Liberal PAC Source for Media’s 2024 Civil War Obsession, Anti-Gun Disinformation

Liberal PAC the source for media’s 2024 civil war obsession, anti-gun disinformation
Liberal PAC the source for media’s 2024 civil war obsession, anti-gun disinformation

U.S.A.-( VoteVets is a hybrid political action group that operates as both a PAC and a Super PAC by donating money directly to political campaigns and by raising and spending unlimited amounts of cash for “independent expenditures,” such as ad campaigns that target conservative candidates and issues while supporting liberal issues and politicians.

The organization operates two groups, the VoteVets PAC and the VoteVets Action Fund. Its stated mission is to “to elect veterans to public office,” but in actuality, it only backs liberals. All of the candidates VoteVets supports for federal, state, and local offices are Democrats, and all of the issues it supports promote a liberal agenda.

Since it was formed in 2006, VoteVets has spent more than $120 million. Nearly half went for radio and television ads. According to, VoteVets receives money from the Democrats and Bloomberg:

“The PAC’s top three donors in 2018 were the Senate Majority PAC, the House Majority PAC and Bloomberg L.P. The organizations contributed $4.5 million, $2.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively.”

While pretending to advocate on behalf of veterans and veterans’ issues, in reality, VoteVets operates in lockstep with other anti-gun groups funded by Bloomberg’s cash. To be clear, VoteVets advocates for more anti-gun laws and restrictions even though most veterans own guns and strongly support the Second Amendment.

While VoteVets does fund lobbying efforts, it is the group’s liberal public-issue campaigns – which are usually not fully disclosed or attributed – that the mainstream media laps up like hungry dogs.

“They have really been punching above their weight this election cycle,” Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s highest-paid news actor said of VoteVets.

Hoodwinking readers

The Washington Post and scores of other newspapers recently published an opinion column, which was actually just the latest VoteVets public-issue campaign.

The headline was damning: “3 retired generals: The military must prepare now for a 2024 insurrection.”

“The signs of potential turmoil in our armed forces are there. On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections,” the column states.

It called on the Department of Defense to take “more intensive intelligence work at all installations.”

“The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists,” the generals wrote.

The column followed a similar bit of anti-Trump 2024 fearmongering, which was published by Newsweek, titled: “Millions of Angry, Armed Americans Stand Ready to Seize Power If Trump Loses in 2024.”

In the Washington Post story, VoteVets received only an oblique mention – certainly not full disclosure – in the authors’ byline: “Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general and a senior adviser to VoteVets; Antonio M. Taguba, a retired Army major general, with 34 years of active-duty service, and Steven M. Anderson, a retired brigadier general who served in the U.S. Army for 31 years.”

What the Post and the other media platforms that republished the syndicated column did not tell their readers was that the entire piece was little more than VoteVets’ ongoing political agitprop, and that two of the three generals are thinly veiled political activists, and apparently far more interested in partisan politics than they ever were the welfare of the troops who served under their command.

The newspapers never mentioned that after he retired in 2006, Major General Easton strongly criticized the Bush Administration on multiple media platforms for its handling of the Iraq War. Nor was it disclosed that he served as a special advisor to both Hilary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

In 2004, Major General Taguba was assigned to investigate allegations of mistreatment at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. His report, which was extremely critical, was almost immediately leaked to the media. The stories served as an inspiration for the Iraqi insurgency and, ultimately, cost American lives. It is still a rallying cry for our foes throughout the Middle East. After the leak was investigated, Taguba was ordered by the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff to retire. This fact, too, never made it into print.

Ignorant beginnings

VoteVets has a long history of advocating for more gun control.

In 2012, VoteVets chairman Jon Stolz wrote a scathing op-ed column about the Trayvon Martin case, titled: “Shoot First Laws: Even troops in war zones can’t do that.” Stolz’s column, which was widely republished, excoriated “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida and other states.

“The Trayvon Martin case has gripped the nation and forced the country to re-examine our gun laws. But the horrible affair has struck me in another way, because of my two tours in Iraq,” Stolz wrote. “One fact stands out in my mind: The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law in Florida, which may let George Zimmerman off the hook for the killing of Martin, gives more leeway to shooters than our own military gives to soldiers in war.”

The problem with Stolz’s column is that his premise is 100% wrong. The Trayvon Martin shooting was never a “Stand Your Ground” case. Zimmerman never invoked the immunity the statute provides. Stolz’s subsequent comparisons between Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and the military’s Rules of Engagement were completely moot.

One year later, VoteVets joined with Giffords, Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg’s proxy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in opposing the 2013 Colorado recall, which successfully removed two Democratic state senators who supported new gun-control legislation. VoteVets ran ads speaking, falsely, on behalf of the veterans’ community.

It was the first time a Colorado lawmaker had ever been recalled.

“Good” anti-gun messengers

In 2018, VoteVets barnstormed across the country with Gabby Giffords’ anti-gun group.

“We’re hitting the campaign trail with @VoteVets! Ahead of this year’s election,” Giffords tweeted on Aug. 20, 2018. The two groups supported anti-gun candidates in Pennsylvania, Colorado, California, New Jersey, Virginia and Kentucky.

“For a long time, Democrats have been playing defense on issue of gun safety,” Dan Helmer, VoteVets vice-president told a McClatchy newspaper. “We see a trend across the country where, increasingly, the American people are demanding change.”

VoteVets and Giffords both said veterans made “especially good messengers for policies that restrict access to guns.”

“They have the ‘platform and credibility’ to talk about the issue,” Helmer said. “No one more than vets know just how deadly some of these weapons can be. Nor have others proven so dedicated to defending the country.”

Giffords and VoteVets called the candidates they supported “part of a new generation of leaders challenging gun-lobby backed politicians.”

“Military veterans know that weapons of war have no place in our schools, in our places of worship, at concerts, at night clubs and in our communities. Too many in Congress are afraid to take on the NRA and pass meaningful legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans to reduce gun violence,” Helmer said in a joint press release. “The veteran candidates we are meeting with on this tour have already answered the call of duty once and bravely stood up to defend and serve this nation. They have the courage to stand up to the NRA and fight for legislation to protect our communities from the epidemic of gun violence. We are proud to partner with Captain Kelly and Giffords on this tour.”

Democratic, not veterans’ issues

According to its Facebook page, VoteVets claims to be “the first and largest progressive group of veterans in America.”

“We represent over 1.5 million veterans, military families, and their civilian supporters,” the site states.

However, the issues posted on Facebook and its other social media accounts reveal that the group is far more aligned with the Democratic Party than any veterans’ community – even a progressive one.

VoteVets advocates for Vaccine mandates, “accountability” for the Jan. 6 protest, Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, climate change, abortion rights, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Critical Race Theory, GBLT issues, voting rights and of course more gun control.

Biden and Kamala Harris receive nothing but praise, while Donald Trump and other Republican lawmakers receive nothing but criticism – intense criticism.

Real veterans’ issues, such as dysfunctions within the VA, civilian job resources, posttraumatic stress disorder, suicide prevention, POW/MIA, disability benefits and illnesses caused by burn-pit exposure, are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

To be clear, VoteVets regurgitates nothing but liberal talking points rather than advocating for veterans as it claims.


It’s no secret why anti-gun groups believe veterans would make good messengers for their rhetoric. Veterans have the credibility that they never will. Unfortunately for Giffords, Brady and Bloomberg, most veterans are too politically savvy to fall for their anti-rights shenanigans.

Besides, every veteran I know owns guns – every single one. While I’m sure there are some who don’t, I’ve never met one, but I’ll admit I tend not to run in those circles. Vets, especially those who served in the combat arms, understand the importance of being able to defend themselves and their families, which is why they are such strong protectors of the Second Amendment.

VoteVets has its supporters, of that I am sure, but the group doesn’t speak on behalf of the vast majority of veterans, and they certainly don’t speak for me. Quite frankly, I find what they’re doing – pushing a liberal agenda under the guise of advocating for veterans – sickening. It’s time for them to stop pretending they’re working on our behalf.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2A Gun Guy

Another Leftist Group Exposed, Thanks Lee


These useless twits are really disgusting. I wonder how many of them have actually done a day’s work in their lives.

Henry Bowman

If the commiecrats rig the 2022 election and pull another false-flag attack like the J6 Reichstag Fire, then we will know it’s time. These MSM reports from the traitor generals, Newsweek, and other sources are laying the groundwork for another fake “insurrection” so the commiecrat-led federal enforcement agencies can toss more innocent Americans into an oubliette, never to be seen again. They want to finish their coup and secure it so there can be no counter-revolution to restore liberty and enforce the Constitution! This is why they want a civil war while claiming conservatives are the would-be aggressors – psychological… Read more »

Wild Bill

Yes, we have to be smart about this, and mind the timing, too.

Henry Bowman

Yes, it’s said that ‘timing is everything’.


Nake nula waun welo! Hokahey!


Maybe that pro 2nd Amendment group of veterans who organized, and numbers in the millions, will come out with a press release soon to counter the message from VoteVets. The majority of veterans who are U.S. Senators and Representatives vote in favor of never-ending gun control. More veteran voters identify as Democrats than Republicans: “When they looked at the sample as a whole, they found that 49.8 percent of veterans identified as Democrats while 39.1 percent said they were Republican. The remaining 11.1 percent were Independents.” Also, just because someone owns a firearm doesn’t make them pro 2nd Amendment.… Read more »

Henry Bowman

“Many boomers voted for “common sense” gun control and they owned bolt action rifles for deer hunting and over/under shotguns.”

In other words, FUDDS.


Yes. I can’t tell you how many of them I have run into at the range and while participating in political activism. They talk about how they are “pro 2nd Amendment” and then go into great detail about what nobody “needs.” Many were veterans/LEOs/former LEOs.


WillTEX & his fellow enforcers & sock pups are out again today, downvoting what they’re mentally incapable of disputing. Why does Ammoland have so many of these specials lurking here?


There is a certain profile of people who are found on every firearm rights forum. The people who fit that profile on have red-pilled a lot of “civilians” about LEOs – their arrogance gets in the way of any sort of logical effort to improve the general image of LE. That image took a beating in 2021 and they just keep doubling-down.


I’d like to Back The Blue. Not with all the shit bad cops pull & the less bad cover up.

Last edited 1 year ago by Russn8r

I used to Back the Blue in general.

Now I only support good LEOs and only good LEOs.

As a group, they do a horrible job of policing themselves – to the detriment of the group in general. It’s their own fault.


I worked drug enforcement and NEVER MET a good leo the ones you call good are honest nice people ,but do nothing to fix the police they are afraid, I know lots of these ;they are not good cops! we had a case of police protecting drug dealer at a strip joint that the only way we made it was tying into club video every morning police took tapes with them,owner was afraid. he and his family were threatened by other cops wound up in federal protection . without civilian oversight no way to fix it


arrogance, and belief of entitlement of the badge. the police can not and will not fix what is wrong , only fix is civilian oversight withe absolute power to fire or retain, chief does not like someone but board does chief becomes the one walking on egg shells

Henry Bowman

The correct fix would be to make CLEOs answerable directly to the people the way county sheriffs and town marshals are. At least in Indiana we have town marshals. That right there would put a screeching halt on the anti-2A bravo sierra. As officer Jack McLamb (a pioneer of the constitutional policing model and a friend of CSPOA founder Sheriff Richard Mack) would say, “Tyranny can only come to your doorstep wearing a badge”. This is why if we REALLY want to save 2A and possibly avert a 2nd American revolution or CW2, we need to build relationships with Sheriffs… Read more »


Maybe Lee will start a “Veterans in Support of the 2nd Amendment” organization.


You realize, long term, that tells them where to go for the cargo?


I figured as much!


the number of leos that think they have the right to make up laws or attack people because they have a badge far exceeds the number that are in the job to make things better. look at the number that threaten to arrest people who are doing legal things because they dont want them too, should be fired as soon as first time anything like this happens


I’d bet Catholic man was just deluded as so many were. The evil inherent to the biden admin may have been obvious to many here – but more voters saw him as a moderate savior who would do away with acrimony and mean tweets.

I opposed him, but even so have been somewhat surprised at how effectively he is destroying the nation.


my book says EVERY able bodied person above age of majority NEEDS a select fire to protect their rights, no one will take your house to build a Walmart if you wont sell. Public good,civil forfeiture all words to take from someone who worked for what they have because someone who is connected wants it 50 bmg gets to vote too, you can bet no one will stand in front of gun to tell homeowner get out we are building a mall. pay them what it is worth to them or move on In miami they destroyed over town by… Read more »


Well mark me down as a fudd. Don’t own any current military weapons and I don’t need a machine gun or even really understand that anyone really needs one.. OTOH (1) an AR is not a military arm. (2) I do need the right to own a machine gun. (3) I understand “right” is meaningless if you cannot exercise it, and that others may want a machine gun (or need it for reasons unknown to me). As a right – need has nothing to do with it. Wanting it is enough. In fact were it not for legal, financial and… Read more »

Wild Bill

You are a good man, Finnky. If the time comes, we will get all the heavy weaps that we need, from our dead enemies.

Last edited 1 year ago by Wild Bill

Finnky, You may be correct about you being a Fudd. There are different degrees of Fuddism. Often, Fudds interject their “needs” or their perception of other people’s “needs” into the discussion of rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. Being a Fudd isn’t about machine guns. I don’t own an automatic firearm; however, I don’t think other people who want (not need) one should be prohibited from buying a newly manufactured one. Your view on machine guns is similar to the one used by others who pushed the NFA of 1934 and, later, the Hughes Amendment to FOPA.  Government employees (the military) couldn’t keep the… Read more »


Butters and Fudds are a cancer to the 2A. They are the reason we will continue to have our rights violated. Without their help, anti-gunners would never be able to pass anti-2A laws.




While I agree, it is also important to recognize that FUDD may sometimes be closer to protecting our rights. When you can – work to educate and sway them. Even weak allies are better than sworn enemies – except when that open enmity justifies action.


Finnky, you indicated you are a Fudd. I agree with Stag. Butters and Fudds are a cancer – their support was crucial to all the gun laws we have. They have been active for over 100 years, they live in all states, and they do/did all manner of things for a living (including military and law enforcement). “I have a gun, and hunting is an important part of my family tradition, but we can all agree on these common sense gun laws. No one needs . . .” Every time I hear of version of that I know it is… Read more »


Response on hold (you indicated you are a Fudd).


When you consider most vets enlisted when they were still young and impressionable and began their indoctrination into the Glory of the Almighty State then, it’s no wonder so many become Democrats.


Did my part to reverse, but I don’t have any sock pups. Shows the hatred and stupidity of that ‘crowd’.