Common Core is going to court...

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is suing the United States Department of Education and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, Jindal argues the federal government coerced states into adopting the Common Core standards.

TheBlaze reports:

The Department of Education made about $4 billion available to states through “Race to the Top” grants and provided waivers from the No Child Left Behind law as an incentive to adopt Common Core standards. Such incentives were tantamount to coercion through funding, Jindal is arguing.

[…]

The suit also says the Department of Education changed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to push states into adopting the federal government’s preferred test or risk losing federal money.

“The federal government has hijacked and destroyed the Common Core initiative,” Jindal said in a statement. “Common Core is the latest effort by big government disciples to strip away state rights and put Washington, D.C. in control of everything. What started out as an innovative idea to create a set of base-line standards that could be ‘voluntarily’ used by the states has turned into a scheme by the federal government to nationalize curriculum.”

You can read Jindal’s filing HERE.

The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers developed Common Core. The standards were initially adopted by 44 states and the District of Columbia – though several states have either repealed or begun the process of repealing Common Core.

On radio this morning, Buck Sexton filled in for Glenn and compared the “coercion” tactics used by the federal government to get Common Core enacted to those employed during the Obamacare debate.

“What's interesting to me about this latest pushback – which is coming from Louisiana – is that it is a symptom of a larger problem as well,” Buck said. “I don't just mean a larger problem with Common Core or education, but the federal government essentially making states offers that they can't refuse.”

Though the Affordable Care Act as a whole was upheld in the Supreme Court, one area in which the federal government ‘lost’ was when it came to dictating what states can and cannot be forced to do.

Buck explained:

“When they went up to the Supreme Court for that terrible 4-5 decision… there was one minor area… where Obamacare lost. And that was on exactly this same idea of the federal government coercing states to do federal bidding on state matters by attaching federal dollars to it – not just attaching federal dollars, threatening to pull federal dollars. That's a critical distinction.

What they wanted to do under the original language of Obamacare was tell states, ‘Expand Medicaid, and we'll pay a percentage of your state Medicaid costs. If you don't do that though… we're going to pull all of your federal Medicaid funding.’

Now, is that fair?

Well the Supreme Court ruled correctly – at least on this issue – because, very clearly, one, that seems to infringe upon the rights of the states. But on top of that as well, there was a very unseemly precedent and that was: The federal government could push states, over a period of time, to adopt certain programs with the understanding, whether it was through successive administrations or as a matter of pure legislation, that the feds are going to kick some dollars in too.

Well, of course, that changes the political reality on the ground. All of a sudden, you've got one guy saying, ‘You're not even going to pay for this free stuff I'm giving you. Vote for me because I'm taking money from D.C.’ You've got another guy who says, ‘Oh, no. I, sir, stand on principle and will not take federal dollars for a state program.’”

“Back to Common Core here, Governor Jindal is challenging on similar grounds,” Buck concluded. “What he's saying is, ‘It shouldn't be the case that if states… don't want to adopt the Common Core curriculum, they should not be penalized by having their federal education dollars taken away.’”

Front page image courtesy of the AP

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive debate coverage!

Bill Pugliano / Stringer, Grant Baldwin / Stringer | Getty Images

Join Glenn TONIGHT, September 10, at 8 p.m. Eastern, for his LIVE coverage of the ABC News Presidential Debate!

Don't rely on the mainstream media to spoon-feed you their spin on the debate. Dodge the censorship and decide for yourself! Join the BlazeTV livestream tonight to get the debate coverage America deserves: the pure, uncensored truth. Plus you'll get to be the first to see Glenn's LIVE reaction to the debate as it goes down!

If you become a BlazeTV+ subscriber today, you can gain access to the live chat with your favorite hosts, including Glenn, Stu, Liz Wheeler, and more as they share their thoughts on the debate. Go to BlazeTV.com/debate and get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount we’ve ever offered, so don’t miss out! See you TONIGHT at 8!

You do NOT want to miss it!

These ‘conservative’ Glenn Beck critics are now supporting Kamala Harris

Drew Angerer / Staff, NBC NewsWire / Contributor, NBC NewsWire / Contributor | Getty Images

There’s a certain irony in how some of the loudest critics of Glenn Beck within the conservative ranks have now thrown their support behind Kamala Harris, a figure whose politics stand in stark contrast to the values they once claimed to uphold. Let's take a look back at these self-proclaimed guardians of conservatism, who once claimed Glenn Beck was a threat to the conservative movement, but are now backing the most far-left, radical candidate the Democrats have ever produced.

Adam Kinzinger

Adam Kinzinger was elected in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative, riding the wave of anti-establishment sentiment that defined the movement. However, by 2013, he was already distancing himself from the principles that got him elected. Criticizing Glenn Beck for labeling him a RINO, Kinzinger said, "The perception is, if you do one thing out of line with what is considered hard-core conservatism, or what Glenn Beck says or what Mark Levin says, then you are a RINO." Now, he’s taken his political shift to the extreme, endorsing Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention and praising her as a defender of democracy—all while claiming to be a Republican and a conservative.

Bill Kristol

Bill Kristol’s flip-flop is even more astounding. Kristol, who once took it upon himself to attack Beck for his warnings about radical Islam and creeping authoritarianism, now finds himself on the same side as Kamala Harris. Kristol’s past criticisms of Beck, comparing him to fringe elements like the John Birch Society, now ring hollow as Kristol himself becomes an apologist for the far left. His endorsement of Harris shows that his commitment was never to conservatism but to whatever political winds would keep him in the spotlight.

Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin is a prime example of how establishment figures at outlets like The Washington Post have masqueraded as conservatives while working to undermine genuine conservative voices. Rubin, who once criticized Beck by saying, "Rather than reflexively rising to his defense when questioned about Beck, why don’t conservatives call him out and explain that he doesn’t represent the views of mainstream conservatives?" was never truly aligned with conservative values. Her columns have consistently pushed establishment narratives, and now they read like PR pieces for the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to Kamala Harris. Rubin’s journey from supposed conservative commentator to one of the Biden administration’s staunchest defenders shows that her critiques of Beck were always about protecting her place within the Washington elite, not about upholding any real conservative principles.


Kinzinger, Kristol, and Rubin once posed as guardians of conservatism, warning about the supposed dangers of Glenn Beck. Now, they’ve endorsed Kamala Harris, a candidate whose policies are anathema to conservatism. Their criticisms of Beck were never about protecting conservative values—they were about steering the party back under their control. But the real target wasn’t just Beck; it was the audience he represents—everyday conservatives who challenge the status quo. These insiders have always seen that base as the real threat, and their actions make it clear who they were really trying to sideline.