The Constitution Is a Flight Plan

In Alice and Wonderland, Alice is standing in a roadway, leading in opposite directions. And Alice says out loud, "Which way do I go?" And the Cheshire cat says, "Well, it depends on where you want to end up."

"I'm not sure," says Alice.

"Well then, if you don't know where you're going, it doesn't matter much which way you turn, now does it?"

I heard that yesterday, and it made me think: Where are we going? I'm not even sure if we even know anymore. And maybe some of us have never known. Maybe the Cheshire cat is right: We're all mad here. Perhaps it's why so many people have tuned out. Perhaps those people know something that we don't. Like Cheshire cat, they have figured out that we don't know where we're going, so it really doesn't matter which direction we choose.

Image: Rischgitz/Getty Images Image: Rischgitz/Getty Images

Then again, maybe those people actually know less than we do. Perhaps they don't realize that we are headed somewhere. And, in fact, we're already in flight. But where is it that we want to end up as a man, a woman, a parent, community, a country? Where do we actually see ourselves at the end of this journey?

Up until this weekend, I thought I knew. And then I realized, I've never really verbalized it. Not to you, maybe not even to myself. I'm not sure I've actually seen the finished destination in my head. What I've done is focused on the map, instead of directions, compass points, waypoints, places we've been along the way.

I've seen a vision that's over 200 years old. And now others in this country believe in a vision that is even older than that. Because Marx really made what happened at the tower of Babel seem new. Neither of these visions, however, are destinations. These visions are simply tools to help us navigate. Socialism, capitalism, constitutionalism, those are tools, those are maps, those are the GPS of our day, but they are not destinations.

So many people think the destination is the party. But that's not a destination, that's a tool too. Actually the parties are more like airlines or the vehicles that take us to our destination, they say safely. But I'm not sure we select a mode of travel until we know if, when, and where we want to go.

How could you possibly know what kind of vehicle you need if you don't know where we're headed? How can you get to a place that you haven't even stated as your destination? How do you even know you have the right map? If we don't have the tools, the gear, how do you get there?

After that, you can decide whether we need an engineer, a pilot, or a bus driver.

What I thought this weekend is maybe we shouldn't be choosing a candidate if we haven't figured out where we want to end up. It's why Bernie Sanders, I believe, is doing so well. He's handing us a picture of a destination: A beautiful vacation spot that's easy, fair, and inexpensive.

Now, Bernie Sanders is as outdated as a Main Street travel agency, and his brochure that he's passing out is dog-eared and battered and from the 1960s. It's a faded picture that shows a beautiful Marxist and socialist company, one that resembles Sweden in the 1970s. But as you comb through the pages and read the fine print, you realize this trip has many restrictions. "Photos seen are representations," says the brochure. "Your destination may be different. Prices may vary."

What Bernie Sanders is selling, what Bernie Sanders -- the brochure he's handing out from his outdated travel agency is dated. And nobody goes to a travel agency anymore, but somehow or another, his doors are open. Why? Because he's the only one handing out a brochure for you to look at. He's the only one talking about going someplace, going someplace new, going someplace with promise and hope and a different experience.

Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images

I don't agree with it. But what are we offering? Think about this. We're salesmen on a destination. What is it that we're offering? We're not even offering a destination. What's on our departure screens? What's on our travel brochures? We're going to win. We're going to win lots. We're going to lead. We're going to create more jobs. We're going to defeat ISIS. We're going to be more like the Reagan era. We're going to beat Hillary. We're going to build a fence. We're going to restore the Constitution.

What does any of that look like? And let's be honest, none of those are destinations. None of that is exciting. None of that is inspiring. It isn't a place that makes me want to work hard, save up, lay awake dreaming about, telling my children about, or even getting into a car and driving to the airport to get to.

The travel brochure that I've been sharing with people: saving the Western way of life. That's what's on my brochure. But let's look at the fine print on my travel brochure. Saving the Western way of life? The Western way of life is corrupt, selfish, greedy, dirty -- at least that's what most people think. Our culture is shallow, fast food, angry, violent, full of drugs, empty sex, designer labels, and disposable. Let's save it for our families. Really? All the broken homes without two parents. A redesign of what parents and family even mean.

What does a family mean to most under 30 today? The internet, school, and culture has become our parent. Who wants to go there?

Frankly, saving our way of life, saving our way of life is what most conservatives feel they're already doing. But why would I plan a journey to a place I already live as a grind every day?

We're headed someplace, whether we admit it or like it or not. All of us, we're headed someplace as a country, together. And I don't hear anybody articulating a destination where we all want to go.

Would you ever get on to a plane and as it's taking off, saying to the guy sitting next to you, "By the way, where are we headed?" I wouldn't.

Would you go on a vacation without choosing the destination? I wouldn't. But we all have. And we've done it every four years for our entire life.

Do any of the much-discussed and passionately argued reasons to vote for this guy or that guy revolve around a destination?

I realized over the weekend, it's as if we're on an airplane to an unknown destination, and we're about to make a fuel stop; and everybody on the plane is just arguing about the airline or the pilot, and there's only two airlines that we ever know about. And they have very much the same destinations and the same pilots. They're similar, but slightly different skills. And all of us, the passengers are taking each other apart in trying to choose a new pilot or a new airplane, and we're not talking about where the hell the plane is even going. It's unreasonable.

Photo: BENOIT DOPPAGNE/AFP/Getty Images) Photo: BENOIT DOPPAGNE/AFP/Getty Images)

Each pilot, each airline may be headed in the same direction with maybe a slightly different destination or rate of speed reaching that final stop. And that final destination may be fine for some, and even those who claim to be very much like us, but is it right for us?

Do people even realize that there's a choice of where we end up?

Maybe we need to have a conversation to understand where every passenger wants to go and where they think we're going. Maybe some will want to go someplace else. But those same people will insist on the same plane and the same pilot whose course will never allow them to reach where they think they want to go. But they'll fight for their airline because it's the only one they know. And advertising has made them loyal beyond reason. They think that choosing another flight means that they're admitting that they were wrong about the last flight.

"Hey, I have to fly this airline. I'm part of the mileage rewards program. I can't choose another airline now. I'll lose all of my points."

Some will never see the choice in airlines or pilots or even destination because the flight stewards, with the help of the curtain that's pulled between first class and coach have blinded them to any different option.

Maybe what we need to ask ourselves and those sitting around us is, "Where do you want to go? You know, we're about to land for fuel. Why don't we keep our stub and get off the plane for just a minute? Whether we get on to another airline or pick this pilot over that isn't nearly as important as getting off the plane and having a real discussion of where we -- where we were and why we got on to this plane in the first place. What do you say? Let's get off. Let's stand there in front of the departure boards and see where all of the planes are headed and then ask ourselves do we even want to go."

Because right now, the parties and the airlines, the politicians, the pilots, they all say, "We have to do something," but what they're really saying is, "We have to fly. We have to fly somewhere." Maybe. Yes. Maybe no. But if we do get on a plane and we do fly, shouldn't we ask where?

The Reagan era is not a destination. It's merely a place we've already been. You can't go to the trip in Hawaii that you took with your parents as a little kid. But you can say Hawaii was a wonderful trip. And knowing what I experienced in Hawaii, do I want to go back, or is there some other place that's better?

The Reagan journey was a great one. Many of us remember it fondly. But we can't go back to that journey. We can remember that journey and learn from it.

The Constitution isn't a destination. It's a flight plan. It's an instrumentation system. It's waypoints.

Image: Rischgitz/Getty Images Image: Rischgitz/Getty Images

Maybe we find our way out of this mess, not by arguing over a pilot, but by beginning a discussion of our final destination. Does anybody even want to go there anymore? I mean, after all, we did get on this plane so very long ago.

I've heard talk of a shining city on a hill, but what does that even look like? Most of us I don't think have ever thought of where we're actually headed. Most of us are just trying to preserve what we have, what we have left. Most of us have spent our lives focused on the plane, the pilot, or the maps. Some are merely focusing on, "Why the hell are they in first class?" And, "That curtain is keeping me from something good." That curtain is only keeping you from the exit that is so very visible in times of trouble.

We've all been flying so long, and the cockpit door for this airline has been closed and locked. For so long, we've been on this plane. I honestly don't even know where we are anymore.

If we landed now, where would we be? If we were reasonable, we would land. We would then all get off the plane. We would look at the map to find out where we are. We'd explore our options. We'd look at the destination board. We would choose. We would look at the terrain. We would look at the weather ahead. And then we would begin to search for the best airline. Maybe we'd start a new one. Or we would decide the best way to go is in a car, a bus, to walk.

But I know this: The worst thing we can do is to continue to fight about the airline or the pilot. Only when we've decided on a destination can we find the right pilot that is experienced enough and has the right map to get us where we actually want to go.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld joined Glenn on "The Glenn Beck Podcast" this week to talk about his new book, "The Plus: Self-Help for People Who Hate Self-Help."

Greg admits he is probably the last person who should write a self-help book. Nevertheless, he offers his offbeat advice on how to save America during what has become one of the most tumultuous times in history, as well as drinking while tweeting (spoiler: don't do it).

He also shares his "evolution" on President Donald Trump, his prediction for the election, and what it means to be an agnostic-atheist.

In this clip, Greg shares what he calls his "first great epiphany" on how dangerous cancel culture has become.

"I believe that cancel culture is the first successful work-around of the First Amendment," he said. "Because freedom of speech doesn't protect me from my career being ruined, my livelihood being destroyed, or me getting so depressed I commit suicide. Cancel culture is the first successful work-around of freedom of speech. It can oppress your speech with the scepter of destruction. We don't have freedom of speech anymore."

Watch the video clip below or find the full Glenn Beck Podcast with Greg Gutfeld here.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Use code UNMASKED to save $20 on one year of BlazeTV.

Dr. Simone Gold joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to set the record straight about hydroxychloroquine -- what it is, how it works, and the real reason for all the current controversy surrounding a centuries-old medication.

Dr. Gold is a board certified emergency physician. She graduated from Chicago Medical School before attending Stanford University Law School. She completed her residency in emergency medicine at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York, and worked in Washington D.C. for the Surgeon General, as well for the chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. She works as an emergency physician on the front lines, whether or not there is a pandemic, and her clinical work serves all Americans from urban inner city to suburban and the Native American population. Her legal practice focuses on policy issues relating to law and medicine.

She is also the founder of America's frontline doctors, a group of doctors who have been under attack this week for speaking out about hydroxychloroquine during a news conference held outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

On the program, Dr. Gold emphasized that the controversy over hydroxychloroquine is a "complete myth."

"Hydroxychloroquine is an analogue or a derivative of quinine, which is found in tree bark. It's the most noncontroversial of medications that there is," she explained.

"It's been around for centuries and it's been FDA-approved in the modern version, called hydroxychloroquine, for 65 years. In all of that time, [doctors] used it for breast-feeding women, pregnant women, elderly, children, and immune compromised. The typical use is for years or even decades because we give it mostly to RA, rheumatoid arthritis patients and lupus patients who need to be on it, essentially, all of their life. So, we have extensive experience with it ... it's one of the most commonly used medications throughout the world."

Dr. Gold told Glenn she was surprised when the media suddenly "vomited all over hydroxychloroquine", but initially chalked it up to the left's predictable hatred for anything President Donald Trump endorses. However, when the media gave the drug Remdesivir glowing reviews, despite disappointing clinical trial results, she decided to do some research.

"[Remdesivir] certainly wasn't a fabulous drug, but the media coverage was all about how fabulous it was. At that moment, I thought that was really weird. Because it's one thing to hate hydroxychloroquine because the president [endorsed] it. But it's another thing to give a free pass to another medicine that doesn't seem that great. I thought that was really weird, so I started looking into it. And let me tell you, what I discovered was absolutely shocking," she said.

Watch the video below for more details:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

According to the mainstream media's COVID-19 narrative, the president is "ignoring" the crisis.

On tonight's "Glenn TV" special, Glenn Beck exposes the media's last four months of political theater that has helped shape America's confusion and fear over coronavirus. And now, with a new school year looming on the horizon, the ongoing hysteria has enormous ramifications for our children, but the media is working overtime to paint the Trump administration as anti-science Neanderthals who want to send children and teachers off to die by reopening schools.

Glenn fights back with the facts and interviews the medical doctor Big Tech fears the most. Dr. Simone Gold, founder of America's Frontline Doctors, stands up to the media's smear campaign and explains why she could no longer stay silent in her fight against coronavirus fear.

Watch a preview below:


In order to watch tonight's episode, you must be a BlazeTV subscriber. Join today to get a 30-day free trial, and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code UNMASKED.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

It's high time to leave the partisan politics behind and focus on the facts about face masks and whether or not they really work against COVID-19.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn Beck spoke with Drs. Scott Jensen and George Rutherford about the scientific evidence that proves or disproves the effectiveness of mask wearing to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Then, Dr. Karyln Borysenko joined to break down where the massive political divide over masks came from in the first place.

"I think if we were to talk about this a couple months ago, I might have said, 'Well, there's the science of masks, and there's the emotions of masks.' But, unfortunately, there's something in between," Jensen said. "I would have thought that the science of masks would have to do with the physics of masks, so I did a video a couple months ago where I talked about the pore side of a cotton mask or a surgical mask."

He explained that properly worn masks can help reduce the spread of virus particles, but cautioned against a false-sense of security when wearing a mask because they are far from providing complete protection.

"If you have a triple-ply mask, the pore size will end up being effectively five microns. And five microns, to a COVID-19 virus particle, is 50 times larger. That's approximately the same differential between the two-inch separation between the wires of a chain-link fence, and a gnat," Jensen explained.

"But now what we're seeing is if we have some collision of COVID-19 viral particles with the latticework of any mask ... if you're breathing out or breathing in and the viral particles collide with the actual latticework of a mask, I think intuitively, yes, we can reduce the amount of virus particles that are going back and forth."

Dr. Rutherford said masks are essential tools for fighting COVID-19, as long as you wear them correctly. He laid out the three main reasons he believes we should all be wearing masks.

"So, we're trying to do three things," he said. "First of all, we're trying to protect the people around you, in case you are one of the 60% of people who have asymptomatic infection and don't know it. The second thing we're trying to do is to protect you. The third thing we're trying to do is, if you get infected, you'll get infected at a lower dose, and then you're less likely to develop symptoms. That's the threefer."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.