Jerome Corsi

The French Revolution produced the saying "no enemies to the Left" - a mindset that has poisoned both the Left and the Right in American politics.  As a result, some figures who should be repudiated have, instead, become prominent representatives.  On the Right, in particular, the "go along to get along" approach has created a Movement where the bad guys are protected, and the people who get promoted are those who make friends, not waves.

It's wrong, and it needs to stop.  So, with that said...

The continued tolerance and prominence of Jerome Corsi - his books, columns and appearances - is just embarrassing.  It is embarrassing for the Right, embarrassing for Republicans, embarrassing for conservatives and libertarians, embarrassing for all of us. 

It's not just that he's frequently, remarkably wrong - something pretty well documented and acknowledged by both the Left and (while less enthusiastically) the Right.  (and the Obama campaign (PDF), of course)  Both the Obama campaign and Hugh Hewitt acknowledge that Jerome Corsi is "fringe".

Bad as his gross errors are, though, it's not just that.  It's also about who Jerome Corsi is. 

I mean, c'mon.  Have some standards.  This guy does not deserve the platform, he does not deserve the publicity, and he does not deserve to be treated as member-in-good-standing on the Right. 

The Right seems to engage today in social promotion of hatchet men, bullies and political hit men.  Those people poison the Right, and - whatever their temporary electoral effects - they serve to discredit us all. 

Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)


Credit Where Credit is Due

Well said. Glad that you took a stand here. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout

 (re: my wan comments under "Georgia as the New Celeb")

Hats off to you, Jon Henke, for telling it like it is. Hopefully, those of us on both sides of the electoral divide can behave like big children, have some standards and call out some of our own when they get sociopathic.

he Right has not been

he Right has not been upholding those standards, and I really don't care that those guys over there are just as bad, why, did you see what some lefty said the other day?  The only way the Right can win is to demonstrate they deserve to win.Kαζινο online


And now, a word from your high-road candidate

 McCain on Corsi: "Gotta keep your sense of humor."


Obama might have done well to emulate that

The downside of not getting "swiftboated" is you waste a campaign day devoted to defense every time some crank decides to trash you. They've now set a pattern, so if they stop the overkill against critics the response will be "they must be validating the charges since they didn't kill the messenger"

The Maginot Line would have worked fine in 1914. Refighting the last war causes strategic mistakes.

Who determines conservative credentials

I agree that scandle mongers like Corsi should do not represent conservative but what do you do about it.  For many years it was the MSM who applied these labels.  One of their favorite tricks back in the unfairness doctraine days was to balance articulate liberals with wackos that had no real standing among conservatives (think David Duke).  Conservatives can, and should, reject these people but no matter how vocally or how often we do so, the media will always refer to them as not just personally conservative but as leaders of the conservative movement. 

Clean up our own side

I understand some people believe the only way to break through a sometimes hostile or skeptical media gatekeeping function is to be over-the-top, because a more nuanced and fair set of criticisms will not be heard in the cacophony.  And that some people really, really feel strongly about their political opponents.

But rude, uncivil, down-and-dirty beating up on the other side is tiresome in the extreme, counterproductive, and sets up the whole pardigm that the "right" is nasty and smear merchants.

No candidate on either side is ever perfect, all have some aspects that need scrutiny and should be critiqued in a professional fashion.  People like Hewitt and Matalin are foolish to grab whatever comes along that may appear to help their candidate or hurt the other one, especially with fringe cases being involved.

Both sides need to make positive arguments and fact-based rebuttals of the other side's best case.  The Right has not been upholding those standards, and I really don't care that those guys over there are just as bad, why, did you see what some lefty said the other day?  The only way the Right can win is to demonstrate they deserve to win.  Buckley threw out the Birchers and shamed some anti-Semites, that stable-cleaning needs to be an ongoing process.


speaking of standards...

I don't know enough about Corsi to have an opinion of him, one way or the other, but I do know that David Brock is a congenital liar, so if you can't find a source to document his alleged associations with white supremacists that doesn't contain "" in its URL, I'm going to give that allegation about as much credence as it deserves, which is none. Ditto for the Truther bit, which relies on an NY Times blog entry opening with:

Among the follow-up efforts to Jerome R. Corsi's "Unfit for Command," which inspired the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Senator John Kerry in 2004, is "Obama Nation."

Corsi didn't write Unfit for Command; John O'Neill did. If Sarah Wheaton was too lazy, too incompetent or too downright stupid to get such a basic, easily verifiable fact as that one right, why should I trust anything else in her article?

Jon did provide the source,

Jon did provide the source, so people can make up their own minds regarding Corsi and his connection to white supremacists.

Now, appearing on a radio program may be a tenuous connection, and an example of bad judgement, but, it is either demonstrably true that he appeared on the show, and made comments that he later apologized for, or it is not true.  Either way, the source of this information shouldn't matter.

The left always does this in an argument.  Oh, well you linked that from FoxNews, or freerepublic, so we can discount it.  Never mind that the story itself may originally be from the AP or Reuters.

Attacking the source or discounting the information from that source, isn't the same thing as proving the information false.


Corsi is listed as a co-author for Unfit for Command.

Look, you can smear Media Matters and insult their staff in the process of separating yourselves (or not so much) from Corsi, but he's scheduled to go on an openly racist radio show or he isn't. It's not like it's debateable.

That being said, I appreciate this post a lot folks. Unchecked lies probably worry me the most about the ongoing governability of this country.



Corsi co-wrote the book with O'Neill. 

Media Matters provides the primary source evidence to back up this claim.  I agree that some of what they claim can be suspect, but this is a matter of record.

The truth matters...

The bigger point is that the truth matters no matter what the source.

I should have been clearer

I should have been clearer one point: Corsi did indeed co-write the book, but describing it as his work, without mentioning that he played second fiddle to O'Neill, is misleading at best.  As for the MM link, yes it's a matter of record that he was scheduled to speak for CCC, and it's equally a matter of public record that his plans to speak there were canceled.  If that's all the evidence there is to convict Corsi of racism, then I submit that the evidence on that count is very, very thin.

More generally, it strikes me as ironic to quote a source as sleazy as MM in a post arguing that some people are so sleazy they shouldn't be relied on as sources for anything.  If that's true of anybody, it's definitely true of David Brock.  Corsi may hold views that are just as nutty as Brock's, but to the best of my knowledge, we can at least trust Corsi to say stuff he honestly believes to be true.  We can't trust Brock to do that.

Corsi actually did appear on

Corsi actually did appear on the show on a previous occasion.  The appearance he canceled was going to be his second appearance.

Regarding Brock - and as somebody else (Chait, perhaps?) pointed out some years ago - I have found previous acknowledgement of being a partisan liar sufficiently convincing that I'm perfectly prepared to continue to believe it.   But he's the subject of another post, not this one.

mendacity of media matters

"More generally, it strikes me as ironic to quote a source as sleazy as MM in a post arguing that some people are so sleazy they shouldn't be relied on as sources for anything.  If that's true of anybody, it's definitely true of David Brock.

Correct. Media Matters is a soros front dedicated to the worst sort of partisan spin creation. They are exhibit A of what is wrong in politics and twist the truth constantly.  Ironies abound in using the sleazy Media Matters outfit to play ad hominem shoot-the-messenger to save-the-candidate.

Hear hear

Any good movement requires its members to police it.  I knew that Corsi was a fringe figure ever since I learned that he believed in the NAU conspiracy.  That should be one of the definitive tests to determine that someone is a fringe figure.

I understand the anxiety to aid the left in denouncing "one of us".  But I don't want to be associated with a nut like Corsi.

Worse problem is eating our own...

I think even worse is when our own side start beating up pundits on our own side for daring to defend the other side.  Right is right, and wrong is wrong.  I've seen this behaviour on several blogs, and it's not any better.  As an example,


As far as Corsi goes, I put him in the same boat as Ann Coulter.  He might be right some of the times, but the conversation often becomes attacking the source (Corsi, or Coulter) for the rhetoric used, rather then about what the actual argument presented is.


Technical Point

Book Details straight from the publisher.

Unfit for Command
by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 0895260174
Hardcover - 256 pages (August 2004)

Great post!

Jon, this is without a doubt the best post I've seen on this website.

I've spent a lot of hours trying to convince people that the whole North American Union conpiracy was constructed to sell a book and promote a website.  Did you notice the following article that was posted just before Corsi's Obama book came out? 

North American Union: The dream 'is dead'

That said, why didn't you call out World Net Daily? Joseph Farah has nurtured this nut and given him the platform to spew his garbage for a long time.

Now, lest you think I'm a liberal, I do recognize that he got some things about Obama right, but there is too much that he cannot verify. Republicans and conservatives don't need people like this.

And for you liberals in here jumping up and down in joy, when are you going to renounce Michael Moore? How about a little honesty from your side of the divide for once?


What's a good source for the case against Moore? My perspective on him is that he's basically funny, but sometimes a little manipulative and unfair - and that he seems to do a crappy job of communicating in a way that everyone can hear him.

But "the line" for me revolves around stuff like outright racism, eliminationist rhetoric, and peddling outright verifiably false nonfacts (like Corsi or the "China is about to drill off Florida" stuff). Everyone gets a little room on falsehoods, because people do make mistakes, and it's the big ideas that matter in proportion. i.e. what matter's about Corsi's book isn't a blown footnote here and there, it's that attacking people based on entirely made-up storylines probably means democracy is doomed.

I see Moore as being marginally and variously effective, not someone who needs to be rejected and renounced. But what's the big thing he's gotten wrong? And don't say "he's a liberal," I mean what lines has he crossed.

Michael Moore, pro-terrorist putz

What's a good source for the case against Moore?

Moore's own stupidity and words condemn him. He's the idiot who in April 2004 called the fallujah militants 'the minutemen', comparing terrorists to American patriots, and said they would win. This at a time when our Marines were in a desperate fight for that city. Those freedom fighters were found 6 months later, when we cleaned out fallujah in Nov 2006, to have a beheading operation where they filmed the beheadings of civilian innocent victims.


Moore got terrorism wrong, 9/11 wrong, and gets America wrong. He's a paid liar and a putz.

That's as big a self-condemnation as his fat ass ... umptions.


Less Moore

Well, Manufacturing Dissent was a pretty good takedown of Moore from a left perspective. And "Forgive Us Our Spins" was an entire book excoriating Moore from a fairly staunch liberal. Plus Dissent and Salon have both critiqued Moore- in the latter case, he complained that they did so at the behest of their corporate sponsors! So the left hasn't exactly been silent. Admittedly, most of my own economic beliefs would prevent me from being called a liberal; but I personally can't stomach his films.

Is it really about Corsi, or really about the 1st Amendment?

I tend, with all due respect to Jon's standards which I absolutely value, to err on the side of content over character when it comes to works of art, science and literature.  The fact that a man is absolutely scurrilous does not necessarily prevent him from being able to produce something worthy of our consideration.  Take Alexander Hamilton - please.  He's right up there in the same cohort group with Spitzer, Edwards and Vitter.  A man who was both admired and excoriated by many, a man who produced a body of work in the form of the Federalist Papers that many find extremely fine and valuable, was the same man whom I always think of as the poster boy for the Washington sex scandal. 

Take Richard Wagner - but for godssakes leave me his music.  Even the Israelis, who should be most offended by the character of Richard Wagner - which prompted the appropriation of his music by Nazi propagandists - find it completely within reason to play his body of work on public radio.

What honestly concerns me today about Corsi, more than his lack of character, is the possibility that the Daily Kos has published his home address so that Corsi's family members, along with the scurvy knave himself, might be accosted, harassed, possibly even come to violent assault at the hands of protestors of his work.  This was first proliferated on Fox News, and then reported further by Raw Story:

Jeromi Corsi, the author of Obama Nation, was welcomed to Fox & Friends on Friday to respond to charges made against him and his book in a 40-page rebuttal from the Obama Campaign, "Unfit for Publication."

"Essentially it calls you a liar and a bigot," suggested Fox's Steve Doocy.

"I think some juvenile leftists have taken over the Obama campaign and gotten a hold of Photoshop," Corsi replied. "Now I'm getting death threats and hate mail from Obama supporters."

"You're getting these death threats because you wrote a book," Doocy agreed, "and in fact there's a website, Daily Kos, that's published your home address."

RAW STORY has been unable to find Corsi's home address at Daily Kos -- only his email and the address and phone number of one of his employers -- but it is possible that it was posted and then removed by site moderators.

I wasn't able to locate a post or comment with Corsi's address either, although I also wasn't able to locate a post with the trash that we all knew was written about Jesse Helms and Tony Snow when they died, either - at least not for a day or two.  I approve of KOSovars cleaning up their act if the moderators did delete such a post, but the very possibility of shock troop netroots attacking the First Amendment by attacking Corsi and/or his family - literally - concerns me ever so much more than the fact that the man has questionable associations - especially when Americans are very possibly on the brink of electing a man whose associations are every bit as questionable as Corsi's and very possibly moreso.


come on!

Who cares? It works and we should keep doing it. Let the eggheads have their standards.  People who care about the details aren't going to vote for us anyway. Who cares what they think.


Candidate Support by Education



You've just written...

...the perfect phrase to describe the problem with your party.

People who care about the details aren't going to vote for us anyway.

I couldn't agree more.

Corsi and the Fringe Elements

 I agree with your sentiments, Jon.  There are others in addition to Corsi who have  damaged the cause of Republican conservatism, limited government and freedom of choice.  Ann Coulter, James Dobson, and John Hagee are a few that come to mind.  They have been given way to much exposure and platform by some of the otherwise responsible entities that have been relunctant to challenge their wacky pronouncements that amount to little more than gaudy political theater.  The fact that during the last ten years Karl Rove and other high level Bush operatives formed common cause with these individuals (including Corsi) is one reason that they have been relatively immune from challenge by others on the Right. 

So if you don't believe Corsi deserves a platform...

...why have you given him one?

ex animo



I agree with all these points: 

     Jerome Corsi is a smear artist (e.g., he has claimed that "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lesbian and Muslims worship Satan"). 

     Jerome Corsi has advocated the hysterical, deceptive North American Union conspiracy theory.

     Jerome Corsi associates with white supremacists.

     Jerome Corsi is guilty of plagiarism.

And the general conclusion the this festering bag of feces should be in a bread line, having lost all of his assets for the crime of libel.

But, what is this crap "Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 Truther."

Is there anyone with HALF A FRIGGIN' BRAIN that thinks we have been told any remote semblence of the truth about the bush family crime partners from that day???

Come on people, believe your eyes, not mainstream lies.


I could not agree more.

It is important for sound voices on the Right to separate themselves from Corsi and those things for which he and his ilk stand.

What, then, do you say about your fellow Next Righter?

Patrick Ruffini recently wrote:

The challenge in modern Presidential campaign is not simply to paint your opponent as wrong on the issues, and to prevail in a civil debate. It is to render the opponent unacceptable to 48% of the electorate, and merely less preferable to 3%.

Isn't that the work Corsi's doing? Making Obama "unacceptable"? Isn't that what the right's "hatchet men, bullies and political hit men" are for and what Ruffini has defended?

Have some standards!

Added: You should note that Ruffini was defending another Next Righter, Soren Dayton, for passing around a video smearing Obama as some sort of "black power" sleeper. So...


Patrick can defend himself

Patrick can defend himself, but you could at least quote him correctly.

The challenge in modern Presidential campaign is not simply to paint your opponent as wrong on the issues, and to prevail in a civil debate. It is to render the opponent unacceptable to 48% of the electorate, and merely less preferable to 3%. Despite McCain’s troubles with the base, conservative media (and Hillary) are doing the heavy lifting on the unacceptable part. McCain should get out of the way, and jump in ONLY when someone crosses a racial and/or religious line.

He said nothing about smears being acceptable.  It was always about Obama's judgement on who he associates with.

And isn't it interesting that since that video, Obama has had to repudiate Rev. Wright and the church he was a 20 year member of.  And the point is, why wasn't the mainstream media investigating this and presenting it


Then you're saying McCain should stay "out of the way" of guys like Corsi? I guess you are, since Ruffini says that McCain should act as if he's above the fray while allowing others to do the smearing and points to Bush's hands-off treatment of the Swift Boaters--which must include Corsi, the perpetrator of its most effective tool--as the model McCain should follow.

Again, how can one of the creators of this site argue the right should eschew "political hit men" when another of its creators argued how valuable they could be (at a distance)?

Also, for the record, I did quote Ruffini correctly. There is a difference between quoting only part of a full writing and misquoting someone. Or did you think that JFK's entire inaugural address consisted only of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

Wow, are you so indoctrinated

Wow, are you so indoctrinated that you think there can't be significant differences of opinion between people of the same ideological strip?

McCain should distance himself from smear artists.

But there's little he can do to prevent smear artists from operating.  Free speech and all that.


I'm merely suggesting the writer seems awfully interested in fighting smear artists and those who support them, but he could have started that fight a little closer to home. I would be extremely interested in a discussion between Henke, Ruffini and Dayton which mapped the border between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" political speech, as they clearly have divergent beliefs about that issue. 

Not sure how that makes me "indoctrinated," but feel free to take another spin on the wheel of your official Newt Gingrich Liberal Label MakerTM and come up with a new word to call me next time.


Without people like corsi how would republicans ever win an election?On the merits?Its too bad we live in a country where millions of americans are too ignorant to distinguish between Rumor and truth.But I guess thats what you count on.Why else would anyone believe limbaugh or coulter?You should all be ashamed{if your capable}.

Considering the deceit of the Obama Campaign

Against the Hillary delegates which is extremely well documented in my post on Sunday, your people have no high moral ground to stand on whatsoever either.  Please don't even get me started on Pelosi's strange bedfellow arrangement for big profit with T. Boone Pickens, or Chris Dodd's Nationwide scandal, or Edwards' baby scandal, or Jefferson's cool cash in the freezer.

Honestly, if we'd ALL sit down together and have a Come to Jesus meeting, if the seculars on both sides will permit the use of such an expression, about the absolute moral vacuum and complete lack of results in BOTH our parties, and the extreme urgency we all have to work FOR the American People instead of our own egos and our party doctrines, that would be a real revolution.  All this tit-for-tat and "I Know You Are, But What Am I" and "It's not my fault mommy, SHE did it" crap is the very reason we're in this mess we're ALL in together to begin with.  Oh it's time for a big change, all right - and I hope John McCain is just the person to bring it about because Obama's record of reaching across the aisle is exactly SLIM and NONE.  Stop slinging the mud at "Republicans" and start working with us, why don't you?  And if Obama does get elected, make sure he does the same with us, eh?  That's what I'm on about - not this juvenile blame-assigning B.S.


So you're saying the only guy who can fix this problem with the way things are in Washington is the guy who's been a part of this problem for nearly 30 years? How counterintuitive of you!

Go read this and I think you'll see that Obama does have a history of working on issues in a very thoughtful manner.

Well, nitty. . .

. . .any credibility he built up on the interrogation law was completely destroyed by his outright obeisance to the abortion industry and his irremediable buffoonery in trying to explain away his actions on the Born Alive Act.

The man can stand up for the rights of heinous criminals and bring people together on the need for there to be reasonable safeguards for their rights.  But, let a child be born in a botched abortion, and the guy can't bring himself to require that it be given comfort and care until it finally, well, dies.

Murderers and worse, he can manage to bridge the divide between opposing camps with regard to protecting their rights.  A baby who manages to survive an abortion, if only fleetingly -- somehow, it's above his paygrade to determine whether or not it deserves painkillers.


If republicans are sooo concerned about abortion why didnt they do anything about forced abortion in china when the had control for 6 years?Or the mariana islands{you know "made in the u.s.a. sweatshop island?}??Because they dont CARE! they only use it as a single isuue to keep their sheep in line while the sell the coutry out from under us.See;Ralph Reed{peter piper to the wackos}and Jack Abromoffs nice little deal to use the christan right to protect their casino,money laundering operation going.You are being played for fools.

Look. . .

. . .I support the 21st amendment to the Constitution, despite the fact that it allows for the generation of the kind of content you supplied in your post above.  But that doesn't mean that I support the abuse of that right -- particularly to the extent to which you've obviously engaged in it prior to making your comment.

By the same token, one doesn't have to be an anti-abortion activist to support the idea of providing even minimal comfort to a baby who escapes the womb in a botched abortion procedure. 

Mud sling much?LAGOMORPH

So you start with mudslinging then want a jesus loves you moment.Sure Id like to work with republican if they believed in unions and national healthcare,social security and public education but they dont.And isnt it ironic that now republicans are seeing the light on energy independence?Didnt Carter warn us back in the 70s?Didnt Gore?Didnt Kerry want a manhatten project on energy??Didnt you guys vote for an oil man???And you were expecting??Since YOU brought up edwards ,dont forget Mccain cheated on his wife many times BEFORE he left her{family values at work} for the other woman Cindy! NICE!I also notice you dont give ONE single example of Obamas supposed deceit.

What untrue thing is being said about Obama?

... other than the legion of lies told by the obama campaign on his behalf?

"millions of americans are too ignorant to distinguish between Rumor and truth."

Ah yes, the backbone of the Democrat party!


Ralph reed

Ralph Reed called you guys wackos i just quoted him.If thats the way the leader of the so called christian coalition described his own flock ...?What about my content is NOT true?Or cant you handle the truth?

If you could just. . .

. . .go ahead & make sure you keep on posting so I can copy and paste your comments into some of the more widely-read blogs and mainstream media comment boards -- that'd be great.  Thanks!

please do!

How many americans believed we were sttacked by SADDAM HUSSIEN on 9/11??How many believe Obama is a muslim?Which party has a problem with science,evolution and global warming??

Well, truthy. . .

. . .I suspect you're a tad angry with the fact that the people who believed that Hussein was behind 9/11, despite the fact that the administration had stated repeatedly that there was no evidence of it,  cut across all party lines:  Republicans, Democrats, and independents.  As for the number of people who believe Obama is a Muslim, that's a considerably lower number -- but, also, that tends to cut across party lines: 14% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats.  Oddly enough, the whole email smear that perpetrated that idea was done by Democrats during the primary.  So, here we have yet another high horse that you need to climb down from.

As for your questions about science, evolution and global warming -- well, all I can say to that is that the Democrats are trying like hell to get those votes, so they're not exactly out there making a big case to the public about keeping evolution out of the schools and promoting the teaching of Darwinism.    In fact, I can't remember a single instance where anyone even brought the matters up in the Democrat primary, nor a single instance where Obama has brought it up since clinching the nomination.  You're free to try to find it, but I suspect you won't have much luck.

And, finally, with regard to global warming, there's plenty of skepticism out there -- and it's not all Republicans.  In any event, I can't think of anything I've ever read that seemed more stupid than to try to compare global warming to depriving a baby of pain relief after it somehow survived a botched abortion.  Ghoulishly stupid.


Thanks for making my point!

So where did the american public get the idea saddam attacked us?See dick cheney{dont you know we live in the VIDEO AGE ITS ON TAPE}!I Good try though I know it works for low information voters and there are millions of them.

Man, truthy. . .

. . .I hate to step on your triumphalism, but the fact is, we started out talking about how Obama doesn't seem to mind letting babies die in agony as long as it pleases NARAL, and ended up talking about Dick Cheney saying there were meetings between Mohammed Atta and the Hussein regime -- which is true -- and you feel like you won?

If that's the case, I bow to your superior skills.

wedge issue lie

Before SB1093 in 2001 was even proposed the illinois Abortion Law of 1975 stated: (720 ILCS 510/6) (2) (a) No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. and it also stated: (720 ILCS 510/6) (2) (b) Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony. I'm sure you can see the purely political reason why career Republican Jim Ryan refused to protect the babies that were clearly already protected under Illinois law - he was setting the stage for some partisan political theater on the legislature floor. Oh and as you should know SB1093 passed with the previously mentioned 'poison pill' paragraph removed. Do you people enjoy being played?


S'cuse me, genius. . .

. . .but, just because an infant isn't viable doesn't mean it can't experience pain.