That article misrepresents the photo (as evidenced by the original source video I linked to) and doesn't present any sources to back up its claim that any of the panda eyes shown are caused by sex abuse.
The only pieces of media on that page that look like they are verifiably from abused children are the video on the right hand side of the page (the boy in the video doesn't have panda eyes) and possibly the boy in the photo on the very top left of the square of photos on the page (who doesn't have panda eyes but has significant facial and neck injuries indicating head trauma, possibly but not definitely from a beating).
I was able to trace back one of the panda eyes photos on that page to its original source, a medical article about a boy who had suffered cranial trauma.
https://www.jem-journal.com/article/S0736-4679(09)00684-2/abstract
As you can see, he also had forehead bruising, indicating a head injury.
There are many people in law enforcement (including a former crime scene investigator who I personally know, who worked some horrific cases including one in which a 2-year-old girl had been raped to death by a Satanist) and medicine who have worked with sexually abused children, including those who were anally raped, and none of them have ever reported panda eyes resulting from this sexual abuse.
Panda eyes are always caused by head trauma, usually intracranial bleeding (which can be caused by beatings, car accidents, and various other causes). The rectum is so far from the head that no amount of trauma to it can cause the panda eye effect, even in a small child. A pedophilia victim can of course have panda eyes, but only from having also suffered head trauma.
I've now tracked down the source of the image of the girl at the top right. It's from the 2015 news video "Children of Gaza".
Her name is Niema Habufu, and her panda eyes are a result of injuries she sustained during a bombing. Images of her from the video have since been taken out of context to present her as a victim of sexual abuse.
Here's the full original source video:
I looked at the date of the supposed tweet at the bottom left (March 6, 2015) and found the most recent Archive.org archive of her Twitter account after that date (March 10, 2015), which shows the tweets on her account from March 5 -to March 10, and the tweet is nowhere to be found.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150310054156/https://twitter.com/chrissyteigen
After posting my first reply, I looked at the date of the supposed tweet (March 6, 2015) and found the most recent Archive.org archive of her Twitter account after that date (March 10, 2015), which shows the tweets on her account from March 5 -to March 10, and the tweet is nowhere to be found.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150310054156/https://twitter.com/chrissyteigen
One thing to keep in mind is that it's always easy to trace back current problems to where they began, but harder to recognize the different problems that may have existed under a different circumstance. It's possible that if there had been a full Anti-Federalist victory, we would have an entirely different set of problems now, maybe worse, maybe not.
As we saw in 2020, there is no mechanism in place to stop any of this.
There may be no mechanism to challenge a fraudulent election, but there IS a mechanism to protect whatever the official vote count says. The cheaters changed the rules to make it virtually impossible to challenge an election on grounds of fraud. If Trump's win is too big to rig and they try to cry fraud, their own new rules may come back to bite them.
Curious: do you have other items where her statements are provably false? I'd be interested in reviewing them.
Here are some more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz0A__pY3iE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AReu7zqmZIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tWu33pu_ko
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9mehh3cacI
The same Julie Green who "prophecied" that Prince Charles would never get the crown (among many other things that turned out to be false)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmsKhGaFf6s
Deuteronomy 18:22, King James Version:
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
What I remember is the press conference that Ron DeSantis made where he said that the state has jurisdiction over this case and the state would be prosecuting the case.
From what I understand, he meant that Florida would be doing its own investigation separate from and in addition to the federal one that had already started.
And if Hollywood even refused to entertain the movie and it was reliant primarily on foreign investment. That should have set off Alarm Bells. Hollywood and its investors despise the man. What about the film made them refuse to touch it with a 30ft pole?
Maybe that's exactly what made Snyder trust them (it was an independent movie being made outside the Hollywood system).
I never paid attention to what happened in Maui. I just heard that there was a volcano eruption and some people were upset at Oprah and Dwayne Johnson for some fundraiser they held or something.
Does anyone have a good description of what happened?
"The Apprentice" (2024) is an independent movie from Iranian-Danish director Ali Abbasi. It was made outside of the Hollywood system and was funded mostly by various foreigners, although Dan Snyder (a major Trump supporter and donor) also donated to the production and was furious when he found out that it was an anti-Trump propaganda movie.
Here's a description of the movie's legal problems from Wikipedia:
Billionaire Dan Snyder, formerly the owner of the Washington Commanders NFL team, donated money to the production of The Apprentice with the impression that the film would be a positive portrayal of Trump. Snyder is a close friend of Trump who donated $1.1 million to his inaugural committee and Trump Victory Committee in 2016 and $100,000 to his 2020 presidential campaign. After seeing a cut of the film in February 2024, Snyder was said to be furious, and lawyers for the Kinematics production company sought to oppose the release of the film.
The film includes controversial scenes, including those that depict Trump violently raping his first wife, Ivana, abusing amphetamines in order to lose weight, and undergoing liposuction and plastic surgery to remove a bald spot. The rape scene was based on divorce records. In a deposition under oath, rendered during their divorce proceedings, Ivana accused Donald of rape and of pulling out her hair by the handful when his plastic surgery to alter his hairline failed.
In 2015, Ivana Trump issued a statement clarifying earlier allegations made during her 1989 divorce proceedings. She explained that her use of the term "rape" was not meant in a literal or criminal sense and was made during a time of high emotion. Ivana stated, "Donald and I are the best of friends, and together we have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald, and I wish him the best of luck on his campaign. [...] I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and he would never rape me."
On May 20, 2024, Variety reported that Steven Cheung, the communications director of Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, threatened legal action over the film. On May 24, Variety reported that Trump's attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter to the filmmakers, seeking to block "all marketing, distribution, and publication of the Movie."
Subsequent to this, Abbasi offered to screen the film for Trump, believing that he might approve of its depiction of him. He also said that realistic movies need to be produced about the threat of fascism. The film's producers responded to the letter by issuing a statement saying, "The film is a fair and balanced portrait of the former president. We want everyone to see it and then decide."
From what I've heard, it's specifically the ones that Planned Parenthood gives out that are sabotaged. The same with condoms. And it's a proven fact (from Consumer Reports, no less) that Planned Parenthood's condoms are less effective than any major brand for sale.
One thing that annoys me to no end is when people talk as if there was no contraception before the birth control pill. There have been many effective methods for millennia (the most effective, other than abstinence, being avoiding vaginal intercourse altogether for other options). It's just that not everyone is willing to make the effort and/or sacrifice that can come with these methods.
Some couples in the 1920s-1950s would "double up" by using both a condom and a diaphragm at the same time, since the chances of both failing at the same time are extremely low. It wasn't convenient, but it was effective. Other methods of "doubling up" include a condom + the pullout method or a condom + the rhythm method.
The pill increased convenience exponentially, but I think that's been a detriment, since it convinced people to stop thinking of birth control as something you have to work at and put effort into. It bred laziness and sloppiness.
I'll be praying for her.
In addition to the other resources people have linked here, I recommend checking out this Substack:
Appears to be a leaked research report on Walz. Possibly the one done before he was selected as VP candidate or more likely opposition research after.
It's definitely opposition research. It uses the word "woke" in a derogatory sense. The Harris campaign or DNC wouldn't do that.
Add in missed rebuttal of constitutional republic not ‘democracy’,
Trump doesn't do that either, and both he and Vance are smart not to. Most normies don't know the difference between a democracy and a republic, and rebutting accusations of being a "threat to democracy" (ie, someone who will end the right to vote by being a lifetime dictator) with "It's not supposed to be a democracy" sounds like an admission.
Plus, the word "republic" has been tainted in too many people's minds. The first things that come to mind for a lot of people when they hear that word are the phrase "banana republic" and tyrannical governments like the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
Reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4woVG5feJo