A post by Ann Althouse got me thinking about agents provocateur, and frankly, it's giving me the heebie jeebies.

Thanks to all my readers who gave immediate and overnight pushback to a vile new commenter...

... who I assume was pro-Obama and writing under a pseudonym here with the object of making this blog -- and more generally, criticism of Obama -- look racist. This coward put up his comment on my 9:50 p.m. post -- "Should the President be insulting pop stars?" -- at 11:52, presumably to maximize the time that it would be up on the blog and that it would sit here as long as possible before I would take it down, which I did as soon as I got on the blog this morning at around 9 (Central Time).

The commenter, Metlife, had never posted here before and had a profile showing that he'd joined Blogger just this month. He wrote -- and the asterisks are mine: "can someone murder that f***ing n***** fast? It will be a good day when Hussein is murdered by one of our southern patriots."

I wouldn't have written a post about this, except I stumbled onto an interesting tidbit I hadn't known about before -- that the AR15-holding black man (who the MSM tried to characterize as white) was a member of a crackpot "church" run by a "Pastor Steven Anderson." The latter says he hates Barack Obama because God wants him to:

"God Hates Barack Obama, I hate Barack Obama. I hate Him. God wants me to Hate Barack Obama." "Someone who commits murder should get the death penalty."

Nor does he think it is murder to kill gays.

MS: You want all gay people to be executed, correct?
SA: That is correct. It is what the Bible teaches.
MS: If somebody were to go out with a machine gun and spray down a crowd of gay and lesbian people, would you think that was okay?
SA: I would not think it's okay because I believe in due process.
MS: Whould that person be a murderer?
SA: No, I would not judge them as a murderer, no.

As far as I am concerned, Anderson is helping the pro-Obama left, whether he is doing so deliberately or not. Countless left wing bloggers are doing everything they can to link this nut to the right wing. Those right-of-center bloggers who have taken the time to check him out have of course condemned him, and so did this Ron Paul site. But because he has tried to insinuate himself into the Tea Party movement he has also been praised (most likely by people who really aren't familiar with him).

I'm no different. If someone appears to be "on my side," I'm generally reluctant to criticize him, and it never occurred to me that the black guy with the AR15 was anything but a hard core libertarian gun nut.

Anyway, because the guy with the AR15 is one of "Pastor" Steven Anderson's congregants who listened to the "Why I Hate Barack Obama" sermon shortly before his gun-toting escapade, I think it's relevant. Andrew Breitbart has a video here of the whole uncut "sermon." (I warn you, it is very long, probably too long for most people to get through.)

A theologian I am not, but I did a little digging and learned that Anderson has been criticized from a religious perspective by people who seem to know him back when he was in Hammond, IN:

Pastor Steve Anderson has twisted some basic Bible doctrines, perverting the truth of Scripture. What is truly sad is that he teaches his wife, children, and church his doctrines. Pastor Anderson rarely spends time anymore discussing Scripture, preferring instead to provoke fights with police officers, dragging the name of Christ through the mud as he attacks the United States government, praying that Obama will be killed and his wife and children left widowed and fatherless. One must pray for his salvation.

*WE ARE AFRAID OF STEVEN L. ANDERSON, HIS WIFE, HIS FOLLOWERS AND EVERYONE THAT BELONGS TO FAITHFUL WORD BAPTIST CHURCH, IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO US, WE HOLD EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF FAITHFUL WORD BAPTIST CHURCH AND HIS SUPPORTERS RESPONSIBLE TO ANY HARM THAT WOULD BE CAUSED TO OUR FAMILY, WE HAVE BE THREATENED TO BE PHYSICALLY ATTACKED INSIDE FAITHFUL WORD BAPTIST CHURCH BUILDING IN TEMPE, AZ AND I DAVID EDWARDS WAS THREATENED ON THE PHONE BY STEVEN L. ANDERSON TO BE PHYSICALLY THROWN OUT IF I OR MY FAMILY GOT CLOSE TO HIS CHURCH, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ANY DESIRE TO DO, NOW OR EVER.*

TO ALL THE READERS:
PLEASE HELP! POST THIS ALL OVER THE INTERNET, WE CANNOT GET INTO HELEN'S BLOG AT ALL.

As I said, I have no idea whether Anderson is in fact an agent provocateur. No idea where he came from, what he may have been taught, or where he might have been taught it.

And I know even less about his apparent follower -- other than the fact that not long after listening to the "sermon," he showed up with the AR15, and he also expressed the hope that Barack Obama would die.

But I remembered an interesting comment thread at Jeff Soyer's blog. There are few stauncher Second Amendment advocates than Jeff (my original blogfather), but even he had serious reservations about the AR15 guy. However (as Jeff noted wryly),

if the White House has no problem . . .

While one commenter approvingly called the man "Chris the Libertarian," commenter Mike O was not as convinced, and seemed to think the White House knew all about him:

They especially would be, since the most heavily armed individual (AR15) was part of the pro-Obama group in Arizona. I love how the media tries to trim down the picture to only the guy's shirt and gun (to hide the fact the bearer is black) when they imply that he was a member of the anti-Obama forces (when he definitively was not). And naturally, there is no interviews with him; it might turn out his intent was to intimidate the dissenters.

I wonder what gives with that turn of events?

A dark, cynical, and suspicious thought: this attitude by the socialist bastard makes me wonder if he wants somebody to take a shot at him. What could possibly discredit the protests more than a nut with a concealed-carry permit trying to kill the president in public? Opposition to both socialist health care and gun control would be completely marginalized, instantly.

What is not speculation is that there are people with very wacky ideas out there running around. There are, in fact, radical extremists who really do believe believe in killing homosexuals in order to uphold their interpretation of Biblical law. These people are not mainstream, and I don't think it would be fair to call them conservative. Not only won't I call them conservative, I won't even call them right wing, as I don't think advocacy of killing homosexuals is a right wing position.

Anyone who thinks it is, please explain. I'm all ears. Opposition to gay marriage is one thing, and I'm a compromiser.... But this? I can't believe I'm even having to discuss it in a blog post.

Let me just say that if -- and I do mean if -- the penumbra (the big tent) of conservative thought includes the belief that homosexuals should be killed, then conservatism as a legitimate political force is doomed. And should be.

Whether my fears are legitimate or not, for years I have been concerned about a well-funded, well-organized religious outfit which holds precisely that belief -- that homosexuals should be killed. I refer to Chalcedon, founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony. I was first alerted to their stealthy, even hegemonic presence back in the mid 1990s, when I saw a full page ad the Washington Times featuring a conference led by Rushdoony and a number of prominent conservatives, whose pictures were featured in the ad along with Rushdoony. When I learned what the man thought about executing homosexuals, it gave me pause. And it gave me the creeps that "conservatives" would be sharing the stage and promoting him at a conference major enough to be running a full page ad in America's leading right wing newspaper.

This is not a question of free speech. Rushdoony and his ilk have just as much right to articulate their views as Holocaust deniers (which Rushdoony has been accused of being, BTW...) It's a question of what is part of conservatism, and it is just as legitimate to raise questions about whether Rushdoonyites are welcome in conservative circles as it is to ask whether Bill Ayers is welcome in liberal circles.

Nor is the question one of guilt by association. Just as in the case with Bill Ayers, it's not so much whether someone has a connection with a loon, but whether they endorse, agree with, or think the loon's views should be part of the mainstream.

As to what is mainstream, and what constitutes endorsement of lunatic views, the devil is in the details. But to me, being a follower of a loon who advocates killing homosexuals crosses a certain line. Along with others, I objected when Tom McClintock's campaign manager was found to be a Rushdoonyite, because I don't think such people should have legitimacy in conservative circles.

Much to my horror, I was reminded recently that Rushdoony followers are alive and well in conservative circles. At least this one is:

A contact kindly forwards me a new interview with Doug Giles, posted at the Chalcedon Foundation. Giles relates his early years as a junkie (although the youthful arrests for burglary are no longer part of his shtick) and how a charismatic church caused him to "clean up" his act (no mention of His People either). However, these charismatics were "defeatist", so he turned to Rousas Rushdoony, now deceased but whose sinister visage frowns out from the Chalcedon page.....

The thing I like about Rushdoony and the others -- they know we're gonna win this thing.

Or is it rude of me to ask? (As I explained yesterday, I don't like to go on the offensive, and I try to be polite. Is there a polite way to ask about such things?)

All I can say -- and I mean this sincerely -- is that I hope she doesn't approve of killing homosexuals. I can't believe I'm even saying that or imagining that she might think such a thing. But there are people do think such things, and what would Rushdoony's book that advocates them be doing on her father's desk? I raise these questions not merely because I don't want such views to be a part of the mainstream, but because I absolutely loathe ACORN, and I wouldn't want them to be able to claim that they were the victims of a group of people who believe homosexuals should be killed.

I'd be a lot more comfortable if the man would state for the record whether he agrees with Rushdoony that homosexuals should be killed.

If someone in a similar position of power and influence had the works of Stalin or Mao on his desk, I'd also have questions.

And I'd be called a "red baiter" for asking whether they approved of mass murder, because supporting Communism is acceptable to the mainstream.

(I hope that asking conservatives whether they approve of killing homosexuals is a fair question, and not "Rushdoony-baiting.")

UPDATE: My research has alleviated any concerns I might have had about Doug Giles. He may have Rushdoony's book on his desk, but in his Townhall blog, he makes it quite clear that he does not agree with executing people for homosexuality:

...before the reflexive left gets there neckerchiefs and their thongs in an irreversible knot, I'm not homophobic. And I couldn't care less what adults do with other adults in the privacy of their own homes. If men want to have sex with other men, let 'em have at it. Just don't expect me to wear a special ribbon in support of it or to cheer it on during the Testicle Parade when you march through my city, OK?

The axe I have to grind is with the criminal advocacy of men seducing and raping underage boys.

Moreover, Coco and I both liked what he said about pit bulls:

The pit bull epitomizes courage and persistence. They are little, scrappy warriors who will not back down. They face difficulties with a win-or-die perspective. They love the battle . . . they love the heat . . . they love the fight . . . and everything that is good, praiseworthy and noble comes through difficulty.

I'm just glad to have found those quotes.

I of all people should remember that it is possible to admire even a crackpot like Rushdoony without agreeing with everything he said.