The last person who appears to have seen and talked with Breitbart on Thursday night, March 1, 2012, was Arthur Sando of the Hollywood Reporter. A comment by Joel Pollak, Breitbart’s Editor-in-Chief, provides some insight:
According to Sando, Breitbart walked into The Brentwood — a restaurant and bar in L.A. — and sat down next to him. Sando recognized Breitbart due to his fame and they engaged in a discussion for about two hours. Sando said that Breitbart was “friendly and engaging” and that he had stopped at the bar for a drink but hadn’t come there to meet anyone in particular. Breitbart didn’t drink excessively, according to Sando’s account, was on his blackberry a lot, and didn’t exhibit any signs of health or other problems. Before Breitbart left they exchanged contact information and planned on getting together.
Shortly after that friendly encounter in the restaurant, while walking near his home, Breitbart suddenly dropped dead. It was as if some sniper had shot him. But there was no sound of a gun, no bloody wound, nobody driving speedily off in a car. In other words, the killer was undetectable.
According to the Los Angeles Times of March 2, 2012:
It will probably take several weeks before the Los Angeles County coroner's office determines an official cause of death for conservative website editor and author Andrew Breitbart, who died unexpectedly Thursday at age 43.
A source familiar with the investigation told The Times on Friday that although officials completed an autopsy Friday, they are awaiting results from various tests that will take six to eight weeks to be returned from the lab. The source stressed that such waits occur in most cases in the coroner's office.
The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was still under investigation, said officials are working on the assumption that Breitbart died of natural causes. A witness saw him collapse while walking near his home and said that he had no external injuries, the source said. Paramedics rushed Breitbart to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where doctors pronounced him dead.
And so, we shall have to wait until the official word comes down to us from the coroner’s office. But it is not clear whether Breitbart drove home in his car and dropped dead after parking it and walking to his home. Had someone been waiting there to kill him? How far was the restaurant from his home? Also, whom did he converse with on his blackberry, and what can they tell us of Breitbart’s state of mind? Only a good investigative reporter would even ask such questions, let alone try to get some answers. As for Breitbart’s health, Joel Pollak stated:
Andrew was the picture of health. I had a conversation with someone who had been with Andrew on the day before he died and this person told me, “Andrew looked so good.” He went to the gym the day he died, he was losing weight, he was healthy and robust.
But no one wants to even think that Breitbart’s death may have been the result of an undetectable assassination. Such things just don’t happen in America. That’s what we like to think. But how could one not suspect that foul play was involved in Breitbart’s sudden unexpected death? His confrontational style really upset his enemies. He didn’t fight this war behind a microphone for several hours a day. He didn’t have his own glitzy show on the Fox network. He wasn’t into meeting, eating, and retreating. He wanted to beat the enemy, and when he had the chance to destroy ACORN, he went at it with hammer and tongs.
Indeed, ACORN was quite a prize. It was held in such high esteem by Obama and his White House thugs that they had announced that for the 2010 Census, ACORN would be given the exclusive job of recruiting 1.4 million workers to go door-to-door counting every person in the United States. This in spite of the fact that ACORN had been linked with serious voter fraud in states ranging from Washington to Pennsylvania. In other words, the radicals in Washington were expected to make great use of ACORN in the coming presidential election. But it was Breitbart who deprived them of this great instrument that was part of their socialist strategy. This was something they could not tolerate, since they knew that Breitbart had no intention of stopping there. According to the fiery speech he gave at CPAC, he was preparing for even greater confrontations.
ACORN’s downfall actually started when James O’Keefe, a graduate of Rutgers who majored in Philosophy, managed to make a video of himself and his female partner posing as a pimp and prostitute in the Baltimore office of ACORN, requesting tax information on setting up a prostitution business with underage girls imported from El Salvador. The officials at ACORN were quite happy to help the couple set up their illegal business.
But it was Breitbart who saw the incredible value of these videos, and their potential to do great harm to that corrupt organization. After much planning, he took the videos and got them viewed around the country, which just about ended the life of ACORN and temporarily ended the careers of the thousands of social workers in the organization. Even Congress was forced to defund ACORN.
So there was much bitter hatred against this guy Breitbart who had the power and ingenuity to destroy such an important radical, socialist organization. Of course, ACORN lost its census gig, which would have brought federal billions into its hands, a gig which would have given radical Democrats untold opportunities to “visit” the homes of voters in crucial districts.
So it is not so outlandish to suppose that they decided to get rid of Breitbart before he could do more damage to their radical cause. He had made it quite clear that he intended to do all in his power to destroy the political machine that Marx and Alinsky had created and the lying mainstream media that protected it. Thus, he had to be eliminated.
Killing the opposition is nothing new to the left. Whenever they achieve total power, as in Russia, Cambodia, and China, they are willing to kill millions of citizens whom they consider members of the opposition. But in the U.S., where their hold on power in Washington depends on deceiving the electorate, eliminating just one very dangerous member of the opposition ought not to be all that difficult. The problem would be how to do it. A group of radical insiders must have discussed the various methods and their risks: accident, poison, “suicide”? But there was one very important consideration: the method used must not be traceable back to them. His death must look “natural.” But it is not “natural” for a robust 43-year-old male in good health to suddenly drop dead.
I know this may sound like a plot from a Clancy novel, but we do know that the communists in Russia did develop methods of murder and assassination that were difficult to trace back to the KGB. And none of this is really new. In Hamlet, King Claudius convinces Laertes to kill Hamlet during a duel with a sword poisoned at its tip. Just a touch “with this contagion,” is enough to kill a man. The KGB used this method by stabbing an anti-communist with the point of an umbrella while walking on a street in London.
Are there ways of inducing a sudden heart attack in a healthy person? As far back as 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, it was revealed that the CIA had developed a poison that could cause a person to have a sudden heart attack. They froze the poison into the shape of a dart and fired it at high speed from a pistol so that it would go right through the clothes of the person who was shot, melt, and be absorbed into the body and blood to initiate the heart attack, leaving nothing but a small red mark on the body. The poison was developed in such a way that it was undetectable by the autopsy procedures of the time.
Have there been any further “improvements” in this area of activity? If poisons were available in Shakespeare’s time, the touch of which at the end of a sharp point could cause sudden death, they are certainly available today. And the idea that Breitbart would be walking alone to his home after midnight indicates that he was not paranoid enough to protect himself from assassination. It also implies that an assassin may have spent weeks if not months casing the area to find a spot where the murder could be carried out without detection.
What motivated Breitbart? He wrote in Righteous Indignation (p.10):
If the political left weren’t so joyless, humorless, intrusive, taxing, overtaxing, anarchistic, controlling, rudderless, chaos-prone, pedantic, unrealistic, hypocritical, clueless, politically correct, angry, cruel, sanctimonious, retributive, redistributive, intolerant—and if the political left weren‘t hell-bent on expansion of said unpleasantness into all aspects of my family’s life—the truth is, I would not be in your life.
That was enough to get him rolling. The fact that the left was determined to impose their hatred of God and hatred of life on everyone in America was sufficient cause for him to confront these “totalitarian freaks” head on. The left was not used to that sort of confrontation in America where they were usually able to get their way because of the fecklessness of the opposition.
Conservatives were losing the war against the left because they refused to confront the left with anything more potent than a letter to the editor or a philosophical discussion. Robert Welch had attempted to create a million-member organization, the size that he estimated was necessary to successfully expose and destroy the socialist one-world conspiracy. But it didn’t take long before The John Birch Society was viciously attacked on all sides by the communists, the liberal mainstream press, and by even some so-called conservatives. In any case, it was inconceivable to most Americans that a communist could ever become president of the United States.
But it was Breitbart who finally gave the left and their media what they weren’t used to: an opposition that meant business.
Actually, ACORN was not his number one target, until James O’Keefe walked into his office and showed him his set of videos. Breitbart’s jaw dropped. He writes (p.2):
After I watched the videos, there was silence. Then he turned to me and said, “We’re going to take down ACORN.” “No,” I replied. “We’re going to take down the media.”
That was the kind of daring conservatives needed. That was what the Tea Partiers wanted to hear. But there was a price to be paid, and Andrew Breitbart may have paid it.