Daily Archives: March 10, 2016

Austin Petersen: Did I betray Ron Paul?

Ron Paul was the Libertarian Party’s 1988 presidential nominee

On March 8th, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen held his latest Facebook live stream that is now also available as a Facebook video. In it, he addressed his support for Ron Paul as well as some of his disagreements with the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee. The video was a response to Rocco Lucente’s column in Liberty Conservatives Magazine entitled “Austin Petersen: Ron Paul sounds like he hates America.” In his article, Lucente quotes Petersen as saying “the more I listen to Ron Paul the more it sounds like he actually despises this country.” Lucente’s full article is below:

Austin Petersen has emerged as one of the frontrunners for the Libertarian Party nomination, campaigning as a son of the Ron Paul revolution who hopes to bring conservative leaning libertarians into the tent in order to create a broad enough coalition to win the Libertarian nomination. Petersen has been fairly articulate in the debates, arguing that he will be the man to bring on significant numbers of Republican voters should Donald Trump be the Republican nominee. Petersen boasts of his credentials in working for Judge Andrew Napolitano and founding The Libertarian Republic. That being said, Petersen’s campaign may run into some trouble if this incendiary audio gets out within the liberty grassroots.

In July of 2014 Petersen stated that Ron Paul sounded like he hates America as a response to an AP article which stated Paul was defending Russia. Petersen also stated that he thought Ron Paul was using the same tactics as those who defended the Soviet Union in order to defend the actions of a big government overseas (that being Russia). He said that Ron Paul’s rhetoric sounded like Soviet apologia, and asked why he would want to sound like he was defending a big government overseas. Petersen’s comparison of Ron Paul’s non interventionist foreign policy to Soviet style propaganda is sure to inflame liberty voters who have largely viewed Petersen as a close alternative to Paul.

Petersen goes on to implicitly reject the notion that the war on terror finds its roots in blowback from our foreign policy. Petersen states that the more you delve into foreign policy the more you realize that there are in fact people who hate us for our freedoms, and that the actors in the current “war on terror” are an example of this. He claims that Ron Paul blames the United States whenever something wrong happens overseas, and that “when you start sounding like Soviet apparatchiks or real America hating socialist liberals then you have a problem”. He believes that Paul’s rhetoric will lead to people thinking that libertarians hate America, due to Paul’s constant incorrect (in his view) blaming of the United States for every problem.

These revelations will bring up questions as to whether those of us who did invest money and time into the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and/or 2012 should invest our time and money in Petersen’s campaign. I would ask Petersen what he believes was the primary cause of 9/11? I’d ask him whether he believes ISIS hates us for our freedoms or our interventionist policies? Does he believe it is a defense of a thuggish regime to defend the notion of not intervening against them? Finally, I would ask if he would apologize to Dr Paul for saying he sounds like he hates America. Dr. Paul has brought more people to the ideas of liberty than anybody in the modern history of this country. If Mr Petersen wants to be a Libertarian standard bearer he can start by giving our movements greatest champions the respect they deserve.

Petersen blasted Lucente’s article in his video, and in a Facebook comment said:

Rocco Lucente if you were honest you’d have contacted me for a statement before you wrote the piece. Instead you wrote a hit piece.

Petersen’s full 16 minute video “Did Austin Petersen Betray Ron Paul?” can be viewed here. 

Austin Petersen leaks “email from Steve Scheetz in his push to remove me from being considered a candidate in Pennsylvania”

Today, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen posted the following picture on his Facebook page, containing a leaked email from Steve Scheetz, the immediate former chairman of the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. The image:

This is not the first time that ranking officials of a state affiliate of the Libertarian Party have shown their disapproval of Petersen’s campaign. As ATPR has reported recently, the Libertarian Party of Colorado refused to invite Petersen to their presidential debate, citing Petersen’s alleged repudiation of the Non-Aggression Principle. Also, some Libertarian Party of Florida state officials have reportedly tried to dis-invite him from the party’s state convention, which will be held in April.

The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania will be holding its state convention on March 19th in Philadelphia. According to the party’s website:

The agenda will include the election of party officers, the nomination of candidates for public office, and election of delegates to the National Libertarian Party Convention.

More details coming soon, including lunch and evening entertainment, a Presidential candidate forum, and information regarding registration and discounted lodging. Please look to future emails for these announcements.

Petersen also posted a the following regarding the Non-Aggression Principle and his membership in the Libertarian Party to his Facebook page today:

I worked at the Libertarian National Committee from February 2008 to May 2009. After that I became a dues paying member and never joined another party. This card signifies that I have signed the party’s pledge, which is not the Non Aggression Principle. The NAP appears nowhere in the party’s statement of principles. It’s just a statement recognizing that the LP is not a terrorist organization and the founders of the party were extremely terrified of big government. Understandable. Not inspiring, but definitely understandable.

Update: Steve Scheetz responded to his email in a March 8th IPR comment:

OK, Well this is a bit surprising, but whatever…

What happened was this.

PA has 6 candidates confirmed. Gary Johnson, John McAffee, Shawna Sterling, Darryl Perry, Rhett Smith, and Derrick Reid.

There is no conspiracy with me contacting these 6 candidates, because these 6 are the ONLY candidates who confirmed attendance. The invitation was sent to EVERYONE INCLUDING Austin Petersen. He stated, along with Cecil Ince, that he would be attending the convention in his home state of Missouri.

What has been said regarding Austin Petersen has been in response to the various Petersen trolls spamming boards on Facebook. (To be honest, I probably would not have bothered with him at all if there was not this really loud and obnoxious wave of posts about how silly the NAP is, how strange the people who support the NAP are, lying about what the NAP is/means, etc.)

Derrick Reid was asked to produce his party membership and signed NAP pledge along with all candidates who confirmed that they would be attending. I can’t take credit for the idea, but I do like it, particularly with everything that has been going on lately.

I was / am unaware of Derrick Reid’s position regarding the platform and SOP, and like I stated before, the invite went to all candidates, and the requirement will be made of all candidates. (They need to be party members and have signed NAP agreements to be qualified for the nomination, this is NOT asking too much)


Steve Scheetz


Petersen campaign: Libertarian Party of Florida convention chair requests bribe to quash Austin Petersen’s debate appearance

On March 8th, Austin Petersen, a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, posted the following picture to his Facebook page:

Below the picture Petersen posted the following press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASELPF Convention Chair Requests Bribe to Quash Austin Petersen’s Debate Appearance

The Convention Chair of the Florida Libertarian Party (LPF), Joe Wendt, proposed an offer to Mike Kane, Chair of the Monroe County affiliate. Kane published a letter on facebook urging the LPF to rescind an invitation to Austin Petersen who is scheduled to appear at Florida’s Annual convention in April.

“If Mr Kane really dislikes Mr Petersen, and is willing to give a gracious $1500 donation to exclude him, I have no problem with that.” wrote Joe Wendt, LPF Region 6 Representative and Convention Chair.

It appears to be antithetical to the principles of the Libertarian Party to request hush money to silence opposition, but Joe Wendt has stooped to new lows.

Wendt continues, “As long as Party [sic] gets money in the process, and increases the convention’s profit margin, I am all for it. Fundraising for the party should take priority over hurting peoples [sic] feelings. Besides, a bidding war that increases the party’s wealth is a good thing.”

It remains to be seen if the Libertarian Party of Florida will take action to castigate Wendt or strip him from his Convention Chair duties.

Just this week, the Colorado Libertarian Party faced a firestorm of wrath from Libertarians nationwide when their Executive Committee passed a motion to exclude Petersen from their convention debate. That debacle ended with an offer from Colorado for Petersen to participate in the debate, strengthened the resolve of Petersen supporters, and resulted in a banner day for donations to his campaign.

Petersen’s campaign received a blow a few days ago, when IPR reported that the Libertarian Party of Colorado (LPCO) announced that Petersen would not be invited to a Libertarian presidential debate hosted by the party at their upcoming state convention, which will be held March 11th-13th in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The LPCO cited Petersen’s public repudiation of the Non-Aggression Principle as the reason for his exclusion, stating that “it was inappropriate for the State Party to invite a candidate who has openly repudiated and ridiculed the Party’s foundational and absolutely essential Statement of Principles that are held as the highest standard in our voluntary governing documents.” The Non-Aggression Principle, which states that no force or fraud can be committed to advance social or political goals, is considered by many Libertarians to be a fundamental tenet of the libertarian philosophy and the Libertarian Party.

Not all news this week has been bad for the Petersen campaign this week, however. On March 8th, ATPR reported that Petersen was officially endorsed by Pierre-Alexandre Crevaux, the chairman of the Miami-Dade County Libertarian Party, one of the largest county affiliates of the Libertarian Party of Florida.


Chris Johncox: Hey, Libertarians: It’s Austin Petersen or Bust in 2016

Austin Petersen

Austin Petersen

The following article by Chris Johncox was published on March 8th on The Libertarian Republic website, which was founded by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Austin Petersen:

There can be no great changes made to any system, for better or worse, without a general consensus first. People must agree that there is a problem in dire need of solving and that the proposed solution would result in a desirable alternative. One common complaint among Americans is that the two-party system is a massive failure. Most people don’t subscribe to it, most people who do are unhappy with the party establishment, and therefore, the general consensus is that the addition of just one more party would do a world of good to fix a badly damaged political system. It’s arguable that most people would even take a third party that doesn’t entirely represent their views just to offset the perpetual gridlock in Washington D.C. If you want that third-party representation, Austin Petersen of the Libertarian Party is the only hope of getting it.

A common claim from Petersen’s opposition is that his supporters are all LINOs and Statists. Even if that were true, would it not mean he has the most crossover appeal? A president should be relatable to his supporters. Some who support him are disenfranchised Republicans. Some will no doubt be Democrats who will vote for a third party should Hillary Clinton get the nomination. The majority are libertarian and independent, and even some anarcho-capitalists like Tony Stiles have rallied behind him. It is with this broad-base appeal that he can win not only the nomination of the Libertarian Party, but the 15% of the vote needed to participate on the main debate stage.

Unlike the other candidates, Austin is willing and able to build coalitions not just with voters but with party leaders, media personalities and public figures. Austin has contacts at Fox News, The Blaze, and National Review, all outlets whose hosts oppose Donald Trump and reach large Republican audiences. Austin’s pro-life views and capitalistic economic views are attractive to the right, and when presented by Glenn Beck or John Stossel, will sway bastions of support to his campaign.

Austin’s defense of civil liberties and belief in self-ownership will surely attract liberals who are disgusted and annoyed with not only Hillary Clinton, but with the entirety of the regressive left. These people feel civil rights and liberties are no longer core tenants of the Democratic Party and are willing to align themselves with third parties in order to stave off the growth off authoritarianism in American politics.

Read the rest of the article here. 

Austin Petersen responds to his exclusion from the Colorado Libertarian Party’s presidential debate

Austin Petersen

The following was published on TruthInMedia.com on March 8th:

According the Libertarian Party of Colorado (LPCO), the board made a decision in February not to formally invite LP candidate Austin Petersen to its debate this weekend because of philosophical differences.

The LPCO posted in a statement on its Facebook page:

“Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination Austin Wade Petersen has openly repudiated the non-aggression principle as stated specifically within the Statement of Principles and declared this principle to be ‘non-libertarian’ and intellectually bankrupt using various insults and thus has clearly illustrated that he is philosophically opposed to essential first-principles of the Libertarian Party which the Colorado governing documents hold in primacy as the minimal bar by which everything is measured.”

According to A Libertarian Future, two resolutions were approved by the LPCO board. The first resolution was not to invite Petersen and the second one barred any executive board members from contacting Petersen prior to the debate.

Cook asked Petersen to give his thoughts on the board’s decision.

“It’s one thing to not invite someone but its another to do it in such away as to gag one another and that shows me that they are authoritarians,” said Petersen.

Petersen stressed the point that there maybe broader consequences on the board’s decision regarding the LP’s current lawsuit fighting to be included in the general election televised debates (see lawsuit here).

Petersen stated on his Facebook page:

“The Libertarian Party is suing to get into the national debates, saying the DNC and the GOP are being exclusionary. And now the government can look at the actions of the LP of Colorado and say, ‘hey, even the Libertarian Party excludes their own candidates.’”

He continued, -KL:

Congratulations Colorado, you might have just given the government an excuse to deny the lawsuit and keep third party candidates out of the national debates this year. Well done Caryn [Ann Harlos, social media chair of the Libertarian Party of Colorado and IPR writer who is known for her criticism of other], Steve, and others. You’ve been libertarians for less than a year. We appreciate it.

Nathan Grabau state Chairman of LPCO told Cook: “The motions that were passed at our February board meeting did not bar Austin Petersen from participating in our debate. Austin Petersen will be allowed to participate in our debate if he shows up.”

Latest updates from Green Party Watch

The following are March 8th news items from Green Party Watch


Funiciello to enter New York U.S. House race this weekend

New York’s Watertown Daily Times reports that Green Party candidate Matt Funiciello will officially announce his candidacy for U.S. House in the state’s 21st District on Saturday.

Funiciello sought the seat two years ago. Last fall, 2014 Democratic nominee Aaron Woolf urged Funiciello to run as a Democrat this time, but Funiciello declined to do so. Woolf received 33% of the vote in the three-way race won by Republican Elise Stefanik; Funiciello received 11% of the vote.


Green Party candidates for Baltimore mayor make joint radio appearance

The three Green Party candidates for Baltimore mayor — Joshua Harris, David Marriott, and Emanuel McCray — were interviewed by WYPR 88.1 FM Baltimore.

The three candidates will compete for the Green Party mayoral nomination through a series of mail-in ballots and in-person voting on May 1.


Green Party of Philadelphia elects new leadership

The Philadelphia Free Press reports the Green Party of Philadelphia “energized their local party by electing a new leadership” at the February 24 meeting.

Galen Jah Tyler, a former member-at-large of the City Committee, was elected chair. Tyler “is director of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union and a founding member of the Poor Peoples Economic Human Rights Campaign.”

Charles Sherrouse, elected as a new City Committee member-at-large, said, “My priority will be getting Greens involved with ballot access petitioning across the city, and extending our campaign outreach to campuses. The Green Party’s performance in the 2015 City Council race has earned us state recognition as a political party in Philadelphia, which can help boost our membership.”

Belinda Davis was elected recording secretary, while Hillary Kane “retained her seat as Treasurer, and Julian Robinson was re-elected as Member-at-Large.”