Monday, February 16, 2026

USAF orders 30K lb. GBU-57 bunker busters to prepare for Iran

Bunker Buster GBU-57


The US Air Force just dropped a massive reality check on anyone who thought we could casually bomb Iran's nuclear sites and then call it a day without restocking the pantry.

After unleashing 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators during Operation Midnight Hammer back in June, the B-2 fleet needs more of these 30,000-pound bahdahbing bombs to keep the arsenal ready for whatever comes next. And yes, Boeing is getting the sole-source contract because surprise, they're the only ones who build this thing.

The partially redacted justification notice posted online last week lays it out plain: "this procurement and sustainment activity is critically needed to replenish the inventory of GBU-57’s, ended during Operation Midnight Hammer (21 June 25)."

Boeing has "uniquely acquired expertise over a period of 18 years of adapting this specialized weapon to meet evolving mission needs as MOP transitioned from proof-of-concept to Full Operational Capability," the document explains. Handing the job to anyone else? "Unacceptable delays." And the brass isn't mincing words on why speed matters: "No delay in award is acceptable for this effort. Delaying this requirement would undermine force readiness and efficient acquisitions for this key weapons program. A delay undermines Combatant Commanders’ capabilities, jeopardizes force readiness and strategic deterrence, hinders nuclear proliferation prevention efforts, and could result in loss of life."

The exact number of bombs being bought, the price tag, and delivery timeline? All classified or just not released. Because why spoil the mystery?

What is the MOP, anyway? Developed in the early 2000s by Boeing and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator exists for one job: smashing through Hard and Deeply Buried Targets like underground labs, command centers, and those pesky nuclear facilities.

An Air Force fact sheet calls it "a weapon system designed to accomplish a difficult, complicated mission of reaching and destroying our adversaries’ weapons of mass destruction located in well-protected facilities."

This beast weighs 30,000 pounds (13,600 kilograms), with the warhead alone tipping the scales at 5,740 pounds (2,600 kg) and stretching over 20 feet (6 meters) long. It can punch through up to 200 feet (60 m.) of earth or 60 feet (18 m.) of reinforced concrete, making it the heaviest non-nuclear bomb we've got.

Scientific American once compared the kinetic impact to "800 to 900 megajoules (about 758,000 to 853,000 British thermal units) of kinetic energy – comparable to a 285-ton (285,000 kg.) Boeing 747-400 touching down at 170 mph (274 kph) or a 565-ton (565,000 kg.) Amtrak Acela train moving at 120 mph (193 kph)." In other words, it's a flying freight train with bad intentions.B-2 bomber drops a GBU-57 during a test

Operation Midnight Hammer marked the MOP's combat debut in June 2025, when seven B-2 Spirits hammered sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with those 14 bombs. US officials called it a win, but independent looks suggest the results were mixed: Fordow took a serious hit, while Natanz and Isfahan might bounce back quicker than hoped.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

The strikes exposed both the MOP's raw power and its real-world limits, from the sheer size limiting which planes can carry it, to the headaches of ultra-hardened targets, and Iran's ongoing efforts to build better defenses. Replenishing the stockpile now isn't just housekeeping. It's a reminder that deterrence doesn't come cheap, and the mullahs aren't going to stop digging just because we hit them once.

Trump to grant refugee status to UK man prosecuted by Starmer government for Quran burning



The Trump administration is stepping up in a way that has the British establishment clutching their pearls tighter than a vegan at a barbecue: they're in talks to offer refugee status to Hamit Coskun, the guy who dared to torch a Quran outside the Turkish embassy in London.

If Coskun loses his so-called "blasphemy case" this week, the Crown Prosecution Service is pushing to reinstate his overturned conviction, the State Department is ready to bring him stateside as a refugee. This is one of several cases the administration has flagged, and it could turn the transatlantic free speech debate into a full-on shouting match.

Coskun, who fled Turkey after claiming Islamic terrorists wrecked his life and got asylum in the UK, made his point loud and clear by setting the book ablaze while yelling "Islam is religion of terrorism" and "f*ck Islam." 

A passerby promptly tried to stab him, then kicked him when he hit the deck. That attacker, Moussa Kadri, drew a mere 20-week sentence. Coskun however was originally hit with a religiously aggravated public order offense, which critics slammed as blasphemy-by-another-name, an offense the UK supposedly ditched 18 years ago. The National Secular Society and Free Speech Union jumped in, the conviction got flipped on appeal, but the CPS is back for round two in court Tuesday.

Prosecutors insist it was never about the burning itself, just "disorderly behavior in public." Sure, and one day chickens will blacken the skies.

Coskun told the Telegraph that if he loses, he may have no choice but to bolt.

"For me, as the victim of Islamic terrorism, I cannot remain silent. I may be forced to flee the UK and move to the USA, where President Trump has stood for free speech and against Islamic extremism," Coskun said. "If I have to do so, then, to me, the UK will have effectively fallen to Islamism and the speech codes that it wishes to impose on the non-Muslim world."

Look, the UK keeps sliding toward treating blunt criticism of certain ideologies like a felony, while the Trump team is signaling loud and clear: burn a book, shout your piece, get attacked for it, and then get prosecuted for offending the wrong feelings? Not on our watch. If the High Court sides with the prosecutors, don't be shocked if Coskun ends up trading rainy London for somewhere he can speak his mind without fearing a knock from the thought police. America still has room for guys who refuse to shut up.

What do you folks think? Is Trump right for getting involved in UK insanity?

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

Sunday, February 15, 2026

Terror attack in northwest Nigerian village kills at least 32


In the borderlands of northwest Nigeria, where the writ of the state has long since frayed, another atrocity unfolded with grim predictability. Armed men on motorbikes descended upon three villages in the Borgu Local Government Area of Niger State, close to the frontier with Benin Republic. They killed at least thirty-two people, set houses and shops ablaze, and abducted an unknown number more. These raids form part of a relentless surge in violence across northern Nigeria, where so-called "bandits" have inflicted mass murder, ransom kidnappings, and the wholesale displacement of communities.

Were these terrorists jihadis? You make the call, because I don't know.

The Nigerian government finds itself under ever-increasing pressure to restore some semblance of order, yet the pattern persists: swift, savage incursions followed by retreat into the bush, leaving the survivors to count their dead and dread the next assault.

Wasiu Abiodun, the Niger State police spokesperson, confirmed the initial strike on Tunga-Makeri. "Suspected bandits invaded Tunga-Makeri village … six persons lost their lives, some houses were also set ablaze, and a yet-to-be ascertained number of persons were abducted," Abiodun said. He noted that the assailants then proceeded to Konkoso village, though further details remained sketchy.

Jeremiah Timothy, a resident of Konkoso who fled to a neighboring locality, described how the attack on his village commenced in the early hours with sporadic gunfire. "At least 26 people were killed so far in the village after they set the police station ablaze," said Timothy, adding that the attackers entered Konkoso around 6 a.m. (0500 GMT), shooting indiscriminately. Residents reported hearing military jets overhead, a distant reminder of state power that arrived too late to prevent the slaughter.

An anonymous witness spoke of more than two hundred motorbikes sweeping through the area, their riders targeting the villages with ruthless efficiency.

Auwal Ibrahim, from Tunga-Makeri, gave a harrowing account of the early-morning assault on his community at approximately 0200 GMT. "The bandits stormed our town around 3:00 a.m. (local time), riding so many motorcycles while shooting sporadically, beheading six people and killing others. They set shops on fire and forced the whole village to flee," Ibrahim said.

He added that many villagers now fear to return, knowing the gunmen linger nearby.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

What confronts Nigeria here is not mere criminality, but a profound failure of governance in vast swathes of the north: territories where armed groups operate with near-impunity, where the security forces arrive after the fact, and where ordinary people are left to pay the price in blood and terror. The "bandits" may wear no uniform of ideology, yet their methods and their dominance reveal a state that has ceded control of its own hinterland. Until that changes, these villages will remain vulnerable, and the cycle of massacre will continue.

World's biggest aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford arrives in the Middle East

The world's largest aircraft carrier, the U.S. Navy nuclear-powered Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) (photo credit: Seaman Abigail Reyes/U.S. Navy)


The US military is gearing up for what could be weeks-long operations against Iran if President Trump gives the green light. Two US officials told Reuters this could turn into a far more serious conflict than anything we've seen before between the two countries.

"Sometimes you have to have fear. That's the only thing that really will get the situation taken care of," Trump said.

These officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive planning involved. It definitely ramps up the pressure on the ongoing diplomacy with Iran.

US and Iranian diplomats met in Oman last week to try reviving talks on Tehran's nuclear program, after Trump built up forces in the region and sparked fears of fresh military action. On the military side, US officials announced Friday that the Pentagon is deploying another aircraft carrier to the Middle East, along with thousands more troops, fighter jets, guided-missile destroyers, and other assets for both offense and defense. Carriers typically house over 5,000 personnel, and the USS Gerald R. Ford is bigger than them all.

Trump spoke to troops at a North Carolina base Friday and said it's "been difficult to make a deal" with Iran.

"Sometimes you have to have fear. That's the only thing that really will get the situation taken care of," Trump said.

When asked about preparations for potentially prolonged operations, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: "President Trump has all options on the table with regard to Iran. He listens to a variety of perspectives on any given issue, but makes the final decision based on what is best for our country and national security." 

The Pentagon had no comment.

Last year, the US sent two carriers to the region for strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. But June's "Midnight Hammer" was basically a single strike: stealth bombers flew from the US to hit nuclear facilities, and Iran responded with a very limited attack on a US base in Qatar. This time, however, the planning is more involved, officials said.

In a sustained campaign, the US could target Iranian state and security facilities, not just nuclear ones, one official noted, without giving specifics. You can bet the Ayatollah isn't diddy-bopping above terra firma at the moment.

Experts warn the risks to US forces would be much higher against Iran, given its strong missile arsenal. Iranian retaliation could easily spark a wider regional war.

The same official said the US expects Iran to hit back, leading to ongoing strikes and counter-strikes over time. Iran is also preparing [allegedly] to strike Tel Aviv in the near future, and you can bet the IDF isn't playing with their dreidels and are instead preparing to retaliate.

The White House and Pentagon didn't answer questions on retaliation risks or regional escalation.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

Trump has repeatedly warned he'd bomb Iran over its nuclear and missile programs, plus its crackdown on internal dissent. On Thursday, he said the alternative to diplomacy would "be very traumatic, very traumatic." [Two 'very traumatics' is very, very serious.]

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have threatened to strike any US base if Iran is hit. The US has bases across the Middle East: Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Turkey.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met President Trump in Washington on Wednesday and said any deal with Iran "must include the elements that are vital to Israel." 

Iran says it's open to discussing nuclear curbs for sanctions relief, but won't tie it to missiles because they obviously plan to go nuclear or already have done so.

So, with the IRGC killing Iranian citizens and both Israel and the US ready to launch an attack if necessary, it looks like history is soon to be made in the Middle East.

Am America/Israel Chai.

Saturday, February 14, 2026

Compromised News Network Loses 66% of Primetime Viewers



Once upon a time, in a galaxy not far away, CNN was the undisputed king of cable news. Now it's just another sad sack bleeding viewers like a stuck pig somewhere in the Middle East.

The primetime audience has cratered from roughly 1.3 million in 2016 to 553,000 now. "The decrease, from roughly 1.3 million in 2016 to 553,000 now, is fueling rumors of a possible network sale," The Daily Mail reported. 

Over the last decade, the once-mighty network has seen its primetime crowd shrink by nearly two-thirds. That's not a dip, that's a nosedive.

The numbers get even uglier when you zoom in on certain time frames. 

Sure, CNN had a nice little sugar rush during Donald Trump's 2016 ascent, but those gains eventually flipped into a full-blown catastrophe. In the golden 25-54 demo that advertisers drool over, things are downright apocalyptic. By early 2025, CNN was scraping by with a pathetic 118,000 primetime viewers in that group. That's about equivalent to an overloaded train in India.

The rot isn't confined to the evening hours either. Daytime viewing, once carried by reliable old hands like Wolf . . . Gasp . . . Blitzer, has plunged from 752,000 to 433,000. Compared to the same stretch in 2021, primetime is down 71 percent and daytime has tanked 73 percent.

All this glorious free-fall has unfolded amid a parade of executive musical chairs. 

Jeff Zucker bolted, Chris Licht's short reign was a dumpster fire, and now Mark Thompson is the guy trying to apply tourniquets. His big plan? Ditch the old-school TV roots and go all-in on digital, because apparently that's where the cool kids are these days.

The restructuring highlights include axing more than 200 staffers in early 2025 to fund the digital dreams, chasing mobile content that lets thumb-scrollers "flick" through stories like they're swiping on Tinder, launching a new streaming effort in late 2025 after the CNN+ fiasco proved what a genius idea that was the first time around, and somehow finding $70 million to throw at subscription food and fitness slop.

CNN lifers keep insisting this is just part of some grand industry migration to "alternative means" of getting news. Sure, tell that to the competition. 

In January 2025, The Daily Mail noted, "Fox News, however, has continued to fly high, capturing more than 70 percent of cable news’ audiences during primetime since (the 2024 election), as well as nearly 50 percent overall."

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

The whole cable news landscape is shifting, except for the one network that's actually winning. Funny how that works.


Alexandria Obviously-Comatose does a Kamala Harris over China


Leftist New York Rep. Alexandria Occasionally-Comatose, better known as AOC, the bartender-turned-Bernie-cosplayer who somehow keeps getting reelected, had a real deer-in-the-headlights moment when someone dared to ask her a straightforward foreign policy question at the Munich Security Conference.

The panel included Michigan Gov. [Frau] Gretchen Whitmer (who also looked like she'd rather be anywhere else) and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker. The topic was U.S. foreign policy, because apparently that's what passes for light chit-chat in Munich these days. 

When the moderator straight-up asked if the United States should "commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan, if China were to move," our leftist AOC did what she does best: she umm-ed and ahh-ed her way into a word salad that could feed a vegan commune for weeks.

"I think that, uh, this is such a, you know, I think that this is a, umm, this is, of course, a uh, a very longstanding, umm, policy of the United States," she began, sounding like someone who'd just been asked to explain quantum physics after three espressos and zero sleep. "Uh, and I think that what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure we never get to that point, and we want to make sure we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise."

Translation: "Please don't make me say anything that might upset my base or require actual backbone." Classic dodge. She's hoping we can just vibe our way out of a Chinese invasion with some strong economic research and good intentions. Because nothing says "deterrence" like hoping really hard.

Earlier in the same panel, she tried to downplay the whole China thing by framing it as mere "competition" rather than, you know, the looming threat of actual conflict with a world power.

"I think China is, of course, an ascending global power, growing very quickly, acting in its own self interests,” she said, lying about thinking. "And oftentimes in Washington, there's this frame between conflict and competition. I think sometimes depending on what’s happening, that rhetoric can get a little conflict-driven, and I think that it's really a question of competition."

Sure, it's just friendly competition, like when your neighbor "competitively" parks his tank in your driveway and starts redecorating your house with the People's Liberation Army flag. No biggie.

Then, in a separate panel on "the rise of populism,"  AOC tried to explain Trump's foreign policy shift and how the globe reacted. What came out was this gem that left everyone scratching their heads sounded like a Kamala Harris giving a lecture on Boolean algebra:

"I think what we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the West, we look the other way for inconvenient populations to act out these paradoxes, whether it is kidnapping a foreign head of state, whether it is threatening our allies to colonize Greenland, whether it is looking the other way in a genocide. Hypocrisies are vulnerabilities, and they threaten democracies globally."

Huh? Kidnapping heads of state? Threatening to colonize Greenland? Looking the other way on genocide? She's clearly trying to dunk on Trump-era foreign policy, but it came out sounding like a Mad Libs entry written by someone who'd mainlined too much MSNOW [formerly MSNBC] and not enough reality. The audience probably needed a translator app just to figure out what she was mad about.

The mockery was swift and merciless, with plenty of folks drawing parallels to Kamala and her legendary word-vomit sessions on the campaign trail. Both AOC and Whitmer are being eyed as potential 2028 Dem presidential hopefuls, but if this Munich performance is any indication, neither one is ready for prime time when it comes to actual foreign policy questions. They looked like undergrads who crammed for the wrong exam.

In one particularly cringe-worthy exchange, Whitmer got asked about solving the Ukraine-Russia war and immediately tried to punt it to Ambassador Whitaker like a hot potato.

"No, please, I'd love to hear your answer," Whitaker said, not letting her off the hook.

"The two that I am on the panel with are much more steeped in foreign policy than a governor is," Whitmer replied, basically admitting she was out of her depth. "I do think that Ukraine's independence, keeping their land mass and having the support of all the allies, I think is the goal from my vantage point. Go ahead, ambassador, do a better job."

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

Oof. That's not just passing the buck; that's yeeting it into the next county. These are the people the Democrats are trotting out as future leaders? Heaven help us if the bar gets any lower, we'll be tripping over it.


Free Buses, Real Costs: Mamdani’s Socialist Fantasy Collides with New York Reality


New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has turned "fast and free buses" into the centerpiece of his administration, selling it as an affordability lifeline and a long-overdue upgrade for a bus system that's been ignored for decades. Nice pitch, but this grand plan is about to slam into the brick wall of New York City politics.

