disproportionate number of Obama cabinet appointees who are/were members of the Trilateral Commission; Obama’s employment after law school by Henry Kissinger, etc.— what might these connections imply or not imply about the Obama administration’s political and economic policy intentions, both foreign and domestic? Does every president and cabinet have ties like this and attend secretive elitist meetings with foreign dignitaries? Is it Constitutionally legal for government officials to do so? If so, does that make it acceptable and what does it or does it not imply? What does this say about the likelihood of a sincere Obama administration “change”?

 

3) What are we to make of Obama's vow, in principal, to close the ‘revolving door’ between business and government, but his actual practice of allowing, as reported by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, at least twelve exceptions thus far for certain ‘especially important’ lobbyists currently serving in his administration? Should we give Obama a break on this matter, for some reason, that we were unwilling to give to Bush? Why or why not? What might this fact tell us or not tell us about the differences between the Bush and Obama presidencies?

 

Find the video in question here:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/28941330#28941330

 

4) What are we supposed to think about the shocking nationwide and literally all encompassing NSA domestic surveillance apparatus, the details of which were recently exposed on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown by former N.S.A. agent Russell Tice? What about Tice’s confirmation that the government is purposefully spying on American journalists? Why would they do a thing like that? What does it represent within the larger context of government secrecy and the so called ‘shadow government’ set up by the Bush-Cheney administration under the banner of FEMA and Homeland Security? What does the compartmentalization of which Tice speaks (as a “shell game”) seem to suggest about the program’s fundamental architecture and mode of operation? What does it tell us about the way in which secretive, ‘other governmental’ institutions are set up and made capable of operating as functional conspiracies on such a vast level? Who created such an unconstitutional monstrosity and why? What must be done by the Obama administration if it truly plans to circumvent these gross violations of our constitutional rights? As of yet, have we seen any pertinent action taken? Will we? Does he even have the option to take aversive action against an institution like that? Why or why not?

 

Find the video mentioned in the question here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUSZHC1Gu7U

 

5) On the issue of Guantanamo Bay, torture, and the larger and more important implications of the Bush-Cheney domestic and foreign anti-terrorism apparatus for the American people and all people—namely, that American citizens and foreign citizens can be detained and held without warrant or due trial for undetermined reasons—have we seen sufficient action on Obama's part to actually change the policies in practice? Do the loopholes that have been left in the orders effectively negate the impact of their stated objective or not? Examine the pertinent Obama executive orders in detail in terms of their credibility and loopholes, and compare them with actual practice both presently and in the days to come.

 

6) Does Obama’s U.S. military strategy represent the continuation of the overall, so called ‘Neo-Con,’ military-industrial agenda as defined by PNAC or not? I.E. is ‘ending’ the Iraq war, while leaving a permanent military force in Iraq representative of any real deviation from the PNAC plan? What about the redoubling of efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc? What was the PNAC plan and what was the true intent behind it? Why does or why doesn’t the new Obama military agenda represent a change in that policy and what does that conclusion mean both in the context of the so called ‘War on Terror’ and in the context of the scramble for global resource-hegemony by the elite and/or the nations?

 

7) What Does Obama’s policy of refusing to actively prosecute the Bush-Cheney gang on torture, Iraq war lies, and their use of the U.S. military-industrial complex to further their own personal monetary interests say about him and his administration, or politics in general? What will it mean for current and future attempts by independent watchdogs and other organizations to expose the agenda of the ‘powers behind the throne,’ so to speak, and to thereby circumvent the continuation of their agenda? Besides Obama’s complicity, what is the possibility and what are some examples of the ways in which such an agenda could, in fact, be continued even throughout Obama’s term either behind his back or with his full knowledge if he were to come under extreme pressure from certain ‘high-powered interests’? What ‘persuasive tools’ do such interests have at their disposal?

 

8) Throughout history, tyrannical forms of government have often emerged specifically in times of extreme financial difficulty and have come to power by means of declaring their respective countries to be in a “state of emergency.” Will Obama avoid directly addressing the necessity of overturning the many executive orders of Former President G.W. Bush—esp. NSPD 51—which laid a legislative infrastructure for the successful declaration and execution of Martial Law in the United States in the event of a national emergency such as a major natural disaster, domestic terrorist attack, or massive collapse of the U.S. economy and subsequent civil unrest, or will he directly engage and repeal the orders, and what will be the consequences of this important decision for the future of the nation?

