SAFE. End of story.

Please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 [Editor: Please link to each]

Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.  Here is a review of all the studies done on Brazilian Blowout.

Oregon OSHA:  Pass

Federal OSHA:  Pass

Health Sciences Associates:  Pass

Dr. James Haw – USC: Pass

FDA:  Conducted no studies

ChemRisk: Too much product used = faulty study

Brazilian Blowout passed every single properly performed study for both state and federal short-term and long-term exposure limits, known as the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL – an 8-hour time-weighted average) and Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL – a 15 minute exposure measurement).

So why the witch hunt on Brazilian Blowout?  The answers are simple:

1) Government Bias

As described in Part 1 [Editor: Please link], Oregon OSHA is guilty of :

• Equating methylene glycol with formaldehyde in contradiction of all accepted scientific nomenclature methods.  Doing so allowed them to…
• Claim extremely high levels of formaldehyde in the product.
• Ideological bias, as at least one scientist who authored the study aligns himself with a hardcore Liberal Senator known as an environmental activist.
• Editorializing what should be a neutral scientific report, thus demonstrating its own bias.
• Deliberately taking samples longer than 15 minutes and applying those results to 15 minute periods.
• Issuing a false and misleading press release that did not report the product actually passed the PEL and STEL tests.

(more…)

Please read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.

Today I’ll present contrasting studies on the product, to show the difference between a properly performed study and a botched one — and how the media reports on each.   A reminder on what we’re looking at: The controversy regarding Brazilian Blowout centers around the amount of formaldehyde allegedly released during a treatment.  A harmless alcohol known as methylene glycol is in every bottle of Brazilian Blowout solution.  During a treatment, methylene glycol can be converted to formaldehyde in tiny amounts when it reacts with water.

OSHA has two important safety limits: The Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL – an 8-hour time-weighted average) and Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL – a 15 minute exposure measurement).  Both are measured in parts per million (ppm).

First, we look at the correctly performed study, and the media’s coverage of it.

Do It Right

Dr. James Haw is the director of Environmental Studies Program and the Ray R. Irani, Chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp., Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southern California. His work has been published 170 times in peer-reviewed journals.  he’s been lecturing all over the world for 30 years.  He’s been the recipient of 45 grants over the same time period, including one from the E.P.A.  His credentials are impeccable.

He recently visited two Los Angeles salons and conducted fully documented, rigorous scientific testing using the same methodology as OSHA.  The results of the study yielded formaldehyde exposure levels to be almost non-existent.

“The least advantageous way to use my data to estimate the stylist’s 15 min STEL is to imagine that the entire dose of formaldehyde measured over 35 min. was actually delivered in a single15-minute exposure.  This worst-case interpretation results in a value of 0.054 ppm, well below the OSHA limit of 2 ppm.  …The worst possible 8 hour time-weighted average exposure from these data…leads to an 8-hr. time-weighted exposure value of 0.026 ppm , well below the OSHA PEL of 0.75 ppm”.

For the second salon, the STEL was measured at 0.160ppm, well below OSHA’s limit of 2 ppm.  The PEL was measured at 0.052 ppm, well below the OSHA limit of 0.75ppm.  The entire study has been posted on the company’s website.

Here’s the media coverage of Dr. Haw’s study:

(more…)

A newly-discovered video–filmed by Occupy Wall Street supporters themselves–reveals that New York Times reporter Natasha Lennard is not merely covering the protests, but is also apparently taking part in planning and executing them.

In the video, Lennard is seen participating as a featured speaker in a discussion among anarchists, communists, and other radicals as they examine the theory, strategy and tactics of the Occupy protests.

The discussion was held at the left-wing Bluestockings book store in New York on Friday, Oct. 14, and filmed and promoted by the radical magazine Jacobin. The audience included participants in, and apparent organizers of, the Occupy Wall Street demonstration in lower Manhattan.

