They say it takes a village—but what does that really mean? In the past few decades, it’s taken really anything but a village to raise a child. iPads, Ms. Rachel, and Bluey—yes. A village—not so much.  This idea is essentially what social scientists call “social capital”: the value we gain from our relationships with other people. That value translates into more job opportunities, stronger societies, happier individuals, and healthier families. Social capital has an enormous effect on the trajectory of our lives.  In recent years, we’ve watched this vital resource erode, and the results are evident in society: weakened family structures, declining mental health, fragile communities, and shrinking opportunities.  The Difference Support Makes at Home  Parents who have social capital have something invaluable—a village, if you will. They have people who can babysit, offer parenting advice, bring meals after a new baby or during an illness, and help with rides.  Essentially, they aren’t doing it all on their own, which leads to less stressed parents and a happier family.  Children benefit too. Watching adults model strong social capital shapes the way kids view adults. They develop deeper respect and greater trust in adults as they form supportive relationships with neighbors, coaches, mentors, and church leaders. A study by sociologist S. Michael Gaddis found that the amount of time kids spend with “non-parent adults” can produce positive academic and behavioral outcomes.  On the other hand, without connections, parents often feel like it’s them against the world—overwhelmed and exhausted by the daunting tasks of managing a family, career, and financial pressures all alone. Stress rises, and family relationships strain.  Opportunity Moves Through People  Social capital in practice might look like asking the doctor who goes to your church if you can shadow him for a day because you’re interested in medicine—and him saying yes because he knows and trusts you.  These connections get us places. Some call it “privilege.” I call it taking advantage of your relationships.  Think of social capital like “networking,” but remove the negative connotation of people as ladders. Instead, think of people as anchors—trusted relationships that keep you grounded and help you grow.  Without these anchors, it’s a lot harder to get that internship you’ve dreamed of, or the right experience needed to launch your career.  Loneliness Hurts. Community Heals.  Now we can’t talk about society without bringing up mental health. According to a 2024 review in the International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, depression is now one of the “largest contributors to disabilities around the world”—and its rise is “alarming” across every layer of society.   It notes that financial strain, lack of support, and other social pressures are major drivers of these mental health outcomes.  Creating social ties makes you happier. Strong relationships serve as a buffer against the pressures driving today’s mental health crisis. Connection isn’t just good for society, it’s also good for you.  The Hidden Safety Net Living Next Door  We all know the stereotypical “Karen”—the neighbor who calls the cops the second someone unfamiliar walks down the street. What if I told you that your relationship with that neighbor might be one of the things that makes your community safer? Neighborhoods with strong social ties are safer.  A landmark 1997 Science study by Robert J. Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush and Felton Earls found that Chicago neighborhoods with higher collective efficacy (social capital in communities) had significantly lower violent crime and homicide rates.  How to Bring the Village Back  So how do you find or create social capital for you and your family? Go to church. Bring cookies to your neighbors. Serve in your community. Enroll your kids in soccer and dance if you can. Connect.   Ironically, the more you pour into others, the more support you end up building for yourself. Every small act of giving strengthens the very social ties that will anchor your family when you need it most.  The post It Still Takes a Village—We Just Forgot How to Build One  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For years, the Left tried to gaslight Americans into thinking that Antifa was a fake threat, even though we could see the political violence before our own eyes. Now, the Trump administration isn’t just bringing charges against Antifa rioters, it’s taking aim at the potential funding networks behind the violence. When Antifa agitators set cars on fire, threw Molotov cocktails and fireworks at the federal courthouse in Portland, and terrorized the streets of U.S. cities in the summer of 2020, many on the Left brushed aside the violence as “fiery but peaceful protests.” Insurance analysts have estimated that the Black Lives Matter riots between May 28 and June 8, 2020 resulted in more than $2 billion in insurance payouts. The violence cost the lives of at least 26 Americans, including heroes like retired police Captain David Dorn. The street violence has become more intermittent, but it hasn’t fully abated. Agitators have set Teslas on fire to protest Elon Musk’s work in the Trump administration. Anti-Israel demonstrations on college campuses have veered into antisemitic harassment. In some cases, groups that organized protests received grants from the Left’s dark money network. Some radical leftists have even attempted or carried out assassinations. President Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts in 2024, as did Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2022. Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk wasn’t so lucky. In response to this horrifying trend, President Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, which directs federal agencies to combat organized political violence. Defining Antifa Trump’s memo defines Antifa as a movement that portrays “foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as ‘fascist’ to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution.” Antifa acts on ideas such as “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” Trump notes that domestic terrorists use the “‘anti-fascist’ lie” to justify “a violent assault” on Americans and our way of life. Antifa agitators seem adept at organizing locally without setting up a national network—almost as if they intend to provide analysts with the talking point that Antifa isn’t an organization. Yet a Texas jury convicted eight members of an alleged Antifa cell last week for rioting at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility on July 4 last year. Before the trial, seven defendants pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorism. Ryan Raybould, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, who prosecuted the case, said it demonstrates a “road map for charging individuals that commit violent acts that are coordinating through their Antifa affiliation.” Raybould also noted, however, that these rioters had previously engaged in peaceful protest earlier that day—and that the charges had nothing to do with that. Attempt to Silence Protests? The American Civil Liberties Union condemned Trump’s memo as “a deliberate attempt to sow fear and intimidate and silence opposition to the president’s abuses.” It reminds me of how Democrats responded when I testified in Congress about the way the Southern Poverty Law Center routinely demonizes conservatives and Christians by putting them on a map with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. Ironically, Democrats condemned the hearing as an attack on “civil society,” when the SPLC’s stock-in-trade involves the systematic attempt to silence conservatives in civil society. The DOJ and IRS Confirm This week, CBS News reported that the FBI and the IRS are gearing up to investigate potential funding streams behind political violence. “In accordance with National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, IRS Criminal Investigation is collaborating with federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, to investigate individuals and entities that may be funding domestic terrorism or political violence,” an IRS Criminal Investigation spokesperson told The Daily Signal. A Justice Department spokesperson told The Daily Signal that DOJ aims to bring “justice to the full range of criminal actors engaged in criminal conduct matching Congress’s definition of domestic terrorism,” while also “ensuring everyone has the freedom to speak in the public square.” A Vital Distinction It is high time the FBI, IRS, and DOJ investigate the potential funding for Antifa and other leftist political violence. The Left has covered for the violence for too long, and agitators seem to think that they can get away with arson, rioting, and physical obstruction of ICE because they’re on “the right side of history.” That said, the Trump administration’s effort to follow the money needs to focus on true violence, not peaceful protest. Leftists enjoy the same First Amendment rights to speak out as other Americans do, and the Supreme Court has rightly held that anonymous funding for political speech is also protected by the First Amendment. Those protections end when violence or deprivation of rights begins, however. The 15 Antifa members who provided material support to terrorism in Texas are rightly facing prison time, and their convictions send an important message that leftist violence will not be tolerated. Whether the FBI, IRS, and DOJ bring charges against funders of Antifa terrorism or not, the effort to follow the money sends an important message: you should think twice before bankrolling political violence, and the legacy media’s bias in favor of your causes will not protect you. The post No, Following the Money Behind Antifa Is Not an Attack on the First Amendment appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Artificial intelligence is dominating the 2026 midterms—and not just as a political issue. Major congressional campaigns are increasingly using “deepfake” AI technology in videos that slam their opponents and amplify endorsements from allies. ‘Love Shack’ Incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is seeking to fend off a primary challenge from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and is employing some unusual strategies. The Cornyn campaign released an AI-generated music video with a parody of the B-52s’ 1989 hit “Love Shack” as the soundtrack. It depicts an animated likeness of Paxton engaged in corruption and marital infidelity. If you’re wondering why Ken Paxton was sending millions in taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups, he may have been a