Trump Supporter Calls to Apologize and Forgive: 'You're My Fellow Brothers.'

November 09, 2016

Writer

Following a bloody and divisive 2016 election season, Glenn looked for ways to begin healing on Wednesday, the day after Donald Trump's historic win.

"I want to hear how you're feeling today, and if you want to gloat, it is gloat fest. If you want to gloat, feel free to call us," Glenn said, encouraging listeners to call in.

Glenn took two calls from two very different listeners.

Reese from Pennsylvania called to compliment Glenn and crew on their election night coverage.

"I think last night's room was a really great microcosm of what a lot of rooms in America were last night, that we may disagree on policy, but we agree on principle. And we can get there together," Reese said.

Nate from Virginia, a Trump supporter and previous caller, approached things from a different angle.

"I want to tell you guys, after last night and early this morning, there was a burden that's been lifted off me. I don't hate you guys anymore," Nate said.

Nate took it one step further, apologizing for his hatred and identifying how to start rebuilding the nation together.

"We're going to start with the Constitution. And I know you guys were behind that 100 percent, so let's start there," he said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these unifying questions:

• What did Reese praise Tomi Lahren for?

• Where can Stu and Tomi find common ground?

• How did Nate describe his last call to The Glenn Beck Program?

• Which presidency compares to the difficulty Trump will face?

• How did Glenn respond to Nate's heartfelt apology?

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

GLENN: I want to take -- I want to take some of your phone calls. We want to get into his acceptance speech here in a second. But I want to hear how you're feeling today. And if you want to gloat, it is gloat fest. If you want to gloat, feel free to call us. We'll even play the song for you.

Reese in Pennsylvania. Hello, Reese. Oh, Reese is gone.

Are you there, Reese?

CALLER: I am. Can you hear me?

GLENN: Oh, hi. Yes, I can.

CALLER: First of all, thank you, guys. All of you, for everything you did last night.

I hung in there with you until about 2:30.

GLENN: Wow.

CALLER: And really appreciate everything you guys did.

PAT: Nice.

CALLER: Second of all, I wanted to give a lot of props to Tomi Lahren. It was obvious that she was sort of the odd man out in the room last night at least.

PAT: She was outnumbered. There was no question. She was outnumbered.

CALLER: At least at the beginning. And you talk about gloat fest, she had every opportunity to, "I told you so," to every person in the room, and she didn't.

You know, before this election, before last night's coverage, Tomi wasn't really on my radar. I was -- I'm 38. I'm not a millennial or at least I don't identify with millennials. And seeing her last night and keeping her poise and keeping her professionalism and moving forward -- I think last night's room was a really great microcosm of what a lot of rooms in America were last night, that we may disagree, but -- on policy, but we agree on principle. And we can get there together.

GLENN: We -- I tell you --

CALLER: So thank you for that.

GLENN: Honestly, at TheBlaze -- TheBlaze programming management, they even thought of at one point not doing election coverage because they said everybody is too divided. And our case was, "No, no, no. That's exactly what it should be. It should be --

PAT: Because the that's where America is.

GLENN: Yeah, that's where America is. A group of people coming together and saying, "We got to work this out."

CALLER: Exactly.

GLENN: At times, it was tough to do, tough to even endure. And I don't know if it was tough to watch. But it was -- it was one of the more tough things I've ever had to do.

CALLER: And I'm really glad, Glenn, that somebody at some point finally got Tomi a blanket. You could see on television how cold that poor thing was. I've been married long enough to know when it's cold --

STU: Look, Tomi and I have not agreed on everything as we go to the election obviously, but I mean, I fully agree with her opinion on how freaking cold this room is. We can unite right there.

JEFFY: Once the results came in, she seemed to be warmer.

PAT: She and Sarah Gonzalez were both just out of their minds cold last night. Sarah was like, "I can't feel my hands. I've lost all feeling in my --

CALLER: But thank you guys very much for you do.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

CALLER: This is where the unity begins, and you guys are doing it in true form. Thank you.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Last night -- you know, what are the things we all did? And I don't know about -- well, Stu drank. You didn't play your guitar. You brought your guitar in --

PAT: It's just -- it's too loud. And so I couldn't -- I didn't know where it fit.

GLENN: Okay. I painted the night.

PAT: Painting was much quieter.

GLENN: Yeah, it was very quiet. But I have to tell you, it's what got me through. I said to everybody yesterday, whatever you have to do to relax --

JEFFY: I had to watch my porn on mute, but I made it through okay.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. Right. And you were very relaxed. You didn't say anything, except, "Oh, yes," a few times, which was disturbing when we were reading the election results.

PAT: Creepy.

GLENN: But strangely, it kind of worked for a lot of people.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Let me go to Nate in Virginia. Hello, Nate.

CALLER: Hey. Hey, how are you guys doing this morning?

PAT: Good.

CALLER: I'm listening to WLNI 105.9. They carry you guys.

GLENN: Yes. Thank you.

CALLER: Listen, can I tell you something? I'm a -- well, I was a Trump supporter. I called you maybe four months ago because you were inviting Trump supporters to call and explain themselves. And we had a long conversation.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: I was perhaps, if you remember, the gloomiest conversation you've probably ever heard.

STU: That's a challenge on this show.

GLENN: Yeah.

CALLER: Right. Yeah. I know.

GLENN: Those don't stand out.

CALLER: I hated you guys for a long time now.

GLENN: You hated us?

CALLER: Hated us -- hated you guys. You know, I'm a conservative person.

PAT: Because of Trump?

CALLER: Yeah, because of everything that happened.

I want to tell you guys, after last night and early this morning, there was a burden that's been lifted off me. I don't hate you guys anymore.

STU: That's awesome.

CALLER: I understand you guys. Even though I didn't want to listen to you guys, I still did, like an idiot. And that made me even angrier.

GLENN: So what happened today? What happened today?

CALLER: It was like when I got saved, to be honest with you.

PAT: Well, Trump won, right?

CALLER: Something came and took away all that hatred inside of me that I had for you guys, and it's released, and it's gone. And I don't have any other explanation for it. I know where you stand. I know everything about you guys, but you're my brothers. You're my fellow brothers. We're conservatives.

And I'm sorry. Can I apologize to the listener, to you for hating you? Because all's it did was hurt me in the end, you know what I mean?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Wow. Nate, this is the nicest call --

CALLER: And I just want to let you guys know that I love you, and we're going to build this nation again.

GLENN: We are.

CALLER: And we're going to start with the Constitution. And I know you guys were behind that 100 percent, so let's start there. And let's worry about the problems when they come. This is -- I pity Donald Trump because he's got a lot on his plate and he's got to come through for us, you know. He's got to.

STU: It's a tough job.

GLENN: I will tell you, this is going to be the hardest job any president has had possibly since Abraham Lincoln.

CALLER: Yeah, no, it's going to be rough.

GLENN: This is going to be a difficult four years.

STU: That was a great call.

PAT: Yeah, thanks.

STU: That was awesome. Thank you for doing that.

GLENN: Nate, can't thank you enough. Thank you. Thank you. And apology accepted. And our apologies to you if we did anything that -- that caused you to hate. Caused you to hate. That happens.

STU: Oh, there's lots of -- people hate us all the time for real, legitimate reasons all the time.

GLENN: Yeah, I hate these people who like have seen one clip of me on YouTube and hate me.

PAT: And that's not the case here.

GLENN: He's watched me for a while. Listened to me for a while. Come up with some good reasons.

JEFFY: You can build up some serious --

GLENN: Yeah, no. You can have a really legitimate case to hate me.

STU: And, by the way, you played the clip earlier. That -- to me, that's what this means. This is -- when you have a president -- there's a lot of things we've said about Donald Trump and things I believe are real negatives. And I'm a skeptic going into this. However, with every president, left, right, Barack Obama, you get a clean slate when you go into that job. Because you're trying to analyze what a president will be, you have to look at their past and what they've done. That's how you do it. But there's no reason to look at that once they get into office. You judge them on the job they've done.

GLENN: It is a complete -- in fact, may I suggest this? Would you, in our audio archives, Pat, will you go and delete every negative thing on Donald Trump, everything that he said during the campaign --

PAT: Yeah. As soon as the show is over, I'm going to do that today.

GLENN: Yeah, delete it. Delete all. It's a clean slate. We start with the man he is today. And there's -- and I can't -- Nate, thank you for that call. It means the world to us. It really does. But let me -- let me say this, the ones we really need to reach out to are the people who are truly afraid today. They really, truly believe that Donald Trump is going to be the death of us.

Now --

PAT: And we believed that about Obama.

GLENN: Yeah. And, quite honestly --

PAT: To the very depths of our being.

GLENN: Quite honestly, if it wasn't that I have weathered Barack Obama, I would be saying the same thing today about Donald Trump.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I -- I have my issues that everybody knows. However, clean slate. We will survive -- we'll survive anybody. We will, if we stay together.

Don't dismiss those people who are afraid. Don't allow yourself to be dragged into what we just went through. Because, listen, what did we just go through? We just went through a year where, listen to what he just said, "The only one who lost was me." In many ways, I feel the same way: The only one who lost was me. Because we couldn't even talk to each other anymore.

I want you to listen to next hour. Because I want to tell you a story about my grandmother. And I want to tell you a story about --

PAT: Plutarch?

GLENN: You're such a jerk. Somebody else's family that missed 20 years. Somebody -- Ronald Reagan.

I want to tell you a story about Ronald Reagan that you need to hear today. Because it's happened in my family with me and my grandmother, and I so regret it.

I think of my grandmother Beck, who my grandfather Beck was not a good guy. And I was not close to him at all. And I -- I was spooked by him, quite honestly. Didn't like him.

But my grandmother was sweet. And my grandmother, quite honestly, was an abused woman. And I didn't know that.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: And my grandmother, when she would see me -- the only real memory I have of my grandmother is, A, reading to me, which nobody used to read to me when I was a kid. My mom didn't read to me, my dad didn't read to me. My grandmother did. And only my Grandma Beck. And the other was, she had a lot of grandchildren. But I was the only one that she would bake a pie for when I would come over.

If I was coming, she would make lemon merengue pie, and it was just for me. And she made the best lemon merengue pie. My grandmother died asking, "When will Glenn come and visit me?"

I didn't because of my own stupidity and fear and history and awkwardness because it became too late and I didn't know how to say it and I didn't know what to do. And I so regret it.

Let me share a story of another broken family that you will -- we're not a country. We're family.

And I always say, "Well, it's blood. You're born into it. And you don't choose your family." Yes, you do. I chose. I chose. And I chose incorrectly.

You can stop calling your brothers and sisters and stop seeing your brothers and sisters and stop going to -- but you go usually -- you go because you know you have to. Because in the end, we're family.

We have to choose today. Are we family? Or are we people that just live in the same planet in the same space at the same time?

Let's choose family.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program, November 9, 2016.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Trump Supporter Calls to Apologize and Forgive: 'You're My Fellow Brothers.'

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Peace through strength

Names matter

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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

Narrative engineering from the top

Institutional and media coordination

Surveillance and suppression

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

Peace or bloodshed?

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

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

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

Outsourcing presence

Reclaiming our humanity