Lefties Losing It: Kamala Harris goes ‘full fascist’ with disturbing rant

It's time for Lefties Losing It. Let's start in the UK before we make our way to the US. We saw huge numbers marching against mass immigration, marching against the leftist government of Keir Starmer. The aerial shots of London paint a picture and they show that Brits did not listen to the Prime Minister. Tomorrow's march in London is a reminder of what we're up against in the battle of our values. The organisers, including convicted thugs and racists, are peddling hatred and division. Yes, according to Keir, anyone marching, including these grannies, are right-wing extremists. They're thugs and white supremacists. They should be shunned and silenced. Well, let's look at some of the hate on the streets of London. Love him. It's the least I can do. OK. I love you. And that is white supremacy unfolding right in front of our eyes. Disturbing scenes. The sad truth is that for these self-loathing Brits, these anti-West leftists, the mere sight of the Union Jack, the St George Cross, is triggering. A scene like this would send them into therapy. What a beautiful sight. Fully, fully loaded. Look at that, people. It is insane. Absolutely insane. And they would hate the Christian symbolism, the number of people carrying crosses, the number of Christians taking part in this rally. And this was a diverse march. There were people of all backgrounds. And I stand for this cross which is Christianity and I stand for togetherness and I stand for British values because I'm British and this belongs to the people that are here. Now, I've pushed into this, paid into the system and didn't come over illegal. My mum and dad are from Jamaica and guess what? They had a passport because they came through the front door. Didn't come on a bloody boat. And this lady also declined to see Tommy Robinson as some unrepentant racist. Brings you to London? For Tommy Robinson, basically, yeah. So what about him do you like? His courage, basically, because he has a courage. He can stand up by himself, like, you know, so I would say his courage and his faith as well. What about the people that have been calling Tommy Robinson racist for his views? I think they have their own problem. Yeah, they do have problems, don't they? And there is always a brave, white, leftist woman ready to emote wildly. Watch this young lady cry her eyes out watching the massive march. It was so sad, all these people loving their country and marching. How will she ever cope? But the march did unite the nation in their shared hatred of the Prime Minister. And there was a very British chant that went up outside the PM's residence. It rhymes with banker, but starts with W. And of course, these marches always attract a counter protest. This year's was fairly lacklustre. So let's look at a classic from last year. This mother and son team so loving, so sane and likable. Of course, I guess they're feral. Show him your sign. All right, let's see. F*** off Nazis. All right, would you like to elaborate? I mean, I think he summed it up really. Anti-Tommy Robinson, anti-division, pro-Palestine. For 10 years now, and particularly in the past six years, we've heard the Democrats repeat the lie that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, that he's a fascist, unfit for office. As is often the case with the left, every accusation is a confession. Here is failed Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris putting on the agenda a list of malicious measures to upend democracy as we know it, to ensure her political opponents never win again. Sounds a bit fascist to me. We talk about what we need to do and think about doing around the electoral college. We talk about the idea of Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court. We invite a conversation about multi-members districts. She calls it a no bad idea brainstorm. I call it cheating. And Kamala, just a little reminder, you could get rid of the electoral college altogether and you still wouldn't be president. Trump won the popular vote along with every swing state. But let's hear more ideas from Kamala. Let's talk about statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. These are the things I think that we've got to do. We've got to neutralise these red states from cheating, including blue states expanding their maps. Blue states expanding their maps to stop red states from cheating. By cheating, she means voting and those votes counting. She wants to negate the votes of her opponents while introducing new blue states and expanding existing blue states and gerrymandering like hell. Donald Trump demands election integrity after 2020 and is called a threat to democracy. Kamala wants to destroy American democracy. And do you see any outrage from media circles? Of course not. Joining me now is Newsweek's senior editor at large, Josh Hammer. Josh, tell me what would be the impact of these Kamala ideas expanding the Supreme Court statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C., not to mention messing with the electoral college and having blue states expand their maps? Rita, you're looking at essentially the destruction of the United States Constitution. That is not an exaggeration. This is basically where the where the current Democratic Party base is at right now. They want to gut the electoral college. They want to gut the United States Senate itself. They want to add Puerto Rico and D.C. as states. They don't care for the wisdom of America's founders. America has the greatest constitution that was ever devised by men in the entire history of lowercase or Republican self-governance because we had geniuses, men like James Madison, who wrote in Federalist Number 51 that because men are not angels, ambition must be made to counteract ambition. That's how you get the separation of powers. He famously wrote in Federalist Number 10 about the problem of faction and how you can control for factions. And they don't care for any of this, Rita, because fundamentally all the current Democratic Party cares about is power. But in reality, the