'The Circle' Offers Full Circle Satisfaction: Progressives Unintentionally Reject Themselves

It's not good, okay? The Circle is bad --- even by Hollywood standards. It's getting dismal reviews from both audiences and critics alike. Glenn is no exception.

"Please, dear God, do not wish that movie on any human being," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

Why in the world would conservative mega brain and author Steve Deace urge Americans to see The Circle, calling it the most conservative movie of 2017? In a nutshell, it shows progressives imploding on their own failed beliefs.

"Glenn, always remember this when it comes to our progressive friends: Unintentional self-repudiation is always the best. Always remember that," Deace said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Steve Deace is a good friend of the program. Really smart and a conservative that you need to know, if you don't already. He writes for ConservativeReview.com. And I will tell you, I almost ejected him from my friend's circle when he recommended The Circle in one of his articles. The movie, The Circle. One of the worst movies of all time. He starts with this -- with this understatement. It's like saying Hitler sometimes could be --

PAT: Understatement of the century perhaps.

GLENN: -- testy.

He wrote: Make no mistake, The Circle is not a great movie by any means.

Yeah. Yeah, and Hitler was testy.

However, it's a movie I would highly recommend that every American see.

No. Stop. So I thought I would get Steve on the phone, and explain yourself to this kangaroo tribunal here, Steve.

STEVE: Well, first of all, I want to throw myself on the mercy of the court with that setup, for one.

(laughter)

STEVE: But the film does -- I mean, I found myself -- I laughed out loud with my wife at the movie several times.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, me too.

STEVE: And about two-thirds of the way through it, I leaned over to Amy, and I said, "Honey, this might be the most conservative movie that wasn't made by, you know, studios that are favorable to our belief system I've ever seen." Because I don't know, the movie may be so bad, that it's unintentional.

PAT: That's what I think.

GLENN: I think so too. I don't think they had any idea.

PAT: They did it by accident.

STEVE: And that's probably true. But when you look at -- and I point out several places where the movie gives you the full monty, if you will, of progressivism. And it shows, if we're mixing metaphors here, how it literally just chokes the life out of a civilization. And it shows that abundantly.

I mean, listen, the moment where the heroine says -- don't tell me you didn't laugh, Glenn -- when Emma Watson's character says, and here's a piece of protest art. Click on -- click frowns on our social media and send a stern message to the oppressive regime that's being protested, which I'm sure they'll understand.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STEVE: That's pretty much the most millennium snowflake thing of all time.

GLENN: But they meant -- but I don't think they wrote that in a way -- they meant that.

PAT: I think so.

GLENN: They meant that.

STEVE: I know. That's what makes it even better, right? When they show you honestly, here's what we really believe, where we really want to take you. The movie really plays up in its trailer, the line with Tom Hanks, says, quote, I believe in the perfectibility of man.

GLENN: Yes.

STEVE: And it really plays that up and then shows his own fallibility on parade. So I think that the fact that they didn't intend that makes it a more powerful apologetic because they think this is an infomercial.

GLENN: Okay. So, Steve, I really think that they were going to make a happy movie called The Circle. And then they realized they don't really have anything there, maybe after they started production.

And then they thought, okay. We'll make it kind of creepy, and we'll show how it can be really creepy. But they didn't want to go all the way and say that this was bad. And so this movie went nowhere.

It didn't have any idea, if it was supposed to be for The Circle or against The Circle.

STEVE: I don't disagree with that at all. And if you want to see a movie that was made earlier this year that is much better made -- it's in a different stratosphere in terms of filmmaking, that also turns progressivism on itself, I would recommend Get Out, which does exactly that.

GLENN: I haven't seen that. Oh, yeah, that's --

STEVE: I mean, Get Out. Blue state progressive. More impervious to racism, and it turns the reflection on themselves. And it's brutal to watch. That's a better deconstruction in terms of filmmaking. But I think -- I think if they had actually embraced the story they told and did that in the filmmaking process and marketed it accordingly, they might have had something. Because let's face it, a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans have -- have turned their backs on utopian schemes of progressivism. They have seen it fully immersed in the last eight years under Obama and realized that this can't deliver. This existentially, this can't do what it promises it's going to do.

The problem with the mainstream studio, with a star like Tom Hanks making a film like that, is it really goes against their stated value system. And so you can sense the conflict.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I've never felt conflict like that. You could feel the conflict from the writing, directing, the acting. Everything.

STEVE: Yeah.

GLENN: They were so conflicted, they didn't know what to do with this.

PAT: Hmm.

STEVE: Look at one of the supporting characters Mercer.

