Glenn: The "most dangerous" period of U.S. history since the Civil War begins tomorrow night

November 03, 2014

Writer

After tomorrow's election, we could be headed for the most dangerous period of history since the Civil War. All signs point to the Republicans regaining complete control of Congress, setting the stage for a battle between the president and the GOP over immigration reform signed into law with the president's pen and paper. The Democrats will be able to sit back and appear to the moderates, and at the forefront will be the next President of the United States: Hillary Rodham Clinton. How does it happen? Glenn laid out the prediction on radio Monday morning.

Who wins tomorrow's election? I will tell you that I do not believe it will be you that wins. It may be the Democrats, it may be the Republicans. But it definitely will not be you. And let me explain exactly what I mean by that.

I believe the Republicans are going to win tomorrow. The Republicans are going to win control of the Senate and the House. And before people who might be in this audience start to cheer, let me explain why that isn't necessarily a good thing, even for the Republicans.

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for the Republic, because I don't believe the Republicans represent the Republic anymore. They are progressive and they will do exactly what they want. In fact, if Mitt Romney has his way, what they're going to do is immediately forward comprehensive immigration reform. And this will just be a watered-down version of what the Democrats will want to do. And you'll get all of the credit for that. Let me just talk politics here for a second. Republicans, you're going to get all the same kind of credit that you got for the Civil Rights Act. And congratulations on that, because that was yours. And you're seeing how well that's working out for you now, don't you?

So what's going to happen? The Republicans think that they're going to continue to play the same game that has always been played in America. And they think that they're going to be able to come in and actually turn the tide here. They think that they're actually going to make a difference, because they're going to come in with their reform bill and they're going to come in and they're going to start holding people responsible. But they're going to be moderate, too, you know. They're not going to be too crazy. They're not going to be like those Tea Party people.

Meanwhile, the president is standing alone. Have you noticed that? The president -- there's nobody asking the president, hey, could we get the president to speak? Nobody is showing up for the president. The Democrats don't want to see the president. So what happens?

Try this out for size: Tomorrow the Republicans win. They win control of House and Senate. The [Democrats] are out. The Democrats begin to blame the president and his policies. Whether they do so outwardly or not, I'm not so sure. I think that they just continue down this road, this path, where they say, the president, it doesn't matter. The president is irrelevant at this point. The president is a lame duck. He's a lame duck president.

No, he's anything but a lame duck. Because the Democrats are going to pull away from this president, the president is going to see an open highway. The president believes the things that he says. The president believes that comprehensive immigration reform doesn't go far enough. The president believes that we shouldn't be asking people for a green card. There are no borders here. You come in. You have a right to work here. I think Rand Paul believes that. It's not so radical to some people. So he believes in this open border. He has a phone and a pen and he's going to use it.

Now, what does that do?

What that does is that sets the country on fire and splits us even deeper, because there are those who believe, and I'm one of them, that this actually is the end of the republic as we know it. You just can't open up the borders. Read Gibbons, Mr. President. It was the last act before Rome fell. You just can't open the borders, especially with everything that's going on, between the disease that, Mr. President, your policies brought in to this country. The enterovirus, that has crippled children, killed children, nobody is willing to talk about it, look into it. Look at the stats. That was brought in from people coming across the border and infecting our children. But that's just the beginning of it.

If you open and give these green cards, which they've now printed nine million green cards, if you just start giving everybody a green card, that's just going to open the borders up even more. Then everybody will come, because now they'll say, oh, my gosh. They actually did it. It's not just come and the possibility. They actually did it. So come. It opens our borders up even more.

That requires the Republicans then to take a strong stand and the Republicans to say, you can't do that, which sets up a battle. But it's a battle between the president, not the Democrats, the president and the GOP.

The Democrats will step back. The Democrats will suddenly say, you know, we're not in this. That's the president. And they will watch. And they will see which way the wind is blowing. Some will step up. Most will not. And the one that won't, the one that will be cautioning, step back, step back, just wait, wait for the right time. Wait for it to settle down. Wait for the ads to begin. Wait for them to change public opinion. And the ads will start and they will be run by people like Mark Zuckerberg.

They will run the same campaign, the campaign that was run on gay marriage. None of us hate gay people. I mean, I'm sure there are people that hate gay people. Those are in the extreme minority. And they're freaks. Nobody hate gay people. Nobody wants them to be unhappy. If you love somebody, love somebody, whatever. I'm not your judge, dude. However, I believe in traditional marriage. Okay, you don't. Okay. My stance has been why is the government involved in this at all? I don't get any value from the government telling me who I can and cannot marry. Don't do this because then the next thing the government will have to do is tell my church that I have to marry gay couples. Now you're get -- now you're interfering with church. Any thinking person could see this nightmare coming a million miles away, but it was denied. And what they did was they personalized it and made anyone who said they were against gay marriage a hater. It worked now, didn't it?

So why not use this, Mark Zuckerberg, why not use this as your approach? We all know people who are living in the shadows. They cut your lawn, they fix your house. They're hardworking Americans. We all know them. Why would you hate those who are working here, who just want to have a better life?

They will begin to position it and make it personal instead of about making it about principles. Because we're a nation without any principles, because we're a nation that can't even think about principles anymore, anyone who stands against just opening up the borders is going to be deemed a hatemonger.

Maybe not the first day, but definitely by 2016. And as soon as this shakes out, it will divide the country. And it will be a fight between the president and the GOP.

And who will be there to say, look, the GOP is crazy. They're full of haters. They're full of racists. Now the president, did he do the right thing? No, I don't think he did. But there's a place in between here and we need to start talking about common sense.

May I introduce you to the next president of the United States, Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

She will play the middle ground. She will be the great mediator. She will be the one that plays right in the middle. Look, I'm not with -- I'm certainly not with the GOP. But I'm not really with the president either.

We're in the most dangerous position this republic has been in since the Civil War. And it begins on Wednesday. Whenever the balance of power is given, the president is unleashed. He no longer has to worry about the Democrats because the Democrats don't like him and quite frankly I don't think he likes them.

He's certainly does not in bed with the Clintons. He doesn't like the Clintons, he never has and the Clintons don't like him.

He believes in his principles. I think he believes he's been wronged the whole time. I believe the president thinks he's a victim. He's a victim of me, of Fox News, of now it will be the Democrats deserting him. All he was trying to do is what he was trying to do.

Quite honestly, I kind of agree with him. He was at least transparent before he became president. You knew -- he said everything that he was going to do. Nobody took him at his word. He said he was going to do, may I just remind you, fundamental transformation of the United States. May I just remind you of his wife. Barack knows, you're going to have to change your traditions, you're going to have to change your language. You're going to have to change everything. So he was honest. He said it.

Now you could say he wasn't exactly honest because he was lying about single-payer system, but he at least said it and we have him on tape. When, when Mitt Romney said one thing on tape in a back room, everybody said that was the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. He said that's not what I meant.

Nobody even asked the president if what they had on tape, what we played on Fox over and over and over again was what he meant. Everybody just dismissed it and pointed the finger and said you're a hater.

So I kind of actually agree with the president, that he's been wronged by his own party. He's been wronged by his own supporters. He got more done than any other democratic president in the history of the United States of America and I think that's more than FDR. He fundamentally changed the United States of America. Because he believes it.

He's going to do exactly what Woodrow Wilson tried to do but Woodrow Wilson in the end -- remember, when he was, quote, the lame duck, he couldn't get those things through. This president doesn't care. This president will sign it through. And the Democrats are smart enough to just stand back.

If Harry Reid is still part of the Senate, then these things can't come true.If Harry Reid is running the Senate, then he's going to have a harder time getting these things through, because the Democrats will get the blame.

But the minute the GOP takes control, the president has a wide open highway. He'll floor this sucker.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep