Disturbing New Story About Trump Fits His Style

The Context

A disturbing article published Sunday in the Daily Mail chronicles a respected BBC journalist's documentary of Donald Trump from years ago. Selena Scott's account of her two weeks with the real-estate mogul echo the modus operandi he's displayed time again --- sweet talking and charming, followed by attacks and slander if he doesn't get his way.

White Leather & Beautiful Things

Ms. Scott described a particularly creepy encounter aboard Trump's private plane: "We were 30,000 feet on Trump's private jet, flying to Florida, when he showed me his white leather double bed. "I like beautiful things," he purred seductively. "That's why I like you so much." This must be the "sweet talking" portion of her experience. Ewww. It might be worth noting that Trump was married to Marla Maples at the time.

When the Shark Bites

Reminiscent of how Trump responded to Megyn Kelly's interview with Vanity Fair, Ms. Scott claims the so-called billionaire did not take lightly to her refusal --- or her documentary which showed him contradicting himself on his business holdings --- describing him as a shark that strikes with speed and vicious intent when it smells blood in the water. "I showed both assertions in my film with many other inconsistencies with the telling soundtrack 'It Ain’t Necessarily So'. Trump went ballistic. Over many years he sent me a series of intimidating letters branding me ‘sleazy, unattractive, obnoxious and boring.’ He said I was ‘totally uptight’, and that I had begged him for a date. In his dreams!"

Enter NBC

You'd think the media would report such a story if they knew, right? Well, they do. It seems NBC is more than aware of Ms. Scott's documentary --- the network purchased the rights to the story. So why haven't they aired it yet?

"I'm telling you, they're setting Hillary Clinton's win up. That's all they're doing," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "NBC just bought a documentary from the BBC because they feel it's going to be relevant soon. Not relevant now. But relevant as soon as the guy gets the nomination --- if it is Donald Trump."

As Glenn has stated on air numerous times. The media are biding their time, waiting for Trump to win the nomination before revealing the skeletons in his closet. These revelations will be extremely distasteful the the American people, setting up Hillary for a win.

Common Sense Bottom Line

"The same thing is happening that happened with Obama, but for a different reason. They held things back for Obama because they wanted him to win," Glenn said. "They're holding things back from Donald Trump until he gets the nomination, and then they're going to slaughter him. They're going to slaughter him."

 

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

GLENN: There was a disturbing, disturbing article that came out. And it's just like the press to do this. I'm telling you, they're setting Hillary Clinton's win up. That's all they're doing.

NBC just bought a documentary from the BBC because they feel it's going to be relevant soon. Not relevant now. But relevant as soon as the guy gets the nomination, if it is Donald Trump. And his supporters seem to be, you know, like they're all -- they all seem like they're coming out.

And NBC bought this unbelievable documentary about what happened to a woman who is kind of the Diane Sawyer of England. She was the first woman on what they call breakfast shows, the morning shows. She was the 5 o'clock news anchor on the BBC. She now works for Sky News. She's worked for NBC, she's worked for CBS. I just want to read some of this.

Even by extraordinary standards of Donald Trump, this is a creepy shadow, as she says. We were 30,000 feet on Trump's private jet, flying to Florida, when he showed me his white leather double bed. "I like beautiful things," he purred seductively. "That's why I like you so much."

This was just one of the many revealing and excruciating moments during the two weeks I spent with Donald Trump in 1995, while making a 60-minute profile of him for ITV.

Let's see. It's curious -- it is a curious truth about Donald Trump that he believes the more obnoxious he is, the more successful he becomes. Intimidation is a brutal weapon he's used all his life when sweet-talking fails to get his way.

Now, remember what I posted last week. I said, "He first sweet-talks. He tries to charm you into it. Then he starts to brutalize you. He starts to scare you. And then if you don't give up, he takes you out." Remember? I said, "That's who this man is."

So it comes as no surprise to me that this is a tactic that he uses to such an effect in the strangest wooing of American electorate in the nation's history. The more he trashes people in America, the higher his approval ratings. When he insults Mexicans, calls for a ban on Muslims, disrespects women, and declares that he will bomb the crap out of the Islamic State, the cheers go up.

Every time a commentator says he's gone too far, he proves he has found the direct link to the dark heart of the American psyche. As Iowa citizens vote in the first ballot to determine the Republican candidate for the White House, many are asking, "Who is the real Donald Trump? Is he a regular guy who speaks the truth as he sees it, or a bigmouth who appears to think he's the star of a reality TV show?" I think I have a unique perspective. She writes, "Trump is a shark. A shark has no yesterday and no tomorrow, just the next meal, the next victim to be destroyed and consumed. And a shark must keep moving or die. That's Trump. And let me tell you why I feel that."

Now, again, this is a BBC anchor.

I would like to say it would be easy to have been overwhelmed by the tidal wave of flattery and attention I received from Trump when I arrived in New York to make a documentary about the man now dividing America with his rhetoric. Checking into my suite at the exclusive Plaza Hotel, which Trump then owned, overlooking Central Park, I was greeted by a forest of blood red roses, with a tasteful, handwritten note that simply said, "Donald."

Later that day, I went in to meet Trump at his Manhattan office, and his secretary Norma had been well briefed. Although we had never met, she welcomed me as, quote, her dear, dear friend.

She ushered me into his paneled board room, high above the city with magnificent views of the skyline, where I was greeted, not just by Trump, but by a falex (phonetic) of suited male business associates.

"Gentlemen," said Trump, "I'd like you to meet our new partner in the deal, the legendary Selina Scott."

Now, I prided myself on being a pragmatic interviewer, well-versed in the wiles of those seeking to make favorable impressions on the camera. But now I was beginning to feel a little uneasy. As I was paraded before Trump's grinning acolytes, these words began to swim in my head, "Partner in the deal? What did that mean? Did he think that he had won me over and I was somehow incorporated into his publicity department, already wrapped up into his deluded sense of his own wonderfulness?"

Trump was turning on the full wattage of what he perceived to be his irresistible charm to women, but there was a great deal more of his theatricality to come. As viewer of last week's Channel 4 documentary, The Madness of Donald Trump would have seen, the station broadcasted an embarrassing clip of him dancing around me saying, "Isn't she beautiful? She doesn't think she's beautiful, but she's beautiful," as the camera caught me grimacing.

Now, think of this. This is from a British newspaper. The BBC aired this documentary last week. NBC has purchased it. But they're holding it back. Why?

PAT: It's unbelievable.

GLENN: How can the British press -- the same thing is happening that happened with Obama, but for a different reason. They held things back for Obama because they happened him to win. They're holding things back from Donald Trump until he gets the nomination, and then they're going to slaughter him. They're going to slaughter him.

This flattery came shortly after our first meeting and it was swiftly followed by Trump announcing, "She shares with Larry King an ability to charm and cajole you into revealing more than you intended, and she's also a lot better looking."

During the two weeks I spent with Trump, there would be helicopter rides over Manhattan, private jet flights on his lavish oceanside Florida estate, a trophy property once owned by one of the richest women in America. He invited me to a poolside party, boasted about his great skills as a billionaire businessman, and most tellingly, introduced me to the two most important women in his life, his then wife Marla and his mother Mary.

I believe it's not not too fanciful to suggest that the key to understanding Trump is his attitude toward women. As Megyn Kelly, the Fox News host, discovered when she asked him about his attitude to women, where he called women that he doesn't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals, the oily smile is replaced with a deep well of hate if he feels he has not emotionally seduced you.

This is true. This is absolutely true

PAT: Oh, yeah. No doubt about it.

GLENN: And Megyn Kelly, this is what's happening to Megyn Kelly. I know. I've been there. My 60-minute documentary exposed how through bluff, bombast, and braggadocio -- how do you say that?

PAT: Braggadocio.

GLENN: -- braggadocio, he had convinced the American business community he was far richer than he was. And that while the rest of his rivals were losers, he knew how to make the US great. This ability to blag people into believing that he was a commercial genius was vividly illustrated in a helicopter ride we took over New York.

Pointing to the Empire State Building, he said he owned it.

I asked, what? All of it?

Yep. 100 percent, he replied.

Later, forgetting that he had told me he wholly owned the building, he told me he owned 50 percent of it, which was greatly reduced. It was the same story with the Trump Taj Mahal Casino in Atlanta City. Wholly owned by me, he said. Are you sure, I asked. Well, maybe 80 percent, he demurred. Are you quite sure, I pressed. He replied, well, actually, it's 50 percent.

I showed both assertions in my film, with other inconsistencies, with the telling soundtrack It Ain't Necessarily So. Well, trump went ballistic. Over the many years, he sent me -- now, this is exactly what Megyn Kelly said is happening. Listen to this.

Over in years he sent me a series of intimidating letters branding me as sleazy, unattractive, obnoxious, and boring. He said I was totally uptight and that I had begged him for a date.

This vicious tirade was often accompanied by a fanzine newspaper cutting, which he purported to show how much money he was making. He scrawled across the top, "Selina, you're a major loser. Dear Selina, I hear your career is going terribly."

JEFFY: This guy, man.

PAT: Sound familiar?

GLENN: This is it.

PAT: You've been through it. Megyn Kelly is going through it.

GLENN: This is everybody who stands against him is going through it. This is his MO. I'm telling you, the guy is very dangerous.

In the meantime --

PAT: It's to the point of almost a psychosis.

GLENN: No, I think he is. I think there's psychosis. There's deep issues here.

This broadside was in stark contrast to the creepy chat-up line he deployed on the Trump jet where he showed me his bedroom. Later in the same plane, he persuaded Ruby Wax to rubbish me on the gray, while she tried to ingratiate herself with him. This harassment only stopped when I threatened to take legal action for stalking.

I return to my shark analogy: When a shark smells blood in the water, it strikes with speed and vicious intent. So with Trump. Any sign of vulnerability is exploited. He only understands when force is met with force.

Now, think of that. This is a guy who is going to be in charge of the nuclear codes.

PAT: Think of that too with Carly Fiorina and how she shut him down. I mean, she just --

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Hit him in the face in that debate, and he stopped from that point on because he realized he wasn't going to get away with that with her. So when you smack him in the face like any other bully, he skulks off and tries it with someone else.

GLENN: So it's with some amusement that twenty years after I made that film, the giant NBC network in America has asked to buy my channel for interview about Trump, including all of the unused footage.

STU: Gee.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

STU: What are they going to find in there? Times 20,000 documentaries this guy has done with different news people around the world, all the times he's been in front of the camera, all the unused footage. Gee, what are they going to do if this guy gets to the general? They're going to have a staff of 100 people for each one of them, going through all the footage, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours that Donald Trump has forgotten about.

GLENN: Did anybody watch the documentary from Scotland?

STU: You've Been Trumped, or whatever? I actually haven't seen it.

GLENN: You have to watch it. It's unbelievable. He is -- it's this -- it's like this little seaside community, and he wanted to build a golf course. And it's this little seaside community. And first he goes in and he tries to buy all the old ladies flowers, and he's like, "Oh, you're so great. And, hey, can I buy your house?"

PAT: Like with Vera Coking.

JEFFY: Like everyone else.

GLENN: He does the same thing. He wined and dined everybody and said it's going to be great. And I'll find a great place -- I'll buy your house so you can find a really great place to live.

Well, this little seaside community, these are all people that have lived there -- like a lot of them are old ladies that have lived there since World War II. It's their husband -- their family was raised there. And it's a farming community. It's just this little sheep-farming community right on the seaside. It's beautiful.

Well, once they said no, he started trashing them. And saying that they were pigs. They lived like pigs. They were insane. They should be institutionalized. They're just -- they've lost all reason. Just trashed them.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: And it's all on tape. And this documentary shows him saying these things and these little old ladies going, "I don't think I live like a pig."

(laughter)

When America sees this stuff, it's going to be lights out. And if you think the media is not going to play that, you're crazy.

STU: Yeah, and that was the most effective negative about Donald Trump that they tested in the Des Moines Register Poll was his use of eminent domain, taking people's private property for his own personal gain. In fact, they even used it as -- they included for government purposes. So like a -- a road or -- they made it actually more broad than the way that Trump wants to use it, which is specifically he tried to use it for his own personal gain and supported the Kelo decision which was, "Oh, well. Well, then the government can get more tax dollars, so it's okay to take people's private property."

The biggest negative that was tested out of all of them on Donald Trump. People inherently know that that's an absurd stance, that you would be able to take someone's stuff that they own, that they had built their whole lives in this community, and because he wants to build a golf course or a parking lot, that he should be able to come in with the power of the government and take it from them. And he still supports that to this day. It's not an old stance.

JEFFY: Well, what if they live like pigs.

STU: They live like pigs.

PAT: They live like pigs. They need to move.

GLENN: You're right. They should be -- you know what, they should come up and have to stand before a board and explain themselves: Sir or madam, what is it that you have contributed to society? And if they can't explain themselves, then we shouldn't keep them alive. I'm sorry.

Featured Image: Selina Scott, Donald Trump and Marla Maples, circa 1995 (Photo Credit: Unknown)

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.