Ben Johnson

@benjaminhjohns1.bsky.social

I study history in order to understand and help others understand the crazy world in which we live. Environment, climate, borders, violence and memory are key. Also @refusing2forget.bsky.social. My opinions are mine, sadly almost never my employer's.

BREAKING: We're suing Texas A&M over the university system’s unconstitutional censorship policy. Administrators are canceling or restricting courses that discuss race, gender, and sexual orientation. Public universities are meant for sharing knowledge — not banning it.

Great news on the freedom of speech/honest history front. JP Bryan’s specious lawsuit against the @historians.org and Carlos Blanton has been tossed. /1 file:///private/var/mobile/Containers/Data/Application/8715AB9F-B356-40AB-B248-EBCBE4CC21C0/tmp/2026-07-30%252cReversedandRemandedOpinio1B8.pdf

A dementia added old man who watches too much Fox News and who is saddled with angst about the fact that he never earned or shared real love with anyone is yelling about exactly what you think he would be yelling about right now.

LIKE TRUMP/MILLER, ALL ICE AGENTS ARE LOSERS! Many are scared racists, White Nationalist ”Patriot Front, KKK, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys, Neo-NAZIS; too full of Trump’s fear/hate/lies to know that THEY’re the true criminals, NOT the innocent families they destroy. Some are just soulless opportunists.

Larry Mitchell@drlarrymitchell.bsky.social · 3w ago

The two ICE agents who murdered a civilian in Biddeford, Maine today. Let's make them famous.

My latest is about the stunning evidentiary weakness of the White House’s anti-woke report on the National Museum of American History. If it had blue sealant it would peel. The shoddy workmanship in Trump’s 250 commemorations never stops! newrepublic.com/article/2128...

I Fact-Checked Trump’s Anti-Woke Report on the American History Museum

The document is notably short on evidence—and at odds with what I witnessed during a visit to the museum this week.

newrepublic.com

"It's over, right?" a journo asked me this morning about the birthright citizenship case. No. No legal or political result is final unless the losing side gives up fighting. They will try again. New prez, new judges. There's a social movement based on racial grievance + scapegoating immigrants.

Second apparently this was a close case for this Court. As it stands the decision is 6-3. In 1898 the Court’s decision protecting birthright citizenship, Won Kim Ark v. U.S., was 6-2. That means this SCOTUS is either on par w/or to the right of the 1898 Court - the same SCOTUS that decided Plessy!

NBA is rigged! when Spurs had 29 point lead the game should have been immediately stopped and Spurs declared winner. Instead officials decides to play "4th quarter?" and Knicks "somehow" score enough baskets to win. Fraud!

Incredible line from a grand juror in the Broadview 6 case, who had just asked the prosecutors why they get "unlimited tries" to indict people they don't want to indict: "I heard this case like last week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I still think it is."

MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. I'm feeling the 09:29:526 skepticism already. Are you going to be able to7 listen with an open mind? Tell me the truth.8 GRAND JUROR: I -- no.9 MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. Then you have to10 go -- 09:30:0411 GRAND JUROR: I heard this case like last12 week and I thought it was a crock of shit then and I13 still think it is.14 MS. MECKLENBURG: Okay. Thank you for your15 opinion for everybody.

Feeling overwhelmed with all of this. LISTEN. Another Louisiana resident (Marshawn is the only name we have) testifies against the state’s racial gerrymander, speaking truth to power up and down the hearing room and predicts how this story will end. Speak your truth, fight and believe.

FDR’s Fireside chat on March 9, 1937 explaining his proposal to expand the Supreme Court stands up surprisingly well. “We have reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself.”/1

We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself….We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men. 
I want—as all Americans want—an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as writtten, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the artibrary exercise of judicial power—in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of which which are universally recognized.