Lefties Losing It: Jane Fonda glitches during incoherent rant

When it's time for Lefties Losing It, and we touched on the Oscars and mindless, feckless celebrity virtue signaling last night, but let's get into the nitty gritty tonight with the worst of the worst, starting with the tiresome,

self-delighted professional victim, Jimmy Kimmel.

As you know, there are some countries whose leaders don't support free speech. I'm not at liberty to say which. Let's just leave it at liberty to say which. Let's just leave it at North Korea and CBS.

Yes it is the painfully unfunny Jimmy Kimmel again pretending he's a victim like the downtrodden folk of North Korea. He's still carrying on about being censored in Trump's America, even as he criticises Trump in every single program and appearance. And a reminder, he was suspended for less than a week because he lied, deliberately and shamelessly lied about Charlie Kirk's killer. As for CBS's decision to axe Stephen Colbert, well they had nothing

to do with free speech and everything to do with his awful ratings. Now let's check in on the eternally wrong about everything Jane Fonda and see if you can

keep up with this diatribe. You know that's why Heg Seth said the Secretary of Defense, oh he said we can't, CNN can't come soon enough to be under the control of Paramount because we know that Trump wants to hurt. I mean I slept with the guy that created it.

You did?

I have a personal stake in it. What? And why is she glitching like that? Seriously? Does she think sleeping with a media tycoon gives us some deep insight?

Let's see if the rest of this rant is a little bit more coherent and the days of mr

Turner creating CNN to be the new source be trusted

trusted It did not take positions. It reported the news and to see what's happening. And so we have to we have to stop. No, I did have many conversations with Ted Sarandos about it because he and I are friends.

Forget about Hanoi Jane. I hereby dub her Jane Biden. Yes, she's got the Bidens about her. Now get ready to really turn up the stupid because we're about to hear from Patricia Arquette. Patricia Arquette, the woman who once tweeted, kick Russia out of NATO.

Seriously, she did do that. She deleted it, but only after she was mocked mercilessly. Now the actress is claiming that the trans community in America is under attack.

You know, right now we're looking at a real attack on the trans community. We're seeing people lose their driver's license suddenly with no way to get to even the DMV. We're seeing people not allowed to go to the bathroom, even though they clearly present you know the

way that they they are who they are as but they're forcing them to go to the bathroom in the non-corresponding bathrooms we're seeing people having to

flee the country. She really is desperate for men to be in women's bathrooms isn't she what a bizarre hill to die on, the rejection of biological reality. Now to the rejection of logic and decency, here is Javier Bardem.

No to war and free Palestine.

Saying no to the war against the Iranian regime, just as they're on their knees and close to defeat. Shameful antics from Javier who was there to present the best international feature film. One of the directors nominated in that category this year was Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi. No relation. Now, Panahi is facing imprisonment and worse if he returns to Iran.

He was luckily out of the country late last year when he was sentenced to prison for what Iranian government called propaganda activities against the regime. But you've got Javier calling for an end to the war against that regime. It just shows a breathtaking level of ignorance. And if you think I'm being too harsh and he was just making a general statement against war in all regions across the world, then listen to this. He was talking about

Iran.

With another illegal war created by Trump and Netanyahu with another lie, which is like to defeat the regime, but they are radicalising the regime by their horrific actions. So that's not the reason.

Trump is radicalising the Iranian regime. Is he dumb or lying? Because I don't see too many other options at this point. And wasn't it interesting that Javier, along with the rest of the Hollywood elite, said nothing about the plight of the Iranian people, tens of thousands of whom were just slaughtered this year by the Iranian regime We didn't hear much about that on the night. Did we we did hear from one piece actress?

Sharithra Shandran who seems to have missed the news that the war in Gaza is actually over and that a ceasefire

Has been in place now for months. It's an artist for ceasefire pen and what we are demanding is a ceasefire in Gaza and I think that I am so blessed to have a platform and this is the least I can do to use it and like sometimes the news cycle is so fast and people move on.

Oh you're right the news cycle does move fast love but there's been a ceasefire in Gaza since October 10 that's more than five months ago do keep up. The sad reality is that actors, celebrities in general are far dumber than your lowest expectations but that thickness often comes with enormous amounts of ego. It's a dangerous mix. When we act complicit

when a government murders people on the streets of our major cities. When we don't say anything. When oligarchs take over the media and control how we could

produce it and consume it. Now if these actors cared even a little about free speech and artistic integrity, they would say something about the real McCarthyism that exists in Hollywood, where if you admit that you're anything other than hard left, you're pretty much blacklisted and often driven completely out of the industry. But the Hollywood hypocrites are all on board with that. And I'll be discussing the celebrity class's antics later in the hour with Olly London.

You don't want to miss that. But let's bring in Sky News contributor, Koshia Gaynor now. And Koshia, let's start with this incredible story suggesting Iran's Supreme Leader is gay. The New York Post is reporting US intelligence indicates Mojtaba Khomeini may be gay and that his father, the late Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, feared his suitability to rule the Islamic Republic for that reason.

Koshar, the Post also reports President Trump couldn't contain his surprise and laughed out loud when he was briefed on the intel.

Didn't see that one coming, I have to say.

Do you think this is manufactured or is this real? Because this is a fantastic way just to undermine the new Supreme Leader and also embarrass him, embarrass the entire hierarchy there.

It's almost too perfect and I was just going to say like we're in the fog of war. The intel community, all of them, including the US, this is not exactly trustworthy in general. You know, we know what we've lived through with Russiagate and all the rest of it and they have an incentive to manufacture it. It's also certainly possible.

There are some details in there. We just don't know at this stage. It's only being picked up by the Post, some more tabloid publications like the Sun and there hasn't been any independent verification as of yet. So you know I can't picture President Trump laughing out loud after being briefed about this. That is very easily. Because it's so dark and paradoxical or maybe ironic is the better word to... Well yeah, because Iran is a country that...

That criminalizes it, right?

Absolutely. Homosexuality is criminalized. The sentences and the punishments are very harsh. And in fact, they sometimes force transgender surgeries on men who are gay, because they're all very happy for you to go and get surgery and pretend you're a woman.

But if you just want to be a gay man living your life, choosing who you love, that's not okay in the Islamist Republic.

If it's true, he'd probably laugh because it was so ironic, but also it would change the equation a little bit because it's a whole other attack vector if there actually is truth to it and if there's photographic evidence or some other evidence, blackmail potential, all the rest of it. But at this point I think we have to take it with a big grain of salt because we don't

know if it's real. Now we know President Trump has asked allies to join an effort to ensure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz and he had this assessment of France and its president.

Have you been speaking with the French President Macron about the coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz?

Yeah, I have spoken to him. He's been on a scale of 0 to 10. I'd say he's been an 8. Not perfect. But it's France. We don't expect perfect.

Macron should probably be happy with 8 out of 10. That's probably as well as he's going to do in Trump's eyes.

How do you see the international effort here to minimise the fallout of this conflict? It reminded me of when he used to refer to Heidi Klum, who used to be a 10, is now a 9. They should be happier, maybe not. The recruitment is tepid, at best. He plucked Macron out there and seemed to suggest that France is maybe a little bit

more bullish on their willingness to help, though no commitments have officially been made. The rest of the NATO allies either have given hard rejections—Germany, Italy, Spain—or sort of cagey, tepid ones, Keir Starmer of the UK. He's also trying to build a broader coalition, China, who is one of the biggest recipients of oil shipments that go through that lane, South Korea, etc. And they're all being noncommittal.

Their argument is, you started this, so why are you asking us basically to come in, is their side of the equation. It shows that this does remain unpopular in a lot of places. I think there's protests in South Korea, so they're managing domestic fallout, as is Trump, as well against it. And then the flip side, though, is it's also, certainly in the case of NATO,

it's highlighting this fundamental issue of if you outsource national security, which is the most vital thing that a government arguably should be providing for its citizens, to another country, you will wind up in the situation where maybe your interests have diverged, maybe those countries don't want to engage in military action, but they're under the umbrella of the US.

The US tells them they have to do it, if they don't do it, Trump is signalling some sort of fallout from a NATO perspective. So far it's just words and rhetoric, but this is getting a little bit dicey.

Well, you mentioned the domestic fallout, and certainly the war is not great for President Trump domestically The midterms are coming up and he was asked earlier today whether the war could be wrapped up this week

If Iran as you say totally obliterated got the missiles got the first two rounds of leadership Air Force gone maybe gone. Can we wrap this war up this week?

Yeah, sure.

Will we?

I don't think so, but it'll be soon. Won't be long. And we're gonna have a much safer world when it's wrapped up. It'll be wrapped up soon. We're gonna have a much safer world.

Kosha, do we need to see regime change in Iran

for this US action to be considered a success? I think many would say hopefully not, because that has been one of the three central pillars of the populist movement and Trump, that we're not in the interest of changing regimes. That doesn't mean we don't recognise there are many awful, evil regimes around the world. That's not what we want to do. Can you change a regime just from air power? If not, are we leading into the slippery slope of boots on the ground and quagmire and all of that?

And it is he is paying a big price. It remains very divisive this issue. Democrats are completely against it. The independents are 70% against it. That's the big thing. That's a big thing given the timing It's so close. And the gas prices are felt by everybody. Absolutely around the world. Even among Republicans the the latest polling shows 20% are against it, which is not great. When you're this close to an election, you would want 90% support, which he does have for other issues.

