Fox News98%

Rep Mike Lawler rips Democratic Party's 'WEAK' leaders 72%

7/12/2026, 1:30:38 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 42.4% saturation with 340 hits. Analysis detected 2,916 faulty-reasoning hits from 802 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.6% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,125 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 72.00% of the video peer group.

Welcome back America. We have a friend of ours, Representative Mike Lawler from New York's 17th Congressional District, a man I have great respect for in a very difficult district. 
Uh Mike Lawler, uh you're close to the area and you've been watching this Mondani over the last 7 months or so. 
He's been a one-man wrecking ball to the entire metropolitan area that has an effect on the entire state there. 
Uh he seems to control the Democrat Party now. Schumer and Jeffries seem to have surrendered it to the Marxist Islamists. 
Um my concern here is that he's kind of leading a nationwide revolution. 
This seems to be now um the ground point from where they intend to spread this ideology, not the only one, don't get me wrong, but ground zero from where they intend to spread this ideology throughout the country. 
And the sickening irony is we're at the 25th anniversary of 9/11 just in a in a few weeks. 
What do you make of all this? 
>> Well, you know, Mark, I said last year uh that Zohran Mamdani, if elected, would become the face of the Democratic Party, and he would be the most political mayor in the history of New York City, which is saying something when you think back to Tammany Hall and uh you know, uh LaGuardia and everything else that uh you know, has happened in New York. Uh the fact is uh that Zohran Mamdani uh is a Marxist. 
Uh and he fundamentally believes uh in this ideology. 
Uh I served with him in the state legislature. 
Uh we were friendly. We played poker uh every week up in Albany, and anytime he would win, I'd say, "All right, socialist, fork it over." Uh but the fact is that he believes in this stuff, 
and he is leading the charge along with AOC and Bernie Sanders, uh not just in New York, but across the country. And you're seeing it in these congressional seats, you're seeing it in these US Senate primaries, no matter how much they try to run away from Graham Platter now. 
The fact is they embraced his candidacy. They're embracing, you know, the the radical socialists in Michigan. They're embracing communists running in New York. 
And so this is where the Democratic Party is headed. 
And his speech on July 4th, you know, basically condemning America. 
And you know, as as somebody who's an immigrant from Uganda who just became a US citizen eight years ago, he should be grateful for the opportunities that this country has afforded him and his family. 
Remember, he's a trust fund baby. 
His his mother has made a lot of money in Hollywood and in Bollywood. 
And you know, his father is a Marxist professor Columbia. I mean, this is this is the world view he grew up in and he is doing everything he can to enact it and remake the Democratic Party. 
And sadly, Schumer and Jeffries are weak, pathetic leaders that frankly are going to be gone. 
I mean, I Jeffries will be lucky if he remains the Democratic leader. 
I fundamentally do believe we will hold the house in November. 
because this is a true choice for the American people between capitalism and Marxist socialist, communist. 
This is a choice between people who believe in the ideals and the values that built America and those who want to remake it. 
And I think the American people will soundly reject that in November. But Schumer is done. 
He is absolutely toast uh come 2028, uh whether it's AOC or some other radical socialist that takes him out uh in a Democratic primary, but mark my words, he he will be done uh come 2028. 
>> Now, what they've managed to do these Marxist Islamists is they've played the primary system. 
Uh they know that people really don't turn out in big numbers in most primaries, 
and so they get their vote out. 
In New York, I believe it was um in the the mosques turned out about 97% of their parishioners to vote in the Democrat primary, 
uh but overall was a relatively low turnout. 
turnout. And so, that's how you got a Mondami. 
They're doing this all over the country. They're doing it in places like Texas. They're doing it in New Jersey. 
They're doing it in California, even parts of Florida, other places like that. So, there's an entire strategy afoot here. 
So, that's my question to you when we return. 
We'll be right back. 
>> Hey everyone, I'm Emily Compagno. Catch me and my co-host Harris Faulkner and Kayleigh McEnany on Outnumbered every weekday at 12:00 p.m. Eastern, or set 
weekday at 12:00 p.m. Eastern, or set 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.4%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias20.4%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias7.2%This article: 21.2%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic21.2%This article: 11.5%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.5%This article: 9.9%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias9.9%This article: 8.0%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias8.0%This article: 5.5%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect5.5%This article: 4.5%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion4.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 14.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias14.0%This article: 32.2%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias32.2%This article: 1.4%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias1.4%This article: 5.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 4.6%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias4.6%This article: 3.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 4.7%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.7%This article: 3.7%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect13.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem2.5%This article: 2.6%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man2.6%This article: 18.5%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority18.5%This article: 8.0%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma8.0%This article: 10.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope10.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 28.8%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization28.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.4%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon6.4%This article: 30.0%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion30.0%This article: 4.1%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question4.1%This article: 6.4%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 42.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof42.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.7%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division7.7%This article: 11.2%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal11.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 11.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy11.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

802 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.1%attributed speech769writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 79 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageEmily Compagno • 26 words • 0.0% coverageEmily Compagno • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Emily Compagno

79%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.