Some in Military Want to 'Take Out the President'

[Richard]

I wonder how General Boykin will respond to the inevitable "visitors" he'll get over this one.

Richard

Retired General: Some in Military Want to 'Take Out the President'
NJ, 1 Nov 2013

A former top general and current executive at the Family Research Council says members of the military have considered staging a coup d'état against President, but will not because of civilian control of the military.

"People I've spoken to would like to see the military 'fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,' " retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin told World Net Daily, a website best known for pushing Obama "birther" conspiracy theories. "Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You're not going to see a coup in the military."

"I talk to a lot of folks who don't support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can't say anything," Boykin said.

Boykin, an evangelical Christian who is now the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, was publicly repudiated by President Bush twice in 2003 for saying Muslims worship an "idol" and not "a real God." Last year, Boykin abruptly pulled out of appearing at a West Point ceremony after controversy erupted over the invitation. (Boykin has also said Islam "should not be protected under the First Amendment" and that there should be "no mosques in America" because "a mosque is an embassy for Islam and they recognize only a global caliphate.")

Boykin said Obama has purged from the ranks officers who don't support the president's "political correctness." The president's agenda, including the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and allowing women to serve in combat, are making the military weaker, Boykin added.

(Cont'd) http://www.nationaljournal.com/defen...ident-20131101

[Trapper John]

Oweee! I think he stepped on his crank with that one!

[Paslode]

Considering the topic of enemies foreign and domestic comes up on public forums frequently 'People' could be nothing more than people he runs into on the street.

[Team Sergeant]

Knowing the units General Boykin served in and the individual's that might have "said" that I'm guessing the Secret Service is wetting their collective pants right now......

[Ambush Master]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Knowing the units General Boykin served in and the individual's that might have "said" that I'm guessing the Secret Service is wetting their collective pants right now......

Standing by to "STAND READY"!!!

[Peregrino]

Once again Boykin leaves himself vulnerable to leftist "editing". I read the article. Somehow I missed where he said a military coup was pending. In fact, if I understand what I read, he says the exact opposite. But the author succeeded in his purposes, dragging his red herring in front of all the usual drooling idiots and inciting rampant stupidity - on both sides. The comments were far more revealing than the article itself. God help my country, but I'm not holding much hope any more.

[Knight]

"All that we need for evil to prevail, is for good men to stand by and do nothing". Edmund Burke

Good for him!! We should all join him. It may already be too late. I do believe he said it with tact, and of course, as usual, it has been tampered with. God Bless!!

[Razor]

Brain/Mouth clutch needs some tightening up. You can think whatever you want (for now), but some things shouldn't be publically proclaimed.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Somehow I missed where he said a military coup was pending. In fact, if I understand what I read, he says the exact opposite.

That was my take when I read it yesterday.

Further more I believe he was addressing 'The (non-military) People' who see the military as the last line of defense when the government steps way over the line, and they would like to see the military stay true to their oath (in their eyes) to remove the domestic enemies that are currently running this country into the ground.

[Team Sergeant]

Having been a bodyguard for an Ambassador, US Senators, and congressman and have walked in arms reach behind the Sec of State in a war zone, fully armed the only individual in the US Government that will not allow the military to be armed in their presence is POTUS.

So the statement "Some on the military want to take out the president" has been known for decades. I've been in rifle range of a US President (Jimmy Carter) while in uniform while holding a M-16 with the bolt removed. I thought it pretty amusing an entire division holding rifles that were completely useless if the president was in fact attacked.

[Trapper John]

IMO, this was a huge tactical mistake on the General's part.

My reasoning: We know that the Left will take something like this - "People I've spoken to would like to see the military 'fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,' " and use it to their fullest advantage to further marginalize the Right not just as Right Wing nut jobs - but now as anarchists and the General just gave them prima facia evidence to support their claim. It doesn't matter what he meant and certainly doesn't matter how he qualified his remarks. That's the message that will be taken here.

With stupid remarks like we have seen recently such as "legitimate rape" or the notion that a woman's body can reject a pregnancy if she is raped, we just don't need to give the Left more ammunition - and coming from a respected General none the less.

This only makes it so much harder to get our message heard and is more divisive. General Boykin just gave us another hurdle, IMO.

[ddoering]

They can fix it by making everyone swear loyalty to the leader. A minor change to the oath, really.

[orion5]

GEN Boykin's response on Facebook approx 14:45 CST 11/02/13:



Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin


I shouldn't be surprised to see that in 24 hours my words have been twisted. If you have been to any event I have spoken at or read my articles, you know I staunchly support the Constitution. When asked if I thought a military coup would happen I stated: "Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You're not going to see a coup in the military."

Now, this was said primarily in response to (here is another direct quote): "People I've spoken to would like to see the military 'fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president.'"

That question was asked by individuals that call BHO a 'tyrant' (their word, not mine). I also never said these people were in the military (they aren't). I provided a response on why I think a coup is something that will not happen. When you staunchly support the Constitution as I do, anything that violates it is off the table as a response or course of action, in my book.

But between the National Journal and Wonkette today, they are claiming that I said our Military wants to take out the President. They specifically tie it to this quote:
"I talk to a lot of folks who don't support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can't say anything."

Now that statement is in direct reference to situations like Gen. McCrystal. When you are on Active Duty, you are restricted from criticizing civilian leadership. It's why I and others must be advocates for those in the Armed Forces on active duty.

But, in the minds of those writing these articles, if people disagree with the President, it must result in violence. That's how they must label us in order to ostracize our opinions and marginalize our voice; Present us as violent radicals. Even though this ignores the fact that the question of coup was never coming from inside the military, but from outside it.

Either way, that's the opinion they have of me, and anyone else that doesn't share their perspective or world view; Disagreement must equate to violence. It's the label they slap on anyone that doesn't agree with them. Then they put us on a slide marked "Hate Groups" and then tell our Soldiers that we're the threat.

In their myopic view of the world, if you believe in God, the sanctity of marriage and recognize the clear and present danger of radical Islam, then you must be a "wingnut" calling for violent military coup.

Let's hear it for "tolerance", right folks?

I'm only posting the link to the National Journal story. I don't want to subject you folks to the trolls and bile-spewers that occupy their comments section. If you are desperate to read it I'm sure you'll find it. Be sure to go to my Offical Page: www.facebook.com/generalboykin if you want to see my post on the alarming trend of relieving senior flag officers from duty early.

The Original Article they pulled quotes from: http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-gener..._orig=politics
The National Journal article: http://www.nationaljournal.com/defen...ident-20131101

[Team Sergeant]

Figures the media is twisting his words, again.

[The Reaper]

I worked for General Boykin for two years.

I doubted that he said what the article implied he did.

Glad to see orion5's post that he refuted it.

TR