Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Is the Libertarian View Valid?

I would submit to you that there are few things the federal government can do well in addition to spending other people's money.



I think that except possibly for Barak you all are missing the point on this one. Airline security is a joke, has always been a joke and will continue to be a joke for the forseeable future. The reason 9/11 happened in the first place is beacuse the federal government and the airlines decided early on after D. B. Cooper and the "fly me to Cuba" fad that a certain number of hi-jackings can be tolerated rather than to simply not tolerate hi-jackings at all. This is evidenced by all the security taking place on the ground rather than where the hi-jackings actually take place, in the air. The airlines have always been anti gun and anti prevention and willing to negotiate with hi-jackers. The federal government allowed that attitude and encouraged it. Wittness the fact that at the time of 9/11 firearms WERE allowed in the cockpit under federal law but banned by all the airlines. One tiny little Freedom Arms revolver in each cockpit could have prevented 9/11. Instead the airlines, with government approval and encouragement, set up a system of smoke and mirrors to lull airline passengers into complacency by putting on just enough of a show to convince passengers that they were safe. 9/11 happened because what passed for airline security was concentrating on who was getting on a plane with what rather than what they were doing after they got on the plane and because the point of embarkation rather than the point of attack, the cockpit, was being "protected."



Existing Constitutional law recognizes that we all have the right to carry firearms on any flight that begins and ends within the territorial boundarys of the United States. The problem lies with having both an airline industry and a federal government that think they are above the law. Only airline regulation and governmental infringment prevent us from exercising our right to carry arms on aircraft in order to have the means at hand to defend ourselves. Once again the question has been turned around. The question is NOT should we be allowed to carry firearms on aircraft but rather WHY ARE WE BEING PREVENTED from exercising our right to bear arms and to self defense.



Cynics are the people who keep the world as honest as it still is. A world without cynics would be a world without truth.

Quote:

"The Democrats didn't exactly say, "Look, vote for our new socialist plan," "

Exactly.

Quote:

"...........but I never heard a single Democrat deny that it was socialist."

I never heard them be anything but evasive on the issue, which leads me to my ascertain that they do not want their ultimate goals generally known. I do remember them talking about being "progressive" and "compassionate", which may be codespeak for socialism, so I suppose you could say they didn't deny it in that sense. However, that is not the same as explaining their vision for a socialist America, which includes no private ownership of guns, no hunting, no SUVs, no choice in education, no choice in thought, etc.

Quote:

"Wrong. It's a little startling how fundamentally we disagree on this issue; I'm not used to disagreeing with gun people quite so completely."

You really can't see that you are always embroiled in a debate of some sorts with "gun people" on this site? You are the "odd man out" on many of these issues. That is alright and even good, because we need to have different viewpoints and the free exchange of ideas. Most of the "gun people" I have come in contact with here--and I have posting with this bunch for 6 years--hold a different view than you. Conservative Republicanism seems to be the norm, with a focus on working within the system to incrementally reclaim our liberties.

Quote:

"9/11 was motivated by government, encouraged by government, allowed by government, and covered up by government. Business as usual was exactly what we got when government continued to deal with the situation."

9/11 was motivated by intolerant Islamic extremists who believed any means justified their ends. While the US government could have done better, it is not the government's fault these cowards chose to do what they did. I personally hate that sort of moral relativism. It fits right in with the idea that we are not responsible for our own actions because "society did this to me" or "society did that to me". No doubt, society can influence a person, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. I thought Libertarianism was big on individual responsibility. Perhaps we do disagree on a very fundamental level.

Quote:

"the issue of "unalienable rights" comes into the picture. There are powers that the government is flatly not allowed to have, according to the Constitution, even if everybody wants to give it those powers."

I agree the constitution limits government's powers, and our government has assumed way too much power. The issue is the people of this country have willingly let the government accumulate more and more power. As such, they think nothing of letting the government take more freedoms away in the name of security. In fact, they demand it. I see this everyday at work. I have been a USAF pilot for 20 years. Everytime there is an accident, the public demands we change our rules so it doesn't happen again. They do not want to hear that the dead pilot violated rules already in place. They want us to make more rules to keep pilots from violating the rules that already exist. So we build another fence around Torah. This is exactly what happened after 9/11.

