by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
Barack Obama attended Harvard University. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review.
As editor of such a prestigious publication, Obama had to fulfill at least two major requirements: he had to be very familiar with the principles of law and he had to have an almost flawless command of the English language.
While Obama has been accused of being the most lawless (as opposed to flawless) president we have ever had, that matter has yet to be adjudicated in final form. Legal scholars aplenty will defend him against every accusation leveled at him, in the very least, raising the issue of reasonable doubt.
The English language is a different matter. Unlike legal questions, grammatical errors are usually cut and dried, with very few, if any, dissenting opinions among qualified linguists. While Obama is reputed to be a master of oratory, at least when he has a teleprompter from which to read his speeches, he has made enough significant linguistic errors to call into serious doubt whether he was ever qualified to edit the National Enquirer, much less the Harvard Law Review.
You will surely remember the speech that Obama gave at West Point in which he mispronounced the word, corpsman, three times, mangling it into the meaningless word, corpse-man. Had President GW Bush made a similar error … well, in fact he did, on several occasions, including inventing words such as “misunderestimate.” Bush, however, made no claim to being qualified to edit the Harvard Law Review.
One such error on Obama’s part might be excused, although it reveals his utter detachment from all matters military, including the vaunted United States Marine Corps, not corpse, of which he is commander in chief. One can almost imagine his defenders making the excuse that commanding a military force is not the same as pronouncing it correctly, and saying that there is no relationship between the two.
Perhaps not, but should not an Ivy League journal editor be capable of a vocabulary that exceeds the high school level?
Very well, one linguistic error, even when repeated three times in one speech, might not be reflective of the man’s literacy. He never claimed to be a military genius, but he is regarded as a genius in terms of government, and one would expect him to know how to pronounce the plural form of his senior cabinet office. Yet, in one warm and fuzzy press event, Obama referred to Hillary Clinton as one of the best “Secretary of States” we have ever had. Really? To which states was he referring? If he was referring, not to the states, but to the secretary, then he should have used the term, “Secretaries of State.”
Will he one day refer to Eric Holder as one of the best attorney generals? The correct term will be attorneys general.
Some mistakes are minor, and bothering to mention them out of context will be considered petty and desperate.
Every detective worth his salt, however, well understands that oftentimes the seemingly smallest clue, the seemingly least significant fact, is vital to solving a case. Many a time a single so-called slip of the tongue has been the undoing of an otherwise masterful criminal.
Were you or I to make the linguistic mistakes that Obama has made, it would be of no concern to anyone, nor reflective of our competence at our jobs, unless we were professors of English at Harvard.
Obama’s errors, however, are cracks in the feet of clay that lay at the base of his credibility. To be sure, his policies are so grievously in error that we might not notice the slight clues. There is no doubt that his disrespect for the law, his contempt for the values of our nation, and his narcissistic attitude, are all loud trumpets of his anti-American goals, and are much more serious matters than his word gaffes.
We do well, however, to note the smaller things. Obama’s mistakes in verbiage may seem slight mistakes, but they are fatal ones, for they reveal that he is a fraud, and has been one since the beginning.