Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Former Pentagon Official on the Possibility of Alien Life: ‘Evidence’ Is ‘Overwhelming’

December 20, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What happened?

The New York Times broke a story about the Defense Department’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which spent $22 million investigating reports of unidentified flying objects. The program started in 2007, and parts of it are still classified.

Military intelligence official Luis Elizondo was in charge of the program, which “produced documents that describe sightings of aircraft that seemed to move at very high velocities with no visible signs of propulsion, or that hovered with no apparent means of lift,” according to the Times report.

As part of the program, metal alloys and other materials that were reportedly collected from unidentified objects that could fly through the air have been stored in Las Vegas for researchers to study.

Is the program still going on?

That’s not clear … the Defense Department says the program was shuttered in 2012, but its backers told the Times that the program still exists even though it’s not currently getting funding.

Elizondo told the Times that while the funding ended in 2012, the program and its investigation into UFO sightings continues.

Does the government believe aliens exist?

Elizondo joined Glenn on today’s show to answer this pressing question. While he could only speak on his own behalf based on his Pentagon experience, Elizondo cautiously pointed to “evidence” that alien life exists and explain why the U.S. government should continue to investigate UFO sightings.

“The evidence at this point is quite overwhelming,” Elizondo said. “I think we are entering a new era.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: By the way, this is from the Christmas album, Believe Again, which is a great, great CD. Grab it for Christmas, available, you know, on Amazon and everything else.

One of the things that has been really remarkable to me, this year, is our fascination on space. From Elon Musk and what he is doing to go to Mars and last -- what was it? Last Friday. We sent something up for the International Space Station, and we used Elon Musk SpaceX. And to watch that thing launch. And within I think ten minutes, you know, the booster rocket was back landing on the launch pad. It was absolutely phenomenal.

There's something else that's going on. And that is what the New York Times released this last week, which was, are we alone? And the money that the government has spent looking at UFOs. And one of the guys who is a career intelligence officer, he worked with the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, the national counterintelligence, director of the national intelligence. He was a special agent in charge. Blah, blah.

He has been around this. Now, he is with To the Stars Academy and the director of global security. Luis Elizondo. Hello, Luis, how are you, sir?

LUIS: Good, Mr. Beck. How are you, sir?

GLENN: Very good. So, I would tell you to call me, Glenn. But you're a career military man, so I have a feeling it's going to remain Mr. Beck.

Luis --

LUIS: Old habits are hard to break. Sorry.

GLENN: I know. I know. Thank you for your service, by the way.

Tell me -- tell me what -- do we believe that there is life that is visiting us, or is this hype?

LUIS: Well, when you say "we," let me clarify, at least just from my perspective. Because I -- I certainly can't speak on behalf every American.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

LUIS: I certainly don't pretend to. And as far as speaking for the department, it's been about two months now, since I've been out of the Department of Defense.

So I certainly can't speak on behalf of the department. But what I can do is speak on behalf of my myself and I think on behalf of my colleagues that work this particular portfolio.

And I think the -- the evidence at this point is -- is quite overwhelming.

I think as we -- as we are entering this -- as you said just now, kind of this new era of space, I think we -- we are entering a new era where -- where the evidence is, quite frankly, overwhelming.

GLENN: Yeah. You know, we saw -- we saw the video that they released. And I would imagine that there's maybe even more compelling stuff than that.

But we saw the video. And, you know, the -- the airman talking about -- look at this. It has -- it has no wings. I've heard you talk about, you know, seeing things and having, you know, documented footage of things without a propulsion unit, no -- you know, no wings. No surface. You know, that we would recognize as -- as anything that would keep anything afloat.

Is this the most compelling thing that you have? Is this video. Or is there more that you have seen?

LUIS: Yeah, no. There's significantly more. These two videos that are out in the public domain are simply just a very, very small sample of the collective amount of information that we have over the years.

GLENN: So, Louis, was there a conversation in the agency, or in this group, of -- we -- we need to tell the American people. This is not information that the government should hoard. This is really kind of important stuff.

LUIS: Well, I think that's a fantastic observation, and my perspective, it may be a little bit more selfish. And that was, I needed to be able to tell, the most senior levels of DOD leadership. Please, keep in mind that, you know, as a former soldier and employee of DOD, my loyalties are first and foremost to the American people. Second, is to the Department of Defense. And third is to the Secretary of Defense.

