Conspiracy and Andrew Breitbart

Conspiracy and Andrew Breitbart

American conspiracy theories come in all stripes, from the goofy to the believable, from the bizarre to the likely, from the cruel to the fawning.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone? Was 9/11 an inside job? Did Whitney Houston intentionally kill herself?

The very untimely death of arch-conservative Andrew Breitbart promises to fuel suspicions that foul play was involved. Indeed, another arch-conservative, radio commentator Michael Savage, has already suggested Breitbart was assassinated.

The 43 year old Breitbart, who had said three weeks earlier, ”Wait til they see what happens March first,” died near his Los Angeles home on Thursday, March first. According to the Associated Press and Reuters, the conservative firebrand had a history of heart problems and his personal website, Breitbart.com, reported he died “unexpectedly from natural causes” although no cause has yet been provided.

Indicative of official doubt as to reasons for his sudden death, the LA coroner’s office announced it would conduct an autopsy. Whatever the autopsy findings, it can be certain many will conclude Andrew Breitbart was murdered by one of his many enemies.

Aside from the deaths of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, no conservative’s passing would have delighted the rabid left more than Breitbart’s and his enemies began to spew their hatred in venomous articles and tweets within hours of the reports.

The taxpayer-subsidized NPR called him a “provocateur” and ”bombastic.” The Huffington Post’s Arianna Huffington was about the only prominent liberal who didn’t rip Breitbart. She couldn’t bring herself to describe his political influence but did praise him as a passionate, exuberant, and fearless friend.

WashingtonExaminer.com published a few of the earliest tweets, beginning with Slate.com’s Matt Yglesias’, “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

That mean-spirited observation was gracious compared to others including, “Andrew Breitbart now enjoying afternoon tea with Hitler good riddance you hack,” ”Andrew Breitbart died? Is it wrong that I’m happier about that than when they got bin Laden and Saddam?” ”Breitbart dead? More republicans should follow his lead,” “Andrew Breitbart is dead, He was a vile excuse for a human being,” and “Andrew Breitbart haha youre dead and in hell being a gay with hitler.”

I assume those tweets were either a consequence of President Obama’s call for more national civility or a reflection of the fear Obamians are experiencing as they await Breitbart’s tapes of Barack Obama at Harvard.

Breitbart referred to the tapes at his recent 2012 CPAC speech, . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=15359)

Mayhem in Tucson VI: Sarah Palin and Bloody Libel

Mayhem in Tucson VI: Sarah Palin and Bloody Libel

As a relatively literate and informed person, I was initially mystified, and annoyed, at the latest brickbat tossed Sarah Palin’s way, until it all started to make devious, sick sense.

It wasn’t nearly sufficient to continue to accuse the former Alaska governor of the canard of almost singlehandedly causing fruitcake Jared Loughner to go berserk in Tucson. She now is being accused of anti-Semitism because she used the common term “blood libel,” a charge as patently ridiculous and baseless as the allegation that she in any way influenced Loughner or his rampage.

Historically, the term was applied against Jews and related to the ancient myth that they murdered innocents, usually children, for the purpose of ritualistically drinking their blood and making matzohs. However, it’s not unusual today to employ the term to mean a degrading falsehood as Palin used it in saying her detractors “manufactured a blood libel” against her.

A more sane reaction to the “blood libel” insanity came from none other than Jewish activist and arch-liberal attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who asserted Palin used the term correctly.

It’s relevant to quote Dershowitz at some length on the subject: “The term ‘blood libel’ has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse . . . its current use has become part of the English parlance to refer to anyone being falsely accused.” Dershowitz added, “I myself have used it . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3409)