Pro-Second Amendment supporters dying — conspiracy or coincidence? *UPDATED*

[UPDATE:  The magical Chukker left a comment with a link to this New York Times article, which is precisely the article I meant and that I incorrectly tied to The New Yorker.]

I stopped taking The New Yorker seriously many years ago.  Even before I crossed the political Rubicon, I started finding its articles, especially Toobin’s legal analyses, silly.  Nevertheless, there was one article that stuck in my mind. Unfortunately, I only remember the overarching principles in the article, rather than the salient facts that would allow me to locate it again.

The story began by telling how elderly Finnish twin brothers were killed within an hour of each other, with each having been struck down by a car while riding a bicycle.  The whole thing sounded highly suspicious, until one started looking at further details:  the men always rode bicycles, they were riding during a busy time on a road shared with heavy traffic, and there was a snowstorm taking place, severely affecting visibility.  Rather than it being the unlikely case of twins dying in the same way at the same time, it became the likely case of bicyclists being hit by cars while biking on a main road during a white-out.

The article then switched to the fact that several scientists involved in some controversial project had died within a few months of each other, some of them from natural causes, some from bizarre accidents, and one by suicide.  Rumors started being bandied about to the effect that the scientists were being killed by government forces (I forget which government) to ensure their silence.

The bulk of the article, if I remember correctly, talked about the way in which the human mind is programmed to find patterns in things.  We have to.  Otherwise, we’d be incapable of making sense of all the data that constantly surrounds us.  We filter out a great deal, and what we do see or learn, we try to fit into larger patterns.  Usually, this innate ability helps us out.  Sometimes, though, it causes us to see connections where none actually exist.

You understand this dichotomy if you think about the movie A Beautiful Mind.  When Nash is in genius mode, he finds a legitimate pattern that all have missed.  When he’s in schizophrenic mode, though, he sees patterns where none exist.

This long intro is necessary because a friend sent me a fascinating article about the recent deaths of two people, both of whom were important in the Second Amendment community.  John Noveske manufactured exquisite rifles and was killed in a car accident within days of his having posted a long Facebook article noting a common thread binding all of the mass killers going back to Columbine — they were all taking psychiatric drugs.  Hmmm.

Keith Ratliff was huge popular on YouTube for his gun related videos.  He was recently found dead on a lonely country road, with a bullet in his head.  Hmmm again.

The same article posits that these two men’s deaths are not a coincidence but are, instead, part of a concerted effort to silence those willing to speak out for gun rights:

Sure, a car crash involving John Noveske could be a coincidence. It could also be a coincidence that no video footage has been released from Sandy Hook showing Adam Lanza carrying any rifle whatsoever.

It might also be a coincidence that Dianne Feinstein just happened to have her detailed gun confiscation bill ready to release immediately following the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might also be a total coincidence that according to, the United Way Sandy Hook donation support page was created on December 11, 2012 — a full three days before the shooting took place.

It could also be a total coincidence that NBC News reported Adam Lanza’s AR-15 rifle was left in his car and was never used in the shooting at all.

I suppose it could be a coincidence that Bank of America slammed home an economic embargo against an online gun parts retailer in the days following the Sandy Hook shooting.

And it could be coincidence that Facebook suspended or shut down the accounts of hundreds of prominent people who advocated the Second Amendment, including our account here at Natural News.

And finally, it could be a total coincidence that police radio recordings seem to indicate there were multiple shooters involved in Sandy Hook.

But what are the odds of ALL of these coincidences existing simultaneously? Those odds are virtually zero.

Something’s fishy with all this. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that an order has come down from the very top to destroy, silence, threaten or execute true American patriots. Steve Quayle has long predicted this would be the very first step before foreign troops are unleashed on American soil to take over the country and deliver it, just as Obama has always planned, into the hands of the globalist crime syndicate.

It all sounds outrageous, I admit, and I’m not even sure what to believe myself. But it’s becoming more difficult by the day to deny actual events happening right before our eyes. Believe what you will, but don’t be surprised if people like Steve Quayle and Alex Jones were right all along. If we see any more mysterious deaths of prominent gun advocates, it going to raise huge red flags across the patriot community.

I’m disinclined to read too much into the events that have come together recently.  As matters stand today, rather than seeing a concerted effort by dark forces, I believe that the Sandy Hook shooting triggered (pardon the pun) certain events, such as the fact that Facebook (run by young Progressives) suspended gun proponents’ accounts or that Bank of America (run by old Progressives) is eying askance those in the gun business.

Additionally, the Sandy Hook shooting, and the Left’s hysteric response, made us aware of individual tragedies, such as Noveske’s and Raliff’s deaths.  Absent Sandy Hook, we almost certainly wouldn’t have connected those two deaths.  They would have been, instead, two stand-alone events, one an accident, and one a murder.

Having cast cold water on the theory that there is a vast anti-gun conspiracy being played out here, let me now argue the other side.  The Obama government is the least transparent administration in modern history.  It’s an administration that’s wedded to covert action, much of which has to do with weapons.  (Fast and Furious and gun-running in the Middle East being the easiest examples for me to bring to mind.)  Given this, why not believe that it summoned black ops to do wet work that will radically weaken American rights?  Too often, after a coup, we discover that those who benefited from the coup had spent a great deal of time to get their ducks (or, perhaps more accurately, their dominoes) in a row, preparatory for the “revolution.”  In other words, it’s possible (although, I think, not probable) that we are watching a conspiracy in action.

Right now, I’m inclined to give coincidence the benefit of the doubt.  As I said at the beginning of the post, our brains are programmed to make connections.  Usually, these serve us well.  Sometimes, though, they lead us down the primrose path.

For now, then, all of this is coincidence.  However, if too many coincidences start to pile up, I’m willing to keep an open mind about covert and concerted action initiated by an administration that has regularly shown itself to be both open to such conduct and hostile to the unalienable rights set out in the Constitution.


Democrats: doing what it takes to create a one party system

I’ve got a matched set of posts for you today.  The first is an American Thinker article by John Gaski, in which he advances the argument that the Democrats are tuning out the American voters, not because they are blinded by ideology, but because they have a well-advanced system in place for permanent one party rule:

Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama-Pelosi-Reid just have a novel view of the public interest, the national Democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously sanguine despite growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason:  The Dems don’t believe they will ever have to face a real election again.


Dictatorship in a one-party state indeed seems to loom for us. As one prominent commentator has pointed out, the normal order of the human condition is tyranny, subjugation, and dictatorship, with only a couple of respite periods throughout history, including our time in the West over the past two centuries or so. It just took that long for the totalitarian types to gain near-total power in our country, which they are now consolidating over the coming year. What are the betting odds that they will ever let it go voluntarily?

I was inclined to give Gaski’s article a pass on the ground that it was just a bit too paranoid to be true.  I mean, it’s well written, and he advances a lot of facts (ACORN, SEIU, registering illegal aliens to vote, universal registration, corrupt Democratic Secretary’s of State, etc.), but I still didn’t seem them coming together in one coherent conspiracy whole.  My skepticism, however, took a big hit when I read that, even if Scott Brown somehow manages to pull a victory out of the special Senate vote in Massachusetts (which is unlikely given ACORN’s and SEIU’s contributions to the process before and during the vote), the Democrats will still act to block the will of the people:

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”


Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Gaski may well be right — the fix is in, and we’re all well on our way to being broken.