Which six people connected to White House have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Glenn interviewed Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the American Center for Security Policy as well as former Assistant Secretary in the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, on radio this morning about the rise of radical Islam and the threat it poses to the United States. More importantly, he discussed the legal implications that any politicians and journalists could face if they were found to have knowledge of treason against the United States.

Gaffney explained, "The technical term for it, the statutory criminal prohibition on it in the U.S. code is something called misprision of treason and what that fancy term means is if somebody either knows or had reason to know that seditious activity is underway, seditious activity like trying to overthrow the government of the United States or destroy Western civilization from within, for example, that is a criminal offense under our laws and should be treated as such."

"And it appears in the code right next to, you know, sedition because it's meant to say you can't let this kind of thing happen and not do something about it without being culpable yourself."

Gaffney said that there were six people connected to the White House who "on the basis of just the open source information had extensive ties themselves to the Muslim Brotherhood."

He added that at best these six people are ignorantly being manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood and their agenda, or at worst going along with it willingly.

Who were the six individuals? You can find out tonight on Rumors of War 3: Target US on GBTV

Interview Transcript:

GLENN: Frank Gaffney is on the phone. He's part of this special. He was ‑‑ what were you? The assistant deputy Department of Defense? What were you? Secretary? What was that title?

GAFFNEY: It was an assistant ‑‑ I acted as an assistant secretary in the defense department under Ronald Reagan. Beck okay. And Frank, you have ‑‑ you've been on the show a million times, you've got tons of credibility in this kind of stuff. When I'm watching this special last night, I was shocked, and I'm ‑‑ I keep up on the news. I don't necessarily ‑‑ you know, I'm not somebody who misses a lot of stuff. I had no idea how much trouble we were in.

GAFFNEY: And if you don't, you can imagine how much further down the power curve most Americans are. And I just want to say, I thought Joe Weasel and your team, Glenn, did just an absolutely superb job.

GLENN: Thank you.

GAFFNEY: Of pulling this complex subject together in a highly accessible way and with what I think of as really, apart from myself, the best people in the country on the subject. And it's a real public service, and I very much hope that your listeners will tune in.

If I may, we have a kind of adjunct to your program that I'd also like to encourage them to take a look at because you've given them sort of a primer there but for a deeper drill‑down on how much trouble we're in and why and what we can do about it, we've just launched a new video course that is accessible via the Internet. It is available for free, ten‑part course at MuslimbrotherhoodinAmerica.com. And I hope that the combination of the two could really transform this from a country that is sleepwalking ‑‑

GLENN: Frank.

GAFFNEY: ‑‑ at the moment when a people who are waging a stealthy kind of jihad against us are getting away with it.

GLENN: We had a president who said he's going to start ‑‑ we're going to start helping small businesses through the Muslim Brotherhood. And then also that the war on terror is over because if you were going to be in Al‑Qaeda ‑‑ we've killed all the bad guys. And if you were going to be in Al‑Qaeda, now you pretty much know that you don't have to go there. You've got a different way of going instead of blowing yourself up. You can go through the Muslim Brotherhood and legitimate organizations.

GAFFNEY: Legitimate Islamism is the way a State Department official put it. And Glenn, what we're getting at in this course is that it's not an accident that we have the president of the United States and for that matter the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the secretary of the Homeland Security department and the attorney general of the United States or the Director of National Intelligence, even the national administrator all queueing increasingly to policy directions, to, you know, broad guidelines that are directing us to conform to the dictates of the Muslim Brotherhood. And why this is so important to understand, again why Rumors of War is such a service is that if you recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood's own stated mission in the United States is to destroy Western civilization from within by our hands, it's pretty clear, at least if you've got a lick of sense. Fortunately I know your listening audience does and I think most Americans still do, you're going to recognize this is crazy for us to be helping these guys.

GLENN: So I was watching the part about the Muslim Brotherhood and all the people that Obama has appointed and all the things that we're doing, and it's, Frank, it's shocking. And I paused it because I was watching the rough draft of it, what, yesterday, and I paused it and I looked at my staff and I said, "I'm sorry, but our president is an unindicted co‑conspirator. There's just no way these guys don't know all of this stuff. " Is there?

GAFFNEY: The course that we've prepared I think makes it unmistakably clear, at least just on the basis of common sense. And recognize you're like me dealing with what's in the public domain. This is not all of the information that's out there that, you know, congressional oversight committees could subpoena or, you know, extract on the basis of serious investigations, not the kind of information that inspectors general in these various departments could generate, not the kind of thing that, you know, criminal prosecutions could generate. But just on the basis of what's in the public domain, Glenn, we ‑‑ what we've got here at a minimum are useful idiots, as the Soviets used to say, people who are being put in the service of this Muslim Brotherhood civilization jihad agenda unwittingly, haplessly, but to the great benefit of our enemies. And at worse, what we have here is something that I think we've talked about on the show before. The technical term for it, the statutory criminal prohibition on it in the U.S. code is something called misprision of treason and what that fancy term means is if somebody either knows or had reason to know that seditious activity is underway, seditious activity like trying to overthrow the government of the United States or destroy Western civilization from within, for example, that is a criminal offense under our laws and should be treated as such. And, you know, Glenn, when we ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, hang on. I've got to write that down because I'm going to ‑‑ if Romney gets in, I'm going to be pushing for many members of the press to be tried ‑‑ what is the name of that?

