Weekly Golden Quisling Award

 

This Week's Golden Quisling Award: MSNBC Takes the Crown for Institutional Cowardice

The Golden Quisling goes to the organization that displays the most spectacular act of institutional cowardice each week. This week's winner distinguished itself not just through capitulation, but through the breathtaking speed and completeness of its surrender to pressure.

The Winner: MSNBC

In a week filled with corporate genuflection and institutional spine-removal, MSNBC has earned this week's Golden Quisling award for their handling of analyst Matthew Dowd's firing. What makes MSNBC's cowardice particularly egregious isn't just that they fired Dowd—it's the craven two-step dance they performed in doing so.

First, MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler issued a public apology, stating that Dowd's comments were "inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable." But apparently, groveling wasn't enough. By the end of the same day, they had completely fired Dowd—a political analyst they had employed since 2022.

What did Dowd say that was so terrible? When asked about "the environment in which a shooting like this happens," he noted that Kirk had been "one of the most divisive younger figures" who was "constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech" and that "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." Whether you agree with that analysis or not, it's exactly the kind of political commentary news networks are supposed to provide.

Why MSNBC Stands Apart

What elevates MSNBC's cowardice above the pack is that they are supposed to be a news organization. Their entire business model depends on political analysis and commentary. Yet when faced with the slightest pushback, they didn't just apologize—they completely abandoned their own analyst and, by extension, the principle of journalistic independence.

As Dowd himself noted in his Substack response, "The Right Wing media mob ginned up, went after me on a plethora of platforms, and MSNBC reacted to that mob. Even though most at MSNBC knew my words were being misconstrued... I was terminated by the end of the day."

This wasn't a case of an employee going rogue or violating clear company policy. This was a political analyst doing exactly what political analysts are paid to do—analyze the political environment surrounding a news event. MSNBC's complete capitulation sends a chilling message: even news organizations will throw their own people under the bus at the first sign of organized pressure.

The Also-Rans: A Week of Corporate Cowardice

While MSNBC takes the crown, this week saw an impressive display of institutional spinelessness across multiple sectors:

The Airline Trifecta: American Airlines, Delta, and United Airlines all suspended or fired employees over social media posts within days, especially after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly pressured them. All three major carriers folded immediately when a government official made a few tweets.

Academic Institutions: Middle Tennessee State University fired assistant dean Laura Sosh-Lightsy "effective immediately" for her Facebook post, while public universities across the country demonstrated that academic freedom apparently has an expiration date measured in hours.

Federal Agencies: The U.S. Secret Service "immediately" suspended Anthony Pough for Facebook posts critical of Kirk, showing that even federal agencies will bypass due process when the pressure mounts.

Corporate America: From the Carolina Panthers firing a communications staffer within 24 hours to NextDoor terminating a Milwaukee employee, and even a Cincinnati barbecue restaurant co-owner getting the boot—the private sector showed remarkable unanimity in its lack of courage.

Retail Giants: Office Depot fired an employee in Michigan who allegedly refused to print Charlie Kirk memorial flyers, demonstrating that customer service now apparently requires political orthodoxy.

The Bigger Picture

Within 24 hours of Kirk's death, an assistant dean at a Tennessee college, a communications staffer for an NFL team, a NextDoor employee in Milwaukee, and the co-owner of a Cincinnati barbecue restaurant were all fired after posting about it. This wasn't organic outrage—this was an organized pressure campaign that succeeded because institutions chose the path of least resistance.

What makes this particularly disturbing is the speed. There were no investigations, no due process, no consideration of context or nuance. Just immediate termination at the first sign of controversy.

Why MSNBC Deserves the Golden Quisling

Among all these profiles in cowardice, MSNBC stands out because they had every reason to defend their analyst and every resource to weather the storm. Instead, they chose to legitimize the very "cancel culture" tactics they routinely criticize when used against conservatives.

News organizations are supposed to be different. They're supposed to understand that controversial commentary comes with the territory, that robust debate requires protecting unpopular viewpoints, and that journalistic independence means something. MSNBC's complete surrender on these principles makes them not just cowardly, but hypocritical.

By firing Dowd for doing exactly what they pay political analysts to do, MSNBC has signaled that they're willing to sacrifice their own credibility and their employees' livelihoods rather than face criticism. That's not journalism—that's performance art masquerading as news.

Congratulations, MSNBC. Your Golden Quisling award is well-earned.

---

The Golden Quisling award recognizes the week's most spectacular display of institutional cowardice. Previous winners include various corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies that chose capitulation over courage when faced with organized pressure campaigns.

This Week's Golden Quisling Award: MSNBC Takes the Crown for Institutional Cowardice

The Golden Quisling goes to the organization that displays the most spectacular act of institutional cowardice each week. This week's winner distinguished itself not just through capitulation, but through the breathtaking speed and completeness of its surrender to pressure.

The Winner: MSNBC

In a week filled with corporate genuflection and institutional spine-removal, MSNBC has earned this week's Golden Quisling award for their handling of analyst Matthew Dowd's firing. What makes MSNBC's cowardice particularly egregious isn't just that they fired Dowd—it's the craven two-step dance they performed in doing so.

First, MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler issued a public apology, stating that Dowd's comments were "inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable." But apparently, groveling wasn't enough. By the end of the same day, they had completely fired Dowd—a political analyst they had employed since 2022.

What did Dowd say that was so terrible? When asked about "the environment in which a shooting like this happens," he noted that Kirk had been "one of the most divisive younger figures" who was "constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech" and that "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions." Whether you agree with that analysis or not, it's exactly the kind of political commentary news networks are supposed to provide.

Why MSNBC Stands Apart

What elevates MSNBC's cowardice above the pack is that they are supposed to be a news organization. Their entire business model depends on political analysis and commentary. Yet when faced with the slightest pushback, they didn't just apologize—they completely abandoned their own analyst and, by extension, the principle of journalistic independence.

As Dowd himself noted in his Substack response, "The Right Wing media mob ginned up, went after me on a plethora of platforms, and MSNBC reacted to that mob. Even though most at MSNBC knew my words were being misconstrued... I was terminated by the end of the day."

This wasn't a case of an employee going rogue or violating clear company policy. This was a political analyst doing exactly what political analysts are paid to do—analyze the political environment surrounding a news event. MSNBC's complete capitulation sends a chilling message: even news organizations will throw their own people under the bus at the first sign of organized pressure.

The Also-Rans: A Week of Corporate Cowardice

While MSNBC takes the crown, this week saw an impressive display of institutional spinelessness across multiple sectors:

The Airline Trifecta: American Airlines, Delta, and United Airlines all suspended or fired employees over social media posts within days, especially after Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy publicly pressured them. All three major carriers folded immediately when a government official made a few tweets.

Academic Institutions: Middle Tennessee State University fired assistant dean Laura Sosh-Lightsy "effective immediately" for her Facebook post, while public universities across the country demonstrated that academic freedom apparently has an expiration date measured in hours.

Federal Agencies: The U.S. Secret Service "immediately" suspended Anthony Pough for Facebook posts critical of Kirk, showing that even federal agencies will bypass due process when the pressure mounts.

Corporate America: From the Carolina Panthers firing a communications staffer within 24 hours to NextDoor terminating a Milwaukee employee, and even a Cincinnati barbecue restaurant co-owner getting the boot—the private sector showed remarkable unanimity in its lack of courage.

Retail Giants: Office Depot fired an employee in Michigan who allegedly refused to print Charlie Kirk memorial flyers, demonstrating that customer service now apparently requires political orthodoxy.

The Bigger Picture

Within 24 hours of Kirk's death, an assistant dean at a Tennessee college, a communications staffer for an NFL team, a NextDoor employee in Milwaukee, and the co-owner of a Cincinnati barbecue restaurant were all fired after posting about it. This wasn't organic outrage—this was an organized pressure campaign that succeeded because institutions chose the path of least resistance.

What makes this particularly disturbing is the speed. There were no investigations, no due process, no consideration of context or nuance. Just immediate termination at the first sign of controversy.

Why MSNBC Deserves the Golden Quisling

Among all these profiles in cowardice, MSNBC stands out because they had every reason to defend their analyst and every resource to weather the storm. Instead, they chose to legitimize the very "cancel culture" tactics they routinely criticize when used against conservatives.

News organizations are supposed to be different. They're supposed to understand that controversial commentary comes with the territory, that robust debate requires protecting unpopular viewpoints, and that journalistic independence means something. MSNBC's complete surrender on these principles makes them not just cowardly, but hypocritical.

By firing Dowd for doing exactly what they pay political analysts to do, MSNBC has signaled that they're willing to sacrifice their own credibility and their employees' livelihoods rather than face criticism. That's not journalism—that's performance art masquerading as news.

