'We explode the code' - Rick Santorum's tax plan eliminates the IRS as we know it

A good friend to the program and 2016 presidential hopeful Senator Rick Santorum joined Glenn on the radio Tuesday to talk about his revolutionary tax plan he announced Monday.

Santorum said his tax plan will feature a flat tax on all income, without a value added tax, which is something he said differentiates his plan from Rand Paul's.

"It's a 20 percent income tax on all income. It's on individual income. 20 percent on corporate income. 20 percent, capital gains, dividends and interest. Everything is taxed at the same level," Santorum said.

He went on to describe how his plan would eliminate the IRS as we know it.

We explode the code. It's gone. There's no IRS as we know it. It's simple. I mean, there's -- there's the tax credit that I talked to you about. There's the deduction for home mortgages and for charitable donations.

The difference is, everybody can take that deduction, not just those who are high income. So everybody has this available to them. So it's really helpful for everybody to have this deduction. And that's it. No other exemptions. No other exclusions. Same thing with the corporate side. Nothing. No special energy provisions or any kind of things. All that -- all that stuff goes away. It's a very simple code. And it gets the IRS out of everybody's hair.

Listen to the full exchange or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: A good friend of the program. A good friend and a very good man. 2016 presidential hopeful. The thing that made Pat fall in love with Rand Paul, I think, the love story may begin here with Rick Santorum. Because yesterday, he announced his tax plan, and it sounds similar.

PAT: Oh, nice.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Rick Santorum.

RICK: Just a little better, I might add.

GLENN: A little better. I don't know. That's hard to beat.

RICK: Well, here's why I say it's better than his. Because -- well, his rate is 14.5 percent. It includes the value-added tax. Mine is at 20 percent, flat tax with no value-added tax. It has a tax on corporate --

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

PAT: Wait. I didn't know it included a value-added tax.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. He put a value-added tax on that?

RICK: Yeah.

PAT: I didn't know that.

GLENN: I had no idea.

RICK: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Can you look that up, Stu? That's really bad.

PAT: At what percent? What percentage?

GLENN: Doesn't matter.

RICK: Fourteen and a half. That's how he's able to accomplish fourteen and a half because he does a value-added tax.

GLENN: He was doing 14 and a half and a 14 and a half VAT tax?

RICK: Yeah. Fourteen and a half income and fourteen and a half VAT.

PAT: That's like 29 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. That is really bad -- that's dishonest. That's dishonest. The way he presented that, I think that's dishonest.

RICK: Well, I think -- if you look it up, that's exactly what his, quote, business tax is, is value-added tax.

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. That's business or that's income?

RICK: He has an income tax. He has what he calls a business-something tax. But it's a value-added tax. That's what it is.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we'll look that up. We'll look that up.

PAT: Okay.

RICK: That's why mine is better. It's a 20 percent income tax on all income. It's on individual income. 20 percent on corporate income. 20 percent, capital gains, dividends, and interest. Everything is taxed at the same level. There's no playing around from one to the other. It is a powerful, you know, corporate tax reduction from 35 percent now down to 20 percent, with full expensing, which is really important, if you're going to encourage manufacturing in this country. Which, as you know, Glenn, I mean, that's been my passion for a long time, is to make sure that America can be number one in manufacturing again. And we'll have a tax code that's going to be as strong on manufacturing -- has a repatriotism provision to get that $2 trillion sitting overseas to come back to America. Invest it in plant and equipment here. You know, there is a guy in this race who is famous for saying you're fired. I want to be famous for saying you're hired. And that's -- this thing will -- this tax plan will explode the code. It's a single rate plan. There's no deductions. No special tax provisions. The -- we eliminate everything on the individual side, except every person gets a 2,750-dollar tax credit. So depending on how large your family is, multiple that by $2,750 for every person in your house. Get a credit off your taxes for every person in your house. It's pro-family. It's pro-growth. And it keeps the rates low, and that means growth high.

PAT: So you're talking -- Rick, you're talking run rate for everybody, including --

RICK: One rate for everybody.

PAT: Wow.

RICK: All income. All income is set to 20 percent. So there's no gaming. Oh, I can move this money here. Move this money there. It's all passed at the same right. Provides generous -- for the corporate side, this being able to write off capital, equipment, and buildings. You can expense the year -- so it's a very powerful incentive.

