• Ralphf

    When they say they can’t cobrand with gun manufacturers, they can’t be more anti gun than that. Bye Bye to my donations. I’ll find another organization to partner with one who supports the constitution and the importance of firearms to protect the innocent and provide a cushion against tyranny.

    • sniper74

      I looked this up on their Facebook page. It’s not that they are against guns of knives, but rather the ROI on spending advertisement dollars on guns or knives is not there. They are not getting that much money back from the products that they are co-branding. It’s not that they are against guns or knives, it’s just that they are not getting enough money in return for going into a co-branding business with another company.

      It would be like them shutting down all advertisements for it because they are not getting enough donations back from direct marketing.

      They are still allowing sporting events, and shooting events to raise money for them. But co-branding with a company like Gerber, they are just not getting enough money back from that relationship.

      • bullet2354

        They better just come out with a significant PRO 2A statement to clarify their “marketing” problems…

      • speedle24

        That’s Bulls–t. What kind of marketing strategy would not involve “co-branding” with products used primarily by people who are by nature sympathetic with service men and women. The other side are derivitives of the nut bags that threw eggs and trash at returning Viet Nam veterens in the 60’s, and considered anyone having a gun a “pig”.

      • George

        The problem started with them not providing a spokesperson because the radio program was “gun related.” AFTER seeing the firestorm that was creating, they decided their organization’s website and their stance on firearms was misunderstood. The person originally contacted had been in error and misinformed the person requesting a spokesperson, even though it wasn’t a single instance but was repeated with additionally contacts.
        My interpretation is,” we will lose money (or are losing money) so we must make a quick change of policy here. We will bring in branding which had nothing to do with the original contact. We may have to fire Leslie Coleman, our PR director, to solve this problem.”
        CYA in huge measure.
        The less than 60% going to the vets plus the big CEO salary are major problems, too.

  • Ralphf

    Roger that. Thanks.

  • Ralphf

    No they won’t. They are so tolerant they try to destroy us personally and professionally because they are afraid of real ideas.

  • Ralphf

    I agree. Now HE was jumping to a conclusion.

  • Ralphf

    You can still tell the truth in your speech and say you just found out

  • sniper74

    They are not Anti-Gun or Anti-Knives. This entire article is taken out of context. Look them up on Facebook. They are just not doing co-branding which is where they sponsor a product made by brand xzy. So that product isn’t doing that well and they are not getting back the money they put into it.

  • sniper74

    Why is it the dumbest comment? If you did your research the article above is not reporting the facts at all. They are not doing cobranding because they are not getting a good ROI. Can’t fault WWP for that at all.

    They are still allowing shooting events and gun shows and other events to raise money for them.

    WWP is about the warriors, NOT guns or knives. So if they are not making money by advertising their product using co-branding knives or guns, then so be it. They are deciding to instead of investing money by co-branding something, to take that money and invest it in something else. That’s the sign of a true businessman and the type that is looking out for the money of the project rather than just spending it.

    • speedle24

      Investing it in “what”, please?

  • sniper74

    Actually, do some more research before you jump down a charities throat. They didn’t say they were anti-gun or anti-knives like the article is making it out to be. They are just ending the co-branding of products. They are not making the money they spent on the project back. So they are going to invest that money in other ways.

    They still allow gun shows and knife shows to raise money for them. Read up on the reasoning before jumping down their throat and just saying you aren’t donating. After all, aren’t you supposed to be donating to help the returning vets rather than a gun club?

    • George

      Will you get off the “branding” bandwagon? The article is NOT about branding but about an organization that refused to send a rep for a radio broadcast on Veterans Day. Several contacts confirmed the organization (via their PR Rep) would not go on a program that was pro gun. After the SHTF, they came out with a big CYA to keep from losing donations because of that policy. They even said they would be glad to go on the show NOW!

      • sniper74

        Yes the Article isn’t about Branding, but they also don’t want to send someone over to discuss the politics and be on a show in a co-branding fashion. This would make them out to be advertising for either the Gun Talk Show, or some firearms. If you actually took the time to understand the FULL story rather than someones cut and paste version of what happened, then you would know.

        They came out and spelled out what actually took place on their Facebook page. But because you and a bunch of other “Gun Nuts” decided to just focus on one part of the reason, rather than the FULL story, you all are getting your panties in a twist.

        This is the issue we have in our society today. Nobody wants to hear the FULL story. Only one side of it that they have an issue with.

        Just because they didn’t want to come on and seem they are endorsing someone or their show, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing at all.

        If all you do is go around and donate to those places that support one thing and then don’t donate to others that have no comment or don’t support it, then you are as biased as you claim they are. Don’t you see it? You are just calling the kettle black.

        Who gives a crap as to whether a NON-PROFIT supports the 2nd Amendment or NOT. Those who decide to NOT donate because they don’t “claim” they are pro gun are just as worse as the ones who decide to donate to charities because they “claim” they are against it.

        • George

          I suggest you take a look at the “big picture” as you want me to do. Your first sentence says it all. They do not want to be on a show discussing the politics of guns. BUT, the last part of the rebuttal they put up on their site says that it was a mistake and they would be glad to provide a spokesperson in the future???? They were against it before they were for it?
          That is why I see a CYA move when their original position via their PR Director was made very plain.
          I stand by my original observation which has nothing to do with pro or anti 2nd amendment, merely an organization that was trying to be PC until it backfired. They did NOT want to be seen as being pro gun or 2nd amendment or anti gun or second amendment. They wanted all the help they could get from a pro gun group (or radio pro gun group) but refused to be associated with them in a public way.
          They can do as they wish, this is still America – likewise the donors have the same right.

          • sniper74

            That is what I have been trying to say all along. Especially with the Co-Branding as well. They are trying to stay out of the spot light and focus on what they do.

            My issue is, everyone seems to just throw their hands up and say “Nope not donating now because they are antigun.

            A Non-profit shouldn’t be judged on whether or not they are pro gun or not. It should be based solely on how much money actually goes to the cause.

            For example. I don’t give to the Susan G Komen thing because they use 40% of their funds to sue other Cancer Awareness charities, (Not just Breast Cancer either, Prostate Cancer and other Cancer chariteis) for using the phrase, For The Cure.

            A charity shouldn’t care if another charity is using a Phrase they use. That 40% of the funds could actually go towards finding a cure. But instead, it goes to line some Lawyers pocket book or make a payment on a large house.

            Yes this might be a CYA, but hey, at least they realized it and are trying to correct it. To me the author of this article should be the one apologizing for making it into something it really wasn’t about in the first place. Same with the Talk Show.

  • sniper74

    This is taken right from their Facebook page. They are not Anti-gun.

    We’ve
    had a lot of questions recently that started when we declined an
    opportunity to appear on Gun Talk Radio. We want to clarify and help
    answer some questions. We have seen through this process that the
    language on our website and our response to the invitation to appear on
    the show weren’t clear, and we are working on clarifying our approach.
    There is now much inaccurate information about WWP being anti-gun
    rights, an issue as an apolitical organization we do not take a stance
    on. We understand and appreciate that many of our Alumni are gun
    owners, and we facilitate multiple hunting and outdoor opportunities for
    our Wounded Warriors throughout the year.

    In the past, we made
    our logo available to appear on wide variety of products, including
    guns. As an organization, we owe it to our donors and constituents to
    maximize the return on investment of our dollars and brand. We are
    always looking at our business practices and whether we should continue
    with them in the future. In the case of cobranding, we’ve decided that
    we’re not going to offer our logo to appear on weapons anymore – whether
    they’re guns, knives, bows, swords, or any other type of weapon. There
    are still a few of the guns around for sale that had licensed our logo
    years ago, but there aren’t any new ones being made. This is purely a
    business decision based on a review of a return on investment,
    especially when compared with other types of cobranding ventures.

    Regarding the question of donations and events, we do permit
    fundraisers that are shooting- and gun-related, such as gun raffles,
    shooting competitions, etc., and we’re incredibly appreciative of those
    who are willing to give their time to host or participate in an event.
    Likewise, we gratefully accept donations from companies and individuals
    connected with the gun industry.

    As indicated above, we know that
    hunting and shooting sporting events can be very therapeutic for many
    of the Wounded Warriors we serve, and we’re happy to work with the
    community to make these types of events available to our Alumni. Hunting
    and shooting sport enthusiasts are an incredibly supportive and
    generous community, and we’ve been honored by how often folks have
    opened their land and homes, and volunteered their time to make these
    types of events possible for our Alumni. We’re so sorry if it seemed
    that we didn’t appreciate that support with our confusing communication
    of a business decision. It certainly wasn’t our intention!

    I hope
    this post provides some clarity and helps answer some questions. We
    welcome the opportunity to have a warrior on Gun Talk Radio to discuss
    how hunting or events of the like have supported their recovery. We
    responded too quickly to his request and should have delved a bit
    deeper.

  • sniper74

    All of you who are jumping down the chute of saying your wont donate, here is their response directly from their facebook page. They are NOT anti-gun, anti-knives, anti-bows. They are just ending the co-branding side of their marketing program because they are not making any money on that.

    We’ve
    had a lot of questions recently that started when we declined an
    opportunity to appear on Gun Talk Radio. We want to clarify and help
    answer some questions. We have seen through this process that the
    language on our website and our response to the invitation to appear on
    the show weren’t clear, and we are working on clarifying our approach.
    There is now much inaccurate information about WWP being anti-gun
    rights, an issue as an apolitical organization we do not take a stance
    on. We understand and appreciate that many of our Alumni are gun
    owners, and we facilitate multiple hunting and outdoor opportunities for
    our Wounded Warriors throughout the year.

    In the past, we made
    our logo available to appear on wide variety of products, including
    guns. As an organization, we owe it to our donors and constituents to
    maximize the return on investment of our dollars and brand. We are
    always looking at our business practices and whether we should continue
    with them in the future. In the case of cobranding, we’ve decided that
    we’re not going to offer our logo to appear on weapons anymore – whether
    they’re guns, knives, bows, swords, or any other type of weapon. There
    are still a few of the guns around for sale that had licensed our logo
    years ago, but there aren’t any new ones being made. This is purely a
    business decision based on a review of a return on investment,
    especially when compared with other types of cobranding ventures.

    Regarding the question of donations and events, we do permit
    fundraisers that are shooting- and gun-related, such as gun raffles,
    shooting competitions, etc., and we’re incredibly appreciative of those
    who are willing to give their time to host or participate in an event.
    Likewise, we gratefully accept donations from companies and individuals
    connected with the gun industry.

    As indicated above, we know that
    hunting and shooting sporting events can be very therapeutic for many
    of the Wounded Warriors we serve, and we’re happy to work with the
    community to make these types of events available to our Alumni. Hunting
    and shooting sport enthusiasts are an incredibly supportive and
    generous community, and we’ve been honored by how often folks have
    opened their land and homes, and volunteered their time to make these
    types of events possible for our Alumni. We’re so sorry if it seemed
    that we didn’t appreciate that support with our confusing communication
    of a business decision. It certainly wasn’t our intention!

    I hope
    this post provides some clarity and helps answer some questions. We
    welcome the opportunity to have a warrior on Gun Talk Radio to discuss
    how hunting or events of the like have supported their recovery. We
    responded too quickly to his request and should have delved a bit
    deeper.

    • disqus_xLn56CDAGb

      Blah, blah, blah, blah, waaa, waaaa, (sucking noises)…. we still want your money….but guns ain’t cool….

      • sniper74

        That’s not what they are saying. Get a clue. Read. Use your brain instead of your other brain.

    • speedle24

      Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. Read between the lines Sniper 74. One is either an advocate of the Second Amendment (which means promoting it at all times), or one is against it. “Caring less” is the same as being against it. Their position (as an influential major non profit) is similar to a neighbor watching someone’s house being robbed. The neighbor is not “for robbing houses” but doesn’t want to do anything to prevent it from happening. The Second Amendment is under constanct attack from the ruling progressives. One is either against them actively or for them (if passive).

      I can see this, and I am not even a hunter.

      • sniper74

        You are the one that is reading to deeply. Take the time. Call them up and find out. It’s a business thing. They are spending more money than they are bringing in by co-branding.

        So let me ask you this, should the WWP go with less money to support the incoming troops? Or with MORE money?

        Sometimes it’s not about the Constitution or the laws. Sometimes a business or a Non-Profit Organization needs to make financial decisions based upon their goals.

        Just because they are pulling the plug on a marketing plug that in reality should have been making money doesn’t mean they wont. They are still going to be working with gun shows and knife shows.

        You are the one that is short sighted. After all, think of all the people the fund has helped. Why does it matter if they are pro gun or taking a neutral stance? The end game is to help those in need. Those who are deciding to stop supporting them is just hurting those who are supported by the fund. Then perhaps those who decide to stop funding or supporting something should just stop donating money altogether. Or perhaps you should all join together and create your own Non-profit.

        • speedle24

          I’ll tell you why. There is a limited amount of money that can be donated and a helluva lot of worthy causes that need funding. Helping a wounded veteren in your own neighborhood directy can be an option. The Salvation Army is another good option. Stay away from overgrown organizations like the United Way and the March of Dimes (to name a few).

          Costco has many products I want but I wouldn’t spend a dime in one of their stores because I don’t want to contribute to the success of a CEO that funds the Obama agenda. The same thing goes for Progressive Insurance Co.

          As I said I don’t buy the “It’s a business thing” excuse (although with this revelation it might become a business thing). IMO they are trying to distance themselves from the politically incorrect gun lobby in order to ingratiate themselves with the progressive powers that be. If that is not your take than knock yourself out with contributions.

          • sniper74

            The Salvation Army is just as neutral on the 2nd Amendment as the WWP, yet you say they are worthy?

            Red Cross takes 75% of their funds to run the Red Cross leaving the remainder to the victim.

            My point is, why judge a Non-Profit on whether they are anti gun or not? The purpose of the WWP is not to supply them with guns and ammo. It’s to help returning veterans who are wounded. That is their main goal. It just so happens that most Gun Owners support their troops so they naturally thought that co-branding their project with businesses would bring them money through the sales as well as the donations. Lets face it, donations to many charities are small. Nobody goes around donating large chunks of change to most charities. Most are small donations, $10 here, $5 there, a nickle into the red bucket at Christmas time. So they thought that getting some extra cash from someone buying a knife in a package that had the WWP logo on it, was a good thing.

            They are now finding out that, that type of marketing doesn’t really bring in so much money. It appears that it’s costing them more to co-brand than it is bringing in money. I personally don’t go shopping around looking for something with a co-brand on it. A good example is Bear Gryls and his sponsorship with Gerber. I am sorry, but I am not about to go into a knife store and immediately buy one. On top of that, most people already own a knife.

            So why are people bashing the WWP for changing their marketing strategy? Why are you saying, “Nope I am not donating to them because they decided not to co-brand”? Oh wait….because you just read this and automatically believed that they are against guns because someone wrote it was about that?

            My issue is, why isn’t anyone actually taking the time and investigating the entire story? After all, should everyone be listening to what the WWP thinks as well before jumping to conclusions?

            Perhaps they have a legal agreement with a company that states that if they don’t do the co-branding they can’t talk about guns? Or perhaps they feel that by going on a talk show that is geared towards guns might not be the best thing? That maybe one of their partners might not like that? Or what about all those that are not Pro 2nd that donate to this fund as well? After all, I doubt that ONLY gun owners donate to this project. So they have to take them into consideration as well. If not, that’s called discrimination. Perhaps they realize that more people that are against guns donate more than those who enjoy guns, and they don’t want to lose that money either.

            Non-Profits shouldn’t be judged on whether they are pro gun or not. They should be judged on how much of the donations they receive actually go to what they say it’s for.

          • speedle24

            “Perhaps they have a legal agreement with a company that states that if they
            don’t do the co-branding they can’t talk about guns? Or perhaps they feel that
            by going on a talk show that is geared towards guns might not be the best thing?
            That maybe one of their partners might not like that?”

            “That one of their partners might not like that????” I rest my case.

          • jackpiner

            GIFTED organizations either comply with your wishes or NOT…there are plenty of Veterans outfits that understand the 2nd Amendment, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, etc…Give to ORGANIZATIONS WHO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, 100%. THIS COMMIE US GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY ALL THE SOLDIERS REQUIRED NEEDS…ESPECIALLY THE SEVERELY WOUNDED

      • sniper74

        So are you not going to donate to Red Cross? What about Breast Cancer Awareness? They also don’t do anything with guns. So based upon your logic, if they don’t support the 2nd Amendment and claim it on their website and in their advertisement then they don’t deserve to have any donations?