little too distracted at his “Love Shack.” https://t.co/oDGcP0MplW— Team Cornyn (@TeamCornyn) March 17, 2026 The B-52s told TMZ in a statement upon the ad’s release, “Today we learned that our song ‘Love Shack’ is being used without our approval for a political attack between two politicians in the beautiful state of Texas. We do not endorse either candidate. We have already formally demanded the song immediately cease to be used in this tasteless and illegal way.” The Cornyn campaign declined to comment on the ad’s use of AI and whether it had responded to the band’s request. Paxton’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. James Talarico The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) recently employed deepfake technology to go after Texas Democrat Senate nominee James Talarico for past social media posts. The state representative is attempting to win in a state that has not elected a Democrat U.S. senator since 1988. “Radicalized white men are the greatest domestic terrorist threat in our country,” a realistic likeness of Talarico says, quoting an actual 2021 social media post from the candidate. The NRSC ad includes a small watermark in the corner stating that the content is “AI generated.” James Talarico, in his own words: pic.twitter.com/lDlUoqBbP7— Senate Republicans (@NRSC) March 11, 2026 “In my faith, God is non-binary,” Talarico’s likeness says later, quoting another 2021 post. Talarico’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the video’s representation of him. Bobby Rush’s AI-Generated Voice Jesse Jackson Jr., who lost in the Democrat primary for Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District on Tuesday, used AI to amplify an endorsement from former Rep. Bobby Rush, who represented the state’s 1st Congressional District for three decades. Rush’s voice has been weakened due to throat cancer. At the beginning of the advertisement, he speaks with his natural voice before his digitally altered voice kicks in. “Cancer damaged my vocal cords, but it didn’t take away my voice,” Rush says. “I’ve asked the producers to use AI, artificial intelligence, to help me.” He says in his altered voice, “Like me, Jesse is a lifelong social justice warrior and passionate advocate for the marginalized.” Jackson, the son of the late Rev. Jessie Jackson, served in Congress from 1995 to 2012 alongside Rush, but left amid a fraud investigation, for which he later spent time in prison. He lost his primary on Tuesday. The post Artificial Intelligence is Taking Over Political Campaigns appeared first on The Daily Signal.

During the recent Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, it came to light that one of the most prominent and celebrated athletes—Alysa Liu—was born via surrogacy and an anonymous egg donor. Surrogacy is an assisted reproductive technology whereby a woman (the surrogate mother) is impregnated and carries a child for so-called “commissioning” or “intended” parent(s). It is generally divided into two forms—“traditional” and “gestational” —based on whether the surrogate mother is biologically related to the child. While the circumstances of Alysa’s conception do not diminish her human dignity or exemplary accomplishments in any way, various commentators have expressed the serious legal, moral, and ethical concerns surrounding the nexus between eugenics and assisted reproductive technologies. After escaping China following the Tiananmen Square protests, Alysa’s father, Arthur Liu, built a life in the U.S. He chose to start his family in a “non-traditional way” and became a single father by choice to Alysa and her four younger siblings with the help of another woman who essentially helped raise all of his children. Conveying profound questions as a child surrounding her sense of identity and familial origins, in interviews after the Olympics, Alysa candidly remarked how she knew from an early age that she and her siblings were different: “I mean, we didn’t know about it for a long time. I actually figured it out because, I don’t know, I was like, because our mom is full Chinese, too. And I was like of like, ‘Oh, I totally don’t look full Chinese. Like, there’s something up.” While Alysa’s tale culminated in gold, the transnational and cross-border implications of surrogacy, as well as its heightened risks in facilitating trafficking, abuse, or neglect, have once again brought surrogacy to the forefront of international conversation across the ideological spectrum. For example, children born via surrogacy have increasingly voiced objections to the practice based on how it traumatized them. One of the most prominent advocates for the global abolition of surrogacy, Olivia Maurel, has stated: “The most difficult thing is the trauma of abandonment. … We all need to know who we are, where we come from, who our grandparents are, because it defines us for the rest of our lives.” Rather than viewing it as empowering, certain feminist critiques of surrogacy have attacked it for commodifying women, especially vulnerable low-income women. They have also argued that it perpetuates various abuses against surrogate mothers in the context of, inter alia, oppressive legal contracts, lifestyle restrictions, and inadequate aftercare. Likewise, advocates for persons with disabilities have also criticized surrogacy for promoting ableism and the interests of big fertility. There have been reports of “commissioning” or “intended” parents abandoning support for surrogate mothers and children or seeking to compel abortion of the unborn child on various grounds, including fetal abnormality or genetic disorders. Finally, civil society groups have also engaged through the Declaration of Casablanca for the Universal Abolition of Surrogacy. These efforts have gained the support of both the late Pope Francis as well as Pope Leo XIV, who recently stated: “By transforming gestation into a negotiable service, [surrogacy] violates the dignity both of the child, who is reduced to a ‘product,’ and of the mother, exploiting her body and the generative process, and distorting the original relational calling of the family.” These critiques are consistent with international human rights law, which does not recognize any affirmative “right to a child,” as such. Rather what is clear is that every child has rights from conception. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the child’s right to “special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth”, and the child’s right “as far as possible, to know and be cared for by his or her parents.” A child also has the right not to be “separated from his or her parents against their will” except when conforming to judicial procedures, the law, and in the “best interests of the child.” In this regard, the CRC’s optional protocol prohibits the sale of children, defined to mean “any act or transaction whereby a child is transferred by any person or group of persons to another for remuneration or any other consideration.” While the legal framework is explicit, various U.N. organs and mandate holders have also begun to call for action to end this harmful practice.   In her 2018 report, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children called for States to adopt “clear and comprehensive legislation that prohibits the sale of children … in the context of surrogacy.” In 2024, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 79/154 on human trafficking that called upon U.N. Member States to take “preventive measures to address … exploitative commercial surrogacy.” Finally, in 2025, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls  called for the global abolition of all forms of surrogacy, recognizing that surrogacy is a “system of violence, exploitation, and abuse” that “reinforces patriarchal norms by commodifying and objectifying women’s bodies and exposing surrogate mothers and children to serious human rights violations.” While we should be sensitive to the plight of couples experiencing infertility and accompany them with appropriate healthcare services that are both ethical and evidence-based, we should not forget that it is surrogate mothers and children themselves who bear surrogacy’s harshest physical and mental burdens. Therefore, we must strive for its universal abolition to ensure that no woman is further abused and so that each child can be welcomed as the profound gift that he or she is. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Alysa Liu’s Olympic Spotlight Draws Attention to the Dangerous Practice of Surrogacy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Planned Parenthood just can’t wait until July 4, 2026. That’s the day taxpayers will have to start subsidizing the abortion industry all over again.   How did this happen? Answer: The defunding of abortion providers has an expiration date. The reason? Weak negotiating by Senate Republicans. The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4, 2025, includes several policies aimed at benefiting families through tax relief, credits, and new savings opportunities. The provisions focus primarily on reducing tax burdens, supporting child-rearing costs, and encouraging long-term savings for children.  However, it was the defunding of abortion providers, including abortion giant Planned Parenthood, that captured pro-lifers’ hearts.  The largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood, is an organization founded on the principles of eugenics and is responsible for 35%-40% of all abortions in the United States. In its most recent available annual report, Planned Parenthood affiliates reported performing 402,230 abortions (an increase from 392,715 in the prior report). In Planned Parenthood’s 2023-2024 most recent report (covering roughly fiscal year 2023-2024), affiliates reported $792.2 million in total government health services reimbursements and grants. This includes both federal and state sources. A 2023 GAO report found Planned Parenthood affiliates received roughly $1.78 billion in tax dollars over a span of three years. The total collective federal funding that has gone to abortion providers since 1970 is in the $10-$15 billion range. I can think of nothing more egregious for our nation’s semiquincentennial than to reinstate this funding to the largest provider of abortions in the world. Life is a gift, one that many Americans have fought and died for over the last 250 years.  Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, said it well: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” The president and Congress turned off this gravy train of death once before; they need to do it again. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Abortion Is the Worst Way to Celebrate America 250 appeared first on The Daily Signal.