Normal people tend to look for logical actions by those who commit atrocious acts under the influence of religious zeal or intense hatred, since murder of strangers is in complete contradiction to our well-ordered world, and threatens, by its random nature -- to undermine the very fabric of society.
How many times did you hear so-called "experts," many of them former FBI agents, proclaim that the sniper was not a terrorist, since a terrorist would claim responsibility? This assumption is completely bogus, as evidenced by the FBI's own case files, as far back as 1990.
When Egyptian El-Sayyid Nosair assassinated Meir Kahane in November of 1990, the FBI insisted on the “lone nut” theory; and Nosair never offered a rationale for the shooting during his criminal trial in New York; in fact, he was not even convicted of murder, only of lesser charges. But in a notebook belonging to Nosair (who was also linked to the bombing of a gay bar in Greenwich Village and the attempted assassination of Mikhail Gorbachev the same year) he called for the “breaking and destruction of the enemies of Allah. And this is by means of destroying exploding, the structure of their civilized pillars such as the touristic infrastructure which they are proud of and their high world buildings which they are proud of and their statues which they endear and the buildings which gather their head[s,] their leaders, and without any announcement for our responsibility of Muslims for what had been done.”
Michaels is obviously a libertarian, as you imply, but while I don’t agree with some of her beliefs, I think she may be right on target with this theory.
Liz Michael may well be on target with this theory. My other comment wasn't, however, alluding to her libertarianism, but to the off-the-wall nature of her biography on her web site. There's the religious cultism, there's the fact that she says she is a graduate of Wharton who is not only a tax accountant and marketing executive, but also a wrestling journalist and a professional wrestler ("The Taskmistress"), there's the fact that she's running as an extreme libertarian in the Democratic primary, and so on.
Overall, her web site gives a very strange personal impression, in my opinion. This has nothing to do with her libertarianism itself, which I don't view as out of the ordinary at all (and I wouldn't have made a comment on somebody like, say, Ron Paul or Harry Browne).