TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:
Unless and until I see a definitive "We unequivocally support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms." statement they are not getting another cent from me.

Pfffft I've already moved on..... I KNOW the good Fisher House does, I've requested living space for several family's and visited several of the houses, in TX,WA, DC.

The question is, to I actively denounce and drive away supports from WWP.. or just ignore them. .. this has yet to be decided... Keeping in mind.... no matter who is getting rich.. they ARE DOING some good for Wounded Warriors, I have seen it with my own eyes.

Should a double amputee wounded warrior turn down a new wheel chair lift for the truck he was donated, because the donating organization has a 30.06 sign on the company building? Sounds a lot like a saying involving a nose, face and spite..

I agree, if they were not two faced in this regard, that they do some good work. I will no longer support them until the 30.06 signs come down but I will not openly denounce them to my friends either (if I had any friends).

Kinda like this......
Hooters has nice looking waitresses and fairly good food, but I don't go there because they are not 2a friendly.

That accident yesterday in Midland where 4 were killed at the train crossing was supposedly a Wounded Warrior sponsored event. Many of the warriors were there for a hunting trip according to what I heard on the news. It sure is a sad thing and I'm not affixing any blame on the program for what happened. Just a coincidence.

In as related thing the WWP has apparently clarified their stance on the firearm community:
http://www.examiner.com/article/wounded ... pportunity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Quote:
Wounded Warrior Project reverses position, ‘welcomes’ Gun Talk 'opportunity'

Reflecting the power of a bit of publicity accompanied with spontaneous grassroots activism, a spokesperson for the Wounded Warrior Project expressed regret for “the appearance of a lack of appreciation for the support the [firearms] community has given us based on a confusingly communicated business decision,” the Professional Outdoor Media Association reported this afternoon.

POMA had attempted to ascertain why a representative from WWP had declined an interview request on Tom Gresham’s nationally syndicated Gun Talk Radio program, with the given excuse being because it involved firearms, a story shared today on Gun Rights Examiner.

“After two days of requests … from POMA to connect and clarify facts, another WWP representative, Ayla Hay responded today,” the report relates, providing the verbatim response received.

“We welcome the opportunity to have a warrior on Mr. Gresham’s show to discuss how hunting or events of the like have supported their recovery,” Hay affirmed, reversing the position articulated by the group’s public relations director. “We responded too quickly to his request and should have delved a bit deeper.”

“While it would have been appropriate last week to have a warrior on the show to talk about his or her activities with the WWP, at this point, the story is about your policy,” Gresham responded.

“I would welcome any spokesperson from WWP on the show to talk specifically about the policy about firearms,” he continued. “There is … much confusion with those who have donated to the Wounded Warrior Project (individuals and corporate donors) on what appears to be a discrepancy -- WWP will not appear at events or talk to media when it's about firearms, but WWP is okay with taking those donations.

“This is the area I'd like to clear up when the Wounded Warrior Project provides a guest, Gresham concluded, asking if they could “provide someone to address these issues on the show.”

At this writing, it is unknown if the group will provide a representative under those conditions.

In a related development, Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman reports the national organization Knife Rights has also requested clarification on WWP policies as they relate to knives. This correspondent is in communication with the group’s executive director, Doug Ritter, and will share developments in this story when they become known.

One thing that's evident in spite of much noise to the contrary by anti-gunners who can't marshal and mobilize such grassroots force on a moment's notice -- the firearms community can.

If I was paying myself 25 grand each month, I sure would do a lot of tap dancing to keep those checks rolling in.

Can anyone in the SA area confirm or deny the WWP building at Address:
12672 Silicon Drive, Suite 105
San Antonio, Texas 78249

Has or does not have a 30.06 marker?

Sounds like the hue and cry from the peasants with pitchforks and torches is having an impact.

Compensation for the organization’s Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director are set following IRS rules and are determined by an independent compensation committee of the Board of Directors. They look at comparison data from other nonprofits who are of like size and scope, industry wide surveys, and our annual performance to determine appropriate salary.

And I do not support those organizations (United way comes to mind) that pay their executives those inflated salaries either.

Chemist45 wrote:And I do not support those organizations (United way comes to mind) that pay their executives those inflated salaries either.

I donate more to local organizations that have less overhead and more of the donations go to support the cause.

bronco78 wrote:Can anyone in the SA area confirm or deny the WWP building at Address:
12672 Silicon Drive, Suite 105
San Antonio, Texas 78249

Has or does not have a 30.06 marker?

,

I'll try to remember to take a drive by there tomorrow.

Oops, I was thinking of the wrong one. WWP is on the other side of town.

jimlongley wrote:Did anyone else see a clarification? I sure didn't: I saw an explanation about co-branding, which is not the topic;

Not only did I not see a clarification, I saw an explanation that did not make sense. They will no longer license their name to weapons because, as a business decision, it was not a good return on investment.

Uhh, just what kind of investment do they make to license their name/trademark/design to a company? I will say it might be an investment of some time from some staff person to review the agreement, but that should not be too much of an investment. If a company approached with a way to get some donations by selling a WWP pistol, how could they really lose money? For example, say Springfield said they would make a WWP 1911 and give them $10 for each one sold. Springfield must think they will sell enough to cover the cost of the dies, so anything WWP gets would be pure profit.

Now, I could be missing something in this, but from their initial explanation, I think they are lying.

srothstein wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Did anyone else see a clarification? I sure didn't: I saw an explanation about co-branding, which is not the topic;

Not only did I not see a clarification, I saw an explanation that did not make sense. They will no longer license their name to weapons because, as a business decision, it was not a good return on investment.

Uhh, just what kind of investment do they make to license their name/trademark/design to a company? I will say it might be an investment of some time from some staff person to review the agreement, but that should not be too much of an investment. If a company approached with a way to get some donations by selling a WWP pistol, how could they really lose money? For example, say Springfield said they would make a WWP 1911 and give them $10 for each one sold. Springfield must think they will sell enough to cover the cost of the dies, so anything WWP gets would be pure profit.

Now, I could be missing something in this, but from their initial explanation, I think they are lying.

Exactly.

Long ago, due to what I consider corruption of one sort or another, I stopped donating to so-called charitable organizations.

I donate directly to those in need, starting first with my family, then friends, then community - the rest of the world can fend for itself...

C-dub wrote:I guess I could give them a little leeway on the amount spent on fundraising depending on how much they do raise. Spending more on fundraising to gain more donations isn't as bad as spending $320k/year to the CEO in my opinion.

As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend!"

I did some management consulting work for a group of companies under common ownership (3 guys). There was a mail-processing company that opened the return mail and processed the cash/checks and surveys. There was a direct mail firm that wrote all the direct mail pieces, bought the direct mail lists, sent the mailing, etc.. There were about a dozen different charities that were the grist for the mill.

Those charities would report their fundraising expenses. Their fundraising services were purchased from the mail-processing company and the direct mail firm. The 3 owners took salaries from the two service firms as well as owning all the profit that was moved to those two firm. The charities reported very low salaries for the executives but high fundraising costs.

It was just a variation on finding the Queen of Hearts in a Three-card Monte game.

The only measurement that matters to me in a charity is the percent of giving that ends up actually providing services to the correct beneficiaries.

Jumping Frog wrote:

C-dub wrote:I guess I could give them a little leeway on the amount spent on fundraising depending on how much they do raise. Spending more on fundraising to gain more donations isn't as bad as spending $320k/year to the CEO in my opinion.

As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend!"

I did some management consulting work for a group of companies under common ownership (3 guys). There was a mail-processing company that opened the return mail and processed the cash/checks and surveys. There was a direct mail firm that wrote all the direct mail pieces, bought the direct mail lists, sent the mailing, etc.. There were about a dozen different charities that were the grist for the mill.

Those charities would report their fundraising expenses. Their fundraising services were purchased from the mail-processing company and the direct mail firm. The 3 owners took salaries from the two service firms as well as owning all the profit that was moved to those two firm. The charities reported very low salaries for the executives but high fundraising costs.

It was just a variation on finding the Queen of Hearts in a Three-card Monte game.

The only measurement that matters to me in a charity is the percent of giving that ends up actually providing services to the correct beneficiaries.

Imagine if the IRS scaled donations by that percentage to determine how much is deductible on the donor's taxes.

2farnorth wrote:That accident yesterday in Midland where 4 were killed at the train crossing was supposedly a Wounded Warrior sponsored event. Many of the warriors were there for a hunting trip according to what I heard on the news.

The hunt is sponsored by a local Midland organization, http://www.showofsupport.org/. It's not connected to Wounded Warrior Project.

Alan