Leftists tormented by Trump’s inspiring Warsaw speech by Susan Stamper Brown

Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Susan Stamper BrownOnce upon a time, praising the essence of what is America was a good thing.

Normal even.

Not anymore. Do that now and you are written off as a racist or a member of the alt-right. Mention God and country and you are branded a “Nazi.” Talk about traditional family values and you are a homophobe. Discuss following the rule of law about immigration and you are labeled with all sorts of “phobes.”

If you talk about protecting Western culture and values, leftists will lose their minds the way they did after President Donald Trump’s speech in Poland last week before the G20 summit in Hamburg. Social media lit up with ridiculous inferences about Trump being Hitler-2.0. It is as if they really believe Dr. Goebbels escaped from Hell to ghostwrite the speech, making one wonder if Ann Coulter was correct when she said, “Liberalism is on the spectrum of mental illness.”

The problem is, though, Trump’s speech about the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 was fact based, commemorating one the darkest seasons in Poland’s history. A time when Poles were desperately sandwiched between two evils and unsuccessfully tried to oust the Nazis already occupying Warsaw so they could retake control of their city before the advancing Soviet army had time to invade and occupy.

Here is an excerpt from this remarkable speech:

“Through four decades of communist rule, Poland and the other captive nations of Europe endured a brutal campaign to demolish freedom, your faith, your laws, your history, your identity — indeed, the very essence of your culture and your humanity.”

Trump then recalled the awe-inspiring day, June 2, 1979, when a million Poles gathered to celebrate mass. Trump said, “They must have known during that exact moment during Pope John Paul II’s sermon when a million Polish men, women and children suddenly raised their voices in a single prayer. A million Polish people did not ask for wealth. They did not ask for privilege. Instead, one million Poles sang three simple words: ‘We want God.'”

Trump continued, “In those words, the Polish people recalled the promise of a better future. They found new courage to face down their oppressors, and they found the words to declare that Poland would be Poland once again. As I stand here today before this incredible crowd, this faithful nation, we can still hear those voices that echo through history. Their message is as true today as ever. The people of Poland, the people of America, and the people of Europe still cry out “We want God.”

Trump also talked about the horrific slaughter of Poland’s huge Jewish population “reduced to almost nothing after the Nazis systematically murdered millions of Poland’s Jewish citizens along with countless others during that brutal occupation.”

Trump brilliantly bridged a connection between Poland’s past and the current global War on Terror: “We are confronted by another oppressive ideology, one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe. America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another. We’re going to get it to stop.”

Somewhere between condemning Soviet Russia and communism and Nazis slaughtering Jews, the Warsaw crowd roared with elation while American leftists writhed in torment before their heads exploded.

One would have to wander deep into the hinterlands of lunacy to believe that standing against Jihad and standing up for God and country and freedom and family is somehow a bad thing. Sadly, though, that is where we are today.

Written by Susan Stamper Brown

Susan Stamper Brown lives in Alaska and writes about culture, politics and current events. She is a regular contributor to Townhall, The Christian Post, Right Wing News and GOPUSA. Susan’s nationally syndicated column is published in scores of newspapers and publications across the U.S.She writes about politics, culture and media and was selected as one of America’s 50 Best Conservative writers for 2015 and 2016.

This commentary was originally published on GOPUSA.com on July 11, 2017.

Copyright ©2017 Susan Stamper Brown

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)
Comments on this post

My view, summarized

I don't think I need to go much more into the Foster and Brown cases, as I know that while I was attempting to put some new "twists" into them, many fine people such as Chris Ruddy have been down this road before many times.

But let me conclude with my observations on Brown (and it may apply to Foster).

As I said before, it is strange to me that all lives on that plane were lost, but only Brown was found to have a suspicious hole in his head visually, and evidence of penetrating trauma on the skull x-rays. Again, why? I don't doubt this was a mass murder, but if all were killed in the crash anyway, why shoot Brown? Why not just crash the plane and leave him alone? To make sure he would be dead? I don't buy that. What was said to be the cause of the crash? I can't remember, but whatever was done to crash that plane had to be done by people who knew no one would survive it. Also, as I noted before, why would the assassin be willing to die with Brown? Or did he jump out of the plane with a parachute right after Brown was shot? That doesn't seem likely to me either. No attempt would have been made to stop him? Or was it, and he was one of the victims? But then they should have found his gun. Then again, maybe they did, and the same people who ordered no autopsy on Brown made sure the gun stayed not found.

I want Brown's head opened because you see how crazy it can get if you are left with little evidence and much speculation? --ARB

Another Vince Foster Autopsy Note

Yes, Isabella, we will see! I would be interested to find out Putin's tastes in female military pilots!

The point I had been trying to make with my somewhat over extended discussion on what happens after a gunshot to the mouth is that many have been naturally speculating since 1993 about what really did happen in Ft. Marcy park before Foster's body had been found. That kind of speculation is what you end up with when you don't give appropriate information to begin with. It never ceases to amaze me when people who withhold crucial information are surprised when there is a backlash. Are they ignorant or arrogant? Because of the almost complete absence of blood, and the physiological explanation I have attempted to give as to why this could not be possible, it is thought among many who share my views that Foster was not killed where he was found, and some have gone further to suggest that the bullet did not even exit his skull. The autopsy report indicates it did, but it is true we have no evidence but the ME's word for it and his diagrams. The bullet was never found, and while there is no doubt it had enough energy to exit the skull, it would not have that much left afterwards to go that far from the body. Yet, the police combed the area as well as they could, given the weather, and it was not recovered. Truly, they should not have had to comb the area very far, and given the serious nature of the situation, the weather is not an excuse for not finding it.

I don't know that these theories are true, but we do have a situation where there is no blood at the scene from a wound known to produce a huge amount of it, and there is no bullet recovered by either the police or the ME, plus no x-rays to show us definite proof that the bullet did exit. So, as I alluded to before, when liberals act shocked at the amount of people you can find who believe in a large conspiracy to cover up the MURDER of Foster, I laugh, because it is easy to see why logical people would conclude this. Already, this is suspicious enough that on these grounds alone the body should have been re-examined many years ago.

I have previously noted some simple pathophysiology of the cardiovascular system occurring in conjunction with brainstem injury following gunshot wound to the mouth. However, unlike Ron Brown, Foster did have an autopsy, so it is unlikely we would learn very much from a second one. If a serious investigation into his death were opened, another autopsy would have to be performed a matter of course, but I see it as being limited to documenting that a bullet did exit his skull, and the trajectory it took. Also, if the ME is claiming he either didn't take x-rays or did take them but lost them or THEN took them but found no image when the plates were developed because the tube was not working, then I would not believe anything he says about no bullet fragments being retained in the head, and repeat the films or even go ahead with post mortem MSCT of the entire head and body (a full "virtopsy"), to see if anything is in there that is important and recoverable. We don't have the brain, and without x-rays he can't tell us some of the bullet was not left in the skull. Yet, leftist intellectuals see no problem with any of this, and I am sure anyone who is a regular on Haciendapub and shares Dr. Faria's philosophy and politics sees exactly what is the problem with it. If, as in a hospital autopsy, after organs are examined and samples are taken for histological examination, the organs are replaced into the empty abdominal cavity, then CT of the entire body might pay off by showing metal in whatever sludge is left of the brain.

If we find an exit wound, that will still leave us with a ton of questions, but they will not be the type answerable by medical science. They will be purely interrogative and legal. But if the 2nd autopsy does reveal nothing new, the attacks from the left will start immediately, because their handlers count on their ignorance. They have no idea what the meaning is of what I just said. That it is very possible a second autopsy on Foster will not yield anything of interest to us, yet we still have to do it.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings!

Debka 0764: “US Starts Drawdown in Syria & Iraq, Scales Down War on ISIS

"Donald Trump’s Presidential Directive to cut off CIA funding for Syria’s rebels, that was released on Wednesday, July 19, is not just a death warrant for the moderate Syrian opposition to the Assad regime, which the US trained and armed for four years. It spells the start of America’s withdrawal from military intervention in Syria and Iraq. To some degree, it also marks the end of America’s war on the Islamic State’s bastions.

"Indeed, on Thursday, July 27, US-led coalition spokesman Army Col. Ryan Dillon informed Syrian allies that henceforth 'the coalition would only support those forces committed to fighting ISIS.' They were told to give up fighting the Assad regime. One rebel group reacted by walking out of the joint coalition base in Southern Syria. Barack Obama invested in a group of moderate Syrian rebel militias as a tool for overthrowing the Assad regime. But now, Russia, which backs Bashar Assad, has demanded that the US discontinue this program as the price for Russian-US cooperation in moves for ending the six-year Syrian civil war. Hence, the cutoff of CIA funding, just two weeks after the conversations Trump held with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg.

"As to the US President’s motives, did he mean this as a calculated poke in the eye for the domestic intelligence community, which hassles him endlessly over ties with Russia, or was it a strategic decision? Did Trump decide that America had done its bit for the Islamic State’s defeat at Mosul and its loss of around 40 percent of Raqqa, and the Syrian and Iraqi armies could be left to finish the war on ISIS, aided by the pro-Iranian militias, including Hizballah, and Russian air support?...
Hi Jim, It seems that the careful diplomacy Trump was crafting in the Middle East has been wrecked— exactly as I was afraid. Most players there are moving towards the Russian-Turkey axis.—MAF
Hi Miguel, For the time being Trump is opposed by all those whom he has challenged to change. They were lulled into accepting the Obama appeasement and his Socialist-Communistic philosophy plus his widespread corruption which led them to believe that  the USA was becoming like they are, a band republic 

As I said from The Big Agenda by Horowitz, Trump’s biggest challenge is from the Enemy Within. The healthcare loss was an example of the swamp winning as they have on the legislative agenda. Trump needs to clean out the WH of leakers and then go after the corruption of the Obama administration. He gave working with the Swap in Congress a try and is getting nowhere. He is now beginning to eliminate the opposition. The corruption which extends from spying on Americans including the Congress, to the Pay for Play scandals of Clinton, then Benghazi, the use of the IRS to punish the opposition, the corruption of the FBI and Intelligence agencies— should and all will come out. The DNC was involved in murders. It is obvious that Sessions was intimidated from pursuing these corrupt practices. If done right, all of these scandals  should unfold as the 2018 elections are in full swing. 

Those involved in the scandals who should face criminal charges are Obama; the Clintons, Bill and Hillary;  Lynch, Holder, Rice, Chiefs of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA,  and other intelligence agencies. and more. It will be the largest scandal in history. This is what he needs to get going. The swamp obstruction is obvious. They can be arrested an indicted quickly. When that happens, people will fall in line and the public will be shocked at the crime that has been allowed in government. The people will be so angry that the 2018 election will be to clean out everyone. 

Trump is under a grave threat of being killed. All of the above have a stake in his demise. There are more extensive scandals that should come out and others who would like him dead.

Those enemies in the Middle East and Asia are trying to defeat his plans, but Trump will not take defeat. Obviously, they want the status quo. It is not in his character to lose. The moderates in the ME are still afraid of Iran and Russia as its ally. They will need to band together to make a common front. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq are not worth the money under today’s circumstances is what I believe Trumps generals are saying if Debka is correct. I do not believe that what Debka said about the ME alliance is correct. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I need that alliance and Israel.  N Korea will not be allowed to fester for 8 years. A message needs to sent to Iran also. Russell’s NWO is being challenged. Things are not the same now. 

In order to save the Democrat Party, the Democrats are offering concessions to quickly name all the stalled appointments and make a deal on healthcare in hopes of rescuing the party from a Nov 2018 defeat.  That will not save the Party or the Democrats in the long run as this scandal information comes out.  Sessions will be found to have lied to the Intelligence Committee as he did have political discussions with the Russian Ambassador. He will conveniently lose his job over this. 

The opera is not over. The Fat lady has not sung. — JIA

Ron Brown and the Clintons!

Dr. Ausman writes,
"As I said from The Big Agenda by Horowitz, Trump’s biggest challenge is from the Enemy Within. The healthcare loss was an example of the swamp winning as they have on the legislative agenda. Trump needs to clean out the WH of leakers and then go after the corruption of the Obama administration. He gave working with the Swap in Congress a try and is getting nowhere. He is now beginning to eliminate the opposition. The corruption which extends from spying on Americans including the Congress, to the Pay for Play scandals of Clinton, then Benghazi, the use of the IRS to punish the opposition, the corruption of the FBI and Intelligence agencies— should and all will come out. The DNC was involved in murders. It is obvious that Sessions was intimidated from pursuing these corrupt practices. If done right, all of these scandals should unfold as the 2018 elections are in full swing."

"The DNC was involved in murders." I believe I know what Dr. Ausman refers to, but that brings me back to the long list of suspicious deaths that are associated with the Clintons.

I know there are lists compiled all over the internet that list dozens upon dozens of such deaths, but dare you bring up one you are labeled a right wing conspiracy kook.

I had been hoping the president would be able to exhume just two bodies in the course of a special investigation- those of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. We need not exhume all of them, and risk the inevitable media tar and feathering, because these bodies to me will yield adequate forensic fruit.

I have read the report of Foster's autopsy extensively, and there are many inconsistencies that liberals have also noted, and have attempted to make a cover story for. However, there is one basic fact they can not cover up - that of the effects of gunshot to the head. If I am wrong, I am glad I have here neurosurgeons to correct me!

If the great confluent venous sinuses are opened as the bullet enters or exits the intracranial space (as they were with Foster), then the heart will continue to beat until air pulled into the opened sinuses reaches the left ventricle of the heart, which then stops it. This, plus leakage from traumatized cerebral vessels through basilar skull fractures usually causes pooling of blood in the lungs via the oropharynx. I think that is the major reason that most medical examiners will not only x-ray the skull in cases of gunshot to the head, but also the chest, to demonstrate opacities in the lung fields, and air embolism of the heart. Do the experts here find my reasoning sound so far? Let me know, so I know whether to continue with my theories on Foster.

As concerns Brown, all of the x-rays taken of his cadaver went mysteriously missing, but the internet is full of copies of an AP and lateral skull series that are claimed to be his, and said to be taken prior to denial of a request for an autopsy because of a suspicious "lead snowstorm" scattered throughout the brain. The x-rays (and photos ofRon Brown the top of his head) show a depressed circular portion of the calvarium resembling the entrance wound of a bullet. I have reason to believe these x-rays are genuine. There are slight generalized postmortem soft tissue changes, but no filling of the ventricles with putrid gas, so the x-rays must have been taken within a day or two MAXIMUM of his death.

What is provoking to me is a report that one of the missing (and not photographed) x-rays was a lateral view of Brown's lower abdomen. It is said that an unidentifiable metal fragment was seen resting in the pelvis. It is difficult, but not impossible for me to believe that this fragment is the major portion of a bullet fired into the top of his head and subsequently traversing his entire body lengthwise before losing its remaining kinetic energy and stopping there. If it did, the tremendous disruption it caused should still be evident almost 20 years later. Still, we know everyone on that flight died, so I am finding it hard to Ron Brownreconcile the idea that the killer of Brown would have been amendable to dying with the rest of them. What did happen? This is such a textbook case of what is autopsy material without question, so the denial of a request for one is already beyond suspicious. If the metal in his skull turns out to be metal from the crash that was forcibly ejected into his head (as the left claims), it makes no difference, because the very fact that such a question even arises is why autopsies are usually done in these cases.

These two cases are crying out for a more extensive examination then they ever received in the 1990's, because it was not permitted by the higher authorities in power during that era. Now, Republicans have control of the house,senate, and the presidency. All we need to do is examine these two cases out of the reports of hundreds. If many people's suspicions are confirmed, the Billaries would not be able to slither out of this one.

I do not say this out of blind party loyalty or forensic ignorance. My own interest in forensic medicine, and my experiences with it I can detail in a later comment, but I don't think it is that important, as I would rather hear opinions on these two cases.--ARB
Adam, I wasn't sure what Jim specifically referred to, but I suspect it was about what you write here. And your take on The Strange Death of Vincent Foster by Christopher Ruddy is well taken. It is a fascinating book, a review of forensic medicine and deductive detective work. The author is an old friend of ours and his research is impeccable, despite the abuse he suffered by the attacks of the MSM about his findings. Another excellent book is The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by the aristocratic and very respected British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, another eye-opener, and his book corroborates much of Chris' scenario.

Those lamenting today's reality television drama with Trump, should remember the just as entertaining and way more serious drama of the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary during his presidency: Disappearing WH papers, WH escapades, Monica Lewinsky (and semen impregnated dresses), Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, actually successful impeachment proceedings, etc. I've a whole collection of books of that entertaining epoch in a section of my library: Ann Coulter's High Crime and Misdemeanors, Timperlake and Tripplett's Year of the Rat — How Bill Clinton Compromised Security for Chinese Cash, Gary Aldrich's Unlimited Access — An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster by Christopher Ruddy etc.--- MAF

Skull x-ray conspiracy

Dr. Bogart, Like you, I’ve also found that there is a lot of inaccurate and false information in the internet. In this case, some of it may be even maliciously contrived. I would like to refer you to an article written by Clarence Page entitled, “Ron Brown Murder Plot Has Too Many Holes,” published in the Chicago Tribune back on January 11, 1998:

“Col. William T. Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who did examine Brown's body, ordered additional X-rays after finding the head injury. As for the hole that looks like a gunshot wound, closer examination revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound.

“Again, what a lucky assassin. The bullet goes in, but it doesn't come out! It just (Gasp!) disappears! Gormley concluded that Brown died of ‘blunt force injury.’ In other words, he died from being in a plane that crashed.”

So what could possibly account for the “fragments” seen on the x-rays? The article further states, “Meanwhile, military pathologists found another explanation for the ‘bullet-fragment’ images. They found identical patterns of particles on other X-rays, not just Brown's, that were taken with the same X-ray cassette. They blamed the particles on a faulty X-ray cassette.”

Following the JFK assassination, a whole cottage industry of assassination/conspiracy theories evolved. It’s still alive and well in the USA. I like Vincent Bugliosi’s book, “Reclaiming History.” From reading that hefty tome, which I read after reading Dr. Faria’s review here, one learns how modern forensic science can unravel and explain the most seemingly complicated and puzzling aspects of an incident.

Skull X-ray Conspiracy Stands

Dear Isabella,
I take all reports like that seriously, and I have not heard of Dr. Gormley mentioning that before. So I am going to research that myself. I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

The problem is that we have two views already available to us (the AP and the lateral of the skull) and both show the "lead snowstorm." Because both of them do, if what Gormley says is true, then the same faulty cassette was used for both. Yet, the pattern of the lead snowstorm is not the same on the AP and the lateral. It is what you would expect it to be if the particles were indeed inside the skull and not an artifact from the cassette.

I would like to prove this to you. I had sent Dr. Faria a poor quality AP and lateral view, because I could not find the much higher quality views I had downloaded about 10 years earlier. I am sure I have these somewhere, and I will make time to find them. After adjusting for any differences in size of the radiographs, I can color the AP red and the lateral blue. Then I will superimpose them, so you will see the pattern of the red colored fragments differs from that of the blue colored ones. When you see this, there is no need to explain any of the other discrepancies you noted. However, I will do so in a later comment, because I feel you have raised good points and they deserve reasonable answers. But you should note that had what you quoted Gormley as saying been true, the same pattern of fragments on both the AP and lateral views would have looked quite bizarre, as the fragments on the lateral view would be present in structures of the head where they were not present in the AP view. Indeed, some might actually have been seen outside the head. It would have been immediately noticeable to many people who examined these x-rays, and many of these people have had a great deal more experience than I have in evaluating films of the skull.

I will do the superimposition as soon as time permits, and send it to Dr. Faria along with the high resolution reproductions of Brown's x-rays. If he sees fit, he will post them for everybody to see. At that point, I will address your other concerns.
Best Regards,

Ask yourself: Cui bono from their deaths?

... [At the time] I suspected he was sacrificed, as I remember it was said he was about to expose the Clintons. Others on the plane, who were innocent, might have had to be sacrificed along with Brown. What was so critical that that type of killing was necessary? Cui bono — Who would benefit from his death? The answer is obvious.

As far as the DNC and more deaths are concerned, to me the Seth Rich story has all the earmarks of a hit and likely the DNC. This week more is coming out that Rich was really the source of the Wikileaks.

Any good guess to the question is again, “Who would benefit from his death?” The answer is obvious, as it was in Vince Foster and Brown’s deaths. In Rich’s case it is the DNC for the Clintons and all the others involved.

There are serious crimes that have been committed that they do not want exposed. Thanks. --- JIA

Quick forensic note...

I have a few minutes. I just wanted to give everyone a few quickies to think about:

Isabelle raises the question of where is the bullet in Brown's case. As I told her, that is a reasonable question.

The suggestion I repeated from a source I have since forgotten was that x-rays showed a bullet like metal density in the pelvis. As I said, it is difficult to believe that the bullet would be able to travel that fair from the skull to land in that location, but I suppose if the gunshot was point blank it could have.

We do have the neck included in the radiograph, but here is where I see enough soft tissue decomposition already that it is not possible with any certainty to say anything about what could have passed through it. Also, without a basilar radiograph of the skull, I cannot really determine whether any exit hole is present, and far enough from the foramen magnum so it did not encounter the vertebrae, which seem untouched. We see the hyoid bone, and it does not appear unusual either. It could also be that the metal fragments in the skull are the entirety of the bullet, but that is unusual and can also only be determined for sure at an autopsy. I could quantitate these fragments and see what the area is they compromise in total, but I am not going to waste any time with that, because these are pictures of x-rays, not scans of them, so it is likely to be far from accurate for true measurements, although it is fine enough for visual inspection.

This seems to be a perfect case for the late Dr. Milton Halpern, chief ME of NYC a bit before my time, but widely considered to be one of the all time greatest forensic pathologists ever. His memoirs are fascinating, and prove what a true genius he really was. The Latin words he had put up on the ME's office in Manhattan I would like to reproduce here, because they sum up my view of the forensic autopsy perfectly, but I can't remember them. I should have taken 7-9th grade compulsory Latin at my school much more seriously at the time! I am terribly regretting that now!

Cui bono, agreed! But what now?

I will continue to discuss some forensic aspects of these criminal coverups, but forensics cannot answer "What is to be done next?" To exhume, and re-investigate, or in the Rich case to make sure the investigation is done thoroughly (which means unlike the Foster and Brown cases in the first place) is the true concern. If the cases of Foster and Brown were treated like ordinary homicides from the start, convictions might have already been obtained long ago. I don't think that is an exaggeration.

Trump's hands are once again tied with continuing nonsense, which I think is the left's plan forever. I believe he has mentioned Foster once or twice, but he has never discussed a serious possibility of opening a special panel of inquiry to look at any suspicious Clinton associated death. Can he and will he?--ARB
Trump has his hands full. He would need to survive and then drain the active swamp. He is under attack on all sides. I hope Friedrich Nietzsche's dictum holds true for him: “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.”---MAF

Agreed again!

Unfortunately, you are right. I had always suspected Trump wold win the election, though I did not anticipate the disparity between the Electoral College and the popular vote. I am quite sure that it was a surprise to most of the country, and if we assume (a big assumption!) it was not due to voter fraud, it was still politically milked to a degree that is shocking even for the Democrats. Likely, the cause of most of his problems now stem from this. Severe leftist obstructionism was to be expected, but it could not have taken on the malignant form it did if not for the election results.

That's too bad. There are still inconsistencies in both the Foster and Brown cases that need to be resolved, because if we are honest, the evidence shows that not all of what we know indicates homicide. Some of it actually is favorable for the Clintons. I do believe these are homicides, but I feel we must be impartial, and I also find these pieces of evidence intriguing, because I cannot explain them.

The lack of any massive comminuted and bursting skull fractures associated with a bullet fired at close range in Brown's x-rays is one such. Also, I would expect there to be a much larger variation in the size of the metal particulate left inside his brain. A neurosurgeon may comment here, but this is what I usually see in post mortem skull films of cadavers when the cause of death is known to be a gunshot to the head.

I leave the rest of this for a later comment on the forensics, but we should keep in mind that resolving questions for and against homicide is part of why an autopsy is performed, and that one was not done on Brown is what makes it most suspicious.

R. Budd Dwyer

I might add that the video of R. Budd Dwyer, a Republican State Treasurer of Pennsylvania who called a press conference on 1/22/1987 and shot himself in the mouth while being videotaped has been all over the internet for years. He had been awaiting sentencing for 11 counts of conspiracy, mail fraud, perjury and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, and faced up to 55 years.

I will admit to watching it back in the 1990's when I was younger out of some sense of morbid curiosity, but later on it was used to demonstrate precisely the point I was trying to make. The huge amount of blood that flowed from his nostrils and the exit wound in the back of his head while he remained in an approximately vertical position (although he is thought to have died instantly) shows that the heart may beat for some time after destruction of infratentorial structures, and blood will exit the body despite a vertical position. It does not gravitate to "dependent areas" immediately.

Vince Foster and the Clintons!

I do know of that book, but these are some more recent developments, so I don't think Ruddy would have mentioned them. The left (at the time he wrote it) was simply gagging anybody who spoke out about the mysterious deaths surrounding that pair with the usual claims of a "vast right wing conspiracy to bring down the Clintons", but they did not have any specific rebuttal to inconsistencies noted in the official story of the Vince Foster case.

There have been many, but the ME's changing story on why he did not have any x-rays of Foster taken has been the most interesting. I wondered why, if he were lying, what did he have to lie about?

The left has returned to this case since that book. They now have specific rebuttals to most of the common questions the right has been asking. For many people on both sides, the lack of any blood around the body after such a massive head injury with an exit wound has been a serious problem. The Clinton defenders have answered this by claiming that since the body was found lying in almost a vertical position, that all the blood had seeped to a dependent position in the body, and that when it was placed in a body bag, a massive amount of it then flowed out of the exit wound, as the position of the body was now horizontal.

They note that the heart stopped beating instantaneously as the bullet damaged the brainstem. That is not true for brainstem injuries. The respiration might not continue, but as I wrote in my previous comment, the heart will continue to beat until it is arrested by air embolism originating from the torn venous sinuses of the brain, or so much blood has escaped from the wounds that the body is nearly exsanguinated. That should be evident to anyone who has ever read the description of what happens after a person is guillotined. The body gushes blood from the neck, and it doesn't even have a brain! The guillotine has been noted many times as a fairly humane punishment, but never as a clean and bloodless one!

We read in the autopsy report by Dr. Beyer that the lungs indeed did contain some bloody aspirate, but as no x-rays were taken (well, he checked off the box in the form stating they were, but later claimed the machine was not working so he didn't, and then later claimed they were taken but the films were all dark because the tube was not working)so we cannot tell if air was present in the heart. As I mentioned to Dr. Faria, if the pathologist wants to demonstrate air embolism in the heart without x-ray, a cruder method may be employed. He can isolate the heart from the great vessels, remove it, and section the right and left ventricles under water to see if gas bubbles escape. Beyer only mentions he finds the heart healthy except for a slight amount of aortic atherosclerosis, but nothing either way about embolism. I am not splitting hairs. To show this after GSW to the head is standard procedure. He had to have known this. He seems to have known about the blood in the lungs well enough. Of course, if blood is found in the lungs, it suggests a vital reaction as well, so breathing did not stop immediately. Blood was found in the alveoli, so how would it get there if Foster was not still breathing for a small amount of time after the shot?

Even if Foster's body were lying in a vertical position, a beating heart would still expel a massive amount of blood from a wound involving the venous sinuses. I suppose after the body were put into a bag horizontally there is no reason it might not passively eject some more blood, but the absence of any at the scene is not explained by the left's pseudo scientific version of it. The true standard bearers of scientific ignorance are atheists and leftists, who never stop claiming the opposite. Have you ever attempted to converse with such people about a topic like this? They know close to nothing about any field in science and medicine. They think knowing the earth is round and that evolution is plausible is cutting edge science.

Brown's x-rays are reproduced here. I first downloaded a copy of them about ten years ago, but I can't find them. It is interesting that now, there are almost none on the entire internet, except for these which are of relatively low quality. Ten years ago, you could find them everywhere. Unfortunately, these do not show the extent of the "lead snowstorm" very well, but they do show the hole and displaced circle of bone at the top of Brown's skull. The also show a fair amount of retraction of the frontal lobes away from the skull. This could be due to autolysis, or early decomposition, but it could also be due to the tremendous disruption of the brain from a bullet fired into the head at near point blank range. Only an autopsy will tell us, and in Brown's case, it is likely to yield more information than Foster's, as at least he already had one.

I am aware that there are literally over a hundred reasons to make one very suspicious of the circumstances surrounding Foster's death, but I just picked one or two that stood out the most to me. ---ARB
Reply: I do still think you should revisit and re-read the books I mentioned. The Strange Death of Vincent Foster by Christopher Ruddy and The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by British journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.They have a lot of material, forensic and situational, and a less speculative than what you propose. And most of what they have written has not been contravened by anyone, left or right, and not for the lack of trying ---MAF