Lennard, who has also written for Politico and Salon, is identified in the video by the panel’s moderator as a freelancer for the Times, and also as the Times reporter who was arrested along with seven hundred activists on the Brooklyn Bridge on Oct. 1.

When Lennard reported on her arrest at the time, she appears to have concealed her own apparent role in the Occupy protests, implying that her arrest was an abuse of press freedom. She used her affiliation with the Times to win her early release.

Sympathetic media expressed shock that a reporter had been taken into custody by allegedly overzealous police. Only sources like Newsbusters questioned that narrative at the time. The video suggests that the skeptics were correct in their suspicions.

In the video of the panel discussion, Lennard reveals herself to be a passionate Occupy supporter, and appears to have personal knowledge of its planned future activities, including illegal occupations of banks in New York City.

We have decided to post the entire video of the panel discussion–below, in full, as first posted by Jacobin magazine. We have made no edits; the jump cuts are apparently caused by the videographer.

Lennard, the woman at far-left (coincidentally), speaks as a “comrade” of the panelists and the audience–one actively part of the far-left intellectual theorizing and organizing behind Occupy, and also as someone with deep knowledge of its plans.

For example, at roughly 1:15:15, an audience member asks a question about how to manage the growing ideological divisions among anarchists and communists as they form “a new society” through the Occupy movement.

Lennard’s answer suggests that she identifies with the anarchist faction holed up at Zuccotti Park–and that she identifies with efforts by Occupy activists to conceal their true beliefs and goals:

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, growing criticism of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, and our drive to get Francis on NPR’s Marketplace.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

More Reasons Why Conservatives Should Take Occupy Wall Street Seriously
A few random thoughts on Occupy Wall Street, flash mobs, and 9/11
Spending on housing and vehicles
Business groups blast Cain’s 9-9-9 plan as job killer
Cain’s Sales Tax Would Hurt Consumer Spending ’For Some Years’
Let’s Start All Over Again
David Frum bids farewell to Marketplace
Email NPR and tell them you want our very own Francis Cianfrocca to replace David Frum on Marketplace
Sign up for Ben’s daily email: The Transom

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

To give a quick review, on June 23, Richard Stengel wrote a cover story* for Time Magazine rife with factual errors.  On June 29, I published a piece here recording fourteen clear factual errors in that story.  I said at the time that I considered it a journalistic scandal that such an error-ridden piece appeared at Time Magazine as its cover story, and ever since I have been crusading to embarrass them into a correction.

But what is also embarrassing is that other media outlets have treated Mr. Stengel as though he was an expert on the Constitution.  Consider, for example, this blurp for a show on NPR entitled “Talk of the Nation” that aired on July 4:

In the fierce debates over health care, Libya, debt, gay marriage and other issues, Americans have been getting a lecture on the meaning of the Constitution and the intentions of its authors. Andrea Seabrook speaks with Richard Stengel of Time magazine and Yale law professor Akhil Amar about the political divide over the Constitution and how an 18th-century document applies in a 21st-century world. [emphasis added]

Now, I may not like Professor Amar personally, and I may vehemently disagree with him on many points, but I think it is fair to consider him an expert on the Constitution.

But as the other “expert,” we have Richard Stengel. Really, Andrea Seabrook?  You actually read that article, and thought he was an expert? Because it is important to stress that many of these errors are obvious to any lay person.  You don’t need three years of law school to know it is simply incorrect to say “[i]f the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so.”  You only have to know that there is such a thing as the First Amendment or the Second.  Nor do you need complicated legal instruction to know that it is incorrect to say that the Constitution is not law—most people learn in elementary school that the Constitution is the supreme law of this land.  And one doesn’t need a particularly deep understanding of the Constitution to become concerned when one sees Stengel declare that “[i]n drafting the 14th Amendment, Congress … wanted to emancipate blacks and allow them to vote.”  I consider it fairly common knowledge that it was actually the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, and the Fifteenth that outlawed racial discrimination in the franchise.  These errors should have been obvious to anyone reading Stengel’s piece, and utterly undermined any claim he could make to be an expert.

