Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Santorum calls in ... to yell at Glenn?

March 23, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ok perhaps it wasn’t yelling, but Santorum did call in after hearing Glenn comment on the latest in the Santorm campaign saga which Drudge referred to as ‘Santorum snaps’. Was it an angry rant? Was it a controversial remark? Or one he’s made many times over? Check out the impromptu call in in the clip above.

Rush Transcript of interview below:

GLENN: The headline on Drudge is Santorum Snaps. I thought he sounded sleepy

PAT: Yeah. He didn't sound ‑‑ yeah

GLENN: Santorum snaps. Obama preferable to Romney. Rick Santorum is with us now. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: How are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I'm doing great. I'm ready for Louisiana.

GLENN: Have you come down off of your tantrum apparently that ‑‑

SANTORUM: There was no tantrum there. All I was saying was what I've been saying a hundred times. If we have a choice between Twiddle Dumb and Twiddle Dee that the American public is not going to support out nominee. We need a stark contrast. That's all I was saying. I've said repeatedly, as you've heard me said on this program, I would vote for Rick for Republican, I would vote for Ron Paul, I would whoever the Republican nominee is. The point is whether voters will vote for someone who doesn't have a clear contrasting vision for this country.

PAT: Yes.

SANTORUM: And that's the point I was making in that speech. I've made it in every speech I've been given and I'll continue to make that point and governor ‑‑ you know, it's funny. I didn't get one question on that afterward.

GLENN: But hang on. It's not just ‑‑ it's not just the Republican thing. It is ‑‑ there is a difference between ‑‑ I mean, Mitt Romney has ‑‑ is not now and never has been a member of the communist party. (Laughter.)

SANTORUM: Okay. You're right.

PAT: Okay.

SANTORUM: All right. Sorry. Look. What I'm talking about are the big issues of the day which is, you now, Obamacare, cap and trade, the bailouts, government control of people's lives and this is a guy who, you know, who, in my opinion, and if you saw this ‑‑ it was his Etch‑A‑Sketch comment. He'll say whatever he needs to say in front of whatever group he needs to say it in front of to win the election and that's not going to win this election. I mean, you know, pandering to voters and saying what people want to hear is not going to win. What people want is someone they can trust, someone who knows that, you know, that they want to, as I said the other night, tear Washington bureaucracy out by its roots and do some big changes in Washington and that's the kind of contrasting vision we need and that's not what we're getting in the Romney campaign. We get this parsing position that we see on all these positions.

GLENN: Now, let me take this a piece at a time. First of all, on the Etch‑A‑Sketch thing, we're split here in the studio. I think that Romney strikes me as an Etch‑A‑Sketch guy. I mean, I have ‑‑ let me just give you the quote here from Romney. You know, he came out Monday and said, you know, this gas hike trio, the three that are on a mission to drive up the price of gas, lean on energy so they can finally get their solar and their wind and more price competitive, that's what they want to do and then he claimed that people are trying to drive up the price of energy which is absolutely accurate. However ‑‑

SANTORUM: Yeah

GLENN: He said in 2006, I don't think now is the time and I'm not sure there's going to be a right time for us to encourage the use of more gasoline. I'm very much in favor of people recognizing that high gas prices just probably here to stay. So, if that's not Etch‑A‑Sketch, how do I know what he really believes?

SANTORUM: That's the point I was trying to make and I probably didn't say it as articulately as I needed to say it, but I've been saying it repeated ed, that we need someone who you can trust, someone who provides a contrast, not someone who is just ‑‑ I would make the argument he is better on some issues about Barack Obama. There's no question about it but on the big issues of the day, you know, of government, you know, control and crushing our economy and our energy, he has just been wrong so much that it makes ‑‑ it makes it ‑‑ it makes it a hard ‑‑ much harder election than it needs to be.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this: Jim DeMint came out yesterday and said he's excited, excited about the idea of Romney being the candidate

PAT: He's the first person ‑‑ he's the first American known who have said excited and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That's the first time that's happened in a country of over 300 million people and now we're putting him in the Guinness Book of World Records and ‑‑

GLENN: And that's a pretty big piece. He's ‑‑ I mean, here's a guy who the Tea Party ‑‑ I mean, what happened there?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Was he excited when Mitt Romney went down to Puerto Rico after I said that Puerto Ricans have to learn English in order to be a member of the ‑‑ be admitted to statehood, since only 15% of Puerto Ricans speak English and Mitt Romney who believes that English should be the official language of our country and is against bilingual education went to Puerto Rico and in order to get 20 delegates said he would admit Puerto Rico into the union even if nobody spoke English?

PAT: Wow.

SANTORUM: This is the problem. That's what he said. He said, no, there's no English language for the people of Puerto Rico in order for him to support statehood. Now, how can you ‑‑

PAT: That got very little coverage. That got very little coverage.

GLENN: It will get coverage.

SANTORUM: It got huge coverage in Puerto Rico and the reason he got 80% of the vote is I stood up and said what was the truth which is there's no way that any state is going to be admitted to the union if people don't speak the language of the country and that's not that they don't ‑‑ they can't speak another language but they've got to be able to speak English.

GLENN: Yeah, but you had your shirt off by a pool.

SANTORUM: Wait a minute. (Laughter.)

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: 15 minutes I laid on that. 15 minutes.

PAT: You can't do that.

GLENN: Can I tell you something? I saw that photo ‑‑ I saw that photo because, honestly, I went to ‑‑ for Christmas I went to Hawaii with my family. I did not go ‑‑ we stayed right at a hotel right there at the beach and I did not go to the beach without my shirt on ever because I knew ‑‑

STU: The people there thank you for that, by the way.

GLENN: No, no, no. I know what I look like without a shirt on and I saw that picture of you ‑‑ I saw that picture of you and I thought, oh, that's unfortunate. That's just ‑‑

SANTORUM: Yeah, it was.

PAT: It wasn't that bad.

SANTORUM: I'm worried about the gastric distress I might have caused people with that photo.

GLENN: All right. So, let me share something with you that I haven't even shared with the guys here. In the last three weeks, a very, very prominent person approached me, mainly because he certainly doesn't know me if he approached me with this and he said, Glenn, you could be the guy that could be the turning point in this election and you could really help, you know, pick the next President if you could just convince Rick Santorum to drop out because you and I know it's time for him to drop out and just convince him to drop out and I said, A, I think you're ‑‑ I think you're overestimating my Jedi mind trick and, also, I believe in divine providence. Right. I believe in divine providence. I believe that if it's supposed to happen and we're living our lives the way we're supposed to, it will happen, but convince the average person that, you know ‑‑ and don't bring in Newt Gingrich because I love the way nobody's saying this about Newt Gingrich. Just you. Convince the people that this is the right thing to do, for you to stay in and not start to unify the country behind one candidate.

SANTORUM: The best thing we can do right now is to nominate a conservative against Barack Obama. That's what we need to do. That's the best chance for us to win the election, No. 1. No. 2, the ‑‑

GLENN: Wait, wait. Explain that for anybody ‑‑ hang on just a second. Explain that again why you say that for anybody who just doesn't understand that.

SANTORUM: Well, one time in the last 100 years a Republican has defeated a Democratic incumbent, once, and most of the time when we've run against Democratic incumbents, we tried to run moderates because we had to win and, of course, we've only one won once, Ronald Reagan, when we provided that clear contrast and that's what we need in this election. You can't win this election unless you get your base and the people of our party, like in 2010, excited about who the nominee is and that the people who are in the middle, if you will, are ‑‑ can share that excitement and like the person they're voting for and relative to the person they're voting for. That's what happened with Reagan. He had a clear vision. He had someone who was out there who was ‑‑ they had trust in, that they could relate to and that's, you know ‑‑ unfortunately, you know, you look at Governor Romney and he's having troubles on all those fronts and Governor Romney ‑‑

GLENN: Excuse me. I have a lot of ‑‑

SANTORUM: Because he's overwhelmingly spending whoever he's running against. That's not going to happen in the general election

GLENN: You know, you can't say you can't relate to him. I'll have you know I have many friends who have $50 million houses who enjoy him he very much. (Laughter.) I have friends who own cars and car dealership and car companies and race teams that relate to him a great deal.

STU: It's one of those things where I feel like these cries of unify feel to me ‑‑ and let me know if you agree with this, Rick. Does it feel to you the same way as right now we're saying unify but it's unify around one. In 2008 the country said change but change to what? You can't just rally around the verb. You've got to ‑‑

PAT: And forget that the election in 2008 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went down to, what, June?

GLENN: June.

PAT: It was June and nasty and they were tearing each other up and they won

GLENN: And they were saying the same thing.

PAT: And they won and they were saying the exact same thing. So, tell people to shut up.

GLENN: The Drudge will report that as him snapping.

SANTORUM: We have to realize the shorter the race is, the better it is for the Republican party. Why? Because Obama's going to have the media and a huge money advantage and he will not be able to unleash that money advantage or the media on the nominee unless ‑‑ until we have a nominee and once we ‑‑ once a nominee is, quote, decided and if it's decided early, then Barack Obama has literally hundreds of millions of dollars he can start just pounding away at the Republican candidate and that Republican candidate is going to be shooting back with a pea shooter. We wait until the fall to have a nominee and we'll have all of our forces and all of their forces. Yeah, they'll be able to outspend us, but will be diminishing returns after awhile. There will be so much money concentrated in such a short period of time, in a sense, their money advantage is negated, their media advantage is negated. We want this election. We want this election to be short. We want it to be two months. We want it to be focused instead of a drawn out process where they can just destroy the Republican nominee over the course of the next five months.

STU: But, really, do you think you can do better than Joe Biden as a VP if you were to win?

SANTORUM: You know, I seem to do worse.

GLENN: (Laughter.)

PAT: No. I don't think he can.

GLENN: I wanted to really put some thought into that, but, no, I don't think you can. Thank you very much, Rick. Best of luck to you this weekend.

SANTORUM: Yes.

PAT: Going to win Louisiana tomorrow.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. You could help him do that by going to RickSantorum.com.

STU: Do you have to end every interview by giving his website?

GLENN: This is the worst. This is the worst.

PAT: Somebody has to. He didn't do it. So ‑‑

STU: It's true. He's not shilling for himself enough apparently

GLENN: It really bothered me when this individual came to me and said, you know, you do that. Isn't that the kind of stuff that we hate? Isn't that the kind of stuff that is bad, the back room deals?

STU: It does happen. Everybody knows that, but I feel like, A, it's someone who doesn't know you well enough to know that you would never do that and it also is someone who doesn't know Rick Santorum well enough because he's not going to listen to you or anybody else

GLENN: No.

STU: He's going to stay in the race as long as he feels like it's the right thing to do

GLENN: That's one reason I like him, because he did go down to court Puerto Rico and he did say that because it's consistent, that's what he believes, and so he said it. Even though it cost him the race, that's what he did.

STU: Yeah. You know, this is what sucks about primaries, because I like Mitt Romney. He seems like a nice guy. I think he's really smart. I think he does a lot of good thing. I like Rick Santorum. It's like everyone just gets in these fights where it's just constant everyone going back and forth.

GLENN: We're really not enemies.

STU: Not at all

GLENN: Although I think we've created some which is not necessarily ‑‑ but you know what? Rick can't be the President because we like him and there's just no way that we could have a President that actually likes us.

PAT: Now we're setting a new precedent here. This is a brand new precedent we're sitting

GLENN: We were at the airport yesterday and we were talking about the race and I just looked and Pat said, Romney will hate us by the time he would get into office. So, you know he's got to be the guy. He's just going to hate us with by that time.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.