A liberal Maryland county will shell out $1.5 million to a group of religious parents who sued the school board over a policy that blocked parents from opting their children out of instruction on books pushing transgender ideology.   In addition to paying damages, the board of education for Montgomery County must inform parents whenever there will be instruction related to family life and human sexuality. The settlement comes after a group of parents from various religious backgrounds won a major victory at the Supreme Court that struck down the county’s opt-out policies as unconstitutional.  The settlement was announced on Friday by Becket, a non-profit law firm focused on litigation issues related to religious liberty. It was approved by Judge Deborah Boardman in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.  “Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parental rights and religious freedom isn’t just illegal — it’s costly,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the parents. “This settlement enforces the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensures parents, not government bureaucrats, have the final say in how their children are raised.”  Montgomery County is a heavily Democratic area that borders Washington, D.C.  In June 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the parents against the county, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the majority opinion.  “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,” Alito wrote. The legal battle first began in March 2023, when the school board said that it would no longer let parents opt out of books pushing transgender and queer ideology. In response, a group of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish parents challenged the county in Mahmoud v. Taylor. “It took tremendous courage for these parents to stand up to the School Board and take their case all the way to the Supreme Court,” Baxter said. “Their victory reshaped the law and ensured that generations of religious parents will be able to guide their children’s upbringing according to their faith.” Chris Persak, a Catholic father whose children attend Montgomery County schools, previously told The Daily Wire it was his faith that helped him stay calm throughout the whole legal process.  “We said prayers of the Holy Spirit, and just felt this unbelievable calmness as we’re walking in,” he said. “Even with the protesters, even with members of the leadership of Montgomery County, who were protesting against us live that day.”

'Punch that baboonery out of them'

'She’s got two shots to her head – there’s blood everywhere'

News Andor Disney Asked Andor Team to Avoid Using the Word “Fascism,” Says Creator Tony Gilroy Now that Andor is over, Tony Gilroy is going gloves off regarding the show’s political parallels By Matthew Byrd | Published on February 20, 2026 Photo: Disney+ Comment 0 Share New Share Photo: Disney+ In a sweeping interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Andor creator Tony Gilroy directly discusses the show’s parallels to current U.S. politics under the Trump administration and confirms that Disney discouraged the Andor team from using the word “fascism” during the series’ 2025 promotional campaign. “Diego [Luna] and I had some early, super long-lead press, and we tiptoed out. We were like, ‘Oh my God, this is really electric,'” Gilroy says regarding how the team navigated that time with the restrictions that were suggested. “The actors have a broad spectrum of political ideas, and we didn’t want anybody to perjure themselves or violate their conscience. So we came up with a legit historical model, and it’s a version of what I’m telling you now.” That historical model Gilroy refers to involved studying the patterns in the rise of authoritarian regimes throughout history and identifying the common tactics that even an empire in a galaxy far, far away may also employ. “We were pretty much doing a story about authoritarianism and fascism, and the Empire is very clearly a great example of that,” Gilroy says. “So you get out your Fascism for Dummies book for the 15 things you do, and we tried to include as many of them as we could in the most artful way possible.” Despite the Andor team’s research and their efforts to express that research as artfully as possible via the show, the team was still discouraged from using the word fascism (and, reportedly, genocide) during the 2025 promotional campaign for Andor‘s second season. It is certainly no coincidence that said campaign coincided with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the start of his second term as President of the United States (as well as other global political events occurring at that time). So, even though Donald Trump had said “sometimes you need a dictator” in regard to his current