Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Don Imus: Trump Didn’t Want to Serve in Vietnam Because He’s a 'Coward'

September 08, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Legendary radio host Don Imus brought his usual vim to commentary on President Donald Trump’s job performance on radio Friday.

Glenn attempted to add something uplifting to the conversation by talking about people helping each other after Tropical Storm Harvey devastated parts of Texas and left tens of thousands of homes flooded.

“The world has been at each other’s throats for the last couple of years, and then we’ve had a nice break where people come together and they love each other and it’s nice,” he said.

But “nice” isn’t exactly the Imus brand. “How’s your boy Trump doing?” Imus asked.

“Don’t even start with me,” Glenn returned.

Imus asserted that he was just waiting for Trump “to say ‘I’ve had enough’ and go back to Trump Tower.” He pointed to the president’s Twitter habit as a weakness, asking why he needs constant validation on the size of crowds hearing him speak.

“It’s not the same guy I knew; I knew him for 40 years,” Imus said.

The longtime radio host then proceeded to trade barbs with Glenn while knocking Trump for reportedly dodging the draft for the Vietnam War.

“You know why he didn’t want to go to Vietnam? ‘Cause he’s a coward,” Imus said, recalling Trump’s disparaging comments on veteran and POW Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “I was in the jungles of Vietnam … so people like you could have these stupid little radio programs,” he said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Every time I -- I say something like what I'm about to say, I am -- in my head, it is always preceded with, the guy is still alive. Don Imus joins us on the program now.

Now, hello, Don, how are you?

DON: Not good.

GLENN: So, Don --

DON: First of all, I'm on hold, listening to these commercials. You got one for the IRS, if you're in debt, haven't paid your taxes. Then the next part is a blood thinner deal. And then the last part, they give you if you're 85 -- or, you get a deal on a -- on a funeral -- who is listening to your program?

GLENN: You. Those were fed down the phone line for you.

(laughter)

So, Don, first of all, were you affected by the hurricane? Because you live in Texas. Most people don't know that.

DON: We live in Buddham (phonetic), Texas. We have a ranch here, in Washington County. We're 85 miles from Houston. We got 30 inches of rain here at the ranch. My son, Wyatt Imus, goes to Rice University, which is right in the middle of Houston. And my other son flies fighter jets out of Pensacola.

GLENN: So maybe this is God just trying to wipe the Imus family out. Have you thought about that?

DON: It does sound that way.

GLENN: Yeah, it does sound that way.

DON: So we weren't flooded here because we're at a high point in the county. But, you know, 30 inches of rain, like the house is -- 11,000 square foot house, got a brand-new copper roof on it, and the roof started leaking.

So, but nothing like -- hey, what's this Operation Barbecue thing you're doing?

GLENN: We thought that it would be, you know, helpful to go cook some food. So we're -- we are supporting the Operation Barbecue, a group that goes out. And they're actually doing at the convention center, they've provided I think 335 meals since this thing began.

DON: Is that your deal?

GLENN: We're one of their big supporters, yes.

DON: Okay. And who handles the money?

GLENN: Not me.

DON: Okay. Well, that's fine.

GLENN: Yeah.

DON: But, I mean, is the Red Cross involved or FEMA?

GLENN: I'm not sure how -- I'm not sure what everybody is doing. I know that we're supporting a couple of them. Operation Barbecue. Team Rubicon. Do you know anything about them? They're an amazing group.

DON: No, I don't.

GLENN: They're a group of veterans all over the country, that when there's a need, they just all kind of come in. And we've flown I think 1100 of them in from all over the country. And they're just going in, and they're mucking out these houses.

DON: Well, Deirdre Imus, you know, my lovely wife. You've met her.

GLENN: Yeah.

DON: Well, we call her El Chapo around the ranch here. We wanted to give some money, but there's certain organizations we won't give any money to. So maybe off the air, you can text me.

GLENN: Sure.

DON: Tell me who it is. We'll be happy to send you some money.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll give you some --

DON: Is O'Reilly on?

GLENN: Oh, jeez. Here we go.

STU: No, we didn't. We didn't.

DON: What do you mean, oh, jeez, here we go?

GLENN: Because, Don, the world has been, you know, at each other's throats for the last couple of years. Then we've had a nice break, where people come together and they love each other and it's nice. And, you know, I did question my wisdom inviting you. I thought, well, you know, all good things have to come to an end. Let's just pile Don Imus into this and reverse the thrusters.

DON: Well, we all know what O'Reilly did, and we all know what I did when I got fired for trying to be funny, which I shouldn't have been. And Bill wound up okay. But, you know, listen -- the thing I was thinking about this morning is we don't know what you're doing.

GLENN: Wait. What?

DON: There's something that you're doing that we, the great unwashed out here, that we don't know. You could have a couple of midgets -- you can't say midgets, Imus -- you could have a couple of little people in your basement with a pony and two hookers. And who -- but we wouldn't know about it.

GLENN: Right. You wouldn't have any idea. I've hidden it pretty well, haven't I?

DON: Yes, you have. But here's the thing: You can bet on this, it's going to come out. It's going to come out. So here's what I'm saying to you: Tell us now. Tell me.

(laughter)

GLENN: I -- I really --

DON: What are you doing? What are you doing to the pony, Glenn? Glenn, did you try to kiss a pony?

(laughter)

STU: Try? Yeah. Even ponies won't kiss me.

DON: How is your boy Trump doing?

GLENN: My boy Trump?

DON: Yeah.

GLENN: Don't even start with me on my boy Trump. You're the one who writes to me, telling me how much you love him.

DON: You know, it's not the same guy I knew. I knew him for 40 years. Not the same guy. God Almighty.

GLENN: So did he -- you know, there's some people saying he's become the -- yesterday was his first day as a Democrat in office. Do you buy into that?

DON: No. I don't -- I mean, I'm just waiting for him to say, I've had enough, go back to Trump Tower, which, by the way, has ruined his name and everything else. The guy is a moron. Please stop it.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I thought this was your guy?

DON: Well, he's not my guy anymore, Glenn. So now what?

You know, I was done with him when he jumped on McCain. Not his -- you know, his kind of war hero is not one that's captured. Are you kidding me? This fat, blubbered-tittied moron has got five deployments to keep from going to Vietnam. You know why he didn't want to go to Vietnam? Because he's a coward. You know who did go to Vietnam, got shot down over Vietnam? John McCain, that's who. You know that I was in the Marine Corps. I was in the jungles of Vietnam, killing the Congs so people like you could have these stupid little radio programs. What are you talking about?

(laughter)

DON: Well, actually I played the bugle in the Marine Corps band.

GLENN: Right. But you were there. You were there. You were there.

DON: Yeah.

GLENN: So, Don, what has changed in Donald Trump since -- you say you've known him for 40 years. This is not the guy you knew. What's different about him?

DON: Well, I just thought he was a lot smarter. And, you know, once you're president, you wouldn't think you would have to defend every slight. You wouldn't think you would have to validate your presence on the planet with tweets about how big the crowd was or this -- I mean, you know, I had gotten into a huge fight with him that the press covered back 25 years ago. He was a bachelor then. And he was posing for some -- I forget what it was. And I said he had grandma arms. You know, he had the big old flap on his arms.

GLENN: Yeah.

DON: And he was going bankrupt in his casinos. So I said the boy was going from the back of the limo to the front of the limo. So he took great offense to that. And said, now that I wasn't drinking liquor anymore and doing cocaine, I wasn't as funny as I used to be. Howard Stern was a lot better. And Stern voted for Hillary Clinton, but...

GLENN: Is there any -- is there any difference though on, A, how you treated Bill Clinton? I'll never forget the flop sweat on Don Imus.

DON: There wasn't any flop sweat. What are you talking about?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. I felt like I was living -- you know, if I would watch it again, there would be no difference between this and Hurricane Harvey. There was so much water coming off of you.

DON: I had the guts to stand up there and hammer his ass.

GLENN: You did.

DON: And, by the way, I played the speech the next day on-air. I killed it though. What are you talking about?

GLENN: I agree you did. But it -- I've never seen you squirm like that. It was --

DON: Well, no. He was glaring at me. And Hillary, she was glaring at me. And they were thinking about walking out. They were so --

GLENN: Right. So what is the difference -- what is the difference between what you said there and their reaction? And when you talk about grandma arms and to, quote you, blubber titties, what is the --

DON: Well, I don't know. I don't know how to answer that question. Don't ask me difficult questions.

(laughter)

No, but I don't want -- I like you. I like to call your program. My wife and I wanted to give some money to this deal, if it's not some scam. But I didn't call up to take an SAT test.

GLENN: It's not a scam. All right. All right. How much money are you going to give?

DON: I'd give 100 grand if we would -- I'd give 100 grand, if it's legitimate.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Well --

STU: It is legitimate.

GLENN: It is legitimate, Don. Not a dime goes through --

DON: I want to know who handles the money. If the Red Cross or FEMA handles any of the money, then I'm not giving any money.

GLENN: No. FEMA and the Red Cross -- actually my charity was started because I don't trust FEMA and the Red Cross.

DON: All right. Good.

GLENN: And so there's not a dime that comes to us. If you mark it for Hurricane Harvey or Irma or whatever, 100 percent of the proceeds go right directly to the things that we have earmarked on the site. And you can even say, "You know, I want it to go to Operation Barbecue or Team Rubicon." Or --

DON: You can -- you can -- you have my email address. I get your whiney little email from you all the time. Send me a note about who handles the money, once it leaves Mercury Arts and whatever. And where to send the money. And we'll give you $100,000.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: That's nice of you, Don. That's a little cheap now that you've gotten rid of the cancer farm. You know, I thought you would be a little more generous.

DON: You really are just a worm.

(laughter)

DON: We always knew you were weird.

(laughter)

DON: I just --

(laughter)

Little fat boy, sitting there getting a lap dance from...

GLENN: All right. All right. All right. Don -- all right.

DON: I got to go.

GLENN: Goodbye, Don.

(laughter)

STU: That was Imus in the Morning. Imus.com. You get the updates on the -- on whatever Glenn is doing with that pony in the basement. We have that coming up, along with Doris Goodwin.

He's awesome.

GLENN: He is great. I have to ask him for permission to print the emails -- the email exchanges from us over the years. For like ten years, we've been going back and forth on emails. And they're the most cruel, politically incorrect, just brutal beatings of one another.

I mean, just beating of one another.

STU: Relentless.

GLENN: Hysterical.

STU: And there's not a moment of saying, no, but, you know, we like you. There's none of that.

GLENN: No, I said that -- remember this? The first time we went back and forth, and I -- you know, I thought, okay. I'm going to write -- Don gave me his email address. I can't write something nice. Because that's not who he is. So I gave him a backhanded compliment. And he came back even stronger. And so then we just got into this war. And then about -- I don't know. About six emails in, I decided to say, but really, you're a great guy and everything else. And he just went off on me. Really? Really? This is who you are? You really need to think you need to say that? Don't ever write to me again.

I mean, he's just brutal in all ways.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But what I really like about him is he's a really nice guy, and he can take the punch as hard as he can throw it.

STU: Yeah. And also say, you should not brush off the fact that he just offered $100,000 for Harvey relief. You know, I mean, it doesn't --

GLENN: He spends that in medication every month.

STU: That's true. But, I mean, that's -- every week is probably more accurate.

GLENN: Probably every day. But -- all right. Well, but we accept it. And that is really nice. That's very nice of him.

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.