To most eyes, it’s just a tiny stone, so plain that it probably wouldn’t get a second glance.

To archaeology experts in Israel, however, that stone took on deep historical meaning after it was uncovered in Jerusalem.

According to The Times of Israel, an extremely rare “beka” stone was recently unearthed at the Western Wall, an ancient portion of Temple Mount in the famous biblical city.

Inscribed with Hebrew script, bekas were used as a crude form of currency by religious pilgrims making their way to the holy site. Today, however, they’re incredibly hard to find.

Straight from the #Bible: Tiny First Temple #Beka Stone Weight Unearthed In #Jerusalem, The #Eternal #Capital Of #Israel! https://t.co/PXb3fw8YMh via @timesofisrael

— JohnJohn (@realJWJ777) November 22, 2018

TRENDING: Senator Mocks Libs with ‘Gender Change’ After Being Told To Shut Up Because He’s Male

The Israel Antiquities Authority told The Times that only a few beka stones have ever been discovered in Jerusalem, and the one just found in Jerusalem seems to have a unique inscription.

The lettering on this item is “mirrored,” and experts believe that a seal-maker who was used to making mirrored images was the ancient artisan behind the historic piece.

“Apparently, the seal craftsman got confused when he engraved the inscription on the weight and mistakenly used mirror script as he was used to doing,” archaeologist Eli Shukron said.

Beka stones were used as a sort of intermediate currency or weight that was used as a measure of value.

“The word ‘beka’ appears twice in the Torah: first as the weight of gold in a nose ring given to matriarch Rebecca in the Book of Genesis, and later in the Book of Exodus as a weight for the donation brought by the Jewish people for the maintenance of the Temple and the census,” the Israeli newspaper explained.

In addition to the rarity of this find, experts are also excited about its historical and biblical significance.

“The Bible, the artifact found close to Solomon’s Temple, north of the City of David, the Temple foundations — everything is connected,” Shukron said.

It is estimated that the rare discovery may go back to around a thousand years before Christ.

RELATED: ‘Suddenly I Saw Eyes’: Jesus’ Face Discovered in 1500-Year-Old Desert Church Ruins

“This 3,000-year-old beka weight, inscribed with ancient Hebrew, was likely used in the First Temple, anchoring once again the deep historical connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem,” said Doron Spielman, vice president of the City of David Foundation.

That point may seem trivial, but it’s vitally important to Israelis. Palestinians also lay claim to Jerusalem despite the long history of Jewish roots there, and that dispute has dominated much of Middle Eastern and world politics.

If nothing else, the beka discovery is a vital reminder that we are not isolated and disconnected from the past. Understanding our history and the people who shaped the world we live in is important, and even a simple stone can speak volumes.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

To quote the great theologian Lucy Van Pelt, “Look, Charlie, let’s face it. We all know that Christmas is a big commercial racket. It’s run by a big eastern syndicate, you know.”

I’ve always found a certain irony in that line, given that “A Charlie Brown Christmas” was originally sponsored by the altruistic folks at Coca-Cola; in early airings, the can that Linus manages to shoot off of the fence with a snowball was actually a Coke.

However, the point was manifest: Yes, the Christmas season is overly commercialized, and the antidote isn’t to give into it but to anchor ourselves in the true meaning of the holiday, which is the birth of our Savior as Christians.

If you haven’t managed to catch “A Charlie Brown Christmas” in the last half-century, I apologize for the spoilers. At least you can still wait with bated breath to find out what happens to the poxed little sapling Charlie picks out from the Christmas tree lot.

But I digress. There’s a third option to the commercialization/Christian dichotomy coming out of Merrie England, which is either ingenious or horrifying, depending on how you look at it.

TRENDING: Senator Mocks Libs with ‘Gender Change’ After Being Told To Shut Up Because He’s Male

At Lady Lumley’s School in Pickering, North Yorkshire, Christmas has been “banned” by officials for being too commercial — unless, of course, the students can convince one of the holiday’s apparatchiks otherwise.

