WATCH: Kermit Gosnell's House of Horrors

Full Transcript:

I have to tell you, this is the most disturbing show that I think I’ve ever done.  This is some of the most disturbing information that I have seen and some of the most disturbing pictures I have ever seen, and I, you know, the last five years have studied the Holocaust and Auschwitz, so I’m not shocked by an awful lot anymore, unfortunately.  But I am shocked by what I’m going to show you tonight.

The old saying in TV news is “if it bleeds, it leads,” right?  But in a trial of abortion Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the media has shown sudden, incredible restraint at best, despite this, a 261-page report from a grand jury that is so shocking, horrifying, tragic, gut wrenching, tells you an awful lot about who we’re dealing with, not just with the doctor, but also society.  It is filled with details that make Hannibal Lecter look like Mother Teresa, and the media is just not interested.

I mean, they couldn’t get enough of Sandra Fluke’s plea for government-funded condoms.  They went full-throttle after the Susan G. Komen Foundation said they’re not going to give money for the abortion clinics of Planned Parenthood.  Tonight’s episode is going to make you just so proud to support Susan G. Komen.

Somehow, the news media just couldn’t see their way to news, any worthiness of a story about this man, Kermit Gosnell, and his murder clinic.  It was described with a TV-friendly headline “house of horrors.”  That’s what they call it in the grand jury report.  For over 20 years, Dr. Gosnell ran a multimillion-dollar abortion mill.  He got rich off routinely snipping the necks of the babies.  Don’t put this up yet, please.

I am going to show you beginning here some horrifying pictures.  This is your last warning to get the kids out of the room, stop, watch it later, or turn this off, but I think it is important, especially if you’re on the fence about whether it’s a baby or not.  Go ahead and show this.  Snipping the necks of babies…this is the back of a neck of one of the babies, and I’ll tell you which baby this was here in just a minute.  But this is the back of a baby’s head.

This was Gosnell’s term for jamming scissors, snipping, scissors into the back of the neck and cutting their spinal cord.  He also severed the babies’ feet, and he kept the feet in jars in the office.  Witnesses testified that the babies were moving, they were breathing, they were screeching.  Another witness testified they personally saw the doctor snip the necks of more than 30 babies.  Yet another said she had to kill the baby that was delivered in a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors.

He literally was able to convince people, and it doesn’t seem apparently that it was that hard to convince people in Philadelphia that worked for him that it was okay to kill a living, breathing, moving baby because, “It’s the baby’s reflexes.”  That’s all.  “It’s not really moving.”  Don’t worry about it.  As if killing the baby moments before in the womb was somehow or another better, so I guess you’ve already made your line.

We are talking about the cold-blooded murder of innocent babies.  Many were 20, or 25, or even 30 weeks along in the pregnancy.  I have to tell you, I see some of these pictures, and I see my children.  Now, that’s well past the 24-week limit.  One 30-week-old baby he aborted was nothing more than a punch line to him.  He joked that the baby was so big he could’ve walked her to the bus stop – that baby.

That baby was breathing and moving when born.  And he said, boy, your baby is so big, he could walk me to the bus stop, and he snipped the neck.  He took this baby and then just matter-of-factly threw him in a shoebox with the arms and legs lifelessly hanging over the edges.  This is Baby Boy B.  They found his body frozen in a one-gallon spring water bottle.  He was at least 28 weeks when he was killed.

“Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord.”  She did it just the way she had seen the good doctor do it so many times.  And then the report goes on to the Sunday babies, the Sunday babies, “’the really big ones,’ that even he was afraid to perform in front of others.”  By the way, did I tell you that this is a black doctor, and he wasn’t doing this to white women because he said that white women would most likely complain and so he’d get in trouble.  So he was just keeping it to African-American and minority women.  This was Margaret Sanger’s dream come true, Progressives.

He said the really big ones he was afraid to perform in front of others.  These abortions were scheduled for Sundays – oh, he stayed with the Lord’s day – a day when the clinic was closed and none of the regular employees were present.  The only person allowed to assist with these special cases was his wife.  The files for these patients were not kept at the office.  Gosnell took them home with him and disposed of them.  We may never know the details of these cases.  We do know, however, that during the rest of the week, Gosnell routinely aborted and killed babies in the sixth and seventh month of pregnancy.  The Sunday babies were bigger still.

They described the facility as – as quite interesting, “scattered throughout, in cabinets, in the basement, in a freezer, in jars and bags and plastic jugs, were fetal remains.  It was a baby charnel house.”  He slaughtered hundreds, possibly thousands of children.  This is the biggest, bloodiest, mass murderer in the history of our country.  This guy is far, far worse than anything, anything that Jeffrey Dahmer did, far worse, any of the mass murderers, serial killers.

The media doesn’t cover it.  Well, they didn’t cover it until they were shamed into it.  The media would be more interested, I guess, if he would’ve used an AR-15 to ensure fetal demise as he called it.  About the only media attention was this story reporting on how little attention the story was actually receiving.  A columnist from Bucks County, PA, J.D. Mullane, one of the few actually covering the event.  He snapped, this is the most damning photo for the press at a recent courtroom hearing.

Those seats are reserved for the various members of the press, three rows of seats to accommodate 40 reporters.  Mullane was the only reporter to attend, along with one from the New York Times who showed up later in the day and stayed for maybe five minutes.  The trial began nearly a month ago on March 18, but NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, no, they didn’t cover that at all.  They covered it last week.  The question is why?

Well, I want you to know I don’t think it’s some conspiracy theory to avoid the story or anything like that.  I think it’s a lack of intuitive interest from the press that betrays their beliefs.  You see, abortion is not wrong to the people in the press, it’s not wrong.  I mean, it’s not really a big deal.  The White House press conference today, Jay Carney was asked about Gosnell, and here’s what he said.  I want you to listen to this carefully.

Jay Carney:  I’ll say two things. One, the president is aware of this. Two, the president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial, so I won’t as well.

Oh my gosh, how about Trayvon?  Let me ask you this – boy would I like to use some names.  This president during the health care debate accused doctors of cutting the feet off of patients for an extra 30 grand.  Do you remember that?  And I said where is the evidence?  Give me one case, where’s the evidence?  Nothing, and the press went on and reported those lies over and over again.  And yet he has nothing to say about this doctor who literally has feet in jars, and the president can’t speak out about it.

Oh, he does care about healthcare so much, doesn’t he?  He cares about the American people and making sure that we don’t have another Mengele.  You see, the left isn’t outraged that 25 week-year-old babies are terminated or 25-week babies are terminated, because it’s completely legal the week before.  So if you’re totally cool with an unborn baby being terminated as you would call it at 24 weeks, why are you appalled when they’re terminated seven days later?

Perhaps the scariest part of this entire story, the thing that concerns me the most, is what Gosnell convinced others to do.  He convinced people, apparently it wasn’t too hard either, to look at a living, crying, moving baby and slit its neck and murder it.  “Over the years, there were hundreds of ‘snippings.’  Sometimes if Gosnell was unavailable, the ‘snipping’ was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff…”  Really, you go from licking stamps to killing babies? 

“Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all.”  Well, of course they didn’t think it was murder.  Of course they didn’t think it was murder.  They’re a week late.  What have they been indoctrinated with for so long?  That’s not a life in the womb; that’s a woman’s choice.  She can do whatever she wants with it.  We’ve just heard over and over and over again how it’s just nothing but tissue in there.  It’s just a collection of cells.  MSNBC calls that a thing.

Well, if you can convince someone to murder an infant in cold blood, of course this is a thing.  Look at the picture.  That ain’t a thing, man.  If you can convince somebody that you can go in and kill that child, a woman can kill that child, and then just, I guess, brush it off and call for the next patient, if you can do that, what can’t you convince them to do?

Let me tell you something, this is a result of a culture that does not value life at all.  For over two decades, hear me, 20 years, Kermit Gosnell convinced people to slit the necks of perfectly healthy babies, several per day, week after week after week, year after year, baby after baby after baby.

Let’s just take this as – the testimony says an average of 15 a day.  Let’s just look for the first decade.  Fifteen a day, that means this man killed more children in a single month than all of the school shootings in the history of America combined, and no one in the media says anything.  But that’s only because they care so much about children.  We have to do something for the collective, you know?

I lived in Philadelphia.  I live in Texas for a reason, but believe me, we’re headed for troubled times.  When a society does not react to these kinds of things, there’s trouble.  When I tell you there will be stories coming out like this over the elderly or the handicapped, go ahead, mock me – the mentally ill, anybody whose quality of life a Progressive deems inadequate or if there’s an emergency, of course.

We’re already talking about – Krugman admitted the death panels, and nobody in the media said a word, and they’re already doing this in the UK.  Now, of course, they’re putting their elderly, 130,000 a year are put on the pathway to death, the death pathway.  Well, it’s being done for a very good reason, of course, out of compassion.  Well, hello, Dr. Mengele. 

Today is the anniversary of the birth and death of Corrie ten Boom.  Please, please read about Corrie ten Boom.  Please, reevaluate, because we need to stand.  The media is naturally recoiling from this story because it shines a bright light on exactly what it means to be pro-choice.  Sure, most abortion doctors aren’t as flippant about it.  They kill the baby in the womb so you don’t, you know, you don’t see the baby moving around and crying.  It doesn’t cause any trauma.  But whether this is in the house of horrors or in the best hospital in America, the end result is the same, a real child dies.  A life ends.  That’s it, period.

You can call it whatever you want, but that’s the truth, and the truth shall set you free.  Now that people are catching on, the media is scrambling to cover its tracks.  How about the hospitals, are they covering their tracks?  Because hospitals were involved in this.  This one I love.  This one is from NBC news:  “The story is on our radar.”  Really?  How about this from CBS:  “CBS has been working the story...”  Oh, I bet you have.

CBS Evening News – Sunday, first time they reported on it.  Washington Post got pissy.  They admitted that he wasn’t aware of the story.  Watch this one, wasn’t aware of the story until the readers began e-mailing about it.  “I wish I could be conscious of all stories everywhere, but I can’t be, nor can any of us,” says Martin Baron, Washington Post Executive Director.  Oh well, thank you.  You sound humble.

Even Headline News, a network that I believe is 80% Nancy Grace and the other court-related shows, they’re not even bothering to cover this case.  Well, this is a fascinating case.  In the interest of being fair and straight up with you, we didn’t cover it, either, at least not right away.  I don’t have affiliate stations in every market in the country.  I don’t have a massive staff.  It’s our job to get it right.

It’s our job, so I won’t use that staff or anything else as an excuse.  That is why when the trial started on March 18, TheBlaze didn’t have any coverage of it until March 19, the day after the trial began.  Where were the reporters that I know for a fact read TheBlaze every single day?  Where were they?

At the risk of sounding crass, help us grow.  We will not miss the story of the biggest serial killer in American history, and for another thing, people don’t progress.  They might as individuals over their lifetime, but we all start at the beginning with good or evil, and it is up to each of us as individuals to decide, not the collective.  The collective doesn’t decide.  We don’t progress as a collective; we do as individuals.

Tell me, tell me this isn’t the American Mengele, and no other network would dare say that, no other network.  Every other network would chastise me for saying it on the air.  Amen, brother, this guy’s a monster.  And nobody will say it because whether it’s left or right, you are not getting the truth.  You’re getting a political agenda, and that agenda too many times is the collective right over the individual right.

And you’ll notice when the media will tell this story, they will not show you the pictures I showed.  And maybe they’re making the right decision, but I don’t think so, because those pictures will make you say, Who the hell in the collective is standing up for the individual child?

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.

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.