For many years, I was a progressive-leaning vegan chef in Los Angeles. I cared deeply about the environment and believed politics and regulation were the best tools for protecting it. Then I became a farmer. And a conservative. I did not become conservative because I stopped caring about the environment. My commitment to the environment is what led me there. When you walk the same pastures every day, your perspective changes. You watch when the birds return. You notice when the creek is running low during a dry spell. You watch as that creek and a worn-out field learn to hold water again. When you steward one piece of land for many years, eventually, it teaches you. The land taught me that stewardship belongs in the hands of the people closest to it. My path to conservatism was not paved by economics or foreign policy. It was paved by fence lines, calving seasons, and a growing understanding that if you want to protect something, you first have to know it. I started to realize that many of the people making decisions about the land had very little relationship with it. I am not questioning their intentions. I am questioning whether someone who has never depended on the land should have more say over it than the people whose lives are tied to it. The people who first taught me about healthy soil and healthy ecosystems were not all conservatives. But as I spent more time in agriculture, I realized that the people rebuilding grasslands, restoring wildlife habitat, protecting water, and trying to leave something better for their children were, more often than not, conservatives. Maybe that is why those two words, conservative and conservation, sound so much alike. Maybe they were never meant to be separated. Whether we talk about natural resources or our customs and institutions, both ideas begin with the same instinct: to preserve what is good. Conservatism, at its heart, is about preserving goodness and beauty. We want to preserve families, faith, local communities, inherited freedoms, and civilization-sustaining traditions. We understand that inheritance matters and that we have an obligation to pass something worthwhile to the next generation. Why should that instinct stop at the edge of the pasture? In many ways, America’s farmers and ranchers have always understood this. The overwhelming majority of the people who work the land lean conservative. They know when the springs stop flowing, when the topsoil begins to disappear, when pollinators become scarce, and when a pasture finally comes back to life after years of careful management. Their children drink that water. Their livestock graze those grasses. Their future depends on leaving the land healthier than they found it. Many environmental policies are written far from the landscapes they seek to manage. Rural Americans have experienced firsthand how well-intentioned ideas can create unintended consequences when they ignore the wisdom of the people who actually live with those ecosystems every day. I am not saying those people do not care about the land. I am saying there is a different kind of knowledge that comes from depending on it. The answer is not to abandon conservation or the people that hold fast to it. The answer is to bring it home. There is another ancient command from the Book of Genesis that sits alongside tending the garden: “Be fruitful and multiply.” For most of human history, those two ideas would have been understood as inseparable. A healthy people depended on healthy soil, clean water, abundant wildlife, and nourishing food. The fertility of the earth and the fertility of the family were simply different expressions of the same abundance. Today, we talk about collapsing birth rates as though they exist in isolation. We worry about infertility, chronic disease, and children growing up sicker than their parents. At the same time, we watch our soils lose organic matter, our food become increasingly industrialized, and our landscapes absorb an ever-growing load of synthetic chemicals. These are not separate crises. This is one crisis. The Make America Healthy Again movement is beginning to reconnect ideas that never should have been separated in the first place: healthy soil, healthy food, healthy bodies, healthy families, and healthy communities. A civilization that cannot regenerate its land should not be surprised when it struggles to regenerate itself. I often hear conservatives speak passionately about preserving faith, family, and freedom. They are right to do so. But those things do not exist apart from the world around us. Families need healthy food. Communities need clean water. Nations need productive farmland. Children deserve to inherit a country that can still feed them. If conservatives believe that creation is God’s handiwork, then stewardship is one of our first responsibilities. Conservatives cannot concede the care of the earth to progressive politics. Taking care of America’s land is an act of gratitude and obedience. We have the moral high ground, and we must defend it. Conservatism is not simply about conserving ideas. It is also about conserving the conditions that allow civilization itself to flourish. What exactly are we conserving if our fields can no longer produce food, our rivers can no longer sustain life, and our children inherit a world less abundant than the one we received? The first commands God gave humanity were to tend the garden and to be fruitful and multiply. Those were never separate callings; they were always two parts of the same story. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

I spent the past weekend in San Antonio at the Turning Point USA Women’s Leadership Conference. While I was on the older end of the bell curve, I was encouraged by what I heard and saw from a largely Gen Z and millennial crowd. A host of speakers discussed a variety of topics appealing to the physical, mental, and spiritual development of women. From what it looks like to be a godly woman to what it looks like to be a healthy woman (which are not separate), attendees were given a road map of how to live a purposeful life. Throughout the weekend, one thing was made abundantly clear: Feminism is dead. RIP. The video introducing the conference demonstrated the destruction feminism has wrought on American society. It opened by describing the bold, brave women who forged a new path preceding and during the founding of America, as well as the women of the frontier and those who were called to service to rebuild the country in the years after the Great War. These women did not take up their mantle because of feminism. They were empowered to act because it was their duty to the Lord, the nation, and their families. Feminists like to act as if women were helpless victims before their ideology came along to save them. That is simply not true. Since the dawn of time, women have served as educators, healers, and—most importantly—mothers. As Erika Kirk said in the video, “Strength has never been defined by self-interest. It was found in sacrifice. In service to something higher than self.” Feminism changed that. From its inception, it has fought to re-order God’s design and promote self-interest as a virtue. It encouraged women to take over roles, attitudes, and spaces designed for men. As Charlie Kirk once said, feminism was about wanting women to become men and, eventually, not to need men at all. While many people define feminism differently, from its inception, the core of the ideology has been rooted not in service and obedience to God, but in power. It has always denied the fact that the most powerful tool a woman possesses is her biology—her ability to usher in new life—and the unique attributes that accompany that gift. When her biology is devalued, dismissed, or discarded, a woman may seek to fill that void through other avenues like career or activism. Our current culture demonstrates what happens when women believe that freedom consists of rejecting the responsibilities that they once embraced with pride like homemaking and caretaking. Contemporary women are awash with resentment, anger, and bitterness. These sentiments were on full display not only in segments of the video, but outside the walls of the hotel amongst the loud and caustic women protesters who surrounded the entrances. They threatened attendees and behaved in a way that has become a stereotype of modern liberal women: hysterical and unhinged. Or as my friend and colleague Scott Yenor likes to say, “medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome.” These women were not unattractive because of their physical characteristics (although outside appearance often reflects inner states). They were unattractive because they are filled with hatred over God’s design for their lives, married or single, mothers or childless. And they were a far cry from the bright and uplifting young women I met at the conference. The women inside the halls, elevators, and gathering spaces were well put together, with care for their appearance. They were not all models, but they were pretty because their hearts were seeking not mere human words of encouragement, but God’s wisdom and truth. That kind of love radiates from the inside out. Luckily the number of women inside the building far outnumbered those outside. This is reflective of the culture at large, at least within the conservative movement. As feminism seems to be increasing on the political Left, it is sharply decreasing on the Right. More young women are waking up to the failed promises of feminism and embracing a modern womanhood that, while it may look different from women in the past, seeks to first fulfill one of God’s principal commandments to mankind: to be fruitful and multiply. Alex Clark, one of the leading voices in Turning Point as well as in the MAHA movement, spoke to how young women, even in what she called their “single season,” can heed the call of God. Clark said that women can’t be expected to just “sit under an overpass and wait for our husband to fall from the sky.” She encouraged women to live their lives. Travel, learn to cook, read good books, get healthy. In essence, become the woman a man would want to marry. That is the difference between the path of feminism and the path of a woman seeking God. The means, like personal growth and development, may look similar. It is the intentions and ends that are different. One seeks to satisfy self. The other seeks to satisfy God. So, the question is not what action a woman should take, but whom it serves. Feminism is not dead because women no longer seek purpose—it is fading because it misidentified where that purpose comes from. It promised fulfillment through autonomy and self-elevation, but what it often produces is restlessness and dissatisfaction. What I witnessed in San Antonio was not an absence of ambition, but its redirection—away from the self and toward something higher. The future will not belong to the loudest voices demanding liberation from responsibility, but to those who willingly embrace it.

Two weeks after the 2014 midterm elections, then-President Barack Obama addressed the nation on the issue of illegal immigration. Part of this address—delivered from the White House—actually focused on the negative aspects of people illegally entering and staying in the United States. “But today, our immigration system is broken—and everybody knows it,” Obama said. “Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules,” he said. “Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America.” Obama then claimed he had made progress in securing the border. “When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system,” he said. “And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half.” According to the Pew Research Center, when Obama was sworn into office in 2009, there were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Over the next two years, that increased to 11.5 million. Then, during Obama’s final six years in office, it modestly declined, hitting 10.5 million in 2017, the first year of President Donald Trump’s first term. In his Nov. 20, 2014, address, Obama vowed to focus immigration enforcement on those who posed “actual threats to our security.” “[W]e’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country,” Obama said. “And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security,” he said. “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.” Did Obama’s policy work? On Aug. 25, 2015, nine months after Obama delivered this address to the nation, Manuel Alberto Cortes Cuan, a Mexican citizen who had already been deported four times during Obama’s presidency, was deported for a fifth time. In a sentencing memorandum presented on May 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros summarized Cortes Cuan’s immigration history. “Cortes Cuan, a citizen of Mexico, has a history of five prior deportations from the United States,” said this memorandum. “Notably, each deportation occurred after Cortes Cuan sustained criminal convictions while unlawfully present here.” At the end of 2009, “Cortes Cuan stole a jacket and sweatshirt from an individual victim,” said the memorandum. “About a month later, on January 10, 2010, Cortes Cuan stole multiple pairs of jeans, shirts, and a sweater from a second individual victim. … Then, on January 27, 2010, Cortes Cuan committed the offense of escape while in the custody of Harris County officials.” “On February 2, 2010, Cortes Cuan was convicted of the escape and theft offenses and sentenced to 90 days of imprisonment, to be served concurrently,” said the memorandum. “Defendants criminal convictions came to the attention of immigration officials, and, on March 31, 2010, ICE deported defendant after he served his sentences.” Then he came back—across Obama’s border. “Sometime after his March 31, 2010, deportation, Cortes Cuan illegally reentered the United States,” said the U.S. attorney’s memorandum. “On July 26, 2010, Cortes was arrested in Houston, Texas for misdemeanor criminal trespass to property or a building, and he was later sentenced to 20 days imprisonment.” “On August 5, 2010, Cortes Cuan was deported from the United States a second time,” it said. Then he came back again. “On January 13, 2011, Cortes Cuan was convicted of a felony theft offense (upgraded in severity due to his prior theft convictions), and misdemeanor evading arrest, and was sentenced to 90 days and 35 days of imprisonment, respectively,” said the memorandum. He was deported again on Feb. 9, 2011—and came back again. “Sometime after his February 9, 2011 deportation, Cortes Cuan illegally reentered the United States,” said the memorandum. “On August 4, 2011, defendant was arrested in Chicago for misdemeanor retail theft and two counts of theft of lost or mislaid property.” “On September 29, 2011,” said the memorandum, “Cortes Cuan was convicted of retail theft and sentenced to 6 months of court supervision.” But then he was arrested, convicted and deported again. “On August 23, 2013, Cortes Cuan was arrested in Chicago for possessing burglary tools and misdemeanor retail theft,” said the memorandum. “On September 27, 2013, he was convicted of possessing the burglary tools and sentenced to approximately one day of time served. … On approximately March 11, 2014, Cortes Cuan was deported from the United States for a fourth time.” But that was not the last time. “On August 8, 2014, Cortes was arrested in Chicago for aggravated assault in operating a motor vehicle, criminal damage to property, aggravated DUI, and criminal damage to property,” said the memorandum. “Cortes Cuan’s conduct was a serious risk to public safety, and an officer discharged his gun after Cortes Cuan almost struck the officer with his vehicle,” said the memorandum. “On April 7, 2015, Cortes Cuan was convicted of aggravated assault and aggravated DUI and sentenced to 24 months probation.” “After receiving a second-chance sentence of probation on June 11, 2015, Cortes Cuan was arrested for misdemeanor battery in Norridge, Illinois,” said the memorandum. “On August 25, 2015, Cortes Cuan was deported from the United States for the fifth time before completion of his battery case. … Because of the intervening deportation, Cortes Cuan was subsequently convicted of this offense on June 26, 2025 and sentenced to eight days imprisonment.” And he came back again. “Sometime after his August 15, 2015 deportation,” said the memorandum, “Cortes Cuan illegally reentered the United States.” As noted in a June 8 press release from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Cortes Cuan has now been sentenced to prison for unlawfully reentering the United States. “Cortes Cuan was previously deported from the United States on five occasions,” said the release. “Cortes Cuan, 38, pleaded guilty in April 2026 to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. On June 3, 2026, U.S. District Judge LaShonda A. Hunt sentenced Cortes Cuan to 14 months in federal prison. The conviction subjects Cortes Cuan to removal from the United States.” And it is no longer Obama’s border he would encounter if he tried to cross it. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The State Department has dropped sanctions against one of the loudest opponents of George Soros in Eastern Europe. Sali Berisha, leader of the Albanian opposition party, confirmed to the Daily Signal Friday that the State Department lifted sanctions against him on Thursday. The State Department had sanctioned Berisha, a former president and prime minister who steered the Balkan country after the fall of communism in the 1990s, for “corrupt acts,” such as misappropriation of public funds to enrich relatives. Berisha denied the claims. “As of yesterday, following an in-depth review of my case by the Department of State, my family members and I are no longer barred from traveling to the United States of America,” Berisha, head of Albania’s Democratic Party, told the Daily Signal. “Thus, an unjust decision made by the previous U.S. administration against me and my family was rectified.” Berisha, an avowed opponent of Hungarian American billionaire George Soros and his son Alex, suggested that Soros played a role in the sanctions against him. George Soros had worked with Edi Rama, Albania’s prime minister. Alex Soros, who now runs his father’s Open Society Foundations, has repeatedly met with Rama. “I would like to thank President Trump’s administration and Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio for correcting this unfair decision, which was entirely based on the corrupt lobbying of Edi Rama and his mentor, George Soros.” The Open Society Foundations did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment about whether George or Alex Soros played a role in Berisha’s sanctions. The State Department confirmed that it has issued waivers for several designations under 7031(c) of the Financial Management and Budget Transparency Act from the previous administration. When then-Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., pressed Blinken for evidence of Berisha’s alleged corruption, the State Department stonewalled him, Zeldin told the Washington Free Beacon in December 2021. Soros Influence Alex Soros has posted many photos of himself with Albania’s Socialist Party Prime Minister, Edi Rama, often calling the foreign leader his “brother.” Open Society Foundations launched and funded so many non-governmental organizations in the country that critics say it dominates civil society, and American tax dollars funneled through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development dovetail with Open Society Funding. Critics like Berisha say Open Society pushes “anti-family” policies in Albania and worked to entrench Rama’s power. Open Society Foundations touted its influence in a 2021 “fact sheet” on the Balkan country. George Soros’ foundation—which would become OSF—spent more than $57 million building 275 schools and kindergartens across the country in the early 1990s, and OSF touted that almost 70% of the population “has benefited from these schools.” Last year, Albanian journalist Sami Neza said that Soros has so dominated the NGO space that no civil society groups can exist outside his influence. He said that he can count on one hand the number of staff at Albanian NGOs without a connection to Soros. Neza serves as executive director at the Center for Transparency and Freedom of Information, which received a contribution from the Charles Koch Institute in 2020. Open Society earmarked $600,000 to support the process of overhauling the judicial system, according to the 2021 fact sheet. Rovena Gashi, then general prosecutor in Albania, sent a letter to Congress submitted into the record in May 2017 outlining the close ties between the Soros Foundation and the bodies carrying out the justice reform. “It appears that while Soros and the OSF are trying to influence many places in Europe, Albania has been ‘targeted’ for extra attention,” Steven Bucci, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former Army Special Forces officer who was stationed in Albania for about two years, previously told the Daily Signal. “Soros appears to have made Albania a virtual laboratory of socialist conversion,” Bucci added. “If America wants to push back on the international Soros / OSF agenda, Albania is the place to engage!”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is pushing back after the Trump administration suspended federal funding for the city’s Homeless Services Authority and a federal judge stated the agency appeared to have committed “obvious fraud.”Instead of applauding the administration’s audit of the agency, Bass warned that pausing funding could ultimately cost lives. However, allegations of rampant fraud, if true, would mean that the homeless people who need resources the most are deprived of them. I joined “Fox News @ Night” Thursday to discuss the Trump administration’s decision to suspend the agency’s federal funding pending an inspector general investigation.Bass’ office said the mayor has “zero tolerance for mismanagement and negligence” and previously directed the city to evaluate how to move away from the agency.That raises the obvious question: What exactly is a zero-tolerance policy today? Bass cannot claim zero tolerance for mismanagement while asking taxpayers to keep funding a system facing the serious allegation by a federal judge of “obvious fraud.” “They should use their own money to do it,” I said of the city’s desire to have the agency funded. “And at the end of the day, that is still taxpayer money because you are looking at federal and state dollars.”Furthermore, the welfare fraud extends far beyond California and Minnesota and does not stop at state lines nor is it confined to one political party.Federal officials came into Ohio last week, led by then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, to announce a model for detecting and prosecuting fraud before taxpayer dollars disappear. The Justice Department announced the first federal-state partnerships to fight fraud, which expanded data sharing and brought charges against nine defendants for their alleged participation in more than $42 million in fraud schemes.Leaders across the country need the political will to follow the money, demand stronger funding controls on the front end, and act promptly when warning signs appear. The Justice Department’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald, is building that model nationwide. The days of paying first and auditing after the money disappears are over. Before government officials demand another check from taxpayers, they should answer a simple question: Where did the money go?