Shame on the Left for its Hatred of Israel  Anti-Semitism is enjoying new life in Europe, where enthusiasm is high and double-standards are plentiful.

Extremists Win Hearts and Minds  By trying to appease extremists, the West has merely affirmed the hatred and grievance.

Another poll shows Muslims believe there is a war on Islam.  Poll was taken in four Muslim countries
around the world.  Read it here.

This report republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.

The Challenge of the Lone Wolf

By Fred Burton

Historically, gunmen and bombers who act on their own -- lone wolves -- have posed a significant threat in the United States. Indeed, from the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln to the slaying of music legend John Lennon they have presented a far more deadly threat to prominent people in the United States than have militant groups. Additionally, as demonstrated by cases such as the 1991 Luby's restaurant shooting in Killeen, Texas, or the recent Virginia Tech massacre, they also pose a grave danger to ordinary Americans.

Due to their often solitary, withdrawn nature, lone wolves present unique problems for security and law enforcement, as their very qualities make it hard for law enforcement or protective security details to gather intelligence regarding their intentions. That said, however, they are not impossible to guard against. Lone wolves frequently take actions in advance of an attack that make them vulnerable to detection by a proactive, protective intelligence program that incorporates investigation and countersurveillance.

Although they most often are male, there is no single profile of the lone wolf. Some are ideologically motivated, some are religiously inspired, some are mentally disturbed, and still others can have a combination of these other factors.

On the ideological side are some leaders (especially among far-right extremists) who promote the concept of "leaderless resistance." This idea perhaps was most widely promulgated by former Klansman Louis Beam. In a February 1992 essay, Beam outlines a plan to overhaul the white supremacist movement -- calling for the formation of small, autonomous cells that were to be driven by ideology rather than act under the direction of membership groups. Beam's argument was that this leaderless resistance would have superior operational security and be more successful in conducting attacks than the membership groups, which he believed (correctly) were filled with informants.

In his essay, Beam envisioned a two-tiered approach to the revolutionary struggle. One tier would be the above-ground "organs of information," which would "distribute information using newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc." The organs of information were not to conduct any illegal activities. The second tier would be made up of individual operators and small "phantom" cells that would conduct attacks. These people were to remain low-key and anonymous, with no traceable connections to the above-ground activists. Beam wrote, "It becomes the responsibility of the individual to acquire the necessary skills and information as to what is to be done."

Perhaps one of the most prolific, and least known, ideological lone wolf terrorists was neo-Nazi Joseph Paul Franklin, who conducted a string of arsons and shootings from 1977 to 1980 in an effort to spark a race war in the United States. Franklin, who frequently targeted mixed-race couples, killed at least 20 people during his attacks, which by his own account also included failed assassination attempts against Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flint and then-National Urban League President Vernon Jordan.

Included in the religious realm are "Phineas Priests," people who believe they have been chosen by God and set apart to act as his "agents of vengeance" on Earth. Phineas Priests frequently conduct attacks against abortion providers and homosexuals -- targets they believe have violated biblical law. Phineas Priests derive their name from Phinehas, an Old Testament character who killed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman and who was credited with stopping the idolatry brought into the midst of the Israelites by Midianite women.

Most Phineas Priests, including Buford Furrow and Eric Rudolph, are adherents to the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity religion. Christian Identity, however, does not have a monopoly on religiously motivated lone wolves. Radical Roman Catholics like James Kopp, Protestants such as Paul Hill and Muslims like Mir Amal Kansi and D.C. Sniper John Allen Muhammad also have committed religiously motivated attacks.

Though many, if not most, of the ideologically and religiously motivated lone wolves exhibit some degree of mental illness, other mentally ill attackers have no ideological or religious motivation. Some of these individuals ";go postal" and commit their attacks at work, while others attack at malls or schools. Unlike the ideological (and even some of the religious) lone wolves, who purposefully choose the leaderless resistance model to thwart law enforcement, the mentally disturbed are generally self-motivated and self-contained.

Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, both serving life sentences for attempting to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford during separate incidents, are two rare female lone wolves. Fromme, a follower of jailed cult leader Charles Manson, pointed a loaded pistol at Ford in Sacramento, Calif., on Sept. 5, 1975, but was wrestled to the ground by a Secret Service agent before she could fire a shot. Seventeen days later, Moore, an accountant and political radical, fired one shot at Ford after he left the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, but missed.

The Problem for Police

A prime example of the problem lone wolves pose for police is Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, who began sending improvised explosive devices in 1978 but was not arrested until 1996. During those 18 years, Kaczynski sent 16 devices, several of which either did not explode or did not function as designed. Although this allowed authorities to recover a large quantity of physical evidence, Kaczynski's isolation kept him from being identified. It was only after the publication of Kaczynski's "Unabomber Manifesto" in 1995 that his brother came forward to the FBI and identified him as a possible suspect.

When investigating a militant organization it is possible for law enforcement or intelligence agencies to plant informants within the group. Even small, insular groups are vulnerable because it is not uncommon for one or more members of the group to get cold feet and inform authorities about the group's plans to commit acts of violence. With a lone wolf, however, there is no such possibility of infiltration or betrayal. If the suspect never discusses his or her plans with anyone else, he or she can easily fly under law enforcement radar. In most cases, these kinds of individuals can be highly successful in carrying out an attack, especially against vulnerable soft targets.

Mentally disturbed lone wolves pose particular problems because they often have an extremely narrow focus of interest and cannot be diverted to an easier target by heightened security measures. There are some notable exceptions to this, however. For example, Furrow conducted surveillance on several Jewish targets and bypassed some of them because he considered their security to be too tight, and Franklin diverted from the Rev. Jesse Jackson to Jordan after he found Jackson's security to be too robust for his purposes.

Mentally disturbed lone wolves also frequently have an almost total disregard for the consequences of their actions, and quite often show no concern about escaping after they attack, as exemplified by John Hinckley, who did not attempt to flee after attempting to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981. Frequently, as in the case of Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho and Luby's shooter George Hennard, the attacker will commit suicide.

When lone wolves do choose to escape and conduct a string of attacks, their anonymous nature and isolation frequently complicates the situation for law enforcement, especially if they take efforts to conceal their identities and minimize the amount of physical evidence they leave. For example, Franklin was able to operate for three years before he was identified and arrested because he spaced his attacks apart in terms of geography and time, and frequently changed his vehicles, weapons and appearance. In fact, it was only after his arrest and confession that the full scope of his activities was realized. Rudolph also traveled great distances between targets and took efforts to alter his appearance.

The Threat

Because of this history, and the problems lone wolves pose for them, local, state and federal law enforcement sources say they are particularly concerned about the threat of individual extremists. This is not exclusively a big-city problem, as several lone wolf incidents have occurred outside of major metropolitan areas, in suburbs or smaller cities. Federal counterterrorism sources, citing the relative ease of attacking in a public place -- as demonstrated at Virginia Tech and other locations -- have expressed serious concern about the possibility of similar assaults being perpetrated by an Islamist militant or a white supremacist. The logic is that if a mentally disturbed individual can execute such an attack, what prevents an ideologically inspired terrorist from doing the same -- or worse?

Because lone wolves are widely dispersed throughout the United States and are distributed across the ideological and social spectrum, it is especially challenging for law enforcement to identify them before they act. The same is true of potential lone wolf extremists. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to differentiate between those extremists who intend to commit attacks from those who simply preach hate or hold radical beliefs (things that are not in themselves illegal). Therefore, authorities must spend a great deal of time and resources looking for individuals who might be moving from radical beliefs to radical actions in an attempt to single out likely lone wolves before they strike. With such a large universe of potential suspects, that is akin to looking for a needle in a haystack.

Rearing their Heads

There are some signals that can be watched for in connection with lone wolves. In fact, in retrospect, the majority of lone wolves came to the attention of authorities at some point before their attack. Frequently in workplace violence and school shooting cases, the perpetrators are found to have had prior brushes with the law and/or the mental health system. Attempting to sort lone wolves out from the heavy stream of people who come to the attention of the police and mental health professionals, however, is another difficult search through a very large haystack.

These individuals, though, often frequently exhibit behaviors by which they reveal themselves.

Lone wolves, especially mentally disturbed ones, frequently attempt to make written or telephonic contact with their targets before making physical contact. It is at this time that they can be identified and investigated by security or law enforcement personnel. Monitoring the tenor of the contacts from such individuals can also help to indicate their future intentions and provide indications of a deteriorating mental state.

Another sign of a possible lone wolf is when a dedicated and committed extremist suddenly quits a membership group and goes into "radio silence mode." For example, Bob Matthews and three other members "left" the National Alliance in 1983 to form the domestic terrorist group "The Order." In 1999, World Church of the Creator member Benjamin Smith, who had been named "Creator of the Year" for his zeal and dedication, left the group shortly before going on a three-day shooting spree in Illinois and Indiana that randomly targeted racial and ethnic minorities. Smith killed two people and wounded nine before committing suicide while being chased by police.

Perhaps the most common time that lone wolf assailants self-identify -- and the point at which they are most vulnerable to being identified before an attack -- is when they are conducting pre-operational surveillance of their potential targets; when they are stalking, in other words. Since pre-operational surveillance involves establishing patterns, potential attackers will stalk their targets several times. Thus, each time they improve the chance they will be observed, especially if the target is employing countersurveillance operations in search of such threats.

Countersurveillance -- the process of detecting and mitigating hostile surveillance -- is an important aspect of counterterrorism and security operations. Good countersurveillance is proactive, meaning it provides a means to prevent an attack from happening. This can be a group effort performed by a dedicated countersurveillance team, or it can be done by individuals who simply make the effort to be aware of their surroundings and watch for people or vehicles that seem out of place.

Lone wolves are especially vulnerable to detection during the surveillance phase because they do not have others to assist them. Conducting solo surveillance against a moving target is one of the hardest tasks any professional surveillance operative can be tasked with, and is even more difficult for an amateur. In a solo surveillance, the operative is forced to reveal himself repeatedly over time and distance, and in different environments. Also, a person unskilled in the art of surveillance, especially one who is mentally disturbed, will frequently commit many errors of demeanor. Thus, their odd behavior and crude surveillance technique -- they frequently stalk and lurk -- make them easy to pick out.

Because of this, countersurveillance -- whether by law enforcement, intelligence agencies, corporations or individuals -- is a critical means of spotting lone wolves during the target selection and planning stage, the time the operation is most vulnerable to detection and interdiction. It is important to be able to recognize hostile surveillance by a lone wolf before the next phase of the attack cycle begins -- because once the actual attack is in progress, it cannot be undone.

From an article about Health Care reform.  How a Democrat candidate for president
[Barack Obama] plans to solve the "health care" crisis.  See it here.

Giving insurance to everyone won't cut the nation's health tab, either. Quite the contrary. Studies repeatedly show that people with insurance use more health care services than those without. That increased demand will push up costs for everyone.

Other problems with Obama's plan quickly emerge. His new Medicare-like plan for people without employer-provided insurance, the self-employed and small businesses would quickly explode in size as businesses take the opportunity to dump their workers and their health-care cost problems into the government plan.

At $50 billion to $65 billion a year, Obama's forecast for the taxpayer cost of this reform plan is laughably low. Just providing seniors on Medicare a prescription drug benefit costs more than $30 billion a year.

From the greatest talk radio show on today.  The talk was about the "fairness doctrine" [which is not at all.]
The dicussion had gone to talk of excerpts of Al Gore's new book "The Assault on Reason" as reported in Time
magazine.  This below is what I have said over and over about liberals.

I'll tell you, it makes the point that I've tried to make over and over and over again about liberals.  To them there is no debate; there is no alternative point of view.  Anybody who expresses one is simply a gnat or a fly that has to be swatted away, not engaged.  You don't debate your opposition because there isn't any.  They are just a bunch of kooks.  And they, the opposition, me, we are the ones getting in the way of reason.  

From opinionjournal.com about the SCOTUS case about employment discrimination 
involving Lilly Ledbetter, the point is how a New York Times reporter writes 
things up.  


A couple of things struck us about the way Linda Greenhouse of the New 
York Times covered this decision. First is the insidious blurring of 
the legislative and judicial functions: 
 
*** QUOTE *** 
 
Title VII's prohibition of workplace discrimination applies not just to 
pay but also to specific actions like refusal to hire or promote, 
denial of a desired transfer and dismissal. Justice Ginsburg argued in her 
dissenting opinion that while these "singular discrete acts" are readily 
apparent to an employee who can then make a timely complaint, pay 
discrimination often presents a more ambiguous picture. She said the court 
should treat a pay claim as it treated a claim for a "hostile work 
environment" in a 2002 decision, permitting a charge to be filed "based on 
the cumulative effect of individual acts." 
 
In response, Justice Alito dismissed this as a "policy argument" with 
"no support in the statute." . . . 
 
In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to overturn the 
decision, as it did 15 years ago with a series of Supreme Court rulings on 
civil rights.  
 
*** END QUOTE ***
 
"Overturn" is Greenhouse's word, not Ginsburg's, and Greenhouse should 
know better. Higher courts can overturn the decisions of lower courts, 
and courts can overturn their own precedents. But the Supreme Court is 
the final word on the interpretation of federal law. What Ginsburg 
actually urged Congress to do is enact a new law. 
 
The distinction between making and interpreting laws is fundamental to 
America's system of separation of powers. It is a distinction that has 
been blurred in recent decades by a Supreme Court determined to act as 
a sort of hyperlegislature--most notably in the area of abortion, where 
the court has conjured literally from nothing (i.e., from a 
constitution that is silent on the topic) a nearly unlimited right to abort a 
pregnancy, coupled with an elaborate scheme for determining what 
regulations on abortion pose an "undue burden." 
 
The liberal left in America--of which  Greenhouse is a part  
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008703#press --isn't much 
interested in the separation of powers; by and large it is concerned only 
with outcomes: Abortion on demand, by any means necessary! Greenhouse's 
reference to Congress "overturning" a Supreme Court decision--as if the 
legislature were an ultrasupreme court--shows how deeply internalized 
this unconcern for the legislative-judicial distinction has become.  
 
This passage from the Greenhouse piece, meanwhile, is just funny: 
 
*** QUOTE *** 
 
As with an abortion ruling last month, this decision showed the impact 
of Justice Alito's presence on the court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 
whom he succeeded, would almost certainly have voted the other way, 
bringing the opposite outcome.  
 
*** END QUOTE ***
 
Really? Wouldn't Justice O'Connor have carefully weighed the arguments 
on both sides and come to a conclusion on the merits? Is it really 
Greenhouse's view that O'Connor would adhere to some sort of party line 
instead? 

The below from a Captain's Quarters blog post about how the Senate immigration bill [if passed] might be sent back to square one.

The Hill reports this morning that conservative Republicans in the House have plans to derail the Senate immigration compromise based on a procedural matter. The bill includes tax policy, which according to the Constitution, has to originate in the House, and some Republicans have lined up to issue a "blue slip" stop to the legislation on that basis.

While any Representative can blue-slip a revenue-producing bill from the Senate, it takes a majority to enforce it. Given the heat from both sides of this debate, that may not be difficult to arrange, and it would require the Senate negotiators to start from Square One.

I remember when I was in Jr. High school [I graduated in June 1962 so figure out the dates yourself].  It was 7th or 8th grade, but there was much discussion about federal aid to education.  Some were worried the feds. might want to intrude into local control.  The counter argument was "that will never happen."   Well we know that that was a load of crap.  The federal government uses the money it gives to locals like a club to get them to do what they want.  It seems that local governments can never say no to the federal money [it's like drugs to them].

Below from and Investors Business Daily article, "What We Wish For"  March 9, 2007.  When people realize what's involved in "universal health care" numbers change.

And a tracking survey of the Kaiser Family Foundation has found that since 1993, roughly two-thirds of Americans have consistently said they support the idea.

It's a meaningless finding, akin to asking if people support better roads, more teachers or an end to poverty. Absent any discussion of the cost involved in actually providing such benefits, most people are inclined to support them. And when the surveys include such unpleasantries as higher taxes and bigger government, support for universal care plummets.

The ABC News poll, for example, found that support for universal care falls below 40% 'if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for nonemergency treatments.' The Kaiser survey found that just 45% would pay more in insurance premiums or taxes to help cover the uninsured.

A 2005 Center for American Progress poll indicated that while 64% strongly supported reforms that would provide 'affordable coverage for all Americans,' only 46% do so if it means a bigger government role in the health care system, and just 41% want universal coverage if it means raising taxes.

Nor is there any agreement on a course to take to achieve universal coverage. The Kaiser survey found that just 42% want a 'major effort' to help the uninsured, a figure that's been fairly consistent since 1999. Half say they want either limited or no changes. Only about a third say they want a nationalized health system.

But universal coverage is impossible without substantial new taxes, mountainous federal regulations and new costs on businesses and health care consumers. If the government wants to keep overall health spending in check, the only tools at its disposal are price controls and restrictions on access to care.

U.S. Muslims: A Look at the Good and Bad  There is some good news in the recent Pew Research poll. The fact that a majority of Muslim-Americans are well-assimilated dramatically undermines the claim that America is hostile to Muslims.

Christian Minorities in the Middle East  The Religion of Peace is back in genocide mode.