Hillary was part of this administration. By the time Obama made his appearance at the UN, and again mentioned the video (which even the President of Libya called a ridiculous story), if she really had any honor, how could she stay affiliated with a POTUS who could say: "The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohammed."? Truthfully, I was stunned by that statement (for which there is ample documentation). By then, she KNEW, and Obama knew, that the video was not relevant to much of anything.Which brings us to the second part: the nature of the lie. Remember, not all lies are equally harmful. In this case, the U.S. government responded to the murder of four Americans by treating our constitutional rights as part of the problem. A former teacher of constitutional law, Obama was happy to watch the country argue new limits on free expression and the necessity of giving bloodthirsty savages and terrorists a heckler's veto on what Americans can do or say.
The Constitution states that the govt shall not establish a religion or prevent free exercise of religion ... so why didn't his words, instead, refer to slandering any (or all) "faiths" ... that would include Jewish and Christian, as well as many other faiths who might claim smaller numbers of adherents; even atheists. The Constitution protects ALL faiths, not just Islam. If there are members of the UN who are Hindu or Buddhist, they should be just as offended by such a statement as Jews and Christians. If they are Coptic Christians in the ME countries where they are persecuted, they should be absolutely appalled and frightened by such a statement from an American President.
Is it a coincidence that the same Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion also guarantees free speech? Maybe not a coincidence in the minds of the Founding Fathers?