Election 2026 has multiple storylines, but one of the more interesting is the through line to the Left that rejects the entire vision of modern Western man and embraces something very different.
Democrat Senator Jon Ossoff&#8217;s carefully scripted line attacking cancer survivor Natalie Harp, the president&#8217;s assistant, by intentionally implying an inappropriate relationship between the two is just another example. Before that, we had The New York Times writer Jodi Kantor, one of the most aggressive MeToo advocates, excusing and downplaying the behavior of Maine&#8217;s Graham Platner. And then we had the absurdity of the Abdul El-Sayed pool party surrounded by fashion-obsessed influencers — Hasan Piker included — when his wife can&#8217;t even wear a swimsuit.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Jon Ossoff attempts to clean up his &#8220;travel with Natalie&#8221; line by claiming it was a commentary about all of President Trump&#8217;s White House aides in general.
Yes, I&#8217;m sure that&#8217;s exactly what he meant by referring to that one specific person in the way that he did <a href="https://t.co/5fZc5emEyd">pic.twitter.com/5fZc5emEyd</a>
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://x.com/greg_price11/status/2089529577970282517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 18, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Platner to El-Sayed to now Ossoff, there is a decidedly Middle Eastern tone to these supposedly masculine lefties: Rape doesn&#8217;t really exist. Your wife can&#8217;t wear a swimsuit to a pool party, but the man of the house can hang with influencers who do. We can now slut shame you for having a high-profile job — how unwomanly.
It&#8217;s a particular kind of misogyny, different from the kind that came before. Instead of offering a perspective on American Democratic men that is of the cheap Nina Burleigh variety — the Time magazine reporter who said of Bill Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal,” an offer there is no indication Bill took up — this is an attitude right out of Michel Houellebecq&#8217;s Submission. Sure, at first that Handmaid&#8217;s Tale outfit was a protest — but what if you learned to love it?
Consider it a MeToo aftershock, a corollary to American men who seek to date more foreign-born women. The Left, having embraced the idea that they are the party of the Moral Majority, is now openly advocating for a form of female subjugation that is notably at odds with the Western understanding of what modern manhood and womanhood look like. It&#8217;s as if the lesson they took from their precipitous loss of young male voters in America was to Eat Pray Love their way into a burkini.
This goes beyond the excuse-making, slut shaming, and blatant partisan talking points of the past. Those have been with us always, since the days of James Carville&#8217;s comment about dragging a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park. The Pod Save Bros (ever the willing supplicants to Islam) are happy to take up the legacy in its perverted form today.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Fresh off of defending Graham Platner until they couldn&#8217;t, the PodSaveBros are deciding to accuse a random staffer of banging her boss based on zero evidence. <a href="https://t.co/Q3DVF7aJyP">https://t.co/Q3DVF7aJyP</a> <a href="https://t.co/5OCViE6AlV">pic.twitter.com/5OCViE6AlV</a>
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) <a href="https://x.com/peterjhasson/status/2089429750766883301?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 17, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
This isn&#8217;t just craven politics; it&#8217;s a fundamental break with modern America. It is a direct descendant of the pathologizing of normal relationships, especially of men’s roles in relationships. The Right has veered into tradwives and tradmen with a cross on the wall, so here comes the Left&#8217;s equal and opposite reaction with crescent and star.
From the Left&#8217;s perspective today, if a man forces you to have sex, well, you must understand the needs of his war-weary PTSD. If women are forced to wear the hijab, well, that&#8217;s just their culture, which you must respect. If a woman gets far in her political career, well, they must have slept their way to the top. Meet the new Man of the Left, avatar of this old-made-new red-green alliance. And he can&#8217;t be sexist, mom and dad — he&#8217;s Muslim!
Besides, he&#8217;s down with our vision for the country: a spiral minaret atop a Planned Parenthood, a sign in front welcoming all refugees, all of it paid for by the tech billionaire about to meet the guillotine in the town square.
The Left&#8217;s broken compass is pointing in this direction, leading the Democrats to a space previously unoccupied because it was anti-Western and anti-American. But when the guardrails are removed in a desperate bid for power, self-importance, or influence, this becomes the destructive path.
What a beautiful future, if only they can seize it. If only you will let them.

image_88dab388

Democrats Want America To Eat Pray Love Her Way Into A Burkini

Abdul El-Sayed

Democrats

DW Opinion

Jon Ossoff

Natalie Harp

Radical Left

Punch-Kroenig

Is The American War Machine Dead?

