Mark Levin explains why we now live in ‘post-Constitutional’ society

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke to fellow conservative author and radio personality Mark Levin about his latest book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Much like Glenn, Mark has been making the case that the principles and values that founded this nation have unraveled. In his new book, Mark provides a thorough look at the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the language of the Constitution itself to put forth a plan to restore the American Republic.

Today’s radio interview marked the first time Glenn and Mark had ever spoken, and they quickly found that they agree on a lot of things – mainly, there is an ever-growing need to restore America.

“Tell me about the amendments because first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our Constitution and how much we have been changed in the last hundred years,” Glenn said. “People don't even understand the czars are not Constitutional and everything that has happened. You're calling for a Constitutional Convention.”

“We live in what I call a ‘post-Constitutional' period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they won. They did win and this utopian statism and Constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist,” Mark explained. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking… So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.”

“And the Framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution, should the federal government become oppressive. And that's George Mason's own words from the Constitutional Convention,” he continued. “And two days before the end of at that Convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said: ‘Look, what if Congress becomes oppressive? What if this new government becomes oppressive? Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix themselves.’ And so, he insisted that the states have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states – still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture, and you do and I do, and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, ‘I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it.’ No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.”

With that idea in mind, Glenn and Mark went on to discuss the practicality and ramifications of undertaking such a movement.

“Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional Convention. We talked about it for years, and Pat said, ‘No, no, no,’” Glenn concluded. “I think there's something to this case. And I think Mark just made that case.”

Watch the entire interview below:

Read a rough transcript below:

GLENN: In this last week, we have seen in Texas, and in South Carolina, the Constitution being taught in textbooks in ways that you don't even recognize the Constitution anymore. Being taught in, in ways that make the Second Amendment really only four militias and if you're trying to stop the quartering the soldiers in your home, only at peace time it's really amazing what's going on and it is prompted me this week, to say to you that I don't, I don't think you are losing your country. I think you've lost your country. I think we've lost at least one generation, perhaps two. And if we don't start immediately restoring the information and putting things back we're not going to make it.

Mark Levin is a talk show host who has the number one non fiction book now for three straight weeks. And it is called The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Mark how are you sir?

MARK LEVIN: I'm good nice to meet you. How are you?

GLENN: Nice to meet you I was trying to, I asked this morning if we had ever met or even spoke to each other I don't think we ever have?

MARK LEVIN: We have never.

GLENN: Well, I'm glad to have you on the program.

MARK LEVIN: And I want your audience to know you sent me a very kind letter. And you're a patriot and you're fighting like hell and this is very, very important.

GLENN: Tell me about the amendments because you have at first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our constitution and how much we have been changed in the last, in the last hundred years people don't even understand the czars are not constitutional and everything that is, has happened. You're calling for a constitutional convention.

MARK LEVIN: We live what I call a post-constitutional period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they

won. They did win and this utopian statism and constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. People think I'm prone. I can go to of movies, I can go bowling I can get my IPhone. That's not what we're talking about. You're not free to pick your toilet. You're not free to pick your light bulb, yet you're free to pick your rulers. This doesn't make any sense. And we have this pubic by at this time all powerful central government the federal government that exists today is not in the Constitution. So I start with that premise. And I start with the premise that the Supreme Court is constantly rewriting Constitution as is the President and Congress and this massive fourth branch the Government. This administrative state that's not even in the Constitution. So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.

And so, the framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution. Should the federal government become oppressive and that's George Mason's own words that the Constitutional convention. And two days before the end of at that convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said, look, what if Congress becomes oppressive. What if this new government becomes oppressive. Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix itself. And so, he insisted that the States have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states. Still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture and you do and I do and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it. No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Are you talking about a constitutional convention because, I have heard people talk about a constitutional convention before.

MARK LEVIN: No.

GLENN: And that is a frightening prospect. You're talking about something entirely different.

MARK LEVIN: First of all, the Constitution doesn't talk about a constitutional convention. The article five talks about a convention of the states to propose amendments. There can't be a constitutional convention. The language that the framers in Philadelphia wrote, was two methods for amending the Constitution one led by Congress, the other led by the states. Either we believe in federalism or we don't. They did. It's the states legislatures in particular. Not the governor, not the Court, the states legislatures.

