
Everybody forgot…



In St. Louis County, Mo., Evita Tolu has filed a lawsuit against family court guardian ad litem (GAL) Elaine Pudlowski, psychologist James Reid, and clinical social worker Jennifer Webbe VanLuven, alleging that the trio conspired to use her custody dispute as an opportunity to get rich while sentencing her children to life with an abuser. The lawsuit alleges a scheme perpetrated by a group of professionals to drain parents involved in custody battles. At the end of the court process, parents are broke and kids are traumatized while GALs, court-appointed psychologists, and therapists are enriched. Tolu says the scheme kept her in court for three years, drained her bank account, and alienated her children from her. The suit alleges that this pattern is a regular family court occurrence when Pudlowski is involved.
President Joe Biden appears to have removed legendary children’s book author Dr. Seuss from “Read Across America Day,” which is observed on March 2, the birthday of author.
In a proclamation Monday, Biden declared Tuesday “Read Across America Day,” but left out mention of the children’s author, as has been presidential tradition in recent years. Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama both recognized the author in their respective proclamations during their time in office.
Read Across America Day was launched by the National Education Association (NEA) in 1998 to encourage children to read. The association had, until 2018, partnered with Dr. Seuss Enterprises, before the contract ended.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment and clarification.


The latest data made public by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) on deaths and injuries reported after COVID vaccines are in line with trends that have been emerging since the first data were released in December.
Between Dec. 14, 2020 and Feb. 18, 2021, 19,907 reports of adverse events have been reported to VAERS, including 1,095 deaths and 3,767 serious injuries.
About a third of the deaths reported occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, and 48% of the people who died became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In March 2019, tax expert Maya Forstater was dismissed from her job — legally, according to a later judicial ruling — for voicing the view that “sex is a biological fact, and is immutable.” When author J.K. Rowling came to Forstater’s defence, she was bombarded with abuse, including an invitation from one lady to “choke on my fat trans cock”. The case became a cause célèbre. But it is only one of many such cases. Today, anyone who ventures a controversial opinion on “trans”, race, disability, Middle Eastern politics and a handful of other issues risks being fired, insulted, intimidated and possibly prosecuted.
Last year, a “Journal of Controversial Ideas” was launched, offering authors the option of writing under a pseudonym “in order to protect themselves from threats to their careers or physical safety”. How did things come to this pass?
The new intolerance is often seen as a specifically left-wing phenomenon — an intensification of the “political correctness” which emerged on US campuses in the 1980s. But that is a one-sided view of the matter. It was US Zionists who pioneered the tactic of putting pressure on organisations to disinvite unfavoured speakers; far-right nationalists are among the keenest cyberbullies; and religious zealots of all stripes are prodigal of death threats.
Generalising, one might say that left-wing groups, being more publicly respectable in our part of the world, prefer to pursue their objectives through institutions and the law, whereas right-wing groups seek out the anonymity of the internet. But the goal on each side is the same: it is to intimidate, suppress, silence. In any case, the distinction between “left” and “right” is becoming increasingly muddled, as lines shift and alliances regroup. All one can safely say is that the various forms of contemporary extremism imitate and incite each other. What has given way is the civilised middle ground.
Public health authorities in Peel Region, Ontario, Canada, released guidelines for children whose classmate has received a positive COVID-19 test result. Children without symptoms were to be put in solitary isolation at home, separated from their family members if possible, reportedly under the threat of a steep fine. The policy has since been described by an expert as “cruel punishment”. Amid significant public backlash, the infographic, described by Peel’s chief health official as not reflective of their real intentions, was recalled.
Last week, the infographic originally published on the Peel Health website called for schoolchildren to self-isolate away from their family members if one of their classmates received a positive COVID-19 test result, even if the child does not have any symptoms. It called for the child to stay and eat in a separate room, use a separate bathroom, and observe ‘social distancing’ guidelines when leaving the room becomes necessary.

You must be logged in to post a comment.