Peter Marks, the former FDA official instrumental in the rollout of COVID-19 mRNA shots, has landed an executive role at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly.Marks played a key role in Operation Warp Speed, the first Trump administration’s initiative to develop the experimental mRNA shots. He was part of the team that rushed the authorization for the injections, which have cratered public trust in vaccines and public health officials. Until April, Marks served as director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the FDA unit that oversees vaccines, gene therapies, and blood products. He was forced to resign after he reportedly refused “to get behind restoring science to its golden standard and promoting radical transparency,” a senior HHS official said.Starting this month, Marks will oversee molecule discovery and infectious disease at Eli Lilly. The drugmaker <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/former-fda-vaccine-chief-peter-marks-joins-eli-lilly-stat-reports-2025-10-07/" id="">told</a> Reuters that his “expertise strengthens our abilities across multiple areas.”When he led Operation Warp Speed—which Marks himself named—Marks was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-vaccine-approval-decider/2020/08/11/7c6fb7a0-d8f1-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html" id="">described</a> as “the single most critical figure in the vaccine decision.” The Washington Post called him “the most important government employee most people have never heard of.”As the FDA official charged with regulating vaccines, it was Marks’ job to ensure the safety and efficacy of the mRNA shots. The vaccine was a failure on both counts, a fact that Marks knew at the time but withheld from the public.In June 2022, Marks acknowledged a fivefold increase in myocarditis among vaccinated children 12-17 but downplayed the danger by suggesting the vaccine was not to blame.&nbsp;“[Myocarditis] is a known phenomena in the 12-17 year-old age range,” said the CBER director. “And the rate that it was seen in the 12-17 year-olds who are vaccinated seem to be fivefold higher than the baseline rate that we would expect. And that’s why this is not a slam dunk.”&nbsp;“Here, it’s very challenging. When something’s only three to five times more common in a vaccinated population, you don’t know whether it’s cases that would have been there, that aren’t really associated with the vaccine that have come up, or how much actually the vaccine has increased that risk,” he added.Marks emphasized that he was not denying that the vaccine has a myocarditis safety signal, but he also tried to suggest that the jump in myocarditis was normal.&nbsp;“I’m not trying to deny that there’s some signal here. I’m just trying to say the magnitude of this over what we might be seeing is baseline, summertime, viral myocarditis is hard to know exactly. But just to give you an idea of the order of magnitude, we’re seeing about fivefold more than you might expect if this were normal summertime.”<h2 id="">The Big Pharma-Government ‘revolving door’</h2>Marks is the latest public health official to snag an executive role in the drug industry, a “revolving door” trend that many say invites regulatory corruption.In February, Pfizer named former senior FDA official Patrizia Cavazzoni as its chief medical officer. Until this year, Cavazzoni headed the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), which regulates drugs sold to the American public. She resigned from the agency in January.Both Marks and Cavazzoni worked in the drug industry before and after serving as regulators of that same industry.Every FDA commissioner since 2000 has found top spots in the pharmaceutical industry. Robert Califf, the most recent commissioner, secured leadership roles at Verify Life Sciences and Google Health between his two terms. Former commissioner Scott Gottlieb sits on the board of directors of Pfizer and Illumina. Andrew von Eschenbach served on the boards of BioTime and Viamet Pharmaceuticals, Mark McClellan joined the boards of Johnson &amp; Johnson and Cigna, and Jane Henney secured a spot on the board of AstraZeneca. Margaret Hamburg joined the board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals after she left the FDA in 2015. During her tenure as commissioner, Hamburg <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q975" id="">held</a> financial interests in FDA-regulated drug companies through an exclusive hedge fund managed by her husband’s company.This revolving door is not exclusive to the FDA. A <a href="https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00418?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed" id="">study</a> found that a third of the 78 presidential appointments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) between 2004 and 2020 later secured private industry jobs that raised concerns about conflicts of interest.The federal government has been slow to take measures against these conflicts of interest, if at all. During the first Trump administration, FDA appointees were required to sign ethics pledges that they would not engage in Big Pharma lobbying for five years after leaving their government roles, though it did not forswear employment in the industry. That pledge requirement was terminated on January 19, 2021, Trump’s last day in office.<h2 id="">Kennedy vows change</h2>HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has repeatedly vowed to “shut the revolving door.”.“We will remove conflicts of interest from the committees and research partners whenever possible or balance them with other stakeholders,” Kennedy said shortly after assuming office. “We will shut the revolving door.”

COVID-19 vaccine architect lands major role with pharma giant

The revolving door between Big Pharma and Big Government continues to rotate

The Justice Department is using a law that the Biden administration weaponized against pro-life Americans to prosecute pro-Hamas rioters.The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act makes it a federal crime “to use force with the intent to injure, intimidate and interfere with anyone” who provides abortion services. Although this Clinton-era law also protects pregnancy centers and houses of worship, it was originally intended to protect abortion. The Biden administration weaponized the law almost exclusively to protect abortion centers, and federal prosecutors often stretched it to cover Americans who so much as peacefully protested abortion. Citizens charged with the FACE Act have been subjected to violent raids by the FBI, similar to those visited on the January 6th hostages.&nbsp;On September 29th, the DOJ filed a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.583780/gov.uscourts.njd.583780.1.0.pdf" id="">complaint</a> charging pro-Hamas rioters who targeted a New Jersey synagogue in November 2024 with violating the FACE Act. The group disrupted an event at Congregation Ohr Torah and assaulted two worshipers, Moshe Glick and David Silberberg, while shouting antisemitic slurs. The attack was coordinated by American Muslims for Palestine and the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a radical Left militant group funded by billionaire Neville Roy Singham. The DOJ named both organizations as defendants, along with six individuals.Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said this is the first time the FACE Act is being used to protect a house of worship.“In recent years, there have been numerous attacks on synagogues throughout the United States,” Dhillon said during a press conference. “Yet there has been a lack of the use of the FACE Act to stop these heinous attacks.”“The past administration only applied the FACE Act civil enforcement penalties to silence pro-life protestors while ignoring the same 1994 law was intended to protect pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and, importantly, houses of worship,” she said.<h2 id="">The DOJ memo</h2>In January, the Trump DOJ issued a memo limiting federal prosecution under the FACE Act. The law now only applies to “extraordinary circumstances” or cases involving “death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage.” The memo also stated that prosecution of abortion-related FACE Act violations will require special authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.<h2 id="">The FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025</h2>Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers have introduced legislation to repeal the FACE Act altogether. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) introduced H.R. 589, also known as the FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025, while Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a companion bill in the Senate.“Over the past 4 years, we have witnessed the weaponization of the justice system, using the FACE Act to jail Americans fighting for the right to life,” Rep. Roy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-house-moves-to-repeal-face-act-after-years-of-weaponization" id="">told</a> The Daily Wire. “It is not enough to merely end Biden-Harris era discrimination — we must act to reverse course, ensuring selective and unfair political prosecutions are never again possible under this statute.”<h2 id="">No FACE Act for pregnancy centers</h2>As it weaponized the FACE Act to crack down on pro-life Americans, the DOJ <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/doj-turns-a-blind-eye-to-attacks-on-pro-lifers" id="">turned</a> a blind eye to a string of violent domestic terror attacks on Christian pro-life pregnancy centers. After these attacks numbered over 100, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the violence and demanding action from the Biden administration.<h2 id="">The FACE Act was passed to ‘stifle free speech’</h2>In January, President Trump issued an executive order pardoning dozens of pro-life Americans targeted by Biden’s DOJ for protesting abortion, adding that it was a “great honor” to sign the order.&nbsp;One of those pardoned, a father of 11 named Paul Vaughn, was violently raided by the FBI at his home on an early September morning in 2022 for peacefully protesting abortion. Agents arrested Vaughn at gunpoint and terrorized his wife and children.“The FACE Act was ostensibly passed because of violence. But as my family knows very well, all it did was give violence the cover of law and place it in the hands of the government,” Vaughn <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/pro-life-father-describes-horrifying-fbi-raid-to-congress" id="">said</a> in testimony to Congress, adding that the FACE Act was passed to “stifle free speech and abuse the rights of Christian conservatives.”‍

DOJ uses pro-abortion law to prosecute pro-Hamas rioters

'The past administration only applied the FACE Act ... to silence pro-life protestors'

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted approval to Evita Solutions to sell mifepristone, a chemical abortion pill used to end 63% of pregnancies nationwide.Mifepristone is manufactured by Danco Laboratories, which received FDA approval for the drug in 2000. Genbiopro, and now Evita Solutions, are approved to distribute the pill under generic brands.On September 30th, the FDA notified Evita Solutions that it “concluded that adequate information has been presented to demonstrate that the drug meets the requirements for approval.” Health and Human Services Communications Director Andrew Nixon explained to The Daily Wire that the FDA “has very limited discretion in deciding whether to approve a generic drug. By law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must approve an application if it demonstrates that the generic drug is identical to the brand-name drug.”But the approval comes as the HHS is conducting a study on the safety of mifepristone, which recent data have questioned.<h2 id="">Serious safety risks</h2>In April, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) <a href="https://eppc.org/publication/stop-harming-women/" id="">published</a> the largest-ever study on mifepristone. Using an insurance claims database, researchers analyzed 865,727 mifepristone abortions between 2017 and 2023. They found that within 45 days of taking the pill, 10.93% of women experienced serious adverse events such as sepsis, infection, cardiac issues, anaphylaxis, or hemorrhage. EPPC notes that this rate is at least 22 times higher than the 0.5% rate displayed on the drug label.Pro-abortion activists, including legacy media outlets, tried to discredit the study by pointing out that it has not been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal, that the researchers lack medical training, and that the authors did not disclose which insurance database they used for their data collection.The FDA’s prescribing label for mifepristone warns that between 2.9% and 4.6% of women who take the pill require ER visits.Last year, a team of researchers from the Charlotte Lozier Institute teamed up with physicians from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists to conduct a <a href="https://aditum.org/journals/international-journal-of-epidemiology-and-public-health-research/article-in-press/1250" id="">study</a> on mifepristone by analyzing ER visits. The researchers selected four cohorts of women: women with no pregnancies, women who gave birth, women who had surgical abortions, and women who had chemical abortions by taking mifepristone. Using data from 2004 to 2015, they looked for any increase in ER visits by these women within 30 days of their outcomes. The group with no pregnancies was analyzed according to all their visits across the 11-year period. They discovered that ER visits among women who gave birth increased by 9.2%, among women with no pregnancies by 42.8%, among women who had surgical abortions by 280.4%, and among women who took mifepristone by 2,649.7%. There was a similar scale for ER visits coded as “severe” or “critical.”Planned Parenthood <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-safe-is-the-abortion-pill" id="">describes</a> mifepristone as “very safe” and CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/health/abortion-pill-safety-dg/index.html" id="">says</a> it’s even safer than low-risk drugs like penicillin.&nbsp;<h2 id="">‘I have lost confidence in the leadership at FDA’</h2>The FDA’s recent approval sparked fury among pro-life Americans.“This is shocking,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) wrote on X. “FDA has just approved ANOTHER chemical abortion drug, when the evidence shows chemical abortion drugs are dangerous and even deadly for the mother. And of course 100% lethal to the child.”“FDA had promised to do a top-to-bottom safety review of the chemical abortion drug, but instead they’ve just greenlighted new versions of it for distribution. I have lost confidence in the leadership at FDA,” he added in a follow-up tweet.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">This is shocking. FDA has just approved ANOTHER chemical abortion drug, when the evidence shows chemical abortion drugs are dangerous and even deadly for the mother. And of course 100% lethal to the child.&mdash; Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1973801161854759197?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC) similarly wrote: “Wow! The FDA just approved a generic version of the abortion pill, Mifepristone, a drug that ends a baby’s life 100% of the time and harms mothers. The FDA announced a new safety study just days ago, so why this new move now?”<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Wow! The FDA just approved a generic version of the abortion pill, Mifepristone, a drug that ends a baby&#39;s life 100% of the time and harms mothers. The FDA announced a new safety study just days ago, so why this new move now?&mdash; Rep. Mark Harris (@RepMarkHarrisNC) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkHarrisNC/status/1973841437730222548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>‍

FDA approves more abortion pill distribution despite safety concerns

‘I have lost confidence in the leadership at FDA,’ says Sen. Hawley

Under the guise of “human rights,” the U.N.’s controversial “education” bureaucracy is officially demanding that all governments regulate and control home education—if they allow it at all.The U.N.’s demands include “education standards” for homeschooling, as well as “accountability” to government.The outfit is also demanding mandatory registration, forced “evaluations” of homeschoolers by authorities, compulsory “home visits,” and much more.In fact, the agency is even calling for U.N.-approved values and attitudes to be imposed on children across a wide array of issues, with U.N. control of “education content.”The new U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report on home education, titled “<a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000395671" target="_blank" id="">Homeschooling through a human rights lens</a>,” lays out the most draconian global assault on home education in history.The powerful global agency, long dominated by card-carrying communists, claims governments must bring homeschooling under their thumb—for the benefit of the children, of course.Unsurprisingly, the top U.N. official involved in the push comes from the “Democratic People’s Republic” of Korea (DPRK), better known as North Korea.According to the report’s acknowledgements, it was prepared under the “supervision” of <a href="https://www.unesco.org/en/education/whos-who" target="_blank" id="">Gwang-Chol Chang</a>, chief of the UNESCO Section of Education Policy.Before joining the U.N. to help transform education globally, Chang worked for the mass-murdering North Korean Communist regime’s “Education Ministry.” The agency operates among the most comprehensive communist brainwashing systems in human history.And yet, with no sense of the irony, the government controls being demanded by Chang and his minions are said to be necessary to uphold what the global body describes as “international human rights.” Yes, seriously.If the U.N. agenda is not stopped, parents and even private schools that refuse to comply with the U.N.’s outrageous demands will be accused of violating the “human rights” of children.The calls for total control are clear—and portrayed as mandatory. “Governments must implement oversight mechanisms such as registration and evaluations,” the report declares (emphasis added), demanding more “regulatory capacity.”“As homeschooling continues to evolve, adopting a rights-based approach becomes crucial,” the report continues, touting the “need for quality education” as defined by the U.N. through “established minimum education standards and accountability.”<h2 id="">Controlling What Is Taught</h2>Even the content of homeschooling materials must be in line with the U.N., the report makes clear.“The educational content provided through homeschooling must be aligned with the aims of education set out by the Convention on the Rights of the Child,” explains the report, despite acknowledging that the U.S. government is not a party to that U.N. agreement.Among the “key considerations” cited by the U.N. to ensure that homeschooling fosters “child well-being” is mandated “exposure to cultural diversity.”The global education agency also claims there are “concerns” that “persist” about the supposed “lack of exposure to diverse perspectives and potential effects on social cohesion.”In other words, if your children do not receive enough LGBT instruction or Critical Race Theory propaganda, their supposed “human right” to “socialization” and “quality education” is being violated.This understanding is not speculation. U.N. “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education” Farida Shaheed <a href="https://docs.un.org/A/HRC/59/41/Add.1" target="_blank" id="">recently slammed states</a> such as Florida and Texas for seeking to protect children from exactly that sort of perverse indoctrination.“Censorship laws restricting classroom discussions on race, gender identity and other ‘divisive concepts’ limit students’ access to critical knowledge,” she claimed.The new U.N. report goes on to claim that children must be taught certain UN-approved values such as “global citizenship” and “respect for diversity,” a term often used by the U.N. to promote gender confusion and “progressive” ideologies.The report even cites a U.N. agreement purporting to require that governments promote the “development of respect” for the U.N. charter. This highly controversial document was shaped, in large part, by Soviet mass murderer Joseph Stalin and his American agents such as Alger Hiss.Comprehensive sexuality “education” that shapes children’s “attitudes and values” in line with those pushed by the U.N. is also important, the report claims.The report argues that governments have an obligation to ensure “quality education” in the home, as defined by the U.N. and governments.To brush aside decades of research and studies showing that homeschoolers generally do far better academically and socially than those in government schools, the U.N. report simply claims there were supposedly “methodological flaws.”<h2 id="">Parental Rights and Family</h2>Echoing principles and values promoted by tyrants from Stalin and Mao to Hitler and North Korea’s Kim dynasty, the report claims governments are “the primary duty-bearers” when it comes to the education of children.To the extent that parents are permitted by government to educate their own children, governments must still “ensure” that parents do so in line with the UN’s demands.To enforce compliance, the document promotes “mandatory training” from government for parents who wish to homeschool.The report also complains that education should render “advantages of one’s family background irrelevant to one’s prospects.”But homeschooling, it says, may “fail to address” this, as if neutralizing parental and family efforts to help children succeed were a legitimate government objective.Even the fact that mothers tend to be the primary teachers in home education is attacked by the U.N. for perpetuating allegedly harmful “gender roles.”Fathers and husbands serving as breadwinners is condemned, too. That is because this supposedly leads to wives and mothers handling more than what the U.N. considers to be a fair share of “unpaid care work”—tasks once known to virtually all people as motherhood and parenting. Oh, the horror!“Homeschooling must uphold gender equality by avoiding the reinforcement of traditional roles, promoting shared responsibilities, and ensuring that curricula challenge stereotypes,” the report concludes.American homeschool families are key targets, as the report makes clear.Pointing to American states with less regulation, the U.N. claims “concerns have been raised” that “States” (governments) may not be taking adequate measures to protect children from their parents.As part of that, the U.N. demands that governments provide “parental support”—essentially a euphemism for government oversight and control.“In countries where homeschooling is permitted, such supportive measures could include: training programmes [sic]; access to educational resources; guidelines; periodic home visits; or forums for peer-to-peer exchanges that enable parents to ensure both the child’s right to quality education and compliance with State-defined minimum education standards,” argues UNESCO.Citing U.N. committees and documents, the report even calls on governments to criminalize corporal punishment, including spanking.“States therefore must prohibit corporal punishment in all settings, including the home,” the report declares, acknowledging that more than 130 governments have so far failed to comply.<h2 id="">Christians and Religious Instruction in the Crosshairs</h2>Religious homeschoolers are especially singled out, with the U.N. claiming that “dogmatic approaches may stir up intolerance.”The report cites a 2018 study defining this as approaches that “seek not just a single course on religion, but instead desire to have all disciplines taught through the eyes of their particular faith.”In other words, parents who are serious about teaching their faith to their children must be prevented from doing so.Countless Christian homeschooling families and even Christian schools seeking to instill a biblical worldview would meet that criteria.Even private actors such as digital education companies used by homeschoolers must be regulated to comply, the report claims.“[W]ithout regulation, online educational content could promote the problematic agendas of groups with vested interests,” it argues, as if politicians and dictators doing the regulating never have problematic agendas or vested interests.<h2 id="">Basis in ‘International Law’</h2>The UNESCO report bases its arguments on a wide range of U.N. agreements, declarations, and conventions that it claims impose obligations on national governments.Some of those listed, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (U.N. CRC), have not been ratified by the U.S. government.There is a good reason why. The CRC, as just one example, purports to require that all decisions be made in the “best interests” of the child.But there is a major catch: “best interests” are defined by government and the U.N., rather than parents.When the scheme was implemented in Scotland, lawmakers assigned a “named person,” working for the government, to oversee the upbringing of every child from birth to adulthood.Other agreements cited by the U.N. are problematic for different reasons.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the foundational U.N. “human rights” instrument, was heavily influenced by the mass-murdering regime ruling the Soviet Union.As such, it contains outrageous provisions incompatible with liberty. Consider Article 29, which enshrines the notion that “rights and freedoms may in no case be used contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”No wonder the Chinese Communist Party and other tyrants worldwide <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/ccp-seeks-to-redefine-human-rights-in-attack-on-america-3741298" target="_blank" id="">can claim</a> to support U.N. “human rights” even as they terrorize and even murder so many victims.Of course, the American concept of rights is radically different. The biblical ideal and “self-evident truth” cited by America’s Founding Fathers holds that God, not government, endowed each human being with “certain unalienable rights.” These include life, liberty, and property. And because these rights were not given by government, they cannot be legitimately infringed upon by government either.This understanding of rights is entirely incompatible with the U.N. and the CCP view on “human rights.” In fact, the two visions are essentially opposites.Regarding education, the U.N. UDHR is extremely concerning as well. Consider that Article 26 purports to make “compulsory” so-called “education” a “human right.”Obviously, something compulsory cannot be a right, Soviet and CCP efforts to redefine the term notwithstanding.Even more troubling, perhaps, is another provision of Article 26 claiming that compulsory education “shall further the activities of the United Nations.”Read plainly, this means any homeschool parent or private school that refuses to promote the U.N. and its agenda is infringing on children’s supposed “human rights.”<h2 id="">UN Versus US Constitution</h2>The U.N. claims these restrictions on homeschooling are obligatory under “international human rights law.”But at least with respect to the United States, that is based on a deeply flawed understanding of American constitutional law.The U.S. Constitution does indeed make properly ratified treaties part of the “supreme law of the land.”However, there is an important caveat: Like federal statutes under the Constitution, those treaties must be made “in pursuance thereof.”In short, that means statutes and treaties must be in accordance with the Constitution that created the federal government—not in violation of the Constitution.If a statute or treaty is not constitutional, then, as the Constitution’s Framers explained repeatedly, it is null and void on its face.Obviously, nothing in the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the power to enforce pro-U.N. indoctrination—or any sort of “education” at all—on children.In fact, the Tenth Amendment specifically reserves any and all power not delegated to D.C. for the states or the people.Therefore, without a properly ratified constitutional amendment, U.N. agreements conflicting with the Constitution must be regarded as meaningless, whether they were signed and ratified or not.Then-President Thomas Jefferson explained this in a Sept. 7, 1803, letter to U.S. Sen. Wilson Cary Nicholas.“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” Jefferson wrote. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”The U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the obvious fact that the U.S. Constitution supersedes treaties in its landmark 1957 Reid v. Covert ruling.And of course, even if the federal government had the constitutional authority to approve such agreements, it lacks the constitutional power to force state and local governments to comply.In its historic 1997 Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state or local government. That precedent remains in place.<h2 id="">Critics Speak Out</h2>Former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas, now a vocal critic of public education and particularly the U.N. influence within it, slammed the global education agency for seeking to “take over” homeschooling.Blasting UNESCO’s calls for regulation, Douglas told The Epoch Times that parents were wisely choosing homeschooling to protect children from the very extremism and indoctrination the U.N. is seeking to advance.“Our rights to raise and educate our children come from God; not from UNESCO or any other government seeking to intrude upon our ability to do so,” she said.Lauren Gideon, director of government relations for the <a href="https://chooseeducationindependence.com/" target="_blank" id="">Education Independence Initiative</a> working to restore family responsibility over education, also blasted UNESCO’s push.“The homeschooling concept is predicated on two interlocking, equally robust cornerstones: the God-given, natural right of parents to own and direct the education of their children, and the right of self-funded educators to govern their educational private property without the interests of the state trespassing upon their family’s private domain,” she told The Epoch Times.“Liberty itself is predicated on this public-private distinction,” Gideon continued.“On this basis, parental liberty stands secured within the American tradition that guarantees innocence until proven guilty through due process of law,” she added. “Any breach of these boundaries, though present in some states, is explicitly anti-American.”UNESCO’s calls for registration, oversight, and evaluation of homeschooling families “represent precisely such a breach,” continued Gideon, who works on public policy for homeschool giant Classical Conversations.“These measures presume parental guilt before innocence, undermining the due process that anchors American liberty,” she concluded, adding that UNESCO’s proposals would undermine “the very framework of American liberty itself.”Ultimately, UNESCO is seeking “total control over education, including all forms of private education,” explained Tiffany Boyd with <a href="https://www.freeyourchildren.com/" target="_blank" id="">Free Your Children</a>.Speaking to The Epoch Times, Boyd warned that the U.N. agency’s longtime push for government funding and control of all education was a key part of its effort to bring in a “one-world curriculum.”“UNESCO has made it clear they will persist until they have total control over private education,” she concluded. “We must stop them in their tracks.”<h2 id="">Americans Must Resist</h2>Notably missing from the list of those consulted for the report was the <a href="https://hslda.org/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21183201721&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0Y3HBhCxARIsAN7931Wi8nYMNR_3OuFaGKD4bKjHZ0bUiCtdZuu8hP506_nGg3diRmbWQRUaAne4EALw_wcB" target="_blank" id="">Home School Legal Defense Association</a>, the largest and most powerful home education organization in the world.Also conspicuously missing was the world’s largest repository of research and studies on homeschooling, the <a href="https://nheri.org/" target="_blank" id="">National Home Education Research Institute</a>.Thankfully for homeschoolers and real education, the Trump administration has already announced that the U.S. government is again cutting ties with UNESCO.Citing extremism and hostility to U.S. values, among other concerns, the U.S. government is in the process of exiting the agency for the third time.But the threat remains and will persist. President Joe Biden simply re-engaged with UNESCO after taking the reins of power. The next president could do that, too.Even after the Trump administration’s withdrawal announcement, the defiant director-general of UNESCO, a longtime socialist, boasted that the organization would continue working with its American “partners” anyway.Meanwhile, none of the key “international law” arguments made in the new report are contingent on U.S. membership in UNESCO.The U.N.’s dangerous power grab on homeschooling and on education more broadly must be forcefully resisted and rejected.Read the rest of this article at <a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/un-targets-homeschooling-5925261" id="">The EPOCH Times</a>.‍<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/" id="">Alex Newman</a> Alex Newman is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad. <a href="https://libertysentinel.org/un-targets-homeschooling/" id="">Previously published </a>at Liberty Sentinel.

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Stream What is a Doctor? Today!

The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - A Good Doctor Speaks with Dr. Gold

Latest Work

COVID-19 vaccine architect lands major role with pharma giant

DOJ uses pro-abortion law to prosecute pro-Hamas rioters

FDA approves more abortion pill distribution despite safety concerns

UN Targets Homeschooling

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?