ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 30, 2012

The death of a coroner

Andrew Breitbart's death gets curiouser and curiouser with a suspiciously convenient death:
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced probable cause for forgery in President Obama’s birth certificate. Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public. “There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Now, I actively subscribe to the conspiracy theory of history, but there is one giant question about this particular purported conspiracy that I find troubling. Was Andrew Breitbart really that important? I mean, in terms of pundits, opinion leaders, and intellectuals influencing global public opinion, I don't think I'd have had him in my top 100. It strikes me rather like trying to change the course of the NFL season by assassinating the punter for the Cleveland Browns.

Labels:

78 Comments:

Blogger Nate April 30, 2012 9:07 AM  

Breitbart's import is directly related to the evidence he had or did not have.

if for example... he really did have a video of Obama making out with a man that was clear enough... then yeah... you off him for it. Because in the offing... you send the message, "hey.. Obama may not get re-elected anyway... is it worth dying over?" to anyone else that may also have the footage.

Also... it may not be about pragmatism. Its always possible that they just really hated this dude and have no problem with murder ethically speaking.

Anonymous Tyrone April 30, 2012 9:08 AM  

Taking out ACORN wasn't a small move.

Anonymous artie April 30, 2012 9:13 AM  

Well, he is as relevant as the evidence he would have had (or people thought he had).

His murder is evidence that it would have been quite explosive material, the death of the coroner makes it very explosive material. So goes the saying in conspiracy circles anyway.

(I never heard of Breitbart before he died)

Anonymous Azimus April 30, 2012 9:31 AM  

VD:

Was Andrew Breitbart really that important?


Allowing for all assumptions of the conspiracy theory of history to be true, turn the question inside out: was the person who had Andrew Breitbart killed really that important?

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 9:32 AM  

> Taking out ACORN wasn't a small move.

It depends on if your a conspiracy theorist. On the one hand, ACORN represented homeless, poor, mostly minorities. Average income under $20k. Some achievement.

If you believe the hype, ACORN was just waiting to impose Sharia and force Gay Marriage on Tea Partiers.

> Was Andrew Breitbart really that important?

Not very. Anything he touched became an instantly partisan. No matter what evidence he possessed of anything it simply would be brushed off as a partisan attack. Breitbart was a great candidate if you want to give something to someone designed to make a lot of noise but produce very few results.

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 9:34 AM  

What is the proposed end that this persons death advances?

Anonymous Daniel April 30, 2012 9:34 AM  

I think his methodology alone was enough. I personally know two outspoken liberals who were very glad he did - only because they were worried he'd turn up 60 minutes videos on more of their pet sideshows.

Was he important? Not by my estimate. Was he important to his enemies? Provably so. Important enough to kill? I don't know. Ask Randy Weaver. Plenty of unimportant people become targets of dogmatic wrath.

Anonymous Difster April 30, 2012 9:35 AM  

If he had evidence that could bring down Obama, then yes, he was that important.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 30, 2012 9:38 AM  

Consider this: the fact that he wasn't as big a pundit as say, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, is good reason to have him killed. Most people did not know who he was, but he was significant enough in conservative circles to merit his death.

In light of the fact that he, along with James O'Keefe, took down ACORN, one of Obama's own pet projects, merits attention. This administration showed no qualms about killing an American citizen overseas and his 16-year-old son, so we should not be surprised if he had Breitbart killed.

Anonymous Starbuck April 30, 2012 9:40 AM  

Why on earth do people that have some kind of video that is supposed to turn the world over on itself always announce it several days, or a week, or sometimes a month before hand? Then for some reason it never gets released. Or if it does get released... pfffft.. it is anti-climatic.

Anonymous re-allow anonymous comments April 30, 2012 9:54 AM  

1. He may or may not be "that important" but when the cost of killing him is near zero, why not?

2. The liberals are very pathetic, petty people. The mere existence of opposition figures drives them into a rage ("make it go awaaaaayyy"), and when the cost of exercising that rage is near zero, why not?

3. In my opinion he was VERY important for one reason: he understood that the game has been changed, that conservatives have nothing to conserve anymore, and are now actually the left wing, who must attack and destroy the "civilization"/"system" which is controlled by the progressives. If someone like Rush Limbaugh were to figure that concept out, it would be very dangerous. Luckily for the enemy, he hasn't, and most conservatives still stupidly view themselves as defending civilization. Our civilization is gone. The progressives are in charge now. Brietbart understood that we are Alinsky now.

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 9:54 AM  

> Why on earth do people that have some kind of video that is supposed to
> turn the world over on itself always announce it several days, or a week,
> or sometimes a month before hand? Then for some reason it never gets
> released. Or if it does get released... pfffft.. it is anti-climatic.

This is the hallmark of the professional activist class.

Whatever you think of them, that's how they operate. They need to motivate their base supporters into a full feeding frenzy. This is how Glenn Beck and several like him operate. It's all in order to separate them from their money.

In the beginning, Wikileaks was the opposite of this. They just released it. Just post it.

Anonymous Houston April 30, 2012 10:00 AM  

"Was Andrew Breitbart really that important? I mean, in terms of pundits, opinion leaders, and intellectuals influencing global public opinion, I don't think I'd have had him in my top 100. It strikes me rather like trying to change the course of the NFL season by assassinating the punter for the Cleveland Browns."

Recall Gandalf's answer when Frodo asked him why Sauron would bother to enslave the hobbits: "There is such a thing as malice and revenge."

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 10:02 AM  

> Recall Gandalf's answer when Frodo asked him why Sauron would bother to
> enslave the hobbits: "There is such a thing as malice and revenge."

The lesson here is that Sauron was wrong to assume that enslaving the hobbits had zero risk. In fact there was a risk involved with no potential payoff (it's not like hobbits are going to be great slaves, compared to his Orc armies).

Same with a targeted assassination.

Blogger Booch Paradise April 30, 2012 10:06 AM  

It depends on if your a conspiracy theorist. On the one hand, ACORN represented homeless, poor, mostly minorities. Average income under $20k. Some achievement.

Well apart from that they were a major player in voter fraud. We don't actually know that they did anything other than get tons and tons of false voter registrations, but leap from there is not too far.

Anonymous anon April 30, 2012 10:07 AM  

What you or I think about Breibart isn't relevant; it's the opinion of those willing to kill that matters.

They may have feared he was on the verge of revealing (or at least discovering) information that was worth killing him for. They might have been wrong, and have been acting on false information or excessive fear of discovery.

Or they may have killed him as a way of sending a message to potential informants who have not yet come forward. If one was going to try to release this sort of information to the public, Breibart would have been an obvious channel to use. Breibart dying suddenly like that makes potential informants think twice.

Mainstream cons like Limbaugh may be "more important" but they aren't the person you would go to if you wanted to reveal nasty stuff about Obama. Breibart was the goto guy for the dirty stuff that more "respectable" cons wouldn't touch.

Anyway those are possible explanations for what may have happened if you are into the conspiracy line of thinking.

Anonymous Starbuck April 30, 2012 10:12 AM  

Thanks dh, that actually made sense..

Gives me a new direction to think about...

Blogger jamsco April 30, 2012 10:13 AM  

I'd like a refresher course on the conspiracy theory of history. Do I recall correctly that there are three theories. And one of others is "Great Man"? What's the other?

If the conspiracy theory is true that means that most things that happen in history are caused by secret things happening behind the scenes - is that correct?

Anonymous History Speaking April 30, 2012 10:16 AM  

Think Night of Long Knives...how many "small potatoes" were killed?

Anonymous Starbuck April 30, 2012 10:17 AM  

Or they may have killed him as a way of sending a message to potential informants who have not yet come forward. If one was going to try to release this sort of information to the public, Breibart would have been an obvious channel to use. Breibart dying suddenly like that makes potential informants think twice. - anon

I think I read somewhere that Matt Drudge, friend of Andrew Breibart, went into hiding after Andrew died. I don't know if he came back out. Which doesn't truely make sense because he or at least someone has still been posting on Drudge Report. I don't think it is too hard to find someone through the internet, unless you really know how to manipulate networks. Still you would leave a trail.

Anonymous szook April 30, 2012 10:18 AM  

MPAI must also apply to members of "the conspiracy" TM*

* not lower case c....that's because there really is nothing to see here folks. Just move along and consume more of those yummy products and pop media....or we'll poison your snowcone.....

Anonymous Houston April 30, 2012 10:23 AM  

dh: "The lesson here is that Sauron was wrong to assume that enslaving the hobbits had zero risk. In fact there was a risk involved with no potential payoff (it's not like hobbits are going to be great slaves, compared to his Orc armies."

That wasn't Tolkien's point. It's not about cost/benefit calculation but sheer wickedness. Note the motives he specified: malice and revenge.

Anonymous TLM April 30, 2012 10:30 AM  

Andrew was everything the MSM, and even the so-called conservative media, was not. Aggressive, strong-willed, not easily intimidated, and relentless. This scared the shit out of the powers that be. His platform may have been small, but was growing when he was offed. And he was the silent partner to The Drudge Report which may be considered just another website today, but they did create a paradigm shift in where people get their information from back in the 90's when they scooped Newsweek and everyone else regarding Clinton's sexcapades with that overweight Jew broad.

Anonymous Smarty Pants April 30, 2012 10:32 AM  

I love to see you do a list of intellectuals influencing global public opinion. Maybe not a top 100 but a top 10 in both positive and negative influence.

Anonymous Oh, Snap! April 30, 2012 10:33 AM  

Answer: Where's the footage?

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 10:38 AM  

> Well apart from that they were a major player in voter fraud. We don't
> actually know that they did anything other than get tons and tons of false
> voter registrations, but leap from there is not too far.

False voter registration != voter fraud, especially when you consider that in most states anyone collecting registrations must by law turn them all in regardless of whether the opinion of the collector is that they are "valid" or not. Once it's signed, most states require them to be turned even if obviously false.

Regardless of whatever other crimes they had on their hands, again, the fact that ACORN had no protectors in Congress is a pretty good indication that they were in fact a relatively powerless group advocating for the poor.

FYI, this is the same way you know that Planned Parenthood is as bad as you think it is - many powerful protectors in Congress.

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 10:43 AM  

> Andrew was everything the MSM, and even the so-called conservative media,
> was not. Aggressive, strong-willed, not easily intimidated, and relentless.

The problem with Andrew was that he blew his credibility load. His ability to influence the course of events and the discourse was rapidly failing. It peaked last year with the Congressman Weiner scandal, and was on a fairly steady decline.

To get the attention of the mainstream discourse he had to ratchet up the rhetoric and promises. This is unrelated to his death, I think, but overall, he and his protege O'Keeffe were both living in a land of diminishing returns - easily able to excite a devoted core of supporters and like minded activists, but that's about it.

Not that they would object to this - it can be very lucrative and very intoxicating. It's just well short of their intentions, I think.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2012 10:44 AM  

Starbuck... You can hide on the Internet quite well. It's very very possible. Remember she is a military tool. public wifi is your friend.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2012 10:45 AM  

Starbuck... You can hide on the Internet quite well. It's very very possible. Remember she is a military tool. public wifi is your friend.

Anonymous Daniel April 30, 2012 10:53 AM  

Jamsco
If the conspiracy theory is true that means that most things that happen in history are caused by secret things happening behind the scenes - is that correct?

It is, basically this: history is the sum of economic choices. People with power, or desiring power, both combine and compete for historical rewards. Although there are unintended consequences [i.e. The most famous being that the conspiracy to eliminate Jesus resulted in the fulfillment of his power, and the follow-up conspiracy to eliminate Christianity resulted in its spread.], for the most part, the rewards of history go to those power blocks that work for them.

Take a historic event: the moon landing. While the general public was emotionally and intellectually captured by the narrative of men, in real-time, exploring the unexplored, NASA was benefiting from funding, the military was benefiting from competition with the Russians, and the U.S. had new, powerful weapons at its disposal, and the Democrats had a dead icon whose prophecy had been fulfilled, while the Republicans were able to coattail instead of oppose excessive federal spending on space travel.

In other words, it worked out to the benefit of a lot of powerful blocks, none of whom share the identical agenda, but all of whom took active roles in influencing history to their benefit.

It is also likely that in such conspiracies, some non-players benefit. For example, the kid who grew up enjoying Tang benefited, but obviously was not a powerbroker in the development of NASA's space program. A bad conspiracist will say throw the Tang kid into a monolithic inner circle "pulling all the strings."

A good conspiracist will not only ask "who benefits from a conspiracy?" but the important follow-up "did the beneficiaries have an actual hand in conducting the events, or did they merely reap a windfall?"

Anonymous Josh April 30, 2012 11:02 AM  

dammit, someone brought up the moon landings...prepare for two hundred comments about rivets and silos...

Anonymous Starbuck April 30, 2012 11:08 AM  

Starbuck... You can hide on the Internet quite well. It's very very possible. Remember she is a military tool. public wifi is your friend.-Nate

Nate, you repeated your post twice... How did you know I don't hear so well? You always know what I need..

The internet is more then what we think it is. It has grown into something no one person can fully comprehend. The level of paranoia one would need to stay invisible is staggering. If your enemy is clever, they will find you. And this enemy is in charge of the internet. They have impressive tools and people. You, me, Drudge, Breibart are just individuals. Just as in public you would have to stay beneath the mud of public. They won't be able to see you right away. You would have to be quick, otherwise they will sniff you out. It isn't easy and it is dangerous. Someone is playing a dangerous game. And yes this is a game. Dangerous, but a game. People will die, nations will change, the world is on a cusp as I can see it. Things are changing and the ones trying to change it all want to control it.
Tyranny, Slavery, Control, Evil, Anti-God, is coming. And it is coming fast. Our government is aiding and abetting. So are the politicians, so are the political parties, so are the religions, and so are huge parts of the populations. Even the conspiracy nuts are helping it even though they oppose it.

This all is making me nervous, paranoid even.

But hey! Have a nice day there Nate!

Anonymous Todd April 30, 2012 11:11 AM  

What's all this "if the evidence he had was explosive enough" nonsense?

This is in the past. You all know what a non-event, BS scoop you're referring to.

Brietbart's explosive tape about Obama, teased before his death and released after, that zero people were talking about a week later, was the one that already aired prior to the previous election and was available on the PBS website for everyone to view as long as they had Flash installed.

That's what you're referring to without actually mentioning specifics because who has that little respect for their own credibility.

So the question is... was he killed to stop him making an ass of himself by pretending that was a scoop?

Just so we're clear.

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 11:14 AM  

Wow, don't know what really happened, but I heard this theory on a conservative talk-radio show. I didn't know who the guy was at the time and simply thought they were joking. I think they thought they were joking too...

Vox: "Was Andrew Breitbart really that important?"

Doesn't matter. Who says Obama's guys did it? Does politically motivated murder have to be committed by hired agents? If it was an Obama supporter who was not all that important, he still could have been pissed off but close enough to do something.

to quote anon: "What you or I think about Breibart isn't relevant; it's the opinion of those willing to kill that matters."

But he misses the point- "those willing to kill." Not hired thugs for an administration. It's not as if you need a link to Obama himself to figure that he could have gotten murdered for talking smack about Obama. I'm sure plenty of people have killed for Hitler without Hitler ever knowing or ordering it, he just had that much social influence.

Think of it this way: why did Vox seek a dispute with Bakker? Who is Bakker? Is he really well known?

Now I'm not saying Vox's dispute Bakker is the same as murder, not at all, not even close! I don't even know if Vox started it, but even if he did, nothing immoral of a simple dispute.

But it's just that some people draw the ire of others simply due to luck of the draw- they just happened to cross paths.

All in all, I hope it isn't true. Because that's just terrifying; that we have sunk so low...

Anonymous Gvttvr Profvndvm April 30, 2012 11:24 AM  

BHO announces candidacy: Feb 10, 2007
Larry Bland dies: Nov 17, 2007
Donald Young dies: Dec 24, 2007
Nate Spenser dies: Dec 26, 2007
BHO presumptive nominee: Jun 3, 2008

Amazing what a little clean-up can do!

BHO announces candidacy: Apr 4, 2011
Andrew Breitbart dies: Mar 1, 2012
Michael Cormier dies: Arp 20, 2012
...

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 11:34 AM  

Clarification:

When I quoted anon (10:07am US Central), what I meant by "he misses the point" is that his post goes on to give various theories on why the Obama administration would want Breibart assassinated. His phrase that I quoted, "those willing to kill" is the relevant point, which is soon forgotten in trade of various conspiracy theories (which may or may not be correct, but are the not the only valid causes of murder...).

Anonymous III April 30, 2012 11:44 AM  

This couldn't possibly be a .gov hit. He didn't commit suicide by cutting his throat twice, his wrists 8 times, and shoot himself in the head 3 times. And... there was no rubber ball in his mouth.

Anyhow, remember all those Air Force guys who who died after Minot AFB nuclear incident? It was just all coincidence.


By the way, there will be a "nuclear incident" at Minot AFB this upcoming ARDENT SENTRY 2012 games.

Anyhow, people get sent to prison for conspiracies all the time. Occasionally they get whacked.

Anonymous Crispy April 30, 2012 11:48 AM  

Vox: Was Andrew Breitbart really that important?

As the EPA regional administrator for Dallas, Al Almendariz put it:

"The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean," said Armendariz. "They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years."

Anonymous Suomynona April 30, 2012 11:52 AM  

I don't recall this guy's name, he was in a Fort Worth jail, and about to spill the beans on Clinton, died of a very convenient heart attack. It's a handy tool those on-demand heart attacks.

I believe most politicians, if they knew they could get away with it, would kill someone who was about to take them down. It is not necessarily the importance of the person but what he knows that makes him such a threat.

Or maybe Breitbart just offended the narcissist messiah one too many times.

Blogger Vox April 30, 2012 11:53 AM  

What's the other?

Accident theory. Things happen because they happened. It's the one to which most people subscribe due to the usual reason. MPAI.

Think of it this way: why did Vox seek a dispute with Bakker? Who is Bakker? Is he really well known?

Vox didn't. Bakker sought one with me in response to a post of mine on Black Gate. I'd heard of him, but I hadn't even read his books at the time.

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 11:56 AM  

@Crispy

A flaw with your example- the reason the town was so easy to manage was that everyone clearly knew who did it. Is it is the same in this situation?

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 12:07 PM  

@ Vox

Thank you for your reply!

I've read your review of his book. I just didn't know if that was the first incident between you two. Now it is understood.

So suppose I flip it around? Suppose I ask "why did Bakker seek a dispute with you?" You say " a post ... on Black Gate." I assume that this is important for Bakker (my guess is he publishes with them as well) and thus the dispute started. This was my point. Some people take things very personally. It may have been possible that there is no conspiricy theory at play and it was an Obama supporter who just became very angry. This seems the more likely possibility.

It's not anyone who has a disagreement with the Catholic church sends out harsh emails to the Pope, or the Cardinals; they just send out harsh emails to Catholics they've encountered, whether in real life or on the net.

Anonymous Baseball Savant April 30, 2012 12:13 PM  

Man come on! You can't rip the DAWG POUND! At least you could have said the Rams punter or the Cardinals punter....or dare I say.....the Titans punter!?

Anonymous Holla April 30, 2012 12:13 PM  

Breitbart was homosexual. Obama is rumored to be homosexual.

Maybe he O'Keefe'd Obama?

Anonymous Holla April 30, 2012 12:18 PM  

And not that I buy the Breitbart murder conspiracy, but he was a few things that most mainstream conservatives are not.

1. Internet savvy.
2. Viral video savvy.
3. Media and design savvy.

His stuff was naive, dishonest, and generally in bad taste, but it worked. And he was interesting enough to go after the roots - to fight a practical war with a sense of political philosophy that the big guys like Rush are either too stupid or too paid-off to engage in.

Anonymous Suomynona April 30, 2012 12:22 PM  

FHL April 30, 2012 12:07 PM
It may have been possible that there is no conspiricy theory at play and it was an Obama supporter who just became very angry. This seems the more likely possibility.


When a person dies of an apparent natural cause, it is always a conspiracy if in fact is was not a natural cause, otherwise, it would be obviously murder. The conspiracy part is not in the death but in the attempt to cover up the murder which is more sophisticated and complicated than most normal people would be able to pull off.

Anonymous Crispy April 30, 2012 12:25 PM  

@FHL: "... everyone clearly knew who did it."

Everyone clearly knew it was "Romans". I imagine the villagers were very careful around anyone dressed like or claiming to be Roman.

If the death of AB was a "hit", it's pretty obvious who his "enemies" were. His death could serve as a warning to others who would oppose that team. Even if it was entirely natural, it can still be a useful bluff: "it would be a shame if what happened to Andrew were to happen to you..."

Anonymous Noah B. April 30, 2012 12:25 PM  

Conspiracy is the normal method by which people accomplish things. When those activities are legal, we call them business, and at least some degree of secrecy in business is also the norm. The idea that organized crime exists and is somewhat widespread is also no longer controversial. The idea that politicians and bureaucrats could be involved in criminal activity also should not be controversial. So I have never understood why people are reluctant to believe the political leaders engaging in criminal conspiracies have a vast and widespread influence. It just seems obvious.

That said, assuming that Breitbart died of natural causes, the sheer number of variables involved means there was bound to be something about his death that could be interpreted as suspicious. Maybe the medical examiner might die a mysterious death, perhaps the date of Breitbart's death had some special significance for Obama, maybe he collapsed on Acorn Street, or perhaps someone could have thought they saw John Holdren stirring something into Breitbart's cocktail as he momentarily excused himself from dinner -- but in any case, some fact would have presented itself that could have been used to support the theory that his death was not simply an accident.

Blogger ajw308 April 30, 2012 12:37 PM  

It strikes me rather like trying to change the course of the NFL season by assassinating the punter for the Cleveland Browns.

Wrong analogy, unless you're assuming Rush Limbaugh did it.

I'd think the reasonable conspiracy theorist wouldn't think that someone was eliminating competition, but rather that an example was being made. After all, tyrants control through fear with the knowledge that to control 100, you only need to shoot 1. That it was an 'unimportant' example may make it easier to get away with, since there will far less scrutiny called for by his fans.

Blogger Tom April 30, 2012 12:41 PM  

Andrew was a relaxed, mellow man. How he could ever have a heart attack is clear grounds for wonder.

Of course there is a conspiracy. Why else isn't the normal conservative media picking up on it?

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 12:41 PM  

@ Suomynona

I would have to agree. I just don't see why Obama would assassinate a relatively unknown blogger for the same reason Vox brought up. And there have been murders committed by "normal" people that have been covered up quite cleanly, only to be discovered years later. There are some smart sociopaths out there, unfortunately.

@ Crispy

True. I wonder, has anyone on the TV news or such commented on this? I really don't know, I don't watch it. But it just seems so odd- why not someone more prominent? Did they not think they would get away with it?

It's like this: Vox writes a great deal against atheists. Suppose he ended up murdered one day (GOD forbid this ever happen! I'm only bringing this up as a thought experiment!). I don't think it would be reasonable to claim "Dawkins did it!" I think it would be more likely some random unknown atheist just got pissed.

And what sort of evidence could this man have had against Obama? Plenty of evidence, almost all of it valid, almost all of it convincing, has surfaced against the man. I mean, the man writes and speaks about eating dogs and it doesn't faze his followers! His whole persona consists of sophistry and rhetoric, he doesn't need to worry about evidence because he never employed any and his followers have never payed any concern to it.

Blogger Buckeye Copperhead April 30, 2012 12:43 PM  

Assassinating the Cleveland Browns' punter would be a huge blow - to the Cleveland Browns, as the punter is usually the team's MVP year after year.

And yes, I am a Browns fan.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2012 12:43 PM  

"Man come on! You can't rip the DAWG POUND! At least you could have said the Rams punter or the Cardinals punter....or dare I say.....the Titans punter!?"

HEY!

You leave Brett Kern outta this!

Blogger Nate April 30, 2012 12:48 PM  

"Nate, you repeated your post twice... How did you know I don't hear so well? You always know what I need.."

I would disagree with your assertion that the internet is the inherent threat to your security. It isn't posting annonymously that is the problem... You put yourself on the hangin' list when you make the transition to the public media game. Stay on the net... and have ONLY a net presence. Think about what you do before you do it.. and take a couple key steps... like say... routing through a few tunnels while connecting through public wifi.. and using different public wifi all the time... and you're good.

Blogger Nate April 30, 2012 12:49 PM  

I had no idea there were actual Browns fans. I'm agog! I am aghast!

Anonymous Suomynona April 30, 2012 1:04 PM  

FHL April 30, 2012 12:41 PM
And there have been murders committed by "normal" people that have been covered up quite cleanly, only to be discovered years later. There are some smart sociopaths out there, unfortunately.


The most important question here is whether God knows who the murderer is. If He didn't have a clue about the nonstop faggotfest going on at Sodom, how on earth would He know about a cunning assassin's secret exploit?

Never mind! I withdraw the question!

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 30, 2012 1:06 PM  

Anon: Or they may have killed him as a way of sending a message to potential informants who have not yet come forward. If one was going to try to release this sort of information to the public, Breibart would have been an obvious channel to use. Breibart dying suddenly like that makes potential informants think twice.

Sometimes, the message being sent (stop questioning the nativity story) is more important than those who were chosen to 'deliver' the message. Since his death, Breitbart's site is well on its way to becoming a just another "conservative" clone of Fox Snooze. As others have remarked, it's not as if the regime or its Repuke whores has anything whatsoever to fear from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and National Soviet Review.

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 1:10 PM  

> Andrew was a relaxed, mellow man. How he could ever have a heart attack is
> clear grounds for wonder.

Ehh, three causes for premature heart problems:

a. Fatty. I would say he wasn't quite fatty but definately enjoyed the luxuries of good eating and drink.

b. Generic Re-disposition. Unknown. Adopted.

c. Prior abuse of the heart or valves. Likely. He openly admitted to a wild youth with myriad drugs. A number of prescription drugs also affect heart health.

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 1:13 PM  

@ Suomynona

Ha! A most cunning trap indeed; I almost got baited by your clever question into giving a reply to the question which you wisely withdrew, but I think we can only test Vox's patience only so far!

...but at the risk of incurring internet-comment-board whippings - I must say - that was good.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box April 30, 2012 1:27 PM  

My theory is he knew something much more dangerous or offended one of The Owners to a greater degree than Bernie Madoff and we just aren't aware of what the particular offense was (Breitbart, not the coroner).
This bit seems too coincidental, and is actually more likely to bring out the bloodhounds than silence their yapping.

Anonymous Knarf April 30, 2012 1:30 PM  

If the objective is to demonstrate to some other player that he should be cooperative because your threats are serious, then yes, capping the Browns' punter makes perfect sense.

Anonymous Crispy April 30, 2012 1:41 PM  

@FHL,

Don't know about TV news--do they still have that?

Why not someone more prominent? Perhaps AB was "prominent enough". From the EPA fellow's quote, they just picked "the first five guys they saw" and made an example of them.

Was the hit (if it was such) directed by BHO? As you point out, not necessarily. Similarly, in the Roman example, the emperor may not have known details of individual village pacification efforts. The cooperation of the village benefited the entire Senatus Populusque Rōmānus. There are more elections than the Presidential one coming up this fall.

And what sort of evidence could this man have had against Obama? Hard to say. If there was anything significant, or something that could have been sensationalized, it may have been consigned to the memory hole. AB was associated with some high-profile news stories which were embarrassing to the left beyond their face value: ACORN and Sherrod, for example. As you say, though, it would take a real doozie to top the existing stories against BHO.

Along those lines, Gvttvr Profvndvm, how is it that Larry Sinclair is still around? Does he have a good "insurance policy" of some kind?

Anonymous mjb April 30, 2012 1:48 PM  

I really believe that the coroner was tangled up in a war against Hollywood Jews. Is it a coincidence that he died and lived in LA, near Hollywood, which is run by Jews? Someone had to pay for Mel Gibson's anti-semitic tirade.

Anonymous Noah B. April 30, 2012 1:50 PM  

Just be thankful that we live in a free society, where our elected representatives still occasionally have to pretend to abide by the same laws as the rest of us.

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 1:55 PM  

@ Crispy

"Similarly, in the Roman example, the emperor may not have known details of individual village pacification efforts. The cooperation of the village benefited the entire Senatus Populusque Rōmānus."

I think we are mostly in agreement. My immediate thought was that if it was a murder, it probably was an attempt to eliminate a conservative view point by someone who had either been angered or troubled by it. I just wasn't so sure Obama had planned it or even knew about it.

I would have thought it would have been better planned than the "first five guys they saw" concerning the difference in situation. But perhaps they expected different results, or are shooting for different results, or are misguided, or stupid, or more clever, or know something we don't, or don't give a shit, or any other sort of explanation. So I'm not denying it completely. And I did not know AB was behind the whole ACORN/prostitution incident, I should have done more research, but that is definitely a possibility since it was so well publicized when it first came out.

Who can ya trust these days?

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 1:58 PM  

@ mjb









no

Anonymous fug April 30, 2012 1:59 PM  

"2. The liberals are very pathetic, petty people. The mere existence of opposition figures drives them into a rage ("make it go awaaaaayyy"), and when the cost of exercising that rage is near zero, why not?"

This is true. Insanity is very mainstream among the libs. Check the web for all the hysteria among prominent left and lib figures about a worldwide secret Christian Fundie government. The major book on this fantasy (The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power) is written by a journalist with the most mainstream of credentials. I guess this group is supposed to be in league with the Beltway Libertarian Koch brothers.

Of course all these "ultra-rightists" the left claims to fear disagree with the DNC on maybe one or two issues.

Anonymous mjb April 30, 2012 2:06 PM  

I know that, FHL. I just noticed a lack of blaming the jews in this post, so I had to contribute. It felt...odd...no anti-semitism.

Anonymous 204 April 30, 2012 2:49 PM  

Could be an Obama hater that killed him and then made it look exactly like a conspiracy by an Obama lover in order to cause the masses to think than an Obama lover, or Obama himself killed BB.

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 3:12 PM  

@204

"Could be an Obama hater that killed him and then made it look exactly like a conspiracy by an Obama lover in order to cause the masses to think than an Obama lover, or Obama himself killed BB."

Or perhaps... maybe mjb is right... and it's... THE JEWS!

This reminds of the tactics used some of the Muslims in Egypt. After the Christians claim a miracle has occurred, it will often be replicated by the Muslims, expecting it to be found out, expecting it to be revealed as a fraud, thus de-legitimizing the original miracle claimed by the Christians.

But what's odd is that the Christians never do the same in return.

They have no reason to do so- they know that those who do not accept the Truth are already blind to it from their continual rejection of obvious facts and no amount of 'evidence' will convince them. Only an internal, willful change of heart on their their part will convert them.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen- but if someone was smart enough to pull such an elaborate plot and wise enough to distrust Obama, then he should have the knowledge and wisdom to understand the error of what he is attempting.

This is problem with conspiracy theories- when all you have to go on is speculation about possible motivations, any weirdness can result.

And you mean AB, not BB. Unless you actually meant BB, in which case I am totally confused.

Anonymous JP (real one) April 30, 2012 3:23 PM  

The bitch is back. dh defending ACORN as the helper of the poor, the homeless (someone get me a handkerchief), the downtrodden (I'm losing it now!).

Those clowns received millions in federal funding. How much did Breitbart get? And how many elections did he tamper with?

And then to whine about "professional activist class" and partisanship"? The irony. The stupidity. The brainwashing. Just go cash in your SSI "crazy check" and get your food stamps already. There are enough of your ilk to elect your Sugar Daddy again.

Anonymous Noah B. April 30, 2012 3:58 PM  

@FHL

I think he meant it like Breit (B) Bart (B).

OpenID nooneofanyimport April 30, 2012 4:27 PM  

In my estimation, Brietbart was every bit that important. He was a rising star, and who knows what he would have uncovered next. It wasn't just the stuff he had done to date--it was his charisma, leadership, fearlessness, and the potential he showed for the future.

Now, I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, so I'm not inclined to believe there is a tie b/t this coroner and Breitbart as of yet.

But yeah, he was that influential, or at least on the brink of becoming so.

cheers!
Linda

Anonymous FHL April 30, 2012 4:45 PM  

@ Noah B.

Thanks. My error.

Anonymous Anonymous April 30, 2012 5:48 PM  

"Personal friend of Brietbart, Bill Whittle, had said that Brietbart had a "serious heart attack" just months before his passing."

It's a little disrespectful to be speculating that Brietbart's body may have been a random Obama supporter with motivations.

Anonymous The Baseball Savant April 30, 2012 5:59 PM  

Nate April 30, 2012 12:43 PM

"Man come on! You can't rip the DAWG POUND! At least you could have said the Rams punter or the Cardinals punter....or dare I say.....the Titans punter!?"

HEY!

You leave Brett Kern outta this!


I just couldn't pull the trigger on Pat McAfee!

Anonymous dh April 30, 2012 6:06 PM  

> The bitch is back. dh defending ACORN as the helper of the poor, the homeless (someone get me a
> handkerchief), the downtrodden (I'm losing it now!).

I'm a long way from defending. Simply saying that ACORN, in the eyes of the professional activist class, was some sort of massive power broker conspiracy player when in fact most of it's funding was private & locally orientated. Their average constituent made half of the median salary (and most often had no actual earned income, only unearned - aka welfare - as income).

The prevailing theory - which is that they were exactly what it appeared to be - a collective of non-profits trying to register the poor to vote, to try to get the public to pay transfer benefits to the non-working poor, and to represent the general scum of society while delivering Democrats votes - is more likely than the all-power uber enemy that professional Conservatives like Breitbart envisioned.

When it came time for voting in Congress, ACORN essentially zero support, meaning that they did not have any political protection, meaning that they were powerless. Which is definitive evidence against the Breitbart et all theory.

It's especially ironic that the ACORN vote went the way it did when virtually all supposed Conservatives and Constitutionalists voted against their funding even thought it was abundantly clear that the bill was an illegal bill of attainder (which was so found and stricken in several subsequent legal challenges).

Anonymous Gapeseed May 01, 2012 6:17 AM  

Breitbart was not among the top 100 conservative "pundits, opinion leaders and intellectuals", but in the category of "conservative investigate journalists", he was number one with a bullet.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts