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

Senator Mike Lee: "Tell them to fund the government, not Obamacare"

July 25, 2013
Wilson

Writer

This morning on radio, Senator Mike Lee joined the program to talk to Glenn about the growing effort in the Senate to block any continuing resolutions that will fund Obamacare. According to Senator Lee, and the Senators standing with him, this could be the last chance to stop the unpopular law from fundamentally changing the country and the role of government in our daily lives forever. Senator Lee believe that the reason he and so many others were elected to office in 2010 was in direct response to the passing of the health care law. If they don't stop it, they've failed, so he says it's their responsibility to try.

If the American people understand what's on the table, Senator Lee thinks there is a real chance of success. Will the American people take action to stop Congress from passing any continuing resolutions that will fund Obamacare? Watch the full interview above or read the transcript below to see what the Senator says you can do to get involved and help stop funding for Obamacare.

Full Transcript:

GLENN: let's go to Senator Mike Lee who is on with us.  He has ‑‑ he and Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, among others, have put together a movement that really does need to become a movement, and I'm asking the TEA Parties, I'm asking the churches, I'm asking the 9/12 project, I'm asking anyone within the sound of my voice to get involved and lead this.  This has to be a movement.  By September 30th, the Senate has to be convinced.  41 Republicans ‑‑ or 41 senators need to be convinced to defund the president's healthcare.  This is coming in a continuing resolution.  Harry Reid is going to say the Republicans are trying to shut down the government, et cetera, et cetera.  Not true.  It's not even trying to ‑‑ in my view not even trying to shut down universal healthcare but trying to make sure that the Constitution and our system is protected.  The president is picking and choosing what parts of laws now to enforce.  He can't do that.  This was passed as a package in a certain way.  It's falling apart, so he's saying without congress, "Well, I'm only going to do this part and this part."  Well, that's not what the law ‑‑ that's not how it works.  And Senator Lee is making this case, but he needs you to call your senator and get involved.  And Mike Lee is here to talk to us about it just a little bit.

 

Mike? 

 

LEE:  It's good to be with you, Glenn.  Thank you very much. 

 

GLENN:  Did I ‑‑ am I miscasting this at all? 

 

LEE:  No, no.  That was perfect.  I mean, look.  We were elected, a whole bunch of Republicans, to the House and to the Senate in 2010 with one very simple mandate:  Get rid of ObamaCare.  Stop it.  And since we took office, we've passed CR after CR that continued to fund ObamaCare.  I understand why that happened, even though I didn't vote for those.  You know, a lot of people thought the Supreme Court would strike down ObamaCare.  It didn't.  A lot of people thought we would elect a Republican president and he would stop ObamaCare; that didn't happen, either.  We've got one last shot.  This is the final stop on the ObamaCare Express Train before these things kick in on January 1st.  We've got to defund it, we've got to defund it now.  We've got to have all Republicans who purport to be against ObamaCare to say that they will draw a line in the sand they will not cross and that line is they are not going to fund ObamaCare. 

 

GLENN:  I was talking to a senator the other day, and he told me that the Republicans are worse than you think, Glenn.  He said they're doing the same old thing and what one Republican suggested in, I guess your meetings or whatever, what one of these guys suggested was that they just pass a nonbinding resolution to stand against universal healthcare and said, just do that because the president is just going to continue to fight.  He'll die on his sword on this one.  We've got to give up because he never will. 

 

LEE:  That's right.  And that would make the Republicans in congress much like the unarmed English bobby who upon seeing the commission of a crime yells "Stop or I'll yell stop again."  We've become totally Feckless and we can't law that to happen.  That would be devastating to the Republican Party, to the conservative cause and to the country as a whole. 

 

GLENN:  You said, Mike, when I first talked to you, somebody had told me that you were going to run, and I didn't know you and I said "I want to talk to him."  And I called you and you pulled your car off to the side of the road.  You and your wife were driving in through a canyon and you were going to lose the phone connection.  And I asked you a pretty pointed question about how was your soul, and you answered in the right way.  And then we started ‑‑ I said, what do you know about the Constitution?  And you started talking to me about how you were raised on the Constitution.  And it sounded to me like you were brought up for this time or times like these to protect the Constitution.  Forget about ObamaCare here for a second and tell me a little bit about the Constitution and why, why this has to be stopped because, do you believe at all that it is going to put the final nail in the coffin of congress or in the Senate to where the president doesn't need approval, doesn't even really need to go to you guys; he can just interpret laws the way he wants? 

 

LEE:  Yes.  That's a big problem.  So this strikes at the heart of two very big problems in our republic.  One is the problem of federalism being ignored.  Federalism refers to the fact that most of the power under the Constitution is supposed to be retained by the people, to be exercised locally and at the state level.  Only a few powers are supposed to go to the federal government, and the power to tell us where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it and that we have to buy a certain kind of health insurance is not among them.

 

The other part of that power, separation of powers that you were just referring to, the laws are supposed to be made by congress, not by the court which rewrote ObamaCare twice in order to uphold it after finding that it was unconstitutional as written, and not in the president, who has now amended ObamaCare twice, once in saying individuals have to comply with the law during the first year but employers don't.  And then it's saying we're not even going to require people to prove their income based on their eligibility, in order to establish their eligibility for ObamaCare subsidies.  And so this really is about the Constitution, Glenn.  It's not just about a single policy.  This is about the protection of an institution that has made this the greatest civilization the world has ever known.  This document was put here to make men and women free.  It was written by wise men who I think were raised up for that very purpose, to establish and protect freedom.  This is being threatened actively by our president and we as Republicans will be complicit if we vote to fund ObamaCare yet again before it kicks in. 

 

GLENN:  Okay.  Mike, the American people are tired, they don't believe most people in congress, they don't believe their voice makes a difference, they've marched, they've talked, they've done all kinds of things.  Somebody's calling Pat the right now to say, hey, I'm ‑‑ I'm part of that.  Some of us would turn our phone off in a broadcast, but ‑‑

 

PAT:  Some of us probably thought it was. 

 

GLENN:  That would only be one of us.  Anyway, so the people are tired and they think ‑‑

 

PAT:  That's not mine.  That's not mine! 

 

STU:  That was Glenn's the whole time? 

 

GLENN:  I don't own a phone.  I don't own a phone.  So it's not mine. 

 

PAT:  I just threw mine out. 

 

GLENN:  No, you didn't.

 

PAT:  Oh, no, I didn't. 

 

GLENN:  It's right there.

 

PAT:  There it is. 

 

GLENN:  Oh, it is yours! 

 

LEE:  What do you mean you don't own a phone?  You rent with an option to buy? 

 

GLENN:  I don't carry a cellphone.  Anyway, the thing that I wanted to have you address is people don't believe that you guys ‑‑ and I'm not saying you, but many in the congress and in the Senate are not serious, that this is some sort of, you know, nonbinding resolution, that their voice won't make a difference, et cetera, et cetera.  Please address to the people what you think they need to do and why this time it will make a difference and this time it is imperative that you do it. 

 

LEE:  Okay.  This time it will make a difference because the people can express in clear unequivocal terms that they understand Republicans in congress are in one of two camps:  Those who are for ObamaCare and those who are against it.  If they really are against it as basically all Republicans in congress claim to be, then they must indicate that they are against it by agreeing that they will not vote to fund ObamaCare.  They won't vote for any continuing resolution that contains money for further enforcement and implementation of ObamaCare.

 

There are a couple of ways you can get that message across:  First, call your senators and call your congressmen and tell them in those very simple terms "Don't vote for any CR that contains ObamaCare funding." 

 

GLENN:  CR is continuing resolution? 

 

LEE:  Continuing resolution.  Don't vote for any funding mechanism that contains ObamaCare funding.  Number two, you can sign a petition that we've got going on my website, Lee.Senate.gov.  Go to Lee.Senate.gov, and click on the link that says "Don't fund it."  You click on that link, you can sign a petition.  You can sign up with a letter that I've written that I'm having other senators sign.  You can join that same letter telling Harry Reid that we don't want any funding mechanism to fund ObamaCare. 

 

GLENN:  And you think Harry Reid ‑‑ I mean, let me just play this out.  Harry Reid is going to with the president say they are going to try to stop congress, they are going to shut down the government.  These Republicans are out to destroy the government.  They want to shut it all down."  That's what they'll do. 

 

LEE:  Sure.  Maybe that's where they will go because that's where their political instincts and their reflexes tell them to go.  They are so used to saying that, it just comes out naturally.  But the reason that this petition is so important at Lee.Senate.gov and these phone calls are so important is because once he sees that that's where the people are and that's where their elected representatives are, he will see that it's going to have to be him.  It's not us trying to do that.  We don't want a government shutdown.  We shouldn't have a government shutdown.  We want to avoid that.  And what we're saying is if he wants a government shutdown simply because he so badly wants to push through the implementation of a law that is so bad for the American people that makes health insurance costs go way up that's made fundamentally unfair because corporations don't have to comply with it but individuals do, once he sees that, he will realize he's going to have to shut down the government and I don't think he can do that, not for a law that's this unstable, that's this unpopular. 

 

GLENN:  Mike, I appreciate it, and I appreciate the stance that you and a handful of senators are making.  You need 41 from either side to stand with you? 

 

LEE:  Yeah, we need 41 senators to stand with us on this.  And I don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats, but we need 41 senators who are willing to say we're not going to vote for are any continuing resolution or other appropriations bill that contains ObamaCare funding.  In other words, the message is fund the government, not ObamaCare.  That's what we want to do.  That's what our movement is about. 

 

GLENN:  How bad is the pressure on both sides? 

 

LEE:  Well, it's intense.  It's intense.  You know, already you've got Democrats, the White House and Democrats in the Senate accusing us of going where they themselves would take us according to their words, and you've got a lot of Republicans who don't agree with the strategy so far.  But I think once they think about it, once they realize what we were sent here to do, I hope and expect that a lot of Republicans will decide to join onto this effort because it's what the American people demand and it's what the country needs. 

 

GLENN:  Well, Mike, I've talked to many senators and many congressmen in the last couple of weeks and I have never seen their concern as great as it is right now and I think we are ‑‑ we're at the end of the road.  Our Constitution hangs in the balance unlike it ever has before.  I would think that you would agree with me on that. 

 

LEE:  I do. 

 

GLENN:  And this is it.  And by September 30th, this really could be it.  This could be it. 

 

LEE:  That's right.  And we've got to help people understand that so that we can resist the impulse that Republicans in congress seem to have.  It's almost an epidemic, Glenn.  The impulse is always "Let's live to fight another day."  Better said, it would be let's live another day so that we cannot fight another day and say live to fight another day.  This is the fight, and if we give up on this fight, the reason this is so important is that I think Republicans will lose power if we don't do this because the people will look at it and say, "Look, there's no difference anyway.  Why should we trust those guys to power when they promised to take power and stuff off ObamaCare and then all they do are make symbolic votes in that direction." 

 

PAT:  Now, Mike, are you guys prepared to stand up and defend this when you are accused of trying to shut down the government?  "That's all these people want to do is they're anti‑government and that's all they want to do is shut down the government," who's going to step forward when that begins and fight for this thing? 

 

LEE:  Well, we're already facing that right now and so this is nothing new to us.  People are already saying that.  And our response is this is not about a government shutdown.  We don't want that, we don't need that, we're trying to protect against that. 

 

PAT:  Yeah

 

LEE:  We're saying you can protect against that if only you will fund government, not ObamaCare.  That's what we want, that's what we demand, that's what the American people are going to demand and I invite all within the sound of my voice to join me in this effort, contact their senators and congressmen.  Tell them to fund government, not ObamaCare. 

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.