This is the first US Navy decision I can get behind in years.

The US Navy just cancelled its Constellation class frigate program because it is absolutely incapable of building hulls and ships that work. They have not launched a successful surface ship since 1991 with the Arleigh Burke class.

Total appropriated: $7.6 billion for the initial six ships and the amount spent so far with delivery of two incomplete ships: around $2 billion to $2.5 billion.

Canceling the Constellation-class is a major red flag over the US Navy’s eroding naval shipbuilding foundations. The challenge now is reviving the US shipbuilding industry with our allies to deliver warships at the speed today’s great-power competition demands.

Now they need to fire all the flag officers and senior project personnel and do a thorough corruption investigation into this disaster. The US Navy of course levied critical design changes on this ship over the years that severely compromised the original design. They also started building with an incomplete design.

Start firing people and make the Navy act like a first world navy instead of tinpot corrupt third world Marx Brother flotilla.

The U.S. Navy Can’t Build A Navy Anymore

Like a major air disaster that leaves blackened wreckage scattered far and wide, Zohran Mamdani’s New York collision with reality hurtles ahead. The mayor-elect has once again put on display a key reason that catastrophe is inevitable. It is worse than just overlooking something. It is an infantile psychological blind spot.

Mamdani epitomizes the socialist calculation problem all over again, the problem Mises identified more than a century ago. Socialism can’t calculate. So socialist politicians of all parties resist it like the plague. That is why leftist politicians are the first to jump on the rent control bandwagon. They are horrified by the information implicit in prices, real world signals that can actually encourage the provision of more housing. Like little children, they live in a fantasy land in which wishing makes things so. That explains their quick turn to price controls (with their accompanying shortages).  If they can suppress prices by fiat, everyone can afford everything.  Everyone, everything, everywhere, all at once.

Asked how he would get the $700 million needed to provide his promised free buses in New York, the mayor-elect answered, “The most important fact is that we fund it — not the question of how we do it, but that we do it.”

If wishes were buses, then New Yorkers would ride.

It’s not just Mamdani. It is a psychological blind spot endemic among the left. They are loathe to consider the costs and consequences of their policies, preferring to fly blind, oblivious to the coming crackup.

Barack Obama showed up on the Late Show with David Letterman as he campaigned for reelection in 2012. Expecting an easy answer from a candidate he appeared to favor, Letterman asked the president, “Just how big is the national debt?”

Obama appeared visibly out of sorts for just an instant as he admitted that he didn’t know “precisely.”

Trying to be helpful, Letterman asked, “Is it ten trillion?”

That’s when viewers learned that the President did not know “precisely” what the national debt was.  Nor did he even know roughly.

Leftist hate calculation. Obama ducked the question.

Just for the record, the national debt was $10 trillion when Obama was elected the first time. At the time of his appearance on Letterman’s show, the debt had mushroomed to $16 trillion. It had grown by 60 percent in four short years.

President Obama would later announce an election year vote-buying goody for up to five million student loan borrowers.  It was an executive decision to cap certain repayments.

The president didn’t know and couldn’t say how much his new initiative would cost.

“We actually don’t know the costs yet,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan answered for the administration. “We’ll figure that out on the back end.”

On the back end.

Leftist hate calculation. Because they prefer to shut their eyes tight, they shouldn’t be allowed to fly planes. Or drive buses.

A ceasefire that looks good on paper means little when people are living under lockdowns and raids. We open with the West Bank, where daily operations near schools and reports of soldiers quartering in homes reshape civilian life and hollow out the promise of “stability.” The Gaza story is no better: UNICEF’s plan to vaccinate young children falters when syringes and solar refrigeration get blocked, turning a humanitarian fix into a diplomatic fault line. Pair that with silence from Washington on creeping annexation and you can see why trust is evaporating across the region.

From there, we track the war in Ukraine through realities most headlines skip. Russia’s steady gains and declining Ukrainian interception rates expose a painful gap between political messaging and industrial capacity. Sanctions on Russian energy giants and intelligence for deep strikes might sound tough, but the blowback lands on Ukraine’s power grid and civilians heading into winter. We cut through the talking points to ask a harder question: what does actual de‑escalation look like when production lines can’t match ambitions?

The big-picture risk sits in nuclear arms control. With New START approaching expiration, we argue for an immediate extension to buy time for serious negotiations. Demanding a trilateral deal with China up front is a recipe for failure; stabilizing the U.S.–Russia framework first is the only way to keep verification and predictability alive. Then comes the most surreal turn of the week: Abu Mohammed al‑Jolani’s White House visit and friendly media treatment. We unpack what this normalization means for U.S. credibility, the safety of deployed troops near Damascus, and the precedent it sets for rewarding extremism with legitimacy.

If you care about real-world consequences—vaccines that don’t reach kids, power grids that go dark, treaties that prevent miscalculation, and troops placed in harm’s way—this conversation connects the dots. Subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a review to help more people find the show. What’s the most underreported risk you heard today?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

What happens when slogans hit hard limits—terrain, production lines, and the law? We sit down with Larry Johnson, former CIA officer and counterterror veteran, to strip the varnish off three volatile fronts: Venezuela, Ukraine, and U.S. dealings with extremist proxies. The result is a bracing tour through ground truth that media sound bites rarely touch.

We start where few policymakers do: maps and math. Johnson explains why a push on Caracas would be a nightmare—triple‑canopy jungle, high mountains, and urban choke points packed with ambush sites. Helicopter assaults would meet thousands of shoulder‑fired missiles; coastal ground convoys would crawl through kill zones. Factor in support from Iran, China, and Russia, plus porous borders with Colombia and Brazil, and a quick regime change fantasy turns into a widening regional war.

Then we follow the money and the missiles in Ukraine. Requests for twenty‑five Patriot batteries collide with the industrial reality of a handful built per year and missiles costing millions apiece, fired in pairs against swarms that can number in the hundreds. Intercept math becomes strategy: even optimistic launcher counts leave most threats untouched, and maneuvering hypersonics challenge Patriot’s effectiveness. Johnson walks us through the war’s timeline—Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka—and why a slower Russian mobilization now yields faster advances as trained manpower and logistics finally converge.

The final act asks the hardest question: what does it mean when Abu Mohammed al‑Jolani, Al‑Qaeda’s Syrian leader, is welcomed in Washington? Johnson traces a decades‑long pattern of U.S. support to radical Sunni groups, from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Syria, and links it to a bipartisan record of targeted killings that erode constitutional norms. If strategy ignores first principles—law, accountability, and the difference between optics and outcomes—blowback isn’t a surprise, it’s a certainty.

If you’re ready for clear, unsentimental analysis—terrain over talking points, production over promises—hit play, share with a friend, and leave a review with the one insight that challenged your view. Your take might shape our next deep dive.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download