Glenn interviews Bishop E.W. Jackson

Fans of TheBlaze will remember the video of Bishop E.W. Jackson calling for African Americans to end their slavish devotion to the the Democratic Party. Glenn interviewed Bishop Jackson on this morning's radio show.

Read the transcript of their interview below:

GLENN: Pat and I found a video that most people have not seen of a guy, a pastor in Virginia that is one of the biggest truth‑tellers I've ever seen, one of the bravest guys I've ever seen. I mean, and we were trying to put it in the machine and it's like, I don't know, ten minutes or something

PAT: It's pretty long, yeah, four or five at least.

GLENN: We tried to put it in the machine and we were just trying to put sound bites in it and we couldn't stop it because we were like, no, you can't stop it there. I mean, I hate to start playing it because it's so impossible to stop because you're like, oh, my gosh, somebody's actually saying that.

PAT: That's another great point.

GLENN: That's another great point, I can't believe this guy's saying it. Here's just a little bit of it.

VOICE: My name is bishop E. W. Jackson, chairman of Ministers Taking a Stand with a message to Christians in the black community. It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat Party. They have insulted us, used us, and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies. Unless we support the Democrat Party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed. They think we are stupid and that these lies will hold us captive, while they violate everything we believe as Christians. The Democrat Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so‑called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions. Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: And the Democrat Party and their black civil rights ‑‑

[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ].

GLENN: It's hard to stop because it just keeps going and going and going and he just takes them all apart. Bishop E. W. Jackson is with us now on the phone from Virginia. His website is standAmerica.us. Bishop, how are you, sir?

BISHOP JACKSON: I'm doing great, Glenn. And first of all, let me just say thank you for having me on and let me say that my wife and I and most of our friends are very big fans of yours and we want to express our gratitude for all that you have done to help wake this country up. God bless you for it. And also I want to bring you greetings from a mutual friend of yours, Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

BISHOP JACKSON: I told him I was going ton to be on. So he told me, well, don't mess up.

GLENN: He's a good man. Have we met before?

BISHOP JACKSON: No, we have not. I wanted to come to your ministers convention in D.C.

GLENN: Yes.

BISHOP JACKSON: And my schedule didn't permit it. So we have not had a chance to meet, no.

GLENN: Well, you are ‑‑ you must be despised by a great many some in the underworld.

BISHOP JACKSON: I've got a few detractors, yes.

GLENN: I bet you do.

PAT: You can't say the things you say and not just be vilified. I mean, because with, what is it right now? 94% of the African‑American populus being in favor of voting for this guy again, they've got to just tear you apart every time you say this kind of stuff.

GLENN: And it's not even about Barack Obama. It is about the progressive policies.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That have destroyed ‑‑ I mean, I can't believe Planned Parenthood ‑‑ bishop, how is Planned Parenthood not known in the African‑American community for exactly what it is and what it was, a death sentence to the black community. That's what it was designed to be.

PAT: Yeah, founded for that.

BISHOP JACKSON: And Glenn, that's why I intentionally did not mention Barack Obama explicitly in that tape because I was trying to help people to see ideas and get away from the personality and just look at what the principles are that they are following and how much they are in discordance with what people in the church community at least claim to believe. And frankly I mean, yeah, I just got finished reading an e‑mail just before coming on the program, one of those nasty e‑mails that you get calling me an Uncle Tom, saying that I'm an antigay hero, you know, this and that. But, you know, I'm getting a tremendously positive response from many in the black community and I think this may be the beginning of a fissure and the end of that slavish devotion as I referred to it to the Democrat Party.

GLENN: I tell you, I just read Booker T. Washington's book, Up From Slavery just recently in the last year. And between him and Frederick Douglass, every American but especially every black American should read Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass. These guys were amazing and they talked about this, as you called it, slavish devotion to a party or to the government and said exactly what would happen and it has all happened. And that's why I think so many real black heroes have been erased from history.

BISHOP JACKSON: And, you know, Glenn, that's one of the reasons why I will not be silent because I believe in humanity. I believe in people. I believe in members of the black community that they are full of potential and beauty and God‑given gifts. And what I see is a party and a progressive movement that is robbing them of their vision and robbing them of their dreams and their vision and I want to awaken them to the sense that, there's more for you than that. God has something more for you than that. Don't accept this dependence and this sort of sycophancy that says we'll give you a few crumbs, all you've got to do is ignore your bidding and ignore those principles you believe in because after all, if you don't those boogie men are out there and they are going to get you.

GLENN: That's what I want to ask you about because African‑Americans, if it wasn't for the African‑American and the Hispanic in California, Prop 8 would ‑‑ I mean would have ‑‑ would have gay marriage. You'd have gay marriage in California. And because people actually came out and said, "No, I don't believe in that, and they were the minorities, it failed. Now, tell me how do you get people to ‑‑ who are religious, who are decent people just completely to divorce themselves of those principles in the voting booth? Because it's like Harry Reid: I'm a Mormon; he's a Mormon. I don't understand, and I'm sure he doesn't understand me, but I don't understand how he can be for the things that he is and do some of the things that he does and still say that he's, you know, in good standing with the scriptures because it doesn't work.

BISHOP JACKSON: Well, you know, Glenn, there's a saying that I've heard among ministers: Some are called and some were sent and some just got up and went. And I think some of the people who claim to be Mormon or claim to be this or claim to be that, that's all they're doing. They're just claiming. It's a hit thing. It's something they inherited but they don't believe it or feel it in their hearts. But with the black community particularly, there are two things I think that have led to this. One is fear. They've been manipulated by fear. You know, the fear that they are going to get you, they're out there, they're out there to get. I mean, Glenn, you know, I have watched your program. I've had people say to me, "Well, somebody ‑‑ they told me that Glenn Beck is a racist." And then I started watching his program. I said, I want to see this guy, I want to see is he ‑‑ and then they started, "Well, you know, I didn't hear him say anything racist." And then I watched a little bit more and they said, "Well, wait a minute, where is that coming from?" It's a lie intended to manipulate people. And then the second thing is bad leadership. When you've got the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, some of these civil rights leaders who are interested in promoting racial division and hostility and a sense of victimization in order to further their own careers, then you get people listening to the wrong kind of leadership, and to me bad leadership produces bad results.

GLENN: Do you feel ‑‑ first of all, I may ‑‑ I have firm reliance on the protection of divine providence. I don't believe that God is neutral in the affairs of man or the freedom of man, and if America falls, the whole world falls. I mean, there's nobody to stand for freedom.

BISHOP JACKSON: I agree.

GLENN: And it will be for gen ‑‑ it will be generational darkness. And I have had an overwhelming sense that His will will be done and that there are enough people that are standing up that are good, that are ‑‑ actually I shouldn't say standing up. Are humbling themselves to not have God on their side, which he doesn't do, but to be ‑‑ for us to move to be on his side. And I think there's ‑‑ I think we're on the threshold of miracles and profound change. Do you feel that way?

BISHOP JACKSON: Glenn, to me that is the genius of America. It is not just our Constitution or Declaration. It's the sense that we are not a mere historical happenstance but we are a providential nation, that the favor of God has been on us.

GLENN: If we're humble. If we're humble.

BISHOP JACKSON: That's right. That's right. And, of course, there are people who want to end that. They want to do ‑‑ you know, we saw it in the Democrat Party's convention, you know, get God out of the platform. Who needs God. And you're right, I do sense an awakening happening in America. It's slow, but I speak in black churches and white churches and in black churches particularly where people might not expect it, I get an overwhelmingly positive response. I've had people come up to me and say, you know, you woke me up. And here again, I think it's God moving. I don't think it's attributable to me as a person but rather to God moving on people's hearts and saying, okay, there are enough of you standing up; I'm going to move in your behalf and I agree with you, Glenn. I think God is going to do some marvelous things to help bring this nation back to Him.

GLENN: So how do we heal the division? Because I think we're at the beginning of real problems. The president just said it on Univision a couple of weeks ago. He said I realize you can't change Washington from the inside. You have to change it from the outside. And they are only good, really these guys are only really good at stirring up trouble and being the dissent. They are not good at governing. They are good at tearing things apart and causing division. How do we as people bring people together and when you've got the media and everybody else saying what they say about us and Mitt Romney and you and everybody else, how do we break that and bring people together?

BISHOP JACKSON: Well, obviously a lot of prayer. And I know you're a man who believes in prayer. And secondly I would say to people, when I speak to groups and they say, well, how do I bridge that gap? I know black people ‑‑ I'm white, I know black people but I'm afraid to approach them. And I said, you know, it needs to be on a very personal level and say, look, you know me. We've known ‑‑ do you think I'm against you? Do you think I want to hurt you? Do you think I'm out to get you? Can you at least concede that I have ideals and principles that matter to me, that have nothing to do with race? I love you. I care about you. I'm interested in you. And I think my view is that the people whose hearts are open to truth will respond.

Now, there are some people, as I'm sure you know, I don't care what you do. You're never going to reach them.

GLENN: Never going to reach them.

BISHOP JACKSON: They are hardened in their views. But I find a lot of Americans' hearts are very open.

GLENN: What is going to happen in Virginia?

BISHOP JACKSON: That's a good question. I believe that Mitt Romney is going to win and I'm working very hard to see to it that that happens and I believe that George Allen who is running against Tim Kaine, of course Tim Kaine is an Obama clone, an Obama, he was actually recruited by Obama to run. I believe that George Allen will prevail over him, although Mitt Romney is doing better right now than George Allen is, but I trust that we will end up having Mitt Romney win in Virginia and having George Allen win in Virginia. So that's my take.

GLENN: Do you think that people need a leader to be able to ‑‑ you know, for instance, the Tea Party doesn't have a leader and it just became this spontaneous movement. Do you think people need a leader in the black community to see? I mean, because they must know that things have gotten much worse for the African‑American in the last four years, and I just read a study that shows that African‑Americans feel as though it is harder for them to speak out now and be who they want to be than when it was ‑‑ than what it was before the president got into office. And I think when it comes to race, I think we all feel that way. He was supposed to heal us. He did the opposite. I am much less likely to feel comfortable speaking to an African‑American or an African‑American group because of all the things that have been said that people like me believe, et cetera, et cetera. And I think there are a lot of African‑Americans that will say I ‑‑ especially if they're conservative, "I don't feel comfortable speaking out and saying anything because my own community will attack me he or the system will attack me." At what point does that just break down? Because in the white community I think people are just like, "Oh, I'm a racist? Really? Move on. Heard it before. It's not who I am." At what point does that break?

BISHOP JACKSON: Yeah, I had the same hope, Glenn, but how can a good ‑‑ how can a bad tree bear good fruit? And I realize that was probably a quixotic hope. But with regard to leadership, no, I don't think that the black community needs a leader, but I do think there is always a need for leadership. I mean, you know, you provide leadership. Because for me leadership is influence. It is simply trying to open people up to the truth and trying to help them see. If not trying to control them or make decisions for them but trying to expose them to the truth and trying to be a positive influencer. And I think that those, that kind of leadership is always needed. It's there, but I think people have been cowed into not speaking up. And I'm hoping that one of the influences that my video and other things that we're doing has is to cause people to say, "You know what? I'm going to stand up. I'm going to speak up. I agree with Bishop Jackson. I'm not going to be silent about this and I'll let God take care of me."

GLENN: Well, bishop, I hope we get a chance to meet soon. I am ‑‑ from what I know of you, I'm very impressed. I know you have a new book coming out soon. Right? You have a new one coming?

BISHOP JACKSON: Yes, I do. Called America The Beautiful: Reflections of a Patriot Descended from Slaves, yes.

GLENN: Are you from slave family?

BISHOP JACKSON: As a matter of fact, yes, my great‑grandparents Gabriel and Eliza Jackson were slaves and then share croppers in Orange County, Virginia. I date my lineage back at least as far as year before George Washington was born. We believe it goes back before that.

GLENN: Wow.

BISHOP JACKSON: By the way, George Washington is my favorite president, just wanted you to know. I read the book you recommended. That was the second biography I read about him. I love George Washington. But at any rate, yes, yes, my ‑‑ I am a direct descendant. My grandfather was not born in slavery but his parents were and they moved out of Virginia. My grandfather did and ultimately migrated to Pennsylvania where I was born. But yes. And look, and I tell people, you know, I'm proud of that because only in America do we have a country built on the truth that God gave us all humanity the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. So the seed of the destruction of slavery unlike any place else on the Earth was built into our founding framework.

GLENN: You, sir, are a ‑‑ you, sir, are a bright spot, I can guarantee you, on the other side of the veil. Your slave ancestors are saying free at last, free at last. You are a remarkable story and a ‑‑ one of the freest men I know. God bless you. Thank you very much.

BISHOP JACKSON: God bless you, Glenn. Thank you.

GLENN: We'll talk to you. His website is standAmerica.us. StandAmerica.us. Bishop Jackson.

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.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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.