Wounded Warrior Project In Not So Many Words Admits It Is Anti Gun
 

DONATE TO THE GREEN BERET FOUNATION

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/11/woun...#axzz2Wul5gwuG

Also touched on here starting around post #23:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...warrior&page=2

And as noted above, Give To The Green Beret Foundation...

Now this really pisses me off. WWP supports Wounded Warriors plain and simple.

For one side of an unrelated issue to "call out" WWP because they appear to support the opposite side of the unrelated issue - well that is not merely a distraction it is an unforgivable one IMO.

WWP is now in the middle and no matter what they do they lose donor support and who is the real loser? Yeah, Wounded Warriors.

This whole dust up is shameful IMO. It is no win situation for WWP and that is the shame of it all.

[Rant Off]

PS: Support the Green Beret Foundation

Have any of you read how much money the WWP wastes each year on executive salaries and fundraising?

There isn't much left when the warriors get their share.

TR

Yes, I will go with the Green Beret Charitable Trust.

I saw one day the numbers %'s of the WWF....wow, just as bad, if not worse than the others...

Now that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish! Got any sources? Damn, I hope they don't pay professional fund raisers. :eek: Charitable orgs that do this are among the worst. Anyone have a source for this information too.

In the past I have contributed to and done some events in support of WWP. I know how to redirect those contributions;).

Before we get too far down the road in this discussion. One thing to consider is that the % of donation dollar that goes to overhead (including fund raising) is not the only metric to evaluate.

The total dollars spent and numbers of wounded warriors receiving assistance is also important. One piece of reality is that to raise really significant dollars and to manage those dollars takes an infrastructure that is expensive. Sure an organization can raise a few million with, say 90% of the funds raised going to beneficiaries. However, to raise several tens or hundreds of millions can't be done effectively with a volunteer organization.

The smaller, more efficient charitable org may be able to help a few hundred or even a thousand beneficiaries. The larger and apparently less efficient charitable org, on the other hand, may be able to support tens of thousands beneficiaries.

In short, I am saying that there may be a "reverse" economy of scale operating here. To be fair, we should probably evaluate the total number of beneficiaries and the economic value of the benefit received on per beneficiary basis.

I think that is the more relevant question and not the % of my money as a single donor that goes to beneficiary support. After all it is about the beneficiaries and not about me.

Here are the numbers for your perusal.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...ry&orgid=12842

I don't think that the Executive Director of an organization that spends nearly half of what it raises on overhead should be paid $319,692 per year.

Furthermore, they spend 30 cents to raise each dollar.

You may feel differently.

TR

Given that their main mission is to raise awareness, the percentage spent is probably reasonable. All those ads do make people remember.... more than the news does. :(

The number of military associated charities are amazing. Some are localized and use the term "wounded warrior" so all that branding on TV ads does give a halo effect to other veteran organizations who are all volunteer. There is a strong case to say that if Wounded Warrior ads did not keep awareness up, all these charities would suffer.

The best thing for many of us who have served in SF, have friends or family in SF -- or simply appreciate the mission of SF -- is to donate to The Green Beret Foundation to help warriors truly deserving and in need. The Green Beret Foundation counts on people who already know and appreciate Special Forces and their service.

You often get what you pay for. It's difficult to find talented staff to head such a large undertaking for much less than this. That man's peers in the for-profit sector are likely making much more.

In addition, since when does "not being pro" always mean "anti"?? If an organization chooses not to support SOME weapons related events or endeavors, are they necessarily "Anti-Gun"?

It's not like they're actively lobbying to support gun-control measures.

Just my opinion...