Rock 'n' roll guy who wasn't supposed to like Glenn joins him for incredibly open dialogue

A rock 'n' roll "hero" joined Glenn on radio Tuesday morning to pretty much just talk about life. The topics they discussed included everything from music, fame and fortune to devastating illness, healing and being born again.

Who was the man Glenn called an "absolute legend"?

None other than the original lead singer for the band, Foreigner - Lou Gramm.

Listen to the interview or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: So my good friend, Pat, has been a friend of mine since the '80s. And -- and one of his heroes truly is Lou Gramm.

PAT: No doubt about it.

GLENN: Yeah, truly one of his heroes. And it was a big day -- it was a big day in his life at about 1992. '91.

PAT: In there somewhere.

GLENN: When Lou Gramm came into town and he came in for an interview. And we were just a couple of jokey --

PAT: Morning show hosts.

GLENN: That Lou Gramm would not remember at all. And I can sometimes make things uncomfortable for people.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: Especially my good dear friends.

STU: Really?

PAT: Yeah. Are you surprised too?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So Lou Gramm is on with us now and I want to see if he remembers us at all. And Pat is hoping that the answer is, not in the least.

PAT: No.

GLENN: How are you, Lou?

LOU: I'm doing fine. And, Pat, your wish came true. I do not remember at all.

PAT: Yes!

GLENN: That's great. Now, the question is, should I remind you?

(laughter)

PAT: I will. I will explain that --

GLENN: You know, he doesn't remember. So leave it alone. Leave it alone. Your shame.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Has kind of been forgiven in a sort of.

PAT: That's great.

LOU: No. I've been listening to you, Glenn, for about 20 years.

GLENN: You have been?

LOU: Yes. Absolutely.

GLENN: Shut up. You're not supposed to like us. You're a rock 'n' roll guy. You're not supposed to like us.

LOU: No, no, no. Your political stance and the humor you inject is -- is right up my ally.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: That is great.

GLENN: Now, can I ask you a serious question, Lou? When was it when you had a brain tumor removed?

LOU: 1997.

GLENN: Is -- do you think that there's a chance that maybe they rattled some things upstairs, that that's why you like us now?

PAT: Stop it.

LOU: No. I liked you before that.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So, Lou, actually you've gone through an amazing thing. We've talked about this before you came on. You've gone through an amazing thing. First of all, Pat is -- the reason why you're here, Pat sincerely wants to start a campaign to make sure that you get into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because we all that --

PAT: That's an atrocious oversight. Ritchie Valens with two songs is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He's got two songs.

LOU: Yeah, but what songs they were.

PAT: Yeah. They were good songs. But what songs you guys have, I mean, Foreigner has been around for -- you know, you guys were together for, what, 25, 27 years? Something like that.

LOU: Yep.

GLENN: How many albums did you sell?

LOU: I think the count is somewhere in the mid- to high 70 million.

GLENN: Wow. Jeez.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah, it's huge.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So do you feel -- I mean, Pat is behind himself. We have -- please pray for us, Lou. Because we have to listen to him all the time talk about what the atrocity is that you and Foreigner is not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

PAT: The Paul Butterfield Blues Band is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

GLENN: See, this is what happens. Does it bother you at all?

LOU: I somewhat have an idea of why we're not. And there's really not a lot to be done about it.

GLENN: Gosh. Does it have anything to do with you liking our political point of view?

LOU: No, no, no.

PAT: Okay.

LOU: From what I understand, that -- when the bands of our ilk and our time period were getting inducted and we were -- we were overlooked, our management at the time went to see the -- the head of the Hall of Fame and was wondering why -- why we were overlooked because we certainly had the credentials.

PAT: Uh-huh.

LOU: And I think there was a slightly heated discussion after that. And we were told that we would never be in the Hall.

PAT: Wow.

STU: Wow.

PAT: So it's essentially pettiness.

LOU: Yeah, I don't think it's based on what we've done.

GLENN: That's really done.

LOU: But a situation that was out of our hands, you know.

