Conservapedia



""The trusworthy encyclopedia.""

- Conservapedia's former motto.

Conservapedia is a mirror project of that other Wiki, specifically the one aimed at correcting Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias. It is perhaps most (in)famous for its attempt to rewrite The Bible from a conservative perspective(yes, really). As several people have pointed out, a quick look at Conservapedia will show that it's much less about conservatism and Christianity, than of the power-crazed televangelist fundamentalism. And, for the last few years or so, about hating Barack Obama.

You can never be sure which portions were written by people who meant it to be taken seriously. The editors on Conservapedia are chiefly made up of three types of people: trolls adding in offensive but believable vandalism; trolls harassing other trolls; and the site's creator himself, Andrew Schlafly.

Conservapedia began its existence as a help for Schlafly's homeschool students, and it still contains his lectures. The latest attempts at lectures only spanned a few classes rather than an entire course.

It also inspired the formation of an entire wiki for skeptics, Rational Wiki, which keeps up with events on Conservapedia.

Conservapedia contains examples of:
"France opposed the use of force in Iraq in March 2003 and did not join the U.S.-led coalition that liberated the country from the dictatorial rule of Saddam Hussein with whom they, like other countries had close economic ties, especially in the supply of nuclear technology."
 * Analogy Backfire: This picture, depicting a lone fireman in front of a blazing inferno as "An atheist trying to stop Christianity". So, we should root against the fireman? We should hope the fire burns everything down? Christianity's spread is destructive like fire? Atheists are the good guys? This was Lampshaded in the talk page.
 * Arson Murder and Jaywalking: The essay on "professor values." Professors' crimes include murder, genocide, and grade inflation.
 * Artistic License Physics:
 * The theory of relativity is wrong because it contradicts the instantaneous nature of Jesus's miracles - He would not be restricted to working at the speed of light . Naturally, this is a liberal conspiracy.
 * Relativity is also rejected because it sounds too much like Godless liberal moral relativism. Both moral relativism, and the special/general theories of relativity are filed in the same index.
 * They've seriously considered replacing Newtonian mechanics with "biblical scientific foreknowledge".
 * E=mc2 is wrong because [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:E
 * Artistic License History
 * Artistic License Religion:
 * The Conservative Bible Project, which blatantly ignores the end of Revelation, in which God threatens anyone who changes the Bible with the plagues in the book.
 * They claim that they're resetting the Bible back to what it was before everybody else fucked with it, thus they're they only ones actually following that passage.
 * Also, Revelation was written apart from the other books in the Bible long before the Bible as we know it was canonized. Most likely the curse was put in there to deter people from editing Revelation willy-nilly; thus it probably doesn't apply to the rest of the Bible.
 * Berserk Button: Mention "the Lenski affair" or "FBI" on Conservapedia. Go ahead, do it.
 * Each of the sysops has their own:
 * For Andy, anything that he considers to be "liberal".
 * For Conservative, anyone who doesn't have "machismo".
 * For Karajou, asking what his Navy rank was.
 * For Ed Poor, deleting any of his many stub articles on movies starring teen girls.
 * Black and White Morality: Pretty much the whole site runs on this.
 * Conservatism is the source of everything that is good in this world, and liberalism is the source of all psychological and social woes - including ones that you wouldn't usually associate with liberalism, such as (white) racism and capitalist greed. It is possible for one to pull off a Heel Face Turn, but only by converting to conservatism or by having had latent conservative qualities all along.
 * Andy hates Facebook and believes it is a dirty liberal site; not to mention he seems to think he's the only person who loves the Royal Family (see he likes the Royals, so logically the British don't because they're far too liberal).
 * Blatant Lies:
 * "Conservapedia is a meritocracy."
 * "On Conservapedia, we don't censor for ideological reasons."
 * "The Trustworthy Wiki."
 * One of the site's favourite ways to describe itself is "correctly biased"
 * But You Screw One Goat: Apparently, related to atheism.
 * Catch Phrase: You're clueless. Open your mind. Liberal [insert negative quality]. Godspeed.
 * Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys: The article on France circles around this a lot, even in its most (surprisingly) positive portrayals of France its still gets painted this with such gems as:

"One of the most well known political parties of the 20th century which was socialistic was the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) which was headed by the evolutionary racist Adolf Hitler."
 * Clone Degeneration: When the Wikipedia article on "militant atheism" was split for lack of an adequate source linking "state atheism" with "new atheism", it wasn't killed off for real. You can watch as the clone degenerates little by little (Which isn't to say that it was a good article to begin with. Three guesses why.)
 * The Commandments: Seven "Conservapedia Commandments" which are allegedly the only rules of the site.
 * Commie Nazis: Conservapedia would like you to know that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are simultaneously fascists and communists.
 * And Barack HUSSEIN Obama is also simultaneously secretly Muslim and secretly atheist. Not sure how that works.
 * What's more, he openly flaunts his secret Muslim atheist communist Nazi beliefs, and constantly rubs them in the faces of the very people he's concealing them from.
 * First page on socialism page is large picture of Hitler. With following caption. Talk about Missing The Point.

