"...The Bill Of Rights Don't Make It Right To Be Wrong...."

Random thought while perusing various and sundry news and social media sites.

A lot of people seem to lack understanding of the critical, but obviously missed, difference between freedom of speech and implied expertise.

A lot of people, in news sites comments sections, on Facebook, on Twitter, et al seem to interpret their freedom of speech as a license to inform professionals what they should, or should not, do in a given situation.

Benghazi.

Anthony Weiner.

Obamacare.

Obama.

Pick a situation, any situation.

In this country, the Constitution guarantees each of us the right to speak our minds without fear of retribution.

There's nothing in that sacred document that protects us from looking like morons.

And when civilians with no political education, experience or credentials offer up their "right to speak" in the form of "what they should do" in any given situation (they, of course, being whatever governmental or political figure is in the crosshairs), the end result, many more times than not is the inevitable glow given off only by the truly moronic.

For example.

Freedom of speech:

"I am not satisfied with the way our government handled the incidents in Benghazi  and will express my dissatisfaction both to my representatives via email and at the ballot box next time around.

Implied expertise.

"The way things were handled in Benghazi was a travesty. Our ambassador and other personnel weren't given sufficient security and they should have been removed from the area days, if not weeks, before their lives were put into jeopardy."

In the former case, a citizen has freely expressed the opinion to which they are, by law, entitled.

In the latter case, a citizen has offered reasonable proof that they are, at best, unenlightened and/or uneducated and, at worst, that they are a moron.

Put in a way more easily understood by the latter group...

If you weren't there, if you aren't a high ranking, decision making member of the Federal Government or the military or the intelligence community, how, on God's green Earth, could you possibly know what they were or weren't given, and what should, or shouldn't have been done at that time in that place?

Hillary was trying to say that when she bobbled the ball with that "what difference does it make?" think that has her in hot water.

What I think she was attempting, albeit sloppily, to do was bitchslap the second guessers.

When the question I think that would have served her better, in that moment, was...

"If you weren't there, how the hell could you possibly know anything?"

A question that is ready made for every "expert".

News site comment sections, Facebook, Twitter, et al have a fair to middling representation of those expressing their Constitutional right to free speech.

But they're outnumbered about a thousand to one by the "experts".