SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
laura loomer
Israel's Supporters Are Using Islamophobia to Distract From Genocide; Don't Fall For It
Every American should recognize these increasingly unhinged attacks for what they are: Cynical attempts to protect Israel from criticism by frightening the American public.
Oct 04, 2025
Sharia law is taking over America, from Dearborn to New York City. So is the Muslim Brotherhood. And they are doing so with help from the communist left.
These claims should sound familiar to anyone who has kept track of the rhetoric coming from the Israeli government's supporters over the past few months. From politicians like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) to keyboard warriors like Laura Loomer and Eyal Yakoby, some of Israel's biggest cheerleaders keep finding new ways to manufacture hysteria about Islam and Muslims.
What's behind this sudden and seemingly coordinated attempt to resurrect conspiracy theories about Muslims that were debunked years ago?
It’s certainly not because anyone truly believes that 6 million Americans are trying to somehow impose Islamic law on 300 million Americans. The real reason is simple: Gaza.
The real threat to our nation is not Muslims in Dearborn or Dallas—it’s corrupt politicians who put Israel first, waste taxpayer dollars on genocide, and try to distract Americans with lies and fear.
DropSite News recently revealed that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is conducting a global survey of the United States and European nations to gauge Western attitudes towards Israel.
The preliminary results show widespread opposition to the Israeli government because of its genocide in Gaza. But the results also show that support for Israel rebounded by 20 points when the pollster stoked fears of “Radical Islam” and “Jihadism.”
Cue the sudden surge in anti-Muslim rhetoric across the pro-Israel ecosphere.
To be clear, this strategy is nothing new.
For years, pro-Israel foundations played a major role in funding anti-Muslim hate groups like ACT for America, the Middle East Forum, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, all of which are also led by anti-Palestinian extremists.
These groups and their funders have long feared the American Muslim community’s growing population, increased political activism, and consistent support for Palestinian human rights.
Because a thriving and politically impactful American Muslim community might one day reorient US foreign policy on Israel in a more just direction, American Muslims had to be smeared and silenced.
History is now repeating itself amid the Gaza genocide.
Texas Gov. Abbott just responded to manufactured controversy about a Muslim-led real estate project by signing a law that supposedly "bans sharia" (it doesn't) and Rep. Fine has introduced a bill to ban sharia across the country (it won't). Their political stunts replicate an unconstitutional attempt to ban sharia that swept through red states in the early 2010s.
Although anti-sharia hysteria eventually fizzled out, its proponents never gave up their other goal: painting American Muslims and their institutions as puppets of foreign boogeymen.
Israel's supporters in Congress have spent years pushing to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group so that the government can then use that designation to launch witch hunts into American Muslim groups falsely accused of being tied to the Egyptian organization.
The first bill that attempted to do so was introduced in 2014 by pro-Israel hawk former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) with the backing of Frank Gaffney, who is also the founder of pro-Israel (and anti-Muslim) Center for Security Policy. The bill failed. The same fate befell other versions of the legislation pushed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who reintroduced his latest “modernized” bill in 2025.
In recent weeks, Laura Loomer has been using her apparent influence over the Trump administration to demand that the State Department unilaterally designate the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.
So has Eyal Yakoby, an Israeli-American college student who has become one of the Gaza genocide's most prolific defenders on social media. Between September 21 and 29, Yakoby has posted "Ban the Muslim Brotherhood!" at least 12 different times.
Nearly every other post in Yakoby's Twitter feed also hypes the supposed global threat of Muslims, from Dearborn to the United Kingdom to Nigeria. Yakoby even earned a community note for falsely blaming seasonal wildfires in Syria on Muslims "lighting Christian villages" on fire.
Another prominent pro-Israel figure pushing such hysteria is Amy Mekelburg, who has manufactured several controversies about the imaginary threat of sharia law taking over Texas, of all places.
Another odd talking point Israel's supporters have pushed in recent months is the claim that American conservatives critical of Israel, like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, have been bribed by—you guessed it—Muslims.
Every American should recognize these increasingly unhinged attacks for what they are: Cynical attempts to protect Israel from criticism by frightening the American public, keeping political conservatives in line, and silencing American Muslims.
The real threat to our nation is not Muslims in Dearborn or Dallas—it’s corrupt politicians who put Israel first, waste taxpayer dollars on genocide, and try to distract Americans with lies and fear.
They've done it before, and now they're doing it again. No one should fall for it this time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Backs Pride Flag Ban as Allies Spread False Claims Tying Transgender People to Violence
One rights advocate noted that the creator of the flag the president said he'd consider banning recently left the US due to fears of persecution under the Trump administration.
Sep 17, 2025
After false claims spread last week that a transgender person was behind the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, US President Donald Trump and his allies are continuing to push the erroneous narrative that the transgender community is a danger to the American public.
Trump on Monday said that he'd consider banning LGBTQ pride flags as his political allies ratcheted up dehumanizing rhetoric.
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Real America's Voice correspondent Brian Glenn showed Trump a photo of a trans flag currently on display in Washington, DC, and claimed that "a lot of people are very threatened" by it.
"Would you be opposed to taking this flag down, up and down the streets of DC?" Glenn asked.
"Well, I wouldn't be," Trump replied. "Then they'll sue and they'll get freedom of speech stuff, you know, so that'll happen. But I would have no problem with it."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he wanted anyone who burned an American flag to "go to jail immediately."
The day after the president signaled his support for banning transgender pride flags, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) likened the transgender rights movement to a “cancer” and suggested detaining all transgender people in the United States.
In an interview with Newsmax, Jackson baselessly said that transgender women "have an underlying level of aggressiveness" and suggested they be forcibly committed to mental institutions.
"We have to treat these people," he said. "We have to get them off the streets, and we have to get them off the internet, and we can't let them communicate with each other. I'm all about free speech, but this is a virus, this is a cancer that's spreading across this country."
In response to Trump's attack on the transgender flag, ACLU communications strategist Gillian Branstetter pointed out that the transgender activist who created the symbol, Monica Helms, recently left the US "for fear of her safety as a trans person under Trump."
After the assassination of Kirk—who also falsely connected transgender people to mass shootings with no evidence—right-wing commentators quickly reacted by claiming the attacker was transgender and federal agents reported early on in their investigation that symbols of "transgender ideology" were found at the crime scene—a claim that was amplified by the Wall Street Journal.
In reality, mass shootings carried out by transgender individuals represent a minuscule fraction of the total number of mass shootings carried out in the US, and there is no evidence that transgender people are disproportionately likely to engage in acts of violence.
Laura Loomer, once a fringe far-right internet commentator and conspiracy theorist who is now an influential informal adviser to the president, has also been ramping up attacks against the transgender movement, and she even went so far this week as to demand that gender-affirming care be completely banned by executive order.
"It’s time to designate the transgender movement as a terrorist movement," she wrote in a social media post. "Trans people are a threat to society. We can’t allow them to continue killing people. They need to be socially ostracized and the president should make medical transitioning ILLEGAL in our country."
Conservative attacks on the transgender movement have persisted in the wake of the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, despite the fact that the alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, was not himself transgender.
Evidence released by prosecutors on Tuesday showed that Robinson's transgender partner refused Robinson's request to delete incriminating text messages the two had exchanged. The partner subsequently shared these messages with law enforcement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Are America’s Far-Right Leaders So Young?
How social media turned a handful of young provocateurs into the far right’s national vanguard.
Sep 16, 2025
Through the late 2010s, pundits hailed Gen Z as America’s most progressive young cohort. Yet, the truth is more complicated: While many young voters voice support for climate action, racial justice, and reproductive rights, their overall partisan tilt is far less lopsided than early headlines implied. Support for Democrats among under-30 voters has softened since 2020, and young men in particular are drifting rightward on issues like gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
That gap between reputation and reality is, in part, due to a rising cadre of young conservatives who are more radical, more visible, and better organized than their progressive peers. From Nick Fuentes to Laura Loomer to the late Charlie Kirk, the figures shaping the far-right agenda have been startlingly young. Why, then, are some of the movement’s most prominent figures in their late 20s and early 30s? How did a political current once defined by veteran politicians and talk-radio personalities come to be led by live-streamers and college-circuit activists?
Consider Fuentes. Only 28, yet he commands a national audience of more than 700,000 followers. He has a dedicated fanbase, connections to GOP congressmen, and once had a private dinner with US President Donald Trump. And Fuentes is not an outlier. From political candidates to campus organizers, the far-right’s most prominent figures are getting younger—and more extreme.
The explanation lies in the internet’s ecosystem. Figures like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec were among the first to show how provocation and relentless online promotion could transform fringe ideas into mass influence. In the years since, news has gone largely digital, with about 86% of Americans getting at least some of their news on phones or computers. The overwhelming bulk of political information now flows through a dense lattice of live-streams, podcasts, and Discord servers, all spaces young people navigate with native ease.
For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
In this landscape, digital platforms have dismantled traditional barriers to political power. Two decades ago, a young ideologue needed gatekeepers—local radio, party donors, sympathetic editors—to build a following. Today, a ring light and an algorithm are enough. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and X provide inexpensive infrastructure and frictionless amplification, allowing individuals to raise money, mobilize supporters, and establish a brand long before institutions can react.
Why is this dynamic propelling the far-right in particular? Without much formal representation in elected office, these ideas circulate almost entirely online, where scarcity makes them more alluring. And algorithms reward outrage, propelling the sharpest sound bites and most incendiary claims to the top of every feed. For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
Conservative legacy media compounds the effect. Figures who achieve algorithmic virality are quickly booked on cable programs and high-profile podcasts, which confer legitimacy and feed the next surge of online attention. The result is a self-reinforcing loop: Digital notoriety leads to mainstream exposure, which drives further radical content.
The American left lacks a parallel generation of online, movement-building leaders. Progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have national profiles, but their influence depends on elected office and formal party structures rather than on a grassroots, youth-led network. Yes, young progressives such as Dean Withers and Matt Bernstein have built impressive reputations as digital advocates for progressive causes. But they operate largely as individual voices, not as architects of a nationwide, highly-branded youth movement comparable to Kirk's Turning Point USA or Fuentes' America First movement. Comparable grassroots movements on the left, like the emerging 50501, lack visible leaders capable of unifying and sustaining a broad, youth-driven base.
This distinction matters. Without a cohesive, youth-led movement, progressives struggle to match the visibility and narrative power of their far-right counterparts. Every far-right provocation arrives with a spokesperson and a polished national platform, while the left relies on a handful of elected officials and scattered digital voices. The absence of equally prominent, institutionally supported young progressives cedes narrative ground, and gives rising alt-right leaders disproportionate space to break out online.
Addressing this imbalance will not turn on deplatforming extremist voices alone; the internet’s architecture makes that a game of whac-a-mole. Nor will it come solely from established progressive leaders. It requires cultivating and sustaining a cohort of young progressives who can operate effectively online and build movements without succumbing to social media's darkest ideologies. It also requires a cultural shift on the left: valuing charismatic leadership as a complement—not a substitute—for collective action.
Gen Z was supposed to guarantee a progressive future. Instead, many of its most visible political entrepreneurs are on the far-right. Unless progressives move beyond supporting individual creators and intentionally develop their own social movements, the loudest young voices shaping America’s political future will continue to belong to its most far-right fringes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular