Democrats remind the nation daily that every incumbent president, except three over the last century, has suffered substantial midterm losses in Congress. Polls show President Donald Trump suffering an average 11-point negative unfavorability rating.

But the left will never offer any alternative agenda on the economy, the border, crime or foreign policy.So absent a positive agenda, Democrats will simply run all their state and federal campaigns as if Trump, their satanic monster, is on every ballot.

Behind this stale Democrat boilerplate lies a deep fear that the Nietzschean Trump, just as he beat all their lawfare ambushes, will also do the impossible and avoid losing Congress in November.

And they should fear.  Here’s why…

Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens have gone to the dark side. Disturbingly, their transition seems to have been planned so carefully that they were able to convince their fans not only to follow—but to run full speed ahead into the pit of hell.

Careers that began as critiques of establishment politics have devolved into outlandish conspiracy theories that blend New Age spirituality, esoteric metaphysics, and elaborate claims about the hidden masters of reality and society.  Plus virulent Anti-Semitism.

Coincidentally, both podcasters have fixated on giants lately—those biblical beings that have morphed into symbols of hidden knowledge and elite cover-ups—almost as if scripted from the same fringe playbook.

Both have also been discussing out-of-body experiences (OBEs), with Tucker focusing on psychic spies and Candace discussing astral projection (she claims both she and Charlie Kirk practiced astral projection, which is best described as the non-physical “self” traveling independently—and exploring the physical world as well as other dimensions on the astral plane.)

You can’t make this up, but they have.

For half a century, the American Left has done its best to cancel the future.

We were promised nuclear-powered everything. Clean electricity too cheap to meter. Cities in the desert. Ocean liners and maybe even airplanes running on atoms. Nuclear rockets cutting the trip to Mars to months instead of years.

Instead, Democrats gave us rolling blackouts, German-style “energy transitions,” and a never-ending string of hysterical predictions that never came true and for which no one apologized (even if they remembered them at all).

In yet another return to sanity, the Trump administration is now planning to roll back a key Obama administration climate "finding" that was used to regulate the daylights out of energy production in the United States. That Obama-era regulation identified six greenhouse gases requiring regulation, which included CO2.

President Donald Trump's administration is poised to walk back an Obama-era greenhouse gas finding that serves as a lynchpin for justifying climate regulations across the country on Wednesday.

The 2009 "endangerment finding" identifies six greenhouse gases that the Obama administration said pose "a threat to public health and welfare." That harm finding was then used to justify sweeping climate regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), such as raising fuel economy standards and limiting power plant emissions, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin hailed the move as cutting through government red tape in an interview with the Journal.

Those regulations, of course, were like putting a sea anchor on the economy. It seems Democrats never saw a scheme for jacking up energy costs that they didn't like, and the Obama people were no exceptions. Now we're seeing some of the stupidity reversed.

In the months before the April 12, 1861, firing on Fort Sumter, there were lots of sharp divisions in the North about the proper reaction to the first seven Confederate states that had already left the Union.

Not all Unionists believed that war was inevitable. Some, in fact, were happy to be done with the departing South and thus see their stain of slavery gone from the Union.

Similarly, others agreed that the emerging Confederacy was not worth the trouble and costs of war, and the secessionists could just form their own nation and stew in their own backward, servile juice.

But after Fort Sumter, Lincoln — who was hated as much by the Confederates as Trump is by the woke and socialist left — gained a consensus that the Constitution had no clauses about any lawful departure from the union.

But it did operate under a clear supremacy clause that made state obstruction of federal law and occupation of federal property veritable sedition.

Lincoln and the preservationists felt that they easily had the moral high ground of abolition versus the continuance of slavery.

Nor did they want a North America of fragmenting, warring nations in the manner of Europe.

Something similar is emerging over Minnesota, the South Carolina of our age.

On and off this week, I have been thinking about the differences between the 59-day temper tantrums of the Occupy Wall Street “protests” back in 2011 and what we are witnessing on the Minneapolis streets today, and it struck me how much more aggressively “Alinsky” they have become.

Left-wing activist Saul Alinsky published 13 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971.

It was an instruction manual for “community organizers” conceived amid the political turbulence of the late 1960s and early 1970s, addressing a new generation of activists.

But no matter what you think about Alinsky, his rules were logical.

What we are seeing today is not.

Ronald Reagan’s famous joke comes to mind: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” I firmly believe this is true.

They invent things. They take a factual event, add irrational emotion, and come up with the most horrific explanation possible to keep the fear, adrenaline, and anger flowing.

They tell you to move on. They tell you to accept it. They sneer that you are undermining democracy merely by demanding that democracy prove it is real.

Let us state the obvious with crystalline clarity. A republic does not endure on liturgical incantations recited by news anchors and bureaucrats.

It endures on evidence, transparency, and the immutable right of the citizen to inspect the machinery by which power is conferred.

In 2020, when tens of millions of Americans watched a presidential election mutate into an un-auditable, procedurally elastic, statistically grotesque spectacle, the response from the political class was not inquiry but suppression.Not review but reprisal. Not investigation but excommunication.

One can scarcely imagine a more brazen inversion of democratic legitimacy. Those who asked the questions were declared the enemy, while those who demanded silence were celebrated as defenders of democracy. This was not merely an election. This was a confidence heist.

Once upon a time, it was relatively easy to spot an email scam.

They were flawed. Bad grammar, broken formatting, poor spelling and typos, and a sort of odd cadence often referred to as "Engrish" exposed them for what they were: attempts to extract money from "rich" Americans, most commonly by people outside America.

Often the scams seemed reasonable, except when they weren't, as with the famous Prince of Nigeria scam: send me a couple thousand dollars so I can release my $1.7 million account, and I'll split it with you.

And for a little while they worked, until people's reason caught up with their greed.

They were profitable for scammers, who could send an email to thousands of people in hopes that maybe ten would fall for the scam. And they did. But more scammers got into the business, and as the market grew crowded, the suckers grew scarcer. The scams had to get better in order to turn a profit.

So they did.