As investigators dig into the background of Thomas Matthew Crooks, the shooter responsible for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, shocking details have emerged that paint a disturbing picture of radical identity obsession, online extremism, and cultural decay.
New reports confirm that Crooks identified as non-binary and used “they/them” pronouns. Even more unsettling is his long-documented fascination with “furry” culture, an online subculture that blends animal identities with cartoonish sexuality and fantasy role-play.
According to the New York Post, Crooks maintained multiple DeviantArt accounts featuring explicit furry-themed artwork, some with violent or fetishistic overtones. Friends and acquaintances noted his immersion in the subculture, which he appeared to treat as an alternate identity.
Sources also revealed that Crooks expressed admiration for extremist ideologies and often posted disturbing messages online. This included fantasies of violence and revenge.
“He was mentally unwell, and nobody did anything,” said one former classmate. “But the school didn’t want to deal with it. They were afraid of being called transphobic.”
This cultural rot is what happens when society abandons traditional values and embraces identity politics above all else. Instead of addressing mental illness or destructive behavior, educators and peers were pressured to “affirm” Crooks’ every whim.
The left’s obsession with gender identity and fringe subcultures allowed Crooks to spiral further into alienation. His embrace of furry culture—a world often associated with sexual deviance and online radicalization—was ignored.
Investigators are now combing through years of Crooks’ internet history. Initial findings suggest he was involved in multiple anonymous forums that glorified violence and mocked conservative figures.
This wasn’t just a troubled teen. It was a person allowed to stew in online poison, shielded by political correctness and cultural permissiveness.
Crooks’ ties to furry content and gender identity politics don’t just raise questions about his motives—they expose a deeper rot in today’s youth culture.
Conservatives have long warned about the dangers of unchecked identity obsession, where young people are encouraged to adopt fluid personas rather than stable values.
Mental health professionals who prioritize ideological affirmations over medical evaluations are complicit in tragedies like this. Crooks should have been evaluated, monitored, and treated. Instead, he was celebrated for his “bravery.”
The media’s silence on Crooks’ identity issues speaks volumes. If this were a conservative-leaning shooter, headlines would be dominated by ideological outrage. But because the facts cut against the progressive narrative, they are being buried.
Social media platforms, where Crooks posted much of his disturbing content, have yet to be held accountable. Despite flagging political posts by conservatives, they allowed Crooks to marinate in delusion unchecked.
“The warning signs were there,” said Rep. Paul Gosar. “But the system was too scared to act.”
There’s now growing pressure on law enforcement to explain how Crooks, despite these glaring red flags, managed to get within shooting distance of a presidential candidate.
Was it gross negligence? Or was it yet another example of the federal security apparatus failing to prioritize threats that don’t align with left-wing hysteria?
The shooter’s social alienation, fueled by radical internet culture and affirmed by a woke society, offers a grim warning. This is what happens when reality is surrendered to fantasy.
Conservative leaders are calling for urgent cultural reform. That includes removing gender ideology from schools, defunding programs that promote radical identity politics, and restoring moral clarity in youth education.
“We need to stop teaching kids to hate themselves and their country,” said Vice President J.D. Vance. “We need to start teaching discipline, respect, and patriotism.”
BREAKING: Anna Paulina Luna Claims The Biden DOJ DESTROYED…
Representative Anna Paulina Luna has leveled explosive information against the Biden Department of Justice, claiming that critical materials related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have been deliberately destroyed.
This assertion, if proven true, would represent one of the most damning instances of governmental obstruction and cover-up in recent history.
Luna, who chairs a congressional task force focused on federal transparency, has stated unequivocally that she possesses evidence implicating high-ranking officials in the DOJ.
According to her, these officials not only failed to disclose materials related to Epstein but actively destroyed them to conceal the extent of powerful individuals’ involvement in Epstein’s criminal network.
She introduced legislation titled the SHRED Act, aimed at imposing severe penalties on government agents who destroy or conceal federal records. The proposed bill calls for 20 years to life in prison for anyone caught eliminating evidence in cases of national significance.
“Even if they are conducting a criminal investigation, you should probably pick up the phone and call us,” Luna told Fox News. “We have been more than patient.”
These developments come amid growing conservative suspicion that the Biden administration has no interest in unmasking Epstein’s full network. The notion that key records could be gone forever only intensifies fears that justice is being buried under a bureaucratic rug.
Luna’s office has reportedly sent multiple requests to the Department of Justice demanding clarity on the handling of Epstein-related materials. So far, those inquiries have been met with either vague responses or complete silence.
The congresswoman did not mince words in her public statements, suggesting that the DOJ’s behavior constitutes a deliberate act of obstruction. If true, such actions could violate federal law and trigger an entirely new legal battle.
“The Biden DOJ has obstructed Congress, ignored subpoenas, and now appears to have destroyed critical evidence,” Luna said. “This is corruption at the highest level.”
Critics argue that this is yet another example of double standards in Washington. “Had this been a Republican-led DOJ accused of destroying documents in a child sex trafficking case, the media would be apoplectic,” one conservative commentator noted.
For years, the Epstein case has symbolized the deep rot within America’s elite circles. The financier’s suspicious death in prison and the subsequent lack of high-profile indictments have fueled accusations of a widespread cover-up.
Now, Luna’s allegations breathe new life into those concerns. If records were indeed destroyed, the implications are profound. It would mean that the DOJ, under Biden, actively shielded criminals from justice.
What’s more troubling is that these destroyed materials could have named prominent individuals—politicians, celebrities, and global financiers—who participated in or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
In this context, Luna’s SHRED Act isn’t just legislative symbolism. It is a clarion call for accountability in an era marked by elite impunity. Her bill seeks to ensure that future officials think twice before erasing truth from the historical record.
Despite Luna’s repeated calls for transparency, there has been no formal response from Attorney General Merrick Garland. The silence speaks volumes to many who believe the DOJ is stonewalling on purpose.
Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers have rallied behind Luna. A growing number of Republicans in the House and Senate are voicing support for investigations into the DOJ’s handling of Epstein evidence.
Some have even floated the idea of appointing a special counsel to probe the matter independently. Given the stakes, such a move may be the only path forward to restore public confidence.
This latest scandal further erodes the credibility of an already battered Department of Justice. From the Hunter Biden laptop fiasco to the political targeting of conservatives, the agency has been repeatedly accused of partisanship.
Now, with Epstein documents allegedly destroyed, the DOJ’s credibility is in tatters. Public trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
The American people deserve the truth. And if Luna’s allegations are accurate, they deserve justice, no matter how high the guilty parties sit.
BREAKING: Tom Homan Reveals an Investigation is Underway Into AOC For…
Border Czar Tom Homan confirmed that a federal investigation is underway into Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for allegedly employing a criminal illegal alien and helping others evade federal immigration authorities.
Speaking from his post as one of President Trump’s top immigration officials, Homan revealed that ICE has launched a formal probe after multiple allegations emerged against the congresswoman.
“This is a live federal investigation. We’ve asked ICE to take immediate action,” Homan said during a televised interview.
The individual in question is reportedly an undocumented alien with a criminal record, unlawfully hired by AOC’s office.
According to internal reports, the employee had multiple encounters with law enforcement and should have been deported years ago.
Homan stressed that AOC’s potential interference with ICE operations could amount to obstruction of justice.
“This goes beyond hiring an illegal alien. There’s evidence she actively helped shield this person from deportation,” he stated.
Conservative leaders are sounding the alarm, warning that this may be only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to far-left officials flouting immigration laws.
AOC has long been known for championing sanctuary cities and attacking border agents, often labeling them as “racist” and “oppressors.”
Now, critics say her reckless rhetoric has crossed over into potentially criminal behavior.
“If a sitting congresswoman used her office to harbor an illegal alien, that’s a clear violation of federal law,” Homan declared.
Sources inside ICE say agents have already gathered documentation and begun interviewing individuals connected to the case.
Evidence suggests AOC may have leveraged her political power to block enforcement action against the individual she employed.
House Republicans are demanding accountability, with several calling for a formal ethics investigation into her conduct.
“This is what happens when radicals gain power. They think the law doesn’t apply to them,” said Rep. Andy Biggs.
Democrats quickly circled the wagons, accusing Homan of launching a political smear campaign.
But Homan stood firm, reminding the public that the law is the law and political office offers no immunity from prosecution.
APPLAUSE ERUPTS as Sen. Hawley BLASTS Woke Military Rules!, “HOW DOES BANNING HE/SHE WIN A WAR??”APPLAUSE ERUPTS as Sen. Hawley BLASTS Woke Military Rules: “How Does Banning He/She Win A War??”
A U.S. Senate hearing quickly turned into a high-octane confrontation after Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) called out senior military leaders for two critical failures: the persistent neglect of substandard military family housing, and the bizarre emergence of localized “woke” policies attempting to ban common pronouns and descriptors within the Air Force.
Hawley, refusing to accept vague assurances, exposed a critical disconnect between the military’s stated commitment to soldier welfare and the frustrating reality faced by families at bases like Fort Leonard Wood. He then zeroed in on a controversial email directive from an Air Force base, challenging the military to explain how such policies contribute to lethality and recruiting.
The hearing served as a raw demonstration of a lawmaker prioritizing combat readiness and family safety over bureaucratic excuses and politically motivated language policing.
I. The Scandal of Substandard Housing: Fort Leonard Wood’s Failure
Senator Hawley began the hearing by directly confronting the Army’s representative, addressing the dire situation regarding aging homes at Fort Leonard Wood in his home state of Missouri. Hawley’s questioning was based not on reports, but on personal observation.
“I was just there a few weeks ago. I toured the homes myself. I spoke to residents. I spoke to spouses. I spoke to children who lived in the homes. These homes need to be replaced,” Hawley stated.
His concern was amplified by the Army’s lack of a concrete plan. He pressed the General on how the “lack of availability of quality military housing” affects recruiting and retention.
The General responded with vague assurances of a “whole package” investment covering housing, daycare centers, and spousal employment.
Hawley immediately pushed back on the ambiguity: “Well, you say a whole package. When will we be seeing this package?“
The General could only offer to “take that question for the record.”
The “Royal Pain” Pledge
Hawley’s frustration boiled over, citing a pattern of broken promises from the Army leadership.
“I think we’re past the point of continuing to kick this down the road. Frankly, at Fort Leonard Wood, it was a problem a decade ago… I’ve been in their houses. I’ve been in their kitchens. I’ve looked at their bathrooms where there’s mold growing. I’ve seen the substandard living conditions. And it just isn’t acceptable.“
Hawley then delivered a powerful statement to the military leadership: “I promise those service members that I’d be a royal pain in the [you know what] until something changed. So, I’m keeping that commitment.”
He highlighted a specific instance of bureaucratic failure: “I don’t want to see are any more commitments from the army that they’re going to spend x number of dollars… We’re going to commit x number of dollars to Fort Leonard Wood, and then, as it turns out, zero dollars were spent on housing. I’m still ticked off about that, and I don’t want to see it happen again.”
II. The Pronoun Controversy: Banning “He/She” for Lethality
The hearing took a sharp turn when Hawley pivoted to a reported controversy involving the Air Force’s Anderson Air Force Base in Guam. He asked the General about an email that reportedly instructed leaders to prohibit the use of pronouns and descriptors.
Hawley read from a news report detailing the directive: “Leaders of the base are instructed do not use pronouns, age, race, etc.… The unauthorized examples of unauthorized language are male, female, youngest, oldest, he, she.“
Hawley’s core question challenged the policy’s efficacy: “Why is that? I mean, what what what’s going on?”
The Air Force Walk-Back
The Air Force General immediately sought to minimize the report, claiming it was not official service policy.
“That is… an email from my understanding that went out locally from one of the commanders there,” the General explained. “It is not the Air Force policy to not use pronouns. And so I think it was a social media… kurfuffle.”
Hawley accepted the clarification but highlighted the absurdity of the commander’s logic.
“I asked because part of the way it’s been reported is that the rationale… is to help with lethality and also recruiting,” Hawley noted, his voice sharp with disbelief. He then delivered the line that drew significant attention:
“I just it was curious as heck how how not using he she can help with lethality and how it’s helping with recruiting.”
The General could only confirm that the policy was “not an official policy from the Department of the Air Force.”
III. A Dangerous Mindset Problem
The confrontation exposed two distinct, competing priorities within the U.S. military command structure:
Hawley’s Focus: Centered entirely on foundational issues of military readiness, combat effectiveness, and family welfare (e.g., stopping mold in kitchens, ensuring housing is not substandard).
The Local Command’s Focus: Distracted by esoteric, non-military policies concerning language and social issues, driven by a belief that banning pronouns somehow aids in the core mission of warfighting and recruitment.
Critics argued that even if the pronoun ban was only a local email, the underlying mindset is dangerous. While global adversaries prepare for conflict and invest heavily in technology, a commander in the U.S. military thought language policing was a priority for improving combat strength.
The hearing ultimately reinforced Senator Hawley’s commitment to addressing tangible problems affecting service members, demanding results, not speeches or “fancy language.” His voice was the most focused in the room on protecting the nation through common sense and military readiness, free from politically distracting internal debates.
.