Staff Reports
Rep. Mike Lawler went on Mark Levin’s show and did something too few in Washington bother to do anymore: he called out the noise. He used a primetime mic to remind viewers that the 25th anniversary of Sept. 11 isn’t a talking point — it’s a lifetime for families and first responders still paying the price — and to demand Democrats stop cozying up to online personalities who traffic in hateful rhetoric.
Primetime call-out, bipartisan muscle
Lawler didn’t just rant into the void. He and Democrat Josh Gottheimer already put words into a piece of paper — a bipartisan House resolution that names names, including Hasan Piker and Candace Owens, and condemns antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric. Now Gottheimer is pushing leadership to bring that resolution to the floor so members can vote on the record instead of hiding behind vague statements and press releases.
That matters. A floor vote forces choices. It turns whispers and social-media posturing into a simple question for every member: which side of decency are you on?
Why this is a test for Democrats
For a lot of Democratic operatives, influencers are easy theater — they help fill rally stages and livestream donor pages without the messy work of governing. But when those influencers tell millions of followers that a whole group of Americans is guilty or deserves harm, it’s no longer theater; it’s real harm. Lawler’s point is blunt: if party leaders keep embracing or failing to rebuke that behavior, they own the consequence.
And consequences are not theoretical. When big-name commentators normalize antisemitic or violent language, Jewish families and communities feel less safe; when schoolyards and workplaces see that kind of rhetoric tolerated at high levels, ordinary citizens pay the price in fear and division.
Free speech, accountability — and the scoring
Nobody’s asking Congress to govern speech like a Thought Police. But there’s a difference between protecting free speech and giving a platform a pass while it spreads hate. A non-binding resolution is symbolic, sure, but symbols matter; votes matter more. They create a public record that ordinary voters — the men and women who show up at the supermarket, the veterans who carry scars from service, the families who lost loved ones on Sept. 11 — can use to judge those who claim to represent them.
So here’s the blunt question Washington needs to stop ducking: will our leaders use an easy primetime controversy to posture, or will they force a real, on-the-record choice between tolerating poisonous rhetoric and defending the basic dignity of fellow Americans?
