Current mood:

contemplative

Who Gets to Speak?
Over at Factnet there is a string of posts starting here that discuss who can, or should, be allowed to speak in this country. I have no love for the Archon and I have made clear I think the Prince has picked the wrong political mentor. I can say that because I live in the USA, not some tinhat dictatorship. As long as the Archon, and his minions, manage to not run afoul of the law, they can also promulgate their ideas.

Like it or not, LaRouche, and the rest of the political fringe, have a right to assemble, speak, and lobby for their ideas under the Constitution. They do not have a right to engage in criminal acts in order to advance their agenda. No one does. However, without evidence sufficient to convince a prosecutor that there is a) probable cause to allege that a crime was committed, and b) a case can be made that is prosecutable in court, you aren't going to see anyone "rubbing out" or otherwise ending the LaRouche madness. LaRouche was convicted the one time a case could be made, and that was at the behest of state attorney generals who were hearing from constituents about fraudulent credit card activity.

To Wanderer: Plagiarism is not a crime in any state in this country, so far as I know. LaRouche and his crew can borrow and use anyone's ideas to inform and shape their agenda. A lot of politicians borrow and run on other's ideas. That's how they get themselves re-elected. It's up to us, the electorate, to inform ourselves about those who seek to lead us and their agendas.

I don't like LaRouche, I think he is despicable and I think his organization operates as a cult. A cult, in and of itself, is not illegal either. Its acts may be illegal, and that is what should be prosecuted, assuming a complaint is filed that can be investigated and acted upon.

If the Democrats think LaRouche is a problem they have multiple ways to deal with the man and his group. Ignoring him is one way. Putting up fairly high challenges to his becoming a party endorsed candidate is another. Whether or not they expend the time and energy depends on just how big a problem he is for the party.

I am sure we'd be hearing about it if the Dem leadership was putting on the squeeze. Since we aren't, I am going to assume the Dems have bigger fish to fry. And frankly they do. Read the papers and the analysts -- the Dems have far bigger things to worry about than some kook. If LaRouche has broken the law (again) don't count on the Dems to bring the charges. It will either be another attorney general responding to constituent complaints or as the outcome of some investigation. The Dems won't be anywhere in sight.