All right. So on one hand, he throws in one of the -- one of the only real leftist true propaganda moments in the movie, when he says, you know, we have anti-trust legislation to break up all these big banks and big companies. But then this is the white guy who drives a pickup truck who wants to live off the grid, making deer and antler ornaments, and is literally -- is literally pestered by progressives, literally to death in the film.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: That is the exact conflict that exists throughout the course of this movie.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: And it's because, ultimately, when we enact progressivism, gentlemen, when we take it beyond the theoretical and put it in a real world, and we do things that say, no, man is not fallible. No, the world -- the creation is not fallen. And we attempt to impose a square peg in a round hole, we create those conflicts, and we're living in them in our society right now.

GLENN: Steve, can I change subjects with you?

You wrote to me this weekend. I'm having a heck of a time here in Texas finding a school for my kids. Yesterday, this school that had previously told us that it was fine, started hearing I think from parents, et cetera, et cetera, that Mormons might be attending. And so they've rejected us now. And they actually said yesterday to my wife, look, you know, kids can be cruel. And when they find out that your kids are Mormon, I mean, you know, I just -- I hate to say this, but they're going to make fun of them.

Instead of saying, by the way, if we find out any kids are making fun of your kids because they're different, this is a Christian school and, you know, we can't guarantee that that won't happen, but it won't be tolerated. No, no. Instead, they were just telling us that they were going to be made fun of. And even in class, they could be made fun of. Oh, okay.

PAT: Maybe some of the teachers.

GLENN: You know, they said in class. They can't help that. They're going to feel out of place because they won't -- they won't fit in with the --

PAT: You know, sometimes Mormon kids get locked in closets. It just happens.

STU: There are beatings.

PAT: There are beatings. Things happen.

GLENN: It's crazy.

PAT: What's the name of this school?

GLENN: I don't think that that does anything to --

JEFFY: It sure does.

PAT: It sounds like --

GLENN: No, we don't want to go -- I mean, I asked my kids, you know, do you want to go to a school -- and they were like, no. We do not want to go. We're not going.

JEFFY: That would be a shame if other people decided that same thought, if we knew the name.

PAT: So you're not saying it's Liberty Christian? You're not saying that?

GLENN: No, I'm not. No, I'm not saying that. But thank you for that.

PAT: Okay. All right. I'm glad you're not saying it's Liberty Christian. Because we wouldn't want anybody to know about that. Right? Would we?

GLENN: Okay. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, Pat.

So, Steve, if I may, you said something to me this weekend, and you said -- what is the name of this place?

STEVE: Freedom Project Academy is what it's called.

GLENN: Is that the thing you endorsed, Pat?

PAT: Yeah, uh-huh.

GLENN: And you're sending your kids through that, Steve?

STEVE: Yeah. We're going to send our youngest, our son through that. Our -- I hate to use the term "middle child" because I think there's a stigma with that, so I always call Zoe our youngest daughter. She has a couple of learning disabilities. So she requires a different level and kind of education from her mom here at home. But we're going to send Noah through that this fall. And we're looking forward to it. I first heard about these guys -- actually they came to me when you guys were putting the -- the Common Core movie together a few years ago.

GLENN: Yeah.

STEVE: And that issue was a hot burner issue. And the guy who was sort of the dean of the academy, Dr. Duke Pesta, was actually doing a lot of talks around the country, warning people about the perils of Common Core.

GLENN: Yeah, I've looked into them --

STEVE: That's where I first heard about these guys.

GLENN: Yeah, I've looked into them, and they are wildly anti-Common Core, which I love.

PAT: Yeah. It's classic education, which is important.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's a classroom situation. So they're at home. And they're watching -- participating in a classroom.

STEVE: Yeah.

You know, Noah is like pretty much any other boy. You know, we tend to think that if they're not willing to sit still for more than 20 minutes, they need to be drugged. That's kind of how we roll today.

On the other hand, he needs some structure. You know, he needs to be challenged. So mom and I -- we just decided, you know what, let's just do this program and get him a little more structure and challenge him a little bit more intellectually and put him in some inconvenient situations and get him to man up a little bit. So we thought it was the perfect fit for him.

GLENN: And the name of it again is -- what is it?

STU: Freedom.

PAT: Freedom Project.

GLENN: Freedom Project. Okay.

Steve, thank you, brother. And I just want you to know, you are on the edge of the friend's circle by recommending The Circle.

Now, I understand you can take lemons and make them into lemonade, please, dear God, do not wish that movie on any human being. If they find themselves there -- if you're strapped to a chair --

PAT: You can look for some of these things --

GLENN: You're strapped to a chair and somebody says, "Hey, The Circle has just come out, and we can watch it online," as long as they're screaming, "No, dear God, no, not The Circle," but they put it on and you can't stop it, then I understand.

STEVE: Glenn, always remember this when it comes to our progressive friends: Unintentional self-repudiation is always the best. Always remember that.

GLENN: Yep. Thanks a lot, Steve. I appreciate it.

Steve Deace from the Conservative Review, and it's always good to have him on.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?