Democrats have been in a century plus long war against the U.S. Constitution. This is a war that started literally over a century ago with Woodrow Wilson, who was the first great progressive president. He was heavily influenced by confidently European, Germanic political philosophy. Hegel comes to mind. Then you had FDR and the New Deal. By the way, I didn't even mention court packing, one of Kamala Harris's terrible ideas. FDR, at the height of his power in the 1930s, proposed court packing actually in 1937. And guess what? The Senate Judiciary Committee, which at the time was heavily controlled by FDR's own party Democrats, rebuked him in the harshest terms possible. They sent a scathing letter and said, we will go down history as standing for an independent judiciary there. And that is why we still have nine justices to this day. Kamala Harris and today's Democrats have no such compunctions. But fundamentally, Rita, even more so than this century long campaign by the progressive left to destroy the U.S. Constitution, I think what you're seeing here is a desperate political movement as well. This is a movement that has ceased. They've essentially given up on attempting to persuade others. They don't care about actually trying to win the arguments, not actually trying to persuade you that they're right when it comes immigration or to gender ideology or to this or that. They don't care. They recognize actually that they've lost the argument. That's why, as you correctly pointed out, all the swing states voted against Kamala Harris. They all vote for Trump. They've lost the argument. So what are they left with, Rita? They're left with blowing it all up and destroying the system and burning it all down. It is the impulse of utopian leftists since time immemorial. Unfortunately, there is nothing, nothing but misery and despair down that road. Let's talk about the incredible results in Louisiana, where I know Bill Cassidy became the first sitting Republican senator in 14 years to lose a primary. Here's NBC. It's official. NBC News has now declared that the second spot in the June 27th Republican Senate runoff in Louisiana will go to state treasurer John Fleming. So the runoff now is set. Congresswoman Julia Letlow, state treasurer John Fleming. And that means that Senator Bill Cassidy, two term Republican incumbent senator who voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial in January of 2021, has been defeated. He will be denied renomination. Josh, we keep hearing MAGA is dead. It's fractured. The GOP base is fractured. And yet we saw the landslide wins to MAGA candidates in Indiana. We've seen every single House Republican who voted to impeach Trump lose. We've seen five Republican senators who voted to impeach lose as well. This is very much Donald Trump's GOP, despite all the media rhetoric. I think the most amazing part of the Louisiana situation, as you saw there with that graphic, is that Bill Cassidy literally came in third place. All he had to do was come in second place just to make the runoff there. But there were not one but two people ahead of him. And, Rita, the mind reels as to how deeply unpopular an incumbent has to be to not make it in the top two in his own primary in a given state. But this is the power of the Trump endorsement. This is the power of Donald Trump siccing his political operation on you and putting you in his bullseye, in his crosshairs. There's going to be another huge test, by the way, in Kentucky this Tuesday, actually. So it's coming up just this week there. It's going to be the Kentucky primaries. And in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, Donald Trump has gone all in trying to defeat the incumbents, Thomas Massey, who started years ago as a principled libertarian. I am personally not a libertarian, so I have my disagreements. But he was a very principled, intellectually honest guy. Massey has now been just an absolute, absolute thorn in MAGA's side, an absolute thorn in Donald Trump's side, to say nothing, of course, of the fact that he has made common cause with people like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson going down a particularly irksome conspiratorial rabbit hole there. But in any event, that's going to be a big test as well of the Trump endorsement power. The polling in Kentucky 4 is a little close right now. I personally would not bet against Donald Trump. I would not bet in favor of Thomas Massey there. Ed Galron is a Navy veteran. He's the one who's trying to challenge Thomas Massey in Kentucky there. There's a lot riding on this race, Rita. It's one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive congressional primary, I think, in American history. It's a lot, a lot of money being spent here to knock off Thomas Massey there. I predict, ultimately, that it will be successful. And the very simple reason for that is because, as you said, this is still Donald Trump's party. Eric Trump has announced he plans to sue MS Now host Jen Psaki. She was, of course, Biden's press secretary for a period. Now he's suing her for a number of claims she made about his business interest in China. Let's have a look at a little bit of that segment. He's supposed to be sort of firewalled off from any US government activities because he took over the family businesses when his father reentered the White House, supposedly to prevent conflicts of interest. But there he is. You can see him. You see, Eric is on the board of a company called Alt 5 Sigma. And you can see him and Don Junior here ringing the opening bell at the Nasdaq. Yep. She went on to accuse him of being, as you heard there, a board member of a company purportedly seeking to do business in China. But Eric Trump has responded, saying, I have had zero involvement in any merger discussions involving any public entity I do not run or control. I have zero business interest in China, no properties, no investments, nothing. Contrary to her monologue and blatant lies, I have never been on the board of Alt 5, not now, not ever. Any person with basic access to Google and willing to open a company's annual report or proxy statements would know this. Josh, you're a lawyer. Is Jen Psaki and MS Now, are they in trouble? She could be. So look, defamation is not an easy thing to prove in American law. It all goes back to a very misguided Supreme Court case from the 1960s called New York Times versus Sullivan. In my opinion, this was a very, very incorrectly decided opinion. But nonetheless, what the court said back at the height of the liberal Warren court 60 years ago, give or take, was they said that if you are a public figure, then you have to prove the standards called actual malice. So it's not sufficient that the person lied. You have to prove that the person did so with actual demonstrable malice. Now, having said that, Rita, in the case of Jen Psaki and MS Now there, that seems to me like a pretty plausible standard, frankly. I think it would not be a tremendous stretch to try to go into court there and be able to demonstrate, especially with the beauty of discovery, that there is actual malice from Jen Psaki, of all people, against Eric Trump. Surely that is not an insurmountable threshold. If nothing else, I'm very happy to see these people dragged into court. And I wish Eric Trump nothing but the best in his possible lawsuit there. On the actual facts here, the question is whether or not he's on the board of Alt-5 rented company. That is a very easily verifiable question of fact. I think about this other high profile defamation case that's currently happening. I mentioned Candace Owens. She's being sued by Brigitte Macron, the first lady of France there. Candace Owens says that Brigitte Macron is a man. Brigitte Macron quite reasonably says, I'm a woman, not a man. That's an easily verifiable statement. So when it comes to this kind of thing, Rita, you can prove it one way or the other there. And to me, that makes it a more plausible legal case. Now, let's talk about that China trip. What were the key takeaways, other than improving trade relations, was much else accomplished? So the key takeaway is that Xi Jinping is even more all in on Taiwan than I think many of us thought. This apparently was what he led with in his two plus hour sit down in the Great Hall in Beijing with Donald Trump there. As the media has reported there, he started talking about what historians refer to as the Thucydides trap, this notion that a rising power can overcome a declining power. It's a lot of Chinese Communist Party propaganda there. But he really, really, really went all in on the Taiwan issue. Now, for what it's worth, Rita, what I've heard is that Donald Trump definitely talked a lot of nice talk about China. But what I heard from people who weren't on the trip or very close to those who were on the trip, so I heard this second hand, is that Donald Trump apparently didn't even actually eat the food that he was served. They had a private chef there. They were so distrustful of the Chinese there that he won't even eat the food that was served at dinner. So I think a lot of this, a lot of these optics of our two countries being on the same page there is just that, actually. It's just optics. It's kind of classic Trump, by the way. Donald Trump does this time and time again. I think back sometimes to 2018 in Helsinki, Finland. He had a press conference with Vladimir Putin that the media were tearing him up for. He was saying Putin's a strong leader. They're like, oh my God, he's a Putin candidate, a Manchurian candidate. He's soft on Putin there. No, he's not. No, he's not. He's not soft on Putin there. It's the same exact thing here. Donald freaking Trump is not soft on China. He has been hardcore on the China issue for decades and decades and decades there. So he's making it sound like I think that we're on the same page. And by the way, by the way, if China actually wants to help out America when it comes to Iran, when it comes to Ukraine and Russia, when it comes to anything, Cuba right up for a here in Florida. Great. I say great there. I don't trust people. Ultimately, Rita, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. And I'm pretty sure Donald Trump feels the exact same way based, again, the fact that he wouldn't apparently even eat the food that he was served. Incredible. That that's incredible. And I saw when he did the toast, he barely had a sip of of the drink. He had the teeniest, tiniest little sip. Again, serious trust issues there, understandably so. What would be the Trump administration's attitude, do you think, if China did go ahead and invade Taiwan, what would we expect to see from America at that point? So it's an unambiguously nightmare scenario. And it's one that U.S. war planners, strategists have been gaming out for decades, decades. Now, if I'm being very honest with you, Rita, the war games folks in the Department of War and elsewhere in the think tank world, universities that are there, this ends up being something of a 50-50 proposition there. There are some war games where if there's a full-scale war, the United States wins. There are many scenarios where China actually wins. It would essentially be a home war for them, Taiwan, of course, being roughly 50 miles off the shore of mainland China. That is a very unenviable proposition if you are the United States and already spread pretty thin throughout the world. So all that means is that we really, really, really, really don't want to test this hypothetical there. And what that means in concrete terms is to basically arm the crap out of Taiwan, to arm the crap out of Japan and the Philippines, I would argue India, obviously Australia, your country, America's key allies there in that part of the world. The more that we can have our allies do our deterrent dirty work for us there, obviously with our American citizens there, I think that is the best way possibly to try to preclude a People's Liberation Army invasion of Taiwan, which would be truly catastrophic, unfortunately, if it happens. And catastrophic certainly for us here in Australia. Josh Hamer, thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you, as always, Rida.