I wonder if this couple’s programs will be as “inspirational” and “family-oriented” as these other Netflix shows:
Garbage: New Netflix shows how 11-year-old discovers her “femininity” and becomes fascinated with “twerking”
Netflix ‘Insatiable’ TV series mocks Christianity with young girls pleading for sex with Jesus and Holy Spirit
Demonic: Netflix airs ‘Salute to Abortion’
Garbage: “Chilling Adventures of Sabrina” underage orgy scene on Netflix
Via Yahoo: “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have signed a multiyear deal with Netflix, The New York Times reported Wednesday. Their unnamed production company is set to make documentaries, docu-series, feature films, scripted shows and children’s programming exclusively for the streaming giant.
“Our lives, both independent of each other, and as a couple have allowed us to understand the power of the human spirit: of courage, resilience, and the need for connection,” Meghan and Harry said in a statement. “Through our work with diverse communities and their environments, to shining a light on people and causes around the world, our focus will be on creating content that informs but also gives hope.”
They added, “As new parents, making inspirational family programming is also important to us, as is powerful storytelling through a truthful and relatable lens. We are pleased to work with Ted and the team at Netflix whose unprecedented reach will help us share impactful content that unlocks action.”
The power of resilience? Yeah, these two were so “resilient” they left the Royal family behind and moved halfway around the world to live in #OrangeManBad America. Wonder how they keep that “connection” with his family when you live so far away from each other?
Want to hear another “family inspirational” conversation? Read about Meghan’s interview with pro-abortion supporter Gloria Steinem here.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
If you, like Markle, wears weaves, extensions or wigs made from human hair, you should know that they may have come from political prisoners in China.
CBS News reports that on July 1, 2020, federal authorities in New York seized a shipment of beauty accessories, including 13 tons of weaves and other hair products suspected to be made out of human hair taken from people locked inside a Chinese internment camp.
Brenda Smith, executive assistant commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ‘s Office of Trade, told the Associated Press that “The production of these goods constitutes a very serious human rights violation, and the detention order is intended to send a clear and direct message to all entities seeking to do business with the United States that illicit and inhumane practices will not be tolerated in U.S. supply chains.”
This is the second time this year that CBP has slapped one of its rare detention orders on shipments of hair weaves from China, based on suspicions that people making them face human rights abuses. The orders are used to hold shipping containers at the U.S. ports of entry until the agency can investigate claims of wrongdoing.
Rushan Abbas, a Uighur American activist whose sister, a medical doctor, went missing in China almost two years ago and is believed to be locked in a detention camp, said women who use hair weaves should think about who might be making them: “This is so heartbreaking for us. I want people to think about the slavery people are experiencing today. My sister is sitting somewhere being forced to make what, hair pieces?”
Wednesday’s shipment was made by Lop County Meixin Hair Product Co. Ltd., an exporter in China’s far west Xinjiang region, where, over the past four years, the Chinese Communist government has imprisoned an estimated 1 million or more Uighurs — ethnic Turkic minorities — in internment camps and prisons where they are physically abused, forced to engage in slave labor, and to denounce their Muslim religion and Turkic language. Beijing suspects the Uighurs of harboring separatist tendencies because of their distinct culture, language and religion.
Reports by the AP and other news organizations have repeatedly found that people inside the internment camps and prisons, which activists call “black factories,” are making sportswear and other apparel for popular U.S. brands.
The AP tried to visit Hetian Haolin Hair Accessories Co. more than a year ago during an investigation into forced labor inside the camps. But police ordered the driver taking AP journalists to turn back and warned that the cab’s coordinates were being tracked.
Before the cab turned back, the journalists did see the factory from the road. On top of the factory was a sign, “Haolin Hair Accessories,” in big red letters. The factory was ringed with barbed wire fencing and surveillance cameras, and the entrance was blocked by helmeted police. Former political prisoners in other parts of Xinjiang have described being shuttled to work in fenced, guarded compounds during the day and taken back to internment camps at night.
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), who has taken a lead on anti-human trafficking legislation, said that allegations of forced labor are “not surprising” and that “It is likely that many slave labor products continue to surreptitiously make it into our stores.”
The Chinese Ministry of Affairs, of course, denies there is forced labor or that ethnic minorities are persecuted and imprisoned.
Although prohibited by the 1930 Tariff Act, it is extremely rare for the U.S. government to block imports produced by forced labor. In the past 90 years, the federal government has only enforced the law 54 times. The majority of bans, 75%, blocked goods from China.
On June 17, President Donald Trump signed the bipartisan Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, condemning “gross human rights violations of specified ethnic Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang region in China.”
Reporting for The Guardian on May 10, 2005, Steven Morris wrote:
Former teachers of Prince Harry at Eton College helped him cheat in his A-level art course because he was such a weak student, a tribunal was told yesterday.
One teacher allegedly prepared explanatory text to go with images produced by Harry while a second helped the prince insert the lines into a project.
The head of art at Eton also allegedly completed work for Harry which was later published in newspapers around the world.
As the prince began army officer training at Sandhurst yesterday, one of his former teachers, Sarah Forsyth, was claiming that his art exam result, which helped him get into the elite college, was flawed.
Ms Forsyth told an employment tribunal, where she is claiming unfair dismissal, that the evening before a moderator was due at the school to look at the students’ AS-level work – which counts towards their A-level grade – she was asked by the head of art, Ian Burke, to prepare text to go with some of Harry’s work for his Expressive Project, in which a pupil is required to explain some of his work and relate it to that of great artists.
Ms Forsyth said she was “profoundly shocked”, adding: “I was concerned that this was unethical and probably constituted cheating.”
She told the tribunal at Reading, Berkshire: “I assumed I had been asked to do this because Prince Harry was a weak student.”
Ms Forsyth, 30, said Harry’s failings as a student were well known at Eton and she had been told that a teacher who marked Harry’s entrance exam had been “desperate” to find points for which he could award marks.
She claims she was too frightened to disobey Mr Burke and did what was asked of her….
In a witness statement put before the tribunal, Ms Forsyth claimed Mr Burke finished off work for Harry which “featured in the newspapers”.
She did not specify in the statement which pictures she was referring to, but in June 2003 a photograph of Harry with two of his screen prints inspired by Aboriginal designs and colours was released to the media.
Prince Harry and Eton, of course, vehemently denied he’d cheated, but we now have clear evidence that he indeed is IQ-challenged.
On New Year’s Eve, Harry was pranked by two phone calls from Russian hoaxers, Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexey Stolyarov, pretending to be Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager whom the Left idolize as their new climate change guru.
How stupid must you be to believe that a man with a Russian accent is a Swedish teenage girl?
In one of the phone calls, Fake Greta told Harry mining companies close to evil orange-man President Trump were exploiting a tropical island, Chunga-Changa.
Fake Greta: “Have you heard something about Chunga-Changa’s struggle. We’ve been there it is really terrible, have you heard something about it? Interesting.”
Harry: “I actually haven’t because I don’t really look at news anymore. That starts my day badly and finishes my day badly. I think it’s a very good idea.”
Chunga-Changa is the name of a Russian children’s song about a tropical island that doesn’t exist and where it is summer all year.
Reasons #3 & 4:
Harry was also pranked into promising to help move penguins from Belarus “to their native land, the North Pole” (The Sun):
Fake Greta: “Now we are dealing with an issue of moving penguins from Belarus to their native land, the North Pole. About 50 penguins were stuck at customs in Belarus. That’s terrible. And we are searching for some ship maybe to transport these poor penguins to their native land.”
Fake Greta’s fake dad: “North Pole…perhaps you have some contacts for people who can help us?”
Harry: “I do have a man who deals with the North Pole. He is in Norway, he can help as maybe he knows all the right people. I’ll give you the contacts on email.”
To begin, Belarus is a landlocked country in Eastern Europe. It has no sea port with ships that can transport the “poor penguins” to the North Pole or anywhere.
Then there is the matter of the penguins. The North Pole is not penguins’ native land. Penguins are native to Antarctica, which Harry should know because in 2013, he had participated in a charity trek to the South Pole.
