It was an experience, meeting Congressman John M. Ashbrook on the road in rural Ohio. Mr. Pinchpenny—as some conservative legislators used to jokingly call the 17th District Representative—had come to Washington Court House on a cool autumn day in 1981 to address supporters of a candidate for the state legislature. I had decided to make the two-hour trip from Hamilton to write a feature story on Ashbrook for The Cincinnati Enquirer. Never mind that I had to be in Washington Court House at 7:30 a.m. that day. I did not care. John Ashbrook was, after all, a man in whom I had always believed. I saw him as one of our nation's true statesmen, a compliment I can give to only a few of our officials. Ashbrook was just different: A congressman who was not afraid to say what he really thought. This conservative was not about to change his views to suit the times. On that we could depend.

After he had spoken, Ashbrook shook my hand and I presented him with a Butler County Ashbrook For President Committee card. I printed it in 1972, when I was in college, but I'm afraid it was a committee of one. Ashbrook looked at the card, listened to what I said, and roared. Then we walked to a country restaurant to eat breakfast and talk. Somehow that morning I managed to take notes as I ate pancakes.

Ashbrook always had a lot to say. He was articulate and intelligent; the kind of spokesman the conservative movement needed in the 1960s and '70s. During our pleasant breakfast I determined that, despite his two decades in the House, this man was still in love with politics. Although he had won only a few major battles in the earlier years, he still kept a special enthusiasm for life and his beloved principles. Perhaps the most important thing about Ashbrook, however, was his honesty. Liberals have since written that they appreciated his lack of vindictiveness in the face of defeat, but what I liked was that philosophical honesty.

Ashbrook's fascination with politics seemed almost genetic. John Milan Ashbrook was born September 21, 1928, in Johnstown, Ohio, the son of Congressman William A. Ashbrook. As a boy growing up in rural Licking County, Ashbrook was surrounded by all things public. The seed was planted deeply.

In 1946 he was graduated from Johnstown High School, and soon after he entered the Navy and took part in the Byrd Antarctic Expedition. In two years he returned home and decided to attend Harvard College, where he earned a degree with honors. The next few years were busy ones. Ashbrook married Jean Spencer of Newark, and the couple had three daughters: Barbara, Laura and Madeleine.

In 1953 Ashbrook was named publisher of the Johnstown Independent, a weekly newspaper, and a short time later he published three other weeklies in central Ohio. He told me he always had wanted to be a reporter, but somehow he always kept finding other interesting jobs. His interest in the law and politics led him to Ohio State University, where he received a law degree in 1955. He then served two years as a special counsel to the Ohio attorney general.

Somehow, he found the time to serve as chairman of the board of deacons of the Johnstown Baptist Church, join numerous other fraternal and civic groups, and write a history of his high school.

But the political life continued to fascinate him. He sought and won a seat in the 102nd Ohio General Assembly in 1956, and won a second term in 1958.

By 1960, he wanted a voice in national politics. He entered a Congressional race and won that, too, but his election came at a dark time for conservatives. Richard Nixon had just been defeated by John F. Kennedy, and a period of liberalism was about to settle over Washington.

Perhaps this was fortunate for Ashbrook because he quickly developed a reputation as a strong conservative leader. He did not duck, either. He assisted in founding the Draft Goldwater organization in 1963 and sat on the steering committee of the Committee of One Million Against the Admission of Red China to the United Nations. He even helped organize the American Conservative Union and the Young Americans for Freedom, a major youth group.

A poll taken in 1970 showed Ashbrook was one of the five most respected conservative leaders in America.

That respect no doubt came because Ashbrook was not tentative on the issues. He was not afraid to lead unpopular causes. He assumed the chairmanship of the American Conservative Union in 1966, the same year he survived a redistricting by defeating twenty-two-year veteran Congressman Bob Secrest.

Through the years, Ashbrook refused to compromise his beliefs. Liberals referred to him as a conservative guerrilla fighter, adding his own amendments to their important legislation and fighting a rear guard action. But his finest hour came later.

In 1972, conservatives seemed at a low point. Richard Nixon had served one Term—he had campaigned as a conservative, by the way—and ignored most of the promises he had made. Yet he was immensely popular with most Republicans, especially in Ohio.

Ashbrook felt he had to demonstrate his dissatisfaction with the President, so the congressman entered selected Republican primaries as Nixon's opponent. Conservatives rejoiced; the party people sneered. Ashbrook flew off around the nation, saying Nixon was weakening an already weakened national defense.

I remember the headlines: "Can't Pardon Draft Evaders—Ashbrook"; "Naïve To Place Faith In Soviets, Ashbrook Says"; "Arms Treaty Boosts Ashbrook Race." And finally, this one: "Ashbrook's Fall Leaves President With Tight Hold."

Ashbrook did not enter these primaries to gain anything politically for himself. In fact, he stood to lose, if anything. Many Republicans were outraged by his outspoken opinions of Nixon. They saw Ashbrook as an insolent ideologist. Of course, they misunderstood him entirely, for he was not an insolent man. Nor, was he a political pragmatist, like Nixon. Ashbrook simply believed in risking everything over a matter of principle.

And in seeking the Presidency, he was left to standalone. The big-name conservatives, including Senator Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, supported Nixon. Only a few hard-line conservatives in the house dared speak out for Ashbrook.

After the Republicans had again crowned Richard Nixon king at their convention in Miami Beach, I read a story that quoted Ashbrook as saying he would go ahead and vote for Nixon in the November election. I promptly wrote and told him this statement was inconsistent with the typical Ashbrook thinking.

"I do not know what you read," Ashbrook replied. "I have come not to pay much attention to news broadcasts at present time. At no time have I said I would endorse, work for or even vote for Richard Nixon—or any other candidate from that standpoint. On several occasions reporters have categorically made this assertion despite my statements to the contrary. I guess it is normally assumed that this is done, so they really don't bother to ask me. I could not support McGovern, and if it were ultimately Nixon, it would be very reluctantly."

I will not stop to contemplate history. Let us just say that the years came and went, but John Ashbrook still held on to that seat in the Congress. That feat alone was enough to surprise him. "When the tide is rolling," he explained, "it is very unpopular to stand up. Big government was in its prime in the '60s, and I decided to stand up against it, no matter what. And for me to throw the Nixon thing again too…well, I was swimming upstream. In retrospect, though, running against an incumbent isn't all that bad. I did get 10% of the vote in California, Nixon's home state. I spread my message. So I guess you do not have to be on the winning side to be victorious."

Ashbrook eventually saw himself go from beleaguered defender of the conservative cause to one of the leaders of the new Right during the Reagan victory of 1980. Ashbrook felt that his side had finally achieved some success, but he wanted one more political prize: a seat in the U.S. Senate. To get it, he worked long hours. His calendar looked like an old-fashioned train schedule. He drove all over Ohio in his van, stopping at every tea and reception he could find. He was determined to defeat liberal Senator Howard Metzenbaum in 1982, and, considering the mood of the nation and Ohio, nobody was laughing at him for trying.

But Ashbrook never got the chance to participate in what he called a classical political contest of liberalism versus conservatism. He died in his office in Johnstown in April, 1982.

Americans of every political opinion praised him for his service to his country. President Reagan said, "John Ashbrook was a man of courage and principle." Congressman Philip M. Crane of Illinois said, "As a man governed by a set of ideals and values that were consistent with personal liberty, free enterprise, limited constitutional government, and a strong national defense, John could always join battle with those who disagreed with him. But his arguments focused on the issues and he did not challenge opponents' sincerity and equal conviction that they were right. Thus, he was on friendly terms with even his most ardent political foes."

Now a new library at Ashland College in Ohio bears the name of the John M. Ashbrook Memorial Library and Center for Public Affairs. Ashbrook's desk, office furniture and books are displayed on the top floor of the beautiful building. The conservative research center will serve scholars interested in understanding the policies of Ashbrook.

In years to come, I hope they will understand this: John Ashbrook was real. He meant what he said, stuck to his conservative principles, and voted as he believed—even if it meant risking everything. After all, he said, he could lose nothing but a seat in the Congress. He could always go home to his newspaper.

The experts always seemed to miss the point about Ashbrook. They said they could find no greater record of political futility. They said his twenty-one-year career was a continuing triumph of idealism over practicality, of principle over effectiveness. But even the editors of The Almanac of American Politics didn't understand.

John M. Ashbrook had deep ideals. He didn't believe anybody should be guaranteed a public office for a lifetime. I believe he was a political success, despite the record. As he wrote on my Ashbrook for President membership card that autumn day in 1981: We were not losers! — Randy McNutt

If the free nations of the world expect divine assistance in their efforts to retain their liberty, then dedication to basic moral tenets and respect for human rights must be exercised. Second, our self-preservation in the cold war compels us to turn to our advantage every abuse of the communist world. — Speech, House of Representatives, May 11, 1966

What liberal ideologist do you expect to be swayed by facts? — Column, 1976

I admittedly set higher standards and I am less willing to compromise. I just don't believe that everything can be compromised. — Column, 1971

In only the last two years our nation has built a budget deficit in the $100 billion range. Such unwarranted Federal spending must be brought under control. — Speech, House, December 6, 1977

We are gradually being brainwashed through semantics, and little by little we are coming to believe that government action and control are good and individual action is bad. One of these days we will wake up and believe that individual freedom is tyranny and government control is really liberty. It will largely have been accomplished by the polished art of political semantics. — Statement, August 24, 1972

Liberals are continually arguing that their racial quotas in labor and contracts are only to help minorities, not to hurt whites. This is insane. You simply cannot discriminate for somebody unless you discriminate against somebody else. — Speech, House, December 1, 1977

I guess I'm one of those who believes that promises, platforms and philosophies are important. As I have often said, kind of humorously, I wasn't one of those Republicans who could view something with alarm under Johnson and then point to pride under Nixon for the same thing. I'm afraid in parties that's the way it is. You criticize your opposition, but if your own side does the same thing, you overlook or accept it as a part of the political process. One of the reasons I'm skeptical about party politics is that unity comes first. If all you want is unity, let the Mafia run things, because they know how to keep things together. Unity should be based on principles, not necessarily on a Richard Nixon or a John F. Kennedy or a party. So I'm a strange breed. I'm a Republican, but I'm not a party man. The more I see parties, the more I think they sell people out. — Interview with Cathy Horyn, Denisonian, October 23, 1974

The legislative process is like everything else in life. Either it makes you conform to it or you stick to your principles. I feel I can work within the legislative process without conforming to its improper aspects. — Column, 1971

I believe there are several basic pitfalls that lie ahead and threaten our system of self-government. One is our mushrooming national debt. The other is arbitrary power. Our constitutional system was devised in such a way as to provide checks and balances. There are few checks on Federal judges, however. Once check is impeachment; the other, amending our constitution to limit judges' terms or bring them up for periodic vote of approval or disapproval. I favor using both routes and will discuss my constitutional amendment proposals at a later time. — Address in the House, January 31, 1978

Taxpayers' revolts, all of these things, I'm for them. People usually get mad, then frustrated, and then they get active. That's what we need. — Interview with Randy McNutt, October, 1980

There are times when an elected representative must take a position contrary to that of a majority of his constituents. But those times should be few and far between. Otherwise it is dishonest for one to run for an office whose purpose is to represent the people. — Address in the House, May 10, 1978

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this bill be defeated, but I know there will not be many members who will vote against it. I think the record at least ought to be made clear that someone in this chamber…does not think Mr. King should be memorialized on a coin—at least on a coin struck by the government which he attacked so much during his lifetime. — Reaction to legislation to provide commemorative coins for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., September, 26, 1978

I am an old line anti-communist. I have never changed and never will in my resolve to warn about our communist enemies. — Column, 1980

There has been no more consistent, planned theme of the communists and the far left than the "police brutality" theme. No matter what the circumstances, just yell "police brutality" long enough and many will believe it. The House Committee on Un-American Activities has fully documented this communist project over the years, but it has been amazingly successful. — Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 90th Congress, Second Session

Quite frankly, we are living in a fool's paradise. For some reason, the average American has been lulled into believing that we can have militant people going throughout the country exhorting to violence, preparing for violence, but yet not have violence; that we can in times of crisis and expediency set aside our constitutional principles but still have our constitutional protections when we need them; that we can follow no-win policies against the communists and somehow come out with a draw; that we can go three-fourths of the way to socialism or communism but not get there; and, finally, that we can spend more than we take in, year in and year out, but not have national bankruptcy. — House speech, June 6, 1968

The unions in our country think they are a government. They act like they are a government. They treat their own members like they are a government. They have amassed the power and perquisites of a government; and, sad to say, they are treated by the U.S. Government as though they are a government. All too many members of Congress fear their power, which is akin to that of a government. — Debate in the House, 1980

In 1962, I was one of the few legislators publicly critical of President Kennedy's handling of the Cuban situation. Emotional appeals in a crisis have often led to the buildup of Presidential power, and I have tried to be alert to these moves. On August 7, 1964, I went to the House prepared to vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, largely for the same reasons as my opposition to the handling of the Cuban crisis. My announced intention brought a panic among my friends. They offered a dozen reasons why I should vote for the resolution. After all was said and done, I joined the flock and for the first time voted other than the way my convictions dictated. The only argument that swayed me was that a negative vote would have put me in a small class with Wayne Morese and Ernest Gruening, for the same resolution had passed 88-2 in the Senate. Senator Fulbright now says he was misled. Four hundred other legislators give four hundred different reasons for their "wrong" vote. I wasn't misled. I was one of the few who was truly wrong that day, but since that time I have never worried about being in a small number whenever I thought the issue was right. — Column, 1971

Liberals simply are not concerned about human rights in a communist country. They fall for the Red line that economic—not political—rights are the test. Conservatives believe that human rights are universal, and that the hammer and sickle does not change the nature of murder, oppression and robbery. On this moral point there is no room for compromise. Nor is there common ground for discussion with those who hold humanity to be a relative matter. — House speech, April, 1978

I believe it is the right of the American people to know how the Soviet Union plans to destroy them. — Column, 1972

Freedom is not based on mindless fanaticism. Nor is anything decent based on an oppression of mind and body more intense and suffocating than the Inquisition at its height. Freedom requires the kind of people who would die rather than use a phrase like "so-called human rights…." — House speech, April, 1978

Having studied at Harvard and having been subjected to the idiocy they call liberal economics, I am very lucky because it was a vaccination that never took. Common sense ruled against their every argument and the passage of twenty-five years has shattered their illusions which they advocated with reckless abandon. — Column, 1976

The heart of the liberal argument has been an effort to rewrite history and shape human nature in their mold. Gresham's Law no longer applies, or so they say. Supply and demand, throw it out. Spend more than you take in forever, the Keynesians assert, and you will have increased prosperity. Bus your children, force integration, remove discipline a la Spock, coddle the criminals because they are victims of a repressive society. Give a man as much when he is not working as when he is working and he still will want to work, they say. All these liberal assumptions have not worked and they have brought our country to a precipice near disaster. — House speech, 1976

The difference between the conservative and the liberal is that the conservative worries about the future while the liberal worries about the next election. — Interview with Randy McNutt, 1981

Abortion is morally indefensible. It is destroying America's future, and it is really the opposite of everything that Congress exists to protect. — Delivered at the Ohio Right To Life's Congressional Breakfast, January 22, 1981

I think it is fitting that this Congress take time to honor the memory of freedom in the former nation of Ukraine. When the Soviet war machine is grinding the rights and freedoms of yet another sovereign nation under the treads of its tanks, we should remember the long road of aggression on which the Soviet communist empire is based. — Remarks in the House, January 24, 1980

Our country has strayed from many of the principles of the founding fathers. We have moved away from some of the basic values that made our nation great. It would seem appropriate for us in this Bicentennial era to rediscover and rededicate ourselves to the moral, spiritual and ethical values on which this country was built. — Newsletter to constituents, July, 1976

Those people who claim they are sensitive are the ones who have caused the poor and minorities to stay where they are. I am an intransigent believer that the liberal programs ostensibly set up to help the poor guarantee that the poor will stay where they are. — Interview, 1981

I do not think that backing establishment power against the people one is supposed to represent is an act of virtue. I think it is the betrayal of the trust our people place in us. — Response to hearing Senator Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., claim that the senators who voted for the Panama Canal Treaty did so in direct defiance of their constituents. May 16, 1978

The country needs those of us at the political extremes. I believe that the only way we can get honest debate in this country is through the exchange of ideas. — March, 1981

If men were angels, there would be no need for government. But if government has any legitimate functions, they are the quick and heavy sentencing of felons, the prevention of terrorist threats to the public safety, and the halting of communist imperialism. These are legitimate functions liberals have chosen to abandon and subvert, activities which are, in fact, necessary to ensure individual liberties. — June, 1981

Violence is being made credible by the left. Conservatives have always opposed it and we will continue to oppose it. — Newsletter, 1979

The best solution for recessions is for the Federal government to remove the ongoing constraints on the private sector of our economy. So many more people would start small businesses, so many more people would be employed, if there were not the mountain of paperwork, the maze of red tape and the staggering financial overhead from government regulations that serve as deterrents to growth. It is this fundamental area that we should be addressing. — Congressional Record, January 31, 1980

Statements on the life of Ho Chi Minh should be based on fact rather than figments of ill-informed imagination. Each of us can answer the question of his value by asking, "Would I have wanted to live under his rule?" — Editorial, Newark Advocate, September 19, 1969

During a period of détente we have to be particularly alert to the continuing threat of communist espionage, subversion and violence. The Soviets frequently use the phrase "relaxation of tensions." What they really mean is the relaxation of our guard. — House speech, January 30, 1974

The Internal Revenue Service has no authority to create public policy. There exists but a single responsibility which is proper for the IRS: to serve as tax collector. — Newsletter, 1979

To presume that growth in private education is the result of segregation is grossly unfair and an insult to our system of justice. — Remarks, the House, 1979

The road to peace has never been through appeasement, unilateral disarmament, or negotiation from weakness. Among the great nations only the strong survive. — House speech, June 4, 1975

I would probably be more conservative as a congressman than as a state legislator. This is because I believe there are a lot of things the states should do, but the U.S. government should not. — Interview with Randy McNutt, 1981

The vehicle exists to investigate the charges of Radio Free Europe as to additional thousands of captives in Soviet camps. This, of course, is the United Nations, which, as late as last Saturday, May 7, was used by the President in proposing a treaty for the peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies. Surely the alleged captivity of an estimated 250,000 human bodies takes priority in the scale of human values and warrants a fair and comprehensive investigation by an appropriate U.N. committee. Here is an unique opportunity for the United States to show moral leadership within the world body, using fair and peaceful means to right a grievous wrong. The burden of moral responsibility demands no less. — Speech, House, May 11, 1966

There are many people in our country who sincerely believe that communism is "not that bad." I have always felt that their judgment has been affected by their hopes. It is one thing to hope that the communists will change and work for world peace and yield to the aspirations of all people to be free. It is quite something else to base your national policy or risk your security on these hopes which are not realistic at this point in world history. The record of the communists clearly shows there is no basis for these hopes. — House speech, July 1, 1969

The professional smokescreen about peaceful trade continues. The plain fact is that irresponsible policies have built us an enemy and maintain that enemy in the business of totalitarian rule and world conquest. The tragedy is that intelligent people have bought the political double talk about world peace, a new world order and mellowing Soviets. I suggest that the man in the street, the average taxpayer and voter, thinks more or less as I do. You cannot subsidize an enemy. It requires a peculiar kind of intellectual myopia to ship supplies and technology to the Soviets when they are instrumental in killing fellow citizens. What about the argument that trade will lead to peace? Well, we have had United States-Soviet trade for over fifty years. The first and second five-year plans were built by American companies. To continue a policy that is a total failure is to gamble with the lives of several million Americans and countless allies. You cannot stoke up the Soviet military machine at one end and then complain that the other end came back and bit you. Unfortunately the human price for our immoral policies is not paid by the policy makers in Washington. The human price is paid by the farmers, the students, and working and middle classes of America—and our fighting men in Korea and Vietnam. The citizen who pays the piper is not calling the tune—he does not even know the name of the tune. So let me summarize my conclusions:

First. Trade with the USSR was started over fifty years ago under President Woodrow Wilson with the declared intention of mellowing the Bolsheviks. The policy has been a total and costly failure. It has proven to be impractical—this is what I would expect from an immoral policy.

Second. We have built ourselves an enemy. We keep that self-declared enemy in business. This information has been blacked out by successive administrations. Misleading and untruthful statements have been made by the executive branch to Congress and the American people.

Third. Our policy of subsidizing self-declared enemies is neither rational nor moral. I have drawn attention to the intellectual myopia of the group that influences and draws up foreign policy.

Fourth. The annual attacks in Vietnam and the wars in the Middle East are made possible only by Russian armaments and our assistance to the Soviets.

Fifth. This worldwide Soviet activity is consistent with communist theory. Mikhail Suslov, the party theoretician, recently stated that the current détente with the United States is temporary. The purpose of détente, according to Suslov, is to give the Soviets sufficient strength for a renewed assault on the West. In other words, when you have finished building the Kama plant and the trucks come rolling of, watch our for another Vietnam.

Sixth. Internal Soviet repression continues against Baptists, against Jews, against national groups, and against academics.

Seventh. Soviet technical dependence is a powerful instrument for world peace if we want to use it. So far it has been used as an aid-to-dependent Soviets welfare system. With about as much success as the domestic welfare program, too. But why should they stop supplying Hanoi? The more they stoke up the war the more they get from the United States. Not only do the Soviets get more good from the United States, they get them on credit. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is providing credits to the Soviet Union with an interest rate of six percent. It costs the bank seven and three quarters percent to raise that money that it lends to the Soviet Union. The U.S. subsidizes the Export-Import Bank, which means, of course, the American taxpayer is picking up the bill. While interest on mortgages are nine and one-half percent in many parts of the U.S., the Soviet Union gets loans at six percent on materials that it will use to defeat us. — House, October, 1973

The greatest mistake we make in seeking agreement with the Soviet Union at the Moscow summit is that once more we give credibility to the word and honor of the communists. Honor they do not have, but if we keep negotiating with them long enough, the world will come to believe that they are really decent people. Faith is a necessary ingredient of bilateral agreements, but we have not been able to trust the Soviet Union since 1917. I cannot put any confidence in the outcome of these talks because the communists are not honest. — Ashbrook's opinion of another U.S.-Soviet summit, written in his newsletter in 1972

John M. Ashbrook was a leader of the conservative movement for two decades. From the early 1960s to the early 1980s he never hesitated to speak out on the controversial issues facing America.

This book condenses his writings and comments. It is meant to be one concise reference, a handbook for conservatives and a historical work. Here we can see what issues troubled Ashbrook when he ran for President in 1972 and tried to restore some of our lost personal freedoms during his public career.

Although many of the articles are more than ten years old, we can still learn from them. Many of these issues remain alive today, or at least dormant. Congressman Ashbrook tells us how Americans got into trouble to begin with and what we must do to stay free.

Finding his material was not difficult. I had already collected many speeches, letters and articles since the late 1960s. Sometimes I would find myself referring to them to see what Ashbrook might have thought about a certain topic. Finally I decided to share these things with other conservatives and anti-communists.

Indeed, Ashbrook's ideas were significant to the cause. I had to compile, edit and condense them to fit into a slim book. The writing is that of John Ashbrook, however, a man who has been called modern Tom Paine, a man who dared speak out, even when such speech could have hindered his career.

This book then is not a valedictory but a tribute to an articulate conservative, a tough anti-communist, a molder of young minds. This book is the long career of U.S. representative John Ashbrook.

Material for this book came from Ashbrook's speeches in the U.S. House of Representatives and his newsletters to constituents. As always, he was candid in his review of foreign and domestic policies. He did not attempt to slant his remarks just because he happened to be writing about a Republican mistake. Perhaps this is the main reason why we can learn so much from his writings. The incidents he discussed are old, but the issues continue to affect us. The ideas of conservatism are developed clearly by Ashbrook, who refined those ideas for twenty years and influenced young minds. The Ashbrook conservative was born.

Here are the sources for this book's chapters:
"American Power"—newsletters, 1980.
"Rewriting History"—newsletter, April, 1978.
"Deadly Illusions"—newsletter and speech, May, 1980.
"How We Lost Military Superiority"—speech, October, 1973; newsletters, 1972.
"The Holocaust Revisited"—newsletters, 1978; speech, April, 1978.
"Why We Need Military Superiority"—speech, February 1, 1972.
"Deficit Destruction"—speech, February 1, 1972; speech, June 3, 1975.
"The High Cost of Federal Regulation"—speech, May 7, 1975; May 14, 1975; June 3, 1975.
"The Iron Triangle"—newsletters, 1976, 1978.
"On Lap Dogs and Reporters"—speeches, 1978.
"The New Revolt"—newsletter, April, 1980.
"Are Pro-Lifers Extremists?"—newsletter, April, 1980.
"The Single-Issue Movement"—newsletter, April 1980.
"The Federal Court Charade"—newsletters, 1978; speech, July 30, 1981.
"A New Beginning"—newsletters, 1981.