Good questions, James. I'll do my best to answer them.
"1. Governments are established to control and keep order over the people they govern. What makes you certain that these governments would not go so far as to not abuse their powers to try and create a One World Government that has absolute control over the people?"
Three reasons.
First, "one world government" is an impossibility. There are too many people, too many cultures and too many competing interests for it to be administered capably by one authority. Rome had its hands full trying to administer a far-flung empire that bankrupted it and caused its own downfall. Napoleon won some battles but never got close to unifying Europe. Hitler's "empire" collapsed in 12 years. One world government simply is not possible.
Second, why would you want "absolute control over the people?" You'd have to spend so much time, effort and money to control them that what you'd get out of it wouldn't even begin to be worth it. It's easy to assume that power is a goal unto itself, and Hollywood and literature portray it that way. The reality is more complex, and people who try to gain large amounts of power usually have a broader program that they think their power would help them achieve. Without that program, power is meaningless. What would be the point of having "absolute power" when you know (A) you won't keep it for long, and (B) what can you really accomplish once you've got it, assuming you can even obtain it?
Third, even assuming my first point (one world government isn't possible) is not true, if a one world government was possible, in order to remain cohesive it would have to be so diffuse, multicultural and autonomous that "absolute control" would be an impossibility. In order to keep any semblance of cohesion, a one world ruler would pretty much have to leave most people alone and let them govern themselves by and large. That doesn't sound like "absolute control" to me.
"2. What makes you believe that the United States government will not abuse the powers given to it in the USA PATRIOT Act?"
I believe it has and continues to do so. Warrantless wiretapping is unacceptable. However, it's a far cry from "one world government" or "absolute control." I may think it's horrible if the NSA is reading my text messages, but what are they going to do with the information they get? They'll know I'm meeting my friend at a pub at 6PM and he should order me a martini if he gets there before I do?
"3. What would it take for you to consider something as proof of a conspiracy? (use any conspiracy)"
Evidence. Not innuendo, but actual evidence. Eyewitness testimony by a whistleblower who says, "I was in the room when we plotted to do X, Y and Z," and their stories are corroborated by other reputable sources or documents. Examples: the Watergate tapes; Enron accounting documents and memos; testimony of the participants in the Iran-Contra scandal. Evidence that is supported by recognized scientific and evidentiary principles. Credible witnesses lacking delusions, conflicts of interest, or motivations to lie. Chains of causation and effect that are credible, not extraordinary. Evidence that comports with common sense and human nature. Testability of evidence in the real world. Is there evidence to indicate that a witness was where he/she says he was and saw what he/she claims to have seen? Is there evidence indicating a physical or scientific process at work, and if there is evidence pointing to another explanation, how reliable is THAT evidence? This evidence must be capable of sustained and exacting scrutiny by mainstream science without breaking down, and it must be supported by credible sources.
"4. How are free speech zones not evidence of loss of freedom? http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-ordered-local-police-restrict-anti-bush-protesters-rallies-aclu-charges-u"
Free speech zones are "time, place & manner" restrictions on free speech, which are and have always been Constitutional since the First Amendment was added in 1791. They are not "prior restraint" restrictions, which are unconstitutional.
