Tinfoil Tuesday: Obama Assassinates Andrew Breitbart over CPAC Comments

March 7th, 2012

Thursday March first political conservatives were shocked by the sudden and tragic death of Andrew Breitbart, considered one of the nation’s most prolific and influential Internet commentators. Breitbart was out for a late night stroll near his Brentwood home when he unexpectedly collapsed. A neighbor witnessed this and called the paramedics who rushed him to the UCLA Medical Center where he was ultimately pronounced dead. Early reports from mainstream sources suggested that the Los Angeles coroner’s office had said that he died “unexpectedly from natural causes” but that wasn’t entirely true. A statement published on Breitbart’s website, BigGovernment.com stated, “Claims that Andrew died of ‘natural causes’ are… not the statements of any medical personnel from UCLA or the L.A. County Coroners office.” How peculiar. Later reports suggested that the coroner’s office had actually called it a “cardiac event” which is quite a bit more ominous sounding.

I personally didn’t follow Breitbart’s career. I find the conservative movement in general pretty unpalatable. But some of our folks did have a chance to tell him about the Silver circle movie at CPAC this year. And based on what I’m reading now, we may have been the Rebels he was looking for. But Breitbart made some other comments at CPAC that have cast a dark shadow over the whole affair… and I can’t just walk away from a good conspiracy theory.

At CPAC Breitbart promised to release videos from Obama’s days at Harvard that would show how “racial division and class warfare are central to the hope and change that was sold in 2008” and would expose Obama and his comrades as “a bunch of totalitarian freaks” and derail the president’s 2012 campaign.

Oddly enough those tapes were scheduled to be released March first, just hours after Breitbart collapsed. It’s a stunning coincidence, no?

In US Criminal law there are three elements needed to convince a jury of guilt in a murder proceeding: means, motive and opportunity.

I think it is clear beyond doubt that the executioner-in-chief has the means to assassinate a US citizen. He’s done it before. Imam Anwar Al Awlaki was assassinated by drone strike for crimes that amounted to little more than offensive speech. In fact, if you consider the FBI’s recent warnings about “anti-government extremists” and the continual effort of this administration to conflate the right wing fringe with terrorists, I imagine Breitbart and Al Awlaki appear pretty similar to Obama. Both had humble beginnings as passionate truth tellers in their respective movements. Both became an Internet firebrand of their message that lit fire to a following. Both were men of words, but words that inspired actions in others. There is more than enough room under current police state powers for a liberal interpretation of domestic terrorism to condemn Andrew Breitbart.

But did Obama have the motive? Well that really depends on how damning the videos were, which of course we may never know, now. But Breitbart had a good track record for destroying the political careers of Democrats. He was the one who published the now infamous tweets that forced former Representative Anthony Weiner to resign. Breitbart also released video excerpts of Shirley Sherrod making remarks that were later condemned by the NAACP as racist and ultimatley forced her to resign as the Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the Department of Agriculture. Unlike Weiner, she was later exonerated, but this proves that Breitbart had a nose for what kind of gaffes derail a political career.

What about opportunity? Breitbart wasn’t hit by drone strike. He collapsed in full view of a neighbor. To pull off this crime would require the Obama administration to orchestrate a whole network of conspirators including the neighbor, the coroner’s office and even Breitbart’s attorney to manipulate the official story and deceive the public. I mean, even if he has the “legal” means to assassinate US citizens that doesn’t mean he can do it out in the open without considering public opinion. We’re not that far gone. But there is a simpler explanation. A lethal dose of cyanide will kill a person in 2 to 3 minutes by halting cellular respiration. One minute you’re taking a midnight stroll. The next your gasping for air and entering cardiac arrest. Could it be that Breitbart is the first victim of the weaponized insect-sized micro drones we speculated about back in February? Thanks to DARPA the technology already exists. It’s really just a question of whether or not they’ve put all the pieces together yet. That sure sounds like a “cardiac event” to me.

Contrary to popular TV shows, fulfilling these three famous elements is not sufficient evidence of murder. The evidence must also prove that the opportunity was taken. And since we currently rely on the government the investigate it’s own wrong doing, the facts behind Breitbart’s death will likely remain the realm of mere theory. But what we do know is that Breitbart’s final unfinished project was more far reaching than the 2012 election, and indeed it was bigger than the conservative movement. Breitbart was trying to establish a free-market punk aesthetic, to reclaim economic freedom for the counter-culture radical and take the culture of cool away from the Marxists. To those who loved him for this I humbly suggest that you have found your home amongst the Rebels of the Silver Underground, and I will leave you with the advice that came to me in a dream when Robert Anton Wilson died:

When the giants in your life pass away it’s time to stop being small.

About the Author: Davi Barker

In grade school Davi refused to recite the pledge of allegiance because he didn't understand what it meant. He was ordered to do as he was told. In college he spent hours scouring through the congressional record trying to understand this strange machine. That's where he discovered Dr. Ron Paul. In 2007 he joined the End The Fed movement and found a political home with the libertarians. The Declaration of Independence claims that the government derives its power “from the consent of the governed." He does not consent.