“A government of laws, not of men”

 John Adams supplied this post's title.

All too many people in this country want a man (certainly not a woman) running the country and their lives. I have spent the past three days working on a research project that has the Declaration of Independence at its center, and I have not much time for the 21st Century. No, it took me three days to get this post finished.

But why are the men these people wanting to govern them such incompetents? I do not know, but it has me wondering about the intelligence of my fellow Americans. All they such schmucks they think the morons of MAGA should even be whispered in the company of Washington, Jackson, either of the Roosevelts, or Lincoln?

If so, somebody needs to stick a fork in the country. We're done. 

 Morales refuses to drop out after Banks, Rokita withdraw support in GOP secretary of state race

 Morales has faced scrutiny during his first term over a taxpayer-funded vehicle, international travel and contracting decisions. He has argued the decisions were connected to his work on election security and promoting Indiana businesses, however.

National Democratic group aims to help break GOP’s Indiana House supermajority 

 The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee announced Tuesday a list of six districts it is looking to win from current Republican House members and five Democratic-held districts that are priorities to hold.

Republicans enter this year’s elections with a 70-30 House majority. Democrats need to pick up four House seats to break the two-thirds supermajority that allows Republicans to take action without Democrats even being present.

Maybe our Republican stranglehold is why I see headlines like this: Indiana 14 Reasons Why Americans Are Leaving Indiana in 2026. At least three of the reasons could be traced back to our Republican leaders.

Indiana has affordable living, friendly communities, strong sports culture, and enough farmland to make your GPS question whether civilization still exists. But in 2026, many Americans are deciding the Hoosier State no longer offers enough opportunity or excitement to keep them around long term. Between harsh winters, limited growth in some areas, and younger residents craving bigger opportunities, plenty of people are quietly heading elsewhere. 

Is That... a Republican Spine?! 

Whatever the reason, it’s good that Trump is finding his slush fund harder than expected to ram down the gullets of his ordinarily pliable congressional allies.

Best recalling that the law is in the hands of men.

Why Trump’s possible Iran deal may be almost as divisive as his decision to wage war 

It’s worth noting that Trump can’t win politically. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the war, so he’d face an equal or greater backlash if he ordered new strikes against Iran — a step that would threaten a violent escalation and worse economic pain. But presidents are often tempted to launch new military adventures to save face, or to search for an exit ramp that frequently turns into a quagmire. When they step back, lives can be saved.

Still, the emerging details of a potential agreement with Iran suggest the terms of a peace deal may be beyond even Trump’s capacity to spin into a triumph.

Indications, for instance, that Washington may unfreeze some Iranian assets and gradually dismantle its own blockade to persuade Iran to reopen the strait would effectively validate the leverage the Islamic Republic seized in the war and hand away key US bargaining chips.

Supreme Court’s John Roberts Faces Impeachment Resolution from Democrat 

Article II: "Violation of Oaths: Entrenchment of Minority Rule" — argues Roberts enabled partisan gerrymandering and weakened voting rights protections through decisions including Rucho v. Common Cause and Louisiana v. Callais.

Article III: "Violation of Oath: Empowering the Rich Over the Poor" — criticizes Roberts' role in campaign finance rulings, including Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, alleging the decisions favored wealthy interests.

Article IV: "Violation of Oath: Unaccountable Executive Branch" — focuses on Roberts' opinion in Trump v. United States, arguing the ruling on presidential immunity undermined constitutional checks and balances.

Article V: "Violation of Oath: Arbitrary Decisions" — accuses the court of increasingly relying on unexplained emergency docket rulings that the resolution says lack "meaningful analysis."

 And While We Are On The Subject…

Ealy says Alito was “carefully arranging words into something that looks like principle from a distance and collapses into nonsense the moment you apply pressure.” He repackaged the protection of Black voters’ right to meaningful representation as racial discrimination. “Not misinterpreted. Repackaged.” (Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised by Alito’s dishonesty. It was front and center in Dobbs and Hobby Lobby.). 

sch