For most of my adult life, I thought I knew exactly what my family would look like.

Two kids is the cultural norm now. That’s the number most people plan for, budget for, and feel comfortable defending. Two fits neatly into modern life. Two feels responsible. Two feels safe.

But I didn’t grow up in a family of two kids.

I came from a family of three. And because of that, three always felt right to me. Three felt full. Three felt lively. Three felt like the right amount of chaos and connection. So when my wife and I started our family, I assumed we’d land there — not to make a statement, but because it was the model I knew and loved.

For a long time, that plan held.

But I was also very clear about one thing: I would never have a kid in my 40s.

That was the line. The boundary. A promise I made back when 40 felt distant and theoretical — something older people dealt with.

Then I turned 40.

And a few weeks ago, my wife and I welcomed our fourth child into the world.

What I’ve learned, slowly and humbly, is that many of the promises we make when we’re younger are less about wisdom and more about fear.

Fear of sacrifice.
Fear of inconvenience.
Fear of losing control over a life we’ve worked hard to build.

Our culture feeds those fears relentlessly. It is engineered for comfort, speed, and personalization. It trains us to ask one question above all others: What do I get right now?

Children ask a different question.

They ask: What are you willing to give, over and over, for something that won’t pay you back today?

In that sense, kids are the ultimate form of delayed gratification.

They require sacrifice upfront — years of it. Sleep. Freedom. Money. Flexibility. Control. There is no way to sugarcoat that. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or trying to sell you something.

But the reward comes later. Slowly. Quietly. Compounding over time.

The first time your toddler reaches for your hand in a crowded room.
The first time your child looks to you for moral clarity.
The first time siblings defend one another without being asked.
The moment you realize you are no longer the center of your own universe — and feel relief instead of loss.

This is what our culture never explains: sacrifice is not the enemy of happiness. Selfishness is.

A society addicted to instant gratification struggles to understand children, because children force adults to play the long game. They demand patience. They require faith — not just religious faith, but faith in the future. Faith that what you are building today will matter tomorrow.

That’s why having a big family today feels almost rebellious.

Birth rates are collapsing. Marriage is delayed or avoided. Children are framed as “lifestyle constraints” rather than blessings. Entire industries exist to convince young people that adulthood is something to postpone indefinitely.

And yet, there is a truth no one likes to say out loud because it cuts against the narrative.

No one — absolutely no one — who loves their kids ever says, “I shouldn’t have had that child.”

People regret jobs.
They regret cities.
They regret relationships.
They regret wasted years chasing empty validation.

But parents do not sit at the end of their lives wishing they had fewer children. They wish they had more time with them.

At 40, with four kids, I don’t feel old.

If anything, kids keep you young. They pull you into the present. They keep you moving. They force you to laugh when you’d otherwise brood. They remind you that joy is often loud, messy, inconvenient — and worth it anyway.

And then there is the gift that often goes overlooked: siblings.

Watching siblings grow up together is one of life’s quiet miracles. They fight. They forgive. They learn loyalty, compromise, and love — not from lectures, but from living shoulder to shoulder.

Long after parents are gone, siblings remain.

They are the ones who know your childhood stories. Who remember your parents’ voices. Who will sit beside you at hospital beds and holiday tables. Who will help one another bury the people who once tucked them in at night.

In a world that prizes radical independence, siblings teach something far more enduring: you are not meant to do life alone.

And yes, one day, God willing, these children will flip the script. They will care for us the way we once cared for them — not out of obligation, but out of love forged through years of shared sacrifice.

Which brings me to faith.

From the beginning, Scripture tells us, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Not as a burden, but as a blessing. Children are not described as liabilities, but as arrows, as gifts, as signs of hope.

Faith teaches us that the point of life is not comfort, but calling. Not consumption, but creation. Not hoarding time, but giving it away for something eternal.

That doesn’t mean every family looks the same. It doesn’t mean everyone is called to the same path. But it does mean we should be honest about what leads to meaning — and what leads to emptiness.

For my wife and me, welcoming a fourth child at 40 was not reckless.

It was faithful.

Faith that love multiplies when shared.
Faith that sacrifice produces joy.
Faith that the future is worth investing in, even when it costs us something now.

In a culture obsessed with shrinking horizons, we chose to expand ours.

And if I’m being honest, part of that choice is simple.

I’m trying to make heaven crowded.

* * *

Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast “We The People.” Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The following is an excerpt from the new book “The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon” by Peter Schweizer (January 20, 2026/HarperCollins)

* * *

It was a hot July 2009 in Washington, DC, and a silver-haired labor boss stood before the crowd and personified the fusing of Mexico’s territorial ambitions with those of an American president looking to create new voters.

Eliseo Medina was the secretary-treasurer of one of the most powerful unions in America, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. He also had the ear of the newly elected president, Barack Obama, who had met with him when he was a senator. “Before immigration debates took place in Washington,” Obama had said, “I spoke with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members.”

Medina was a labor boss, but he was also an immigrant. Apparently, he wanted to change America profoundly.

“When they [recently naturalized migrants] voted in November,” Medina observed, “they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters who showed up.”

Roger Wollenberg/Getty Images

So, I think there’s [sic] two things that matter for the progressive community: Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will expand and solidify the progressive coalition for the future. Number two: [If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have, even the same ratio, two out of three? If we have eight million new voters . . . [we] will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.

What Eliseo Medina didn’t say on that day was that he was not only an immigrant, labor leader, and Obama confidant. He was also an advisor to the Mexican government’s foreign ministry—in particular, the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, which, as we saw earlier, was created by officials because “Mexico needs Mexican Americans to lobby the US government to make decisions favorable to Mexico.”

Elected in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis, President Barack Obama brought a message of “hope and change” through the “fundamental transformation of America.” The transformation he envisioned was both cultural and political, and Obama likely saw migrants as the vectors for such transformation. Obama’s second job out of college was as a community organizer for the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, “an organization that had long supported immigrant rights.” Immigrants had long been a cornerstone of the progressive coalition in Chicago, where Obama grew up politically.

Cover credit: Harper

During the 2008 Democratic Party campaign, Obama lost the hotly contested Pennsylvania primary to Hillary Clinton. He was later caught on tape explaining to donors why, blaming rural voters who opposed mass migration:

“And it’s not surprising that they get bitter; they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

When he wasn’t expressing concerns about the immigrant sentiments of ordinary Americans, Obama declared that his immigrant roots gave him unique and special insights. He told voters in Iowa that “his childhood years in Indonesia and his Kenyan roots” led him to oppose the Iraq war because those experiences had taught him “how powerful tribal and ethnic sentiments are.” For the 2008 election, Obama and his team brazenly “adopted a prominent phrase from within the immigrant rights movement” and made it their campaign slogan: “Sí se puede! Yes we can.”

What Obama understood was that, unlike those rural voters, the most supportive group in the United States for his expansive government agenda to transform America were immigrants. And many of them, like Obama, wanted America to change from the foundation up.

Not only did newly naturalized migrants vote for Democrats in large numbers, but they were also significantly to the left of the typical Democrat. In 2010, 69 percent of immigrants supported Obama’s plans for a massive government takeover of health care, according to polling. Surveys regularly demonstrated that migrants preferred larger and more intrusive government practices, often reflecting socialist experiences in their home countries. During Obama’s first term, 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants told pollsters they preferred a “bigger government providing more services.” Only 41 percent of the general American population agreed.

At the same time, migrants were shown to be less supportive of preserving America’s core values. A 2013 Harris Interactive survey found that “only 50 percent of naturalized citizens” believed “schools should teach children to be proud Americans,” compared with 81 percent of those who were native-born. When asked if “the US Constitution is a higher authority than international law,” only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agreed, compared to 67 percent of American-born natives. And while surveys found that 85 percent of Americans viewed themselves as US citizens and not “citizens of the world,” only 54 percent of naturalized citizens embraced that view.

The partisan advantage for Democrats that Obama and Medina noted was not only real; it was growing. Four years after his election, in 2012, a YouGov survey found that recent immigrants favored Democrats over Republicans by almost four to one.

Therefore, the hard work of ignoring citizenship standards to create these voters needed to continue.

* * *

This excerpt from “The Invisible Coup” is published by permission from Harper, a division of HarperCollins Publishers. “The Invisible Coup: How American Elites and Foreign Powers Use Immigration as a Weapon” is written by Peter Schweizer and is available on January 20, 2026.

Peter Schweizer is a #1 bestselling investigative journalist and author. He is the president of the Government Accountability Institute. His previous works have uncovered widespread corruption and have led to official investigations and significant policy reforms. Known for his deep-dive forensic research, Schweizer has become one of the most respected and impactful investigative reporters of his generation.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.