Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Global crude oil prices briefly surged past 9% late Monday, and stocks fell temporarily as the war with Iran continued its third day. Brent crude, the global benchmark, was trading in the high $70s on Monday morning following the effective halt of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. That's a sharp rise from before the U.S. and Israel attacked, but far from a worse-case scenario.

Americans could soon see higher gas prices as escalating tensions in the Middle East threaten a critical global oil choke point, raising fears of supply disruptions that could quickly reverberate across U.S. energy markets. After joint U.S.–Israeli strikes, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, targeted Iranian sites over the weekend and killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, concerns quickly shifted to how Tehran might respond and whether oil infrastructure or tanker traffic could become collateral damage. Any disruption to global crude supplies could translate into higher costs for American drivers at the pump.

The U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran have surged oil prices, and costs for consumers at the pump are expected to rise. The price of global benchmark Brent Crude oil was at about $77 per barrel as of Monday afternoon, up from about $71 a week ago and about $66 per barrel a month ago.

Forever thankful for their service. The post ‘My friends who went to ‘Nam’: The heartfelt song Billy Joel wrote in tribute to American veterans first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Two tragic moments, ten years apart. The post The country singer oddly connected to the deaths of both Hank Williams and Patsy Cline first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Initially, there was polling which indicated that more Americans were for the airstrike campaign, which took out Iranian tyrant Ali Khamenei and several of his top lieutenants, not to mention a host of key political, military, and intelligence facilities, and continues in a clear effort to facilitate regime change in that beleaguered country. But polling since indicates that isn’t the consensus. More respondents indicate they’re opposed to President Trump’s decision to unleash the whirlwind on the Iranian regime than for it. I could give a dissertation on the quality and efficacy of modern polling in an era when our phones are deluged with calls and text solicitations, and we are hounded with spam of every kind. I don’t need to; you already know. I will note, as I noted in a recent column, that polling gold-standard Gallup has confessed to getting a puny 5 percent response rate to its own polling, and if that’s all Gallup is getting, there isn’t much of a reason to believe any polling organization can honestly claim to capture the will of the people. (RELATED: Ten Thoughts on Operation Epic Fury and Its Aftermath) That said, I think I’m on relatively firm ground when I say that the reaction to the strikes over the weekend so far is more muted and mixed than enthusiastic. My own position is that the strikes were inevitable. Not because of anything having to do with Donald Trump or neocon warmongering at the Pentagon, or Israel and its influence on American policy, or any of that. For 47 years, we have attempted to normalize relations with the Iranians based on some very simple and reasonable demands… The strikes were inevitable because sooner or later they had to happen. For 47 years, we have attempted to normalize relations with the Iranians based on some very simple and reasonable demands — that they and their proxies stop killing, maiming, and capturing our citizens, and that they stop threatening our nuclear annihilation while pursuing the means to achieve that aim. (RELATED: War With Iran: Justified Strike, Uncertain Horizon) Iran proved intransigent on both accounts. And for the benefit of the Left, who suddenly believes that American history began when Trump descended that escalator in Manhattan to announce his first presidential run, no — this wasn’t unprovoked, and it wasn’t a war we initiated. This war was initiated back in 1979, and our prosecution of it has been an on-and-off, mostly off, endeavor for all of that time. What happened over the weekend was simply Trump deciding, for several quite apparent reasons, to begin prosecuting it decisively so as to end the 47-year war. They won’t accept this, of course — and the chief reason is that they’ve already chosen sides in the 47-year conflict with the mullahs. The side they chose is not the American one. (RELATED: The Democrats’ Epic Fury Over Iran Strikes) And an intelligent observer will note that the nature of war has changed a lot over the past century. War isn’t just kinetic — it’s economic, it’s political, it’s cultural, and when it involves the United States of America, it’s almost always asymmetrical. What I mean by that is you won’t face down an Iranian army with tanks and guns on a field of battle, just like you won’t face that challenge from Venezuela or Cuba. They know they can’t win that, so they will fight you in other ways. With Iran, terrorism is the general weapon of choice, with Israel as the general victim of choice. With Venezuela, before Trump acted to take down Nicolás Maduro and, in so doing, wind down that long-term asymmetrical conflict, the weapon of choice was political and then criminal, as the Maduro regime was consolidating the cocaine trade under its control. (RELATED: Why the Isolationist Wing Is Wrong: Trump’s Maduro Takedown Is Pure America First, Not Nation-Building) That we’ve gone kinetic with Iran is our own form of asymmetrical warfare. We might not have an effective deterrent to Iranian terrorism, but they certainly don’t have an effective counter to the death from above we are capable of raining on them with surgical precision. Terrorism reached its zenith on 9/11, to be sure, and it changed American culture in lots of ways worthy of lamentation, but in the big picture, terrorism is an irritant much more than it is decisive. What’s left of the Iranian regime is beginning to realize this as its flailing response has now hit no less than 10 of its neighboring states, all of whom have stepped up their level of irritation to that of belligerence toward the mullahs. For the benefit of those on the Right who are furious about the strikes as a violation of the America First principles they say they voted for, however, the response should be more nuanced and comprehensive. If you’re Generation X and above, this is easier to understand. Your frame of reference begins in 1979, not in 2015. You understand that we’ve been in direct conflict with that regime for most or all of your life. But if you’re younger, and your experiences with the Iranian threat tell you this is more of a Jewish/Israeli problem — and if your worldview is being shaped by the revelations in the Epstein files and other harbingers of outsized Jewish/Israeli influence on American policy, you’re less likely to understand the long game here. You might take into consideration that the Arabs were, for more or less the first time, supportive of the effort to take out that regime. Both because they understood that it was realistic for it to be deposed, and that they saw the bright possibility for a prosperous future on the other side of its demise. That makes this much less of a Jewish thing and more of a strategic thing benefiting everyone. (RELATED: Why Iranians Have Unified Around Reza Pahlavi) Of course, none of this matters unless the campaign unleashed late Friday night is successful in removing the regime — or, more specifically, in creating the conditions by which the Iranian people themselves remove the regime. If that project is successful, almost literally everything changes in American politics and world politics as well. Here I’ll reference the great Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who, in a Substack post on Monday, noted that Trump’s approach to actually solving problems rather than monetizing the discussion of them might be putting the latter approach out of business… In fact, Trump’s approach across the board, which has brought him success after success in his first 13 months back in office, is to solve problems the way the guys in the bar say they would do it. Too much illegal immigration? Close the border and deport the illegals. Problems with Iran? Kill their leaders and encourage a revolution. Venezuela shipping drugs and gangs to the U.S.? Capture their leader and encourage his successor to cooperate or share his fate. You can just do things. The thing is, though, that there’s a subtlety in this approach. Just doing things turns out to work. But if you take a step back from these actions of Trump’s, the big picture shows a pretty coherent strategy. Trump wants to weaken China without going to war with China. He has now cut off two major suppliers of oil to the PRC, which produces hardly any oil of its own. (It’s worse than that, because China wasn’t paying for that oil with dollars, and now it will need dollars to buy oil elsewhere.) That applies a squeeze to an already squeezed CCP, and will make Xi’s position, domestically and internationally, weaker. Also the military excellence recently displayed has to inspire second, third, and fourth thoughts about invading Taiwan. Reynolds makes the prediction, assuming the strikes ultimately prove successful, that this will all redound famously to Trump’s benefit. That would necessitate that the more isolationist elements of the Right will come around. It’s hard to imagine they wouldn’t, in the event that happy Iranians choose a pro-Western, pro-peace government which declares America a friend and gravitates to the good-guy side of the global equation. But most Americans aren’t convinced, and I wouldn’t argue they should be. Not yet. It isn’t enough to make a strategic choice. The execution of that choice can’t be botched. It has to produce the desired results. I go back to the initial crisis, which began the 47-year conflict between the U.S. and the Iranian regime. Jimmy Carter, whose feckless foreign policy brought the mullahs to power in the first place (Khamenei’s predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini, in exile in Paris before spearheading the revolution against the Shah, flat-out lied to American and European politicians and journalists in claiming he and his regime would be more Western than the Shah, and then showed himself to be the opposite), sought to use the military for a way out of the hostage crisis. That was probably the best decision he made, but the ill-fated Desert One expedition, which was to free the U.S. embassy hostages from the grasp of Khomeini’s thugs, ended in humiliation. (RELATED: Reagan’s Shadow, Trump’s Moment) And these strikes could similarly end in humiliation. I’m not predicting that. But the risk can’t be ignored. The regime could survive. As the hours and days move forward, and it becomes more obvious that our use of relatively cheap one-way drones (our LUCAS system is a knock-off of an Iranian drone platform which was itself a knockoff of an American design, and LUCAS drones are far cheaper to manufacture than are the Iranian Shahed model, a fact which is probably the most notable item in this entire campaign) makes for a different reality than anyone currently recognizes, it seems unlikely that Iran’s government will remain extant for much longer. But it could. Or what replaces it could be just as bad or worse. That’s unlikely, of course, but we don’t know. Matt Walsh, who has become a skeptic of this campaign for a number of reasons, some well-reasoned and others not so much, said something worth recognizing… What exactly is the end game? “The Iranian people rise up and take control of their government”? Okay what does that mean exactly? Which people? How are they taking control? What happens after they do take control? Are we sure the new people, whoever they are, will be better than… — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 1, 2026 Walsh isn’t wrong. And then there is the prospect of having to follow these strikes with ground troops in order to accomplish the stated aims of his campaign, which becomes the real quagmire we’re all so anxious to avoid. The proof is in the pudding. And we shall know them by their fruits. We don’t know yet what those will be. And we should be skeptical until we do. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Ten Thoughts on Operation Epic Fury and Its Aftermath Five Quick Things: John Thune Is Blowing It SOTU 2026: Now There Are Truly Two Americas

It was a lunchroom conversation most could relate to with a sigh. “I was at the grocery store last night,” one coworker said, shaking her head, “and my two bags cost me $45, and I didn’t buy any meat.” By coincidence and perhaps a bite of economic symmetry, the headline staring back at me from the Business and Finance section of The Wall Street Journal was telling: “The Beef Industry Has a Message for Consumers: Get Used to High Prices.” The whole episode summoned the memory of that trio of elderly ladies in 1984 staring at a lonely hamburger patty and delivering with the flat resignation of those who have seen enough nonsense for one lifetime with deadpan timing: “Where’s the beef?” It was a punchline that launched a cultural catchphrase calling out anything lacking substance, and four decades later, the line still stings. Today, it echoes throughout supermarket aisles where the question is less quip and more lament. “Where’s the beef?” is now economic anxiety disguised as nostalgia. “Where’s the beef?” is now economic anxiety disguised as nostalgia. It doubles as commentary on the economy, as 1980s satire returns not as a joke but with a literal answer: it is on the shelf as a $15 pack of ground chuck, auditioning like a luxury handbag up for auction at Sotheby’s in Manhattan. According to the Journal, ranchers have been dwindling their herds for decades because maintaining cattle has become more expensive than selling them. Add in transportation costs, processing chokepoints, and inflation, and the result is fewer cattle, a tighter meat supply, and higher prices. The sticker shock is not just about economics; it is very existential. Beef is woven into the American fabric. The Fourth of July without beef is like Christmas without lights or Congress without dysfunction. Burgers are practically a national sacrament along with backyard grilling, football tailgates, and summer cookouts. They are not just meals, they are rituals. When the price of beef climbs out of reach, it hits a cultural nerve like a piece of Americana has been repossessed. “Where’s the beef?” resurfaces with bite as it captures something essential about the American psyche: we want means and value, not shrinking portions and rising prices. Whether aimed at politicians, corporations, or the grocery aisle, “Where’s the beef?” is a demand for substance, fairness, and honesty. A burger was once the cheapest, most democratic food in America’s bounty and the great equalizer on a sesame‑seed bun. Today it is an artifact of a bygone era, a relic from when a family could feed itself without taking out a small loan. And we are poorer for its disappearance, not just in the wallet but in spirit. Making inroads within the American diet are plant‑based meat alternatives. This is not because folks want to eat like a rabbit on Ozempic, but because real beef has priced itself into the witness protection program. (RELATED: Saving the Planet by Eating Fruit and Whole Grains Is Possible — If You’re Dumb Enough) “Where’s the beef?” is no longer a joke; rather, it is a national mood where the erosion of purchasing power makes the daily grind feel like a nonstop negotiation. The beef is still on the shelf, but the character of the slogan lingers. You can’t get any more proof than when a Peruvian native and proud American laments the price of home-grown beef in a company lunchroom at high noon. When an immigrant looks at a grocery receipt and finds it reading like a ransom note for the very foods that once symbolized American abundance, the message lands harder than any campaign slogan: the only thing America has in abundance now is sticker shock. READ MORE from Greg Maresca: EPA Retires Its Crystal Ball, Lets America Exhale (Carbon Included) Mr. Softee’s America College Football: CFP Punts on Expansion in 2026

Florida A&M University, a historically black university with 7,800 undergraduate students, announced last month that it will consolidate its black studies degree with its history, philosophy, and religion degrees in an effort to ensure all students can find a well-paying job after graduation. Courses on offer at Florida A&M University this semester include “Black Beauty: Women’s Images and National Identity,” “Environmental History and Political Ecology of the African Diaspora,” and “Sociology of the Black Experience.” The university says on its website that students in the black studies program “examine fundamental concepts such as the social, legal, and economic systems that came to be as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and African migration.” Many students were outraged and saw the degree’s removal as the outcome of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s war on DEI. This makes sense, given that black studies programs have historically shared the philosophical grounding of DEI ideology and focused on issues such as intersectionality, implicit bias, and structural racism. Florida A&M disputed that the decision to consolidate the program was politically motivated, saying that it was focused on helping students find success after graduation. (RELATED: College Fine Arts and Theater Programs Are About to Be In Trouble) “If our number one customer is not hearing and understanding why we are making decisions, it feels like it’s an attack,” Michael White, the vice chair of the Florida A&M University Board of Trustees, told the Tallahassee Democrat. “I do stand with the students … but also, I want to make sure our students are graduating with well-paying jobs and we have viable programs that are able to sustain themselves.” Unsaid in White’s explanation is that Florida A&M has evidently determined that the continuance of black studies as a standalone program would not ensure that all students graduate with well-paying jobs. The university’s provost further explained that the black studies program was consolidated so as to meet the Florida Board of Governors’ performance guidelines, which ask universities to ensure programs award at least 30 degrees over a three-year period. The African American studies program had only graduated 16 students over the past three years. Still, adhering to that 30-degree metric is voluntary. (RELATED: Gender Studies Got So Unhinged That Texas A&M Shut It Down) In a Feb. 13 statement titled “Institutional Statement on Academic Program Prioritization,” the university said that it has “no plans to eliminate or diminish scholarship” in the area of African American studies. It added, “Any programmatic adjustment reflects structural alignment only and does not change our enduring commitment to this field of study.” Some students were not on board with the university’s reason for ending the black studies major. “Education has become a business in this country, but the value of our education should not be quantified by these metrics like ‘productivity,’” Justin Jordan, the president of the university’s Students for a Democratic Society chapter, told WFSU. As black studies programs across the country face scrutiny alongside DEI — given that they essentially provide an education in DEI — the fact that these programs’ graduates have lower salaries has not strengthened their positions. A 2023 report by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that the average starting salary for 2022 graduates of “Ethnic, Cultural Minority, Gender, and Group Studies” programs was $47,502. The overall starting salary that year was $60,028. Some colleges’ ethnic studies programs have worse outcomes. According to the Chronicle on Higher Education, the average median earnings for graduates of Spelman College’s “Ethnic Cultural Minority Gender and Group Studies” program is $25,137. Spelman is considered to be one of the most elite historically black colleges in the country. Florida A&M University is not the only university to end its black studies programs following the backlash against DEI. Last year, Indiana University Bloomington closed its black studies program and more than 100 other programs after the state Legislature passed a law requiring a minimum number of graduates for a public degree program. Kennesaw State University also announced last year that it would “deactivate” its black studies program. Further, the University of Iowa announced last week that it is proposing to close its African American studies major due to low enrollment. Still, the vast majority of black studies programs, which are often centers of DEI activism and teach tenets of DEI ideology, have so far survived the growing backlash against DEI. READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Bill Clinton Has Much to Answer for on Epstein Newsom’s Ticking Time Bomb: Dana Williamson The Disturbing Doctor Touring the Country to Promote Her Career of Third-Trimester Abortions Image licensed under CC BY 2.0.