Supporters insist fare-free buses would cut down on conflict, boost safety, and deliver instant relief to the riders who rely on them most. Skeptics, including on-air pundits and transit groups, warn it's a recipe for a massive funding black hole at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority unless the city locks in a rock-solid revenue source and a workable operational blueprint.New York City bus riders already endure some of the slowest service in the country, despite hauling millions of passengers daily.

As of early 2026, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has pushed back on Mayor Zohran Mamdani's proposal for citywide free buses, arguing that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) cannot afford the estimated annual loss in fare revenue. "We’re the biggest ridership, and yet we're subject to the slowest buses. It's a fundamental unfairness. It's an embarrassment," Danny Pearlstein, policy and communications director at the Riders Alliance, told Fox News Digital during a bus ride through the Bronx.

That grim track record is exactly why Mamdani's idea has political legs. Pearlstein noted that bus riders, often students, seniors, and caregivers, are squeezed for both time and cash, just like drivers or subway users. Yet buses have been shoved to the back burner on city streets for years.

"That is why this administration's call for fast and free buses resonates," he added. Pearlstein's take, along with others, anchors Fox News Digital's "The Rise of Socialism" series, which spotlights how socialist ideas are creeping into debates and policies in big American cities. Advocates lead with safety and less drama. Multiple sources pointed out that fare disputes routinely spark tension between riders and operators.

"When you eliminate fare payments on the buses, the friction between passengers and the drivers goes away," said Brian Fritsch, associate director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA (PCAC). "It does create a safer atmosphere for drivers. That has been a sore spot for a number of years."

Brian Fritsch told Fox News Digital that his organization needs to see a more "concrete plan" and determine funding streams for free busing before they take a position on the proposal. Transit analyst Charles Komanoff, who crunched the numbers on Mamdani's free bus idea, backed that up, pointing to past assaults on drivers over fare issues.

"Every year, there’s maybe a dozen cases in which a bus driver is assaulted," Komanoff said. "Presumably that would shrink or maybe disappear entirely if there was no expectation to pay the fare in the first place."

Advocates also lean on data from the city’s recent fare-free bus pilot, rolled out in late 2023 under a state budget mandate. The MTA picked one local route per borough, ditched fares for nearly a year, and brought them back in September 2024.

MTA's review showed ridership jumped on all five routes, about 30 percent on weekdays and closer to 40 percent on weekends. But most of the gains came from current riders making extra trips, not hordes of new users flooding in. The nine-month experiment cost around $12 million in lost fares and extras.

The pilot lays bare the free-transit debate in stark terms: ditching fares can spike usage, but it punches a real hole in the budget and doesn’t magically unleash massive new demand. Expand it citywide, and the cash has to come from taxpayers, Albany, or slashed services elsewhere.New York City is losing close to $1 billion in fare evasion a year. This is roughly the same cost as Mamdani's free and fast bus proposal. However, skeptics say the government must find long-term revenue streams to make fare-free buses successful. Pearlstein argued the pilot still proved free buses are safer and more popular, even if they’re no cure-all.

On affordability, supporters say it would deliver real help to low-income New Yorkers using buses for short, must-do trips.

"Most of the cost of bus operations is already paid for by public subsidies, not by fares," Pearlstein said. "We're collecting several hundred million dollars at the fare box, compared to several billion already invested. What we're replacing is an order of magnitude smaller than what we already raise from other sources."

Komanoff noted most extra trips from free fares wouldn't swap out car rides but would let people take journeys they currently skip.

"We want people to have the basic right to the city," he said.

Supporters add that no fares could shave boarding times and allow all-door loading, modestly speeding things up.

Komanoff's modeling pegged fare-free gains at roughly 7 to 12 percent faster buses. Not revolutionary, but a solid win for daily riders.

"That would be a material improvement in the lives of the two million New Yorkers a day who ride the buses," he said.

Even backers admit speed and reliability trump price every time.

Transit economist Charles Komanoff said he believes Mamdani's bus proposal will essentially generate "free money" via time saved per passenger. "Let’s be clear," Komanoff said. "Making the buses work better, having them be speedier, more reliable, more consistent, is probably more important than making them free. But I think we can do both."

The real killer? Money.

"If there were to be a free bus program, there would need to be some additional revenue coming into the MTA," Fritsch said. "They obviously couldn't just make cuts to make up that loss." Bus fares back MTA's long-term bonds, so scrapping them means reworking financing structures, not just plugging an annual gap.

PCAC has flagged over 20 possible revenue ideas for fare-free buses, but Fritsch stressed the real hurdle is political willpower and city-MTA coordination.

"The mayor has initiatives, the MTA is a state agency," he said. "They need to meet somewhere in the middle."

Komanoff pushed for city taxpayers, not suburban commuters or the MTA, to foot the roughly $800 million annual tab.

"That's not chump change," he said. "But it’s not a game changer for the city’s finances either." Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, spins the funding debate through his ideological filter: make essentials free and accessible by jacking up taxes on corporations and the rich. His platform hammers redistribution and bigger government in daily life, casting fare-free buses as a public right, not a paid service.

Critics call that view naive about real-world operations.

Charlton D'Souza, founding president of Passengers United and a southeast Queens native, fears free buses could set dangerous expectations for a system already short on drivers, plagued by old equipment, and delivering spotty service.

"We don't have enough bus drivers. Trips are not getting filled," D'Souza said. "If you make the buses free, people are going to expect a service."

He flagged accountability and budget risks, citing past cuts in tough times.


"I lived through the 2008 budget cuts," D'Souza continued. "They cut bus routes; they cut subway lines. When elected officials talk, they don't always understand the operational dynamics."

Skeptics question who really wins from universal free fares. It could subsidize folks who don’t need help while starving targeted aid.

"If somebody's making $100,000 or $200,000 and they're getting a free ride, how is that equitable?" D'Souza said, pushing instead to expand the city’s Fair Fares program.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is widely described as a democratic socialist. His campaign materials frame an affordability agenda funded by "taxing corporations & the 1%" and includes other major redistributive goals. 

Critics see free buses as a symptom of a larger slide toward democratic socialism, turning user-fee services into taxpayer-funded entitlements, severing usage from payment, and ballooning government’s grip on daily economics.

Supporters frame it as justice against inequality. Skeptics see a governing philosophy obsessed with redistribution over market sense, risking endless public bailouts.

Still, even wary voices admit Mamdani has moved the needle.

"I liked his positivity, his can-do attitude," Komanoff said, recalling first encountering Mamdani years ago at a rally in favor of congestion pricing. "He didn’t seem stuck in the usual parameters of politics."

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

Whether that energy becomes actual policy hinges on nailing down stable cash, fixing operational messes, and getting Albany on board.

For now, Mamdani's free bus dream sits at the crossroads of bold promises and cold math: popular with riders, tempting to advocates, but buried under fiscal and logistical landmines. As Fritsch summed it up: "There's no shortage of ideas. The question is where exactly the money comes from and who actually has the political courage to make it happen."

Arc de Triomphe terror: police officers targeted in mass stabbing


A mass knife attack targeting police officers unfolded near the iconic Arc de Triomphe in Paris on Friday evening, right during the solemn rekindling ceremony of the Flame of the Unknown Soldier. The Islamist suspect, identified as Brahim Bahrir (or Brahim Bahri in some reports), a known radical with a violent history, tried to stab a gendarme with a knife and scissors. Another officer quickly opened fire, hitting the attacker multiple times. He was rushed to the hospital but later died from his injuries and is currently on his way to Jannah where his 72 virgins await him.

This wasn't the scumcrumpet's first rodeo against law enforcement. Back in 2012, he carried out a stabbing attack on police in Belgium, seriously injuring one officer, and got slapped with a 17-year prison sentence tied to terrorism charges. Yet somehow, he was released early just a couple of months ago and allowed back on the streets in order to make liberals feel good about themselves. 

France has turned the country over to Islamic supremacists, and what do they get? More terror.

The attacker targeted an officer securing the ceremony for relighting the eternal flame honoring unknown soldiers at the Napoleon-era landmark, according to a Paris police official. Another officer shot the attacker, who was hospitalized, the official said.

No bystanders or police officers were injured in the incident, the official told The Associated Press.

The French counterterrorism prosecutor's office has taken over the investigation and sent personnel to the scene. A heavy police presence locked down the area around the monument Friday evening, closing it to the public while the traffic circle stayed open for vehicles. The nearby metro station was also shut down at police request, per the RATP transport operator.

The incident has reignited fierce debate over how France handles repeat violent offenders, especially radicalized ones fresh out of prison, and the glaring security gaps at these major national ceremonies. Investigators are digging into the motive and any deeper extremist ties, but the pattern here is painfully familiar: a known threat gets released, strikes again at a symbolic site, and the public is left wondering why basic common sense wasn't applied sooner.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

USAF orders 30K lb. GBU-57 bunker busters to prepare for Iran

Bunker Buster GBU-57 The US Air Force just dropped a massive reality check on anyone who thought we could casually bomb Iran's nuclear s...