There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
How The L.A. Times Outsmarted Conservapedia and Andy Schlafly
First and Second editions
[Note: Objective persons state their bias up-front, therefore: I am a person who has been banned at Conservapedia for writing this criticism . The criticism contained no profanity or invective which means the truth really hurt (banishment explained). I am also a Old Earth/Young Biosphere Protestant Evangelical Creationist-Designist. I also reject the death penalty; minors being tried as adults; and I am very happy to see a corrupt Republican Party lose control of Congress.]
The criticism in the link is mainly about Andy and Conservapedia saying one thing ("we exist to counter the lies of Wikipedia") then turning around and not doing it when a golden opportunity arose to do just that. When the time came to counter the lie that Charles Darwin was an Agnostic, when in fact we know he was an Atheist, Andy allowed an Atheist Moderator (who intentionally dresses in sheeps clothing) to reverse the truth and have Conservapedia say what Wikipedia says (Darwin was Agnostic).
This Atheist Moderator at Conservapedia (TK) dresses his talk page with scripture quotations  but advocates Atheist evolutionary positions, therefore, this person is an Atheist evolutionist or a classic double agent. Logically, if your label is contradicted by what you argue: you are what you say and argue and not as you label yourself if the two contradict. Andy was shown that TK was a double agent but he did nothing.
As we know, Conservapedia dresses its Front page with scripture quotations, giving the appearance that they are pro-Bible, yet the person most responsible for the "perception" that the Bible and Genesis is wrong (Charles Darwin) is not an Atheist. It was said that when Judge Jones ruled against intelligent design in favor of the AtheistCLU that he is a conservative Republican Christian. Negative. His ruling says he is an Atheist. His belief about himself ("I am a Christian") is explained the same way the Bible explains Judas: deceived. Judas walked "with" Christ too ("I am a Christian"). Again, you are as you argue and say and not as you label yourself is the two contradict. Jones is an Atheist and like Judas, completely deceived that he is walking with Christ because a real Christian would never rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution created by non-Atheists. The New Testament says that Jesus chose Judas knowing (in advance) that he was a son of the devil from the beginning (John 6:64,70,71 KJV). The point is that we have an explanation for the Judge Jones's and TK's of this world.
For quite some time now Conservapedia has been giddy over the fact that the Los Angeles Times has endorsed their website. Conservapedia has broadcast this endorsement everyday on their Front page for many weeks now. We know the L.A. Times, along with the New York Times, is THE MOST ultra-liberal, pro-ACLU, pro-evolution, anti-Bible-Protestant hating paper in the country, yet Conservapedia considers their endorsement something to be glad and happy about. Logically, something is very wrong here. Why would Conservapedia be happy with an endorsement by the L.A. Times and conversely, why would the L.A. Times endorse Conservapedia?
Why didn't Conservapedia consider the endorsement of the ultra-liberal L.A. Times an insult? Or, see their true agenda hidden in the "endorsement"? Invulnerable logic says that the ultra-liberal L.A. Times is not really endorsing CONSERVATIVE Conservapedia, but the same is placating Conservapedia for a reason. Since Conservapedia is an internet reality and since they do pose a threat to influence the public and counter the agenda of the L.A. Times, the Times decided to write a favorable review hoping Andy would be naive and bite. Andy, of course, bought the thirty pieces of phony silver instantly. The L.A. Times wrote the "favorable" review for one purpose. That purpose was to influence Andy to maintain the "covert Atheist" agenda of keeping double agents like TK around, persons whose real agenda is to protect evolution, Charles Darwin and propagate the Atheist campaign of "literal Genesis" (as if we should not believe what is written or take it seriously = Atheist agenda) or slandering anyone to be a stupid Fundamentalist who accepts Genesis creation to be true.
From RationalWiki 
Quoting the L.A. Times:
"[Schlafly] promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain articles from changes.
Even among this elite group, there's not ideological conformity. Terry Koeckritz doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on topics such as Fox News."
The L.A. Times is simply trying to salvage a voice at Conservapedia. The above excerpt reveals their target agenda. In other words, the L.A. Times is willing to give up an "endorsement" (logic says it is phony since the liberal Times is not really endorsing a conservative medium) hoping Andy will be thrilled (which we know he is) for the sole purpose of including a compliment about our double agent and his Atheist handling of the Bible. Of course, Andy, giddy with the "endorsement" and wanting to keep it and show it off (why a conservative would do this is inexplicable) will then seek to reward the endorsement by keeping TK around.
The L.A. Times could care less about Andy and Conservapedia. They want the Bible slandered and misrepresented and Darwinism promoted. They write a phony endorsement and commend Andy for his "objective" choice of Moderators - their only motive for the "endorsement." Since Andy has accepted the endorsement by splashing it all over his Front page he must now dig in his heels and ignore these facts, and he must, of course, defend his actions. Far be it that he simply come clean and admit that he got snookered by devious liberals at the Los Angeles Times. Far be it that he admit to being temporarily outsmarted, ban TK, and write a poignant piece on his Front page rejecting the "endorsement" of his liberal enemy.
Ray Martinez 14:33, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Ray Martinez 17:25, 30 August 2007 (CDT)