EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Leaves the Door Open to Unsuspending His Campaign

So you're sayin' there's a chance!

Ted Cruz called in to the The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday, giving Glenn and the crew a much-needed sliver of optimism for election coverage this evening. Co-host Pat Gray couldn't help but toss out a Hail Mary to the former presidential candidate.

"Ted, are you leaving the door open to . . . if Nebraska were to somehow, miraculously choose you tonight, is there . . . I mean, if that happened, would you consider getting back in the race?" Pat asked.

Cruz's response even caught both Pat and Glenn by surprise.

"Well, I am not holding my breath," Cruz said. "My assumption is that that will not happen. But, listen, let's be very clear: If there is a path to victory . . . we launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended the race last week, it was Indiana's loss. I didn't see a viable path to victory. If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly."

Pat's joy couldn't be contained as he gave Cruz supporters a call to action.

"Right. I don't know about you, Nebraska, but I take that as a, 'Yes!' Get to the polls and vote for Ted Cruz," Pat exclaimed.

"Yes! I take that as a big 'Yes,'" Glenn said. "That's interesting, Ted. That's interesting. That's very interesting."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Ted Cruz is on with us now. Hello, Ted, how are you? Are you there, Ted?

TED: I am. It's great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Good to be with you. How are you feeling?

TED: You know, I am feeling great. Obviously, the election results were not what we had hoped for.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: But I'll tell you, Heidi and I feel incredibly privileged to have had the chance to make this run, to be part of what was just an incredible grassroots movement.

And, you know, not a day goes by that we are not thankful for the men and women all across this country that we had the opportunity to meet, and they're just patriots fighting for this country. And that was inspirational. We came up short in this election. I would have preferred it otherwise.

PAT: Me too.

TED: But the movement still continues. And that's what gives me encouragement.

GLENN: Let's talk about that in two ways: First of all, can a conservative win happen with the media the way it is today? Facebook -- we just found out a couple days ago, Facebook -- like, for instance, dropped my speech from CPAC, dropped your speech from CPAC. They were manipulating what was trending if you were a conservative, especially one that was for Ted Cruz.

TED: Sure.

GLENN: You know how Fox behaved. How can someone like you win when the media is the way it is? Can you?

TED: Well, you can. Now, this election will be studied for the role of the media, and in particular, network executives, that they made in terms of promoting the candidate that they had chosen they wanted to win. You know, it's now -- you know, for example, Trump has received now over $3 billion in free airtime.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: Strikingly, over the last 30 days, he had $500 billion in free airtime, 90 percent of which was positive. To put that in perspective, in the entire 13 months of the campaign, the aggregate coverage of my campaign was about 500 billion dollars' worth.

GLENN: You mean million.

TED: He got that in 30 days, and 90 percent of his was positive.

And that has a dramatic impact on the polls, when every network becomes effectively the super PAC for the candidate they want to win the nomination. And we're about to see that same ferocious fury now turn against Donald in an effort to elect Hillary. And there's no doubt we need to think hard about, what is the role of a handful of executives in manipulating and trying to deceive the voters? Because I think it's a very dangerous dynamic that we have right now.

GLENN: So, Ted, we have only about eight minutes. I know you're on a tight schedule, and we're on the network schedule. So I want to get some pretty important questions out.

There are people now -- we are getting hammered by two -- by two fronts. One, people saying, "You've got to convince Ted to run third party." And I keep saying, "I don't think he would do that." The other is, "You've got to support Donald Trump." And we can't do that.

What do the people that were for you, what do you think that we should do? What is your recommendation? And can you support Donald Trump?

TED: Well, listen, this is a choice every voter is going to have to make. And I would note, it's not a choice that we as the voters have to make today. The Republican convention isn't for another two and a half months. The election isn't for another six months.

You and I both want to support a conservative. We want to support someone who will get the burden of Washington off of small businesses and bring back jobs and economic growth. We want to support someone who will defend the Constitution, defend the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, the Second Amendment. We want to defend someone who will stand by our friends and allies, including especially the nation of Israel, and we want to defend someone who will be a strong, serious commander-in-chief.

More broadly than that, Glenn, you and I both want a president we can trust, a president we can trust with power, who demonstrates a temperament not to abuse that power. That's what elections are about.

The voters in the primary have seemed to have made a choice. And we'll see what happens as the months go forward. But I think we need to watch and see what the candidates say and do.

PAT: Now, you say we need to watch and see. Ted, are you leaving the door open to -- if Nebraska were to somehow --

GLENN: It's not going to happen.

PAT: -- miraculously choose you tonight.

GLENN: Pat's going for the hail Mary.

PAT: Is there -- I mean, if that happened, would you consider getting back in the race?

(chuckling)

TED: Well, I am not holding my breath. My assumption is that that will not happen.

But, listen, let's be very clear: If there is a path to victory -- we launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended the race last week, it was Indiana's loss. I didn't see a viable path to victory. If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly.

PAT: Right. I don't know about you, Nebraska, but I take that as a yes!

GLENN: Yes! I take that as a big yes.

PAT: Get to the polls and vote for Ted Cruz.

GLENN: Now, I want you to know, the minute you would unsuspend your campaign, John Kasich would do the exact same thing.

PAT: I bet he would. I bet he would.

JEFFY: I bet he would too.

GLENN: I bet he would.

That's interesting, Ted. That's interesting. That's very interesting.

(laughter)

PAT: That's very, very interesting.

GLENN: Yeah, very interesting.

PAT: I like that.

GLENN: Can I ask you --

TED: You know, I will say, Glenn, a lot of folks in the media are trying to spin this election results as the death of the conservative movement. And that's a media narrative that the media loves. But also, a lot of the Washington establishment loves.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: And I got to tell you, I think it's complete nonsense. I think the conservative movement remains strong and vibrant. I think the conservative movement unfortunately was divided. That doesn't mean it is -- it lacks its potency, but it is true that when conservatives are divided, we are far less effective. And there are a lot of reasons for that.

GLENN: So that brings us to what the G.O.P. is saying.

Two weeks ago, Ted, Reince Priebus had -- wanted to spend the day with us. And spend the day, do television, do radio, and then have some conversations off air because he was courting our listeners. Since you dropped out, the guy won't even return our phone calls. This is the week it was supposed to happen. He was going to do Hannity, us, and Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday was Hannity. Now he's saying, "We never planned on coming down." I mean, it's incredible what happened.

And so how do we get behind a group of people who don't have any interest in asking conservatives for their vote?

TED: Well, I -- I hope that proves not the case. And, you know, from my perspective, this fight was about a lot more than one campaign or one candidate. This fight is about principles that are eternal, the free market principles that built America that allowed millions of small businesses to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty and into prosperity. Those principles are as true today as they were every day of our country's history. The constitutional liberties and the Bill of Rights that protect our God-given rights from being violated by the federal government, those rights are true and as valid today as they have been throughout history.

And so the movement continues -- what my energy is directed at, what my focus is directed at is to continue to strengthen and speak for that movement, to all of the grassroots activists, the over 7 million people across the country who voted for me, allowing us to win 12 states across the country. This fight will continue because the country is worth it.

And, you know, whether those in Washington will listen in the short-term, that will be their choice. But I think the answer, the only force strong enough to change the path we're on is the grassroots. And so my energy and focus is going to remain where it always has been, working to listen to the people and to fight for the people, each and every day.

STU: Ted, looking back at Barack Obama in 2008, he comes along. He has this big victory. Everyone predicts the end of the Republican Party, the end of the conservative movement. It's just going to be a regional party from now on.

Two years later, you have the Tea Party wave election. So that's proved wrong. And it wasn't that Americans seemingly turned towards progressivism, they just really seemed to like Barack Obama. He was this guy who hit -- who hit the right tones at the right time somehow. I didn't see it. But obviously America did at some level. Do you see that the same way with Donald Trump, in that it's not necessarily that the Republican Party is turning away from conservatism. They just see this guy as the right personality for this time.

TED: Well, listen, there's no doubt about the power of celebrity. And by any measure, Donald Trump is a phenomenon. And it has been a phenomenon heavily fueled by media executives who have run him 24/7.

GLENN: So --

TED: And that's -- that is one of a kind.

GLENN: So wait, wait, wait, Ted. Is it? Or has the Democratic Party that has the whole stable of celebrities looked at that and said, "Well then, why don't we go for a Will Smith/Angelina Jolie ticket?"

TED: Look, there is -- that is entirely possible. You know, one of the disturbing things about this election -- and there are many -- is that it opens the door potentially for what comes next. And what comes next is not likely to be sound, stable leaders with good judgment and the understanding of the problems facing this country, our economy, and the challenges and threats facing us across the world.

You know, that's -- you know, I'm still a little bit old-fashioned in that I think we ought to be able to look up to our president. We ought to be able to be proud if our kids want to be like the president. And that's -- that's a test that, you know, many presidents from JFK to FDR to Ronald Reagan, there were millions of kids who wanted to be like those presidents. And their presidents were proud that that was the model that they were emulating. I sure hope that we don't move away from that to a system where you would be less than proud if your kids said they wanted to be like the president.

GLENN: So, Ted, I only have two minutes left. When Marco Rubio left, he said he had a regret.

A, do you have any regret? And, B, where are you going next?

TED: Well, look, my biggest regret is that we weren't able to accomplish the task and that we let down the millions of grassroots activists across the country who fought so hard.

Heidi and I and the girls, we poured everything into it we've got. But we weren't able to get it done. And, you know, I wish we hadn't disappointed so many incredible people across the country. But, you know, where do I go next? I'm actually driving to the airport right now, flying to Washington to go back to the Senate and the very same principles that I was fighting for to execute from the White House: Jobs, freedom, security.

PAT: They're going to be happy to see you.

GLENN: Yeah, they're going to love to see you.

TED: Those are my priorities in the Senate.

GLENN: Is there a possibility of a third party in the future of people that think like you?

TED: You know, I don't think that's very likely, but it's always talked about. I don't know that it's something that's likely to happen.

What I do think is imperative is that we actually get the job done: And the job is getting the burden of Washington off of small businesses so that we have wages going up again, we have jobs coming back to America, we have people having a chance again at the American dream. I mean, we are trapped in a stagnation, and people are hurting.

And, you know, I'm very dismayed that the odds are increasing that we simply keep going down the same road, we don't fix those problems, and people end up hurting even more.

And that's where my focus is going to be, is fighting for small businesses, fighting for the American worker, to get Washington off your back. And I believe we're going to accomplish that. But it just may take more time.

GLENN: Ted, great to talk to you. We'll talk to you again, I'm sure, when you're in Washington. And what you're saying is, if Nebraska goes the right way, there's still a chance.

STU: There's a chance!

GLENN: He's just saying there's a chance.

All right. Thanks a lot, Ted. I appreciate it.

TED: Thank you, gentlemen.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a campaign rally at the Indiana State Fairgrounds on May 2, 2016 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Cruz continues to campaign leading up to the state of Indiana's primary day on Tuesday. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

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.

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.