Quote:

"history argues that it's quite likely the Gore response would have been to lob a magazine of Tomahawk missiles into a remote patch of desert somewhere, with hopes of killing a few brown people but as little desert scrub as possible. But even if that's not the case, and they would have used the opportunity to attempt the sort of martial-law crackdown you envision, you're still wrong. Why? Because we wouldn't have let them get away with it."

I do not agree with your interpretation of history. If Gore had been in power, the dems/liberals would have gained momentum and pushed through more of their agenda. People would have become more conditioned to these additional restrictions on our freedoms. They would have demanded the government protect us after 9/11, and would have been even more willing to give away more freedoms and liberties than they did under W.

Quote:

"Did anybody get on the airplanes with a blade more than 4" in length? No."

Not only have did folks manage to get 4" knife blades on airliners, they also managed to get guns through screeners. How many "secret tests" did we see conducted well prior to 9/11 highlighting this? I saw many.

Quote:

"What would you call it, then?"

I call it repeatedly bailing out the airlines in a misguided attempt to speed economic recovery.

Quote:

"Replace "PC" with John Ashcroft's brand of "patriotism," and "liberal" with "conservative," and you still have a true statement."

You do not have a true statement. Patriotism demands people critically question motives while remaining committed do what is best for our country. PC demands people accept what they are told without question.

Quote:

"I'm not sure if our goals are similar. I'm pretty sure we define "freedom" fundamentally differently. And if you mean "reduction in government at all levels" the way Republicans seem to mean it--namely "wild, uncontrolled increase in government at all levels"--then I suspect we have different definitions there too."

I am for a large reduction in governmental control, a drastic reduction in the number of laws and federal regulations, an increase in personal freedoms, a reduction in litigation, a prospering free market economy, and the return of common decency and good sense on how people conduct themselves (not via legislation), among other things.

Quote:

"One more time: third parties don't try to win, they try to make primary parties lose."

What an ineffective way to try and have influence. Then again, maybe it is a brilliant ploy. If one were a socialist and trying to conceal their socialism, this "spoiler" method would a great cover for furthering the socialist agenda. One could claim to be for more freedom and less government with their words, but their actions would put liberals working toward a socialist America into power.

This thread has been interesting for me, and I thank you for your input. When I started this thread, I was undecided about the Libertarian party. There is much about the Republican's I don't like, and I was hoping the Libertarian party was an effective tool to move the country toward smaller government, more personal freedoms, etc. However, I now see the Libertarian party's efforts have the exact opposite effect. As imperfect as it is, I will remained aligned with the Conservative Republican movement, and work within the system to incrementally effect positive change toward more freedom.

Blaine

AFP, to get to your second point, whether going GOP is more valid than Lib -- or as I once regretfully did, going Reform, biggest mistake in my $(*#^$ life letting that idiot Clinton in the back door --
I am now a registered activist Republican. I'd switch parties in a heartbeat if the Dems were the old "lunchbucket Democrats" I remember from my younger days, looking out for the little guy against the bigs.
I thought about going Libertarian, but I believe government has a role to play in its most important role, protecting freedom or defending it from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.
As a GOP stalwart, I am active in order to keep the authoritarian fascists from dominating the party line, just like I vote against the authoritarian Commies that have in fact taken over the Democratic party. The sad truth is that moderatism or whatever is dead, and has been dead on the national level since the 1994 election blew the moderate Dems off the face of the earth and replaced them with hard Republicans. What few middle of the road swing districts still exist on the map are in fact dominated by extremist factions within the electorate that will absolutely slaughter someone who won't toe their line. Campaign finance limits leave candidates completely vulnerable to single-issue assaults.
The sad thing is no candidate can run his or her own campaign free of being shotgunned at the worst possible instant by a marginal clique intent on tossing the election their way and to hell with everyone else.
Seen that right here in my hometown, also in a former place of residence where my Colorado lege (I didn't love her, she was a pompous ice queen Range Rover Republican) was just BLASTED by an anonymous fake "seniors" group. I wouldn't wish that on many people.
But then we wonder why we don't get quality people running for office and giving us proles something to stand and vote FOR?
Rat a tat tat.

Dave Skinner, I would suggest, based on what you've said, that you don't really understand the essentials of either conservatism or libertarianism. I hope you are a reader, because, if you are, you can inform yourself about these things, and come to conclusions about them based on real knowledge, rather than the impressions you get from reading posts on websites, watching Fox News, or whatever. I hope you will take my suggestion to heart and, if you do, you could do no better than to read two books, i.e., Russel Kirk's (conservative) "The Politics of Prudence," and Friedrich Hayek's (libertarian) "The Road to Serfdom." I hope you do not take this as an insult, because it is really meant as anything but. If I thought you stupid, I wouldn't bother recommending that you read these types of books. It would be a waste of time.

Libertarians are not anarchists.



What is a "hard Republican?"

Government's most important role is NOT protecting freedom or defending it. That is the most important role of the electorate. Too many of us depended on the government to do just that for too long and look at where it got us.

Do you know of any politician (other than Ron Paul of Texas, of course) who is not evasive on questions designed to make him look bad to his audience? Suppose you were a politician and somebody asked you in front of an audience why you were willing to let thirteen children die every day just so that you could have a safe full of many more guns than anybody could possibly need. You get maybe three seconds to answer before your political opponent on the other side of the TV screen begins running you over. Do you think your answer would sound evasive to the listening soccer moms? Mine would.


Of course I'm accustomed to disagreeing with people: it's what I do best. I'm even accustomed to disagreeing with gun people, unfortunately. What surprised me was the depth of the disagreement between you and me about 9/11. You seem to think that 9/11 happened because we don't have enough government--that more government would have been able to protect us from it, and that more government now will be able to prevent such events in the future. My position is that 9/11 happened precisely because we have too much government, and that more government now will not only not protect us from future events, but will make us much more vulnerable to future events. That's a pretty fundamental disconnect.


No, 9/11 was committed by Islamic extremists. It was motivated by the US government meddling in the affairs of other countries that it should have kept its nose out of. Why isn't anybody flying airplanes into tall buildings in Switzerland?


When your kid runs suddenly out into the street and is hit by a passing car, whose fault is it? Will you sue the driver for not swerving around your kid to keep from hitting him? Maybe you will; but the fact remains that if your kid had stayed on the sidewalk where he belonged, the car would have passed harmlessly by. Perhaps you can argue that the driver should have been more alert, or that his tires should have been newer, or his brakes should have been more recently serviced, and perhaps some or all of that would be true; but the fact is that everybody knows people walk on the sidewalk and cars drive on the street, and it shouldn't be a terrible surprise that if you run out on the street you might get hit by a car.

Likewise, everybody knows what happens when you p!ss off Islamic extremists. We've seen it happen over and over and over again. We can argue that it's not right for them to kill innocent people in large numbers, and perhaps it's even true; but we also know that they don't bother to ask our opinion before they do it. However, our government decided it would be a good idea to p!ss them off anyway. For years. Decades, even. And we got away with it: the kid was standing in the middle of the street flapping his ears and wagging his tongue, daring the oncoming cars, and the cars were swerving around him to the right and to the left. Finally, one of them squarely ran him down.

Oh my gosh, we say. What a shock, we say. What a horrible, immoral, cowardly driver, we say. It was just an innocent child, we say.

Well, I say, why couldn't the kid have just stayed on the sidewalk? Was that driver so horrible, immoral, and cowardly that he would have driven his car up on the curb and dodged the trees just to get the satisfaction of squashing the kid? Mmm, don't think so.


It's not moral relativism, and it doesn't fit right in. Moral relativism is where you say that murdering Americans is worse than murdering brown people, therefore murdering brown people is relatively right and murdering Americans is relatively wrong: in other words, it's right for us to kill brown people but wrong for them to kill us. I'm not saying that: I'm saying two things, both of them different. First, murder is wrong, period, even when it's done by the sainted United States Federal Government. Second, unnecessarily p!ssing off brown people who are known to kill lots of innocent civilians when they're p!ssed off is stupid.


A point on which we agree. I particularly like the "another fence around Torah" part.


Well, as Aslan said, it is not given to sons of Adam and daughters of Eve to know what might have been. Continued argument is probably pointless.


I saw an article after 9/11 that said after the changeover was complete, inspectors managed to slip 44 handguns through checkpoints at American airports in 30 days. I don't know which is a worse breach of "security," but I know that the terrorists didn't use knives with blades over 4".


That's why I specified John Ashcroft's version of "patriotism"--the one that equivalences dissidence with treason.


Good for you. The problem is that you seem still to be laboring under the misapprehension that Republicans will give you all those things--or even that they'll try to give you all those things.

As current events continue to parallel historical precedents, I think it will become evident to almost everybody, probably including you, that nobody will give you all those things: you have to take them, or you don't get them.



Please don't judge the Libertarian Party by me. I'm not a Libertarian, just a libertarian. If you're looking for a group that still compromises on principle, just not as much as the Republicans, then the Libertarian Party may indeed be what you're looking for. They're not libertarian enough for me; my suspicion is that probably no organized political group would be.

Exactly! If you go out, seeking dragons to slay, don't be surprised if your house is incinerated while you're away. Nobody denies that there are a lot of dragons out there, deserving of being slain, but it's just not a wise policy if you hope to avoid trouble. Dragons can be pretty destructive when pissed off. George Washington had it right when he advised future administrations to always wish the peoples of other nations well, trading peacefully with them all, but to avoid foreign entanglements at all cost.

Apparently when you read his "Farewell Address" you skipped over the part about the need to rise above party differences and rally behind the elected representatives of the national government. Or did he have it wrong there?

Another thing to remember when reading Washington's Farewell Address, just as when reading the "Federalist Papers", it why it was written in addition to what was written. Both were written to justify something and sway opinion. Neither was written as a pure expression of philosophical principles of government. The passage you're refering to in Washington's Farewell Address was written in part to justify the "Jay Treaty" with England and to refute Jefferson's attempt to discredit Washington's administration and oppose Jefferson's support for closer relations with France.

I never said the man was Jesus Christ. I quoted that which I took as wisdom. I don't believe it true BECAUSE Washington said it, but because it rings true to the ears of reasonable people. It is only proper, however, to give the man credit for having said it, particularly considering his significance in US history, and the context in which it was said.



A patriot is one who loves his country, and opposes policies destructive to it. I tend to agree with T. Roosevelt when he stated that

Okay...libertarians are pot-smoking conservatives.

Hard republicans are the theocratic authoritarian sort...they wish to use government power to enforce behavior patterns and engineer society to their liking just like hard democrats, just from the far end of the spectrum.

No...when I was talking government, I mean primarily the armed forces. My old man and my moms other husbands were all officers in combat in various overseas fiascoes. We have some pretty good yaps about why they wore the uniform.

Going back to that ordnance/arms debate earlier, the truth remains that huge firepower is needed for geopolitical purposes as long as other nations have the same capability. And since there are so many peaceniks and libertarians that are unwilling to pay for it, while benefiting from it (can you say Free Rider Syndrome), there has to be a central institution that puts the bite on the beneficiaries to pay for the toys. With due constraints such as Posse Comitatus and so on.

Finally, Hawk, I have read Hayek, Bastiat and others, lots of Cato policy papers and the whole schmear. I took econ from some pretty cutting edge profs at Montana State, understand demand curves and all sorts of other groovy stuff. You would not believe some of the cigar-and-scotch sessions I've participated in.

I can't be a Capitalized Libertarian because I feel that freedom has to be tempered with moral and ethical restraint, and there have to be institutions in place for those times when morals and ethics don't keep behavior within the bounds of the social contract. My problem is that I have a sense of justice and desire for fairness that just won't let me go that last step.

Never mind that the playing field is far from level and there are too many imbalances that would not allow a libertarian system to develop properly, like our oceans allowed us a crack at establishing a free constitutional republic -- a chance that voters unlike ourselves are mindlessly pissing away every time November rolls around.

Didn't mean to imply that you did. I just wanted to make the point that all to often when someone quotes one of the founding fathers we're all expected to swallow what is being quoted as though we were watching a burning bush and listening to a voice speaking down from the heavens. 'Tain't necessarily so. They had the same problems and differences of opinion that we are having and were just as fallible as we are. Their greatness derives not from who they were but from what they accomplished given the problems that they had to over come and the limitations on what they had to work with. That's part of what I was refering to in previous post in another thread when I stated "in other words, if you don't play well with others you suck." They often didn't like one another and sometimes didn't even respect one another but they all realized that if they didn't work together and cooperate and sometimes even compromise that they wouldn't be able to accomplish what they had set out to do. Accepting that allowed them to create the country that we have inherited. It's a lesson that we seem to have forgotten for the most part.