“In an assembly this week, ‘Father Christmas’ told students about the true meaning of Christmas being ‘lost and buried under an avalanche of commercialization’ before announcing the holiday was canceled,” Fox News reported.

“Cards, gifts and Christmas activities were banned unless ‘persuasive arguments’ can be made to argue the real meaning of Christmas, he said.

“Children at the secondary school now have until November 30 to email their teacher to persuade her the school should celebrate Christmas.”

Leaving aside the obvious supererogatory red tape of making the teachers intermediaries in this whole shebang (I don’t think even Thomas Sowell’s arguments about the value of middlemen would justify this arrangement), this is more interesting than it might appear on its face.

“In assemblies this week, Mrs. Paul, one of our teachers of (religious education), spoke about Christmas and whether the message of Christmas has been lost and buried under an avalanche of commercialization,” headteacher Richard Bramley said.

“Christmas is a day celebrating the birth of Jesus and should be a time of goodwill to all, yet it can be a very stressful, expensive, argumentative and lonely time.”

Parents had mixed takes on the whole thing.

“I understand the way the RE teacher is trying to educate the kids. But it’s the way the kids have been told … Mine came in upset,” one parent said.

RELATED: Glass Co. Offering All Employees Guns as Corporate Christmas Presents

“What’s all this about kids not being able to celebrate Christmas??” another wrote.

However, others seemed to agree with the message.

“Don’t know the details, but this actually sounds like quite a good exercise — getting everyone to actually think about what Christmas really is and why we should celebrate it,” one person said.

In terms of giving everyone a caveat lector on this matter, here’s my personal opinion: The only thing more annoying about Christmas than the over-commercialization of the holiday are the people and/or institutions that cannot be helped but to bang on about the over-commercialization of the holiday.

If you’re a Christian and don’t want to participate in the more capitalistic aspects of the season, you don’t have to. Like so many other things in this world, it’s a choice that is neither moral nor amoral. The controversy over this is also used far too often as a trojan horse to sneak anti-consumerist piffle into the holiday discussion by people who care exponentially less about the birth of Jesus than the habits of the earth-bound humans they’re fond of castigating.

As long as my consumption and celebration of the season is within scriptural boundaries and I still remember that this is, first and foremost, about the virgin birth of Jesus, I don’t particularly feel I need to be lectured by you or anyone else about what presents I buy or charities I give to. I doubt I’m alone in this; I’m sure at least some of those fictive couples in those rebarbative, interchangeable commercials in which they exchange bow-wrapped luxury crossovers under a synthetic Hollywood snowfall remember Luke 2 and keep it close to their hearts as they try out the heated seats.

This all being said, I have to throw some minor props in the direction of Pickering, North Yorkshire. The reason is encapsulated in that response where the parent complains about “the way the kids have been told… Mine came in upset.”

Oh. Good.

With all due respect, sir or madam, you’re sending your progeny to a religious school and you’re doing so of your own volition. Part of their education, one therefore assumes, involves the inculcation of Christian virtues.

It’s not like the headteacher was reading them Jonathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” (A popular second to “The Night Before Christmas” around the hearth on Dec. 24, as I’m sure you all know.) Their religious ed teachers came up with a unique way to get them to think about the birth of Jesus and how our increasingly secular world celebrates it. I’ve already delineated good reasons to be against this setup. A kid having a conniption isn’t one of them. In fact, it’s one of the things that leads me to believe the faculty at Lady Lumley made the right choice. Pun unintended given the season, but at least you can’t criticize them for giving in to the snowflake mentality.

Of course, the idea of Christmas being cancellable may present other theological issues, but one can’t help but sympathize with Headteacher Bramley when he points out how the religious ed teacher “cited the example of Christmas cards which bear no relation to the origin or meaning of Christmas but carry symbols we now recognize as associated with the holiday season, e.g Santa Claus who, in his modern incarnation, was probably invented by the Coca Cola company!”

As previously stated, Coca-Cola brought us “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” too. Both of these institutions — Charlie Brown and Saint Nick — can be in concert with or in opposition to the spirit of the holiday. Santa Claus can remind us to be cheerful givers for those in dire need even as we think we have too little of our own. He can also be a secular figure of avarice, stoking envy because of how little we believe we have.

As for Coca-Cola’s other baby, well, you don’t necessarily need to be Charlie Brown every waking moment of the season, always picking out the metaphorical dying seedling without ever glancing at the “great big shiny aluminum Christmas tree” because it would be “too consumerist.” On the other hand, it’s probably not a good idea to be Lucy Van Pelt, always fixated on whether Santa will bring you real estate. Whether this will teach the children of Lady Lumley’s the difference is anyone’s guess, and whether the faculty’s heart is in the right place is debatable. However, you can’t fault them for inducing boredom in religious studies.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

I remember being vaguely surprised when Keith Olbermann showed up as a political commentator. He had been, after all, a staple on ESPN. I ingenuously figured that the people of ESPN lived a monastic existence where they pored over our great nation’s sporting life and held long discussions about the semiotics of the Philly Phanatic and whether or not the USFL and spring professional football was a sign of a hopelessly decadent civilization. They were above and/or below politics.

I was quite the naif, I suppose. Of course the personalities on ESPN had political opinions; they were human beings, right? However, even after I was disabused of the notion that there was some sort of sportsmanly cloister up in Bristol, Connecticut, I still figured there would be some sort of line separating ESPN and straight-up politics.

It seems I was credulous on that account, as well. While the network has tried to tamp down on some of its excesses (we don’t hear so much Max Kellerman telling us all how playing the national anthem at games is inherently political, for instance, and Jemele Hill seems to have departed sports reporting for Olbermanville), it’s still likely one factor in a huge $1.44 billion loss that the network is likely to take with a new round of cord-cutting.

“ESPN has shed about 2 million domestic subscribers over the past 12 months, according to Disney’s newly released annual report,” Variety reported this week.

“ESPN’s total U.S. subscriber base stands at about 86 million, per Disney’s report for its 2018 fiscal year, which ended in September. That sub number compares to 88 million as reported in Disney’s fiscal 2017 report.”

TRENDING: Senator Mocks Libs with ‘Gender Change’ After Being Told To Shut Up Because He’s Male

Clay Travis’ Outkick the Coverage notes how much of an issue this is.

“Now the positive for ESPN is that the rate of subscriber decline seems to have slowed this year, but the negative is that since 2011 ESPN has now lost 15 million cable and satellite subscribers,” Travis wrote Friday.

“Those 15 million lost subscribers equate to $1.44 billion a year in lost yearly revenue that ESPN will never be able to book. (This is based on an $8 a month subscriber cost for ESPN multiplied by 12 months in the year.) Again, this isn’t just a one time yearly revenue loss, this is a loss in yearly revenue forever.

“Now every cable and satellite channel is losing subscribers — as dumb Twitter users who don’t read this article will immediately respond in my mentions — but the impact disproportionately impacts ESPN for two reasons: 1. the network makes far more in revenue off the cable bundle than any other channel so it stands to lose, by far, the most off the collapsing business model and 2. the network has guaranteed tens of billions in sports rights fee payments over the next decade and more to sports leagues.”

Theoretically, ESPN should be the linchpin of cable’s strategy going forward. It has live sports, supposedly the one thing that’s saving the traditional TV model in the streaming age. It also has the three major U.S. sports leagues — the NFL, the NBA and Major League Baseball.

At least for this week, executives at ESPN can crow about the ratings for “Monday Night Football.” For those of you who aren’t NFL fans, last week’s matchup featured arguably the two best teams in the league — the 9-1 Los Angeles Rams and the 9-1 Kansas City Chiefs — in a 54-51 shootout Rams win that saw the lead change roughly 842 times. It also saw ratings up 57 percent over the Week 11 matchup last year.

There’s also the fact that NFL ratings are up this season in total, albeit by a more modest 3 percent. That’s after several years of steep declines, however, which means they’re not anywhere near back to where they were.

And while good matchups and tons of offense are part of the reason behind the slight rise, there’s also the fact that there haven’t been as many national anthem protests this season. Of course, there are also still fans staying away — again, something that can be attributed to politics.

In terms of the NFL, ESPN definitely has issues. It’s paying $2 billion a year for “Monday Night Football” right now, a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t proposition.

RELATED: Country Superstar Admonishes Anthem Kneelers with Incredible New Message

“Remember, it’s even worse than this too, it’s the ‘Monday Night Football’ deal which allows ESPN to show NFL highlights,” Travis wrote.

“Even if ESPN is outbid or can’t afford to purchase ‘Monday Night Football’ rights, the company still would be forced to pay hundreds of millions, if not a billion, just for the right to show NFL highlights at all.”

ESPN can’t necessarily control politics in the NFL. The network can control politics on its own programming — something it’s done a terrible job of. How much money that’s cost ESPN directly is anyone’s guess.

What we have is a number showing how much it’s lost in subscribers. ESPN was supposed to be what stemmed the cord-cutting trend. That doesn’t seem to be what’s happening — and its politics almost certainly have played some role in that.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The migrant caravan making its way to the U.S. in a bid to cut the line ahead of legal immigrants has revealed quite a few instances of chutzpah and ingratitude, in part because its participants aren’t really the mere moms and kids fleeing violence that their organizers say they are.

The instance that stands out is the one of a rather well-fed-looking Honduran woman named Miriam Celaya holding up a plate of tortillas and beans donated by the Mexicans, screwing up her nose disdainfully at the plate that looks as though it actually had fingers dragged through it, and explaining to a Deutsche Welle interviewer that it was food “for pigs.”

Get a load of the ingratitude:

Now, the food was donated food by the Mexicans, whose government is spending $26,000 a day on housing and feeding the migrants and it represents the normal cuisine of the country. When you go to Mexico, tortillas and beans are what you eat. It’s something everyone eats, too. War story: Back when I was a reporter for Forbes magazine, doing the Mexican billionaire’s list, I had breakfast with Mexican billionaire Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala, who owns much of the Corona beer fortune. What did she order at the restaurant we met at? Kid you not, tortillas and beans.

If the Honduran migrant here can’t handle tortillas and beans without dragging her fingers through the plate and calling it pig food, how is she going to handle American food? There’s kind of an assimilation deficit.

More importantly, there’s a gratitude deficit. And that was obvious enough to the Mexicans, who obviously see beggars who insist on being choosers. It’s not just bad character we are seeing – it’s actually proof that the migrants, with their new logo-festooned clothes and expensive strollers, aren’t really all that poor at all: like most migrants, they are members of their country’s lower middle classes, well fed to the point of being overweight as many are and accustomed to certain things. Tijuanans protested these migrants over the weekend, in part because of the ingratitude showed for the imposition thrown at them. At the protest Sunday, they actually did chants shouting their favor of tortillas and beans based on widespread outrage at the video.

Knowing her remarks were making the caravan migrants unpopular in Tijuana, Celaya, or someone making Celaya do it, apologized. According to Newsweek:

As a result, BBC Mundo reached out to the woman identified as Miriam Celaya, who “apologized to all Mexicans” on Wednesday. She explained to the media outlet that she left Honduras so that her daughter could receive treatment in the U.S for her hearing and speech loss.

But for us in the U.S., the apology revealed even more undesirable things. She apologized because she said she was coming to the U.S. to get health care for her daughter, who had some expensive medical conditions? That’s a rationale for ingratitude? Because it’s important to make gringo pay instead? She wasn’t looking to escape violence, she was coming for the free stuff. And that’s the sort of person the U.S. should let in above all other legal immigrants if the leftwing press is to be believed? Given her requirements on the food front, whatever free health care America has to offer her isn’t likely to satisfy her, either. And if the Mexicans are paying $26,000 in meals, imagine what the U.S. health care she’s not going to pay for is going to cost.

Guess who’s gets to pay for that one?

Image credit: YouTube screengrab

The migrant caravan making its way to the U.S. in a bid to cut the line ahead of legal immigrants has revealed quite a few instances of chutzpah and ingratitude, in part because its participants aren’t really the mere moms and kids fleeing violence that their organizers say they are.

The instance that stands out is the one of a rather well-fed-looking Honduran woman named Miriam Celaya holding up a plate of tortillas and beans donated by the Mexicans, screwing up her nose disdainfully at the plate that looks as though it actually had fingers dragged through it, and explaining to a Deutsche Welle interviewer that it was food “for pigs.”

Get a load of the ingratitude:

Now, the food was donated food by the Mexicans, whose government is spending $26,000 a day on housing and feeding the migrants and it represents the normal cuisine of the country. When you go to Mexico, tortillas and beans are what you eat. It’s something everyone eats, too. War story: Back when I was a reporter for Forbes magazine, doing the Mexican billionaire’s list, I had breakfast with Mexican billionaire Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala, who owns much of the Corona beer fortune. What did she order at the restaurant we met at? Kid you not, tortillas and beans.

If the Honduran migrant here can’t handle tortillas and beans without dragging her fingers through the plate and calling it pig food, how is she going to handle American food? There’s kind of an assimilation deficit.

More importantly, there’s a gratitude deficit. And that was obvious enough to the Mexicans, who obviously see beggars who insist on being choosers. It’s not just bad character we are seeing – it’s actually proof that the migrants, with their new logo-festooned clothes and expensive strollers, aren’t really all that poor at all: like most migrants, they are members of their country’s lower middle classes, well fed to the point of being overweight as many are and accustomed to certain things. Tijuanans protested these migrants over the weekend, in part because of the ingratitude showed for the imposition thrown at them. At the protest Sunday, they actually did chants shouting their favor of tortillas and beans based on widespread outrage at the video.

Knowing her remarks were making the caravan migrants unpopular in Tijuana, Celaya, or someone making Celaya do it, apologized. According to Newsweek:

As a result, BBC Mundo reached out to the woman identified as Miriam Celaya, who “apologized to all Mexicans” on Wednesday. She explained to the media outlet that she left Honduras so that her daughter could receive treatment in the U.S for her hearing and speech loss.

But for us in the U.S., the apology revealed even more undesirable things. She apologized because she said she was coming to the U.S. to get health care for her daughter, who had some expensive medical conditions? That’s a rationale for ingratitude? Because it’s important to make gringo pay instead? She wasn’t looking to escape violence, she was coming for the free stuff. And that’s the sort of person the U.S. should let in above all other legal immigrants if the leftwing press is to be believed? Given her requirements on the food front, whatever free health care America has to offer her isn’t likely to satisfy her, either. And if the Mexicans are paying $26,000 in meals, imagine what the U.S. health care she’s not going to pay for is going to cost.

Guess who’s gets to pay for that one?

Image credit: YouTube screengrab

Last winter I wrote about China’s plans to implement a “social credit system” which would rate all citizens based on their interactions with others and how the government viewed them in terms of being “good citizens.” Rather than simply informing the public about the person’s supposed value to society, the government would be using these scores to determine everything from how free you are to travel to what sort of job or home you could have. It’s a system that leaves George Orwell looking like an amateur.

But could they really implement something that complicated for a country with literally billions of people to keep track of? Turns out they’re pretty sure they can. In fact, it’s going to be going fully online in the next couple of years. (Bloomberg)

China’s plan to judge each of its 1.3 billion people based on their social behavior is moving a step closer to reality, with Beijing set to adopt a lifelong points program by 2021 that assigns personalized ratings for each resident.

The capital city will pool data from several departments to reward and punish some 22 million citizens based on their actions and reputations by the end of 2020, according to a plan posted on the Beijing municipal government’s website on Monday. Those with better so-called social credit will get “green channel” benefits while those who violate laws will find life more difficult.

This is beyond chilling. If you manage to qualify for the “green channel” benefits you’ll probably be in an enviable position. But if you are blacklisted for having a low score, the government promises that you will be “unable to move even a single step.” And what do you need to do to earn a low score? Something like treason? Nope. Your score can be lowered for getting a traffic ticket. But you don’t even have to break the law. You can take a hit to your score just for being deemed unpleasant by your cab driver or the person serving you your morning coffee. Didn’t mow your lawn? Your neighbor can lower your score.

In my previous article (linked at the top) I described the “Nosedive” episode of the Netflix series Black Mirror. Here’s the trailer for that show, just to give you a taste of what the future has in store for you.

For everyone arguing in favor of more government control over “dangerous speech” or unacceptable, insufficiently progressive behavior, take a good look. We’re already seeing the results of social media boycotts and smear campaigns and how that affects people in their real life. And that’s without the iron fist of the government getting involved, at least for the most part. Be careful what you wish for. You might just wind up in a nosedive.

On Thursday, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told The Guardian (UK) that Europe has badly mishandled the migration crisis from the Middle East. In verbiage reminiscent of one Donald J. Trump, Clinton acknowledged that Europe’s influx of unvetted immigration from Muslim countries has led to social fracturing on the continent, explaining:

I think Europe needs to get a handle on migration because that is what lit the flame. I admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken by leaders like Angela Merkel [of Germany], but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part and must send a very clear message – ‘we are not going to be able to continue providing refuge and support’ – because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.

This comment, of course, is directly in line with the statements of many on the political Right with regard to immigration in Europe, as well as unvetted illegal immigration in the United States. It’s been a truism of European politics for years that mass migration from the Middle East has led to the rise of Right-wing forces from Norway to Austria to the Brexit movement. And Hillary Clinton’s preferred policies in Libya and Syria were chief contributors to the migrant crisis that swamped the continent.

So, here’s the real question: why would Hillary suddenly decide to tell the truth about Middle Eastern immigration after years of demagoguing the issue for the love of the radical Left? Perhaps she’s decided that fibbing was finally boring; perhaps she’s decided that she wants to run in 2020 again, so she’s shoring up her moderate base for her radical move to the Left.

Either way, it’s instructive to see Clinton admit a basic truism about unvetted immigration destroying the social fabric. And it will be even more instructive to watch the Left tear her apart for acknowledging this obvious truth, proving once again that the radical political Left doesn’t have the street smarts to acknowledge basic political truths while providing different solutions.

Instead, they prefer to ignore problems until those problems become too large to ignore – at which point they blame those on the Right for raising the issue in the first place.

More details have been revealed about a child bride from South Sudan who was sold through Facebook, which the social network only took action on two weeks after the auction post had been made. The girl, now 17, is reportedly the man’s ninth wife.

The girl from South Sudan, now 17-years-old, was sold by her family to a man three times her age following a bidding war with “at least four other men,” according to the Associated Press (AP).

Despite various appeals made by human rights group, a 16 year old girl child became a victim to an online marriage auction post, which was not taken down by Facebook in South Sudan. Sinking part is that people are now opting for social media for fulfilling orthodox rituals. pic.twitter.com/tj4cMADeFN

— H4Human (@h4humanrights) November 20, 2018

Her family reportedly received, “Five hundred cows, two luxury cars, $10,000, two bikes, a boat and a few cell phones,” as part of the deal.

“Earlier this month, Nyalong became the man’s ninth wife. Photos posted on Facebook show her sitting beside the groom, wearing a lavish dress and staring despondently at the floor,” revealed AP, which only published the girl’s first name, and noted that among her bidders was “the state’s deputy governor.”

Earlier this week, it was reported that the girl was sold through Facebook, and that the social network failed to take action against the auction post until two weeks after it had been published.

In a statement, Plan International’s South Sudan Country Director, George Otim, declared, “This barbaric use of technology is reminiscent of latter-day slave markets. That a girl could be sold for marriage on the world’s biggest social networking site in this day and age is beyond belief.”

Facebook responded to the incident by claiming that it had permanently suspended the account which made the post.

“Any form of human trafficking — whether posts, pages, ads or groups is not allowed on Facebook. We removed the post and permanently disabled the account belonging to the person who posted this to Facebook,” stated a Facebook spokesman to Business Insider. “We’re always improving the methods we use to identify content that breaks our policies, including doubling our safety and security team to more than 30,000 and investing in technology.”

Facebook has previously had problems with human trafficking on its platforms, including the Facebook-owned Instagram.

In October, four Indonesians were arrested after they allegedly sold babies on Instagram.

A September report also revealed Facebook had become a hotbed for illegal animal trading, including endangered animals which are banned from sale internationally.

 

Oil prices dropped sharply on Friday as traders came to grips with the idea that Donald Trump’s demands that Saudi Arabia keep oil prices low are likely to keep prices from rising after the upcoming meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The U.S. benchmark, West Texas Intermediate futures, fell by as much as 7 percent at its lows of the day, briefly slipping below $50 a barrel. Despite rebounding a bit to $51 a barrel on Friday afternoon, the American crude grade is deeply in bear market territory, off by more than 30 percent from its October 3 close.

Brent crude, the global benchmark, is down 6 percent. It is also down by nearly a one-third from recent highs.

Donald Trump’s tweet thanking Saudi Arabia for the low price of oil highlighted the political pressure bearing down on the kingdom. Investors are increasingly skeptical that the Saudis will risk alienating the Trump administration by supporting plans to cut oil supplies to boost prices at the December 6th OPEC meeting in Vienna.

Oil prices getting lower. Great! Like a big Tax Cut for America and the World. Enjoy! $54, was just $82. Thank you to Saudi Arabia, but let’s go lower!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

The stronger-than-expected growth in U.S. oil production is also contributing to the price decline. U.S. production climbed above 11 million barrels a day earlier this year, according to government data.

Signs that European and Asian economies may be slumping also likely contributed to the sell-off, giving rise to the notion that global demand for oil and gasoline may decline even while supply remains high. China gasoline exports in October fell to their lowest in 13 months amid a glut of the fuel in Asia and globally, a Reuters report citing customs data showed on Friday.

China’s economic woes, driven in large part by its trade war with the U.S., also may dampen demand its domestic demand for oil.

As recently as October, many analysts were forecasting oil could climb above $100 a barrel. That view has vanished from the market.

A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving was accused of racism by some social media users Thursday due to where Franklin, the only black character, is seated at the dinner table.

In the classic animated movie, Charlie Brown is at the head of the table, while most of the other characters are sitting on one side.

Franklin is seated alone on the other side of the table, which led some to accuse the movie of subtle to overt racism.

How come Franklin, Charlie Brown’s only black friend, sits alone on the other side of the table? And in a lawn chair. #franklin #CharlieBrown #CharlieBrownThanksgiving

— Cynthia Haynes (@ChefCynthiaC) November 22, 2018

Let’s talk about Franklin. Dude gets invited to Charlie Brown’s by Peppermint Patty. Then he finds out that it wasn’t a real invite, a dog is cooking the food and he’s gotta sit by himself at dinner. That’s Get Out. #CharlieBrownThanksgiving

— Terry Turkey Leg Brown™️ (@TBrown_80) November 22, 2018

Not watching Charlie Brown Thanksgiving anymore, until they sit some people on the same side of the table as Franklin ✊🏾✊🏾

— Vic Damone Jr (@Asharp52) November 22, 2018

However, the insertion of the Franklin character into the cartoon series was purportedly a repudiation of racism during the turbulent 1960s.

The Blaze’s Sarah Taylor writes:

“Yes, especially since the characters’ creator, Charles M. Schulz, intentionally added Franklin to the cast of characters in 1968 in an attempt to thumb his nose at racism, which was rampant during that time, the civil rights era.

…

Schulz’ editor was reportedly against including Franklin in the cartoon for a variety of reasons.

Schulz reportedly told his editor, Larry, “Well … let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How’s that?”

Indeed, even left-leaning fact check site Snopes said that accusations of racism in Charlie Brown were not accurate, though they did say that interpreting the seating at the table was a “subjective issue.”

President Donald Trump has stated that U.S. troops are prepared to use lethal force at the southern border if it is necessary to defend themselves against Central American migrants trying to illegally enter the U.S.

After speaking to members of the military on Thanksgiving morning, Trump answered questions about the thousands of active-duty American troops being sent to the southern border to deal with the migrant caravan.

“If they have to, they’re going to use lethal force. I’ve given the okay.  I hope they don’t have to,” Trump said to reporters.

“But, you know, you’re dealing with a minimum of 500 serious criminals. So I’m going to let the military be taken advantage of. I have no choice. Do I want that to happen? Absolutely not.”

A few days earlier, the Trump administration briefly shut down the busiest port of entry at the U.S. border with Mexico because “it was out of control.”

TRENDING: Flashback: Trump Assassination Attempt Foiled by Secret Service, Establishment Media Silent

“I actually — two days ago, we closed the border. We actually just closed it. We’re saying, nobody is coming in, because it was out of control,” Trump said on Thursday. “But you take a look at Tijuana, Mexico, and you see what’s happening there — it’s really a bad situation.”

As reported by CNN, Trump has sent nearly 6,000 U.S. troops to the southern border to reinforce border security. The president believes this is a necessary security measure to take against the thousands of Central American citizens heading to the U.S.

According to the Daily Caller, the caravan’s violent tactics while entering Mexico raised alarm in U.S. officials, with members of the caravan reported to have been planning to overwhelm U.S. ports of entry in order to bypass authorities and enter the states.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Nielsen has made announcements on Twitter about the reinforcements being sent in direct response to threats from those in the caravan.

Unfortunately, some members of the caravan are purposely causing disruptions at our border ports of entry. There is a legal and illegal way to enter the US. We have deployed additional forces to protect our border. We will enforce all our laws.

— Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 19, 2018

According to CNN, Trump signed a memo earlier this week allowing U.S. forces to protect Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel from migrants if the migrants employ violence.

As reported by NBC News, the memo states that that “Department of Defense military personnel” may temporarily protect CBP “by protecting their performance of Federal functions.”

“To carry out that mission, these deployed Department of Defense military personnel may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection of Federal personnel, including a show or use of force (including lethal force, where necessary), crowd control, temporary detention, and cursory search,” the memorandum reportedly reads.

RELATED: Man Accused of Attempting To Murder Cops Is DACA Recipient, ICE Confirms

However, Secretary of Defense James Mattis repeatedly said earlier this week that U.S. troops would not use lethal force.

“There has been no call for any lethal force from DHS,” Mattis told reporters Wednesday morning, according to NBC News.

Questioned about whether the troops dispatched to the border are authorized to use lethal force, Mattis responded, “I have the authority. But we are not even employing, you’ve seen the picture of the guys down there not carrying guns, so relax. Don’t worry about it.”

On Thursday, however, President Trump continued to emphasize the need to maintain order in regards to immigration to the U.S.

“What we want to do is we want to have a strong border. We want to have people come into our country,” the president said. “I want to have a lot of people come in. We need them. But they have to come in through merit, and they have to come in legally. They have to come in legally.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.