 

Find a collection of many of the executive orders mentioned above here:

 

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

 

Find pertinent video coverage here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatpX6kuxHQ&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/new-rules-for-obamas-national-civilian-security-force/

 

See Representative Brad Sherman on the House floor (via CSPAN) discussing the fact that some Representatives had been threatened with Martial Law in the U.S. if the ‘bailout’ bill did not pass here:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

 

9) Is Obama willing (or not) to honestly look at the possible self-reflective causes of international terrorism tactics carried out on behalf of a wide variety of groups for a wide variety of reasons, and will he openly analyze American and (more appropriately) Western-Globalist, Post-Capitalist incursions and exploitations in the Middle East and the rest of the so called ‘third-world.’ (The conclusions of such an analysis should be considered an essential, definitive, and telltale sign of the guiding principles of the new administration.)

 

10) What is really happening with the issue of the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root-contracted domestic Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) centers. Is the intention behind them really benign—i.e. preparedness centers merely meant to avoid the catastrophic humanitarian and political nightmares associated with ‘disasters’ like 911 and Katrina—and if so, why is it insisted, as Congressman Ron Paul has pointed out, that they be on guarded military facilities? Do the facilities represent, as many have suggested, a truly significant danger to American freedom? Could the military facilities conceivably be used as ‘detention centers/concentration camps’ for dissenters and others in the event of widespread national emergency conditions such as another major terror attack or complete collapse of the U.S. economy and the possible subsequent declaration of martial law under the Bush-Cheney legislative framework? Are Halliburton, Bush, Cheney, and Homeland Security to simply be trusted on this matter? Why or why not? What might the very recently introduced (Jan. 23, 2009) H.R. 645 (National Emergency Centers Act) legislation acknowledging the existence of the ‘military installations’ and calling for more to be built mean for us as a people? Is the extreme nature of this sort of ‘preparatory’ action truly warranted and why? Should this legislation be passed? What will Obama make of these facilities and their possible implications and what might be the consequences of action or inaction on the matter?

 

Read the San Francisco Chronicle Article on the Subject here:

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

Hear what former Congressman Dan Hamburg has to say about it here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFzpx8poArA&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/former-congressman-daniel-hamburg-on-the-national-emergency-centers-act/

 

Find the January 2009 legislation here:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645

 

Find relevant film footage here:

 

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=fema+camps&hl=en&emb=0#q=fema%20camps&hl=en&emb=0&start=10

 

(Who are these children? Why are they imprisoned on U.S. soil? Is this Constitutional?)

 

View a Wall St. Journal article about the initial Halliburton/K.B.R. and D.o.D. contract here:

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656

 

Find information on the U.S. Civilian Inmate Labor Program here:

 

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf

 

 

11) In a December 2008 interview with CNN’s Lou Dobbs about the use of the U.S. military in New Orleans after Katrina, author Robert Kaplan stated that the military was doing exactly what it did in Afghanistan, including “hunting down…bad guys with night vision goggles,” and went on to say that “war is all about logistics, and so is disaster relief.” Army Times writer Gina Cavallaro reported in late September of 2008 that, “Beginning Oct. 1, for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks,” and that “they may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control” as well. What should we make of the use of the military domestically and the violation of Posse Comitatus under President Bush? What about the current nighttime military and police training exercises being held in the city of New Orleans from Feb. 1^st to Feb. 8^th of 2009? Is President Obama continuing President Bush’s trends of domestic militarism? Why, or why not, and what could this mean for the country both in the near and longer-term future?

 

View the Lou Dobbs interview with Kaplan here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt7qFaGXgpM&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=helicopters+in+new+orleans&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f

 

View the relevant democracynow.org article about the 20, 000 domestic troops here:

 

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/10/2/amy_goodmans_latest_column_invasion_of_the_sea_smurfs

 

View video of the New Orleans “training exercises” here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCbLSTdAwd4

 

12) What are we to make of the use of private corporate armies, like the secretive North-Carolina based company, Blackwater, U.S.A., whose company employs a “Shadow Army” which stands hundreds of thousands strong, and has been contracted by the Pentagon for use both overseas and domestically? Does a group like this represent a significant threat to U.S. freedom? Has this sort of activity ceased at all under Obama thus far? Does Obama see the existence and use of such groups as a threat to American freedom and will he work to end the practice, or not, and what will it tell us about Obama and our future?

 

See a video report by Jeremy Scahill of The Nation on the Blackwater Army’s recent history and their impunity to congressional law here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8

 

 

 

Then, perhaps, we can begin to make some CONJECTURES, such as—

 

1) Will the prospect of a new, independent investigation of the events of 9/11—and the extremely convenient ‘opportunistic utilization’ of the events by the Bush-Cheney/Global Elite as the “Pearl Harbor”-type event described in Cheney’s PNAC plan as being “necessary to mobilize the PNAC agenda”—be encouraged or discouraged by the new administration and why?

