Dr. Ben Carson slammed the culture of political correctness and partisan labels at a WPEC-TV town hall panel held Thursday at the station’s studio in West Palm Beach, Florida, arguing that it has stifled free expression in America—namely religious freedom.

“We’re being manipulated. We’re being played by those people who want to divide, conquer, and control,” Carson said, alluding to the labels attached to those who disagree with their liberal counterparts. (Carson’s comments begin at at the 19:08 mark on the second video, WPEC Town Hall Religion 2. 

“If you are pro-life, then you’re anti-woman. If you’re pro-traditional marriage, then you’re homophobic. If you’re a white person and you say something against a progressive black person, you’re a racist,” Carson explained, calling for Americans “to realize that we are not each other’s enemies. The enemies are those people who are trying to divide us up.”

The panel featured religious leaders and a representative of an atheist organization speaking about religious freedom in society, including prayer in schools and the roots of morality.

Carson noted that when it comes to religion in the public sphere, secular progressives “try to impose a code of silence upon those who believe differently than they do.”

He cited the role of the Founding Fathers in building America as “a very spiritual nation” despite the claims of those “who try to re-write history,” and spoke of his own faith throughout his life’s work in pediatric neurosurgery.

Commenting on the split between science and religion on human biological development, Carson said, “It requires an enormous amount of faith to believe that something came from nothing.”

By Alissa Tabirian

Americans have always enjoyed the privilege of living abroad without losing citizenship. Think Hemingway and Fitzgerald decamping to write in Europe after World War I, or Gen. MacArthur spending decades in Asia around World War II. Expatriates remain Americans, and have generally been welcomed back to our shores with open arms.

But today there are at least 3,000 fewer Americans than there ought to be. That’s how many people live overseas and voluntarily gave up their citizenship in 2013 alone. And they won’t be coming back—at least not as Americans.

Their decision to become foreigners is being driven, in many cases, by changes to domestic laws. The United States is one of only two countries that attempt to tax money citizens earn while working overseas (Eritrea is the other). And two laws aimed at bringing tax revenue back into the U.S.—the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR)—are actually driving Americans away.

FBAR focuses on citizens, demanding that anyone with $10,000 or more in a foreign bank inform the IRS about that account. FATCA is even more invasive, because it attempts to compel foreign companies to cooperate with the IRS. Instead, many companies are simply deciding to dump their American customers.

Congress passed FATCA in 2010 to make it harder for Americans with foreign accounts to illegally evade U.S. taxes. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence of FATCA has been a painful burden inflicted on innocent law-abiding U.S. citizens residing abroad whom the law is forcing to make life-changing decisions.

“I have been kicked out of a Swiss bank,” Brian Dublin told USA Today. “I have also been kicked out of a Swiss pension fund. They told me they don’t want any Americans in the fund. They don’t want to work on behalf of the IRS.” He intends to apply for Swiss citizenship.

The law requires Americans to file expensive paperwork even if they don’t owe anything. “If you have to dish out thousands of dollars each year just to retain your U.S. citizenship you start to say, ‘Look, do I really need it that much?’” tax expert Andrew Mitchel explains.

Still, the decision to surrender American citizenship isn’t easy. “When I gave up my American passport I was so upset that I went out in the street and vomited,” Donna-Lane Nelson says. But it’s happening more and more often, jumping from 231 people giving up their citizenship at the end of the George W. Bush administration in 2008 to roughly 1,000 in 2012 and 3,000 last year.

The United States has always been the exceptional nation, the land of opportunity, even if some Americans chose to pursue opportunities abroad. We’ve been able to lure the best of the best from all around the world to become Americans and help build our economy. However, if the federal government continues to pile on burdensome regulations, that may not always be the case.

By Rich Tucker, with contributions from Curtis Dubay

New York Republican Rep. Michael Grimm’s attorney confirmed late Friday that federal prosecutors plan to file criminal charges against the congressman.

The decision follows a two-year FBI investigation into various aspects of Grimm’s business and campaign history.

“We are disappointed by the government’s decision, but hardly surprised,” said the statement from Grimm’s attorney, William McGinley. “From the beginning, the government has pursued a politically driven vendetta against Congressman Grimm and not an independent search for the truth.”

The statement said Grimm  “asserts his innocence of any wrongdoing” and “will be vindicated.”

“Until then, he will continue to serve his constituents with the same dedication and tenacity that has characterized his lifetime of public service as a Member of Congress, Marine Corps combat veteran, and decorated FBI Special Agent,” the statement said.

The House Ethics Committee announced in November that Grimm was under investigation for possible campaign finance violations. That committee said it would defer its inquiry because of a separate Department of Justice investigation.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn said he could not confirm, deny or comment on the case.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report

A single spark, sometimes as small as a shot of unknown origin, can explode long-simmering friction into open revolution.

Sometimes the spark comes with the rumble of tanks, as has happened this spring in Crimea and may still happen throughout the rest of Ukraine.

Whether the tanks came into Crimea in response to a local popular vote, which Moscow would have all believe, or whether they came to snuff out the progressions of a broader Ukrainian election cycle that appeared to be turning Ukraine more toward Europe and away from Russia, only time will tell.

Americans are no strangers to the spark of revolution or the uncertainty it brings. Early on the morning of April 19, 1775, a thin line of colonial militia stretched across the damp grass of Lexington Green.

Silhouetted by the rising sun, hundreds of red-coated regulars of the British army marched toward the position from two angles. But for steely resolve, the locals in homespun clothes might well have melted away back to their homes and farms. Except for confusion over a choice of roads, the regulars might have marched past them with no more insult than the tramp of boots.

America’s national experience is proof that it takes time to judge whether a revolution has been both successful and to the popular good.

Then a single shot rang out. History has long debated the party responsible. Companies of regulars quickly unleashed deafening volleys, while the militia – at first shocked that the troops were firing lead ball instead of bluff powder charges – reacted with sporadic return fire. In seconds, eight of their fellow townsmen lay dead or dying. The Redcoats gave three cheers and continued on toward Concord.

While there were many throughout the Thirteen Colonies that morning who had already decided which side they were on, the large percentage in the middle was suddenly forced to make a choice. But which was the “right” side?

To many, the government of King George III had been economically oppressive and unrepresentative of their interests, but it had not yet sought to suspend civil law or crush their dissent with mass murder.

Who was on the “right” side? The rebels who demanded a change in political structure or the loyalists who stood by the existing government of the king?

Advancing beyond Lexington, the British regulars encountered larger numbers of hastily assembled militia at a bridge north of Concord. Another skirmish occurred, provoked by a second shot of unknown origin.

The rebel spin later spoke of local defensive measures taken against the king’s troops because the intent of their actions was uncertain. But in a matter of minutes, as the British column marched back to Boston, the woods on either side filled with rebels and exploded with an offensive fury.

A tipping point had been reached. This was no defensive action; this was all-out war. Moderates on both sides spoke out for peace and reconciliation, but the dye had been cast.

The final judgment of the events set in motion on Lexington Green took some time to be rendered. The fighting continued for six and a half years. The political infighting over what the governmental results of that revolution would be continued for decades. Some might argue it continues still.

Who was “right” that morning? The “rebels” of that day – and, indeed, that is what they were called – became “patriots” only in hindsight. Had the American experience in representative government faltered – perhaps even failed with a despot in charge instead of an unselfish George Washington – history’s verdict might be different about who were “the good guys” on Lexington Green.

America’s national experience is proof that it takes time to judge whether a revolution has been both successful and to the popular good.

Sometimes the spark of popular revolution is snuffed out. Overwhelming military force crushed popular uprisings in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. A single act of courage in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square in 1989 became the face of a million protesters, but it met with a similar fate.

History still awaits a verdict on the Arab Spring of 2011. Some countries, such as Tunisia, where it all started with the spark of a street vendor setting himself on fire, have made strides toward democracy.

Others have stumbled.

Egypt attempted a democratic leap, fell backward under military rule and now once again contemplates elections. Syria is the worst-case result of the Arab Spring, a horrid civil war that has left hundreds of thousands dead or maimed and millions of others displaced. What does the spring hold for the people of Crimea and Ukraine?

On Monday, April 21, Patriots’ Day, we celebrate not only the resolve shown on Lexington Green – the determination to stand up for one’s beliefs, no matter the cost – but also the result of that revolution 239 years later.

If we are as determined as those patriots of 1775, that result is not a finished product, but a continuing evolution of hope, opportunity and equality.

We have only to look to the Boston Marathon bombing on Patriots’ Day last year for evidence that the price of liberty is an account never fully paid.

We must work at it every day. Let our celebration also be encouragement to other revolutions in progress with uncertain outcomes or those about to be ignited by a single spark.

Walter R. Borneman is the author of American Spring: Lexington, Concord, and the Road to Revolution, to be published May 6 by Little, Brown.

Most voters say ObamaCare will play an important role in their vote in this year’s elections, and over half are more inclined to back the candidate who opposes the health care law.

That’s according to a Fox News poll released Monday.

The new poll asks voters what they would do if the only difference between two congressional candidates is that one promises to fight for the health care law and the other promises to fight against it.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE POLL RESULTS

By a 53-39 percent margin, more voters say they would back the anti-ObamaCare candidate.

Independents, always a key voting bloc, would back that candidate by a 25 percentage-point margin (54-29 percent, with another 14 percent saying it depends).

In addition, Republicans and independents are more likely than Democrats to say the candidate’s position on ObamaCare will be an important factor in deciding their vote for Congress. That matters because majorities of Republicans and independents oppose the law.

Some 80 percent of Republicans say the candidate’s stand on ObamaCare will be an important factor to their vote, and 87 percent of Republicans oppose the law. Among independents, 72 percent say the law will be important in their decision, and 63 percent oppose it.

Fewer Democrats, 67 percent, say a candidate’s position on ObamaCare will be important. While most Democrats favor the law (71 percent), nearly a quarter opposes it (24 percent).

Nineteen percent of voters say a congressional candidate’s stance on ObamaCare will be the “single most important factor” in their vote decision, which is more than double the number who felt that way in 2012 (eight percent). Likewise, the number of Republicans who say it will be the “single most important factor” has almost doubled (21 percent today, up from 11 percent).

Overall, 79 percent of those opposing the law say it will be an important factor to their vote, compared to 67 percent of those favoring the law.

If the election were held today, 44 percent of voters would back the Republican candidate in their House district vs. 41 percent who would vote for the Democrat.

Results on the generic ballot test have bounced around in recent months. Last month the Democratic candidate had the edge by two points, while in January the Republican was up by two. In December it was tied at 43 percent each.

Meanwhile, Republicans (36 percent) are more likely than Democrats (25 percent) and independents (25 percent) to say they are “extremely” interested in this year’s elections.

Some 15 percent of voters approve of the job current lawmakers are doing. That’s the highest approval rating Congress has received this year. Still, 76 percent disapprove.

In general, the poll shows more voters continue to dislike than like the health care law — as has been the case in the Fox News poll going back to April 2010. Over that time support for the law has stayed between 36-40 percent. Today, 39 percent favor the law, while 56 percent oppose it.

President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010.

How will it be viewed down the road? A slim 51-percent majority thinks 20 years from now ObamaCare will be viewed as “one of the worst” things Barack Obama accomplished as president. That includes one in five Democrats (19 percent), over half of independents (56 percent) and most Republicans (81 percent).

Overall, 37 percent think the health care law will be seen as “one of the best things” Obama did.

The president announced Thursday that eight million people had signed up for ObamaCare. Yet it’s still unclear how many of those have completed the transaction and actually paid for the insurance. By a 51-44 percent margin, the poll finds that voters are confident most of the people who signed up will follow through with payment.

Democrats (74 percent) are far more confident than independents (40 percent) and Republicans (31 percent) that most ObamaCare enrollees will pay.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,012 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 13-15, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

By Dana Blanton

Newly uncovered emails show Lois Lerner, the key figure in the IRS scandal, was talking with the Justice Department about going after groups seeking tax-exempt status, just days before she publicly acknowledged the agency was targeting Tea Party and other organizations.

The emails, obtained by Judicial Watch and first reported by TownHall.com, are another indication the targeting may have stretched deeper into the Obama administration. Lerner, the director of the agency’s Exempt Organizations division before retiring last year, initially said the targeting was limited to agents working in the IRS’ Cincinnati field office.

However, a series of inspector general and congressional probes since the scandal broke last year appear to show the targeting of mostly conservative-leaning groups seeking tax-exempt status was orchestrated in Washington.

In a May 2013 email, Lerner responded to a Justice Department inquiry about whether tax-exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for lying about political activity.

“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ,” Lerner reportedly wrote to the office of Steven Miller, the agency’s acting director at the time. “He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who ‘lied’ on their 1024s — saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures.

“DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS.”

Nikole C. Flax, Miller’s chief of staff, responded: “I think we should do it — also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?”

House Republicans claimed after the emails were published that they were further proof of coordination among various agencies to target conservatives.

“The release of new documents underscores the political nature of IRS Tea Party targeting and the extent to which supposed apolitical officials took direction from elected Democrats,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement.  “These e-mails are part of an overwhelming body of evidence that political pressure from prominent Democrats led to the targeting of Americans for their political beliefs.”

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said that if the targeting hadn’t been stopped, “Eric Holder’s politicized Justice Department would likely have been leveling trumped up criminal charges against Tea Party groups to intimidate them from exercising their Constitutional rights.”

The administration at the highest level denied the targeting, from 2010 through the 2012 presidential election cycle, was illegal or politically motivated.

President Obama told Fox News in February there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” in connection with the targeting.

And last week, emails obtained by the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform show the office of the committee’s top-ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, contacted the IRS in January 2013 about True the Vote, one of the conservative groups that was targeted.

A Lerner staffer in response sent the group’s related 990 IRS forms to Cummings and his staff.

In another email, Lerner discussed with agency staffers the purpose of an upcoming, April 9 2013, hearing that also suggests the targeting went beyond the IRS.

“There are several groups of folks from the [Federal Election Commission] world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are),” she wrote.

“One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff. So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated — it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

About six in ten American voters think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters some or most of the time, according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-seven percent think Obama lies “most of the time,” while another 24 percent say he lies “some of the time.” Twenty percent of voters say “only now and then” and 15 percent “never.”

Click here for the poll results.

President Obama has been accused by political opponents and media fact-checkers alike of telling falsehoods.  Frequently cited: His repeated claim that under Obamacare “If you like your plan, you can keep it” and his insistence that “the day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

The number of voters saying Obama lies “most of the time” includes 13 percent of Democrats.  It also includes 12 percent of blacks, 16 percent of liberals, 31 percent of unmarried women and 34 percent of those under age 30 — all key Obama constituencies.

Yet some of those groups are also among those most likely to say Obama “never” lies to the country on important matters: blacks (37 percent), Democrats (31 percent), liberals (28 percent) and women (19 percent).

The poll also asks about the trustworthiness of a few possible 2016 presidential candidates.  For comparison, about half of voters think former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (54 percent) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (49 percent) are honest and trustworthy, while fewer think the same of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (41 percent).

On a more positive note for the White House, Obama’s overall job performance rating has improved.  The new poll finds that 42 percent of voters approve of the job he’s doing, while 51 percent disapprove.  That means he’s underwater by nine percentage points.

Last month the president was in negative territory by 13 points with a 40-53 percent rating (March 23-25).

Approval of the president is up six points among independents and now stands at 32 percent.  Obama was near record-low approval among independents last month (26 percent).  He also improved four points among Democrats and now stands at 80 percent among his party faithful.

How voters feel about Obama as a person closely matches his job ratings:  45 percent have a favorable opinion of him, while 51 percent have an unfavorable view.  A year ago those numbers were reversed: 52 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable (April 2013).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,012 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 13-15, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

By Dana Blanton

A House committee voted Thursday to hold Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress, as Republicans escalated their bid to “get to the bottom” of the former IRS official’s role in the political targeting scandal.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 21-12 to hold Lerner in contempt. The vote followed hours of heated debate on the committee.

The contempt measure would next head to the House floor. House Speaker John Boehner predicted earlier this week that unless Lerner agrees to cooperate, the full House will support contempt — from there, the case would likely head to the courts.

“This is not an action I take lightly,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said before the vote. But he said lawmakers “need Ms. Lerner’s testimony to complete our oversight work and bring truth to the American people.”

The vote comes a day after the House Ways and Means Committee voted to refer Lerner’s case to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the committee claimed Lerner may have violated “one or more criminal statutes.” The Department of Justice is not obligated to take up the committee’s request.

Both committee actions divided Republicans and Democrats, who have decried the steps against Lerner as unwarranted and political.

Democrats argue that Lerner properly invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify last year, and again last month.

“Guilty or innocent, Ms. Lerner has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said. Further, she said if the committee were truly serious about pursuing this case, they would offer Lerner immunity.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., said the case would “be laughed out of court.”

But Republicans, in bringing up the contempt measure, claim Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment right when, during a hearing in May, she gave a voluntary statement declaring her innocence. Lerner again refused to testify last month.

“The only path to the truth is through this committee,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Thursday.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, has compiled a growing list of constitutional experts who say the contempt case is weak. Issa countered with a memo from the House general counsel’s office that says he followed proper procedures.

Lerner has emerged as a central figure in investigations by two congressional committees into the IRS applying extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Lerner’s lawyer, William W. Taylor III, said she has committed no crimes.

“If Lois Lerner continues to refuse to testify, then the House will hold her in contempt,” Boehner said Wednesday. “And we will continue to shine the light on the administration’s abusive actions and use every tool at our disposal to expose the truth and ensure the American people get the answers they deserve.”

Lerner is an attorney who joined the IRS in 2001. She retired last fall, ending a 34-year career in federal government, which included work at the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission.

A House committee voted Wednesday to formally ask the Justice Department to consider criminal prosecution against ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, the figure at the center of the political targeting scandal.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted 23-14 to send the criminal referral. The vote marked an escalation in Republicans’ push to confront Lerner over her role in the agency’s controversial practice of singling out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.

On another front, a separate committee will vote Thursday on whether to hold her in contempt of Congress for twice refusing to testify on the scandal.

The rare session on Wednesday to consider a criminal referral produced some partisan fireworks, as Democrats called the move against Lerner “unprecedented.”

Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., initially tried to keep the deliberations open to the public and press, triggering a dispute with the chairman as he tried to raise a “point of order.”

Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., then told Levin to “chill out.”

“I’m very chilled out,” he responded.

Despite Levin’s objections — and opposition from the rest of the Democrats on the committee — lawmakers broke into closed session to debate the measure. After returning, they quickly approved the criminal referral.

A day earlier, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee formally laid out its case for contempt in a new report.

“Lois Lerner’s testimony is critical to the committee’s investigation,” the oversight report stated. “Without her testimony, the full extent of the IRS’s targeting of Tea Party applications cannot be known, and the committee will be unable to fully complete its work.”

The report repeatedly called out for Lerner for refusing to cooperate with the committee’s investigation.

During her first appearance before the committee last year, Lerner gave an opening statement and then invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination three times before being excused. Last month, she was before the lawmakers once more, once again exercising her Fifth Amendment rights.

Kevin Sorbo, star of the film “God’s Not Dead,” ranked fifth at the U.S. box office, says he knows he’s on a blacklist in liberal Hollywood for being independent-minded.

When Beliefnet’s John W. Kennedy interviewed Sorbo about his role as an atheist professor in  ”God’s Not Dead,”  the actor opened up about his faith, political views, and career decisions colored by Hollywood’s antipathy toward conservatives.

“They scream for tolerance,” Sorbo said. “They scream for freedom of speech, but it you disagree at all with what they’re saying then they can blacklist you. They have the power to do that.”

These remarks came after Kennedy asked the actor if he’s experienced a backlash in Hollywood for his views and Sorbo responded:

Oh, sure. I mean I’m an independent in Hollywood. I’ve voted Democratic in my life, I’ve voted Republican in my life. I’m one of the few people I think in Hollywood who actually comes out and says, ‘Hey, you know what, I vote for who I think is the best person, period.’  I’m not a party guy. There are people on both sides of the political fence that I don’t agree with. To me, I look to see who I honestly think is going to be the best person. So, that, in itself, is enough to get me blacklisted in Hollywood …”

Sam Sorbo, the actor’s wife, says she experienced a backlash over her political views on education.

In a recent interview with The Blaze’s Dana Loesch, Sam remarked:  “As naive as I was back then, I thought, ‘Well if I write about school, that’s not political!’ But of course school is the most political, because that’s where the progressive agenda is coming out the strongest and the hardest.”

With Kevin Sorbo’s starring role in “God’s Not Dead,” the family appears to have scored points despite the alleged blacklist. The movie took first place at the box office for films that opened in 1,000 or fewer theaters.

By Havilah Steinman

Eleven-year-old Leo Tuttle is in fifth grade at an Indianapolis private school where the demanding curriculum forces him to struggle to keep up.

But it is where Leo’s mother, Erin Tuttle, wants him to be, rather than the public school or even the Catholic school he previously attended.

Mrs. Tuttle moved Leo to the private school when her home state of Indiana, along with 45 other states, agreed to follow the Common Core State Standards Initiative for all its public schools and those which are under the charter school program, such as the Catholic school. The Common Core standards are a set of guidelines for schools, initiated federally, to improve and make consistent education standards in math and English language arts.

The goal of Common Core is to “… articulate what students need to know in grades K-12 in order to be ready for college or a career after they graduate” said Mike Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools, which supports and promotes the standards.

Many students and teachers saw the standards for the first time this year, as the program was being phased in nationwide. And now that they’ve seen it, many are not happy with it, and they’re joining an ever-increasing group of critics who are lining up against it.

Teachers complain the program was pushed through too fast, that there wasn’t time for schools to make the adjustment, there wasn’t additional funding available for new textbooks, and that they just weren’t included in the process when the Common Core was created.

“You forgot some of the most important people in this whole process, and that was the educator” said Teresa Meredith, president of the Indiana Teacher’s Association.  “The one person who could really help make or break this was the educator and you didn’t include the educator from the very beginning in terms of building an implementation plan” she said.

In addition, a growing number of parents nationwide, including Erin Tuttle, are joining forces to eliminate the Common Core, which they claim “dumbs down” their children’s education by using inferior methods than were used in the past.

Conservatives call it an extreme abuse of federal overreach, that limits the control states and local communities have on their education programs.

Indiana is the first state to pull away from the Common Core. Oklahoma lawmakers have passed a bill repealing that state’s participation in Common Core, and there are now some 300 bills in state legislatures nationwide that would slow down, reduce, or eliminate altogether implementation of the Common Core, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.

That would be a major blow to the program, which was strongly touted by the Obama administration as a way for children in the United States to be globally competitive.

“Education is an important component to the economic wellbeing of any nation” Casserly explains.  “When the united states started to look at these international comparisons and saw that we were beginning to slip behind other countries like Korea and Belgium and Singapore and Malaysia and other entities… the united states really needed to raise its academic performance.” he said.

Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder agreed. “Isn’t it important that we’re globally competitive?” he asked. “We were lagging, we were getting behind. And what the common core does, presents a set of standards that will help us get back to that globally competitive place we need to be.”

While education levels in many parts of the country need improvement, critics concede, a one-size-fits-all approach to education is not the solution.

“Settling for a status quo of mediocrity for every state certainly shouldn’t be the answer,” said Tuttle. “We should be striving for something much higher than that, something that is internationally competitive, something that will allow our children to be competitive in a global economy.” But, Tuttle adds, “the common core simply won’t do that”.

Common Core supporters claim all the criticism is based on misinformation, that it’s not federal overreach because the program is voluntary. Indiana was able to back out without any penalty. The standards are more of a concept.

“The Common Core State standards are not a curriculum, they’re not a textbook, they’re not a set of lesson plans,” said Casserly. And they weren’t created in a vacuum, he said. While the standards were being created “some 10,000 comments” were submitted by parents and educators.

Now that Indiana has backed away from Common Core, Erin Tuttle may move her son back to his old school, but first she wants to see how far her state will stray from the federal standards, and whether it will go back to what she claims were the higher standards the state followed before Common Core.

“People across the country will be watching to see what Indiana does next,” she said.