Illegal Loophole 99%

By Ted Rall100%

7/25/2026, 11:00:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 66.7% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 467 faulty-reasoning hits from 129 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.2% and a BS Rank of 99% (407 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.10% of the article peer group.

ICE agents have been involved in multiple shootings during vehicle stops and operations, with some incidents resulting in the deaths of bystanders or individuals who were legally present in the US. 
Recent high-profile cases include fatal shootings in Houston, Texas, and Biddeford, ME, prompting ICE to suspend most vehicle stops. 
While agents often cite threats from vehicles, witness accounts and videos in several cases have raised questions about the use of deadly force, including against US citizens and non-targets. 
While you’re here enjoying Ted Rall’s latest cartoon, please take a moment to read these articles on related topics: 
Primetime Address Identifies Huge Threat to Fair Elections: Donald J. 
Trump 
The Terrified President Shows His Hand  at Least a Few of His Cards 
Other Ted Rall cartoons 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.5%Ted Rall: 15.0%WhoWhatWhy: 5.0%Confirmation Bias22.5%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 38.8%Ted Rall: 30.7%WhoWhatWhy: 3.9%Availability Heuristic38.8%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Ted Rall: 32.6%WhoWhatWhy: 4.5%Framing Effect12.4%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 66.7%Ted Rall: 46.3%WhoWhatWhy: 14.3%Negativity Bias66.7%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.7%Ted Rall: 9.8%WhoWhatWhy: 1.0%Recency Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 2.6%WhoWhatWhy: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.0%Ted Rall: 23.5%WhoWhatWhy: 5.7%Hasty Generalization24.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.6%Ted Rall: 16.0%WhoWhatWhy: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion18.6%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.7%Ted Rall: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.7%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 61.2%Ted Rall: 20.4%WhoWhatWhy: 3.2%Anecdotal61.2%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.5%Ted Rall: 7.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.5%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.0%Ted Rall: 8.0%WhoWhatWhy: 2.0%Unattributed Quote24.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 24.0%Ted Rall: 26.1%WhoWhatWhy: 9.1%Biased Writer Voice24.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 32.8%WhoWhatWhy: 3.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted Rall: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Ted Rall: 11.9%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…17.8%

129 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech98writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageICE • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

ICE

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ICE: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.6 ptsWriter: 31.6%ICE: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -23.5 ptsWriter: 23.5%ICE: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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