Good Stuff! Easy WFPB

If you’ve decided to try the whole-food, plant-based lifestyle (WFPB) to lose weight or lower your risk of certain diseases, you will immediately find there’s a bit of a learning curve.

That’s because the food culture in the United States is geared towards foods that are animal-based and processed—cheese, meats, sugar, flour-based products, chips, candy, etc. In fact, WFPB is such a large change, you might wonder if you’ll be eating anything other than cardboard.

I can happily report that WFPB eating is satisfying and delicious.

Let’s review the general guidelines. With WFPB there are three things to avoid or minimize.

  • Added sugar (and artificial sweeteners)
  • Flour-based products
  • Animal-based products (meat, dairy, eggs)

And there are five things you eat. The main four include:

  • Legumes
  • Grains (as close to whole kernel as you can get it)
  • Vegetables
  • Fruits (natural form, not canned)

The fifth category is some added fat on the side. That includes things like a tablespoon of mayo, peanut butter, oil, avocado, etc. Or it could be an ounce of nuts or seeds.

We’ve found it easiest to compose a meal by simply thinking about the five categories and filling in the blanks. If you don’t include one of the main four groups in a meal, that’s fine. Just be sure you’re not excluding it all the time.

There are dozens and dozens of delicious meals. Over the next months I’ll be sharing some of those we love. Let’s start with the base.

The base

Grains

Our InstaPot has been a huge help with grains. It makes them so easy to cook. You can make them in a batch and enjoy them over the course of a few days.

Wheat

  • 2 cups food storage wheat berries (Yes! Finally a use for all those bags of food storage wheat in the basement!)
  • 5.5 cups water (or use vegetable stock if you want it savory)
  • ½ tsp salt
  • Cook for 35 minutes on high pressure followed by immediate pressure release. Drain if necessary.

Rye berries, oat groats, pearled barley, brown rice

  • 2 cups grain
  • 2.5 cups water (or vegetable stock if you want it savory)
  • ½ tsp salt
  • Cook for 22 minutes on high pressure followed by 10 minutes of natural pressure release. Drain if necessary.

When you want the grain as a savory dish, use vegetable broth or stock. It gives the grain a wonderful flavor. It’s total magic. You can get cartons at the grocery store for under two bucks. 

For rice, we love the Lundberg wild rice mix. Lundberg also happens to be California rice which doesn’t have the high levels of arsenic that rice from the Southern United States has.

Legumes

Lentils

  • 1 cup brown or green lentils (do not use red for this)
  • 2 cups vegetable broth (the broth is the magical ingredient)
  • ½ tsp salt
  • Cook for 15 minutes on high with 10 minutes of natural pressure release. Drain if necessary.

For other beans, we just purchased them in the can. They’re cheap and easy. Pinto, black, white, black-eyed peas, etc. You might find it easiest to start with pinto and garbanzo beans.

Fruits

Easy. Just get whole fruits. You can also get the frozen berries and cherries.

Vegetables

Easy. Just get a variety of veggies and salad.

Nuts and seeds

Easy. Get whole almonds, pecans, walnuts, etc. Whatever you like. Try to get them raw. You can heat them up in a pan on the over before you eat. Stove-roasted pecans are tasty.  

Added oils

Olive oil, avocado oil, coconut oil. You’re not going to be using a ton. If you want to use mayo and salad dressing, do it. Again, you’re not going to be using much.

Spices

Use all you want—cinnamon, ginger, basil, etc. Also use mustard, soy sauce, hot sauce. Balsamic vinegar is great on many things.

Recipes

With meal recipes we mix and match. Here are some meals we like.

Grain Bowl

For 1 person.

  • 4-6 oz of grain
  • 6 oz of berries, cherries, or 1 whole fruit
  • Some almond milk
  • Some spices like cinnamon or pumpkin pie spice or ginger (could do fresh ginger if you like it), or cocoa.
  • 1 oz of nuts, 1 tablespoon of peanut butter, or 1 tablespoon of coconut cream
  • Heat in microwave if desired

Great for breakfast. Using different fruits and spices gives it lots of variety from day to day.

Homemade Costa Vida Salad

For 1 person.

  • 4-6 oz beans
  • 3-4 oz salad greens (you will need a big bowl)
  • Some mango salsa
  • 1 tablespoon Ranch dressing or may
  • 2 or 3 tablespoons of balsamic vinegar
  • Salt and pepper to taste

Just mix it all up and enjoy. You can add cooked rice if you want and other sautéed veggies. You can also add rosemary leaves and turmeric for the health benefits.

Other tips

Here are some other things we’ve found.

  • Broccoli tastes the best, hands down, when cooked in a steamer.
  • Cabbage is great when steamed and stir fried with soy sauce, ginger, garlic powder, and onion powder
  • Succotash is tasty, especially if you make it with some small cubes of potato.
  • You can substitute lentils for ground beef in many meals. We’ve done it with stuff green peppers, shepherd’s pie, and many others, and our picky, teenage daughter actually likes it.
  • Some corn added to beans for a burrito or chili gives it a nice sweet flavor.
  • Sautéed mushrooms are great with onion powder, garlic powder, and thyme.
  • Garbanzos go really well with peanuts.

We’re not fanatics about this. But I’d say we’ve been able to get 90% of the way to a WFPB lifestyle. And we’re enjoying the food. In fact, the longer we eat this way, the tastier it becomes.

For about two years, we ate a diet high in vegetables and animal-based foods (meat, dairy, and eggs). We were diligent, but didn’t see the results we hoped for. Four months ago, we switched over to WFPB. I recently had some blood work done. After four months of eating this new way, I’ve dropped about fifteen pounds. My total cholesterol is down from 214 to 188. My blood sugar levels went from 107 to 83. And my blood pressure has improved. And that’s after just four months with some days of holiday eating mixed in. I can’t wait to see what happens after eating this way for a year.

If you want to hear the research behind this to consider the evidence yourself, I recommend the following:

  • The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted (Revised and Expanded) by Colin T. Campbell, PhD
  • Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition by Colin T. Campbell, PhD
  • How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease by Michael Greger, M.D.
  • How Not to Diet: The Groundbreaking Science of Healthy, Permanent Weight Loss by Michael Greger, M.D.

You can get all of them from your local library. If they don’t have the books there physically, ask the librarian how to use their Overdrive account to check out an ebook or audio book version online.

Share

Similar Posts

  • Good Stuff! Sergeant Nibley and Whole

    There are many good accounts of soldiers in World War 2, but I just finished one that is unlike any others I’ve read. It’s the delightful Sergeant Nibley PhD: Memories of an Unlikely Screaming Eagle by Hugh Nibley and Alex Nibley.

    It details the experiences of Hugh Nibley, the famous BYU scholar of ancient history, as a soldier in the war, starting from when Nibley was on his mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and met Hitler coming out of a bathroom in Germany.

    This book made me laugh and wonder and sorrow. It includes insights, surprises, and anecdotes that I haven’t found anywhere else. The authors also include many pictures that help the whole thing come alive. If you like history or biographies or are a fan of Nibley’s works, I think you’ll love this book.

    *

    Some of the wonderful residents of Rich County, Utah where I live are not going to like this next one. But I have to share it because if what’s detailed in this next book is accurate, it could help so many.

    The book is Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition by T. Colin Campbell who has been one on the forefront of nutrition research for over forty years.

    Campbell’s legacy, the China Study, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. He’s a renowned researcher at Cornell University. He has worked as a senior science adviser to the American Institute for Cancer Research, and sits on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

    I share all that to simply suggest that he might have a little bit of expertise that’s worth listening to.

    Campbell grew up the son of a dairy farmer and went into the field of nutrition, believing animal protein, specifically dairy, could help solve nutrition problems in countries with starving populations.

    What he found shocked and surprised him. And at first, he didn’t believe it. But he and others ran study after study, and the science led to one conclusion: a diet high in animal products and processed foods increases the risk of many cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other maladies just as surely as tobacco increases the risk of lung cancer. What he found is that the healthiest populations ate a whole-food, plant-based diet.

    Now that goes against a lot of what we’ve been told. Milk is supposed to do a body good. And surely there’s nothing more healthy than lean cuts of meat. And aren’t there studies that prove this?

    In this book Campbell explains the science behind the evidence for what he and other scientists are seeing, the ways our current scientific paradigm ignores the fascinating complexity of the human body, and why, if we have such overwhelming evidence that everything we think we know about nutrition is wrong, our eating habits haven’t changed.

