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.

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?