Boykin specifically said that because of the civilian-military relationship, he did not see any prospect for a “coup” coming from the military ranks.
“People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’” Boykin said. “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.”
Nevertheless, Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.
“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.
As a consequence, he said, the lower grades therefore have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.
General Boykins' remarks in WND clearly indicate that he neither expects nor supports a military coup against Barack Obama. But it should be no surprise that the National Journal is making it look like he's advocating a coup; the author of the article, Alex Seitz-Wald, has a pronounced progressive bias, functioning as Salon's political reporter and as the assistant editor of ThinkProgress.org, a prominent lefty site. The hard left has a vested interest in blowing these types of stories completely out of proportion. So to further combat this leftist propaganda, General Boykins published an extended rebuttal on his Facebook page; a screenshot is posted below:
|Click to enlarge or go HERE for original|
General Boykin has also been targeted by the left because he isd an executive with the Family Research Council. The Southern Poverty Law Center has smeared the FRC as a "hate group" because they speak out on behalf of traditional American vlaues, to include traditional marriage. Unable to score enough donations by targeting racists alone, they successively cast wider nets to include militia groups, sovereign citizens, and pro-family advocacy groups in order to maintain their public profile and keep the donation spigot cranked wide open.