I do find it refreshing to converse with someone who quotes someone because what was said was reasonable and is giving credit to the person who said it rather than trying to influence the discussion by using quotes to make a point appear stronger because some "great historical figure" seems to agree with the position being taken by the person doing the quoting.



While I agree with the sentiment expressed in that statement, I find it interesting that you would quote the President who probably did more than any President since Lincoln and prior to FDR to consolidate and strengthen the power of the executive branch. I would dearly love to have Teddy here to explain exactly what he meant by that.

Ok, what you are describing are the opposite of political conservatives (i.e., not far right, but far left). I hope you realize that. What you describe are leftists. Leftist wish to concentrate power at the top for social engineering purposes (Contrary to popular belief, Hitler, like Stalin, was a radical leftist, not a rightist). Social engineering cannot happen without consolidated government. And, yes, there are quite a few leftists in the Republican Party, even if they would never describe themselves that way. They may be "conservative" in the religious spectrum, but that does not necessarily carry over into the political domain.



P.S. A "religious conservative" is one who prefers not to alter the traditional teachings and morality of his chosen religion. It is no guarantee that the person in question will be a "political conservative," or even understand what those words mean. However, religious and political conservatism are in no way mutually exclusive.

No, he is not one of my favorites, but he did occasionally say some things that are worth quoting. I have no doubt that he believed the above quoted definition of patriotism. Where he would differ with you and me is on the question of whether his consolidation of executive power was actually good for the country. I take it he would argue that it was, and that therefore he was acting as a patriot.

Quote:

"Do you know of any politician (other than Ron Paul of Texas, of course) who is not evasive on questions designed to make him look bad to his audience? Suppose you were a politician and somebody asked you in front of an audience why you were willing to let thirteen children die every day just so that you could have a safe full of many more guns than anybody could possibly need. You get maybe three seconds to answer before your political opponent on the other side of the TV screen begins running you over. Do you think your answer would sound evasive to the listening soccer moms? Mine would."

I never said politicians aren't trying to make themselves look good. Your contention is the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in terms of being straight forward about their agenda. You say the Democrats are "honest" in this regard. I disagree with that contention, for all the reason I've posted earlier.

Quote:

"You seem to think that 9/11 happened because we don't have enough government--that more government would have been able to protect us from it, and that more government now will be able to prevent such events in the future."

I do not know where you got that idea. I have clearly stated 9/11 happened because Islamic extremists believe any means justifies their end. I also did not say more government was the answer. I said the public demanded the government do something to better protect them. The government responded by adding more beaurcracy and taking more personal freedoms--which is the nature of governments.

Quote:

"My position is that 9/11 happened precisely because we have too much government, and that more government now will not only not protect us from future events, but will make us much more vulnerable to future events...................No, 9/11 was committed by Islamic extremists. It was motivated by the US government meddling in the affairs of other countries that it should have kept its nose out of. Why isn't anybody flying airplanes into tall buildings in Switzerland?"

Here we do have a fundamental disagreement. While I recognize US involvement overseas has caused ill will toward us from some, it is not logical to assume if we weren't involved we wouldn't still be a target. The Islamic extremists hate us and all of Western Civilization. Our very existence is anathema to them. They want an Islamic world and there is no room for infidels. Even the Koran speaks of this, and the Koran existed well before the USA.

There are those who hate us just because of who we are. They hate us because we have freedom (what's left of it anyway). They are going to come after us regardless of what we do. As such, we should not let their threats determine our policy at home and in the world. US policy is for people like you and I to hash out. The terrorists have no say. If they don't like what we do, then they can negotiate as part of a recognized government or movement. If they want to kill our people, then we will wipe them from the face of the earth.

The idea that we will be safe if we stay nice and mind our own business just is not how the world has ever functioned. We have to be proactive, involved, and strong. What level of involvement is a valid discussion point. At this point, our only option is to remain on the offensive against terrorism.

The reason nobody attacks Switzerland is because they have nothing worth going after. Switzerland has also been smart about it's national defense, requiring marksmanship from it's citizens, keeping them armed, and being in a mountainous region that would be hard to occupy. However, that strategy will not work forever. If the Islamic extremists ever did gain power, Switzerland would eventually be on their list as well.

Quote:

"When your kid runs suddenly out into the street and is hit by a passing car, whose fault is it?"

It is the kid's fault, just as when a terrorist hijacks a plane and flies it into a building, he is the responsible party. The one who does the deed bears ultimate responsibility.


Quote:

".........you seem still to be laboring under the misapprehension that Republicans will give you all those things--or even that they'll try to give you all those things."

No, I am saying I can have influence with the Republicans to a much greater degree than with the Democrats. I can personally make a difference, where if my efforts were aligned with the Libertarian party they would be wasted efforts.

Quote:

"I'm not a Libertarian, just a libertarian."

This question is not meant to sound challenging. What positive change toward libertarianism have you personally be able to make? As a registered Republican, I have been able to contact my congressmen, make my views known, and cast my vote toward what I believe in. Yes, I only one of a few million, but when enough like minded folks take action in this manner we do have influence. Also, not that many people are involved, so my voice carries more weight than most folks.

Blaine

No, weakness will not result in safety. Number one, we should maintain the best foreign intelligence service, airforce, army, navy, marines and special forces in the world, depending on our technological superiority in all of these, and focussing on rapid deployment ability. Number two, we should announce that we plan to leave Europe for the Europeans, Asia for the Asians, etc., and gradually pull our troops out over a ten year period, while encouraging those peoples to gradually assume the role of their own defense. Number three, anyone commits an act of terrorism against Americans, find them and kill them with extreme prejudice, along with any organizations associated with them. If it is a group supplied or assisted by a national government, wipe them out as a nation, then leave. Repeat as necessary. I guarantee it would stop in short order.







That's really absurd. You have not explained why Switzerland has not suffered from extensive Muslim terrorism. They did not attack the U.S. as opposed to Switzerland because they hoped to acquire our natural resources or because fewer Americans than Swiss are proficient riflemen.

Yes, I did. They just haven't got to them yet because we are a more visible and higher value target. The half dozen semi-rational leaders of the movement realize they get more bag for their buck going after the US than they would places like Switzerland.



It is a mistake to think we can live side-by-side with Islamic extremists if we'll just leave them alone. Most of them are irrational, and they only way to deal with an irrational threat is to eliminate it. There is no deterrence or "live and let live with these terrorists." US involvment in the middle east is just an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway.



Blaine

Another thing Teddy said that's worth quoting was "walk softly and carry a big stick." Unfortunately our stick has been allowed to atrophy. Now we've got what passes for a SecDef these days who wanted to cut even deeper scrambling around trying to find enough available forces to meet demands that we argueably shouldn't even be committed to.



That's presently the stated policy. Unfortunately it hasn't been carried out as stated and never will be. No President these days has the freedom of action to carry it out without catastrophic (at least for his administration) consequences.



AFP,

Have you given any thought to the premise that the reason no terrorist has ever attacked Switzerland is because that's where their money is? Switzerland may not be the goose that lays the terrorists golden eggs but it sure as hell sits on the nest that they're in. No terrorist, Islamic or otherwise, would ever want to do anything to disrupt their source of or storage facility for funds. Probably 80% of all the dirty money in the world flows through Switzerland and most of the rest flows though the Bahamas.

Makes a lot more sense than what you're saying since fanatics and extremists don't tend to give much thought to how difficult something is, especially Islamic terrorists. They just tend to say "Allah wills it" and off they go.

Still have to agree with Hawkeye's third point. Even if it didn't act as a deterent, since Islamic terrorists are a pretty dense hard headed group, eventually they'd be extinct and extinction is an excellent way to deal with the problem. When terrorists become extinct they tend to lose their effectiveness.

Skid,



That is a good point. I suppose it's possible they have their money there and as such they don't want to jeapordize it. A big problem with these fanatic terrorists is they are not always rational, so it's easy to see them attacking a place even it it will harm them in the long run. Of course, that is what is happening to them since they attacked America.



If their goal--as many believe--is just to get Americans out of the ME, then an attack on PSAB, Al Jaber, or other American base in the ME would have been a more effective method. If 9/11 had been attacks on those places, then American public opinion would have likely been strong for us to get out of the ME. However, by attacking American Soil, they have shown themselves to be hateful of America regardless of foreign policy.



Blaine