Townhall⁠92%

The Democratic Socialists Sued for a $5.2 Million Inheritance and Won ⁠85%

By Amy Curtis⁠96%

8/1/2026, 1:00:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 53% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 1,412 faulty-reasoning hits from 345 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (4,027 of 26,440 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.80% of the article peer group.

This story is not getting enough coverage, but it proves that the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are motivated by two things: power and greed. 
A leftist professor at NYU left his $5.2 million retirement account to the New American Movement or "it's successor organization." 
The DSA went to court and claimed they were the "successor organization" to the New American Movement. 
And they won. 
In and of itself that's pretty wild, but it's actually even more interesting. 
The New American Movement was a Marxist organization formed in 1971 as the successor to Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1971, as SDS fell into chaos courtesy of their members committing an unprecedented wave of domestic terrorism across the country. 
In 1982, after a merger with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, the New American Movement became the Democratic Socialists of America. 
There is a straight line between today's DSA and SDS, the Weathermen, and the domestic terrorism that wracked the country for years. 
They bombed the United States Capitol Building, the Pentagon, numerous military facilities, police stations, and targeted cops for murder. 
Now they just got a five million dollar cash infusion courtesy of a radical NYU professor. 
Incredible. 
They'd tax your inheritance 100 percent and confiscate your property, but they put their hand out when it comes time to get money they didn't earn to line their pockets. 
No, no. 
They only do that with our tax dollars. 
The irony is not lost on us. 
That's (D)ifferent, comrade. 
Yes, they are. 
Communism is their goal, and that means you and your loved ones will be left to live in crime, poverty, and squalor while they hoard millions for themselves. 
It's a deadly, dangerous grift. 
Any time someone like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos makes money, Democrats scream about how many people could get housing, healthcare, or child care for those millions. 
How many people could $5.2 million feed? 
A lot, but the DSA will not spend a dime of that on the needy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.5%Amy Curtis: 7.4%Townhall: 4.9%Confirmation Bias25.5%This article: 12.5%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias12.5%This article: 3.8%Amy Curtis: 3.1%Townhall: 2.6%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 26.4%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic26.4%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.4%Townhall: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.8%Townhall: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Amy Curtis: 10.1%Townhall: 9.9%Framing Effect12.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Amy Curtis: 2.4%Townhall: 1.7%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 53.0%Amy Curtis: 14.6%Townhall: 12.9%Negativity Bias53.0%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 0.6%Townhall: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias8.7%This article: 8.1%Amy Curtis: 3.4%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error8.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Amy Curtis: 4.2%Townhall: 4.2%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 5.2%Townhall: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.8%Townhall: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Amy Curtis: 1.0%Townhall: 1.2%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 7.7%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 4.1%Townhall: 1.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 3.4%Townhall: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 14.8%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 1.8%False Dilemma14.8%This article: 14.5%Amy Curtis: 2.5%Townhall: 1.5%Slippery Slope14.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.5%Amy Curtis: 15.6%Townhall: 9.0%Hasty Generalization25.5%This article: 5.5%Amy Curtis: 0.9%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring5.5%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.3%Townhall: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.3%Amy Curtis: 8.8%Townhall: 10.3%Appeal to Emotion20.3%This article: 8.1%Amy Curtis: 2.6%Townhall: 2.0%Begging the Question8.1%This article: 18.6%Amy Curtis: 2.4%Townhall: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.6%This article: 8.7%Amy Curtis: 1.4%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque8.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 1.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.1%Amy Curtis: 2.3%Townhall: 1.5%Anecdotal10.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 1.9%Townhall: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.3%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.7%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Amy Curtis: 3.6%Townhall: 3.0%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 2.1%Townhall: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 43.2%Amy Curtis: 22.6%Townhall: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice43.2%This article: 8.1%Amy Curtis: 7.3%Townhall: 5.0%Indoctrination8.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 0.2%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 50.7%Amy Curtis: 21.1%Townhall: 13.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias50.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Curtis: 6.0%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

345 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.9%attributed speech328writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -53.4 ptsWriter: 53.4%Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.4 ptsWriter: 45.4%Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Democratic Socialists of America (DSA): 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.