administration, has threatened to imprison journalists, publicly attempted to discredit various intellectual institutions, has continuously spread false and disputed narratives regarding subjects like fair and free elections, and generally exhibited many of the traits historians commonly associate with fascist regimes, the Andor team was discouraged from using the word fascism during the early days of Trump’s second term. Mind you, many of those events occurred before Andor‘s season 2 premiere (and related press tour), so they do not account for actions such as the DHS occupation of the city of Minneapolis which has resulted in multiple civilian deaths or the imprisonment and deportation of children and U.S. citizens. And while it’s true that some scholars dispute the precise validity of the word fascism in regards to the specifics of the Trump administration’s broad political policies, Disney’s publicity fears concerning the use of that word are more likely related to the concerns regarding that administration’s possible political and legal retaliations. ABC and Disney controversially settled a defamation lawsuit with Trump in 2024 that resulted in a $15 million payout and have approved actions (including the brief suspension of Late Night host Jimmy Kimmel) that have left some Disney employees concerned about the company’s desire to appease the president. Now that Gilroy is finished with Andor, though, he’s allowed to be much more open regarding his thoughts on such matters. “How were we supposed to know that this clown car in Washington was going to basically use the same book that we used?” Gilroy says. “I don’t think it’s prescience so much as the sad familiarity of fascism and the karaoke menu of things that you go through to do it. You could list them from the show, or you could list them from the newspaper. In the beginning, it was very confusing. People were like, “Oh, you’re psychic,” or, “The show is prescient.” But in the rear-view mirror, it’s really a much sadder explanation than that.” As far as what may come next, Glory once again looks to history to make what feels like less of a prediction and more of an observation. “We were stunned [about the prescience] for a while, but we’ve really gotten to the point where it’s really sad. It’s just sad how predictable and lame and obvious and wrong it all is,” Gilroy proclaims. “Fascism is just a total fail in the end. It eats itself up in the end. So this will have been an incredible waste of time, an incredibly wasted opportunity and an incredibly dark period in America’s history that it may never recover from.” [end-mark] The post Disney Asked <i>Andor</i> Team to Avoid Using the Word “Fascism,” Says Creator Tony Gilroy appeared first on Reactor.

Milton Friedman once warned that “one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” When the education of children is at stake, such a mistake is costly indeed. Tennessee’s SB 2441 is the latest in a growing wave of legislation that promises to hold virtual schools “accountable” by mandating their automatic closure when test scores remain low. The logic sounds unassailable: if a school is failing, shut it down. But this tidy reasoning conceals a troubling reality. “Default closure” rules consistently punish the schools that serve the students most in need, harming the very students the law is intended to help. Consider what happens in practice. A virtual school enrolls students who are already years behind: teenagers recovering from illness, kids fleeing bullying, young people with disabilities or unstable home lives who have already bounced through multiple traditional and nontraditional schools. These students arrive far below grade level. The school meets them where they are and begins the slow, unglamorous work of rebuilding their confidence and their academic foundations. Then the state’s accountability formula kicks in, compares these students to statewide benchmarks, and brands the school a failure. Under a default closure regime, the school is shuttered, and the very students it was created to serve are sent back to the system that already failed them. This is not a hypothetical. Rainshadow Charter High School in Reno, Nevada, lived it. Rainshadow’s mission was to serve the hardest cases: students other schools had given up on. Three-quarters of its transfer students arrived credit deficient. Because Nevada calculated graduation rates on a four-year timeline, students who needed a fifth year to finish were counted as dropouts. The school earned the state’s lowest rating, and Nevada law required closure after three consecutive years at that level. But when district staff recommended shutting Rainshadow down, it was students and parents who fought back. One student described going from a 0.0 GPA at his previous school to the highest grades he had ever earned. Another, who is dyslexic and had been bullied relentlessly at her prior district school, said that Rainshadow was the first place she felt welcomed. As education policy expert Max Eden explained, “a charter school that looks awful on paper might be exceeding all expectations with the students it serves, and therefore charter school accountability can be a double-edged sword that makes it harder for those schools to exist.” Fortunately, in Rainshadow’s case, the local school board listened to families and declined to close the school. But under the kind of automatic closure provision in Tennessee’s SB 2441, the families’ voices would be irrelevant. The formula would decide. This is the central flaw of default closure laws. Such laws are premised on the idea that political pressure from parents should not be allowed to prevent or delay accountability. But stripping parents of any say in whether their children’s school survives is not accountability. It is the opposite. It is a system that is accountable to no one except a spreadsheet. The Center for Education Reform has documented how this top-down, test-score-driven approach to accountability has produced what scholars call “institutional isomorphism,” the tendency of schools to look and act more and more alike. When the only metric that matters is standardized test performance there are only so many ways to make test scores go up. Schools that might serve students differently—through vocational training, therapeutic support, project-based learning, or flexible pacing—are either deterred from opening or forced into a cookie-cutter mold that defeats the purpose of school choice in the first place. The better alternative is bottom-up accountability—a system in which parents, not bureaucrats, decide which schools deserve to survive. Arizona provides a useful model. Despite granting 15-year charters with relatively light regulation, the vast majority of charter school closures in Arizona happen within the first five years—not because a state official pulled the plug, but because families voted with their feet. Schools that fail to serve their students lose enrollment and close naturally. Schools that serve students well, even if their test scores are modest by statewide standards, retain the families who chose them for a reason. The net result is that the performance of Arizona’s charter school sector on the National Assessment of Education Progress not only far exceeds Arizona’s district schools but also outperforms every other state. This is not an argument against accountability, but rather for real accountability. Real accountability is bottom-up, not top-down. It entails trusting parents, who see their children come home from school every day, more than distant officials who see only data points. Parents know things that standardized tests cannot capture: whether their child is safer, more engaged, more hopeful, more likely to get out of bed in the morning and go to school. These things matter. They matter enormously for students who have already been written off. Tennessee lawmakers should ask themselves a simple question before adopting a default closure policy: if a virtual school is the last option standing for a student who has failed everywhere else, and that student’s parents believe the school is working, on what moral basis does the state override their judgment? Some states, such as Arizona and South Carolina, categorize traditional public and charter schools that serve students in persistently low-performing areas or children with unique needs (students who had dropped out of school but are now returning, for example) as “alternative schools.” State officials can then evaluate schoolwide performance at such schools on a different scale than other traditional or charter schools. However, the most effective approach to improving quality is to expand the quality options available for families to select. Instead of imposing technocratic rules, Tennessee lawmakers should dramatically expand access to the Tennessee Education Freedom Scholarships. Default closure rules are built on a seductive but false premise: that we can regulate our way to quality. We cannot. Quality comes from freedom, experimentation, and a competitive market that evolves organically based on the decisions of the parents who make decisions in the best interests of their children. If Tennessee truly wants to help struggling students, it should empower their parents, not silence them. The post School ‘Default Closure’ Rules Hurt the Children They’re Meant to Help appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor's Veto of Trans Bathroom Law

