Category Archives: Politics

Yes, Another Blog Post About the Second Amendment!

Here is brief, introductory paper I wrote about the history of the Second Amendment for a graduate class.  Enjoy, if you are inclined to this sort of thing.

To define the history and purpose of the Second Amendment would be futile without an understanding of what the Second Amendment is.  In the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment is defined as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[1]  Readers might be surprised to understand the level of dispute that this amendment elicits.  Most of the disputes come from those that are well versed in the field of political science.  Often they have a very educated understanding of the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.  On the other hand, many do not have the same understanding.  The purpose of this paper is not to settle the debate among those who disagree and argue about the Second Amendment, but rather to give a simple and analytical understanding of the Second Amendment by examining the historical definition of a militia, abuse of power, and the birth of the Second Amendment.

 History Explains Militia

     While seeking to understand the history surrounding this amendment, the reader will inevitably be led to ask the question, “What is the necessity of the Second Amendment?”  The answer will start the reader on an historical search of the subject, where he will land in England somewhere between the seventh and tenth centuries.  This is when the kings of England decided that all Englishmen are obligated to serve, not in a professional army, but rather a citizen army. [2]   This way of thinking about citizen armies continued through The Tudor Period, where the name militia actually began to take the place of citizen army, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.[3]  It is very important to understand the ramifications of a citizen army, not a professional army, being given the name Militia.  One of the great debates concerning the differing school of thoughts is what constitutes a well-regulated militia.  That question seems to be answered during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, as a citizen army.

     Intentional or not, what seemed to be occurring in English history dura system of checks and balances in government.  Vandervroy explains how a shift toward individual rights had begun. “Historians suggested that English universal armament caused a moderation of monarchial rule and fostered individual liberties because the populace had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest King to reason: the check of physical force.”[4]

 Abuse of Power

     An intense series of events that began in the Stuart Period and lasted for the next 100 plus years included: a Civil War, execution of a king, and an outright battle of supremacy between the English Parliament and the crown.  In the midst of these circumstances, something began to happen that has carried over into present American history – “various factions sought to control the militia and intermittently to disarm opposing factions.”[5]  It is imperative for the reader to remember that the militia, at this point, was defined as the citizens of England.  As the power struggle between the monarchy and the Parliament continued, they eventually worked together to pass the Militia Act of 1661.  Led by Charles II, the government of England began to mold a militia loyal to the throne, and anyone who was deemed dangerous to the English Kingdom had their arms seized by the government militia.  A major disarmament of the people had begun.[6]

     In the late seventeenth century, King James, brother of Charles II, began to abuse his power.  He was eventually forced to flee to France when his son-in-law, William of Orange, came to England with a Dutch army.  This led to a declaration in the land that all subjects may have arms to provide themselves with self-defense.  There would be no more disarming of citizens.  At least this is how the first draft of the declaration read.  Parliament decided it would decide how the people could use their firearms.  With a sly illusion, Parliament claimed that they were not taking away the rights of the people to bear arms, but what they were doing in actuality was regulating the use of those arms.[7]

 The Birth of the Second Amendment

     The Second Amendment was born out of the conflict in England.  The Founding Fathers understood the need for Congress to call a standing army, but they also wanted to make sure that the militia remained under the care of the states, thus keeping the standing army of the government in check.[8]  Antifederalists went so far as to argue, “that a select militia composed of less than all the people ought to be avoided.  One Maryland farmer took to writing essays about the danger of a centralized government:

I cannot think that any able and virtuous citizen, would in his cool and dispationate moments, wish to blend or risque the fundamental rights of men, with any organization of society that the Americans can or will make for fifty years to come. — Let us keep these rights of individuals — these unalienable blessings[ — ]reserved and separated from every constitution and form — If they are unmingled, the attentive eyes of every citizen wilt be kept fixed upon them. We shall watch them as a sacred deposit, and we may carry them uninjured and unimpaired through every vicissitude and change, from the government we have left, into some other that may be established on the fixed and solid principles of reason. — Nor can there be, I imagine, any prudent man, who would trust the whimsical inventions of the day, with that dangerous weapon a standing army, in our present unsettled circumstances — striving to substantiate inefficient and unnatural forms — it would wield us into despotism in a moment, and we have surely had throat-cutting enough in our day.[9]

Antifederalist George Mason had some strong words concerning arms and the militia.  “To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.”  He also believed that the militia was not something that could be called together by Congress, but rather it was the whole people.[10]  Patrick Henry also weighed in on the dangers of a centralized government that intended to take away the rights of the people to bear arms.  “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence?  Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under out own direction, and having them under the management of Congress?”[11]

The Founding Fathers had seen the danger of centralized power in England.  They had seen the danger of disarming the people, and making the militia a government controlled entity. By no means did they want this in the states.  The desire of the Founding Fathers was that the people be armed for self-defense, not just against the common criminal, but against a tyrannical government.  This was the evil that both the Antifederalists and Federalists agreed upon.  If a tyrannical government were to go unchecked, this was a far greater danger to the people than anything else.  The only way to keep the government in check was to keep the people armed. The loss of arms was a loss of freedom, and history proved this to be true.[12]

As the Constitution was ratified in the states, one thing was kept clear – “the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that the militia was to include all the people capable of bearing arms, not just a select few.”[13]  Many of the states were concerned that an amendment was needed to protect the rights of the people to bear arms, however, Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton argued that there was no need for this amendment because nobody was looking to take away the rights of the people.[14]  The reader must carefully notice from the analysis that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to make sure the people kept their right to bear arms, and to get back to early English history where the militia was made up of all the people in the states.  Eventually the Bill of Rights was passed, which included the Second Amendment, and the protection of the rights of the people to bear arms.  David Hardy sums up this monumental decision well, “…in light of the historical evidence, documentation of the intent of the drafters of the Second Amendment and their contemporaries, and the need to maintain a consistent standard of constitutional interpretation, the individual rights approach is the only approach that has any validity.”[15]


     One can clearly see how misinterpretations have grown out of a study of the history and purposes of the Second Amendment.  Many opposed to the rights of the people to keep and bear arms will claim that times today are much more different than times in the 18th century.  Yet the history of early England and early America has shown that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the rights of the people to bear arms.  And it does not just protect the rights of the people to bear arms in order to hunt, but rather to protect itself in self-defense.  That self-defense also goes as far as the people protecting itself from a tyrannical government.  History is on the side of the people on this issue.  When their rights begin to be trampled by a government that thinks it is supreme, the people rise against this abuse of power.  This was and still is the very purpose of the Second Amendment.


Google. “A Farmers Essay, V.” accessed January 23, 2014,

Google. “Amendment II: To Keep and Bear Arms.” last modified 2014, accessed January 23, 2014,

Google. “Quotes on the Right to Bear Arms.” last modified 2002, accessed January 23, 2014,

Hardy, David T. “Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the SecondAmendment.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (1986): 2, accessed January 23, 2014,

Vandercroy, David E. “The History of the Second Amendment.” Valparaiso University LawReview 28, no. 3 (1994): 3-21, accessed January 23, 2014,

[1] U.S. CONST. amend II.

[2] David Vandercoy, “The History of the Second Amendment,” Valparaiso University Law Review 28, no. 3 (1994): 3, accessed January 23, 2014,

[3] Vandercoy,“The History of the Second Amendment,” 4.

[4] Ibid., 4.

[5] Ibid,, 5.

[6] Ibid., 8-9.

[7] Ibid., 9-11.

[8] Ibid., 13-15.

[9] A Farmer, Essay V (March 1788): 1, accessed January 23, 2014,

[10] George Mason, “Amendment II: To Keep And Bear Arms,” accessed January 23, 2014,

[11] Patrick Henry, “Quotes on the Right to Bear Arms,”(1788), accessed January 23, 2014,

[12] Vandercoy, “The History of the Second Amendment,” 16.

[13] Ibid., 19.

[14] Ibid., 19-21.

[15] David T. Hardy, “Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence of the Second Amendment,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, (1986): 2, Accessed January 23, 2014,

Why I am a Reformed Christian Libertarian

In Daniel 2 we are reminded that God’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, unlike the kingdom’s of men. In his commentary on Daniel, Ralph Davis says,

“They [Israel] should at least see that the kingdom of God is not going to come as soon as Babylon passes off the political scene. Daniel 2 is not trying to rob Israel of her hope but wants her to have a true and realistic hope and so says: it will be a long historical road before the kingdom of God comes. What to do then? Iain Duguid suggests that verses 48-49 may hold an answer: ‘It is not coincidental that the chapter ends with Daniel and his friends promoted to responsible positions within the Babylonian system…These men didn’t isolate themselves from the kingdom of this world as they waited for God to establish his kingdom; rather, they poured themselves into seeking the welfare of their temporary home in Babylon.’ We are to serve where we have been placed within the fading kingdom as we go on waiting for the final kingdom (cf. Jer. 29:5-7).”

For years, I never found much interest in politics.  I went to the poll booths and checked the politician that had an [R] by their name.  I was o.k. with that, because I bought into the old adage that you can complain so long as you vote!  So I voted, and I complained.  Half the time I didn’t really know what I was complaining about, and the other half of the time I simply didn’t care.  Then things began to really transition in my life.  I was pastoring a small baptist church at the time, and God began to open my eyes to Reformed theology.  I became a lover of said theology, and out of respect to my congregation that didn’t have the same convictions, I resigned as pastor.  I still catch a lot of flack from a lot of people for becoming one of those “Reformed guys.”  I really believe I have friends and family members who no longer think I’m a Christian as a result of this transition in my life.  Truthfully, I’ve never been more alive to Christianity than I have been since studying the Reformed Doctrines of Grace.  It’s ironic because opponents of Calvinism will accuse us of being robots, but looking back at my Christian walk before making this transition, I could not think of a better term to describe me than a Christian robot.  God released me from that!  Glory to his name!

This blog post is not meant to be pejorative toward those who do not agree with me.  I am simply explaining why I am a Reformed Christian Libertarian.  So, now that we have the reformed part out of the way, why libertarianism?  Isn’t that just another way of saying I am one of those people who politically believe in hedonism; anything goes?  Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.  It is interesting that God has placed me in a position in life where I belong to two of the most misunderstood groups in America: Reformed theologians and political libertarians.  I feel like I constantly have to write blog posts like this, just to state my positions.  I have felt the isolation of being a Reformed Christian Libertarian.  As an introvert, I don’t mind isolation nearly as much as an extrovert, but the pain of being constantly misunderstood can be overwhelming even to the most introverted introvert.  I even get badgered from within my own camps.  One particular individual posted this picture in a recent conversation on a Libertarian Facebook page:


The caption read: “Ryan Barnhart selfie.”  Its sheer stupidity made me chuckle, but why did someone who claims to be a libertarian post this picture?  It was simply because I was stating a case that Winston Churchill was one of the biggest statist and warmongers this world has ever known.  From that argument you then see a fallacious leap to this picture.  Nothing I said about Winston Churchill was factually incorrect.  I wasn’t even referring to his role in WWII (though he made mistakes a plenty there), but rather his role in the Cold War.  Another poster, more of a gentleman than the first, claimed that though I knew my history well and could actually be beneficial to a lot of people, I was a confrontational elitist that could not spread my message in love.  Even though I was called a Nazi, a weak libertarian, an unloving elitist and (my personal favorite) asshat in the course of the conversation, I was the confrontational one.  All for simply stating historical facts about Winston Churchill.

I’m rambling on about these things to make the point that it’s not just those that theologically and politically disagree with me on every level that can bring the hammer down.  And I probably spent a little too much time dwelling on this the last few years.  And then God led me to the  commentary on Daniel by Ralph Davis that I quoted above.  I read those quotes this morning and it almost felt like a burden lifted that I can’t explain.

I’m a 38 year old man who has an undergraduate degree having studies business and history.  I’ve been to seminary and studied greek and hebrew.  Now I’m working on my Master’s in Public Policy.  I mentioned this to a friend the other day, and said, “So vote Governor Barnhart when the time comes, o.k.?”  He said, “Is that a possibility?”  And that leads me to where I am right now…uncertain.  I’m not uncertain about my convictions, but I am uncertain about my role in the future.  Does God want me to plant a church somewhere?  Maybe.  Does God want me to become a missionary to India?  Maybe.  Does God want me to go into local politics?  Maybe.  I simply don’t know right now, and I can’t tell you how badly that has bothered me in the past, and I’m sure will continue to do so on some level in the future.  We are just dust after all.  What doesn’t bother me, however, is that I a carry the title of being a Reformed Christian Libertarian.  It often brings isolation, but I’m getting used to it.  Here’s what I know, and I’m thankful for Davis quoting Duguid in his commentary,

These men [Daniel and his friends] didn’t isolate themselves from the kingdom of this world as they waited for God to establish his kingdom; rather, they poured themselves into seeking the welfare of their temporary home in Babylon.

Whether in ministry or politics or both, I will take that statement and this one by Davis:

We are to serve where we have been placed within the fading kingdom as we go on waiting for the final kingdom…

and I will continue to be a Reformed Christian Libertarian.  I will no longer worry about whether my convictions bring isolation, loss of relationships, loss of opportunities, or whatever else may come.  These are not things that I relish or even want, but they are all part of the life of a Reformed Christian Libertarian.  And for the first time in my life, I’m o.k. with that.

If you’d like to read more about my political convictions I would direct you to one of America’s most renowned Christian Libertarians, Laurence M. Vance.  His articles can be found at Lew Rockwell’s site:

For an understanding of most of my theological convictions I would direct you to Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin.

Cautiously Optimistic

That’s what I am right now.  By nature I can be rather negative and cynical when it comes to the motives of others, and my prayer is that God’s grace will sanctify me in this area.  With that said, when I am optimistic about something, it still tends to be a cautious optimism.  And right now I am cautiously optimistic that the American people are waking up!  There is no denying that the majority of the people are against an United States strike on Syria.  Yes, there are some that are for it.  These are the same people that would justify most anything that Obama executes.  And yet, I wonder…I just wonder if as many people would be against this attack if a neoconservative, and not Obama was in office right now?  I say neoconservative because a true conservative would not even think about bombing Syria.  Hello Ron Paul!

Don’t let the silence on the subject of Syria by Hollywood elitists discourage you.  They don’t speak for the heart of this country, and quite frankly I don’t give a rip about what Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon think about Syria, or Iraq, or any political point for that matter.  What I do care about is the fact that the American people are against this strike, and that makes me cautiously optimistic that the American people are tired of being lied to.  That makes me cautiously optimistic that the American people are tired of soldiers losing their lives because American can’t stay out of foreign entanglements.

Some might call me a simpleton. I would tell you to read Washington’s Farewell Address, particularly those parts about foreign alliances:

There is much more work and progress to be made!  If America is to get back to her roots, We the People will have to continue to make our voices heard, and stand up against what is wrong.  Can we do this?  I remain cautiously optimistic.

For other well-written articles/blogs on the subject, please see:



Morgan Gets Constitutionalized!

Maybe we should say, rather, that Piers Morgan got Shapiro’d!  Ah, let’s just say he got KO’d!  Finally!  Larry Pratt and Alex Jones, though very different in style, have both done a fine job going on Piers Morgan’s show and defending the Second Amendment.  But what Ben Shapiro did to Morgan was hands down a classic case of on old fashioned butt whipping!  Shapiro came across as highly educated, well versed in logic, and knowing that he was going to win this debate without a problem.  And that’s exactly what he did.

With that said, I wouldn’t agree with Shapiro to the tee on all his positions on guns, but he protected the Second Amendment and made the points that needed to be made.  Morgan should probably either think about dropping the gun discussion, or never making the mistake of bringing Ben Shapiro on his show again!

You can watch the link here:

There’s not a whole lot that I can add to what Shapiro did to Morgan, but if you would like to see Morgan get completely dismantled, then I would encourage you to watch the clip.  At one point, Shapiro hands Morgan a copy of the Constitution, and Morgan goes on to say that Shapiro came in here trying to promote his “little book.”  Yeah, he was talking about the Constitution.  Morgan also said Shapiro was being ridiculous for believing that the U.S. Government could turn tyrannical, as if no democracy has ever done so.  He looked utterly foolish!

Watch it and I promise you, you will enjoy!

Unknown – Well, yes, I got crushed by Ben Shapiro, but I am still number one in my eyes!

What Would Joe Do?

Meetings are taking place today between Vice President Biden and the NRA to discuss gun violence. Does anybody, and I mean ANYBODY feel safe and comfortable knowing that this man below is “on your side?”

Here are my predictions in pictures of how the talks will go today.

images-1 We will not stop until we disarm every citizen of America!

images-2 It’s for their own good.  We the government will protect them in their times of crisis!

images-3 What?  You don’t trust me?  Look at this face!  Who wouldn’t trust this face?!?!

images We are so going to take your guns!  Hee Hee! Ha Ha!  Second Amendment be gone!  The Founders were only talking about deer hunting anyway.

Unknown-1 I told you, I had it in the bag the whole time!

Unknown TOUCHDOWN!  The Executive Order is coming soon!  We win!  We win!

In all seriousness though, Judge Andrew Napolitano says that he believes President Obama is going to pass executive action to get the EPA to place a huge tax increase on bullets. These are the types of executive actions that the current administration can take to slowly disarm the people.  It isn’t going to just happen all at once because, let’s face it, the second amendment still guarantees the right of the people to bear arms.  The president cannot bypass Congress to disarm the people and do away with the second amendment.  In fact, Napolitano argues that Congress can’t even do anything because of the protection that the second amendment offers.

You can see Napolitano’s arguments here:

As the judge says, “This is a debate that is not going away anytime soon.”

In the meantime, laugh a little bit at the captions above, but above all, follow the words of King David in various sections of Psalm 37…

Fret not…Trust in the Lord, and do good…Delight thyself in the Lord…Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him…Cease from anger…Wait on the Lord, and keep his way…Remember the salvation of the righteous is of the Lord: he is their strength in time of trouble.  And the Lord shall help them, and deliver them…and save them, because they trust in him.

Why Fiscal Matters Morally Matter

I sometimes get a little concerned when I see good Christian people speak as if the only moral matters that we must hold our elected official’s feet to the fire over are things such as abortion and gay marriage.  While it is true that we as Christians have a moral obligation to make sure that our voice is correctly heard on these matters, I don’t understand why the ramifications of fiscal decisions in Congress are often frowned upon but left out of the moral argument.  For example, how many times did you hear a Christian say in 2012, “We have to make sure we vote our morals! No more abortion and no gay marriage!”  I’m mostly on board with that.  I say mostly because though I oppose the homosexual lifestyle (just as I oppose a heterosexual hedonistic lifestyle) I don’t believe that the job of the federal government is to regulate marriage.  But that’s another topic for another day.

Now in contrast, how many times did you hear a Christian say in 2012, “We have to make sure we vote our morals!  Spending deficits and tax increases are out of control!”  Imagine the funny looks and whispers you would get from many Christians for saying that.

One of the reasons that Christians would struggle with the latter comment is because we often like to decide for God what is most important.  “God cares about the slaughter of the unborn and traditional family values,” we say.  Well, of course he does, but do you serve a God that cares about those things but does not care about your finances?  Do you serve a God that puts a moral rating of about 9.9 on abortion and homosexual marriage, but only gives fiscal matters about a 2.3?  I cringe to think about the moral rating that many Christians believe that God gives the “War on Terror” but I need not stray too far off topic here.  I would doubt that a Just God is a big fan of the unjust searches and seizures and government practices that occur on a daily basis here in America, all in the name of “protection.”  But the moral rating for the “War on Terror” ~ through the roof!  We must vote our morals!

I’m straying….must get back on topic!

I want to give a few quick reasons why fiscal decisions in Congress morally matter, and why we must be just as concerned about them as any other moral decisions that are made.

1. God commands us to work

Genesis 2:15 says, “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it.”  Work was a creation ordinance handed down by God to man.

Furthermore the Bible also says in II Thessalonians 3:10-11, “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any should not work, neither should he eat.  For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.”

God expects a man/woman who is able to provide for his/her family by working.  The more irresponsible fiscal decisions that are made in Congress, the more difficult it becomes for some to carry out this mandate.  When unemployment rises, people lose their jobs, and often times they are unable to find work to provide for their families.  As a result, the government has created a welfare state in which people become dependent upon the State to provide for them.  As more and more people become dependent upon the State, the greater the shift of power tilts in favor of the State, which is exactly what they want in the first place.  Churches have failed to step up in place of the State to help the poor, and henceforth the local church is failing to carry out part of their mandate to provide for the needy.  Are you seeing the moral dilemma in all of this yet?  Now certainly we cannot blame all of this on the government, but as a result of their poor fiscal policies, and local churches failing to do their part, the issue of fiscal responsibility becomes every bit as moral as so many of the fundamental favorites.

2. God commands us to give

I am not going to take the time to list all of the Scripture verses that talk about a Christian giving to the local church, along with helping the poor.  Yet, did you know that there is much chatter that Congress is going to cap charitable contributions in the near future?  Slice it any way that you want to, but this will hurt giving.  Again, I’m not saying this is all the fault of Congress, but when they make it so difficult on people, the trickle down effect looms large.  I guess the argument could be made as to whether or not Christians should even write off their yearly givings to the church, and if it really keeps them from giving, were they giving for the right reasons in the first place?  While that is a fair argument, the fact of the matter is that this type of cap (which was pushed by Romney and now Boehner) is immoral if not for the simple fact that if Congress would actually cut some of their foolish spending programs this cap wouldn’t be necessary in the first place.  Yet how dare we mention that Congress is fiscally irresponsible?  Oh that more would say so, and actually consider a moral matter!

3. Jesus loves the little children

You know the song well, and you believe it.  You also love your kids.  Yet at the rate at which Congress continues to raise the debt ceiling, the effect will be bad enough in our lifetime, but it will be devastating to our children and our children’s children.  How can we not consider this a moral issue when the livelihood of our children is at stake here?  I can’t even begin to imagine what college tuitions will look like by the time my children have children.  Can you imagine the piles of debt that will be accrued through student loans?  And isn’t this just what the federal government wants?  Doesn’t that make you morally ill?  It should.

Listen, God is sovereign.  I don’t argue that fact.  I happen to love it!  But I also know that as a result of God’s sovereignty, our responsibility as Christians is to increase his Kingdom and renew all things by the power of his Spirit.  We don’t just attempt to renew the things that we think fit the bill of morality.  Economics fits that bill, and God’s people should educate ourselves to the poor economic decisions that come out of Washington on a daily basis.  And we should throw our weight behind the elected officials that want to cut spending and lower or eliminate taxes.  It’s a matter of morals not only for us, but for the generations to follow.

So the next time you tell someone to vote their morals and get behind those officials that are pro-life and pro-family, please include those that are fiscally responsible as well.

President Obama Hosts Congressional Leaders To Discuss Fiscal Cliff

Dear John: We don’t want you anymore!

At least that is what nine representatives said to Speaker of the House John Boehner today as he was re-elected to his second term.  Fox News reported that the number of dissenters was rumored to be in the twenties, but at the end of the day only nine representatives were honorable enough to stand their ground.  Boehner has done very little to help unite the GOP that is quickly coming apart at the seams.


Boehner has consistently caught the ire of freedom loving conservatives in the house, and he certainly did not do himself any favors by overseeing the removal of Justin Amash (R-Mich.) from the Budget Committee last month.  Amash, seen by many defenders of liberty as a young Ron Paul, was guilty of nothing but speaking out against the ridiculous spending habits of elected officials in Washington.  Amash also voted against Paul Ryan’s budget plan earlier in 2012.  Apparently Amash was not pleased with the lack of spending cuts in the proposed budget plan.

Call a spade a spade, refuse to toe the party line when they are out of line (which is most of the time), and fight for the liberties of the American people.  That does sound vaguely familiar to a former representative from Texas, doesn’t it?  Well, Mr. Amash is young and he will eventually learn the meaning of compromise, right?  Ron Paul never did, and we can only hope men like Amash will refuse to compromise as well, even when it gets them booted off of committees.  Hopefully, the American people will educate themselves enough to continue to stand behind men like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, for it is men like this that give America the faint glimmer of hope that she has to recover from this mess that we have in Washington.

As for the rumored twenty-something that were ready to stand against Boehner today, well it certainly isn’t surprising that when it came time to walk the talk that number dwindled down to nine.  Here are the nine that should be applauded and that the American people should learn more about:

Amash – MI

Bridenstine – OK

Broun – GA

Gohmert – TX

Huelskamp – KS

Jones – NC

Massie – KY

Pearce – NM

Yoho – FL