"There are a lot of combined effects."

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS will celebrate its 70th anniversary with special 4K screenings of the classic movie around the country. 

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

A classic leads to another classic. The post The heavy metal classic that was inspired by America’s greatest author first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

推測できますか？ The post What was the first Japanese song to top the US charts? first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Former Bill Clinton has faced scrutiny over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in recent weeks, as he testified on his ties to Epstein in a deposition before members of the House in late February. But perhaps his relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell should be drawing just as much — if not more — attention. By several accounts, the two were “close” friends. And, according to both Maxwell and Clinton themselves, Clinton was closer to Maxwell than Epstein. (RELATED: Clinton’s Excuse: He Thought the Young Women on Epstein’s Plane Were Flight Attendants) In a 2025 meeting with Department of Justice officials, Maxwell said, “President Clinton was my friend, not Epstein’s friend.” She went on to describe the nature of her relationship with the former president: “President Clinton liked me, and we got along terribly well. But I never saw that warmth with Mr. Epstein.” (RELATED: Bill Clinton Has Much to Answer for on Epstein) Maxwell also waxed poetic about Clinton, calling him “truly extraordinary” and a “fantastic ex-president.” “It lasted longer and was more extensive than my relationship with Mr. Epstein.” In his February deposition, Clinton said of his relationship with Maxwell, “It lasted longer and was more extensive than my relationship with Mr. Epstein.” At first blush, this closer relationship with Maxwell might seem to be a better look for Clinton. Maxwell has, after all, often been relegated to the sidelines as simply Epstein’s female assistant. But the allegations against Maxwell are truly sickening. They include the serial sex trafficking of minor girls as well as sexual abuse by Maxwell herself. Maria Farmer has accused Maxwell of sexually assaulting her at billionaire Leslie Wexner’s mansion and molesting her sister, age 15, on a massage table. Virginia Giuffre has likewise accused Maxwell of sexually abusing her when she was a teenager in abuse sessions that included Epstein. Another woman has alleged that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by Maxwell, alongside Epstein, when she was a teenager, after she was recruited by Maxwell and Epstein at the Interlochen Center for the Arts. At Maxwell’s sentencing for a conviction of child sex trafficking, the judge stated that evidence showed that Maxwell herself had abused girls. He said, “[T]he trial evidence established that Ms. Maxwell was instrumental in the abuse of several underage girls and that she herself participated in some of the abuse.” Clinton was close friends with a woman deeply entrenched in the serial sexual abuse and trafficking of children and adult women. That is, he was close friends — for more than a decade — with an absolute monster. The fact that Maxwell still lives in Epstein’s shadow does much to obscure this. Clinton kept up his relationship with Maxwell after she was publicly accused of sexually abusing and trafficking a teenager. He was reportedly warned to cease his relationship with Maxwell, and yet he chose to continue publicly associating with her. Their relationship continued to such an extent that the Clinton Foundation celebrated Maxwell’s work as a supposed ocean conservationist and invited her to multiple events. Here’s the timeline. In 2009, Virginia Giuffre filed a lawsuit claiming that Maxwell had recruited, groomed, and sexually abused her. The claim was reported in the media. In September 2009, while Maxwell was leaving a Clinton Global Initiative conference, she was served with a subpoena in a lawsuit filed by 24 underage girls against Epstein. The serving was publicly reported. In 2010, Maxwell had a front-row seat at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. Maxwell also hosted Chelsea on her boyfriend’s private yacht, demonstrating the Clinton family’s continued closeness with her at this time. In 2013, Maxwell was an honored guest at a Clinton Global Initiative event, at which it was announced that her nonprofit, the TerraMar Project, had “committed to launch the Sustainable Oceans Alliance.” Then, on Feb. 27, 2014, Bill Clinton invited Ghislaine Maxwell to a small, private dinner at an upscale vegan restaurant in Los Angeles, Crossroads Kitchen. At this time, Maxwell’s involvement in Epstein’s crimes was being widely reported. For instance, the Telegraph reported in June 2014: “Some of the girls were introduced to him by Ghislaine Maxwell, his friend and the daughter of the late media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who allegedly told them they should give him a massage.” Apparently, several people in Clinton’s orbit tried to stop him from inviting Maxwell to the private dinner due to the allegations against her. The Daily Beast has reported, “Multiple sources with knowledge of the situation say aides had squabbled over Maxwell’s invitation beforehand due to her links to Epstein.” These sources, reported the Daily Beast, said that longtime Clinton gatekeeper Doug Band had sought to remove Maxwell from Clinton’s orbit in 2011 due to the sexual abuse and trafficking allegations against her. The New York Times has separately reported that Band sent an email to another Clinton aide in 2011 asking him to “remove” Maxwell “from all lists.” The Daily Mail, the Times noted, had that year referred to Maxwell as “Epstein’s Girl Friday ‘Fixer.’” In 2020, Band told Vanity Fair that he knew his effort to exclude Maxwell would upset both Chelsea and Bill Clinton because they were both quite close to her, despite the allegations against her. “I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry. It made it harder for them to justify being close to her,” Band said. Plus, Band said, Chelsea Clinton wanted to benefit from the perks that came with Maxwell’s status in high society. “Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes,” said Band. “Chelsea needed that.” For their parts, Chelsea and Bill have denied that they knew about the allegations against Maxwell while they continued associating with her. A spokesperson for the Clinton family told Vanity Fair, “It wasn’t until 2015 that Chelsea became aware of the horrific allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell and she hopes that all the victims find justice.” During his deposition, when Bill was asked when he first knew about the allegations against Maxwell, he said, “When the first evidence came out, when was it, in 2019?” In emails released in the Epstein files, Band is documented to have flirted back and forth with Maxwell before he tried to exile her from Clinton circles. These flirtatious emails are from 2002. But there is one flirtatious email from Maxwell where the addressee’s identity is unknown. Axios has reported that Maxwell sent this email to an address associated with Bill Clinton that has the initials “WJC” in it: “Sorry to hear that the Belzburg stuff is bad … I could not help myself — there was one juicy little tit bit I did let out — The one about what a supper stud you are and how I have a crush on you and how you are hung like a horse and — well you get the picture. Hope you don’t mind.” Clinton has said that he himself does not answer emails directly, and much of his correspondence goes through aides, so who this email was addressed to is unclear, but the email address has been interpreted as belonging to Clinton, said Axios. The reference to the “Belzburg stuff” could have to do with Bill Clinton’s relationship with New York socialite Lisa Belzberg, Axios explained. In 2002, a photograph was published by Newsweek showing Clinton and Belzberg in an “intimate pose” at her home. [I]nsiders say that it is Mr Clinton, closer to home, who has won the heart of the ice-cool blonde,” a tabloid reported at the time. (RELATED: Hot Tub Bill From Hot Springs) In 2012, Band and Clinton, who were extremely close and had a father-son–like relationship, had a major split and parted ways. Band told Vanity Fair that the final blow during their decisive fight came when Band said that “If Clinton wanted to have girlfriends, he should divorce Hillary and move on with his life.” Before allegations came out publicly about Epstein, Bill Clinton had a very close relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. He flew around the world with her on four separate trips. He attended the king of Morocco’s wedding by her side. Maxwell has claimed she was “very central” in setting up the Clinton Global Initiative, and in fact, it has been claimed that she and Clinton came up with the idea for it together. Richard Attias, who was a top executive at a company, Publicis, involved in starting the Clinton Global Initiative, told the New York Times, “She was in Davos with President Clinton, and this is when they realized the amazing impact of Davos and they came up with the idea of creating something similar, but with a different philosophy.” Maxwell was the person who coordinated the $1 million payment to Publicis for its work on “the Clinton project,” per emails released in the Epstein files. In his deposition last month, Clinton described just how devastated he was when he heard about the allegations against his old friend Ghislaine. “This thing was really hard for me when it came out because I, you know, we had been friendly with Ghislaine,” he said. “I was sad, but it had — it was terrible what she did, and she has to be punished.” Bill Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell were partners in philanthropy, family friends, and friends who “got along terribly well.” And, if Ghislaine Maxwell’s email to the “WJC” account was intended for Clinton as opposed to one of his aides, she at least saw their relationship as being more than friends. Yet Clinton claims that in their many years of closeness, he had no idea of the monster Maxwell was, and how she was deeply entrenched in the systematic trafficking and abuse of girls. When Clinton traveled with Maxwell and Epstein on their world-touring trips, and was surrounded by young women, some of whom were being trafficked, he just had no clue, he says, what was going on. It is hard to believe that Clinton could have been so close with Maxwell for so long and not have had an inkling of the evil she was up to. READ MORE:  Clinton’s Excuse: He Thought the Young Women on Epstein’s Plane Were Flight Attendants Bill Clinton Has Much to Answer for on Epstein

As of this writing, 2,166,509 Texas voters are known to have cast ballots in their state’s contentious Republican U.S. Senate primary. However, as the race goes to a runoff between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, both campaigns seem laser-focused on just one individual. As has often been the case, President Donald Trump’s endorsement is understood to be the deciding factor. If Cornyn can get it, it seems possible he’ll be able to survive a very close brush with political death. However, Paxton is probably ahead right now, and absent a Trump-ex machina, he seems likely to stay ahead. Trump’s endorsement is viewed as so critical that Paxton’s campaign is advertising in Florida, where Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence is located. The campaign has turned personal and bitter: after the first round of the primary, Cornyn slammed Paxton as “flawed, self-centered, and shameless”; for his part, Paxton accused Cornyn of “trying to buy this seat.” The grudge match between Cornyn and Paxton is long in the making. The two men might both be Texas Republicans, but both would likely agree the similarities end there. National Republicans are pulling desperately for Cornyn, while grassroots conservatives vociferously back Paxton. Paxton supporters have charged Cornyn with being weak, a sellout, and no true conservative, while Cornyn’s camp has called Paxton scandalous, personally immoral, and a greater risk in the general election against Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. Cornyn, who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2002 and previously served as a judge and as Texas attorney general, was runner-up to South Dakota Sen. John Thune to be Senate Majority Leader after the 2024 elections. While not exactly an institution, he’s never faced a particularly serious challenge: his closest race thus far was the 2020 general election, when he bested Democrat M.J. Hegar by about 10 percentage points. How did a sitting U.S. senator find himself in such dire straits? The answer is that since 2020, Cornyn’s relationship with Texas’s GOP grassroots has frayed. Detractors have attacked him for backing aid to Ukraine and supporting a gun control bill after a mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Cornyn’s reputation and affect is a familiar one: he’s a traditional, old-guard member of the Republican establishment. Paxton’s record bears little similarity to Cornyn’s. Since first being elected as Texas’s attorney general in 2014, Paxton has been a polarizing and hard-right conservative. An aggressive supporter of Trump, Paxton has touted that he has sued the Biden administration 106 times. Paxton, however, has also courted scandal. In 2015, he was indicted on securities fraud charges; he pleaded not guilty. After years of delay, he reached a deal with prosecutors that required him to pay restitution and perform community service, but not to admit guilt. The case was subsequently dismissed in 2025. Paxton was also impeached by the Texas House of Representatives in 2023 on allegations of misconduct. He denied wrongdoing and called the move “politically motivated.” He was later acquitted by the Texas Senate. Paxton’s wife, Angela, also publicly filed for divorce from the attorney general in 2025, alleging an extramarital affair. Consequently, one of the Cornyn camp’s main arguments against Paxton is that his baggage risks his ability to win the general election against Talarico. Nevertheless, Paxton’s backers see him as a strong conservative. And on electability, they aren’t shy to note that despite facing high-profile allegations and serious primary and general election challenges, Paxton easily won reelection in 2022. Cornyn was long assumed to be a dead man walking, so much so that the race attracted another serious candidate: U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt. Hunt, as he outlined in a piece written for The American Spectator, focused his campaign on generational change, a not-so-subtle dig at Cornyn’s longevity in office. In theory, Hunt was a more conservative candidate than Cornyn, who lacked Paxton’s personal baggage. However, he seemed to fade closer to the end of the race as it appeared that he had little chance of making the runoff, and finished with just 13.5 percent of the vote. (READ MORE: The Senate: Where Term Limits Go to Retire) While polls agreed that Cornyn and Paxton would both fall short of the 50 percent threshold necessary to avoid a runoff in the first round, they generally indicated that Paxton would finish ahead of Cornyn. So when the senator won a 42 percent plurality versus Paxton’s 41 percent, it seemed a positive sign for his campaign. Rumors began to swirl that Trump was gearing up to endorse Cornyn, and the president indicated on March 4 that he would make an endorsement “soon,” adding that he wanted the candidate he declined to back to withdraw from the race. When Paxton refused to commit to doing so, Trump told Politico that that was “bad for him to say.” (RELATED: The Abysmal Quality of the GOP Senate Caucus Is the Real Issue, and the SAVE Act Mess Has Made That Clear) However, Paxton had a savvy response: he stated that he would drop out of the race if the SAVE America Act was passed into law. The bill, which is a high priority for the White House, has already passed the House of Representatives and has been stalled in the Senate due to the filibuster. (RELATED: Five Quick Things: The Grand Senate Bargain?) Trump seemed to initially entertain the proposal as a way to increase his leverage over Senate Republicans, who wanted him to back Cornyn but had been recalcitrant about attempting a “talking filibuster” to pass the SAVE Act. Cornyn himself recently announced that he now supported abolishing the filibuster outright in order to pass the legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune downplayed Cornyn’s shift, telling reporters, “Sen. Cornyn is one of 53 Republican senators, and the opposition to nuking the filibuster runs very, very deep in our conference,” according to Politico. Thune is planning to put the legislation on the floor of the Senate, but it’s uncertain how or if he will be able to overcome the 60-vote threshold needed to break the filibuster and actually send it to the president’s desk. In the meantime, MAGA-aligned voices online slammed Cornyn and rallied to Paxton. (RELATED: Paxton Makes Thune an Offer He Can’t Refuse) Cornyn campaign senior advisor Matt Mackowiak told The American Spectator in a statement that “Senator Cornyn has voted with President Trump 99.3 percent of his time in office. Democrats have nominated their strongest candidate, so with the stakes of the mid-term elections, Republicans need to nominate Sen. Cornyn, who is unquestionably our strongest candidate. We have a plan to win the runoff election, and we are executing it.” The campaign declined to comment specifically on any potential endorsement by the president. The Paxton campaign did not respond to a request for comment. The deadline for a candidate to withdraw from the runoff was Tuesday, March 17. Since neither candidate did so, the election will be held on May 26. The White House did not respond to a request for comment when asked about the potential timing of the endorsement, but Trump subsequently told NBC News that he liked “both candidates very much,” that Talarico was “weak,” and that either Cornyn or Paxton would be able to win the general election. Trump also stated that he would decide whether he would weigh in “in the next week or so.” READ MORE from Stephan Kapustka: White House Reaffirms Support for SAVE Act, Touts Success in Iran War Crash by Illegal Immigrant in Indiana Draws National Outrage Business as Usual on Pennsylvania Ave

I recently met with a doctor who was born in Iran. With tears in his eyes, he talked about the horrible treatment of his people under the Ayatollahs. He talked about how young Iranians are trying to leave the country, so they do not have to live under that brutal regime. His mother still lives there, and while he is worried about her safety, he is incredibly grateful to the U.S. and President Trump for intervening. The doctor said his people have been living in a nightmare for almost 50 years. While the American news media focuses on protests in support of Iran and against the U.S. recent strike on Iran that killed its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, it is important for our country to understand the brutal regime Iran has been, especially for women. (RELATED: US Mosques Hold Memorials for Iran’s Supreme Leader) The Iranian regime is one of the world’s worst abusers of women and religious minorities, including Christians. (RELATED: The Women Who Would Not Kneel) Women have been treated as second-class citizens in nearly all areas of their lives. Women in Iran have been compelled by law to wear a hijab and are tightly surveilled to ensure they cooperate. Girls aged 13 can get married, though they can be forced into marriage at a younger age if their fathers permit it and the judicial system agrees. Men arrange their marriages, and in the case of divorce, women do not get custody of their children. This reminds me of the United States before Susan B. Anthony and the suffragists rallied to intervene. Amnesty International reported about Iran’s human rights violations in 2024, Authorities intensified their crackdown on women who defied compulsory veiling laws, the Baha’i community, and Afghan refugees and migrants. Thousands were arbitrarily detained, interrogated, harassed and/or unjustly prosecuted for exercising their human rights. Trials remained systematically unfair. Enforced disappearances and torture and other ill-treatment were widespread and systematic. Cruel and inhuman punishments, including flogging and amputation, were implemented. The death penalty was used arbitrarily, disproportionately affecting ethnic minorities and migrants. Systemic impunity prevailed for past and ongoing crimes against humanity relating to prison massacres in 1988 and other crimes under international law. The Shia Islamic clerics who took control of Iran in 1979 associated Christianity with Western influence, which they see as a threat to Islamic rule. Christians are primarily banned from holding public office. All children, even Christians, are required to attend Islamic classes. Christian converts are especially persecuted for leaving Islam. Open Doors reports that “house churches are commonly raided, often followed by arrests, interrogations, pressure to inform on other believers, and long-term imprisonment…typically under charges of breaching ‘national security.’” Iranians in the U.S. have celebrated the U.S. intervention. “Iranian New Yorkers say while they don’t want innocent civilians hurt, after 47 years of the Islamic Republic’s dictatorship and recent anti-regime protests which led to thousands of Iranians being killed, they feel outside intervention is the only way to enact change,” reported NBC New York. Golnar, a 17-year-old Iranian girl, testified to the fact that she and others want change, saying, When our rights are being violated, why should we not let others know what we are experiencing … I want to tell the world that the new generation of young people in Iran is just like all the other youth in the world. Our lifestyle, our information, our level of literacy and knowledge, and our thoughts and beliefs are like those of children in other countries around the world. We are not the same as the Islamic Republic. We do not believe in compulsory veiling. We are forced to wear the veil. If our society was a free one, we would like to not have compulsory veiling, we would like to have a secular state … We want to be like young people in other countries. As the mother of an active-duty military officer, I abhor war, but there is a kind of insatiable evil that must be met with force. Iranians have lived in a country that has violated their human rights. Certainly, President Trump understands this and acted. To the women and Christians in Iran: Now is your time. The U.S. stands with you. We are praying for you, and we love you. Penny Young Nance is CEO and President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, and author of 7 Rules for Success in Business and Life: A Woman’s Guide. concernedwomen.org READ MORE from Penny Young Nance: Conservative Success Is Tied to Protecting Women and Emboldening Men

My wife and I just cast our ballots in Virginia’s special election, which invites Virginia voters to approve a constitutional amendment to “temporarily” adopt new congressional districts. We knew going in that the amendment is an abomination, but as I marked “no” on my ballot, I found myself reflecting, with something akin to horror, on just how appallingly dishonest the phrasing of the amendment truly is — and how much this dishonesty is representative of the way Virginia Democrats have chosen to do business for at least the last decade. The amendment reads as follows: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census.” The amendment, a product of the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, promoted now by our new governor, Abigail Spanberger, has been accompanied by a redistricting map depicting what the Democrats in Richmond mean by the term “fairness.” The existing Virginia congressional districts, drawn six years ago by a bipartisan commission, resulted in 2024 in a congressional delegation with six Democrat seats and five Republican. This tracked very closely with how Virginia voted overall in the presidential balloting, with 52 percent voting for Harris and 46 percent for Trump. (RELATED: Redistricting Betrayal in Virginia) It takes the already outrageous dominance of the D.C. suburbs and spreads it throughout the state, and erases the last vestiges of purple in this recently purple state. Now, however, the Democrats’ proposed redistricting would basically eliminate Republican representation in Congress, with 10 districts that would almost assuredly go Democrat, and only one Republican. This is gerrymandering at its most blatant, effectively disenfranchising conservatives across the state. It takes the already outrageous dominance of the D.C. suburbs and spreads it throughout the state, and erases the last vestiges of purple in this recently purple state. Spanberger and the Democrats in the General Assembly have adopted, lock, stock, and barrel, the playbook that has destroyed fairness in California, Illinois, New York, and other states where an egregiously outrageous approach to electoral districting has, in fact, made it impossible for Republicans to be elected in anything even remotely proportional to their support among the voting population. (RELATED: The Abigail Spanberger Bait-and-Switch) The proposed constitutional amendment makes an absolute mockery of the term “fairness.” Not only does it undermine the demonstrably fair current districting map in favor of one that is outrageously one-sided, but it doesn’t even pretend that the measure has anything to do with “fairness” here in Virginia. The campaign advertising accompanying this amendment gives the game away. Instead of arguing that the proposal has anything to do with Virginia, the ads are all about Texas and Trump. Specifically, they complain that Trump has called for Texas to adopt congressional districts that would result in a gain of five or six Republican seats. The ads assume that Trump and the Republicans will get their way in Texas, and that this can only be redressed if Virginia adopts the Democrats’ proposed redistricting. Needless to say, there’s no accounting for the fact that the process in Texas started in response to the fact that, for years, the Democrats have loaded the deck in their favor again and again, in state after state. But never mind Texas, or Greg Abbott, or anyone else, this is really all about Trump. The ads pitch a “yes” vote entirely in terms of “stopping Trump,” with the explicit assumption that stopping Trump is good for Virginia and good for the country. If Trump supports it, then, by definition, it must be bad. Sadly, as the last election in Virginia demonstrated, running against Trump is a winning strategy in this state. Abigail Spanberger painted her opponent as a slavish follower of Trump — I use the term “slavish” advisedly, since it captures, disgustingly, how the Democrats chose to paint Winsome Earle-Sears. Although Glenn Youngkin was able to break through in the previous election, the plain and simple fact is that the D.C. suburbs throw their hefty electoral weight behind left-wing candidates — and they hate Trump with a fiery passion. Now the Democrats want to cement their control of Virginia, and they are willing to employ every trick in the book to make this happen. Dishonesty has long been a hallmark of how Virginia Democrats operate. Our district sits on a border between suburban D.C. and the more rural hinterland, and historically we’ve been a battleground. For years now, we’ve seen some of the most deceptive political advertising one could ever imagine, as Democrat candidates try to paint themselves as moderates. This, of course, was how Spanberger presented herself. A moderate, fair-minded, law enforcement-friendly, notably quiet on such hot-button issues as transgender bathroom access or illegal immigration. But now, safely ensconced in the governor’s mansion, she’s revealed her true radical colors, evident in everything from aggressive gun control proposals to nullification of immigration law, and an “in your face” refusal to cooperate with ICE. Again and again, as in the case of the redistricting amendment, she and the Democrats present themselves as the “anti-Trump.” And they’re just getting started. There are already whispers of a “Newsom/Spanberger” ticket in the 2028 presidential election, and, if that should come to pass, we will no doubt be treated, once again, to the image of moderation Spanberger has cultivated every time she’s contested an election — and then abandoned once the election is over. In the meantime, rest assured that if the Democrats get their way, this supposedly “temporary” constitutional amendment will become permanent. Virginia voters have until April 21 to vote “no” on the proposed redistricting constitutional amendment. I hope and pray that those who genuinely value fair elections in Virginia will turn out ‘hugely’ and send a message to Spanberger and the Democrats in the General Assembly that we’re not yet ready to see our state “Californicated.” READ MORE from James H. McGee: Memes Against America Violence in Mexico: When Cartels and Terrorists Converge Lepanto’s Legacy: The Fight for Western Survival James H. McGee retired in 2018 after nearly four decades as a national security and counter-terrorism professional, working primarily in the nuclear security field. Since retiring, he’s begun a second career as a thriller writer. His most recent novel, The Zebras from Minsk, was featured among National Review’s favorite books in 2025.  You can find The Zebras from Minsk (and its predecessor, Letter of Reprisal) on Amazon in Kindle and paperback editions.

“Gasoline prices are still rising as the Iran war stretches into its third week,” headlined National Public Radio (NPR) this week. Long before the war, gas prices were on the rise in California, for reasons not fully understood across the land. In late 2025, in the state’s capital region, gasoline could be purchased for $3.69 a gallon, still well above the national average of $3.10 in 2025. In 2026, after Valero announced plans to shut down its Benicia refinery, gas prices are again topping $5 a gallon and surging by the day. This traces back to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and its recurring director, Mary Nichols, a lawyer, not a scientist. At a conference in 1990, when the average price of gasoline in California was about $1.20, Nichols touted $5 a gallon as a good thing. The attorney showed little if any concern for the millions of workers who drive to their jobs. Nichols served as senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and, during the Clinton administration, worked for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In 2007, Nichols returned to CARB at the request of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Nichols championed Assembly Bill 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” with a host of new regulations. Mary Nichols kept on CARB staff Hien Tran, who bought his statistics PhD in a New York City diploma mill and fudged air pollution figures. By all indications, no leading Democrats called for Nichols to resign. The CARB queen wielded vast regulatory power without ever facing the voters, whose living costs she increased dramatically. Recurring Gov. Jerry Brown reappointed Nichols in 2011, and prices continued to rise under the state’s “cap and trade” schemes. Nichols claimed the increase would be less than 10 cents a gallon and drivers would barely notice the difference. They did notice, and more increases were on the way. In 2017, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom supported Senate Bill 1,  increasing the state’s gasoline excise tax by 12 cents and diesel tax by 20 cents. When running for governor in 2018, Newsom opposed Proposition 6, a ballot initiative that would have repealed the increase. In 2019, prices passed $4.00 a gallon, more than a dollar above the national average. (RELATED: If You Tax It, They Will Come?) By March 2022, the price of gasoline in California had passed $5 for the first time, doubtless bringing joy to Mary Nichols. The CARB queen wielded vast regulatory power without ever facing the voters, whose living costs she increased dramatically. CARB is now headed by Lauren Sanchez, a former climate advisor to Newsom and “a chief architect of California’s ambitious climate agenda including codifying the state’s carbon neutrality goal and extending the Cap-and-Invest (what “Cap and Trade” is now called) program through mid-century.” In effect, climate-change dogma has been institutionalized, without examination of its scientific validity, the need for trade-offs, and so forth. Under Sanchez, CARB is proposing amendments to the “Cap and Invest” regulations. As Katy Grimes of the California Globe reports, Chevron is warning that the proposed regulations will cripple the survivability of the state’s remaining refineries, increase fuel costs, and eliminate many high-paying jobs. Unfortunately, what happens in California doesn’t stay in California. Joining Chevron and Marathon, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo has warned Newsom that CARB’s proposed amendments could threaten energy stability for neighboring states. Nevada has limited oil production, Lombardo noted, but “is almost entirely dependent on California’s refining capacity.” The refinery shortfall also affects West Coast military bases, prompting President Trump to invoke an emergency law to restart California’s offshore oil production. Gavin Newsom called the move “a wildly disingenuous attempt to pin the blame at California for the short-sighted decision to launch a war in Iran.” Gas prices were rising because of “decisions from the Trump Administration. Not to mention the catastrophic environmental consequences from oil spills that have resulted in bipartisan support to keep offshore drilling out of California’s coasts.” The governor failed to mention a key reality. “Naturally occurring oil seeps from the seafloor are the largest source of oil entering the world ocean,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains. The seeps off Coal Oil Point near Santa Barbara are among the most active in the world, emitting 6,500-7,000 gallons of oil per day. Offshore drilling can reduce pollution from oil seeps, but Newsom and the unelected Coastal Commission prefer to exclude Californians from the benefits of their energy reserves. According to the Western States Petroleum Association, California ranks seventh in oil reserves among the 50 states. The problem lies with regulatory zealotry based on climate-change superstition. Don’t let CARB-style madness damage your state and the nation. READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: ‘Snowcialism’: Where a Nor’easter Becomes a State of Emergency Greenland Rejects USNS Mercy Juveniles, Bullets and Silence in San Francisco Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.