I scoffed yesterday when BuzzFeed and other sites started publishing conspiracy theories about Andrew Breitbart's death. Breaking news: Anonymous Internet commenters are kooks and jerks. (Except for my commenters. You guys are aces.) The arrival of Alex Jones onto the "was Breitbart assassinated?" beat is... well, not unpredictable, but a lot more interesting. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 
 
 Most Breitbart trutherism springs from one source -- Breitbart's speech at CPAC last month, in which he claimed ownership of anti-Obama dynamite. "We've got videos," said Breitbart. "This election, we're going to vet him -- from his college days." The theory, summed up neatly by video titles like "ILLUMINATI ASSASSINATION?," is that the Obama regime took out a critic before he could unleash damaging material. 
 
 Occam's razor: This is moronic. Breitbart's operation has expanded into quite the full-service media enterprise, with a large team of journalists and editors grabbing exclusive videos. Breitbart did not have a golden key to a vault that only he could access. Whatever the Bigs had, it's going to come out. Just as moronic, sadly, is the idea that a 43-year-old man with an insane stress level might not die of natural causes. It's horrible. It happens. Breitbart was only four months younger than Anthony Shadid, the foreign correspondent who died last month of an asthma attack. 
 
 To rant and theorize, with no evidence, about a plot against Breitbart is to do him a great disservice. Two years ago, at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville, I was quizzing Joe Farah about the birther comments he made from the stage when Farah spotted Breitbart and ran to him for help. Breitbart pulverized him. 
 
 “Prove it!" [said Breitbart] 
 
 
 
 “Prove what?” [said Farah] 
 
 
 
 “Prove your case.” 
 
 “I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.” 
 
 Breitbart tensed up after that insult. “Right.” 
 
 “I know you’re not a journalist, so that’s fine. But don’t diminish people who’ve been doing this for 35 years.” 
 
 “So you’re going to go on record saying that I’m not a journalist?” 
 
 “Are you? I’ve never heard you claim to be. Are you?” 
 
 “I’ll let it be answered by you.” 
 
 “Well, I knew Drudge didn’t consider himself a journalist, so I assumed that you were. … I don’t know, I’m not trying to insult you.” 
 
 “You did.” 

 Andrew Breitbart's unexpected death on Thursday has sparked a swift outpouring of grief and remembrances--but also the inevitable conspiracy theories about the timing of the outspoken conservative's demise. 
 
 Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., last month, Breitbart claimed he had damning videos of Barack Obama, and planned to release them before the general election. 
 
 "[We] are going to vet [Obama] from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008," Breitbart told the CPAC crowd. 
 
 Steve Bannon, producer of "The Undefeated" and a friend of Breitbart's, told Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday that the tapes of Obama at Harvard do exist, and that they would be released "in a week or two." 
 
 The news quickly sent conservative bloggers--still shocked by Breitbart's sudden death--into a frenzy. 
 
 "In a stunning coincidence," Paul Joseph Watson wrote on InfoWars.com, "it appears Andrew Breitbart suffered his untimely death just hours before he was set to release damning video footage that could have sunk Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign." 
 
 Conservative blogger Lawrence Sinclair referenced a conversation he had with Breitbart in Washington D.C. three weeks before. "Andrew said, 'Wait til they see what happens March first,'" Lawrence Sinclair wrote. 
 
 Sinclair also took issue with the wording of Breitbart's death announcement as it was posted on BigGovernment.com. 
 
 "Claims that Andrew died of 'natural causes' are the opinions of his attorney Joel Pollak and not the statements of any medical personnel from UCLA or the L.A. County Coroners office," he wrote. "L.A. Assistant Chief Medical Examiner Ed Winter says autopsy to be done tomorrow (Friday March 2, 2012) and no official cause of death has been determined." 
 
 But the coroner's office told Yahoo News on Thursday that it is unclear when the results of an autopsy would be released. 
 
 With conspiracy theory allegations floating around Sinclair's website, the comments escalated into more predictions of foul play. 
 
 "I do not believe Breitbart died from natural causes," one commenter on Sinclair's site wrote. "He died for speaking the truth...He probably should not have announced he had videos of BO's college days... I find it quite interesting that he died alone on a street. There will be an autopsy and they will decide on natural causes, but there is a way to induce a heart attack in human beings." 
 
 Wrote another commenter: "One thing is for sure. 43-year-old people don't die from 'natural causes.'" 
 
 But it wasn't just Sinclair News that housed conspiracy theorists. Conservative site InfoWars.com had plenty of speculations too. 
 
 "I'm going to reiterate what I said before," a commenter wrote on InfoWars.com. "In my opinion THIS GUY GOT ELIMINATED. Plain and simple." And another wrote: "Anybody who gets too close to the truth will be killed." 
 
 After sending commenters into conspiracy overdrive, Sinclair later clarified his post while simultaneously blaming the media for opening the door to these kinds of allegations because of overzealous reporting. 
 
 "In light of the comments which have been posted on this article we want to make something perfectly clear," Sinclair wrote. "We are not and have not said nor do we believe the death of Andrew Breitbart is the result of anything other than a believed heart attack. We simply reported that different media outlets reporting the cause of death as being of 'natural causes' before a cause of death has been determined is wrong and has created this sense of something more sinister." 
 
 But, the Obama tapes weren't the only things Breitbart had up his sleeve. As Simone Wilson reported on LAWeekly.com, the death of the polarizing 43-year-old came days before he was expected to announce a new Web project. 
 
 "This has been Andrew's obsession," Joel Pollak told the paper. "He was working incredibly hard."
– Andrew Breitbart's surprising death this week has sparked good-riddance shots, tributes—and now the inevitable conspiracy theories, reports Yahoo's The Cutline blog. The fact that Breitbart recently claimed to have damaging videos of President Obama has only added fuel to the flames. "[We] are going to vet [Obama] from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008," Breitbart said at a CPAC gathering last month. Now for the reaction: Paul Joseph Watson calls Breitbart's reported heart attack at age 43 "a stunning coincidence" on InfoWars.com. Conservative blogger Lawrence Sinclair criticized Breitbart's attorney for identifying the cause of death as a heart attack before the autopsy has been released. Commenters on Sinclair's blog were more pointed: "There is a way to induce a heart attack in human beings." "43-year-old people don't die from 'natural causes.'" "In my opinion THIS GUY GOT ELIMINATED. Plain and simple." Buzzfeed lists 25 tweets by people who argue that "President Obama killed Andrew Breitbart." On Slate, David Weigel takes exception to the "truthers," noting that Breitbart had a "full-service media enterprise, with a large team. ... Breitbart did not have a golden key to a vault that only he could access." And, as Yahoo notes, Breitbart's father-in-law has said Breitbart suffered from heart problems in 2010.