Sunday, November 30, 2025

Can the 'Lost Generation' Be Found?

Can the 'Lost Generation' Be Found?

Jonathan Ernst/Pool via AP

The current generation "Z" -- those now roughly between 13 and 28 years old -- is becoming our 21st-century version of the "Lost Generation." Members of Gen Z are often nicknamed "Zoomers," a term used to describe young adults who came of age in the era of smartphones, social media, and rapid cultural upheaval."

Males in their teens and 20s are prolonging their adolescence -- rarely marrying, not buying a home, not having children, and often not working full-time.

The negative stereotype of a Zoomer is a shiftless man who plays too many video games. He is too coddled by parents and too afraid to strike out on his own.

Zoomers rarely date, supposedly out of fear that they would have to grow up, take charge, and head a household.

Yet the opposite, sympathetic generalization of Gen Z seems more accurate.

All through K-12, young men, particularly white males, have been demonized for their "toxic masculinity" that draws accusations of sexism, racism, and homophobia.

In college, the majority of students are female. In contrast, white males -- 9-10 percent of admittees in recent years at elite schools like Stanford and the Ivy League -- are of no interest to college admission officers.

So they are tagged not as unique individuals but as superfluous losers of the "wrong" race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Gen Z men saw themselves scapegoated by professors and society for the sins of past generations -- and on the wrong side of the preposterous reductionist binary of oppressors and the oppressed.

Traditional pathways to adulthood -- affordable homes, upwardly mobile and secure jobs, and safe and secure city and suburban living -- had mostly vanished amid overregulation, overtaxation, and underpolicing.

Orthodox and loud student advocates on campus -- climate change, DEI, the Palestinians -- had little to do with getting a job, raising a family, or buying a house.

During the Biden years, white males mostly stopped enlisting in the military in their accustomed overrepresented numbers.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, they had died in frontline combat units at twice their percentages for the demographic. No matter -- prior Pentagon DEI commissars still slandered them as suspects likely to form racist cabals.

Gen Z males seemed bewildered by women and sex -- and often withdrew from dating.

Never has popular culture so promoted sexually provocative fashions, semi-nudity, and freewheeling lifestyles, and careers of supposedly empowered single women.

And never had the rules of dating and sexuality become more retrograde Victorian.

Casual consensual sex was flashed as cool everywhere on social media. And when it naturally proved in the real world to be selfish, callous, and empty, males were almost always exclusively blamed as if they were not proper Edwardian gentlemen.

Soon, young men feared sexual hookups and promiscuity as avenues to post facto and one-sided charges of harassment -- or worse.

For the half of Generation Z who went to college, tuition had soared, rising faster than the rate of inflation. Administrators were often more numerous than faculty. Obsessive fixations with race determined everything from dorm selections to graduation ceremonies.

Zoomers were mired in enormous student debt.

Yet they soon learned that their gut social science and "studies" degrees proved nearly worthless. Employers saw such certificates as neither proof of traditional knowledge nor of any needed specialized skill set.

Unemployed or half-employed Zoomers then ended up with unsustainable five-figure student loans, and the insidious interest on them. Their affluent, left-wing tenured profs, who had once demonized them as oppressors, could have cared less about their dismal fates.

Add it all up, and Zoomers puzzled their parents. And they found scant guidance from the campus.

Instead, they sought needed spiritual inspiration from a Jordan Peterson, entertainment and pragmatic advice from a Joe Rogan, but sometimes toxic venting from a demagogic, antisemitic Nick Fuentes.

What would shock the lost generation back into the mainstream, barring a war, depression, or natural catastrophe?

One, an end to DEI hectoring and blame-gaming, and a return to class rather than race determining "privilege."

Two, some sanity in the war between the sexes. When women represent nearly 60% of undergraduates, why does gender still assure an advantage in admissions and hiring?

Three, the federal government needs to stop funding $1.7 trillion in student debt, often for worthless degrees, and wasting away one's prime 20s and 30s.

Let universities pledge their endowments to guarantee their own loans. They should graduate students in four years. And they must slash the parasitical class of toxic administrative busybodies who cannot teach but can hector and bully.

Four, society needs to stop granting status on the basis of increasingly meaningless letters and titles after a name.

Skilled tradesmen like electricians and mechanics are noble professionals. And their status and compensation should reflect their value to society -- far more so than a bachelor's degree in a- studies major or years vaporized in off-and-on college.

