I'm so terribly disappointed to see that my friend Pamela Geller seems to have gone completely off her rocker. In an article posted this morning at American Thinker, she concludes that
"Rick Perry must not be the Republican nominee.
Rick Perry must not be President."
Here are the two reasons she gives for this drastic assertion:
- "He is a friend of the Aga Khan, the multimillionaire head of the Ismailis, a Shi'ite sect of Islam that today proclaims its nonviolence but in ages past [we're talking 11th century] was the sect that gave rise to the Assassins."
And "It gets worse" --
- Last March, Perry gave a speech in Dallas in the company of Grover Norquist ...
I am all for scrutiny of the candidates, but for anyone to jump from these two statements to the conclusion that "Rick Perry must not be President" seems incredible, incredibly unfortunate and ultimately, incredibly irresponsible.
The man has been governor of Texas for eleven years. Are we to expect that he should never have befriended a single Muslim, nor ever have given a speech "in the company of" Grover Norquist? Maybe I am naive, but my gosh, how "pure" does a person's record have to be?
The reason that Obama's associations were (and still are) of such deep concern is not because of those associations in and of themselves, but rather because of the PATTERN of which they are part (as well as the total absence of any pattern in the opposite).
Had Pamela also provided readers with a synopsis of Perry's longstanding support for Israel - including for example, his Defender of Jerusalem award in 2009 - it would have been at least more fair. But in this she has lost sight of fairness.
For my two cents, this is a really flimsy, hysterical hit piece, and to tell you the truth, I would have thought it beneath her.
(And p.s., I'm not too thrilled, either, that this made it past the watchful eyes of her partner Robert Spencer and/or the editors at AT.)