Libertarian Party Candidate Austin Petersen Goes Down in Burning Flames on…

Source: PJ Media | May 12, 2016 | Michael van der Galien

Libertarian Party Candidate Austin Petersen Goes Down in Burning Flames on Steve Deace Show

With regards to the latter, Petersen said that he supports the Supreme Court when it ruled that the 14th Amendment outlaws any discrimination, this means based on race, but also on sexual orientation. When pressed on it, he explained that he favored this power grab by SCOTUS because of the outcome: the outcome was supposedly libertarian, and therefore he’s in favor of giving the federal government more authority.

As Deace said, that doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. And that’s to ignore the fact that most libertarians I know are fervently anti-14th Amendment. Apparently, Petersen disagrees with them on that point. He made it even worse by repeating his earlier claim that many social conservatives may just “hate” gay people and that he could see their hatred in their eyes.

No, Austin, they just believe that God has given mankind certain laws and that we should obey them, regardless of our feelings.

Secondly, with regards to abortion Petersen said several times that although he is pro-life, he’s against declaring the ‘right to live’ a federally protected right because… it would mean that all pregnant women would have to wear an ankle bracelet with a chip in it so they can be monitored all day long, which is supposedly want pro-life conservatives want.

Say what?


Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Discussion
  • Consistent #6059

    Consistent #6060

    Steve Deace

    Regarding tonight’s interview with Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Austin Petersen, and his claim that pro-lifers don’t welcome new converts if they don’t agree with us on process/mechanics/etc.

    First of all, I don’t think it’s a technicality to ask why Austin believes the federal government (via the courts) has the almighty power to decree free weed and free love, yet he considers it “totalitarian” (his words, as well as a comparison to Venezuela) to stop the kiling of innocent people? Especially when Austin admits he believes the preborn are people? I’m sorry, that just doesn’t make moral/constitutional sense to me. Furthermore, he told me that it sounds like I want to “fight another civil war” over abortion.

    Not to mention he’s the first Ron Pauler I’ve ever met who actually loves the 14th Amendment.

    I’m glad Austin has had a change of heart on this vitally important issue, but given how many politicians have sold us out on this issue over the years I don’t think I’m a jackwagon for asking him to game plan out his thoughts on it. Especially when I’m being asked by listeners in a national audience my thoughts on him as an alternative to Hillary and her donor. I hope he is successful in getting more LP folks to embrace a culture of life, just like I hope he seriously considers what it means to do so and not just say so.

    Finally, I found his allusion to “some pro-lifers who want to monitor women” during pregnancy to make sure they don’t kill their children to be bizarre. I’ve given countless pro-life speechess, consultations, etc. all over the country, but I’ve yet to encounter any pro-lifer suggesting prenatal tethering of women. That sounds like the sort of pro-life stereotyping you read from trolls in the comments section at Mother Jones or Salon.

    The podcast will be posted early in the morning for folks who want to listen to it in its entirety. As well as me asking Austin about his contention (from his own podcast) that people opposed to redefining marriage “have hate in their hearts.”

    mostlyhomebound #6066

    I guess I won’t vote for the libertarian. Gary Johnson isn’t pro-life either.

    rodamala #6072

    I consider myself fairly libertarian (small “L”), but in advancing the dictatorship of the minority, while trashing the right of the citizens of the individual several states to dictate their own legal and moral standards, this bozo just blew it.

    Still, at this point, things are so bad that I don’t understand how every form and manner of mental defect has not already been deemed “protected” at the federal level.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.