Is a Titanic event going to hit our economy?

This morning on radio, Glenn talked to Matt Bevin about our country’s current economic state. Are we really heading towards a massive crisis? Hear Bevin discusses pension plans and his ideas for combating some of our current economic issues.

GLENN: All right. So Kentucky, I mean it, you blow it, we are -- our love for you and your stupid horse race. It's over. It's over. We come with lawn mowers and we cut all of your bluegrass.

JEFFY: What about the bourbon?

GLENN: The bourbon, I take. The bourbon, I take. They had their chance with Matt Bevin as a great senator. Instead, you decided to give America the turtle, Mitch McConnell. Okay. How is that working for us, Kentucky? We want to thank you deeply for Mitch McConnell. But now you get another bite at the Matt Bevin apple, as Bevin is currently running for governor in the state of Kentucky. The primary for the Republicans is coming up on Tuesday, May 19th. It looks like he is in first place. This is the first poll where he's now at first place. It's a three-way -- a three-way race. But it is close. And 20 percent still undecided. We wanted to give Kentucky another chance to hear from Matt Bevin who we really greatly respect. Matt Bevin, how are you, sir?

MATT: Glenn, I'm doing great. It's so good to be on with you. A lot of pressure you guys are putting on me here. A lot of pressure. I don't want to be responsible for being double dead.

GLENN: Well, I'm telling you. So here's the headline in the Washington Post last week. Team McConnell isn't about to just let Matt Bevin become governor.

MATT: Yes. Did you see the quote at the end of that article? Brilliant.

GLENN: No. I couldn't take it.

MATT: Honestly, I would encourage you to go back and read the nuggets of wisdom that dripped out of the mouth of a certain individual at the end of that article.

GLENN: What did he say?

MATT: I won't even paraphrase it. It was idiocy.

GLENN: Will you look it up? So tell me why -- make the pitch to the Kentuckians who might not know you on why you would be the right person for governor.

MATT: We need somebody who is not a politician. Somebody who does not arrive in Frankfort already half owned or fully owned by somebody. Someone who comes with a fresh sheet of paper. We need somebody who comes from the outside business world. Somebody who understands how the wealth of this nation is created.

I'm a guy who grew up below the poverty level. I paid my own way through school. I'm a military veteran. I'm a small business owner. Employ dozens and dozens of people. I'm pro-life. I'm pro Second Amendment. I'm conservative. I understand firsthand how wealth is created. I'm the only one in this state that has ever worked in the pension business that's running for governor. And we have a significant pension crisis here in Kentucky.

GLENN: We have a significant --

MATT: You know, some of -- which is why I truly think myself -- I also have by far the best running mate who will bring such a great perspective to Kentucky. We offer an extraordinary opportunity, I believe, for Kentucky to go in the right direction. A constructive direction. One where we will be a magnet to people around this country and not the opposite.

GLENN: She's the African woman -- African-American woman that we discussed last time you were on. Right?

MATT: Jenean Hampton. Amazing. Exactly right. She is incredible. Twenty years of high-level management experience in the Fortune 500 world. Manufacturing. Experience. In particular, an engineering degree. MBA. Military veteran. War veteran. You know, former Air Force officer. Completely self-made. Raised herself to a level of opportunity here in America. It is an example to many, growing up in inner city Detroit in the '50s and '60s. Just an incredible, incredible woman.

GLENN: So, Matt, we are looking at a time where you would be governor where the financial world this week has been more honest than I've ever seen them be. HSCB has come out and said, they believe a titanic event is coming. And they said that the economy no longer has any lifeboats. I mean, that was -- that's pretty significant language. England is now discussing literally making cash illegal. So when the crash comes, everything becomes digitized, and that way, they can control what people are spending. And there is no cash in the system. We're looking at a time when banks could be closed or you see just even -- just social issues like in Baltimore, where the streets could be on fire. What do you do as governor if you're facing something like Baltimore, no matter if it would be a run on the bank, God forbid, or God forbid, you know, a police officer that's been shot there in Kentucky. You know that the Al Sharptons of the world will take, you know, people from Kentucky look like the biggest racists in the world. What do what you do if you're facing that?

MATT: I'll tell you this. One thing I learned in the military is you lead by example. What is it that has always made America great? What is it that has made us exceptional among nations? What is it that makes people want to come here both legally and illegally more than any other nation on the face of this earth? It is the fact that we are a nation, above all, we're a nation of laws. And I will tell you what, if I'm the governor of this state who are involved in government in any way, shape, or form, that I would do everything within my power to ensure that we uphold what makes us great. And we would uphold and defend the law. And we would uphold and defend this state. We would not make room for people to destroy or any of the rest of that nonsense. We would absolutely enforce the rule of law. Because this is what makes us exceptional.

GLENN: Do you have an opinion or -- just leave it at that. Do you have an opinion on the militarization of our police forces?

MATT: I think it's ridiculous. Let me tell you what it is. It's an outgrowth on the war of drugs. Every time the federal government declares war on anything, we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars at a minimum and ended up with more on exactly what we were fighting. Look at the war of poverty. More poverty. Trillions of dollars having been spent. Look at the war on drugs. A militarized police force across this nation. I think it's inexcusable. It's unnecessary. We now have people moving around in SWAT teams that have become the exact opposite of the old cop on the beat in some measure. This isn't helping them. It's not helping the community. Look at the war on terror. How is that working for us? We need to get the federal government out of all of these various wars on things we want less of. Restore power to local communities and states. This is part of why I'm running for governor. We can do more in this state to be an example. To be a beacon for the rest of America about how a constitutionally limited government should operate and how it will thrive and be an example to states around us.

PAT: Matt, what is the deal with the McConnell team, with Mitch McConnell and his former adviser and the irrational hatred they seem to have for you. Is it just that you dared challenge him for the Senate seat and did really well? Is it --

MATT: Yeah. I just think -- it's ironic. I heard from people -- he seemed not to have gotten over the last race. I seem to be the only one unfortunately that has. It's too bad. You know, the adults in the room are who needs to step up at this time. Not only here in Kentucky. Not only here in America. As you noted a moment ago. Nationally. Whether it's in London. Whether it's the people that are running the HSCB. What have you. All these banks. The IMF now, people looking to challenge the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. Trust me, if they are successful, that is the beginning of the end. Certainly for our country. We've got to bring adults to the table, and they've got to man up and lead as men and women of conviction. The likes of which we have not seen for a long time in this world.

PAT: So what's the biggest issue for you in this race? And what is -- what is the driving reason you got into the race for governor of Kentucky?

MATT: The reason I got in, in short measure, is that I didn't see those that were in, who I know and who are good people and who are far better than the Democrat operative on the other side of the equation. Nonetheless, none of them would put forward a plan. None of them would be specific. None of them would talk about how they would create jobs. That is our biggest concern in this state. We are an economic trouble. We're one of which Forbes refers to as the death spiral state. This has to end. We have to get to the point --

GLENN: They're calling you the death spiral over Illinois?

MATT: There were five death spiral states. I believe we and Illinois were in that group. We have now surpassed Illinois as being --

GLENN: Holy cow.

MATT: We are at the bottom of Illinois.

GLENN: So what is your plan to take care of that?

MATT: We have to freeze the existing plan. We can't keep exacerbating this by adding people to a system that we know is already on the fast track to insolvency.

GLENN: I will tell you, I don't know how you're going to do that, Matt. When I was at Fox, we did an episode where I showed how many firefighters it takes to pay for the pensions of the firefighters. And there's just not enough. I mean, it is -- you want to talk about voodoo economics. It is voodoo economics times 1,000.

MATT: If you look at our -- we just had a 30-day session with our legislature. They brought forward more than 750 ideas in their respective committees. And none of them seriously addressed this issue. We have just ignored it and hoped it would fix itself. You're right, demographics have changed to the degree that even things I'm proposing are not enough. We need to freeze the existing plan. We have to require more current participants. We have to go to a 401(k) type plan and give people lump sum encouragement to take their money out if they're young enough and stop becoming a part of the problem. But all those things in their combinations still will only begin to stop the bleeding. To reseal the wound, we'll need jobs.

GLENN: That goes back to my civil unrest kind of thing. When I was at Fox, we talked about when those pensions -- when it becomes apparent that the states cannot pay for those pensions, which they were owed. Everybody -- everybody plays this game. And everybody knows they're just hoping to get theirs out before it collapses. But when that becomes apparent. There is no trust with anyone. The governor is going to be hated, if he's trying to take the pensions away. The -- the people who are -- you know, the ones paying for the pensions, the tax holders are going to be I had a by the public servants. The public servants aren't going to understand the people paying the taxes and vice-versa. How do you heal that rift besides coming and saying the truth, guys, I know. Everybody is pissed off. But it doesn't work. So we're going to have to forget the promise that we made and now come back to the table with a different kind of system.

MATT: This is when our generation is going to have to reach deep and find among our ranks those that are willing pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Because it will take leadership. We have a nation and a world full of Neville Chamberlains, and we need them to step up. Because the world depends on this. Our future depends on this. And it will not be easy. There will be hatred. There will be people vilified. If it's any comfort to you, I've been well-prepared for the last two years in having scorn and enmity heaped upon my head. So I'm as callous on that front as perhaps anybody. I'm willing to offer myself forward as a public servant at this time, and the voters of Kentucky will decide on May 19th.

STU: Matt, what are the main separation points between you and the other candidates?

MATT: The biggest issues are that before I got in the race, they were all for keeping the Obamacare exchange here in Kentucky. Now everyone is against it because I put a plan against it. I'm really against it. I'm really against Common Core. Mark Twain once noted that, history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. And that's kind of what's been happening.

GLENN: So they're against it like Jeb Bush is against it.

MATT: Exactly. Suddenly I find they're against a lot of things that I'm against. And that's all right. At least they're rhyming in the right direction. But those are differences that I know where I stand on it. And I've been clear, and I've lead in writing on that front. I'm also the only one in this race that grew up below the poverty level. We have a lot of people in this state in a similar way. I'm able to address that with empathy, not just with sympathy. I'm the only one that has a chance to be the next governor of this state that is a military veteran. We have 340,000 military veterans in this state. That's a big differentiator. I'm the only one in this race that upon winning -- running against the other side. I'm not a lawyer. They're the other guys running on the G.O.P. side are not lawyers. But both the people on the Democrat side are lawyers. We don't need more lawyers in government. I have a lot of good friends that are lawyers. But we don't need more laws in America. We have to start to be smarter with respect to the way in which we govern. I'm also the only one in this race with pension experience. I started a firm here in Kentucky that now manages $5 billion in pension assets. I understand firsthand this business because I've spent most of my adult life in it. We have to address things. I'm as qualified as anybody in this race to actually step forward and do it. Will it be fun? Of course not. Will it be thankless? You bet? Will I be hated by people, Democrat and Republican alike? Yes, I will. But guess what, leadership requires people to step up. And I'm putting myself forward and offering that ability to people at this time.

GLENN: Matt Bevin, he's running for governor in Kentucky. The primary is next Tuesday.

PAT: Don't blow it, Kentucky.

GLENN: Matt, I will tell you, you are blessed to live in one of the best states in the Union. I've lived in Louisville, Kentucky. I just loved it. It's such a great state. It's not only because of the beauty and the heritage of that state. But the people are truly fine, fine people. And we are hoping that they do the right thing this time around.

PAT: And don't you wish there was a way you could help Matt Bevin if you wanted to? Don't you wish there was a place you could go?

MATT: Pat, you are a good man.

GLENN: You know, he doesn't do this for everybody. I thought he did. But he doesn't.

MATT: I'll tell you, I mean it sincerely, guys. I'm grateful for you. I appreciate your willingness to come alongside in this effort. I appreciate your help. We do need help. Five days. We need every dollar we can get to get ourselves up there. If you want people who respect the Constitution. Who respect America. Who are military veterans and businesspeople that are willing to fight for you and your children and grandchildren, regardless of what state you live in. If you want us to have 50 such governors and you want one of them to be in a state that could be a beacon for America, I would be grateful if you would go to mattbevin.com.

PAT: There it is.

MATT: Mattbevin.com.

PAT: Mattbevin.com.

MATT: It's the place to contribute. I would be grateful.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. Whatever. If you win, if you win, we watched the Kentucky Derby, and my wife said, we have to go to Kentucky Derby next year. And I said, we'll never get tickets. If you win, we'll buy them. We just need to get to the front of the line -- that's the only reason why we're supporting you.

MATT: I can't make any promises at this point.

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.