From a November 8 Washington Times article:

During the debate, about 1,500 demonstrators gathered outside the Capitol to protest the bill. Some waved American flags, and others displayed golden "Don't tread on me" rattlesnake flags. A copy of the nearly 2,000-page bill taped end to end stretched from the Capitol, down the steps and across the Southeast Lawn.

Richard Baumgartner, 73, who breathed with the aid of a portable oxygen tank and walked with a cane, was among three busloads of people from Western Maryland at the demonstration.

"If Obama-care goes through, I'd be one of them they'd have the death squad for because of my age and my physical condition," said Mr. Baumgartner, who receives Veterans Affairs health benefits. "This [bill] has something to do with taking away all our freedoms. It's not just health care."

Mr. Baumgartner's remarks echoed a speech Friday by Sarah Palin, who told a pro-life rally near Milwaukee that the liberal mind-set for abortion rights could lead to euthanasia under a government-run health care system.

"What may they feel about an elderly person who doesn't have a whole lot of productive years left?" said Mrs. Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. "In order to save government money, government health care has to be rationed. Do you think our elderly will be first in line for limited health care?"

Pat Boone may have dialed back the eliminationist rhetoric for his latest column (published at WorldNetDaily; it remains to be seen whether Newsmax will publish it after removing the eliminationist one), but he's still lying and misleading about Barack Obama.

Boone claims that "Candidate Obama swore that he'd veto any of these porky earmarks that found their way into any bill that crossed his desk" yet signed a bill containing "contained $7.7 billion in nearly 9,000 earmarks." In fact, Obama never promised to eliminate earmarks; rather, he promised to reform the earmark process and eliminate wasteul spending.

Boone also writes that "Our president informed the Muslim world that 'America is no longer a Christian nation.' " As we noted the last time he did this, Boone is taking Obama's words out of context; Obama actually said that America is not just a Christian nation but "also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

As he has before, Boone embraces the birther movement, bashing Obama for his "steadfast refusal to provide to the public who deserves and wants it an actual copy of his birth certificate! Not the 'certification of live birth' that has been produced and accepted by a strangely gullible and meek Congress." Boone adds:

The growing number of determined citizens who are demanding transparency are being derided and smeared as "birthers," in the hope that they'll be written off as irrational or politically biased.

But my question is -- and has been for over a year now -- "MR. OBAMA, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, WHY ARE YOU SPENDING A FORTUNE TO HIDE IT?"

It's an acknowledged fact that Barack Obama Jr. was born to an 18-year-old American girl and a Kenyan father, a British citizen. Some have seen an actual videotape, now strangely unavailable, in which the boy's fraternal grandmother describes being in the delivery room in Mombasa, Kenya, when young Barack was born.

In fact, there is no "actual videotape" of this. There is, however, a selectively edited audio clip of a phone call made to the grandmother by Anabaptist minister Ron McRae that leaves out the part in which it appears that the grandmother's misunderstood what McRae was asking and that, when asked more directly whether Obama was born in Kenya, the grandmother's answer is no. McRae has spread other dubious claims about Obama and is apparently opposed to race-mixing.

We probably shouldn't be expecting scrupulous accuracy from retired pop idols, but couldn't Boone at least try to get his facts straight?

From a November 7 post by Paul Cooper at David Horowitz's NewsReal blog:

Will President Barack Obama be able to avoid negative attention for his initial reaction to the Fort Hood Massacre?  His first speech after the killing of at least 13 soldiers on a US military base showed a complete lack of any presidential leadership.  It may (and should) go down in history as far worse than the "Pet Goat" incident.

On September 11, 2001 President George W. Bush heard a plane had hit the World Trade Center when he was about to hear elementary kids read a book to him at a school in Florida.  Bush had a whisper in his ear from Andrew Card about the plane while he was in front of a group of small children.  At that point the complete picture of a full scale terrorist attack was not known.  Bush knew something was happening, but he did not know how bad, and he did not want to frighten the kids in front of him.

The book the children read to him was called "The Pet Goat" and that incident has been used to attack Bush by the Left ever since.  Some have tried to use it to say Bush was a poor leader. Many (those we now know as 9-11 Truthers)  have even used the incident as "proof" that Bush knew 9-11 would happen.

After meeting with the children and getting more information, President Bush gave a short but powerful press conference to the country.  It showed great leadership and clarity on what was going on. You can debate if he should have immediately ran out on the kids and then made his speech, but there is no debating the strength of his first public words on the incident.

[...]

While the world was watching and waiting for a strong President -- what they got were comments about how good some little conference was and shout outs to a buddy of the President.  The media was reporting on a terrorist (though many are afraid to use that term) killing US soldiers on our own soil and they went to the President live, setting him up for one of those great Obama speech moments. But this is what we got as his first words:

"Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the the Interior Staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference. Uh, I want to thank my cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. Uh, I hear that Dr. Joe "Medicine" Crow was around.  So I want to give a shout out...My understanding is, is that you uh had an extremely productive conference."

You have got to be kidding me! Those type of comments go on for two minutes.  He ignores Ft. Hood while below his video feed, every cable news channel talks about a massacre and soldiers dead. When he finally gets to talking of Ft. Hood there is no sign of a President ready to respond to terrorism. As details scrolled on news feeders below him, his first words on the incident were:

"We don't yet know all the details at this moment.  We will share them as we get them... We will make sure we get answers to every single question about this horrible incident... I hope all of you recognize the scope of this tragedy."

President Obama then goes on to make closing comments about the conference he was at. He shows no grasp of "the scope of this tragedy."

Remember the 2am phone call commercial that Hillary Clinton's campaign put out that questioned Obama's readiness to lead in crisis?  That ad was meant to scare Democrat voters about Obama's ability to lead. Well, the President's reaction to the Ft. Hood Massacre should scare us all.

And let's face it, nobody plays dumb like Peggy Noonan.

In her WSJ column this week, she sets aside nearly 1,300 words an analyze last week's election, which she robotically concludes were a nightmare for Democrats, and especially Obama because voters rose up against him in N.J. and VA., where new GOP governors were elected. And yes, while making that the central point of her column, Noonan completely ignored the N.J. and VA. exit polling which indicated most voters did not consider Obama when they cast their votes on Tuesday.

But that's par for the Noonan course.

More importantly though, was that out to those 1,300 words about Tuesday's elections, guess how many Noonan dedicated to the Congressional race in Upstate N.Y., which Democrats won in a shocker? Answer: 24 words.

But oh, were those 24 words were priceless [emphasis added]:

The congressional race in upstate New York was too messy, too local, and too full of jumbly facts to yield a theme that coheres.

The race--y'know the one where the red district went blue for the first time in nearly 150 years--was too confusing for Noonan to figure out. The federal race was of no interest to Noonan, who instead spent her column inferring all kinds of things about the president's political standing based local statewide races; races where the voters told pollsters that Obama was not a factor in their vote. Got it?

And oh yeah, N.Y.-23 was too local to be of any interest to Noonan.

Honestly, how does she even type that with a straight face, and how do her editors print it without a profound sense of embarrassment?

Note to Noonan: The whole reason N.Y.-23 took on national significance in the days running up to Tuesday, was because the race has been completely nationalized by conservatives, who poured in buckets of national money and tried to turn the race into a national referendum.

But when they lost, GOP cheerleaders like Noonan announced the race was too confusing to understand; to messy for her to figure out. Too local.

Like I said, nobody plays dumb like Peggy Noonan.

UPDATED: Perhaps this recent Politico headline will jog Noonan's memory about why the Upstate N.Y. election wasn't so "local":

NY-23 race first test of tea party power

Conservatives failed that test, of course. But Noonan prefers to play dumb.

UPDATED: Or maybe this will refresh Noonan's memory. It was from Steve Krakauer at Mediaite.com, pre-Election Day:

Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity really want Doug Hoffman to win that special congressional election in Upstate New York's 23rd district. It's not just because he's a 3rd party "Conservative" candidate in a race that saw the shunned, moderate Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava drop out and endorse the Democrat, Bill Owens.

It's because this race is a referendum on town halls, on tea partying, on the 9/12 Project.

That doesn't sound very "local," does it Peggy?

From Rachel Slajda's November 6 post at TMPDC:

 At yesterday's tea party rally on Capitol Hill, at least one protester brandished a large graphic photograph of the victims of the Dachau Nazi concentration camp, comparing health care reform to Nazi policies. Today, Rep. Eric Cantor's (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph "inappropriate."

[...]

Cantor, in an interview today with Bloomberg, also offered some criticism of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

In a climate where Republicans who criticize Limbaugh come crawling back on their knees (see TPM's "Forgive Me Rush" photo feature), Cantor's office is bragging about the congressman taking a stand.

Cantor's spokesman, Brad Dayspring, emailed TPMDC a link to Glenn Thrush's post on Cantor's remarks.

It's worth noting that Limbaugh's made the comment in question -- "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" -- on Aug. 6. Cantor at the time did not respond publicly to calls from Jewish groups to condemn the remarks.

Previously:

 Limbaugh: "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate"

Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his November 6 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Goldline

• Hydroxatone

• American Future Fund

• Bloomberg Television

• Superior Gold Group

• Lifelock

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce

• National Review

• Tax Masters

• Premier Bath

• Lifestyle Lift

• Lear Capital

• Rosland

• Roche

• Goldline

• Foundation for a Better Life

• Explore Branson

• U.S. Chamber of Comemrce

• Zero Water

• Wall Street Journal

• American Advisor's Group

WorldNetDaily has appended an "editor's note" to Jerome Corsi's article falsely claiming that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan advised the Obama transition:

EDITOR'S NOTE: Shortly after this story was posted, the Huffington Post ran a piece claiming WND was attempting to "smear" President Obama by naming him "as the man who guided Nidal Malik Hasan to his murderous rampage at Ft. Hood yesterday."

However, Hasan is being reported as a participant in the GWU Homeland Security Policy Institute's Presidential Transition Task Force, not as a member, noting the group was a university think-tank, not part of the Obama administration official transition team.

Further, the institute's deputy director is quoted saying he is unable to say if Hasan made any input to the group's final recommendations.

Other participants in the task force included many members of congressional staff  who work with both the House and Senate homeland security committees, as well as staff from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice.

This is lame for several reasons. First, it's at the end of the article, not the beginning.Second, this editor's note corrects something the Huffington Post wrote, which is outside WND's bailiwick. Third, WND changed nothing else in the article -- the headline still falsely claims "Shooter advised Obama transition."

Finally, WND is still not admitting Corsi's claim is completely false even as it keeps proving it wrong -- as this editor's note does.

To sum up: The editor's note corrects not something WND published that desperately needs a correction but, rather, something somebody else wrote about WND, which has no business being in this article.

Is WND so stubborn and/or ethically deficient that it cannot publish a simple, honest correction of an obviously false statement? It appears so.

The Chicago Tribune, on its Swampland blog, has a story today claiming that the White House contacted a Democratic "strategist" and told him or her not to appear on Fox News. The strategist is unnamed, and the White House has vehemently denied the charge. The one voice in the Swampland piece bolstering the claim is Pat Caddell, former pollster for Jimmy Carter. Caddell is a Fox News contributor, and despite his work for President Carter has a documented history of furthering conservative misinformation.

Since his affiliation with Carter, Caddell has attacked the Clinton administration, Janet Reno, and the Democratic party itself. Caddell was recently featured on The Glenn Beck Show decrying what he described as the "gangster politics" of the Obama administration.

So, maybe not the best person to back up an anonymous claim showing a Democratic administration in a negative light.

In its "exclusive" and completely false report that the Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition," WorldNetDaily exploits the murder of American soldiers to sell books smearing Muslims.

Near the end of the WND article, "senior staff reporter" Jerome Corsi takes the opportunity to plug a book published recently by World Net Daily Books and co-authored by professional Islam hater P. David Gaubatz. Corsi writes:

According to an explosive new book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," Hasan is just the tip of a jihadist Fifth Column operating within the ranks of the U.S. military - which is too blinded by political correctness to see the threat.

At the bottom of Corsi's article is a "special offer" to "Get 'Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America,' autographed, from WND's Superstore." That "offer" links to the "WND Superstore," which sells Muslim Mafia at the "discount price" of $22.95.

From Gaubatz's November 6 interview with Frontpagemag:

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

A terrible tragedy occurred yesterday at Ft. Hood, Texas. Because you are the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book Muslim Mafia, I would like to ask you this: are there any correlations between your message in the book about the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and the murder spree at Ft. Hood?

Gaubatz: Thanks Jamie.

Yes. The murders by Malik Nadal Hasan at Ft. Hood, TX are not a 'lone wolf incident' as being described by most media organizations. Hasan had been taught the ideology that is being advocated by hundreds of Islamic scholars and Imams in the U.S. We as a country can continue to deny there are numerous Islamic leaders and their supporting organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MSA, and MANA, to name a few, who advocate killing innocent men, women, and children whom they allege 'oppress Islam.'

How many more incidents similar to this that have been occurring in America does it take before even the media wants to report the truth? Politicians will always say or do whatever will get them their next vote in an upcoming election, but there was a time in our history when journalists reported everything and were not concerned with 'political correctness.'

This type of journalistic reporting is dangerous and in itself is a national security issue. Journalists and their affiliated news organization are so afraid of being labeled or sued by organizations such as CAIR that they will withhold the truth from the American people. In part, the murders of innocent people are partly the fault of such journalists and politicians who support organizations such as CAIR.

FP: Your thoughts on CAIR and what happened at Ft. Hood?

Gaubatz: My team and I have conducted first-hand research at over 200 Islamic Centers in the U.S., and in various Islamic organizations such as CAIR. There is one common denominator: There is an open hatred being advocated by Islamic scholars toward Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not adhere to 'all aspects' of Sharia law (Islamic law).

The materials being distributed by these scholars are very clear in their message:  violence against anyone who "oppresses" Islam is justified. It makes them subject to the punishment of death. Rifqa Bary (the 17-year-old Muslim girl who left Islam for Christianity) tried to speak out, but has been ignored. Many more Muslims have tried to speak out but the PR machine of the Muslim Brotherhood (backed by Saudi and Egyptian money) keeps them silent.

Young Muslims know what is being taught at their mosques, but have no other choice but to follow their parents and the Imams. If they try to speak out they know there are few politicians, law enforcement, lawyers, or judges who will help them. They are afraid of becoming the victims of people like Malik Hasan who will carry out the orders of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Previously:

Fox trumpets CAIR conspiracy theory charges made by author with anti-Islam history

From a November 6 post on Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs blog:

Previously:

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

From G. Gordon Liddy's website:

Previously:

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

Newsbusters' Brent Baker was incensed that some news outlets, just hours after yesterday's hand gun massacre, failed to emphasize that the shooter was Muslim. But note the accolades Baker tossed ABC News' way [emphasis added]:

Neither the CBS Evening News nor NBC Nightly News, in their East coast feeds Thursday night, noted the Muslim religious beliefs of the mass killer at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas, but ABC anchor Charles Gibson wasn't cowed by political correctness as he teased World News, “Fort Hood tragedy: An Army officer, a Muslim convert, is the suspect in a shooting spree...” Introducing his first story, Gibson referred to how Major Nidal Malik Hasan “an army officer, a Muslim, opened fire with handguns...” (With a range of frequency, during late afternoon/early evening coverage, CNN, FNC and MSNBC all identified Hasan as a Muslim.)

Slightly ironic, no? The fact that Gibson got the story wrong (Hasan, according to his cousin, is not "a Muslim convert") didn't bother media critic Baker. In fact, Baker toasted Gibson for getting the story wrong.

And right-wing media critics wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

Linda Chavez compares President Obama's statement about the Ft. Hood shootings to his predecessor's deer-in-the-headlights decision to keep reading a children's book during the 9/11 attacks:

Before he got to the issue on everyone's mind - namely the deaths of Americans in uniform - the president gave a "shout-out" to government bureaucrats gathered for a previously scheduled conference at the Interior Department, complete with appreciative chuckles. He treated the event like a pep rally rather than a tragic occasion with a wider audience than those gathered in the room. I wonder how many media outlets will compare Obama's performance to President Bush's "Pet Goat" moment on 9/11. I won't hold my breath.

I'm always amused when right-wingers take a break from angrily accusing everyone else of "forgetting the horrors of 9/11" and instead grossly understate what happened happened that day in order to try to score cheap political points.  

Anyway: on September 11, 2001, George Bush was told the nation was under attack, and responded by reading a children's book.

Now, one might reasonably argue that the best thing for Bush to do during a crisis was, in fact, to keep himself busy reading My Pet Goat rather than screwing up important decisions.  But in any case, that is not even remotely like anything that happened yesterday.

According to a check on TVeyes.com, the phrase "gun control" has not been mentioned once* in the context of the Ft. Hood shooting by any reporter, anchor or pundit appearing on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, or MSNBC.

In the dozens and dozens of cumulative hours of Ft. Hood coverage amassed by those television outlets, as they focus on the latest workplace mass shooting, the phrase "gun control" has not been uttered once. Once again, in the wake of epic gun violence, the topic of guns and non-stop gun violence in America is not on the media table and is not open for debate.

When the Columbine killers unleashed their fury inside a suburban Denver high school in April 1999, killing 15 and wounding more than 20, the horror show set off all kinds of media-driven debates about gun control. i.e. Were current laws too lenient, etc.

Today, the press couldn't care less about the issue or the related policy debate. It seems gun advocates have cowed the press corps, even as we watch wave after wave of mass shootings.

UPDATED: My bad. Since yesterday afternoon when the avalanche of Ft. Hood TV coverage began, the phrase "gun control" has been mentioned exactly one time, according to TVeyes.com. It was on MSNBC last night, and was uttered by guest, General (Ret.) Barry McCaffrey. 

This was the context:

Apparently it was two civilian handguns. Even there, there is ferocious gun control measures on soldiers and families on a military installation. They have to register them. Single soldiers in barracks, never allowed access to their weapon, they have to sign them out.

UPDATED: In what appears to be yet another workplace mass shooting, at least ten people have reportedly been shot in Orlando; two killed. We'll see if "gun control" is mentioned during that story's coverage today.

Lost in the shuffle of more pressing matters yesterday was the news that former New York police chief Bernard Kerik pleaded guilty to several charges, including tax fraud and lying to White House officials, as part of a plea deal to avoid an upcoming trial.

As we've detailed, Newsmax has been Kerik's biggest champion over the past several months, working to rehabilitate his reputation by giving him a regular column and penning fawning profiles that whitewash his deeds in order to portray him as a "American hero" victimized by "overzealous federal prosecutors."

However much it may have wanted to, even Newsmax couldn't put a positive spin on this latest Kerik news. A Nov. 4 article on initial reports of the plea deal told the story unusually straight, albeit failing to tell readers that Kerik is (well, was) a Newsmax columnist. Newsmax went with an Associated Press story on Kerik's court appearance.

Kerik, by the way, is the second Newsmax columnist to fall by the wayside in recent weeks. John L. Perry hasn't written a column since he infamously called for a military coup against President Obama, which Newsmax was forced to retract. It remains to be seen whether Pat Boone's column will continue after Newsmax retracted his call for a "tenting"-style fumigation, "figuratively, but in a very real way," of the "varmints" in the White House.

From James Poniewozik:

As anyone following health reform knows, centrism is a political position too. And you see moderate bias - i.e., a preference for centrism - whenever a news outlet assumes that the truth must be "somewhere in the middle." You see it whenever an organization decides that "balance" requires equal weight for an opposing position, however specious: "Some, however, believe global warming is a myth." (Moderate bias would also require me to find a countervailing liberal position and pretend that it is equivalent to global-warming denial. Sorry.)

Often, moderate bias is just the result of caution, but the effect is to bolster centrist political positions - not least by implying that they are not political positions at all but occupy a happy medium between the nutjobs. Meanwhile, conservatives see moderate bias as liberal, and liberals see it as conservative - letting journalists conclude that it's not bias at all.

Like Politico did yesterday, WashPost states as fact that 10,000 health reformer haters gathered in D.C. And like Politico, the WashPost provides no sources for that (generous?) estimate:

With the stage set for a historic House vote on health-care reform this weekend, an estimated 10,000 conservative activists descended on Capitol Hill on Thursday for a campaign-style rally in a last-ditch effort to defeat a bill they demonized as "Pelosi-Care."  

Question: Rather than relying on official D.C. estimates, did the WashPost simply rely on Politico, which seemed to rely on nobody for its 10,000 number? i.e. Was the WashPost just cribbing off Politico?

As we noted yesterday, here's the proper way to report on political protests, courtesy of MSNBC's First Read [emphasis added]:

NBC's Luke Russert, reporting from the West Front of the Capitol, passes along this photo of a cartoon Pelosi with the words "UNAMERICAN MCCARTHYITE" scrawled across. The crowd, per Russert, is so far about 3,000 to 3,500, according to Capitol Police estimates...

*** UPDATE *** Three Capitol Hill police officers all guessed that the crowd numbered at about 4,000.

Isn't that fascinating? NBC relied on actual police estimates and reported the crowd was 4,000 strong. Politico and WashPost relied on phantom sources and reported the crowd was 10,000 strong. Which report seems more credible?

UPDATED: Do we even have to mention that right-wing media outlets invented all sorts of numbers for Thursday's modest protest? (Two million? Do I hear 2 million??) The WashTimes, for instance, went with "tens of thousands." But we expect that from propaganda outlets. The WashPost and Politico though, ought to be much more precise in their reporting.

Another right-wing protest heavily promoted by Fox News and other right-wing personalities, another round of hyperbolic crowd overestimates by the very people who had aggressively begged their viewers and listeners to attend.

Baseless estimates from the cheering section include:

• Stephen Moore, who claimed that 50,000 attended;
• Franklin Raff, producer for G. Gordon Liddy, who claimed "about a million" attended;   
• And Sean Hannity, who claimed that 20,000 attended before claiming that 5,000 attended (and later returning to the more robust 20,000).

While falling all over themselves to make up a number that would befit earlier forecasts of a "massive" crowd, have these media figures tripped over the facts? Well, it turns out that U.S. Capitol Police officers reportedly estimated to MSNBC that about 4,000 protesters showed up to yell about health care reform.

 Made up numbers? Makes you wonder if the event's promoters are embarrassed by the turnout.

From Alternet:

Earlier today, a hospitalized Glenn Beck tweeted in praise of the "AMAZING drs/nurses" who have cared for him since the emergency removal of his inflamed appendix yesterday afternoon.

The quality of care he is receiving should not have come as a surprise. When Beck complained of acute abdominal pain during his radio program on Wednesday, he was rushed to a nearby hospital. The security-conscious Beck has not disclosed the name of the facility, but it's a safe bet that it is staffed by proud members of a storied union: New York's Local 1199, aka United Healthcare Workers East, which belongs to the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU has organized all of Manhattan's major hospitals, including every facility to which Beck could have conceivably been sent.

...

While he's lying on his back, Beck should take advantage of his illness to begin his self-education. He might ask his "amazing" nurses what they think about their wages and benefits, which are some of the best in the country. He should ask them to talk about the relationship between those wages and their yellow and purple union cards. He might learn that they enjoy some of the highest standards for healthcare jobs in the country, not because of the "free market," but because generations of 1199 members fought for them.

The quality of care Beck is receiving is directly connected to the proud history of New York's Local 1199. To pick just one study out of many, research by the U.S. National Institutes of Health shows that heart attack victims sent to unionized hospitals enjoy higher survival rates over those sent to non-unionized hospitals by between seven and 11 percent.

As Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Glenn Beck has waged an almost non-stop smear campaign versus SEIU over the last year.