NY Mag Hits 'Xenophobic' Rand Paul for 'Protesting' Netanyahu Speech, Omits Paul's Denial
New York Magazine apparently believes that opposing foreign aid is literally xenophobic - rooted in irrational fear of foreigners - and is willing to engage in some pretty sketchy journalistic practices to make its case. Those are a pair of lessons Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., learned on Tuesday.
Paul's opposition to all foreign aid - including that given to Israel - is not so much "anti-Zionism," New York wrote. "Actually, it's more xenophobic," since he opposes it as a matter of policy. The New York article went on to selectively quote a Politico piece noting that Paul “skipped out on [Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s] speech, sitting quietly at his desk shuffling through papers and newspapers,” in what was described as a “silent protest of America's foreign aid to Israel.” While that is of course worth noting, New York then chose to ignore the four subsequent paragraphs addressing Paul's defense.
Whether or not Paul was actually protesting the speech is a secondary point. New York Magazine is apparently bent on ignoring facts that contradict - or even claims that present alternatives to - their attack on Paul.
Here's what New York had to say about Paul's supposed protest:
At least one member of Congress wasn't clapping — or even listening. Tea party freshman Rand Paul, "staging what appeared to be a silent protest of America's foreign aid to Israel," opted instead to shuffle through papers on his desk. But don't mistake Paul's protest as anti-Zionist. Actually, it's more xenophobic. Earlier this year, he came under fire from both sides of the aisle for proposing cutting all U.S. foreign aid.
Claiming opposition to foreign aid is "xenophobic" uses the same delusional reasoning that wrote off all opposition to Obama as racism. By this reasoning, all too prevalent among liberal media types, disagreement can only stem from some irrational hatred of "the other." To New York Magazine, Paul not agreeing with a distinctly liberal brand of foreign policy can only be rooted in bigotry.
New York drew from the first paragraph of Politico's article, but completely ignored the four following paragraphs, which detailed Paul's defense. Assuming New York actaully read the Politico article it quoted, there really is no way it could have missed Paul's defense. But alas, it did not consider that defense noteworthy.
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a warm welcome from a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) skipped out on the speech, sitting quietly at his Senate desk shuffling through papers and newspapers.
Earlier this year, Paul proposed eliminating all U.S. aid to Israel, but his office and other Republican senators said Paul’s decision to remain on the Senate floor during the address concerned a dispute with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) over amendments Paul proposed to the Patriot Act extension.
Paul, a tea-party-backed senator who opposes the Patriot Act, has said he wants to “drag out” the process of renewing key provisions of the counter-terrorism law which expire Friday. He remained on the floor through most of Tuesday – including during the speech – to block Democrats from asking for unanimous consent which would allow the chamber to immediately move onto the bill.
Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley flatly denied Paul’s absence was related to Israel funding, pointing out that her boss had heard Netanyahu speak Monday night while attending the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference.
“This is about the PATRIOT Act and Reid not yet keeping his agreement on amendments,” Bagley said.
(The amendments to which Bagley refers are the nine amendments Paul has proposed to the PATRIOT Act that Reid promised to hear in February, and has since managed to circumvent.)
New York Magazine completely ignored half the story in its effort to tar Paul as xenophobic, apparently dismissing the possibility of there being any other logical reason for him to sit out Netanyahu's congressional address.
- Aubrey Vaughan's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
We give "aid" to practically
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:38pm.
We give "aid" to practically every nation on earth including China. We're in a recession but that doesn't stop this gov't from dishing our what money we DON'T have. It doesn't make sense, xenophobic or not.
All financial foreign "aid"
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:42am.
All financial foreign "aid" must end.
Actually...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:30pm.
Actually, sick freak, when it goes to allies, I'm all for it. It's when it goes to places like Egypt whose loyalty right now is suspect that I say pull the plug.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So you're saying that you're
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 5:25pm.
So you're saying that you're in favor of seizing money from taxpayers and giving it ro someone else. In this case, non-Americans. Worse, governments of non-Americans. You are in favor of wealth redistribution. And you think yourself a conservative?
The sick freak is back to darken NB
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 8:28pm.
Laughable, coming from someone who wants the government in charge of determining how much Americans can spend for what the government considers "essentials", and who wants the government ultimately responsible for dishing out that allowance money to every single American.
How about I determine what I need to spend on essentials, sick freak?
Also, you aren't remotely a conservative, yet you are scolding and lecturing me on what being a conservative is? Your lecturing me on this topic means as much to me as, say, Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders lecturing me on my conservatism.
Maybe your problem is that you stupidly think that the United States has absolutely nothing to worry about just as long as it hermetically seals itself off from the entire outside world, like your God wants to. Or maybe your problem is that you hate Israel, and that you hate Israel because you are a racist anti-Semite bigot, like your God is, and like your heroes at the bigot-infested Von Mises Institute.
Problem is, I don't mind foreign aid to Israel. Or countries that do our bidding. (For instance, I think we can cut off Egypt. Their loyalty is suspect.) Besides, even IF we cut off all foreign countries, that might pay the interest on the debt for a few minutes.
Sick, disgusting freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You continue to misrepresent
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 06/20/2011 - 10:53pm.
You continue to misrepresent the FairTax. The government would not determine how much you can spend on essentials, nor would it it be dispensing "allowance" money.
Yes, you've already said you don't mind our government seizing our money and giving it to our allies. There was no need to repeat it. Just have the intellectual honesty to recognize that it is wealth redistribution. It is irrational to consider yourself a conservative yet be in favor of wealth redistribution. This is, in effect, doublethink.
What's that they say about glass houses? Sick freak.
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:10pm.
It is even more irrational for a non-conservative (you) to insist on scolding and lecturing others on conservatism.
You need to explain, in detail, in your own words, how backing our allies by using foreign aid (among other means) can remotely be considered "wealth redistribution". By your loose and laughable definition, ALL government spending, no matter what, no matter how absolutely necessary, is "wealth redistribution".
Once again, I am not misrepresenting the UnfairTax. It is a national sales tax paired with a transfer payment scheme. We are all supposed to be VERY happy paying 23% in sales taxes to the federal government ON TOP OF the state and local sales taxes I ALREADY pay (8.25% in my case and it isn't going away). Why? Because the government will make up for it! A bureaucrat, far far away deep within the Beltway, will determine FOR me what I need for my essentials - for what the government SAYS are essentials, anyway - and will dish out monthly allowance money to me and everyone else in America based on that. Be dumb enough to call that "prebate" all you want - it is STILL ALLOWANCE MONEY.
You would be considered an anarchist if you were not so comfortable with the idea of having a federal government powerful enough to micromanage and control everyone's personal finances.
Sick, disgusting freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"You need to explain, in
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:29pm.
"You need to explain, in detail, in your own words, how backing our allies by using foreign aid (among other means) can remotely be considered 'wealth redistribution'. "
You mean you really don't know? Well, the explanation is simple enough that even you should be able to understand. Where does our government get its money? From its citizens. How does it get its money? By force through taxation. What does the government do with that money? It gives the money seized that it seized by force from its citizens and gives it to a foreign government.
That's called wealth redistribution. It's no different than seizing money by force from one group of Americans and giving it to another group of Americans.
Easy
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:41pm.
foreign aid='wealth redistribution'
Really? This needs to be explained to you?
What Incestmo calls "wealth redistribution"
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 7:10pm.
By this idiotic definition you have just come up with, this means that EVERY SINGLE EXPENDITURE the government does is "wealth redistribution", no matter what.
Paying our soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines? Wealth redistribution, to Incestmo.
Paying federal law enforcement officials? Wealth redistribution, to Incestmo.
Paying ambassadors and other officials? Wealth redistribution, to Incestmo.
Purchasing needed equipment for the military, the Postal Service, and other federal agencies as needed? Wealth redistribution, according to Incestmo.
As much as you hate foreigners, especially when they are Israeli, and as much as you want to hermetically seal off the United States from the rest of the world, just as your God wants to as your beloved racists and bigots at the von Mises Institute, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in the year 2011. The Outside World isn't going anywhere, and we must be willing to deal with the Outside World.
Here's an explanation even an arrogant egomaniac (who believes himself to be the world foremost supreme expert on EVERYTHING imaginable) like you can understand:
You don't like us? No foreign aid.
You blast and badmouth the United States? No foreign aid.
You give aid and comfort to our enemies? No foreign aid.
You help us, you say and do nice things for us, and you get foreign aid. Quid pro quo.
THAT is how I would handle foreign aid.
What is so hard to grasp about that, you sick disgusting freak?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"By this idiotic definition
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:01pm.
"By this idiotic definition you have just come up with, this means that EVERY SINGLE EXPENDITURE the government does is "wealth redistribution", no matter what."
No, it doesn't. Not at all.
And I don't care how you would handle foreign aid. Not at all.
You lose AGAIN
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 06/22/2011 - 8:19pm.
Not only are you a sick freak, but you are also a liar. If you didn't care about how I would handle foreign aid, you wouldn't bother engaging me in conversation on this thread.
And you absolutely believe, with that stupid definition you have for "wealth redistribution", that ALL government expenditure equals wealth redistribution.
Why? Because as I demonstrated (and you refuse to refute this other than saying "no it doesn't" because you being the egomaniac you are think your word is the Holy Writ), your example can be applied to ANY EXPENDITURE GOVERNMENT DOES.
But thanks again for once again losing the argument, you sick disgusting freak.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And some Aid isn't intended to help
Submitted by Michael Gilson on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:56pm.
Those who receive it, that is. The aid we give Israel is intended to hold them back, not push them forward.
The progressive Alinsky
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:42pm.
The progressive Alinsky nightmare intensifies!
Fear and loathing in Obamerica.
Down with POSOTUS!
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Rand Paul fight for liberty and private gun ownership
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:10pm.
The Patriot Act says Harry Reid is needed to fight terrorism. That is a bogus argument; it's bogus because while he gives lip service to fighting "terrorism" Reid knows, as do the other radical Dems, that the PA is a direct shot at the 4th amendment . Federaljudges may alrready have begun to use certain provisions of the PA to confiscate guns.
On one hand radical Reid claims the PA is a conter terrorism weapn; onnthe other hand Reid and his liberal radicals send foreign to the Palestinian National Authority. The PNA is the heir of of the PLO- the terrorist outfit run by homosexual Yasser Arafat whose targets were usually children and women. Arafat used bombs on them for political purposes.
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=25218&A...
I'm curious to hear how the
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:11am.
I'm curious to hear how the MSM itself is responding to the humiliation of Barak Obama by Netenyahu during that speech. Come on newsbusters!
So far their response seems to be: "yeah, whatever". Lol. Lol. Lol.