The true history of the Republican Party

As promised, this morning on radio, Glenn revealed the true history of the Republican party in relation to the Civil Rights Movement. Glenn used an article from Gateway Pundit entitled "ON MLK Jr Day-Here's the realy history of the US Civil Rights Movement You Won't Read About" by Jim Hoft as one of his main sources doing his on-air history lesson.

During the program, Glenn pointed out that he is not a member of the Republican party, saying "I'm not here as a Republican shill...They've lost their way. But let's get history right."

Why is the history of a political party so important? Who cares if someone labels themself a Democrat or a Republican, right? As Glenn said, "Why are we having to explain ourselves?" Because, it was the Republican party that fought for the Civil Rights movement and the right to vote. As Glenn said: "we have to stand up for ourselves...enough is enough...Here's who we are! Here's who you are. Why are we defending our record? Our record is fine...We should be putting them [Democrats] on the offense and asking them to explain their record...in every city that they have destroyed."

Watch some of the facts and Glenn's powerful argument below. A full transcript has been provided so you can have all the facts, as well as, the link to the original article at Gateway Pundit.

Rough Transcript Below:

GLENN: The left is rejecting Bruce Jenner because he has said he is a Republican. And the Republicans are the ones that have always been the sticks in the mud. The Republicans are the ones that have the problems. They're the racists. They're the haters. I just want to go through history. And I want to take you -- I want to take you from 18 -- 1862 to 1870. 1871.

And I just want to -- I want to show you the roots of the Republican Party. What was -- why -- who was the first Republican president?

Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party started in the 1850s. It gathered steam because there was enough -- listen to this. There were enough Whigs and enough Democrats that afternoon that what was happening with slaves was wrong. And they knew the Whigs and the Democrats wouldn't do anything. Congress was just stalled on it and wouldn't do anything. Does this sound familiar? Finally on both sides, they said enough is enough. And within a decade, they had nominated and elected the first Republican president of the United States. Abraham Lincoln. And had you seen him? Not an easy election.

January 1st, 1863, the Emancipation Proclamation has been issued in 1862. January 1, 1863, it starts. And they begin to implement the Republicans Confiscation Act of 1862. The Democratic party continues to support slavery. February 9th, 1864, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to US Senate supporting -- when you think -- when you hear those two names. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton, which party do you think of? It's women's rights. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to the U.S. Senate supporting the Republican plan for the constitutional amendment to ban slavery.

June 15, 1864, Republican Congress votes for equal pay for African-American troops serving in the U.S. Army. June 28, 1864, Republican majority in Congress repeals the Fugitive Slave Act. October 29, 1864, African-Americans abolitionist, Sojourner HEP Truth says to President Lincoln, I was never treated by anyone with more kindness than he has shown me. January 31st, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery passed the US House with unanimous Republican support and intense Democratic opposition.

The Republican support, 100 percent. The Democratic party support, 23 percent.

That's to ban slavery.

March 3rd, 1865, Republican Congress establish Free Men's Bureau to provide healthcare, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves. That's the Republican Congress.

April 8th, 1865, Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery passed by the US Senate. Republican support, 100 percent. Democrat support, 37 percent.

June 19th -- on June Teenth, US troops land in Galveston, Texas, to enforce a ban on slavery that has been declared for more than two years by the Emancipation Proclamation.

November 22nd, 1865, Republicans denounce Democratic legislature of Mississippi for enacting black codes, which institutionalized racial discrimination. 1866, Republican Party passes the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the rights -- did you even know there was one?

The Republican Party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the rights of newly freed slaves.

December 6th, 1865, the Republican party's Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery is ratified.

1865, the KKK launches as a, quote, terrorist arm, end quote, of the Democratic party.

PAT: Of the what party?

GLENN: The Democratic party. The Klan.

PAT: Wait. The KKK.

STU: You mean the Tea Party? You said Democratic party. I think you meant Tea Party.

GLENN: Democratic party.

February 5th, 1866, US representative Thaddeus HEP Stevens, Republican from Pennsylvania, introduces legislation successfully opposed by Democratic President Andrew Johnson to implement forty acres at a mule relief by distributing land to former slaves. Stopped by the Democrats.

April 9th, 1866, Republican Congress overrides Democratic President Johnson's veto, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, and it becomes law. The Democratic president vetoed the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans stood when they knew what they were all about.

April 19th, 1866, thousands assembled in Washington, DC, to celebrate Republican party's abolition of slavery. May 10th, 1866, US House passes Republican's Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteed due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens. 100 percent of the Democrats vote no.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: I am not a fan of the Republican Party. I'm not here as a Republican shill. I don't like them. I'm not a member of the Republican Party. They've lost their way. But let's get history right.

June 8th -- sorry, July 16th, 1866. Republican Congress overrides Democratic President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Free Men's Bureau Act, which protects former slaves from black codes denying their rights.

July 28th, 1866, Republican Congress authorized formation of the buffalo soldiers. Yes, the buffalo soldiers, two regiments of African-American's calvary men.

July 30th, 1866, Democratic controlled city of New Orleans orders police to storm racially integrated Republican meetings. The raid kills 40. Wounds more than 150.

