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.

On Wednesday, right-wing investigative journalist Laura Loomer was permanently suspended from social media platform Twitter over a tweet wherein Loomer criticized Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Islamic practices like female genital mutilation (FGM).

“Isn’t it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate ‘women, LGBTQ, and minorities’ is a picture of Ilhan Omar? Ilhan is pro-Sharia Ilhan is pro FGM. Under Sharia homosexuals are oppressed and killed. Women are abused and forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti-Jewish,” said Loomer, 25.

The tweet apparently violated Twitter’s “rules against hateful conduct,” which seem to be applied fast and loose and mostly dependent on your political ideology. Loomer, who is Jewish, had accumulated over 260,000 on Twitter before she was effectively silenced.

It took Facebook less than 24 hours to issue a suspension against Loomer.

In a statement on social media platform Gab, which describes itself as “the free speech network,” Loomer said she has been “silenced in America for simply telling the truth.”

“Free speech is under attack by the Left and big tech companies in this country,” said Loomer, adding, “My haters are celebrating today, and they are saying this is the end of my career, but I want everyone to know I’m just getting started. Everyone who knows me knows I don’t back down.”

Rep. Omar, who is Muslim, has a history of anti-Israel comments, and voted against a bill that would block efforts to boycott Israeli businesses.

“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,” said Omar in a tweet from 2012, which she defended as recently as May 2018.

Additionally, as reported by The Daily Wire, “In 2017, the Minnesota House passed HF400, the ‘Israel Boycott Ban’ bill, which banned the state of Minnesota, including Minnesota colleges and universities, from contracting with vendors boycotting Israel. Omar voted against the bill, saying, ‘I would have loved to vote for a bill that expands our ideals of fighting against discrimination, that actually stood up against all discrimination. I don’t want to be part of a vote that limits the ability of people to fight towards justice and peace.'”

Loomer recently made headlines for confronting celebrity attorney and anti-Trump activist Michael Avenatti and Women’s March supporter and actress Alyssa Milano at Politicon in Los Angeles. After Loomer confronted Milano about the Women’s March’s leaders’ ties to anti-Semitism, the actress denounced them.

On Wednesday, in a video reacting to the Twiiter ban (see below), Loomer called on President Donald Trump to do something about the “monopolistic” big tech companies silencing opposition.

“If you want to win in 2020, you have to ensure your supporters have a voice on social media,” she implored.

WATCH:

The U.S. envoy to a meeting of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) accused Iran on Thursday of developing banned chemical weapons and failing to disclose its activities as required by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

AFP summarized the allegations made by U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Ward at Thursday’s meeting of the OPCW:

“The United States has had longstanding concerns that Iran maintains a chemical weapons program that it failed to declare to the OPCW,” Ambassador Ward told a five-yearly meeting on the body’s future.

“The U.S. is also concerned that Iran is pursuing central nervous system-acting chemicals for offensive purposes.”

Ward said Iran had failed to declare the transfer of chemical-filled shells sent to Libya in the 1980s despite an appeal by the OPCW to identify their origin. They were found after the death of Libyan leader Moammar Quaddafi in 2011.

“They were clearly of Iranian origin as evidenced by the farsi writing on the boxes containing the artillery shells,” he said.

Iran had also failed to declare a “chemical weapons filling capability” despite the discovery of toxic shells and bombs in Libya and also in Iraq.

Finally, Iran had failed to declare riot control agents despite having marketed them at defense expos, he added.

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi denounced the American allegations as “groundless” and speculated the U.S. wishes to distract international attention from Israel’s alleged chemical weapons arsenal.

Iran’s delegate to the OPCW conference, Gholam Hossein Dehghani, more vaguely accused some other nations of “hypocritical behavior” because they indulge the use of chemical weapons against civilians by “terrorist groups.”

Russia supports Iran and claims Tehran has fully complied with the relevant international laws and agreements.

Two U.S. officials told the Associated Press last week about the Trump administration’s plans to accuse Iran of violating the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. The officials said U.S. lawmakers were notified last Friday that a complaint would be filed against Iran at The Hague.

Analyst Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told Voice of America News that Iran benefits from the reluctance of international agencies like the OPCW to accept U.S. intelligence reports and the widespread perception that Iran is among the world’s leading victims of chemical warfare, its troops having been gassed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the brutal Iran-Iraq War. There have long been suspicions that Iran retaliated against Iraq with chemical weapons of its own during the war, but analysts such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative in Washington deemed the evidence against Iran inconclusive.

“The fact that this archival U.S. intelligence material exists and is not engaged with or dismissed is part of a larger problem because it leads analysts to take Iran’s war account at face value,” said Taleblu.

“While I will be the first to say that Iran’s chemical weapons experience in the war was horrific, the fact that Iran learned the lessons of deterrence the hard way is what made it so active in weapons of mass destruction and missiles after the war,” he added.

