Grassroots or ‘astroturf’? Who’s really behind the anti-Brexit group ‘Our Future Our Choice’

Our Future Our Choice (OFOC) pertain to be the grassroots voice for young people and their objective is to help secure a ‘people’s vote’ on the final terms of the Brexit deal. However, questions are being asked by prominent left winger commentators such as Novara Media’s Aaron Bastani and journalist and author Paul Mason as to who exactly is driving their campaign.

In addition, some political commentators on the left are questioning why OFOC seem to be focussing on attacking the Labour leadership instead of Tory remainers that have failed to ‘rebel’ thus far on key Brexit votes.

The four founding members of OFOC, co-presidents Lara Spirit and Will Dry, and the group’s spokesmen Femi Oluwole and Calum Millbank-Murphy, are all registered as directors in the company. Their group made the headlines has made headlines by promoting a couple of mobile billboards attacking high level Labour figures such as John McDonnell and Diane Abbott for their stance on Brexit.

OFOC is one of a plethora of pro-remain groups that have been set up during or after the EU Referendum in 2016. The group registered the organisation to companies house in February this year and soon after raised £12,762 through crowdfunding in March.

The group’s homepage admits that “OFOC is powered by: Best for Britain, Open Britain, The European Movement, and the GCG [Grassroots Co-ordination Group]”, all large established pro-Remain groups, predominantly funded by Tory, Liberal and former Labour donors. The GCG is chaired by Chuka Umunna MP, a known Corbyn-critic.

They share office space with 6 anti-Brexit groups; Best for Britain, Open Britain, European Movement, Britain for Europe, Scientists for EU, Healthier IN and InFacts that have been brought together by Umunna’s GCG.

Best For Britain (BfB), a campaign launched by Gina Miller last year, is the best funded organisation with a staggering £2.4m ($3.1m) in funding, £500k ($660k) of which coming from billionaire philanthropist George Soros, according to the Guardian. They are looking for a further £3.2m ($4.2m) according to Paul Butters, BfB’s director of communications and former spokesperson to Ex- Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron.

According to Red Robin, the Scottish left wing blog BfB spent £353,118 ($465k) between June 2016 and June 2017, backed several candidates against Labour candidates in the 2017 General Election, including the Liberal Democrat’s Tom Brake and Ed Davey.

Although BfB claims much of its funding comes from small donors, significant sums have been given to the group by Virgin billionaire Sir Richard Branson (£25k, $33k), Liberal Democrat Anatole Kaletsky (£20k, $26k), and Tory donor Stephen Peel who told the Observer he was giving the anti-Brexit group £100k ($131k) because it was “the most important political issue of a generation and one about which I deeply care”.

The European Movement meanwhile is predominantly funded by former Progress donor, Lord David Sainsbury, who has recently stated he would not be funding political groups anymore, to turn his attentions charitable causes.

RT has reached out for comment from OFCO as to what their connections are to the larger, well funded groups – does “powered by” simply mean supported or financially backed? Certain administrative support would have to be declared to the electoral commission in the event of another referendum. At the time of writing OFOC had not responded to our email.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Source Article from

Harvard records show discrimination against Asian-Americans: group

By Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) – Harvard University killed an internal investigation in 2013 that found evidence the Ivy League school’s admissions system is biased against Asian-American applicants, a nonprofit group suing the university alleged in a court filing on Friday.

The claim by Students for Fair Admissions Inc came in a brief that sought to have a federal judge in Boston rule in its favor without a trial in a closely watched lawsuit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-Americans.

The group, headed by prominent anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, said evidence showed that Harvard had allowed race to become a dominant consideration in considering applicants rather than just a legally allowed “plus” factor.

“Incontrovertible evidence shows that Harvard’s admissions policy has a disproportionately negative effect on Asian-Americans vis-à-vis similarly situated white applicants that cannot be explained on non-discriminatory grounds,” the group said in its brief.

Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard in its own brief on Friday denied discriminating against Asian-Americans.

In court papers, Arlington, Virginia-based Students for Fair Admissions said an Asian-American male applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission would have a 35 percent chance if he was white, 75 percent if he were Hispanic and a 95 percent chance if he were black.

The brief did not provide a similar breakdown for women.

It said that in 2013, a Harvard research division found that over a decade Asian-American admission rates were lower than those for whites annually even though whites only outperformed Asian-American applicants on a subjective rating of a student’s personality.

But the group said Harvard ultimately killed the study and buried the reports from it.

The group in its 2014 complaint said Harvard defines “Asian-Americans” as including individuals of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong or Indian descent.

In Friday’s brief, Harvard said the percentage of Asian-Americans it admitted had actually grown by 29 percent over the last decade. It called the 2013 report “preliminary and incomplete” and said that it was done with limited admissions data.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled universities may use affirmative action to help minority applicants get into college. Conservatives have said such programs can hurt white people and Asian-Americans.

In 2016 the nation’s highest court rejected a high-profile challenge to a University of Texas program designed to boost the enrollment of minority students, which was brought by a white woman.

Students for Fair Admissions President Blum found the woman who pursued that case.

In its brief, Harvard called the lawsuit by Blum’s group “the latest salvo by ideological opponents of the consideration of race in university admissions.”

After Republican President Donald Trump took office last year, the Justice Department began investigating whether Harvard’s policies are discriminatory because they limit the acceptance of Asian-Americans.

The Justice Department has since signaled its interest in Students for Fair Admissions’ case, which has an October trial date.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Source Article from

Putin Says He's Willing To Rejoin The Group Of Seven After Trump's Invite

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday said he welcomed President Donald Trump’s call for allowing his country back into the Group of Seven, even as that proposal was dismissed by most of the leaders of the other nations that comprise the partnership.

Putin, whose country was expelled in 2014 from what was then the Group of Eight major industrial nations over Russia’s annexation of Crimea, also suggested hosting the organization’s next summit in Moscow.

“We did not (choose to) leave it, our colleagues refused to come to Russia due to known reasons at some point,” Putin told reporters at a briefing in the Chinese city of Qingdao, Reuters reported. “Please, we will be glad to see everyone here in Moscow.“

President Donald Trump found himself at odds with U.S. allies over Russia and trade policy during the Group of Seven summit in Quebec over the weekend. (Bloomberg via Getty Images)President Donald Trump found himself at odds with U.S. allies over Russia and trade policy during the Group of Seven summit in Quebec over the weekend. (Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Trump on Friday suggested that Russia should be reinstated to the group, telling reporters that his view “may not be politically correct” but “we should have Russia at the negotiating table.”

Italy’s new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, seconded Trump’s idea. But other G-7 leaders showed no interest in it.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Saturday the group is not “even remotely” considering readmitting Russia. Aside from the dispute over Russia annexing the Crimea from Ukraine, the Kremlin’s standing within the international community has been eroded by its meddling in elections in other countries. These include the U.S., France, Germany, Norway, Spain and Ukraine, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said on Friday.

Trump faces his own problems with the G-7′s other members, especially over trade policy.

Trump chatted with Russian President Vladimir Putin last November during a summit in Danang, Vietnam. (Sputnik Photo Agency / Reuters)Trump chatted with Russian President Vladimir Putin last November during a summit in Danang, Vietnam. (Sputnik Photo Agency / Reuters)

Trump on Saturday withdrew support for a joint statement issued by the other G-7 nations ― Canada, the U.K. Germany, France, Italy and Japan ― just hours after expressing support for it. He took the step of disavowing the statement as he and Trudeau exchanged barbs over Trump’s move to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel imports from Canada, Mexico and the European Union

As part of the bickering, Trump threatened to “stop trading” with some of the U.S.′ closest allies and to impose tariffs on foreign automobile imports from Canada.

He left the summit early on Saturday, skipping out on a discussion on global climate change to travel to Singapore ahead of his Tuesday summit there with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un on Monday.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday hit back at Trump over trade policy and other matters on which the president with other G-7 nations, saying in a Twitter that “maybe the American president doesn’t care about being isolated today, but we don’t mind being six, if needs be.”

Trump shakes hands with France's President Emmanuel Macron during a bilateral meeting at the G-7 summit on Friday. (Leah Millis / Reuters)Trump shakes hands with France's President Emmanuel Macron during a bilateral meeting at the G-7 summit on Friday. (Leah Millis / Reuters)

The six remaining nations, he said, “represent values” and a “true international market force.”

A photograph capturing Macron and Trump shaking hands on Friday showed the imprint of the French leader’s fingers left on the president’s hand, suggesting he gave Trump a particularly forceful grip.

The imprint of Macron's thumb can be seen across the back of Trump's hand after they shook hands. (Leah Millis / Reuters)The imprint of Macron's thumb can be seen across the back of Trump's hand after they shook hands. (Leah Millis / Reuters)
  • This article originally appeared on HuffPost.

Source Article from

Left-wing hate group SPLC now being used by Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter to determine … “hate groups”

Image: Left-wing hate group SPLC now being used by Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter to determine … “hate groups”

(Natural News)
The social media behemoth’s targeting of Right-leaning, independent, conservative, Trump-supporting media just got a whole lot worse, according to an exclusive report by The Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson.

He writes that four of the largest tech-media platforms — Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter — are now using the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center to help them identify so-called “hate groups” that are using their platforms.

Critics say that’s the pot calling the kettle black; SPLC is a Left-wing hate organization, spreading lies and disinformation about conservatives, and especially President Trump. 

According to The Daily Caller, the SPLC can be found on a list of “external experts and organizations” that Facebook, among others, is working with “to inform [their] hate speech policies” — as noted by company spokeswoman Ruchika Budhraja in an interview with the news site.

She noted further that the social media behemoth consults the SPLC and other outside organizations when formulating hate speech policy. She added that Facebook officials typically hold between one and three meetings with these outside organizations.

Budhraja said Facebook’s hate speech policy was distinct from the SPLC, and that the company consults with organizations across the political spectrum, The DC reported.

Maybe, but Facebook and the SPLC appear to be keeping their relationship on the down-low as much as possible. For instance, the organization accused Facebook in May of doing too little to censor “anti-Muslim hate” on its platform. But that article didn’t say anything about the two working together.

During its investigation, The DC found that of the four tech-media companies listed, Amazon gives the SPLC the most direct authority. Facebook officials say the company remains independent of the SPLC and any other hate-monitoring organization, but Amazon is quite open and frank about the fact that it gives the SPLC carte blanche policing power regarding the Amazon Smile charitable program (while claiming to be unbiased). 

The Smile program gives customers the opportunity to identify a charity that receives 0.5 percent of the proceeds from Amazon purchases. The SPLC has complete control over who gets to participate and who does not.

As Hasson notes, the SPLC has this curious habit of only banning conservative, Christian organizations from the program: 

Christian legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom — which recently successfully represented a Christian baker at the Supreme Court — are barred from the Amazon Smile program, while openly anti-Semitic groups remain, TheDCNF found in May.

Twitter, meanwhile, lists the SPLC as a “safety partner” working with the social media platform of preference for POTUS Trump. The organization’s role is to help Twitter fight against “hateful conduct and harassment.”

Unless, of course, you’re a conservative supporter of the president. (Related: is “the answer to YouTube censorship,” explains founder Mike Adams.)

The SPLC is also assisting Google and YouTube, the latter of which is owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet. It’s one of more than 300 governmental and nongovernmental agencies monitoring for “hateful content,” but the vast majority of participant organizations remain shrouded in secrecy.

Experts who are well-acquainted with the SPLC know what a Marxist organization it really is. A favorite of the authoritarian Left, the SPLC regularly publishes a list of “hate groups” that has been consistently incorrect. The group had to retract four entries in March and April alone, after named conservative groups sued or threatened legal action. 

Even Dr. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon who is now heading up Housing and Urban Development for President Trump, was shocked to find that he had made the SPLC’s “extremist watch list.” 

“When embracing traditional Christian values is equated to hatred, we are approaching the stage where wrong is called right and right is called wrong. It is important for us to once again advocate true tolerance,” Carson said. 

Read more about SPLC intolerance at

J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Eye-Opening Chart Shows How The Bilderberg Group Controls The Entire World

By Amanda Froelich Truth Theory

If you’ve been paying attention to the way the world works, by now you’re aware that only a handful of individuals control the majority of the world’s wealth. As a result, they influence most of the policies which affect us all.

A number of powerful individuals, including David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Larry Summers, are members of the Bilderberg group. Every year, the group meets in secret. Attendees range from elected officials to military members and select media figures. However, they all have one thing in common: power.

In their annual meetings, members discuss a wide range of topics, including chemical weapons threats, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, NATO, Russia, elections, and more. The most concerning part is that for over half a century, no agenda or discussion topics have ever become public knowledge. Furthermore, press coverage is not allowed. In fact, journalists have been arrested for attempting to acquire information on what has been discussed and what conclusions have been made.


According to Daniel Estulin, who has researched the Bilderberg Group’s influence on business and finance, global politics, war, and peace, and control of the world’s resources and its money for over 14 years, the group is “a shadow world government….threaten(ing) to take away our right to direct our own destinies (by creating) a disturbing reality” posing a threat to the public’s welfare.

“Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public,” said Estulin.

Whether or not there is a global conspiracy remains to be seen. What has been established is that there is an imbalance of power in the world which is perpetuating persistent conundrums, such as world hunger, war, and famine.

For instance, we presently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people — more than enough to remedy starvation. Furthermore, we have access to technologies (vertical gardens, powering vehicles with H20, etc…) which could revolutionize our planet. Until the people in charge act on behalf of the greater good, however, nothing will change. Contemplate this as you review the following graph below, which shows how members of the Bilderberg groupessentially control the entire world:

Like Truth Theory on Facebook:

Source Article from