GLENN: Do we need, how many dates do we need and do they all have to show up can one state start it and say, this is what we, this is what we propose we do. And then they try to sell it to other states.

MARK LEVIN: That's the way it would work. I mean, they're not going to say, hey, guys let's have a convention and amend the Constitution. No, states are going to start, what used to happen is states would have meetings. That's what they meant by convention. And they would talk and they try and work out their differences and they come up with agreements. And then they would sends them back to the states for approval. The Constitutional convention, itself, in 1787, people wrongly state, you know they were there to amend the articles of confederation. Well I looked at the, at the commissions and that's what they recalled. That were given the delegates to the Constitutional convention and they were not there ten out of the 12 states to amend the Articles of Confederation. They were there to draft a constitution.

And so, people attack our constitution as some kind of bastardized process. There wasn't a bastardized process. And as you know Rhode Island didn't even send delegates to the convention. So, what we're talking about here, the language is limiting within article five. But we're talking about here I a convention of the states for proposing amendments and still requiring three-fourths of the states to ratify. What the --

GLENN: What's the most, where would you say you start?

MARK LEVIN: In terms of the amendment.

GLENN: That you could win? And that are you saying that you do all of them? Or are you saying we start with one and get that passed and then do another? How does this work, Mark?

MARK LEVIN: The way it works is, that the state Legislature would decide how many one, 10, three, subjects will be raised at this convention. The state legislatures picked the delegates, as many as they want. Each state gets a vote. We know this from past practice. One vote. Each state. At the, at this convention. And they can bring up multiple subjects. They can bring up one subject. The State legislatures can withdraw their delegates this their delegates are out of control and the states in the end, three-fourths of them have to decide if what comes out of this convention is acceptable or not.

GLENN: I see, I mean, the things that you spell out in the book, I happen to agree with. Term limits on Congress. Term limits the Supreme Court. The super majority can override the Supreme Court rulings. Make the U.S. senate a voice for the States again. Amen. However, you and I both know, the game that we have all been duped to some level or another, the people we thought were on our side, are not really on our side. The GOP is a nightmare. And perhaps a bigger nightmare than the Democrats, because they are, their people are awake, their people that support them are saying, no, we are electing you to do these things. And then they go in and say they're going to do them but for instance, you know, the universal health care they voted 41 times against this they say. They're not going to defund it.

MARK LEVIN: No they're not. And that's why this is the recourse. Because it by passes Congress. It by passes the GOP establishment. It bypasses the Supreme Court, the President, the bureaucracy. This is completely bottom up. The people working with state delegates and state senators, it's states legislatures.

Let's me tell you this, Glenn. In this system doesn't work,we're done. That means it's over. Because the top down system, the Progressives placed in the Constitution, with a centralized authoritarian ubiquitous government. We can't get anywhere with that. We can argue, we can win an election here and there, we may get arrested for four years or eight years.

GLENN: No, if you think Mitt Romney, I was not for Mitt Romney. He was my last choice. And I'll never go down the GOP road again I'll never do it again I'm not going to listen to that argument ever, ever, ever again. And if you think that Mitt Romney would not have been going into Syria and making a similar case, I mean he was making it during the election.

GLENN: So what do we do about it?

MARK LEVIN: Well, you a, don't go down the party road and you don't listen to the GOP anymore. And I think one of the things we do, is we look at the framers. And the framers said, this sort of thing likely to happen. George Mason said it's going to happen. And he said there has to be a way out. And the way out that they provide us with, that's for some reason people fear the State legislatures. Look, I know there's dark blue states out there. There's all over the place. I don't believe in static economics and I don't believe in static politics. Things get worse and they are going to get bad. Because you can see what their fighting over. They're fighting over crumbs in Washington this government almost wrote the way it operates now, it keeps moving in one direction. At some point in some way they have spent a hundred years or more driving us over the cliff. We need to spend, 20, 25 years, some period of time, trying the process with the framers gave us. Use th Constitution to save the Constitution.

PAT: Mark, once of the arguments against the convention route has always been once you open it up you open it up to everything and they can change things like, maybe they make that, maybe they try to make the Second Amendment about militias only and not the rights of the individual. So, how do you, how do you address that concern, do you just believe that you wouldn't get 37 states to, to adopt that amendment?

MARK LEVIN: In advance, the states have to decide what the subject matter is, where they're going to go with it. I don't believe there's going to be two-thirds of the State that say, states legislatures that say let's abolish the second amount amendment. But if they do, it's over. In other words, where do we go? If that's the position of the federal government, and the position of a super majority of the State governments, it's over, isn't it?

PAT: Yeah, it would be.

MARK LEVIN: Bottom line is, if the people want to surrender to tyranny. It's over either way. If you want to surrender to tyranny, then it's tyranny they get.

GLENN: You're making a very good case here, Mark. I'm really at that points to where look if this is what you want, I'm never going to make a part of it. I'm not going do go, I won't play your game. I would go on my dying breath fight for freedom as I understand it and fighting for the Constitution of the United States of America. And I will instill it in my children. But if that's what you want to do, just let's be open and honest about it. That's what you want, that's what you're voting for, good. Go for it. Take it.

MARK LEVIN: But the thing is, the reason the left has never gone through this approach, never, and the reason they would fight this approach, is they are getting damn near everything they want tomorrow down. They've not going to wants to work bottom up. And let's keep something in mind. There are tens of millions of us who still love this country. Who still love the Constitution. Who still revere our heritage. And we're looking for ways to deal with this. And we can keep beating our heads against the wall, elect more Republicans. Well, we had six years of Bush in the House and senate and other than Obama, it was the profligate out of control periods in federal recent federal history. So we can do that. But.

GLENN: Look at all the people in the house. They have the chance to stop the universal health care. They have the chance to stop it right now. And they're not doing it. And those are Republicans.

MARK LEVIN: I'm with you, that's why I wrote this book. I'm with you.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK LEVIN: What I'm saying is, look, here's the thing. People aren't perfect, our institutions aren't perfect. There's no absolute 100% foolproof system or proposal that can be made. Countries are not guaranteed perpetual existence. They are just not. When people say what can we do, what can we do. I rack my brain and I do what I usually do. I go back and look at our founding and I look at our history and even before then. And the framers, even though they set up this magnificent constitution, they were concerned that if would be breached. If you don't have people of virtue in these positions then you have what, over tyranny. So, this, this is the approach that they left us. I just thought it was time to remind people about it. To make the case for it. I mean -- I hear all the mights. I hear, you know, the convention can be hijacked. Hhjacked by whom. They're not going to get three-fourths of the states to abolish the Second Amendment. And as I said, if we do it's over we have to look somewhere else I guess, but that's not going to happen. Because the Legislatures decide who the delegates are. They can pull them back. And you'll always can have 13 states stop anything. Stop anything. If we can't find 13 states to stop something, do you know right now,13 states can't stop the Supreme Court. They can't stop Congress. They can't stop an imperial president. In other words, it's not like we have this magnificent constitution that's being complied with. We don't. It's not being complied with. So, what's the alternative? If somebody else has another plan, I would love to see it.

GLENN: Mark, I have to tell you, there's, I think people expect that everybody's going to come up with the answer and, and you know, people I get people yelling at me all the time. Why are you doing this, why are you doing that. Well, because I play my role in the -- I don't have all the answers. I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a attorney. I know my role. And my role is to try to effect the culture. That's where I am headed and that I think is an important piece. But we all have to understand that we each play a different role. Each of us. And you know, just like the founders, I mean, I am always, I'm always amazed at how Thomas Payne and George Washington, got together and if it wasn't for those two men, each of them, coming with their own special talents, the American experiment would've never happened. Never happened.

And yet, they died hating each other. And one's an atheist and one reveres God. They couldn't be two more different. Men that there were there. And you look at Sam Adams and, I mean all of them. Each of us play a role and I have to thank you for playing your role. Really, really good case. Really good case. And maybe you're onto the answer. Somebody needs to figure out how to fix Washington. And I certainly don't know how the hell to do it because it's a mess. Good job.

MARK LEVIN: Well thanks, Glenn. I don't know that I have the answer. I'm just trying to remind people what the framers argued for and it's certainly worth taking a look I think God bless you and your staff there.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mark Levin, the Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. I am so busy reading other books right now, on other topics, but I don't know if that wasn't a case to read this book, I don't know what is. Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional convention. We talked about it for years and Pat said, no, no, no. I think there's something to this case. And I think, I think Mark just made that case. It's the Liberty Amendments. Restoring the American Republic available everywhere books are sold.

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.