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

New Bill Recognizes Out-of-State Concealed Carry Permits in DC—for Lawmakers AND Citizens

June 22, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Typically in the wake of a high-profile shooting like the recent attack on GOP congressman, legislation talk about gun control ramps up. Although that certainly was the case (because you never let a crisis go to waste), the shooting was a huge wake up call to Republican legislators --- and even some across the aisle.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn was joined by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) who will introduce a bill that goes the opposite way to expand gun rights.

"My bill would make the District of Columbia honor your concealed carry permit from any state --- and this is for anybody, not just members of Congress --- who comes and visits Washington, D.C.," Massie said.

TAKE ACTION: Call Speaker Ryan to Urge Support of New Concealed Carry Legislation in DC

According to Rep. Massie, over three-quarters of the states already offer reciprocity among the states.

"Washington, DC, is an anomaly, and it's an unsafe spot. Because not only can members of Congress not defend themselves, members of the public can't defend themselves here," Massie said.

The congressman also addressed the urgency of passing his bill as written, with reciprocity for both legislators and citizens.

"Here's the problem with doing it just for members of Congress: then the urgency to restore your right to self-defense goes down. And I'm seeing this with our leadership right now. The people who are in charge of whether this bill comes to the floor or not are the same people who have had their own personal security detail, which amounts to less than one percent of the House of Representatives," Massie explained.

If you would like to respectfully voice your support for Rep. Massie's bill, call Speaker Ryan's office at (202) 225-0600 and urge him to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Hello, America. We want to introduce you again to Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky. He is proposing a -- a really good change to our gun laws. One that I think that we can all get behind and help him. I want you to hear why he's proposing it and what it means. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Now, you're going to hear things like Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton -- she's from DC -- she says, "This bill flies in the face of the calls for unity."

What Congress is talking about is, how are we going to protect ourselves? And, of course, there are some that say, we want to be able to carry a gun no matter where we go because we're congressmen.

Thomas Massie says, "I've got a better idea." And he's joining us now. Hello, Congressman, how are you?

THOMAS: I'm doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me on to talk about this bill. This shooting was a real wake-up call, I think, not just for congressmen, but for all Americans.

GLENN: So, first of all, how is everybody that was involved in the shooting? Do you have an update? I know that Scalise was upgraded to I think fair, or was it good yesterday?

THOMAS: Fair. And, yes, he's doing much better. He's taking visitors, in fact. But we've been encouraged not to visit him because he's such a gregarious guy, he'd probably take everybody that visited him. So we have to restrain ourselves here because we want to reach out to him. But he's recovering. It's going to be a long recovery. There's going to be rehabilitation to walk and whatnot.

GLENN: So there's a couple things now that I've been reading that Congress needs to look at. And one of them is, what would have happened if 30 congressmen died? This is one thing that the Constitution doesn't cover. How do we -- how do we get you guys, you know, replaced if you are killed?

And the second thing is this -- this idea that maybe congressmen need more protection or need to be allowed to carry a gun.

THOMAS: Well, let me respond to something that you mentioned about my colleague from Washington, DC. If she's saying this flies in the face of calls for unity, the fact of the matter is, this unites the Republican Party. It may divide the Democrat Party. Because I can tell you, there are members on the other side of the aisle that would vote for this bill if we could get it on the floor today. So I think it actually works across the aisle.

GLENN: So why can't we -- we control the House and the Senate and the White House. Why can't we get it on the floor of the House today?

THOMAS: Well, you know, there are some members of Congress -- and there are very pro-gun members of Congress, who want to bring up legislation only to protect congressmen. Now, listen, those are good ideas. And those members of Congress support the Second Amendment. But here's the problem with doing it just for members of Congress: Then the urgency to restore your right to self-defense goes down. And I'm seeing this with our leadership right now. It -- the people who are in charge of whether this bill comes to the floor or not, are the same people who have had their own personal security detail, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the House of Representatives. By the way, very quickly, just so we all know what we're talking about, my bill would make the District of Columbia honor your concealed carry permit from any state -- and this is for anybody, not just members of Congress -- who comes and visits Washington, DC.

Over three-quarters of the states already offer reciprocity among the states. Washington, DC, is an anomaly. And it's an unsafe spot. Because not only can members of Congress not defend themselves. Members of the public can't defend themselves here.

GLENN: So I know we're talking about Washington, DC, but --

THOMAS: Yep.

GLENN: And if I can look a gift horse in the mouth --

THOMAS: Yeah.

GLENN: -- why are we not talking about this for the entire country, that you -- you know, you got to be able to honor other states? If I have to honor somebody's marriage certificate, why don't they have to honor my concealed weapon permit?

THOMAS: Well, the argument that some people will put up about the -- the Capitol, you know, US Congress telling states that they have honor other state's permits, there's some people that argue the Tenth Amendment, you have to balance that against the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Sure. But they're not doing that with marriage license.

THOMAS: Yeah, exactly. And I would love to see us be able to carry in all states. But the beauty of my bill, Glenn, is that there is no conflict here. There is no legislator for Washington, DC. There is no governor for Washington, DC. Because the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the US Congress could write the laws for the city where they had to meet, in just this exact instance, so that they could come here and be safe and so that there would be arbitrary laws that kept our government from functioning. So this is constitutional. The Constitution says that we write the laws for DC.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: Like you just said, if you got a House that's Republican, a Senate that's Republican, and a president that's Republican, and you have clear jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, why does it have the worst gun control laws in the country?

GLENN: So what is the response to your bill so far?

THOMAS: So far, among the membership here, it's been overwhelming. Yesterday, I presented my idea to the entire G.O.P. conference, and before I could sit down, they erupted in applause. And I had members who are not members of the Freedom Caucus come up to me and say, "I know I'm not very conservative, but I sure as heck support your bill." They literally said that to me.

And it's important, but I think our leadership is not responding well to it. They say it's not the right time. I say, this is the exact right time.

GLENN: When is it going to be better? When will it be better? When 30 congressmen were killed?

THOMAS: It's never going to be better. This is urgent. In fact, I have 44 co-sponsors for this bill already, and I just introduced it last Thursday. And I'll probably pick up another four or five today, cosponsors. And I'm telling you, Glenn, if this went to the floor, Democrats would vote for it. Three years ago, I offered legislation that would defund Washington, DC,'s gun control laws. Ironically, I was able to get that to the floor under John Boehner, and Paul Ryan blocked it last summer. He said it wasn't the right time last summer to offer the legislation. But when I got it to the floor under John Boehner, 20 Democrats voted to defund Washington DC's gun control laws.

GLENN: Jeez.

THOMAS: And there was no imperative then like there is now. This is a wake-up call.

GLENN: Okay. So, Thomas, what do you -- I have to tell you, I'm so sick of hearing, "Call your congressman." Call (sound effect). Because they don't care. If you think Paul Ryan gives a flying crap about you and your gun rights, you know -- I mean, how -- again, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me my entire 53 years of life, well, I'm just -- I should be locked in an institution.

So make the case that I should lift a finger to call.

THOMAS: Well, I think, whoever is listening to this, it's probably not your member of Congress who is the problem. It's the leadership, who is preventing this bill from coming to the floor.

And I know I sound like a broken record, but I am going to say you should call the Speaker's office and say, "We know you have protection for yourself. What about the other members of Congress and the rest of the public? Don't think this issue will go away. The next time it could be much worse."

GLENN: All right. So if we call the Speaker's -- do you have -- somebody look up the stupid Speaker's phone number so we can give it out. If we call the Speaker, we specifically need to ask for your bill to be introduced, don't we? Otherwise, they're going to come up with one that just allows them to carry guns, which is a horrible idea.

THOMAS: The reason that idea probably won't work, just to allow members of Congress -- not only does it not restore your Second Amendment rights here in the Capitol City, just to extend it to Congress, it reduces the urgency of some members of Congress. Not all members of Congress.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: But once they feel safe, their urgency to -- to protect your right to protect yourself will go down. Just like it has for the Speaker.

GLENN: Oh, but I will tell you, I mean, they don't seem to care. You know, they did that with health care. And a lot of the Republicans are in on that. They get all the special deals. They get everything. Screw the American people. I got it.

I mean, it sounds like what they will do.

THOMAS: Yep. Well...

GLENN: Sorry, Thomas. I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails. Because I really appreciate you. I really appreciate what you're introducing. And I want to help. And, yes, I will call the Speaker. I mean --

PAT: It's frustrating because we've been so beaten down.

GLENN: It's frustrating.

THOMAS: There's not much wind to take out of my sails. I'm here in the swamp, trying to swim among these creatures.

(laughter)

THOMAS: I can't even get to the wind.

PAT: Does (202)225-0600 sound right for the Speaker's number?

THOMAS: It sounds good. You could call the switchboard here, or you could ask your member of Congress to ask the Speaker to bring this bill up for a vote. Because Democrats will vote for it. I'm telling you, they will vote for it.

There's -- I would love to see the senator who was elected in a state that Trump won, that's up for election, this cycle, telling people that he is against reciprocity in Washington, DC, which is honoring anybody in their states, concealed carry permit.

GLENN: Right. Right.

THOMAS: And it's an indefensible position to say the public and members of Congress can't defend themselves, when the Constitution says the US Congress makes all the laws for Washington, DC.

GLENN: So let's play devil's advocate.

When -- do you have a second, Thomas? Can I take a quick break?

THOMAS: Please.

GLENN: Okay. I'll take a quick break, and then I want to play devil's advocate here and see how you argue the other side.

THOMAS: Sure.

GLENN: Back in a second. Give me the phone number again, Pat.

PAT: Yeah, (202) -- wait a second.

GLENN: Okay. You got to call Speaker Ryan.

PAT: 225 -- oh, yeah. (202)225-0600.

GLENN: Okay. Call speaker Ryan and say you want Thomas Massie's gun legislation for the DC area to be passed as is. Call your congressman and tell him to pressure Speaker Ryan.

What a surprise. Paul Ryan is turning out to be a weasel. I can't believe it!

Call that number now. One more time. Here is the number.

PAT: (202)225-0600.

GLENN: Here's the phone number for the Capitol Hill. And call Republican leadership and tell them you want Thomas Massie's reciprocity bill for the District of Columbia to accept your concealed carry permit for all congressmen and the American public.

PAT: (202)225-0600.

GLENN: Okay. So let's take a couple of things.

Thomas, first, let's talk a little about the leadership and why they would want -- why they're not jumping on this bill.

STU: Right. Thomas, because I don't see Paul Ryan as necessarily an anti-gun guy. I've never seen that out of him. I mean, certainly part of leadership is Steve Scalise. So this is -- I mean, when you say leadership is at fault here, who are we talking about, and what's going on?

GLENN: Or what's the motivation?

THOMAS: Well, I've pitched it to members of the G.O.P. conference here. They love it. But I got a really icy reception with Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McCarthy.

I have to suspect part of their lack of urgency -- they say, well, they kind of -- maybe we should do it later, just not now.

I suspect their lack of urgency could be due to the fact that they have two security officers with them at all time.

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: All right.

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: So let's get into that a little bit.

When you have security, you tend not to worry about all the other people because you start to look at everybody else carrying a gun as a threat to your security. And that's what the other side will -- will say. We're in Washington, DC. And we've got -- you know, you're going to have a gun in the Smithsonian. A gun in the national archives. A gun in the nation's Capitol. You can't do that. The American people coming in with guns.

THOMAS: Well, Glenn, I can see across the river from here to Virginia, which offers reciprocity to 49 other states. Okay? And there's problems over there in Virginia. The Pentagon is there in Virginia. It's almost still part of DC.

GLENN: Yeah, but, Thomas, the Pentagon -- they have soldiers there.

THOMAS: I'm just saying that's the proximity to the Capitol. It's virtually the same area. And they have reciprocity. In fact, these congressmen were playing in Virginia at a ball field. But the reason they couldn't carry a weapon is they were coming from DC and were going to return to DC.

GLENN: Right.

THOMAS: The other thing, Glenn, 98 percent of mass public shootings, since 1950, have been in places where citizens haven't been able to defend themselves.

And if you are in a gun-free zone, which effectively all of Washington, DC, is, you are -- you're 20 times more likely in a gun-free zone to be the victim of a mass shooting.

GLENN: So I can't take a gun into a federal building in any city, or a state building, or a school, or anything else. If I'm traveling with my gun and I go into the Smithsonian or I go into the Capitol, you won't let me bring my gun into the Capitol. But you have a locker there or something for the guns? Is that what you would imagine would happen?

THOMAS: Well, in the Capitol, in the buildings here, in the complex, people say, "Well, you know, do you want tourists carrying guns in there?" The Capitol is literal the only example of a gun-free zone. The buildings themselves. Because they have two police officers at every entrance and a metal detector.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: So that when you're inside one of these congressional buildings, you are in what is really a unicorn because it's so expensive to create. You are in a gun-free zone, where criminals -- where the criminals don't have guns.

GLENN: But if I don't -- if every federal building says it's a gun-free zone. Has a sign that says, "You can't bring your gun in," then my gun is locked in the hotel room because I want to go to the museum or -- go ahead.

THOMAS: Glenn, if it were up to me, I would let you carry in the Smithsonian. I mean, I don't see a problem with that.

GLENN: Right. I don't either.

THOMAS: And, in fact, I think it's -- I don't want to even phrase it that way, I want you to be able to carry in the Smithsonian. It would be safer in the Smithsonian if you could. You would be 20 times less likely to be the victim of a mass shooting.

GLENN: I know. Thomas Massie, the congressman from Kentucky. Really, truly one of the good guys. Keep up the fight. Don't get discouraged. We will call Speaker Ryan and say, "Introduce Thomas Massie's bill for carrying a concealed weapon in Washington, DC, for all people." Thank you, Thomas. Back in a minute.

THOMAS: Thank you, Glenn.

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.