Finally, incentivize building homes, rather than overregulating and zoning them into unaffordability.

If the lost Gen Z is not found soon, the result for everyone will not be pretty.

https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2025/11/27/can-the-lost-generation-be-found-n2667026?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Meet the Republocrats

Meet the Republocrats

AP Photo/Matt Rourke

A lot doesn't get done in Washington, and that's how they like it.

Dick Cheney, as vice president, was loathed by the Left. He was called Darth Vader and often compared to Peter Sellers' lunatic warmonger character, Dr. Strangelove. After 9/11, he seemed to live out of the White House bunker, where he planned U.S. wars all over the world. He was in those days considered the "extreme" of the Republican Party, and in true Kamala fashion, made the press feel that George W. Bush was almost normal in comparison to his loco vice president.

So it was strange to see Rachel Maddow, Tony Fauci, James Carville, and others who, in the day, probably loathed Cheney sitting attentively at his funeral. If you had told me that they went there to make sure that he was dead, then I would have felt better. But what were card-carrying lefties doing at the funeral of the evil, neocon, Halliburton, bad-shooting hunter who never saw a war that he didn't like? They were teaching us a very valuable lesson. There is the uniparty, and then there is Donald Trump. The Right and Left in American politics have more in common with each other than they do with Donald Trump and those who put him into office. Much of the sclerosis in Washington is baked into the system of coequal branches of government. The Founders did not want things done too quickly, so there are checks and balances that slow many things down in the federal government. But much of the slow-motion is due to our politicians not particularly liking the people whom they are supposed to serve. They like massive debt, weak voting rules, and USAID for everybody!

Let's look at voting laws. Donald Trump has correctly identified significant weaknesses in U.S. voting procedures. From foreigners voting to a lack of picture ID required, from paper ballots to weeks of voting prior to "Election Day," there is plenty of room for fraud and shenanigans. Donald Trump wants to make voting simple and easy and align it with the procedures in normal countries: proof of citizenship, picture ID, same-day voting, and paper ballots. Now, if the Republicans wanted to check the Democrats at the ballot box and continue to rule for years to come, then they would be chomping at the bit to do the president's bidding to shore up American election procedures. But they are not. The president suggested getting rid of the filibuster so as to allow the 53 Republican senators to pass legislation reflecting a more secure voting program. The leader of the party in the Senate, John Thune, does not seem particularly interested in removing the filibuster. And truth be told, it's not clear to me that even with a 50 (versus 60) vote requirement, the president's agenda on voting, guys in women's sports, and other 80/20 issues would actually pass. You see, the Democrats and Republicans—like those at the Cheney funeral—have a lot more in common with each other and really like the status quo.

When Donald Trump won his shock victory in 2016, he found that he had very few friends on Capitol Hill. People like Paul Ryan and John McCain had no interest in passing the president's MAGA program, and it was McCain who made the key vote to torpedo an end to Obamacare. Over two more election cycles, the president definitely gained more friends in the deliberative body, but there is still this uniparty view of the world that does not really like MAGA. One can look at Marjorie Taylor Greene flaming out—but making sure to quit three days after her congressional pension has fully vested. Thomas Massie and Dr. Rand Paul seem enamored with some type of libertarian fantasy world over the direct appeals of the leader of their party, Donald Trump. We always just assume that our representatives will reflexively vote according to party line, and the Democrats generally do so—except for Senator Fetterman, who is a rare breath of fresh air on the Democrats' side. The Republicans are less homogeneous in their voting. Not all are MAGA. Some are Cheney neocons who would love to get directly into the Ukraine battle. Others are Chamber of Commerce admirers who don't like the president or his voters. In the end, there are many Republicans and Democrats who like the present system even if it sits on $38 trillion in debt and is generally dysfunctional. There is a bill to curb congressional insider trading wending its way toward a vote. It will never pass. All of our reps are millionaires, and it does not matter how much or little they had before they went up those stairs and into the Capitol. When they have been in Washington for a few years, their reported wealth is measured in the millions, sometimes in the tens of millions or more. They are not giving up anything for the benefit of the American people.

As both parties meld into one and the president's agenda is left in the Capitol rotunda, there seems to be a strong case for congressional term limits. The old argument about the leaders having so many years of experience is meaningless today. Give a rep six years/three terms and a senator 12 years/two terms. Then they can go out and become lobbyists like their friends. Unfortunately, just as Congress votes itself pay raises and salaries during shutdowns, these people will not vote to end their taxpayer-funded gravy train. Other than the whites in South Africa turning power over to the blacks, nobody gives up a good gig. They are not going to vote for term limits, however beneficial it would be for the Republic. They are also not going to vote for the president's program for voter integrity, however popular it is in the country. Our senators and representatives are not interested in advancing the interests of the nation—and certainly not the program of one Donald J. Trump. They will make a lot of noise but do nothing. They just had 43 days of shutdown. They will be going on their winter vacation soon. They do nothing, and they are very proud of all of the nothing that they do. They hate DOGE because they like the patronage they dole out to friends, families, and NGOs who support them. There is nothing that they can't do with your money.

Oftentimes, when there is some scandal or outrage, one hears a senator or congressman say that tomorrow he is introducing a bill to prevent the event from occurring again. Funny that we never hear about that bill going through committee, getting marked up, being voted on, being sent over to the other branch, and finally landing on the president's desk for signature. No, it was enough to tell the press that we're going to impeach imperial judges or prevent guys with 72 arrests from getting out without bail so as to set women on fire on Chicago subways. And after all of the noise, nothing happens. I once put into Google Maps "golf courses in Washington." There seems to be one for each of our 535 elected reps. In Israel, there is one golf course near the coast.

Rachel Maddow did not take a wrong turn and find herself at the funeral of a man whose views she opposed 180 degrees. Our Left and Right are both connected to the same body, and their only goal is to stymie Donald Trump and the tens of millions of American citizens who support him. Back in the day, an admiral said that the U.S. Navy had three primary enemies: the Soviet Union, the United States Air Force, and Admiral Hyman Rickover. Today, Democrats and Republicans have only two enemies, so it's simpler: Donald Trump and MAGA voters.

https://townhall.com/columnists/alanjosephbauer/2025/11/26/meet-the-republocrats-n2666970?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Just Imagine What We Could Do If Democrats Weren’t Evil

Just Imagine What We Could Do If Democrats Weren’t Evil

Saul Loeb, Pool via AP

We have a lot of problems in this country, as we always have. But, just for a minute, imagine we had a political class interested in addressing those problems in a way that benefited as many Americans as chose to avail themselves of the opportunity to improve their lot in life? That's a wordy way of saying that the government should serve as a plow to clear the road ahead for everyone (of red tape, foreign and corporate interference, and anything else in the way) so everyone has a chance to make whatever they can, or would like, out of their lives.

Instead of that plow, we have half the political establishment staring at the ground, shuffling their feet and, like a bad stage actor, unsure what to do with their hands. The other half is actively throwing as many obstacles as possible in that road – trees, rocks, nails – and blaming "society" for all of it.

Republicans, at least, do try to get good things done, every once in a while. They also talk a good game, which isn't much but is slightly more than the nothing we've come to accept in politics.

Democrats, on the other hand, would be happy to bring the whole thing crashing down on anyone who refuses to bow to their will and whims. They are the ultimate parasite that kills its host – they're suicide bombers for the sake of the explosion.

But imagine if they weren't; imagine if Democrats loved the country as much as they love illegal aliens or violent criminals. What couldn't get done?

They don't, of course. They don't make flights to their home states to visit with families of victims murdered by illegal aliens, but they do launch pilgrimages to Latin America for a photo-op with an alleged wife-beater. In other words, their priorities are not American priorities.

Think of the effort it took to coordinate with six members of Congress to record a video with all of them advising members of the military to defy orders from the president of the United States. Aside from it being sedition by proxy and a wet kiss for treason, it was done for one purpose and one purpose only: to make the United States look bad on the world stage.

They did, just not in the way they'd hoped.

What if these people, and all the angry leftists hellbent on turning people against the country when they aren't in charge of it (and that's what they do), actually tried to encourage good things? Rather than turning Americans out into the streets to attack ICE agents, to block traffic or do damage to the economy, what if Democrats focused that energy to helping people?

I realize they don't want to help people; otherwise, they would. Their agenda is almost exclusively designed to make more people dependent on government to empower themselves, but what if they cared for real?

That's probably impossible – you can't rationalize someone's sociopathy away. But it's interesting to think about.

Expecting "good" or help from a Democrat is too much, but what the hell happened to them that we can't even hope for them to give trying to damage people a break?

Think of what they do, what they fight for. Is there anything – literally one thing – that is unambiguously good? Nothing comes to mind.

There are a lot of issues on which Republicans are on the side of the vast majority of the country – keeping boys out of girls' sports, stopping sex changes for kids, preventing criminals from entering the country – and Democrats are on the other side of every single one of them. It's not just that they're on the other side in a passive way; they are actively cheering the anti-American side – the one that gets people killed.

When Democratic Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin (she's single, fellas) cited the movie "A Few Good Men" in defense of their "defy the president" video, she showed just how far gone the Left is. That none of these people could come up with anything they could even lie about being an "illegal order" tells you all you need to know about their character. She did, by the way, manage to equate Vietnam veterans with Nazis at Nuremberg in the same defense, so you can see where she's coming from.

Maybe Democrats are not capable of doing things for the good of the country – I have no memory of them doing so in my lifetime, but it had to have happened at some point, right? Or maybe they simply do not care. There are a lot of people capable of a great deal of things that they simply do not do.

Personally, I don't care what the answer is; my problem is that there is the question. Well, a rhetorical question, really. We'll likely never know what could be done if Democrats were as interested in the good of the country as they are in their own glory and power, because it never occurs to them to try.

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2025/11/25/just-imagine-what-we-could-do-if-democrats-werent-evil-n2666952?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Saturday, November 29, 2025

PBS Seems Neutral on Burning America to the Ground

PBS Seems Neutral on Burning America to the Ground

AP Photo/Hektor Pustina

Since Oct. 1, PBS isn't taxpayer-funded, but the radical leftist spirit of PBS remains unchanged. When it comes to transgenderism, for example, the discussion cannot have two sides. In a 2023 study of seven months of the "PBS News Hour," the libertine left drew 90% of the airtime.

It was even worse for in-studio guests. It was 19 to one -- and the one unsolicited utterance that opposed the left-wing position came from gay tennis star Billie Jean King, who dared to suggest that men shouldn't compete in women's sports once it came to advanced competitions like the Olympics.

On Nov. 24, the "News Hour" guest was Alejandra Caraballo, a trans woman who works at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic. Caraballo exemplifies the acidulous leftist vitriol on Bluesky, the leftist alternative to Twitter. Caraballo posted this on June 18, after the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-denying mutilations for children:

"I honestly don't care anymore if this country destroys itself and burns down to the ground. The current form of the United States is incompatible with democracy or human rights. It no longer has any legitimacy to govern and I'll dance on its grave. Let something better rise from the ashes."

This is the guest PBS picked -- the ones currently pretending to love America with Ken Burns bringing the DEI spirit to "The American Revolution." Interviewer William Brangham waited until the last question to posit: "You have faced your own share of criticism for some of the things you have written on social media. Where do you see the boundaries in terms of how to have this debate, especially as it pertains to people who are near and dear to you?"

There were no quotes on screen of her many wild swings on Bluesky, like this new one on the Elissa Slotkin "illegal orders" video: "Hot take but the president openly calling for the murder of his political opposition should be grounds for immediate impeachment and removal for office (sic)."

Caraballo claimed this is systemic: "I think about this a lot in terms of the incentives of social media and how it can incentivize a certain style of engagement. But I think, in general, one of the things I have always tried to say and repeat, the quote is, 'be brutal to systems, kind to people.'"

But when it comes to opponents in the trans debate, from Riley Gaines to Bari Weiss, there's no kindness from Caraballo.

Before that, Brangham's most challenging question was this: "Back during the election, political analysts point to that notorious (notorious?!) set of ads that the president ran against Kamala Harris, she's for they/them, he's for you, as both being divisive and effective as an ad campaign. And, as you know, there are polls that show that somewhere around half of Americans approve of what the president is doing vis-a-vis trans people. How do you explain that? How does that sit with you?"

Caraballo found that "incredibly troubling," and underlined that Republicans running in off-year races pushed the trans/sports issues and lost, like in Virginia, where Winsome Earle-Sears spent a lot of money on "some extremely heinous anti-trans ads." Heinous?!

What Caraballo demonstrates is that radical trans activists don't believe in democracy. They want an autocracy where no one can oppose their dictates. It's not my way or the highway -- it's my way or "burn America down to the ground." This is the kind of wacko that PBS is platforming. They also don't believe in democracy, or they would allow someone on their show to oppose this hate-engulfed male.

https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2025/11/26/pbs-seems-neutral-on-burning-america-to-the-ground-n2667020?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Can We Just Stop With the Ukraine Stuff Now?

Can We Just Stop With the Ukraine Stuff Now?

AP Photo/Aurelien Morissard, left and center, Pavel Bednyakov, right

The Ukraine War needs to end, and I say that as what I am – an American, concerned with the interests of America. This brutal conflict has gone on too long, and it is not in the interests of America that it continue. Sure, there are the moral aspects – hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians have been maimed or killed, and war is generally a bad thing (not always, but generally). Putin's a bad guy; he sure is, transgressive morons and their opinions to the contrary. But let's get real – what we need to be concerned about is us. The Ukrainians and the Europeans can and will take care of themselves. This is not our fight, not our fault, and not anything we should keep expending treasure and risking blood on – both in terms of dead soldiers, should we intervene, and dead civilians, should it get out of control and we start tossing hot rocks back and forth with Putin.

Nor is it in our political interest – Donald Trump should be working on the economy, not refereeing some endless dispute between faraway people. This problem was left in a steaming pile on Trump's desk by President Eggplant, and for some reason, we have taken it upon ourselves to solve this Slavic border dispute. Now, I will get grief – again – for calling it that, but that is exactly what it is. It's a feud between various brands of Slavs, and the roots of this conflict go back a thousand years. We Americans can't understand it, and it is the height of arrogance to try. Remember in "Goodfellas" when narrator Ray Liotta explains how the killing of Joe Pesci was between the Italians and inscrutable to outsiders (he puts it in more colorful, i.e., NSFW, terms)? Well, that's what's happening here, and all our goody-goody, goo-goo attempts at fitting this square peg into our own comfortable, Manichean good guys v. bad guys round hole are ridiculous.

We can't understand their conflict, and we should not base our positions on our assessments of who is nice and who is bad. What we should do, what we must do, is base our policies on what serves America's interests. And prolonging this war does not serve America's interests.

Let's get some of the nonsense out of the way. Even if Putin took all of Ukraine, which the brave and plucky Ukrainians have kept him from doing for now, he would not then set his sights on conquering the rest of Europe. He would love to be the USSR, but he is not the USSR, which had both the capacity and the communist ideology that made invading Western Europe a real threat. I know – I was there at the end of the Cold War, in stark contrast to all the freshly minted bear-baiters of today who never found a war they were not ready to have you or your kids fight for them.

Nor are America's allies going to get some sort of message that America can't be relied upon if they need us, should we step back. The Ukrainians are not our allies. They are friendly – I trained Ukrainians, like them, and wish they could win – but we have executed no treaty requiring us to go to war and get Americans killed on their behalf. A treaty requires Senate confirmation, which means debate and a formal commitment by the American people through their representatives to put lives on the line. You don't get that because some people, who almost inevitably would not have to do the fighting nor have kids expected to do the fighting, huddle up and come to a moral judgment that we are obligated to Ukraine. And no, that Clinton made some handshake agreement to protect Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nukes does not count. That's not a treaty; only a treaty binds the United States. Blame Clinton for misleading them and them for being misled. Actual allies – yeah, we are on the hook. Non-allies – no, sorry.

Though we have no obligations regarding this war, we have chosen to insert ourselves in it, and now the useless Europeans, the Ukrainians and the gung ho to fight Russia crew (they hate Russia in part because they think Putin helped elect Trump – yes, stupidity is a key component of their foreign policy) are all expecting Trump to make this problem go away. Trump did announce he would do it, which is now coming back to bite him on the Schumer. There's a big problem here, and it's Putin. Putin knows he might not be winning at the moment, but he is not losing, and eventually the sheer bulk of his massive empire will crush the Ukrainians. Like every Russian dictator ever, he cares nothing about the casualties he takes. He knows that, much to the chagrin of the Ukrainians and the staff of The Lincoln Project, size matters.

Putin refuses to give in, and that's a problem. There was a big to-do about an alleged peace plan that gave Russia much, even most, of what it wants. Yes, did someone expect the side with the advantage not to get its terms? The Euros then came up with their own peace plan, which basically expects not only Russia to give up its objectives but also contains a promise by the U.S. to guarantee Ukraine's security – more about that in a second. Yes, these geniuses (including American Ukrainian toe-suckers) have got together among themselves, drafted their wish list, and expect Putin to accept it. These are children. It's ridiculous. You don't negotiate with a foe with a stronger hand by demanding he give in on everything. I don't care what your professor at the Georgetown School of Foreign Service seminar on international negotiations told you – that's not going to happen.

