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

THIS woman is trying to prevent ELECTION FRAUD in 2024. Here's how YOU can help.

January 11, 2024
Bill Clark / Contributor | Getty Images
Staff

WRITER

Glenn asked the question on everyone's minds heading into the new year: "How will 2024 end?" The impending 2024 election has Americans on both sides of the aisle holding their breath, bracing for what many believe will likely be an even more contentious election than in 2020.

The questionable voting practices during the 2020 election resulted in one of the most divisive and contested elections in U.S. history, creating record-high distrust in our electoral system. One thing is clear: unless our elected officials work to reinstate trust in the integrity of our electoral system, 2024 may very well create even more division than 2020.

That raises the critical question: what are our elected officials doing to rebuild trust in the electorate? Is the GOP doing anything to reform the contentious voting laws to avoid repeating the chaos of 2020?

The short answer is: No.

A grassroots initiative to prevent election fraud

Last week, Glenn had Cleta Mitchell from the Election Integrity Network on the Glenn Beck Program (01/05/2024) to give his listeners an insider's view into the state of our electoral system. What she said will shock you.

Cleta founded the Election Integrity Network in 2021 in response to the 2020 election with one goal in mind: "To build a permanent infrastructure of citizen volunteers to be involved in their local election offices" to keep our elections above board starting locally. They are doing this by using an often-forgotten right that every U.S. citizen holds: the ability to contest voter rolls that appear to be fraudulent.

The questionable voting practices during the 2020 election resulted in one of the most divisive and contested elections in U.S. history.

Voter rolls are the lists of registered voters in election districts. During an election, electoral committees check all ballots against the voter roll to ensure that all ballots cast aren't fraudulent—at least that's what they're supposed to do.

Cleeta's organization has uncovered thousands of cases of fraudulent voter rolls, from voters who have moved away and are still registered in a previous district, to voters who are deceased and haven't been taken off of the voter roll. This is especially problematic in states that have universal absentee ballots, one of the most controversial practices during the 2020 election.

The Election Integrity Commission has uncovered thousands of cases of fraudulent voter rolls.

In these cases, absentee ballots are sent to every address on the voter roll. However, as Cleeta points out, this results in hundreds, if not thousands of duplicate ballots. The Election Integrity Network has evidence of deceased voters "coming back from the grave" to cast their vote in the 2020 election, a practice that the Left brazenly dismissed as "misinformation."

The Left fights back

Election Integrity Network's thousands of volunteers across the country aim to help local districts clean up their voter rolls to protect our country's foundational commitment to "free and fair elections," and they have even developed a software called EagleEye that compares voter rolls to other databases to detect cases of voter fraud. However, though they are a bipartisan resource, it comes as no surprise that the Left has pushed back against their efforts.

The Election Integrity Network has evidence of deceased voters "coming back from the grave" to cast their vote in the 2020 election, a practice that the Left brazenly dismissed as "misinformation."

Cleeta told Glenn that "it's hard to describe the intimidation that has gone on by the Left." Most notably, notorious Democratic election litigator Mark Elias threatened Fulton County with litigation to keep them away from the Election Integrity Network's data, although the network uncovered 11,000 citizen challenges of duplicates to voter roll in Fulton County alone.

"It's hard to describe the intimidation that has gone on by the Left."

If you would like to learn more about Election Integrity Network or volunteer with their nationwide effort to clean voter rolls, click HERE where you can find additional information, including guides for local electoral committees to reinstate election integrity.

The Election Integrity Commission has uncovered 11,000 citizen challenges of duplicates to voter roll in Fulton County alone.

Below you will find a selection of emails compiled by Cleeta detailing the Election Integrity Network's nationwide effort at the local level. From Dekalb County, Georgia to Rock Island County, Illinois, this list will give you exclusive insight into the state of our electoral system.

Virginia

Redacted email below:

Here are the major categories of voters removed from the Virginia Voter Rolls in 2023.

  • Purged - 61,111
  • Deceased - 79,867
  • Felony - 8,512
  • Out of State - 54,701
  • Voter Choice - 10,988
  • Total Removed - 215,179

2022 Total Removed - 128,245

2021 Total Removed - 283,390

2020 Total Removed - 68,933

Warwick, Rhode Island

Redacted email below:

There are 3 of us in Warwick, RI starting to work with our Board of Canvassers to clean our rolls. At the moment we are getting signatures to get the Republican candidates on our ballots.

Dekalb County, Georgia

Redacted email below:

You might hear from others here in Dekalb County, GA. Dekalb is 80% Democrat. Our attempts to clean the rolls constantly are denied 3:2 because our independent BoE member is a Leftist. Our Dekalb Voter Roll Research Team of 7 average citizens won't stop. We keep trying to wear them down. We heard that Mark Alias sent letters to all counties in GA saying do NOT accept the challenges. Even Fulton is hitting a brick wall.We have ~89 people in DeKalb > 115 years old on our rolls!

The board says we must prove the 115+ purposely entered the wrong birth date. But we are not allowed to contact voters. No lawyers wants to get involved for fear of the Fani Willis tactic. Our team is working with Dr. Rick Richards. As you know, the software is not yet complete. And even if it were, Dekalb County denies, denies, denies. Wish I had better news. THANK YOU for all that you do!

Frederick County, Maryland

Redacted email below:

I am the cochair of the Frederick county Election Integrity network with [REDACTED] and we gave a presentation to the Frederick County Board of elections today. Four people shared three-minute segments about going to paper ballots and getting rid of machines and we had some elected officials there and we had county council members there and we had the Frederick news post that interviewed me afterwards and I told them that we need to treat our vote like a crown jewel and put it in a safe and get rid of the machines and, we had a great turnout and we are making the same presentation to the Frederick county council next Tuesday, January 9 at 5:30 PM and we are having more elected officials come there and I’m giving this presentation to two mayors within the next two weeks. Don’t tell me we’re not doing anything!

St. Louis, Missouri 

Redacted email below:

CheckMyVote formally launched in 2023 and following is what we’ve accomplished so far. I’ll share detailed metrics in a subsequent email.

(1) First-of-its-kind tool that connects citizens and engages them with their PDs to clean-up voter rolls (2) Launched Voter-roll integrity scorecard (concept credits: Pat Colbeck)(3) Invited to present our work at Election Crime Bureau in St. Louis, MO(4) Expanded footprint into Ohio(5) Launched tool for Royal Oak residents to check their vote.

Rock Island County, Illinois

Redacted email below:

2021 to early 2023 approx. 85,000 registered voters at that time - identified roughly 850 duplicates/deceased/moved voters with success in correcting roughly 2/3 of that list. We also pointed out to our election authority that our own county election laws were not being followed regarding removal of voters that had moved that registered in another state, along with not following her own procedures regarding mailings to voters requesting updating their information- this is now being done.

There were many other local election laws not being followed that we reported to our local DA, AG and Illinois State Board of Elections. We believe that the fact that they know we are watching makes a difference. I am no longer involved in voter roll maintenance in this county, as I moved out of state. I am unsure if anyone else has stepped up to lead this initiative after I left.

A volunteer from another Illinois county thought her county would be fine because it was conservative with a population of only 15,000. She initially discovered over 300 deceased voters; some had died 20+years ago. The last I spoke to her she was still working on her county finding deceased and now she has identified duplicate voters. She has a great relationship with the election authority (conservative), and they appreciate her help. She is doing this all on her own - one person, cleaning the voter rolls in her county.

Hope this helps.

Lincoln County, Tennessee 

Redacted email below:

I have found in my county (Lincoln) Tenn, they do not realize a problem. They think the voters [rolls] are good, and the voters machines are all perfect. When the problem is I feel like no one is accountable to anyone anymore including these corrupt politicians. I have a voter [roll] that [has] over 1/4 of the people on it, [who] are not actively participating or inactive in the elections. I was told 1- not enough staff to take them off 2- they have to have a reason to remove them. Even though they have never voted. When I tried to sign up to work as a worker they told me they didn’t have any openings, later to find out they did. I finally found a way to be a watcher. Not with the help of the election board. Those are just a few of my thoughts.

Prince William County, Virginia

Redacted email below:

In my county the process has been agonizing because our Registrar simply does not wish to do voter roll cleanup on his end, BUT we recently submitted reliable evidence on over 200 registrants with more to come using VA code 24.2-429.He responded, in time and in no hurry at all, with a 2015 ELECT guidance on applying the NVRA in certain circumstances.I attached that guidance. We develop short lists based on databases from the RVL, undelivered mail, NCOA, etc. Then those lists go to a trained genealogist team lead before distribution to a larger team to do guided research which is returned back to the team lead for final review. Those that make it through that process are submitted to the election office, but we are now only submitting about 40 a week or the office balks.So that, compared to a 318,000-voter registrant list, seems to not make a dent, but the GR is finally admitting he can move forward without waiting for the state.

There are still county resources that the election office could draw from, like local property tax and personal property tax records from the county Finance Department. The Loudoun County election office does this and sends notices accordingly. I am not aware their EI group uses the 24.2-429 but their GR seems more responsive to other means of removal or sending notices.

Having more involved would be a huge help so people do not get burned out.

Navajo County, Arizona

Redacted email below:

I don't have the numbers, but here are the main voter roll maintenance projects from Navajo Co, AZ

  1. Project: Name by name check of every voter who is listed as "active" who has not voted in the past 10-40 years Results: Lists of likely deceased voters with documentation Identification of maiden/married name changes which created duplicate registrations Identification of voters who have active voter registrations in other states Identification of voters with data entry typos in their registration Follow-up: A recent spot check of this list of voters shows improvement. Some names have been removed, others have been merged with records in other counties, others have moved from "active" to "inactive" status putting them in line for future removal.
  2. Project: Check voter list for duplicate registrations within the county Results: Over 100 duplicate registrations after 2020 election, reduced to 35 prior to 2022, which were flagged for the county before any voting occurred.
  3. Project: Check voter list for invalid voter registration addresses Results: Identified voters who were registered at mail facilities Identified addresses that were typed incorrectly or non-existent, based on comparison with county property records Follow-up: the county started using parcel numbers to identify voter locations where addresses are not yet assigned. Voters registered at mail facilities have been moved to "inactive" status unless they corrected the registration address.Good luck on your interview!

North Carolina pt. 1

Redacted email below:

Per your request, some bullets on the voter roll cleanup.

  1. We are using the NIST Election Model to map election risks, such as voter rolls with ineligible voters, including underage, deceased, felons, non-citizens, and non-residents
  2. We are reviewing State policies on voter roll maintenance in order to identify poor practices and seek to have them improved.
  3. We are researching blockchain and immutable database systems that provide a permanent record of voter roll changes.
  4. We are investigating the use of Artificial Intelligence to quickly identify ineligible voters on the rolls.
  5. We are developing auditing practices compliant with accounting standards and ISO election standards (ISO/TS 54001) to audit and identify ineligible voters.
  6. We are researching the use of statistical analysis including Benford’s Law to identify anomalies and zero in on the high-risk areas.
  7. We are investigating poll book computer systems to ensure that they meet the cybersecurity standards as prescribed for election systems under the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) and NIST SP800 series requirements for Federal systems.

