Fireside 2.1 ( The Boss Hog of Liberty Blog Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:00:00 -0400 The Boss Hog of Liberty Blog en-us Open Letter to all Indiana 6th District Congressional Candidates Sat, 14 Apr 2018 11:00:00 -0400 842fba95-6722-4222-a08f-d214c9b712e9 The Presidency is too powerful Right now our district is interviewing men and women to hold our seat in Congress. In the past few days our President has launched a military attack on foreign soil with the only authorization being a now 17 year old congressional approval for retaliation from 9/11 against those responsible for the attacks.
Congress has failed its Constitutional responsibility to declare war or authorize war. As a nation we have not declared war since 1941. But we have continually been involved in conflicts across the globe.

Today I challenge every candidate for the 6th district Congress seat to share their view on military conflict, approval, and the Congressional role. President Trump ran on a more thoughtful, Constitutional foreign policy. He advocated for Congressional approval before President Obama dropped bombs in Syria. When he took the Presidential powers, it was the same imperial Presidency with a lack of Congressional approval.
I want to know from each of the candidates for our seat in Congress. Would you be speaking out against this action of President Trump as he has failed to consult with or receive authorization from Congress, consistent with the 1973 War Powers Act?

This week, 88 members of Congress signed a letter demanding this authorization. 140 signed a similar letter in 2013. Unfortunately very few members signed both letters. Would you have signed that letter?
I want to know where my next congressperson stands on this issue. And I find it necessary that that person feels the same way regardless of the President holding the office, or if they are in the majority or minority in the Congress.

Jeremiah Morrell

Jeremiah Morrell is a co-host of the Boss Hog of Liberty and the Libertarian Party of Indiana Central Committee representative for the 6th district. Jeremiah lives in New Castle and can be reached by email at

Should We Advocate Nazi-Punching? Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:30:00 -0400 bbc17368-7d74-4f8b-964e-67803c8d4be0 Fisticuffs with a Nazi? Does Nazi rhetoric violate the NAP? Are White Supremacists protected by the First Amendment? If you have been on any form of social media in the entirety of Donald Trump's presidency, you may have noticed what you think is an insurgence of vocal hate groups in the United States. While it does ring true that these creatures have become more vocal, there is not a sufficient amount of evidence that supports the claim that White Nationalist, or neo-Nazis, have actually grown in numbers.

While conducting a Google search, you may have to sift through the foundationless claims made by BBC, The Guardian, and The Atlantic, once coming across the Southern Poverty Law Center, you find the facts. Hate groups are not on the rise, they have grown more vocal and changed their face and social media presence but their numbers have failed to be impacted by their new-found "marketing" approach. The vast majority of Americans still believe in equality for their fellow citizen, even the people that voted for President Trump. You read that correctly, I am not a Trump supporter but I don't have to be one to sympathize with the millions of people that are called "racists" and "Nazis" for sharing their political beliefs. In the same respect that I can sympathize with millions of democrats that are called "commies" and "shrills."

As a Libertarian, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the corner-stone of my belief system. The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. This means that when I joined the Libertarian Party, I vowed I wouldn't initiate force unless myself or my property was harmed.

What does this mean when you are out on the town and happen across a Nazi, KKK, or other White Supremacist rally? Is the Appropriate response to engage in their conversation? Punch them in their back-wards thinking, hate spewing mouths? Do you just fight the battle and shoot them on sight? We have all seen the memes calling for "1000 Nazi Scalps" using the picture of Brad Pitt from Inglourious Basterds. To understand what the appropriate response should be, we first need to delve into the issue of whether or not Nazi rhetoric is in violation of the NAP and warrants the use of physical action. Upon first glance, the obvious answer is a solid "no." However, the argument can be made that whenever a skinhead adorns his body with a swastika tattoo, he is making the claim that, if given the chance, he will murder the people that do not fit inside his world-view. in MY world-view, the threat of force warrants the use of force. That is the reasoning that makes this issue so much more than a black and white, clean-cut, situation. I want people like Richard Spencer and Rocky Suhayda to have the right to their beliefs, as well as the right to talk about those beliefs. On the other side of the coin, I don't believe that they have the right to threaten the mass-murder of millions of Americans. I'm sure that everyone has their own opinions of the issue, or some may believe that the NAP simply doesn't apply to those that hold a White Supremacist ideology.

In conclusion, My own ideas are challenged at this issue. I have thought long and hard about this issue and have come to realize that Rallies like the one held in Charlottesville, VA are protected by the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. These imbeciles can chant and rally and they are protected by our Constitution. Ridicule and dis-proving their intellect will have a much greater effect of them than anything that a fist can do, their entire purpose is to rally the emotions of the people who hear them. I'll stick with using my words to belittle their belief system, until I see a direct threat to the freedoms of American Citizens.