    I know this may seem like yet another whiplash science report. You know the kind—one report says red wine is bad for you and the other says red wine is good. But in this book, Campbell explains why we get such goofy and contradictory claims.

    If you or someone you love is dealing with heart disease, cancer, including breast cancer, obesity, or diabetes, you will want to hear him out. Whether what he has to say persuades you and what you will do about it, is up to you. But I think you’ll benefit from listening. If you’re interested in science, this book will give you surprising insights about its practice that you probably haven’t considered. Listening to Campbell has been eye-opening. I highly recommend this book. If, after hearing it, you want more information, I recommend his previous book called The China Study.

    Share
  • Good Stuff! Atomic Habits, Let Me Finish, a Political Taxonomy

    Habits are one of the most powerful forces in our lives. If we could consciously harness them, there’s no telling what we can do.

    The problem is that we keep going about it all wrong.

    We keep trying to motivate ourselves into behavior change. Sometimes motivation works, but motivation is fickle. And more often than not it leaves us hanging just when we need it the most.

    So are we doomed?

    No.

    Because motivation is just one of four parts of creating habits. And it’s not even the most important one.

    What are these other parts? How do you harness them?

    Well, that’s the subject of Atomic Habits by James Clear.

    And one of the neat things is that Clear reveals that tiny changes can lead to remarkable results. No Herculean efforts. No getting yourself amped up. Something else that’s much easier to do and much more effective.

    The book’s been a New York Times bestseller.

    An Amazon bestseller.

    It’s been on the USA Today bestseller list for twenty-two weeks.

    If you want to build some good habits, if you want to stop some bad ones, if you want to make any behavior in yourself or others more likely, let me recommend you find out what Clear has discovered in his research and give it a try. I think you’ll be happy you did.

    *

    Chris Christie, the two-term governor of New Jersey, is an interesting figure.

    He was a federal prosecutor who cleaned up a ton of government corruption in New Jersey.

    And then he became governor. He might have come and gone like hundreds of governors, but a video went viral, showing his direct, in-your-face politics.

    Many begged him to run in the 2012 presidential election, including a whole bunch of billionaires.

    He turned them down. Said he wasn’t ready. You’ve got to admire someone who does that.

    Then he did run in the 2016 election, but failed to get the attention and votes he might have because Trump was sucking all the media out of the room. And that might have ended it. But Christie dropped out of the race and was the first to endorse Trump, who’d been a long-time friend.

    Trump almost picked him for vice president. The choice ended up being between Christie and Pence. Ultimately, he chose Pence and asked Christie to create the transition plan.

    Christie spent six months with a whole team of people creating that plan. It was a plan that would have helped Trump avoid so many disasters in appointments and policy during his first two hundred days. But when it was finished, the Trump team decided to throw it away.

    Why? What was going on?

    Christie is unlike Trump in many, many ways. Why would he support him?

    Christie reveals all and much more in Let Me Finish: Trump, the Kushners, Bannon, New Jersey, and the Power of In-Your-Face Politics.

    In the book he sets the record straight about his tenure as a corruption-fighting prosecutor and a Republican running a Democratic state, as well as what really happened on the 2016 campaign trail and inside Trump Tower. It’s a fascinating book that gives insights into the Trump team, Trump himself, and Christ Christie who I think would have made a terrific president.

    If you’re interested in politics, larger-than-life figures, and a view from the inside, I think you’ll love this book.

    *

    In less than three minutes, you can amaze your friends, cut through a lot of political blather, and clearly assess what’s being proposed over the next eighteen months as the presidential campaign heats up.

    How?

    By understanding the simple taxonomy below. 

    Every day folks in the media make accusations and claims about socialism, Sweden, Venezuela, capitalism, and the United States. Unfortunately, a lot of the time it’s clear they’re a bit muddled. So let’s cut through the confusion.  

    Whether you’re an independent, Democrat, or Republican, you’ll want to know these three terms.

    SOCIALISM

    The state owns and directs huge portions of the economy. The government in these schemes is the old-fashioned Soviet, Mao, and Nazi style dictatorships.

    These types of socialists did so much good in the 20th century. No other scheme was better at piling up dead bodies. Millions and millions of them.  

    An interesting tidbit. Did you know that “Nazi” is the abbreviation in German of “Nationalsozialistische”? That word means “National Socialist”. It comes from the name of Hitler’s political party, the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or “Nationalsozialistische der Deutsche Arbeiters Partei.”

    Nobody running for president today is advocating for this type of government.

    DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

    The state owns and directs huge portions of the economy. The government in these schemes is supposed to be democratic, which means you should be able to vote the bums out and put other bums in. Venezuela supposedly uses this model, although some wonder if it is a true democracy or a sham one.

    For those who like socialism, this is supposed to be the good way of doing it as opposed to the bad way of the old fashioned authoritarians. I will let you determine whether the “good” scheme actually leads to any better economic outcomes than the “bad” one.

    SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

    You rely on lots and lots and lots of capitalism (private ownership and direction of companies in a free market) to fund government social programs. The funding is done via high tax rates. You have elections and can vote the bums out and put other bums in. This is Sweden.

    A lot of people in the current presidential race are advocating for this type of government. Although, if they say that any system that allows billionaires to exist is immoral, you will need to scrutinize that candidate carefully because Sweden’s system allows billionaires. It may be that candidate actually wants some form of democratic socialism.

    One last point. If you think about it, the United States and Sweden are similar types of governments. They’re on the same continuum. The difference is that the United States is simply much less of a welfare state than Sweden is.

    There you have it. Three terms you are going to hear a million times over the next eighteen months.

    Amaze your friends by actually knowing what they mean.

    Be proud of your knowledge.

    And use it to carefully consider the candidates.

    Share
  • |

    Get great writing tips, for cheap!

    The annual Life, The Universe, and Everything writer’s conference is being held this year February 11-13. It’s chock full of panels and presentations from working authors. And this year you don’t have to live within driving distance of Provo, Utah to go because they’re doing it all online (thank you, Covid).

    I will be delivering two hour-long presentations. The first is about plot, where you learn the John Brown Story Framework that makes plotting so much easier. Heck, it makes story much easier. The second is for folks new to self-publishing and is called Indie Publishing 101.

    If you’re a new writer or looking to hone your craft, you will want to check it out.

    Share
  • Indie Thoughts: Authors, We Are Not Amazon

    Sometimes I think some of us indies get this weird attachment syndrome and start thinking we’re Amazon.

    Joe Konrath recently hosted a blog-conversation with Lee Child about the whole Amazon vs. traditional publishers thing. The Passive Voice had an active discussion about it as well.  Kudos to Lee Child for yet again showing up and injecting a new perspective into the conversation. It can indeed become something of an echo chamber in the main indie blogs, which I love, but which nevertheless do still tend to sometimes echo. Having someone with his experience come engage and share his two cents was helpful.

    One thing his comments reiterated to me is that neither Amazon nor the publishers are in this as the author’s let’s-get-pinky-rings BFF.

    I’m not going to carry an ounce of water for Amazon in their fight with Hachette. I’m not going to carry an ounce for the trad publishers either.

    I think it’s helpful for all of us to try to understand the truth about the business, and spread that to other authors, but that’s very different from this knee-jerk Defender of Amazon thing that goes on, which seems so very much like Republicans and Democrats turning a blind eye to their own candidates and fixating a hyper-critical one the others.

    Case in point: here’s a link to a description of Amazon’s Gazelle Project.

    Why do indie authors care? Because we’re Amazon vendors as well.

    Look, I love what Amazon has enabled me to do. I love that Nook and Apple are helping enable it as well. But was this Gazelle Project a good thing? A bad thing? If we stand by and cheer Amazon in such tactics, are we essentially standing by and cheering as Germany takes Austria, France, and Poland? Or are we like England cheering the USA coming in with their troops and bombers?

    I’m NOT a traditional publisher. And I’m NOT Amazon, or any other retailer. Even when I contract with them. None of us are. I sometimes wonder if some of us have gotten a bit confused about this.

    Konrath says don’t worry about the tiger (Amazon) when a wolf (traditional publishers) is gnawing on your leg. But if you’re an indie writer, you have no wolf gnawing on your leg. That’s someone else’s problem. But we are indeed in bed with the tiger.

    Why haven’t we seen more posts about the Gazelle Project on the big indie blogs? Lee Child, darling of the traditional publishers, has to point me in its direction? Why haven’t we been more curious about this tiger’s behavior?

    Let’s make hay while the sun shines. The tiger seems to be fairly decent right now. He’s not perfect. For example, eBay strangely enough only charges 15% to sell via their site while Amazon charges 30%. But let’s not forget that as decent as he is, he’s still a tiger. And he’s probably not like those poor guys being made to do tricks by Ringling Brothers.

    Ringling_brothers_over_the_top_tiger

    Share
  • The Surprising Truth About Militias and the Second Amendment

    When the founding fathers spoke of “militias,” they were not referring to a bunch of yahoos running around in the woods with paint on their faces outside of state control.

    They were referring to a citizen army under state control.

    So is “militia” just the old-time word for what our army is today?

    No.

    A standing or “regular” army is one made up of professional, full-time soldiers like the US Army, the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force. And it’s permanent, meaning you don’t disband the army when the fighting is done.

    A militia back in those days was something completely different.

    The problem of a standing army

    The founding fathers knew they needed to provide for the common defense, but they saw standing armies controlled by a central government as an immediate threat to the liberty the new union sought to preserve.

    Why would they think that?

    Easy. History was littered with case after case where standing armies had become a law unto themselves and oppressed the populace. One glaring example is what happened to the Roman empire. It suffered centuries where this faction and then that faction of the army was in control, and it brought nothing but a continual procession of civil wars and bloodshed.

    History also showed that even if the military didn’t take over, kings and queens were happy to wield standing armies to impose their will and oppress the people. Remember: the world then was ruled by monarchies. The founders had never seen a standing army wielded by any other type of power.

    So the founders didn’t want to give a president or any other central authority that power. They feared doing so would only pave the way to the ruin of the new nation they sought to form.

    So if you don’t have a standing army, how do you defend your country?

    The fyrd

    The founding fathers thought they saw a solution in a tradition of duty that went back hundreds of years in England. In the days when the Saxons ruled England, the kings and dukes would muster and deploy the fyrd to help them fight their wars.

    The fyrd was made up of all able-bodied free males between certain ages, regardless of their vocation. It was their duty to provide their own arms and defend the land when called by their leaders. So this was an army made up of farmers, tanners, smiths, tailors, etc.

    But the fyrd wasn’t a standing army. Nor was it populated with full-time soldiers. This citizen army was to be called out when needed, and when the crisis was over, it was disbanded, and the men went back to their vocations.

    The militia scheme

    The founders took this idea and tweaked it. Back in the Saxon days, the king controlled the fyrd. In this new scheme, the United States would rely on a fyrd (which they called a militia), but the powers to control it would be split between the president, Congress, and the States.

    First, Congress, not the president, was the only authority that could declare war and summon the state militias. So the president would be the commander in chief when the militia was active. But the minute Congress decided to end a war and disband the militia, that army dissolved, leaving the president as commander in chief of only the tiny number of troops that had been authorized as the regular army (less than 1,000 at the time).

    Second, while the Federal government would provide the weapons the militia would use when it mustered them for war, the state governments would be the ones to appoint the officers and train the soldiers. You can’t run an army without officers. So this would prevent the Federal government from taking control by stacking the army leadership with those loyal to a despot president or Congress.

    So the militia was supposed to be the main force that fought our wars, and it was supposed to be temporary. It’s true that Congress did authorize a standing army, but it was tiny. And with this setup, the founders figured we’d have the army we’d need, but we’d avoid the problems standing armies had posed in the past.

    So militias, as thought of by the founders in the 1700s, were not groups outside the government’s control. They were temporary citizen armies. And power over them was broken up between the president, Congress, and the States so no one group or person could wield them tyrannically.

    1791 and The Bill of Rights

    Accordingly, the founders wrote the articles and sections of the Constitution in 1787 to set all of this up. However, many anti-federalists were concerned that the Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the rights of individuals and limit the power of the Federal government. In fact, many of the founders were so concerned about the issue that they refused to ratify the Constitution as it was.

    The only way they’d sign on is with the promise of the Bill of Rights. When they knew that bill was forthcoming, delegates from nine of the original thirteen states ratified the Constitution. The delegates of two other states waited until the document was produced. The final two (North Carolina and Rhode Island) waited until 1791 when the Bill of Rights, which includes the second amendment, was passed.

    So let’s look at the language of the Second Amendment in light of what we know about the fear the founders had of standing armies.

    “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.”

    Why did they include this? It was not because they wanted the citizens to be able to hunt or protect themselves with guns. They figured that was a given. They included this amendment because they concluded that an armed citizenry would make it impossible for tyranny to arise.

    Noah Webster, a Federalist, stated the idea this way when trying to persuade Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution:

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive”

    So the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because enough of the founders feared that the Constitution could be read in a way that would allow the Federal government to disarm the populace. Disarming the populace would open the way to a standing army under Federal control. And that would open the way to tyranny.

    When all was said and done, the founders separated the power of the military in this way:

    • Only Congress could declare war and muster the militia
    • Only Congress could finance it
    • There would be no standing army to speak of
    • Only the states could appoint officers to the militia
    • The government was forbidden to infringe on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms

    So what happened?

    Militias didn’t work

    The problem is the militia didn’t work well enough to actually provide for the common defense.

    It didn’t work during the Revolutionary War. The republic had to create the Continental Army. That army was supported by the militias, but the colonists found they couldn’t rely on the militias alone. They had to have the regular army to fight the British.

    After the war, the Continental Army was disbanded, but the militias simply weren’t good enough to face the threats the new nation faced, and George Washington himself openly lamented it. The troops took a licking in 1791 at the battle of St. Claire’s and then time and again during the War of 1812.

    Heck, militias didn’t even work in the days of the fyrd. In those days, the Saxon and Norman kings relied on their house warriors (their standing army) and mercenaries for most of the work. They only supplemented with the fyrd.

    1792

    After the defeat in 1791, the early leaders concluded they needed a regular army with the training and skill it possessed. So in 1792 Congress authorized the creation of the First Legion of the United States, a standing army of 5,190 men. The legion was renamed “The United States Army” in 1796.

    In 1792 Congress also passed the Militia Acts. The acts were written to expire in two years. But Congress wrote another in 1795 to replace them. These laws authorized the president to called out the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion” and “whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act.”

    So a mere five years after the Constitution was first ratified, and a year after the Bill of Rights, Congress dramatically increased the size of the nation’s standing army and gave the President the authority to call out the militia! It’s clear that right from the beginning the militia scheme started showing some cracks.

    Today

    The First Legion was small. But it grew again in 1808, and then again during the war of 1812. And it continued to grow slowly, then ballooned in the 1900s until we now have more than a million troops in the armed forces of the US.

    The National Guard is what the militias of the 1800s transformed into in the early 1900s, but, wouldn’t you know it, the National Guard is now mostly under the control of the Federal government too.

    What does this mean?

    It means we now have the most powerful standing army the world has ever known and almost no militia. It means our military is a complete 180 of what the founders envisioned.

    I’m not saying it’s bad. I love our military.

    I’m merely pointing out that militias back then meant a certain thing and the founders wanted them for a certain reason. And that we have completely replaced that arrangement with the exact opposite.

    As for tyranny, we still have armed citizens. Maybe this is enough to deter tyranny as Webster claimed. Although the disparity between what the citizens can arm themselves with now and what the regular army has is nothing like it was in the 1700s. So maybe there are other laws and aspects of our culture that have prevented it. Maybe it’s both.

    Either way, it’s important to understand what the original militias were, why the founders wanted them, and what the second amendment was all about.

    More

    Helpful articles

    US Constitution – Provisions for the military

    Here are all of the parts of the original seven articles of the Constitution that deal with the military.

    Article 1 – The Congress
    Section 8

    This section gives Congress seventeen powers. Six of these have to with the common defense. Those military powers granted are:

    • To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    • To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    • To provide and maintain a Navy;
    • To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    • To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [notice there are only three cases that warrant the calling forth of the militia]
    • To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Section 10

    This section prevents the States from doing thirteen things. Three of these have to do with the military.

    “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

    Article 2 – The President
    Section 2

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    Article 4 – The States
    Section 4

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

    Share
  • Larry Correia and I on Blades and Blasters Podcast talking about Gun Runner

    Larry and I went on the Blasters and Blades podcast to talk about fantasy, science fiction, and working together on Gun Runner. I also shared my weirdest experience on a book tour (hint: Reptoids from the Hollow Earth). It was a fun show.

    Podcast: https://anchor.fm/blasters-and-blades/episodes/Episode-9-Larry-Correia–John-D-Brown–Running-Down-the-Guns-etdli3

    YouTube: https://youtu.be/ujQj-crWe-8

    Share