That’s from the title of a new book: Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America by John Avalon. Wingnuts takes on extremists from both sides, and in it’s pages you will meet familiar faces like Phil Berg, Linda Starr, Wiley Drake and our blog mascot Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq, DDS.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Books and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to “Wingnuts”

  1. Lupin says:

    Are there still extremists left on the far left in America?

    Here, in Europe, we do have a small gamut running from trotskyists, maoists, etc. but I can’t think off-hand of any American equivalent, at least with media coverage.

  2. misha says:

    I think your assessment is correct. Olbermann is not a wingnut. He calls out the lies, half-truths, and hypocrisy in the strongest way possible.

    Those who get “The Worst Person In The World,” are deserving. That’s not nuttery. No one on the left tried to drive Shrub from office by circulating scurrilous rumors.

    Here we had Clinton impeached over a Jewish girlfriend, while those leading the charge were also committing adultery. Clinton lied? OK: ” “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

  3. Epectitus says:

    There is still in the US a “Truther” movement that is largely (though not exclusively) left leaning. These are the folks who insist that 9/11 had to have been an inside job. The “wingnuts” that lead the Truthers though were never effective in gaining the visibility and vocal following of the Birthers because Truthism did not tap into native undercurrents of racism and xenophobia that fuels so much of the Birther movement.

    Truthers are Truthers because they think the evidence supports that position. Birthers are Birthers because they hate Obama.

  4. thisoldhippie says:

    I called Ms Taitz out last night on an obviously photoshopped pic of the Obamas that was posted without doing any kind of research. (My email was much more strongly worded than I would normally send – but I was irritated). She immediately pulled the pic and sent me a responding email. I then tried to explain to her that the complete lack of professionalism in her actions and that damn blog of hers undermined her even more than the idiotic windmills she is tilting at. Don’t think she understood.

  5. Lupin says:

    Columnist Eric Boehlert may have the answer to this, better than I could formulate it myself:

    “What if, in 2006, at Yearly Kos, the first annual convention of liberal bloggers and their readers, organizers shelled out $100,000 for former Vice President Al Gore to address attendees? And what if the same organizers booked as an opening-night speaker a fringe, radical-left conspiracy theorist who’d spent the previous year pushing the thoroughly debunked claim that some Bush White administration insiders played a role in, and even planned, the 9-11 attacks. What if the speaker (also proudly anti-Semitic) received a standing ovation from the liberal Yearly Kos crowd?

    “Given that backdrop, and given the fact that the 9-11 Truther nut had for weeks bragged about his chance to share the stage with Gore, do you think the press would have demanded that Gore justify his association with a hateful conference that embraced a 9-11 Truther? Do you think pundits would have universally mocked and ridiculed Gore’s judgment while condemning the Yearly Kos convention as being a hothouse of left-wing hate? Do you think Gore’s appearance would have become a thing?

    “I sure do. Gore and liberal bloggers would have been crucified by the press and the D.C. chattering class if the scenario I described ever unfolded in real life.”

    I think what is shocking to an outsider like me is not the lunacy of the extremes — we have plenty of that here — it’s the access and credibility granted to your right-wing lunatics by the media.

    I can’t believe Ed Murrow or Walter Cronkite are resting peacefully.

  6. Black Lion says:

    More fantasy by our buddy Charlton over at the Post and Fail website…

    OK Candidate releases son’s 1981 Hawaiian Certification of Birth
    Again a disturbing article by Charlton. It exposes or confirms nothing other than how delusional Charlton is. First of all it was issued in 1981. The HI DOH indicated that they stopped using the long form and went to the short form in 2001. Obama never claimed to have released the so called long form. It was the short from from the state. As a matter of fact if Charlton was to prove that HI or Obama is lying then he should have his buddy from OK request another BC from the state of HI and compare that one with the one Obama released. But we know he won’t do that because if it did match then this forgery nonsense would have been debunked and who would read his rag then? The bottom line is that either Charlton does that or produces someone born after 2001 that received their so called long from from the state of HI, all this article is fullof is unsubstantiated alllegations and as usual attempts to smear the HI DoH and the President.

    The now widely recognized, crude forgery which Obama claims to be his own Certification of Live Birth bearing the date of 2007 but without the seal and confirmatory signature of the State Registrar, does not contain information regarding the race of the child or the date accepted.

    This has led private researchers to speculate that Obama’s original vital records, which Dr. Fukino claims to have seen and which she herself admits are several, might contain a delayed birth filing, an amended birth filing, adoption record, or other changes regarding the name of the child and parents and location or nation in which the child was purported to be born.

    The details of this actual 1981 “long form” “birth certificate” indicate more precisely the possible motives Obama might have for refusing to disclose his own real certificate, that is, if he was in fact born in Hawaii in the first place. Because the actual form might indicate:

    1) Race of Child: Negro or White — in the former case, Obama’s racism might take offense; in the latter case his race politics might be undone;

    2) Race of Parent: Father might be indicated as Negro rather than African, which would gut the prima facie evidentiary value of his own alleged BC.

    3) Parents might not be who they are claimed to be — there has been a lot of speculation on that;

    4) Place of birth might have originally been Mombassa, Kenya, as Obama’s Co-grandmother and he himself have in the past claimed; if so, Obama is perhaps not even a U.S. Citizen.

    5) No father might have been indicated originally, because Obama’s mother might not have been sure who the father was at the precise moment of the original filing — which would reflect badly on his mother’s morals and cast doubt upon any evidentiary value of whomever was subsequently claimed to be the real father; because doubt in such cases is prima facie evidence that there was more than one man who could have been the father.

    6) Name of child might not be Barack Hussein Obama II, which, in the absence of name changes, would make Obama’s usage of his current name unlawful.

  7. Charlton’s ignorance shows when one looks at a Hawaiian “long form”. The child’s race is not there.

  8. GeorgetownJD says:

    And I sent Berg the Bomford-based copy of mine.

  9. misha says:

    I’m sending Berg a different version each day. I hope he enjoys the five I sent, so far. I have a sixth prepared.

  10. Passerby says:

    I think this is true. Wingnuts do exist on both sides, but the difference is in how they’re treated, and the amount of influence they’re allowed to have.

    I don’t hold it against either party that there are some crazy people who identify with and support them. That’s inevitable. The parties have no control over who identifies themselves as a member of that party, and if you take any large enough group of people, some of them are going to be crazy.

    What concerns me about the right wingnuts is that they do seem to be taken much more seriously than they should be–both by the press and by the Republican leadership. It’s worrying.

  11. misha says:

    Something else: the Left always reforms itself; the Right never does.

    We had to invade Germany and force them to reform. The Russians reformed themselves.

  12. G says:

    Yes, we all agree that the “Truthers” are nutty conspiracists.

    But I think it has been a false meme that the majority of that crazy movement was on the Left.

    I’ve run into or heard from a number of “Truthers” over the years and NONE of the ones I encountered would fit under the definition of Liberals or Democrats.

    To a “T” (pun intended), they almost always more fell into the “anti-government” and “black helicopter” conspiracy categories. Their political views ranged from Libertarian to Constitutionalists (which is really a conservative, religious, “small government” group) to those that almost never or refuse to vote (because they are too paranoid and distrustful of the government in general.

    Quite a few of them held very strong religious conservative views.

    Therefore, I’ve always found the whole “Truther” on the left meme to be fairly bogus. I’m sure there are some wacky leftists in that movement (probably ones that more closely identify with the libertarian left or with anarchists), but I think that broad based brush statement that everyone has just taken as fact is BS.

    I think the whole “left” meme for the “Truthers” came out of the often published but very misleading poll study where people were asked if they thought the Bush administration had forewarning of the attacks and did too little about it.

    Now, I know a lot of “left” folks agreed with that statement, but that is because it was true – those that voted that way were mostly referring to the NIE report provided to the Bush Administration in August of 2001, which warned of Al Queda planning an imminent attack on US soil and which the Bush Administration basically ignored.

    The argument that 9-11 could have been prevented with more diligence and taking the issue seriously is a legitimate one, based on factual evidence.

    The claim that the US government was “behind” the 9-11 attacks is the utter discredited bunk that the “Truther” movement is about.

    They are too total different things.

    Oh, and may I add that former Governor, Jesse Ventura, always an independent, is one of the prominent “Truthers” still out there.

  13. Steve says:

    I always thought the liberal version of a wingnut was called a moonbat.

  14. G says:

    The actual left-wing “nutty” groups in the US that I can think of offhand consist of the following:

    Code Pink
    Radical Eco-terrorist organizations

    That is all I could come up with at the moment. I’m sure there are others, but none of them get much attention (except PETA) and very few are taken seriously.

    I’m sure others could add to this list.

    I leave the “Truthers” off of this list, because I don’t buy the misleading argument that they are mainly a “leftist” driven group. I think they are mostly “unaffiliated” folks of the typical paranoid persuasion and their numbers include at least as many people that have “conservative” leanings as any other direction.

  15. G says:

    I thought moonbats were those that denied the moon landing.

  16. G says:

    So, did our pal Mario merit a mention in the book?

  17. Yes, “moonbat” is a nutty leftist.

    Originally, the term “moonbat” was intended to be more politically neutral, and described wackos on the left and the right, but it quickly acquired its current usage of being applied almost exclusively to those on the left.

    The Urban Dictionary

  18. I think more of the 1960’s when I think of left-wing radicalism.

  19. misha says:

    “I think more of the 1960’s when I think of left-wing radicalism.”

    Exactly my feeling.

  20. G says:

    Ah, good catch, Dr. C. You are correct.

    I should have thought to look that up myself, and the Urban Dictionary is a great source for how terms are being used in popular culture.

    I always thought the term had to do with the moon hoax. I stand corrected. I’ve spent some time trying to figure out what those types are called and it looks like those folks are just called “moon hoaxers” or various alternatives of “Apollo Hoax” or “Lunar Hoax” or just simply moon landing deniers. So I guess they never got a fancy nickname, like most modern conspiracy movements.

    For a moment I thought it might be “moonies”, but that is just for describing the followers of Sun Myung Moon. Although that is pretty kooky too.

  21. Rickey says:

    The book’s index can be viewed at Amazon, and Mario didn’t make the cut. Berg did, though, as did Farah.

  22. NbC says:

    Mario really has little to contribute to the birther story. A failed lawsuit and that’s it. A poorly founded argument on Vattel and that’s all.

  23. Mike says:

    Oh, that’s just mean. I love it 🙂

  24. Lupin says:

    My feelings too.

  25. Lupin says:

    Plus I don’t think Mario is crazy.

    I think Mario is often meretricious in his arguments (something most criminal defense attorneys occasionally are), but I think he’s in it mostly for the money.

    And more power to him.

  26. misha says:

    I just sent Berg a SIXTH version of my famous birth certificates.

    This is my favorite, and this is my second favorite.

  27. I’m waiting for a $25 order to get my copy.

  28. G says:

    Further evidence of “conservative” Truthers just happened today on the Glenn Beck radio show:


    Debra Medina, ultra-far right super-conservative Tea Party candidate for Texas Gov (she’s to the right of Rick Perry, which says a lot) plays political pandering to 9/11 Truthers in her call on Beck’s radio show and refuses to denounce the ideas of their movement. Beck even claims that several of her staff are 9/11 Truthers.

    All this goes to show is that there are definitely conservative and far-right members of the Truther movement.

    I highly suspect there is actually a large overlap between the Teabaggers, birthers and 9/11 Truthers, as many of those folks are just plain “anti-government conspiracy folks”, which is really where I believe the bulk of that crazy Truther movement exists. And many of those folks consider themselves to be conservative as all get out.

    I really wish others would do more to challenge the silly meme that the Truthers are a “leftist” movement, as I have yet to see any evidence that really backed that up.

  29. J. Edward Tremlett says:

    Well, from my perspective as a writer on Op Ed News, which is primarily a left-leaning site, we have Truthers crawling out our ears, and I have yet to see a conservative one post there.

    I am aware that there are hard-right truthers. I just haven’t tangled with any, yet.

  30. J. Edward Tremlett says:

    I read the chapter on Birthers and Truthers. I think it’s pretty good, except that the author actually says that Orly isn’t stupid. Her actions in the field would suggest otherwise (or at least attest to massive legal incompetence!)

  31. G says:

    To J. Edward Tremlett –

    Likewise, I have yet to encounter the “True Truthers” (the ones that seriously believe our government had a hand in causing the attacks) on the left.

    That doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there – the left has its kooky fringes definitely and I’m sure there are kooky radical lefties who ARE “True Truthers”.

    I live in Ohio, which is a very, very mixed state, so my neighbors, co-workers and people I run into every day cross the full spectrum of ideological views out there. Where I live is technically an “exurb”, both right next to very rural areas and not far from true subburbs and the big cities of Northeast Ohio. The economy and jobs available around me are very mixed – white collar, blue collar, restaurant/retail, and medical in a fairly even mix. My own large family and circle of friends on both sides probably fit every box out there, so I spend a lot of time actually listening to people try to explain what they mean.

    The liberals I know have said some crazy stuff at times, but when pressed on issues such as 9/11, not a single one actually thought the government was involved in the attacks – just very inept and missed advanced opportunities to look into and try to prevent it.

    Every “True Truther” I’ve encountered, who did believe in a government conspiracy really fell into the “anti-government” categories in their beliefs and voting record (for those that actually voted). They tended to be very suspicious folk who believe in a whole host of conspiracies.

    Some could be called very “socially liberal” and quite a few were definitely very “socially conservative”. Nearly all of them considered themselves independents although quite a few would state Libertarian or Constitutionalist (and even 1 Green I can think of).

    But that is just my experience. And yes, I’ve actually brought up this question a lot because I’ve always been interested in “Conspiracy Theory” in general, from a skeptics perspective – just one of my hobbies for around 30 years now – all sorts of crazy, kooky stuff. So, these are the kinds of things that perk up my ears and I usually press people on to find out more and why they believe what they believe.

    The “birthers” are just one of the latest “conspiracy fads”, which is why it has been such a focus of my attention over the past year. I’m sure it will soon become overshadowed by the various “Armageddonists” as they start getting louder again, with 2012 being their latest date to focus on and then I’m sure they’ll become my primary “conspriacy” hobby.

    Although, with most of these conspiracies, there seems to be certain mindsets that are drawn to them, so I fully expect there to be a fairly significant overlap between the birthers, the Teabaggers and the “doomsayers”.

  32. thisoldhippie says:

    What is this about? It was posted on Orly’s site.

    glennbeck@foxnews.com, oreilly@foxnews.com, dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    Ok, Beck And Oreilly, which one of you is man enough to eat crow first? Judge Lambert in Orly Taitz’s quo warrento pleading has given your loved one,Obama, untill March 29th to produce proof that he’s legal. Otherwise–bye-bye art olszewski pittsburgh pa

  33. SvenMagnussen says:

    thisoldhippie: What is this about? It was posted on Orly’s site.To:
    glennbeck@foxnews.com, oreilly@foxnews.com, dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    Ok, Beck And Oreilly, which one of you is man enough to eat crow first?Judge Lambert in Orly Taitz’s quo warrento pleading has given your loved one,Obama, untill March 29th toproduce proof that he’s legal.Otherwise–bye-byeart olszewski pittsburgh pa

    It means the Usurper is about to resign to spend more time with his family!

  34. Saint James says:

    That’s one way for Orly to catch attention! for details check this out!


  35. Northland10 says:

    Wasn’t he supposed to be out in 30 days? We are now approaching 150 days. Is the process for picking the date the same as picking the date of the rapture? Pick a date and when nothing happens, pick another date.

    Well, rest easy, as your wishes will be answered. The longer Obama is in office, the more the truth will be known, and he will have to leave because he is not eligible to be the President of the United States…

    On Friday, January 20, 2017.

    (I know.. old joke).

  36. NbC says:

    Sven believes what Orly writes, even though he could have researched the facts and found them to be at odds with the statements?

    Has Sven no interesting in the facts?

    Doohhh. What was I thinking…

  37. Gordon says:

    February 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm (Quote)

    thisoldhippie: What is this about? It was posted on Orly’s site.To:
    glennbeck@foxnews.com, oreilly@foxnews.com, dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    Ok, Beck And Oreilly, which one of you is man enough to eat crow first?Judge Lambert in Orly Taitz’s quo warrento pleading has given your loved one,Obama, untill March 29th toproduce proof that he’s legal.Otherwise–bye-byeart olszewski pittsburgh pa

    It means the Usurper is about to resign to spend more time with his family!

    Hey Sven, how about we make a deal. I’ll bet Orly’s case gets kicked w/o Obama providing anything he hasn’t already produced. If I win you take a 3 month hiatus from this blog, and if you win I’ll do likewise. I’ll need a confirmation from you that you take this wager.

  38. bob says:

    It means the government has 60 days to file a responsive pleading to Taitz’s petition. Assuming she properly served it (and there’s doubt on that subject).

    Yet another birther mistaking a routine application of the procedural rules for something more profound.

    When the government moves to dismiss on or around March 29 (or, even worse, moves for an extension of time), please keep your outrage to a dull roar.

  39. Lupin says:

    You know, I really really resent that kind of crap.

    Obama was chosen by, what? 63% of the American voters. Even if he was born in Shangri-La, he is not a Usurper.

    Sven is verbally defecating on millions of American and exhibiting his deep contempt of democracy when he blithely writes such garbage.

    “I’m not a violent man, Mr. Fawlty,” {“yes, you are”) as the scene goes in FAWLTY TOWERS, but I do feel like punching Sven in groin. Hard.

  40. misha says:

    The one I really want to slap with a dead fish, is Orly. Of course, the fish should have fins and scales. (bada-bing)

  41. Saint James says:

    Let’s make that a dead pufferfish! hmmm!

  42. G says:

    Yeah, good luck with that Sven!

    Can’t wait to see you on March 29th, when you are proven a FOOL and a TOOL yet again.

    Keep dreaming.

  43. thisoldhippie says:

    Thanks for this one. And for the record – I am running major scans on my computer today because I thought I could sneak into her site and back again and be okay. WRONG!!! Her site, like her brain, is so infected with viruses it’s ridiculous. XP Guardian is the worst.

  44. richCares says:

    March 29, isn’t this the 24th OMG birther moment? Will a birther ever recognize that these OMG moments are not reality but are merely paypal driven. Hey sven, did you push the paypal button, what an idiot!

  45. G says:

    Good point. I too would like to know just how much dear Sven has “donated to the cause”. LOL!

    So come on Sven, tell us your expenses in support of your little crusade here so far … and then tell us just how much that’s payed off for you to date.

  46. Expelliarmus says:

    March 29th is merely another “Orly’s so stupid she doesn’t understand routine procedure” moment.

    Orly filed a lawsuit and served Obama. March 29th is the date the court clerk noted that a responsive pleading is due, assuming the complaint to be properly served — 60 days out from the date reflected for service.

    A responsive pleading is NOT Obama showing up in court with a birth certificate in hand. It is the Department of Justice lawyers filing a piece of paper, which almost certainly will be a motion to dismiss — if the court doesn’t dismiss the case sua sponte before that time.

    Of course the motion to dismiss will be brought on grounds that Orly lacks standing and that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and of course the motion will be granted.

  47. Expelliarmus says:

    Two really great programs for removal of this stuff are Malwarebytes and SUPERAntiSpyware. Both free.

    But of course the best thing is to avoid infected sites entirely.

  48. J. Edward Tremlett says:

    To G:

    Come over to Op Ed News (www.opednews.com) and look at almost any 9/11 thread. You will have some lefty truther fun.

  49. Obama got 52.9% of the the popular vote; McCain got 45.7%.

  50. G says:

    Dr. Conspiracy is correct on the percentages.

    I’m not sure where Lupin got the 63%. 52.% can be rounded up to 53%.

    I’m thinking Lupin got mixed up between actual voting numbers in the 60-thousands and the percents to come up with the 63% by accident.

    Just for the record, the actual vote totals, which completely correspond to the 52.9% and 45.7% for Obama & McCain respectively were:

    POPULAR VOTE TOTALS (actual votes cast & recorded for a candidate)

    Obama: 69,456,897

    McCain: 59,934,814

    In other words, Obama received over 9.5 million more votes than McCain. (9,522083 more to be precise.)

  51. G says:

    Thanks for the link, J. Edward Tremlett.

    I promise to check it out when I get the chance. Always fun to read nutty stuff.

  52. Mary Brown says:

    She needs more money, obviously.

  53. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    What outrage? By that time the goalposts will have moved on to the future already.

    Any fantasy to rid them of the reality that the sheriff’s a ni-*bong*.

  54. SvenMagnussen says:

    G: Good point.I too would like to know just how much dear Sven has “donated to the cause”.LOL!So come on Sven, tell us your expenses in support of your little crusade here so far … and then tell us just how much that’s payed off for you to date.

    I donated $10 to Dr. Conspiracy’s favorite charity and $0 to Orly.

    How much have you donated, cheapskate?

  55. G says:

    Now, why on earth would I donate to Orly?

  56. Lupin says:

    Yes I got confused between the actual number and the %. Apologies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.