Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

A recent state-wide poll from Utah's Deseret News showed Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin in a statistical tie with Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, putting the Utahn within striking distance of winning his home state. If that were to happen, McMullin would be the first Independent candidate to win electoral votes in nearly a half century.

RELATED: Evan McMullin on Islamic Jihad, Russia and the Looming US Economic Crisis

Glenn spoke with McMullin Thursday on radio about the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and why both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are unfit for the presidency.

Read below, watch the clip or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What principles do the two major party candidates fail to honor?

• Why does McMullin believe both Clinton and Trump are big government liberals?

• Why do we keep electing corrupt leaders?

• What is McMullin calling on all Americans to do?

Listen to Part 1 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Evan McMullin, welcome to the program, sir.

EVAN: Great to be with you, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: So, Evan, tell us why we should vote for you. What are your principles that you think are not being represented?

EVAN: Well, Glenn, that's the most important question of this election. It is about principles. You know, we've just put out a document called Principles for New American Leadership. And I would add another part to that title: New American Leadership and Civic Engagement. I think that's what we need in this country. We do need a new generation of leadership, a new conservative movement, but we need also a new era of civic engagement.

And so, as far as principles are concerned, in this document, there are 13 principles. But they start off with some -- there are very basic things that we're losing sight of, things that the two major party candidates don't honor. I'm talking about the first, for example. We say our basic rights are God-given. That is so incredible. Our rights don't come from the government. They are inalienable, and they come from our maker.

Number two, we honor our Constitution. Not what we think it should be. There are different opinions. But how it's written.

Number three, government power must be separated and balanced. We must have checks and balances, and they must be honored in our system to protect against the government's abuse of that power.

Number four, our leaders must be honest and wise. Because the reality is, even though we are blessed with an inspired Constitution, Glenn, if we don't have honest and wise leaders who respect that Constitution, our nation will suffer. And it has.

And then the last one, I'll just mention to start off with, number five, we share responsibility for service and civic duty.

We need to serve our fellow man and woman. We need to be involved in civic engagement. We need to be aware of the issues and well informed. And we need not to be passive in the selection of our leaders.

I believe we must seek out leaders who are honest and wise and promote them into office, not merely wait for the party to give us whoever they want to give us. We must find them. We must recruit them, and we must promote them forward to our leadership, to our service.

GLENN: What do you say to people who say, "Hillary Clinton is -- I mean, I've heard people say she's the devil himself. And some people actually mean it. But some -- others, like me, believe she is so wildly corrupt in all aspects of her life, that she has to be stopped. Some people say, "I don't like Donald Trump, but I will vote for him. And, Evan, no matter how much I like you, you don't have a chance. Why should I vote for you?"

EVAN: Well, I'll tell you this, Glenn, my perspective on both of these two candidates, and, you know, everybody has heard it all before. But they're both deeply corrupt. And I've got news for everyone -- this is my view -- Donald Trump is a big government liberal, just like Hillary Clinton, maybe even worse.

He does not respect our system of checks and balances. He doesn't respect the courts or their power. He doesn't respect, I believe, Article I of the Constitution. He doesn't even understand the Constitution. He doesn't -- you know, he proposes policies that are in violation of our Constitution. It seems like, every week or couple of weeks, it's something new. They're both big government liberals. That is the reality.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. How did we get here? Because we've accepted the argument that we need to vote for the lesser or decide the lesser of two evils between the two major party candidates for a long time.

That decision, the lesser-of-two-evils decision, that framework posits to lower our standards for our leaders, and as a result of that, we get weaker leaders. We get corrupt leaders like both of them.

We get leaders like many of ours, who have disappointed us this year, who won't stand up for principle, who put their own reelections first. And that is happening right now. And that's why we get -- that's why I think, Glenn, we have a leadership crisis in this country.

So what I'm saying and what my running mate, Mindy Finn, what she's saying as well, is vote for the people who you actually want to see in office. If you do not do that, if we do not do that, Glenn, we will never get the leaders we need in this country.

We must use our voices, which are our votes, to support leaders who we actually want to see in office. And if they don't win this time, well, then they can win next time. But we must start building a movement, a new conservative movement, that will put leaders into the Oval Office and into Congress and elsewhere, who actually embrace the principles of our country.