In the hoax phonecall, Harry also trashed President Trump, calling Trump stupid, with “blood on his hands” because of his stance on climate change. He told fake Greta (Daily Mail):
“The mere fact that Donald Trump is pushing the coal industry is so big in America, he has blood on his hands. But Trump will want to meet you to make him look better but he won’t want to have a discussion about climate change with you because you will outsmart him.”
Page Six reported on March 27, 2020, that the couple left their $14 million bolthole in Canada where they were couch-surfing and took a private jet to the Los Angeles area (where they are now couch-surfing in a mansion owned by director-producer Tyler Perry) after President Trump and Canadian PM Trudeau announced the borders were closing amid the coronavirus crisis.
Reportedly, the pair may need to ask Trump for “special help” for security protection because the UK taxpayer will no longer fund their guards following their decision to step down as senior royals. Had they remained part of the British royal family, they would have been entitled to protection from U.S. Secret Service agents during their time in America.
How stupid must you be to trash-talk the President of the very country you’re moving to, from whom you hope to secure protective guards.
President Trump lost no time in saying no to U.S. taxpayers paying for the toxic duo’s security protection. He tweeted on March 29:
“I am a great friend and admirer of the Queen & the United Kingdom. It was reported that Harry and Meghan, who left the Kingdom, would reside permanently in Canada. Now they have left Canada for the U.S. however, the U.S. will not pay for their security protection. They must pay!”
There is a petition that U.S. taxpayers not pay for Harry and Meghan’s $20 million security. The petition is aiming for 5,000 signatures; 3,539 people have signed. To sign the petition, go here.
There was also a White House petition to deny Harry a residency visa. Alas, the petition has received only 460 signatures and is now defunct.
For the occasion, Meghan wore a green cap and dress-with-cape.
Although the green dress by designer Emilia Wickstead cost a bundle, paid for by long-suffering UK taxpayers via Harry’s daddy Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall funds, the dress was curiously ill-fitting, with lines and lumps, and revealing the outlines of Meghan’s strapless bra.
More curious still are the strange lumps on her back, brought to our attention by an observant tweeter, Lynne Bailey:
Like most environmental activists, Meghan Markle is a hypocrite. Her husband has said that “we need to put aside “greed, apathy and selfishness” to protect the planet from climate destruction.”
Of course that only applies to commoners, not his wife as witnessed by her makeup artist flying across the globe to do her makeup for an award show earlier this month.
According to Express Digest, Meghan Markle’s BFF and makeup artist flew into London ahead of the royal’s appearance at the Endeavour Awards earlier this month.
Daniel Martin, from New York, shared an Instagram story showing he was relaxing in the business class section a plane, revealing he was travelling from the states to London.
Meghan, 38, joined her husband Prince Harry, 35, at the annual awards as she made her first official public appearance in Britain following the Megxit crisis and prepares to step down as a senior royal.
Daniel has often joined the Duchess at key moments in her royal life, including her wedding and baby shower, as well as around the time of Archie’s christening, sparking rumours he was one of the baby’s secret godparents.
Daniel shared the black and white travelling snap of the business-class cabin to his 137,000 followers on Instagram yesterday. He revealed he was reading the latest Business Traveller magazine, which included a feature on ‘Waking up in London.’
As well as a cartoon plane, he shared he was travelling from New York’s JFK airport and also cheekily posted: ‘Smell ya later’.
Something is happening in Britain that isn’t in the United States.
Prominent Brits are saying they’re sick of the “woke” culture of the Left.
First, it was journalist, TV personality and self-identified liberal Piers Morganwho, on the Ben Shapiro Snow last August, launched a stinging critique of the contemporary Left, calling them “unbearable”.
Then, at 2020 Golden Globes awards in January, comedian and host Ricky Jervais lambasted the Hollywood crowd for their arrogance and hypocrisy.
The latest is actor Laurence Fox (you may know him as Inspector Hathaway in the Lewis TV series).
Fox has become an instant fave of conservatives when he recently said on BBC’s Question Time that Meghan Markle is not a victim of racism (see “Harry & Meghan Markle lose in duel with the Queen”), followed by Fox appearing on the cover of The Sunday Times to tell the world that he does not “date woke women”.
Note: Urban Dictionary defines “wokeness” as “self-righteousness masquerading as enlightenment” and “being constantly offended”.
At that, already ever ready to see chauvinism and insults everywhere, some feminists went into a spitting rage.
In an essay for Medium titled “The Dangerous Rise of Men Who Won’t Date ‘Woke’ Women,” pro-abort UK journalist Vicky Spratt castigates Fox up and down. In addition to Fox not dating “woke” women, he is also guilty of:
Being “a very privileged man” who doesn’t believe in “white privilege, irrespective of the fact that he works in a painfully undiverse industry, was privately educated and comes from a wealthy acting family which is nothing short of a dynasty.”
“[D]enying racism and sexism, ” which is “nothing short of gaslighting. It’s all very Donald Trump.”
Saying “dangerous” things that legitimize a big “backlash against diversity and progress which is unfolding every single day”.
Most “insidious” of all is Fox not wanting to date “woke” women because he exemplifies “(generally white) men” who are “radicalised by anti-feminism” with “hideous and incorrect ideas” and “saying openly sexist and misogynistic things,” whose “hostility towards feminism is feeding directly into far-right movements online.”
According to Spratt, Laurence Fox is “legitimising hatred and division.” Horror of horrors, last year when The Times interviewed Fox, he turned up “wearing a pro-Donald Trump MAGA (Make America Great Again) cap,” which he said was a “social experiment”. But Spratt darkly warns that Fox “wandering the streets in a MAGA cap to provoke ‘hipsters’ can quickly turn into something more sinister.”
Spratt then directly links the “bile” of the “anti-feminist” “far right” to violence, citing the 2016 murder of Labour MP Jo Cox by “far-right terrorist Thomas Mair,” and chat-forum 8chan publishing the manifestos of “the El Paso shooter (who left 20 people dead and many more wounded only a couple of weeks ago), the Poway shooter (who opened fire at a synagogue in California last April) and the Christchurch shooter (who killed 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand last March).”
Of course, Spratt conveniently ignores and omits the many instances of violence committed by the Left, including attacks on people wearing MAGA hats, and assaults by feminists on pro-lifers. See, for example:
Pratt concludes her essay warning that “the far right” is “capitalising on Fox’s words,” and urges that we must “do something about” the “anti-woke, anti-women backlash” that will “burn hotter and faster”.
Drudge Reporthas gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by a military veteran!
On January 8, 2020, after British taxpayers had spent $41.9 million (£32 million) on their wedding less than two years ago in May 2018, and another $3 million on refurbishing their residence Frogmore Cottage (including a copper bath tub and a yoga floor), eco-hypocrites Prince Harry, 35, and his D-list Hollywood-actress wife Meghan Markle, 38, sparked a crisis in the British monarchy by announcing (on Instagram!) they want to reduce their royal duties (whatever that means) and spend more time in North America, while becoming “financially independent”.
The Toxic Duo made the announcement without consulting with or even notifying Harry’s 93-year-old grandmother, the Queen.
By “financially independent” is meant their intention to milk their royal titles for commercial purpose. Already, they’ve registered the domain name SussexRoyal.com and filed for a trademark for “Sussex Royal” on a dizzying range of items including clothing and newspapers. At the same time, while “reducing their royal duties,” the Toxic Duo have every intention of keeping all the royal perquisites they’ve enjoyed, including their royal titles (HRH, Duke and Duchess of Sussex) and £multimillions in security protection and grants from Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall.
In their grandiose and ill-advised showdown with the British monarchy, the Markles have lost.
Today, Buckingham Palace, i.e., the Queen, issued a stunning announcement that effective Spring 2020 (Daily Mail) :
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are to completely give up royal life, stop carrying out royal duties, and they can no longer formally represent the Queen.
Since they no longer represent the Queen, they will not be entitled to the protection detail they currently have.
Since they will no longer carry out royal duties, they will no longer be funded by the taxpayer. (But the assumption is that Harry will continue to be supported by his father, Prince Charles, to the tune of around £2.3million a year. That money is from Prince Charles’ £21 million a year income generated from the Duchy of Cornwall.)
They will no longer use their HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles.
