Five Finger Death Punch have landed their fifteenth #1 on Billboard’s Mainstream Rock Airplay chart (dated June 15th) with “This Is The Way.” The band only trails Shinedown (nineteen #1s) and Three Days Grace (seventeen #1s) for the most leaders in the chart’s history. “This Is The Way” is a mash-up of DMX’s ’09 song “The Way It’s Gonna Be” and Five Finger Death Punch’s “Judgement Day,” which is on the band’s ’22 set “AfterLife.”  “Music is meant to be universal and without boundaries, and it starts at the top with us, the artists,” offered Five Finger Death Punch guitarist Zoltan Bathory. “We have always embraced the mixing of genres.” The track is FFDP’s 11th straight #1 on Mainstream Rock – a run that began in ’18 with “Sham Pain.” Their first #1 came in ’12 with “Coming Down.” In April, “This Is The Way” became FFDP’s seventeenth #1 on the Hard Rock survey and was the first time the late DMX, who died in ’21, topped the Hard Rock chart. ### The post Five Finger Death Punch’s “This Is The Way” Is #1… Again appeared first on RockinTown.

by Chris Menahan, Information Liberation: Kentucky Rep Thomas Massie (R) revealed to Tucker Carlson in an interview released Friday that every GOP congressman has an “AIPAC babysitter” who guides them on how to vote in the interests of Israel. “Everybody but me has an AIPAC person — like your AIPAC babysitter, who is always talking […]

from SD Bullion: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

  In 1958, a revolutionary named Fidel Castro launched a communist revolution in the island nation of Cuba. Less than 100 miles from the coast of Florida, Castro’s actions quickly caught the attention of the US government. Shortly after taking power, Castro made decisions that put him increasingly at odds with the United States. After the communist leader nationalized US property on the island, many in Washington DC felt that it was time for Castro to be deposed. As the CIA had enjoyed recent successes in making this happen elsewhere, a plan was launched for a CIA-backed regime change in Cuba. In April 1961, an army of Cuban exiles was sent home to spark an anti-communist revolution.   Setting the Stage: Regime of Fulgencio Batista Fulgencio Batista (above) was the controversial leader of Cuba prior to the revolution led by Fidel Castro in 1958. Source: WGBH Educational Foundation   The island nation of Cuba, less than 100 miles from the shores of the US state of Florida, has had a tumultuous political history. Originally, the US became embroiled in Cuban affairs in the 1890s during the Cuban war for independence against Spain, which became part of the Spanish-American War. After a brief period as an American colony, Cuba was granted its complete independence only in 1934. During the 1930s, an army officer named Fulgencio Batista became the de facto leader of Cuba before winning the presidential election in his own right in 1940.   Although Batista initially allowed free elections and even stepped down as president when he lost the 1944 election, he changed his mind in 1952 and seized power once again in a coup d’état. Batista’s new administration was focused on turning Cuba into an island “paradise” for wealthy tourists and gamblers, which involved making alleged deals with American organized crime syndicates. In a political amnesty in the mid-1950s, Batista released two brothers – Fidel and Raul Castro – from prison. By then, the population had largely turned against Batista, weakening his control over the country.   Setting the Stage: Communism in Latin America A mural revealing the appeal of Marxism in Mexico during the early 20th century. Source: Dartmouth University   Communism was exported to Latin America following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The region was often receptive to communism and similar leftist movements due to widespread poverty and political corruption, with many citizens feeling ignored or abused by their governments. During the 1930s and the worldwide Great Depression, communist parties in Latin America often worked with other leftist political movements. Communist Party members were able to hold some formal power in Latin American legislatures until the end of World War II, while the Soviet Union was an Allied power.   As the Cold War began, the United States began applying pressure on Latin American countries to limit the power afforded to communists. Nevertheless, populism was a powerful ideology in nations that were still very economically undeveloped. There were often power struggles between the lower classes and the land-owning elites. Between the 1940s and 1960s, many populist leaders – most of whom were not communists – emerged in Latin America by openly siding with the urban poor. Thus, while most of Latin America never became communist, the rise of populism set the stage for the possible rapid expansion of communism, making the US and its allies wary.   Setting the Stage: Communist Revolution in Cuba Supporters of the communist revolution in Cuba sought to overthrow the Batista government. Source: International Center of Photography   After several abortive starts, the communist revolution in Cuba began in earnest during the summer of 1958. Ironically, its rise was aided by a US arms embargo of Batista’s regime, which had been committing violence against civilians. By December of 1958, the once-small movement led by Fidel Castro had grown to the point that entire army units were surrendering rather than resisting. In January 1959, the July 26th Movement – the name of Castro’s organized uprising – entered the capital city of Havana. After brief resistance, the remainder of Batista’s regime allowed itself to be incorporated into Castro’s new communist government.   Quickly, Fidel Castro set about implementing typical communist reforms, such as land redistribution. Private holdings were limited to 1,000 acres, which meant breaking up many American-owned farms hundreds of times that size. Although this angered wealthy Cubans and foreigners, it greatly increased Castro’s popularity with rural peasants. By the summer of 1959, many of Cuba’s former elite class were fleeing the country. By the autumn, tribunals of Batista’s former security forces had largely purged Cuba of any political opponents of Castro’s new government.   1959: Fidel Castro Visits the United States A photograph of Cuban leader Fidel Castro in New York City in April 1959, shortly after overthrowing the Batista government. Source: The World   Fidel Castro was no stranger to the United States and had even honeymooned in New York City in 1948! When Castro first visited the US as Cuba’s new leader in April 1959, many did not see him as a stalwart communist. In fact, many Americans praised Castro for overthrowing Batista, who was seen as a brutal friend of organized crime. As a fluent speaker of English, Castro was very popular with journalists. Although US President Dwight D. Eisenhower was allegedly busy at the time, Castro did meet with Vice President Richard Nixon in an encounter that was cool at best.   Although the American public was taken with the tall and relatively handsome Cuban, the US government was apprehensive. At the time, Castro did not claim to be a communist, and some argue that Cuba did not become a true communist state until after the United States began antagonizing it. Others argue that Castro was a de facto communist before launching his successful uprising against Batista, and these were the voices that were carried in Washington DC prior to Castro’s visit. Thus, despite public interest in Cuba’s new leader, the stage was set for a political clash between Havana and Washington.   1960: Castro Nationalizes US Property in Cuba An oil refinery, similar to those nationalized by Cuba in 1960 after American-owned refineries refused to refine Soviet oil. Source: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)   In April 1960, the United States stopped selling oil to Cuba. To get oil, Castro turned to the Soviet Union and exchanged sugar, of which Cuba was a major exporter, for petroleum. When the Soviet oil arrived in Cuba, however, American- and British-owned oil refineries refused to handle it. This prompted Castro’s government to nationalize, or seize for government ownership, these foreign-owned oil refineries. Not unexpectedly, both the American and British governments were outraged. Quickly, the nationalization of the oil companies led to escalating sanctions between the US and Cuban governments.   After the US banned the sale of Cuban sugar in the country, cutting off a major source of foreign revenue, Cuba responded by nationalizing the rest of American-owned businesses on the island. In response to the mass nationalization of American property, the Eisenhower administration placed a partial trade embargo on Cuba. Only food and medicine could be imported from the United States to Cuba. This forced Cuba to look to the Soviet Union for increased economic support. In September 1960, at a visit to the United Nations in New York City, Castro defended his growing friendship with the USSR, blaming it on the United States.   Recent CIA Successes in Regime Change The flag of the Central American nation of Guatemala, where the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) overthrew a communist government in 1954. Source: Boston University   Upset at the situation in Cuba, the United States began to explore options for removing Fidel Castro from power. This planning had begun as early as March 1960, even before the wave of nationalization of American property in Cuba. The plans were drawn up by the US Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, which had enjoyed a recent string of successes in affecting change in foreign governments. In 1953, the CIA had successfully toppled a left-wing government in Iran, replacing it with a conservative, pro-American monarchy led by the Shah.   The following year, the CIA was able to topple the allegedly communist government of Guatemala. Unlike the prime minister of Iran in 1953, the president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, was relatively popular. The CIA launched a propaganda blitz, portraying Arbenz’s government as a communist threat to the entire region, especially the American-owned Panama Canal. Simultaneously, the agency recruited a rebel army to oppose Arbenz, and fighting began in June 1954. Within a few weeks, Arbenz resigned and fled the country, leaving American-backed rebels to create a new government for a total mission cost of three million dollars.   Kennedy Approved the Bay of Pigs Invasion A White House photo of US President John F. Kennedy, an anti-communist elected in 1960 who chose to continue plans to overthrow Castro. Source: The White House   Although Eisenhower’s vice president, Richard Nixon, did not win the 1960 presidential election, the victor was just as anti-communist as Eisenhower. John F. Kennedy, the young Democratic US senator from Massachusetts, had been a supporter of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) along with Nixon back when both were members of the US House of Representatives. Now president, Kennedy decided to continue with Eisenhower’s plan to replace Castro. The CIA had been training a 1,400-man force of anti-Castro Cuban exiles to return home and spark a popular overthrow of the communist leader.   A flag of the Cuban exiles who invaded their home country with the training of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in April 1961. Source: The International Spy Museum, Washington DC   The CIA trained the exiles on a private island off the coast of Florida, using instructors from various military branches. However, in retrospect, it was likely that some of the 1,400 trainees were actually double agents who reported back to Castro’s government, giving advance notice of the plot. The plan was to conduct a few days of aerial bombings – almost 40 of the 1,400 exiles were pilots – before a ground invasion commenced. Ideally, the bombings and ground invasion would convince civilians to rise up against Castro’s government and convince much of Castro’s military to defect.   April 17-20, 1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion Military units during the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion. Source: PBS   In March 1961, President Kennedy abruptly ordered the invasion landing site changed, as he wanted to avoid the US being linked to the plot. Unfortunately, the new landing site at the Bay of Pigs made the CIA’s job more difficult: it was isolated from either civilian populations or easy escape routes. On April 15, 1961, the proposed aerial bombings took place as planned, but Castro quickly realized that an invasion was imminent. Cuba called an emergency meeting of the United Nations, where America’s denial of involvement quickly unraveled.   With the air strikes having been discovered as American-planned, Kennedy canceled the remainder. As a result, the ground invasion on April 17 had only minimal air support by Cuban exile pilots. Unfortunately for the invaders, tough tides and unexpected coral reefs made getting ashore difficult…and Castro’s military awaited them. Additionally, the bombings on April 15 had not been as successful as anticipated, meaning Cuba’s own air force was attacking the beachhead. For a few days, the invaders and the Cuban military faced off, neither side committing to heavy casualties.   Aftermath: Failure of Invasion Humiliates the US Captured exiles marching through lines of Cuban soldiers and militia after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. Source: US Naval Institute   Although some of the invaders were able to swim back out to sea and seek rescue from awaiting US Navy destroyers, about three-quarters were captured by Castro’s military. The failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion was a political victory for Fidel Castro, who strengthened his position as leader of Cuba. President Kennedy took responsibility for the situation, which strengthened his own popularity ratings. Fortunately, Kennedy vowed to learn lessons from the failure of the invasion, which allegedly resulted in improved decision-making that would pay dividends a year and a half later during the Cuban Missile Crisis.   While the Kennedy administration tried to reduce groupthink in the aftermath of the invasion, the Soviet Union enjoyed a public relations bonanza by portraying the United States as an imperialist tyrant. Quietly seething, the US opened a new covert operation to try and remove Castro: Operation Mongoose. Led by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, the president’s younger brother, the operation would look at all possible covert methods to remove Castro from power. However, Mongoose failed to achieve any results and was avoided by other members of the Kennedy administration. Some feared that any future detections of US operatives in Cuba would provoke more Cold War hostilities.   Aftermath: Strengthened Cuban-Soviet Alliance A flag of the Soviet Union flying over Cuba. Source: Voice of America (VOA)   Fidel Castro first met Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev in New York City during his September 1960 visit to the United Nations. The two men embraced and went on a visit to Harlem, allegedly signaling a geopolitical break from the upper-class, predominantly white power structure. After the Bay of Pigs, Soviet aid was eagerly accepted by Cuba, which now feared an American invasion. Operation Mongoose only increased tensions further, giving the Soviet Union almost unrestricted military access to the island as protection against American machinations.   Ultimately, the USSR and Cuba reached an agreement in July 1962 to place Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, allegedly to deter any American invasion. The US quickly noticed the military buildup and issued a public warning against placing offensive weapons on the island on September 4. A month later, aerial reconnaissance captured clear photos of Soviet missiles in Cuba, prompting the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis. Even after the crisis abated, with the Soviets removing their missiles in exchange for American promises not to attack Cuba or attempt to assassinate Castro, the USSR provided significant aid to Cuba until its collapse in 1991.

  The country we now know as France takes its name from the Franks—a Germanic tribe that occupied the area of Europe known to the Romans as Gaul. The origins of this tribe, and their ruling structures, are obscure. Yet one figure stands tall among the 5th-century Franks, a ruler who is commonly held as the founding father of the French monarchy. This man was Clovis—and his baptism by Saint Remigius in the early sixth century into Nicene (or Catholic) Christianity initiated a form of rule that would persist until the French Revolution.   Clovis and the Merovingians  Baptism of Clovis, by the Master of Saint Giles, c. 1500, Source: The National Gallery of Art, Washington   When Clovis first came to power following the death of his father Childeric in 481, the nature of his power was difficult to grasp. He was king of the Franks, though the nature and extent of the Frankish realm was in a state of flux as the dying Roman state broke down. Moreover Clovis was a pagan. According to Gregory of Tours, Clovis was convinced to convert to Christianity due to the influence of his wife and due to his successful petitioning of Christ to gain victory in battle. His baptism by Saint Remigius, bishop of Reims, in the early sixth century was a foundational moment for the French state, and French kings would be anointed in Reims cathedral throughout the Middle Ages.   The other key event of Clovis’ reign was the battle of Vouillé, fought in 507. Having consolidated and centralized his authority over the Franks in the north of Gaul, Clovis fought a great battle against Alaric II, king of the Visigoths whose authority ranged over the Iberian peninsula and well into southern Gaul. The battle fought near the city of Poitiers, saw a Frankish victory and the death of Alaric II.   This victory confirmed Clovis’ predominant status in Gaul and allowed him to extend his authority southwards. It may even have been a decisive factor in persuading Clovis to receive baptism—although there is a dispute among historians as to whether Gregory of Tours’ dating of Vouillé after the baptism is accurate.   Dagobert I, by Bernardo Giunti, 1588, Source: The British Museum   The Merovingian Dynasty has garnered a reputation for incessant infighting and weak kings. A great part of this stems from how inheritance operated among the Franks at this time. Upon his death, the mighty realm that Clovis had put together was divided between his four sons. They would quarrel incessantly among each other—with no one ruler recognized as superior. The Frankish kingship was not yet a unitary title held by and passed to one individual. Four kingdoms emerged in this period within the overarching kingdom of the Franks—Neustria, Austrasia, Burgundy, and Aquitaine.   The incessant warfare between Frankish kings would lead to occasional unity under rulers like Clothar II and his son Dagobert I (died 639), as they were able to rule all of the Franks (albeit with very powerful nobles), but this disintegrated as the realm was again divided among male offspring. By the eighth century, the authority of the Merovingian monarchs had gradually declined in favor of Frankish nobles, in particular, the “Mayors of the Palace.”   Charlemagne and the Frankish Empire Charles Martel in the Battle of Tours, by Charles de Steuben, 1837, Source: Wikimedia Commons   The most fundamental legacy of the Merovingians for the French monarchy was the unity of Church and Crown embodied in the baptism of Clovis, and the entrenchment of a Frankish ruling class in a realm populated mostly by Gallo-Romans. However, it is really with the Carolingians that we see the birth of what would become a single, indivisible king of the Franks, a king anointed by the Church and able to claim divine authority from this.   The Merovingian kings who ruled after Dagobert in the late seventh and early eighth centuries have become known as les rois faineants, or the “do-nothing kings.” As the monarchy slid into obscurity, it was resuscitated by a new dynasty—the Carolingians. The first Carolingian of note was Charles Martel (died 741), who as Mayor of the Palace was the most senior noble in Francia and effectively ruled the Frankish territories through a Merovingian puppet king.   It was Martel’s son Pippin III who, by overthrowing the Merovingians and having himself crowned king of the Franks in 751, re-established the king as the most powerful magnate in the Frankish realm. Pippin was swift to establish his sacral legitimacy—having himself anointed by the Pope in 754 and thus becoming the first king of the Franks to be anointed. Pippin’s accomplishments (which included expanding his realm and undertaking governmental reforms) are generally overlooked by history. That is due largely to the greatness of his son.   The Coronation of Charlemagne, by Friederich Kaulbach, 19th century, Source: World History Encyclopedia   Pippin’s son Charlemagne is the ruler upon whom centuries of French kings (and German emperors) would seek to model themselves. Clovis is an extremely distant founding figure, and he echoes through history as a haze, a figure commanding respect yet insufficiently comprehendible to be used as a template for rulers. Charlemagne, on the other hand, is a figure whom historians and successive French kings could get a firm grasp of, and his conquests of the Lombards and the Saxons and his overseeing of a Carolingian renaissance made many see him as an almost perfect king. He elevated the authority of the Frankish Crown to supreme heights, and bolstered its spiritual authority through his relationship with the Pope and the great revival of church power and creativity that he helped unleash.   Charlemagne’s crowning as emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day 800 cemented his legendary reputation, and it helped cause a fragmentation of claims to his legacy. Charlemagne the emperor was seen as the progenitor of the Holy Roman Emperors of Germany and Northern Italy. Charlemagne, King of the Franks, was claimed by later French kings. What both sets of rulers laid claim to was a deeply sacral legitimacy as well a memory of his earthly power.   The Carolingian Fragmentation Count Vivien offers a manuscript of the Bible to Charles the Bald, from The Vivian Bible, 9th century, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Charlemagne was above all a pan-European figure, whose legacy was grasped at by a number of rulers both in the decades after his death and centuries later. In terms of defining the scope of the French king’s power, the Treaty of Verdun, drawn up in 843 between the warring grandsons of Charlemagne, was perhaps the most important legacy of the Carolingian dynasty. This treaty divided Charlemagne’s empire into three realms: West Francia, Lotharingia, and East Francia. Unbeknownst to those who made the treaty, West and East Francia would persist for centuries as territorial units, their borders roughly equivalent to modern France and Germany. The energetic rule of Charles the Bald (ruled 843-77) in West Francia, and his capture of much of the western half of Lotharingia upon the death of its ruler Lothar II in 870, helped to consolidate West Francia as a kingdom.   However, just as the power of the Merovingian kings gradually eroded, so too did the last whimpers of the Carolingian dynasty see royal power shrink in the face of mighty regional nobles. The first non-Carolingian since the Merovingian dynasty took the west Frankish throne when Odo, count of Paris and hero of the Viking siege of 885, was elected as monarch.   His energetic reign from 888 to 898 could not prevent the increasing decentralization of power. Successive Carolingian rulers in the 10th century then fought a losing battle to maintain their authority, with Viking raids along the many river systems of Francia adding further pressure. Twice more before 987 the Frankish nobles placed non-Carolingians on the Frankish throne, but the reigns of Robert (922-23) and Rudolph (923-36) were brief and the Carolingians were able to regain the throne after the latter’s death.   Vikings Besieging Paris, from Der Spiegel Geschichte, 19th century, Source: Wikimedia Commons   In post-Roman Europe, centralization of power was an aberration rather than the norm—thus the fragmentation of Charlemagne’s empire was in many respects inevitable. Regions such as Normandy, Flanders, Brittany, Aquitaine, and the south of France (centered on Toulouse) became virtually autonomous in the 10th and 11th centuries. They acknowledged the king of the Franks as their feudal overlord, but this did not equate to any real cessation of power (and some nobles did not even make this acknowledgement). Even as the Ottonian Dynasty came to imperial power in the lands of East Francia and Lotharingia, centralizing power, West Francia came to take on the form of a series of autonomous lordships, held together by only the mildest acknowledgement of a king of the Franks.   Frankish Kingship in the Year 1000 Miniature of Hugh Capet, 13-14th century manuscript, Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Frankish kingship by the year 1000 was thus a complex institution. In practical terms it was a weak position, certainly when compared to the king of the English across the channel in the late 10th century. The latter exercised a great deal of authority throughout his kingdom, standing atop a remarkably effective state apparatus that approached what we might call a “bureaucracy.”   And yet the English Crown was vulnerable, prone to instability and deadly competition. The 11th century would see English kings killed, dynasties supplanted and then re-established on the throne, and very few instances of father-son succession. The Frankish Crown, due both to its weakness and to its deep spiritual significance, would move away from this turbulence in the 11th century.   That the authority of the Frankish Crown was more significant than the meager lands it ruled directly is evident from the fact that the great nobles of West Francia could not or did not make successful claims to the title of king. The rulers of Aquitaine and Brittany made feeble attempts to claim the title “king” in the late 9th and very early 10th century, but quickly reverted to “duke.” The ruler of Burgundy would lay claim to a kingship until the 11th century, yet the power of this monarch did not expand far beyond the territory surrounding Lake Geneva.   The aura of legitimacy held by the king of the Franks, the successor of Clovis and Charlemagne, was such that kings held an imperceptible sway over the realm of France long before they claimed any form of direct sovereignty. When he took up the throne in 987, Hugh Capet could hardly have known that he was to be the founder of a dynasty that would realize the Crown’s sovereignty over France.   Map of France under High Capet, by Le royaume des Francs sous Hugues Capet, Source: Wikimedia Commons   However, things would get worse for the French kings before they got better. Despite their weakness in the later 10th century, the Carolingians were a mighty dynasty whose royal legitimacy was well established. Pre-Capetian kings could expect regular contact with the most powerful Frankish lords as well as their presence at the royal court. When Hugh Capet, the most powerful noble in the realm, was elected as king of the Franks in 987, the links between the king and the powerful regional nobles were already splintering.   Hugh was appointed king by the Frankish nobles after the Carolingian Louis V died without an heir. Hugh was the most powerful nobleman in Francia and had been effectively ruling the kingdom for many years as Dux Francorum (similar to Charles Martel and the Merovingians). He came from the same house as the short-lived Robert I who had ruled from 922-3. However, Hugh did not have the close links of vassalage to the Frankish nobility that the Carolingians did. As king he ruled lands only 200km by 100km (124 miles by 62 miles), and his only effective vassals were lords from within the vicinity of the strip of land known as the Ile de France.   Hugh Capet, by John Chapman, 1801, Source: The British Museum   Hugh Capet and his successors had to manage a relationship between the great nobles of Francia that resembled a friendship more than a hierarchical bond. The dukes of Normandy, for instance, did not owe military service to the 11th century kings, as a vassal would owe a lord. The power of local lords was further strengthened by the growth of castles.   There was not just an increase in the number of castles, but the use of castles as centers of government and military domination. By building castles across their lands, the great nobles could cement their authority over these territories in an age where offensive warfare was underdeveloped and well-built castles could withstand almost any attack.

Mainstream media enthusiastically reported on the World Health Organization’s claim that a man in Mexico was the first human victim of bird flu following his death earlier this week. However, according to Mexican officials, the [...] The post Mexican Gov’t Exposes WHO Propaganda: ‘Human Bird Flu Death’ Lies Are Promoting Gates’ H5N1 Vaccine appeared first on The People's Voice.