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

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.

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?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

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

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.