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

The Entire List of Who to Blame for the Attempted Slaughter of GOP House Members

June 15, 2017
Staff

WRITER

For those scrambling to point fingers at who and what is responsible for the shooting in Alexandria that left five people shot and one person dead, Glenn provided a complete and thorough list on radio Thursday.

"I want to take this, and I want to put it in a lockbox, you know, where all the Al Gore Social Security money is," Glenn said. "I'm going to put that in a lockbox, and we're going to lock it away. And forever, those people responsible will be in that box."

He then opened up the metaphorical lockbox.

"Here's the truth. The shooter is responsible, by himself --- not the gun, not the bullets, not the gun industry . . . not the NRA, not the left, not the right, not the president, not the former president, not Hillary Clinton, not Antifa --- no one," Glenn said. "The shooter is responsible, period."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Okay. I want to show you some pictures. Stu, Pat, you can describe them. Before I get to the real culprit of the shooting yesterday.

And --

PAT: It's the Kathy Griffin holding the head of Donald Trump.

GLENN: It's that one.

STU: You've got -- oh, that the Shakespeare In the Park murder of the Trump-like character.

PAT: Assassination.

GLENN: What does it look like?

STU: What does it look like? It looks like they're killing Donald Trump in a park.

GLENN: Yeah. And got blood all over him. Right?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. Notice, does it look similar to the Kathy Griffin --

STU: Yes.

GLENN: All right. What's this one?

STU: From one of the riots in Berkeley, right? It says, "Kill Trump."

GLENN: Yes. Spring painted up on a pillar or a wall, right? What is this one?

STU: More riots.

GLENN: More riots.

Okay. And what were the riots doing? What were they doing?

PAT: Protesting Trump. Anti-Trump people.

GLENN: Who are those people? Yeah.

STU: Is that an effigy being hung there? I can't even tell what that is.

GLENN: No, that's a guy up on -- a turned over garbage can where they have lit the street on fire, and he's got a mask and he's preaching to the people there, more violence.

STU: Got it.

GLENN: Okay. So these things have happened on the left. All of them, except for the Antifa -- that has happened several times, but the others have happened this week or late last week. Okay?

Nobody is mentioning these in the media today. You're not seeing the pictures of Kathy on CNN. Oh, no, no, no. You're not -- you're not hearing anybody talk about Shakespeare In the Park today. Oh, no, no, no, no. No. No. You're not going to hear that.

So what am I going to say? Well, let me tell you what brought this all about. Let me tell you who is responsible for the shooting. When all is said and done, let me tell you exactly who is responsible for the shooting.

And I want to take this, and I want to put it in a lockbox, you know, where all the Al Gore Social Security money is. I'm going to put that in a lockbox, and we're going to lock it away. And forever -- those people responsible will be in that box because there's two things I want to tell you. So let's open up the lockbox. (sound effect)

Who do we put in there? The shooter, period. End of story. The shooter.

He was living in his van for the last couple of weeks. He is a violent guy who has a history of family violence. His stepdaughter wanted to get out of his -- out of his control so badly, she poured gasoline on herself and set herself on fire. He has a history of gunplay. He is a crazy, dangerous man. Am I going to put him in there, along with Kathy? No. Just him.

How about Shakespeare In the Park? No. Just him. Well, how about the Antifa movement? No, no, just him. He's the guy who got up in the morning and apparently got up several times over the last -- over the last few -- few days and weeks, while -- I mean, it was a big apartment in the back of his van -- loser. But he got up and he paced back and forth in the back of his van. What am I going to do? He went. He got the gun. He got the bullets. He went to the park. He asked, "Are these Republicans, or are these Democrats?" He went to the baseball diamond, and he's the one who pulled the trigger. Period. End of story. Close the lid. Put a lock on it. That is the truth.

Today I saw Michelle Malkin retweet a story -- I don't even remember, from MSNBC. I think. Look at my Twitter feed. See who is it from. Because I retweeted it. And she said -- it was a story -- somebody was blaming Donald Trump for -- for the shooting yesterday. That Donald Trump is responsible.

Now, remember, I have the lockbox over here. Who is responsible? Who is in the lockbox, Pat?

PAT: The shooter.

GLENN: The shooter.

PAT: The shooter.

GLENN: I know it was hard to follow because I had so many people in there.

PAT: It was.

GLENN: It was just the shooter.

PAT: The shooter.

GLENN: Now, I put that in a lockbox because we're going to open it and add some more people to it?

PAT: No. Because -- no, you already shoved it away. It's locked.

GLENN: Shoved it away. It's locked. There's no one else responsible for the shooting yesterday. Is that clear? Is that clear?

PAT: Yes. I think so.

GLENN: Is that clear? It's in a lockbox. It's away. It's in a safe. No one else is responsible.

What did Michelle Malkin tweet? The retweet story?

STU: I don't see a Michelle Malkin tweet, but there's a tweet from the Washington Times, about heated rhetoric that led to the Alexandria shooting.

GLENN: Okay. And the heated rhetoric, they're blaming Donald Trump.

STU: Yeah, Donald Trump partially to blame.

GLENN: Partially to blame.

STU: And that comes from Mark Sanford, by the way.

GLENN: Right. And Michelle Malkin said: Look at this discredited G.O.P. guy who is now blaming Donald Trump. Okay.

STU: The quote does not seem to be as clear as he was actually blaming Donald Trump, by the way. But still.

GLENN: All right. Okay. So what did I tweet? What did I say?

STU: You said Trump is responsible, as much as I am. Rachel Maddow, the New York Times, we all are. What choice will we make today? Deeds, not words.

GLENN: Okay. That's crazy. That's crazy.

STU: Well, especially since you have a lockbox.

GLENN: Right. I've got a lockbox. So how could I possibly --

STU: You made a clear point that the shooter is the only one responsible.

GLENN: Is the only one responsible.

STU: How can you say that?

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It's almost as if you're about to make some nuanced point that actually involves some listening.

GLENN: Nuanced point. That kindergarteners will not understand.

STU: Oh, but our audience, are they filled with kindergarteners? I don't think so.

GLENN: No, they're not. No, they're not. They're intelligent people. And so that's why I'm going to make this point.

Now let's go to point number two. Is there -- have you ever heard of the broken windows theory?

What's the broken windows theory?

STU: Rudy Giuliani.

GLENN: Rudy Giuliani. Okay. Giuliani used it to clean up New York. What is that theory?

STU: The theory being that if people kind of see dumb things -- you know, graffiti, broken windows, stupid things like that, they're going to be more likely to commit crimes because they think no one cares. So fix those things, and you'll start cleaning up the streets.

GLENN: Right. If you are walking down the street and you see a neighborhood where all the windows are broken out and it's all in disrepair, the average person will pick up a rock or is likely to pick up a rock and throw and break another window in a house full of broken windows.

However, the average person will never pick up a rock and -- and throw it through a window in a neighborhood where there are no broken windows. It's the broken window theory. What does it mean, Stu?

STU: Well, as it was applied there, it meant, you know, you need to have these -- you need to clean these things up. And if you have a neighborhood without broken windows, people won't be tempted to --

GLENN: Why? They don't even think about it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They don't even think about it. Because they're not bad people. Okay? However, we -- some of us have an instinct to do -- to do things -- and more importantly, criminals will prey on those areas because they think no one cares.

And so that opens up to the most nefarious among us, to take control and to do whatever they want because they think no one cares.

Okay. Broken windows theory: If I said to you I want a president who is walking around stage mocking Tea Partiers by calling them Teabaggers, do you want that?

STU: Uh-uh.

GLENN: Do you want a president who says, "Rough them up. You know, throw them outside in the cold and take his coat from him because he'll figure out what's right." That we want a president doing that?

STU: No.

GLENN: We don't want either of those presidents. We don't want either of those presidents. We'll accept those presidents because America has been walking down a street with more and more broken windows. And what are those broken windows? More and more politicians and more and more people, quite frankly, like me. Just leave everybody else out of it. Just make it me. Because Glenn Beck was on television at Fox saying crazy things. And he has -- he is opening up -- well, you know what, there's some truth to that. I'm not responsible for any of this. But yet, I am responsible in my own way for my own things, just like you are, when you get on and respond in kind. You're picking up a rock, and you're breaking a window.

What is Facebook? What is Twitter? That is the worst neighborhood in America. When you read that, people are vile. They are crude. They are mean.

They devalue other people. There's no kindness on Facebook. Or very little. There's no kindness on Twitter.

That is a neighborhood of nothing, but broken windows. And we are more inclined to pick up a rock and throw it at that other avatar that isn't really a person.

And what does that do? That makes somebody else want to pick up a rock and break another window.

Who is in the lockbox again? All the American people and all the people on the left or the right?

PAT: No, the shooter. Just the shooter.

GLENN: Oh, that's right. Just the shooter.

STU: He's also in there with Facebook and Twitter, right?

GLENN: No. No.

STU: Oh, it's just him by himself?

GLENN: It's just him by himself. In a lockbox. In a safe. Can't be changed.

PAT: Jeffy is not in there with him?

GLENN: Well, Jeffy is in there too, but nobody else is in that. He's the only one responsible.

The question is, will we take responsibility at all for throwing any stones that leads to a society that is not kind, is not gracious, that looks at the opposing point of view as the enemy?

There are bad people in America. I believe -- and I never believed this before, and I have nothing to back it up. And I'm hoping I'm wrong. I'm hoping these numbers are way too big. They may be too big, they may be too small. I don't know. But I hope it's no more than 10 percent of both sides that do want a revolution, that do want to duke it out, that do believe we're in a civil war. "Grab your guns. Let's just get this over."

But that leaves 80 percent of us who do not want anything to do with that. You get a hit of dopamine every time you pick up a rock and throw it. It feels good.

I've said to you before, it's going to be this audience that saves the republic. But only if you choose. I said there's going to come a time when you're going to want to go, and everybody is going one way, and you're going to have to stop and say, "Don't. Don't go that way." That time is right now.

And you may not get anyone else to go with you, but you go the other way. Do not pick up the rock. That doesn't mean surrender. That doesn't mean don't tell the truth.

Here's the truth: The shooter is responsible, by himself. Not the gun. Not the bullets. Not the gun industry. Not the NRA. Not the left. Not the right. Not the president. Not the former president. Not Hillary Clinton. Not Antifa. No one. The shooter is responsible, period.

But here's the truth, as well. We are all accountable for our own actions. And we are all creating an atmosphere where people just think, "You know what, there's no rules, and nobody cares." I care. I care. I care because I want a country left for my children and my grandchildren to grow up in. I want an end to chaos. And the best way to end the chaos is to end it in your own life first. And when you see rock throwing, do not pick up a rock. Help repair the neighborhood.

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.