Saturday, December 29, 2007

How To Stop Terrorists from Following Us Home

"No amount of military might used abroad does us much good if the American people are not safe in their own communities."--Ron Paul, January 7, 2002

Unfortunately, the government all but rolled out the red carpet for the 9/11 terrorists:

Some of the 19 September 11 hijackers were allowed into the country despite carrying fraudulent visas and being questioned by customs agents, the commission said. (CNN)

The government fails to issue valid visas carefully, spot invalid visas, monitor expirations, or enforce existing laws.
  • Anti-terrorism does NOT require a trillion-dollar "Global War on Terror" (TM) with thousands of American dead across the world.
  • Anti-terrorism does require simply NOT inviting terrorists into our country (visas).
  • Anti-terrorism does require simply enforcing the immigration laws that already were on the books before 9/11.
  • Denying a visa costs "pocket change" and has a historically low casualty rate.
"We must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is flawed logic:
  • Being there adds trouble: Osama bin Laden's stated reason for terrorism is that we are over there: "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula . . . The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post." (1998 fatwa)
  • Being there weakens us: Our forces over there strip our defenses at home (guarding Iraq's borders instead of guarding US borders).
"So we don't have to fight them over here" is achieved most easily by:
  • Not INVITING them into our country.
  • Putting our border patrol on OUR border, not IRAQ's border where they are now.
A smart hawk wants to focus efforts where they will do the most good.

Ron Paul knows that any new law should focus on foreigners, not Americans, on illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants--and should focus specifically on likely terrorists.

Captain Ron Paul's focused anti-terrorism strategy led the way in restricting Saudi visas and seeks to strengthen immigration/visa laws against terrorist states:

Bush-Cheney Opposed Nation-Building

Ron Paul remains prudently consisent in his sound foreign policy while other politicians unfortunately flip-flopped.

Captain Ron Paul will strengthen US national security by restoring a sound American foreign policy.

Reagan Rejected Nation-Building

“For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”-- John Winthrop (1588–1649) on America, quoted by Ronald Reagan in his farewell address

What would Reagan do?
What would Reagan NOT do?
  • Reagan was tough on defense but with our greatest enemy the Soviet Union he re-opened trade, fed the Soviet people with American wheat, negotiated historic arms reductions, and avoided war.
  • Reagan supported rebels in Nicaragua, Angola, and Afghanistan but did not attempt to invade, occupy, or nation-build any of these countries.
  • Reagan used up to 3 aircraft carriers against Libya (its 3 million population about the size of Connecticut’s) to counterattack or capture terrorists but did not regime-change, invade, occupy, or nation-build this terrorist state.
  • Reagan with the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) invaded and occupied the tiny island of Grenada (population 95,000) on October 25, 1983 but the main US combat unit left only 9 days later.
  • Reagan with Multinational Force in Lebanon (MNF) occupied one city in Lebanon, Beirut, 1982-1984, but did not occupy the rest of the small country (population 3 million) and did not nation-build. Even this limited peacekeeping effort cost 265 American lives and Reagan at the end of his presidency told Pat Buchanan that Beirut was his greatest regret.

Today, Iraq’s population is 27 million and Afghanistan’s population is 32 million, so Bush’s current attempt to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan is population-wise like Russia or China trying to occupy and nation-build Texas and California into their image (how successful would Russia or China be?). Iran’s population is 70 million. Pakistan's population is 161 million. Those 4 countries (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) combined almost equal the United States in population.

Reagan was a smart enough hawk to avoid nation-building foreign countries. Reagan’s only idea of nation-building was to reform and revitalize our own country by remembering our first principles of liberty and limited government and thereby be that shining city on the hill.

“The moral way of government is the practical way of government.” “We meant to change a nation and instead we changed a world.”--Ronald Reagan, farewell address

“We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people, and have them want to emulate us.” “We do have a lot of goodness in this country and we should promote it—but never through the barrel of a gun.”--Ron Paul, CNN Republican debate

“For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”-- John Winthrop (1588–1649) on America, quoted by Ronald Reagan in his farewell address

Friday, December 28, 2007

Lincoln Endorses Ron Paul?