President Donald Trump has endured blistering criticism from the media and from his political opponents in both parties over his statement earlier this week expressing support for Saudi Arabia, even in the wake of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a veteran and war critic, even called Trump “Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

In fact, the situation is exactly the reverse, and Gabbard should be praising Trump for advancing the cause of peace.

Trump now has the Saudis exactly where he wants them. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), once the toast of the world’s elites, is now widely portrayed as an accused murderer. President Trump could join the attack, perhaps even pushing MBS out of power and destabilizing the Saudi regime itself. Instead, Trump has positioned himself as MBS’s last and best friend. Without Trump’s support, MBS might not survive long — and he knows it.

That puts Trump in a position to make demands. He has already engineered peace talks in Yemen between the Saudi-backed government and the Iranian-backed rebels. He claims to have convinced the Saudis to increase oil production to keep prices low. And he may be able to achieve bigger things yet — such as Saudi support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace plan that would conclude the conflict on terms favorable to the United States and Israel.

Trump could, for example, instruct the Saudis to accept, and to pressure the Palestinians to accept, a peace plan that recognizes both Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and Israel’s sovereignty in Jerusalem. He could tell MBS that the burden of bankrolling the Palestinians — including the so-called “refugees” — is now his. And he could sweeten the deal by giving the Saudis some authority over Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. MBS would be foolish to refuse.

Alternatively, Trump could bow to the “Obama bros” and the cable news pundits, and attack MBS for the death of Khashoggi, downgrading relations and insisting on regime change.

But it is not clear what broader good that would achieve. The Middle East is not going to become a more humane place just because another tyrant falls. And Iran would take advantage of Saudi Arabia’s weakness to bolster its terrorist proxies and its nuclear ambitions.

President Barack Obama’s approach shows exactly what not to do. When U.S.-allied Arab regimes began cracking down on protests during the Arab Spring, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first defended the regimes, in line with the neorealist dogma in vogue among the anti-war left and reflected in the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, whose principle scribe was Obama lackey Ben Rhodes. But they lacked the will to follow through.

Obama and Clinton then swung behind the rebels and the Muslim Brotherhood, hoping to guide the revolutionary fervor in the direction of liberal democracy. Their hope was that new Islamist governments might look like Recep Tayyip Ergodan’s government in Turkey, then seen as a model of how to balance political Islam with modernity. When Obama and Clinton attacked Libya in 2011, they had come full circle: they were the neo-neo-conservatives.

When that failed, Obama abandoned the idea of appeasing the Sunni world, and backed the idea of Iran as a new regional hegemon, hoping that by re-integrating the regime into global markets, he would encourage it to become more moderate.

The opposite happened, because — just as he did in “normalizing” relations with Cuba — Obama gave away American leverage over the Iranian regime up front, removing sanctions and delivering pallets of cash.

The only positive consequence of Obama’s blundering was an unintended one: by strengthening Iran, he caused the Saudis and other sunni Arab regimes to reach out to Israel in a tacit alliance against their common enemy.

Trump has seized the opportunity that re-alignment provides. At the same time, he has undermined Saudi Arabia’s only real source of leverage over the U.S. — oil — by encouraging domestic oil production, which Obama tried to discourage.

The murder of Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible crime — one the U.S. has condemned, backing words with sanctions against many Saudi officials believed to have been involved. Yet it does not follow that our national interests should suffer as a result.

Though it may be hard to see through his plain-spoken, even jarring prose, Trump has chosen to be a statesman rather than a scold, exploiting the Saudi predicament to promote the chances of peace and prosperity.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

That quaking beneath your feet is not a stampede; it’s the march of hungry consumers barging through the local Best Buy in pursuit of that 50% off SmartTV for Black Friday.

Nothing quite says “Merry Christmas!” like beating the living daylights out of a total stranger for snagging the last “Sally Wets Her Pants” doll on the shelf. Gone are the days of gathering around the fireplace for some Nat King Cole and roasted chestnuts; in 2018, Black Friday is the ritual by which we welcome the “most wonderful season of all,” and this year started off with a bang … literally.

According to local reports, an altercation between two adults outside of a Footaction at the Riverchase Galleria in Alabama resulted in one death and two injuries after a 21-year-old male suspect pulled his gun and fired on an 18-year-old male shopper. More from the report:

The suspect shot an 18-year-old male once. A 12-year-old female was struck, though it is unclear when it occurred.

The suspect, a 21-year-old from Hueytown, fled following the shooting and police say two nearby officers approached the suspect and shot and killed him.

According to police the 18-year-old victim is at UAB with serious injuries and the 12-year-old female is being treated at Children’s. Police say their latest update of the female victim is that she is “alert” and “talking.”

Police say they recovered a gun left in Santa’s Village.

Witnesses say the shootings occurred between JCPenney and Footaction, where they heard separate rounds of gunfire. The exact nature of the dispute remains unclear at this time. In a statement, the Riverchase Galleria, which was opened on Thanksgiving, said the mall would remain closed until further notice.

“We are devastated by the incident that happened tonight in our shopping center,” said the Riverchase Galleria. “We are working closely with the Hoover Police Department and are grateful for their swift action to contain the situation. While there is no current danger to our community, the shopping center will remain closed until further notice.”

The mall reponed at 6 a.m.

Another Riverchase Galleria in Hoover, Alabama, closed early last year when police were called in to break a brawl up between two women. Witnesses at the time reported of seeing a shoe thrown in the scuffle which planted into a baby’s face.

On social media, cell phone video footage at varying Walmarts showed fights and brawls breaking out between customers as well as employees forged with the impossible task of quelling the rabid masses. At one Walmart in an unspecified city, video showed customers wrestling over a stack of television sets. Another video at another Walmart showed two men fighting as their significant others cursed them out. This video shows security guards pushing customers back as they stampede through the store.

According to Business Insider, Black Friday sales are expected to be the strongest in years.

“Retail stocks were mixed following projections Black Friday 2018 will be the strongest in years,” the outlet reports. “Total spending over the Black Friday weekend was expected to climb 5.7% versus a year ago to $59.6 billion, according to estimates by GlobalData Retail. That would make for the strongest growth rate since 2011.”

Business Insider continued: “Big box retailers like Walmart (+0.83%), Best Buy (+0.71%), and Target(-2%) traded mixed. The SPDR S&P retail exchange-traded fund gained 0.7%. Elsewhere, the department stores Macy’s (-1.44%) and Nordstrom (-0.88%) were weaker.”

Another holiday classic has been slapped with the label “racist” by SJWs for supposedly marginalizing the token black character: “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving.”

People on social media have expressed outrage over the fact that the lone black character Franklin in “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” appears seated differently juxtaposed to the white characters during the famous dinner scene where Charlie Brown serves popcorn and toast to his hungry guests instead of turkey and stuffing. From The Hill:

The scene in question has four characters from Charles M. Schulz’s iconic ‘Peanuts’ cartoon — Sally, Charlie Brown, Peppermint Patty and dog Snoopy — sitting on one side of a makeshift outdoor table for Thanksgiving dinner, with Marcie at one end of the table and Linus at the head.

The cartoon’s lone black character, Franklin, is on his own side of the table seated on a lawn chair.

Comicbook.com was the first to flag the reactions to the scene on social media.

“Not watching Charlie Brown Thanksgiving anymore, until they sit some people on the same side of the table as Franklin,” said one Twitter user.

“How come Franklin, Charlie Brown’s only black friend, sits alone on the other side of the table? And in a lawn chair,” said another Twitter user. “Am I woke now, why is Franklin in Charlie Brown Thanksgiving sitting all by himself at the table. Man. Things that I did not notice as a child,” said another.

One Twitter user said the scene was reminiscent of the film “Get Out,” a story about rich, white liberals who insert their brains into black people’s bodies: “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.”

Of course, all of them have no idea what on earth they are talking about. Fortunately, black journalist Jeremy Helligar cleared up some of the controversy on Friday when he noted that the character Franklin had prime seating in other episodes of the “Peanuts.”

“A relevant aside: During the farewell dinner about one hour and five minutes into 1972’s ‘Snoopy Come Home,’ Franklin was seated on the same side of the table as Charlie Brown, Lucy, and Frieda — in a regular chair,” Helligar said on Medium.

The historical significance of the character Franklin cannot be understated; his creation was reportedly demanded by Charles Schulz following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. when a teacher named Harriet Glickman sent him a letter.

“When asked by the head of the cartoon’s publisher, United Feature Syndicate, if he was sure he wanted to add a black character, Glickman says Schulz replied, ‘Either you run it the way I drew it, or I quit,'” reports The Hill.

The Schulz Museum also celebrated Franklin’s 50th anniversary in July. He has never been treated like a token black character added for cheap lip-service to diversity and has always been a valued member of the “Peanuts” gang.

“A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” is not the only holiday classic the Left has skewered as racist in recent years. In 2016, Salon.com denounced “A Christmas Story” as a racist vehicle of “white nostalgia”:

This is a perfect depiction of the nonwhite “other,” tailored to the conservative and superficial “color-blind” politics of the post-civil rights era

This is an example of the “white racial frame” in action: People of color are present in a way that does not challenge the cultural and personal psychology of white racial innocence. They are present without being objectionable or intrusive in any way; they present no threat to the way whiteness and memory combine to nurture a nostalgia for a “simpler” time that in actuality did not exist.

Fortunately, no ban of “A Christmas Story” ever came about. Hopefully, “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” will enjoy the same fate.