And the 80% that do support it, they support him, they support, they want the success coming out of it. I think the answer to your question is in the question. We don't know what success looks like, because it was never properly defined, you know, what the objectives are. But they're unclear, they're unhappy with the fact that the case was not made very clearly. People don't know. Are we after regime change? Are we after just denuclearizing them?

Are we after taking away enrichment capability, which is one step before nuclearization? Are we doing it for humanitarian reasons? Are we doing it for humanitarian reasons? Are we doing it for oil? So when the polls start to pick and choose exactly what the real reason for it was, that's where I think you see support fraying. And the longer this continues,

he's gonna keep paying a political price. Hence the question, if you can wrap it up quickly, take an off-ramp now, you can claim victory on the things that did happen. The Ayatollah's gone, most of the leadership has gone and get back to domestic issues.

And they're already in campaign mode over there. So they really do need to have this wrapped up nicely and to focus on domestic issues where he can show his record with the border, with the economy and all sorts of other issues. But staying on Iran, the captain of Iran's women's soccer team is the latest to withdraw her bid for asylum in Australia. Kosher, this comes as fears grow that the players' families are in danger if they don't return home. Shiva Amini, an exiled Iranian player, former soccer player,

has said the players are opting to go home because of intense and systematic pressure on the players families from Iran's football Federation she wrote on X several of the players decided to go back because the threats against their families became unbearable and the intimidation was relentless that's the point here isn't? Why would you seek asylum one minute and be going home the next? And we know how that regime operates and I've got to say I really do fear for the safety of these women once they get back

to Iran. Right, it's not like everything will be magically, you know, they'll turn a blind eye to all of this that happened. It is a reminder of how tyrannical this regime is. We know it, you know it better than most, but people do forget that. And I think these stories are a reminder of that. And you would think that the problem ends with getting asylum, and there was political horse maneuvering that happened around that, between Trump and Albanese, and we all saw

that. But that isn't the end because even if they get asylum as we're seeing their families are being threatened and it just as a reminder of who who we're dealing with and as you say even if they go back I think people continue to stay on the story and we sadly won't be

surprised if there's more dark stuff that happens. Yeah I mean this is a regime that walked into hospitals and shot people recovering from from the protest and killed them in the hospital beds. I mean, this is evil personified. But you're right about the domestic pressures on Trump when it comes to this conflict.

How is he going to handle an issue like gas prices? Because again, that was something that was spooking that prices were coming down under his watch and now they're skyrocketing. How does he handle that leading up to the midterms if this conflict continues or if gas prices stay

high? It's a real problem if the prices stay where they are. What he keeps saying I think he just said it the other day is we're gonna wrap this war up soon even though he won't put a time on it and we can understand why, and then the prices are going to come way down. He keeps asserting that. And if that happens, people do have short memories in politics and he can claim a victory

and the prices come way back down again in time for the midterms.

But many say it won't be that easy.

And then because the production has been interrupted and it's going to take some time to catch up, flip it on and off. And then he is going to have to sell around that and make the case that notwithstanding that this was good for the world, good for the country, it's in our national interest. And that is where the case has been weak. Is it?

Is it really good? Did it have to happen right now at this point in time for the national interest? That is still a very, very dividing issue. As we know, people are fighting about it on the right, on the left, in the independent lane. And this is now going to be the number one issue, I think, going into the midterms. And it would not have been two weeks ago.

But it's a year ago. Absolutely not. Now, before you go, we've looked at how Apple News shuts out pretty much any right-leaning news outlets. MSN is similar. And now the data is in for Google. MRC, this is the Media Research Centre, uncovered that just 2% of Google News' top morning stories

in February came from sources rated right-leaning by media ratings firm Allsides. And you don't get much bigger and more powerful than Google, do you, Kosha? This is huge and the bias is overwhelming.

Yes, most powerful company in the world, those five or six big tech companies went from nothing, from launch to I think they're now $15 trillion in market cap in 20 years. It's never happened in human history. And on top of that, not just the market cap, but the product that they sell is information, which controls public opinion, controls masses, controls decisions that we make as countries, as the world.

It's a big deal. It's not like ExxonMobil or Widget or other powerful companies we've had in the past. They've been sort of throwing a bone, if you will, after the whole Trump comeback, a little bit here and there, but not really. Not really. Structurally that is the window to the world. You layer on AI on top of that now, which these companies are all playing in, it's going

to get even worse I think. You feel like you're having a conversation and you're getting truth. And when it comes to political news, you may not be. So people have to be very vigilant. So people have to be very vigilant.

Absolutely not.