Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Ben Carson's Allegations: Much Ado About Nothing

February 03, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

Following the Iowa Caucus, presidential candidate Ben Carson said that, "Dirty tricks were used in Iowa." He made the charge that Ted Cruz's campaign knowingly and deceitfully told caucus goers that Carson was dropping out of the race.

"I was reasonably happy today, until I, you know, discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for someone else," Carson said to multiple news outlets.

He Said, CNN Said

It all began with a news report from CNN stating Ben Carson was going to take a few days off, not go to New Hampshire and possibly make a big announcement next week. The Cruz campaign passed on this news to caucus goers in Iowa. Once Carson's allegations became public, the Cruz campaign also addressed the issue head on.

"On the Ben Carson allegations, it's just false. We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said --- had said in his own words. He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple days, and then he was going to go to D.C. for the Prayer HEP Breakfast," Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire. That's not a dirty trick. That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa, saying he's not going to come to New Hampshire. I mean, that's a news item."

Context Matters

Put into context, the CNN report more than implies Carson would be suspending his campaign --- and that's exactly what CNN speculated.

"On CNN they were speculating that he [Carson] was going to drop out because nobody in their right mind does that, especially with the excuse that Ben Carson gave to the press," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "You're running for president of the United States. You have to go to New Hampshire. Everybody got on their plane the next morning and flew to New Hampshire."

Excuses, Excuses

While Glenn and his co-hosts greatly admire Dr. Carson, his excuse for not going directly to New Hampshire just didn't hold water.

"He had to go get a set of fresh clothes," Co-host Stu Burguiere revealed.

Can you hear crickets chirping?

"That's just an unreasonable statement," Glenn said. "You could say this, 'I have personal issues I have to deal with. I just have to go home for two days and be with my wife. I just need to be at home with my family for two days. I'll be back in New Hampshire in two days.' Not, 'I'm going home because I have to get a fresh pair of clothes. And then I'm going to a prayer breakfast in Washington. We'll check back with you.' That's ridiculous."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Ted Cruz apologized to Ben Carson for the confusion surrounding the CNN report --- and the Cruz campaign's subsequent response. However, there were no "dirty" dealings.

"If there's a chance that somebody is dropping out of the race, you're darn right I'm going to get my people on and say, 'Go over and get those Ben Carson people because they identity with us and they're good, and if he's dropping out of the race, let's get them.' There's nothing wrong with that," Glenn said. "That's not a line. That's not cheating. That's not thievery. That's not dishonest."

Listen to this complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. Let's start with the audio where Ben Carson says, "Dirty tricks were used in Iowa." It's cut 542. Listen to this.

BEN: I was reasonably happy today, until I, you know, discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for someone else. I mean, do you think that that's something that is acceptable?

PAT: I don't think that's something that happened.

GLENN: Okay. Let's explain. Let's explain what happened. He made this charge. And he was making the charge that Cruz played a dirty trick, and what Cruz did was tell the caucus goers that -- not Cruz. Not Cruz. Cruz campaign people and the local or state people, right? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. His name is on it. So it doesn't matter.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: So the Cruz campaign said that he was going to drop out and so -- next week he was going to drop out. In fact, I want to get this right. The press release that they released to their caucus goers said that CNN reported that Ben Carson was going to take a few days off next week and not go to New Hampshire, and then had a possible big announcement next week. So they should convince caucus goers for Ben Carson to come over to Cruz. When that was found out, Carson said, "Dirty tricks were used." And here's the response from the Cruz campaign.

VOICE: On the Ben Carson allegations, it's just false. We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said -- had said in his own words. He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple days, and then he was going to go to DC for the Prayer HEP Breakfast. And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire. That's not a dirty trick. That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa, saying he's not going to come to New Hampshire. I mean, that's a news item.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, it's not them reading into this. This is what CNN reported. And on CNN, they were speculating that he was going to drop out because nobody in their right mind does that, especially with the excuse that Ben Carson gave to the press.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you know what the excuse was?

PAT: I -- I don't know.

(laughter)

STU: Oh, it's totally believable.

GLENN: It's totally believable. Now, hang on. You're running for president of the United States. You have to go to New Hampshire. And the next thing that's beginning right away. Everybody got on their plane the next morning and flew to New Hampshire.

JEFFY: That evening.

GLENN: That evening.

PAT: It's a week away. Less than that.

GLENN: He didn't go because...

STU: He had to go get a set of fresh clothes.

PAT: No way. That was really the excuse?

GLENN: Yes, that's the excuse.

JEFFY: To be more specific, I believe it was he had to get new suits. Right? Different suits?

STU: Well, I believe the quote was "a set of fresh clothes."

PAT: He's only a neurosurgeon. He can't afford to run out and do that at a store.

STU: No. On the fly.

PAT: You want him to go to a men's warehouse and buy a whole new suit?

GLENN: You're a presidential candidate -- let me tell you something. You're Ben Carson. You're Ben Carson.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Who, by the way, has one of the best-run campaigns. The guy has plenty of money.

PAT: He's got a lot of money.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. And the campaign could buy the suits. You could hire somebody to come. You could get somebody to make a suit for you in Iowa. You could hire the best people in the world to come and make you a suit or bring you suits. You could hire a department store to come and bring you the suits, if you're Ben Carson.

JEFFY: They probably would do that for Ben.

GLENN: Of course they would. Of course they would.

PAT: They love him, they would probably do it for free.

GLENN: You could call any department -- you could call Macy's. You could call HEP Burgdorf or Nordstrom's or something like that.

PAT: Oh, not in Iowa. There's the problem. He's in Iowa.

GLENN: You can call them in New York and say, "I'm Ben Carson. I need somebody to come and bring a tailor and bring some suits to me." And that's easy to do.

STU: And that's high-end dealing with it.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Another way to deal with it. I haven't done my personal research on it, but it's my understanding that there are dry cleaners in New Hampshire. So in theory, it's possible that you would bring your old clothes to New Hampshire and get them dry cleaned.

GLENN: There's another thing. Let's say you rip your pants or whatever.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

GLENN: Remember when we would go on the road. We would be on the road for like a month, month and a half.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You remember how many times one of us, we would get to a town and we'd go, "I've got to find a men's store. I got to go find a men's store. I need to buy two new shirts. I need a jacket."

JEFFY: Something.

GLENN: And we would -- one of us, invariably would always have to stop once a week or something. One of the would say, "I have to get some socks." That's what you do.

PAT: Well, yeah, we were in Cleveland a couple years ago, and it was bone-chilling cold, and none of us were dressed for it. Remember that?

GLENN: Yeah, there was something that happened. We were on the road. We weren't supposed to go there. And it was -- I don't remember what happened. But we flew there. We got there at like midnight. We had meetings or shows to do. And we found a place that opened at 8 o'clock in the morning. We were like, "Okay. We need coats. We need coats."

JEFFY: Are you saying you didn't fly back home?

GLENN: We didn't fly back home.

PAT: That's just ridiculous.

GLENN: Here's the thing. That's just an unreasonable statement.

PAT: It is. It is.

GLENN: Just an unreasonable statement. If that really what he has, then that shows this man is not taking this campaign seriously.

STU: Right. And, look, maybe he just wanted to go home and have a night at home during the campaign. That's fine. He gave an excuse that sounded like an excuse a campaign makes when they're about to drop out. People started speculating that they were going to drop out.

GLENN: That's what was happening on CNN.

STU: It happened on CNN. It happened certainly all over social media.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And so Cruz eventually apologized for his campaign because they didn't update it after he came up with the excuse. So he told --

GLENN: Would you have bought that excuse?

STU: I didn't buy it.

GLENN: I wouldn't have bought that excuse.

STU: That's a good argument for Ben Carson to drop out of the race.

GLENN: You could say this, "I have personal issues I have to deal with. I just have to go home for two days and be with my wife. I just need to be at home with my family for two days. I'll be back in New Hampshire in two days."

PAT: That's believable. That's believable.

GLENN: Not, "I'm going home because I have to get a fresh pair of clothes. And then I'm going to a prayer breakfast in Washington. We'll check back with you." That's ridiculous.

STU: It's a terrible idea, if that's the way it is. And beyond that, like, look, what did it cost? Let's just say crazy, it was 100 votes. Crazy, I mean, Ben Carson finished in fourth by 18 percent. 19 percent. He was not on the verge of winning and lost by 20 votes and has cost him the election.

PAT: No way.

STU: He finished fourth place. No matter what happened with this, he was going to finish in fourth place.

GLENN: No, he was not going to beat Marco Rubio.

STU: It's silly. This is Ben Carson saying, "Look, this isn't going the way I hoped." And, again, we like Ben Carson. He's a good guy.

GLENN: I really like Ben Carson.

STU: He's frustrated. And he's making -- you know, he's getting desperate.

GLENN: Here's the thing, you know, I talked to Ted Cruz over the weekend, and I said -- because some of this stuff that was being said about him is just unbelievable.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: How Marco Rubio can sleep at night is beyond me because he is just lying. Just lying. There's a difference between, you know, making mistakes because everybody makes mistakes. Making mistakes and lying. And when you are -- when you are -- you know, if you're on the stage and you're like, "Look, your record on the border is this, this, and this." But once you

have -- you know, people all coming out, the Washington Post and everyone else going, "You're lying about that. That's not true," and you continue to do it --

PAT: That's a Barack Obama tactic.

GLENN: It's a Barack Obama tactic, and it shows that you have no respect for the truth. And that to me says something about your character.

PAT: It does to me too.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. That's different than this. I don't think Ted Cruz was lying. I wouldn't have bought that. The guy is going to get clothes?

PAT: No way.

GLENN: So what happens? It's not that he's trying to hurt him. He has to be the first one on those -- those votes. Because everybody -- why do you think Donald Trump came out and said, "By the way, I love Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee, you're the best. I just want to French kiss Mike Huckabee and give give him a building."

PAT: He wants that whopping 2 percent.

GLENN: He does. He wants that 2 percent. So if there's a chance that somebody is dropping out of the race, you darn right I'm going to get my people on and say, "Go over and get those Ben Carson people because they identity with us and they're good, and if he's dropping out of the race, let's get them." There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a line. That's not cheating. That's not thievery. That's not dishonest.

PAT: Right.

STU: No. Every candidate would do that. The only reason that Cruz apologized is because they didn't send a second message to correct the first message once Carson came out with this excuse that I don't believe at all. And I'm sure no one in the campaign believed. But, still, maybe they should have done that, I don't know. But I think with the Rubio stuff, what's interesting with that, Trump in a way has Overton windowed our expectations so far. That when Rubio says something that's not true about Cruz's record, I'm like, eh. It almost -- because we have the other guy saying, "This guy was born in Saskatchewan." His attacks are so nuts, that the typical political falsehoods don't seem as bad.

PAT: He was born in Saskatchewan.

GLENN: Well, that kind of goes to -- last night, I did a monologue on television. And I talked about the thing that nobody is really talking about in this. Nobody is talking about the Iowa race in this way. We're sitting here talking about, you know, Cruz and Carson and Rubio and Trump. Nobody is talking about 50 percent of the Democrats voted for an outright socialist

Featured Image: Ben Carson speaks at his Iowa Caucus Night Party in the Marriott Hotel on February 1, 2016 in West Des Moines, Iowa. Carson is projected to finish fourth in the GOP running. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

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.