Is Barack Obama destroying America in an attempt to create fairness?

Can you believe that Mitt Romney had a secret tape where he said 47% of Americans weren't paying taxes? It's pretty shocking. Unbelievable. How could he just lay out truth like that to an audience of people who want to have smaller government and more personal responsibility. Thankfully the media has been there to expose him. Although it's a little weird that they aren't trumpeting Barack Obama talking about how much he believes in redistribution, especially considering that President Obama seems willing to destroy the country to create "fairness".

Back in 1998, Barack Obama was recorded saying, "I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution."

"He actually believes in redistribution. Okay. This is really the one thing about Barack Obama that he has told the truth about over and over and over again, but nobody will believe him! Nobody! He said it before the last campaign," Glenn said.

"How many times does he have to say it before anybody believes him? Let me borrow a phrase from the president of the United States: Let me be clear here to the media, to the registered, to the voting independents. This is not an attack on Barack Obama. It is just a fact about Barack Obama. I understand that most Americans, Americans who believe in the Constitution and our founding principles, they don't want to believe that this man who now holds the highest office in the land, you know, might believe in, oh, I don't know, Karl Marx, but it's time to grow up now. It's time to look at facts. How many times does he have to say? He is a Marxist. Accept the reality and then do something about it. Either embrace Marxism, which is your choice. You can say, 'You know what? I believe in redistributive wealth, too, just like Karl Marx.' That is the main thing. That is the main tenet of Marxism: Redistributive wealth. Barack Obama has made it abundantly clear that that's what he believes in."

Glenn played a montage of clips of Obama deriding the wealthy and talking about redistribution of wealth - all in the name of fairness.

"Again, as I said before, this is all completely understandable. You would have to be ‑‑ you'd have to be some sort of deity, which we know, we know the press doesn't think he's a deity. You'd have to be some sort of amazing deity to grow up surrounded by Marxists, communists, socialists, people who are on the FBI watch list because they're so dangerous. His parents, his grandparents, his mentor, his college professors. He talked about hanging around with them all this college, the Marxists, the radical feminists, the anticolonial isolated. Even his spiritual 20‑year mentor, Jeremiah Wright, all the most important people in his life were strong believers in Marxism and Marxist principles. What chance did this guy ever have to understand capitalism? He's never been around it. Never. That's not a slam. I actually feel bad for the guy. He believes the lie that capitalism is evil and Marxism solves problems. I feel bad for him. He doesn't feel bad for me. And I don't want his opinion. I feel bad that he's going to actually find himself out in the parking lot of the White House in January kicking rocks going, what the hell happened? Oh, I don't know. Marxism doesn't work. But please, for those in the media and on the left, stop with saying, 'You're a racist. Oh, golly gee, the racists just say anything about Marxism.'"

"So the only decision the rest of us have to make is, is this still America? Is this an America that we understand, or have we changed? Is ‑‑ was Newsweek magazine right: We're all socialist now? That's really the only decision left. Are we still the America where a politician can't win a national election where everyone knows he's a Marxist? We fundamentally change, we fundamentally transform in 47 days. If we now know what we know and we open‑eye go right into it, he does fundamentally transform the United States of America in 47 days and that message has already been transmitted to Vladimir."

"If we are not, with the way we are awake now, the way we're awake on the Fed, the way we're awake on the GOP, the way we're awake now, everything changes. We fundamentally transform it again in 47 days, but more to a country that we understand, one that would earn the respect of the people around the world, one that would be truly lifting people up by helping them up, not enslaving them to a system of redistribution. Because see, the last part really about this redistribution is that it can't help anyone up because redistribution trains you to expect to take it from someone else. That's a life of slavery because you can't take it. You have to have somebody else take it for you. And that is a fundamental difference in our country as well."

"See, we've always been ‑‑ we're a representative government, and you can't elect someone, you can't hire someone to do something you yourself can't do. That's not the way it works. You have to have the right and then you hire somebody to represent you in that right. I can't go over to my neighbor and say, "You have too much money; I'm taking it.'"

"So how is it we're hiring somebody to go over to our neighbors and say, 'You have too much money; we're taking it and we're going to give it to these guys over here'? Fundamental transformation. That's the choice. A guy who says, 'I don't believe in redistribution of wealth. I believe in helping people, I believe in working hard, I believe we should protect people for what they've created.' Or, I'll do the wrong thing for the budget out of fairness because I believe in redistribution of wealth.' That's it."

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?