VFW-PAC, you suck
I got an email last night from Bev Perlson (Band of Mothers) that reported that the VFW-PAC (the political action committee of the Veterans of Foreign Wars) is supporting Democrat Ron Klein. Now, just because he’s a Democrat, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t merit the VFW’s support. Of course, being a rich lawyer from Boca Raton doesn’t exempt him either. Neither does the fact that he’s never served a day in the military. Reading his bio, I don’t think he’s ever laid eyes on anyone else in the military.
What makes the VFW-PAC’s choice so heinous is the fact that Klein, the rich lawyer from Boca Raton, is running against former Lieutenant Colonel Allen West. You know Lieutenant Colonel West don’t you? He’s an infantry colonel and a veteran of the wars in the Persian Gulf – you know those FOREIGN WARS? He’s a veteran of a war that was foreign – so I can see why the Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee wouldn’t support him.
So, of course, i went to the (PDF) list of candidates that VFW_PAC is supporting and I find they’re also supporting Barbara Boxer, Alcee Hastings, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulsky, Chris VanHollen, John Dingell, Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy and Patty Murray – it’s like a Who’s Who of the folks who have tried to screw the troops and have contributed to the lengthening of the war in the east.
Oh, yeah, COB6, they’re supporting your guy’s opponent, too.
So I have to ask, as a life member of the VFW, who the Hell is running that place over there? I remember the VFW wasn’t all that concerned about the Homeland Security estimate that veterans are a threat to our national security and now I see this. Me, personally, I wouldn’t endorse Alcee Hastings, the impeached judge, for town drunk…so what the hell is the VFWPAC thinking?
Contact information for VFW PAC which is different from any VFW contact information you might have;
VFW-PAC
VFW Washington Office
200 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Tel. (202) 544-5868
Fax (202) 544-8495
Email: vfwpac@vfw.org
Faxes and phone calls are better than emails.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Sounds alot like VoteVets…makes me glad I don’t belong to the VFW and now I’m even more sure I won’t join, I’ll just stick with the American Legion thank you…
October 7th, 2010 at 9:27 am
On what planet does anyone support Jim McDermott?
That list must be from the Onion! You guys fell for a hoax.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:34 am
I’m a member of the AL and DAV for the simple reason I don’t like VSO’s that endorse politicians or political causes like the VFW and AmVets. I’m more concerned with active duty and Vet issues and fighting for them. Individual support is fine, but not as an organization.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:40 am
It’s the VFW’s PAC, not the VFW. If I’m not mistaken, AL has a PAC, too. DAV is just blatantly pro-Democrat/anti-Republican.
October 7th, 2010 at 9:56 am
So the PAC is unaffiliated with the organization? If they wish to alienate that many vets I’d get a little pissed if I were the VFW, they make it seem like they represent the VFW with a name like that…
October 7th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Al DOES NOT HAVE A PAC.
Never has, never will. Too much of a nightmare.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I had been on the fence about joining the VFW. After reading this, I will not become a member. I will be danged if this is how they spend their political money.
I will stick with being a Legion member.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I’m also a lifetime member of the VFW, and the douchenozzles at the VFW PAC (supposedly unaffiliated with the VFW) endorsed Carol Shea-Porter (aka Che-Pelosi) in my CD. This over the HOWLING objections of not only the rank and file members of the VFW but also pretty much every current and former state level officer.
They pulled the same shit in 2008 when the VFW told the PAC that we wanted to support Jeb Bradley over her, and they claimed to have “lost” the fax.
Looking at the list that was printed in my latest VFW mag I got on Monday, it looks like a who’s-who of moonbats. Harry Reid? AYFKM?
VFW PAC is looking more and more like an AARP with DD-214′s; aka, “Where’s MY free shit?”
October 7th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Old Navy Guy–I wish the list were a hoax.
http://vfwwebcom.org/blog/38769/
October 7th, 2010 at 11:02 am
I too am a VFW member, and I think I can speak for the rank and file of my Post, when I say that the PAC does not speak for us at all. As Sparky said, its a bunch of induviduals just looking for the next handout.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:07 am
And every single one of y’all omitted the fact that the VFW-PAC is also endorsing Nancy Pelosi!! I’m seriously re-considering my affiliation with the VFW.
Ohh, and get this: the Texas VFW has an Accidental Death and Dismemberment Policy. To qualify, one must fill out an online form. It’s in both English AND Spanish!! Last I knew, ALL military members were required to be able to speak, read and write in English. See for yourself: https://www.ailife.com/benefits/secure/SGMJZ/enroll.asp Fully endorsed by the Texas VFW!! >:(
October 7th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Let’s see, Harry Reid, Alan Grayson, John Methusela Dingell, Gary Peters, Mark Schauer, Babsie Boxer, Alcee Hastings, Chuck-U Schumer, Bobby Rush, Patty Murray, Patrick Leahy, Loretta Sanchez, why didn’t the VFW-Pac just say, we picked mostly incumbents because we’re too lazy to do any research. Because Alan Grayson has been such a great friend of the military? Babs, Call me Senator, Boxer?
Hell, I doubt that Gary Peters or Mark Schauer even know there is a military.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:15 am
The only thing we can do is boycott the VFW and let them know why we are doing that. LTC West is a true American Patriot. He lost his career in the military to save his soldier’s lives. If the VFW cant support that, they are not really what they claim to be. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AROUND HERE LATELY????? I swear this country has lost its frikken mind.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:37 am
VFW-PAC, you suck
October 7th, 2010 at 11:39 am
dissapointing, and the NRA has endorsed some bad apples too.
October 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
They endorsed gerry connolly, a tax and spend liberal in VA-11. What a freaking joke. It seems that they endorsed every incumbent and none of the challengers.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Anybody got some contacts for them? They won’t listen unless and until we let them know DIRECTLY that they’re screwing with their livelihood by alienating their membership.
October 7th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Did any of you reaed this BULLSHIT statement on their website?
“The VFW-PAC is dedicated to the support of candidates who have taken responsibile positions on issues involving national defense and legislation pertaining to our nation’s veterans.”
October 7th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
vfw@vfw.org
info@vfw.org
foundation@vfw.org
LET EM HAVE IT!!!!!
October 7th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I just called the VFW HQ. Evidently the PAC is getting swamped with calls and I was directed to leave my name and phone number for a return call, which I did. I want their explanation as to why they feel it’s necessary to endorse anti-military,non-prior military,and anti veteran politicians. That’s just bat-shit crazy. I’m a life member of the VFW and I’m seriously thinking of sending my card back with a resounding “FUCK YOU”.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Dont hold anything back GIJANE;) We had issues here with the local vfw having a faker as MFIC so I didnt join, but I would definately send them that kind of “thank you” card if ZI had one.
October 7th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Dropped them a line as well on my lunchtime. They didn’t seem all that happy to hear from me. Wonder why.
And yeah, I talked to one of the VFW folks in my town (former state commander) who got jammed when he tried to get the VFW PAC to endorse Jeb Bradley over Che-Pelosi in my district in 2008. He’s as pissed about it this time as he was in 2008, and our sentiments are shared by quite a few of the folks at both the VFW and American Legion (most of us belong to both here.)
October 7th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
The VFW sounds like it’s structured like the unions, in that the rank and file are normal and either ‘moderate’ or conservative in their politics, but the leadership is radical Left.
How does this happen? How does the leadership get its power? How is it that the majority of members of the military are right-leaning, yet the leadership of their veterans groups seem to be radical Left? Isn’t there a member vote for leadership?
Also, why do people even bother joining these groups? What kind of benefits do you receive, if any? Why are these groups in existence?
Personally, I could care less what kind of benefits the groups provide, as their support of Communist, America-hating, military-hating politicians trumps anything else.
October 7th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
The VFW’s are fragmented. You will find that the national organization is out of touch and not arm in arm with your local post. In my opinion the VFW should have an expanding role in our society. We have a missing link in our culture where warriors are concerned. This is an organization for warriors. You can go there and talk to somebody who also saw the things that make the warrior experience unique. Some people don’t need it some don’t know they need it. Both are welcome.
October 7th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I will forward this to my local Post Commander. He’s a pretty strong Conservative, even though he’s from California. The majority of my comrades are, too. I’m the Post Quartermaster. We have one die-hard liberal, but he’s more the old-fashioned Dem type liberal, not the new-fangled “progressive liberal”.
I might have to agree with “Non-Combatent’s” statement. The National and State level VFW orgs are way out of touch with the local levels. (Hmmm, sounds kind of like our Congress & Senate, huh??)
October 7th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Well it sounds like if we put the pressure on higher at the vfw, the way we are with congress, we may get a new breed of folks at the higher levels. The only way to make that happen is too hurt them. Stop giving money to them until they come out on the media and apologize for endorsing a civilian over a COMBAT VET. Next step, put real veteran oriented folks at the higher levels. Until they do that, they should feel the financial pinch.
JMHO
October 7th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
“We have a missing link in our culture where warriors are concerned. This is an organization for warriors. You can go there and talk to somebody who also saw the things that make the warrior experience unique.”
==========
Agreed that there is a missing link in our culture with regards to the military. So, in that sense, it is great that there are organizations where military members can go to share stories and commiserate and bond over shared experiences, values, etc.
That said, just like any other group, politics plays a big part of military members’ lives (or at least it should). So if on one hand the veterans groups are helping military members on a personal level, but on the other hand are stabbing them in the back by making their lives worse by supporting Communists, anti-Capitalists and military-hating politicians, that doesn’t even out.
Or, is that the purpose of these veterans organizations now? They want to help make life so miserable for veterans by making our government and culture so anti-military that veterans are forced to join these groups and stay in these groups — and, more importantly to the groups, pay their annual fees — in order to survive?
As I said before, it sounds like union leaders or Black community leaders. They want their members to stay dependent on them, so they support government ideology which will keep their members dependent on their groups.
October 7th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN CONTACTING VFW-PAC to tell them what a great job they are doing endorsing candidates, call the VFW PAC at (202) 544-5868 ( note 202 area code is Washington DC )
October 7th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
[...] Membership for the VFW. I feel like they have completely left us at the station here. Over at the Farm Team, Jonn Lilyea lays out just who the VFW has announced they are supporting: Barbara Boxer, Alcee [...]
October 7th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
LTC West wasn’t a nasty infantryman. He was an artilleryman, adding dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
I served under his command when my battery was attached to his battalion in ’03, so the VFW handed out something of a personal insult.
October 7th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Just in time for their 2011 membership renewal drive!
October 7th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
There is absolutely zero excuse for VFW-PAC, and by association, VFW-National, to support the likes of Nancy Pelosi (along with so many others on that list).
But the means to change that are not through throwing away your membership. The VFW elects its leadership and it is time that Veterans take back their organization.
The VFW belongs to its members and it should be led on the principles of those members. It is an organization steeped in honor, an important institution that is slowly dying off for want of the next generation. Get in there and let National know that this will not be tolerated.
October 7th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Comrads:
It appears that a criteria for earning an endorsement from “VFW-PAC” is that the candidate vote “yea” on specific legislation that is before the body.
I think that the endorsement criteria is the source of the problem, and should be reviewed by the Board of Directors of VFW-PAC.
In the interim, voters will make the final decision in this election cycle. If current members of VFW express themselves by not continuing their affiliation with the VFW and to discourage potential new members not to join the VFW, then maybe the VFW will change this criteria.
October 7th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Comrads:
It appears that a criteria for earning an endorsement from “VFW-PAC” is that the candidate vote “yea” on specific legislation that is before the body.
I think that the endorsement criteria is the source of the problem, and should be reviewed by the Board of Directors of VFW-PAC.
In the interim, voters will make the final decision in this election cycle. If current members of VFW express themselves by not continuing their affiliation with the VFW and to discourage potential new members not to join the VFW, then maybe the VFW will change this criteria.
October 7th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
embittered redleg Says:
October 7th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
LTC West wasn’t a nasty infantryman. He was an artilleryman, adding dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.
I served under his command when my battery was attached to his battalion in ‘03, so the VFW handed out something of a personal insult.
I was there as well. I served with Bulldog Troop, 1/10 Cav, 03-04, HOOAH! Didnt know LTC West personally, but we knew that what he did should have been rewarded instead of him being relieved of command.
Just kidding, dont shortline the next fire mission!
As far as “adding dignity to a vulgar brawl” We just kept yall redlegs around to pull KP for the CAV.
October 7th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
One of the WA dept officers is a member of my post. This list should make for some interesting conversation at the post tonight
October 7th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Interesting Brochhure. We support this behavior by VFW-PAC with our dues. http://www.vfwpac.org/Fundraising%20Brochure.pdf
October 7th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
My Step-Father, a former VFW State Commander, has very little good to say about the PAC. Seems they answer to about nobody and that is about who they represent. Lets melt those douches phone lines.
October 7th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Combat Vets: It is Time to Take Back Your VFW!…
Partisan Politics have divided this Nation and they have divided Our Combat Veterans, but when my VFW Post was witnessing distressing changes, an old Viet Nam Vet pulled me aside and said: “This Post is yours. It belongs to its members. It belongs to …
October 7th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Sounds like your VFW-PAC was infiltrated and taken over by liberal Democrats to use as a political tool.
October 7th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I agree with War on Terror News. Take it back don’t tear it down
October 7th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Re: Michael in MI’s comments.
I went to a function a couple of years ago where I got to meet five living Medal of Honor recipients. In short I was embarrassed by one of them when I complained about the level of support most disabled veterans get. I was told that these heroes spend most of there time trying to raise funds for acute needs cases. The VA will give you a fake leg. but it would be the equivalent of a 72 pinto compared to whats available. These are young people who want to be active they need the best. Any lying politician that votes for more funding for returning warriors is one up on the rest of the lying bastards.
Out Here
October 7th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
@NoNCambatent, you spelled noncombatant wrong.
October 7th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Dohhh!!!
October 7th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
“Any lying politician that votes for more funding for returning warriors is one up on the rest of the lying bastards.”
==========
I’m not sure I follow.
Are you saying that if a politician votes for Cap-and-Tax to tax the hell out of the entire nation for a bullshit hoax, votes to nationalize healthcare to destroy our healthcare system and jack up the cost of healthcare for everyone in the nation, votes for higher taxes on “the rich” which ends up hurting small businesses as well as every other company which leads to massive unemployment… all that’s okay, so long as the politician votes for legislation to fund returning vets?
Sorry, but I can’t agree with that at all.
However, if I misunderstood what you meant, please explain a little more.
I’m all for supporting the military, but the military benefits from a healthy economy just like everyone else and is hurt by a recession and depression just like everyone else. As I said, if a politician is voting to fund military matters, but also voting to destroy the national economy (and healthcare with BS like Obamacare and the energy industry with BS like Cap-and-Tax), the former does not one up the latter.
October 7th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I have not heard a word about this in my post,if true,it seems as though a sellout is in the works.
I am capt.of the post honor guard thus not into the political side of things.I do the funeral services,and that is where my affiliation ends.I don’t know about politics,but what hasbeen described here is not what i understand the V.F.W.is or about.I will ask around,believe me!thanks for the information.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:16 am
EE-
Be on the look tomorrow..it’ll be a bit more expanded..we’ve gotten lots of feedback…
October 8th, 2010 at 2:16 am
Ed, as a first step, I’d suggest printing out the VFW-PAC’s list of endorsements. That would make asking around a whole lot easier for you. And, maybe some other members of your post would like the info.
October 8th, 2010 at 5:22 am
[...] VFW-PAC, you suck October 7th, 2010 [...]
October 8th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Michael in MI
I have heard so many people tell me and even said it myself. This is going to “destroy” health care, or small business or whatever. To me the biggest blow to our “healthcare system” was the rise of the massive insurance companies. Care became unaffordable and insurance mandatory. They, the insurance companies, won that fight by making lobbiest into a way of life for us. In the meantime we have animosity between us while the corporations, and there lackey politicians, make record profits. “Record Profits” all the while screaming about the restrictions and taxes. We have an issue driven political atmosphere that contains very little in the way of ideology. I feel like a dolfin jumping at the mackeral without knowing I’m in a fish tank. By the way, having a socialist member of the legislature is exactly how the constitution is designed. That socialist can do nothing to change our form of government they can bring their socialist ideas to the floor but as long as we are here to protect the constitution and the bill of rights there is no danger to our brilliant form of government. Don’t believe the hype. Vote instead and hold the politicians, on both sides, accountable.
October 8th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Incidentally I have to say I disagree with the PACs action based solely on the fact that the opponent was a former respected officer. I would think this would be a pro-veteran candidate. Take back the PAC!
October 8th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
To me the biggest blow to our “healthcare system” was the rise of the massive insurance companies. Care became unaffordable and insurance mandatory. They, the insurance companies, won that fight by making lobbiest into a way of life for us. In the meantime we have animosity between us while the corporations, and there lackey politicians, make record profits. “Record Profits” all the while screaming about the restrictions and taxes.
==========
What “record profits”? The health insurance industry doesn’t make any more profit than any other industry out there. And how do you think we have all our amazing advancements in medicine and technology? It comes from using the profits and putting them into R&D.
The way to bring down costs for insurance is to (1) increase competition among insurance companies (ie allow purchasing of insurance across State lines) and (2) tort reform.
Those are just two reforms that could massively help to bring down costs. But did the Democrats do that? No. They rejected those options outright and instead pushed a nationalized healthcare system and a single-payer system, systems which have been proven to be massive failures everywhere in the world where they have been tried.
And it is a fact that a nationalized, single-payer system will destroy the private insurance industry, putting it out of business and leaving people with the only option of going on government health care system. Costs go up, quality goes down, waiting time goes up, major rationing occurs to save the government money.
America has the best health care in the world. Does it need tweaks? Sure. But it does not need to be completely scrapped and replaced with the worst health care system in the world, single-payer nationalized healthcare. Doing that will make health care worse for everyone, military families included.
That socialist can do nothing to change our form of government they can bring their socialist ideas to the floor but as long as we are here to protect the constitution and the bill of rights there is no danger to our brilliant form of government.
Riiiiight. That’s why we have socialists in charge of the House, Senate and White House right now. And they have brought their socialist ideas to the floor and changed our nation for the worse. Let’s start with the CRA and how it affected the housing industry. The Democrats defense of Fannie/Freddie and use of it to force lenders to lend to people who should not have gotten loans. This lead to the crash in the housing market. Then there’s the refusal to go with a proven solution for job growth — cut tax rates for everyone, including “the rich” who provide jobs for everyone — and instead spend us into massive debt with the “Stimulus” and extending unemployment ‘benefits’, which do nothing to create job growth, despite what Nancy Pelosi says.
No danger? We’re past that now. The danger has already occurred and we’re now paying for it… and our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for it as well.
You say that “as long as we are here to protect the constitution and the bill of rights there is no danger to our brilliant form of government”. And that’s my point. The VFW-PAC (and VoteVets and IVAW and any other veterans organization supporting Democrats) is not protecting the Constitution and Bill of Rights by endorsing socialist Democrats in elections.
October 8th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
The top five insurance companies in 2009, made an average of 12 billion dollars … in profits, that is right, after paying everybody and the lights and water and ads to tell us not to believe in health care and R&D they made 12 billion which is 50 percent higher than in 2008. That was a record. I don’t begrudge them the profits, this is a capitalistic environment. Hell yea make some money. Just don’t expect me to believe you made all that money as a favor to me. I remember when medical care was affordable. We had the best healthcare in the world then. And it didn’t cost a tenth of what it does now.
The housing industry was trashed by the lenders. In their quest for profits they were only focused on the short term loan sales end of the market. These are the predictable results of such short sighted actions. The three people I know who got hit in this did not get their loans because of the democrats. They got them because they “could” get them because lenders were pushing the loans out the door as fast as possible. One guy had three houses he was trying to flip for a quick profit and got caught at the wrong time. Not because of the democrats.
I recently spoke to an older doctor who told me that when he was a med student he lived in his car. His fellow students were in similar circumstances because the education was expensive and took all of their time. Consequently, he told me, most of the students wanted to be doctors to have a career helping people, and they were vetted out because it was so hard. Now he says the students drive Lexus and BMW and live in posh apartments because they can get loans due to the fact that they are “going” to make massive amounts of money because of the way the system is now set up. He said that many of the med students are becoming doctors based on the pay alone and lack the actual care for the patient that existed before.
The competition between companies worked until insurance became mandatory. I watched New Hampshire, one of the last states in the Union where you were not “forced” to buy auto insurance. You could insure your mid priced vehicle with a decent driving record for about two hundred bucks a year. Seems crazy right? The year after NH passed a mandatory insurance law. They were paying the same as the rest of the country or in this case almost ten times that rate. They charged more because they could. We payed because we had too. I’m there bitch now! They tell me what I need to pay and either I do it or I don’t drive.
OK about the Pres being a socialist. Didn’t anybody notice that he was making over a million a year in the private sector and his wife was making three times what he was making. These people are not socialist! They are capitalist. Thank g-d. It’s another scare tactic.
Taxes man really. Historically the rebubs have been as bad as the dems about raising taxes and increasing the size of the fed. The republicans always say they are going reduce but in my Life I have never seen any meaningful or long term tax reform. The only reduction I remember in government was under Bill Clinton. Who ended AFDC and Affirmative action, which by the way did more to get jobs for anglo females than anybody else.
I agree and support your contention with the VFW PAC. It reassures me to know that you will not sit idly by while something is going on you don’t agree with. Respect others in the same way. We all have our own beliefs go for it. Lets not let this animosity over pre-packaged issues, keep us from having a dialog. That would be dangerous for all of us.
October 8th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“The housing industry was trashed by the lenders. In their quest for profits they were only focused on the short term loan sales end of the market. These are the predictable results of such short sighted actions.”
==========
Lenders who were forced to lend to people who should not have gotten loans. Lenders, left to run their business on their own, would not have made those risky loans. It was not a case of being focused on profits, it was a case of being threatened with charges of racism and lawsuits if they did not make loans to minorities and “the poor”.
October 8th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“The top five insurance companies in 2009, made an average of 12 billion dollars … in profits, that is right, after paying everybody and the lights and water and ads to tell us not to believe in health care and R&D they made 12 billion which is 50 percent higher than in 2008. That was a record. I don’t begrudge them the profits, this is a capitalistic environment. Hell yea make some money. Just don’t expect me to believe you made all that money as a favor to me.”
==========
As I said, the “record profits” were not any higher than any other industry. In fact, the health insurance industry’s profit margin was ranked in the 80s of all industries. The “record profits” cry is just a talking point of the Left and does nothing to fix the issues with health care costs. The health insurance companies are not the problem.
And yes, I believe they did make that money as a favor to you and me and everyone else. Their profit goes back into R&D, which has made amazing advances in technology and medicine, treatments and cures over the the decades.
October 8th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
I suggest you take another look at the loan industry. Basically they hope you live in the house 5-10 years and then they get to foreclose. Thats the basic setup. There is little that is moral about that industry. Believe me, It is all about profits! The fees for processing and closing are an industry in themselves. The guy who sells the loan gets a bonus because it looks good to the board of directors as a receivable, drives up the stock price, they sell and see ya latter baby with your unserviceable loan. I’m going to live in my house in Bimini now.
October 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Profits are after R&D
and a 50 percent increase in profits is not a talking point it is a freakin miracle.
October 8th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Hey Michael in MI
I was just looking and it appears the insurance industries combined effort for medical R&D is less than 1 percent of the total medical R&D in this country. Is that true? Can you point me to another source?
October 8th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I’ll make you a deal, NonCombatent. You point me to facts which show that the insurance industry’s profits are the primary cause of rising healthcare costs and I’ll look up the details of how their profit is spent regarding R&D.
October 9th, 2010 at 12:10 am
FYI – This is the reply that I received from the VFW today when I canceled my membership.
——
From: INFO
VFW Leadership at Odds with VFW-PAC
KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct. 8, 2010 -The national line officers of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are at odds with the VFW Political Action Committee (PAC), calling the methodology process used by the PAC “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review,” in the wake of the recent congressional endorsements made by the committee.
“Even though the law requires that VFW-PAC be a separate organization, the acronym ‘VFW’ is attached to the committee and the natural assumption is that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is somehow making the endorsement decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth, but perception is reality,” said National Commander Richard Eubank.
“Obviously, an organization’s political positions have to reflect the opinions of its members. But those opinions can’t be perceived as ‘off the wall,’ and the methodology used this year to grade candidates obviously is skewed in favor of the incumbent. That isn’t fair, and it actually subverts the democratic process.”
Because of the controversy surrounding the endorsements, VFW line officers have decided to bring the question of continued existence of the PAC to the floor during the 112th VFW national convention in August.
Richard L. Eubank
National Commander
Richard L. DeNoyer
Sr. Vice Commander
John E. Hamilton
Jr. Vice Commander
——-
They do recognize the PAC as “seriously flawed at best this year and in immediate need of extensive review,” — So, in August 2011 they will question it. Damage has been done already.
Let them know with your membership cancellations what the members really think. My parting promise to the VFW was:
After I cancelled my membership. I will talk to every veteran that I know and encourage them to look at these endorsements and do likewise.
As a Vietnam Veteran, I do remember how the VFW refused to support the Vietnam Veterans 40 years ago. They have not changed their colors since then.
October 9th, 2010 at 12:56 am
I guess my contention is actually that the “historical level” of costs involved with health care rose precipitously along side the now intimate relationship between insurance companies and hospitals/doctors. The huge increase occurred about 25 years ago. The level has remained fairly stable considering inflation and what have you for the last say 25. It would do me good to check that out. In truth I am stating this from info I haven’t looked at in 10 or so years myself. Gut check ehhh. Alright your on.
October 9th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
[...] http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=20754 [...]
October 9th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
[...] VFW-PAC, you suck – This Ain’t Hell [...]
October 9th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
My sister, a state VFW Auxiliary President, is heading to KC tomorrow. I’ll ask her to bring is up with them and see what they think.
October 10th, 2010 at 11:13 am
@mtngrandpa, et al: Like I’ve stated before, cancelling one’s membership is NOT the answer!! If we want to effect change in the VFW & it’s PAC, it MUST come from within!! To abandon an organization because they screwed up is just like rats abandoning a sinking ship!!
I’ve heard stories of how the Viet Nam vets were treated by the older VFW members. It’s now apparent as to how much those old WWII & Korea vets has adversely affected the VFW. Those folks are now dying off, as is the membership of the VFW. What I will say is to hang in there. Why, you may ask?? Because it’s time for the Viet Nam and younger Vets to take the helm. My Post is run by two Viet Nam Vets and two Desert Storm Vets. We are trying very hard to recruit the younger war vets that have returned or are returning from the war front in Iraq & Afghanistan. You didn’t desert when you were in the military, did you?? Please, please……. don’t desert the VFW now. Let’s FIX this problem instead of killing the oldest and most viable veteran’s organization!! We can’t FIX the problem if we aren’t involved!!
October 10th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
“I guess my contention is actually that the ‘historical level’ of costs involved with health care rose precipitously along side the now intimate relationship between insurance companies and hospitals/doctors. … It would do me good to check that out. In truth I am stating this from info I haven’t looked at in 10 or so years myself.”
==========
My contention is simply that what we “feel” or “believe” to be the case, isn’t always the case. So it’s good for us to actually look at the facts and numbers and base our conclusions on that, instead of hunches or feelings. Because it won’t help solve the problem if we misdiagnose the cause of the problem and then end up trying to solve the problem by trying to fix the wrong cause.
For example, the Left likes to say that the war effort in Iraq was/is the cause of the deficit. But, as this shows, that is not the case at all, despite what liberal propagandists like James Carville say and useful idiots like “Joe” unquestioningly believe and repeat like parrots here on TAH.
The cause of the deficit was massive growth in domestic spending (which was the reason the Bush Administration and GOP Congress became so unpopular with conservative GOP voters). But the Left and Democrat Party and MF-ing media did not want the general public to know that, because they all are in favor of massive growth in domestic spending (as is evidenced by their behavior since JAN 2007). So they lied about the cause of the deficit for political purposes.
The same applies to the cause of the rise in cost of healthcare. The Left and Democrat Party want to blame the health insurance companies, because it suits their ultimate goal: single payer, government-run universal healthcare. They can’t get to that without having a bad guy to demonize. In steps the eeevil private insurance companies.
And just as they did with their lies about the cause of the deficit, they are lying about the health insurance industry. They get away with it, because they know most people won’t bother to check the actual facts. And they definitely know that the MF-ing media won’t check them on their facts and will, in fact, help them propagate the lies to the masses.
The thing is, had I not been so in practice of following politics and researching everything on a regular basis, I probably would have fallen for the lies about the cost of OIF being the cause of the deficit.
So, when I ask for some facts backing up your contention that the primary cause of rising healthcare costs is due to the health insurance companies, I’m not trying to be snarky, but rather I really do want to find out the true root cause of the problem. Because, again, if we try to solve a problem by attacking the wrong cause, we’ll simply make things worse. This can already be seen in how Obamacare has not worked and has just made costs skyrocket for everyone, especially businesses, which now are forced to dump their health insurance benefits for their employees, which then forces people to buy private insurance on their own or go on the government program.
Meanwhile, addressing causes such as (1) tort reform and (2) lack of competition has not happened. The GOP has been suggesting these solutions for decades now, only to be <a href="http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/democrats-have-been-blocking-health-care-reform-since-the-clinton-administration/"blocked every step of the way by Democrats. Why is that? Why have Democrats blocked logical solutions to rising healthcare costs? I think their ramming Obamacare through answers that… because they didn’t want to fix the problem with some minor changes, they wanted the problem to get worse, so they had a reason for Obamacare-universal healthcare-single payer.
So anyway, all I’m asking for are some facts to back up your contention. I understand that your contention makes sense to you. Afterall, that’s all we hear about from the Left, Democrats and the MF-ing media. In addition, there are a lot of people who are dealing with rising costs in their healthcare and they’re angry about it and want answers and want someone to blame. In swoops the Left/Democrats/MF-ing media with someone for them to blame. Yet, when Obamacare was shoved through to solve the problem of eeevil health insurance companies and rising costs, it ended up making things WORSE. Much, much worse with many more consequences in addition to higher costs. Why is that? Could it be because it was not the health insurance companies who caused the problem in the first place and the Left was lying for their own political purposes?
That is what I have left for you to research for me/us. Find out if it really is the primary cost. If you do that, then I’ll hold up my end of the bargain and research how insurance companies spend their revenue with regards to R&D.
October 10th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Sorry, messed up the HTML above. Here is the proper link:
==========
The GOP has been suggesting these solutions for decades now, only to be blocked every step of the way by Democrats.
October 10th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
WOTN:THOR-
No- the ONLY answer is to quit. Now. Burn the cards, send them in, post a vid on YouTube showing it. Why?
Money.
IT.ALL.THEY.KNOW.
By reducing numbers, by removing their ‘impact’ due to numbers that are in their ranks, THEN they will listen. Not ONE moment before.
WTF? Booting this down the road to 2011? During a non-election year? What.The.Fuck. The list is up NOW. The candidates are running NOW. The most important mid-term elections in 2 generations? NOW.
NOTHING less than the resignation of the National Commmander, AFTER he removes the head of the PAC. For failure of leadership.
NOW.
Wolf
October 10th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Mr Wolf,
When Carl Levin & Harry Reid led the charge with Speaker Pelosi in tow, to defund Our Troops in a war zone, did you:
A)Speak out against it and rally Veterans and Citizens to vote against them?
B)Tear up your passport and renounce your citizenship?
C)Sit silent?
D)Quit paying taxes and burn your ID cards?
Burning your membership card is the same. Just as your birth gave you American citizenship, so too did your presence on the battlefield earn you a right to VFW membership. Just as citizenship earns you a vote in the Congressional elections, even a right to run for office, so to does your membership in the organization, even a right to run for office, but if you renounce either, then you have given up your rights to a say in it.
Money? The only financial interest you hurt is that of your local post. If you think your post is that bad, you can transfer your life membership to any post of your choosing, where National sends money for your membership there.
A sluggish response? No, National responded very quick for this kind of organization. Have they done all they need to do? No. There is a need for more action, within days, not months, but the VFW is a representative democracy, just as is the Nation. It operates according to rules, designed to prevent partisanship, rules that must be followed to ensure the response to the wrongful actions taken are not partisan in nature.
If you don’t like the current leadership, get involved, run for office, but the VFW is not a dictatorship and does not have executive directors self-appointed for life.
October 10th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
WOTN-
They punted, when they needed to bear down and make that last yard. By sending it to a convention IN A FRIGGIN’ YEAR they are basically saying ‘this too, shall pass.’
This shows lack of leadership, lack of acceptance of the situation, and lack of oversight. As in any organization, whether it be corporate or whatever, change is needed sooner, not later.
They are showing the apathy that our current legislators do- and that’s because they ARE, basically, like a government now- too big, too bloated, and too entrenched.
Pull the ‘base’ out of any structure, the top collapses..
Wolf
October 10th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Mr. Wolf,
I attempted to explain it. This is something that must be voted on by the MEMBERSHIP. I haven’t had time to research whether or not it can be done at some sort of emergency meeting, yet. At our regular Post meetings, there are many things that are required to wait until the next monthly meeting, even if it comes up after that night’s meeting, like during dinner. National is no different, except that they only have meetings once a year. That is WHY it will have to wait until next August. So, the way I see it is that you want the VFW to compromise its by-laws and just singlehandedly dissolve the PAC?? I that right?? If so, that’s just not the RIGHT way to handle things.
With all due respect, if you want to bail, then go ahead and do it. There WILL be somebody to handle this situation, me, being one of them. I’m just a lowly Post Quartermaster, but I DO intend on being at the National meeting next year. Somehow, some way, I WILL be there. Who knows, by then, I may even be the Post Commander. Elections are next April and the pro-tem is seated in June.
This situation has caused quite the disturbance within the VFW. The members HAVE noticed and they don’t tend to forget. Hell, we have members at the Post that I belong to that haven’t forgotten the poor leadership and rampant theft that was three and four years ago. I seriously doubt that the members are going to forget about this in less than a year.
What this all boils down to is either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!! I intend on leading, even if it’s from such a diminutive position as mine.
October 11th, 2010 at 1:59 am
Thor Contact me
Bigjohn
October 11th, 2010 at 8:56 am
“Pull the ‘base’ out of any structure, the top collapses..”
Mr. Wolf
And that seems to be your real motive. Damn the torpedoes, you want the VFW doors shuttered. This event is just the excuse? Your individual demands to avoid the continuation of your call for erosion of the membership were beyond the legal authority of the leadership.
And despite the fact that the leadership has responded, quicker than I would expect, you’ve not published that response, nor allowed them time to act further. The National Leadership has stated that further immediate action is needed, but correctly stated that permanent action to prevent further problems cannot occur until the membership has a chance to weigh in.
The membership is outraged at the actions of the PAC. The leadership has stated their opposition to the actions of the PAC. Veterans that are not members have weighed in. You can be assured that your bully pulpit has allowed you to damage a century old+ Veterans Organization, but when you do renounce your membership, you will no longer have a right to challenge its direction. I doubt that will stop you from voicing it.
But even as I agree with your outrage over the endorsements, I find your vindictive desire to destroy the organization, rather than take back what is ours, misguided at best.
Rather than helping to unite Veterans in a brotherhood born in combat, you have chosen to fragment Veterans in partisanship. Rather than lead, you’ve chosen to desert. Rather than consider changes within the rules, you’ve called for the rules to be ignored and your dictates enacted.
Perhaps you hope some other organization will step in and buy the real estate represented by the thousands of VFW Posts around the nation as they shutter their doors, locking out the gathering of Veterans? That won’t happen.
October 11th, 2010 at 9:11 am
WOTN-
The VFW National left veterans long ago. By refusing to act NOW, and rather punting down the field 11 months later, they again show their disdain for owing up for what they did. Refusing to accept responsibility. I guarantee that if this happened at a ‘local’ level, it would be fixed quicker. Why, as it happens at National, does it take longer?
Because they want to protect their ‘turf’. They are supporters of a disgusting administration- its just not the PAC- its the totality of what they have done. Supporting charging vets for healthcare; refusing to call out DHS for their memo; these and more show that the National level has failed vets over and over.
The shouts over charging vets for healthcare were strong; the DHS memo blew over quickly, but resounds even today; the PAC debacle was just the last straw.
If they were not willing to stand up then, they won’t be standing up now. So its time for them to move on.
Wolf
October 11th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Thor-
The local level will notice the drop sooner, and the impact of fewer dues and membership fees. National has apparently taken the stand that ‘we can wait’.
No, they can’t.
Again, the only thing they are willing to do is ‘study’ it. A true leadership will act decisively NOW- not implement some decision later. As Patton said- A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed later. If the bylaws prevent the National Commander from acting, then the PAC leader needs to voluntarily step down, and all of those in this process need to resign. Where is the difficulty in this?
I’ll tell you where it is- they don’t represent veterans, or their needs, any more… they represent themselves.
October 11th, 2010 at 10:18 am
I agree with Old Tanker, what the hell were they thinking???
Nope, I’ll keep my American Legion membership !!!!
October 11th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
No, Mr. Wolf, the VFW is not a partisan organization, ran by an all-powerful executive, capable of tossing out members on a whim, nor even of overriding independent but associated commissions it doesn’t like. It does not “support the current administration.”
The list of endorsements made by the PAC includes incumbents on both sides of the aisle.
Like it or not, the National Commander is elected by the membership and must act within the rules of the charter. That is a slower process than your demands allow, but you didn’t run for National Commander, did you? Did you run for any office during all of this time that you’ve had a beef with the organization? Or is it simpler for you to simply use your bully pulpit to tear down an 111 year old organization, to complain instead of seeking out and implementing solutions?
Do you really think that because your voice is louder than other members, echoing across various well-read websites, that you should have the right to force the resignation of an elected leader of it? Do you realize that he has been in office for a period of weeks?
For every member of your positions that you convince to mutiny, to desert an important organization, you strengthen the vote of those that oppose your positions. In the end, your efforts will weaken the VFW. Your voice is that loud. But it will survive your rants, your personal vindictiveness, for whatever caused your fervor. And if your voice is effective enough, it may well create an organization, centuries old, with a partisan streak for your opponent.
Your demands were unappeaseable. The National Leadership has no authority to comply to them. It recognized your points and agreed that the endorsements were wrong. It is working towards fixing the problem and frankly we don’t know if they will do some of that before the elections, but we do know that at the very earliest point available, they will bring it to the membership, as only the membership can disband what it created.
But the VFW must remain party independent, even as it strives towards pressing politicians on the issues. And that is true no matter what the overwhelming majority of its members, or how loud the voice of a few members.
October 11th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Did You Burn Your VFW PAC Membership Card Yet?…
Veterans were rightly outraged when they found out the VFW PAC was endorsing Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, both which have openly opposed Veterans, Troops, and the Military, and not LTC(ret) West and GySgt(ret) Popaditch, both of whom are running on str…
October 11th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
“It is working towards fixing the problem and frankly we don’t know if they will do some of that before the elections, but we do know that at the very earliest point available, they will bring it to the membership, as only the membership can disband what it created.”
==========
How does the VFW leadership “work towards fixing the problem” when the problem is… the VFW leadership? That’s like having a corrupt organization investigate its own corruption. And then, amazingly enough, they come out with a report that says “we’re not corrupt!”
It seems the problem is that the VFW is structured such that the VFW members have no say in the organization and the leadership acts on its own regarding politics.
You say “they will bring it to the membership”, but that is missing the point entirely. They should have brought it to the membership BEFORE they made any sort of endorsements.
Instead, they decided to play the ‘better to ask for forgiveness than permission’ game. The leadership unilaterally decides to endorse incumbent assholes, the membership calls them out on their bullshit and the leadership comes back and says “Oops! Sowie! Well, since we already made the endorsements, we’ll just have to wait until next year — AFTER the NOV elections, teehee! — to talk about it with all you irrelevant shlubs, er, members.”
That’s BS.
The VFW is simply acting like a corrupt union… the leadership has all the power to do what it wants irrespective of what the members want. They take the members’ money and then spend it how they want, instead of how the members want.
Is the VFW supposed to be an organization which represents its members or is it simply an organization that collects money, appoints leadership and then the leadership represents the VFW as they see fit, regardless of what the members want? Sounds more like the latter to me.
October 11th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Michael,
You miss an important distinction. The VFW Leadership has stated their opposition to the actions of the VFW-PAC. But the VFW Leadership cannot simply decree that the PAC is null and void. The membership created it and the membership must vote it out of existence.
In order to prevent partisanship and to preserve the legal status of the VFW, the PAC is technically a separate entity. The PAC was created with rules to prevent partisanship, but has failed to prevent blind support for incumbents.
There are about as many Republicans as Democrats on the list of endorsements. The problem is that most incumbents were endorsed. Michelle Bachman, Marsha Blackburn, and Jim Marshall were also endorsed, two of which are strong Conservative Republicans and the last of which is perhaps the last known true Blue Dog Democrat (endorsed by both TAH and WOTN).
I can’t point to a single endorsement for a non-incumbent, though there are those like Joe Sestak, who seeks a Senate seat while abandoning his Congressional seat. He is a Veteran running against a non-Veteran, but also proof that Veteran status alone is not a reason for endorsement.
Before a solution can be found, one must first identify the problem. The problem here is that the PAC used a formula that supported incumbents, not that it supports a particular party (which it doesn’t). That formula caused the endorsement of Pelosi, Reid, and others, without consideration of West, Pantano, and others.
The first step to a solution is that the VFW Leadership has openly criticized the PAC, but from there forward, it must also obey the by-laws of its charter. The VFW Leadership is looking at the rules to see what it can legally do, but it has decided to do what it knows it can do: put the thing to a vote at the earliest possible time: the 2011 convention.
In the meantime, Veterans can continue to pressure the leadership of both the PAC and the VFW to action, and we continue to call on immediate action, but withdrawing from the organization means you won’t have a voice at the 2011 Convention, when it comes to a vote.
October 11th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
But the VFW Leadership cannot simply decree that the PAC is null and void. The membership created it and the membership must vote it out of existence.
In order to prevent partisanship and to preserve the legal status of the VFW, the PAC is technically a separate entity. The PAC was created with rules to prevent partisanship, but has failed to prevent blind support for incumbents.”
==========
So the members created a VFW-PAC, over which they apparently have no control? That makes no sense. The members of the VFW created a PAC that is supposed to represent the views of the members of the VFW, yet the members of the VFW have no input as to how the VFW-PAC supports political issues? Again, that makes no sense.
For me, this is not an issue of partisanship. This is an issue of representation. The VFW-PAC does not represent the members of the VFW, as I would think it should.
If a voter looks up a politician and sees that they have the endorsement of “VFW-PAC”, almost all voters would assume that meant that the members of the VFW — ie military members who have been deployed in foreign wars — support said politician. But that is not the case at all, considering none of the members of the VFW were even asked whom they support.
“How to Run a Representative Organization for Dummies” would logically conclude that when an organization wants to provide a representative endorsement, it would take a vote from the members of its organization to find out whom they want to endorse BEFORE making said endorsement.
One would think it would be pretty simple — if their annual meetings are in August and their endorsements come out in late SEPT/early OCT — to send out word to all VFW locals in JAN of an election year to ask their members whom they want to endorse. Then, at the annual AUG meeting, they can tally everything together and come to a decision on whom to endorse based on the wishes of the members. Then, in SEPT/OCT, put out the endorsement of the VFW-PAC.
That the bloody MF-ing hell is so difficult about that?
Also, I find it utterly ridiculous that an organization which claims to be full of veterans of wars would endorse a members of a political party which do their best to disenfranchise those members from voting while they were deployed in those wars. So the Democrats take away their right to vote while they are deployed and then they come back from the war and turn around and vote for the very people who f-ed them over? Yeah, that makes a TON of sense.
October 11th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
“In the meantime, Veterans can continue to pressure the leadership of both the PAC and the VFW to action, and we continue to call on immediate action, but withdrawing from the organization means you won’t have a voice at the 2011 Convention, when it comes to a vote.”
==========
Right, but enough members withdrawing from the organization will mean there won’t BE an organization left in 2011 — or at least not one of any relevance — for there to even BE a Convention. See how that works? The VFW will become as irrelevant and “representative” of ‘veterans of foreign wars’ as CAIR is representative of Muslims or IVAW is representative of Iraq Veterans.
This is a MAJOR outrage. This isn’t just disagreement over the location of the annual boobs and bullets festival or something. This is MAJOR. This is akin to being part of a Church and then hearing your pastor say that America had its “chicken coming home to roost!” after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and saying “Gawd DAMN America!” When that happens, you don’t stick around for a year hoping the leadership will get its head out of its ass. No, you LEAVE the Church and find a new one, because the leadership has lost its MF-ing mind.
In my opinion, and obviously that of many others, including many members of the VFW, the leadership of the VFW has lost its MF-ing mind.
October 11th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Michael,
In a Representative Democracy, ie. Republic, we elect those who decide on the daily business that we don’t have time to fully investigate. I.e. we elect Representatives.
Why, because pure democracy is cumbersome. The Poles, who have come closest to it, found that out the hard way in between WWI and WWII. We also set in place rules by which those Representatives operate, because dictatorships become overbearing, as the Russians and Germans found out.
In today’s Veteran Organizations, we find the IVAW, IAVA, VVA, VFF, and WLF, which have self-appointed executives, that can act very swiftly but do not respond to the positions of any Veteran other than their self-appointed boards. All of these claim “non-partisanship,” yet the VFF is aligned with the Republicans and the IAVA is a tool of George Soros and aligned with the Democrats. (Even worse than the IAVA is its spinoff Vote Vets).
Those Executive Directors can rule by decree and the choice is to take membership or leave.
The American Legion and VFW elect their leaders and are constrained by their by-laws and charter, specifically to prevent abuse.
Is your solution simple enough? Yes. It even makes sense, but it is not supported by the by laws and charter, which can’t be changed until the Convention, as per the by-laws and charter. To do otherwise would be like overriding the Constitution because we don’t like the way a few groups have abused Free Speech.
Mr Wolf knows that, or should have known that.
He also knows that the 2011 Convention will go on, whether he and every reader he has burns their membership card or not. If every conservative VFW member online were to follow his call for desertion, the VFW would still have the money to survive 2011, but only those that support the opposition would be there to vote. It would be ripe for the pickings of a George Soros type to add to his stables. How sad it would be if a Paul Rieckhoff type were to lead the VFW off the partisan cliff, with its 111 year history.
Fortunately, there are enough level-headed Veterans unwilling to give away the VFW to partisan politics, that it will survive, even if weakened by this attack.
October 12th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Obviously the VFW is led by drunken clones of Murtha and Kerry working against real veterans.
Glad I havent joined them…
October 13th, 2010 at 11:19 am
VFW Leadership Un-Endorses Candidates…
Veterans have spoken and the VFW Leadership could not help but hear. “As determined in the VFW By-Laws, as the national officers, we have specific responsibilities to take definitive action when events can have a detrimental impact on the organization…
August 30th, 2011 at 9:12 am
[...] how is that PAC working out for you, VFW? August 30th, 2011 You probably remember the the dust-up we caused in the last election cycle over the VFW PAC which endorsed mostly incumbent Democrats in Congress. [...]
October 4th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Hey there, You have done an excellent job. I will certainly digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this web site.
May 10th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
[...] VFW-PAC has endorsed a lot of bad people: Over at the Farm Team, Jonn Lilyea lays out just who the VFW has announced they are supporting: Barbara Boxer, Alcee [...]
October 28th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
One more reason the VFW will cease to exist in the near future…join the American Legion an/or AMVETS…much better organizations
Me,.a former VFW member
April 24th, 2013 at 8:30 am
VFW always supports the VA like amvet dav NOT GOOD!! stay away from these loosers go get a lawyer. The VFW is secretive’
spy third world dot org!! do not support the vfw for any reason at all!!