The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on November 01, 2013, 09:59:01 pm
-
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/retired-general-some-in-military-want-to-take-out-the-president-20131101 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/retired-general-some-in-military-want-to-take-out-the-president-20131101)
Retired General: Some in Military Want to 'Take Out the President'
William Boykin, now a Family Research Council executive, says military officers are sick of Obama's political correctness.
By Alex Seitz-Wald
Follow on Twitter
November 1, 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.
Another former general, retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, bemoaned to WND that today's military is all "girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer."
-
There ya' have it.. and there it is...
-
Some in the military know their enemy.
-
"People I've spoken to would like to see the military 'fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,'
There is no 'Constitutional duty to take out the President'. The Constitution gives specific ways a president can be removed- by election or by impeachment. This 'take out' talk is third world crap. I can't stand the President any more than the next guy, but an attack on the President is an attack on the office and the Constitution. It isn't fulfilling any duty- it is a crime.
-
But the Constitution does say after a long train of usurpations, it is the DUTY of Americans to throw off such government. It doesn't say by ballot because I'm certain they knew that kind of reaction to the government wasn't going to be a "kinder and gentler" removal. It would be nice to see them roll into D.C. and take the whole rotten mess to Gitmo, however, like any other terrorists. :patriot:
-
Paging General James Mattoon Scott -- please pick up the nearest courtesy phone, your leadership services are required...
If you haven't ever watched "Seven Days In May", it's worth your time to do so.
I believe it may be seen on YouTube...
-
There is no 'Constitutional duty to take out the President'. The Constitution gives specific ways a president can be removed- by election or by impeachment. This 'take out' talk is third world crap. I can't stand the President any more than the next guy, but an attack on the President is an attack on the office and the Constitution. It isn't fulfilling any duty- it is a crime.
Absolutely. We got the President we deserved - "we" as a nation - and we got him because we willingly chose him; if we're to change that, then we have to do it through the same Constitutional methods we used to get him in the first place.