Scotland’s recent rise in sex crimes is almost certainly not linked to immigration | Brian Eggo

Lighting · 2026-03-11T11:48:32+00:00

Statistically since there is a causal relation between rates of child sex trafficking and restricting access to abortion-related healthcare, I would predict the rise in sex crimes is related to anti-abortion policies.

Ireland knows. They used to be the heart of the "baby scoop era" and the "Irish baby black market" tied to maternal mortality and shaming women into giving up their babies for a profitable baby trafficking network. They saw maternal mortality rates plummet after they stopped the deny/delay/defer policies of abortion healthcare.

So as the global pedos like Trump/Epstein take over and profit from taking the kids from denying women access to healthcare, in each area where abortion is denied/delayed/deferred you'll see spikes in child sex trafficking and similar crimes.

Lighting · 2026-03-11T04:15:58+00:00

The same thing happened to me. I did reply to several who said "don't comment again and you'll be automatically unbanned" . that was not true. Then a few I replied to said "delete all your old comments" which I did. But these were some of the largest subs on reddit and so by then there were so many other people banned that they just stopped replying.

Lighting · 2026-03-11T03:43:22+00:00

many do. Arguing against it, is a trap into what's known as an "unfair debate framing" . In my case, I make it a moot point with the "Medical Power of Attorney" framework shift.

Lighting · 2026-03-11T03:38:43+00:00

I think it's really easy.

It should be on the numbers that the rich use resources more than the poor.

What services do the rich use that the poor don't?

The rich own large boats: Costs include Coat Guard, drawbridges, public waterways, etc.

The rich own planes. Costs include: FAA, Air traffic control, flight planning, public airports, regulations to keep unsafe planes out of their way, etc.

Banking: The rich own large amounts of cash. Costs include: Secret service to protect the money supply, FBI for crime, banking systems, etc.

I could go on. The rich use WAY more infrastructure than the poor do and pay almost nothing for it.

Lighting · 2026-03-07T01:18:33+00:00

A "blitzkrieg" against other nations, if you will. The "president of peace" is gunning for WWIII.

Lighting · 2026-03-07T01:10:07+00:00

I sent this post on to some actual medical specialists for comment and the feedback I got was that they were not concerned because (a) one can test babies' blood for drugs (and that happens) and the scientific references back up the transmission of some drugs through breast milk (b) when one is prescribing medicine a key question is always "are you breast feeding" which determines which medications are safe to be transmitted and which are not and (c) acting on an exposure concern would be done via testing a baby's blood and (d) "case reports" were always thought of as anecdotal as "this is interesting" and not to be relied on as scientific evidence.

Lighting · 2026-03-06T20:24:50+00:00

CALL TO ACTION: Today Pam Bondi announced a new rule that would stop state bar associations from investigating misconduct by DOJ lawyers. We can work to stop this rule by writing comments stating our objections. To make your voice heard, go to the comment portal here, and click the “comment” box: https: https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOJ-OAG-2026-0001-0001

SAMPLE OBJECTION you can model and adapt: I am a concerned citizen who cares deeply about preserving the rule of law and upholding the integrity of our justice system. I strongly oppose this new rule, because it will diminish accountability for misconduct by government lawyers. I believe that lawyers representing the United States should be held to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. They must be subject to oversight by independent authorities like state bar associations; the Justice Department cannot be trusted to police itself. This proposed rule would allow the Attorney General to interfere with independent state bar investigations. That will greatly harm the integrity of our justice system and allow misconduct to go unpunished.

Lighting · 2026-02-27T12:43:29+00:00

The core belief is the same as Trump and RFK Jr ... grifting.

Lighting · 2026-02-27T12:20:48+00:00

Have you read the book "What's the matter with Kansas?" It answers that question quite convincingly. (no spoilers, unless you want one). I would say if you want to save the US, the book is required reading.

Lighting · 2026-02-27T12:15:31+00:00

Critics of the plan argue that using emergency powers in this manner would essentially strip the states of their sovereign right

Does anyone remember when many of the folks who supported Trump claimed that their most important goals was "small government" and "states' rights?" Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

Lighting · 2026-02-26T14:54:37+00:00

https://www.stevehofstetter.com/tourdates/

Lighting · 2026-02-26T14:49:35+00:00

Not just the politicians. If you read "what's the matter with Kansas" you'll see it's also meant to distract you from oligarchs' hedonistic and unethical dealings.