GLENN: Tell me about capital gains. Is that income?

RICK: Just a flat -- everybody pays a 20 percent capital gains tax.

PAT: Okay. So the capital gains would be 20 percent as well?

RICK: And we get rid of the marriage -- we get rid of the death tax. So there's no estate tax.

PAT: That's good.

RICK: Get rid of all the Obamacare taxes. And under our plan, obviously you want to get rid of Obamacare. If you look at how it's scored by the tax foundation, if you get rid of all the Obamacare taxes, as well as the Obamacare subsidies, it comes out over a ten-year period of time at actually increasing revenues over ten years by $600 billion. It does that, and it's while still increasing growth by 1 percent a year for ten years. So it will go from 2.3 to 3.3. We add another 3.2 million new jobs, above what's projected. And wages go up almost 1 percent a year.

GLENN: What happens to the IRS?

RICK: We explode the code. It's gone. There's no IRS as we know it. It's simple. I mean, there's -- there's the tax credit that I talked to you about. There's the deduction for home mortgages and for charitable donations.

PAT: Oh.

RICK: The difference is, everybody can take that deduction, not just those who are high income. So everybody has this available to them. So it's really helpful for everybody to have this deduction. And that's it. No other exemptions. No other exclusions. Same thing with the corporate side. Nothing. No special energy provisions or any kind of things. All that -- all that stuff goes away. It's a very simple code. And it gets the IRS out of everybody's hair.

GLENN: Okay. So I love this. From what I know -- then, again, I loved Rand Paul's until you just told me some things.

RICK: Sorry to burst your bubble there, Glenn.

GLENN: So I loved this. With one thing you said. And it's a red flag to me. And if we can get really geeky to me. Most people won't even think this way. But I believe, Rick, you and I believe that what the fed has done is just absolutely disastrous. You said you wanted to repatriot $2 trillion into the United States. That money comes flooding back into this system, and we could have hyperinflation. Are you concerned about that at all?

RICK: Well, I mean, there will be a tax on it. It's a 10 percent tax when you bring it back. Am I concerned that it will have economic growth that will cause inflation? Yes. Any time you have -- you know, we look at going from around 2 percent growth, to under our plan, about 4 percent growth, that's a concern. In there, we talk about sound money policy and obviously auditing the fed and putting the fed back on the course of being a -- a sound money fed, not a, you know, growing the economy fed, not a lowering unemployment fed.

GLENN: And how do you do that?

RICK: Well, I think part of it is who you appoint to the fed and the messages you send out. You know, that's -- that's the -- that's the leverage you have. Look, there's no question this president hasn't had a huge impact over the fed and its policies. By his policies and what -- and the governors he's put on the fed. And that's what you have to do. You have to put sound money governors on the fed and as chairman of the fed.

GLENN: Yeah, but you don't as president get to pick that person. They give you a list to pick from.

RICK: Well, that's true. And as you all know, you have some influence on that process. The president is not -- if you look at the people that they put on the fed, they've been put on the fed who are very much in line with where the president wants to take the fed. And I think that's been the case really since the fed has been around. There's an accommodation made to where the president wants to take the fed.

GLENN: Okay. So, Rick, let's get down to brass tacks on you and your campaign. I was with a candidate on Friday, and I heard him -- actually it wasn't him. It was somebody in his campaign. Talking to a group of people. And they were saying, you know, they were just going through all the people. And they said, and Rick Santorum is going to be in this thing even if he has no money, he will go and he will go door to door on foot if he has to, he is never leaving this campaign because there's a chance of a lightning strike and he will take advantage of that. Is that -- is that where you're at -- that you're just -- I mean, because we're looking at a new debate two weeks away on CNBC. I don't know if you'll make it. I don't know if Rand will make it. I don't know who will make it to the big table. They're playing all these games. How long do you survive? And do you believe that it's the right thing to do, if you continue to poll the way you are?

RICK: Well, all I can tell you, Glenn, four years ago I was in the same situation. In fact, in national polls, I was at 2 percent the week before the Iowa caucuses and won the Iowa caucuses. And, you know, I don't know if you saw, Gallup is no longer polling national elections. Pew is saying that they may not do it because the polls are simply wrong.

I can tell you. I mean, I was talking to one of our folks. And she works with five people. And they're all for a particular candidate. I won't say who. And she asked the question, have any of you ever been to an Iowa caucus? And they all said no. And she said, well, do you know what a caucus is? And they all said no. And she said told them. And all of them said, oh, we're not going to do that. We're not going to show up at 7 o'clock at night and spend two hours at some place to vote.

There's a lot of polling that goes on that simply doesn't reflect who will actually vote. I saw it. I witnessed it in reality. And what I have to do is I have to trust what I see on the ground. I did that four years ago. I trusted what I saw on the ground. I trusted that, even though in the state of Iowa, four weeks out, I was at 3 percent in the polls. I knew what I was seeing from caucus goers in Iowa who actually make these decisions. And so had I gotten a good break, which is to win on caucus night, instead of getting an errant count that didn't declare me the winner, I think it would have been a very different situation.

But here's what I do know. The media focuses in on polls and how much money you've raised, both of which feed into each other. They don't focus on what's going on on the ground, which counts, which is, who will vote? And that's what I focus on, and that's what I'm going to trust.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you, you have the -- the image of the hardest working guy in politics. You have the image of a good who is just not going to let a single door go unknocked.

RICK: Well, here's the thing, Glenn. I mean, you can spend all your time raising money. A lot of guys do it. And you look at their campaign schedule. They don't have a lot of town hall meetings. They don't get out and talk to voters. And they're relying on people presenting their image to the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I do the opposite. I don't spend a lot of time raising money. I spend a lot of time out there, and I try to present that image directly and try to obviously build a very loyal cadre of folks who in a caucus state will make a difference.

GLENN: So tonight is the Democratic debate. If you had one question to ask all of the candidates, what would the question be?

RICK: You know, as you know,, I mean, my focus is on right now, the biggest problem -- this president is going to deal with, is a potential nuclear Iran. So my focus is, you know, will you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Because there's no question in my mind that under this deal, Iran is on a pathway to getting a nuclear weapon. And it's necessary to make sure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. And I suspect that the policy of containment, which is what the Obama administration has now put us toward, is the policy that every one of those candidates will follow along.

STU: Rick, I was wondering, maybe this will be a good question to answer, maybe you'll have a good answer to it. Can you identify anything that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, would identify as an actual violation to this agreement? It seems like they could do literally anything, and it still would fall within their framework.

RICK: Yeah, this is -- if you look at what's going on in Syria right now, in Syria, we have an agreement with Syria that supposedly is the model for verification and making sure that they're following along with it. And, of course, Syria has been using chemical weapons since this treaty was put in place. There's no question that chemical weapons have been used and that the Assad regime is the one that's been targeted. Yet, there's been no claim of violation of this treaty, even though they're using chemical weapons. And the reason is, they structure the treaty to where if they don't have weapons at this site and at this location or at that location, they're not in violation. So they can go ahead and use chemical weapons. Develop them somewhere else. Use them on their people. And still be in full compliance of a chemicals weapon treaty. This is the problem, is that we have a president who doesn't want to act. And he's trying to create a facade that he's actually doing something, when he's actually enabling people to move forward with their weapons of mass destruction.

GLENN: All right. Rick, just last night on TV and the rest of it is happening tonight. Last Friday, we spent an hour on radio with Bobby Jindal. And I'd like to offer this to you. I'm not offering this to everybody. I'm just offering this to about six of the people that I think America needs to see and meet. Would you come in and spend a couple of hours with us here in the next couple of weeks.

RICK: I'll spend a whole day with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Okay.

RICK: I'll take you out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

GLENN: No, and you're not going to knock on my door and ask me for my vote either. I mean, no.

STU: Also, Rick, you don't know how much he eats. I don't think you have those kind of campaign funds.

GLENN: Yeah, you haven't seen me for a while, Rick. It's gone down quickly.

RICK: I know the rest of the family doesn't eat much. They're in great shape.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: Rick, God bless you. If you want more information, go to RickSantorum.com. It's RickSantorum.com. Rick, thanks a lot. We'll talk to you soon.

Let's get him scheduled to come in.

STU: Yeah, that would be great.

GLENN: Do the same thing we just did with Bobby Jindal. By the way, the rest of the Bobby Jindal interview is tonight at 5 o'clock on the Blaze TV. You don't want to miss it. Really, really a good candidate.

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.