The Many Reasons Why Conservative Missourians Will Reject “Open Borders” Austin Petersen

in Politics by
   

Since announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen has piqued the interest of Missouri conservatives seeking a candidate to unseat left-wing incumbent Claire McCaskill. A candidate with national prominence like Petersen would initially appear to be an ideal nominee in one of the most closely watched races of 2018. However, the more Republicans will learn about Petersen the less they will like him. Here are five reasons (of many) why Austin Petersen is not fit to represent Missourians:

Immigration: Petersen supports allowing countless illegal immigrants to come across the United States border and become citizens to vote in our elections. In a YouTube video titled “Austin Petersen on Immigration,” he proclaimed his support for open borders, a radical leftist position on immigration which would allow millions of unskilled illegals to flood across our border. Petersen also supports granting these illegals amnesty which would allow them to affect American elections.

Abortion: Petersen claims to be pro-life. This assertion, however, is disingenuous regarding his views on abortion. Petersen does not support any anti-abortion legislation. He supports having the federal government allow abortions to stay legal, stating, “Although I am pro-life, I do not think the government should be involved in legislating abortion.” Thus, Petersen’s position is exactly the same as most left-wing liberals on abortion: he does not personally like that people are murdering unborn babies yet would do absolutely nothing to stop this atrocity.

Religion: Petersen is hostile towards Christianity. As reported by PJ Media, Petersen shared an article from his clickbait website on his Facebook page. The article, entitled ‘Top 10 Reasons Mother Teresa Was a Fraud,’ managed to denigrate the venerated and newly sainted nun. The piece accuses Mother Teresa of supporting dictators, of “being out for herself,” and of putting medical care second to reaching people with the gospel. Although Petersen’s openly atheist views may not be disqualifying alone, his contemptuous and insulting attitude towards the religious seals the deal.

Lack of Conservatism: Petersen wants Republicans to vote for him, but he refused to vote for Republicans as recently as November. Out of eight races, Petersen voted against the Republican in seven of them. This includes the President, Governor, and the nail-biter U.S. Senate race where a far-left liberal nearly won. Petersen spent 2016 insulting Trump and his supporters. After Trump won Missouri by 19 points, he promptly flip-flopped, claiming on Twitter that he’s “ready to Make America Great Again.” Unfortunately for Petersen, the damage has already been done. Republicans of the Show-Me State will not be fooled by such outright dishonesty.

Immaturity: Petersen has spent the entirety of his adult life running click-bait websites. Despite claiming on a sugar daddy website to be a millionaire to lure in young women under false pretenses, his actual finances do not even come near that. He rejects the non-aggression principle, claiming that if it were not for government laws stopping him, he would take whatever he wants by force. He runs a “nonprofit” organization as a slush fund of sorts. He trolls and personally insults critics over the Internet, making vulgar statements such as claiming to swim in “pyramids of p-ssy” while losing his composure in public interviews.

Per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Constitutional Conservative state representative Paul Curtman, a Marine veteran, is poised to enter the Senate race. Curtman, who in 2012 endorsed then-Congressman Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign, has spent the last seven years voting for fiscal responsibility and protecting civil liberties. He has the record to back up his rhetoric. Curtman provides the Senate race with its first serious, principled candidate who can actually defeat Claire McCaskill. As such, there is absolutely no reason for Missouri Republicans to vote for a pro-open borders, pro-choice, anti-religion, anti-Republican child like Austin Petersen.

  • So who exactly is the Liberty conservative interested in?

    • Rep. Paul Curtman has recently announced a U.S. Senate campaign. He supports fiscal responsibility and personal freedom. Curtman endorsed Ron Paul in 2012. He is a fan of the Austrian school of economics and supports a full repeal of Obamacare.

    • Austin Petersen > Paul Curtman

    • Not advancing the Liberty Movement, that’s for sure.

    • NOT Petersen. I like Curtman for this race. I don’t like Petersen for dog catcher.

    • Curtman endorsed Ron Paul. Petersen hated Ron Paul.

      When the rubber met the road one of them was on point and the other was fighting against us.

      That’s all I really need to know. Then Petersen’s POLICIES?? Vomit.

    • Glen Bradley show me proof that Petersen hated Ron Paul

  • It was once embarrassing for one to actually campaign for nomination vs being asked to run -… https://t.co/DjX2GsH0yB

  • Is he seriously open borders?

    • Yes but he’s good on everything else.

      Open Borders can lead to infringements on private property particularly for people living along a border. There’s a libertarian case against it.

    • He is basically useless if he is open borders. Conservatives will not vote for him therefore he does not have a chance. He should save himself the trouble and not run.

    • Closed borders can also lead to infringements on private property, particularly for those living along the border. The gov would be directly telling me what I can or can’t do with my property. If I had property along the border and I was okay with undocumented immigrants coming into my property, why should the government say that can’t allow them? If you think that the government should be able to tell me that I can’t allow undocumented immigrants to pass through my land, then you don’t really care about private property rights. You are just a statist shill for big government.

    • Joey Dasinger Well until we all stop paying property taxes this little infringement on the relatively few amount of people who live on the border can be tolerated. We do it for America.

    • Ahren Tuathail that’s statism. I’ll take liberty everytime

    • Cane Skretteburg Sure it is statism. What do you think you live under? It isn’t anything close to even a minarchist government and an almost infinite distance away libertarian anarchy. So what are your goals in reality?
      Allowing third world migrants that have Children who become citizens and reliably vote democrat increases liberty or decreases liberty? Is California more or less free than Red Texas? Is Democratic Detroit more or less free than Republican Houston or Dallas?
      You will take liberty every time but do you understand how to work within statism to help increase it? Or do you just take the stance that would work under a stateless society and ignorantly ignore the reality that you live in a statist society?
      Reality is a bit more complicated than “that’s statism”.

    • Yes, he really is open borders. No, he really isn’t good on anything else. He’s pretty awful on everything.

    • Glen Bradley seriously? I would never have expected you to have a low opinion of Austin Petersen. He’s like Ron Paul but 50 years younger.

    • Ron Paul was/is pro-life, Austin is not.

    • John Gjertsen seriously. I am about 99% with Ron Paul. Whenever Petersen on the rare occasions he says something I agree with, I consider it fake. Controlled opposition trying to take us down from the inside.

    • Audrey Miller-Queckboerner Petersen is pro life what are you talking about?

    • Audrey Miller-Queckboerner Austin is very pro-life, you’re mistaken. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435610/rogers-test

    • Glen Bradley point me to anything that Petersen has said that makes you think he’s “controlled opposition.” I’m not buying it.

    • I am a Christian and Austin is an atheist … and I have heard him speak many time and feel he is one of the purest Libertarians I know (I would have voted for him … but could not vote for Johnson who was adamantly against religious liberties). Anyway, if we did not have a welfare state, then open borders would be fine.

    • No he is not pro-life as he says govt. should have no role in the matter.

  • Robert Simington

    So he should be for imprisoning women who have abortions? Please what do you true believers want? I know abortion is an atrocity, but I can’t be for imprisoning young women at the end of their rope.

  • You people are not helpful to the movement. Just show your true colors and change your name to “The Showboat Populists.”

  • The only thing I don’t like him on.

  • Not an honest article, as Petersen has explained that although this is his perfered policy, it is only viable after dealing with our current welfare state, and would not be a priority in his policy focus because of this glaring obstacle.

    Free market international labor and free market internationals trade are just as wise policy as free market intra-national economy. Logical and consistent to libertarian thought.

    Get off your soapbox, this is officially fake news.

  • i like his approach better

    kill off most of the welfare state, legalize cocaine and muh weed, and basically so giving them such great reasons to come here illegally

    if they still do… then would be the time to talk about a wall and such

  • Petersen is the worst.

  • He isn’t open boarders, that’s false. He believes that we should/could only pursue open border policy after dismantling the welfare state.

    His current position on it is to go back to an Ellis Island style system. Background check, medical check, done. Funneling all prospective immigrants through specific places and locking the border down elsewhere will allow us to know who us coming here and prevent them from welfare mooching.

  • Then why aren’t you promoting Curtman? In any case, this is just Spite against Petersen. If you don’t like Austin, then fine. Promote liberty. But if you just wanna rag on him and tear him down, you ain’t gonna get very far in your goals… lol

  • Austin, as well as many other Republicans, have explained thoroughly that welfare must end.

    • Yeah, but are they going to actually do anything about it? Nope. Even with control of the 3 branches they won’t do anything…nuffin! They are cowards afraid to rock the boat, because they may lose seats. Talk a big game to get elected and then sit on their hands when it actually matters.

  • It’s the only syncs I disagree with him on. *shrug*

  • I’ve seen him state MANY times that he prefers to go back to an Ellis Island style policy after ending the welfare state. That’s far from being “open borders”…

  • i think that it will depend on how he does in debates. Hypothetically, anyone could beat Clare McCaskill.

  • Brandon

    Always seen Austin state he isnt for open borders in our current welfare state and would enforce background/medical checks

    Also seen him plenty of times speak greatly on religious freedom. Who cares if he is atheist.

    Rand Paul and Ron Paul are pro-life and think federal gov has no place in dictating this issue neither…

    I’d vote for Austin in a heartbeat over these ridiculous establishment republicans that are no better than the dems

    • Zigman

      This article is total BS, from a garbage site, that cares nothing about liberty.

Latest from Politics

Go to Top

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox. 

Send this to friend