In this particular place, we're in a situation where this country has never had a better secretary of defense, in my opinion. And, yes, I'm a little biased, but I think I can say that, because I served with the man and I've seen him in combat situations.

So my loyalty to the boss is paramount. And when you are in an organization, a department where silos and stovepipes restrict the ability to give the top commander the information he or she may need to make critical decisions, regardless of resources, we have an obligation to make sure that we have that ability.

GLENN: So what -- what kind of decision would they -- would somebody in the Defense Department need to know this information? I mean, have you seen hostility or -- or what?

LUIS: Well, I'll get to that piece in a second. And the answer in short is we haven't seen any overt hostility. But keep in mind, in DOD, we are a national security organization. And so I don't want to say we get paid to be paranoid.

GLENN: Sure.

LUIS: But we definitely get paid to make sure things aren't a threat. So if we're not sure it's not a threat, then we have to presume, it could be a threat. Not that it is. But it could be.

GLENN: Yeah.

LUIS: And so we need to understand how these things work. And from my perspective, you know, our secretary is a guy who likes more information, not less.

And I think the issue really being the stigma within the department. Secretary Mattis inherited a wonderful department, but a department that no less over seven years has developed some silos and stovepipes. And the things that DOD does very well, obviously, looking at define threats, which is terrorism and potential nuclear weapons and chemical weapons and proliferation of issue de jure, the one thing that it's not very comfortable with are those things that are very hard to define.

They tend to be a bit nebulous. Things that we tend to say, look, we don't know what it is. We don't know how it works. And we're not sure we can do anything to stop it.

GLENN: Go ahead.

LUIS: No. Please go ahead. I'm sorry.

GLENN: What is the most amazing thing that you -- you know, it's one thing to say, well, we don't know if it's a plane or something.

What is the most amazing thing that you saw, that you would be comfortable sharing with us?

LUIS: Sure. And thank you for saying that. Because I will caveat that. I still have a security clearance, or at least now.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

LUIS: And I am obligated to protect any and all classified information. So whatever I share, of course, has to be -- but what I can share with you is I think just the overwhelming amount of data and reports that we have received from people who are -- keeping in mind, these are people with the highest levels of security clearances. These are people who are trained observers. They -- they fly multimillion dollar weapons platforms for their country on a daily basis. And they are the most trustworthy of trustworthy. And on top of that, these folks understand what they're looking at.

If not the fact that they just happened to be astute observers, they're actually trained observers.

And on top of that, we now have equipment that can very quickly ascertain what we're looking at, if it's an aircraft, if it's a missile, if it's a drone, to the point where we actually know what kind of drone it is.

And unfortunately, I can't go into detail and tell them that.

But with that said, the most compelling thing I've ever seen I think is -- it's a bunch of things. It's not just one thing. I think when you -- one thing is to look at an object in a rate of return or on a screen. And if you don't know what you're looking at, it's easy to say, oh, it's just a fuzzy dot, and the camera pans off screen.

When in reality, that's not what's happening. When in reality, what you're looking at, if you understand what the rate of return is telling you, infrared hot, infrared cold, et cetera, is an object that we can't get close to. It is taking evasive measures to avoid us getting close. And then when we do get close, it takes off at incredible velocities that frankly defy our understanding of logic, really.

We're talking about objects that can drop from 80,000 feet down to 50 feet in a hover. And then instantaneously jump back up to 80,000 feet. And when I say 80,000 feet, it's actually higher. It's as high as we can see it with a particular system. Of course, we have other systems that are better than that too. In this particular case, and other cases, we are seeing things that will -- that will interfere with equipment and our ability to --

GLENN: Study.

LUIS: Right. Correct.

GLENN: I only have 30 seconds. Are we going to be seeing more of this, or are they still going to keep tight-lipped? Is this pretty much what we're going to find out?

LUIS: Well, I think -- I think -- I hope that we do more as a nation to insist that we see more.

I think we need to make sure that -- that we engage who we need to engage, our leaders, and say, hey, look, this is worth investing. I hate to say it, but $22 million, that's not enough. I know everybody is getting wrapped around the axle, about the money. When really, the bigger story here is, folks, we have been looking at this stuff for a while, and it's real. And as a nation, we need to decide, is it a national security imperative?

GLENN: Former Pentagon UFO official, Luis Elizondo. Fascinating.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.