PAT: Really sad.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Can I tell you something, this was -- sometime -- I don't drink anymore, and it's a good thing. But we should have a beer sometime and just talk about that. Because that is almost the same story with me on the Radio Hall of Fame. I've been told that I would never be in the Radio Hall of Fame because of an innocent thing that I said positive about Paul Harvey and it pissed the guy off who was the head of the Hall of Fame. And he -- he went to my people and said, "I just want you to know, Glenn Beck will never be in the Radio Hall of Fame." I'm like, "Okay. Well, we weren't really pushing for it anyway." But okay. Kind of sad.

LOU: Right. Yep.

GLENN: So you had the brain tumor, and you had it removed, and it changed your life. You want to tell me a little about that?

LOU: Well, it was -- it was about the size of a large egg. And it had tentacle-like features that were wrapped around my optic nerve and my pituitary.

So there was -- the optic -- my sight is fine, but my pituitary is damaged. And I need quite a bit of medication to stay functioning. But I feel great. But it was a long recovery. The operation was 1997. And I didn't start feeling about myself until about 2005.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Did your spiritual change come before that or after that, Lou?

LOU: My spiritual enlightenment came about 1991, when --

PAT: Oh.

LOU: When I was in rehab.

GLENN: What was that like? And what exchanges have happened to you since?

LOU: Well, I -- before I went to rehab -- we had just played -- Foreigner had played Madison Square Garden. Sold out. And there was -- of course, there was a big party afterwards. And I found myself in my hotel room at 3:30, 4 o'clock in the morning, and in -- in a condition that I had been in a number of times before, and I just -- I just felt like I -- I -- I didn't want to be there anymore. And that if -- if this accelerated anymore, that I'd probably be a statistic. And all the lights were off. And I just fell to my knees in prayer and called a friend of mine early next morning, and he booked me a flight to Minneapolis. And I spent 30 days in Hazelden, which changed my life.

GLENN: Did you -- was it unusual for you to fall to your knees and pray? Were you a praying guy?

LOU: I was. But not the desperation that I had that night.

GLENN: So now the Lou Gramm Band, how has your music changed?

LOU: We do all the hits from the Foreigner albums and my solo albums. You know, some of those songs are very suggestive. And, you know, I -- I have to do what I have to do. I can't start eliminating big hits.

PAT: Right.

LOU: But, you know, it does feel a little funny performing them when that was me as a young stud and it's not me now.

(laughter)

PAT: But you also have a complete CD filled with Christian music, right?

LOU: Yes, absolutely.

PAT: And you wrote that?

LOU: Yeah, with some of the guys in the band. It rocks pretty hard, you know. But the message and the tone where it's coming from is from a different place.

GLENN: So you started feeling well again 2006, you said?

LOU: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm sorry. I'm not obsessive about Pat, I don't know what size pant you wear or anything else like Pat I think does. But have you been back on tour?

LOU: I started touring again in 2005, even when I wasn't feeling well.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Wow.

LOU: Actually I was touring about 2000 with Foreigner. And left that band in -- at the end of 2003.

GLENN: How did you do that? How did you make it?

LOU: It was not easy because, you know -- one of the other things I developed was sleep apnea.

GLENN: Oh, horrible.

LOU: Yeah.

PAT: Wow.

LOU: And it was just -- I -- my short-term and long-term memory was very spotty. So when I had take the stage, I had the lyrics to all the songs written on white paper with a black marker, and it was taped on the floor.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: Wow. But that's --

GLENN: How did that -- how did that make you feel while you were going through it?

LOU: I knew that I had no business on stage. And -- and I -- I felt like an invalid and that I couldn't be doing the band any good.

GLENN: Now how are you feeling? Now how much of this is -- have you returned full strength now?

LOU: I think so, yeah. Yep. You know, I was taking massive steroids back then too. And put on almost 100 pounds.

GLENN: Holy cow.

LOU: My weight as an adult has been 140 to 145 pounds.

GLENN: 140 -- hang on.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: I think I've gained and lost 140 pounds in the last year. And -- that's what your scale says is 140? Because that's like one leg. Holy cow!

(laughter)

You suck. I don't like you.

LOU: Well, I got a small frame, you know. But taking the steroids, it was incredibly tough to lose anything.

