'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.

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.