An Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul

by Laurence M. Vance

Member of Congress and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is the premier advocate for political and religious liberty in politics today. He is the most pro-life, pro-family, pro-property, pro-Constitution politician in history. If it is possible to be more Jeffersonian than Jefferson, then Ron Paul is the man.

On issues that are dear to the vast majority of Protestant Christians, Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above the other candidates. Consider just a few.

The Issues

Abortion: Ron Paul is a physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He not only opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and partial-birth abortion, he is against abortion itself. As he himself has said:

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Religion: Ron Paul has issued a statement of his personal faith that should satisfy Protestant Christians of any persuasion:

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

The reason we do not find very many references to religion in his writings and speeches is because, unlike President Bush, Dr. Paul does not cloak his political proposals with religious rhetoric in hopes of beguiling Christians.

Family values: Ron Paul lives his family values. Unlike Christian "leaders" like prophecy guru Hal Lindsey, who is on his fourth wife, and adulterous Republican politicians like the thrice-married Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years, and has five children and seventeen grandchildren. He also opposes same-sex marriage, and has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

Gun control: Ron Paul is the gun owners’ best friend. Not only has he consistently opposed the expansion of federal gun control laws, he has introduced in Congress the Second Amendment Protection Act to repeal unconstitutional federal laws that allow bureaucrats to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Dr. Paul opposes waiting periods, instant background checks, and government databases of gun owners.

Illegal immigration: Ron Paul is opposed to "open borders." He believes that the U.S. government should fight terrorism by first securing its own borders. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. But Dr. Paul is not anti-immigrant in any sense of the word. He believes that the immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. He joins the vast majority of Americans who welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English.

American Sovereignty: Ron Paul is against any form of a world government or a new world order. Because he believes that the United Nations is a corrupt organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government, he has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul likewise opposes the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SSP), the NAFTA Super Highway, and any form of a North American Union. He believes that these plans are the result of an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and government officials. Rather than resulting from the demands of the free market, they are an extension of government-managed trade schemes that benefit politically-connected interests. Dr. Paul also opposes foreign aid since it is generally nothing more than U.S. taxpayer dollars given away to corrupt foreign governments.

The Questions

So what gives? Why aren’t Protestant Christians lining up in droves behind Ron Paul?

It turns out that because Ron Paul opposes constitutional amendments banning abortion, same-sex marriage, and flag burning, some Protestants have been led to believe that he is not a real Republican. Some Christians think it inconsistent that Dr. Paul can oppose abortion but also oppose a constitutional amendment banning abortion, oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and oppose flag burning but also oppose a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning.

Because Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian and opposes the war on drugs, foreign aid to Israel, and the war in Iraq, other Protestants have come to the conclusion that he is not a genuine conservative. They assert:

• Ron Paul is a libertarian so he must be a libertine, or at least an advocate of alternative lifestyles.
• Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs so he must support drug use.
• Ron Paul opposes giving foreign aid to Israel so he must be either pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic.
• Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war so he must not support the troops.

These are false assertions.

The Answers

But if anyone is a real Republican and a genuine conservative it is Ron Paul. He has been elected to Congress ten times as a Republican. He is the former honorary chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on the conservative New American magazine’s "Freedom Index."

Unlike many in Congress who call themselves Republicans or conservatives, Ron Paul actually believes in strictly following the Constitution. Representative Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution – even if it means courageously casting the lone "no" vote. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. He has actively promoted the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. He is recognized as the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has also received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.

It is because Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution that he opposes the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance programs, warrantless searches, restrictions on freedom of speech, national ID cards, federal information databases, and what he calls the Homeland Security monstrosity. His congressional website lists "The Ron Paul Freedom Principles":

• Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
• Property should be owned by people, not government.
• All voluntary associations should be permissible – economic and social.
• The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
• Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
• The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s.

Ron Paul believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because abortion is simply not a constitutional issue. He doesn’t think there is any serious argument based on the text of the Constitution that there exists a federal "right to abortion." He maintains that the federalization of abortion law is not based on constitutional principles, but on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Since the federal government has no authority to involve itself in the abortion issue, a federal law banning abortion in the states would be just as wrong as Roe v. Wade.

Ron Paul believes that marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. He does not think social problems can be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Taken to its logical conclusion, the turning of regulation of domestic family relations over to the federal government means that presumably anything can be federalized. Because the federal government has only been granted limited, enumerated powers by the Constitution, Dr. Paul maintains that it has no role whatsoever regarding marriage law. Although the states should enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, they too should otherwise stay out of the marriage business. It should also be pointed out that Representative Paul was a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, which would have removed challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act (PL 104-99) was passed to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if the said marriage occurred in another state. Although Dr. Paul was not in Congress at the time the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, he has stated that he would have voted for it.

Like all patriotic Americans, Ron Paul despises flag burning. He believes that the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech that the majority considers to be offensive. Because he believes that freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property, Dr. Paul considers making flag burning a federal crime to be an attack on private property. However, he does support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning.

Ron Paul is against constitutional amendments banning abortion, same-sex marriage, and flag burning precisely because he is following the Constitution he swore allegiance to. Another reason he opposes these amendments is because he is an advocate of that forgotten constitutional principle of federalism. He considers the division of power between the federal government and the states to be one of the virtues of the American political system. To alter this balance would endanger self-government and individual liberty. Dr. Paul is in favor of letting state legislatures decide social policy because federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making. Following the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, he favors all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remaining with state legislatures.

Although some Protestant Christians think that because Ron Paul holds to many libertarian ideals that he is also a libertine, nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of libertarianism is that it is wrong to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property. Force is justified only in self-defense. Libertarianism, as explained by Murray Rothbard, the twentieth century’s greatest proponent of it, is a political philosophy that

holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.

Libertinism is a way of life that might be considered hedonistic or sympathetic to "alternative lifestyles." A libertine might be a libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, a socialist, a progressive, or an anarchist. He might be a member of the Libertarian Party, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, some lesser-known third party, or no political party. One does not have to be a Christian to oppose libertinism, as Walter Block has superbly shown. Conservative Republicans are not immune from libertine behavior, as we can see from the recent scandals in Congress.

Other Christians falsely believe that since Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs that he supports drug use. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows firsthand the harmful effects of mind-altering narcotics. He believes that drug addiction is a social problem, not a crime. He has pointed out that for the first 140 years of our country’s history we had no federal drug war yet far fewer problems with drug addiction and crime. Dr. Paul opposes the drug war because it encourages violence, has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation, has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money, has been used as an excuse to attack our civil liberties and personal privacy, has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy, has promoted illegal searches and seizures resulting in innocent people losing their lives and property, criminalizes the actions of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs, threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain, and corrupts our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system.

Some Protestants who consider themselves evangelicals have wrongly concluded that since Ron Paul opposes giving foreign aid to Israel he is pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic. Congressman Paul is opposed to giving foreign aid to Israel for the simple reason that he opposes giving foreign aid to any country. Foreign aid is, after all, money that has been taken from American taxpayers – money that most of them would not voluntarily send overseas if they had a choice. Any individual American who desires to assist someone in another country is perfectly free to do so. Dr. Paul’s perspective is that of the Founding Fathers: America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. He believes that our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife, conflict, and violence. Both sides have more military weapons as a result of our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid. Some of our foreign aid even winds up in the hands of terrorists. For more on Ron Paul and the question of foreign aid to Israel, see Walter Block’s "An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul."

Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war precisely because he supports the troops. He is a patriot in every sense of the word. He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance. And unlike many in the Bush administration who avoided military service, he served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. Because Dr. Paul loves this country and all of its people, he is opposed to endangering the life of U.S. soldiers in unnecessary foreign wars that only enrich federal contractors. He is therefore pro-life in an absolute sense. He believes that the best way we can support the troops is to bring them home, not just from Iraq, but from all of the countries in which the United States has troops stationed. Then Americans can proudly serve in the military knowing that they are engaged in real national defense.

It is conservative Republicans who support pre-emptive war, bloated defense and intelligence budgets, secret military tribunals, torture of "enemy combatants," extraordinary renditions, an increasingly militarized society, the violation of basic civil liberties, undue government secrecy, and domestic spying programs who are neither real nor genuine.

The Answer

Protestant Christians who love liberty, respect the Constitution, and believe in the freedom to live their live and practice their religion without the heavy hand of government hanging over their heads should be drawn to Ron Paul like a magnet.

As a Baptist myself, I realize that some Baptists don’t consider themselves Protestants. In this article I am using the term Protestant in its broadest sense. Therefore, this open letter is addressed to them as well. But religion or no religion, if your creed is liberty, then Ron Paul is the man.

November 14, 2007

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest publication is War, Foreign Policy, and the Church. Visit his website.

An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul

by Walter Block

Ron Paul favors the elimination of foreign aid to Israel. Many Jews, even those who favor free enterprise, individual rights and peace, thus oppose the most libertarian candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination for president. This enmity goes so far as to account for his being barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s candidates' forum. This is no doubt that this action was taken out of fear that if Congressman Paul’s policies are put into effect, they will be harmful to Israel.

