Joe Brown and Allee Bautsch
Posted on 04/13/2010 8:47:27 AM PDT by kristinn
Joe Brown and Allee Bautsch
Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown, were savagely beaten Friday night in New Orleans after leaving a Republican party fundraising dinner by a group of thugs who reportedly targeted the couple because they were wearing Sarah Palin pins.
Bautch's leg was broken and Brown incurred a broken jaw and nose as well as a concussion.
The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:
Two people at the Brennan’s event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” – so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.
The story of a Republican and her boyfriend being viciously attacked for wearing Palin buttons has yet to make national headlines, unlike say, unfounded rumors of nasty words being said by Tea Party protesters.
"UPDATE, 8:47 a.m.: Our sources are indicating that Bautsch and her boyfriend were not attacked immediately outside of Brennan’s, but rather a couple of blocks away. But their assailants were a group of people, which would tend to mitigate against a run-of-the-mill mugging."
Talked to his Producer, they are on it, top of the show at 6p Estern/3pm Pacific RogerHedgecock.com
What’s your point?
Woo-Hoo!
GOOD on you!!!!
I do miss my home town.
I tink I’ll listen online today!!!!
No. You posted as to gun use in church but your statistics (not labeled) were for all (including knives, etc). I merely added that 62% of the incidences quoted by you were related to gun use.
Accuracy.
Fair enough.......
No I get it, just don’t want you to think you’re blind. :)
Let’s hope that the two victims of this thuggery and permitted to speak openly about the event and give all the facts. There may well have been a political element to the attacks, even if they weren’t wearing Palin pins, but we won’t know for sure until they talk. Let’s hope that the powers that be don’t persuade them to whitewash the incident for the sake of “collegiality” with the Dems.
The problem with responding to a hurricane disaster in an area like New Orleans, is fighting AGAINST the rising waters and hurricane force winds to get people, materials, and equipment to the disaster area. I distinctly remember that was the problem then combined with the exodus of people fleeing the disaster and vehicles blocking routes.
The governor of Louisiana should have given timely permission to the Feds to enter the area, which in this case, she did not, and that further complicated the situation.
The failure in the Katrina disaster was that too many people remained in New Orleans rather than evacuating. This can be laid at the feet of the city and state governments.
Next time that city gets hit by a devastating hurricane, no rebuilding, period. A city below sea level in hurricane areas is an insane idea. Move the city elsewhere.
First, Jindal spokesman Kyle Plotkin tells us that Alle Bautsch was not wearing a Palin pin. And neither was Joe Brown. So that’s an allegation which has been disputed.
Second, as far as the Jindal administration is concerned they do not have evidence at this time that the attack on Bautsch and Brown was directly related to the protest. We have a report, as you’ll see below, that the attack was politically motivated, and we’re looking forward to full confirmation of that fact. But the two are not necessarily at odds; our understanding is that Bautsch and Brown remained at Brennan’s after the fundraiser was over and by the time they left there wasn’t much of a protest going on – so if we’ve given the impression that the attack occurred as a result of fundraiser attendees having to run a gauntlet of Democrats upon leaving the restaurant we’d like to correct that right now; that is not our understanding.
Third, since the attack itself appears to have come from assailants who apparently either followed the victims (which we think is most reasonable, given that Brennan’s is located half a block from a police station) or happened upon them and decided to express displeasure with Republican politics in an unacceptably demonstrable fashion, a facet of this we’re actively looking into is the nature of the protest itself. As we noted in the original post here, a group of self-described “anarchists” claim to have disrupted the event and there are snippets of information – or were – following the event in which people holding themselves out as protestors bragged about confrontations with evil Republicans they’d had on Friday.
SNIP. More at source link.
Bobby Jindal is ineligible to be President - not a natural born citizen.
He is a native born citizen as he was born in the U.S.A., but his parents were then citizens of India, meaning he doesn’t meet the ‘natural born citizen’ criteria: “born in the country of citizen parents”.
The Hayride post can be summed up as follows:
1) Alle Bautsch and Joe Brown were beaten after either being followed from, or found by, a group after a $10K a plate Republican fund raiser. A fundraiser that was protested by a leftist anarchist group.
2) Alle Bautsch and Joe Brown delayed longer than everyone else, to avoid the protest, before leaving.
3) They were not wearing Palin pins at the time.
4) The attack was a group assault and the damage done to the victims is inconsistent with a mugging.
“born in the country of citizen parents” has never been firmly established as the definition of “natural born citizen.” Many would argue (myself included) that any native-born citizen is a natural born citizen, and, therefore, that Jindal is eligible to be President.
Okay.
I don’t know why you’re telling me this as I read the thread and understand the ‘bones’ of the story.
I responded to statements conerning 1) Katrina, and 2) Jindal running for President.
Won’t be the last time.........
"4) The attack was a group assault and the damage done to the victims is inconsistent with a mugging."
Oh, yes it has been established.
The definition of the term, “natural born citizen”, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” — John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of ‘natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of “natural born citizen” were equivalent to the English notion of a “natural born subject,” then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms “citizen” and “subject”. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers “judicial power” on the federal courts, “citizens” of the several states are differentiated from “citizens” or “subjects” of foreign states—corresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of ’natural born’ subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
And as pointed out above, please do not come back with the same old lame references to Blackstone & English common law, we know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature: The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.”
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstone’s theory by citing that the definition of ’subject’ per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of ‘citizen’ as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A ’subject’ is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central government’s power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
For further information see: Natural Born Citizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
this will happen till one of ours shoots one of those thugs.
Whoops!
That was meant for thud!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.