Bill O'Reilly uncovers new details about Reagan's presidency in new 'Killing' book

It's always a good time when Glenn and his friend Bill O'Reilly get together. O'Reilly called into Glenn's radio program Monday morning to announce his newest book in his series, called Killing Reagan.

Glenn's first question was obviously about the title, since Reagan wasn't killed, was he?

"Here's the most interesting part of the book," O'Reilly said. "Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay."

O'Reilly went on to explain the detrimental effects, both mental and physical, that the near-killing had on the rest of Reagan's presidency, and how at one point he came extremely close to being removed from office.

"We found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic. And then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union," O'Reilly said. "I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan."

Glenn agreed.

"There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact - did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party," Glenn said.

SPOILER ALERT: "At the end of this one, he doesn't die," Glenn said.

Listen or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: It's always good to have our good friend on our program. Mr. Bill O'Reilly on the show with us. He has a brand-new book called Killing Reagan, which Reagan wasn't killed, but really why be picky on things like that?

PAT: That was a detail. What?

GLENN: Bill, welcome to the program, how are you? Bill, are you there? I'm not hearing Bill O'Reilly.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, no.

PAT: You pissed him off.

GLENN: It's Donald Trump.

PAT: He's angry. Yeah.

GLENN: Guys, in New York, can you tell me what's happening with Bill O'Reilly?

PAT: Hmm. If he's on, we're not hearing him. So that's probably a problem.

GLENN: Okay. Well, tell us when you can get -- tell us when you can get Bill O'Reilly.

STU: I guess this means Reagan is alive.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you think that this was John Hinckley saying, "Bill, I don't appreciate it. I'm going to take you down too. I'm going to silence your voice."

STU: Because you say that Reagan wasn't killed, but he did die.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes. But he died of something else.

GLENN: Natural causes.

STU: It was a little later.

GLENN: It's actually a very fascinating book.

STU: I will say, this is the most interested I am in the entire series.

PAT: Oh, really?

STU: Yeah, that's fascinating to me.

GLENN: They've been good books.

PAT: Oh, they've all been really good.

STU: I didn't say that they weren't good.

GLENN: Yes, you did. That's what I heard. That's what Pat heard. That's what America heard.

PAT: I heard it.

STU: I can't deal with your incompetent hearing abilities. What I said was I thought --

PAT: You tell Bill he was incompetent.

GLENN: That's what I heard.

PAT: That's what I heard.

STU: I'm talking to America. You are here. Bill is not.

GLENN: Bill is always --

PAT: Wow. You said this is a problem interview.

STU: That's not what I said.

PAT: Holy cow.

GLENN: Holy cow. Bill, are you there? Okay. Well, we're going to have to reschedule. Phones are broken, apparently. We don't have phones that work.

PAT: Why would you have that?

GLENN: Don't worry. This is only a multi -- you know, tens of millions of dollar show. Why would we have a phone that works?

PAT: Why would you have that?

STU: I don't know. I can't answer that question. If I do, you'll just twist my answer, so I won't attempt it.

PAT: So you don't want to talk to Bill?

STU: No.

GLENN: I heard he wanted to twist the knife.

STU: I didn't say that word.

GLENN: It's amazing. It is absolutely amazing.

JEFFY: Write your own book, Killing O'Reilly. Okay.

STU: Wasn't there a left-winger who did say that actually?

PAT: Yeah, there was. I'm trying to think who it was and can't remember right now.

GLENN: Can we play the football player -- let's play the football player. The audio. Can we play the audio --

PAT: No.

GLENN: Can't play the audio. This is a story out of California that is just infuriating. There is a football player at a high school that is there at a high school, and he sees this other kid just wailing -- just wailing on this blind kid. Now, the blind kid can't even defend himself, he's blind. So he's not seeing the punches coming his way.

PAT: This is crazy.

GLENN: I mean, it's really crazy. It's really crazy. So everybody is standing around doing nothing.

PAT: Filming it.

GLENN: Yeah, doing nothing. And finally this high school football player comes up and he grabs the guy who is wailing on him.

PAT: I think he drilled him. I think he hit him in the head, which he deserved.

GLENN: Did he hit him in the head? I just saw him throw him down.

PAT: I think he did. I think he did.

GLENN: Either way, that's fine. He pulls him back, Pat says hits him on the head, and throws him down to the ground.

Well, he then goes right over to the blind kid and is like, "Are you okay? Are you all right? Here." And he helps him get out of there. Everyone runs around the bully and is helping the bully up.

PAT: Because he got blasted by the football player. And the football player is yelling, "What are you doing? That's a blind kid you're hitting. What are you doing?" In more colorful language than that.

GLENN: Now, who gets expelled?

PAT: The football player.

