Texas AG: Price Gouging Is 'Like Porn, You Know It When You See It'

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined Thursday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program” to talk about Texans’ “remarkable” response to Tropical Storm Harvey as well as the politics of price gouging.

“Overall, it’s been a remarkable effort,” Paxton said. “Any loss of life is horrible, but it’s been amazingly low given the magnitude and the length of this storm.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and state and federal officials have worked together to mitigate damage from the storm and make sure stranded people are rescued. They have been joined by volunteers from around the country.

“This is the toughest time in my lifetime,” Glenn Beck said. “I’ve never seen our country more divided. And look at what the people of Texas [are doing] coming from all over the region just to go in and help.”

There will be some fluctuation for the price of water, gasoline and other necessities simply because the storm has shut down the country’s biggest oil refinery, reducing how much gas is available to use and to transport goods.

“Gas will go up to some degree,” Paxton said. “Supply and demand is going to be affected here.”

While some expense is normal, an unreasonable increase to products that the government defines as price gouging is against the law.

“Do you remember when the Supreme Court had to deal with pornography, and they basically said, 'We know it when we see it?'  When I see gas prices at $20 a gallon, I know it’s price gouging. When I saw water at $100 a case, I know it’s price gouging,” Paxton said. “When I see gas at $2.57, it’s probably not price gouging.”

Based on historic price and context from the current market, officials use discretion to keep people from being ripped off, he asserted.

“We’re not talking about price gouging as it relates to anything other than things that really are critical to people surviving,” Paxton said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Lots to talk about today. First, I don't know what it's like in your part of the country, but here in Texas, I think there's going to be a lot of people that are late for work. Because anybody who got up this morning and was driving in and saw the little red light go on and went, "Uh-oh, I got to go get gas," you are now sitting in a line. And that line is getting longer. We could be out of gas in Texas by the -- by the weekend.

Ninety percent of all of the gasoline that fuels the cars at least in Texas -- and I bet it's the greater southwest region, comes out of Houston. Forty-two percent of all of the jet fuel comes out of Houston. Those refineries are now gone, or at least shut down.

We don't know when they will start refining again and when trucks will be replenishing again. This is going to affect all of us. We just have to keep our heads about us. And we also have to discuss, how are we going to get some of the -- how is this going to affect the people who are just getting on the road with their trucks and their cars, and they're going to help?

You can't really drive down to Houston, four hours away, if you can't get gas somewhere along the way to get you back.

We've had another wrinkle added now to the hurricane in Houston. We begin there and also talk a little about price gouging with the attorney general in Texas. Ken Paxton joins us. We begin, right now.

(music)

GLENN: This is a really weird situation because the -- the -- if I warn you about gas, it's going to make people go and sit in lines and everybody starts to hoard gas. And I got to get my lawn mower filled. It's probably not the right move.

But I warn you now because I want you to think about this weekend. This is Labor Day Weekend. Especially if you're in the -- in the Dallas area or the Texas area, we get our gas from those refineries.

JEFFY: Yeah, but nobody has to worry until after this program is over.

GLENN: Right.

JEFFY: Then it's fine. Once I go fill up my car, after the show, then -- then they can worry.

GLENN: Right. Well, we got the tweet from a guy in New York just a little while ago that said -- what was it? It went up 17 cents in an hour, or half an hour?

STU: Yeah, another person writes: Gas here in Cincinnati went up 2.23 to 2.59 in the day.

GLENN: I mean, you know, it's going to impact all of us, this hurricane. It's going to impact us hard. But those oil refineries -- it's my understanding, these oil refineries were locked down tight. We didn't have a problem with winds, just flooding. And it's my understanding that, you know, this can and will come back online as soon as the waters recede. And they're going to start those plants back up. Is that your understanding, Stu? Not really?

STU: Yeah. I'm not...

GLENN: Can we get? Keith! Let's see if we can get somebody on from the oil industry. I know they're probably not busy at all, but to give us some information about these oil refineries. And perhaps Ken Paxton knows a little about this, even though this is not his area of expertise. He is our attorney general.

Ken, how are you, sir?

KEN: I'm doing well. How are you this morning?

GLENN: I'm good. Thank you for all of the hard work, and please pass on to the governor how proud we are of him and what a good job he is doing.

KEN: You know, I would have to totally agree. The magnitude of the storm and what they've had to deal with over a long period of time, and obviously still continues. I'm amazed, the job that both the federal and state government have done working together.

GLENN: You know, I know that there was a disagreement -- and I -- I would have been on the wrong side of this disagreement, I think. And I don't know who had what side, and it doesn't matter.

But there was a disagreement on when to evacuate people. And I think the city of Houston said, "No, no, we're not going to evacuate." Which in New Orleans, worked out horribly.

The way this is stacking up, it might have been a blessing that we didn't have a whole bunch of people, a million people on the road, stuck in traffic on Houston when this thing rolled in.

KEN: Yeah, it's so hard to know. Because you've got 7 million people or more down in the Houston area. And to try to evacuate that -- we're not talking about evacuating some small town. We're talking about a massive effort. I don't even know how you get that many people out.

So I don't know, maybe some could have evacuated. We could look at that later.

I do think overall, it's been a remarkable effort. And if you look at loss of life, obviously any loss of life is horrible, but it's been amazingly low, given the magnitude and the length of this storm and what we're still dealing with.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I can't get my arms around how low those numbers are.

Are we concerned that when the waters recede, we're going to just start going through homes, and we're just going to find a lot of people, or are we pretty sure that this is relatively stable? I mean, we know we're going to find a lot more people, but that we haven't lost an eye-bleed amount of people, is astonishing.

KEN: Yeah. You just think about the magnitude of the storm coming to shore, we could have lost hundreds, if not thousands of people. And who knows what the future holds and what we're going to find. I can just say, I think they've done an amazing job rescuing people. They've gotten resources in place.

The federal government was there early and quick and offered up everything we needed. And Abbott and his team have done an amazing job, just keeping this thing going and making sure that we get this thing done right.

GLENN: I will tell you that this is where -- you know, having the governor and the -- and the president and everybody on board come in handy as now cleanup and real big, huge infrastructure pieces need to be moved.

But I have been -- it is -- it is proof to me why I moved here five or six years ago, when I said on the air, "There are going to be tough times, and you just have to know that the people around you have the same kind of attitude, that when push comes to shove, we're all neighbors."

I mean, we've never been -- I don't remember the 1960s. I was like four.

KEN: Me too.

GLENN: But I know those were tough times in our -- in my lifetime. This is the toughest time in my lifetime. I've never seen our country more divided. And look at the people of Texas, coming from all over the region, just to go in and help. Without the government, without anybody organizing, just, "I got a boat. I'm going in."

KEN: Well, not only that, hundreds of people have done that, and it wasn't like it was not risky for them. They were risking their lives.

GLENN: I know.

KEN: You know, there's just so much at stake for them personally. They didn't have to do it. You would think people would want to go out and save their own families, and yet they came back to help. So it does say a lot about the type of people that live in Texas, and it's really encouraging, given what you just talked about, the divisive nature of what's going on in our country and how difficult it is. And yet, you see in Texas, we -- we've had a devastating hurricane, devastating storms. And yet, you know we'll come back.

GLENN: Ken, I know this is not in your purview, and I'm sorry to hit you with this and even the questions I'm asking you. Because this is not what you do for a living.

But have you heard any talk at all about the gasoline situation? We're seeing -- I mean, stopping at four different gas stations here in the Dallas area on the way into work, four of them had signs on the pumps, out of gas. Ninety percent of all of the fuel coming into Texas is coming in from those refineries that have all been shut down. Are we concerned at all about running out of gas temporarily? Do you have any clue as to what's happening with the gas situation?

KEN: Well, I do think that we're going to start getting supplies from other places. But I think gas is going to go up to some degree. Obviously, supply and demand is going to be affected here. But I do think we're going to have other places that it's going to come from. The supply chain is going to change a bit until those refineries in Texas open back up.

GLENN: And the 42 percent of the fuel for jet fuel comes out of Houston. How long before these refineries can open up. Do you know that?

KEN: That I don't know. I think it's been so dependent on when the rain stops and the water receded. So I believe it will be -- I'm hopeful in the next week they'll open back up. It's an issue. But I do think, as I said, I think the supply chain is changing to address that. It's just prices are going to go up some.

GLENN: So that brings me to what we actually wanted to talk about, and that is price gouging. We just had a listener tweet in from New York and said, "I went. I brought my car in. It was, what? 2.41 or 2.43. I fill up. I go and I get my mom's car. I come back, and it's 2.57, 30 minutes later." And that was in New York.

KEN: That was in New York? Wow.

GLENN: Yes.

KEN: It's going to -- look, it's the natural supply and demand. Prices are going to go up, until the refineries are back open. That's just the reality. We're going to see higher gas prices, for at least, you know, the next few weeks.

GLENN: So I, in my head, can make the leap to things like water. I don't want -- I mean, water -- you have to have water to live. But that stops -- by not -- by saying you can't raise the price, that stops the trucker or the somebody else that might live, you know, in another state, who says, you know what, I'm going to go buy a bunch of water, because I'll be able to make it up. And I'm going to deliver a whole truckload of it, and I'm going to sell it.

So it actually, by -- by disrupting the capitalist system or the free market system, it actually can end up hurting the -- the efforts. How do you balance that?

How do you define price gouging and -- and -- and know where the line is?

KEN: Do you remember when the Supreme Court had to deal with pornography, and they basically said, "We know it when we see it?"

So when I see gas prices at $20 a gallon, I know it's price gouging. When I see water at $100 a gas, I know it's price gouging. When I see gas at 2.57, it's probably not price gouging.

So, you know, we take a look at it and we try to figure out based on the historic price, based on what's going on in the market, are these people taking advantage of people in crisis? And, you know, there is some -- there is definitely some discretion here. And we're not trying to stop the market from working. We're just trying to stop people from ripping people off.

STU: Ken, are you at all uncomfortable with -- and I know you're trying to do good work here and help people in need. But are you at all uncomfortable with the government making a standard of, we know it when we see it?

KEN: Well, so, you know, my job isn't to make laws. I have to deal with the laws I'm given. Whether I would have passed a law exactly like this --

GLENN: Yes.

KEN: As I know from being in the legislature, I never got to pass any law that I exactly liked. I get to -- I get to negotiate laws that were partly what I liked and partly what I didn't.

So, yeah. I'm a free market guy. But I don't think -- in this case, we're not talking about efficient markets. We are talking about really inefficient markets. And I don't think we necessarily have a free market right now in Houston. We have limited supplies. And we've got -- we're talking about critical supplies.

So we're not talking about price gouging as it relates to anything other than things that really are critical to people surviving.

GLENN: You know, Ken, there's an article. And I'm not going to mention where. You know, some person on the left said, "What we're seeing in Houston is not miraculous. People just -- people just rise to the occasion." And I think that's absolutely untrue. We have seen other places and other disasters where people don't necessarily rise to the occasion. And the bad guys take advantage of the occasion. And, you know, are doing some really horrible things.

Are we missing the stories of the violence and the looting and everything else that is happening in Houston? Because I know some of it is happening.

But are -- are we just not seeing a large level of that taking root in Houston?

KEN: You know, I don't think there's a large level. Look, I may -- we could be wrong. We may find more than there is. But part of it is, it's hard for looters to get in and out. They're limited by the same things we're limited by. And so it's made it difficult for them to loot. Now, as the water recedes, we may have more of a problem. But I know that local law enforcement is focused on that. Although, they're particularly focused on rescuing lives first.

But as the waters recede, we'll see what happens. Hopefully, you know, there won't be a lot of that going on.

GLENN: You know, there was a story that came out that President Bush just allowed all of the sales of the transfer of, you know, some serious armaments or, you know -- you know, armed personnel, et cetera, to our local police. And that bothers me. It bothered me under George Bush. And it bothered me under Barack Obama. It bothers me under this president.

I don't understand why that's happening. I want our police to be effective and to be safe. But why isn't that equipment just being transferred to our National Guard. Because they're the ones that really need. We don't really need it to serve a warrant of arrest to somebody.

Why -- why is that happening? And what are we doing with that and our police? Do you know?

KEN: I don't know. I'm not involved in that transfer.

GLENN: Okay.

KEN: I don't know that I disagree with you, that local police shouldn't be armed like they're the US military. That would be better served put into the hands of the National Guard. So I tend to agree with your assessment of that. I have the same concerns you do.

GLENN: One last question: Besides prayer, what can we do to help the governor and everybody else in service the next week or so?

KEN: Well, that's a great question. I think you can pray. That's obviously very important. Still people that are in harm's way. Still people that are rescuing. And that will continue. But there's also great organizations on the ground. Like Samaritan's Purse. There's a group called Minute Man out of Texas, actually out of McKinney, Texas, that I'm very aware that are on the ground. We have groups like the Red Cross.

There are some really good groups that are -- that are down there doing -- also, Texas Baptist Men. So those are at least three or four of the groups that I know of, that are down there now that know what they're doing, that are, you know, legitimate organizations. And that are trying to make a difference.

So you can give money to them. I think they will make a difference down there.

GLENN: Ken, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

KEN: Thank you. Absolutely.

GLENN: By the way, yesterday, I got word that Mercury One -- this is about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, hit a million dollars from this audience. And we can't thank you enough. And you can donate.

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

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

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

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

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

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

Peace through strength

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names matter

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

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative engineering from the top

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

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

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

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

Institutional and media coordination

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

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

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

Surveillance and suppression

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

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

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

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace requires concessions

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

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

Peace or bloodshed?

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

Outsourcing presence

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

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

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

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

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

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

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

Reclaiming our humanity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.