Is Norquist an 'agent of influence'? Here's what the experts have to say

On radio this morning, Glenn welcomed Patrick Poole, national security expert for PJ Media, and Joseph Scmitz, former Inspector General for the Department of Defense, onto the radio show to discuss the connections between Grover Norquist and the Muslim Brotherhood. Grover's on the board of the NRA and has his hand in a number of conservative groups. At the same time, he's got all kinds of questionable connections to radical Islamists and convicted terrorists. What do the experts have to say?

Watch a complimentary highlight below, scroll down for audio of the full hour and a rush transcript of this segment. Don't miss Grover Norquist's response tonight on TheBlaze TV.

The full interview begins 38 minutes into the audio below:

Below is a rush transcript.

GLENN: We're talking a little about Grover Norquist. He is going to be my guest tonight. I'm making this episode free. So you can watch it. Last night, I kind of did the Fox thing. And pulled out my chalkboards and dusted them off and tried to show you the connections and how disturbing these connections really are and how they're all connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. And if you are familiar -- if you buy the line, the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular, they have Muslim in their name, they're largely secular, and they're a peace group, well, then you're too far gone to save anyway.

If you know who the Muslim Brotherhood is, you know how dangerous these connections are. Grover canceled yesterday. I got a note during the show that he was not going to be on the show. Then he wrote this morning and said, no, I didn't mean that. I meant I wanted to be on the show. So he'll be on tonight. And I will tell you, it will be one of those shows like we've had in the past. I think I know his answers and I think he'll try to make this into race-baiting or smearing other people. This is not about other people. It's not about his family. It's not about him personally. This is about his connections. And I want to get the straight answers on the connections. Period. I have very little tolerance for people that try to grandstand or change the subject. And I'm just not going to play any games. So he'll be on with us at 5 o'clock. It is free. You'll be able to watch it. You'll be able to blog with us during the episode. We will make that available and explain that to you later on in the program today.

But I brought in Joe Schmitz, he is the former Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the guy who literally wrote the textbook on inspector generals. The handbook for inspector generals. A very reasoned and rational guy whose voice needs to be heard more and more. Also, Patrick Poole. National security and terrorism correspondent for PJMedia.com. And a guy who has really helped us over the years. Works closely with For the Record. And tries to get to the bottom of all the connections of Islamic terror.

Patrick, I want to talk to you about where I left off. I'm concerned that Grover is on all these boards. The National Rifle Association is one of them. Because if you know what the Muslim Brotherhood project is, you know their goal was to get agents of influence into the boardrooms of America. Into our culture. Mainstream them and then slowly exert their influence.

This is why we can't say anything anymore. This is why we're so politically correct. Because these agents of influence have tremendous power at the highest levels.

We were talking a little about Grover when he was on the board of directors of CPAC. And he was -- well, you tell the story. Because you know it firsthand. Tell me what his influence on a board means.

PATRICK: One of the reasons he is there is because of the money he brings to the table. That's why he's on all these boards. And that's why largely he was on the board of the American Conservative Union. Both he and his pal, Suhail Khan, was the money that they were helping to keep ACU afloat and CPAC. And not just Grover, but particularly Suhail made a big thing about the fact that the people that were now excluded from speaking at CPAC because they had fallen out of favor and were raising these concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood. You know, we see how well that foreign policy worked out in the Middle East over the past couple of years. Embracing the so-called moderate Muslim Brotherhood. And for -- I've been to the CPAC for the past eight years. I think. And national security was -- was absent for a number of years. I mean, there weren't any panels about the collapse of our foreign policy. And Grover and Suhail were architects of that. Keeping the people out who were raising concerns about our engaging the moderate Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, or us partnering with Abdul Helkein Belhaj (phonetic), the Libyan al-Qaeda figure who we have pictures with, not just Democrats, but with John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The CIA renditioned him back to Libya, and this is the guy we backed to overthrow Muammar Gadhafi. People who were raising concerns about the time, and there was nothing said about it at CPAC.

GLENN: And you believe it's because of Grover's influence?

PATRICK: Well, certainly Suhail went out publicly.

GLENN: Explain the connection to Suhail and who Suhail is.

PATRICK: Well, Suhail is a very close associate of Grover. I mean, there are pictures of -- there was a picture I remember from the National Journal of Grover at one of his Wednesday morning meetings. And you can see Suhail sitting directly behind him. And Grover helped get Suhail his position as the lobbyist for Microsoft. That's currently his position. And, you know, got him the position on the American Conservative Union board. The group that runs CPAC.

GLENN: This is what is so disturbing. These guys have been white-washed so much that they can go work for Microsoft at the highest levels. They can go into these boardrooms. Who is on the board of Seagrams?

GLENN: Certainly, Seagrams was a long-time client of Grover's and sponsored a lot of his events. I think that's part of the question when you raise the topics of these boards and he brings money to the table to these organizations is, where is that money coming from?

GLENN: Correct. This has all been done in the name of tolerance. We're being taught to be tolerant. And that is a good thing. To a point. Isn't it, Joe?

JOE: You know, if you ask any group of people typically if you're in favor of tolerance. Most of the hands will go up. Instinctively we like tolerance. But there's a famous noble laureate by the name of Thomas Mann who escaped Germany in 1928 and became an American. And in one of his books he said, tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil. And if you really think about it. When people who will say instinctively, I'm in favor of tolerance. Then you ask them, do you tolerate human slavery? Well, no, we don't tolerate that.

GLENN: Correct.

JOE: Do you tolerate child abuse? No, we don't tolerate that. So tolerance has its limits. And, you know, the idea of agents of influence in our society is not new. We had British agents of influence literally spying on our forefathers during the American Revolutionary War. During the second war, leading up, literally at the same time when Thomas Mann was escaping what became Nazi Germany, we had the Bruderbund (phonetic). Which was very active in trying to influence American public policy.

GLENN: Right.

JOE: You know, during the Cold War, we have documented time after time agents of influence from the Soviet Communist Party trying to influence American foreign policy.

GLENN: You have Alger Hiss. What's fascinating about Alger Hiss. It's so striking with agents of influence. And the way Grover Norquist -- Alger Hiss, when another -- another guy who knew said, no, no, let me tell you who he is. I know because I'm on that side. He is a bad, bad guy. Everybody laughed it off because Alger Hiss had so much power and influence. The State Department continued to laugh it off up until Alger Hiss' death. And even when he died, NBC reported, not the facts, because we did prove later in life -- he was convicted, went to prison and proved, went to prison. And even after death, that's the only time that the State Department came out and said, yes, and we knew at the time. But NBC, when they reported his death, Tom Brokaw came on and said, a guy who a lot of people believed was an agent for the Soviet Union. He went to prison for it. And they're still trying to cover those tracks. So those agents of influence have been with us forever. It's not a new deal.

JOE: We know from the Venona transcripts, released in the '90s, how deep the US intelligence agencies knew the penetration was. And we know from some of the terrorism trials like the Holy Land Foundation trial, the United States government knows how deep the penetration of these Islamist organizations are into our own government right now. I mean, we have the absolutely bizarre situation of the Department of Justice going into federal court saying these organizations and individuals are bad guys, leaving federal court, going to an outreach meeting. Putting their arms around the same organizations and individuals and saying, these are our outreach partners. That's how utterly insane it is.

PAT: That's what's disturbing about this whole thing is, because we know the Democrats are lost to us. I mean, they've been radicalized infiltrated. Who knows what all has happened in the Democrat Party. But here we have a guy, a big-time conservative operative who everybody thinks is just this small government, lower tax guy. Bouncing around in conservative circles and really influencing people all over the place who also then influenced other people and have influence at the highest levels of government. How do you get the American people to understand who he is? Because we've known a lot of these connections for a long time. And nothing ever sticks to them.

GLENN: They're always just dismissed.

PAT: How do you get the American people to stand up and recognize what's going on here?

JOE: Well, what I try to do when I talk around the country. Is I try to -- what resonates with the American people. In my experience is sort of American first things. You know, you talk about the Constitution. You talk about the first amendment. You talk about the fact that Americans will literally die for religious liberty. So that's -- we're not -- we're not out to get some religious sect. That's exactly the opposite of what we're out to.

PAT: Yeah.

JOE: And you just try to bring home the issues. The facts. I think the American people are frankly very good at recognizing facts when they see them.

GLENN: Yes.

JOE: The problem is -- and this is classic military strategy, if you were trying to engage in a civilization jihad as the North American Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum says that is what their plan. Is. You would want to infiltrate the Republicans at this time more than you would want to infiltrate the Democrats because that's how you're more affected.

GLENN: Yes. How is -- and I only have about two minutes. How is Karl Rove connected to this? I mean, $26 million from Crossroads going to the American Tax Reform. Karl Rove was there the whole time. He had to know -- these guys aren't stupid. So they know who is being brought into the White House.

PATRICK: We have pictures of Karl Rove at the Texas governor's mansion with some of these characters.

GLENN: Right. After they were giving the speech. Who is with Hamas, who is with Hezbollah. And it has been exposed. They all know. What role does Karl Rove play in this? How much does the G.O.P. know?

PATRICK: I think the establishment G.O.P. doesn't want to know. Because they -- they know -- they lift up that lid and then suddenly --

PAT: Does that include Karl Rove or is he a knowing participant in this?

PATRICK: Well, I don't know. But certainly we know he's participated in it. It's been reported a number of times that Rove took these meetings with these extremists --

GLENN: So it's a convenient lie to themselves. That if they don't know, they have every reason to know, it's all around them. It's not like we're informing them. They're just dismissing it because they get a lot of money from these guys.

PATRICK: And it's precisely that attitude that has us in the position we are with respect to our foreign policy where we are --

GLENN: Yeah, it's interest over principles. Their interest is the money and a win. Their principles would say, no, you can't do this with these guys.

JOE: Well, stated differently, it's very, very important second things over first things. CS Lewis coined this principle, says if you're always focusing on second things. Classic second things are money and survival. But if that's what you're always focusing on and you're ignoring those first things, the core values that you would literally die for, in the end, you don't achieve your second things. You don't get your money and you lose the first things in the process.

GLENN: That's where we are.

JOE: So Karl Rove may be a great money guy. That's very important in the overall equation. But we have to focus on things other than money if in the end we'll succeed.

GLENN: And, boy, that explains everything in the G.O.P. They're only concerned about second things. They're concerned about winning and money and power. And the American people are. The American people are concerned about first things because we know we're about to lose everything. And it's the first things that made us who we are. And if we lose the first things, we're done. We're done.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.