North Carolina pt. 2

Redacted email below:
  1. We have an NC Data Team independently analyzing voter rolls and identifying duplicate entries and registrants who have moved. This team has identified 200,000 registrants missing federally (HAVA) required identifying information of last four of SSN or Driver's License. The team continually challenges bad entries at county level up until 90 days prior to each election.
  2. [REDACTED NAME] and PILF sued the State of NC to remove non-citizens it identified on the voter rolls less than 7 years ago. The state settled out of court and removed tens of thousands of them.
  3. At NCEIT's urging, the State of NC passed an omnibus elections bill this year that detailed new provisions to clean up the voter rolls. It spelled out methods for cyclical identification and removal of non-citizens.
  4. NC is one of several states who have fielded and began using Eagle AI, a commercial business intelligence tool that analyzes and compares voter rolls against other legitimate data sources to assist boards of elections in removing ineligible registrants. That includes registrants who are non-citizens or duplicated ,or who have moved, died, or committed felonies.
  5. Our training for thousands of poll observers across the state includes teaching methods for identifying and challenging ballots from those who vote in person or by mail, but who are not eligible to vote. We do this by extracting "suspicious registrants" from our voter registration list for each county that is used to match against those who present to vote.
  6. NCEIT task forces closely monitor same day registrations to ensure their addresses are verified via USPS mail prior to their votes being counted.

New Jersey

Redacted email below:

We recently turned on a Blockchain-based database tool to evaluate our New Jersey voter rolls. Our “golden record” was created with our 9/2/23 data load. Since then we have added a 10/29, a 12/2 and, just yesterday, a 12/29 data set.

Each data set has approximately 6.5 million voters and their entire voter history. We receive the data directly from the state of New Jersey on the last Friday of each month at no charge. As each dataset is ingested, the records are connected with the OPRA reference # associated with the request of the state.

We can identify every single change to every single data element for every single voter. We have developed a dashboard to identify trends and a series of reports that allows us to evaluate more closely exactly what is changing. We believe we are well position[ed] to closely evaluate how New Jersey manages their voter rolls leading up to the general election in November.

Cobb, Georgia

Redacted email below:

I don't have the whole state for Georgia numbers removed but in Cobb, [REDACTED] got our new supervisor to remove 60 dead people just before Christmas and there are thousands more in Cobb waiting on Dr Richards software to become active again.

[REDACTED] in Fulton has got 20k removed and is working on submitting another 2 to 4k. Spalding is a small county but working on it and Chatham county as well. Forsyth County has been trying but slow.Thanks Cleta for fighting. Now that we have this WIN in Georgia, the rules for removing voters from the list are being finalised and sent to counties to have EVERYONE follow the rules.

Mustang Ridge, TX  

Redacted email below:

In 2023 I got a copy of our county's voter roll. I'm not good with databases, so I just did this the old-fashioned way by sorting the spreadsheet different ways, then eyeballing as I scrolled through the list.

FOR DUPLICATES, TRIPLICATES, AND MORE
First I sorted the list by DOB. Then as I scroll through the names column and I look for similar names and make a separate list of all that are hard matches or soft matches.
Then I sort the list by residence address and look for similar names. Many families have similar names registered in the same household, but they are Jr/Sr or daughters named after their mothers. So when you find similar names at the same address, you have to also check the date of birth.
I sent in over 300 duplicates, triplicates, or quadruplicates.

FOR DECEASED
I keep the obituaries from the local paper. When there is a hard match - both name and at least month and year of birth, I send those in. There were at least 40 that I caught that were still on the voter roll.

Montgomery County, Maryland

Redacted email below:

Last September, my Montgomery County, MD, crew identified 700 deceased registrants who were on the county’s registration list to the Montgomery County Board of Electons.

Michigan

Redacted email below:

It would be great if you could plug in PILF's Michigan case concerning more than 25,000 deceased registrants on the voter rolls. Both sides have submitted motions for summary judgment. But, we expect the case will go to trial this year. Additionally, if you are looking for a win. In 2021, Pennsylvania signed a settlement agreement with PILF to remove more than 20,000 deceased registrants from their voter roll.

Pennsylvania

Redacted email below:

Part of the settlement agreement was that the PA Department of State provide PILF with copies of the full voter export at three-month intervals on three separate occasions. By the last mandated sharing of this voter roll data, they had removed the more than 20,000 deceased registrants we had flagged.

As for the non-citizen case, we won in the lower court, but the Secretary of State appealed it to the Cricut Court of Appeals. Unbelievably, they continue to try and hide the mistakes that led to foreign nationals getting on their voter rolls. Even the DOJ, filed a brief supporting PILF's right to see documents relating to these foreign nationals being registered to vote.

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.