Glenn Beck 'Roughs It' at Boy Scout Camporee 2016: Potstickers, CNN & Buc-ee’s

November 14, 2016

Writer

It ain't what it used to be, that's for sure. Abandoned in the wilderness that is Texas Motor Speedway, Glenn pitched a tent with his son this weekend at the Boy Scout Camporee, a huge scouting event in North Texas that draws nearly 6,000 scouts.

"So we go and we pack all of our gear, and we pull up to the NASCAR Speedway, and we're in the parking lot outside of the speedway, in between the speedway and the interstate," Glenn said Monday on his radio program.

Thinking he'd be roughing it for the weekend, Glenn was surprised to find access to Port-A-Potty row, the giant convenience store that is Buc-ee's and Asian cuisine.

"We're making dinner, and the boys have to come up with what to have for dinner. What kind of Boy Scout troop has potstickers on a campout?" Glenn laughed. "Potstickers. We're having Asian cuisine?"

So much for the skillet cornbread and campfire stew.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Was shuttle service available from Texas Motor Speedway to Buc-ee's?

• Did Jeffy attend the Camporee with his son?

• Did Glenn schedule a CNN interview at the Camporee?

• What time did Glenn leave the campsite?

• Will Glenn ever camp again?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 2:40, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: It is -- I went out camping with my son on Friday.

JEFFY: Did you?

GLENN: Yeah. And shockingly, your son as well. But you weren't there, for some reason.

JEFFY: No. I don't -- I couldn't make it. I have work here at the network.

GLENN: No. I'm your boss. No, you didn't have work on Friday night.

JEFFY: I do.

GLENN: You didn't have to -- so I went. It was the longest night of my life, I contend. I went, got there about 5:30 with my son.

PAT: It was at the Texas Speedway.

JEFFY: It's a camporee.

PAT: I mean, come on. That's not roughing it.

GLENN: No. No. Really?

PAT: Really.

GLENN: So we're in Texas, the largest state next to Alaska --

PAT: Right. Largest in the 48 contiguous.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- right? We're ten times the size of most countries.

PAT: We've got wilderness.

GLENN: We have it here. We're outdoorsmen. Right?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: We're tough. I'm not. But that's the -- that's the MO on Texas.

So here's where we end up. So we go and we pack all of our gear, and we pull up to the -- the -- the Speedway.

(laughter)

GLENN: The NASCAR Speedway. And we're in the parking lot outside of the Speedway, in between the Speedway and the interstate.

PAT: In between -- so you're between the Speedway and I-35?

GLENN: And I-35.

PAT: Wow, that's bizarre.

GLENN: And I said to my son, I said, "You know what, let's go see if we can find any animals."

"Oh, there's a beaver across the street. It's Buc-ee's. Let's go."

STU: The convenience store.

GLENN: The convenience store, which is not a convenience store. It is a city.

STU: Yes, it's awesome.

GLENN: If you don't have a Buc-ee's around you -- people wouldn't know what to do -- if you're from New York and you go to a Buc-ee's, they wouldn't know what to think.

STU: It's like a Walmart-sized convenience store. It's unbelievable.

STU: It's unbelievable.

PAT: And another thing, the Texas Motor Speedway is in the metroplex.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Still in part of this massive city.

GLENN: No. On the other side of the Buc-ee's is the airport.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So you're having (sound effect). All right? So it's that outdoorsy. It's that outdoorsy.

PAT: Wow. Why did they pick that? Do you have any --

JEFFY: Because there's space.

GLENN: I would imagine because -- yeah, it's 6,000 Boy Scouts.

JEFFY: It's a camporee.

PAT: 6,000.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: 6,000 Boy Scouts. 6,000.

PAT: Again, I will say it again, we have wilderness.

GLENN: I know. I guarantee you --

JEFFY: We don't have enough for areas for that many --

PAT: Yes, we do.

JEFFY: We do not.

GLENN: No, no, no. I guarantee you, you cannot have 6,000 -- Pat. Pat.

PAT: We've had jamborees in Montana. Are you telling me Montana has better facilities than Texas --

JEFFY: This is a camporee.

PAT: Well, we've had that.

JEFFY: Not a jamboree.

PAT: A jamboree and a camporee are essentially the --

GLENN: I can guarantee you -- this is because of the laws, having to make sure that you have access to everything.

PAT: Oh, I bet.

GLENN: That you have the right number of Port-A-Potties. And it's just too expensive to go out and really do it.

PAT: So you had bathrooms what, at the Motor Speedway?

GLENN: Yeah, and also Port-A-Potties everywhere. But we also had real --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah, okay. So it was at the Motor Speedway. So we're -- I'm pitching a tent on gravel.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Come on.

GLENN: And to make it worse, I had scheduled --

PAT: Not even on grass. At least they could have put you on the infield.

GLENN: So I scheduled an interview. I had an interview scheduled for CNN. So I have to do this interview. So they bring this satellite truck. CNN sends this satellite truck. And so it pulls up next to the tents. And it's got all the -- it's like a city now. And the cameras are there. And everything else. This gigantic satellite on this gigantic semi. And all the Boy Scouts are coming --

JEFFY: Nobody knew you were there.

GLENN: Nobody knew I was there. So all the Boy Scouts were coming around because it was there for four hours.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: And they said, "What's with the -- and I said, "We have HBO. We have Showtime. We're not roughing it here. What do you guys have? Because we have every channel known to man at our campsite."

(laughter)

It was nuts.

PAT: I bet they were mad.

GLENN: Then we're making dinner. And the boys have to come up with what to have for dinner.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What kind of Boy Scout troop has potstickers on a campout? I said, "What are you guys making?"

STU: Like dumplings?

GLENN: Yeah, potstickers.

STU: Right.

GLENN: "Potstickers." I said, "We're having Asian cuisine?"

(chuckling)

GLENN: "How do you make those over a campfire?"

JEFFY: You wrap them in foil, right?

GLENN: Yeah. We didn't actually have a campfire -- you can't have a campfire at the Speedway. So you just bring the kitchen appliances. Oh, my gosh, it was like come on.

STU: Wait. So they had an oven or a microwave?

JEFFY: They have a grill.

GLENN: They made them in -- on a stove.

JEFFY: On the gas grills. The Coleman gas --

GLENN: Yeah. The Coleman gas grills.

So it was camping like no other. I got up -- I finally got up at 4 o'clock in the morning because I couldn't -- I just couldn't take it anymore. And I got up at 4 o'clock in the morning. And I just -- I rolled up my sleeping bag. And then I went -- no, I'm not even rolling it up. I'm just leaving. My son can pack it. So I left. I left --

JEFFY: So is your tent still in the middle of the --

GLENN: No, he did it.

PAT: I love that. That is quintessential Glenn Beck. Quintessential Glenn Beck.

(laughter)

GLENN: My son gets up, and he calls me. And he's like, "You just left the tent?"

PAT: That's the greatest.

GLENN: And I said, "Damn right. You're a Boy Scout. Roll that baby up and make sure you don't lose any of the pieces. I'll see you at home later."

(laughter)

PAT: So you didn't even wake Raphe up to say you were leaving?

GLENN: No.

PAT: You just left?

GLENN: No, he was -- no. Here -- I get here. This really hacked me off.

I get there. And one of the dads drops his son off and says, "I'm just dropping him off."

You're, what?

"I'm just dropping him off."

You're not staying?

"At the Motor Speedway?"

I'm like -- well, no. I didn't know I had that option.

Then -- then as I'm --

PAT: Your wife didn't let you have that option.

GLENN: I know. Then as they're pitching -- as they're pitching their tents and I'm pitching mine, one of the camp -- the counselors comes over and says, "So Raphe -- all the boys are going to be sleeping over there in their tents, and then you just stay in yours, and everybody can just stay in their -- you know, the men will stay in their tents."

PAT: And wasn't the point for the fathers to be with the sons, right?

GLENN: Right. So I stood around all night.

PAT: If you're not with the son, then why be there?

GLENN: Why be there?

PAT: I'm with you on that. I'm with you.

GLENN: Right. Right. So I didn't -- I got up. He wasn't even in my tent. He was in with the other boys in their tent.

PAT: Definitely with you.

GLENN: I'm like, "Oh, man." I said to him, "We're never camping again. Never. At least at a motor speedway."

STU: Interesting. That's also what civilization said about 1900.

GLENN: Right.

STU: We're never camping again.

GLENN: I mean, when you're camping and you're going to the Buc-ee's, that's not camping.

JEFFY: Well, you made the choice to go to Buc-ee's. You can make the choice not to.

GLENN: We could have hiked across the street. I could have put my big hiking boots and gone across the street to the Buc-ee's. That's not camping.

The worst experience next to this one -- the worst experience of my life was my brother convinced me to go hiking. And hike up Mount Baker. Okay? Now, this is a mountain up in northwest Washington. So he says, "Let's hike up Mount Baker. I know this great place that we could camp."

So we hike all day. I mean, we started 6 o'clock in the morning. By the time we make it to camp, it's maybe 9:30 or 10:00 because it's summertime. And it's taken us all day to get there. And it's pitch dark when we get there. And we're pitching the tent in the dark.

STU: What year is this? This is like --

GLENN: I'm 17 years old.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So we pitch the tent.

The next morning, I'm awakened by the gentle sound of an RV.

(chuckling)

GLENN: And I open up the tent and there is a freaking parking lot. And I look at my brother, and I said, "We hiked all day yesterday so we could get away -- and we're at a parking lot?" He's like, "I knew you wouldn't go any place without a bathroom. So we're just hiking up here. I couldn't imagine you being quiet without an indoor bathroom. This is the only place."

JEFFY: Even then.

GLENN: Even then.

JEFFY: So I want to -- you're upset that you weren't roughing it enough?

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: As --

PAT: You're upset that you didn't drive to the campsite.

JEFFY: You're so upset that you were going camping with your son, that you had a TV live shot scheduled.

GLENN: If you're going to be miserable, at least be out in the middle of nowhere.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Why be miserable, literally ten minutes from my house. All I could think of was, I could get in my house -- I could be sitting in my couch in total comfort within eight minutes.

JEFFY: Yeah, that's why I don't camp.

STU: If you -- this exact monologue occurs if the opposite happens, which if you're in the middle of nowhere, you complain about not being close enough to anything.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: Why can't we just go right next door --

PAT: There's no question about that.

STU: -- like the Texas Motor Speedway, across the street from Buc-ee's.

PAT: The issue is camping. Stop it. Let's stop camping. There's no reason for it. We have homes now. Camping was important when we didn't have homes.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Can you imagine --

PAT: Now we have nice places to rest.

GLENN: Imagine -- imagine somebody 100 years ago saying, "Man, some day, people are going to live like this for fun." And everybody would be like, "Crapping in the woods? Being cold, sleeping with a rock print in your face the next morning? I don't think so." No, they'll do it for fun, I'm telling you. No.

PAT: Yeah.

(chuckling)

GLENN: I mean, they didn't know that we were also going to have potstickers.

(chuckling)

GLENN: That may have been the thing that threw it over the edge.

Featured Image: (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

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

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn Beck 'Roughs It' at Boy Scout Camporee 2016: Potstickers, CNN & Buc-ee’s

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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