""...when the Republican Party (and a few southern Democrats) just wanted to maintain the African-Americans' right to have the choice of forced segregation.""
 * Complaining About Complaining: Having more than 90% of your edits on talk pages gets you blocked.
 * Complaining About Entries You Don't Like: Their article on Wikipedia's alleged liberal bias cites as "proof" Wikipedia entries about things that aren't really all that liberal but that extreme conservatives tend to dislike. For example, they complain about there being too many entries on "silly punk bands" and so forth.
 * Critical Research Failure: This is often invoked, because apparently all academics have a liberal bias and therefore research can't be trusted.
 * One of the best ones is the fact that one of the main criticism of Wikipedia which led to the creation of this site was that their preference for the Belfast Agreement over the Good Friday Agreement was evidence of Wikipedia's nefarious anti-Christian agenda. Never mind the fact that it's Northern Irish Republicans (denounced on Conservapedia as terrorists) who call it the Good Friday Agreement, while Unionists (especially intensely reactionary conservatives like Ian Paisley, who gets reasonably flattering treatment) are more inclined to use the term Belfast Agreement.
 * In the UK media it is invariably referred to as the Good Friday Agreement/Accord.
 * Conservapedia seems to like the British Conservative Party. Probably just because it has the word "conservative" in the name.
 * They claimed Obama did this in 2009 during a speech in Austria, where he said "I don't know what the expression is in Austrian". Conservapedia flipped out and claimed "Austrian isn't a language!" However, while the official language in the country is German, their dialect is very different from the standard form of the language (example: for "chair", Austrians say Sessel instead of Stuhl), so Obama's statement is accurate, if a bit silly (a similar phrasing would be someone saying they wouldn't know a phrase in British or Australian)
 * When the Libyans proceeded to revert to their pre-Gaddafi flag, Schlafly proclaimed LIBERALS were employing a Double Standard as the new flag is clearly Islamist compared to the neutral green Gaddafi flag, which is clearly not Islamist and communist in origin, and complaining at people who think the Christian flag shouldn't be our flag, as we are clearly a Christian nation!
 * During the World Cup, Andy claimed that the "heathen" German team had to "import" Christians because Germany does not allow homeschooling. The two players, who were from Poland and Brazil, were never homeschooled and some 60% of Germans are Christian.
 * Deadpan Snarker: Karajou, in his block reasons.
 * Dirty Communists, or portrayals thereof.
 * Disproportionate Retribution: The standard block period for any infraction, no matter how minor, is five years. Also, Conservapedia will regularly block entire IP ranges because of the actions of one user - starting out with single towns or universities early on, it has progressed to the point that there are entire states and countries where it is now effectively impossible to edit the site.
 * As of October 2010 (and no doubt earlier than that) just creating an account has been deemed a permabannable offense.
 * Documentary of Lies: Encyclopedia of lies.
 * It's even admitted in the essay What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?, quote: "This is a conservative encyclopedia. Its job is to decry liberals and their ideas at every turn. By promulgating the idea that Obama may be a Muslim we are being good conservatives, because it helps to turn people off him." Whether their claims are actually true or not seems to be irrelevant to them.
 * Eagle Land: The entire site tries to portrays the USA as Type 1 (If they could shut up all those DAMN LIBERALS), but even the least bit of reading makes them look like Type 2s.
 * Edit Stomp:
 * Some pages have been continually locked to avoid vandalism for months.
 * Some pages have been continually locked to avoid "vandalism" for months.
 * Even if pages don't get locked, expect a quick revert and block if you dare question the admins or post anything remotely resembling facts (at least, the ones that don't concur with the stated goal and viewpoint of Conservapedia) on any page concerned with politics, sexuality or adaptations of Nickelodeon series.
 * If something embarrassing is edited into a page a sysop will delete the page and recreate it to clear the edit history and thus proof of the revision. Rational Wiki calls this burning the evidence.
 * Even Evil Has Standards:
 * Even Conservapedia thinks the Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" people) takes things a little too far. Conservapedia rebranded them as liberals, so no discrepancy there!
 * Conservapedia in general has a pretty ambivalent attitude toward homosexuals. While it admits that it is wrong to beat them up or kill them, it goes to great lengths to "prove" that they are immoral and thus okay to mock. It's somewhat reminiscent of some white abolitionists of the early- and mid-nineteenth century condemning slavery as inhumane, but still being repulsed by certain aspects of African-American culture.
 * In their secularized dictionary section, the first thing "abomination" is changed to, is "homosexual".
 * As a result of seeing the world in Black and White Morality, they consider any liberal criticizing Barack Obama to be an example of this.
 * Some of their members really did want to contribute, putting their political beliefs in action (agree with them or not, at least they are sincere and honest about them), but found themselves forced out by the poisonous politics of the place, complete with Chronic Backstabbing Disorder on the part of Schlafly. Reading some of these, it's hard not to feel sorry for these true believers who had their idealism destroyed.
 * In reaction to Andy's attempt to rewrite the Bible and edit out any bits that Andy does not like, he inspired this reaction from none other than infamous religious wingnut Jack Chick, for making Jesus look like a liar
 * Flock of Wolves: The majority of active contributors to the site are actually trolls, often even trolling each other. It's estimated that there are fewer than a dozen genuine contributors, and those eventually get banned for disagreeing with Schlafly.
 * Fox News Liberal: Conservapedia on liberals in general. The entry contends that liberals have no actual beliefs or values of their own, they're merely pretending to not be conservative because they want attention. The only solution is to wait for them to realize they're being retards and accept conservatism as the only way.
 * Freudian Slip: Homoschooling.
 * Freudian Excuse: Try growing up with Phyllis Schlafly as your mother without being screwed-up.
 * The Fundamentalist: Pretty much every serious contributor to the website. If, indeed, there are any serious contributors...
 * God Never Said That: or so they claim in the Conservative Bible Project. The first two passages they decided were "liberal" additions to the Bible are the whold stoning the prostitute section, especially "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (because God would never say that) and "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" (because some of them did know what they were doing).
 * Godwins Law: one of the best examples ever. "Obama has spoken out against cruelty to animals...Hitler opposed cruelty to animals...I think this link needs to be investigated further". Link: At least it's "cited", if not a jump in logic. It's also archived as well.
 * Bonus - invoking Godwin's Law to criticize those who invoke Godwin's Law.
 * Guess whose picture graces the article on evolution (as of this posting)?
 * Hitler, Stalin, Michelle Obama, and a caricature of Darwin's head photoshopped on a chimp. All they need in there is Mao and Kim Jong-il.
 * In the past, the evolution article actually began with a large picture of Hitler, something which was nicknamed "The Godwin Singularity".
 * He Who Fights Monsters: Arguably a minor case, since their claimed point that Wikipedia was largely dominated by the political leanings of its administrators- in spite of attempts to check said potential undue influence- was at least debatable. Of course, their brilliant "plan" to counter this was to set up a different wiki, fill it with the worst possible Far-Right clichés and invocations of Poe's Law, and throw out virtually all the quality controls. Likely averted in that the founders never really intended the site to be anything else.
 * High Turnover Rate
 * Hippie Jesus: Inverted; one of the apparent goals of the Bible Retranslation Project is to eliminate all hints of hippiedom from Jesus as he appears in the New Testament.
 * Hypocrite: Yeah...
 * Posting anything positive about The Other Wiki will quickly earn you a) a lecture from Schlafly about how Wikipedia refuses to tolerate dissenting viewpoints and only Conservatives support freedom of speech, and b) a lifetime IP ban.
 * The unwritten rule that you have to use your real first name and last initial as your username - which is only suggested on the signup page - is strongly enforced by users ASchlafly (first initial and last name) and TK (only initials).
 * Hollywood Atheist: According to causes of atheism there are no other type of atheist.
 * Idiot Ball: In the infamous Lenski affair Schlafly decided to pick a fight with a microbiology professor over the results of a twenty-year scientific study which provided quite convincing evidence of the proof of evolution. Apparently, Schlafly didn't understand the article announcing the results of the study (if he even read it at all), and proceeded to run the ball into his own endzone and claim victory.
 * Insane Troll Logic: The damned site runs on Insane Troll Logic! It eats it for breakfast!