Henceforth, they will be known as “Harry, Duke of Sussex” and “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” — titles that can only be removed by an Act of Parliament (which can still happen).
They will repay £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money spent to renovate their Frogmore Cottage home, in which it is rumored the couple never actually lived.
They have pledged to “uphold the Queen’s values,” which most commentators interpret as a constraint on the Toxic Duo’s grand plans to merchandise their royal titles and connections.
Prince Harry who had served a decade in the British Army will be stripped of his “official military appointments,” which means he will no longer be Captain General of the Royal Marines, Honorary Air Force Commandant of the Royal Air Force Base Honington, and Honorary Commodore-in-Chief of the Royal Naval Commands’ Small Ships and Diving.
Buckingham Palace will review the “new arrangements” in a year, which means there may be more punitive constraints if the Toxic Duo misbehave by, as they have threatened, to “tell all” in American TV interviews.
Piers Morgan tweeted this:
Only surprised it took her so long to get Harry to ditch his family, the Monarchy, the military and his country. What a piece of work. pic.twitter.com/734AtrYsC9
Before she married Britain’s dim-witted Prince Harry less than two years ago, Meghan Markle, was a minor Hollywood actress in the cable TV show, Suits.
But she was more than an actress. Persistent rumors on the Internet (see here and here) say she was also a “yachter” — an actress or model, typically female, who supplements her income by prostituting herself on yachts owned by millionaires/billionaires. The term “yachting” however has been generalized to include not just prostituting on yachts, but sex-for-pay with wealthy men no matter the venue. (Urban Dictionary)
According to the National Enquirer, in 2017 after Harry and Meghan engaged to be married, MI5 scrubbed the net of Meghan’s salacious past, sealed her court and medical records, and silenced her friends and acquaintances with hush money and non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
Clare and her sister Sara Bronfman were heavily involved in the criminal NXIVM as financial backers, committed followers, and trainers. On April 19, 2019, Clare Bronfman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to conceal and harbor illegal aliens for financial gain and fraudulent use of identification. She faces several months in prison when sentenced.
Meghan, who lived in Toronto for 7 years as an actress in Suits, has the enthusiastic support of Canadian prime minister Justin “blackface” Trudeau. Trudeau recently grandly declared that Canada would pay for the hefty security costs of Meghan and Harry who announced they wanted to “scale back” on their royal duties to live in North America.
It turns out that Justin Trudeau also has a connection to the Bronfmans.
According to a report by The Guardian, Trudeau’s chief fundraiser and senior adviser is none other than another Bronfman — Stephen Bronfman, heir to the Seagram fortune, who was instrumental in Trudeau’s successful bid for the leadership of the Canadian Liberal party in 2013 and the premiership two years later.
Stephen Bronfman is suspected of tax fraud for moving millions of dollars to offshore havens to avoid taxes in the U.S., Canada and Israel.
On January 8, 2020, after British taxpayers had spent $41.9 million (£32 million) on their wedding less than two years ago in May 2018, and $3 million on refurbishing their residence Frogmore Cottage, eco-hypocrites Prince Harry, 35, and his D-list Hollywood-actress wife Meghan Markle, 38, sparked a crisis in the British monarchy by announcing (on Instagram!) they want to reduce their royal duties (whatever that means) and spend more time in North America, while becoming “financially independent”.
The Toxic Duo made the announcement without consulting with or even notifying Harry’s 93-year-old grandmother, the Queen.
By “financially independent” is meant their intention to milk their royal titles for commercial purpose. Already, they’ve registered the domain name SussexRoyal.com and filed for a trademark for “Sussex Royal” on a dizzying range of items including clothing and newspapers. At the same time, while “reducing their royal duties,” the Toxic Duo have every intention of keeping all the royal perquisites they’ve enjoyed, including their royal titles (HRH, Duke and Duchess of Sussex) and £multimillions in “subsidies” and security protection.
A day after they made the announcement, news came that Meghan already had left the UK back to the $14.1 million waterfront luxury mansion near Victoria, BC, Canada, reportedly owned by a mysterious Russian oligarch. The Toxic Duo and their elusive infant son Archie had spent 7 weeks in the mansion during a Christmas-New Year “break” from the oh-so-demanding royal duties of showing up at charity functions to smile and shake the hands of the plebians — British taxpayers.
But neither Canadians nor Americans want the Toxic Duo.
James Wood reports for the Daily Mail, January 16, 2020, that although Canada’s prime minister Justin “blackface” Trudeau grandly declared that Canada would pay for Harry, Meghan and their son Archie’s protection while they are in Canada, a new poll found that nearly three quarters of Canadians do not want to pay for the couple’s move to Canada or to pay for their security arrangements.
On their website Sussexroyal.com, Harry and Meghan had grandiosely declared they were “internationally protected people” entitled to bodyguards wherever they go. But the phrase was deleted hours later after Dai Davies, a former chief superintendent who led the London Metropolitan Police’s royalty protection unit, said there is no such thing as “internationally protected people.” Davis said: “Their naivety beggars belief. I have never heard of the phrase ‘internationally protected people’. As far as I can see there is no such thing when you are no longer performing royal duties.”
Estimates of the security cost range from half of £1million ($1.3million) a year — a figure based on the cost of Harry and Meghan’s current UK security bill — to $10 million (£7.6million) annually. Chris Matthews, formerly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who worked in the protection of the Royal Family to Canada, told The Globe and Mail that security would be more costly as they would have to set it up from scratch. The couple’s residence would also need to have fences installed, alongside CCTV and alarms, all of which adds to the cost of their security. Matthews said: “They need personal body guards all the time. You have to pay those peoples’ salaries. You’ve got to pay for the vehicles they travel in and the aircraft they travel in. You have to pay for the communications equipment they require because it has to be sophisticated so that you can’t listen to it.”
The poll of a randomized sample of 1,154 Canadian adults for the non-profit Angus Reid Institute was conducted from January 13-14 this year. Among the findings are:
Just 14% of Canadians said they would be “very pleased” to see the couple spend a significant time in Canada; 50% said they did not care either way.
More than 7-in 10 (73%) Canadians said they would prefer Canada not pitch in any money for the couple; 1-in-5 (19%) said some cost sharing is appropriate; only 3% of Canadians are willing to pay for all costs.
Two-thirds (66%) said the British monarchy is losing or has lost relevance; 41% said they feel the monarchy is completely irrelevant.
Nearly half (45%) said Canada should not continue as a constitutional monarchy for generations and generations to come, but there is little consensus over what, if anything, might replace the monarch as Canada’s head of state.
On January 15 in a scathing editorial, Canada’s most influential newspaperThe Globe and Mailurged the Trudeau government to say “no” to Harry and Meghan’s plan to move to Canada while remaining part of the Royal Family because that would break an “unspoken constitutional taboo.” The editorial says: “Canada is not a halfway house for anyone looking to get out of Britain while remaining a royal. You are welcome to visit, but so long as you are senior royals, Canada cannot allow you to come to stay.”
Meanwhile, a poll by Spectator USA found that 85.3% of Americans say they would vote for Trump in order to keep Meghan and Harry out of the United States. LOL
From Page Six: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle may be coming to America — but not until President Trump is out of office, a report said Sunday.
After their Megxit deal gets hashed out, the Daily Mail reported that the couple plan on living in Canada and eventually find a home and business in Los Angeles.
“It’s by no means an immediate thing but there is a long-term plan to end up back in the US with a second home in Canada, where they will also spend a great deal of time,” the source said.
But Markle, 38, has said she won’t move back while Trump is president, according to the Mail, citing her friends.
Ahead of the 2016 election, and before she married 35-year-old Harry, the former actress blasted Trump as divisive and misogynist on Comedy Central’s “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore.”
She said at the time that she was considering remaining in Toronto, where she filmed the USA Network’s “Suits,” if Trump won.
During Trump’s state visit to the UK in June, he was asked about Markle’s comments and lashed back that “I didn’t know that she was nasty.”
He later clarified he meant the comments were nasty.
Neither Markle — who was on maternity leave after giving birth to the couple’s son Archie — or Harry made an appearance at the state banquet at Buckingham Palace during the visit. Harry did, however, attend a royal luncheon with Trump and first lady Melania Trump.