January 8th, 1867, Republicans override Democratic President Johnson's veto of a law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19th, 1867, Republican Congress overrides the veto of legislation protecting the voting rights of all African-Americans.

March 30th, 1868, Republicans being impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson who declared, this country is for white men. And by God as long as I'm president, it shall be a government of white men.

You never learn that. When we had the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, they always talked about Johnson, but they never taught us this part of history, did they? Ever heard that quote?

PAT: No.

GLENN: You know why? He was a Democrat. May 20th, 1868, Republican National Convention marks the debut of an African-American politician. In fact, many. Two of them, Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris attended as delegates and several serve as presidential electors.

1868, July 9, Fourteenth Amendment passes and recognizes newly freed slaves as US citizens. The Republican Party support, 94 percent. Democratic support, zero.

September 3rd, 1868, twenty-five African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans expelled by Democratic majority. Later reinstated by Republican Congress.

September 12th, 1868, civil rights activist, Tunist Cambell HEP and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by a Democratic majority. They were later reinstated by a Republican Congress.

September 28th, 1868, Democrats in Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor. We're coming back to this one.

October 7, 1868, Republicans denounce Democratic Party's national campaign theme. The Democratic Party's national campaign theme in 1868. Do you know what it was?

This is a white man's country, let white men rule. We're the Democratic Party.

PAT: Jeez. Wow.

GLENN: October 22, 1868, while campaigning for reelection, Republican James Hines HEP is assassinated by Democratic terrorists who were organized as the KKK.

November 3rd, 1868, Republican Ulysses S. Grant defeats Democratic Seymour HEP in a presidential election. Seymour HEP has denounced the Emancipation Proclamation.

December 10th, '69, Republican governor, John Campbell of Wyoming territory. Republican governor of Wyoming. Signs the first in-nation law granting the right to women to vote and to hold Republican -- sorry, to hold office. A Republican.

February 3rd, 1870. US House ratifies the Fifteenth Amendment. Democratic support, 3 percent. Republican support, 97.

February 25, 1870, Hiram HEP Rhodes becomes the first black seated in the U.S. Senate. Becoming the first black in Congress and the first black senator.

PAT: It was the next year when the Republican War on Women began, right, 1871?

STU: We're about to get to that.

PAT: There we go.

GLENN: I'm going to skip a whole 'nother page of these. Because I want to get to something here at the end.

February 28th, 1871, Republican Congress enforces -- passes the Enforcement Act, providing federal protection for African-American voters. March 22nd, 1871, Spartanberg HEP Republican newspaper denounces Klan. The Klan campaigned to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina.

That brings us to this. Remember I said, September 28th, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Louisiana. It began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and a school teacher for X slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friends. And in response, Democrats, quote, went on a Negro hunt killing every African-American. All of whom were Republicans. As all African-Americans at the time were.

April 28th, 1871, the Republican Congress enacts the anti-Ku Klux Klan act, outlawing the Democratic Party terrorist group. Which oppressed African-Americans.

That's who these people were.

PAT: You didn't even get to the 1960s. 1950s. 1960s.

GLENN: No. I didn't even get to the 1930s. The 1930s are pretty --

PAT: But as late as the '60s, it was Republicans passing civil rights. Republicans pushing for it. Republicans voting for it. Democrats fighting against it. People like Al Gore Sr. fighting against it. People like Lyndon Baines Johnson, HEP the hero of the left, fighting against it at first.

GLENN: People saw some of that if they saw Selma. They saw how racist this guy was. And I contend they're still this racist. Look at what they've done to the great city of Detroit. Look what those policies have done. Look what it's brought on to the African-American. Look at what the great Democratic policies have done to the city of Washington, DC. To the city of Philadelphia.

Name any city --

PAT: Cleveland.

GLENN: Where the Democrats have ruled since the 1960s. At some point, you say, this doesn't make any sense. At some point you say, I'm not getting any better. This is not helping me.

They are -- they are playing this card again. And this time, we have to stand up for ourselves. This time we have to stand up and say, enough is enough. I know your record. I know who you are. See, I have in the vaults, here at the Mercury Studios. I have the anti-Democratic and anti-Republican literature that went back and forth. The Republicans used to defend themselves.

They used to say, I've had enough! Here's the record! Here's who we are! Here who you are. Why are we defending our record? Our record is fine. Why are we defending our record? We should be putting them on the offense and asking them to explain their record, in Detroit, in Cleveland, in Philadelphia, in Washington. In every city that they have destroyed.

Why are we having to explain ourselves?

Now they're doing it with another class of people. Gays. Women.

Remember, it was the Republicans that gave you the right to vote in the first place. The first time, they had to drag the progressives, kicking and screaming.

Let's stop taking it and being quiet. With love and peace and armed with the facts. It's time to go to battle.

Because it's only going to get harder from here. When Hillary Clinton says what she said over the weekend, play it, Pat. This is so critical for you to hear. This is a -- this is possibly what the press will tell you is the next president of the United States. Hillary Clinton. In a speech just this weekend said this.

HILLARY: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases, have to be changed.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Your deep-seated religious belief has got to change. Game on, gang. It is here.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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.