It's possible that Politico hasn't been this happy since the 2020 election was "fortified."  By pretending to be censored, which did not happen according to CBS, Late Show host Stephen Colbert was able to gain more viewers than usual to his interview on YouTube with the Democrat primary candidate for senator from Texas, James Talarico.  Politico briefly acknowledged the trickery involved in their Wednesday Playbook celebration by Dasha Burns and Jack Blanchard, "The Talarico moment." ...The broader FCC clampdown on talk shows is obviously real — we saw the announcement last month, and we know “The View” is already under investigation. But framing this as “the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see” is … quite a stretch. As CBS made clear in its statement yesterday, its lawyers said the interview could have run if the show had also given airtime to the other Democrats running in the contest, Rep. Jasmine Crockett and longshot candidate Ahmad Hassan. Which makes it a little harder to paint as some grand anti-Talarico plot. So did Colbert refuse to offer equal time to Talarico's primary opponents? We didn't find the answer in Politico because they didn't bother to ask. Perhaps because it would have ruined their celebrations of Colbert pulling off a campaign stunt to obviously help Talarico. We now join Politico's celebration of dirty politics in progress: A (LONE) STAR IS BORN: We’re exactly one (1) day into early voting in the hottest primary contest of 2026, and already temperatures in Texas are sky-high. The decision to pull Dem Senate hopeful James Talarico’s “Late Show” interview with Stephen Colbert on Monday night put rocket boosters under his campaign at a critical moment. The numbers are still soaring: As of this morning, the canned segment has more than 5 million YouTube views — numbers Colbert can only dream of on his actual TV show. You probably saw the graph yesterday showing Google searches of Talarico’s name spiking dramatically. It's now at more than eight million views. An interview that would have happened with typical low numbers on the air if Colbert had simply agreed to the very reasonable request for equal time given to Talarico's opponents. Of course, such interviews for just one senatorial race would have dropped Colbert's ratings even lower than they currently are so he performed the gimmick of pretending to have been censored for purposes of publicity and then placing the interview with Talarico on YouTube. FIRST IN PLAYBOOK: Talarico’s campaign racked up $2.5 million in donations in the 24 hours after “the attempted censorship” of his appearance on “The Late Show,” Playbook’s Adam Wren reports. It’s quite a haul, in a primary race that could prove pivotal when the final Senate tallies are counted on Nov. 3. But it also highlights several fascinating trends regarding the current moment in U.S. politics. First: In years past, a broadcast network ditching your big interview on the night voting starts would have been a body blow for a state lawmaker still trying to get national recognition. But not in this era. As Donald Trump knows better than anyone, nothing grabs eyeballs and motivates voter bases these days like a sense of grievance, of being under attack from powerful forces, of leaning into the fight. Colbert was counting on this reaction, even if Politico underlined Talarico appeared on "the night voting starts," hence the equal-time concerns. Here's more of Politico spiking the football and performing a victory dance in the end zone: Talarico has seized his own moment, with more than a little help from Colbert — both men instantly pointing to the Trump administration for the decision to can the interview. On X, Talarico brazenly described the segment as “the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see.” Within 24 hours, that single post had racked up close to 40,000 retweets and more than 150,000 likes, astronomical numbers for a humble state lawmaker from Texas. Such is the power of this phenomenon that angry Dems now feel like they’re sticking it to Trump just by watching Talarico on “The Late Show.” “The FCC does not want you to see this! Let that sink in. And SHARE IT,” one YouTube commenter wrote. That comment alone has been liked nearly 50,000 times. ...This is 2026 — where grievance culture is the ultimate motivator and where the attention economy is all. Talarico was doubling down last night, telling a packed-out rally in Austin (per HuffPost’s Igor Bobic) that the FCC “colluded with corporate media executives at CBS” to keep his interview off air. A few hours later, he was on MS NOW, claiming the Trump administration is “trying to silence me” because “they’re worried that we are going to flip Texas.” For a guy who keeps claiming on the campaign trail that he is a devout believer in the Bible, Talarico seems oddly to have no problem with easily breaking the Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness." But, hey, Politico is more than happy with the result of the campaign trickery so why quibble over mere hypocrisy?

"In the Name of ... Unlimited Immigration?"U2, the band that rocketed to fame with songs like the Martin Luther King Jr. tribute “Pride (In the Name of Love),” just put out a surprise EP “Days of Ash.” The stealth release includes a tribute to the late anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement activist Renee Good. The Irish rockers probably saw Bruce Springsteen getting all that fawning press for his anti-ICE tirades and wanted in on the action.Goldberg once asked Epstein if she could hitch a ride on his plane. Or she claims someone did so on her behalf.Still, the legendary band’s choice of martyrs is a mite suspect at this late date. “American Obituary” is the song’s tortured title, and it’s a sad reminder of how the foursome famously toured the U.S. in the Reagan era, a trek captured in the 1988 concert film “U2: Rattle and Hum.”That documentary and accompanying album saw the Irish rockers luxuriating in American culture. Now, lead singer, Bono, is calling out MAGA and ignoring all the actions that led to Good’s tragic death.The bright side? The band isn’t force-feeding us their music this time ...Taylor's versionIf you mock the left, they will come.And by “they,” we mean viewers. Paramount Plus’ “Landman” series, starring the mighty Billy Bob Thornton, wrapped its second season with its highest ratings yet.The show generated 1.62 billion minutes of viewing time during the week of Jan. 19-25, second only to Netflix’s “Stranger Things” for an original streaming series.This season of “Landman” featured several swipes at the left, including a conversation mocking ABC’s “The View” and an extended assault on pronouns. The latter featured ditzy Ainsley (Michelle Randolph) sparring with her college’s woke administrator and, later, her nonbinary roommate.Most shows wouldn’t dare broach these subjects, let alone in a farcical fashion, but showrunner Taylor Sheridan isn’t your average TV scribe. The heartland-friendly creator isn’t afraid to ruffle progressive feathers, and he does so while uncorking some elegantly written stories.That may explain why the industry doesn’t shower him with Emmys, but he’s too busy juggling a half dozen (or more) shows to care ...RELATED: 'I wasn't his girlfriend': Whoopi Goldberg breaks silence on her presence in the Epstein files Photo (left): Cindy Ord/Getty Images for Tribeca Festival; Photo (right): Stephanie Keith/Getty ImagesBest PixelImagine there’s no virtue signaling at awards shows. It’s easy if you try.Oscar-winner Matthew McConaughey shared some thoughts on AI during a Variety/CNN town hall interview with fellow star Timothee Chalamet.McConaughey earned his trophy for 2013’s “Dallas Buyers Club,” and he fears future red carpets may be crowded with computer-generated competition.“Will we be, in five years, having ‘the best AI film’? ‘The best AI actor?'” he said. “Maybe. I think that might be the thing; it becomes another category. It’s going to be in front of us in ways that we don’t even see. It’s going to get so good we’re not going to know the difference.”Another plus? AI actors can’t walk down red carpets wearing those insufferable “ICE Out” pins ...Carpet cringeBy George, I think he’s got it.Comic actor Jamie Kennedy of “Scream” fame added a dollop of common sense to Hollywood’s anti-ICE histrionics. Kennedy shared his views on celebrity activism tied to the illegal immigration enforcers, and he refused to read the preapproved talking points.Instead, he pointed out the hypocrisy of stars safely sashaying down the red carpet while demonizing law enforcement on the “Trying Not to Die” podcast.People are protesting ICE, and I understand the situation — but when you have actors from the red carpet of an award show, on there saying all of this stuff about "we’re under a fascist regime, we’re [under] authoritarianism ..." bro ... you’re literally guarded by the most top [security] — it’s insanity, you can’t say you’re under authoritarian rule when you’re literally being authoritarian.Somewhere, Ricky Gervais is grinning ear to ear ...Whoopi's whoopsie“The View” is getting a crash course in Epstein files nuance.The extreme-left show has pummeled President Donald Trump for being mentioned in the infamous files. But as everyone knows, a “mention” doesn’t mean much if there’s no “there-there.”And to date, there isn’t, just a revelation that Trump cheered on police for investigating the ghoulish financier.That hasn’t stopped the left or “The View” from connecting disparate dots. Until now. Turns out some “View” hosts, including Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg, are in those files too.Goldberg once asked Epstein if she could hitch a ride on his plane. Or she claims someone did so on her behalf.Awkward!Now, fellow listee Behar is lecturing viewers that she’s totally innocent, and everyone named in the files isn’t a monster. The other embarrassing part? Behar attended Trump’s 1993 wedding to Marla Maples:"I was at Trump's wedding to Marla. Maybe Epstein was there too. Who knows? So that means I'm not guilty obviously, but these other ones, how are you going to decide who is really guilty and who is not? It’s very tricky!"Tricky, you say? We say karma on steroids.

Growing infighting among prominent Democrats signals deeper instability within the party — and BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere has the receipts to back it up.“It seems like there is a little bit of trouble in paradise these days over on the Democratic side. You’ve seen some of these divides before,” Stu says, reading a Fox News headline: “John Fetterman slams anti-Israel ‘rot’ in Democratic Party, rejects AOC’s claims of Gaza ‘genocide.’”Another recent headline from The Hill reads, “House Democrat: Mamdani’s proposed wealth taxes ‘not going to work.’”“That is [Rep. Jared] Moskowitz. He’s fighting with Mamdani because Mamdani wants a wealth tax and Moskowitz says that’s not going to work. By the way, one reason it’s not going to work as a federal situation is because it’s completely unconstitutional,” Stu comments.“Now, of course, Mamdani does not care whatsoever about those sorts of things,” he adds.Even Bernie Sanders and Gavin Newsom have now become “adversaries” over the push to tax California billionaires.“Of course, you know, Bernie Sanders, number one, is a socialist. Number two, doesn’t have to worry about actually funding the state and, you know, building new magical railroads across it. So he doesn’t care about whether all the billionaires leave or not. He’s going to get their money either way, right?” Stu explains.“There’s a big divide inside that party. Now, that’s not to say, I will point out, that there’s none of this going on on the right. It is existing on the right as well. But on the left it’s really interesting,” he says, pointing out that when one party holds more power, the other party tends to put aside internal differences and unite.“You saw some of that, I think, during 2024, where people looked at the Biden situation and were like, ‘Gosh, we don’t want any more of this.’ They united around Trump even though there was a lot of people who liked him and a lot of people who didn’t like him on the Republican side,” Stu says.But the Democrats are not showing the same strength, and a new AP-NORC poll only solidifies Stu’s point.The poll reflects that “many Democrats are still down on their party after 2024."“You see, there was some uniting going on — a little bit, maybe, you could argue — in the early days of the Trump administration, where approval of the Democratic Party among Democrats rose north of 83%. Now it’s dropped to 70%. Interesting. Not a massive drop-off, but significant,” Stu says.And positive views of the Democratic Party are down among Democrats, from 92% at the turn of the century to 80% today.“We’ve never seen one as low as it is now, though,” Stu comments.“That’s not good. That’s bad,” he adds.Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth confirmed the firing of a trans-identifying "wolf" elementary school teacher who sparked several complaints from Fort Bragg families. Military families began expressing concern about the trans-identifying wolf teacher, who worked as a substitute teacher and teacher's aide at the Mildred B. Poole Elementary School, for reportedly using several names like "Roxxanne Wildheart," "Kiera Blackheart," "Lilith Deathhowl," "Captain Roxxie," "Artemis Deathhowl," and "savagebeastqueen," according to CBN News. 'The "Wolf" was fired.'The parents also cited the teacher's troubling interactions with their children, allegedly sharing with them "sexually inappropriate" details about his identity and dating preferences. Families began speaking out in early 2025, criticizing administrators for not having taken action against the teacher's "disturbing behavior," which reportedly included wearing feminine clothing, a dog collar, an animal tail, and fetish tags.RELATED: 'No more dudes in dresses': Hegseth gives multitudes of trans-identifying service members the boot Photo by LEONARDO MUNOZ/AFP via Getty ImagesHe also allegedly divulged his sexual fetishes in front of children by telling his students that he turns into a "wolf" at night, howling like a wolf, and insisting he be addressed by his "wolf character names" and with inaccurate female pronouns. Parents claimed their children felt "scared and anxious" about the teacher's behavior, with one child telling her mother, "Mommy, I'm scared he's going to come eat me." Another child reportedly told her mother, "Mommy, Ms. Roxxie says he was born in a male's body, but he's actually a woman, but he likes boys!" RELATED: Activist judges overruled: Trump judges greenlight Hegseth’s ban on military 'dudes in dresses' Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images Hegseth took matters into his own hands, protecting the students from further perverted behavior. "The 'Wolf' was fired 2 weeks ago," Hegseth posted to X Thursday in response to CBN.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!