Congressman: "There will be anger, frustration, and embarrassment" when classified pages are revealed

Wednesday morning, Glenn played audio of Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) calling for the government to declassify twenty-eight pages of the 9/11 report that have been hidden away from the American people. He claimed those pages do not present a threat to national security, and that they would fundamentally change people's understanding of what happened that day. Wednesday night, Rep. Massie joined The Glenn Beck Program to discuss in more detail why those pages should be released and how the American people will react.

"Tonight, we’re going to shine the light on something that has been kept in the dark for nearly 13 years going back to the Bush administration and even before," Glenn said. "It’s going to lead to some ugly truths, but no matter how embarrassing it might be for the Bush administration, for the Clintons, or whoever else is involved, if it’s embarrassing for our allies, a nation that claims to stand for truth and justice must adhere to that principle every time, not when it’s easy, not when it’s in our best interest or our political interest, but when it is a value every time."

"Citizens, especially the families of the 9/11 victims, deserve to know the truth. Now, some congressmen were recently given access to 28 classified pages from a 9/11 intelligence report. TheBlaze has shown this before, but we’ve just shown you the blacked-out pages. Now, after reading it, the whole page, one congressman who we’re about to talk to here, said he couldn’t go more than a few sentences each paragraph without having to pause and 'rearrange his understanding of history.' That’s remarkable."

"Here’s the story, back in 2002, a congressional report was released called Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. We have gone through this, we have talked about it. People back in 2002 or 2003 were asking for more of it. It’s why we have these conspiracy theories in the first place.

"But 28 pages of the report, about 7,200 words, were redacted and deemed classified by President George W. Bush. Now, his reasoning was a vague reference to it being national security risk. Normally, and the reason why this didn’t work, is normally only sensitive names and contracts and covert agents, etc., are redacted, but this had 28 pages that were entirely blacked out."

"And at the time, 46 senators, that’s half of the Senate, led by Chuck Schumer, wrote a letter to the president asking to declassify the pages. Schumer claimed that the redacted information was related to, and I want to quote, 'specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States' – probably screams Saudi Arabia, and that’s what it did. He went directly to claiming Saudi Arabia was the primary source of this foreign funding."

Glenn explained that other people have come out and drawn connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi Arabia, including former Senator Bob Graham.

While Congressman Massie can't reveal exactly what he read in those redacted pages, he can speak out about why it's important they be released. He talked to Glenn about those issues Wednesday night:

A transcript of the interview is below:

Glenn: Congressman Massie joins me now from Washington, D.C. Congressman, how are you?

Congressman Massie: Doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me on.

Glenn: I’m concerned because I know you can’t say anything because anything that you say can and will be held against you, so, you know, you’re going to have to talk as cryptically here, but I was gravely disturbed by your description where you said you had to stop and refigure history every couple of sentences. Can you give us any other description other than that?

Congressman Massie: Well, absolutely. You know, when 9/11 happened and shortly thereafter, we were all like sponges, we’re trying to absorb as much information to understand the who, the what, the why, the where, but at some point you quit collecting information because there’s no more information to be had or you think there’s no more information. And it all sort of sets up like concrete in your brain.

Well, as I was reading these 28 pages, I had to try and take apart that concrete that had set up, my own understanding of what had led up to 9/11 and what had enabled it. And then also what really hurt me was to wonder why did my government keep this from me for 13 years? What were their motives?

You know, there will be anger, frustration, and embarrassment when these 28 pages finally come out. Those are all emotions that you describe that I had while I was reading these pages. These are emotions that I think the public will have when they find out.

Glenn: Here’s what worries me, and I want to make sure that we’re not talking about this. We went to war, we’ve killed a lot of people, and we used our own righteous indignation or righteous anger to stop this. Have we done something morally reprehensible here? Is it going to change our understanding of war?

Congressman Massie: Well, you’re right. We fought two wars ostensibly to keep another 9/11 from happening, and I’m not ready to relitigate those wars and the causes for going to war. But here’s why I’m coming out right now and making this one of my priorities to get this out there is we’re talking about getting involved in two other wars, the war in Syria and a war in Iraq. And I don’t want to relitigate the other wars, but look, before we jump into these wars, we need to understand what really caused 9/11.

And if we’re going to use 9/11 as a motivation to get involved in these civil wars in the Middle East, then I think the American public and surely to goodness all of the congressmen up here who are going to be voting on these wars need to read these pages and understand what truly caused 9/11 and who our friends are and who our enemies are.

Glenn: Okay, I mean, I know you’re not going to tell me, but this sounds like we’re talking about Saudi Arabia, but I want, and that just could be my bias from the things that we know from the intelligence community that have been told to us, we know there is a bias on that. I don’t think anybody would be surprised, and let’s use both Clinton and Bush, I mean Sandy Berger went in to smuggle papers out of the National Archives in his underpants. You don’t do that and then get pardoned by the guy from the other side if they’re not trying to kick dirt over the trail.

And I don’t think personally that it was anybody in our administration was doing anything nefarious or, you know, anything like that. It just looked bad. It was just embarrassing because they might’ve been, you know, taking too many walks with too many princes or whatever. Is this stuff that will deeply tear us apart, or will this be just, has our government been worse than just sloppy and greedy at times? I’m trying to figure out a way to ask you these questions.

Congressman Massie: No, this will not tear our country apart. It will be embarrassing. It will not endanger us to release this information, but the American public needs to have it. I would tell you to look to maybe Bob Graham, Senator Bob Graham, who was privy to even more information than I have in those 28 pages since he was on the intelligence committee. You know, he’s leading this charge.

I will say, you know, there are things I can’t even tell my wife that I learned about in these soundproof SCIFs, and those 28 pages are included in that category. Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina, he’s the one who sponsored this resolution. It’s called House Resolution 428, and you know, they thanked him for sponsoring that by the establishment primaried him and spent ten times as much money as him back in his district this spring, and he still won because he represents the people and truth and transparency.

But those are the kind of risks that, you know, we bring upon ourselves by speaking out. But now is the time, and I’ll tell you, you mentioned the families. You played a clip from the families of the victims. This needs to come out because there are things being litigated in court right now that pertain to these 28 pages, and the families of the victims deserve this information and this evidence because there is culpability here, and there is liability. And you know, if our judicial system is going to work its way, the evidence and the truth needs to be there.

Glenn Congressman, thank you very much, and you keep up the fight. Let us know, I’ve directed TheBlaze to cover any and all, so you can count on us. Just let us know how we can help. Appreciate it.

Congressman Massie: Thank you, Glenn. People need to contact the White House. They need to contact their congressmen and their senators.

Glenn: Thank you. God bless. Listen, TheBlaze is going to stay on this as much as we can until the information just dries up, but this is not a partisan thing. This is a bipartisan thing. This is about the truth. This is about who are we really, and as the congressman said, before we go any further, we have to know who the bad guys are, we have to know what we’ve done.

Let the chips fall where they may. I mean, if George Bush was involved in doing some things, and he was buddies with somebody and whatever, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. That’s in the past. Let’s chart the course on the future, and the only way we can do that is if we build it on a foundation of truth.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.