Kamala Harris Doesn’t Wear Dresses
The Suit Is Empty
With any luck, I will not feel compelled to speak about Kamala Harris in another fortnight. She will have left you and I like dust in the wind. For now, though, she is the Democrat Candidate for the Office of the President of the United States of America, and I must speak about her.
Suits befit men; the garment was developed for the broad shoulders of a man. If worn correctly, the suit slims his figure into the natural V-shape. It is a steady garment for a steady disposition. Depending on how it is worn, it can be somber or whimsical. The accents – the tie, the pocket square, the lining – can all add intrigue to the man. A man wears a suit because he must be reliable; predictable.
This man, put together as he is, can never compare to a beautiful woman in a beautiful dress.
What is a woman? The better question is: What is a lady? That term betrays the grace that the role demands. Think of a lady, and you are thinking of a woman that dances mysteriously on the fog. She has this fiery glow in her eyes, and that fire is chaos. She embodies everything that is good and strange and overwhelming in this Life. In that vision, she is surely not wearing a pantsuit.
Up until 1993, it was considered inappropriate for a female member of Congress to wear pants on the Senate Floor, and for good reason. The pantsuit looks ghastly; unbefitting a beautiful lady. It makes her look boxy, as it hides her captivating figure. Women almost never wear neckties, so they are deprived of the slimming effect the men enjoy. The garment exaggerates how short women are. It looks as if they are playing pretend.
This is not to say that all women look bad in a good pair of pants, but that they never look bad in a beautiful dress. Her dress will accentuate her figure and show her arms. It will demonstrate how much space she takes up and how important her presence is. Behind every great man stands a great woman, and she is certainly wearing a dress that invites and allures.
That garment is wholly theirs, as the suit should be for men.
Kamala Harris is a pretender. She is vacuous; an opportunist, through and through. She claims to be running for the highest office in the land, and yet, she has no positions to call her own. Her opinions on abortion; premarital sex; the border; world affairs; energy production; everything – these opinions were invented, whole cloth. I have been subjected to this woman’s voice for hours on end, and yet, I don’t know anything real about her.
Mr. Trump gets offended. He feels vindictive for slights made against him; he teases his friends and enemies alike. He can be boorish, hard-headed, and disparaging in his remarks. What man isn’t? He reminds me of my uncle, and my father, and the man in the mirror.
Ms. Harris gets angry for no good reason. Her voice shifts up an octave when she is caught in a lie, but everyone has a tell. She will ramble on and on for minutes to avoid answering a simple question, which tells me that, somewhere, she doesn’t believe whatever it is that she is saying.
So, what does she believe? I don’t know. Part of me believes that she doesn’t know, either. A mystery must have an answer; that is why a beautiful woman is so captivating. The content of her character lies in the space between her words. The answer can be found by listening to what she says; observing what she does. Endless entertainment lies in that pursuit.
The most beautiful woman I know wears dresses and asks questions and obsesses over all that inspires. Her smile holds within a thousand secrets, waiting to be uncovered. She is gentle, kind, and above all, gorgeous. I love her with all of my heart, for she is everything good in this Life.
Ms. Harris, the politician, is a mystery without an answer. She should be pitied; not elevated to the seat of authority. She has willfully destroyed all of her singular characteristics in the pursuit of power, and to what end? She cannot answer questions from a friendly network.
Her handlers think that victory for her will bring security, but that assumption is false. To put a homunculus in office would spell death to the American Empire; the fallout would be akin to a raging inferno. At the center of it all would be a hollow woman, who gave up her Virtue for the crown.
“Behold! Within lies Kamala Harris, the Last President! See how her empire becomes ash as the crown crushes her tender neck.”
With thanks to the Members:
I've always thought that Kamala is quintessentially anti-natal. Everything about her is barren. Not even Hilary Clinton could encapsulate such sterility since she has a daughter, even if she did not mother her in the way that a traditional mother would/should.
Your last statement brings to mind archeologists/anthropologists of the future when they find our culture. If we were to capture Kamala's being into a statue or other piece of memorabilia, what else would they think we were, but a culture of anti-child/birth/life?