A reasonable radio host, doing due diligence, would have realized that they only had two options with Mr. Stengel.  She could either grill him about the serial inaccuracies in his article.  Or, she could drop him as a guest entirely and find a true expert on the Constitution to replace him.

And while they were at it, they could have added a conservative expert on the Constitution to balance the debate.

(more…)

Co-authored with Bill Zettler

In the March 28, 2011 issue of the Weekly Standard, Eli Lehrer, Vice-president of the Heartland Institute, a premier think-tank based in Illinois, wrote an article entitled “Pensions Aren’t the Problem.” Lehrer puts forth the argument that defined-benefit state pensions, not only were not in trouble, but were a good way for states to recruit talent at little expense.

While Heartland does some fine work, in this case, we have to disagree with their analysis.  All too often of late the positions of NASRA (National Association of State Retirement Administrators), an organization of self-interest and self-righteousness not unlike their sister organization the NEA (National Education Association), have not received the critical examination they are due. After all, if all state employees were on Social Security and 401K programs there would be no need for state retirement administrators and their staff of thousands.

Let’s go through Mr. Lehrer’s major claims one by one:

CLAIM: “…pension benefits represent a reasonably small share of overall state spending (3.4 percent in Illinois).”

FACT: The way you come up with what appears to be a minuscule percentage of state spending is as follows: (more…)

From Fox Nation:

Fired NPR CEO Vivian Schiller spoke Tuesday at the Paley Center for Media in New York and lashed out at the videographers who exposed the bigotry in her organization, calling the undercover sting an “abomination.” She admitted the rest of the establishment is “terrified” of being the next NPR, Planned Parenthood or ACORN…and speculated that the goal of these stings is to instill fear. “It’s terrifying,” Schiller said, that’s their “objective.”

Terrified? Hmmm. Now you know what it’s like to be in the Tea Party and listening to NPR, Ms. Schiller. Or worse, to be Israel.

(more…)

Clearly there is no shame in the culture of conceit in which NPR’s “Morning Edition” co-host Steve Inskeep lives, and like NPR, he is lying to the American people.

The supposed point of his March 24 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal was to refute the irrefutable – that NPR is an egregiously and unabashedly hard left, Soros-backed operation subsidized by taxpayers.

But Inskeep, like other NPR representatives, fraudulently claims “emails show that NPR refused the money” from the Muslim Brotherhood front group.  At no point did NPR ever do so, and on the contrary the emails released by NPR did quite the opposite.  They confirmed that NPR’s top executives had no objections whatsoever to taking money from a front group controlled and primarily financed by a jihadist organization explicitly committed to the subversion and destruction of this country.  They were moving along with the perfectly standard procedures for accepting an institutional donation of that size.

Even long after we had established our Muslim Brotherhood front group status and explained that our purpose was to counter and replace the “Jewish” control over the American media, NPR’s top brass only became more and more eager, even putting “a dollop of urgency” on advancing the process, in Betsy Liley’s words.

(more…)

The New Black Panther fix came in just as we suspected.  Yesterday the Department of Justice completed its 19 month internal investigation into whether Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, the political appointee attorneys who ordered the dismissal of the voter intimidation case, acted unethically.  No surprise, DOJ found that DOJ acted ethically.  Otherwise, you wouldn’t have heard about the conclusion.  The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report was the narrower of the two DOJ investigations of the matter, and Congress will be sure to conduct a far broader, and more competent, inquiry.

Of course the American people will be the judge of the black panther dismissal, not the DOJ OPR.  Anyone with eyes can see what happened.  Americans have a right to vote without armed racist jackbooted thugs lurking at the entrance to their polling place with a weapon.  That offends nearly every American, but not the lawyers at Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

The fix was in early in the DOJ investigation.  Holder appointed Robin Ashton, the head of OPR, last Christmas Eve.  She worked for Senator Patrick Leahy and was known for rifling through coworker’s desks according to a well sourced National Review article. A week after she was appointed, Attorney General Holder told the New York Times that there was “no there, there” and the black panther scandal was “made up.”  Even former Attorney General Michael Mukasey was shocked at the comments of his successor.  So was the conclusion of the OPR report newsworthy?

