You believe our government in Washington ousted Ukraine's president in a coup and installing a puppet. Those are far left talking points. I believe that the ousted president was a puppet of the Russian goverment and was removed because he chose Putin over the desires of his own people.
------------------ I do not see the present government in Washington as 'America'. It is far from it and getting worse, President by President, Congress by Congress and 'news' organization by news organization.
I agree with that completely.
------------------- In many ways, 'our' government is worse than some foreign governments in terms of violating the rights of Americans as well as well as inflicting harm on other countries in a drive more in accordance with world hegemony than spreading the (real) American ideas of individual liberty and private property rights.
This is where you go off track. Why get comparative here? It becomes a futile discussion with no purpose where you attack America in ways that imply siding with other governments. Your statement of our government's motivation as "as inflicting harm on other countries in a drive more in accordance with world hegemony" is an example of going "anti-American" has the appearance and structure of the far left's mind-set adopted to loosely sit next to the concepts of individual rights, but in a way that won't serve to move us towards better support of individual rights. Because your focus stays on negative aspects of America, relative to bad actors in other countries, or just bad as such, you end up having no place to advocate from that would be effective in moving towards liberty. And "hegemony" is a word too deeply tied to Marxist concepts related to "cultural imperialism" for me to ever use that word. It lends itself too easily to a relativism where cultural, social or economic actions are equated with military actions. As if opening a McDonalds in some foreign nation is a form of cultural aggression that should be stopped with force if need be.
------------------- There is little left of America worth saving and virtually no way of bringing back freedom except by irradicating about 90% of the Federal Government including the Army (but not the Navy). Irradication will probably have to be done by defacto bankruptcy as voters are unlikely to do it and I'd prefer the Russians not do it.
Liberal Hollywood, left-leaning mass media, the far left universities, far left agitation groups and far left politicians are magnified all out of proportion to their numbers, importance and impact by the media, and by the Progressive methods of agitation and by dishonest self-promotion. It makes things look like the country as a whole is far farther down their path than we are. That's the purpose of this method of pushing a hidden political agenda. (Things are bad enough, but what we see and the impressions we get make is seem far, far worse.) The founder's ideals set forth in the declaration and constitution are worth saving, a better starting place than any other, a positive direction, and the structural prerequisite for liberty. Adopting that approach would likely eliminate 90% of the federal goverment, and it has the advantage of moving towards a positive goal, redeeming what we have that is worth saving, and not focusing on the negatives alone as if that could ever be an effective motivation or purpose. Bankruptcy will happen if the course we are on isn't changed, and I could even imagine ways of using a forced bankruptcy as a move to shut off money to the federal government as a harsh and radical way to force a change away from the degree of corruption and totalitarianism that exists now. But it would have to be done like major surgery - with a carefully planned approach and the specific technics, steps, and end goal all clearly understood. Any massive crisis can be used, and will be used, by one faction or another for radical change. The collapse of the present system would only useful if the turmoil that followed could be harnessed to restore liberty. For sure, the far left would use all the dishonesty that can be mustered to blame it on free enterprise, on not enough government, and to paint a picture of death and destruction if their proposals aren't adopted. (And there are elements of the far right that would want totalitarian control 'long enough to fix the problems' - like Bush saying that we had take over the free market to fix it - with TARP). The sad truth is that the real foundation of liberty is that a significant portion of the population understand the need to have a constitutionally limited government based upon individual rights (and understand what all of that means and implies). Attempting to get from here (or anywhere) to a stable state of liberty, without that kind of population is almost certain to fail. And that is a problem that will take generations to fix. We see some evidence of a trend in a good direction (Objectivism and libertarianism), but also strong evidence of a trend in the wrong direction (the politically correct religion of Progressivism and strength of the Evangelical movement). Improvement, even in the longer term is by no means certain, and most likely something we will not see soon.
| 
