When then president-elect Barack Hussein Obama declared just five days before he was inaugurated in 2009 that he was going to "fundamentally change America" there were few who comprehended just what he had in mind for "changing America." I doubt if anyone foresaw what he had in mind, I know I didn't. And I suppose if someone would have told me that in less than 18 months President Obama, supported by a democratic controlled Congress, would literally "change America" to a near socialist nation I would not have believed them. But he has almost done just that. And it has saddened me greatly.

History reminds that many nations, after reaching their zenith of freedom and liberty, have lost those freedoms by allowing greed and pride, both personal and national, to replace the principles of liberty embedded in God's perfect laws of liberty given to Moses.

Few people can comprehend how President Obama was able to fulfill his boast to "fundamentally change America." It occurred because the American people, fed up with the corruption in Washington D.C., and in many of the 50 state capitals of America, were hoodwinked into electing a parliamentary type government. A parliamentary government is the type of government used by Canada and Great Britain where one party dominates the government and rules without fear of opposition - and without the checks and balances woven into America's Constitution by the Founders. The current administration, dominated by the Democratic Party, has ignored the American people while ramming Obama's "fundamental changes" down the throats of the American people.

This administration has often accomplished its "fundamental changes" through crisis management, real or created. The latest crisis, the Gulf oil spill, while not a created crisis, is and will continue to be used to berate the "evil oil companies." It has already been used to stop further offshore drilling - a major goal of most environmental groups. If this ban on offshore drilling holds, some believe it could lead to a greater national dependence on foreign oil and higher gas prices at the pumps for all Americans.

The media blame game regarding this catastrophe is now in full swing with big oil, represented by BP, the target. The charges against BP are being led by the president, with Congress following close behind while the progressive mainstream press berates BP and big oil. Would the progressive's goal in this campaign be to take over the oil industry as they have the auto industry, America's health care industry and the financial sector of America?

It sounds much like a staged political campaign for the government to take over the energy industry - with BP being used as the whipping boy or scapegoat. As I listened to the charges I began to wonder if BP is the only one to blame for this horrific accident. Questions came to mind, questions that led me to ponder the role of America's environmental groups in this disaster. The questions include: Why was BP required to drill out in the "deep (one mile) water" when new technology could reach those oil deposits from closer to shore; and why is America's huge natural oil reserves off limits to development - reserves that could substantially reduce America's dependence on foreign oil at reasonable prices.

Unfortunately, the answers to these questions pointed directly at the environmental movement that began in earnest in the early 1970s. This answer surprised me, as I consider myself as much an environmentalist as every other American. All Americans want to preserve their environment. But as I continued to ponder this phenomenon it began to dawn on me that every movement is established with both leaders and soldiers. The leaders, often a behind the scenes close-knit group, set the goals and establish the policy to attain the goals while the soldiers are often called upon to sustain the policy, often ignorant of the real end goal - and often with blind obedience.

This is not to say that this environmental movement has not done good - it has - much good. But when a movement becomes so large and so powerful that it can and does intimidate governmental leaders and policy, often leading to corruption, it is time to take a look at that movement and call for change, major change. Soldier members of the environmental movement far too often follow blindly believing every thing done in the name of the environment is a worthy cause. It is not. Some of their goals will lead to more restrictions on all Americans freedoms and liberties.

Is it possible the environment movement, that includes all of us, is as much to blame for this disaster as BP? Is this something all Americans should ponder as they wait to tally up the cost of a failed energy policy here in America - a policy advocated and strongly pushed by the environmental movement?

Donald Conkey, a retired agricultural economist, lives in Woodstock.