Apparently to the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR and Associated Press it was.  For the first time ever, all four outlets had stories about the black panther scandal on the same day.  Naturally the fact the report defended Eric Holder caused the sudden synchronicity of interest in the long ignored story.

It is no accident that Loretta King, one of the central figures in the black panther dismissal, is also behind other nutty DOJ policies, including forcing the Dayton, Ohio police to hire cops that failed the test as well as signing a complaint to sue a school district for refusing to give 19 days of leave to go to Mecca.  King emerges as the engineer who regularly sends Holder’s Civil Rights Division off the rails.

(more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – The House on Thursday voted to end federal funding to National Public Radio. Republican supporters said it made good fiscal sense, and Democratic opponents called it an ideological attack that would deprive local stations of access to programs such as “Car Talk” and “All Things Considered.”

The bill, passed 228-192 along mainly partisan lines, would bar federal funding of NPR and prohibit local public stations from using federal money to pay NPR dues and buy its programs. The prospects of support in the Democratic-controlled Senate are slim. Seven Republicans broke ranks to vote against the bill.

“It is time for American citizens to stop funding an organization that can stand on its own feet,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., the sponsor. He said it was not a question of content—which many conservatives say has a liberal bias—but whether taxpayer dollars should go to nonessential services. “As a country we no longer have this luxury.”

Other Republicans also denied that the measure was a vendetta against NPR, although the organization left itself open to conservative attacks last week when an executive, talking to conservative activists posing as members of a fake Muslim group, was caught on camera deriding the tea party movement and saying the NPR would be better off without federal funding. Both the executive and the president of NPR resigned after the incident. (more…)

From Politico:

Meredith Shiner reports from the Hill that the House Rules committee will hold an emergency meeting Wednesday at 3 p.m. on H.R. 1076, the measure “to prohibit funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content.”

The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who has been spearheading efforts to remove federal subsidies from public broadcasting, is here.

House Republicans eliminated federal funds to public broadcasting in a larger bill they passed to continue government funding, but that measure died in the Senate. An attempt by Democrat Earl Blumenauer during the days-long debate on H.R. 1 to add an amendment restoring was foiled by a procedural point of order.

(more…)

From Politico:

The Republican’s top voice on tech and telecom issues says National Public Radio will suffer a “consequence” on Capitol Hill if “there’s this attitude inside the organization that would appear to be as partisan as what’s come out.”

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, said Thursday that public broadcasting’s standing in Congress has been badly undermined by a videotape in which NPR’s top fundraiser disparages the Tea Party movement and says the organization would be better off “in the long run” without federal money.

“I think there’s a role for public broadcasting,” Walden said. “The question is how much should taxpayers support it. And if there’s this attitude inside the organization that would appear to be as partisan as what’s come out, there’s going to be a consequence. That’s a reality. It’s political. You’re getting taxpayer money and taxpayers are asking, ‘Are we really funding that?’ It’s hard to defend.”

(more…)

This article first appeared at the Huffington Post.

The latest James O’Keefe success story against NPR has taken a predictable pattern — panicked press releases and firings, followed by denunciation of O’Keefe in a belated attempt to discredit him. Naturally, conservatives are crowing about it, but I wanted to give a little perspective to those Huffington Post readers–whatever your political stripe–who share my passion for free speech, honest debate, and fairness in the media.

Over the past year, the mainstream media has collaborated with the White House in an attempt to paint the Tea Party as racist. Remember the protests on Capitol Hill last March against ObamaCare, and the media’s lie that members of the Congressional Black Congress had awful racial slurs hurled at them by Tea Party members that weekend? Did you know that there’s video evidence that it isn’t true?

Not just one video, either. Four of them. Yes. Four. Of. Them. There’s not one shred of objective evidence that corroborates the “Tea Party N-Word” story. But the mainstream media has allowed the lie to live on as one of the central “proofs” of Tea Party racism. It’s been debunked, but it’s raised time and time again by those claiming “reality” as their mantle.

The mainstream media promotes the idea that the Tea Party is racist because they want to delegitimize an authentic, grassroots movement that stands up to big government. And the “Tea Party N-word” story ties all the other lies about the Tea Party together–that it’s violent, that it’s extreme, that it’s a “mob.” If you want to see what a violent, extreme mob looks like, go to Madison to see the crazed throngs the media refuses to scrutinize. (more…)

The fallout from independent journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas investigation has been fast and furious. NPR is obviously in major damage control mode and throwing liabilities that look an awful lot like high-powered executives overboard just as fast as they appear on video and audio. All good and proper, but there’s this small detail that like a pebble in one’s shoe is increasingly impossible to ignore. Twice now NPR has made the declarative statement that they rejected the phony $5 million dollar donation offered by an organization posing as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. But twice now seemingly contradictory information has also been released by NPR puts those statements into question.

The first statement was release the same day the first investigative video was released, Tuesday, March 8th:

The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.

Repeatedly refused. Strong words.

However, a second statement released later that same day appeared to contradict the first:

NPR’s David Folkenflik reports that there were clear signs that the Muslim Education Action Center Trust was not a long-standing organization …

CEO Vivian Schiller tells David that NPR became aware of those peculiarities, and that NPR was vetting the organization. And he has obtained e-mails (not from an official NPR source, but which have been verified by NPR) showing that the network last week asked the fictitious Ibrahim Kasaam for, among other things, verification that the Muslim Education Action Center was qualified as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. It was not, of course.

These seemingly dueling positions were enough of a red flag to prompt my colleague Larry O’Connor to raise the question of how these statements might be reconciled. And today, it looks as though this same scenario’s repeated itself.

(more…)

Project Veritas:

On Tuesday, Project Veritas released Part 1 of its investigation of National Public Radio. The investigation, in which Project Veritas investigators posed as members of a fictional group founded by “members of the Muslim Brotherhood,” was widely reported in the media and produced a dramatic response from NPR and its board members.

The following video contains conversations between Project Veritas undercover investigator, Simon Templar, and Betsy Liley, NPR’s Senior Director of Institutional Giving.

Following the recent resignations of NPR President and Chief Executive Vivian Schiller and NPR Foundation Senior Vice President Ron Schiller, the heat is on. James O’Keefe’s sting reminded Middle Americans how NPR unapologetically bashes conservatives and Christians at every turn, while continuing to carry water for the Democrats that fund their existence. No wonder those who had barely begun to countenance the idea of defunding NPR following Juan Williams’ firing are now boldly (and publicly) calling for the feds to pull taxpayer monies immediately.

But as revealing as O’Keefe’s sting proved to be, there has long been another aspect of NPR operations that, although equally egregious, seems to escape many Americans: Namely, the fact that NPR has not-for-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, which means they not only live off the public dole, but do so without paying taxes on the money the public is forced to give them. (It also means that when Democrat fat cats like George Soros dump tons of money into NPR’s coffers, those fat cats get to deduct the donation or at least a portion of it, from their taxes.)

Moreover, although NPR holds the same tax-exempt status as a Church, and the Church is barred from espousing political speech, NPR regularly lambasts Republicans: especially conservatives.

Thus, while both entities hold a 501(c)(3) status, of the two only the Church is required to remain apolitical or lose its tax exemption. (Apparently, the IRS has no problem with the way NPR throws its hat in with the Democrats as each election cycle rolls around.)

When did this double standard arise in our?

(more…)

Please excuse my manners – I will postpone formally introducing myself to a later occasion, but time is precious.  As of now, you likely know me as “Ibrahim Kasaam” from the recent undercover videos released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

Much as with the ACORN story, you have already seen the mainstream media erecting a series of straw men to distract from the true heart of the stories produced by our Project Muslim Brotherhood.  Hint: No, Howard Kurtz, Vivian Schiller was not fired because somebody else said some mean things about the tea party, as your summary suggests.  That is securely at the bottom of NPR’s concerns right now, and I suspect that is why you are focusing on it, like much of the media.

James O’Keefe will be appearing on Hannity’s radio show today with new recordings that will drive this message home.

Don’t get me wrong – there were a tremendous number of angles we pursued in Project Muslim Brotherhood.  The richness of the content in the first video alone is extraordinary, and I look forward to pealing back the layers in my elaboration to come.

However, some astute observers have been able to see through the more salacious – and certainly quite newsworthy – aspects of our first release: namely Ann Coulter and Andrew Breitbart.

Keep in mind the title of this endeavor, as explained in my solicitation letter on www.meactrust.org, is “Project Muslim Brotherhood” (also please donate…we’re poor as heck).  I haven’t been too subtle, but see if you can pick it up:

(more…)

Dear Media Matters:

I just wanted to point out to you that the individual you allege is a “discredited activist,” James O’Keefe,  has launched efforts that have led to ACORN losing financial support from taxpayers via Congress and ACORN was then forced into a re-organization, likely rendering them less effective. Additionally, NJ Governor Christie used a video from O’Keefe’s Project Veritas in his battle with the teachers union in New Jersey.

And now at least two senior NPR executives have lost their jobs, one actually lost two, given that Ronald Schiller is no longer going to work for the Aspen Institute – as a direct result of O’Keefe’s work. Oh, and by the way, NPR is now on the verge of losing its public funding.

Meanwhile, for all of uncle Georgie Soros’ money and Podesta’s political genuis, you have accomplished what, exactly, since you came to be? Oh, that’s right, … nothing really. Last time I looked, Fox, Rush, Levin, Hannity, Beck et al are all still on the air and going stronger than ever. So is the Tea Party movement, in point of fact. Also, a generally Conservative tide seems to be continuing to rise in America, as well as in Congress.

Now, go back to tickling your Elmos and crying in your wine coolers due to the damage currently being done to NPR. We’re not laughing with you, we’re laughing at you, clowns.

(more…)

Below are the Radio Television Digital News Association’s guidelines for the use of hidden cameras in news gathering. The Left, abetted by the mainstream media, has sought to demonize James O’Keefe from the start. Not content to stop there, they have also used O’Keefe to demean and undermine Andrew Breitbart given their linkage as the ACORN video story was playing out. In turn, they also attempt to further undermine O’Keefe for any connection to Breitbart. In short, if you prove to be an effective fighter against the Institutional Left, any and all events, associations, facts – and even non-facts – are considered fair game to try and damage your reputation.

At the same time, a Leftist blogger can call a sitting Republican Governor, not just lie about his identity, but impersonate another, David Koch – and there’s nary a peep about the dubious ethics involved. In fact, the usual Leftist suspects, TPM and the Washington Post, for example, make hay out of it to attack the conservative Republican. Worse, not only does the Democrat Party ignore the dubious ethics employed by the imposter caller, they demand an investigation into, not the impersonator of a private citizen, but Gov. Scott Walker.

Governor Scott Walker’s conduct on the prank call with the David Koch imposter has largely receded from the national media spotlight, but if Wisconsin Democrats have their way, it will be the subject of an investigation by Wisconsin’s enforcer of campaign finance and ethics statutes.

If that isn’t clear enough as regards the double-standard employed by the Left and their media pals, you may recall another recent incident where NBC’s Dateline attempted to do a sting targeted at individuals who would dare attend a NASCAR event. Thanks to new media, in the person of Michelle Malkin in that instance, the plot was exposed.

On a side note, James O’Keefe promptly released the entirety of his video of his lunch meeting with Ronald Schiller, now gone from NPR. To this day, Katie Couric has not done that as regards a hit piece on Sarah Palin she manufactured from an interview during the 2008 campaign.

(more…)