 

2) Will the Obama administration actively seek to capture Osama Bin Laden or will he be allowed to remain the sort of spectral embodiment of evil he has come to represent and what implications will this have? Could the U.S. government, the C.I.A., or another Other Governmental Agency catch him if it wanted to? (One interesting way I propose to look at this issue is to investigate the question, “To what extent does Osama Bin Laden parallel the Emmanuel Goldstein character from the George Orwell novel, 1984, and to what extent is his continued evasiveness essential to the continuation of the ‘War on Terror.’”)

 

3) What are we to make of Obama’s campaign call in Colorado Springs, CO, for a ‘civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well-funded’ as the U.S. military? Is this a socialist and unconstitutional policy or not? Did he somehow simply misspeak? Is this policy really going to be enacted and if so, what will it mean?

 

Find video of the speech here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&eurl=http://www.infowars.com/new-rules-for-obamas-national-civilian-security-force/

 

4) What of Obama’s call to service on the part of the American people, especially the youth? What of his privately run, federally unauthorized Change.org community service program initiatives? What of Rohm Emmanuel’s repeated calls for mandatory civilian conscription for 18-25 year olds into both overseas military service and domestic civilian and/or military service? Will we see mandatory civilian government service in the U.S. under this administration and what might that mean for the future of our constitutional democracy?

 

5) What are we to make of children in schools across America being made to watch the Obama Inauguration, being subsequently issued ‘Obama little blue books’ which some have compared to Mao Tse-tung’s “Little Red Books,” and the implementation of the so called ‘Obama Curriculum’ in public schools? Has the issue been sensationalized, or is there legitimate cause for concern?

 

6) What will be the Obama administration’s take and policy-in-practice on the issue of Real ID, set to be mandatorily implemented by December of ’09, and the use of RFID tracking devices in general—especially in regards to their potential use as paperless currency, surveillance tools, or both—and what will be the implications of that policy decision?

 

7) With the current unprecedented rate of U.S. currency inflation being implemented by the Fed in the context of the bailouts, will the dollar collapse as Congressman Paul and many others have warned? Why or why not, and if so, what will it mean for the American people and the world?

 

8) Will there be a global Depression, or is there already? Why or why not, and what are the geopolitical and domestic implications?

 

9) Will the Obama Federal Reserve team offer us globalist/elitist solutions to the global financial crisis or not—i.e. will we witness the creation of a ‘global reserve bank,’ owned and operated by private corporate interest in the same way as the Federal Reserve, which will set interest rates for all currencies? Will this socioeconomic global infrastructure lay the geopolitical groundwork for the establishment of the true ‘New World Order’ openly being called for by the global media syndicates and their subsidiaries worldwide, as well as repeatedly by Britain’s Gordon Brown and the ‘global elite’ present at the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos? Will the ‘common North American currency’ being openly discussed in the Wall St. Journal and other publications actually be lobbied for? What implications would such a drastic globalist monetary policy have for the future of individual sovereignty, U.S. sovereignty, and the sovereignty of nations all over the world? Should we simply accept the notion that global interests trump national interests? Are there other options? What are they?

 

10) On Jan. 12, 2009, former Secretary of State, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group member, and Obama mentor, Henry Kissinger wrote in The International Herald Tribune:

 

From, “The Chance for a New World Order”:

 

"The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market.

 

The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order…

 

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units.

 

A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome. America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union."

 

Will the worldwide economic crisis lead to the creation of a supranational political and economic governing body? Will we see the birth of a One World Government because of this crisis? Will Obama be supportive of such a prospect? Why or why not? Further, what is the likelihood that the international markets could have been purposely manipulated by internationalist bankers like Kissinger specifically in order to push the world into accepting such an agenda? Is this radical charge being leveled by many American citizens and others around the world an impossibility? Why or why not, and what are the implications?

 

11) Obama clearly believes that ‘Climate Change’ is man-made. Is it? Might it have more to do with the natural activity of the sun, as a study of similar change on other planets might suggest? Might it be a combination of man-made and natural occurrences? Whatever conclusion might be drawn from such an analysis, what will be the socioeconomic and political implications of the implementation of a world-wide ‘carbon tax’ in the context of globalization, national sovereignty, and individual sovereignty?

 

12) Will there be further major international or domestic terrorist attacks or not? If there are, might they be seen as genuine occurrences of terrorism, or will they be received by the public as likely being false-flag events? What would be the implications of such events in terms of the Obama Administration’s terrorism policy and their likely consequences for the ‘common people’ of the U.S. and the world? Is the War on Terror a war without a possible end? Is it a war that can’t be won? Is it a war, for instance, against an idea rather than a real entity? Is it really a specific war, or simply a general excuse for fighting otherwise strategically valuable and specific wars in other places? How, why, and will Obama treat the issue any differently than Bush did?

 

13) What will be Obama’s policies be on internet and free media censorship? Are the companies which oversee it really “letting the infrastructure of the internet die,” as has been reported? Implications?

 

14) Does the technological prospect of a worldwide, clean, and abundant (rather than scarce) energy source or combination of sources exist, and if so, will the Obama administration seek to bring it to light or not? What will it mean for the world and what will it say about his administration’s agenda in either instance?

 

15) What will be the Obama administration’s stance on issues of population control? Will he adopt the extreme stated policy views of globalist luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller? Why or why not, and what are the implications?

 

15) What will be Obama’s philosophical position on institutional secrecy in general? He advocates transparency. What are the limits of transparency Obama is willing to accept and why? What does that do the prospect of real change?

 

16) What are we to make of secretive technological military projects, in general, the real level of scientific advancement and motives behind which are purposefully kept from the public awareness for ‘reasons of national security’? Are we going to continue to treat all inquiry into such subjects, because they are necessarily going to be under-informed, as ludicrous? Will an ‘Obama era’ of desired transparency finally allow such questions to be openly asked without fear of ridicule, persecution, or the blatant denial of the existence of such programs? Would Obama, himself, even be allowed access to such information, and if not, what might that tell us about the way in which our government and the geopolitical arena is truly run and by whom? What does “change” mean in the context of even THESE sorts of issues?

 

(This question could lead to a multitude of subsequent topics, questions, and discussions. For instance: What’s really going on with the highly secretive DARPA research projects like the H.A.A.R.P. project in Alaska? Could weather manipulation really be a possibility, as some of the scientists who originally initiated work on the project have stated, or is that truly a ridiculous idea? If such technological possibilities do theoretically exist, what are we to make of the prospect of their current or future application to military, economic, and political agendas? What are ‘Chemtrails,’ what’s their purpose, and why do they contain poisonous heavy metals like mercury and phosphorus, amongst other things? What is really being tested at those secret military facilities in the desert and elsewhere, supposedly on behalf of the United States, and why do we, the public, not have a right to know what it is? Why have so many prominent military and civilian figures (as in the example of the “disclosure project”) reported UFO sightings and more, and why has nobody in Congress ever taken any of them seriously enough to at least ask what this signifies? Why, for that matter, have we, the people, never demanded a congressionally authorized, transparent, and independent investigation into these issues?)

 

17) Regardless of his personal intentions or our personal views on his personal intentions, how much power does a president really have these days? Beyond the open public framework established by constitutional law concerning the executive branch, are there ‘outside, unknown’ factors—economic, political, OGA, military, social, or otherwise—that might conceivably impose limitations on his power and to the scope of exactly what sorts of things he is actually allowed to consider or even talk about changing through coercion, force, threat of force? To what extent might Barack Obama have been deadly serious when he told us that he was going to need the help of each and every one of us in order to make real change happen?

 

18) In the context of all of the grievous violations and atrocities we witnessed the Bush-Cheney administration commit against both human beings and the U.S. Constitution in the name of the monetary power agenda of the global economic elite, to what extent is it simply naïve of us to assume that Government dictates finance and not vice versa?

 

19) To what extent is the will and determination of the American people TRULY their only hope for real change from previous policies, power structures, and methods of control?

 

To what extent, for example, should the American public lend its serious consideration the possible implications of an article like this one, by established freelance journalist Michael Hasty:

 

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4308.shtml

 

 

Rise to the Occasion—

 

 

Sure it’s an ambitious project. Americans are ambitious people. We have the words, “fought and won a revolution,” amongst the accomplishments listed on our resume.

 

Q. With or without our help, can we realistically expect Obama, in four years, to solve all of the problems that have been created and now sit in front of us like some insurmountable range of mountains?

 

A. In four years, we can expect him to begin moving in the right direction on each and every one of these issues. In fact, we can even demand it, and demand it we will. He will have to deal with them all regardless; as will we. The only question is one of according to what agenda we’ll be approaching them.

 

Q. Can I make any difference at all?

 

A. Of course you can, damn it. This is America. America was founded, not upon the mere ideal, but upon the circumstantial realization that true power belonged to the people.

 

Look, if you’re anything like me, you can write and you can think. Therefore, you have so much to contribute, it’s almost unimaginable. The power you possess is almost unimaginable. The potential for you to affect the world in which you live in incredibly significant ways is almost unbelievable. And it has never been more important for you to do so.

 

Obama can take it. In fact, my guess is that he even invites it.

 

Now let yourself be ambitious.

 

Ask yourself:

 

“What is Change?”

 

Let's put it on trial.