STU: Yeah. Glenn did all of his weight gain without steroids which I thought was pretty impressive.

PAT: It was with food. Something called food.

GLENN: It was medication-related.

STU: Right.

GLENN: It was. It was.

PAT: If chocolate milkshakes are medication, yes. Yes.

GLENN: Thank you. Write another prescription, please.

LOU: Yes.

PAT: Things have been kind of famously chilly between you and McJones.

LOU: Well, they were for a number of years --

PAT: Is it better now?

LOU: -- after I left the band.

Yeah, two years ago, we were both inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. And there was a big ceremony for us and a number of other people in New York. And they asked us to play. They had some studio musicians and background singers and this and that. And so we rehearsed two days before the awards ceremony, and we kind of broke the ice and rekindled a friendship.

GLENN: That's great.

PAT: Oh, that's great. Because it seems like that happens with almost every popular band. Some kind of friction between the band mates.

LOU: Yep. You know, it was -- it was a number of things that I think were -- were just building over the years. And I just -- I just thought I -- you know, I had been with the band over 25 years. And I just thought I had enough, you know.

PAT: How is it now with your brothers? Because aren't two of your brothers in the Lou Gramm Band?

LOU: Well, two were in the band. One is in the band now.

PAT: Okay.

LOU: But it's good. It's good. Everybody in the band is from my hometown of Rochester. So, you know, it's what -- we all fly out of Rochester. We all fly home to hear it. It's good camaraderie. And they're very good players too.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: How difficult is it to be Lou Gramm, the guy from Foreigner that was -- I mean, you're Lou Gramm. And then your body changes. Your life changes. You change. Music changes. And you don't have that -- I mean, even Aerosmith. What's his name. Steven Tyler.

LOU: Yes.

GLENN: He's -- really, maybe it's Steven Tyler. But pretty much, only the people from the Rolling Stones that still will sell out those stadiums and they're still kings everywhere. How do you keep a handle on today, that today is all that's important, yesterday doesn't mean anything. Does that make sense to you. Do you know what I'm saying?

LOU: Yes, I definitely do. And, you know, when you had the success that Foreigner has had for the amount of years that we've had, I mean, radio has changed. Radio is owned by -- most radios are owned by corporations now.

GLENN: Yeah.

LOU: And pretty much, there's not even program directors that there's a set list which is -- which is played over and over again. And it's -- it's not the freedom to put in whatever song they feel like anymore.

GLENN: Correct.

LOU: It's a different beast. And when that changed over, Foreigner and a number of other bands, like Aerosmith and Bryan Adams and people like that, were kind of pushed to the side. And kind of relegated to the -- the oldies stations.

GLENN: I prefer to say classic rock. Oldies are what my dad used to listen to. I listen to classic rock.

LOU: No, you're right. And a whole new slew of artists came in to dominate the top 40 scene.

GLENN: Has it ever played -- I think fame -- honestly fame and fortune, celebrity is one of the worst -- I would not curse my best friend with this. It is -- and I have a very small amount. Has it ever played a game with your head?

LOU: I don't think so.

GLENN: Good for you.

LOU: I came from Rochester. Very small town. My mom and dad, you know, Italian descent. And the -- my first glimpse and desire to have that kind of fame is when I saw The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show.

GLENN: Wow.

LOU: And that's what spurred me to not make music a hobby, but my life's calling.

GLENN: Yeah. Lou, it is great to talk to you. And Pat now has your phone number. We've traced the call.

(laughter)

LOU: Well, you're welcome to give me a buzz any time.

GLENN: God bless you.

LOU: I have a book out too.

GLENN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know about it.

PAT: Yeah, your autobiography, right?

LOU: Yeah, it's called "Jukebox Hero: My Five Decades in Rock and Roll."

GLENN: Great. Great song.

STU: It's an amazing story.

GLENN: Amazing story. I will pick it up today and start to read it. And I know Pat has already read it. But thank you, Pat, for informing me he had a book out. Lou, thank you very much.

LOU: Great to talk to you guys.

GLENN: Great to talk to you.

"Jukebox Hero" is the name of the book.

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.