And then there's the poison pill of U.S. involvement. We are supposed to agree to a NATO Article 5-like provision to this imaginary agreement that says America must defend Ukraine if they fight again with Russia – you know, continue the conflict that's been going on for 1,000 years. I do not know if this is one of those wink/nod handshake agreements, like the nuke protection pact, or whether it would be put up with as a treaty. If the latter, let's see that Senate debate and vote on the record about giving Ukraine and Russia the ability to bring America into a war, because that's what this provision would do.

Neither of these draft peace plans is going to go anywhere at the moment. Maybe this is the time we step away. It makes political sense – Trump 2.0 needs to be focusing entirely on affordability, and this clusterfark is taking up bandwidth and stepping on his message. Since everyone's mad at Trump – the one guy among the Ukrainians, Russians, Europeans, and the American foreign policy establishment who bears zero blame in this awful business – maybe Trump should wash his hands of it. "You critics don't like my plan? Make your own. I'm going to work on getting rents and ground beef prices down, and you brilliant people can fix this thing."

It's time to move on from Ukraine. If the parties want to fight – and if you don't make peace, you want to fight – then they can fight. Leave us out of it. It's a no-win for America, and that's what we should really care about.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2025/11/26/can-we-just-stop-with-the-ukraine-stuff-now-n2666953?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Ex-FBI Assistant Director: The Bureau Had Many Chances to Stop Trump's Would-Be Assassin

Ex-FBI Assistant Director: The Bureau Had Many Chances to Stop Trump's Would-Be Assassin

AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar

An ex-FBI assistant director is venting his frustrations over the assassination attempt on Donald J. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, last July. Chris Swecker, a 24-year veteran of the bureau, said that the digital footprint that’s now being revealed about would-be assassin Thomas Crooks showed that this person would’ve been on the FBI’s radar long before he fired multiple shots at the president. Police killed Crooks during the incident. Swecker added that former FBI Director Chris Wray was desperate to pin this crime on a far-right individual (via NY Post): 

The FBI had multiple “missed opportunities” to stop Thomas Crooks before he tried to assassinate President Trump, a former assistant director at the Bureau has told The Post.

Last week, The Post reported on multiple extremist social media posts believed to be tied to Crooks, including numerous threats of political violence and a dramatic shift against Trump, after previously expressing his admiration for the Republican. 

If even “half” of Trump’s would-be assassin’s extremist digital footprint turns out to be true, he should have been on the FBI’s radar long before the 20-year-old opened fired on the then-presumptive GOP presidential nominee during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, said Chris Swecker, a retired FBI assistant director.  

“It’s clear that he was popping off on the social media sites and saying things that should have garnered attention,” Swecker, who served in the FBI for 24 years, said.

“That constitutes a miss on the part of the FBI,” he added, saying that the Bureau’s handling of the investigation earned a “a C- grade.” 

[…] 

Swecker — who retired from the Bureau in 2006 — also claimed that the FBI under then-director Christopher Wray was desperate to pin Trump’s would-be assassin as a far-right lone gunman. 

He said it seemed clear to him that when agents found evidence to the contrary, the Bureau “had its thumb on the scales” of the investigation. 

This led to a lack of transparency in the investigation, which allowed conspiracy theories to spread and multiply, he said. 

“A little bit of transparency goes a long way in these types of investigations,” said Swecker, who served as assistant director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006.

“There was a bias in the FBI towards right-wing extremists. And if there was a right-wing extremist ideology, that got surfaced real quick in any of these shootings. But if there was a left-wing extremist ideology driving it, it was glossed over,” Swecker said 

He said that view was “shared by a lot of my colleagues” in the FBI. 

Crooks seemed to hate everybody, as he also wrote nasty posts about killing Jews and members of the Squad on the Hill. The Squad is the most vocal, left-wing members of the Democratic House Caucus, including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). 

This kid was allowed to perch on an unsecured rooftop some 400 feet from the main stage at this rally, a glaring security breach for which the Secret Service has yet to provide an answer that isn’t laughable. The FBI also refused to disclose all information about this case to congressional investigators, prompting some to call for a new review and probe.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/11/24/ex-fbi-assistant-director-the-bureau-had-many-chances-to-stop-trumps-would-be-assassin-n2666907?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl