Ninth Circuit Rules That an Advisory Board Member Can Be Fired Over Antifa Association

There is an interesting free speech decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week. In Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach, a unanimous panel ruled that a member of a municipal advisory board can be fired for her association with Antifa. The opinion is clearly correct on a constitutional level, but there are some troubling elements given the underlying exercise of speech under the First Amendment.

Here are the basic facts laid out by the Court:

While serving as a Huntington Beach City Councilperson, Kim Carr appointed Shayna Lathus to the city’s Citizen Participation Advisory Board (“CPAB”) after Lathus lost a 2018 election for a seat on the City Council. Each councilperson appoints one member to the seven person CPAB and may remove that member without cause …The CPAB’s mandate is to “provide citizen participation and coordination in the City’s planning processes” related to a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development block grant program, with an emphasis on addressing issues faced by “low and moderate income households.” Id. § 2.97.030. It holds regular open meetings to “assess the needs of the community,” “evaluate and prioritize projects,” “obtain citizen input,” and “provide specific recommendations” to the City Council…After being appointed to the CPAB, Lathus was photographed at an immigrants’ rights rally standing near individuals whom Carr believed to be “Antifa.” Carr then instructed Lathus to write a “public statement on social media denouncing Antifa,” and Lathus did so, believing that continuing in her “position on the . . . CPAB depended” on it. Carr deemed the statement insufficient and removed Lathus from the CPAB, stating that “[t]hose that do not immediately denounce hateful, violent groups do not share my values and will not be a part of my team.”

Lathus sued the City of Huntington Beach, claiming retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights to free speech, association, and assembly. She also claimed that Carr’s demand for a public statement amounted to unconstitutionally compelled speech. The district court dismissed the case.

On appeal, Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Judge Paul Watford and District Judge Eric Vitaliano (E.D.N.Y.), sitting by designation.

The problem for Lathus is that this is a volunteer position that serves as the public representative of Carr.

[T]he First Amendment [does not] protect[] a volunteer member of a municipal advisory board from dismissal by the city councilperson who appointed her and is authorized under a city ordinance to remove her. Because the advisory board member is the “public face” of the elected official who appointed her to the body, we hold that she “can be fired for purely political reasons.”

While serving as a Huntington Beach City Councilperson, Kim Carr appointed Shayna Lathus to the city’s Citizen Participation Advisory Board (“CPAB”) after Lathus lost a 2018 election for a seat on the City Council. Each councilperson appoints one member to the seven-person CPAB and may remove that member without cause. …


In attending the rally, Lathus plainly engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment. … But … the First Amendment rights of government officials are not absolute. It is settled, for example, that an appointed public official can be removed for engaging in otherwise protected First Amendment activity if “political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.”

The panel relied upon the plurality decision in Elrod v. Burns (1976), where the Court held that employees in “policymaking positions” may be dismissed for engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment so that “policies which the electorate has sanctioned are effectively implemented.” In Branti v. Finkel (1980), the Court further explained that “the ultimate inquiry is not whether the label ‘policymaker’ or ‘confidential’ fits a particular position; rather, the question is whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.”

The Court held:

In reviewing dismissals under the ElrodBranti framework, we have sometimes analyzed whether a position is “policymaking” or “confidential.” But Branti makes plain that “a position may be appropriately considered political even though it is neither confidential nor policymaking in character.” We must therefore determine whether “commonality of political purpose” with Carr is an appropriate requirement for Lathus’s service on the CPAB…

The CPAB consists of seven members, each appointed by a separate councilperson, who can also remove that member without cause. Because each member of the CPAB, an entity that advises on matters of policy and solicits public feedback, is appointed and removable by a particular councilperson, board members speak to “the public and to other policymakers on behalf of the official” who appointed them, a factor that indicates “responsiveness to partisan politics and political leaders.” In other words, because the public could readily infer that a CPAB member’s actions and statements while serving in the role reflect the current views and goals of the appointing councilperson, Lathus was Carr’s “public face” on the board, and the public was entitled to assume that she spoke on Carr’s behalf.

Moreover, “the provision of housing to low and middle income city residents is a vital political issue,” and the CPAB is designed to influence policy decisions by the Council on such programs. … It conducts “regular monthly meetings” open to the public. Because a CPAB member is thus “an adviser [who] formulates plans for the implementation of broad goals,” Elrod, a councilperson is entitled to an appointee who represents her political outlook and priorities.

This case thus presents a different situation than those in which we have held that retaliation against officeholders for their exercise of First Amendment rights is forbidden. For instance, we have found that First Amendment protections extend to those who “did not have authority to speak to the media without prior approval of higher-ranking officials,” or did not “formulate or substantially influence plans to implement the broad goals” of the appointing authority. In contrast, Lathus’s role on the CPAB required her to speak to the public and plan low-and middle-income housing and development.

Given the statutory structure and duties of the CPAB, Lathus, like each of her fellow board members, was the “public face” of her appointor. Lathus could plainly “undermine [Carr’s] credibility and goals,” and therefore could be dismissed for lack of political compatibility.

The underlying case is troubling. The attendance of an immigration rally with Antifa members is a core exercise of free speech, as the panel noted. In this case, Lathus agreed to distance herself from their cause.

Ironically, Antifa is notorious for “deplatforming” and silencing those with opposing views. The group regularly seeks to cancel or to intimidate others for their political views. It expressly rejects free speech values. Despite my long criticism of Antifa (including congressional testimony) as one of the leading, and most violent, anti-free speech groups in the country, I have opposed the group being designated as a terrorist organization. The accommodation sought by Lathus for her political association would never be afforded by Antifa to those with opposing views. She was attending a rally with one of the most violent and intolerant groups in the history of the United States.

We have discussed numerous cases of employees and artists being fired for exercising free speech outside of the workplace. It raises a concern over a “Little Brother” problem of punishing speech. This case is different in that Lathus held a political position as effectively the public representative of Carr. As such, Carr is not obligated to continue a voluntary political association that is inimical to her own beliefs or political standing.


101 thoughts on “Ninth Circuit Rules That an Advisory Board Member Can Be Fired Over Antifa Association”

  1. Antifa is more than ‘speech.’ It’s violence, rioting, attempted murder, murder and, in general, criminal activities. I see no moral or Constitutional problem in removing someone who is member of a criminal organization from any type of advisory position – private or government.

    1. I do not understand Jonathan Turley’s opposition to designating antifa as a terrorist organization.
      They use threats, violence and intimidation in support of a political ideology. They commit violent crimes against anyone who opposes them.
      They organize and act in terrorist cell fashion.
      What they are is the violent “action wing” of the demokkkrat party.
      Pantifa is definitely a terrorist organization.

  2. According to FBI Director Christopher Wray, AG Merrick Garland, POTUS Joe Biden, and Democrats in general, Antifa is no more than an idea, far from a movement. So, there’s that disconnect. My advice is to eliminate the entire CPAB and require city counsel members to do the jobs they were elected to do.

  3. My 12 year old son told me:

    “Science 2,000 years ago: Eratosthenes accurately measures the circumference of the Earth using a stick. Science today: can’t define a woman and thinks gender is imaginary.”

    Out of the mouths of babes.

  4. The National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) was Never right-wing. Pay no attention to Wikipedia.

    1. No doubt the New Speaker McCarthy will get very busy covering up the rest of all his/Pelosi/McConnell/Schumer’s J6 Violent Coup against us citizen.

      The Records of J6 set to be dealt with like the records of the state Whacking JFK.

    2. I remember Ashli Babbitt. She was a member of an armed mob (though unarmed herself) attacking a regular and important proceeding of a democratically elected government. She took a reckless risk that her involvement in breaking into the House Speaker’s Lobby – barricaded against the rapidly approaching armed mob – would lead to harm to herself. It did, and that’s her own dammed fault.

  5. So…it’s OK to eject somebody from a government advisor panel for being insufficiently anti-anti fascist? That is, to cut out the double negative, for being insufficiently pro-fascist? My, my.

    1. You cannot be so naive as to take Antifa as truly anti-fascist. The reality is that Antifa are the Brownshirts of the Left, and just as contemptible.

      1. Antifa are anti-fascist in the same sense that the original antifa were, who were communists in pre-world war 2 Germany. They were communists through and through. They were internationalist totalitarians opposing nationalist totalitarians. Today they label their opponents as fascists to justify their existence and violence. They indeed are the brownshirts of the left.

        1. “. . . the original antifa were, who were communists in pre-world war 2 Germany.:

          To add to your excellent point:

          That was known as the KPD in Weimar Germany — a Stalinist party wedded to the Soviets. They were violent, brutal, dictatorial communists — as arre today’s incarnation. Their public persona of being “anti-fascist” is a ruse, far more destructive than any Ponzi scheme. Their goal is to destroy capitalism, rights, freedom — and to erect totalitariansim in their place.

          If a movement claims to be *anti*-shoplifters, your first question should be: Fine. But what are you *for*?

        2. Thank you for that beautifully accurate historical description, and most especially for clarifying that Hitler’s enemies were, themselves, Hitlerian in their aspirations. Of course, they had different political targets, and their propaganda espoused different values, but their totalitarian goals were identical.

          1. “[T]heir totalitarian goals were identical.”

            *That* is the key point. Just as there are different varieties of poison, so there are various versions of dictatorshiip. But in the end, they’re all poison.

      2. Who’s footing the bill for this suit to hold a volunteer position to which this person feels entitled?

        Antifa? Its leftist sponsors?

    2. So , it would appear, that if we elect our officials to government, we can also sh!tcan them for no acting in accordance with which they were elected (hired). This is gonna take awhile!😃

      1. This person was acting as an adjunct to an elected official. She was not elected. Her actions could and opinions could easily sully the elected official’s reputation.

    3. Nice try… but intelligent people realize ‘Antifa’ ARE the fascists, in word and deed.

      It appears these neo-fascist ‘Antifa’ thugs don’t like the taste of their own medicine…

  6. OT: No more masks for children < 2 yrs of age at Head Start Programs, says DHS. Vaccines still required


    Administration for Children and Families

    SUMMARY: This final rule removes the requirement for universal masking for all individuals ages 2 and older. This final rule requires that Head Start programs have an evidence-based COVID-19 mitigation policy, developed in consultation with their Health Services Advisory Committee. This final rule does not address the vaccination and testing requirement, which is still under review. The vaccine requirement remains in effect.

    then there is this beauty…

    (2) requires Head Start programs to have an evidence-based COVID-19 mitigation policy developed in consultation with their Health Services Advisory Committee (HSAC).

    Oh Lord!!! What a whopper. The word evidence does not mean what they think it means


  7. OT: sanity at Tufts

    Important update on Tufts’ COVID-19 and flu vaccination policies

    January 5, 2023

    Dear Tufts community members,

    After considerable review and discussion and considering input from a wide variety of community stakeholders, Tufts is no longer requiring the bivalent (Omicron) booster for all students, faculty, and staff. Tufts is also modifying its influenza vaccination policy and is no longer requiring the flu shot for students on the Medford/Somerville and SMFA campuses.

    1. Well, that’s one university, at least.

      CA schools are still considering making the Covid vaccine part of the mandatory vaccination schedule next year, even though it does not prevent disease or transmission, and carries significant risks.

      Advertising and marketing the Covid vaccine is fine. Mandating it is not.

      This is one of reasons why I’ve taken the somewhat controversial stance against mandating vaccines. I’ve always said that once you’ve given away your right to say no, especially as a parent, then you’ll have no right to decline a future vaccine on the schedule to which you might object. People often excuse school mandatory vaccines because they would give their children those same vaccines, anyway. The problem is that one day, there might be a new vaccine they’re not comfortable with. Like the Covid vaccine. Parents already allowed the mandatory vaccine precedent to be set.

      I remember when Joe Biden dismissed concerns about mandating the vaccine as a right wing conspiracy theory.

        1. Anonymous:

          No, it does not. That’s outdated information. That’s why my double vaccinated, triple boosted nurse relative got Covid 3 times, why my pulmonologist and all his staff, fully vaccinated and boosted, got Covid multiple times. That’s why you likely know vaccinated and boosted people who got sick with Covid.

          The vaccine is being marketed as possibly reducing the severity of disease, not preventing it. The virus mutates too rapidly for that. By the time the next vaccine is produced for the current variant, SARS-CoV2 has created more variants.

          Since it neither prevents disease, nor transmission, then mandating it has no scientific basis. The best case scenario is that it might reduce the severity of disease, which is highly debatable. That would only affect that person. Vaccinated and boosted, he would still get Covid, and still transmit it.

          It has also been clearly linked to cardiac adverse events, especially in young people. Heart attacks are on the rise for this cohort. People have the right to say no. The vaccine should have always been voluntary.

          Clamis about the benefits of the Covid vaccine are based on a CDC study from 2021, during which the vaccine was much closer to the original wild type virus and original lineage.

          Here is an MSN article from January 2022, in which the CDC director admitted it did not prevent the transmission of the Delta variant, but at that point, she believed it reduced the severity of disease. That was many variants ago.

          “CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said that Covid-19 vaccines are no longer effective at preventing transmission of the virus.”

          1. These vaccines were not really vaccines. They don’t cure. What they really are, are theropudics. These shots we’re supposed to be taking do not cure this disease. I remember Jonas Salk and his Salk vaccine that actually cured polio.

            1. The Salk and Sabin vaccines don’t cure polio; they prevent transmission. In countries where vaccination levels were/are high, polio cases all but disappeared.

              1. Good catch

                All vaccines have one goal: to reduce severity of illness. I just had the first of two shingles vaccine injections in my left medial deltoid, and as expected I came down with flu-like symptoms and painful lymph nodes in left axilla for 3 days. That is considered an adverse event (AE). My second shingles vaccine injection will be in > 2 months and I expect the same if not worse outcome. Having shingles is far, far worse so I gladly take the AE.

                Poliovirus vaccine reduces the chances of getting poliomyelitis (paralytic polio). The vaccine does not prevent getting infected with poliovirus. In the vaccinated individual, infection with poliovirus may result in no symptoms or mild flu-like symptoms. In the unvaccinated patient, post-infection, less than 1% succumb to poliomyelitis. More than 74% of those infected will experience no symptoms, and 25% experience flu-like symptoms.

                Most people infected with poliovirus will not have any visible symptoms. About one out of four people will have flu-like symptoms. These symptoms usually last 2 to 5 days, then go away on their own. Fewer than 1% of people will have weakness or paralysis in their arms, legs, or both. The paralysis can lead to permanent disability and death.


                Yet polio vaccine is still recommended even if only 1% will succumb to paralytic polio if unvaccinated.

                The population of America is ~ 330 Million. It is often reported that 10% of the population have an allergy to penicillin (PCN), or 33 million people, with a much higher AE rate in the older population. However it has been reported in studies that the actual prevalence is 25, who fare far worse if infected by the virus, precisely because they have an impaired immune system (i.e. obesity ===> immune dysregulation).

                If Biden’s apparatchik were truly interested in saving lives, they would mandate that Americans would lose weight to a BMI < 25. But they will not because all they are truly seeking is power, e.g. California's new law to strip physicians of their license if they do not comply with prehistoric thinking. Next they will gather undesirables into internment camps. President Franklin D. Roosevelt did that and Biden likes to compare himself to FDR.


                Shenoy ES, et al. Evaluation and Management of Penicillin Allergy: A Review. JAMA. 2019 Jan 15;321(2):188-199. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.19283.

                Ciapponi A, et al. Sequential inactivated (IPV) and live oral (OPV) poliovirus vaccines for preventing poliomyelitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Dec 5;12(12):CD011260. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011260.pub2.

              2. The Salk vaccine worked. What’s happened in this country the past two and a half years is nothing more than a gift to big pharma from the tax payers.

            1. The same CDC that was unprepared to do its one job and then has been wrong about just about everything? Probably not the best place to get info on COVID. The list of their errors is to long to put here. I am just as disappointed in the entire medical field. Every one of us should have known and shouted from the rooftops that what we were doing was no only not going to work, but was going to do harm. Of course, some tried, and agencies like the CDC worked to make sure we were not heard.

            2. The CDC? The same outfit that lied about covid, lied about the virus origins, lied about face masks, lied about lockdowns, lied about children being vulnerable to covid, lied about children being spreaders, lied about the jab, and still lie about the jab. Your untested, experimenal shots killed and maimed millions around the world and you sit there telling people to pipe government propaganda into their eyes.

            3. Beson, like I said above, “Clamis about the benefits of the Covid vaccine are based on a CDC study from 2021, during which the vaccine was much closer to the original wild type virus and original lineage.”

              I also linked to the head of the CDC admitting the Covid vaccine does not prevent disease transmission. Here it is, again, ‘The following statement is more notable, however, as it is one of the only times the CDC has acknowledged that the vaccines are not capable of stopping the spread of the virus.

              “…what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”

              Your statement, “Karen S, that is false. The COVD-19 vaccine prevents,” is false. This makes your subsequent statement about “reliable information” rather ironic.

          2. The clot shots were originally billed as preventing transmission. They were never envisioned as a way to reduce severity, which was the fall back position once the transmission cat was out of the bag.

  8. “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in America have illicitly and unconstitutionally lain “…taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please;…” including the immutably unconstitutional and purely communist HUD and all of its ancillary policies, initiatives and “block grant programs” designed to centrally plan, redistribute wealth and socially engineer per the Communist Manifesto and in stark contrast to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    1. General welfare means all, or the whole, proceed well.

      “Welfare of the Union” or “general welfare,” Congress has no power to tax for HUD or any other department or program that funds individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, charity or favor, or for groups of any size other than the whole or all.

  9. Jonathan: What am I missing here? The liberal Ninth Circuit rules that Lathus has no protected 1st Amendment right to attend an immigration rally in which alleged members of Antifa were present? Was there any violence at the rally? Were Antifa members “silencing those with opposing views”? At the rally did Antifa try to “intimidate others for their political views”? These are all claims you make against Antifa. For all we know the rally just a peaceful assembly by many groups arguing for the rights of immigrants. Maybe Lathus was simply carrying out what she thought were her duties as a member of the Huntington Beach advisory board by attending the rally. We don’t even know whether Lathus had any actual “association with Antifa” as you claim. So without more facts we are left with a lot of unwarranted speculation.

    Guilt by “association” is all we have here. Lathus has no protected First Amendments rights because she attended a peaceful rally at which alleged Antifa “members” were present. But you think that was enough to justify Carr in dismissing Lathus because she was “attending a rally with one of the most violent and intolerant groups in the history of the United States”. We’ve heard this kind of rhetoric before. In the 1950s and 60s many lost their jobs because they were accused of being “Communists” who “advocated the violent overthrow of the US government”. No proof. Just the allegation was enough. I think we are entering a dangerous place again when you think guilt by “association” is enough to lose your job!

    1. Dennis, no, the Court upheld the “may be replaced without cause” part of the appointment. Whether she liked, or doesn’t like, Antifa, is immaterial. As long as Carr believed that Lathus did not reflect her values or goals, for any reason whatsoever, she could dismiss and replace her. That’s what “without cause” means. When you appoint someone at will as your public face, then you have the right to replace that person at any time. Otherwise, she would be forced to be represented by Lathus, against her will, which is not an at will appointment. This clearly comes as a shock to Lathus, but she is not actually entitled to the position. It’s not HERS, no matter what. The position is Carr’s to give, or remove, at will.

      “because the public could readily infer that a CPAB member’s actions and statements while serving in the role reflect the current views and goals of the appointing councilperson, Lathus was Carr’s “public face” on the board, and the public was entitled to assume that she spoke on Carr’s behalf.”

      1. My employer can fire me for no reason, but despite that there are still a handful of reasons they can’t (openly) use to fire me. For example if they wanted less straight white dudes.

        1. Tim B, good point. There are a few exceptions to at will employment or appointment.

          I would point out that she was not replaced due to her race, and is not entitled to the position. Her entire complaint appears to stem from entitlement.

  10. OT

    Kevin McCarthy and the “Bakersfield Mafia” RINOs told Real President Donald J. Trump to stop denying his election “LOSS.”

    Whatup, Kev?

    1. Some of the participants in this week’s drama are in it for the showboating; Matt Gaetz wilts without a regular infusion of attention.
      – Kimberley A. Strassel
      Jan. 5, 2023

      Game. Set. Match


      1. The game isn’t over. What does any final deal contain? After it’s been made we’ll all see it.

        Many are following who is voting & why.

        There’s legitimate concerns many of our leaders are being blackmailed, “Harsh Term”, as they are seen as Azz Rapers of little kids, K, 1st, 2nd Graders, Pedos, etc.., Snuff Films, Jeffery Epstein type disgusting crap.

        We need to know, how involved is Rep McCarthy & his friends & his ties to the CCP & UN, WEF, WHO, etc.?

        Ball is still in play.


        World Economic Forum says the only way to “save humanity” is to unleash the pedophiles

        Friday, January 06, 2023 by: Ethan Huff
        Tags: brainwashed, children, gay mafia, Globalism, groomers, identity politics, indoctrination, Klaus Schwab, LGBT, Pedophilia, perversion, Twisted, wef, world economic forum

        This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author

        1. Myopia is a disease more prominent in the turd world.

          By the time Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert et al. get done with the “Bumpkin From Bakersfield,” there won’t be a communist plank left.

          1. 4:05 minutes

            JUST IN: Andy Biggs Releases Message For Kevin McCarthy Before Impending 14th Speaker Vote

      2. Yeah, because Kevin Mccarthy hates cameras. What principle does he actually have, other than raising money for their donor owners?

    2. “The day’s stunning turn of events came after McCarthy agreed to many of the detractors’ demands — including the reinstatement of a longstanding House rule that would allow any single member to call a vote to oust him from office.”

      – AP

  11. Like unconstitutional “Jim Crow” laws, this may be an illegal law (unconstitutional). The law itself could maybe illegal and be overturned.

    Private employers can fire someone “without cause”. Government employers can’t legally do that – especially on 1st Amendment grounds. Government employers swear a constitutional Oath of Office to follow the U.S. Constitution.

    Seems to me the DOJ Civil Rights Division could possibly criminally prosecute the employer. Government cannot treat citizens unequally. Simply denying equal privileges is illegal

    Punishing legal 1st Amendment activity is not an authority any government employer has ever had since 1791.

    1. Ashcroft, there are, actually, positions that an incoming President, for example, typically replaces with his or her own people.

      Comparing at will appointments to Jim Crow racist laws is a false analogy.

      Voluntarily accepting an at will appointment, which is clearly explained as being able to be withdrawn at will, is in no way a violation of anyone’s Civil Rights. Lathus is not “entitled” to the position. She was not elected to the position. It was an at will appointment. Claiming it was her civil right to keep an appointment means she had a constitutional right to the appointment. Ludicrous.



    Where has the Supreme Court been with its power of Judicial Review since 1860, as Justices fulfill their sworn-oath duties to support the literal, clear and obvious, meaning and intent of the Constitution?

    There is no constitutional basis to tax for or fund HUD and HUD has no basis for its existence.

    There is no constitutional basis for the legislative or executive branch to “claim or exercise” any degree of dominion over private property or a constitutional municipality.

    There is no constitutional basis to tax for or fund the “mission” of HUD which includes “addressing housing needs,” “improve communities,” “enforce [unconstitutional] fair housing laws,” “helping create a decent home and suitable living environment for all Americans,” “given America’s communities a strong national voice at the Cabinet level” and “supporting home ownership by underwriting home ownership for lower- and moderate-income families through its mortgage insurance programs.”

    HUD is pure, unfettered communism, straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

    HUD is anti-American, treasonous and a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.

    There was no constitutional basis for support of any of the acts of the Progressive Era.

    If there is anything beneficial or “good” for private property or a municipality, those entities enjoy the full freedom to engage in and employ that which is “good” for them.

    Products and services beneficial to America emerge from the competitive free markets of the private sector, such as those created by the likes of Charles Babbage, Robert Fulton, Eli Whitney, Samuel Morse, Alexander Graham Bell, Nicola Tesla, Guglielmo Marconi, the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk et al.

    The Constitution does not prescribe, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

    The Constitution prescribes the “Pursuit of Happiness,” aka hard work and more hard work.

    Supplication, dependence and parasitism are NOT American virtues or principles of the Constitution.

Leave a Reply