At first blush, this seems reasonable enough. The U.S. gives lots of money to the Israeli government for use by its military, and if this were totally eliminated, it is not unwarranted to think that this country would thereby be weakened.

However, I contend that there are several good and sufficient reasons to doubt this popular belief. Consider the following.

I. Relative statistics

Dr. Paul by no means would single out the single country of Israel for an elimination of foreign aid. Much to the contrary, his is a thorough-going plan that would end this pernicious program for all countries. Indeed, each and every nation on the face of the earth that had been receiving U.S. tax dollars would be told that their ride on this particular gravy train had ended. Would this hurt Israel? Of course, at least in dollar terms (see below for the argument that foreign aid actually hurts the economies of the recipient countries). But, it would also harm every other recipient as well (I am still positing, arguendo, that foreign "aid" benefits recipient countries). In order to determine whether or not Israel would be better off or not, one must make a relativistic judgment. That is, will Israel lose more or less than its enemies?

The facts for a recent year appear below. Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005:

1. Israel 2.58 Billion

2. Egypt 1.84 Billion

3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion

4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion

5. Colombia 0.57 Billion

6. Sudan 0.50 Billion

7. Jordan 0.48 Billion

8. Uganda 0.25 Billion

9. Kenya 0.24 Billion

10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion

11. South Africa 0.19 Billion

12. Peru 0.19 Billion

13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion

14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion

15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion

16. Zambia 0.18 Billion

Israel, as can be expected, is right at the top of this list. It would lose $2.58 Billion, under President Paul’s administration (I have to confess that I really like the sound of that phrase. I think I’ll repeat it: President Paul’s administration. Perhaps this sounds even better: President Ron Paul’s administration. Or maybe this: The Administration of President Ron Paul? Okay, okay, back to business, now.) However, let us add up the amounts received by only these few countries, all of them mainly populated by either Muslims and/or Arabs:

2. Egypt 1.84 Billion

3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion

4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion

6. Sudan 0.50 Billion

7. Jordan 0.48 Billion

If we do so, we arrive at the figure of $4.5 Billion. So, yes, Israel will lose $2.58 Billion, but its enemies, both actual and potential, are out of pocket a far larger $4.5 Billion. If we sum up the amounts received by all countries which harbor anti-Semites, we reach a much higher figure. If we define this broadly enough, this might well include just about every other nation on earth. No matter what statistics we consider, Israel is relatively strengthened by the Ron Paul policy on foreign aid. It loses, but its actual and potential enemies lose more. Thus, it becomes relatively stronger. Note, also, that these figures do not include the vast amounts currently spent by the U.S. on and in Iraq and Palestine, certainly no friends of Israel.

II. Private giving

There is nothing, nothing at all, in Ron Paul’s program that would even in the slightest interfere with private foreign charitable giving. In other words, Jews in the U.S., and non-Jewish American supporters of Israel, would be just as free as at present, to donate to this country. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that these private gifts to Israel would increase, not decrease. For one thing, with the slight (foreign aid comprises only in the neighborhood of 1% of GDP) reduction in taxes this would imply (in a Ron Paul administration, such savings would be funneled into lower taxation, not into other programs; did I mention that I really like the sound of that phrase, a Ron Paul administration?) more disposable income for all. Since Jews are in higher income brackets than the average person, and we presently suffer under a progressive income tax (which, by the way, would also be ended by President Paul) the largest donors to Israel would have even more income at their disposal. Then, too, this community might be so upset at this action of President Paul (I really like the way that phrase rolls off the tongue; ah, the sheer alliteration!), unwisely so, but still, so that they would donate additional monies.

III. Foreign aid weakens the economy

If we learn anything from Peter Bauer, it is that government-to-government transfers of income do not constitute foreign "aid." Very much to the contrary, they typically amount to foreign detriment. Much of the money goes to the three Ms: monuments, Mercedes and machine guns. The first need not be in the form of a statue of the leader: it could also take the form of a mill that produces steel at a multiple of the price available on world markets. The second includes not only automobiles, but also, invariably, engorged Swiss bank accounts. And the third is usually utilized by third-world dictators to keep the citizenry in thrall. Then, too, while foreign "aid" is a small part of the donor’s economy, it accounts for a large percentage of that of the recipients’. Instead of the best and brightest of their young people aiming at careers that can help economic development (doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs), they engage in training that will help them divert some of the boodle to themselves, and their relatives and friends (civil servants, lawyers, bureaucrats).

In Israel, the main negative implication of U.S. largesse has been promotion of socialism. Had our country not been financially supporting a heavily unionized and socialized economy in Israel, these policies would likely have never been as large as they were, and would have diminished much sooner. There are strong empirical illustrations attesting to the correlation between size of government and economic regulations, on the one hand, and attenuation of the economy on the other (Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975–1995, Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute. For a non-empirical treatment of this phenomenon, see Smith, Adam. [1776] 1979. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund).

That is, without U.S. "aid" to Israel, the economy of the latter would have been stronger. But a richer country is usually a safer country. One of the effects of Dr. Paul’s policy, then, would be the strengthening of the Israeli economy.

IV. The U.S. handcuffs Israeli policy

Because of its monetary transfers to Israel, the U.S. is in a position to dictate policy to its client state. Sometimes, perhaps, maybe, this is in the best interests of the nation of Israel. At least, it does not constitute a logical contradiction to entertain such a notion. But there are numerous cases where the U.S. has obviously handcuffed the Israelis, not to the benefit of the latter, at least as the Israelis saw their own best interest.

Perhaps the most famous example of this phenomenon is when Eisenhower forced the British, French and Israelis to pull back from their invasion of Suez in 1956.

According to one historian: "President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt." Forget about the rights and wrongs of the matter; they do not concern us. My point is that it is extremely difficult to interpret this little episode as being in the best interests of the security of the state of Israel, at least insofar as the leaders of that country saw their own best interests in this regard.

A more recent case in point took place when Condoleezza Rice forced the Israelis to postpone the bombing of a possible nuclear facility in Syria. This was done in the context when the Israelis certainly saw quick action as being in their national interest. According to a news report:

"A mysterious Israeli military strike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria last month was opposed by Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, because she feared it would destabilise the region, according to a report this weekend.

"Rice persuaded the Israelis to delay their operation…"

Say what you will about these two events, which are only the tip of a very large iceberg, it cannot be denied that they constitute a serious drawback to the safety of Israel, at least in terms of how the Israelis themselves see their own best interest. Needless to say, this sort of interference would come to a complete, abrupt and utter halt under a Ron Paul presidency.

V. Guarantor

Forget about the money, at least for a moment. The U.S. also provides Israel with a guarantee: any country trying to overrun Israel will have to deal with the armed might of the U.S. Iran, the member of the "evil axis" du jour, had better watch out.

But just how good are U.S. guarantees? As but one example you can ask the Vietnamese who supported the U.S. incursion into their country all about that.

Would an Israel completely untied to the apron strings of the U.S. be able to take care of itself? There seems little doubt that not only would Israel be able to defend itself, it would be more able to do so without the U.S. continually orchestrating matters in a paternalistic manner.

How about in the face of nuclear-armed Iran? An Israel able to operate on its own, without a by your leave from Uncle Sam, might be better able to prevent just such an occurrence. If not, that nation has its own nuclear weapons at its disposal. If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could endure decades of cold war, with only Mutual Assured Destruction keeping the "peace," it may well be that Israel and its Arab neighbors will have to go through the same process. At the very least, this present tossing of missiles from Gaza over to Israel would have to come to an end; it would be far too dangerous in a Middle Eastern MAD. Without the U.S. in the neighborhood, the major Muslim/Arab powers such as Iran/Egypt, Syria would never tolerate such risky acts.

Having given several reasons for doubting that Ron Paul’s program would harm Israel, let us move on to a conclusion.

Perhaps, if Ron wanted to help Israel vis-à-vis its enemies, it would end government to government transfers of income to that country, and double or triple it to every other nation, particularly to its most vociferous enemies. With the poison of foreign "aid" applied to its enemies, but not to Israel, the latter might become even the more strengthened relative to them. This is an interesting speculation. But this is not part of Ron Paul’s program. For one thing, there is nothing in the Constitution allowing, let alone requiring, such a policy. (Ron really ought to give a free copy of this document to his Republican debating partners.) For another, it is highly incompatible with libertarian prohibitions against stealing.

The action of the Republican Jewish Coalition in barring Ron Paul from their debate was thus a shonda for the goyim. A disgrace. We Jews are supposed to be the people of the book. That is, open to intellectual dialogue. How is it possible to reconcile this with a refusal to hear out one of the major Republican candidates for the presidency. I urge all Jewish Republicans and libertarians to express their dissatisfaction with this act, and to join Jews for Ron Paul.

