Raw Story⁠93%

'God is angry': Internet bemused as Mother Nature comes for Trump's Mount Rushmore speech ⁠59%

By Daniel Hampton⁠75%

7/3/2026, 11:03:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.8% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 994 faulty-reasoning hits from 303 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (8,966 of 21,460 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.20% of the article peer group.

Severe weather threatened to put a damper on Friday on President Donald Trump's plans to speak near Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, prompting amusement from internet critics who said it seemingly indicated "god is angry." 
Trump was flying to South Dakota as part of a broader July 4 and America-250 trip, planning to visit the iconic American landmark for an Independence Day fireworks celebration. 
But Mother Nature, it seems, had other plans. 
A severe thunderstorm warning was in effect until 7:30 p.m. 
Eastern Time for the area, with quarter size hail that could damage vehicles reported by the National Weather Service. 
"Seek shelter inside a well-built structure and stay away from windows. 
This storm is capable of producing large hail," an alert on the weather service read. 
The weather alert forced Fox News to scramble, with host Bret Baier telling viewers they had breaking news. 
"They just said there is severe weather on the way. 
In fact, they said hail could be coming, and they are urging everybody to get inside," said Baier, adding: "We're going to get to shelter." 
The setback prompted mockery from onlookers, with Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of the progressive MeidasTouch news outlet, quipping on X, "God is angry." 
Sen. 
Dan Koh, a Massachusetts Democrat running for Congress, chimed in on X, "Considering Trump wants to cut the National Park Service budget by 40% and Mount Rushmore has a $57m repair backlog, you better run." 
The progressive influencer account known as Polly Sigh added: "Calamitous weather seems to follow Trump around these days. 
Mother Nature is so over him." 
Writer Joe Flood joked, "damn antifa!" 
Trump has had mixed luck with weather in recent weeks, with scorching temperatures and rain derailing his Great American State Fair. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.8%Daniel Hampton: 3.8%Rawstory: 7.8%Confirmation Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Daniel Hampton: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic17.5%This article: 12.9%Daniel Hampton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Daniel Hampton: 11.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias11.6%This article: 55.8%Daniel Hampton: 18.1%Rawstory: 21.9%Negativity Bias55.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem2.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.4%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization24.4%This article: 2.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring2.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.9%Daniel Hampton: 8.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion11.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 49.8%Daniel Hampton: 5.0%Rawstory: 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)49.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.6%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.1%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal23.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Daniel Hampton: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.1%Daniel Hampton: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.5%Unattributed Quote20.1%This article: 4.6%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 13.2%Daniel Hampton: 7.6%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice13.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 26.7%Daniel Hampton: 4.6%Rawstory: 7.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias26.7%This article: 2.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

303 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers46%attributed speech163writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageFox News • 18 words • 100.0% coverageBret Baier • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBret Baier • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRon Filipkowski • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageDan Koh • 35 words • 100.0% coveragePolly Sigh • 18 words • 100.0% coveragePolly Sigh • 6 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Flood • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dan Koh

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words25% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dan Koh: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-37.4 ptsWriter: 37.4%Dan Koh: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Dan Koh: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Dan Koh: 0.0%0.0%

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.