VFW-“PAC” Endorses Anti-Military, Anti-Veteran, Leftwing Dems (UPDATED)

UPDATES at the bottom.

Via Jonn Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell.

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.

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;

Washington Office
200 Maryland Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Tel. (202) 544-5868
Fax (202) 544-8495

Salvatore J. Capirchio, Director
Tyrone N. Benson, Chairman
Michael H. Wysong, Treasurer
Kenneth R. Burton Jr., Board Member
Gary J. Goff, Board Member
Albert J. Bucchi, Board Member
Everett Martin, Board Member
Paul A. Spera, Board Member
Joe T.Wood, Board Member
James R. Mueller, Board Member
Francine Cornish, Board Member

Link: http://www.vfwpac.org/

Email: vfwpac@vfw.org

Call the VFW at 1-202-544-5868


Link to a state-by-state listing of VFW HQs and contacts:  http://www.vfwpac.org/deptchair.html

More information at BlackFive.

More at War on Terror News.

More at Big Government.

I want to know just how affiliated this PAC is with the VFW.  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”.

No legitimate veteran’s organization has any business endorsing policies or politicians that are hostile to America, veterans, and the military.  According to the PAC press release, these are the Dem asswipes they’re supporting:

Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Joe Sestak, Alcee Hastings, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulski, Chris VanHollen,  Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy, Charlie Melancon, Kendrick Meek, Brad Elsworth, Daniel Inoye, John Dingell, Sander Levin, Mark Schauer, Gary Peters, and Patty Murray.
Link: http://www.vfwpac.org/Revised%20Endorsement%20List%20Sept%2024-1.pdf

Some of those miscreants backed by this VFW-PAC are notorious for their animosity towards the armed forces and national security.

Just a sampling:

Patty Murray: “Bin Laden builds day-care facilities…we haven’t done that”.

Harry Reid: ” I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”    Harry also pandered to the anti-war moonbats in Berkeley by refusing to support a bill that would have blocked federal money to the town for its harassment of the armed forces recruiting center.

Barbara Lee (D-CA) is the only member of Congress to vote against President  Bush’s post-9/11 resolution to “use military force against anyone suspected of having committed the acts.”

Barbara Boxer was one of only 25 Senators who voted against condemning a MoveOn.Org Ad against General David Petraeus ( the “General Betray Us Ad).   She also had the gall to compare members of Congress with the hardships faced by the military: “We know that if you have veterans in one place where they can befriend each other and talk to each other. You know when you’ve gone through similar things you need to share it. I don’t care whether you are a policeman or a fireman or a veteran or by chance a member of Congress. Maxine (Waters) and I could look at each other and roll our eyes. We know what we are up against. And it is hard for people who are not there to understand the pressure and the great things that go along with it and the tough things that go along with it.”  (At A Campaign Event, Inglewood, CA, 7/24/10) She also voted to undercut troops waiting to cross into enemy territory in Desert Storm and voted to cut and run from Iraq during OIF.

Chuck Schumer’s input on the Iraq war: “The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American Soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.”   I’m sure the Soldiers who kicked Al Sadr’s ass would love to have a face-to-face with Chuckie so he can explain his ‘reasoning’.

Patrick Leahy’s behavior is treasonous:

……Patrick Leahy was annoyed with the Reagan administration’s military strategy in the 1980s. At the time he was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Therefore, “Leaky Leahy,” threatened to sabotage classified strategies he didn’t like.

Leahy “inadvertently” disclosed a top-secret communications intercept during a 1985 television interview. The intercept had made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen. But Leahy’s leak cost the life of at least one Egyptian “asset” involved in the operation.

In July 1987, it was reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Libya’s Moammar Gaddhafi. US intelligence officials stated that Leahy sent a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey. Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted.

There’s much more.  Dems have a lengthy history of anti-American/anti-military activism, especially since the Vietnam war.  Having said that, every Dem candidate needs to be closely scrutinized.

The Florida VFW slammed the PAC in a press release and open letter:

It’s not a matter of incumbent vs opposing candidate. It’s a matter of character, principles, and values of the person, and whether or not they support the United States military, our mission, and the issues and concerns of veterans. That should be part and parcel of any VFW platform involving the support of candidates. Period.


Looks like the outrage over this has spread like wildfire and the VFW-PAC is feeling the heat:

The following now appears on the National VFW Web site:

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. (2011)

Richard L. Eubank
National Commander

Richard L. DeNoyer
Sr. Vice Commander

John E. Hamilton
Jr. Vice Commander

I commend Commander Eubank for his rebuke of the PAC, but any VFW national commander needs to keep close tabs on what the PAC is up to.
The VFW should not wait until August 2011 to rectify this. The PAC wing needs to be overhauled and given clear guidelines for endorsements and consultation of VFW members. I don’t recall anyone asking for the input of the VFW rank and file. If they had, they’d have gotten their answer with a HELL NO. Any and all major endorsements should be cleared by a majority of VFW members. No veteran in his/her right mind would allow the support of an anti-military puke to dishonor the memory and the sacrifice of the fallen. No way. No how.


Hat tip to War on Terror News:

VFW Leaders Act on PAC Endorsements

October 12, 2010

The angry tone and tenor of the telephone calls and messages being received at national headquarters make it clear that many of our members are not cognizant of the fact that VFW National By-Laws clearly stipulate that the VFW Commander-in-Chief is not authorized to direct or otherwise attempt to introduce his control over the VFW PAC. Furthermore, no membership dues or donations made to the VFW or VFW Foundation are used for the VFW PAC.

As you know, the recent endorsements by the PAC are the subject of much controversy. Unfortunately, many questions have been raised regarding VFW’s involvement in the endorsement process and the integrity of the organization as a whole. Regrettably, many of our members and supporters are disappointed and have misdirected their anger toward the VFW as having lost its purpose.

Comrades, we cannot sit idly by while a great organization is being disparaged and maligned, even unintentionally. It is vitally important that you take a direct role in alleviating this current flood of criticism by reminding members and supporters that:

— The VFW PAC was created by the VFW members and not by VFW national leaders. 2/3 of the delegates of the 80th VFW National Convention (1979) voted to establish PAC as a standing committee.

— VFW By-Laws stipulate that VFW leadership does not direct PAC activities and that the VFW convention is the governing body of the organization. As such, it is only the delegates at the convention that can determine the continuation of the PAC.

— Encourage VFW members to get involved in their VFW Posts and to exercise and further direct their concerns to convention delegates so that there can be an informed debate on the existence of the PAC.

That is a future process. But, as indicated, we also have an immediate necessity on the recent PAC endorsements. VFW’s values and guiding principles aren’t grounded in a desire to participate in partisan policies in political activities. As veterans of foreign wars, we gave substantially more of ourselves than most to ensure the viability and the integrity of our great democratic process. However, our recent endorsement process unintentionally provided favoritism to the incumbents. It is now evident it was unfairly skewed and actually subverted that process.

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. It is clear to us that the current situation now demands direct action; therefore, we are requesting the chairman and the directors of the Political Action Committee immediately rescind their endorsement actions.

We also want to stress this request means no endorsement for any Congressional candidate.

Richard L. Eubank

Richard L. DeNoyer
Senior Vice Commander-in-Chief

John E. Hamilton
Junior Vice Commander-in-Chief

I would have made it a demand, rather than a request. In any case, it’s well advised that the VFW make clear the delineation between the VFW leadership and the members who created the PAC. Better yet, break all ties and insist that the PAC present itself as a separate organization that does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the VFW or its members.

Just in case you thought the PAC might rethink its feckless, asinine position, it won’t.

Via War on Terror News:

In an act of defiance of Veterans, the VFW, the VFW Leadership, and the VFW Membership, the PAC claiming in its name that it is an arm of the VFW, that uses the symbols of the VFW has refused to reconsider, rethink, or rescind its list of incumbent endorsements.

In a news release dated 12 October 2010, the VFW Leadership officially and publically requested that no candidate be endorsed in the 2010 elections, because the endorsement of anti-Military, anti-Troop, anti-Veteran candidates was threatening to tear the organization apart.  The Leadership further recognized that it had very little authority over the PAC, but had a very real requirement to protect the VFW.

In response the PAC stuck out their tongues and proclaimed themselves to be beyond reproach, beyond the reach of VFW Members, beyond the reach of VFW Leaders, and beyond the reach of Veterans themselves.  It proclaimed they’d do what they wanted and what they wanted was to endorse as many incumbents as they could.

“This cycle the Board chose a methodology for endorsement that was used successfully in years past; grading an incumbent’s support by the position taken on critical issues of importance to the VFW. ….to receive the VFW-PAC endorsement. If a member of Congress failed to make the grade, the Board would consider a challenger for that Congressional seat.”  PAC claiming VFW association

Let’s be clear: There is no excuse for a veteran’s organization to support Pelosi or Reid.

It is time for an in-depth investigation into the finances of the individuals that make up the PAC.
It is time for the VFW leadership to revoke the use of all trademarks of the VFW from the PAC, including the acronym and including the Maltese Cross. It is a registered trademark and cannot be used without permission, not by Breitbart, not by Big Peace, and not by a rogue PAC.  Even VFW Posts have to pay for its use.

I agree 100% The VFW leadership should disavow this PAC and demand, under threat of lawsuit, that it cease any claim to the VFW, its emblem, its principles, or its registered members.

11 thoughts on “VFW-“PAC” Endorses Anti-Military, Anti-Veteran, Leftwing Dems (UPDATED)”

  1. Victor,
    The issue of severing ties with the PAC will be discussed at the August 2011 national convention. Believe me, there are thousands of VFW members, including myself, who are keeping close tabs on the results.



  3. Lawrence Lynch

    I am a member of the VFW and it makes me cringe in disgust that the VFE PAC would stoop to such dung as supporting SEN Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein and other who are adsamanatly against our policies
    and my brother warriors. If this continues, I will resign from te VFW and go with the American Legion

  4. George Cazares

    I don’t give a damn if the VFWPAC is supporting only politicians who are veterans. The VFW should NOT be involved in whoring out its name in support of politicians. We are here to support veterans, PERIOD. If we keep this up, eventually we’ll be selling our seal and our name to the highest political bidder.

  5. Pingback: War On Terror News

  6. Jack Phifer

    I’m a multi year local Commander of the VFW and am just about ready to leave the whole organization. Life member since my first tour in 1969 and the BS continues! I cannot even download the official logo from the VFW to use on letterhead or cards without paying the home org. some money! — and they allow these boneheads to use the “VFW” AND the offical logo with this type of political crap! A year to “look into” the PAC ??? WTF

    Resind the authorization NOW for the logo, use of “VFW” and ANY other ties or mention of the organization!

  7. SFC Mac,
    Thanks for the link, even if it originally missed my attention.

    We staying on top of this story. We oppose the VFW PAC endorsement method which favors incumbents/excludes challengers but also oppose calls to destroy an 111 year old brotherhood of Combat Veterans.

    While some would play on emotions to stir up partisanship, we believe open, frank, and rational discussion is needed: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2010/10/did-you-burn-your-vfw-pac-membership-card-yet.html

    By way of objectivity, we must note there were approximately as many Republican incumbents, as Democrat incumbents, and as far as we can tell not a challenger one. It doesn’t make it right, but it doesn’t make it partisan either.

    1. WOTN,

      As I stated in my post, it’s not a matter of “incumbent”, but one of character, values, principles, and support of the military and veterans. Dems have a reputation for anti-military, anti-veteran radicalism. It’s a propensity they’ve had for a good 45 years. For the VFW-PAC to endorse these incumbents without taking their anti-military spite into consideration, is an indication of either ignorance or carelessness. In anycase, it’s inexcusable.

      SFC MAC

  8. butt neckid

    SARG…you done gooood gir’frien…..hooaah!!!

    damn us sailormen need to get a catchy phrase like hooaah(usa) and oorah(usmc)…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial