Articles Comments

Homebrewed Theology » News, Politics » Discovery Shooter’s Motive – Anger Over “Anchor Baby Filth”

Discovery Shooter’s Motive – Anger Over “Anchor Baby Filth”

September 1st, 2010 | 11 Comments

Discovery Shooter - James Jay Lee

Discovery Shooter - James Jay Lee

In what seems to be becoming an all too familiar scene, a mentally unstable individual wandered into the Discovery Channel building in Silver Spring, Maryland today with a gun and a possible explosive device and proceeded to take hostages.  Fortunately, nobody was hurt, except for the gunman, who was shot by police.

While on the surface, it appears that this guy was an eco-terrorist, and to some degree he was, he wasn’t in the more traditional sense (ala ALF, ELF, etc.).  No, it seems this guy was motivated by the planet having too many people….that and getting his own TV show on Discovery.

Buried within (his demands) is this little gem:

Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that. Find solutions to stopping it. Call for people in the world to develop solutions to stop it completely and permanently. Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH! (The first world is feeding the population growth of the Third World and those human families are going to where the food is! They must stop procreating new humans looking for nonexistant jobs!)

This is just one of the multiple references to decreasing the human population.

They also sound similar to anti-immigration polemics posted by groups such as NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies, Californians for Population Stabilization, and Federation for American Immigration Reform, among others.  These are all groups with strong nativist ideologies, and most have ties to one man, purported white nationalist, John Tanton.  In fact, it was FAIR’s Kris Kobach who actually wrote most of SB 1070 here in AZ.

Some will say this is just coincidence and he was really just nuts.

True he was nuts, but it’s seemingly far from coincidence.  Just this past month, FAIR released “The Environmentalist’s Guide to a Sensible Immigration Policy” which makes the  connection between immigration and“pollution, sprawl, congestion, and ecological degradation”.  It also recommends that immigration be reduced to solve the country’s environmental problems.

For more on the green-washing of the nativist movement, read here.

This was no “eco-terrorist”.  This was a nutjob with nativist ideologies.


Written by

Filed under: News, Politics · Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • mickey

    Wow. I’m almost speechless. ALMOST.

    I am totally amazed that you were able to choose one small fragment of this guys words and paint the picture you painted. This is a work of genius.

    OK, I get it that some people (cough cough) will never blame this guy solely for his actions. It HAS to be someone elses fault, right? Someone had to provoke him. Someone’s head should roll other than this guy.

    And in your mind the winner is…………..FAIR.

    FAIR?!?!?!?!

    Something tells me you didnt even read this nutjobs “manifesto”. You found the quotes you posted and ran with it, didnt you?

    Here’s a hint…if you want to blame someone other than this guy himself– blame Al Gore, Greenpeace, or even President Obama.

    FAIR would be WAY down this guys list of influences.

  • Pingback: Christian_Salafia

  • http://homebrewedtheology.com Christian

    If you noticed, nowhere in the article did I say anyone else but the “nutjob” was responsible for his actions. In fact, in a couple of places I said this guy was nuts. There’s no bones about it. Totally off the wall psycho. A psycho, in fact, who had previously harassed Discovery until he lost in court in ~2008 (I believe).

    9 out of 11 of his demands deal with either immigration and/or population reduction as the cause/solution of all the world’s problems.

    Show me where Gore, Greenpeace, Obama have ever openly advocated these policies and I will post it.

    Tanton, and his myriad of nativist ‘foundations’, advocate for positions almost identical to this crazy SOB. And, like I linked to, FAIR released a position paper just last month that blames all the worlds ills on immigration and population and advocates the same things Lee did, albeit with more diplomatic language.

    While Tanton and FAIR are NOT directly responsible for this guy’s actions, you can’t ignore the connections between this crazy guy’s manifesto, and language, and the identical positions taken by his organizations.

  • Mickey

    If you saw his website, or more likely a screenshot of it, you will see that he admitted to being directly influenced by a book written by Al Gore.

    If your point was to try to further shame the guy because he thinks the world population is too high and that achor babies are a bad thing for society, then you could have done it in a MUCH less biased way. Its obvious he’s nuts and its obvious that his views are twisted.

    But that is not what you did here. Instead you turned this guys stupid actions into an immigration issue. You used his actions to bring attention to FAIR (who I know nothing about, admittedly).

    Then again I suppose it wouldnt make for interesting reading had you just come out and condemned the guy for his personal actions or for his personal viewpoints. Theres absolutely no reason to compare his viewpoints to others’ viewpoints except to make a political statement- but theres nothing political about the story.

    Heres a simple question…what would you have written about had this loon mentioned on his website that he was “awakened” by a Rush Limbaugh book? Think about that for a second and you’ll see my point very clearly.

    Since I think we agree that his world population views are wacky, lets leave that one out. Lets concentrate on the anchor babies comments he made. I know what the 14th amendment was supposed to mean. The author explained it on the floors of congress. We both know how the interpretation of it got twisted as well. Either way, I know the law as its written and interpreted. So……..would you be in favor of changing the laws to state it more clearly that children born in this country to non citizen parents will not be granted citizenship?

    I dont think these children should be granted automatic citizenship. And there is NO good reason why they should be granted citizenship- except that thats how the law is interpreted these days.

  • http://homebrewedtheology.com Christian

    Mickey,

    His website, with the demands is linked in the post. The only book mentioned in the entire thing, aside from references to Malthus and Darwin, is Daniel Quinn’s “My Ishmael” pages 207-212. A simple search shows that.

    We agree, the guy’s a nut. A nut with extreme positions on immigration and population control.

    If you want to go back to what was originally intended by the 14th, then it was to apply to every one except Indians and children born to diplomats.

    To say that the 14th doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants is revisionist history. Why, you ask? Because immigration wasn’t restricted until well after the 14th was passed. Nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters intended to draw distinctions between different categories of aliens. To the contrary, text and history confirm that the Citizenship Clause reaches all persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws, regardless of race or alienage.

    The “aliens” the original debate was over was specifically over Chinese in CA. Most don’t know that, and those that reference Sen. Howard’s 1866 speech where he says “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Gov­ernment of the United States, but will in­clude every other class of persons.” usually omit the relevant part simply because it disproves their whole argument.

    Do I think they should be granted citizenship?

    Absolutely.

    ….and so does the Constitution.

  • Mickey

    From Wiki……
    There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

    From your link…..
    Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain mean­ing:

    Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declara­tory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Gov­ernment of the United States, but will in­clude every other class of persons.”

    This understanding was universally ad­opted by other Senators. Howard’s col­leagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it pre­cisely because they opposed extending birth­right citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

    ______
    Lee said that he experienced an ‘‘awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.” There was also mention of one of Gore’s books, but I dont remember where I saw that. And the question still stands…what would you have written if Lee had been “awakened” by a R Limbaugh book?
    ——-

    “Do I think they should be granted citizenship?
    Absolutely.
    ….and so does the Constitution.”

    So do I (but only because as a country we have accepted that interpretation of the 14th). But that wasnt the question. The question was “Do you support changing the law?” being that we have something like 1 in 8 of all infants born in this country are to non citizen parents and we simply cannot afford to support them.

  • http://joshuaseek.com Joshua

    I don’t think the guy had any coherent beliefs. He’s your run of the mill nutjob. I wouldn’t think to deep into his ideas. Plus, they’re not easily categorized. On one hand, he’s an environmentalist peace-lover, on the other, he’s building bombs. He’s hating illegal immigrants and smuggling them. At least Kaczynski was eloquent. This guy’s just plain nuts.

    I’m still very disappointed that Bear Grylls didn’t swoop in and kick his ass.

  • Huntley

    I wrote a paper on this in College, had i had your ability to articulate my thoughts and research, I may well have received a far better grade. Great Job!

  • http://www.danielharrell.com How To Be Perfect

    Thanks, I bookmarked your blog.

  • Pingback: Christian_Salafia

  • Pingback: Christian_Salafia