        Yeah that’s the right logic to have there speedle. Just don’t give any money to any charity…keep it to your greedy self-centered bank.

        • hunterforlife

          WWP is doing so good they don’t accept or want donations from those they consider “unacceptable.”

          That is why they told a gun show “go screw yourself,” just like they told those Christian Charities when they tried to donate to WWP.

          So, gun owning, 2ndA supporting, Christians are unacceptable.

          WWP is why I’m very careful who I choose to donate my hard earned money. Now, if we can only get our big gov ruling class to stop taking our hard earn money to give to these PC “charities” that they think are deserving but we think are unacceptable..

          “To compel man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” T Jefferson

        • speedle24

          You re doing a lot of sniping there sniper. Why would you presume I don’t give anything to charity? I don’t need the likes of the uniformed like you to be my conscience.

          But as long as you ask, no I wouldn’t give any money to the “breast cancer awareness” program. They have more big time promotion than the Kardashians, kind of a pop culture orgasm. Gee, how much money do you need to make people “aware of breast cancer”?

          Now if someone would come up with a non profit that dealt with “progressive ideology danger awareness”, I would be all in. This disease has ruined more lives than breast cancer.

    • Arrgh2112

      Why would we waste money on an organization that is hiding behind a PC stance that is on its face ambivalence to 2A, and in reality is just a weak-spined attempt to keep donations flowing? If they are so happy to accept money from businesses and people that have at their core the defense of the Constitution, and yet are unwilling to give those same groups the time of day, then they are in fact nothing more than an AARP group. I’m sure another group that remembers what 2A stands for will fill the vacuum the WWP makes when the effects of losing their donation base evaporates.

  • Mort Leith

    Just canceled my WWP monthly donation ….

    Especially after I heard they refuse donations from gun manufacturers etc…
    The Atlanta WWP office also tried to sugar-coat it, like most liberals do,, but I canceled anyway

    • hunterforlife

      They also refused donations raised by Christian Charities.

  • Roger

    Why can’t they just help the vets and do good things without getting involved in the politics of guns and knives? Oh well, they just lost another $100/month…so sad.

    • sniper74

      But they aren’t. They are just dropping their co-branding. So in reality, you should be donating to them because they aren’t involved in politics. They were just trying another source to bring in money. Whats wrong with that?

  • jackpiner

    NO GUNS NO SECOND AMENDMENT…NO DONATIONS…HEY NRA NO DONATIONS…HEAR!

    • sniper74

      So let me ask you this. Do you donate to Red Cross? What about your Church…if you attend one? What about Breast Cancer Awareness? What about Salvation Army? So using your logic, if a place doesn’t support or doesn’t come out and say they support the 2nd Amendment then you wont donate? Gee….self centered are we?

  • disqus_xLn56CDAGb

    Cut them off. Another “WW” organization will immediately appear that WILL support the people that fund them. Ungrateful bastards.

  • Mark Smith USArmy

    Knew this when it came to light that they did not want NRA money. I’d like to see how much of that donated money actually goes to wounded warriors.

  • ussacitizen

    A friend of mine , still carrying shrapnel from Vietnam, has never had anything good to say about WWP. He never gives specifics but he doesn’t trust them, maybe this is partly why.

  • c69101

    Thanks.

  • reggiec

    From Charity Navigator:

    *********

    Wounded Warrior Project Program Expenses
    (Percent of the charity’s budget spent on the programs
    and services it delivers) 57.9%
    Administrative Expenses 5.6%
    Fundraising Expenses 36.3% Fundraising Efficiency$0.23
    Primary Revenue Growth 78.6%
    Program Expenses Growth 62.9%
    Working Capital Ratio (years) 0.93

    • Charles r

      Really not that bad. Not great either. Heck of alot better than HSUS. Less than 1% of their money actually goes to help animals. It’s all used for politics. My personal experience with WWP, they helped me with their Warriors to Work program. They even gave me cash to buy clothes for the interviews and once I got hired to buy uniforms. I see they don’t want to “co-brand” with the firearm and knife industry. I think it’s a stretch to say they are anti 2a. From a charity stand point. When you have such a polarized issue and you want to get the most money brought in, wouldn’t it make sense to avoid the issue? Why drive off potential donors? I could be wrong on that. Mostly because most liberal types feel it’s the Government’s job to handle charity so they don’t give anyway.

      • Arrgh2112

        Then why are they alienating the people that give them the majority of their money? They should be solidly behind the donors that have gotten them to the point they are at, not slinking back to a politically correct stance after grinning and accepting all of that gun money.

    • jaws4316

      That’s not a terrible rating. They do spend almost 60% on programs and services. Looks like they spend too much for a poor return on fundraising. I see one good reason for their not wanting to “co-brand” or associate too closely with gun manufacturers and organizations, and that is the issue of suicide by wounded veterans, which is most often by self-inflicted gunshot. How would it reflect on their organization if a veteran blew his brains out with a .45 emblazoned with their logo? Not well, I should think. They may have carried it a bit far by refusing to participate in a radio program, but I can see their reasons for wanting to remain publicly neutral about firearms.

      • reggiec

        I posted the stats for in formation only; not as any criticism. Charity Navigator is my go to place for determining who I give to. Everyone has to decide who they give to and many times politics can be involved, therefore it becomes a personal choice.

  • Dempsey Coleman

    I hope someone can get through to these Imbeciles that if No for Gun Supporting
    Veterans, Friends, Relatives and so on Like RNC they might start having trouble
    keeping their Pocket Books Full.

  • David Gray

    Just look at how much money the CEO of the WWP makes a year and how much money goes to the board members versus the actual charity. Actions speak louder than words!

  • gypsy

    Ok, so they aren’t pro-gun supporters. But do they support any anti gun agendas with the money donated to them?

    Asking for my own information, as I donate because of the vets that have served and sacrificed. Or can anyone suggest a way to find out. Not too good with that type of research.

    • Barrustio

      “You are either with me or you are against me”…an old adage…there are many other ways to support wounded warriors

      • gypsy

        True enough, like how and which org is the better? Being on disability, I would like my money to be used in the best way to show my appreciation for their service.

        • Barrustio

          I’m fighting for my last 10% right now…and I give to DAV

          • gypsy

            Ok, do they have any problems with pro-gun?

          • Barrustio

            These are all disabled vets and I know of no member or policy that is not pro-gun

  • Arrgh2112

    They don’t want to be seen as gun advocates, but they sure do like to have TV spots done showing the WWP hunts and gun matches? Seems like they are trying to play both sides. No thanks, there are better non-profits that haven’t stuck their contributors in the back in the name of political correctness.

  • Idadho

    The WWP has always been a left leaning organization. It is a big money organization full of quasi-do gooders who found a way to create good paying careers handing out trinkets to wounded warriors. Look at their programs. Most have more fluff than substance. Yes, they do help some wounded warriors but much of their money is spent in their beaurocracy.

  • cherieloren

    I support the USO with a monthly donation but should I find that they are anti-gun my donations will stop immediately. How can a “service” that claims to be for wounded warriors, many wounded by guns, who it is absolutely necessary that they carry guns in battle, be against guns? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

    • Barrustio

      I agree and as a two tour Nam vet will withhold any future support…I willfind another way to support my brothers and sisters in arms who have been wounded

      • cherieloren

        God bless you Sir and thank you for putting your life on the line to protect America and our freedoms.

  • kds

    I have known this for quite a while. Being a Shriner I was supporting them until I found out. The money that is supposed to go to our veterans is also being used up for wages and personal reasons by those in control. I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS LYING ORGANIZATION AGAIN.

  • Nameless App 1989

    A friendly reminder that the UN Arms Treaty takes effect in 5 days… Keep your guns and buy more!

  • Catherine Halsey

    So we need to be against the organization that helps amputee soldiers walk, and raises awareness for combat related distress?

    • USPatriotOne

      Do your research…how much is really going to our Vets! It’s not what people think!

  • gypsy

    Check these sites out to get an idea of major charities. The entire report is eye opening for all those who want to donate and help those who need our help.

    http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities.page

    http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

  • USPatriotOne

    The One true God lead me away from the WWP, thank you Jesus! I felt for a long time now that something was not right about this group and I was right! Just another liberal/Commie/Left deception on the Patriots and Vets! How much more can we take..!!! God help us, PLEASE!

  • She Said It

    Wow, I had no idea. That’s OK, there are other good organizations that help the vets I can contribute to.

Trending Now on Clash Daily