"[[Life of Brian "I'm NOT the messiah! Will you PLEASE listen? I am NOT the messiah, you understand? Honestly!"
 * There is a great amount of debate on the subject of Hitler's religion, with quotes that indicate he was a Christian, and quotes indicating he was opposed to Christianity. On the talk page for Hitler's article, someone said that sections of Mein Kampf give the very distinct impression that he was a Christian. Rather than responding with actual evidence, another user replied, "I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an atheist would do that." So if a person does something horrible, that means they must be an atheist?
 * And turned the other direction in that because war hero Pat Tillman was obviously a good, upstanding heroic soldier, there is no way that he could not be a Christian.
 * Liberals use deceit. Therefore, anything a liberal says is automatically a lie. Ergo, the fastest way to ascertain if a person is lying or not is to get their opinion on prayer in public schools. This is the primary counterargument you will find anywhere on Conservapedia. It is foolproof.
 * But if the liberal always lies, then his opinion on public prayer is also a lie, which means the only things liberals tell the truth about is their lies.
 * In regard to Barack Obama, someone wanted to delete the comment "Contrary to Christianity, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya encourages adherents to deny they are Muslim if it advances the cause of Islam" (the actual doctrine merely allows adherents to Shi'a Islam to conceal their religion if they were under threat, persecution, or compulsion, especially when it would result in them being killed for admitting to being Muslim) because it wasn't actually proof of him being a Muslim. Someone responded with "Actually, it does. For example, if this practice didn't exist, somebody might say, "Obama can't be a practicing Muslim because a practicing Muslim wouldn't deny Islam." The existence of this practice makes all of Obama's claims to Christianity irrelevant, because it proves he would make those assertions regardless of his actual religion."

"Only the true messiah denies his divinity!"

"What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right, I AM the messiah!"

"HE IS! HE IS THE MESSIAH!"]]"

"Many times one will try to reinforce their Faith by stating that there is undeniable proof of God. In reality, one is possibly unsure about one's Faith and is trying to make "logical" reasons to why their Faith is right. This is a dangerous part of faithlessness because the person is in denial about their disbelief in God. They will try to connect science to religion and find some trivial detail that somehow "proves" the existence of God. What they fail to realize is that one does not need proof for God: if one had Faith, they could believe in God despite all of the alleged "scientific" evidence to suggest otherwise."
 * Internet Cold Reader: Andy can discern with an over 95% certainty your opinions on abortion, prayer in schools, gun control, etc. based on anything you post on any subject.
 * Internet Counterattack: Stephen Colbert told his fans to edit him into their version of The Bible. They were on it in seconds.
 * Internet Tough Guy: Andy once bragged that he'd debate any liberal. When one tried to take him up on it, he backpedaled immediately.
 * Also, see "Wiki Vandal" on the YMMV page for the FBI Incident.
 * More recently, User:Conservative declared he would debate any atheist, but only if they paid $17,000 to his choice of Christian charity (he later upped the amount to $20,000). When one Rational Wiki user took him up on his offer (matching the conditions), he suddenly remembered that he would be "extremely busy these next 90 days and probably for the next few years or so." Oddly enough, this didn't prevent him from being active on Conservapedia in the 90 days after this...
 * Recently, Conservapedia started an essay demanding Penn Jilette debate them. After seeing this request to debate a celebrity, Rational Wiki posted that User:Conservative still owes them a debate.
 * Lampshade Hanging: In an article about "faithlessness", one of the alleged signs to a person being without faith is the "Need for Proof of God." This seems logical - most Christians believe that Faith does not require proof for them to "know" that God exists. However, when you read the actual text, it highly resembles Conservapedia and its users' redefinition of scientific facts to fit God into the scheme of things more smoothly.


 * Logic Bomb: A pet project of the wiki is the "secularized language" page (a massive example of Personal Dictionary). One of the "secularized words" is "secular." A good citizen should substitute "pagan" every time.
 * It gets sillier. The same page states that "Xmas" is too secular, and should be replaced by "Christmas." But it also states that "Christmas" itself is too secular, and should be replaced by "Christ's Mass." In summary: People who say "Christmas" instead of "Xmas" are damned secularists!
 * As of 2011, the word "Christian" has been deemed too secular.
 * Misplaced Nationalism: The site is very pro-American and very, very, very anti-everyone else. If you're not American and you become an editor, be prepared for the accusations of "liberal bias and communism." Like, when you try to correct Schlafly on issues you can see from your window.
 * This takes truly odd forms sometimes, such as Schlafly's preoccupation with portraying the British as bad at math(s).
 * Also, the use of British spellings is forbidden (because it's liberal).
 * Specifically, they believe that not adding "u" represents our freedom of speech, which "absolutely does not exist in the monarchies of the UK, Canada, and Australia".
 * Mood Whiplash: In the entry on Mel Gibson. They start by praising his conservative Catholic qualities. But then they arrive at an aspect of the man that they can't possibly sugarcoat or ignore (his drunken, racist rant in Malibu in 2006), and go negative - and, naturally, they somehow frame this indiscretion as a liberal misstep.
 * Moral Guardians
 * The Moral Substitute: To Wikipedia.
 * Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot:
 * Inverted, as demonstrated on RationalWiki
 * As mentioned above, Barack Obama is apparently a Muslim atheist communist Nazi. Or a secret openly Muslim atheist communist Nazi.
 * No True Scotsman: This is how the site is able to claim that the entertainment industry discriminates against conservatives, which is tough to prove when Republican celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Adam Sandler enjoy so much power and influence. Conservapedia's explanation is that, well, these guys aren't real conservatives because they're not socially conservative (which is the most crucial kind of conservative, apparently).
 * Recently, they're beginning to turn on Fox News for being "liberals".
 * Old Soldier: Karajou sees himself as this.
 * Orwellian Editor: They remove references to banned users from talk pages. They also delete and recreate pages to remove Snark Bait from the page histories. Rational Wiki refers to the latter as Burning the Evidence, or colloquially as 'memory-holing'.
 * Personal Dictionary:
 * Schlafly's definitions of "conservative"/"right-wing" and "liberal"/"left-wing," and a host of others. His constant slapping of the label "liberal deceit" on anything that bothers him, while blatantly employing dishonest debate tactics himself, probably also fits in here. As does the notion that the theory of relativity is related to moral relativism because they share some syllables. He also enjoys the phrase "Conservative Words".
 * Atheism, on the other hand, is defined in the dictionary as "the denial of the existence of God" and asserts that God does not exist. Anything else is "an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theism side."
 * Schlafly decided that no religion other than Christianity had the concept of "faith." During his defense he was forced to redefine the term into meaning only "a sense of Christain Faith," which obviously no other religion would have.
 * Related to this, Schlafly also wrote an essay questioning whether Christianity invented humor. Although Conservapedia does cause a lot of laughs, we don't think it was usually intended.
 * Pet the Dog: The article on Heavy Metal is surprisingly free from implications that anyone who plays the music must have sold their soul to Satan. The article mentions that violence and occult elements are involved in some lyrics for some bands, but that, to their credit, is actually quite true. The talk page, however...
 * Same thing with the page about Punk Rock.
 * That's not too surprising with regards to metal because it tends to be a "conservative" genre compared to other forms of rock. Not that the lyrics themselves are conservative, but many of the singers and musicians are, although they mostly keep quiet about their views (Alice Cooper is one such "agnostic" conservative). Even Slayer, who were accused of being Nazi sympathizers after the 1986 release of their song "Angel of Death," admitted that they were right-wing (but anti-racist).
 * Politically Motivated Teacher: Schlafly is a teacher who greatly encourages his students to use this site for research. This is homeschool teaching - Schlafly claims to have taught over 100 teenagers as well as his own daughter. Many states, in pursuit of the conservative vote, will allow anyone with children to homeschool the result and there's nothing to stop them meeting up in each others' houses to share the load. This is his "teacher" credential.
 * Poes Law:
 * Many articles appear as if they could have been written by staff members of The Colbert Report, often because many of the top people at any given moment are likely deep-cover parodists.
 * Rational Wiki once speculated that Conservapedia was an example of a Poe Paradox--a fundamentalist group believing that new "true believers" are parodists.
 * Post Mortem Conversion: Recast Martin Luther King Jr and George Orwell as conservatives.
 * Orwell is counted as a conservative because he eventually came to oppose Soviet-style communism - as if a liberal, or even a socialist like Orwell, could never do that! In fact, many (if not most!) extreme leftists repudiated Stalinism once they became aware of its true face.
 * Quote Mining
 * Retcon
 * Rouge Angles of Satin: Examples abound. The quote at the top of this page became instant Memetic Mutation after it was shown along the site's logo for a whole day before someone noticed the typo.
 * Serial Tweaker:
 * User:Conservative has apparently never learned how to use the "Preview" button, if he's even noticed it. He'll make 50 edits adding/correcting minor things, even changing the size of a picture 1 pixel-width at a time until it's just right, then likely as not memory-hole the whole thing so that it never existed.
 * It's speculated on Rational Wiki that he believes that making the little tweaks to picture width and such would help boost the page for Google searches.
 * Spin Off: A Storehouse of Knowledge, started by Philip J Rayment and consisting of several users that TK drove away.
 * The Starscream: The user TK. Rational Wiki has piles of evidence that he's a troll.
 * Stealth Parody: You could be forgiven for thinking it was this. Of course, a good portion of it is thanks to the sizable number of trolls there. A known parody article gets tagged as nonsense, even though it was written by an admin. I guess you have to stick with stealth humor here.
 * Stop Being Stereotypical: A good number of conservatives resent how the site makes them all look bad.
 * Strawman Political: Whenever the word "liberal" happens in text, it's as part of some kind of strawman. Conservapedia itself serves as a strawman political for liberals to use against conservatives. This usually takes the form of responding to any accusation of liberal bias with a dismissive joke along the lines of "go2conservapedia".
 * Unperson: More like "Un Site": Mentioning Rational Wiki on Conservapedia will result in an immediate permaban, despite the mods constantly mentioning "the vandal site."
 * Probably has to do with why Rational Wiki was made in the first place--the guy who founded it did so because he was pissed at how idiotic he thought Conservapedia was. Not only that, but Rational Wiki has a "serious" page for Schlafly (in addition to the "humorous" one), to properly inform parents who might consider hiring him to tutor their kids. Small wonder there's sour grapes.
 * Somewhat ironically, the "vandal site" does not actually encourage vandalism of Conservapedia, as they believe the site is funnier when it's totally sincere. That doesn't stop a few of the individual members from trolling there occasionally, however.
 * Taken to a humorous level when TK replaced JessicaT's signature on a usertalk page with his own.
 * One of the tactics of the Orwellian Editors is to take an article that they agree with but was contributed to by an Unperson, delete it and recreate it, further unpersoning the original contributor(s), and making it appear that it was all their own work. (TK is a master of this one.)
 * In a perversely ironic fashion, asking for information about TK's death will result in a permaban.
 * Recently, Rob has more or less been declared this, after saying Conservapedia needs to have a sense of community.
 * What Do You Mean Its Not Heinous: Kevin Smith's movie Dogma is a "liberal" film (and thus, especially since it deals with Christianity, an unforgivable abomination) because it depicts God as a woman.
 * What Do You Mean Its Not Symbolic:
 * Soccer represents socialism! The USA sucking at it shows how great a non-socialist nation we are!
 * The Facebook movie lost Best Picture! Sarah Palin is a major user of Facebook! Will she not win the Republican nomination in 2012?!
 * Star Trek, The Office, The Apprentice, The Six Million Dollar Man: all CONSERVATIVE shows! (even though Star Trek broke barriers by having a black woman and an Asian man on the bridge, The Office is not overtly political, and Donald Trump has mentioned politics precisely once on The Apprentice... and actually spoke of Barack Obama in complimentary terms on that occasion).
 * And The King's Speech is obviously a RIGHTEOUS, CONSERVATIVE movie! (Despite the fact that it takes place in England, and Schlafly really hates England).
 * Correction: Schlafly hates everything about England EXCEPT the Royals (and seems to think that only he loves the Royals).
 * With Us or Against Us:
 * The site's basic definition of a liberal is "a person without values." Pardon my ignorance, but how can someone devoid of values be labelled anything? More to the point, isn't someone who lacks values a potential friend as well as a potential enemy? Are they not a tabula rasa onto which you can imprint your "correct" beliefs?
 * They actually devote a lot of time to drawing the distinction of "conservative values," "Christian values," "traditional values," "family values" and "homeschool values" versus "liberal values," "atheistic values," "Hollywood values," "fashion industry values," "San Fransisco values" and "professor values." There is definitely an us-versus-them message at play, but it's a more colorful one than usual.
 * You Have Failed Me:
 * Happens every time a conservative politician they fight tooth and nail to support says something silly such as "Gay marriage is fine by me", like Scott Brown.
 * Or when Jan Brewer, whom they heavily supported for her anti-immigration law, vetoed a birther-bill. She has instantly been declared a RINO.
 * Their essays on "Why Pat Tillman was not an atheist/agnostic" might qualify as this (or an attempt to avoid it, at the very least).