[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
I know we’ve all felt an intellectual aridity in our lives since Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign ended, along with her deep cultural insights that left us all in a state of awe.
What was more head-scratching than that turn of nonsensical phrase was the repetitiveness with which she said it.
I don’t know about you, but my wife, in-laws and I turned it into a private intra-family laugh line, repeating it whenever we felt like cracking each other up in a group chat.
Another inside joke was our, usually hopeless, effort to repeat Kamala’s Churchillian quote: “The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time… there is such great significance to the passage of time.” I am not making that up. That’s an actual Kamala quote!
Try repeating that without screwing it up. It was like my old high school classmate and I trying to do Abbot and Costello’s Who’s on First? routine in Speech class without messing it up. Can’t be done.
Then there was Kamala’s incessantly repeated line: “It’s time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day.”
I heard her say that a dozen times if I heard it once. I think someone – possibly her old squeeze and early political patron, Willie Brown – must have told Kamala that the key to political success is stringing together words that utterly confound the listener and say absolutely nothing. Sort of like that old poster in your college dorm that read: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull***t.” You know that Kamala lived by that mantra at Howard University.
Anyone who has an IQ in three digits, and is not an ideologically doctrinaire Liberal, must find any speech by Kamala Harris cringey beyond words.
So you have to feel some sympathy for the hapless collection of 4,500 real estate agents who showed up for a Kamala speech in Australia recently. Did they know what they were subjecting themselves to? Then Kamala graced the audience with an hour-long interview by Australian real estate guru John McGrath.
The headlines summarizing the event were pretty funny.
RedState offered: “Kamala’s Interview in Australia Reminds Us How Lucky We Are That She Lost”.
Britain’s Daily Mail lampooned her with: “Kamala Harris Reemerges in Australia with Disturbing, Nonsensical Monologue”.
And Gateway Pundit didn’t disappoint with an ALLCAPS word and a colon in its headline: “Australian Media TRASHES Kamala Harris as She Cackles at Real Estate Conference Down Under: ‘I Am Unemployed Right Now!'”
And it’s no wonder she’s unemployed. Who would hire this vacuous, completely talentless, washed-up politician for any job requiring any intellectual firepower whatsoever?
In a fun interview with Australian pundit Paul Murray, the irrepressible Megyn Kelly made a great observation. Why would an Australian real estate outfit pay Kamala Harris to inspire them to sell real estate, when she couldn’t even sell herself to the American people?
I suspect that she only got the high-paid speaking gig in front of the Australian Real Estate Conference because its organizers, not having been subjected to five months of non-stop word salad, interspersed with inappropriate and ill-timed cackling, didn’t know what they were buying.
One truly remarkable thing about the speech was that she reprised that most idiotic of Kamala classics: Unburdened by what has been.
She told the audience of rapt, or perhaps suicidal at this point, Aussies: “I think it’s very important to understand that people who fight for equality, fight for freedom, they see what can be and are unburdened by what has been, they believe in what is possible. So even though it may be characterized as a fight, it really is it should I think be thought of in the context of a fight for something as opposed to against something.”
Uh, what?
One of the strangest aspects of Kamala’s appearance in Australia was how tightly controlled it was and how media were essentially barred from it. Like she was Kim Jong Un speaking at a North Korean Politburo meeting or something. Why exactly was that? Wouldn’t a U.S. politician of Kamala’s stature, who reportedly continues to aspire to high political office, want blanket media coverage for her big speech Down Under?
Perhaps her handlers at Creative Artists Agency anticipated actual recordings of her blather might damage her monetary value for future speaking gigs.
William F. Marshall has been an intelligence analyst and investigator in the government, private, and non-profit sectors for 38 years. He is a senior investigator for Judicial Watch, Inc