Abraham Lincoln proposed Ron Paul's peaceful method of ending slavery, compensated emancipation (paying to free the slaves).

"In the mere financial or pecuniary view, any member of Congress with the census tables and Treasury reports before him can readily see for himself how very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named state." --Abraham Lincoln, "A Message to Congress Requesting a Joint Resolution on Compensated Emancipation," March 6, 1862

It is nice to see Lincoln validate Ron Paul's position but unfortunately Lincoln did not follow through effectively.

Lincoln made Lincoln controversial. States began seceding between Lincoln’s election and inauguration because those states knew his policies from the presidential campaign and considered his plans unacceptable (even though Lincoln had no plans to completely end slavery any time soon).

Too Little Too Late

Lincoln’s 1849 compensated emancipation plan was only for the District of Columbia (not for any state), his 1862 plan was nominally universal but intended only for the border states (not for any Confederate state, but a payoff to keep slave states on the Union side), and other 1862 compensated emancipation plans only for the District of Columbia (not for any state) were only $300 or $500 per slave, with only half of the latter going to the owner and the other half to the slave if the freed person emigrated.

The problem was a failure to offer the right price to the right people.

Even “overpaying” an 1861 New Orleans prime male slave price of $1,381 each for all 4 million slaves would have cost only half the price of the Civil War.

Then add the priceless savings in human life, both black and white.

Critics charge that today Bush is pursuing military solutions for political problems and Lincoln similarly pursued military solutions for political and economic problems.

  • Iraq War = almost 4,000 American dead
  • Civil War = over 600,000 American dead
  • Civil War relative to today’s population = over 6 million American dead

There is nothing pro-American about killing 6 million Americans.

Today's pundits and politicians who ridicule peaceful options for avoiding the Civil War are truly frightening and dangerous to US national security in their crackpot, cavalier disregard for killing today’s equivalent of 6 million Americans to implement their policies.

Such people are unfit to "dog-sit," much less have anything to do with public policy.

Thank goodness that Captain Ron Paul’s sane, steady statesmanship is based on his strategic, thoughtful study of history and economics.

Strengthen Intelligence by Cutting Bureaucracy

Rube Goldberg Alarm

“Homeland Security . . . it’s a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and it’s unmanageable.”—Ron Paul, 2007 presidential debates

Ron Paul will streamline intelligence into a “lean and mean” intelligence machine.

Clinton-Bush wasted resources before 9/11, and wasted even more after 9/11.

The intelligence services before 9/11 were a sprawling mess that ignored information on the planned terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center while wasting FBI resources on ridiculous items such as landlord-tenant disputes.

Adding the additional Homeland Security bureaucracy on top of the existing mess immediately after the 9/11 attacks was as stupid as trying to create an independent Air Force right after Pearl Harbor would have been (thankfully, the Air Force did not separate from the Army until 1947, 2 years after WWII was safely over).

Instead, Homeland Security has made America the laughing stock of the world with color-coded days, duct-tape shopping lists, $300,000 of anti-terrorism money spent on air-conditioned garbage trucks in Newark NJ, the Hurricane Katrina FEMA emergency-response debacle DESPITE advance knowledge of that threat, and a new federal law that has Americans TRAINING WITH STUFFED ANIMALS.

CIA/FBI continue absurd misuse of intelligence assets:

Apparently, the FBI is not that concerned about domestic terrorist sleeper cells after all.

White House, Pentagon, and Homeland Security Unconcerned about Repeated Bombings of New York City since 9/11

New York City has been bombed at least 3 times after 9/11 but Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino "said that there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism" (Reuters).

Thank goodness, these were just regular, everyday bombings and not the bad, terrorist kind of bombings.

"We're treating it as if it were an incident of vandalism."-- Army spokesman Paul Boyce, Pentagon, on the 2008 bombing of an Army recruitment station in NYC ("Small explosion hits New York's Times Square" By Emily Chasan and Walker Simon, Reuters, 3/6/08 )

  • Bomb the US Army in the heart of America's Big Apple and the Pentagon puts it on par with throwing toilet paper in trees on Halloween's Mischief Night.
  • Surrender your income and your Constitutional rights in a fool's bargain "to be safe" while the government simply redefines bombings of American cities as "not terrorism."

Does that mean al Qaeda in Iraq's bombings are not terrorism but merely vandalism?

Contrary to popular belief, as early as 2002, Bush seems bored with the initial reason for invading Afghanistan, argues that the al Qaeda terrorists are not that threatening any more, and he is not that interested in catching Osama bin Laden:

“I just don’t spend that much time on him, to really be honest with you.”-- George W. Bush, on NOT trying to catch Osama bin Laden, 2002 press conference

How effective are all the new surveillance powers and the billions of dollars spent on security in "The Global War on Terror" (TM)?

Australian "Chasers" TV comedy show drives an Osama bin Laden double straight through security checkpoints to within minutes of Bush's hotel at the 2007 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Sydney, Australia:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."-- Published by Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania, 1759

"Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty. ... In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected."-- Ron Paul, US House of Representatives speech, "What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?," 1/26/05

It is Ron Paul who wants to stay focused on stopping and catching terrorists--but to do it the smart, Constitutional way:

“I know there’s radicals there and I know they will attack us.”--Ron Paul, CNN interview, 1/6/08

"Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function of the federal government-- to provide for national security-- has been severely undermined."-- Ron Paul, US House of Representatives speech, "What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?," 1/26/05

US intelligence needs to streamline back to basics.

The United States a century ago already was a world power with a global empire before the FBI, CIA, etc. even existed, so those organizations obviously are not necessary for the United States to be a world power.

The original Constitution provided for all the intelligence services that we need:

  • Public information, much good intelligence is from open-source (non-secret) materials such as media reports, university studies, or government reports. The problem is not access but properly analyzing the wealth of easily available information.
  • Military intelligence, which today would specialize in National Technical Means (NTM) such as spy satellites and air-land-sea reconnaissance and electronic surveillance.
  • State Department, which is a natural source of Human Intelligence (HUMINT), both official through other governments and unofficial from embassy staffs mixing with locals.
  • State police and militia (now National Guard under Governor's orders), counter-espionage and disaster response within the states of the United States, in cooperation with federal information.

Anything more just gets in the way or causes blowback from failed interventions abroad.

Captain Ron Paul sensibly knows that we best achieve US national security when the "foreign intelligence" services actually do foreign intelligence.

Veterans Endorse Ron Paul

Letters from veterans support Ron Paul

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Nolan Ryan Endorsed Ron Paul

Ron Paul: Political All-Star

Baseball legend Nolan Ryan of the Houston Astros was honorary campaign chair for Ron Paul's Congressional race.

More fun facts about Captain Ron Paul's early life (the Astros uniform might be from a Congressional team):

Vietnam Veteran Endorses Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul as a 1960s Air Force and ANG flight surgeon literally cared for our Vietnam War era servicemen. Ever since, Congressman Captain Ron Paul has worked hard to see that our veterans get the care they earned in service to our country.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Goldwater Endorses Ron Paul

WWII veteran Major General Barry Goldwater fathered the Reagan Revolution. Before there were Reaganites, Reagan was a Goldwaterite. Reagan's famous 1964 speech in support of Goldwater's presidential race became an early step to Reagan's presidency.

Major General Goldwater's son, Barry Goldwater Jr., served with Captain Ron Paul in Congress and endorses Ron Paul for president of the United States in 2008:

Nation Building Threatens Our National Security

"No nation-building."--Ron Paul

A smart hawk knows that post-WWII Germany and Japan were historical aberrations and that nation-building is a dangerous game.

A smart hawk knows that it would be stupid to tell an infantryman to pilot a B-52 bomber and it is equally stupid to waste our military resources for nation-building rather than for national defense by having highly-trained-for-combat soldiers in charge of running electricity plants or collecting Iraqi garbage.

Operation Sparkplug: Nation-Building Fiasco

Look at these poor, badly misused Canadian NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. Policymakers waste a highly professionally trained, heavily armed combat infantry unit with armor and air support on a 200-mile mission to buy a handful of spark plugs at a local market.

They fail.

Not only did these poor, misused soldiers risk their own lives to fail in a mission that they should not have had in the first place, they inflicted a completely unnecessary innocent civilian casualty while failing at a mission that they should not have had to attempt in the first place.

Imagine what this does to troop morale, not to mention the blowback from accidentally killing the people that you intended to “win over” with a spark plug.

Won’t Federal Express or UPS deliver a spark plug? Would it be cheaper to pay an Afghan post office to do it? Is door-to-door spark-plug delivery really the purpose of a heavily armed infantry unit with armor and air support?

Ron Paul Knows a Better Way to National Security

Captain Ron Paul understands the true role of the military and knows how to achieve our national security effectively and Constitutionally.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal: Fighting Terrorists the Constitutional Way

"Action is necessary; inaction is unacceptable."--Ron Paul

After 9/11, Ron Paul immediately produced a thoughtful, decisive, and Constitutional plan to fight the terrorists:

If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?

The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution. . . .

Mr. Speaker, I fear that some big mistakes could be made in the pursuit of our enemies if we do not proceed with great caution, wisdom, and deliberation. Action is necessary; inaction is unacceptable. No doubt others recognize the difficulty in targeting such an elusive enemy. This is why the principle behind "marque and reprisal" must be given serious consideration.

--Congressman Ron Paul, September 25, 2001 (14 days after the 9/11 attacks)

Captain Ron Paul understands our national security needs to fight terrorists legally with laser-beam focus.

Ron Paul’s Air Force

The everyday, grassroots Americans who support Captain Ron Paul ("Paulites") continue to develop unconventional and humorous ways of expressing their support, including planes and a $350,000 blimp.

The Paulite Air Force (PAF) operates from sea to shining sea.

"Paulite" Cessna 172 tactical aircraft "message-strafes" a John Edwards event.
Skyspot Advertising Campaign for Ron Paul In Orlando, FL
(yes, "message-strafe," "money bomb," and "DVD bomb" are non-violent figures of speech)

Eugene, Oregon: Ron Paul airplane banner at Autzen Stadium

Nashua, NH Ron Paul Airplane Banner

"Paulite" Strategic Air Command (SAC) unveils the big boy (Ron Paul Blimp).

Monday, December 3, 2007

Carol Paul Endorses Ron Paul

Sorry ladies, he's taken.

Captain Ron Paul has been married to the same woman since 1957, Carol.

Captain Ron Paul's Rugrat Army

While Dr. Ron Paul was delivering more than 4,000 babies during his medical career, he and Carol blessedly had their own 5 children, 18 grandchildren, and 1 great-grandchild.

Ron likes to eat Carol's homemade, chocolate-chip cookies while on the road.

The Happy Couple, Ron and Carol Paul

Carol Paul defends her man against the usual dirty tricks:

How would you like Carol Paul as your next first lady?


Our NATO Allies Endorse Ron Paul

Ron Paul wins hearts and minds around the world--an important part of American national security.

Pro-American Europeans are staging a Strasbourg Tea Party on the December 16 anniversary of the Boston Tea Party in honor of Ron Paul.

Caspar Weinberger Endorses Ron Paul?

“Declare war...fight it."—Ron Paul

United States Secretary of Defense Captain Caspar Weinberger (a WWII intelligence officer) distilled the lessons of the Vietnam War into the Weinberger Doctrine. US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State General Colin Powell (a Vietnam War infantry officer) later discussed similar points now known as the Powell Doctrine. Both doctrines relearned the classic lessons of Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz.

The lessons were supposed to make sure that Vietnam happened “never again” (list copied from Wikipedia):

  • Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  • Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  • Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  • Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  • Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  • Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  • Is the action supported by the American people?
  • Do we have genuine broad international support?

Ron Paul’s declare-it-fight-it-win-it policy is not only Constitutional but is based on centuries of strategic wisdom and embodies the lessons of Vietnam.

Captain Ron Paul’s national security policy is in good company with the strategic lessons of Captain Weinberger, General Powell, Sun Tzu, and Major General von Clausewitz.

Patton Endorses Ron Paul?

Captain Ron "Blood and Guts" Paul?

  • United States Civil War Union general and US President Ulysses S. Grant’s successful formula for victory was, “Find ‘em. Fix ‘em. Destroy ‘em.” ("fix” means to pin them in place without escape).
  • General Grant’s Civil War strategy has been the strategy for most if not all US military victories.
  • General George S. "Blood and Guts" Patton’s WWII version was, "We're going to hold onto him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the ass."
  • General Colin Powell’s Gulf War I version was similarly to cut the forward Iraqi army off from Baghdad, “First we are going to cut it off, and then we are going to kill it.”

Captain Ron Paul’s strategy for getting Osama bin Laden was and is the same tried and true formula for military success, to focus the major effort on finding, fixing, and destroying the specific guilty terrorists.

Unfortunately, Washington DC groupthink ignored Ron Paul’s warnings not to get dispersed and distracted. Policymakers kept larding on mission after mission like a pork-stuffed Congressional “Christmas tree” bill (crammed with shiny ornaments) while bin Laden escaped.

Keep your eye on the ball.

Captain Ron Paul’s anti-terrorist strategy is in good company with those of Generals Grant and Patton.

When given the chance to speak, Captain Ron Paul explains his find-fix-destroy anti-terrorist strategy:

Sun Tzu Endorses Ron Paul?

Ron Paul the Strategy Sage

The ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, still studied today by US military officers, wrote that the best victory was defeating your enemy without having to fight.

The current hyperbole about the Cold War is that the United States won it “without firing a shot” (not technically true but a worthy goal).

  • Both points signify that war is, in itself, often a sign of policy failure, even if you “win” in the end (better to win without the cost of fighting).
  • A smart hawk knows that achieving goals without war is best for national security.
  • A smart foreign-policy realist pursues goals while conserving the nation's "blood and treasure."
  • “Keep your powder dry” for when you truly need it.

Captain Ron Paul is in good company with some of the greatest military minds of all time.

Eisenhower Endorses Ron Paul?

General Eisenhower and Captain Ron Paul

General Dwight David Eisenhower (“Ike”) commanded the WWII D-Day landings and US victory in Europe over Hitler, helped create the Cold War NATO alliance, and ran for president on the promise to pull US troops out of the Korean War.

There is nothing inconsistent about Ike’s Korea policy when compared to his WWII victories or his hawkish NATO stance.

  • It is said that a soldier knows the true value of peace.
  • A smart hawk knows how to preserve the nation’s strength, not deplete it.
  • A smart strategist knows how to pick his fights.
  • A smart commander knows how to choose the right forces for the job.
  • A smart tactician knows when, how, and where to deploy the right forces to achieve the mission.

Fighting the asymmetric-warfare terrorists does not require the hundreds of thousands of forward-deployed troops that fighting the conventional-warfare Soviet Red Army required.

In fact, a large US troop presence abroad can harm American national security by wasting resources and making enemies.

Captain Ron Paul’s Iraq strategy is in good company with General Eisenhower’s Korea strategy.

Ike had his "We Like Ike" jingle so Ron Paul has this "Vote Yes for Dr. No" ditty:

Reagan Endorses Ron Paul

Ron likes Ron--and vice versa.

In 1976 when the "mainstream" Republican Party leadership thought Ronald Reagan was a unelectable kook (yes, the same Reagan that GOP candidates now trip over themselves to praise as one of the greatest presidents in American history), Ron Paul was one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Reagan for president.

Ron Paul stuck to his guns and history proved him right.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."--Ronald Reagan

What did President Reagan think of all those anti-Reagan unelectable/kook/crank/crackpot/extremist accusations?

“What they called radical was really right. What they called dangerous was just desperately needed.”—Ronald Reagan, farewell address

Will Americans 20 years from now be praising President Ron Paul like they now praise President Ronald Reagan?

Military Families Endorse Ron Paul

Military families chose Ron Paul over any other Republican candidate, a Zogby "blind bio" telephone survey which asked about candidates' policies showed.

Ron Paul won 33% compared to only 18% for Guliani and even less for the other so-called "major" contenders.

The poll was a "blind bio" which reduces the mainstream media (MSM) 's power to "elect" your president for you through their editorial control over screen time, name recognition, and labels such as "frontrunner." The blind bio presents people with the candidate's platform without the name attached.

Military families chose Captain Ron Paul:

Candidate A is a 10-term US Congressman from a large Southern state who is an advocate for a smaller government and individual liberty. This candidate believes in strictly following the Constitution and has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted in favor of the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act, and wants to bring troops home as soon as possible. As a former doctor, this candidate has delivered more than 4,000 babies. One of this candidate's goals is to return America to the gold standard, and he believes that the current monetary policy needs to be drastically overhauled because of the dollar's decline.

The Ron Paul Story

Soldiers Endorse Ron Paul

Recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) data show that Ron Paul earned the most donations of any Republican candidate from those who identified themselves as veterans or employees of the military services.

American soldiers, sailors, and marines swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, so it is not surprising if they support the greatest defender of the Constitution in the 2008 presidential race, Ron Paul.

These military folks know that it is our Constitution that makes our country strong, so we achieve national security by upholding the Constitution and we rot our country by violating the Constitution.

These military-affiliated respondents trust Captain Ron Paul to protect America.

A soldier who takes an oath to defend the Constitution understands what integrity, duty, and honor mean.

“We can get back on track merely by living up to our oath of office.”—Ron Paul

Captain Ron Paul’s Military Service to Our Country

Drafted 1962 (?); United States Air Force, 1963-1965; United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968 (unclear if he ranked higher than captain upon ANG discharge)

Ron Paul was in uniform

  • during the greatest external threat to the United States since its founding, the Cold War.
  • during the greatest WMD threat to the United States in history, from the Soviet Union.
  • during or shortly after the greatest danger of complete human annihilation in history, the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Captain Ron Paul understands true national security.

Ron Paul, an officer and a gentleman.

PAUL, Ronald Ernest (1935- ), a Representative from Texas; born in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pa., August 20, 1935; graduated from Dormont High School, Dormont, Pa., 1953; B.A., Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pa., 1957; M.D., Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., 1961; internship and residency training, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., 1961 and 1962; obstetrics and gynecology training, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1965-1968; medical doctor; United States Air Force, 1963-1965; United States Air National Guard, 1965-1968; delegate, Texas state Republican convention, 1974; unsuccessful candidate for election to the Ninety-fourth Congress in 1974; elected as a Republican to the Ninety-fourth Congress, by special election to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of United States Representative Robert R. Casey (April 3, 1976-January 3, 1977); unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the Ninety-fifth Congress in 1976; elected to the Ninety-sixth and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1979-January 3, 1985); was not a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in 1984, but was an unsuccessful candidate for nomination to the United States Senate; publisher; unsuccessful Libertarian Party candidate for election for President of the United States in 1988; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Fifth and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present).

--Biographical Directory of the United States Congress