GAFFNEY: Misprision, m‑i‑s‑p‑r‑i‑s‑i‑o‑n, misprision of treason. And it appears in the code right next to, you know, sedition because it's meant to say you can't let this kind of thing happen and not do something about it without being culpable yourself. And when you look at the six people we've identified, and I think there's some correlation to the ones you've looked at, the six people we've identified who either are in the Obama administration, in the White House, in the State Department or elsewhere, the people who are serving on advisory committees, in official capacities at the Department of Homeland Security and FBI and elsewhere, people who are being used for Muslim outreach by various agencies, six people who it is possible to show on the basis of just the open source information had extensive ties themselves to the Muslim Brotherhood, well, these folks are, I'm afraid, very much a part of the problem that we're confronting that's keeping us witless, willfully blind or, worse, actively submitting to the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in America.

GLENN: So let me go this because we also talk about in the special about the border and it is probably the biggest expose on the border I have seen on television. Let me go ‑‑ play Clip 1, please. This is Zach Taylor, former border guard agent and what he says he witnessed himself on the border. Here it is. You have Clip 1? Sara? You have Clip 1? He talks here about capturing of Syrian terrorists at the southern border and how that was treated and ‑‑

VOICE: And one worrying about daylights and border patrol agents caught a group of Middle Eastern people there. In the group, they did not catch the whole group, which is common. In the group they did catch were three people from Syria and some people from Yemen. And they brought them to the station. I was the supervisor on duty that day. And one of the agents called me into one of the write‑up rooms and said, this guy claimed he came here from Syria to be a terrorist. Says, you need to talk to him. So I went in there and I talked to the guy for quite a while. And he convinced me that he was serious, that he came here to engage in terrorism. He didn't know what type, what he was going to be expected to do but he was on his way to Chicago, Illinois.

GLENN: We let that guy go. Frank, there seems to be an uptick on connections between the drug cartels and Islamic terrorists. There is an uptick in Iran's activity in Venezuela. They just signed a deal to put missiles, Iranian missiles in Venezuela. And all of this stuff seems to be moving at a more rapid pace. Are we approaching an event, do you think? Your time in the defense DERNTHS is this, does this feel like event, events are coming?

GAFFNEY: Well, it is interesting we're having this conversation of course, Glenn, on the day that the Supreme Court is weighing the question of whether somebody should enforce the law, if the federal government is not going to do it, the State of Arizona should do it as they have asked to be able to do it. They've passed a law in the formal democratic process to do. And in the absence of that especially, I think we're looking at an event or a series of events.

We know, according to congressman Pete King who shares, as you know, the Homeland Security committee in the House that there are hundreds, as you know, hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the United States right now.

GLENN: I think he said 200 just in New York.

GAFFNEY: Yeah. These are people who are presumably good to go, if the order is given to launch terrorist attacks against us. Heavens knows how many others of Al‑Qaeda or Hamas or other stripes the al‑Quds force of Iran, for example, are also either here or preparing to take the, you know, easy, well, relatively easy route into our country across a porous southern border without proper enforcement that imposes real obstacles to them doing it.

And here's the kicker: If you add to that violent jihad the prospect of it, the distinct possibility that we will find these guys killing Americans in the future, perhaps not so distant, as they have in the past, you add on top of that this other kind of jihad, not so much nonviolent but previolent jihad that actually we're helping to build to, according to the phase plan we talked earlier about the strategic plan of the Muslim Brotherhood, there was also a phased plan introduced into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial, Glenn, and what the phase plan says is you use these stealthy techniques until the point where you're able to seize control of the government. So it is all about building the violence, and under the doctrine of sedition ‑‑ of Sharia as we've discussed before, under that doctrine if they sense we are being submissive, their doctrine says they must redouble their effort to make us feel subdued; in other words, bring on the violence. So you put all this together and there's a, I think a very high probability, not just a possibility, probability that we will see death and destruction meted out at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and its other Islamist associates inside the United States, not just somewhere else, and it will be in part our own fault because we have been witlessly blind and we have been submitting, we have been encouraging, we've been enabling.

GLENN: Frank, I appreciate it. We'll see you tonight.

GAFFNEY: Sure.

GLENN: Frank Gaffney who is part of this documentary, Rumors of War III, really important documentary. I ask you as a 9/12 project or a Tea Party, gather your friends together. Get to watch it together. There's a live portion of this hour‑long documentary that will make your hair fall out. Hour‑long documentary on what we're facing. You'll understand the Muslim Brotherhood. You'll have a pretty good idea. And when you hear that anybody in the White House say, "Oh, Muslim Brotherhood," you'll know. You'll know they're lying to you. Ask the border and how this all ties together and the steps that people have tried to take to protect us and who's thwarting it. Rumors of War III tonight at 7:00, then an hour‑long special after that where we get together with all the players and we'll take your questions. You can tweet the questions during the broadcast when you're watching it or right after, and we'll address them live tonight, GBTV, my regular show at 5:00, which is powerhouse, and then real news and then 7:00 is the beginning of the special.

STU: Yeah, you can tweet your questions with the hashtag Rumors of War. Also to remind you you've got a two‑week free trial. So if you want to try it, this is probably a good time to try it because you'll get the documentary and you'll get the after discussion and everything else, see if you like it.

GLENN: Yeah. Rumors of War III tonight, 7:00, GBTV.

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.