China

Defense Spending

Foreign Policy

Hanwha

Henry Kissinger

Iran war

Matthew Kroenig

NATO

Pentagon

Richard Nixon

Ukraine-Russia War

Weekend Punch

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had just about enough of these pompous establishment Democrats defending their party severing the last vestiges of its rationality and patriotism to trans itself into Commie ISIS.
We’ve seen all this before. The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tom-cotton-marxist-democrats-are-a-warning-sign-for-the-country">union of Marxists and Islamists</a> has a long history, a high-low combo of academics with a surplus of graduate degrees and guilt entertained by the youthful passions of the proletariat into supporting the vilest anti-human agenda devised in modern times.
This way to the gulag, comrade – walk faster, you know you deserve it.
The Abdul El-Sayed victory in Michigan, even if it came more narrowly than expected and was rebuffed by rural and black voters, is just the confirmation of what was already clear. Today the organizing energy of the Democratic Party – the party that less than a generation ago stood shoulder to shoulder with fellow Republicans and Independents against the Reds and the terror-supporters alike – is driven by a group of craven, manipulative liars and a bevy of followers whose understanding of history doesn’t start til iPhone 6. 
These wannabe red diaper babies want to run back the losing side in the Nixon-Khrushchev kitchen debate and repackage it for morons on TikTok, and they do it well. Pick your reasoning for why they do it. Is it all to ease the horror of their meaningless existence by creating a community of followers who hang on their words of hate for people who are more successful than they are?
Whatever is wrong in your life, you can blame it on a corporation, a billionaire, or a Jew. Sometimes you hit the jackpot with all three at once.
This isn’t crazy. This isn’t radical. It’s the Democratic mainstream now. And after the results of the major primary elections across the country, it’s a genuine wave that will swamp a once truly American party that held Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners every spring until Donald Trump came along and liked them both.
The man who helped usher in that era of post-American politician, David Axelrod, took to the CNN airwaves last night to lecture the country on why it’s so bad that American Jews are spending money defending their interests. Keeping in mind that the overwhelming majority of AIPAC dollars (again, in the case of last night’s primaries) have always gone to Democratic politicians, Axelrod’s smear that this represents “foreign influence” found a fitting rebuttal from Van Jones.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
David Axelrod and Van Jones debate AIPAC re: <a href="https://x.com/hashtag/MISen?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MISen</a> ⬇️
Axelrod: “It&#8217;s a legitimate question. Should essentially an agent of any foreign government, whether it&#8217;s Israel or any other, be able to spend.. $30 million in a race like this to influence the outcome of that race?”
Van… <a href="https://t.co/iwPwT9slYj">pic.twitter.com/iwPwT9slYj</a>
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) <a href="https://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/2084798524722475330?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
David Axelrod is showing where the Democratic Party is drifting. In a bid to stay relevant, he’s trafficking in conspiracy theories and calumnies against patriotic American Jews. It falls to Van Jones, a non-Jewish Black American, to call him out and set the record straight and… <a href="https://t.co/96l1vHjjFf">https://t.co/96l1vHjjFf</a>
— Mark Dubowitz (@mdubowitz) <a href="https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/2084954694124704216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Whether you care about Israel or not, the point for Americans is the weaponization that anti-Semites have achieved within the Democratic and, with less success, attempted to achieve within the Republican coalitions. Michigan proved once again that the AIPAC approach to American politics is a loser. Their highest-backed candidate just lost to an army of Democratic Socialist influencers, for whom FOMO is the most powerful motivation, who anointed a dog-electrocuting 9/11-supporting double-breasted nepo baby as their activist champion. What was October 7th but just some bros on Blue Chew flying Mario Karts into a festival? What’s so wrong with that? The streams did numbers after all.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Hasan Piker acknowledged his role in reshaping Michigan&#8217;s Dem Senate primary but tells our <a href="https://x.com/adamwren?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@adamwren</a>: &#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t say I&#8217;m a powerbroker.&#8221;
&#8220;People call me a kingmaker. I&#8217;m not. I&#8217;m just fortunate enough to be a part of a much broader movement.&#8221;
Follow our live election night… <a href="https://t.co/0dYaVzEbTP">pic.twitter.com/0dYaVzEbTP</a>
— POLITICO (@politico) <a href="https://x.com/politico/status/2084829402983252281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Nick Mullen Loses BlueChew Deal Over Wild Joke… Stavros Can’t Breathe 😂😭" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ArW4KPWvzSg" width="346" height="615" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Michigan’s outcome was actually good for Democratic hopes in the fall, though, because it will likely force Abdul El-Sayed to do something he wouldn’t have done otherwise: moderate his tone. In the past few weeks, ebullient with the aura of inevitability (thanks in part to what now looks like a bunch of juiced internal polls), El-Sayed was taking on an attitude of “I don’t need you any more” toward the party.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="TALKING TO ABDUL EL-SAYED BEFORE HE WINS TOMORROW" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KTucJVDfPSA" width="822" height="462" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This is classic dumb savior complex politician stuff, complete with the Beto “born to be in it” energy. But this <a href="https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-to-make-of-michigan">outcome</a> will likely temper that heat and push him back towards the Democratic politicians he needs to get him over the finish line — to give him the veneer of normalcy he needs to win Michigan. And they’ll be there for him.
For the rest of us, we should recognize what a danger it is to have a major party just become Commie ISIS, a coalition that joins all the people who want to seize your property, eliminate the nuclear family, re-educate your children, and also sometimes slaughter a goat in their backyard.
As an independent, I&#8217;ve voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and The Rock.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The ol&#8217; trust write in. Thank you sir for the vote of confidence. This strangely makes me hungry for carbs. 🇺🇸🍗 <a href="https://t.co/R94b4VAL7E">https://t.co/R94b4VAL7E</a>
— Dwayne Johnson (@TheRock) <a href="https://x.com/TheRock/status/788939489280274432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
My question going into a voting booth is always what a good friend calls &#8220;the beach test&#8221;: &#8220;Can you imagine this person on the beach with a machine gun fighting back against the Chinese invasion?&#8221; It obviously applied to the likes of Jim Webb. But do any of these Democrats pass that test today? Forget it – they&#8217;d be turning those guns around.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="(Democratic Debate) Democratic candidates name enemies they're proud of" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t48MyL5QdAc" width="822" height="462" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Al Sharpton used to warn Democrats about the Republican Party hijacking the Bible and the Flag. Today’s Democrats just don’t care. They have other flags to follow.

HO7bKaXW4AAd8i5

Democrats Are Officially The Party Of Commie ISIS

Democratic Socialists Of America

Hasan Piker

President Trump In The Situation Room During Strike on Iran

Ending The War In Iran Means Winning, Nothing Less

America First

Iran Nuclear Deal

IRGC

JD Vance

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Nicolas Maduro

North Korea

Rebeccah Heinrichs

Strait of Hormuz

Trump Administration

Punch-Fauci

The Data That Shows How Fauci Broke Bad

Alexis Madrigal

Anthony Fauci

COVID Tracking Project

COVID-19

COVID-19 Vaccine

Dr. Deborah Birx

Jay Bhattacharya

Matthias Shapiro

The state and mood of Washington, D.C. this week are a combination of dire and surreal. The surreal came in the form of the funeral for Lindsey Graham, a rare politician of actual note in this day and age of politicos who are good at winning elections, toeing the line, and remaining consistently unrecognizable as having any effect on national policy. (Did you know that Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) has been in office since Princess Diana was still alive? Wild.)
The event was, as is typical for the nation&#8217;s capital city, reduced to a pathetic networking session of smiles and handshakes between journos and politicians, lawyers and lobbyists, with the additional Kremlinology of who got to sit where and why. Everyone was on their phones between songs of generic holiness, stuck to the uncomfortable confines of worn brown National Cathedral chairs in the purportedly religious house that has the acoustics of a Wawa and whose respect for holiness is embodied by the head of <a href="https://cathedral.org/discover/fun-facts/">Darth Vader</a> perched atop its Northwest Tower, as predicted by the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%2019:40">Gospel of Luke</a>. For this, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) wore a suit?
What was remarkable about the Graham funeral was how little resemblance it bore to the man it claimed to honor. Instead, it was a tribute isolated to a single relationship confined to the last seven years of Graham’s 31-year career in Washington: his political friendship with President Donald Trump. It was a connection built on Graham’s belief that, in the absence of his longtime foreign policy allies John McCain and Joe Lieberman, he had to make the best of things — becoming a quarterback whisperer in an offensive scheme he never thought he’d have to run. The decision reaped benefits, for Graham and for Trump — the former an old hand at driving policy in the Republican conference, the latter a political neophyte who didn’t know whom to trust or how to move legislation beyond a Truth Social post.
The tributes from the front of the Cathedral focused on an appeal to the Commander-in-Chief in the front row and left his longtime friends unmentioned. The program wasn’t marked by any of his longtime political allies from his home in South Carolina. Take the world leaders out of the equation in the attending crowd, and it could’ve been a funeral for any Republican senator. The oddity of it all is that, unlike so many others, Graham’s absence is likely to be immediately felt, and felt the most by Trump’s White House, whose relationship with Capitol Hill, already strained with contention and resentment, is only going to get worse.
The following day brought another insult to holiness with the circus of the Anthony Fauci hearing. The fish in the barrel claimed the Fifth the entire time, and senators expressed their undying love and affection (on the Democratic side) and their utter contempt for his lying, self-dealing, and pompous assumption of the seat of the Pope of Science. Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) blond gum-chewing staffer went viral. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) channeled the fury of millions of Americans. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) said a swear word. None of this will be of any consequence.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mdeo7Q2E5cE?si=ghMlQLzRt5vMyVXG" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This is where Republicans find themselves: looking back in anger, without delivering anything of substance. They’re still fighting the last war. Democrats are crazy socialists who haven’t stopped being crazy; in fact, they’ve gotten even crazier. But that’s not good enough to win, despite the insistence of too-online right-wingers that they can run that play back one more time to buck decades of historical midterm trends. Four in 10 voters say they want “<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-voters-want-major-change-amid-economic-political-discontent">revolutionary</a>” change from this election. Do you think they care about people movers at Washington Dulles Airport? Do you think they give a sh*t if James Talarico rents a truck?
That brings us to the dire mood in the capital city. House Republicans had already been planning their exit strategy and shopping for their next homes and jobs. Senate Republicans have only just noticed that they are headed in the same direction: off a cliff, at rapid speed. President Trump’s approval rating is 33% in the latest AP poll. Democratic Senate candidates currently lead in North Carolina and Georgia — where Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has promised to spend an enormous amount of cash — and are within the margin of error in Ohio and Texas, which were supposed to be red states the last time we checked. Every bout at the White House’s UFC sideshow ended in a knockout. This may not even be that close.
The realization on the eve of August that the blue tidal wave could hit the Senate, too, has come too late to do much about the outcome except bitch about the damn war. And what comes after? We all know what it looks like for D.C.: committee circuses, impeachment of Cabinet figures, and lawfare targeting the president’s family and allies to a degree that will make the Joe Biden years look sleepy and innocuous. For the Left? A dramatically emboldened socialist wing, with the force multiplier of eager and willing new entrants from safe seats, all looking to make a national name for themselves. And for the Right? Two years of vindictive bloodletting and horror, blame and revisionism, and a level of factional strife that will have the city turning back to all the old &#8220;Game of Thrones&#8221; episodes, lacking as we are in newer references in the post-peak TV era.
The Republican Party was emboldened by Donald Trump’s victory in 2024. But from election night on, it made the mistake of thinking that victory for the Right was fundamental. It may turn out to be the exception before the Left&#8217;s new and dangerous rule. Buckle up.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-GOVERNMENT-SHUTDOWN

D.C. Republicans Think They’re Going To Lose. They’re Probably Right.

2026 Midterms

Dave Chappelle

House Republicans

John Fetterman

Lindsey Graham

President Trump

Senate Republicans

Punch-Odyssey-2

Is ‘The Odyssey’ A Sign America Is Post-Woke?

