BREAKING!!! TRUMP Finally Did It!!!! Let The RIOTS BEGIN!

President Trump is about to end the longstanding abuse of the American welfare system and ban migrants from getting free money and handouts for five years.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and night

The immigration rules will prohibit migrants from coming to the country and taking advantage of free American welfare money right away.

It will slow down, or stop, chain migration while protecting American workers and potentially saving taxpayers money.

What used to happen is that people would migrate to America and just live on the free money they received.

That’s called welfare abuse. America is open to migrants, but perhaps we don’t want migrants who can’t fend for themselves. Maybe it’s better if people who are self-sufficient migrate to the country so that we can reduce the amount of citizens living off the system.

President Trump wants to introduce a merit-based Green card system in which migrants compete for Visas.

Migrants can earn points for themselves by learning to speak English, gaining job training or job offers, or doing something else that is considered a benefit to the America.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and night

The idea seems to be that in order for America to grant Visas or citizenship, the migrant has to give something back to the country.

It’s as though the government wants to stop people coming to America and living off the system and would prefer people coming to the country to be contributors.

Do something for America and America will do something for you.

Migrants to those countries must compete for a limited number of visas by gaining points for English proficiency, competitive training, a job offer or another major achievement that benefits the host country.

The concept, which is modeled after similar programs from Australia and Canada, is taking harsh criticism from activists.

It’s like they want an open border policy where everyone gets free welfare money, but that would just be the downfall of America.

If we observe what’s happening in Germany, with Merkel’s “come on in” policy, then we see a mass increase in horrible crimes like gang rape. Do we want mass amounts of migrant gang rape in America?

Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and night

There’s already enough trouble with crime in sanctuary cities that protect illegal immigrant criminals.

Those folks should be deported because of their bad behavior and often violent crimes they commit on American people and even other immigrants.

If America prevents immigrants from getting free benefits for five years, then that makes people think twice about coming here.

If a family who thinks about crossing the border to start a new life knows that they cannot live for free, then they may not come at all.

If they have possible jobs lined up and will be almost instantly integrating successfully with society, then that’s a great match.

America is the land of the free, but not the land of the free money.

Migrants who enter the United States cannot receive welfare during their first five years in the country, President Trump revealed from his upcoming immigration overhaul.

Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and night

“Just this week, we announced a historic immigration bill to create a merit-based Green Card system that ends the abuse of our welfare system, stops chain migration, and protects our workers and our economy,” he stated on his weekly radio address.

“As an example, you cannot get welfare for five years when you come into our country.”

“You cannot just come in like in past weeks, years, and decades, you come in immediately and start picking up welfare. For five years, you have to say you will not be asking or using our welfare systems.”

Compare that to Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the border to millions of unvetted migrants who can’t speak German and lack employable skills, which dooms them to perpetual welfare paid by German taxpayers – and boredom that manifests into terrorist attacks against, once again, German taxpayers.

Last year the German government admitted that only 2.8% of over 1.2 million migrants had gotten a job – but even then those statistics might be exaggerated, according to journalist Chris Menahan.

“They said back in July only 55 out of one million migrants had got jobs with any major firms and 50 of those jobs were working at the post office,” he reported. “Two-thirds or more of these migrants are illiterate in their own languages.”

Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and night

“They came because Merkel promised them free money if they can just make it into the country.”

What in tarnation would be a good reason for any country to accept illiterate people who don’t work?

There is literally no benefit to the host country to admit people like that.

I know it sounds mean to say this, but they don’t offer anything to the country other than leeching the system of funds and it’s a complete downgrade to the population.

If you let too many low illiterate people into the country, then they have kids who could be illiterate, then over time, it would only decrease the overall intelligence of the country and civilization in America would suffer.

We need hard working and intelligent people who bring promise and productivity to further the advancement of Americans and mankind.

That sounds like quite a stretch but think of the impact of accepting one million people who mostly can’t read or don’t work.

Now the government has to pay for them.Image may contain: 1 person, standing, suit and night

Let’s say one million immigrants each get $30,000 worth of welfare benefits per year.

That’s $30,000,000,000 of free welfare money sucked out of the American budget for people who put NOTHING back into our society, culture, or anything at all.

That is literally a $0.00 return on investment. Not that people are a business, but that’s really bad business. And as you can see, Germany has turned into a cesspool from all the migrants flooding the gates and ruining their nation.

Prepare for a massive backlash from liberals, democrats, and activists. There’s sure to be protests regarding Trump’s potential immigration policy.


Procter & Gamble has really done it this time. They actually had the audacity to release a tv commercial which portrays America as a racist society in order to sell more products.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

The ad which is titled “The Talk,” shows scenes of black mothers throughout history as they warn their children about the dangers of being black in America. And to add insult to injury it states that the system is stacked against them and why they should fear the police.  How are colored people doing in Africa and the Middle East these days?

This ad is a kind of continuation of the company’s decade-old “My Black is Beautiful” campaign. The commercial begins with a young black girl from what appears to be the mid-1940’s as she is holding a white doll telling her mother that a woman at the store told her she was pretty for a black girl.

The mother Responds “That is not a compliment, You are beautiful, period. OK?” The next scene goes on to show a young black boy running away from a group of white boys, which transitions into a mother explaining to her son why there is nothing he can do to stop whites from calling him the “N” word.

And lastly, there is one last mother explaining to her son “There are some people who think you don’t deserve the same privileges just because of what you look like,” another mother tells her son. “It’s not fair. It’s not.” And the final one is another mother asking her daughter if she has her driver’s license with her alluding to the idea that she might be killed by a police officer just for driving a car.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Breitbart Reports:

Black-on-Black Crime: Blame It On The System And Ignore The Evidence

Supporters of criminal justice and sentencing reform tell us that prisons are overloaded with minority inmates, proving that the criminal justice system is racist. President Obama talks about it repeatedly, as do the sponsors of legislation pending in Congress which would retroactively reduce mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers and other violent felons.

Because minorities – blacks and Hispanics – make up a disproportionate part of the prison population, their reasoning goes, it must be the police, prosecutors, judges, and juries whose innate racism prohibits minorities from fair treatment, resulting in their incarceration.

Liberal politicians, pandering to minority voters, echo these sentiments, as do the mainstream media in story after story about the awful racist criminal justice system.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Black Lives Matter, based on the lie that the police are a bunch of bigots who shoot black men indiscriminately, has earned an honored spot among leftist politicians – including Obama and both contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

To skew their reasoning even further, the same crowd claims that even though crime rates have dropped precipitously over the past twenty years, the fact that more people are in prison has little to do with the decline, but further demonstrates nothing more than the racism inherent in the system.

Facts – surprise! – don’t matter, and are simply ignored by those whose ideology they don’t support.

In his book The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America, Barry Latzer, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the eminent John Jay College at the City University of New York, concludes that high black incarceration rates “are best explained not by race bias, but by exceptionally high African American crime commission rates and the imposition of prison sentences for conduct previously punished by jail or probation.” The book is meticulously researched and accessibly written by an author with the highest credentials and credibility, and is one of a few, if not the only book to synthesize questions of criminology with social history.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

You would think that such a study would be warmly welcomed, written about and reviewed widely. But you would be wrong. Professor Latzer’s book has all but been ignored.

I spoke with Professor Latzer at length last week, who told me that many people simply do not want to deal with black crime – such answers as there are simply defy the liberal worldview, and critics find it easier to blame the problem on racism and bigotry on the part of criminal justice officials than on the perpetrators. Trying to ignore the problem is not a new phenomenon. In his book, concerning the growth of violent crime in the 1960s, Latzer writes:

[S]ome elites – public figures, experts and academics, even the news media –were reluctant to discuss the racial dimension of the crime problem.

To acknowledge the high rate of black crime, they thought, would give aid and comfort to bigotry… some of the analysts were scared of being branded racists… Whatever the explanation, the result was the same – a denial of reality.

Latzer’s book should put an end to this denial of reality.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

It discusses all aspects of the tremendous increase in crime rates in the 1960s through the 1990s and the subsequent decline in those rates, and documents, with a thorough review of academic and government studies, FBI statistics, and much else, including the question of black-on-black crime and its consequences.

Refusal to come to grips with the racial aspects of crime, and instead to accuse the criminal justice system of being racist is to sentence a great many black victims to the consequences of violence.

Although African Americans have an inordinately high crime rate as compared to other ethnic groups, they are much more likely to be victims than criminals.

Most African Americans do not commit serious crimes; study after study has shown that in all demographic groups, a relatively small percentage – usually lower than 10 percent – commit over 80 percent of all crime.

And that relatively small group of offenders often commits hundreds of crimes, many of which go unsolved. Latzer points out that 3.3 out of 100,000 white males were murder victims in 2010, but among black males the rate was ten times as high (although that murder rate is nearly 50 percent lower than it was in the 1950s and 60s).

The murder rate started to decline in the early 1990s and reached an all-time low by 2013, largely because of stricter and longer sentences, particularly for multiple offenders, an end of the crack cocaine epidemic, and better policing practices, such as New York’s broken windows and stop-and-frisk campaigns.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

In the last two years, however, the crime rate has started to increase, particularly for murder. In the 56 largest American cities, the murder rate was up 17 percent from 2014 through 2015, and up another nine percent so far in 2016. In the ten largest U.S. cities, all with large black populations, it was up 33 percent in 2015 and is up 60 percent so far in 2016.

The increase is certainly at least partially a result of the so-called “Ferguson Effect” or a reluctance of police officers to put themselves in jeopardy for making arrests as a result of the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, Missouri last year.

But the Obama White House is still in denial. In response to a recent news conference where FBI Director James Comey commented on the increase, attributing it to the “Ferguson Effect,” White House press spokesman Josh Earnest accused Comey of being” irresponsible and counterproductive,” saying he was “drawing conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.”

Much of the increase in the murder rate, Latzer told me, is attributable to black gang members killing each other.

Although the high crime rates in the 80s and 90s were driven by the crack cocaine epidemic, Latzer says that the high rate of heroin addiction is not nearly as violent and probably causes relatively few murders, although it is responsible for plenty of other crimes.

As for the solution, Latzer believes there is no silver bullet, and whatever the solution may be is a very long term proposition. In the meantime, he believes the only remedy is to lock up the perpetrators for as long as we can. Any downside to the prisoners’ freedoms will be far offset by the benefits to the potential victims.

This is one of the most racist and anti-black commercials I have ever seen. And it fully explains why there are issues in the black community.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

In each scene we see a black mother accusing White America of atrocities against black people. IN NO SCENE DO WE EVER SEE A FATHER PRESENT! 78% of African American children don’t have a father at home, and that isn’t a fake narrative like this commercial is, it’s a fact. A fact that Proctor & Gamble illustrated finely in this ad.

Please share and boycott Proctor and Gamble for promoting and profiting off of racism…


Liberals, feminists, and Democrats want you to believe that treating women badly or abusing your power is a Republican issue.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

It goes hand in hand with the “evil old white man” stigma that they’re trying so hard to pass off as truth. The feminist agenda depends on you seeing women as being held down, and their rescuers being liberals and minorities.

Unfortunately, treating others as less than yourself, or taking advantage of the weaker isn’t a problem specific to any group of people, it’s just human nature.

If anyone needed any more proof of that, the recent scandals that center around those who are firmly on the left should confirm it, if you’re looking for the facts that are.

It’s a never-ending soapbox of liberals that President Trump is somehow anti-women, despite all the women that he has put in high ranking positions around him. On the contrary, former President Obama is lauded as being pro-women and minority, when in reality he was primarily pro-whatever got him the most votes. Case in point, Fox News reports that the Obama Administration was rife with sexual misconduct, especially against women, and Obama did absolutely nothing. Apparently, our former Commander-in-Chief was only interested in looking out for women when the voters were looking:

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

“The Justice Department scolded the Obama administration on Wednesday following a report on how sexual harassment of all kinds was improperly handled at the department for years.

The Washington Post reported that the DOJ’s inspector general had found ‘systemic’ problems with how complaints were addressed, with offending officials often being let off the hook or even rewarded. The article cited investigative reports on a lawyer who allegedly groped two female attorneys and a top U.S. Marshals official who had sex with ‘approximately’ nine women in his office.

Though fresh complaints have been filed as recently as August, the IG said some of the worst alleged offenses happened several years ago in the department’s Civil Division.

Ian Prior, a spokesman in the Trump Justice Department, would not comment in detail about the allegations but described the problems as largely occurring during the prior administration.

The Department does not discuss specific employee disciplinary actions or comment on personnel actions or matters that may impact personal privacy. That said, the Department was very disappointed with the issues that occurred in the Obama administration and strives for a workplace free of harassment and other misconduct for all of our 115,000 employees,’ he said in a statement. ‘That is why the Civil Division has implemented additional safeguards and systems to ensure that all misconduct allegations are handled appropriately going forward.’

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

He said a ‘working group’ has also been convened to look at the issues raised and will soon have recommendations.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz originally sent a memo in May alerting the DOJ to the potential ‘systemic issues.’

The Post reported that the IG found one top attorney in the Office of Immigration Litigation, Victor Lawrence, ‘groped the breasts and buttocks of two female trial attorneys’ at a happy hour.

He reportedly got a reprimand, a title change and ‘relief from supervisory duties’ but was not suspended and did not receive a loss in pay or grade. There reportedly was a concern that a suspension would “deprive the government” of his services.

One woman, who was not identified, told the Post she was ‘terrified’ to get in an elevator out of concern he’d be there.

Several attorneys in the civil division reportedly got performance awards after the complaints. A female attorney, not identified by the Post, said, ‘They got free passes.’

Another case involved a woman, former Oregon prosecutor Amanda Marshall, accused of sending harassing texts and emails to a subordinate after an ‘intimate’ relationship ended. She later resigned and apologized, reportedly calling the relationship ‘wrong’ and a ‘mistake.’

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

According to the article, more allegations at the department surfaced this summer – with 17 DOJ employees writing to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in August reporting sexual harassment. It’s unclear when those incidents may have occurred.’

