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

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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.