Note the narrow scope of this article. I am not engaged in any discussion of shoulds or oughts. I take no position, whatsoever, on whether Eisenhower was justified in forcing an end to the Suez crisis, nor whether Condoleezza Rice was justified in postponing the more recent Israeli bombing of (possible) Syrian nuclear installations. I am addressing myself solely to the narrow question of whether Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate all foreign aid will likely help or hurt Israel. The mainstream Jewish community fervently believes the latter. And this to such a degree that they have acted disgracefully by barring Dr. Paul from their debate. With leaders like that, the Jewish community in the U.S. hardly needs enemies.

November 3, 2007

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable.

Paul leads in donations from military voters, with Obama next

Houston Chronicle | October 18, 2007
By BENNETT ROTH, RICHARD S. DUNHAM and CHASE DAVIS

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, the congressman from the Houston area who opposes the Iraq war, has gotten more contributions than any other White House contender from donors identified as affiliated with the military.

According to a Houston Chronicle analysis of campaign records from January through September, Paul received $63,440 in donations from current military employees and several retired military personnel.

Democrat Barack Obama, another war critic, was second in military giving. The Illinois senator got $53,968 during the nine months.

He was followed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, a decorated Navy pilot and former Vietnam prisoner of war, who received $48,208 in military-related giving. McCain has been one of the most vigorous defenders of President Bush's decision this year to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.

The military contributions — nearly 1,000 of them are listed in Federal Election Commission records for this year — represent a small fraction of the overall contributions to the candidates.

Paul, whose campaign Web site notes his military service as a flight surgeon in the Air Force in the 1960s as well as his opposition to the current war, raised a total of $5 million from July through September alone. Also, many contributors do not disclose their occupations, making it difficult to determine the total extent of military contributions to any one candidate.

Nevertheless, analysts said the ability of Paul and Obama to rake in as much money from military employees as they did suggests there is a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the Iraq campaign among veterans and those in uniform.

One of the contributors to Paul's campaign was Lindell Anderson, 72, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth, who donated $100 to the Texas lawmaker.

"As a Christian, I think he speaks to a theme that the United States shouldn't be the policeman of the world," said Anderson.

Anderson said he strongly disagrees with Republicans who call Paul anti-military: "He spent five years in the military. People in the military have to respect his integrity" whether or not they agree with him on the war.

But an official with the American Legion, the veterans' service organization that has supported the Iraq war, said she didn't know why military employees support Paul.

"I don't know the rhyme or reason behind it," said Ramona Joyce. "It's America. Anybody can throw their money at who they want to."

At the Texas headquarters of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Austin, state adjutant Roy Grona said military personnel do not vote as a bloc.

"There's probably a lot of veterans that aren't happy with the war in Iraq," he said.

Grona said Paul has been endorsed by the VFW in his congressional races in part because of his support for veterans' benefits.

The average size of Paul's contributions from military sources is $500, with donations ranging from $50 to the maximum $2,300.

More than a third of Paul's military-related contributions came from Army affiliates; a third came from the Air Force; and a fourth from Navy donors. The rest came from affiliates of the Marines and other branches.

Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the non-partisan Cook Political Report, speculated that Paul might be an attractive candidate for military personnel who oppose the war, "but don't want to cross the line and vote for a Democrat."

Paul has made withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a criticism of aggressive U.S. foreign policy central themes of his maverick campaign.

Kent Snyder, Paul's campaign chairman, said the contributions were evidence that many in the military agreed with the candidate's position.

"I guess they want to get out of Iraq, too," said Snyder.

Texas A&M political science professor George C. Edwards III attributed support for Obama among the military to the factors that he attracts support from many black voters, and blacks are a bigger proportion of the military than their overall share of the national population.

Edwards, who was a guest professor at West Point for three years, said "an awful lot of people in the military just think this war has been a disaster for the Army."

He said they believe the war has "stretched it thin, used its supplies and has been bad for morale."

"They may be quite upset and this is a way they can do something about it," he said.

Obama's support came from across the military, including a squad leader in the Army, a member of the Navy stationed at the U.S. embassy in Iraq, and state Rep. Juan Garcia, a Democrat from Corpus Christi.

Garcia, a retired Navy pilot, serves as an instructor at the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi with the Naval Reserves.

"The men and women of the military are looking for a leader like Barack Obama who will turn the page on foreign policy and national security issues," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.

Edwards attributed McCain's backing to his being "a former military guy." McCain received the largest number of supporters from Navy, in which he served.

"John McCain has extremely strong support among veterans, especially in the early primary states," spokesman Brian Rogers said. "He's a veteran himself and he's been there for them on the issues for over 20 years."

chase.davis@chron.com