Treating another person badly is something that everyone, no matter their race, or gender or political affiliation will probably struggle with at some time in their lives. The test of character comes when we see whether that person will fight the urge, or give into it. Furthermore, those around them can be judged when we see if they turn a blind eye to abuse for their own gain, or call out those who try to abuse the people under them.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

Predators come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and no one should get a free pass. Liberals want you to believe that Obama was a champion for everyone less fortunate, but reports like these demonstrate, once again, that he was a champion when the cameras were on and left everyone else to fend for themselves. Abuse isn’t something that should be made into a political game, but it is a good litmus test to see who should be in power.

American was great because America was good. Let’s get back to being good and we might get back to being great.

BREAKING!!! Prosecutors Tried To “RIG” The TRIAL!!!!

Where did my America go? This is one of the main reasons we have to be thankful for the fact that Donald Trump is our president and he is draining the swamp!

According to newly unsealed court documents released this week, it seems prosecutors who were leading the Bundy Family court case which stemmed from the 2014 armed standoff where the Federal Government under Former President Barack Hussein Obama took it upon themselves to overstep their bounds by not allowing the Bundy Family cattle to graze on Federal Land, actually attempting to ‘rig’ the case.

The Bundy case ended in a mistrial on December 2, 2016, after the presiding judge, Gloria Navarro, ruled that prosecutors violated the civil rights of the defendants by withdrawing evidence which supported the Bundys’ case. Navarro is considering dismissing the case all together under the  “prejudice” clause which would block prosecutors from ever retrying the case.

Judge Navarro went on to state there were over 3k pages of important evidence in the case which were only provided after the trial was well on its way and that she has never seen any case as badly tampered with or rigged as this one.

The 3k pages include the Bundys’ multiple requests for federal assessments that showed the Bundy family was not dangerous nor any threat to society. Prosecutors called the requests part of a “long list of frivolous and vexatious pleadings. But a government witness, under cross-examination, revealed knowledge of the assessments in court, if not those 3k pages would have never come to light.

According to various media outlets, her final ruling on this matter is said to be coming January 8, 2018.

The New American Reports:

BLM Agent in Bundy Case Accused of Misconduct

Federal Judge Gloria Navarro has denied motions to dismiss charges against 17 defendants in the Bundy Ranch standoff trials, but she has ordered prosecutors to turn over an investigative report that could severely damage the government’s case.

“The OIG (Office of the Inspector General in the Department of the Interior) Report details several violations of federal ethics regulations, misuse of government property, misuse of a government position, and ‘a lack of candor when interviewed,” Navarro wrote in a ruling this past week. “At a minimum, [defendants] may use this alleged misconduct on cross-examination to impeach [the agent].”

Las Vegas attorney Bret Whipple represents cattle rancher Clive Bundy in the case. He charged that Daniel Love (shown), an agent prominent in the Bundy case, is the same agent mentioned in the report. “I’m sure it is him,” Whipple said late last week. “If it is Dan Love…. He is the primary figure in the government’s case. He put together the plan.”

Whipple added that the report indicates that Love has no regard for the rule of law. Federal investigators claim that the agent, widely believed to be Love, wrongly used his influence as a federal agent with the BLM to gain benefits at Burning Man (a popular annual event, which draws thousands of attendees), and then intimidated other BLM staff to keep quiet about his misconduct.

Burning Man, held in the Black Rock Desert in northern Nevada, celebrates art, among other things. The highlight is the burning of an effigy — thus Burning Man.

Nevada Assembly Woman Michele Fiore said of BLM agent Love: “Scoring a few tickets and having sex with his girlfriend in a BLM trailer at Burning Man is the least of his offenses. This man is the same guy who threatened to use lethal force against American citizens and elected officials — myself included — during the protest at Bundy Ranch. … This guy actually disobeyed the direct order of our state attorney general and beat people up and arrested them when he had no authority to do so…. At this point I think the right thing to do in this situation is, to let our men who have been wrongfully accused of threatening the BLM, out of jail and put Daniel P. Love, the real criminal, in jail for a very, very long time.”

According to the inspector general’s report, the BLM agent, which Bundy’s lawyer insists is Love, was supposedly on duty for 24 hours of official work, for three consecutive days, but was also in attendance at the Burning Man event. Investigators claim that the agent intimidated co-workers to not cooperate with investigators, coaching them to say, “I don’t recall” when asked questions.

One co-worker claimed that the agent said, “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”

Michael Richardson, a spokesman for the BLM, stated, “The Bureau of Land Management takes allegations of misconduct seriously. These types of allegations do not align with our mission or the professionalism and dedication of our 10,000 employees doing essential work for America’s public lands each and every day.”

Sarah Gordon, an associate professor of law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, opined that Love’s behavior will certainly impact the outcome of the case. “This stuff,” she said, “suggests that he’s willing to cheat and lie for his job.” While she does not think it “kills” the case for the federal government, it certainly makes it much more difficult. “Anytime a witness is on the stand,” she noted, “you can cross-examine them and … try to impeach him. They can ask him about things that [could] show that he’s dishonest.”

There are 17 defendants in the case in which the government has charged multiple offenses, including conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Clive Bundy’s multi-year feud with the federal government in a dispute over grazing lands on federal land ended in the famous 2014 standoff. Beginning in the 1990s, Bundy refused to pay the BLM for his cattle grazing on “public lands” near his ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada, located about 80 miles north of Las Vegas. The BLM ordered Bundy to remove his cattle, finally winning a court order in 2014 to seize the rancher’s cattle as payment for more than a million dollars in back fees.

Love led BLM agents in rounding up 1,000 head of Bundy’s cattle. Bundy reacted by using social media to ask for help to defend his land rights against the federal government. Several militia groups, bearing rifles and handguns, showed up from several western states, including Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. After a six-day standoff, BLM withdrew from the area, arresting no one.

Bundy continued to use the public land to graze his cattle.

This was followed by a siege on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016 by Bundy’s sons, Ammon and Ryan. Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum was killed in the confrontation, and the government made several arrests. However, a federal jury acquitted Ryan and Ammon Bundy, along with five other defendants.

While Clive Bundy was not involved in the Oregon episode, he was arrested for the 2014 incident in Nevada, when he went to visit his sons. Fourteen others were also charged in that standoff, and all are being held without bail in Nevada.

While the alleged misconduct of Dan Love may result in more not guilty verdicts, there are deeper issues at play, largely ignored by the major media.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution limits the ownership of land by the federal government. Congress is given power to obtain ownership of land outside of the federal district in Washington, D.C., but only for the purposes of “forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.” But, to do this, the Constitution requires the Congress obtain a “cession” from states, with the “consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be.”

While this was generally the case with the original 13 states, and the states admitted into the Union in the early years of the federal republic, states added later, mostly west of the Mississippi River, have seen large amounts of their land retained by the federal government, in violation of this provision of the Constitution.

States were to be admitted on an “equal footing” with the original 13 states, meaning the full sovereignty of their lands as provided in the Constitution. Sadly, the federal government acts as a distant landlord, holding up to 90 percent of the land in the western states.

Even before the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, the Congress operating under the Articles of Confederation provided for land to be transferred to states and individuals as quickly as possible with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Under its provisions, states created out of that land found north of the Ohio River, east of the Mississippi River, and west of the Appalachian Mountains were to enter the Union as equals.

So, the land policy of the U.S. government, with the Bureau of Land Management, violates two cardinal principles of our federal republic: the sovereignty of the states, and the private ownership of property. In the case of Clive Bundy, he has said he would be willing to pay grazing fees to the state and local government, but he rejects the notion that the federal government has any right to own land (except for the narrow purposes found in the Constitution).

States have not “consented” to this violation of their sovereignty — a policy largely begun at the instigation of President Theodore Roosevelt, and continued to the present day.

President Barack Obama, for example, used the “Antiquities Act” to issue executive orders to seize millions of acres of land in several western states. The Obama White House justified this action by asserting, “In addition to permanently protecting incredible natural resources, wildlife habitat and unique historic and cultural sites, and providing recreational opportunities for a burgeoning region, the monuments will support climate resiliency in the region.” This executive order will place these areas “off-limits” not only to economic activities such as mining, oil and gas exploration, grazing, and timber harvest — but also recreational uses such as camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle usage that the public has enjoyed for years.

When Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, they made a conscious decision that the United States of America, begun as colonies of the British Empire, would not have colonies of its own. Yet, today we have a situation in which western states do exist in a semi-colonial status.

It is to be hoped that the Bundys and the others being prosecuted — one might even argue, persecuted —by the federal government are found not guilty in court. Agent Love’s alleged misconduct increases the chances of an acquittal. But Americans should not be content until the federal government and its agents respect and follow the Constitution of the United States, which, after all, they are pledged to uphold.

This would require the federal government give up its lands and turn them over to the states and their citizens.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that what is supposed to be OUR government is being run like a corrupt mafia family empire and it needs to be stopped. These people work for us, not the other way around. They need to start respecting law-abiding American citizens at least as much as they respect Illegal Aliens.

Please share if you want to see people fired over this corruption…

BREAKING! Disgraced Markle REFUSES Queen’s Demand! She’s DONE!


Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

From the moment that Prince Harry announced his engagement to an Amercian “commoner” and former actress Meghan Markle, the world wondered how this girl, seemingly plucked from obscurity, would fit into the royal family.

She comes from a typical “messy” family dynamic, far from the prim and proper Royal Palace. She would have to work extra hard to impress the Queen since without her blessing, she wouldn’t be able to wed Prince Harry and live the fairytale life she hopes to achieve. Markle was given a list of demands and can’t fulfill it and may have just sealed her fate.

While it may seem like a storybook living, glass slippers and gowns, being part of the royal family comes with a great deal of commitment. For Markle, this means she’d have to put on her best performance yet to act the part that’s very different from who she really seems to be. She’s lived a completely different life up until her engagement – her second one after having been married once before from 2011 to 2013. It’s questionable just how long she’ll last in this lifestyle since she must follow the queen’s orders to be married to Harry, who is in line to the throne.

According to Express, Markle will be forced to follow certain royal rules and traditions once she marries Harry and it may be difficult for her.

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

On top of the hard and fast protocols that come with being a member of the Royal Family, there are also quirks and traditions she will have to get to know.

So what should the Suits actress expect if she marries into the British Royal Family?

The couple will need the permission of the Queen to wed

This is because of Prince Harry’s position in line to the throne.

The rule dates back to 1701, when the Act of Settlement was passed to prevent a Catholic from getting the crown.

However, rules have been updated so that now the Queen only needs to grant permission to the first six members of the Royal Family – at the moment this is Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Prince Harry and Prince Andrew.

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

Meghan’s wedding bouquet will be chosen for her

Or at least it will to some degree. Every royal bride since Queen Victoria has had myrtle in her wedding bouquet. It is not just any myrtle, but is from the shrub planted by Queen Victoria at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight. Myrtle symbolizes chastity, marital fidelity and good luck and love in marriage.

Meghan also has little say over her wedding ring

From the Queen Mother right through to the Duchess of Cambridge, royal brides have worn wedding bands containing Welsh gold. Like the myrtle, this isn’t just any Welsh gold, but gold that comes from the same nugget mined in North Wales. Welsh gold is three times more valuable than other types of gold.

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

This next rule is one that Markle has already broken and not only went against the Queen’s list in doing so, she angered much of America back at home, having proven herself to be against President Donald Trump. While she plans to become a citizen of Great Britain once she marries into the royal family, she shouldn’t forget where she came from especially is she ends up returning to the U.S. in the event that she gets divorced – which many Americans seem to think is a great possibility.

Express explains:

Meghan will have to keep her political views private.

The Suits actress has been vocal about political issues in the past, sharing a post to Instagram which appeared to be anti-Brexit, and slating Donald Trump. Members of the Royal Family have no such freedom and are expected to stay politically neutral.

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

Meghan should perfect her curtsey

The Queen and other members of the Royal Family are sticklers for etiquette, and bow or curtsey to each other depending on rank both in public and private.

The rules are complicated and were last updated when Kate Middleton married William. The Order of Precedence, which sets out the rules on who must curtsey to who is likely to be updated if Meghan joins the family. Where each member of the family stands in relation to the Queen for photos, and who arrives first to events, is also dictated by the Order of Precedence.

She didn’t just break the political opinion rule, she and Harry have done a lot with their engagement that goes against tradition.

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

The world isn’t just watching their engagement and digging into Merkle’s past to find out more about this soon-to-be royal, we will all be watching to see how long she lasts in this role once the rice tossed at their wedding settles. She’s entering into a completely different life and culture, far from where she came from, and it might be a really hard adjustment for her. Time will tell. While he wish them the best, we also just hope that both she and Harry know what they are getting into.

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and close-up

Share if you liked this story and leave a comment below!

BREAKING! Trump Just Cut Them Off! There’s NO MORE!

Winning the war on terror was one of the biggest promises that President Trump made while on the campaign trail, and it’s one of the fondest hopes of most of the people that voted for him.

In order to accomplish that goal, the President not only has to fight ISIS and everyone who supports them, he has to put an end to all the inroads that the former President gave to terrorist nations.

Former President Obama was often accused of having a soft spot for terrorists, and while some might have thought it was all talk, he put our money where his mouth was and was discovered sending funds to some pretty shady people. Since the close of his time in office, the Trump administration has found more and more discrepancies in what has been done with taxpayer dollars.

President Trump’s bombshell revelation in what was one of his first tweets from the new year that the United States was sending copious amounts of money to one of these known terrorist nations shook many people out of the New Years Day holiday mode and threatens to bring the heat down on Obama’s former administration.

Breitbart News reports that this could mean the end of all funding to Pakistan, and what a huge step that would be:

“President Donald Trump lashed out at Pakistan on Twitter just a few minutes past 7:00 a.m. Eastern time on New Year’s Day, expressing frustration at Islamabad’s inadequate efforts against terrorism and implying that U.S. foreign aid will be terminated as a result.

‘The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!’”

This comes on the heels of the President declaring that he would be terminating all funding going to UN countries that stood against the United States’ support of Jerusalem being the capital of Isreal. The UN didn’t take him seriously, and they never expected him to follow through, but he did. That was millions of dollars put back into the US budget, and it looks like Pakistan will be falling to the same fate.

“It is not yet clear whether the ‘no more’ exclamation means the complete or partial termination, or temporary suspension, of American aid to Pakistan.

If the complete termination of U.S. foreign aid does indeed become official policy, it would be a far more dramatic step than withholding all or part of America’s $255 million in military assistance to Pakistan, a measure reportedly under consideration by the administration over the past few days after Pakistan refused to allow U.S. interrogators access to a captured terrorist from the hostage-taking Haqqani network.”

There will no doubt be questions as to why the President has chosen to do this at all. We, who have so much, have been helping the less fortunate for a very long time, and most Americans consider that to be a good thing.

However, the United States sending millions of dollars to countries such as Pakistan would be like if you started donating money every day to a homeless person, and that person used that money to go buy a knife which they proceeded to try and stab you with every time you came to give them money. Pakistan’s terror ties are clear, and any money going to them, is no doubt funding terror.

Breitbart gives more details of exactly how the recipient of our millions of dollars has been treating Americans in recent years:

“In August, President Trump said the ‘next pillar’ of his strategy for battling terrorism would involve a ‘change in our approach to Pakistan.’

Trump accused Pakistan of giving ‘safe haven to agents of chaos, violence, and terror.’

‘We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond,’ the president said. ”These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide – that no place is beyond the reach of American arms.

The Trump administration withheld $50 million in military aid to Pakistan over the summer because it felt Islamabad was not doing enough to bring down the Taliban and the Haqqani Network. There was some criticism at the time that despite his strong complaints about Pakistan refusing to help fight the Taliban or even actively colluding with it, Trump was dealing more harshly with Egypt over human rights violations by its government.

The Pakistani military rescued a Canadian-American family held hostage for years by the Haqqanis in October. Concerns have been raised that even this rescue might have been the result of a deal between the Pakistanis and the militant network, which has long been suspected of enjoying special favors and protection from elements of the Pakistani security apparatus. The prisoner Pakistan refused to allow the United States to interview was tied to the kidnapping of this Canadian-American family.

On Thursday, Pakistani military spokesman Major-General Asif Ghafoor warned the United States against taking ‘unilateral’ military action on its soil and denied his country was not doing enough to fight the Taliban and its allies, promising that the results of Pakistan’s counterterrorism operations would be ‘seen in subsequent years and months.’”

Helping those in need makes sense, but funding those who are trying to kill us at every available opportunity is absurd, and a foolish way to spend taxpayer dollars. Maybe, if we stop spending all our money on people who are trying to destroy us, we could pay off our debts and balance the federal checkbook.

Mike Huckabee Had Some Strong Words For Jeff Sessions, Heads Are Going To Roll

The past year has been full of controversy. Agents within the federal government have been exposed for bias, and evidence suggests that the Democrats were running amuck in the last administration.

However, there have been zero prosecutions. Former Governor Mike Huckabee called out Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently over this issue, and it wasn’t pretty.

One of the reasons that people voted for Trump was because of his stance on law and order. He promised to support our police and the rule of law.

That was important after we had eight years of a president who insulted our men and women in blue. Trump was going to change all that. In fact, he promised to go after crooked politicians who break the law.

Trump promised to bring justice against the Democrats. Most of us are aware of the shocking violations they’ve committed.

During the Obama administration and the election, Democrats were breaking the law. This last year we learned even more about dishonest federal agents.

From FBI agents manipulating investigations to Hillary Clinton aids with shady business, the Democrats were busy breaking the law.

Yet where are the investigations? Where are the indictments? It seems like the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is doing very little.

Mike Huckabee appeared on Fox News recently to express his opinion. He said, in no uncertain terms, that the American people will lose patience with Sessions if nothing is done.

On Saturday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) argued that without a prosecution against Huma Abedin, “we’re all going to lose patience with the attorney general.”

Huckabee said that if Huma Abedin is not prosecuted, “I think we’re all going to lose patience with the attorney general. I love Jeff Sessions. I think he’s a great guy. But he’s got to do the job that he’s there to do, and that’s to universally enforce the law. And when I say universally, without regard to who a person is, if they’re the highest person in the land, or if they are the lowest person in the land.”

Huckabee also cited Lois Lerner, Bruce Ohr, Peter Strzok, and Lisa Page as people who should be held accountable. [Source: FoxNews]

We’ve recently learned, yet again, how the Clinton campaign violated rules regarding classified information. Huma Abedin had sensitive information on her computer. Information that was being sent around, with zero regards to the laws of this country.

It warrants at least an investigation. Hillary Clinton and her people proved they did not care about our country’s laws. Sharing classified information like that can expose our country. Hackers and other agents can intercept that information. It poses a serious threat to our national security.

Yet did Clinton care? Of course not. We know she shared that information on her illegal private server. Now, we see that her closest aid was doing the same on her unsecured computer. These are serious threats to our country. So why doesn’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions look into it?

Meanwhile, the American people have to continue to suffer the indignity of the Russian investigation. Mueller and his cronies are digging around, with zero evidence to back this case. All so that Democrats can find a reason to attack the President. But we have real evidence to show that Hillary, Huma, Obama, and many others were up to no good. Still, there are no investigations or indictments of any kind.

The American people won’t stand for it forever. Our President is working hard to restore our country’s strength and prosperity, but the vile liberal media and rats in D.C. are trying to take him down. Crooks and criminals roam free, and that’s unacceptable.

Mike Huckabee is absolutely right when he talks about Americans losing faith in our justice system. Americans will continue to lose trust if nothing is done. What do you think? Will Sessions finally prosecute Hillary and her cronies? Will justice one day be done against Obama’s corrupt administration?

BOMBSHELL From WikiLeaks!! Hillary Colluded!!! SOMEONE WILL BE GOING TO PRISON!!!

If there were one person that deserved to serve a life sentence of hard labor, it would be Hillary Clinton.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

That woman has done everything in her power for years to undermine the constitution and the American people with her underhanded political dealings, and traitorous deeds. Not only is Hillary guilty of treason against the United States, but she is the prime suspect in hundreds of suspicious murders that have taken place over the years.

Then, last year, stunning new revelations were discovered after Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, released hacked emails that showed the depth of depravity Hillary had sunk. In these emails, the American people were stunned to witness how far Hillary would go to ensure that she would win the presidential election, and how far her staff would go to cover her crimes up.

For the past year, Hillary Clinton has not been able to shake the questions surrounding those emails or the crimes she has been accused of, and now those crimes have grown.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

Just today, WikiLeaks has released evidence that Hillary Clinton and her campaign were the ones who were colluding and they have the smoking gun to prove it.

Over the last year, the mainstream media and liberal pundits have been busy pushing the false narrative that President Trump conspired with Russia to win the election. However, every time these liberal hacks thought they had found the proof to impeach President Trump it backfired in their anti-American faces and pointed right back to Hillary Clinton.

Now, more proof has emerged that shows that Hillary Clinton was the only one attempting to sway the American people’s vote, and we have the email to prove it.

Here is a little backstory for you.

On Saturday, The Democrat tentacle, The New York Times, published a story titled “Republican Attacks on Mueller and F.B.I. Open New Rift in G.O.P.” This story apparently drew the ire of WikiLeaks founder Jullian Assange who just published on Twitter alleged evidence that a Times reporter fed the State Department email updates of the stories the paper would be publishing SEVERAL DAYS before the stories were released during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

Now, who is guilty of conspiring again?

Here is more from Daily Wire:

The heads-up email was intended to give State (and Clinton) time to come up with some spin for stories that may have caused problems. Or, in another possible scenario, the heads up could give the State Department time to create a diversion for the same day, thus overriding a damaging story with other news its friends in the mainstream media would happily cover instead.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

The players in the WikiLeaks email are interesting. Scott Shane is the national security reporter for The Times. And the recipient of his email, Philip Crowley, was at the time the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs under Clinton’s State Department.

As 2017 comes to an end, its clear the Clinton scandals won’t go away anytime soon.

On Friday, the Justice Department released thousands of Clinton emails. “Several emails with classified information from former Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin were among a tranche of documents released Friday that were found on Anthony Weiner’s personal computer during an FBI probe,” USA Today reported.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

After the emails were made public, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the release a “major victory.”

“Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents,” Fitton said. “That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner’s laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s obvious violations of law.”

The FBI said most of the emails ended up on Weiner’s computer because of backups from Abedin’s personal electronic devices. Former FBI Director James Comey has said investigators could not prove Abedin acted with criminal intent or “had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law.”

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

A November 2010 email was partially redacted due to “classified” and “confidential” information. It detailed a planned call between Clinton and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, where then-Secretary of State Clinton would warn al-Faisal about Wikileaks planning to release sensitive documents.

That same month, Wikileaks released the U.S. diplomatic cables leak, known as “Cablegate.”

If these emails are correct and it shows that Hillary Clinton and her staff created diversions so that the truth was not reported on then someone needs to be held accountable.

Image may contain: 1 person, closeup and text

It is the time that The Department of Justice opens an investigation into this crooked woman so that she has to pay for all that she has done to this country.

Hopefully, there are still some good people at The New York Times that would be willing to testify and bring down the criminal enterprise known as the Clinton family once and for all.