Hypocritical Hillary Clinton Fails to Repudiate Seddique Mateen

A man identified as Seddique Mateen (C-red ball cap), whose son shot and killed 49 people and injured 53 others inside the Pulse nightclub in June, sits with supporters at a rally for Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at the Osceola Heritage Park in Kissimmee, Florida on August 8, 2016. …

When Hillary Clinton spoke to an Orlando crowd, she was also speaking to a cheering Seddique Mateen. Mateen, father of Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, was sitting directly behind the Democratic nominee and sported a grin from ear to ear.

Mateen’s support for Hillary, though, was not limited to assuming the role of a Muslim “Where’s Waldo” in a Clinton crowd. Mateen has made it clear that Hilary is the candidate he supports to be President of the United States.

“Hillary Clinton is good for United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions,” the gunman’s father told a local Orlando news station. It’s clear, Mateen is “with her.”

Though the Clinton camp spent most of the weekend dodging questions about Hillary’s health and her inability to ascend staircases, when it came to Mateen, Hillary was mum. Hillary had been endorsed by the father of a terrorist, and Hillary did not immediately disavow that endorsement.

But is it fair to require Hillary to immediately disavow Mateen? Is it fair to hold Hillary accountable for the attendees of her events? Is it unfair to link Mateen to his son’s act of terror?

The media and Hillary have already answered those questions. Much to their chagrin, the answer to each question is yes.

When David Duke, a controversial Louisiana politician with connections to the Klu Klux Klan, expressed support for Donald Trump earlier this year, the media pounced. For days Trump was asked to disavow an endorsement he didn’t even know he had earned. When Trump said he didn’t know anything about Duke’s endorsement, that was not enough. Trump was required to expressly disavow it and, when he did just that, he was told he waited too long.

Trump & the KKK filled the cable airwaves and was a question at Republican debates. The message was clear — if an unsavory person gives an unsolicited endorsement, it is the responsibility of the candidate to repudiate it immediately. Failure to do so will lead to an indictment of complicity.

Hillary, too, jumped on Trump. In doing so, she set a standard that she is not following with Mateen.

“I was very disappointed that he did not disavow what appears to be support from David Duke and the Klan,” Hillary said. “That is exactly the kind of statement that should be repudiated upon hearing it.”

Hillary’s words: “repudiate upon hearing it.” But is that what Hillary did when she was asked about Mateen being her latest cheerleader? She ignored the question. And to add insult to injury, the Clinton campaign released a statement deflecting Mateen. “The rally was a 3,000-person, open-door event for the public. This individual wasn’t invited as a guest and the campaign was unaware of his attendance until after the event,” was the official Clinton camp response.

Translation: We cannot take responsibility for the people who come to our rallies. But is this the same standard Hillary, and the media, use on Trump’s rallies?

When there were outbursts of violence at Trump rallies — largely caused by liberal protestors sent there to disrupt — the claim was Trump held all responsibility. He was responsible because his rhetoric was attracting a roughneck racist crowd. He was responsible because he was the candidate.

“He set a bad example,” Clinton said of Trump about his rallies. “He created an environment in which it seemed to be acceptable for someone running for president to be inciting violence, to be encouraging his supporters. Now we are seeing people who are against it respond in kind.”

How is this not the same now? Hillary claims to be LGBT friendly, but when Mateen endorses her she puts forth a milquetoast statement that has the strength of a wet spaghetti noodle. How is Hillary’s failure to “repudiate upon hearing” Mateen not as “dangerous” as what she accused Trump of? By failing to repudiate, is she not giving a wink and a nod to Sharia Muslims who think tossing gays off of rooftops is Allah’s will?

Just look at who she is failing to repudiate. Days after Mateen’s son slaughtered innocent bystanders at a gay club, Mateen made it clears that the LGBT community was to be punished. In a Facebook post, Mateen wrote, “God will punish those involved in homosexuality,” adding, it’s “not an issue that humans should deal with.”

Put another way, Mateen was saying it was wrong for his son to kill gays because they will be punished by a higher power. Not exactly words of repentance.

And Mateen was not just some random straggler who photo-bombed Hillary. He was seated behind the candidate, and his place was prominent. Somebody on Team Clinton put Mateen there, and Hillary has opted not to do what she demanded of Trump when Duke was in play. How are we not to believe that Mateen was Hillary’s Muslim outreach?

Mateen highlights a core issue facing Hillary’s campaign. Hillary had hopped into bed with Islamic nations that not only tolerate, but approve of the killing of gays. She has routinely refused to condemn radical Islamic terrorism and appears to have a soft spot for Sharia lovin’ Muslims — a soft spot that puts the lives of LGBTs and women in jeopardy.

Hillary’s inability to confront radical Islam and sharia law on the campaign trail is a clear sign that she will not confront it if she is sitting in the Oval Office. And the fact that the media cared more about a washed up white supremacist than a terrorist’s father who believes gays are worthy of punishment tells America exactly what is at stake in this election.

Joseph R. Murray II is administrator for LGBTrump, former campaign official for Pat Buchanan, and author of “Odd Man Out.” He can be reached at jrm@joemurrayenterprises.com.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.