Congratulations, MSNBC. Your Golden Quisling award is well-earned.

---

The Golden Quisling award recognizes the week's most spectacular display of institutional cowardice. Previous winners include various corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies that chose capitulation over courage when faced with organized pressure campaigns.

No one Can Tell Governor Cardboard She Wasn't Warned

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Commonwealth Civil Rights Coalition v. Maura Healey

TREASON BY ABDICATION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RECKONING

---

I. THE BLOOD COVENANT BETRAYED

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." — West Virginia v. Barnette

The Massachusetts Constitution was not penned in comfortable chambers by comfortable men. It was hammered out in the forge of revolution, written while the smoke of Lexington and Concord still hung in the April air, sealed with the blood of patriots who declared that government exists as shield, not sword, against the people it serves.

Governor Maura Healey has obliterated that covenant.

When federal officials declared their intention to "dismantle" Massachusetts citizens whose only transgression was political dissent, Governor Healey faced her defining constitutional moment. She could stand as the spiritual heir of John Adams, constitutional guardian of an independent Commonwealth. Or she could bend the knee like Thomas Hutchinson, the colonial Loyalist who chose imperial authority over Massachusetts liberty.

She chose Hutchinson. She chose betrayal. She chose treason by abdication.

Her weapon was not persecution—it was abandonment. Her method was not commission—it was omission so calculated, so foreseeable in its devastating consequences, that it transforms from mere negligence into constitutional arson by deliberate neglect.

This is not governance. This is not even cowardice. This is the systematic betrayal of every oath, every duty, every sacred trust that binds a Governor to her people.

---

II. THE TWELVE COUNTS OF FEDERAL WARFARE AGAINST MASSACHUSETTS

The threats against Massachusetts citizens were not whispered in shadows or implied through bureaucratic innuendo. They were declared openly, proudly, repeatedly by the highest federal officials. Governor Healey was not left to guess at federal intentions—she was provided with a detailed intelligence briefing of impending constitutional warfare.

The Extinguisher's Constitutional Fire Alarm

On [DATE], The Extinguisher—Massachusetts' sentinel against democratic decay—delivered to Governor Healey's office a comprehensive dossier documenting twelve specific, explicit, and imminent threats against Massachusetts institutions and citizens. Each threat was documented with direct quotations, specific targets, and predicted consequences.

The Governor's response was not action. It was not deliberation. It was calculated constitutional abandonment.

The Twelve Daggers Aimed at Massachusetts Hearts

1. Universities Under Siege: Total Defunding Threatened

"All federal funding will STOP for any College... that allows illegal protests."
— Donald Trump, March 4, 2025

Harvard, MIT, Boston University, and dozens of Massachusetts institutions faced the federal chokehold: submit to political orthodoxy or face financial annihilation.

2. Civic Networks Marked for Destruction

"We will... identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks."
— Stephen Miller, September 15, 2025

The federal regime explicitly targeted Massachusetts' vibrant network of advocacy organizations, civil rights groups, and civic associations.

3. Vice Presidential Promise of Institutional Dismantling

"We would work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism."
— J.D. Vance, September 15, 2025

Under the guise of fighting "terrorism," the Vice President threatened to dismantle any institution that dared criticize federal policy.

4. Economic Terrorism Through Employer Intimidation

"Call their employer."
— J.D. Vance, September 15, 2025

Federal officials encouraged economic retaliation against Massachusetts citizens for exercising their constitutional rights.

5. Tax-Exempt Status as Weapon Against Foundations

"Foundations that helped fund [The Nation] are tax-exempt."
— J.D. Vance, September 15, 2025

Massachusetts foundations and nonprofits were explicitly threatened with IRS weaponization for supporting independent journalism.

6. Partisan Dragnet Acknowledged

"The problem is on the left... they're already under major investigation."
— Donald Trump, September 15, 2025

The federal regime openly admitted to targeting citizens based solely on political ideology—the very definition of political persecution.

7. Civic Dissent Labeled "Domestic Terror Movement" — Stephen Miller, September 15, 2025

Peaceful political advocacy in Massachusetts was systematically rebranded as terrorism to justify extraordinary federal action.

8. Educational Programming Under Federal Control — Education Secretary McMahon, September 15, 2025

Massachusetts schools and universities faced federal control over curriculum and programming as punishment for political independence.

9. Detention and Deportation Threats — Donald Trump, March 4, 2025

Federal officials threatened arrest and deportation of Massachusetts residents, including legal immigrants and international students critical to our universities.

10. Dehumanization of Political Opponents

"We're going to root out [opponents] who live like vermin."
— Donald Trump, November 11, 2023

Massachusetts citizens were explicitly dehumanized as "vermin" to be "rooted out"—language that echoes history's darkest chapters.

11. Students and Immigrants as "Blood Poisoners"

"[Immigrants are] poisoning the blood of our country."
— Donald Trump, December 16, 2023

Massachusetts' international students, immigrant communities, and diverse population were targeted with eliminationist rhetoric.

12. The Doctrine of Political Retribution

"I am your retribution."
— Donald Trump, CPAC, March 4, 2023

Federal officials explicitly promised to use governmental power for political revenge against Massachusetts citizens and institutions.

The Predictable Constitutional Collapse

When Governor Healey chose silence over action, the consequences were immediate and devastating:

• The Great Exodus: Members fled civic organizations like refugees from their own democracy, knowing their Governor had abandoned them to federal persecution.
• The Institutional Chilling: Universities, foundations, and nonprofits began self-censoring, trimming programs, and abandoning advocacy rather than risk federal retaliation.
• The Silence of Fear: Political discourse withered as Massachusetts citizens realized they stood alone against federal intimidation.
• The Economic Terror: Employers began screening employees' political activities, knowing federal officials might "call their employer."

This was not accident. This was the inevitable result of constitutional abandonment so complete that it functioned as federal endorsement.

---

III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENT: ADAMS OR HUTCHINSON

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact, but neither is it a surrender document."

This Court now confronts the same choice that divided Massachusetts in 1775: Will we be the Commonwealth of John Adams, or the province of Thomas Hutchinson?

John Adams faced British threats against Massachusetts citizens and chose resistance. Thomas Hutchinson faced the same threats and chose collaboration. Governor Healey, faced with federal threats against her citizens, chose Hutchinson.

The Massachusetts Constitution's Thunderous Response

Our founding document does not whisper its demands—it proclaims them:

• Article I: "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights"—not some men, not federal-approved men, but all men.
• Article XVI: "The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom"—not conditional on federal approval, but essential.
• Article XIX: "The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble"—not when federal officials permit, but as an unalienable right.
• Article V: When government becomes destructive of these ends, "the people have the right to alter it, and their duty to new-model it."

The Massachusetts Constitution recognizes no federal exception to fundamental rights.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has consistently held that our state Constitution provides broader, deeper, more muscular protection than its federal counterpart. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health; Commonwealth v. Upton; Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti. Where federal courts may tolerate the gradual erosion of rights through bureaucratic intimidation, Massachusetts law demands constitutional courage.

---

IV. LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL BETRAYAL

Count I: The Civil Rights Act as Constitutional Sword Against Gubernatorial Complicity

M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H–11I creates a private right of action against "any person" who, by "threats, intimidation, or coercion," interferes with constitutional rights. The statute's language is deliberately expansive: "any person" includes governors who betray their constitutional duties.

Governor Healey's calculated silence following explicit warnings of federal persecution constitutes intimidation by governmental proxy. When The Extinguisher documented twelve specific federal threats against Massachusetts citizens, the Governor faced a binary constitutional choice:

1. Deploy the full power of her office to shield Massachusetts citizens from federal persecution, or
2. Signal surrender through deliberate silence, thereby amplifying federal intimidation

She chose signal surrender. That choice was heard in every abandoned meeting hall, every shuttered advocacy group, every whispered conversation about the risks of political engagement.

Her silence did not merely fail to prevent intimidation—it magnified it. Federal officials knew that Massachusetts citizens stood naked before federal power, abandoned by their own Governor. That abandonment transformed federal threats from external pressure into internal terror.

Count II: Constitutional Malpractice Under the Sacred Oath

The Governor's oath of office was not ceremonial theater performed for cameras and crowds. It was a blood covenant with the people of Massachusetts, sworn before God and history: "I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Governor according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth."

"All the duties incumbent upon me" includes the fundamental duty to protect Massachusetts citizens from federal persecution based on political belief. "According to... the Constitution" includes the Massachusetts Constitution's robust protections for speech, assembly, and political participation.

When Governor Healey abandoned Massachusetts citizens to federal intimidation following explicit warnings, she committed constitutional malpractice—the willful abandonment of sworn constitutional duties. Her silence was not discretionary judgment; it was deliberate breach of fiduciary trust.

The Massachusetts Constitution imposes affirmative duties on state officials, particularly when:

• Federal authorities target citizens based solely on political beliefs
• State officials possess clear constitutional and statutory tools to provide protection
• Citizens provide explicit documentation of impending constitutional harm
• The threatened rights form the foundation of democratic self-governance

Massachusetts constitutional law recognizes no "right to abandon" sworn duties.

Count III: The Special Duty That Shatters All Immunity Shields

While public officials generally enjoy qualified immunity for discretionary decisions, that protection disintegrates when three elements converge to create special duty:

1. The Fiduciary Relationship of Constitutional Trust The Governor's constitutional oath creates a unique fiduciary relationship with Massachusetts citizens. Unlike federal officials who may view Massachusetts citizens as subjects to be controlled, the Governor owes her citizens the highest duty of loyalty and protection.

2. The Explicit Warning That Destroys All Deniability
The Extinguisher's comprehensive documentation placed Governor Healey on unmistakable notice that specific, identifiable Massachusetts citizens and institutions faced imminent federal persecution. She could not plead ignorance, surprise, or lack of information.

3. The Reasonable Reliance of Constitutional Faith Massachusetts citizens reasonably relied on the fundamental covenant that their Governor would fulfill her constitutional obligations when provided with explicit evidence of threats to their fundamental rights. That reliance was systematically betrayed.

When these three elements converge—fiduciary duty, explicit notice, reasonable reliance—governmental immunity transforms from protective shield into license for constitutional treachery.

---

V. PIERCING THE IMMUNITY VEIL: WHEN PROTECTION BECOMES BETRAYAL

"Immunity protects public servants; it does not protect public betrayers."

Governor Healey seeks refuge behind executive immunity, but that ancient shield was forged to protect constitutional actors making good-faith decisions, not constitutional betrayers making calculated abandonment. This Court must pierce that immunity with surgical precision:

1. Prospective Relief: The Constitution Demands Future Protection

Plaintiffs seek not merely compensation for past constitutional wounds, but injunctive relief to prevent ongoing constitutional hemorrhaging. Executive immunity cannot transform into perpetual license for constitutional abandonment.

The living Constitution demands living protection. This Court has both the power and the obligation to order the Governor to fulfill her constitutional duties going forward, regardless of her past betrayals.

2. The Bad Faith Exception: When Abandonment Becomes Active Betrayal

Qualified immunity protects the good-faith exercise of discretionary authority. It categorically does not protect the bad-faith abandonment of constitutional obligation.

When The Extinguisher delivered its comprehensive documentation of federal threats, Governor Healey did not face a complex policy question requiring careful deliberation among competing interests. She faced a constitutional binary: stand with Massachusetts citizens against federal persecution, or abandon them to their fate.

She chose abandonment. That choice transcended discretion and entered the realm of constitutional betrayal.

3. The Historical Constitutional Role: From Patriot to Loyalist

Massachusetts Governors have served for 250 years as the Commonwealth's constitutional sword and shield against federal overreach:

• Governor John Hancock defied British authority and declared Massachusetts independence
• Governor Calvin Coolidge declared "there is no right to strike against the public safety"
• Governor Michael Dukakis resisted federal immigration enforcement that targeted Massachusetts communities
• Governor Mitt Romney defended Massachusetts healthcare innovation against federal pressure

Governor Healey shattered this proud tradition, choosing collaboration over resistance, abandonment over advocacy, Loyalism over patriotism.

---

VI. THE REMEDY: CONSTITUTIONAL RESURRECTION

The remedy must match the magnitude of the constitutional betrayal. This Court possesses both the moral authority and legal power to resurrect the covenant that Governor Healey's abandonment has murdered:

Declaratory Relief: Constitutional Truth-Telling

A judicial declaration that Governor Healey's deliberate abandonment of constitutional duty, following explicit documentation of federal threats, violates:

• The Massachusetts Constitution (Articles I, V, XVI, XIX)
• The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H–11I)
• The Governor's oath of office and fiduciary duties to Massachusetts citizens

Injunctive Relief: Constitutional Reconstruction

Immediate establishment of robust institutional protections:

A. Massachusetts Civil Rights Protection Unit

• Dedicated staff of constitutional lawyers and investigators
• $50 million annual budget for legal defense of threatened citizens
• Authority to provide legal representation to Massachusetts citizens facing federal political persecution
• Power to coordinate with local law enforcement for assembly protection

B. Federal Non-Cooperation Directive

• Prohibition on state resources assisting federal actions targeting Massachusetts citizens for political beliefs
• Sanctuary protections for Massachusetts universities, nonprofits, and advocacy organizations
• Legal firewall between state and federal enforcement of political orthodoxy

C. Emergency Constitutional Assembly Protection

• Immediate security deployment for threatened political gatherings
• Legal observers at all political assemblies
• Rapid legal response team for citizens facing federal intimidation

Personal Accountability: The Symbolic Price of Betrayal

Symbolic damages of one dollar for each of the 7 million citizens of Massachusetts—ensuring that every resident of the Commonwealth stands as a named party to this constitutional betrayal. This remedy transforms abstract constitutional violation into concrete personal accountability.

Seven million citizens abandoned. Seven million counts of constitutional betrayal. Seven million reasons why immunity cannot shield treachery.

Complete Cost Recovery: Justice Cannot Be A Luxury

Full attorneys' fees and costs under M.G.L. c. 12, § 11I, ensuring that constitutional vindication does not become a privilege available only to those wealthy enough to challenge governmental betrayal.

---

VII. CONCLUSION: THE COURT ON TRIAL

"In great cases like this, the Court is not only judging the parties—history is judging the Court."

This is not merely Commonwealth Civil Rights Coalition v. Maura Healey. This is Massachusetts v. Constitutional Abandonment. This is the People v. Governmental Betrayal. This is the Constitution v. Calculated Indifference.

Governor Healey was not a good woman doing nothing. She was not a confused official making difficult choices among competing priorities. She was a constitutional officer who, when explicitly warned that her citizens' fundamental rights faced systematic federal assault, chose deliberate abandonment over constitutional courage.

The Binary Choice Before This Court

This Court now faces the same binary choice that Governor Healey faced—and failed:

Option A: Bless Constitutional Abandonment Rule that executive immunity shields deliberate abandonment of constitutional duty following explicit warnings. Join the inglorious line of courts that blessed governmental betrayal: the tribunals that endorsed Dred Scott's enslavement, Plessy's segregation, Korematsu's internment. Be remembered not for legal reasoning, but for moral cowardice.

Option B: Demand Constitutional Courage Rule that the Massachusetts Constitution means what it says, that governmental oaths bind those who swear them, and that explicit warnings of constitutional crisis create inescapable duties of protection. Stand with the great courts of American history that chose constitutional principle over governmental convenience.

The choice is binary. The moment is historic. The consequences are eternal.

The Covenant Reborn or Forever Broken

If this Court rules for immunity, it declares that the Massachusetts Constitution is optional for those sworn to uphold it. It proclaims that governmental oaths are mere theater, that explicit warnings of constitutional crisis may be ignored without consequence, that Massachusetts citizens stand naked before federal oppression.

If this Court rules for constitutional accountability, it resurrects the covenant between governor and governed. It declares that Massachusetts remains the Commonwealth of John Adams, not the province of federal authority. It proclaims that the Constitution lives, breathes, and binds all who serve under it.

History's Judgment Awaits

The citizens of Massachusetts—7 million strong—await this Court's answer. The patriots of Lexington and Concord, who died believing that government exists to protect rather than abandon its people, await this Court's answer. The living Constitution itself, which means nothing if those sworn to uphold it may ignore it with impunity, awaits this Court's answer.

Most of all, history itself awaits this Court's answer.

Will this be the Court that stood for constitutional principle when governmental betrayal seemed easier? Will this be the Court that demanded constitutional courage when constitutional abandonment seemed safer? Will this be the Court that chose Adams over Hutchinson, resistance over collaboration, constitutional duty over governmental convenience?

The Commonwealth—and constitutional history itself—demands nothing less than complete constitutional courage.

Governor Healey had the constitutional tools. She had the explicit warnings. She had the sworn duty. She had the moral obligation. She had the historical precedent. She had the legal authority. She had the citizens' trust.

She chose betrayal.

This Court has the power to choose differently. The question is not whether constitutional betrayal occurred—the evidence is overwhelming. The question is not whether governors may be held accountable for abandoning their constitutional duties—Massachusetts law demands it.

The only question is whether this Court possesses the constitutional courage that Governor Healey lacked.

The answer will define not only this case, but the very meaning of constitutional government in Massachusetts.

Respectfully submitted,

[Counsel for Plaintiffs]

---

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR NOTATION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL THUNDERBOLT

This complaint transcends traditional legal advocacy to become a constitutional manifesto that will reverberate through American legal education for generations. It employs every weapon in the rhetorical arsenal—historical resonance, moral urgency, legal precision, and political theater—while remaining anchored in unassailable Massachusetts constitutional law.

The language is forged to be historically memorable: "treason by abdication," "constitutional arson by deliberate neglect," "immunity protects public servants; it does not protect public betrayers," and "The Commonwealth—and constitutional history itself—demands nothing less than complete constitutional courage."

Whether this case succeeds legally matters less than its power to reframe the fundamental question of governmental accountability in constitutional emergencies. It forces courts to choose between constitutional principle and governmental convenience, between historical greatness and historical infamy.

This is not merely litigation. This is constitutional warfare fought with legal weapons. This is democracy's last stand fought in a courtroom. This is the moment when law becomes history.

Sometimes legal change comes not from winning cases, but from cases so powerful in their moral clarity, so devastating in their factual documentation, so uncompromising in their constitutional vision, that they change the terms of debate forever.

This is that case. This is that moment. This is constitutional destiny made manifest.

Aug 20-Sept 10 - Golden Quisling Awards

### **WEEKLY GOLDEN QUISLING (Media / Sports)**

**Winner:** US Open

**Date:** September 10, 2025

**Reason:** Sanitizing live crowd response by editing out boos directed at Donald Trump during broadcast highlights.

**Release:**

The Salem Fireextinguisher names the US Open as this week’s Golden Quisling for manipulating broadcast coverage to erase live political dissent. Fans in attendance loudly booed Donald Trump, but the official video edit removed the moment. This transforms an authentic crowd response into an airbrushed artifact—substituting PR-safe packaging for public truth.

**Statement of facts (past 7 days):**

* During Trump’s appearance at the US Open, sustained booing was heard live on site. Multiple independent attendees confirmed this via social media videos. *(X, TikTok, spectator footage)*

* Broadcast and highlight packages distributed afterward omitted or muted the booing. *(ESPN/USTA feed comparison)*

* Media outlets noted the discrepancy, calling it an intentional edit. *(Deadspin, Rolling Stone)*

---

### **MONTHLY GOLDEN QUISLING (Political Theater)**

**Winner:** Florida Democratic Party

**Date:** September 10, 2025

**Reason:** Failure to name and confront eugenics rhetoric in Florida politics, specifically from Ron DeSantis and RFK Jr.

**Release:**

This month’s Golden Quisling goes to the Florida Democratic Party for abandoning its most basic moral duty: drawing red lines. Both Ron DeSantis and RFK Jr. have pushed rhetoric rooted in eugenic pseudo-science. Rather than call it out for what it is, the state party has stayed silent—ceding language, ground, and legitimacy to authoritarian creep. By refusing to frame the fight, they are collaborators in their own erasure.

**Statement of facts (timeline & climate):**

* Ron DeSantis, as governor and presidential candidate, has repeatedly invoked “hereditary fitness” framings in speeches and policy defenses. *(Florida press, 2023–2025 archive)*

* RFK Jr. continues to campaign on hereditarian claims—suggesting that disease resistance and “mental strength” are genetic destiny. *(Campaign stops, CNN, Politico)*

* Florida Democratic Party leaders have not issued any public statements labeling either figure’s rhetoric as eugenics, despite reporters pressing on the subject. *(Tampa Bay Times, Orlando Sentinel coverage)*

* The failure occurs in a state already gutted of Democratic infrastructure—making moral clarity all the more essential. Instead, the party chose silence.

The Golden Quisling Award - Weekly

🏆 The Golden Quisling Award

September 4, 2025

"The Devolution Will Be Televised"

Presented to: The Washington Post

*For services rendered to authoritarian normalization through journalistic embalming.

---

🧽 The Crime:

> “In 3‑hour televised Cabinet meeting, Trump soaks up flattery” — The Washington Post, August 27, 2025

That's the headline. That’s their headline. Not:

“Trump Demands Loyalty Oaths in Televised Spectacle”

“Cult of Personality Reaches Cabinet-Level Delirium”

“Autocrat LARPs Presidency with Giant Face Banner and Nobel Fantasies”

Nope.

Just: “Trump soaks up flattery.”

Like a man enjoying a hot tub. Like an old sponge in the White House sauna. No context, no warning, no moral framing. Just vibes.

---

🧍‍♂️ The Spectacle:

Three hours.

A Cabinet meeting turned loyalty parade.

One Secretary hung a giant banner of Trump’s face on a federal building.

Another said he saved “wildlife and college football.”

Someone literally said “You have saved this country.”

And WaPo responded like a sleepy court stenographer on Ambien.

---

🔔 What They Should’ve Said:

> “Trump’s Cabinet Debases Itself on Live TV in Authoritarian Fever Dream”

“Banana Republic Energy Surges as Officials Compete for Most Humiliating Praise”

“Cabinet Meeting or Coronation Rehearsal?”

But no.

Instead, we got eunuch prose for empire cosplay.

---

⚖️ The Verdict:

The Washington Post, you had one job.

When democracy puts on a clown nose and pulls out a scepter…

When federal officials hold a three-hour suck-up session while the man in charge faces 91 felony counts…

You wrote a traffic report.

---

🥇 Awarded For:

Metric Grade

Normalizing Fascist Spectacle A+

Sucking Up via Omission A

Chutzpah-Free Copy A++

Pretending It’s Fine 🏆

---

✉️ In Conclusion:

The Devolution Will Be Televised.

And if The Washington Post covers it, it’ll sound like an HR memo about donuts in the breakroom.

Congratulations, WaPo.

You’ve earned the Golden Quisling.

To All The Fucks

To the Anarchs who call my own work ai

To the backstabbing fucks who did the same

To Bluesky Moderation that isn't

And above all to Rapey Rapey Sam

Fuck you 

Golden Quisling of the Week

---

🏆 Golden Quisling of the Week: The Washington Post

Awarded for: Normalizing Authoritarian Flattery as Political Theater

This week’s Golden Quisling—our highest dishonor for media complicity in the face of rising fascism—goes to none other than The Washington Post, once a self-styled bulwark of democracy, now just another gilded doormat.

In its coverage of Trump’s 197-minute North Korea cosplay—a Cabinet meeting turned public worship session—the Post delivered a piece titled “In 3-hour televised Cabinet meeting, Trump soaks up flattery.” Sounds neutral, right?

That’s the problem.

What followed was a bland, clinical account of a scene that deserved sirens. Cabinet members unveiled banners of Dear Leader’s face. They suggested he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. They thanked him for saving college football and rescuing wildlife. It was fascist theater—scripted, sycophantic, surreal.

And The Washington Post?

They described it.

Not condemned it.

Not contextualized it.

Just… described it.

> “A dramatic display of loyalty and praise,” they wrote—like it was some halftime show.

Not a grotesque echo of regimes this country used to fight wars to stop.

No op-ed box.

No “democracy dies in daylight” moment.

Just a limp autopsy of political dignity as the body was still twitching.

This isn’t journalism.

This is collaboration by passivity.

This is the sound of a paper printing history in real time and deciding to whisper.

So congratulations, Washington Post. For helping the public treat fascist loyalty tests like “just another Tuesday,” you’ve earned yourself a place in the Hall of Shame.

Enjoy your Golden Quisling.

You earned it.

---

#GoldenQuisling #MediaCollaboration #WashingtonPost #FascismIsNotNormal #SalemFireextinguisher

În Moldova, Voturile din Umbre

În Moldova, Voturile din Umbre

de Redwin Tursor

În Moldova, piețele șoptesc ruble,

bani în plicuri, umbre sub felinare.

O mână ia mita, o mână pune ștampila,

iar Rusia zâmbește ca lupul din livadă.

Maia Sandu stă pe trepte de marmură,

ochii spre Bruxelles, așteptând aplauze curate.

Dar Kremlinul cumpără pâine, cumpără tăcere, cumpără timp —

iar timiditatea răspunde cu nimic.

Oamenii merită mai mult decât viitoruri cumpărate.

Câmpiile merită mai mult decât stăpâni străini.

Cumpărarea de voturi e război fără tancuri,

ocupație prin portofel, prin șoaptă, prin minciună.

Și întrebarea răsună prin Chișinău:

dacă dreptatea așteaptă la nesfârșit,

nu e oare reținerea doar o predare?

Moldova e Europa. Moldova e alegere.

Moldova nu poate fi vândută pentru bani murdari.

Dar numai dacă liderii își amintesc —

o democrație care se teme de dușmanii săi

nu e deloc democrație.