“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Update on Attack Against Gov. Bobby Jindal Fundraiser

Generic file photo of a reporter

Earlier this morning Dakota Voice published an opinion piece speculating about reports that Allee Bautsch, a fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown were brutally attacked leaving a fundraising event  because they were wearing Sarah Palin buttons.  At the time the op/ed was published, no definitive information was available regarding the veracity of the allegation about the Sara Palin buttons.

Shortly after the piece was published, Gov. Jindal’s Press Secretary Kyle Plotkin contacted Dakota Voice and stated that it has been confirmed that Bautsch and Brown were not wearing Sarah Palin pins at the time of the attack.   Plotkin provided a a copy of his recently issued statement on the matter:

Friday night, the Governor’s campaign fundraiser, Allee Bautsch, and her boyfriend were involved in an altercation in the French Quarter with a group of people.

While there were protestors around at that time, we are not aware of any evidence that the individuals involved in the altercation were protestors.

Allee’s leg was badly broken in the incident, she has had surgery, and she is facing a recovery time of two to three months. Her boyfriend had a concussion, and also a fractured nose and jaw. They are both expected to fully recover.

NOPD is investigating the incident and we are refraining from further comment to allow them to fully investigate and ensure justice is done. Our prayers are with Allee. She is a strong person and we are sure she will make a speedy recovery.

Plotkin confirmed verbally that the motive for the attack and other details remain under investigation by the police.  The previous op/ed has been pulled until such time as more information is available regarding the motive and other specifics of the case.

One of the key points in the op/ed remains as relevant as ever:

When there were allegations of racist comments, spitting and other deplorable behavior against conservatives, the “mainstream” media wasted no time in breathlessly airing the charges. No time could be spared for verification of the accusation; the MSM just rolled with the charges. Yet that same breathless rush to judgment is oddly absent in this case. To be sure, journalists should take the time to verify facts as best as possible before running with a story, but the difference here is striking.

This incident illustrates both the need for greater responsibility on the part of the “mainstream” media, and how a blatant double-standard continues to be applied: if the allegations are against conservatives, they must be true; if the allegations are against liberals, we must hold off on press coverage until sworn statements are taken and official reports are released. (Even then, it may not see the light of day)

Isn’t it time the media started earning their advertised claims of “objectivity”?


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


37 Responses to “Update on Attack Against Gov. Bobby Jindal Fundraiser”

  1. “…if the allegations are against liberals, we must hold off on press coverage until sworn statements are taken and official reports are released. (Even then, it may not see the light of day)”

    A strategy that the Clintons perfected is to withold reporting a damaging story citing an on-going investigation and then when the investigation is complete they continue to withold the story claiming that it's “old news.” A perfect strategy that worked over and over again for the Clintons and now SOP for the drive-by media.

    I hope you and Gina will stay on top of this story and keep the rest of us informed.

  2. I did not see or get to read the opinion piece on Dakota Voice that reported this story but from what I can tell Dakota Voice related that the attackers did attack the couple because they had on Sarah Palin buttons. Then it was Jindal's office that contacted Dakota Voice and told Dakota Voice that the couple were not wearing the buttons. It would seem to me that this is an example of a conservative Website mis-reporting an event about an attack on consrvatives and then conservatives themselves, Jindal's office, telling Dakota voice to wait until all the information is out.

    Am I correct? No leftist main stream media telling Dakota Voice to ' hold off coverage ' but Jindal's office instead ?

  3. Brian, I wrote the piece, and I relayed the information from a few sources, including this report posted on Gateway Pundit: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/go

    So, you see, this was the information already reported and available at the time I wrote the piece (last night). Bob pulled the story when clarification was given by Jindal's office.

    It still remains to be seen if these attackers were part of the anarchist group that was protesting the Republican fundraiser at Brennans Restaurant. Depending on the politics of the investigators, we may or may not ever know.

  4. I realize you might be eager for that to be the case, but it is not.

    The article, which was published prior to the availability of any solid confirmation either way, speculated on the implications if the allegations were true, and primarily pointed out the double-standard applied by the “mainstream” media, i.e. “if it is negative toward conservatives, run without delay; if it is negative toward liberals, delay, minimize, obfuscate, bury.”

    The piece was clear that the allegations had not been officially substantiated at the time of publication, and since confirmation that the victims were not wearing Palin buttons at the time of the attack (it remains uncertain whether the alleged attackers actually said “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” or not) came within minutes of publishing the article, it seemed best to simply pull the article rather than attempt a quick rewrite.

    You may contrast our efforts to be clear about the unconfirmed nature of the allegations, along with our efforts to minimize confusion once more definitive information was available, with the behavior of the “mainstream” media which continued to hysterically report allegations of multiple uses of the “N-word” for days if not weeks, even though video taken in the area of the alleged slur revealed no evidence whatsoever that the allegation was true…as well as other incidents of “selective” reporting such as their “oversight” of extremist anti-American behavior from the Left (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/04/the-face-of-…)

    Finally, Leftist “mainstream” media outlets don't get a say in what Dakota Voice covers; if they did, we'd just be another liberal mouthpiece like them, and where's the diversity in that?

  5. Bob

    Of course I am not eager for ' that to be the case ' but after reading your above article I just didn't get the impression that the pulled article was all based on ” if” the Gatewaypundit story were true .You have clarified that, which you are under no obligation to do and certainly not for my sake

    But I did read the comments from the gateway piece and the readers swallowed it tooth and toenail and many made vile comments like ” now it's time to get the guns out ” etc etc.I agree that the mainstream media is liberal, but it seems like even the gateways of the world have an obligation to check the veracity of any story. It is simply called being truthful and sometimes a little patience is required rather than these rapid fire stories that a gullible public swallows hook, line and sinker.

    It has always been my impression that Dakota Voice has been quite diligent in how it presents stories, but the same can't be true for other websites and the more major media outlets. I would also caution anyone thinking cable news is anything more than hype and entertainment masquerading as legitimate news.

    I don't even know what legitimate news is anymore and now we have a whole country feeding on 'it' whatever 'it' is.Talk about Orwellian– We stare and listen to a TV and BELIEVE it.

  6. That was my impression from the tone of your previous comments. I'm glad to find that I was wrong.

    It's easy to do–especially after the hyped and unproven accusations from the Left–but we have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. That is why I followed the story off an on all day yesterday, waiting for some solid confirmation of key details, and why Gina and I discussed behind the scenes that we needed to be clear that these were allegations, and that any speculation about unclear details would be “ifs” rather than definite conclusions until we got more details (which we did, thanks to Mr. Plotkin this morning–I now see that other sources were also getting those details early this morning).

    One thing that was clear even before any details were concrete regarding the allegations about Palin buttons: we were and still are seeing the same old double-standard from the “mainstream” media. They are like hungry lions on a baby zebra when there are allegations about improper conduct from a conservative, but when allegations of improper conduct are aimed at liberal perpetrators…well, they just aren't hungry at all.

    It should be pointed out that while Plotkin did clarify that the victims definitely were not wearing Palin buttons at the time of the attack, it remains unclear whether reports that the attackers said ““Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” is actually true; the attackers could have thought they were wearing Palin buttons and this could have served as motive, even if they were not actually wearing Palin buttons (they could have been wearing some other type of political button, or name tags, that could have been mistaken for Palin buttons). I was in a hurry and did not think to clarify this additional distinction with Plotkin, though I left a voicemail earlier for him seeking clarification.

    I share your frustration with trying to get to the bottom of things. Our government lies to us, the “watchdogs of democracy” in the press are really the “lapdogs of democracy” when big government advocates spin things, and it's really hard to separate truth from male bovines.

  7. Bob, it seems strange to me that the governor's office was so quick to shoot down the “Palin pin” claim, when the report of it supposedly came from Allee herself, in the hospital, to her friend. Whether she was wearing the pin or not is immaterial if one of those evil maniacs spoke those words out loud to work the others up. She supposedly said she heard one of the attackers say that, but she did not say whether she was actually wearing a pin or not. It does not matter if she wasn't–the end result is the same.

    Why would the governor's office be so eager to put that word out? Are they worried about some kind of retaliation? What happened to those kids should have the media demanding justice, but of course, they ignore it, because they not-so-secretly delight in the fact that two young Republican activists were badly hurt.

    I hate this world–absolutely despise it.

  8. Whether they just wanted to make sure this new substantiated information was in the public eye for purposes of accuracy, or had other motivations (maybe Jindal really is thinking of a 2010 presidential run and doesn't want people thinking his staff are wearing buttons for someone who may be his opposition in 2012?), I don't know.

    Yes, the evil and the double-standards that rule the day are vexing, but I remain an optimist.

  9. I didn't think about the 2012 thing. Good point…

  10. Gina,

    Maybe Bobby Jindal is an honest man and simply wanted to get the truth out that the young lady who worked for him and was attacked didn't have a Palin pin on. Maybe there are a few good people who want to correct mistruths as soon as possible . I am also going to be an optimist and hope this is true of Govenor Jindal until I know otherwise.

    And I don't believe for a moment that you hate this world. No one as passionate as you about this world could inturn hate it

  11. Thank you, Brian.

    What I mean when I say that I hate this world may be kinda hard to explain to you, but it's not that I hate the earth and the people in it. What I hate are the evil, spiritual forces that currently control the world (yes, they do), and the wickedness they do to influence humanity and human systems/countries/governments/people. I know that may not make sense to you, but that's what I mean when I say that I despise this world.

    I dearly marvel at God's creation–the stunning beauty of the world. He's the Master Artist. I've picked up brushes, paints and a canvas again lately and am working on a painting of some tulips that I photographed. My paltry attempts to capture the beauty that the Lord has made in a tulip or a sunset is weak, at best.

    So, my deep, unrelenting hatred is for the forces of hell that run the powers, the airwaves–they actually do run the world–“this world.” But, this world is passing away, and it will be gone before long.

    As for Governor Jindal and his “anti-Palin button” statement. My point on that is that is does NOT matter whether or not those kids were wearing Palin buttons. If the girl did hear one of the attackers exclaim, “They've got Sarah Palin buttons on–let's get 'em!” That points to the attack being politically motivated–a “HATE CRIME,” if you will. The attack happened around 11 PM, so it is unlikely that anyone could've seen any buttons as it is. It remains, that if one of those goons said that, then it does prove they were part of the anarchist protesters–or worse–hired thugs…

    Bob's point makes perfect sense. If it caught fire–the Palin button assertion–and went big in the media, well, there's that 2012 thing out there. That was a really good point that Bob made, and I think I understand Jindal's strange frenzy, having his press secretary hunt down every little brushfire of a story, even on our Dakota Voice. They “can't” allow that to get out there as the “truth.” When have you ever seen any “big-wig” go to such great lengths to put out the fire of a story?

  12. Gina,

    I think I do understand your worldview and I of course respect it. What I also understand is that God is ultimately in control and has a plan that all this evil will be conquered. In fact it has to be, because He is in control. I just hate to see some one as yourself spend time on hate of any type when it is all going to end for the good.

    I again admire you for your tenacity in fighting so hard for what you believe is right, but feel badly that hate has to enter into it in any way. I have been reading a lot of the New Testament and just reading only the words of Jesus ( the so-called Jefferson Bible). It is stunning what this man said and I don't remember any of it mentioning or suggesting feelings such as hate even as he was being led to the cross.

  13. Brian, use your concordance to look up the word “hate,” and see how many times in the Bible it is said that the Lord hates evil and sin. We are told in Romans 12:9 that our love must be sincere–that we should hate what is evil and cling to what is good.

    Make no mistake. God is love, but He absolutely HATES evil–Love hates evil. That is the truth. There certainly IS a place for hate, but it is not toward our fellow man.

    It's not that I hate some people, I just feel better when they're not around. Ha.

  14. Gina,

    I guess that is why I read just the words of Jesus because I refuse to accept a religion where hate of any type is required. Just the way I feel. You know my problem is also what if something you think is the work of evil actually isn't and you were mistaken because we humans make so many mistakes, then have you not let hate fill your heart needlessly. It would seem that it is inevitable that you will feel excessive hate when it isn't warranted. How can a faulty human know unless it is blatant ? How can a faulty human trust his/her judgement when it comes to knowing exactly when hate is okay and it was the act of evil causing some event on earth?

  15. I'm sorry, Brian.

    You read the words of Jesus. Did you read where He VIOLENTLY drove the flea market-type vendors out of the temple with His shouting and a whip, while He wrecked their tables and merchandise? Did you see where He called the Pharisees “vipers” and “whitewashed graves full of dead men's bones?” He was putting it mildly, and there were other times that Jesus spoke “hatefully” against the religious leaders of the Jews.

    When we accept the Lord, he gives us His Spirit to live within our spirits. Yes, we will make mistakes in this world until we die, but with His Spirit living within ours, He give us DISCERNMENT that tells us many things that we would not otherwise know without Him. Shoot! He regularly gives me dreams when I sleep of things that have not happened yet, that later do happen in front of my eyes, and that has been the case all my life!

    Do we still screw up? Yes, and we always will in this life, but the fact remains that regardless of what you just “refuse to accept,” God still is as He says He is, and He will not change because you or anyone else just cannot accept Him.

    No one can change Him (yes, He very much hates evil, and always will), and I cannot help you to see what I'm saying.

    I hope you have a good night and weekend, Brian.

  16. You're right that it's easy for humans to misuse the emotions God has given us. That's why God told us in the Bible, “In your anger, do not sin”–not that we are not to get angry at evil, injustice, etc., but that we must be careful not to let the emotion run away with us.

    We can only begin to develop the knowledge of how to harness our powerful emotions for good by carefully studying God's word, and when a person surrenders their will to Christ's will (what is commonly known as “becoming a Christian” or “being born again”) God's spirit establishes a permanent relationship with our spirit which helps us to grow to better discern the right and wrong way of doing things. Unfortunately, trying to explain how that works to someone who hasn't been born again is a bit like trying to explain visual things to someone who has been blind from birth (as my wife has); you can try, but until you've actually seen, words just don't do justice.

  17. Well I appeciate the explanation and accept that my Biblical intepretation appears to be wrong, which is not surprising since I do admit to not spending a lot of time of time on it, but at least am trying to make some sense of it all.Don't tthink I'll ever accept a faith with any hate or violence in it, but that is my issue to deal with and not others.

    Again appreciate your time and thoughts

  18. I really appreciate that you're taking the time to look into it. And I'm optimistic that with time and earnest consideration, things will eventually start falling into place and it will make more sense than it does today.

  19. First they came… a few observations

    You've recently posted several pieces condemning Phelps and his clan for picketing military funerals… yet when Phelps was picketing AIDS funerals back in the 90's, conservatives by and large didn't care and many even spoke out in support of Phelp's actions.

    Similarly, for decades we've seen conservatives claiming that there is no such thing as a “hate crime” (many even stating that the victims of these attacks got what they deserved)… yet, lo and behold, when two conservatives are severely beaten in the streets simply for being conservatives, these very same people call it a “hate crime” and demand national media coverage.

    Yes, Bob, unfortunately these recent situations have exposed a few double standards.

  20. The political intimidation motive of the savages that viciously beat Allee Bautsch, Governor Jindal’s Financial Director, and her friend Joe Brown has been confirmed in an interview of an NOPD information officer relaying information from one of the case’s detectives:

    Breaking: Exclusive New Orleans Beat-Down Update Via My Interview With The NOPD – “It Was Of A Political Nature” http://bit.ly/d4pm5J

    Obviously those with a political motive to commit this heinous assault on this nice young couple that was just working hard for their Republican Governor and the ideas that they believe in at SRLC could only be Democrats and other Leftists.

  21. I'd venture a guess that most conservatives, like me, had no idea the Phelps freaks were picketing any funerals until they started protesting at funerals of soldiers killed in the line of duty. Your claim is news to me.

    The concept of a “hate crime” is idiocy. Do you know of any incidents where one person assaults or kills another person motivated by their love or concern for the welfare of the other person? In other words, all crimes are essentially “hate crimes,” so to call a crime a “hate crime” because the victim belongs to a politically favored class is redundant and silly.

    But if we insist on classifying class-based crimes “hate crimes,” then indeed it sounds as if this assault would qualify as a “hate crime”…only these are Republicans and thus not a politically favored class.

  22. I have ask my legal brethern about this and they say that hate laws are important in the punishment phase of a trial. If I murder someone with malice-afore-thought and premeditation, then it is first degree murder and the punishment severe. If I kill a person without premeditation, but because they are Pro-choice and just happen to be walking by me at the wrong, there have been instances where the punishment rendered was less than if the murder was premeditated. They say that to establish and clarify hate crimes on the same level as premeditated murder would prevent that from ever happening.

  23. Premeditation is indeed relevant in legal proceedings and is used to determine the severity of the crime and the corresponding sentencing level. Premeditation indicates that someone had the time to actually plan out a crime, which indicates that it wasn't as if the person acted out of character on impulse.

    But as for “hate” crimes? I've yet to hear of a murder or assault perpetrated out of love for the victim.

  24. By the way, I guess you missed the sarcasm in my comment where I said it looked like a “HATE CRIME.” That was dripping with sarcasm. Sorry you didn't catch it.

    ALL crime is based in hatred of the law.

  25. Oh, wait! I must be thinking of my article. Duh. Still, the point remains…

  26. Well, you may be right and 'hate crime' is a bad term, but think the analogy is misquided. Defense lawyers have tried and succeeded in using the defense that a murder wasn't premeditated and wasn't against any one victim, but was committed because of hatred of their beliefs thus seeking lesser punishment. Hate crime laws want to insure that the courts understand it doesn't matter if the crime is premeditated towards an individual person or that persons belief and thus not against the person themselves.

    You would think it wouldn't matter because murder is murder, but apparently that defense occassionally works in the punishment phase of a trial.

  27. When you get down to it, “hate crimes” are nothing but an attempt to punish someone for thinking a certain way, when they can tie that thought to an actual crime.

    That kind of “policing” is found in wonderful places like the worker's paradise of George Orwell's 1984.

    Some people want to see the world of that book come to life…with themselves in the direct employ of Big Brother, of course.

  28. The Hayride has really been doing its homework on this “non-story.” And, finally, Matt Drudge has posted a link about it from Breitbart's Big Government.

    Here's some interesting reading from the Hayride: http://thehayride.com/2010/04/the-brennans-beat

    There is NO WAY this attack was not politically motivated. No way. Allee and Joe may have been told to stay mum on it, as there are no public statements from them, only second-hand reports–but very convincing second-hand reports, as you can read in the Hayride piece.

  29. Is the blonde woman in the red suit pictured at the top of the column Bob Ellis?

    If not, who is she?

    A caption would be helpful.

  30. It's what's called a file photo, often used in articles as a visual device to help the reader relate to the text at hand. Does that help?

  31. Thanks for the response, but due to the potential for confusion (the Chicago Trib had a male sportswriter named Shirley for decades), maybe an author photo (you), a subject photo (Bautsch, or the subject of future columns to illustrate those columns), or an abstract design would be better.

    Bautsch isn't a newscaster, I didn't think the photo could be her; and as I don't know you, I didn't know (actually, still don't!) your gender, or whether you might be a radio personality as well as a columnist.

    I see the caption “file photo” but given that many stories about a person in the news are illustrated with file photos of that person, I'm not sure just saying “file photo” helps. Again, thanks for the response! :)

  32. No, a crime is designated a hate crime when it was committed as an attack on a person not because of their individual identity, but because of their membership in some group identity: their ethnicity, their orientation, their religion, etc. In that case, the crime is not only the assault, but the attempt to intimidate and terrorize ALL members of the targeted community.

    “Hate crime” is a near-synonym for “domestic terrorism” — it's a crime perpetrated to achieve a political goal.

    Motive is ALWAYS part of a prosecution, and weighs heavily in sentencing as well. We definitely punish people for “thinking in a certain way, when [prosecutors] can tie that thought to an actual crime.” Example: did John Doe run over his little daughter Sally because he didn't see her? or because he was too drunk to steer? or because he was angry at her? or because he was getting a divorce, and didn't want to pay child support for her? The motive — “mens rea” in legal-speak — or as you would say, the thoughts tied to the crime — ALWAYS matters.

  33. What's wrong with you?

    You're coming up with this weird question and commentary on an update to an article that was pulled due to a retraction by the Jindal administration.

    I am the one who wrote the original article and am also a “radio personality.” Bob Ellis, who is obviously a MAN, posted this update and used a “file photo,” which is common among many online websites to add “visual” to an article. If it would “help” you to understand Bob's web-journalism practices, here is a link to my articles: http://www.dakotavoice.com/author/gina-miller/ There is a photograph of me in any of those links. I am not blonde, like the woman in the red suit in the file photo is also not blonde.

    You're sitting there talking about Allee Bautsch (one of the VICTIMS–the subject of this story), who is still in the hospital after surgery from a vicious attack by rabid, leftwing maniacs, and all you can do is come here and talk about the picture with the report?

    I must say, that you are one of the more creative trolls.

  34. No, “domestic terrorism” is what Barack Obama's associate Bill Ayers engaged in, i.e. an American waging terrorism on American soil for a political goal. It is not synonymous with the real or alleged term “hate crime.”

    Motive is important in identifying suspects and in determining the level of culpability of the accused. Motive is not a crime.

    So-called “hate crimes” make motive a crime.

    If a white guy hits a black guy with a baseball bat because they got into an argument over which NFL team is best, he has committed assault but not a hate crime. If a white guy hits a black guy with a baseball bat because they got into an argument over which NFL team is best, and (a) uses a racial smear against the black guy while doing so, or (b) in some other way indicates his motive for the assault is racism, he has committed assault and has committed a “hate crime”–and the perpetrator will be punished more severely in the second case, not because he has a greater level of responsibility, but merely because of his motive.

    Thus, a so-called “hate crime” is in fact “thoughtcrime,” something most of us hoped would never leave the pages of a George Orwell novel.

  35. Nope, you're just being paranoid. I really wanted to know who the person in the photo was — if she was the author, or the victim, or a generic illustration. Bob (who is not “obviously” a man — there's no photo of him, and you can't go just by a name) answered that.

    You spun it into some kind of attack? THAT'S weird.

  36. Your apparent confusion over the graphic is what is weird.