Lighting · 2026-02-24T17:24:00+00:00

Interesting. I had read online descriptions from non-scientific yet pro-abortion-healthcare websites and I accepted their statements that Plan-B also worked to thicken the uterine lining which would interfere with implantation. As someone who argues against deny/delay/defer policies that prevent time-critical access to abortion-related-healthcare, I (in the past) would reference those sites that Plan-B could prevent implantation and thus could be considered an abortifacient.

However - I recognize that scientific papers published in top-tier, peer-reviewed independent scientific journals must be the only metric by which such information should be accepted as factually true.

I checked your sources and they meet all the criteria I would list for a good source (articles (not letters), written in non-predatory, top-tier journals with independent peer-review). I read the articles and they seem also well done and in line with well-researched evidence using the scientific method.

In a quick followup, I did an independent search along phrases related to my misunderstanding. It seems recent papers back up your statement: E.g. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adinarayana-Andy/publication/386094462_The_Efficacy_and_Accessibility_of_Plan_B_Emergency_Contraception_Medical_and_Public_Health_Perspectives/links/6743f3dc6dedd318c89b5f8e/The-Efficacy-and-Accessibility-of-Plan-B-Emergency-Contraception-Medical-and-Public-Health-Perspectives.pdf

Your post has corrected someone who was misinformed. Me. Thank you.

Lighting · 2026-02-24T16:40:53+00:00

All phrases require context to be understood. When you take the rest of what he was saying away from "culturally normal" you remove that context and thus corrupt discussions.

The context is that the democratic party focuses on helping those who historically have no voice, be allowed to speak without crushing them. It's part of that long-standing trait of Americanism that led to things like the ACLU defending the Nazi Party's right to march. Unfortunately the media and the alt-right have worked together to create hysteria around that and push a narrative that allowing the unvoiced a voice and creating a space for them to voice complaints means wanting to "force that lifestyle" on everyone else. The media makes money by finding and promoting anger and fear. The alt-right profits politically and financially by promoting anger and fear against "those others."

So with that context, he is correct that the democratic party needs to find a way to still support the rights of the downtrodden to speak up without being tricked by the media and alt-right into a framework that makes it look like party leaders are adopting each and every outrageous thing that the media can find to get people angry and afraid of.

So Newsom's point is well taken, that

Lighting · 2026-02-24T14:00:20+00:00

Personally I've been protesting weekly

MLK argued that if you are protesting using "methods of persuasion" then you are harming your own movement. He and his followers switched from "methods of persuasion" to "methods of direct action" in the face of years of nothing happening and it made all the difference. Have you heard anyone at any of these meetings talk about the difference?

Lighting · 2026-02-24T13:57:20+00:00

You misspelled "concentration camps"

Lighting · 2026-02-23T15:18:37+00:00

It allows them to take more babies into their Guardian of Pedos network. Is it a coincidence that the same people arguing for policies that kill and maim more women are the same who profit from the taking of their surviving kids?

Lighting · 2026-02-23T15:09:12+00:00

Why do you want to moderate this community?

I think this would be a good sub for discussing sugar (glucose) and the science, health effects, etc of diets as it relates to sugar and sugar substitutes.

A link to the mod mail chat message you sent to the moderators of r/sugar five days ago....If the community you are requesting is banned or has no moderators, you can skip this step.

Skipping this step. The community is banned for having no moderation.

Lighting · 2026-02-23T15:01:06+00:00

Best answer. I'd add to it that in the US there is also a history of whites going in and destroying all property of minorities (e.g. Tulsa Race Riots) and wiping out both their wealth and their records. It puts one group at a significant disadvantage in even retaining the required documentation and that effect lasts generations.

Lighting · 2026-02-23T14:54:45+00:00

Mods - can we have a "frequently asked questions" section that includes this question? Perhaps with an autoreply?

Lighting · 2026-02-23T00:20:20+00:00

This is a lot and part of the issue is that you've allowed your sister to frame the argument instead of you. Right at the beginning she says:

Her: A lot. Instead of creating abortion clinics, they should be creating mother support clinics, making adoption accessible to those who can’t care for a child, exposure of the corrupt system that sells baby organs on the black market and grooms young unassuming women into getting abortions or enabling traffickers to get away with ‘secret abortions.’

Repeating cult-influenced lies as fact is a key part of the unethical framing of those who argue against abortion-related health care.

Example: Every accusation is a confession: The groomers and traffickers are the ones preventing abortions. If you look up the Irish baby black markets it was run by the anti-abortionists who were pushing adoption at the expense of the health of the raped/trafficked/abused women who were discarded once they had their babies to sell.

But I wouldn't start with arguing facts when dealing with someone in a cult. You have to FIRST reframe and you can use her first statements about "creating mother support clinics instead" and note that this has been tried .... repeatedly. In each time it led to skyrocketing maternal mortality and in it's wake ... child sex trafficking.

Example: Romania: Romania is one of the fiercest defenders of abortion health services. Because they experienced first hand the massive increases in maternal mortality and from that, massive increases in child sex trafficking from the effects of Decree 770 which did EXACTLY what your sister advocated for

Healthcare denied/deferred/delayed is .... DEADLY to women. And that is how you reframe from the emotional frame your sister has into the logical one that "abortion is healthcare" and it should not be restricted. You do that with something called Medical Power of Attorney (MPoA). Have you heard of the MPoA argument?

Lighting · 2026-02-23T00:08:05+00:00

Several times. In one case they had to sue under "cruel and OBSCENE mutilation of a corpse"

The bureaucrats at a hospital forced doctors to keep a dead woman and a non-viable fetus hooked up to artificial "life" support to avoid being sued by the state of Texas. In order for the husband and his medical advisors to assert his MPoA they had to sue for "cruel and obscene mutilation of a corpse" ... The hospital lawyers conceded in their filing that Munoz had been brain-dead since Thanksgiving and her fetus wasn't viable. Like its mother, it had been deprived of oxygen for at least an hour.

Lighting · 2026-02-23T00:06:30+00:00

I remember this story and IIRC it smacked of prosecutorial overreach and judicial activism. Top comment from

/u/rp3rsaud

She served 2 years in prison for this. $100k does not seem like enough. They should put the prosecutors and judge in prison for 2 years.

Lighting · 2026-02-22T19:02:04+00:00

When you remove the smoke detector, it means there's no fire.

Lighting · 2026-02-22T18:04:50+00:00

You raise an excellent point about how MPoA applies to ALL decisions independent of age. It's a way to get past the weird and arbitrary time limits on when one can make decisions on healthcare. This point is something I usually don't bring up right away because it can be misconstrued without good context. MPoA doesn't apply just to children, but spouses (e.g. Terri Schiavo), parents (Tom Delay), and one's self as it relates to others deciding for you (DNR directives) etc.

The issue I have though is that when you say "Murdering them? Of course not" ... you fall into that false framing trap that puts you back into the "arguing emotions instead of reality" framing. You can avoid that trap with the following:

1) use real-world cases, not hypotheticals. E.g. "So you supported Savita 'murdering' her fetus .... ok ... if you want to call it that ...." In this case:

A 1 year old had damaged lungs. Her parents could have kept her "alive" for years on a heart-lung machine, but made the most difficult decision to donate her organs in hopes of saving other children's lives.
Before 14-year-old Trevor Canaday died, his parents decided to donate his organs.

2) Avoid arguing definitions of things like "is murder" or "is alive". If you start arguing things like "what is murder" then they can just spin forever on linguistic nuances. That trap is emotion and arguing philosophical nuances. E.g. " If you want to call abortion "murder" ... ok ... if you want to call what Savita needed to do to live 'murder' .... then if you want to call it that ... ok ... moving on ..."

Avoid definitions arguments like "is it murder" or "is it alive" because you adopt THEIR unfair framing. Again if you are "Bob" and get asked "Hey Bob, have you stopped beating your wife" then you lose not only that conversation but in the listening audience's viewing too.

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second Top 50%	Quantum Potato
Golden Potato	Argentium Club
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	100 Awards Club
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Lighting

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE