Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Culture

US Army Officer Pummels Racist Black Thugs In Viral Video That’s About To Start A Bloody Riot

Published

on

After endlessly witnessing NFL players kneel for our national anthem and Black Lives Matter advocates whining that the American taxpayer hasn’t been generous enough to them, we finally see something positive come out of the African American community.

Jeremy Hunt, whose father is a black minister, said his dad taught him when he was growing up in Georgia that he should look at people as individuals. Not at the color of their skin or through the lens of race, but at the content of their character. The same way it was wrong that’s it’s wrong for white racists to hate black people, it’s now wrong for black people to hate white people for being white. He added that until recently, he had never found his father’s teachings to be considered radical, but in today’s society, these teachings are being rejected far too often by folks on both sides of the color aisle.

He later goes on to add that today we have on one side a few neo-Nazis and white supremacists marching and spewing poisonous hatred of blacks and Jews, and on the other side we have some black folks becoming a “horrifying mirror image” by preaching for hatred and segregation of white people.

The Weekly Standard Reports:

A Not-So-Great Society
The failure, and success, of Lyndon B. Johnson.

The rise and fall of Lyndon B. Johnson from 1963 to 1968 is now recalled as a cautionary tale in the history of postwar America, illustrating at once the possibilities and perils of bold presidential leadership. Few presidents have achieved the popularity and electoral success Johnson enjoyed in his first few years in office. Throughout 1964 and 1965, his approval ratings hovered around 70 percent, which largely explains why he won the 1964 presidential election in a historic landslide. During those same two years, Johnson surpassed all 20th-century presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the number of important progressive programs he managed to steer through Congress. For a brief time, LBJ’s oversized presence on the public stage diverted Americans from memories of the awful events in Dallas that elevated him to the presidency.

Johnson’s collapse was as startling as his ascent. By late 1966, beset by urban riots and rising crime, mounting opposition to his policy in Vietnam, and the unanticipated costs of Great Society programs, Johnson lost control of the national agenda—and along with it his influence over Congress. His approval ratings fell to 35 percent in 1967 and 1968. By this time, LBJ’s critics were beginning to look back upon Kennedy’s assassination as a turning point that gave power to an ambitious politician ill-equipped to exercise it. Under attack from left and right, and facing primary challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, Johnson told the nation in early 1968 that he would not seek his party’s nomination for the presidency. Defeated and discredited, he served out the remaining months of his term before retreating in poor health to his Texas ranch, where he died in January 1973.

The Johnson saga has been told many times and in many ways, by liberal critics who identify LBJ’s presidency with the failed intervention in Vietnam, by conservatives who see in the Great Society a case study in governmental “overreach,” and by a list of historians and journalists who attribute Johnson’s collapse to his own personal failures. Who was the real Lyndon Baines Johnson: the scheming and power-hungry politician, the reckless cold warrior who took the nation into a ground war in Southeast Asia, or the visionary architect of the Great Society and the civil rights revolution?

Johnson, due to his background in Southern politics and rough personal style, was never convincing as a spokesman for the liberal movement, especially among contemporaries used to rallying around the likes of FDR, Adlai Stevenson, and John F. Kennedy. For this reason, historians and liberal leaders who followed Johnson emphasized the negative lessons of Vietnam while blurring his achievements as a breakthrough domestic reformer. For those who came after, LBJ’s presidency was recalled more for its failures than its achievements. Thus it was Kennedy, and not Johnson, who emerged from the 1960s as the symbolic standard-bearer of the liberal cause.

Randall B. Woods introduces some balance into the record in this highly readable single-volume history of the Johnson presidency. A professor of history at the University of Arkansas and author of a previous biography of LBJ, Woods sets forth a political history of the Johnson years, attributing his downfall to a mix of events that Johnson did not foresee or could not control. He acknowledges Johnson’s personal faults while resisting the temptation to view him through a psychological prism. More important, while recognizing the failure in Vietnam, he argues that Johnson’s lasting legacy should be found elsewhere, in his Great Society programs and civil rights legislation. These were monumental breakthroughs, he argues, at least equal in importance to the domestic programs adopted during the New Deal. Moreover, they were lasting achievements: When liberalism fell into disfavor in the 1970s and ’80s, Johnson’s programs survived intact. Many of them continue to shape our politics to this day. For good or ill, we still live in the shadow of the Great Society.

It would be an understatement to say that Johnson “hit the ground running” when he inherited the presidency on the day Kennedy was assassinated. He wasted no time grieving for his slain predecessor. As the nation—and the Kennedy family—mourned, Johnson organized all-night sessions with staff and colleagues to lay plans for his presidency. The eagerness with which LBJ seized the reins of power shocked the Kennedys and poisoned relations between the two sides for the duration of Johnson’s administration. Even so, Johnson let it be known that he would honor Kennedy’s legacy by pushing through Congress the stalled elements of his domestic agenda: a tax cut to stimulate the economy and a major civil rights bill. But Johnson also signaled that he would go further. On the day after the assassination, he told an aide, “I am a Roosevelt New Dealer. . . . Kennedy was a little too conservative to suit my taste.”

The New Deal, however, was a response to depression and mass unemployment, conditions that no longer prevailed in the mid-’60s. FDR used the crisis of depression to make the case for reform; Johnson would use postwar abundance as the foundation for his agenda. At the time, John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and other liberal theorists were writing about the challenge of recasting liberalism to address “quality of life” issues that had become important in the postwar era of affluence and suburbanization. In a time of plenty, even poverty might be cast as a problem to be solved instead of an ineradicable condition of life.

With the help of aides Bill Moyers and Kennedy holdover Richard Goodwin, Johnson settled on “The Great Society”—borrowed from the title of a 1914 socialist tract by British political scientist Graham Wallas—as the slogan through which he would communicate his updated vision of liberal reform. In May 1964, in a commencement address at the University of Michigan, he used the term for the first time.

For a century, we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half-a-century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people. The challenge of the next half-century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization. . . . For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society.

Johnson, sounding very much like a committed liberal, claimed that America’s new wealth could be deployed to eliminate poverty, end racial discrimination, rebuild the cities, fix the schools, clean up the environment, and address all manner of national problems.

Johnson, however, was an activist and reformer but by no means a liberal ideologue. In fact, according to Woods, he was something of the opposite: a consensus builder who saw that he needed support from all quarters to win the votes needed to pass his agenda. It was partly for this reason that the liberals in his party never completely trusted him. He told middle-class voters and business leaders that reform was the conservative alternative to violence and upheaval. Johnson worked Congress on a daily basis, calling and meeting with members regularly, either to cajole or browbeat them as the situation required.

His approach succeeded: In 1964 alone, he won approval for Kennedy’s tax cut, the Civil Rights Act, and the Economic Opportunity Act that codified his “war on poverty.” LBJ’s working relationship with Everett Dirksen, leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, was essential to the passage of this legislation. The civil rights bill, in particular, which was opposed by Southerners in Johnson’s own party, could not have won approval in the Senate without overwhelming support among Republicans. Johnson also rode the wave of a booming economy: From 1963 through 1966, real GDP grew at a rate of nearly 6 percent per year, the most rapid three-year expansion of the entire postwar period.

With the political and economic winds at his back, Johnson won the 1964 election with 61 percent of the popular vote, thus outdoing FDR in his 1936 landslide reelection, while also bringing in safe majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives. LBJ, now elected in his own right, proceeded in 1965 to steer through the 89th Congress the lasting pillars of the Great Society: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (providing federal aid to schools with concentrations of poor children); the Higher Education Act (providing federal funds for scholarships and work-study programs for low-income students); Medicare and Medicaid (new entitlements providing federal support for health care for the elderly and the poor); the Voting Rights Act; and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, eliminating pro-European quotas in U.S. policy and opening the doors to immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The passage of these programs brought about large changes in national policy that continue to shape our politics today. Medicare and Medicaid established a permanent federal role in health care, one that continues to grow in expense year by year. Medicare began with about 19 million participants in 1966 and has expanded to about 57 million participants today and is projected to grow to 80 million by 2030. Medicaid has grown even more rapidly, from 4 million beneficiaries in 1966 to nearly 70 million today.

The education acts similarly established a large and ever-growing role for the federal government at all levels of the educational system. The immigration act has brought waves of new immigrants into the United States from Asia and Latin America. The Voting Rights Act, thought to be a temporary measure required to ensure black voting rights in the South, won renewal and expansion by Congress periodically through the decades, most recently in 2006 (though an important section of the bill was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013). Professor Woods takes the reader through these various programs, noting how they have evolved or have been reformed over the decades but stressing that, a half-century later, they continue to win support from voters and key interest groups.

Woods points to the summer of 1965 as a key turning point during which Johnson’s political fortunes suddenly went into reverse. Ironically, in view of the general tenor of Johnson’s policies, his downfall was set in motion by liberals and leftists who should have been allies and by groups that his policies were designed to help.

The previous spring, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then working in the Labor Department, prepared an explosive statistical report showing that the black family, under stress from poverty and urbanization, was showing signs of breaking apart due to rising numbers of out-of-wedlock births. After reviewing the report, Johnson delivered a commencement address at Howard University in June 1965 in which he described the growing problem and pledged new policies in his war on poverty designed to expand opportunities for the poor and keep urban families intact. Johnson’s remarks seemed to point toward some kind of guaranteed family income, as opposed to a strategy that delivered services to the poor while sending the money to middle-class providers.

When Moynihan’s report appeared in a national magazine several weeks later, liberals and leftists denounced it for exaggerating the problem and for “blaming the victim” for responding in understandable ways to the conditions of poverty. On August 6, LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act. Five days later, rioting broke out in the Watts section of Los Angeles that lasted for six days and led to the deaths of 34 people and injuries to more than a thousand others. In response to this event, black activists began to question the value of integration and the goals of the war on poverty. Big-city mayors, including Richard Daley of Chicago, began lodging complaints with the White House that activists were using federal “community action” funds to finance demonstrations and sit-ins in their cities. Johnson soon scrapped his ideas for expanding the war on poverty and distanced himself from Moynihan’s report. At almost exactly the same time, he approved an increase in American ground troops in South Vietnam from 60,000 to 125,000 and an increase in the military draft from 17,000 to 35,000 young men per month.

From this point forward, Johnson played defense against escalating attacks on his domestic and foreign policies. The riots in Watts were only a prelude to scores of urban uprisings during subsequent summers. Rates of violent crime spiked year by year through the 1960s. Students disrupted college campuses in protest against the war in Vietnam. By 1968, the United States had descended into something resembling a “dystopia,” to use the author’s term. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated within weeks of one another during the spring of that year; in August, the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was disrupted by more riots in full view of a national television audience.

Johnson, who ascended to power in a tragic moment of national unity, left the presidency with the nation in revolt against his policies and at war with itself.

The trajectory of Johnson’s presidency, Woods acknowledges, badly tarnished the Great Society: Many believed that LBJ’s programs caused the violence and disorder that accompanied them. Nevertheless, in Woods’s view, Johnson’s Great Society programs (mostly) survived the tumult of the 1960s and have proven their worth by the sheer fact of their persistence.

The author argues that, despite Johnson’s downfall, the Great Society improved American society over the long haul by reducing poverty, expanding educational opportunities for the poor, extending affordable health care to the poor and elderly, introducing environmental concerns into national politics, and breaking up the racial caste system across the South. Woods rejects any link between the Great Society and the disorder of the 1960s. If Johnson erred, he writes, it was in other areas: in his Vietnam policy, for example, and in ordering the FBI to spy on domestic opponents, including civil rights leaders, antiwar groups, “black power” advocates, and (even) Robert Kennedy.

It is true that the Great Society represented a significant break from the policies of the past; and probably true also that the Great Society exceeded the New Deal in the scope and scale of its programs. Most of these programs, by now, are securely embedded in the national system. At the same time, the Great Society set in motion a sequence of destructive consequences that cannot be ignored in settling accounts of the Johnson years.

In the first place, critics had a point when they drew a link between the war on poverty and urban crime and disorder. Between 1964 and 1969, for example, a period of expanding economic opportunity, the welfare rolls in New York City tripled from around three hundred thousand to more than a million people because the mayor and community activists saw an opportunity to take advantage of the new availability of federal funds. Those numbers on public assistance stabilized at a million or more until the 1990s, when reform efforts succeeded in paring back the rolls. What happened in New York City occurred throughout the country: Welfare rolls multiplied, and so did crime, disorder, broken families, dysfunctional schools, and out-of-wedlock births. The unraveling of America’s cities largely took place within a few years in the late 1960s, corresponding to LBJ’s time in office. Ronald Reagan once remarked that “In the ’60s, we waged a war on poverty, and poverty won.” That statement may have been an exaggeration, but it also contained an element of truth: The scores of burned-out, crime-ridden, and bankrupt cities in America today must be counted as part of the legacy of the Great Society.

Taken together, Johnson’s various initiatives smashed what James Q. Wilson once called “the legitimacy barrier,” the older idea that the federal role was limited to a few clearly defined and agreed-upon fields. By the time he left office, there was no important area of American life in which the federal government did not take an active part. Was this a good thing? The effect of this process was to politicize vast new areas of American life and to bring all major institutions under the financial and regulatory control of the federal government, including especially local schools, colleges and universities, social service organizations, and even museums and symphony orchestras. To a great degree, state and local governments are now heavily dependent upon federal aid and thereby burdened by the cumbersome regulations that accompany federal assistance.

More profoundly, the Great Society gradually turned the Democratic party into a “government party,” organized around public employee unions, lobbyists and interest groups, and would-be recipients of federal funds. Many of the once-vital institutions of America’s civil society have been turned into appendages of the national government.

Then there were the economic and financial consequences of Johnson’s spending binge. Johnson’s “guns and butter” policy soon placed pressure on the federal budget and led, in turn, to rising inflation. This was a key factor that led to the breakdown of the international monetary regime forged after World War II. Under that system, foreign currencies were pegged to the dollar and the dollar, in turn, was pegged at a fixed rate to gold. Rising inflation in the late 1960s led to an outflow of gold reserves from the United States, which, by 1971, forced the United States to abandon the gold standard altogether.

The breakup of the Bretton Woods regime led to a decade of economic disorder, here and abroad, as the United States and our trading partners battled a combination of slow economic growth and rising inflation. In addition to that, Great Society programs placed the federal budget on auto-pilot so that it expanded relentlessly year-by-year, regardless of expense or other priorities—a condition we still wrestle with today, and the main reason why we now have a $4 trillion federal budget and over $19 trillion in national debt.

Professor Woods is certainly correct: We still live in the shadow of the Great Society. But that is far from being the benign reality that he portrays in Prisoners of Hope. What, then, are the lessons of the Johnson years—or, indeed, what are the limits of liberal reform? These are deep questions, and Woods deserves credit for raising them. Nevertheless, despite the subtitle of his book, he does not begin to answer them, which is the main defect in this otherwise admirable history.

Hunt is indeed an honorable man. But what does he have that 78% of African American born today don’t have? You got it, a father at home, or at least a father figure he can look up to. Thanks to the Democrat Party and the failed presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson and his program, “The Great Society” which taught the African American male that he no longer needed to care for his offspring because that’s what the government was there for.

All this to get African Americans to vote for the Democrat Party. They ruined a whole segment of society. And no one has ever held them to account, and probably never will.

Please share if you agree with Jeremy Hunt’s Father….

Al ran for the California State Assembly in his home district in 2010 and garnered more votes than any other Republican since 1984. He's worked on multiple political campaigns and was communications director for the Ron Nehring for California Lt. Governor campaign during the primaries in 2014. He has also held multiple positions within his local Republican Central Committee including Secretary, and Vice President of his local California Republican Assembly chapter. While also being an ongoing delegate to the California Republican Party for almost a decade.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Culture

BREAKING!! HOME DEPOT IS DOING IT!! Red-Blooded AMERICANS Screaming HELL YEAH!

TRUMP IS MAKING AMERICA GREAT!!

Published

on

Democrats usually want a bigger government and higher taxes. Republicans want smaller government and lower taxes. For the most part, the American worker goes along with whatever their preferred political candidate tells them would be best for them. Businesses are a little different. A lot of big corporations have made political stands over the past few years because they’re ultimately looking out for their bottom line.

You can’t always trust that someone running for office is giving you the straight facts, but you can depend on a business to do what’s best for their financial health. Some of the most liberal companies have fallen into begrudgingly praising the President’s tax cuts. This is because it was structured in such a way that it’s better for them to pass a more substantial portion of earnings to their hard-working employees.

The number of companies that are giving out unexpected bonuses just keeps growing. Home Depot is the most recent corporate giant to produce an unexpected gift for their employees. This is something the workers will appreciate very much, and it’s great to see a corporation treating employees as an investment in their business.

The Gateway Pundit reported:

“Home Depot is the latest US corporation to announce Trump tax cut bonuses to their employees.

241 COMPANIES HAVE NOW ANNOUNCED BONUSES TO EMPLOYEES THANKS TO THE TRUMP TAX CUTS

Over 2 million US employees will receive bonuses or raises this year thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

Home Depot sent out this announcement on Thursday morning.

‘Today, as a result of the recent tax reform bill and in appreciation for continued excellent customer service, we are pleased to announce that all U.S. hourly associates will receive a one-time bonus of up to $1,000 based on tenure.

This bonus will be paid during the first full week of February and is in addition to the company’s normal Success Sharing bonuses.

Please join me in thanking hourly associates across the company for their hard work and dedication to taking care of our customers and making us the #1 home improvement retailer in the world.’

The Disney Corporation announced Tuesday it is offering $1,000 bonus checks to 125,000 employees and contribute to an education program for employees.”

It’s hard to see significant gains for the middle class working American as anything other than a win for the debated GOP tax plan. Every person having a more profitable year because of the new tax plan will hopefully remember what the left told them. The stark comparison between that and the reality of more money in their pockets will come to fruition.

According to Fox Business, Home Depot is just one of 241 companies who have now announced similar tax cut bonuses to their employees. AT&T even went so far as to give credit to the Trump Administration:

“Starbucks (SBUX) became the latest company to increase wages and enact other perks for more than 150,000 U.S. employees as a direct result of recent tax reform, joining other corporations in rewarding workers.

The Seattle-based coffee chain said on Wednesday it will give all of its U.S.-based hourly and salaried workers an unspecified raise in April, in addition to a wage increase already dispersed earlier in the Starbucks’ fiscal year, which began last October. Starbucks says it is investing roughly $120 million in the wage increases.

Starbucks is also awarding workers stock grants worth a total of more than $100 million to those employed by the chain as of Jan. 1, 2018. Retail employees will receive at least a $500 grant, while store managers will receive grants of $2,000, the chain said.

The $1.5 trillion tax bill reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and changes the way the U.S. government taxes companies that also operate internationally.

The telecom giant said in late December that more than 200,000 of its employees, including union-represented and non-management workers, will be eligible for a $1,000 bonus. The checks will be in the mail in time for the holidays if Trump finalizes the tax bill with his signature before Christmas. AT&T (T) also said it will invest $1 billion more than expected in the U.S. in 2018, once the cuts are final.

‘Congress, working closely with the President, took a monumental step to bring taxes paid by U.S. businesses in line with the rest of the industrialized world,’ AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said in a statement. ‘This tax reform will drive economic growth and create good-paying jobs.”

Both political sides have an agenda they wish to push. That will dictate how they frame a narrative when they bring it to voters. If the currently affected business owners say that a political tax play is good for the economy, then that’s good enough to take it to the bank. If you work for one of the companies giving out a nice bonus, then you’ll be going to the bank anyway!

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Culture

BREAKING: They’re Calling It Quits At CNN After 21 Years Because Of Trump!

ITS OVER!!

Published

on

CNN boss Jeff Zucker is separating from his wife, Caryn, after 21 years of marriage. In a joint statement, the couple who is worth over 50 million dollars, said they realized that their marriage was over and have come to the tough decision together that separating is the only way to go. They went on to state that they would remain friends and that their primary focus is the well being of their four children.

The two lovebirds met at the media network, NBC, when Jeff was an executive producer of the Today show. Caryn was a supervisor for Saturday Night Live. They went on to marry in 1996 in lavish style only royalty and wealthy could afford. They have four children together; three boys and one girl.

Confidentially several friends of the couple have told local news outlets that the couple was growing apart for over a decade now. One friend confirmed that Jeff is a workaholic who is obsessed with news and obsessed with being the best, along with an unhealthy obsession with taking down President Trump. His network promoted during the primaries because they thought he would be the easiest candidate for Hillary Clinton to defeat.  Caryn seems to be much more laid back, mellow, and social. She spends a lot of time with their kids and enjoys being part of the Upper East Side social circuit. Perhaps not far from other elitists who claim to know the plight of America’s working class.

Via Yahoo News:

“Jeff Zucker Seeks To Assure CNN Staff After Death Threats Cite “Fake News”

CNN Worldwide Chief Jeff Zucker has sought to calm Atlanta staffers after a report that a man had phoned multiple threats to the cable news network’s Atlanta operation, saying he was heading there to “gun” them all down because they are “Fake News.”

In a memo to staff Zucker said he would address the threat and increased security, at his regular weekly broadcast company “town hall.”

FBI arrested the man at his home in the Detroit area last week. CNN on Monday issued a statement: statement saying, “We take any threats to CNN employees or workplaces, around the world, extremely seriously” and “have been in touch with local and federal law enforcement throughout, and have taken all necessary measures to ensure the safety of our people.”

On Sunday, April Ryan, told CNN’s media pundit Brian Stelter that, in the President Donald Trump era, news outlets have “the FBI and local police on speed dial” for death threats against reporters, “for asking questions and reporting.” She counted herself among those who have received death threats.

Ryan concurred with Stelter that the Trump’s ongoing “Fake News” attacks on media are “poisonous,” adding, “There’s a war on the press by the White House, led by this president.”

From Zucker’s email about the “significant security threat that was aimed at our employees at the CNN Center in Atlanta earlier this month”:

I want to make sure you all know that we were in close contact with local and federal law enforcement from the moment the threats were made, throughout the entire investigation, and up until the suspect was arrested last week. We continue to remain in contact with them about this matter.

I know the details of this will seem frightening to some of you, and I understand. I can tell you that, at no time, as these phone calls came in did the federal law enforcement officials feel that there was an immediate threat of danger to any of our employees. With that said, we still stepped up our security procedures in Atlanta and elsewhere, as a precautionary measure.

Sadly, this is part of the reality we live in, as members of the media. I want to assure you that at every level of this company, nothing is more important than your safety. While you know we don’t talk publicly about security measures, let me assure you that we have addressed this situation.

I have a regularly scheduled broadcast town hall on Thursday at 1pm ET. I’ve asked Jeff Gilbert, who heads up Turner Security, to join me to update all of us, with as much detail as he reasonably can, on security at CNN. Please join me then, and send me your questions in advance or during the town hall.”

Did Zucker have an obsession with President Trump? Did that potentially contribute to the end of his marriage? How much did the pressure of President Trump contribute to this divorce that leaves three children in the middle of a million dollar problem?

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Crime

Woman With Damning Pictures Hillary Didn’t Want Out Was Found Dead By Insane Incident

HER SKELETONS ARE CRAWLING OUT!!

Published

on

Another day and another dead body with a connection that cannot be ignored as Hillary Clinton’s body count seems to be on the rise once again, after a brief reprieve of no sudden, mysterious casualties. The latest is possibly the most shocking yet in the truly startling trail of dead bodies that keep accumulating around this crooked woman with major secrets she’s desperate to keep hidden no matter who has she has to kill off to ensure it. The latest victim was added to the list of Clinton casualties after it was discovered what photos she had that exposed the scandalous couple but unfortunately for the Clintons, copies of those pictures still exist, even after the victim in them has perished.

In what was originally reported as a freak and unfortunate house fire is far more mysterious than is being said, based on who is now dead in their own home. Before the deceased was a victim of a residential fire, she was allegedly a victim of something else and has photos to prove it, which are now coming back to haunt the  Clintons after another dead body tied to them now has proof of one of Bill’s biggest secrets. This latest alarming incident sure seems like a convenient excuse to cover up a connection to the couple whose names always seems to come up in random tragic events like this.

The Daily Mail reports:

As more and more women line up to tell their stories about sex with Bill Clinton – both consensual and forced – there is one who is unable to relive the details of her alleged affair.

Penthouse Pet Judi Gibbs died in a mysterious house fire in 1986 amid rumors that she had pictures that proved she and the then-Governor of Arkansas had been regular sex partners.

And even now, 30 years after she died alongside her much-older other lover, doubts remain about how and why Gibbs and her long-time beau Bill Puterbaugh met their grizzly deaths.

But now DailyMail.com has pieced together the life and death of Judi Gibbs, telling for the first time how the auburn-haired woman from a pin-prick of an Arkansas town managed to bed the man who went on to be one of the most powerful men in the world.

And the question remains unanswered: Was Judi Gibbs killed because Bill Clinton and his advisers feared the affair was about to become public?

“I have always been convinced that Bill Clinton was responsible for the fire, but I have no proof,” Gibbs’ older sister Martha, who still lives in Sims, Arkansas, told DailyMail.com. “And what would happen if I had proof – you can’t touch those people.”

At the time of her death, Gibbs was 32 and living with 57-year-old developer Puterbaugh in a large isolated home a quarter-mile drive opposite a tiny airport outside Fordyce, Arkansas. 

Their bodies were both found in the huge master bedroom. They died of smoke inhalation.

Puterbaugh’s son, Randy, who followed him into the real estate business, tells a similar story to Martha Gibbs, even though the two have not spoken since the days following the double death.

“There are so many pieces of the puzzle.” Puterbaugh said. “‘I believe it is a possibility that Bill Clinton was involved in their deaths. I know I wish I had hired my own private investigator but I didn’t, so I guess I will never know.”

Judi Gibbs

When so many people around and connected the Clintons in a number of ways that could be bad for them have been found dead, it can’t be coincidental. It’s time to start taking a closer look at all of these cases, both current and digging up those from the past, where there are probably far more mysterious deaths than what’s come up recently. MailOnline pointed this fact out with alarming facts that Democrats insists on ignoring to save the Clintons from indictment they deserve.

Many people around the Clintons have died in unusual circumstances over the years, leading conspiracy theorists to claim they could be connected. 

As DailyMail.com reported earlier this year, five deaths in a six-week span between June 22 and August 2 this year had connections to the former first family.

‘I’m not saying the Clintons kill people. I’m saying a lot of people around the Clintons turn up dead,’ Larry Nichols, who worked with the former First Family before turning against them, told DailyMail.com.

And the names of Judi Gibbs and her lover Bill Puterbaugh could be added to that list.

Of all of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct by politicians and people in Hollywood, the biggest predator Bill Clinton who will never face the consequences of his actions. More importantly, Hillary Clinton never seems to be able to escape scandal and as long as she’s a free woman, rather than being locked up where she belongs, she will be continued to be questioned in everything that she has any kind of connection to.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Subscribe to our newsletter

Become An Insider! Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop on the top breaking news of the day.

Trending