Vfw :(

[darrels joy]

Burn your VFW cards; Vote Vets runs VFW - PAC???? (IMPORTANT UPDATE 3)

Posted By Mr Wolf • [October 08, 2010]

Above the line UPDATE:

First off, thank you to all who have written and commented on this topic. A nerve has been struck here, and it's important we understand exactly what is going on, and what has transpired in the last 24 hours. Keep up the pressure- it's working and getting noticed!

I've corresponded with several people on this, and yesterday, I received in my in-box a copy of a letter from the Florida Commander of the VFW to the National PAC Commander stating:

On behalf of the Department of Florida, I am writing to object to the manner in which the Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee made its endorsements for the United States Congress.

Yes. The Dept. of Florida is at odds with what has transpired at National. Think it's just the PAC they are concerned with? Think again- look at this closing line:

It is evident fromthe tone of the received emails that the VFW-PAC and by association
the Veterans of Foreign Wars is not sewing the interests of some members and potential members. This regional firestorm could have been avoided if the PAC board and staff remembered the old adage that all politics are local.

I disagree with one element of this- it ain't regional. It's all over the US, from the emails and comments we've received here and at Ace o' Spades and This Ain't Hell and others. People.Are.Pissed. And like I stated below, the Allen West snub was the last straw. What's worse, he's not the only excellent candidate out there who happens to be a Vet. He's only one of the more visable and well-known guys. Here is the document in full: Download Dept of FL Response to PAC Endorsement (2). It is evident that the process is broken, that they won't listen, and most cerainly, they are after only one thing- money, and not the support for the vets and communities they purport to serve. To endorse some of the most VILE, anti-military politicians over stalwart veterans with REAL experience and community support is the worst. ADDED: 2 other reasons this isn't just a VFW-PAC problem- remember the DHS memo issue?

Where they listed 'veterans' as possible security risks? And Obama's admin wanting to shave 540m off the budget by charging veterans for their health care? Where was the National on that? I'll remind you- supporting the administration, and not backing the local vet's who were extremely upset then, too.

I'm going to be hitting up many more venues and outlets on this- stay tuned, and watch over at Big Peace, Ace, and Hugh Hewitt for more to come. I'll post more links as they come up. Keep the pressure on- we need to let them know that, in this electoral cycle, with the 'temperature' of the electorate being what it is, the status quo won't work. I'm calling it the VFW's version of the TEA Party, in a way. It is apparent that they have gone so far off-track at the national level, just like our elected officials, that they've lost touch with who really matters- local guys.

One other thing- I'm serious about burning my card if this doesn't get 'fixed'. And by 'fixed' I mean the endorsements pulled, and those at the top GONE. Both at the National level and the PAC. Taking it back won't work- it takes too long, and they will not change. Resignations and removals need to happen NOW. If anyone at the National level is reading, my contact info is in the sidebar.

This will not stand....

UPDATE 2 AT BOTTOM

Last night, we received an interesting email from Bev Perlson, who heads the Band of Mothers group. She's got an awesome email list that is good for keeping up on what's going on around the country.

What was so disturbing was the email listed someone we all know-

LTC(r) Allen West" target="_blank">LTC(r) Allen West

, and how the VFW, of all people, THE VEE-EFF-FRICKING-W, was ENDORSING HIS OPPONENT.

You read that right.

His opponent? Democrat Ron Klein. WHO HAS NEVER SERVED IN UNIFORM.

You read THAT right, too.

People, I've been pissed before. Mad, even. Upset. But this? THIS is treasonous to me. For a 'so called' veterans organization to pick a NON-SERVING, NON-VETERAN over one of the MOST PROMISING veterans running in politics is heinous. Disturbing. And shows just how far off-track the VFW has become.

As you may recall, when I returned from Iraq one of the first things I did was join VFW and Legion as 'life members'. Now, it seems, the time has come to rip, burn, and toss my Lifetime 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 Hastings, Barbara Lee, Steny Hoyer, Barbara Mikulsky, Chris VanHollen, John Dingell, Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy and Patty Murray

In addition, they support Perlmutter over Bailey (former USAF) Frazier (former Navy) for Colorado; to their credit, they do support Mike Coffman (Marine) in his race in CO. But the rest of the list is disgusting. To me, it reads they are 'supporting' or 'endorsing' only those they see as WINNING. It appears they don't give a RATS ASS who supports vets or who WAS a vet.

I am asking all of you to join me in contacting the VFW to protest this development; supporting a non-vet over LTC West was the last straw.

Call the VFW at 1-202-544-5868. Email them at: vfwpac@vfw.org.

Oh yeah, and before I forget- Remember when Obama wanted to charge wounded troops for medical care? VFW supported him on that, too. READ IT HERE.

VFW- we are done here. Fix it, or be gone as a veterans organization.

UPDATE 1: Keep hitting them- word is they are getting calls. Write. HIT THEM HARD. Given the climate that's out there, and what they are doing to veterans behind our backs, this should not stand. I suggest the following in any statements you send/make:

I, my membership, my money (the money I set aside to give to PACs) and every friend I can bring along are switching to the Legion. And I will be doing my damnedest to convince every veteran I know to do likewise.

I hate this- I know there are locals that do great things. But, if they are willing to sit by, and let their national organization do this over their objections, then they are complicit in it. I'd like to see the locals boot the national guys out. Really would.

UPDATE 2: Getting questions and emails on whether we realize there is a difference between VFW and VFW-PAC. Well, there is and there isn't.

Let me just say this- if the local VFW chapters, to include the states, are willing to let National allow their PAC to push this type of agenda and these types of candidates, well, bad on them for just standing by. They should be rioting over it. Holding their dues payments where they can. Put pressure on National to adhere to what the LOCALS want, not what National may think 'is best'. Because to do otherwise is utter bullshiite.

To us, this is not an issue of VFW-PAC vs. VFW. They are the same- don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Wolf


http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/1...s-vfw-pac.html

[darrels joy]

ActBlue

The online clearinghouse for Democratic action.


Want blue states?

VETPAC

by VetPAC - Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy


Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy (VETPAC) is a political action committee established under the federal election laws to raise funds and, with those funds, make contributions to candidates for federal office and engage in other election-related activities, including endorsing and promoting the election of specific candidates for public office and addressing issues of national importance.

VETPAC seeks to address issues of particular urgency for protecting the security and enhancing the democratic processes of the United States. As an alliance of veterans working with veterans, and of veterans working in alliance with the American people, VETPAC will endorse and support candidates for national office that support VETPAC’s principles of security and democracy.

http://www.actblue.com/page/vetpac

[darrels joy]

Veterans of Foreign Wars PAC Endorses Senator Harry Reid Second Major Veterans Organization Endorsement in Less Than One Week LAS VEGAS – The following is a statement released by Jerry Chamlee, VFW State Commander, Department of Nevada: “According to Federal Law, the Veterans of Foreign Wars cannot legally endorse candidates. Therefore, the VFW Political Action Committee was incorporated in 1979 and provides the 2.1 million members of the VFW, its auxiliaries and their families with an opportunity to collectively support candidates for federal office who support our nations’ veterans and America’s security. Funding for the VFW PAC comes from the donations of concerned VFW and Ladies Auxiliary VFW members. The VFW PAC is the nation’s only major Veterans Service Organization. “Today, the Veterans of Foreign Wars Political Action Committee announced its endorsement of Nevada Senator Harry Reid for his tireless commitment on behalf of Nevada’s veterans such as securing the $540 million in funding needed to complete a new VA Hospital in Southern Nevada, passing the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights and supporting the end of unfair concurrent receipt policies.” In response to today’s endorsement by VFW PAC, Senator Reid said in a statement: “I am so honored and grateful to have the support of our nation’s heroes in this campaign. America’s veterans have risked their lives in service to our country and I will continue working to honor their sacrifice by ensuring we never break our nation’s promise to those in uniform. “That’s why I secured the funding to bring a new state-of-the-art VA Hospital to southern Nevada, passed the 21st Century GI Bill of Rights to give all our veterans the opportunity to go to college, and am working to ensure disabled veterans receive every dime owed them.” Senator Reid concluded: “As long as I am Majority Leader, I will never allow the Department of Veterans Affairs to be privatized, which would put the hard-earned benefits of Nevada’s veterans in jeopardy.” This is the second major veterans’ organization endorsement in less than a week, following the Veterans’ Alliance for Security and Democracy endorsement last Thursday. after VFW Tells Congress to Set Aside Troop Withdrawal Language New Reid proposal tantamount to surrender

LAS VEGAS, April 3, 2007 – The number two leader of the nation’s largest organization of combat veterans has called upon Congress to temporarily set aside their troop withdrawal language so that emergency funding can be approved for the troops fighting the war in Iraq. At a press conference earlier today, George Lisicki, the senior vice commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., said that everyone knows that President Bush will veto the emergency war supplemental that Congress passed last month. “The funding package contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety,” said Lisicki, who ascends to national commander in August and was here today to host a meeting of future leaders from the VFW’s 54 departments. “I am calling on all the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to, for now, reserve further debate and provide the funds needed by our troops to prosecute the Global War on Terror,” he said, noting that Iraq was clearly the centerpiece of that war on terrorism, and that the House and the Senate funding packages were also loaded with extraneous spending not related to the war on terrorism. “This isn’t a Democrat or Republican issue. It’s about American men and women tasked with fighting a war, and who are now being told their effort and sacrifice doesn’t matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they’ve finished the job or not,” he said. Lisicki, Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J., said that when Congress reconvenes, they need to approve funding for war-related requirements only, and debate the other issues in separate legislation. “We ask Congress to never cut or withhold funding for troops deployed or being deployed to a war zone,” he said. “They must ensure that those who are sent to war have the best equipment and our strongest support. Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay.” Along with Lisicki, VFW Commander-in-Chief Gary Kurpius was also disappointed to hear today that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may introduce legislation that would immediately cut off funding for the war. “By proposing this type of legislation, Senator Reid would be abdicating his responsibility to help protect and defend our nation, and his responsibility to the men and women serving in our armed forces,” said Lisicki. “Simply put, it’s reckless and tantamount to waving a white flag of surrender to the enemy.” Lisicki said that if such legislation is introduced, the senator can be assured that the VFW will strongly urge its membership to work to defeat its passage. http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=3962

[darrels joy]

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

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=5596

[darrels joy]

Escalation: VFW directors demand VFW PAC rescind endorsements

Share
posted at 9:25 am on October 13, 2010 by Guy Benson


The nasty VFW/VFW PAC political endorsement spat is boiling over into open political warfare between the two groups. When Ed posted on this story yesterday, VFW leaders were already expressing dismay over their political action committee’s “seriously flawed” candidate endorsement methodology–going so far as to raise the prospect of scrapping the PAC altogether. This posture evidently didn’t stem the hailstorm of criticism from rank-and-file VFW members, prompting leadership to release another statement, this time insisting that VFW PAC rescind its recent controversial string of endorsements:

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…

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.

…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.

What’s almost certainly raising many veterans’ ire is the spectacle of Senator M’am gleefully touting her handy new VFW PAC endorsement on the campaign trail. Team Carly, meanwhile, is circulating a memo (drawing heavily from this debate fact-check) chronicling the myriad reasons why VFW members might take offense to their PAC’s blessing of Babs. A taste:

In 2007, Boxer Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against Supplemental Funding For The Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)

In 2007, Then-Sen. Joe Biden Attacked Democrats For Opposing Funding For The Troops, Noting That “There’s No Political Point Worth Anybody’s Life Out There.” BIDEN: “So what did some of my colleagues say about why they voted against the money? They said they voted against the money to make a political point.There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Remarks At The Iowa State Fair, Des Moines, IA, 8/15/07)


In 2003, Boxer Was One Of Just 12 Senators To Oppose The $87 Billion Supplemental Appropriation For The Reconstruction Of Iraq And Afghanistan; The Bill Included Funding For Body Armor And Communications Equipment For The Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea; “Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,” The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

“During A Committee Hearing In June, Boxer Upbraided A Brigadier General For Calling Her ‘Ma’am’ Rather Than ‘Senator.’” (Lisa Lerer and Manu Raju, “Dems Raise Concerns About Boxer,” Politico, 7/23/09)

Boxer Was One Of Only 25 Senators Who Voted Against Condemning A MoveOn.Org Ad Against General David Petraeus; Feinstein Voted To Condemn The Ad. (HR 1585, CQ Vote #344: Passed 72-25: R 49-0; D 22-24; I 1-1, 9/20/07, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)

I suspect the hapless VFW PACers who initially thought it’d be fine and dandy to dole out endorsements to politicians like Boxer and Alan Grayson (!) are learning a valuable lesson: American veterans don’t like being jerked around, and they’re not shy about defending their honor. Just ask Dick Blumenthal.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/1...-endorsements/

[reconeil]

As to whether: "Burn your VFW card" and also similarly biased & selective American Legion membership card? Of course.

Both have pretty-much same Honorably Discharged Veteran EXCLUSIONARY DATES for about 5 million or so: "Cold War Warriors", listed on backs of their membership cards.

Here in New Jersey it would also make sense for MANY: "Cold War Warriors" (myself included) to burn our NJ State Membership Card,...if such even existed.

It's historically factual that State of NJ has LONGTIME been Hypocritical, Biased & Preferential, as both LEGION & VFW obviously have LONGTIME also been.

Was about 46 years when this 3 Years of Honorable Service in both 10th Recon Co & "The A-Troop" on West German/Czech Border Veteran,...was disgustingly DENIED standard Veterans Property Tax Exemption by The State of New Jersey, after having purchased a home.

Apparently: "High-mucky-mucks", "Grand Tall Shorts", hierarchy or dishonorable dues collecters & dispersers of Legion & VFW control Biased Financial Outlays of State of NJ,...ALSO.

Not sure how many have been so longtime screwed-over by Society's Supremacists & Betters?
But there must be MANY similarly like myself not having served during: "The Correct Heroic Years"

Thus, I hope all here will understand why personally considering that controlling political hierarchies of Legion, VFW & State of NJ...are ALL: "Lower than whale shit"!

Hey? In my eyes anyone getting lordly screwed-over by Fellow Veterans (plus state) for 46 years & taking same LIGHTLY,...is either an idiot or a moron. I'm neither. Just Rightfully Pissed.

Neil

P.S. Isn't it just too bad down here on Political Debate Forum, Joy?
Here quite differently as all OTHER Patfile segments, the: "Last Posts - Statistics" at top of all Forums listed, are never displayed for any posts or responses on this Political Debate Forum. Thus, I think many members are just missing-out on some pretty-worthwhile info.

[darrels joy]

The VFW’s Suicide PAC(t)

by Kurt Schlichter
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) has doubled-down on failure.
Ignoring the growing protests of its outraged members, the supposedly “independent” VFW Political Action Committee (VFW-PAC) has issued a new statement refusing to back off on the disgraceful set of endorsements that have threatened the venerable and (at least at the local level) respected organization with destruction.

The short version: “Our members are partisan morons who ought to sit back and let us decide what’s good for them.” The long version:

VFW-PAC Stands By Endorsement Process

WASHINGTON, DC, Oct 13,2010 – The VFW-PAC was established in 1979 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) as a separate, nonpartisan organization charged with the single task of working in Congress to support candidates who have taken responsible positions on issues involving national defense and legislation pertaining to the nation’s veterans.

An eleven member Board of Directors reviews and establishes the criteria used for the endorsement process each election cycle. 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. Therefore, thirteen roll call votes in the House of Representatives and nine votes in the Senate that aligned with VFW priority goals were selected to grade the support of incumbent members of Congress. The bar was set high, as a Senator must have voted in concert with the VFW position on 7 of 9 votes and a Representative 10 of 13 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. The Board would also consider candidates running for open seats. Both challengers and open seat candidates would have to state in writing their position on VFW priority goals.

There are a few races out of 356 endorsed candidates in both the House and Senate, where emotions are running high, that are getting a lot of attention. In some cases there are veterans and even VFW members running against Congressional incumbents endorsed by the VFW-PAC. It would not only be unfair, but contrary to VFW-PAC By-Laws to disregard the incumbent’s record of support and endorse another candidate. The VFW-PAC will not abandon those in Congress that have supported issues of critical importance to our nation’s security and veterans.

In the political endorsement arena, there will always be party loyalists and individuals that will not agree with the VFW-PAC decision. The Board respects their position and appreciates their activism in support of the candidate of their choice. The VFW-PAC endorsement is not designed to tell people how to vote; but to point out who has demonstrated support for veterans and America’s security.

The VFW-PAC disagrees with those who claim the endorsement process is skewed, flawed, or unfair.

Some incumbents will have an advantage over another candidate because they have a good voting record on the issues. They also have a disadvantage if their votes don’t support the VFW’s position. Holding lawmakers accountable and judging them by their actions on legislative issues is a fair and necessary standard. This Congress has been very good to veterans and incumbent endorsements reflect that support.

The VFW-PAC stands by the endorsement process used during the 2010 election cycle.

There’s something to be said for consistency. In this case, that something is, “What the hell are you thinking?” This pathetic, self-serving statement – like the one put out Monday by the VFW leadership – ignores the real issue while simultaneously insulting the members.

Veterans concerned that their good name is being used by a candidate who consorts with Hanoi Jane Fonda and Code Pink are instead labeled as “party loyalists.” Sometimes there is no gray area. If a veterans group can’t even take a position that buddying-up with Jane Fonda and Code Pink is beyond the pale, it’s outlived its usefulness as a national organization.

The loyalty of the VFW-PAC is touching: “The VFW-PAC will not abandon those in Congress that have supported issues of critical importance to our nation’s security and veterans.” Too bad that loyalty does not extend to those who merely served their nation in wartime. Apparently loyalty only extends to those willing to check the block on some scorecard then fly home to sip chardonnay with folks who posed for pictures on North Vietnamese AA guns.

Let’s take a look at some of the other awesome endorsements the savvy political geniuses at the VFW are standing behind:

We all know about LTC (Ret.) Allen West – who is actually a member of the VFW thanks to his service in Desert Storm and Iraq – being passed over for his opponent, Ron Klein (D-FL), who’s military record consists of playing with a G.I. Joe in third grade.

There’s Barbara_Lee (D-CA); she’s the only one in Congress who voted against going after the 9/11 terrorists. Great choice there, guys. You’ve really got your fingers on the pulse of your membership.

How about picking Pelosi rubberstamp Mike McIntyre (D-NC) over Illario Pantano in the North Carolina 7^th District race? All Pantano did was actually, you know, serve in a war.

And it’s backing Barney Frank (D-MA) over Marine Sean Bielat. That’s easy to understand. Beilat’s just been a Devil Dawg; he’s never done anything big – like personally help torpedo the financial industry and with it our whole economy. Another awesome selection, dudes.

The VFW, which seems to have trouble deciding whether it can or cannot influence the VFW-PAC, needs to act. This cannot wait until some convention next summer. The leadership must call an immediate meeting and eliminate the VFW-PAC entirely – before the election, not after. They have already managed to alienate their existing members while driving away the next generation. This could well be the beginning of the end of the VFW.

I asked Paul Chabot, an Iraq War veteran and VFW Life Member who is the leader of the Veterans for Carly Fiorina, Barbara Boxer’s opponent, what he thinks. His words should sting the leadership to their core: “I am ashamed of the VFW.” [Full Disclosure: I am listed as a “Veteran for Carly” but I have not been active in the campaign]. Chabot wants “the VFW headquarters to call for an emergency meeting to take into the question the very existence of the PAC – and to do so before the November 2^nd election.” He’s not alone – but if the VFW leadership does not unscrew this mess pronto they soon will be.

Starting in basic training, the first thing you are taught to do when your buddy is hit is to “stop the bleeding.” The VFW needs to do that now – not later. Hanging in the balance is the fate of the entire organization, one that at the local level has provided essential services to veterans new and old for decades. Gentlemen, your present course is not a strategy – it is a suicide pact.

Gentlemen, you must do the right thing. Stop the bleeding.

CORRECTION: The VFW has correctly pointed out that the endorsement list does not include Barney Frank (D-MA); however, it likewise does not endorse Marine veteran Sean Bielat, who is running against Frank. It provided no explanation regarding why the VFW-PAC endorsed the opponents of combat veterans Ilario Pantano and Allen West or why it endorsed Code Pink’s “beloved” Barbara Boxer (D-CA).


http://biggovernment.com/kschlichter...t/#more-181109

Harry Reid was endorsed by local VFW Posts for getting a new VA hospital built here. I tried to find an article online about it but saw it on the local TV news. Funding for the contents and running it have not been passed, only the buildings. I wonder how many endorsements of Harry that will cost the local veteran's organizations.

Joy