GLENN: Evan, there are people that say that there may not be a next time. The country is at the breaking point, and you don't know what's going to happen. And the way things are going and how fast -- and how fast we have decayed over the last eight years with rights, that our churches will be under siege. Our rights will be taken. Possibly our guns would be taken. Our banking system could collapse. Just in the next four to eight years, this next president may be the last chance. We can't take that risk.

EVAN: Well, Glenn, I would -- again, I say that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are cut from the same cloth. These are both big -- they're both tax-and-spend liberals. These are people who are going to grow the size of the federal government. Donald Trump has made a promise about the Supreme Court, but he's violated that promise even in the campaign, saying that his sister would make a good justice, saying that, you know, Peter Thiel would make a good Supreme Court justice. And this is not a man we can trust. This just simply isn't a man that we can trust.

We are in a terrible spot right now. Yes, we don't have time to waste. But we have allowed ourselves -- I'll say this -- we have allowed ourselves to be offered two horrendous candidates from the two major parties.

And so this is what I'm saying, Glenn: I'm calling on all Americans now to have a conversation -- a conversation with each other, a conversation around the dinner table, in the backyard, over the fence in the backyard with the neighbor, with your colleagues, about the fundamental principles that have made this country the most prosperous and most powerful on earth.

We've got to go back as American citizens to the essentials. We've got to ourselves recommit ourselves to these principles and pursue better leaders. We're not -- you know, from the two major parties, we're not going to get them this year. But I believe we can get more of them in the future. But we've got to start with basics.

We're in a tough spot this year. There are no great solutions. That's just the reality. That's the difficult place we've been in. We have to start rebuilding something new, and it starts with the conversation with America, one that I and Mindy Finn are trying to have with America and one that I'm asking Americans to have with themselves, using this document, using these principles.

STU: Evan, Stu.

I have -- one of the things that we've seen in this debate is the world of foreign policy has been, you know, really in shambles. Everything from trade to, you know, we have -- I mean, we watched the debate the other night.

Hillary Clinton, we know what a disaster she was with Russia. I mean, you know, the reset button. I mean, that was a total disaster. And then her opponent, in his own defense, says that he doesn't know anything about the inner workings of Russia. So these are our two options. Not to mention, Gary Johnson, you know, who has his issues with where is Aleppo and what is Aleppo. All of this. How does your experience differ from these three?

EVAN: Well, I spent 11 years serving in the Central Intelligence Agency. I was an undercover operative. Most of that time came after 9/11. I managed some of our country's most sensitive counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda leadership and other sensitive traditional intelligence operations against countries that are adversaries to liberty.

GLENN: If you would have -- if you would have handled the documents that you had, which I assume are less sensitive than what the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had, would you be in prison if you handled them the way she did?

EVAN: Yes. Well, I handled some very, very sensitive stuff that she may not have had. But even if I handled lesser classified documents, yes, I would have been fired, first of all. My security clearance would have been revoked. And I likely would have gone to jail.

And that's the reality. But that's what we see. And, Glenn, you pointed that out. Just the corruption. We live in a country where most Americans feel -- a strong majority of Americans feel we're on the wrong track. People don't feel like they're being heard by the government anymore, largely because so much power is centralized in Washington, DC. But this is exactly the wrong moment to elect a deeply corrupt leader. And that's what we're poised to do.

And it is truly unfortunate. And we cannot allow ourselves to be in this situation again.

GLENN: So how would you deal with Russia? Yesterday, the number two guy in the Duma came out and said that, "If America votes for Hillary Clinton and does not elect Donald Trump, that there will -- that nuclear war is imminent." He said, "There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."

EVAN: Well, look, first of all, the first thing we need to do is reassert our strength in the world. What we've done under President Obama is withdrawn our strength and communicated weakness to the whole world. And so all of the destructive actors, whether it's Vladimir Putin or Bashar Assad or the Chinese -- Chinese government annexing parts of the South China Sea or North Korea, Kim Jong -- the Kim regime. You know, what we've got is a reaction by all these bad actors to a leadership, a power void, a power vacuum that's been left by President Obama.

The first thing we need to do, we need a president who will stand up and be strong. And that is -- that solves a lot of problems, candidly. It used to be that countries knew that they couldn't mess with us. And as a result, they couldn't most of the time.

That is not the case anymore because of our presidency because of this administration. But I'll tell you something, we would get more of the same with Hillary Clinton in that regard.

But with Donald Trump, we would get somebody who has actually aligned himself with these bad actors. I mean, it is unconscionable to me, incredible, that we find ourselves in this situation.

And I struggle and am so disappointed with Republicans. You know, Republicans -- the Republican Party was the national security party. How can they not stand up to Donald Trump's allegiance and infatuation with Vladimir Putin? How is that possible?

But this is where we find ourselves. And this, guys, is why I'm saying we find ourselves in a leadership crisis in this country. And we must return to these principles. Our principles are our strength, and we must have this conversation with each other. It's not the -- it's not the mainstream media. We can't wait for our leaders. They've let us down. We must turn to each other and rededicate ourselves to these principles and find our own leaders and promote them into office.

GLENN: Evan McMullin, running as a third party candidate, doing well in the polls in Utah. May actually win in Utah, which is something that Gary Johnson hasn't even been able to pull off in his own state. He's within four points in Utah and doing well in the Mountain West and is a write-in candidate -- is on the ballot in some states, write-in candidate on others. How many states can people vote for you and actually have it count?

EVAN: Well, it's 34 states. But by the time we get to Election Day, it will be 43, potentially up to 45. Most Americans will have the opportunity to vote for me and to have their vote counted. That's the reality. We're very excited about that.

We already have access to more than 300 electoral college votes, and we've done that in just a matter of weeks. I mean, for us, it's a three-month presidential campaign. I've got a phenomenal team. We've moved very, very swiftly. And we are doing it on the backs of our tremendous supporters. They're very strong, very motivated, and they have helped us get ballot access across the country. It's just been truly incredible to watch.

GLENN: All right.

[break]

GLENN: Evan McMullin is running as a candidate for president. And is beginning to pick up some steam in Utah. He's about to pass both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And only 52 percent of the people know who he is in Utah. And that is starting to happen in the mountain west now, where he just started, I don't know, about six weeks ago because he was fed up.

Evan, I want to talk to you a little bit about the economy. Because HSBC has just come out with a red alert warning for the stock market, and a stock market crash they say is now pretty much imminent. We'll get into that in a second.

Let me talk to you about two things. People believe that the Supreme Court is the number one issue now because they feel religion is going to come under attack and the Second Amendment is going to come under attack. Where do you stand on those two things?

EVAN: Well, first of all, I do believe that religious liberty in this country is under attack. And we need to do everything we can to protect it. The Second Amendment is obviously as well. I agree with that. Unfortunately, I just don't believe Donald Trump would -- would -- would pursue originalist justices on the court. I just don't not believe it. We know Hillary Clinton won't either. But I just think -- look, America, we are in a tough position. We are in a tough position because the two major candidates are not people who respect religious liberty. They're not people who respect the Second Amendment, and it's going to be tough. That's the reality. That's the reality. And that's why I keep saying that, you know, we've got to go back to our principles, and we've got to really develop something new, a new movement in this country.

You know, it's interesting, I think back about John Adams and the way he described the revolution of his time by saying the real revolution began around the kitchen table, in what mothers were teaching their children in their readers. I mean, that's the kind of -- that's what we need to do. If we want to protect religious liberty, if we want to protect the Second Amendment, we have got to strengthen the conservative movement so that it can do that. And we need a political vehicle, in the form of a party who will fight for those things. And we do not have that now, Glenn. We don't have that.

We have a Republican Party and a nominee who don't support these value and who will not protect them. And so we've got to start from scratch in many ways, I believe. So I'm thinking about it in the long game because I've written Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump off. They're both cut from the same cloth.

So let's rebuild our conservative movement, through discussing these core principles, recommitting ourselves to these core principles. We're angry. We're all angry. I get that. But we need to channel that into something constructive and positive for our country. And this is what I believe it is.

GLENN: Okay. Evan McMullin.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/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.

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.