A Case for NOT Accepting Donation

‘Huge Red Flag’: Border Wall GoFundMe Founder Refuses To Answer Basic Questions About His New Nonprofit

Andrew Kerr | Investigative Reporter

January 14, 2019

---

• Triple-amputee Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage is refusing to answer basic questions about his new nonprofit organization that will use the funds raised by his viral $20 million GoFundMe to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
• Kolfage announced We Build The Wall, Inc. on Friday, but documents submitted to Florida reveal the nonprofit was created over two weeks ago in late December.
• Kolfage is directing check donations to a separate organization, We Fund The Wall, Inc. with a PO Box in Houston; The Daily Caller News Foundation has been unable to find any record of its existence.
• Charity Watch President Daniel Borochoff says Kolfage’s new nonprofit raises a “huge red flag.”

The founder of the viral $20 million border wall GoFundMe campaign is refusing to answer basic questions about his new nonprofit organization that will use donor funds to construct a piecemeal wall mile-by-mile along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Triple-amputee Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage is asking donors to transfer their donations to We Build The Wall, Inc. following his announcement Friday that the federal government will not accept any funds from his viral fundraising campaign, despite his initial claim otherwise.

GoFundMe said Friday that donors will need to opt into transferring their donations to Kolfage’s new Florida-based nonprofit by April 10, when all remaining contributions will be automatically refunded.

Kolfage claims the bylaws of We Build The Wall, Inc. prevent him from taking any salary from donor funds that originate from GoFundMe. But Kolfage has refused to provide The Daily Caller News Foundation a copy of the nonprofit’s bylaws to corroborate his claim.

Kolfage’s statement omits the fact that he is now directing check donations to an entirely different organization, We Fund the Wall, Inc. with a PO Box in Houston.

Kolfage has ignored multiple inquiries from TheDCNF asking why he’s directing check donations to a separate organization based in a different state, and whether donations sent to We Fund the Wall, Inc. can be used to compensate him in any way shape or form.

US President Donald Trump speaks as he inspects border wall prototypes in San Diego, California on March 13, 2018. MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

It’s unclear how much money Kolfage has raised via check donations, but his tweets suggest it could be a substantial amount.

Furthermore, TheDCNF has been unable to find any record of We Fund the Wall, Inc.’s formal existence, and multiple inquiries requesting the organization’s founding documents have gone ignored.

Charity Watch President Daniel Borochoff told TheDCNF that raises a “huge red flag.”
“People should give right to the organization that they want to support. Why are they directing money to some other entity?” Borochoff said. “This money could get stolen or misdirected to be used for another purpose.”

“There could be some kind of misdirection of funds or something going on there that people might not be happy about,” Borochoff added. “They really need a good reason for doing that.”
Kolfage has also refused to address why he waited until Friday inform his donors about the existence of his new nonprofit organization, which was founded over two weeks ago on Dec. 28, according to Florida’s Division of Corporations.

Source: Florida Division of Corporations/Screenshot

The stated purpose for Kolfage’s nonprofit is: “funding, construction, administering, and maintaining a United States Southern Border Wall and the processes associated therewith,” according to its founding documents signed on Dec. 27.

This appears to show that Kolfage was aware the federal government would not be able to accept donations by Dec. 27 at the latest, but despite this, he knowingly raised $2.8 million on GoFundMe between that date and Friday, all the while telling donors that 100 percent of their donations would be handed over to the government for the purpose of funding a border wall.

Kolfage has ignored multiple inquiries asking why he waited over two weeks to inform his donors of his intention to transfer their contributions to his new nonprofit.

“We have contacted the Trump Administration to secure a point of contact where all the funds will go upon completion. When we get this information secured we will update,” Kolfage claimed at the onset of his fundraiser.

(RELATED: Can The $13 Million GoFundMe For Trump’s Border Wall Actually Work?)

Kolfage now says his “highly experienced team is highly confident that we can complete significant elements of the wall in less time, and for less money, than the federal government.”

All contributions collected by Kolfage’s GoFundMe after Friday will be automatically routed to We Build The Wall, Inc., and Kolfage claimed Sunday that one-third of his 340,000 donors had already opted into the nonprofit.

Follow Andrew on Twitter. Contact Andrew securely at AndrewKerrNC@protonmail.com

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Net neutrality repeal

Net neutrality repeal: Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and internet providers react.



FCC overturns net neutrality regulations

The vote to roll back net neutrality rules on Thursday was slammed by tech giants like Amazon, Facebook and Netflix. But the move was applauded by internet service providers.

The Republican-led Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to repeal regulations aimed at protecting net neutrality -- rules that ensure internet providers can't deliberately speed up or slow down traffic from specific websites or apps. Nor can they put their own content at an advantage over rivals. The rules were first put in place under President Obama in 2015.

Nothing is set in stone yet. The repeal isn't set to take effect until next year. The issue may ultimately end up being decided in court, and Congress may step in with a legislative solution.

A recent poll by the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy found net neutrality rules have broad support among consumers -- 83% to be exact.

Here's what some companies and business leaders had to say after Thursday's vote.

Amazon Chief Technology Officer Werner Vogels

"I am extremely disappointed in the FCC decision to remove the #NetNeutrality protections," Vogels wrote on Twitter. "We'll continue to work with our peers, partners and customers to find ways to ensure an open and fair internet that can continue to drive massive innovation."

I am extremely disappointed in the FCC decision to remove the #NetNeutrality protections. We'll continue to work with our peers, partners and customers to find ways to ensure an open and fair internet that can continue to drive massive innovation. https://t.co/0NjoNr90A4— Werner Vogels (@Werner) December 14, 2017

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg

"Today's decision from the Federal Communications Commission to end net neutrality is disappointing and harmful. An open internet is critical for new ideas and economic opportunity -- and internet providers shouldn't be able to decide what people can see online or charge more for certain websites," Sandberg wrote on Facebook. "We're ready to work with members of Congress and others to help make the internet free and open for everyone."

Microsoft Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith

"The open internet benefits consumers, business & the entire economy," Smith wrote. "That's jeopardized by the FCC's elimination of #netneutrality protections today."

The open internet benefits consumers, business & the entire economy. That's jeopardized by the FCC's elimination of #netneutrality protections today.— Brad Smith (@BradSmi) December 14, 2017

Netflix

"We're disappointed in the decision to gut #NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement," read a tweet posted on Netflix's verified account. "This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix stands w/ innovators, large & small, to oppose this misguided FCC order."

We're disappointed in the decision to gut #NetNeutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of innovation, creativity & civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix stands w/ innovators, large & small, to oppose this misguided FCC order.— Netflix US (@netflix) December 14, 2017

Reddit Co-Founder Alexis Ohanian

"We cannot let this happen to our internet in the US," Ohanian tweeted. "We must keep fighting for #NetNeutrality."

We cannot let this happen to our internet in the US.
We must keep fighting for #NetNeutrality https://t.co/fUYTbO9r3s— Alexis Ohanian Sr. (@alexisohanian) December 14, 2017

Vimeo

"It's disheartening that the #FCC chose to ignore the public and approve a policy that benefits the few and powerful at the expense of creators, and the stories they work to tell," the company posted on Twitter. "We look forward to challenging this misguided decision in court. #NetNeutrality"

It's disheartening that the #FCC chose to ignore the public and approve a policy that benefits the few and powerful at the expense of creators, and the stories they work to tell. We look forward to challenging this misguided decision in court. #NetNeutrality— Vimeo (@Vimeo) December 14, 2017

Not everyone is behind the net neutrality rules. Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have a lot to gain from loosened regulations. (AT&T is seeking to acquire Time Warner, the parent company of CNN).

AT&T

"We do not block websites, nor censor online content, nor throttle or degrade traffic based on the content, nor unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic," the company said in a statement. "These principles, which were laid out in the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order and fully supported by AT&T, are clearly articulated on our website and are fully enforceable against us. In short, the internet will continue to work tomorrow just as it always has."

AT&T Statement on @FCC Vote to Restore Internet Freedom https://t.co/OY7rOKdxz8 #OpenInternet #NetNeutrality— AT&T Public Policy (@ATTPublicPolicy) December 14, 2017

Verizon Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Will Johnson

"Verizon fully supports the open Internet, and we will continue to do so," Johnson said in an emailed statement. "Our customers demand it and our business depends on it."

The USTelecom and Broadband Association

"Today, the future of our open, thriving internet has been secured," the group, which represents companies including AT&T and Verizon, wrote. "America's broadband providers -- who have long supported net neutrality protections and have committed to continuing to do so -- will have renewed confidence to make the investments required to strengthen the nation's networks and close the digital divide, especially in rural communities."

by Jackie Wattles @jackiewattles December 14, 2017: 6:18 PM ET
CNN Tech's Seth Fiegerman contributed to this report.
CNNMoney (New York) First published December 14, 2017: 5:03 PM ET

Net Neutrality

End net neutrality. Federal meddling can't improve the Internet.

The Obama-era regulation might come to an end. Time

Trump's FCC chairman wants to return the Internet to those dark, authoritarian days when every website, app and online service we use was created.



(Photo: Mary Altaffer, AP)
CONNECTTWEET 40 LINKEDIN 23 COMMENTEMAILMORE

My teenage daughters were in a panic. "Why is Trump trying to ruin the Internet?" one asked. "My favorite websites will be shut down!" her sister added.

They had watched the panicked reactions of their favorite YouTube "stars" and other third-tier celebs to the proposal by Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to end the net neutrality rules created two years ago.

Net neutrality is one of those big government ideas that sounds great in theory but creates new problems in execution.

More: Net neutrality repeal means you're going to hate your cable company even more

More: Protect net neutrality and Internet freedom: World Wide Web inventor

The net neutrality concept is that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally. Your broadband provider can't block certain websites or slow down the applications you use. They also shouldn't create "fast lanes" that force high-bandwidth services such as Netflix or Hulu to pay an extra fee to deliver their content more quickly than the other guys.
How will 400 pages of legalese help?

To this end, the Obama administration reclassified broadband as a telecommunications service and subjected the industry to creaky regulations written back in 1934 to rein in Ma Bell. This being government, it took them 400 pages of turgid legalese to accomplish this.

Following decades of exploding Internet growth, the government interjected itself with a barrage of new rules to stop an imaginary threat. As Pai put it, net neutrality “is a solution that won't work to a problem that simply doesn't exist."

Now he wants the government to cut the red tape and let the Internet thrive as it did before the 2015 rules were enacted.

Being the Trump era, celebrities jumped on Twitter to react with, what else, outrage. “We will never go back to a free Internet,” warned Kumail Nanjiani‏ of Silicon Valley (the HBO show, not the tech capital).

“Net neutrality means Trump can change the Internet!” Cher shrieked.

“Taking away #NetNeutrality is the authoritarian dream,” actor Mark Ruffalo intoned.
Do they REALLY want Trump in charge?

If President Trump is some kind of digital facist, he sure has a funny way of going about it.

His FCC chairman is trying to remove government from the Internet, returning it to those dark, authoritarian days of 30 months ago — you know, when pretty much every website, app and online service we use was created.

Bizarrely, these net neutrality alarmists are demanding that Trump maintain control of the Internet, planting his administration firmly between citizens and whatever content they want to view or create.

Even if Democrats were running the show in Washington, how could federal meddling improve the Internet? Do they want the Web run by the bureaucrats who spent $2 billion to build a health care website that didn't work? Do they want our privacy assured by those behind the National Security Agency?

More: Wozniak & Copps: Ending net neutrality will end the Internet as we know it

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Nevertheless, progressives insist that Trump regulate the Internet in the name of free speech. Perhaps he can do this between his tweets bashing the press.
Let real experts control the Internet

If the FCC approves this new proposal, the worst of federal meddling online will be retired. Instead, the commission will simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their service offerings. That way, tech innovators will have the information they need and consumers will know which plan works best for them.

In other words, Web users and creators will be back in control of the Internet instead of lawyers and bureaucrats. Just as they were for all but the past couple of years.

To ensure transparency, Pai made all his proposals public before the FCC vote Thursday. A big departure from the Obama administration’s methods, which kept its net neutrality rules secret until after they were approved.

Before the FCC’s heavy-handed intervention, we saw the creation of Amazon, Google and Twitter. If Washington removes these unnecessary regulations as expected, we’ll see the Internet continue to blossom.

And my daughters will get to watch their favorite YouTube celebrities complain about net neutrality for years to come.

Jon Gabriel is editor in chief of Ricochet.com and a contributor to The Arizona Republic, where this piece first appeared. Follow him on Twitter: @exjon

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

USA Today Network Jon Gabriel, The Arizona Republic Opinion Published 3:15 a.m. ET Dec. 13, 2017 | Updated 3:29 p.m. ET Dec. 13, 2017

Lead Your Small Business Out of Crisis.

Five Tips to Lead Your Small Business Out of Crisis.

1. Admit you have a problem

You can’t deal with a crisis until you can admit that your company has been hit by one. You may have all the stats, showing that the situation is critical, but still choose to do nothing. Why? Because the power of denial is immense. You get tricked by your own brain, not to mention the problem.

It’s so easy (and comforting) to linger in the past where your company was a huge success, but will it help you move forward? The answer is no, of course. Therefore, focus on now — neither past nor future will help you manage a crisis.

Only when you realize that you are responsible for navigating your business out of a crisis, can you make actual steps forward.

Remember: Denying a crisis never works. Never mentioning a problem won’t solve it, only taking action helps.

2. Optimize your workforce

By this I mean, fire every employee who doesn’t bring value to your company. Hard times are all about hard choices, and you will have to exercise authority to cleanse your company of workers who are not as effective as they should be.

Small companies spend about 20 percent of their revenue on employee wages and when in crisis, you’re pressed to cut spending to survive. And yet, the main reason why you should fire non-productive workers is not about the money but, rather, the efficiency of your operations.

Let’s imagine that you have a developer who can’t finish a project on time. Should you give him one more chance? Well, if you have the funds, you may, but when your business is on a shoestring, don’t wait — shut down the project and get rid of this developer. You have already spent tons of resources. Don't make the mistake of spending, even more, money and ruin hope for the whole company.

You can always be merciful to your workers, but are you so sure that they will pay you back? The answer is usually no. Don’t try to be a nice guy. In several months you will have a riot on your hands, so you’re better off firing non-efficient employees now, rather than losing the ones who perform later.

Nobody should work for free. Your employees have families to provide for, and the best thing you can do is, to be honest with them. Cut and optimize until your budget is balanced. After all, that’s what other companies do.

3. Cut your expenses

Have your ever heard of the Pareto principle? It demonstrates that 80 percent of the effect is always a result of 20 percent of the causes. This principle can be applied to your company as well. That said, 20 percent of your projects bring in 80 percent of your revenue; 20 percent of employees do 80 percent of the work, etc.

When your company suffers from a crisis, cut projects that don’t produce any profit or are not well-paid. Basically, focus all of your "cutting" on the non-efficient 80 percent. You will also have to cut projects that are potentially profitable but suck money out of your budget.

Cut these projects without mercy because they have the potential to place a tombstone on your company’s grave. Even huge and wealthy companies (like Google) cut expenses to meet their goals. They shut down billion-dollar projects to save dozens of billions. More waiting always means more spending — don’t forget about it!

4. Prioritize projects that generate revenue

After you have cut off unnecessary projects and employees, it’s time for you to optimize what you still have at your disposal. These should be the most important projects and the most professional workers.

Increase your company’s efficiency by investing all of your resources into projects that generate revenue — not potentially, not in several years, but now. These projects (or even a project) keep your business afloat. Pay special attention to them and delegate your best experts to work on them.

Not so sure? Consider the success story of Steve Jobs. When he returned to Apple, the company was stagnating, producing products that didn’t bring any revenue or value whatsoever. Jobs cut it all, prioritizing iPod development. This was a foundation that turned Apple into the company it is now.

Remember: Learn to cut things that don’t matter and prioritize projects that do.

5. Cope with problems and be ready to learn

Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” He was right. Any crisis or any problem is your best opportunity to amplify your skills, come up with new solutions and move forward.

You can cope with problems (huge expenses, unprofitable projects, non-productive employees), but, first of all, you need to learn to break out of your comfort zone. The better entrepreneur you become (which happens in times of crisis), the higher chance your company has to reach its full potential.

First, learn to control yourself. An easy-on-the-trigger boss who yells at his team when everything falls apart is not a pleasant sight. You will have to become a bigger, wiser person — there’s no other way. Pacify your anger and direct your emotions into problem-solving, not destruction.

Second, you will have to learn to think strategically and proactively. Stop fidgeting and focus on eliminating reactive thinking from your business management. This will not only help you pay attention to what actually matters, but also turn you into a true leader who controls circumstances, not yields under pressure.

Third, learn to be flexible and adaptable. You can never know what life has in store for you. So, when unexpected things happen, rethink your plan and move forward. Don’t stick to strategies that no longer work.

Managing crisis is all about learning new things. Use these new skills to make the difference for your business.

Dealing with a crisis is never easy, especially when you are pressed for resources. However, if you know how to take the wheel and are committed to solving problems, any crisis can become an opportunity to improve your business management skills, become a smarter person and take your company to the next level.


http://www.business.com/entrepreneurship/sergey-grybniak-small-business-crisis/

Working in Team

Great Teams Are About Personalities, Not Just Skills

At the start of 2016 Google announced that it had discovered the secret ingredients for the perfect team. After years of analyzing interviews and data from more than 100 teams, it found that the drivers of effective team performance are the group’s average level of emotional intelligence and a high degree of communication between members. Google’s recipe of being nice and joining in makes perfect sense (and is hardly counterintuitive).

Perhaps more surprising, Google’s research implies that the kinds of people in the team are not so relevant. While that may be true at Google, a company where people are preselected on the basis of their personality (or “Googliness”), this finding is inconsistent with the wider scientific evidence, which indicates quite clearly that individuals’ personalities play a significant role in determining team performance. In particular, personality affects:

• What role you have within the team
• How you interact with the rest of the team
• Whether your values (core beliefs) align with the team’s

https://hbr.org/2017/01/great-teams-are-about-personalities-not-just-skills?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29

Streamline Governance

Poor coordination is an obstacle to effective policy making when responsibility for an issue is spread over multiple ministries

On Friday, speaking at a meeting of ministers and civil servants, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said government departments have an unfortunate habit of working in silos, and lack coordination.  He is correct, and there are many negative ramifications.  One, as he noted, is excessive inter-departmental litigation. The government is, by far, the biggest litigant in the country. India’s judicial morass with its large number of pending cases—detrimental to good governance and ease of doing business—cannot be addressed without tackling the government’s role in gumming up the works.

Secondly, poor coordination is an obstacle to effective policy making when responsibility for issues pertaining, for instance, to energy security or industries is spread over multiple ministries.  The real solution here doesn’t lie in simply improving coordination and communication—it lies in streamlining the number of ministries. But in an era of coalitions, when ministries are sops for alliance partners, who is going to bite the bullet?

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/UJwlXmHibI3au7wEqpK6hP/Streamline-governance.html

Education Cost. How Much Is Enough?

Obama’s final education lesson: over-spending fixes nothing

On its way out the door, the Obama administration quietly released the numbers on its $7 billion effort to turn around failing US schools — which failed.

The Bush administration actually started the School Improvement Grants program, but President Barack Obama upped the funding massively, spending billions more on it than on the higher-profile Race to the Top. It handed three-year grants (up to $2 million a year per school) to states that embraced its preferred “intervention models” for low-performing schools.

Oops: Last week’s numbers reveal that the schools that got the help showed no different results — in test scores, graduation rates and college enrollment — than did similar schools that didn’t receive the aid.

Part of the problem was surely that only 1 percent of the schools chose the most drastic change — converting to a charter. Most just replaced a principal, some staff and/or adopted new “instructional strategies.”

Yet the devil is in the details that Team Obama didn’t even try to monitor — which strategies work? Is the new principal really any different?

The $7 billion only proved that tossing cash at schools by itself makes no real difference — despite all the cries from teachers unions and their allies that the only problem in US public education is underfunding.

American Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten was already calling the program a “terrible investment” in 2015 — but her main prescription is to focus the funds on “community schools.” Sadly, that’s just what Mayor de Blasio has done in his Renewal Schools program — which is likewise failing to make a difference.

President Trump’s approach will center on parental choice, with greater support for public charter schools and (potentially) vouchers that parents can use for either public or private education. That’s at least an effort to see that the money’s spent wisely, which has to be an improvement.

Because by now it ought to be clear that simply spending more on failure factories doesn’t change a thing.

https://nypost.com/2017/01/22/obamas-final-education-lesson-over-spending-fixes-nothing/