GLENN: The football player does. This is insane. Absolutely insane. What's wrong with us?

PAT: Well, Glenn, they have a zero tolerance --

GLENN: Yeah, I have a zero tolerance -- zero tolerance for common sense.

PAT: Yeah, that's what all of those policies --

GLENN: We'll get back into that here in a second. You have Bill back on?

STU: In theory, yes.

GLENN: Bill.

BILL: Beck.

GLENN: How are you doing, buddy?

BILL: Good. I'm glad you guys have telephones finally. Telegraphs.

GLENN: Well.

PAT: Thought we'd join the last century.

BILL: Working phones is really getting tough to do, but I'm glad you have a phone now.

GLENN: Yeah, I know. How are things, Bill?

BILL: Busy. Just like you, you know, trying to change the world.

GLENN: Yeah. So Bill, I have to ask you. We're going to get to your book in just a second. I have to ask you, just because it will be fun to hear the answer. I hear Donald Trump is beating your butt and is taking you out to the woodshed every night.

BILL: How exactly is he doing that, Beck?

GLENN: Well, because he has said that he's not going to do you show anymore. And then you immediately countered with, "Oh, no, no. I don't want you on the show."

BILL: No, I didn't say anything to anybody. And he got into kind of a fight with Fox News hierarchy. It didn't have anything to do with me.

GLENN: Well, that's not the story that we heard in the papers. They were saying that -- I want you to know I believe that you --

BILL: Whoa, whoa, in the papers?

GLENN: I believe that you were the one who said, "I'm not going to put up with this nonsense and have you on the show anymore." But there are a lot of people that believe that Donald Trump came out and said that he doesn't want to put up with your nonsense. Which was it?

BILL: Okay. Number one, you're believing the papers. Is that what you're telling me?

GLENN: I'm just saying, Bill. That's just what people are talking about.

BILL: Okay. Number one, I don't have any beef against Trump. Number two, I didn't say anything about Trump to anybody. Number three, he ran into a problem with the Fox News hierarchy because he was bashing people like Krauthammer and Hume and Will, and those -- he didn't like them because they didn't approve of him. So I think that's the genesis of it. But it didn't have anything to do with me directly?

GLENN: Do you know him, Bill, well?

BILL: Yes, I know Trump well.

GLENN: Is his temperament -- can he be president of the United States with that temperament?

BILL: You know, he doesn't like to be criticized. And if you're president, you're criticized every second on the second.

GLENN: Right. Right. I mean, I don't like being criticized. You don't like being criticized. But it comes with the gig.

BILL: Yeah. And I don't know if he's accepted that reality. And I think that's the problem with him. And I think that's why his numbers are going down. And his poll numbers are going down because, if you're going to run for president, you have to be able to overlook stupid stuff.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Now, if he is attacked unfairly, then there's no -- I have no problem with him fighting back. But certainly on my program, he's gotten a fair shot. And we bring on people who like him and don't like him. That's what we do on The O'Reilly Factor. All sides are heard.

GLENN: Go ahead.

BILL: He doesn't like to hear people say that they don't approve of him, and that's the problem.

GLENN: Yeah, he doesn't like me too much. So I cried myself to sleep last night and I moved on.

BILL: Well, who does? Let's be honest. Who likes you? No one.

GLENN: I know. So my wife watched your show last week or the week before --

BILL: Not you. But your wife?

GLENN: No, it's more of a girl show.

BILL: Yeah, it's like The View.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like The View. And she said she had seen Carly Fiorina on and said that you were quite complimentary of her. Which makes me question her immediately. And said that she really held her ground with you. I'm doing a sitdown with her for today for a couple of hours. And interested to hear your -- your thoughts now after the interview with her. Is she the real deal?

BILL: Well, look, I hit her with some real haymakers about her tenure in the private sector --

GLENN: She handled it well.

BILL: -- at Hewlett-Packard. About how she reacted to various criticisms of her. Some policy situations. And she didn't -- she wasn't in a snit or anything like that. She answered the questions in a very logical manner.

GLENN: Like an adult?

BILL: And I complimented her on that.

GLENN: You don't have to tell me who, but do you see the next president yet?

BILL: You know, I don't see the next president yet. I think the Republican field is narrowing quickly. Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, and Rubio look the -- look to be the only candidates right now that have a chance. Although, John Kasich is doing something very interesting. He's only doing New Hampshire. And if he does well there, he thinks he can break out fast into the other states.

GLENN: Yeah, he lives in a fantasy world.

BILL: He had a really good record in Ohio.

GLENN: I didn't know they legalized drugs in Ohio because he must be smoking some --

BILL: No, they haven't.

GLENN: -- if he thinks -- oh, really? Well, then we should have the state police stop by his house because --

BILL: Do you not like him?

GLENN: No, come on. Come on, Bill, for the leave of Pete, John Kasich?

PAT: Come on.

GLENN: No, no, I don't like him.

BILL: He didn't a great job in Ohio, boy.

GLENN: Oh, that is fantastic.

BILL: Did you look at what he did there? Turning that economy around.

GLENN: Love him. Love everything about his little -- bless his little progressive heart. I just love him.

BILL: No, come on. Look, just look at the state when he got there, and look at the state now. Economically, the guy did a great job. Go ahead.

GLENN: All right. I'm less interested in your book now.

(laughter)

BILL: I'll throw some Muslims in it.

GLENN: How come you don't have that? Killing ISIS, something like that.

BILL: Right. You know, if I had known you were writing that Muslim book, I would have put Muslims in the Reagan book.

(laughter)

GLENN: All right. So tell me the most interesting thing in the book. Because actually, I haven't read it. But I've thumbed through it.

BILL: Well, you should read it or have someone read it to you. You have a lot of servants.

GLENN: I would read it. If it was written by anyone else, I would have read it three times by now.

BILL: No, you wouldn't, Beck. No, you wouldn't. Here's the most interesting part of the book. Ronald Reagan gets elected and shortly after is shot and is almost killed. He comes out in a robust way. We all remember. His little bathrobe, standing, making jokes, and everybody breathes a sigh of relief. The president is going to be okay. But he wasn't okay. And the White House was able to keep that from the press and able to keep that from the people. He had his good days and his bad days. And we were taking our research from the people who loved Reagan, not from the snipers on the left. Okay? But the people who worked for him for a long time. People who admired him. On his bad days, he would even come down to the Oval Office and watch soap operas on TV. And on his good days, he was brilliant. But there came a point in the second term where his main advisers, Baker was the chief of staff, if you remember, was so concerned about him, that they had a meeting in the Oval Office. And he came into the meeting. And he didn't know that he was being watched, and if he had not performed well, they were going to try to remove him under the Constitution. And vice president Bush would have taken over the presidency.

PAT: But this had nothing to do with --

GLENN: This had nothing to do with the shooting?

BILL: No, it did. Because the shooting changed his physiology and his psychology. You're shot at that level and you almost die, you get that kind of trauma, you're never the same. Never the same. And because of his age, he -- his recovery time while it seemed on the surface was miraculous, it really wasn't. So that he would be in and he would be out. But I'll tell you why, when we were researching this and we found out that he was within a whisper of being removed from the presidency and nobody knows that, and the story is so dramatic, and then after he passed the test that they gave him, he made a miraculous comeback mentally because of the Soviet Union. And we go through that. And it's all weaved together. But the book I think is fascinating for anyone who cares about Ronald Reagan.

GLENN: I will tell you this, Bill, that I actually do find it fascinating. There's a lot of great stuff in the book. Including the fact -- did you guys know that Ronald Reagan tried to join the Communist Party? He was rejected by the Communist Party. They thought he was a lightweight. It's a fascinating read. Bill, before we go -- I'm sorry to cut this short because of the phone thing. But real quick, your thoughts on the pope. You're a Catholic.

BILL: Yes. I like the pope. I think I understand what he's trying to do. The churches are in trouble. He wants to get more people interested in the church so he takes a holistic point of view that, you know, "Look, we are accepting of sinners. Everyone is welcome. Everyone can come back." At the same time, his job on earth is to administer to the poor. And I don't really think he understands the best way to do that because he was raised in the Argentine economic system which is corrupt. However, overall, the pope is a good man. I think he did the Catholic church a lot of good. Christianity a lot of good.

GLENN: Were you at all disappointed that he did not take on the abortion cause in front of Congress or that he -- he lectured about American Catholic communists or the fact that on Saturday at the United Nations, we're talking about doing a gigantic global program that is a power grab? Are you disappointed in any of those things?

BILL: Well, I think the abortion thing he believes is polarizing, and that if he had gotten into it specifically, he would have lost some ears. Then he made a calculated decision. There's no doubt that the pope and the Catholic church are anti-abortion. And they always will be. And I think he made a calculation. Look, I'll avoid confrontation. And I'll be inclusive as I can. I think that I would have played it differently had I been him.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Nobody is perfect.

GLENN: Hang on, that's news. Bill O'Reilly would have gone for the confrontation.

Bill, God bless you, thank you so much. Keep up the good work.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me here.

GLENN: All right. Buh-bye. The name of the book is Killing Reagan. Bill O'Reilly. The next in the series. I'll give you a hint, at the end of this one, he doesn't die.

Featured Image: Host Bill O'Reilly appears on 'The O'Reilly Factor' on The FOX News Channel at FOX Studios on March 17, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Rob Kim/Getty Images)

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.