Seth MacFarlane: Historical Illiterate

-By Warner Todd Huston

“Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane proves once again that while the denizens of Hollywood might be good at acting, or singing, or TV and movie making, they most certainly have no clue about history or contemporary politics. They are utterly illiterate about the world around them because of the insular bubble in which they live. In a recent interview reported by Reuters, the insufferable MacFarlane proves himself to be el stupido on the recent Arizona illegal immigrant law.

Now, one isn’t necessarily illiterate to oppose the new law essentially forced upon Arizona due to the utter failure of the federal government to properly deal with the illegal immigration problem, a problem that we’ve suffered under in this country since at least the 1980s. Certainly, there are substantive reasons to be both for and against the new law. Unfortunately for MacFarlane, “substance” isn’t in him.

The first quote that Reuters reports from MacFarlane is this bit of historical illiteracy…

“It’s too much. It’s kind of a slap in the face, it’s not the way to handle it…Nobody but the Nazis ever asked anybody for their papers.”

This statement is a complete lie. Not only are the Nazis not the only regime that “ever asked anybody for their papers,” but they aren’t even the last ones to do so. In fact, there are dozens and dozens of countries that “ask for your papers” still today!

In Russia today, for instance, people must carry their papers still and can be asked for them by any officer of the law at any time, even for internal travel. But, even if Russia didn’t do so today it most certainly did so during the entirety of the days of Soviet domination – days, I’ll remind you, that continued long after the Nazis went into the dustbin of history. This police state requirement persisted in every satellite state of the Soviet empire, as well. From East Germany, to Poland, to the various Stans, common, everyday Soviet citizens were forced to present their papers at a moments notice.

This situation also exists throughout South and Central America today as well as various European nations to varying degrees, not to mention at every airport in the world.

MacFarlane went on to prove his ignorance even on the law upon which he deigns to present himself as an expert.

“Walking down the street, a cop can come up to you and say ‘May I see your papers?’ — I think they should be required to ask that question in German if the law sticks around.”

No, the law does not permit police to “come up to you and say ‘May I see your papers”‘”

The fact is that the Arizona law only allows officers to ask status of citizenship if the person in question has already been detained under suspicion of criminal activity. The term originally in the law to describe when police can inquire for proof of citizenship was “lawful contact.” This was just this past week changed and clarified to be defined as, “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” This is what the Arizona lawmakers say they originally meant and so the law now reads.

In other words, no policeman can simply walk up to anyone on the street and “ask for their papers.”

Indeed, the law also has a section requiring officers to avoid racial profiling. It reads, “A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.”

So, the utterly ignorant MacFarlane proves his Hollywood mettle again. He has no idea about current politics, contemporary events, or human history. And that seems to prove why he fits in so well with the other ignoramuses in Hollyweird, hometown.

It also tends to show that the Old Media doesn’t care who they present to readers as “news.” As long as the lies of those interviewed comport to the Old Media’s desired agenda, it doesn’t matter if any logic, truth or common sense prevails.

For the latest version of the bill with amendments noted, CLICK HERE.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Perhaps he was being facetious?

  • In reply to JamesReyes:

    You could be right, of course. Or maybe he's just an idiot?

  • In reply to JamesReyes:

    " He has no idea about current politics, contemporary events, or human history"

    Similar to when you accused the President of trying to destroy America?

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Or you pretending you deserve to comment with the adults.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Ahh yes. Because the folks wandering around with tea bags hanging from their hats, screaming that Obama is a Nazi Socialist are the adults, right?

    The "adults" have been the leading this country right into the toliet. So thanks for that.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    You comment is duly noted as being worth where it came from. Thanks for reading.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Two things to consider:

    1. Your point that not only the Nazis did this- the Soviets did too- is not very comforting to me. We have the Fourth Amendment for a reason: our Founding Fathers hated tyranny and loved liberty. Isn't America a better country than Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and socialistic South America/Europe?

    Your point that the police cannot stop people on the street to ask for papers is a good one. But what can they stop people for? Can they stop people for questioning if they are near the scene of a crime? Can they stop people for noise violations, complaints, disturbing the peace, violating city or county ordinances? If there is too small a threshold for what constitutes 'lawful stop, detention, or arrest', the distinction between stopping people for their papers or stopping people for a trumped-up reason and then demanding their papers is a distinction without a difference.

    I'm just afraid it could be abused.

    2. The phrase "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution" seems like a fig leaf to me.

    You cannot solely stop a person because of their race, but this seems to suggest that you can stop them partly because of their race, partly because of something else. I think that many people fear that that 'something else' may be fabricated after-the-fact.

Leave a comment