Christopher Nolan

Hollywood

Homer

Shane Gillis

Spencer Klavan

The Odyssey

Woke Culture

When you are a young father, you have to make a choice at some point about what is, to my mind, an important thing: what will be the first movie your children will ever see? It matters even if they don’t remember it. If they love it, it matters more. So you have to spend more than a moment of thinking about it, particularly if, as many of us are, the idea that you would put a barely cognizant child before a flickering screen begets responsibility for what comes from it.
For this reason, my three children have all had the same movie play before them before their first birthday, intentionally and without hesitation: “Isle of Dogs,” Wes Anderson’s stop motion journey through the Japanese archipelago of the future. My daughters have memorized it fully — they quote the jokes and even the Japanese lines with readiness. There is, in the early days, a confusion that not all dogs sound like Bryan Cranston or Liev Schreiber. But they understand that there is a language gap. They know the label of man’s best friend. And they know what it means to say: I’ve gone to find my dog.
Amidst the overheated discourse surrounding Christopher Nolan’s “Odyssey” — the summer flick which launched ten thousand takes — there was one thread which stuck out to me, even as someone who lacks the linguistic and antiquarian knowledge to fully analyze what that vest-wearing troublesome child of Westminster threw into our discourse. That was the rejection by the supposed poorly-tattooed muse for the screenplay, Emily Wilson, of key aspects of Nolan’s creation: she found it too modern, too wrought, too different from both the original and her own interpretation. Fine. But this was the line that stuck out to me: an irritation at an iconic scene of Odysseus’ reunion with his long-serving pup, Argos. Her dismissal was that it was too modern, too mawkish: &#8220;everybody&#8217;s a sucker for a dog&#8221;.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Emily Wilson after watching the Odyssey:
‘The film presents an Odysseus who feels very bad about things that he&#8217;s done in war, and is struggling to process them in a very modern, psychiatrised way – and needs drugs to do so! He seems to feel bad about being a warrior, and we… <a href="https://t.co/m0rfyHd7Ux">pic.twitter.com/m0rfyHd7Ux</a>
— Gareth Harney (@OptimoPrincipi) <a href="https://x.com/OptimoPrincipi/status/2079887117618946245?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 22, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Ms. Wilson is entitled to her opinion, but the role of Argos in “The Odyssey” is an emotional connection she seems unfamiliar with. Perhaps she is, as her appearance suggests, a cat lady. But even so, she should understand the unique nature of man’s relationship with dog, which the Greco-Roman era highlights throughout our discovery of their unique and heartfelt tributes. The ancients buried their dogs with markers; they wept and mourned them; they wrote verses for them; and they knew them as loyal friends, fellow hunters, and protectors of home and hearth. To dismiss Argos as if he is some inserted bit of sappy emotion — the sort of lazy, emotionally manipulative, unearthly thing that appears, CGI hair ubiquitous, in the films of James Gunn, brought to you by James Gunn — is to dramatically underestimate his importance.
Am I saying Odysseus might have left Calypso just to find his dog, to say goodbye?
Yes, I am.
“Surely, even as you lie dead in this tomb, I deem the wild beasts yet fear your white bones, huntress Lycas; and your valor great Pelion knows, and splendid Ossa and the lonely peaks of Cithaeron.”
This is the memory etched in the tomb of a Thessalian hunting hound, and it is of a piece with the memories that Greeks and Romans alike left behind for their companions. There is the dog of Eumelus of Malta — whose name was Bull, or Tauros — “This stone holds the white dog from Melita, the most faithful guardian of Eumelus; Bull they called him while he was yet alive, but now his voice is imprisoned in the silent pathways of night.” Or for the woman Rhodope, who buried her devoted protector beside her eventual grave. Or for Tauron, who protected his master to the end:
<blockquote>
A dog is interred beneath this marker — Tauron who was not undone when faced with a killer. For he encountered a boar in direct combat… But the dog struck two feet into its back and grabbed the bristling beast in the middle of its chest and drove it down into the ground — he made a gift of the beast to Hades and died himself … He saved the life of Zenon, the hunter he followed. So he is buried here beneath this light dust.
</blockquote>
The encounter with Argos is a particularly poignant one: he recognizes Odysseus after 20 years of absence, wags his tail in greeting, and dies an honorable death having stayed alive to welcome his master home. The story is so iconic that it is echoed across media for centuries, and it’s not like it’s gone now. Is there any question that the one episode anyone who ever watched “Futurama” remembers is Jurassic Bark, where Fry’s dog remains steadfast in wait of his master? Sam&#8217;s sacrifice in “I Am Legend” is the heart of a relatively forgettable movie. Or what about John Wick, a series which is entirely based on the premise of what a retired expert assassin would do if you kill his dog?
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AK3PWHxoT_E?si=BaOSun88JDDEVuCl" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z3eNE4Gk-tA?si=69AAhygA_WXwceLK" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
As a former speechwriter, the notion that this love of dogs is some modern tendency is at odds with the understanding that the greatest single speech in American history isn’t the Gettysburg address; it’s a random speech in defense of a lonely dog, delivered by future Senator George Graham Vest in a courthouse in Missouri in 1870. The case was decidedly against the now deceased canine — but Vest won based on his eulogy, which is unmatched in American rhetoric:
<blockquote>
Gentlemen of the Jury: The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son and daughter that he has reared with loving care may become ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him when he may need it most. Man&#8217;s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees and do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend a man may have in this world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is the dog.
A man&#8217;s dog stands by him in prosperity and poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground when the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master&#8217;s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer. He will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince.
When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast into the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard him against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws and his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfullness, faithful and true even to death.
</blockquote>
A statue is erected in Johnson County in honor of <a href="https://historicmissouri.org/items/show/2">Old Drum</a>, who was, despite his faults, a very good dog. Let Emily Wilson have her vagaries about “The Odyssey,” about masculinity and PTSD, modernity and its insufficient feminism — but do not, for one moment, let her take from us the friendship of a man and his dog.

Old engraved illustration of Diogenes of Sinope sitting in his tub

From Ancient Times To Today, We Love Good Dogs

Emily Wilson

Futurama

George Graham Vest

Isle of Dogs

John Wick

Old Drum

Wes Anderson

Punch-Graham-4

The Last Amigo

Bob Heckman

interview

John McCain

Vice President JD Vance&#8217;s decision to spend nearly three hours chatting with Joe Rogan on his podcast is the type of choice that drives consultants to drink more heavily than they do on a normal Wednesday. Devoting that amount of time to open questioning and long-winded theorizing about politics, culture, and conspiracy theories is a minefield for any elected politician, and one where it&#8217;s easy to create clips that will be edited and used to make half-baked arguments or warp what&#8217;s said into an unintended context.
Unfortunately for Vance, despite his well-known and much-admired communication prowess, that&#8217;s exactly what happened. On Iran, Israel, Jeffrey Epstein, and more, the vice president came across as far more interested in defending his own personal opinions than fulfilling the task of representing the Trump administration. Taken as a whole, the interview reads as if he&#8217;s already the 2028 nominee, speaking for the Republican Party he wants to manifest, not the one that currently exists under President Trump.
Time and again, the knock on this VP has been simple: He&#8217;s too online. He pays far too much attention to random social media accounts criticizing his tireless advocacy for a bad deal with Iran than he does to the possibility that the deal is, well, bad. He complained vociferously to Rogan that Israel is apparently funding some of the same people who are criticizing his deal online. But given that polls show the deal is unpopular with a significant portion of Republicans, and that only a small minority of voters think it&#8217;s a better deal for America than it is for Iran, Vance seems to be investing a gargantuan belief in the effectiveness of pro-Israel propaganda to move the needle.
Conservative Fox viewers and Daily Wire readers have never been sold on this deal, and now that it&#8217;s fallen apart, it&#8217;s something he should be eager to put in the rearview mirror — a collapse he should understand is the fault of Iran doing what Iran always does, not something he should blame on foreign manipulators. The sooner voters forget about Vance&#8217;s cheerleading for a doomed plan as his first major foray into foreign policy, the better it is for him.
For a vice president who seems to view the world more through the lens of podcasters than real life, the prescription is clear. The biggest viral trend over the past few months for American parents is in favor of giving kids a &#8220;nineties summer&#8221; — minimal screen time, maximum outdoor time, a throwback to the America where the rare moment of connecting to the internet came with the crackling sound of AOL dial-up and people focused on the real world of their neighbors and friends, long before the word &#8220;podcast&#8221; even existed. Perhaps that&#8217;s the recipe the vice president needs to reset, and get back to being the effective voice for this administration he was in its first year. Let the podcasts roll on. Everybody needs a break sometimes.

US-POLITICS-TRUMP

JD Vance Is In Desperate Need Of A Nineties Summer

Jennica Pounds, also known as DataRepublican, is a data analyst and <a href="https://datarepublican.substack.com/">self-described</a> algorithm geek. In the Weekend Punch interview, she speaks with The Daily Wire about debunking wild conspiratorial claims surrounding Charlie Kirk&#8217;s assassination, widespread skepticism about information, and what it means to pursue the truth. The following quote is <a href="https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2075384791080280453">Pound&#8217;s X response</a> to Candace Owens and her conspiracy theories in light of the evidence presented at Tyler Robinson&#8217;s preliminary hearing, which concluded this week.
<blockquote>
Hello Mrs. Owens,
You told millions of people that Tyler Robinson &#8220;wasn&#8217;t even there.&#8221; That you felt &#8220;confident stating that Tyler Robinson did not kill murder Charlie Kirk.&#8221;
He was on camera. Prone on the Losi rooftop at 12:22. Shot at 12:23:28. DNA on the screwdriver at 30 quintillion to one. DNA on the rifle at 1.7 octillion to one. He told his family what he did. His parents helped him surrender. He texted his roommate: &#8220;I am, I&#8217;m sorry.&#8221; He engraved &#8220;Hey Fascist! Catch!&#8221; on the ammunition a month before he used it.
You said police &#8220;didn&#8217;t even question&#8221; Lance Twiggs. He was interviewed twice. FBI the morning after. Joint state-federal team seven months later. His own attorney. Voluntary phone surrender. You laughed when you said it.
You told Shawn Ryan a shaped charge killed Charlie. That PETN was in his microphone. The medical examiner says gunshot wound. Bullet fragments were recovered from his body. A .30-06 Mauser with Robinson&#8217;s DNA was found in the woods. Neither side — not prosecution, not defense — has mentioned explosives. Not once in four days.
You said the shot came from below. The Losi building is above the amphitheater.
You called Erika Kirk a &#8220;clinical psychopath&#8221; to an audience of millions. You said the assassination was &#8220;an occult ritual.&#8221; You said Charlie was &#8220;sitting in a pentagram.&#8221; You told people Israel killed him because he refused Netanyahu.
You made over a hundred episodes. You built a franchise on a dead man&#8217;s name.
And the hardest fact of all: Tyler Robinson&#8217;s own defense lawyers — the people whose entire career is on the line to get him acquitted — have refused to make a single one of your arguments. Not one. They&#8217;re challenging DNA methodology. They are doing their jobs. You were doing something else entirely.
Charlie Kirk changed my life. He platformed my work when nobody knew who I was. He had my back when I was doxxed. I was the ten-thousandth most important person in his world and I will never be able to repay him.
So I did what I know how to do. I read every transcript. I watched every hour of testimony. I cataloged your claims and I held them up against what was said under oath.
Every single one failed.
I don&#8217;t know why you did this. I&#8217;m not going to speculate on your motives, because that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I&#8217;ve spent my career refusing to be. But I know what you did. You told people confident lies about a dead man&#8217;s murder, and millions of them believed you, and some of them turned that belief into threats against his widow.
The trial continues. And every day of sworn testimony is another day your words get tested against reality&#8230; under oath, on the record, where it counts.
I&#8217;ll be here for all of it&#8230; because just as Charlie defended me, I will do what little I can to defend his legacy and <a href="https://x.com/TPUSA">@TPUSA</a> and <a href="https://x.com/MrsErikaKirk">@MrsErikaKirk</a> from evil.
&nbsp;</blockquote>
Ben Domenech: You’ve done extensive research on the details surrounding the shooting of Charlie Kirk, particularly regarding the conspiracy theories that have spread online like wildfire. What topline details have you found that you think are most important for people to know?
Jennica Pounds: After a week, all of the conspiracy claims have been thoroughly demolished in court. [Tyler] Robinson&#8217;s own defense team isn&#8217;t making any of the claims circulating online.
They&#8217;re making procedural challenges to not show evidence. The people who have the most to gain from a conspiracy being real won&#8217;t even touch any of Candace [Owens]&#8217;s claims.
Data analysis is a skill. The hardest part isn&#8217;t connecting dots; anyone can do that, as Candace and her fans have proven. It&#8217;s knowing when not to connect them. When you find yourself pulling more and more people into your theory as villains to make the story hold together, that&#8217;s when it crosses into fan fiction territory. Except in this case, fan fiction is posing a very real threat to Erika Kirk&#8217;s life.
BD: We live in an era of heightened skepticism after a cascade of media scandals that destroyed public trust. It&#8217;s reiterated constantly – consider Graham Platner the most recent example. How do you go about breaking through that skeptical assumption – that everyone is lying – with the truth? 
JP: The skepticism is earned. People have been lied to by institutions for years, and they&#8217;re right to demand receipts. So I give them receipts. Now, I&#8217;ve made mistakes and been wrong. But I&#8217;ve never gone wrong by letting the receipts talk as much as possible.
Also, most people in this space try to destroy the person they disagree with. I&#8217;m not interested in that. What I do is show people the story they&#8217;ve been told, and then show them what the evidence actually says, and let the distance between those two things do the work.
The trick is that you don&#8217;t have to convince anyone of anything. You just have to make the evidence accessible and let people be honest with themselves.
BD: Candace isn&#8217;t alone. Her conspiracy theories – too many to count – have been echoed and defended by Ian Carroll, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly. What&#8217;s your interpretation of why people would entertain these theories as legitimate, given the evidence?
JP: I&#8217;m not going to speculate on anyone&#8217;s motives; that would make me exactly the kind of analyst I just warned you about.
What I can tell you is what I see in the data. None of these people have gone line by line through three days of sworn testimony. None of them have spent hours cataloging their own claims to track how far the theories have drifted from anything falsifiable. They built a narrative before the evidence was available, and the narrative is more important than anything.
And I&#8217;d be remiss not to mention Joel Finkelstein at The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), a good friend, who has done more work than anyone studying the assassination culture that took Charlie&#8217;s life… and that may take more lives if it isn&#8217;t confronted. We need to learn the difference between data and narrative, and fast.
BD: There are clearly a lot of people obsessed with the idea that Candace and her supporters have uncovered some vast political conspiracy. If you were sitting next to someone who thought that way at a local bar, what would you say to them?
JP: I&#8217;d tell them that Charlie Kirk changed my life. He gave me a platform when nobody knew who I was. He stood behind me when I was doxxed by Rolling Stone. I owe him more than I&#8217;ll ever be able to repay.
Then I&#8217;d buy them a drink and tell them I get it. We&#8217;ve all been lied to by people in power, and the instinct to distrust official narratives is earned.
But finding the truth isn&#8217;t making a conscious decision to follow a different narrative to the prevailing one. It&#8217;s about following the data, the actual data, no matter where it goes. The data shows that many institutions are failing us and are taking escalating actions to maintain their legitimacy by coercion. That’s true. But the data also shows that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, and that&#8217;s becoming more obvious every day the court proceedings are televised.
BD: The effort that goes into heavy research these days seems harder than in the past, but also more accessible. What approaches and tools do you wish young journalists would use to pursue information and data rather than just chasing after everyone else?
JP: AI is a double-edged sword for sure. Most people use AI to replace their thinking – that’s why those stories of lawyers using AI-hallucinated citations are becoming more common.
For me, agentic AI has been a godsend in analyzing gigabytes of video transcripts, books, documents, website mirrors – and connecting them all together. It’s not unusual to burn 100+ subtasks to compile a 12-post thread. If AI is making your job easier rather than challenging you to meet a 100x productivity increase, you&#8217;re probably using it wrong.
BD: I have bottle 887 of Distilled Data in my bar. It is nearly empty. Can we get a rerelease?
JP: Glad you enjoyed it! I’ll petition my husband.
***

Punch-Pounds

The Data Cruncher Who Debunked The Biggest Charlie Kirk Conspiracies

Charlie Kirk

DataRepublican

Punch

&#8220;Death to America.&#8221; These are the only words Tim Sheehy needs to hear to understand what motivates the Iranian regime. The senator from Montana and former Navy SEAL understands this threat and doesn’t hesitate to speak plainly about what is at stake for America and the broader Middle East. In this weekend&#8217;s Punch interview, DW talks with Sheehy about the importance of the fight with Iran to the future of the region and American interests, the rise of radicals within our borders, and his views on the Trump administration’s foreign policy strategy.
***
Ben Domenech: Why do you think that what <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republican-senator-delivers-blunt-message-on-iran-talks">you had to say</a> about this current situation with Iran hit a nerve with a lot of people?
Tim Sheehy: I don&#8217;t have any problem with us trying to come to an agreement with Iran. That&#8217;s not the issue. My issue&#8217;s not with the administration or the negotiating teams. The issue is with Iran. And as one of the few people on the Hill who actually fought the Iranians directly, and their proxies, who spent years of my life — and my wife&#8217;s a combat veteran and all my friends — fighting against the Iranian influence. I think it gives us a very clear-eyed realization of how insidious the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and their proxy groups really are and how brutal and barbaric they actually are.
Their designs on the world don&#8217;t end with Israel in the Persian Gulf or with Azerbaijan. They want a global caliphate, and they will literally kill everybody to get that caliphate. And they don&#8217;t want to kill them in a lethal injection snap of a finger. They want to brutally wipe us off the face of the earth, like what happened on October 7.
They want us to be in pain. They want us to be burned alive and destroyed. So I think we have to keep that in mind, and trust cannot be a component of our negotiations. We cannot have them say something, and we say something, and we trust that they&#8217;re going to carry it out. And I support President Trump and his team&#8217;s campaign. I think it was way overdue — the first president ever to do this. And I support getting a resolution to the conflict that truly has structural limits around it because we don&#8217;t want to invade Iran.
We don&#8217;t want 500,000 troops there. But I simply feel propelled as someone who fought there and who lost friends to Iran, to remind our side of this negotiation that we need to not forget who we are dealing with. We need to remember what they&#8217;re capable of and what they want because we don&#8217;t have to think or assume what they want; they tell us that every single day, and they act on it every single day. And that is death to America, death to Israel.
BD: Do you think that there is an attitude of naiveté about the Iranians that has perhaps seeped in over the last couple of years, just given the fact that people are so tired of foreign wars, but particularly of Middle East wars, that they perhaps downgrade that threat mentally?
TS: I think that is the wrong answer. I think it&#8217;s just general non-awareness of the threat. I mean, the average American, the average politician, the average person who works in government is not aware of what Iran has done, does every day, and is capable of. They&#8217;re just not. And that&#8217;s a good thing, Ben. That&#8217;s the whole point of these forever wars that everyone hates, and I get it. I fought them, too. I don&#8217;t like forever wars, but we&#8217;ve been able to keep this terrible threat at bay thousands of miles away for the last 50 years. And that&#8217;s a good thing. As a result, the average American, luckily, doesn&#8217;t have a personal experience with radical Muslim psychopaths who want to murder them and their family. And as a result, they&#8217;re like, &#8220;What&#8217;s the big deal? Why do we care about Iran? I don&#8217;t want six-dollar-a-gallon gasoline; this is unpopular. Let&#8217;s get back to bringing inflation down, housing prices down, and immigration under control.&#8221; All very valid points, and they&#8217;re not wrong, but they&#8217;re also just not aware that because we&#8217;ve kept these savages at bay, they actually still exist. And not only do they exist, but they also want to come kill us. And I don&#8217;t want it to be another 9/11. I don&#8217;t want it to be another October 7. And I certainly don&#8217;t want to funnel billions of dollars, as Obama did, into a terrorist regime that wants to kill all of us in any way possible. So I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s naive today. It&#8217;s generally not awareness of the reality of it. And I think the vice president and his team are cheering on the president&#8217;s directive to try to bring an orderly close to this. And I think it&#8217;s very important.
I&#8217;ve expressed skepticism about our ability to get a deal. I have not expressed skepticism about the president and his team at all. I&#8217;m simply reminding everyone that our counterpart here is not trustworthy. And our counterpart will say and do anything to create time and space to rebuild themselves and come at us. They have a very long view on this; they’re not in a hurry. They say, &#8220;You know what? Fine. This guy Trump, he&#8217;s pretty tough on us. Let&#8217;s just play nice. Let&#8217;s get a few hundred billion dollars of revenue. We&#8217;ll act like nice people for a couple of years until he&#8217;s gone, and hopefully we&#8217;ll get another Biden or Kamala or Mamdani for Christ&#8217;s sake. That would be a dream come true.&#8221; And then they&#8217;re like, &#8220;Great, we&#8217;re back, baby.&#8221; And then, with all the money we give them access to, they&#8217;ve rebuilt a whole new infrastructure.
One thing we did learn from this is that a lot of people underestimated how many drones and missiles these dudes really built. They had them buried everywhere, like squirrels with acorns. And on every mountain, they had a goddamn cave full of missiles. And we&#8217;re like, &#8220;Where did those come from? Oh, they came from the American taxpayer when we gave them the money to build them.” And I&#8217;ll be goddamned if we let that happen again.
BD: You talk about radical Muslim psychopaths. I think that you could be talking about them or you could be talking about the latest round of Democrats who ran and won in New York this week. Why do you think the Democratic Party is tolerating this degree of psychopathy on its side? And do you think it&#8217;s actually a more serious problem than perhaps Republicans have been paying attention to? As much as they talk about it, I feel like they didn&#8217;t take it seriously.
TS: I don&#8217;t think they did. And once again, I try not to be a history professor, but sometimes you have to remind people where these issues come from. As you well know, the Red Green Alliance goes back a long way. Radical Islam and Marxist communist ideology have been interwoven for the last 60 years. This is nothing new. The IRGC is really the most virulent example of that. The Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise in 1979 was very much a Red-Green alliance. So this collectivist, Marxist-revolutionary mindset is interwoven with radical Islamic ideology in many ways. And it&#8217;s always been there. Hell, even the Civil Rights movement and the Black Panther Movement were very tied in with that. Muhammad Ali changed his name because of that. So there&#8217;s always been that tie. But I think what&#8217;s happened lately is there&#8217;s been a very targeted investment into our media markets by Muslim influencers who don&#8217;t like us.
They&#8217;re paying off people to say things specifically to incite opinions and events that are obviously, number one, antisemitic and number two, anti-American. It&#8217;s a very engineered attempt to undermine the fabric of our society. And the Democratic Party, of course, traditionally the home base for the American Jewish voter, shockingly became their vessel to do this. I shouldn&#8217;t say shockingly because, actually, it makes perfect logical sense, because the Democratic Party has drifted more and more into the Marxist direction of the past couple of decades, which again, is a natural home for radical Islamic ideology.
So I&#8217;m not surprised by this per se, but I am disappointed that the establishment hasn&#8217;t made a stronger effort to clarify their moral positioning. Because at this point, as you know, the Democrats for the last 30 years, anytime there&#8217;s a policy disagreement with Republicans, we&#8217;re racist, we&#8217;re Nazis, we&#8217;re homophobes, we&#8217;re transphobes, and we&#8217;re sexist. Pick your name, and they call us that. Well, now they&#8217;ve embraced an ideology that literally murders gay people, that stones women to death, that condones the rape and murder of innocent families on October 7, and then condones terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of Americans.
In a terrible way, it&#8217;s politically good for Republicans because they have removed any moral high ground, if they ever had any, to accuse us of being anti-women, anti-minority, or racist. They don&#8217;t have a soapbox anymore because their flagship candidate – the leader of the Democrat Party today – is Zohran Mamdani. That is who leads the Democrat Party. That is their mascot, and that is their messaging platform.
BD: You mentioned that this has been something that&#8217;s been fomented. There&#8217;s an interesting piece that ran in New York magazine recently called “Your Feed Is Fake,” which dug into the number of essentially AstroTurfed campaigns designed to help things go viral. They were looking at it in the context of mostly Hollywood, but also other things. Just to give one example, there were firms that were hired around the Sydney Sweeney Jeans ad that were fomenting and pushing both sides of that argument, meaning the negative and the positive at the same time, to gin up more activity. Do you think there needs to be some kind of transparency requirement, or more government attention, to the number of people out there who are paid influencers advocating for these DSA plans because they are everywhere?
TS: There absolutely should be. And to your point, I do think, though, the podcast-social media influencer world has reached its peak because I think in the 2024 election, we saw that the podcasters were a game changer, the influencers were a game changer, and that&#8217;s because it was legitimate. And I think it&#8217;s been so saturated now. There are so many podcasts, and so many fake influencers with AstroTurf content, that the average person is now starting to just not believe any of it, and they don&#8217;t have the bandwidth to absorb it all. So I think we&#8217;re going to start to see the influence wane. I think it already is waning, but I do believe, just like in TV commercials, there should be a requirement to disclose who&#8217;s paying for this. You can&#8217;t run a political ad without saying who&#8217;s paying for this and this is no different. So that would obviously fall within my purview as a member of the Commerce committee. And I think there&#8217;s already been discussions about that to say, listen, you should be forced to disclose who&#8217;s paying you for this podcast.
If a foreign government gave you $20 million to buy your podcast, well, you need to say that because if you&#8217;re going to pretend like you&#8217;re in your basement in the heartland with your Coors Lite beer and a rifle on the wall and act like you&#8217;re a red-necked hillbilly, but in fact, you&#8217;ve been bought by the Chinese Communist Party, well, we should know that.
BD: The issues related to Iran obviously flow into other foreign conflicts. And one of the big open questions is what does this mean for China – particularly their interest in Taiwan? Do you think that, given the way this played out, it makes China&#8217;s attempt to take Taiwan and absorb it more or less likely?
TS: I think on the whole, this whole campaign makes it less likely. Number one, we had a tremendously successful military campaign, and despite the media just looking for any reason to bash the president, despite the Democrats being abjectly un-American during this process by going after our troops. It was disgusting how the internal backstabbing was happening here against our campaign, against the country that&#8217;s been working after 47 years. So I think we displayed a level of precision and ferocity in those strikes all the way from Midnight Hammer through the latest campaign that China said, &#8220;That&#8217;s oppressive. They can&#8217;t do that.” But let&#8217;s not forget that China has not fought a war since the Korean War, from 1950 to 1953. So they have a big paper-tiger military that should not be underestimated but is not combat-tested, unlike ours. So we showed extreme capability and ferocity in our targeting. That&#8217;s going to give them a good bit of pause.
At the same time, look at Ukraine and say wow, Russia – big, giant, big bear Russia – they&#8217;ve been beaten back and essentially knocked into a stairway now by little old Ukraine with a bunch of off-the-shelf drones and scrappy fighters and trenches.
So China will realize it&#8217;s a lot harder to project military power, especially across a body of water, than you think. It has really only been one time in history where military power has been successfully projected amphibiously over a body of water. That&#8217;s America during World War II with our island-hopping campaign and the Normandy invasion. It&#8217;s really hard to quickly and effectively move thousands of people across a body of water without getting your ass kicked. So I think that will be a tale of caution.
At the same time, though, if China is able to hack this deal in some way on the backend and recognize revenue from a very dependent Iran.
China is always dependent on cheap, sanctioned Iranian oil. That’s been a superpower for their economies. They get oil for cents on the dollar. With Iran being weaker than ever, they&#8217;re going to be more and more desperate to make a deal with China, and they may even give them cheaper oil, and China can take more of it for cheaper. Additionally, sanctions-dodging will continue. No matter what we do, they aren’t going to follow any sort of sanctions regime. So they&#8217;re going to want to try to find a way to continue to use the Chinese yuan as their exchange currency for oil, and that’s, of course, good for China and bad for us. So on the whole, this is going to be worse for China and the designs on Taiwan, but in the end, they might have better access to Iranian oil.
BD: I’m just going to ask a question on behalf of one of our younger staffers. She said, &#8220;Why didn&#8217;t we just keep bombing, and why didn&#8217;t we bomb the IRGC?”
TS: Well, that&#8217;s obviously a question for the executive branch. I&#8217;m not in the chain of command, so I can&#8217;t give you specific reasoning why. The reality is probably that a full collapse of the government would have required the follow-on commitment of ground forces, be they American, allied, Kurdish, or others, which I think would have required a broad alliance to support. And my assumption is that at the time, nobody wanted that. The American people have made it very clear they&#8217;re tired of ground wars in the Middle East. They don&#8217;t want it. And I think that the president said, &#8220;Listen, we&#8217;ll do what we have to do, but I think we can probably get this done without that.&#8221; And I think that&#8217;s where it ended up. However, I&#8217;ll say the president is absolutely locked and loaded and ready to go back in again for another round should they welch on these talks and resume their bad behavior.
***

Menu

Ben Domenech