Close
Bryan Fischer: If president wanted to destroy this country, this is how he’d do it
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 8:28 AM

By Bryan Fischer 

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”

 

If a Machiavellian genius were to set out to destroy the United States, he would do three things. Disarm and weaken our military so it cannot defend us against foreign enemies. Disarm the National Guard so it cannot defend the States against the federal government. Nationalize and militarize law enforcement by weaponizing bureaucrats. 

 

That version of the U.S. would be helpless, governed by a tyrant, and without a cultural or moral core. It would soon cease even to faintly resemble the country bequeathed to us by the Founders. 

 

Whether by malevolent design or stupendous ineptitude and rash impulse, this is precisely the blueprint being followed by our current president. 

 

Our commander-in-chief has canceled the militarys Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles, with no replacements in view for at least a decade. The Tomahawk is the most advanced cruise missile in the world and is the secret to the superiority of the U.S. Navy. The Hellfire is an extremely effective air-to-surface anti-tank weapon. 

 

According to Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institutes Center for American Seapower, if someone were trying to “reduce the U.S. ability to shape events” in the world, he couldn’t “find a better way than depriving the U.S. fleet of Tomahawks. It’s breathtaking.”

 

Obama is deliberately reducing the armys troop strength to pre-World War II levels. With open homosexuals serving in the military and women foolishly and dangerously being prepped for combat roles, military morale is plummeting and recruitment is suffering. The president has reduced our militarys goal from being able to fight a two-front war to fighting a one-front war with some ability for holding actions on a second front. Such pronounced weakness invites aggression from our enemies. 

 

The president is likewise disarming our National Guard units by transferring their Apache attack helicopters to the Army and trading them in for Blackhawks, which are designed not for combat but for transport. 

 

National Guard units have been instrumental in the nations war efforts. There were times during Operation Iraqi Freedom when Guard troops represented over 50% of the Armys combat power. Along with Reserve troops, they have accounted for nearly a third of the service members who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. 

 

Why would the president wish to neuter such an effective fighting force? Its quite simple really. National Guard units are part of State militias and therefore under the primary command of their state governors, until they mobilized for use in national defense operations. Because their commander-in-chief under ordinary circumstances is their governor, not their president, Guard units represent the last line of defense against a president drunk on his own tyrannical power. 

 

In a Cliven Bundy kind of situation, where an ordinary citizen in one of our sovereign States is being threatened by armed bureaucrats pointing assault rifles at their wives and children, it makes a huge difference whether available attack helicopters are under the command of the federal government or under the command of a state governor determined to protect the rights of his citizens to life, liberty and property, if necessary against federal tyranny. 

 

As George Washington said, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." A power-mad president would not want any State actors with “sufficient arms and ammunition” to protect their own citizens from federal oppression. In other words, if he finds it necessary to fire on a state’s militia, he doesn’t want that militia to be able to shoot back.

 

At the same time our president is weakening our military and neutering the National Guard, he is weaponizing bureaucrats. He famously declared in 2008 that we can no longer continue to rely on our military to protect our national security. No, said the president,“We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

 

That statement has been forgotten by everyone. Everyone, that is, except President Obama. He has made good on this frightening promise in ways that most Americans dont realize. He currently has 120,000 bureaucrats - i.e., civilians - representing federal agencies who are armed to the eyeballs. 

 

Here is just a partial list:

 

     The U.S. Department of Education 

     The Bureau of Land Management (200 uniformed law enforcement rangers and 70 special agents)

     The U.S. Department of the Interior 

     The U.S. Postal Inspection Service (with an armed uniformed division of 1.000)

     The National Park Service 

     The Environmental Protection Agency (200 special agents)

     The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (224 special agents)

     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(Yes, the president has put lethal weapons into the hands of our nation’s weathermen, God help us.)

Even the Library of Congress, if you can believe it, is armored up. The Department of Education has its own SWAT team, and weve all seen Harry Reids BLM Brownshirts in action over the last several weeks. The Department of Homeland Security has 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition, which by international law cannot be used in warfare. In other words, the only possible use for this overwhelming tonnage of ammo is for it to be trained on our own citizens. 

 

So under this president, our military has been critically weakened, our state militias have been critically weakened, and our nations bureaucrats have been armed to the ear lobes. Only a fool who does not love this country as founded could fail to be deeply alarmed. 

 

This president has two and one-half more years to work his mischief. Who will stand in his way? 

 

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

  

TOP VIDEOS
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
OTHER BLOG POSTS