In this episode of “Prime Time with Alex Stein,” we have a debate for the ages: Is the Earth flat?
Famous flat-earther Jeran Campanella, aka @jeranism, returns to the show to defend his beliefs against former Space Force Commander Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier.
Will Jeran finally be convinced that the Earth is a globe? Or will this space commander shock the world and admit that the earth is flat?
Don’t miss this episode of “Prime Time with Alex Stein”!
Matt Lohmeier was on Rich Valdés America at Night Podcast to talk about the recent warnings from Capitol Hill about the national security threat posed by Russia.
Matt’s interview starts around the 40 minute mark:
Matthew Lohmeier was on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Judging Freedom show:
MUST WATCH: What a fascinating conversation this afternoon with Lt. Col. @matthewlohmeier
Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier, USAF fighter pilot and a former space-based missile warning squadron commander with the US Space Force, is a public speaker, consultant, and author of the… pic.twitter.com/tbnJ9IaMzL
— Judge Napolitano (@Judgenap) January 29, 2024
Some comments on video:
“I am a retired Marine; This man knows what he is talking about and is illuminating exactly what is wrong with the American military.”
“I have 3 nephews, all were / are Active Duty. 2 Navy,1 Army. My eldest nephew was a Navy Aviator. Flew the Growler, F-35s & was an Instructor. He flew some of the stunts in Tom Cruz’s last movie. He & my Army nephew have both quit the Military even though they planned on making it their Careers. Both said,” Can’t take the Woke Cr*p anymore.”
“Well, my son is in right now and he has eleven months left and he will be done! i did 21 in the military. i talk to him and some of the things he says he has had briefings on just leaves me with a WTF look on my face! i told him you do your time and get outta there before something happens and you get sucked into it! they do no real training! he has a rifle that they gave him and he has never got to go zero yet and its been nine months! its all about the higher ups at the expense of the lower enlisted! it is darn sickening to see the e-4 and below get thrown under the bus to make the higher ups look good for promotion! they dont get much ammo when they do train, he is a mortar man and his last time at the range they got maybe 20 rounds to train with but, you can bet ukraine got mortar rounds to fire! it sickens me! “when you elect clowns and they promote jesters, dont be surprised when your govt and your military turns into a circus!” our defeat on the battlefield is going to be catastropic and that defeat is fast approaching!”
“I hope his discharge can be reversed in the next administration. As to the issue of race in the military, his testimony is truly depressing. I was a young Naval officer 50 years ago as our country came out from the Vietnam War and a decade of race riots in the 60s. The Navy took on the issue of racial discrimination/tension head on. I was enlisted to teach a basic course in “Navy rights and responsibilities” probably written by one of the big consulting firms. The training was somewhat amusing but had two takeaways: 1) all members of the military will be treated with respect, regardless of race, or else, and 2) we are here for mission accomplishment, no other reason. Remarkably, this worked for the next 20 years until I retired in 1993. This progress has been destroyed by Austin and Co. I observe this with great sadness and some trepidation about the future.”
“It only takes a couple of minutes into that interview to realise this young guy must of excelled in all aspects of his career. Very analytical and insightful thinking you could he was still in first gear brushing the surface of his knowledge and experience. Definitely need to invite him back.”
“This is an exceptional young man. What is confounding is that the US Military would see fit to turn him out, thereby diluting the effectiveness of their force capability. I say this because it is doubtful the majority of todays military has Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier’s intelligence, integrity, loyalty, commitment of purpose, and I don’t doubt, ability to be lethal when necessary. This fine fellow is a welcome addition to the analysis team. I know his input will be valuable.”
“Listening to this Lt Col. made my blood boil and I’m a Brit! The US needs this kind of individual in charge of its military, not getting fired. Woke extremism could potentially be the death of us all. V sadly, it’s happening here too.”
How DEI Is Weakening The Military with Matthew Lohmeier (TFTC Podcast)
Marty sits down with Lt. Col Matthew Lohmeier to discuss how politics and DEl are dividing and weakening the US military, and how the silent majority can speak up and resist.
0:00 – Intro
6:45 – Politics dividing the military
15:57 – Military of the best
22:28 – DEI harms those it “protects”
27:00 – US weakening is rapid and likely intentional
40:15 – What’s making us stronger?
47:12 – First steps to mending
54:18 – Call to the silent majority
50:03 – Money and incentives
1:02:15 – Define your values
Former USSF Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier was on the Securing America show with Frank Gaffney talking about the CRT/DEI cultural Marxism agenda in the military.
Watch:
In Lt Col Matthew Lohmeier’s recent testimony on Capitol Hill, he included in his statement his complaint (below) to the DOD IG.
It’s a shocking look at the off-the-charts level of anti-American, divisive Marxist ideology/propaganda being pushed on serving members of the US Space Force. Soviet Political Commissars would fall off their chairs knowing this activity was going on at an American base. PRC military political commissars would smile at the American “Struggle Sessions”.
How very far we’ve come from fighting Marxism during the Cold War to welcoming and indoctrinating our military forces with the very ideology we opposed for 70 years. How do Guardians want to fight and defend our country that they are taught to hate?
18 November 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
FROM: 11 SWS/CC
SUBJECT: Fair and Equal Treatment of Individuals at Buckley Air Force Base Colorado
1. Colonel Devin Pepper, Garrison Commander at Buckley Air Force Base Colorado, has unethically used his position to promote anti-American propaganda to the military personnel at his base.
The ideologically-driven narrative he espouses, which is rooted in critical race theory (CRT), is engendering division and resentment within the ranks, undermining good order and discipline, and eroding the confidence military professionals place in their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
2. Under the banner of “Diversity & Inclusion,” this divisive agenda has continued at Buckley Garrison despite the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Memorandums (dated 4 September 2020 and 28 September 2020; Attachment 1), the President’s Executive Order (EO) (dated 22 September 2020; Attachment 2, e.g. Sections 2 & 3), and the Defense Department’s Memorandum on implementation of the EO (dated 16 October 2020; Attachment 3) otherwise banning such trainings.
Some of the trainings at Buckley Garrison are racist and hostile, and undermine our obligation to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.
The present memorandum summarizes only some of what I have witnessed since arriving at Buckley in June 2020, and is not an effort to be exhaustive.
Further, it details occurrences both preceding and succeeding the aforementioned EO and memorandums.
I point out that my experience is not unique, and that other leaders and military personnel have discussed with me their concerns over the climate at the base but that they are unsure how to address the problem.
3. On 24 June 2020, shortly after I moved to Buckley, the base commander sent an email containing anti-American, progressive political propaganda to the members of his base (Attachment 4).
He requested that members comprised of both Air and Space Force personnel view two propaganda videos prior to the upcoming “Buckley Connects Virtual Wingman Day.”
The two videos were “The Uncomfortable Truth (Amazon Prime, 2017), by Loki Mulholland, and “13th” (Netflix, 2016). They contain at least the following inappropriate and concerning elements:
a. “The Uncomfortable Truth” portrays American history as fraught with racism from 1619 till the present. It teaches that a racist social order was codified by the US Constitution to allow whites to remain in power and subjugate and oppress blacks, and that we have never escaped from that foundation of racism; that upon ratification of the constitution “white supremacy was now the official policy of the United States of America.”
b. “13th” portrays Republican politicians as racist (claiming, for example, that George Bush won his election by causing Americans to fear black people, and also showing clips of Donald Trump before the 2016 election that cast him in a negative light, insinuating that he has fueled systemic racism in America), portrays Democrats as aiding the black community (for example, favorable clips of Barack Obama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton), and interviews a famous Marxist activist (Melina Abdullah, Black Live’s Matter LA chapter organizer and activist) in order to build a suitably unfavorable narrative about American history in order to justify and demonstrate sympathy for violent riots specifically.
The United States is referred to as a “system of oppression” throughout the film. The President of the United States is cast in a terrible light (and out of context) at 1:20:15 to imply he enjoys oppressing blacks and keeping minorities in an inferior status.
As a commander of young military professionals, all of whom have taken the oath to support and defend the constitution, I am very concerned that group identity politics and anti-American propaganda is eroding the trust and confidence these young people have in their country and in the constitution.
This same ideology has, in various forums, continued to be promulgated throughout my time at the base.
4. On Friday, 26 June 2020, the base hosted the “Buckley Connects Virtual Wingman Day,” during which conversations on “Race, Respect, and Healing” took place.
The stated goal of the event was to “create safe spaces” to discuss race and seek “racial healing” (Attachment 5).
Statements were read at the beginning of small group discussions to generate conversation. It was suggested to facilitators of these group discussions to read the following statements:
“Police in America are more suspicious of certain people based on their race,” and “I believe racism is prevalent in our country (…in the Air Force).”
Participants were asked to write whether they agreed with the statements and share their responses with the group.
Once participants were “more comfortable,” they were directed to “get serious, and deepen the conversation” using at least three of the following:
“How often do you think about your racial or ethnic identity?”
“What aspect of your racial or ethnic identity makes you the proudest?”
“In what ways does being your specific race or ethnicity impact your personal and/or professional life?”
“Does racial or ethnic identity enter in your process of making important or daily decisions?”
“Have you ever felt ‘different’ in a group setting because of your race/ethnicity? How did this affect you? How often/deeply do you interact with people of a different racial/ethnic identity other than your own?”
“Have you ever witnessed someone being treated unfairly because of their racial or ethnic identity? In the Air Force? If so, how did you respond? How did it make you feel?”
“What do you think needs to happen before our country can achieve healing and forgiveness? What can we do locally? In the Air Force?”
It was hoped that these discussions would “provide opportunities to acknowledge the tremendous damage inflicted by individual and systemic racism,” and lead participants to become “oriented toward equity.”
These statements and questions imply that certain ideas are a foregone conclusion, thereby subtly coercing participants into acquiescence or simply shaming them into silence.
The climate created by these discussions leads participants to feel that if they disagree they are likely to be viewed as “racist,” or “part of the problem,” or as “getting political.”
5. Around the same time, other guidance (in the form of emails, town halls, Facebook Live events, discussion guidelines, and talking points) was disseminated to help leaders on the base facilitate ongoing conversation about racial injustice and inequity in the country and in the service.
Once such tool that was sent to leaders, titled “Difficult Conversations: Racial & Ethnic Diversity” (Attachment 6), discussed the importance in “establishing a safe and courageous environment within your workplace” in order to minimize discomfort in discussions about race.
Leaders were also cautioned, however, that “for some Airmen and Space Professionals-particularly members of marginalized, non-majority or targeted identity groups-you may not be able to provide complete safety.”
The implication, of course, was that the military workplace is not already a safe environment for minorities and that “identity groups” play a fundamental role in military organizational culture and identity.
6. Emails about race and racism from various base agencies, including from the base commander, continued to go to base personnel during the months of June and July 2020.
In one such email from Col Pepper, he asked leaders to read an article written by Daisy Auger-Dominguez (the Chief People Officer at VICE Media Group, and Vice-Chair of the board of directors of Planned Parenthood Federation) titled, “Getting Over Your Fear of Talking About Diversity,” which he attached to his email (Attachment 7).
The article suggests leaders read certain books to educate themselves about “issues of women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups.”
The books recommended included ljeoma Oluo’s So You Want to Talk About Race (see Paragraph 11 ), Minda Harts’ The Memo: What Women of Color Need to Know to Secure a Seat at the Table, Jodi Patterson’s The Bold World, and Dolly Chugh’s The Person You Mean to Be: How Good People Fight Bias.
The article further instructs leaders to “apologize and admit your mistakes,” and to take up the work “as an ally in a position of power” to launch “team conversations about white fragility, holding all-hands meetings calling out racially charged incidents when they happen, or introducing yourself with your pronouns.”
7. In July 2020, Col Pepper suggested that the base Community Support Coordinator compile a list of Diversity & Inclusion initiatives (i.e. book clubs, small group discussions, etc.) that had been implemented by the various units on base so that such initiatives might be “shared with everyone” (Attachment 8).
In a 10 July email solicitation of those initiatives, it was advertised that the Buckley Chapel team was developing its own discussion groups.
The first topic to be discussed was “valuing people.” The chapel explained that “we will do so by watching a video on racism that documents generational and political racism followed by a facilitated discussion on racism.”
I later came to learn from young enlisted space professionals in my own unit as well as from Chaplain Travis Barrino, that the chapel had also established minority small group discussions, and classes titled “Race in America” that were available to everyone.
Twelve days later, a follow-up email was sent by the Community Support Coordinator to base leaders containing a consolidated list of Diversity & Inclusion initiatives.
Among them, the base Force Support Squadron shared that they were giving their enlisted members “homework” to research issues related to race in America, and that they would be discussing their homework bi-weekly at enlisted calls to “keep the discussion on Race and Respect a constant topic in the squadron.”
These are merely a couple of examples of initiatives among others being organized at Buckley Garrison.
8. In July 2020, shortly after I took command. Chaplain Barrino and SSgt Jerome Cobb stopped by my office to introduce themselves. Then squadron superintendent, SMSgt Kevin Ryan, was in my office at the time of the brief introduction.
Chaplain Barrino explained that it was no longer the Chapel’s practice to give office space to their chaplains over in the chapel, that that was how the chapel used to do things, but that the chaplains were now expected to live amongst and be imbedded in the units they served.
He explained that Lt Col Ray Brushier had already provided him an office space within the cyber squadron, and that he (the chaplain) was also interested in finding office space within my unit, the 11th Space Warning Squadron (11 SWS) (the chaplain clarified during the conversation that he was not looking for his own office, per se).
He also explained his intent to share the “Race in America” classes or lectures with the members of my unit.
I explained to him that I was on my way out the door, kindly expressed hesitation at his proposal, and said that I would like to sit down with him at some point soon to meet him and learn more about the classes.
The chaplain seemed surprised at my hesitation and pursued the issue further.
Surprised by his insistence, I respectfully explained that this was an operations squadron, that we have a mission to accomplish, that there was no greater advocate of the important role of the chaplaincy than me, but that there was also a proper balance between operations and chaplain support that I was interested in finding.
At that, he said, “I have heard about commanders like you, but I’ve never met one.”
While I cannot know for sure what was meant by the chaplain’s statement, I considered it a jab.
The comment seemed intended to convey the chaplain’s dismay at my reluctance to readily welcome his classes (about which I knew very little at the time) into my squadron.
The chaplain has a friendly demeanor, and though his statement was not said with an angry tone, I could not help but perceive he viewed me as an opponent to what he was pursuing, and it left me concerned about our interaction.
I do not know if our initial conversation was shared with others. SMSgt Ryan was present for the entirety of our brief visit.
9. On Wednesday, 12 August 2020, at 1400, Chaplain Barrino sat down with me and my superintendent, SMSgt Ryan, in my office to discuss the contents of the “Race in America” classes.
The conversation lasted for about an hour and fifteen minutes. The chaplain explained that the classes were intended to facilitate dialogue on how we can heal as a nation and as a service, and overcome systemic racism.
I asked him what he meant by systemic racism. He replied with an unclear vignette, skirting the issue somewhat, and then replied, after brief hesitation, “basically, whites are racist.”
I told him I did not believe such a problem existed in our country or within our service, and explained to him why I thought such a message not only had no healing power, but that I was concerned it would create division and unhealthy tension between members of my unit.
We had much dialogue over these issues, which for the most part was professional and respectful despite our opposite views.
The chaplain shared many views which gave me cause for concern.
Among the most alarming to me were his views that the United States was founded by racists, that American history was written by a white oppressor class that was racist, and that “history must be re-written.”
I again expressed concern over his views. I explained to him that to impugn guilt to members of my unit solely based on the color of their skin was the very definition of racism.
I also expressed my concern that the narrative he had chosen to adopt about American history was fueled by a divisive political ideology that was dangerous. He of course disagreed.
I also explained to him that his narrative on race and American history undermined the trust our service members place in their oath to support and defend the constitution. He disagreed.
10. In September 2020, an active duty, black female enlisted member of my unit came to my office to discuss a concern she had with regards to another male member of the unit. My First Sergeant, MSgt Ryan Kane, was present for the conversation.
We had a long conversation with the member, and took very seriously and investigated her concerns about a statement she overheard another member of the unit make to his friends, to which she took offense and considered racist.
That particular complaint was adjudicated appropriately and to the satisfaction of myself, my First Sergeant, and the complainant, and is not the issue I would like to address.
During the course of conversation with this female member, she explained “I never knew before that I was an outsider; not just in my country, but in my own service. I never knew about that until I attended the classes at the Chapel with the chaplain.”
We asked her about the classes, and she explained that she had been attending a minority group discussion hosted by the chaplain at which they were discussing issues of race in America.
It was clear to the First Sergeant and me that this member was being trained to view the motives, statements, and behaviors of others as racist.
The fact that the member said she “never knew before” that she was an outsider, gave us greater cause for concern over the classes that were being hosted by the chaplain.
The First Sergeant and I are aware of at least one other member of our unit (also a black enlisted member) attending the classes.
The classes in question, which plant this divisive, fear-filled and hate-fueled ideology into the hearts of our active duty members, is not only known about by the Garrison Commander (the “base commander” became the “garrison commander” on 24 July 2020), but has his ongoing support and advocacy, as is evidenced in his emails to the base, his base resiliency days, his town halls in which he makes occasional mention of these initiatives, and his Team Buckley bi-weekly tag-up during which he and the Chaplain invite others to attend these discussions.
11. The Garrison Commander and the base chapel are sponsoring a “Discussions on Race Book Club” at which critical race theory (CRT) is taught.
The first such discussion took place on Thursday, 29 October 2020, which I attended via live-stream.
It is noted that these discussions are being facilitated long after the Executive Order was issued (reference Paragraph 2 and Attachment 2, e.g. Sections 2&3) directing government officials to cease “training” government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda, specifically critical race theory.
The book discussed at the first event was So You Want to Talk About Race, by Ijeoma Oluo (see Paragraph 6), and the discussion was facilitated by an active duty, black female officer member of the 2d Space Warning Squadron.
The book teaches that the United States is “a white supremacist society” that must be “dismantled piece by piece.”
It teaches that speech that makes “people of color feel unsafe” is “an act of violence,” but that if whites are uncomfortable, “do not allow [them] to be treated as if harm has been done to them.”
The book suggests ways a reader might want to consider facilitating discussions about the contents of the book, saying
“the comfort of white attendees should be very, very far down on the priority list.”
In its suggestions regarding creating safe spaces, the book advocates reintroducing a form of segregation into American society:
If whites “feel strongly that they need to center their feelings and experiences in the discussion, set up a space away from the group where they can talk with other white people. Do not let it take over the group discussion or become a burden that people of color in the group have to bear.”
Further, it emphatically touches upon the many other aspects comprising critical race theory, topics such as: privilege, intersectionality, police brutality, cultural appropriation, and microaggressions.
The book proposes organizations to which concerned readers should be donating their money, such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the NAACP.
It instructs readers that they should vote for politicians who support raising the minimum wage, and who favor police reform.
One participant in the group, who mentioned he was currently also reading Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, expressed how glad he was that “Colonel Pepper was able to use his bully pulpit” to push these discussions on race.
12. Since arriving at Buckley, I have heard rumors from at least several unrelated sources that Colonel Pepper is hosting minority only, small group mentorship gatherings at his on-base residence.
I have not sought to verify the truthfulness of those rumors, but mention it here because it is related to the other items discussed in the present memorandum, and because the rumors alone have fueled a perception of unfairness for some active duty members at the base.
13. As the President’s Executive Order states,
“These types of trainings not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce.”
They do not engender inclusion, but prevent it.
As a commander, I am seeing this play out in real-time in the military at a break-neck pace.
Military members who take an oath to support and defend the constitution are being “trained” to hate America’s founding, history, and current standing of privilege in the world.
Books such as Oluo’s, and other videos and training materials that have been disseminated and discussed on the base, which are rooted in CRT, should have no place in the United States military, yet these trainings and materials were sponsored by the Garrison Commander and the chaplaincy.
The ideology I have described dismisses individuality outright and demonizes entire groups of people (e.g. whites).
Further, it pits groups and classes of people against one another creating a polarized political and social environment, cancels fraternal ties, imagined or real, and undermines our obligation to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.
MATTHEW L. LOHMEIER, Lt Col, USSF
Commander
8 Attachments:
1. OMB Memorandum M-20-34, “Training in the Federal Government,” 4 September 2020; OMB Memorandum M-20-37, “Ending Employee Trainings that Use Divisive Propaganda to Undermine the Principle of Fair and Equal Treatment for All,” 28 September 2020
2. Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, 22 September 2020
3. Secretary of Defense Memorandum, “Implementation of Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” 16 October 2020
4. Email dated 24 June 2020
5. Attachment to email dated 19 June 2020
6. Handout titled “Difficult Conversations: Racial & Ethnic Diversity”
7. Attachment to email dated 22 July 2020
8. Emails dated 10 July 2020 and 22 July 2020
(STARRS NOTE: The DOD memo regarding implementing EO 14950 has been wiped from the internet. If you find it, let us know)
From a CIA report regarding increases in the number of political officers in the Soviet Armed Forces:
“These political officers are the direct superiors of the entire personnel of the company (Battery) and the eyes of the Communist Party. . . . . Political instruction in the armed forces is the main guarantee of the power of the USSR, that every future war will be turned into a class war and that, therefore, the Soviet army must be specially well trained politically.”
And another report said,
“The political officers who are directly responsible for the training of all troops…aimed at the following objectives:
These “commissars,” as they were first called, exercised specific official and unofficial control functions over their military command counterparts. The political officers also served to further Party interests with the masses of drafted soldiery of the USSR by indoctrination in Marxist-Leninism. . . . . .
. . . .This political control system was not benign; the indoctrination, kritika/samokritika, and artificial tension used as part of the Party activities caused friction at best, and outright paranoia at worst, among the military professionals. Indoctrination dulled the critical thinking processes. Repetition of the Party jargon, and in the absence of other information, the Marxist-Leninist formulas became the only framework for evaluating reality.
Kritika and samokritika, criticism and self-criticism respectively, were a core function of the mandatory Party meetings. At these meetings, the political staff was required to not only note who spoke, but exactly what was said. Party members of the enlisted ranks or junior officers were encouraged to freely criticize the military decisions or personal habits of the higher officers if these actions did not fit Party doctrine or norms. The effects of this practice on the commander’s authority must have been devastating. . . .
More on Soviet Political Officers/Political Commissars
https://starrs.us/white-house-executive-order-installs-political-commissars-throughout-government/
Former Space Force LtCol Matthew Lohmeier recently spoke at a talk on X about his thoughts regarding the Capitol Hill hearing he testified at, “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military”.
Listen to it here or read the transcript below:
If you missed our space last night, here is a clip of @matthewlohmeier talking about the hearing and takeaways from that. Thank you Matt for sharing your time with us.
cc: @BradMiller1010 @kristina_wong @RobGreen1010 pic.twitter.com/KlWvUjouZN
— Jordan Karr (@JordanLkarr) January 13, 2024
LtCol Matthew Lohmeier
“I was asked several weeks ago to testify at the National Defense Subcommittee hearing that is part of the House Oversight Committee. That committee is chaired by Representative Glenn Grothman from Wisconsin, and, of course, you might be aware that Representative Jim Comer chairs the House Oversight Committee, and Mike Waltz is also a part of the Oversight Committee.
Neither Jim Comer nor Mike Waltz are necessarily required or obligated, as far as I understand it, to be in that subcommittee hearing, but both of them came.
I just wanted to share briefly with the group some dynamics that I didn’t expect and share a few observations. And then I’m happy to answer questions.
I noticed that when the hearing started, I’m sure it’s kind of standard, you had the chairman of the committee, Glenn Grothman, and the ranking member, Robert Garcia, Democrat from California, was in his seat. The committee chairman was in his seat, and literally no more than a handful of other congressmen in the chairs already, a few from the Republican side, one or two from the Democrat side.
I’m not throwing spears just yet, but just to say I was unprepared for that, I figured that some would choose to bow out altogether, like Congresswoman Cori Bush from Missouri, and that, in fact, turned out to be true. She never showed.
But what kind of surprised me is that for a hearing that lasted quite a long time–it was expected to be 90 minutes but it was well over 2 hours.
We had both Republicans and Democrats, predominantly Democrats, show up just a few minutes before they were expecting to give their monologue and maybe ask a few questions, and then they got right back up and left the hearing.
The takeaway for me was that there’s a genuine lack of interest, especially from Democrats, to even confront this issue and hear feedback from those who have been called as witnesses for these hearings.
That was evident also when the ranking member, Robert Garcia, closed his testimony at the very end of this hearing by saying, hey, you’ve already lost this battle. He said, I can’t believe we’re even taking time, wasting time to discuss what you allege is wokism in the military, what you allege is a culture war.
There’s this animus from the Left that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
But here’s an important point that I wanted to make that is, I hope, useful in that it gives us an understanding into their strategy.
I watched what happened both before the hearing, outside of that hearing room where I met General Seidule and his son that he brought to the hearing. I saw him go back into a separate private room with Democrats who would be a part of the hearing, and their staffers, I presume, to discuss a game plan.
Based on how the Democrats approached this entire hearing, if you listened to the entire hearing, one thing that you would have noticed was that they seemed to be deliberately focused on the decades past and not on the present moment.
That was evident in some of the lines of questioning. It was evident in their talking points, and it was evident in what General Seidule was prepared to talk about. He talked about his lengthy 30 plus year military career, and he talked about policies like equal opportunity. They talked about integration of races in the military during the Truman administration.
And it’s like, no one is here to argue these things! No one is here to talk about those progressive policies from early in the Cold War. But that’s what they focused on.
Because, and this is the important point, I get the sense that they recognized ahead of time that if they had remotely competent witnesses show up to attack wokism, to attack Critical Race Theory, to attack DEI initiatives and their consequences, they wouldn’t have much of an argument to make.
So what they wanted to do is shame the witnesses into looking like we were there to fight against women in the military or fight against gays being in the military at all. And of course, that isn’t the case. That was one observation I’ve had as I’ve reflected on what I felt and what I saw in the room.
The other point I want to make, I guess I’ve already hinted at, is I was rather dismayed. I mean, I already don’t like Leftist, Leftism, Progressivism, Neomarxism–pick your label.
But to have the tangible feeling to sit in the room and to feel their disgust for conservatism, Republicans in the room, and to hear them thank General Seidule for his service, but deliberately ignore Will Thibeau and I in their gratitude, I mean, it shows that they’ve got a really vitriolic animosity for our values, our worldview.
Again, I know that’s not surprising to anyone, but I saw firsthand that they are determined to wage a battle and they defend it like it’s a religious worldview.
It shouldn’t surprise you also that the same animus is felt and apparent in some of the Republican members–and in my view, rightly so.
That’s some overall highlights for me, takeaways. I’ll tell you, some of the clips that Jordan has posted on her Twitter feed have received a lot of attention. So thank you for that, both on a personal note as well as just overall for getting the messaging of that hearing out.
The House Oversight Committee has been doing a good job putting out clips from the hearing as well. They’ve gotten a lot of views. I mean, Donald Trump Jr. was saying, hey, everyone needs to watch this stuff.
So we’ve had million plus or millions of views in the last 24 hours on specific issues in that hearing. And I’m under no illusion of thinking that’s going to stay at the forefront of anyone’s minds. I know that there’s all sorts of other news going on that’s equally as important.
So I think that’s probably all I should say. I’m happy to entertain any questions.
Question 1
Matt, I have a question for you. You mentioned the animosity from the representatives. Did you have any feedback from General Seidule afterward? I mean, did he seem to understand what you were saying?
One of the favorite clips of mine that I posted was where you just completely wrecked whatever he said about how he had never seen CRT at West Point or in his 30 year career. You were able to reference the fact that even in your book, you researched that policy proposal from West Point graduates that quoted him throughout their proposal.
So I’m just curious. I saw his face when you said that. I think a lot of other people saw his face in his reaction to that. What was the feedback or if he even had any after the hearing? Did he say anything to you? Because I think most of us understand that the representatives are not going to meet us halfway. But it is very disconcerting when service members like a general who served 30 years, when they are also projecting that animosity towards our values.
LtCol Matthew Lohmeier
Good question. So I’ll share a couple of thoughts. I went out of the hearing room into the hallway and happened to run into General Seidule before the hearing began and met him and his Army veteran son and we had a cordial exchange. I knew the kind of preparation and research I had done on him and what I was hoping to get to say.
So because he seemed like a kindly fellow and I really don’t have—I mean, I have animosity, I have a really strong disliking and frankly, a hatred for evil, but I just have a tender spot for humans. I couldn’t help but feel bad for the guy even before the hearing started because I was going to attempt to land some blows. I let him know that in advance.
I said, it’s apparent to me, having read your written submission of your testimony, that you and I have a different view on things, and I’m going to make that plain today, but I don’t mean any hard feelings by it, but this needs to be argued. He shook my hand and said, thanks, good to meet you. He didn’t appear nervous whatsoever until–and the reason I point that out is he didn’t appear nervous initially.
But I was sitting in the middle of that table, as you’re aware, and when I got about 30 to 45 seconds into my written oral statement that I wanted to make up front, I noticed he was visibly shaky.
He was picking up his papers and his hands were shaking because I think for the first time it dawned on him that the issues that Will and I were there to directly confront and attack, he didn’t have a good response for.
I think he knew, hey, me and my fellow colleagues up there on the stand have a game plan, but boy, if we go down this road, we don’t really have a good leg to stand on.
And he surely wouldn’t have anticipated that that 40-page policy proposal from West Point graduates was going to come up.
This is kind of a fun anecdote that this group will appreciate. I had spent a little bit of time every day this week preparing for that testimony, trying to turn over new rocks and learn a little bit here and there about things I hadn’t considered for a very long time.
And like a lightning bolt out of a clear sky, I had the thought to go look in my book at that 40-page policy proposal.
Because I saw in my book–it’s only like three pages in my book–that I had quoted a few of these activists. What they were advocating for sounded an awful lot like what General Seidule had been asked to do by Lloyd Austin as recently as a year and a half ago.
So I decided I’d pull up that 40-page proposal and go spend a little bit of time studying it. And I was so glad I did. So I consider that a direct gift from heaven.
I had no thought to look at that, and it just literally was a thought that was planted as clear as day in my mind. So I think we had some help to communicate, some ideas.
My wife was prayerful, others were prayerful. She laughed and teased me after the testimony was over because we have a very conservative family that doesn’t like vulgarity. And I use the word bullshit and something else in the hearing, and my wife said, I was praying for you, that you’d be led by God in what you said, and as soon as I heard you say bullshit, I wondered, God, did you plant that in his mouth as well?
But all of that to say we were prayerful. We took this very seriously.
The feedback I’ve received by private email and through my website and through direct messaging, I’ve been pleased that people who genuinely care about their country and who are patriots in every positive sense of that term and who love God and who desire to see an apolitical military and save their country, they’ve been reaching out, saying, hey, we love you. Thank you. God bless. That means the world to me.
And I’ve got some hate messaging as well, which I don’t really care about very much. So thanks for that question, Jordan.
Question 2
Thank you Colonel Lohmeier, God bless you for what you did. I thought you owned that General to your left. I know that’s not a good operative word, but field grade officer versus general officer, definitely you took the W on that one. But my question is, the documents. I can’t remember the congresswoman’s name that was questioning you during the clips that I think were shared, probably more than others, but she wanted to take a lot of the documents that you provided, enter them into the records. But she also said she would follow up. Do you know if there’s any plan, tangible, objective plan, for not only the West Point report that you talked about, but also some of the other documents that you had?
LtCol Matthew Lohmeier
My understanding was, and I think they said it at the beginning of the hearing, but I don’t remember the time frame, whether it was 48 hours or 72 hours or two weeks, whatever it was, that members and their staff had a certain time to reach back out to witnesses to bug them for things. I figure probably at the beginning of the next week is when I’m going to look for some follow up.
I did have a follow up call with the chairman of the committee, Glenn Grossman. He wanted to talk for a while after the hearing and share some personal anecdotes and also ask for more clarification on some points that I shared. So that follow up has happened.
I believe it’s possible that it was Congresswoman Virginia Fox that said perhaps she was going to want to enter some poll data that was compiled by the Heritage Foundation with Congressman Mike Waltz. These folks already have all of this stuff, and I’ll happily submit it again so it can be entered as a part of the record for that hearing. But I’m going to give them the opportunity to reach out so that if there’s multiple items that they’ve requested, I’ll just send everything at once.
I do want to make one more point, though, just for this group. We’ve got warfighters on this call. We’ve got people who are champions. How do I put it? Because I knew that the hearing went fairly well for us, I was asked a number of times how you feel you “owned” the general, is what you just shared.
I’ll tell you, I had really mixed feelings about it. That’s just like the real human element of me.
This is war. This is really a war. It’s not turned violent, but there’s a war that’s ongoing. There’s a lot of rhetoric that’s employed. There’s animosity, there’s hatred.
I feel like I dealt a few blows to a few people who I don’t hate. But it’s easy in civil wars to hate people. In fact, that’s exactly what it turns into.
I left the room feeling like I had done what I was supposed to do and also that I didn’t regret anything.
And that men and women had to go home to their families and live with some wounds for a little while, and that bothered me.
I even reached out to a veteran, in fact, who I respect greatly, and said, yeah, I feel a little bit bad about this. He tried to console me and said, hey, this is necessary, whether any of us like doing some of this or not. Sometimes it’s fun and sometimes we really like it.
That was a reflection of just the nature of conflict, and it gets a lot worse than this. So it’s kind of good to get used to the feeling.
But I do have to run now, and I’m going to jump off and go take a Newsmax call. Will and I are going to join a panel and talk about this very hearing. Thanks for letting me join.
https://starrs.us/matthew-lohmeier-congressional-testimony-statement/
https://starrs.us/west-point-grads-crt-screed-against-usma-influenced-by-former-wp-history-teacher/
(Press Release) The Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled, “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military.”
Members discussed with subject matter experts how politically driven Department of Defense (DoD) priorities infiltrating curriculum and training are affecting military readiness.
Members also discussed the military’s prioritization of progressive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and other social priorities versus other military needs which are driving down morale and recruiting numbers.
Key Takeaways:
The DoD has infused progressive ideology into the curriculum and training of the U.S. military, which has no relevant purpose to warfighting. Despite recently failing its sixth consecutive audit, the DoD is requesting more funding to expand its unhelpful and non-essential DEI based program.
The DEI agenda being forced into military procedure has opened the door for race and sex-based quotas superseding the merit-based system. This is a direct factor in the growing issue of the U.S. military missing recruiting targets.
Member Highlights:
Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Chairman Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) examined the harmful ideologies being promulgated by military bureaucracy.
Rep. Grothman: “Is this bureaucracy necessary? Could you comment on it? What do they do?”
Mr. Thibaeu: “It’s a good question what they do Mr. Chairman. The problem that I have is the policies that result from such a bureaucracy. And there is, like you alluded to in your opening remarks, a lot of well-intentioned training, perhaps some of which is necessary. But what is not necessary is race and sex-based quotas that are prevalent in at least two branches of the military. And if it’s a bureaucracy that serves to fulfill those policies that I think do more than simply educate people about bias or promote equal opportunity but in fact promote a system of race and sex-based discrimination, that is problematic and they shouldn’t be receiving any money.”
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) zeroed in on the non-mission critical, progressive ideology that does nothing to enhance military warfighting capabilities.
Rep. Foxx: “Would learning about whiteness and white rage help promote unit cohesion or a team centered culture?”
Mr. Lohmeier: “The answer is: anyone who is focused on warfighting doesn’t naturally think to talk about these things in the military workplace. We are focused on a particular mission in defense of the country and to deter conflict and to win our nation’s wars.”
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) discussed what has happened in recent years to decrease lethality and morale in the military due to DEI initiatives such as decreased in standards sheerly for diversity’s sake.
Rep. Biggs: “Mr. Lohmeier, what has happened over the last three years that has caused lethality to deteriorate in the military?”
Mr. Lohmeier: “There’s been an overt politicization of the military workplace and the forcing of trainings that are anti-American, that criticize our founding fathers, that allege that white supremacy is a problem within the military ranks which has never been proven and all of that rhetoric that occurred when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin took office, led to a bunch of moaning and complaining behind closed doors of our service members and I heard it as a commander.”
Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who waived onto the subcommittee hearing, discussed how authors of DEI and CRT initiatives describe methods that are inherently racist because they use race to take or give positions within the military away, leading to a zero-sum game.
Rep. Waltz: “What these authors say is that ‘if you are white you are incapable of not being racist’ that in and of itself, is racist sir. And by the way, these [authors] were lecturers at the Air Force academy. That is divisive, destructive, and wrong. Finally, we have data that shows as Mr. Lohmeier has testified to, 62% of active-duty military members are seeing a politicized military. 65% would recommend their child not join, and now we are in a recruiting crisis. This is why these hearings are so necessary.”
Watch the hearing. (Starts at 21:00 mark)
At the Capitol Hill hearing on progressive ideologies in the military originally had two witnesses, Matt Lohmeier and Will Thibeau.
At the last minute, the Democrat side of the committee brought in as their witness retired Army Brig. General Ty Seidule, former head of the history department at West Point (where he taught for 20 years), author of the book, “Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner’s Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause”, and proud member of the DOD Renaming Commission.
The General was rather shockingly naive and unaware in his statements about the radical leftist agenda push in the military and service academies and seemed to be living in a bubble. It appeared he was hearing for the first time the facts that Matt, Will and other Republican politicians were presenting.
For example, he didn’t know the different between equal opportunity and equity (the “E” in DEI). See here.
He said that West Point was not teaching Marxist-rooted Critical Race Theory (CRT), even though so much has been written on this in the past three years, including over 600 pages from FOIAs. See all articles: https://starrs.us/category/west-point/
But the biggest shocker was something Matt brought up about the General’s influence on a 40-page “anti-American, race-baiting, communist screed” that a group of West Pointers wrote right after they graduated, accusing West Point of being institutionally racist. The paper references throughout– as justification for their CRT beliefs–articles and lectures by their history professor, Gen. Seidule.
As background, during 2020 graduation week, several Black Cadets in the 2020 graduating class raised concerns on the state of racism within the Corps of Cadets to the Superintendent.
Shortly following graduation, a group of nine left-wing 2018 and 2018 USMA graduates wrote the paper titled “An Anti-Racist West Point,” and sent this paper to The Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army and USMA leadership. Within days of its distribution, it went viral and the paper circulated on social media outlets.
“This is a call to action. The United States Military Academy has not taken the necessary strides towards uprooting the racism that saturates its history. We are calling upon West Point and its leadership to redress three major failures:
1. Systemic racism continues to exist at West Point.
2. Anti-racism is not part of the curriculum at West Point.
3. The conditions for an anti-racist space are not present at West Point. . . . .
Note that according to CRT, it’s not enough to not be racist, you must actively be an “anti-racist” and go along with their CRT agenda–or you are a racist. (See our Resources for many sources to help explain CRT)
In July 2020, USMA Superintendent LTG Darryl Williams directed the Inspector General Office to conduct a special inspection following this complaints of racial misconduct at West Point.
The inspector found:
Watch Matt refute the General’s statement about CRT not being taught at West Point:
(Press Release) On Thursday, U.S. Congressman Mike Waltz (FL-6) questioned Brigadier General Ty Seidule (Ret.), former head of the history department at West Point and House Democrat witness, on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives at U.S. service academies and the definition of equity during the House Oversight & Accountability Committee hearing on the Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military.
Watch the full exchange:
“You testified earlier that you have not seen Marxism, Critical Race Theory, you do not know where it is in the military or where it is at West Point. Is that accurate?” Waltz asked Seidule.
“I had not heard of it until it became a national issue,” responded Seidule.
When asked if he was aware of it being taught at West Point, Seidule said he did not.
Explaining what Critical Race Theory is, Waltz said, “The theme is that white people are enraged, not a hundred years ago, not fourty years ago, which you are talking about with the sixties and seventies. It’s today. White cadets, white people are enraged by Black advancement.”
“I think, Congressman, the great thing about education is you can get a variety of different perspectives. It is not training, which is what some of my colleagues have talked about. I am talking about education. You want to hear the broadest representation of every viewpoint,” said Seidule.
“This is the very clever approach of the Left to conflate history with current day training.” Waltz asked, “would you agree that Critical Race Theory is a foundation for DEI?”
“No, I would not,” Seidule said. “DEI goes back to equal opportunity in the early part of the 1970s.”
Waltz went on to ask what the difference between equity and equality is. Seidule did not directly answer the question, so Waltz asked again, “What is equity?”
Seidule responded, “I don’t know what it is, Congressman.”
“Diversity, equity, inclusion is part of everything. There’s a DEI office in the Pentagon… you don’t know what equity is? You can’t testify to what equity means?” Waltz continued,
“Well, I will tell you since you don’t know, it is equal outcomes for all, which is a hallmark of Marxism. DEI is Marxist based, as is Critical Race Theory.”
“Let’s progress since, I mean, apparently, the expert doesn’t know what equity is in DEI,” said Waltz. “I would like to enter in for the record class composition with racial goals for West Point. You just testified under oath you were in the admissions office.”
Seidule responded, “I wasn’t in the admissions office, I was on the admissions committee for one year and I know there were no quotas, is what I said, Congressman.”
“So, we are going to parse over quotas and goals?” asked Waltz.
Waltz then pointed to the document and said, “This is from the superintendent and here are the goals. It has African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Women with percentages. We have ‘red’ here for when they missed those goals.”
Seidule countered that “some athletes are there… and the largest number of people that are recruited at West Point are athletes at 25%.”
Waltz continued, “When you say your directive is to advance one group based on the skin color, you have to take those slots from another group based on their skin color. It’s a zero sum… The athletes get broken down by their skin color in this chart that you just said doesn’t exist.”
“Here’s a memorandum from the Secretary of the Air Force with White, Black, Asian, American Indian. I mean, I think my wife, who is an Army veteran and who is Arab, didn’t have a place, I guess, in this chart,” said Waltz. “Here you have current percentages and a mandate to increase those percentages, you have to take those slots from someone else based on ethnicity.”
Waltz pointed to a poster of the “key proponents of CRT” and summarized the quotes, “What these authors say is that if you are white, you are incapable of not being racist. That in and of itself is racist, sir. By the way, these were lecturers at the Air Force Academy. That is divisive and it’s wrong and it’s destructive.”
Waltz continued, “We have data that shows, as Mr. Lohmeier has testified to, 62% of active-duty military members are seeing a politicized military. 65% would recommend their child not join. Now, we’re in a recruiting crisis. This is why these hearings are so necessary.”
“You are right, Mr. Seidule, in that Congress drives change. This Congress has banned Critical Race Theory in the military in this defense bill, we have eliminated the hiring of divisive DEI bureaucrats.”
“WE are going to drive this change to get our military back to a meritocracy with equal opportunity for all.”
“You cannot fight racism with more racism and you have to have data.”
“Do you have any data that shows that a more or less diverse submarine, bomber, brigade, is more or less lethal?” asked Waltz. “I’m talking about the crew.”
Seidule was unable to answer the question.
“Do you have any data that shows by percentage a more or less, let’s say bomber crew, let’s say brigade, whether it’s fifty percent Black, ten percent Black, thirty percent Jewish, any of these societal factors, data that drives readiness?” asked Waltz.
Seidule was unable to provide the data in question.
https://starrs.us/records-show-critical-race-theory-propaganda-at-west-point/
https://starrs.us/west-point-teaching-marxism/
https://starrs.us/teaching-cultural-marxism-at-west-point/
ETC ETC ETC: https://starrs.us/category/west-point/
Videoclips from the Capitol Hill hearing where Matthew Lohmeier presented testimony and answered questions: The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military
SHOCK MOMENT: Anti-DEI Witness Sounds Off After Fiery Clash With Jamie Raskin
‘Does The Color Of Your Skin Matter When You’re In The Trenches?’: Mace Questions DEI In Military
Comments on video:
“As a Veteran, I’ll say color didn’t mean shit in the Army in the early 2000s while I was in. My Drill Sergeant told us we are all one color, green, and I can tell you that when you’re in a foxhole with someone, that man is your brother and vice versa.”
“Same here bro. I joined the Army in ’81 and 2x a warrior. During my service we look at each other as an American warriors and nothing else. I wouldn’t serve under a WOKE DRAG QUEEN MILITARY TODAY.”
“Being it’s the weekend before we celebrate Dr. King’s birthday, we went from him saying “it’s not the color of your skin, it’s the content of your character” to “the only thing that matters is the color of your skin”. He must be rolling over his grave.”
‘Is That Not A Quota?’: Anti-DEI Witness Slams Air Force Diversity Goals
At last Thursday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) questioned witnesses about DEI in the military, and Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier (Ret.) slammed the diversity goals of the Air Force.
Pat Fallon Questions Witness About Pervasiveness Of White Supremacism In The Military
At Thursday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) questioned witnesses about DEI in the military.
Katie Porter Asks GOP Witness If He Agreed With President Truman’s Action To Integrate The Military
At a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) spoke about DEI in the military.
(Mixing “Trump” for “Truman” twice, the Congresswoman has Trump living rent-free in her brain)
Scott Perry Takes Shot At Goldman At Hearing On ‘Risks Of Progressive Ideologies’ In The Military
At a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) spoke about DEI in the military.
Painful, the cluelessness. From a comment on the video: “Never have such loaded softball questions been answered with such obviously scripted political drivel.”
Lawmaker Asks Retired Military General Point Blank If Antifa Is ‘Infiltrating’ The Military
At a House Oversight Committee hearing on Thursday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) spoke about DEI in the military.
Powerful statement by Congressman Higgins during the hearing on progressive ideologies in the military on Capitol Hill, 11 January 2024:
Former Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier gave this statement at the “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military” hearing for the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs on 11 January 2024:
Good morning. My name is Matt Lohmeier and I’m an Air Force Academy graduate, former F-15C fighter pilot, and was a Lieutenant Colonel and commander in the Space Force.
In 2021, I was fired from my command in the Space Force for trying to reverse the trend of the overt politicization of the Uniformed Services.
Specifically, I criticized the military’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings, which, at my own base, were illegally occurring despite an executive order from the commander-in-chief.
I watched these trainings divide our troops ideologically and, in some cases, sow the seeds of animosity towards the very country they had sworn an oath to defend.
I submitted a formal written complaint to the Space Force Inspector General (see Exhibit 5) detailing that such violations were occurring, including illegal race-based discrimination, but my complaint was never investigated and was later dismissed by then-Lt Gen Stephen Whiting, whom the Senate just confirmed for his fourth star.
After two months, I received a written dismissal of my complaint from General Whiting (see Exhibit 6).
After my complaint was dismissed, I wrote a book explaining that the DEI industry, which is steeped in critical race theory, is rooted in anti-American, Marxist ideology, and demonstrated its divisive impact on our troops.
I explained that DEI initiatives and trainings were dividing our armed forces precisely because CRT was created by those who harbored the intention to undermine and destroy the fabric of American society.
I warned that our recruitment and retention would plummet if we continued to foist such a divisive ideology on the men and women in uniform.
Personally, I have always advocated for a non-political military work environment.
Today, I’m here to testify about the ongoing Marxist-inspired efforts to subvert and weaken our military and broader American society.
We often refer to these efforts as wokeism; it is a culture war. Yet, even in this committee, there are differing views about whether there is such a thing as a “culture war” under way.
Some members of this committee have been outspoken critics of DEI initiatives, CRT, drag shows on military bases, and LGBTQ pride celebrations and woke military recruiting videos—all things that are components of an ongoing culture war.
Ranking member Garcia, on the other hand, asserted as recently as two weeks ago in a tweet that the culture wars are “phony” and are merely a political talking point of Republicans (see tweet from December 31, 2023).
But I assure you that Congressman Garcia’s view is NOT the view of many men and women in uniform who labor under the constant burden of race identity politics in the military workplace, and what appears to them to be the destruction of the merit- based system, whether deliberate or incidental.
It’s nothing if not incredible for a member of this committee to assert the culture wars are “phony” while another member of this committee is a member of the so-called progressive ‘Squad,’ was herself a Black Lives Matter organizer and activist (an organization whose publicly avowed ideology is Marxist), and whose ambition for a seat in Congress was, in her own words, “to accomplish a mission”—no doubt a social and cultural mission, as she says she “doesn’t need to take off her activist hat to legislate in Congress.” She claims her activism has been her “guiding force.”
Servicemembers who wear the uniform of their country do not want to see these things in the military workplace or at their bases. In most cases, this is true regardless of their race or political worldview. Despite that reality.
Pentagon officials requested $140 million to expand woke Diversity initiatives in FY2024, up from $68 million and $86.5 million in 2022 and 2023, respectively, and all but three members of this subcommittee voted in favor of it.
There are few things taxpayers such as myself feel is less essential to the mission of our military than expanding Diversity mandates and indoctrination.
Such aggressively opposed ideological worldviews competing for institutionalization through policy epitomizes and formalizes what is properly termed a culture war.
It is an American-Maoist culture war.
The fact that these debates now infect the US military workplace is an offense to people like me who love their country and all people—regardless of race, gender, or background.
I’d like to briefly draw attention to two of a handful of exhibits I have submitted for the committee’s review and for entry into the official record of today’s hearing.
THE FIRST of the exhibits is a 100-page document (see Exhibit 1) which includes real-world unsolicited feedback from military servicemembers, veterans, and parents about the consequences of this administration’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
It is, I imagine, merely a small part of the overall discontent and disappointment experienced by those who presently serve.
I submit it for the record because to spend even a few minutes with the document is to get a sense for the ways in which the innocuously labeled “DEI trainings” are hurting morale, dividing and distracting troops, disincentivizing Americans from service, and thereby destroying our recruiting and retention efforts.
Further, it is destroying the image of the United States military, which is a critical component of the proper communication of national strength to both allies and enemies alike. We now appear weaker because we are weaker (see Exhibit 7).
THE SECOND exhibit I’d like to mention is a letter signed by 185 retired General and Flag Officers (see Exhibit 2) that is dated May 20, 2023, and was previously sent to then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, as well as other House leaders. I have confirmed that those to whom the letter was addressed received it.
For the same reasons as those I’ve previously stated, the letter “requested that Congress, pursuant to its Constitutional powers .. . take legislative action to remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from the Department of Defense (DoD).”
It also requested that Congress “ensure that no DEI related policies, programs, and funding are included in the 2024 NDAA.”
These leaders warned:
“As our Nation faces looming threats from ‘foreign’ adversaries/enemies, our military is under assault from a culture war stemming from ‘domestic’ ideologically inspired political policies and practices. IF NOT STOPPED NOW, they will forever change the military’s warrior ethos essential to performing its mission.”
Despite their request and warning, and despite some genuine efforts of some members of the House, the Congress ultimately DID NOT use the power of the purse to put an end to DEI policies, programs, and funding in the recently approved NDAA.
The men and women who sent that letter raised the warning voice and tried their best to respectfully influence our Nation’s lawmakers.
Both of these exhibits I have mentioned are publicly available at the STARRS.US website.
I said in my book that if we did not abandon the diversity and inclusion trainings, then we would see unprecedented “recruitment and retention woes.”
That has been true and we have seen as a Nation that it is not getting any better.
I also said that unless we abandon our present hate-filled and divisive path, and repent as a nation, we will destroy ourselves.
I reaffirm that view here today, and I’m grateful to answer any questions the committee may have for me.
Exhibits
1. “What Military Service Members, Veterans and Parents Are Saying: Evidence that the CRT/DEI/Woke agenda being pushed in the military is harming morale, recruitment and retention” (100 pages)
2. Flag Officers 4 America Letter, dated May 20, 2023
3. Lt Col Lohmeier_Summary of Military Record (ranked #1/753 Space Force officers at time of promotion to Lt Col)
4. Lohmeier_Civilian CV
5. Lt Col Lohmeier_Space Force IG Complaint Citing Marxist Teachings
6. Lt Gen Stephen Whiting’s Dismissal of the IG Complaint
7. Heritage Foundation’s 2023 Index of US Military Strength Report
Full Statement with Exhibits (pdf)
Watch his statement (starts at 35:48 mark):
Matthew Lohmeier was called to testify at the January 11, 2024 hearing, “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military”, which is to explore the politically driven DoD priorities that are affecting military readiness and examine the military’s prioritization of progressive programs such as DEI programs and other social priorities versus critical military needs.
Matthew Lohmeier Congressional Testimony Statement (pdf)
Watch: (jump to 21:00 minute when hearing starts)
BACKGROUND:
Grothman Announces Hearing on Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military (January 4, 2024)
WASHINGTON—Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Chairman Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) will hold a hearing titled “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military.”
The subcommittee hearing will explore the politically driven Department of Defense (DoD) priorities that are affecting military readiness and examine the military’s prioritization of progressive programs such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs and other social priorities versus critical military needs.
“Our military has one primary function: defend Americans and American interests at home and abroad. At least this was the primary function until the Biden Administration force fed progressivism into the branches of the armed services.
“Due to an avalanche of foreign policy blunders by the Biden Administration, the world is a less safe place.
“The men and women who bravely serve within the military must stay focused on combat readiness, not left-wing objectives which serve no military purpose.
“It is imperative to extract this poisonous and unhelpful thinking from our military and return the armed services to their core functions,” said Subcommittee Chairman Grothman.
WHAT: Hearing titled “The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military”
DATE: Thursday, January 11, 2024
TIME: 10:00 a.m. ET
LOCATION: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building
WITNESSES:
The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at https://oversight.house.gov/.
.
Hearing Date: January 11, 2024 10:00 am 2154 Rayburn
The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military
Subject: The Risks of Progressive Ideologies in the U.S. Military
Date January 11, 2024
Time 10:00 am
Place 2154 Rayburn
National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs
Witnesses and testimonies:
Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier (Ret.)
Document
Brigadier Gen. Ty Seidule (Ret.)
Document
Mr. Will Thibeau
Document
Production began last week on a documentary about former Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, who faced retaliation for exposing claims of “institutional racism” in the military.
In 2021, the Space Force relieved Lohmeier of command of the 11th Space Warning Squadron in Colorado in retaliation for his comments. He said he was compelled to speak up after hearing concerns from those serving under his command.
He said that those serving in his command from “diverse backgrounds, racially and certainly probably politically, religiously, economically” came to him expressing concerns.
“They were concerned about the training we were having that talked to them about [the] falseness of the American idea, that the country wasn’t really what it purported to be,” Lohmeier told The Daily Signal in an interview Monday.
The Heritage Foundation provided seed money for a forthcoming documentary about Lohmeier.
The documentary is based on his book, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military,” released in May 2021.
“When they were being exposed to these alternative narratives, [such as the idea] the country was rooted in white supremacy, that was off-putting to them, regardless of their race, regardless of their political upbringing, regardless of what motivated them to join the service,” he added.
“They would sit down with me and say, I’m a black male or I’m a black female and I’m offended by what I’m hearing. Or I’m a white male and I’m offended by what I’m hearing, or I’m an Asian male and offended by what I’m hearing.”
He said race focus “toyed with the psyche” of servicemembers, leading them to doubt one another.
Further, he said that critical race theory is rooted in Marxism, which is dangerous for the military.
“Marxism as an ideology is intended to divide and breed sufficient hostility for the other, which is sufficient enough to present a violent impulse,” he said. “So I thought that’s worth speaking up about. We need to push back on this because I know the outcome is something that is totally unacceptable for military culture that needs to be unified.”
The production company Root Causes began filming last week, and is expected to wrap up in the first quarter of 2024. The company is aiming for a mid-to-late 2024 release.
Production began in Lohmeier’s hometown of Tucson, Arizona, with on-camera interviews featuring people who knew him early in life. He played basketball at Sahuaro High School, joining a team that won the state championship. From there, the Air Force Academy recruited him to play basketball.
Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., the chairman of the House Anti-Woke Caucus, and Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, also make appearances in the documentary.
“We need new leadership in the White House, we need new political appointees in the Pentagon that will have our military exclusively focused on lethality, readiness, being the best of the best, and infusing in our service members that it’s about standards, not race, religion, socio-economic background, you leave all that stuff at the door,” Waltz told The Daily Signal in an interview.
“Congress is stepping in. We are banning CRT. We are defunding a lot of this DEI training,” Waltz continued, referring to critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
“I am all for equal opportunity. I want every American to have the opportunity to serve and to hit those standards. But you can’t start artificially turning the dials on different percentages of race, religion.
“The Pentagon has yet to show me data that a more diverse submarine crew—or a less diverse submarine crew—is more or less ready.”
The documentary will also feature interviews filmed at The Heritage Foundation, featuring Heritage staffers Robert Greenway, director of the Center for National Defense, and Michael Gonzalez, senior fellow for international engagement.
In a statement to The Daily Signal before the interview, Lohmeier said:
“I’m incredibly grateful to be working with The Heritage Foundation on this timely project revealing the troubling trends that have been spreading throughout military communities.
“It is with a strong sense of duty and commitment to preserving and defending what is most special about our armed forces that I am working to help tell this story and use my own career as a way to illustrate what is at stake in our country.
“Alongside a group of talented filmmakers, I am honored to share with The Heritage Foundation in the mission that they fight for on a daily basis—that neither America’s exceptionalism nor our future is guaranteed, and each must be defended by both reclaiming our first principles while combating the insidious ideas of today in their more modern expressions.
“I could not ask for better partners on this journey and I am sure our military communities will be proud of the work we accomplish with this film.
Matt Lohmeier joined Jimmy Corsetti for a live session on Jimmy’s Bright Insight channel and talked about a lot of things: Matt’s story, the infiltration of Marxism in our country and military, UFO/UAP’s, and many other consequential topics:
or watch the first half on YouTube:
Follow Jimmy on X: @BrightInsight6
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/BrightInsight
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BrightInsight
Excerpt from the interview:
“Communism predates Karl Marx. The Communist League asked Karl Marx if he would pen a declaration or a manifesto for them that would state articulately their views, and Marx published what is now known as the Communist Manifesto.
Marx wrote his young, bright ideas down about how he best thought it was possible to incite the working class in his day to a violent revolution against the bourgeoisie.
He divided up his narrative of human events into two groups: an oppressor class--this is all in part one of the Communist Manifesto–and an oppressed class that was respectively the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
He gave the proletariat sufficient reason in the manifesto that they needed to unite as workers and if necessary, violently throw off their oppressor, the modern capitalist.
One of the things that I saw when I began to study Marxism, the ideology that was permeating all of the countries across the globe in the late 19th century and surely throughout all of the Cold War, was that there was an emphasis on pitting one class or group of people against each other for whatever reason.
In the mid the late 19th century, it is about economic class stratification. Later it was usurped and today it has been usurped to be about race relations and an oppressor class versus an oppressed group or class of people– the spirit of it all is the same.
But the narrative has been adapted to our modern circumstances in the United States because it’s the best narrative of human events that can be leveraged to create anger and hatred, sufficient to get people to unite together in violence against the other, the evil other. That is what I want to emphasize.
So as a starting point, I’ll say that is Marxist ideology or Marxist thought. The idea in the end is that it brings about a revolution that will allow for a communist state to be established. The first successful revolution, by the way, that led to a successful establishment of a communist state was the Bolshevik Revolution.”
.
Get a signed copy of Matt’s book
Matthew Lohmeier, a former military commander, told NTD that a big reason why the U.S. military is not able to meet its recruitment goals is because of the politicized environment in the army, with the military increasingly being used “to shape the political views of service members.”
NTD spoke to former Space Force Commander Matthew Lohmeier for his insight into the current malaise afflicting the U.S. military.
Watch:
.
And there is one former military commander who says a big reason why they are not able to meet those goals is because of the politicized environment in the army. I got his take on things.
Rather than share my views, I thought I would call a military veteran this morning who’s also a parent and a grandparent. Anticipating this question, I wanted to hear it from a veteran myself this morning and relate that to the American people.
So, fresh off the press this morning, I asked why is it that parents and veterans aren’t interested in recommending military service to the next generation?
His response was that when he served, the military was about fighting, and today it’s not. And in his view, he said, today it’s an environment filled with propaganda that is intended to shape the political views of service members. Then he finished his thought by saying it’s quite offensive.
I think that that line of reasoning is simple and it’s typical of your broader American population.
When I decided I wanted to serve in the military and attend the Air Force Academy in Colorado, I did so because I had both encouragement and wise counsel from parents and active duty and retired military veterans.
Now, can you talk more about what has changed? Because children of military families usually made up the majority of new recruits, so it seems like the sentiment was different a while back. So what happened?
A big part of the answer to that question, and it’s also a part of the solution to the problem, is driven by this administration’s policy in particular and the current set of personalities we have in senior military leadership positions.
While the problem of partisan politics plagues the military from top to bottom, it is nevertheless driven by and supported by the current leadership.
I’ll give you a good example of this. We’ve got a Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Four star general, General C Q. Brown, who’s been Biden’s pick and nomination for the chairman of the Joint Chief’s role under the leadership, if you want to call it that, of General Mark Milley.
The American people have lost trust and confidence in him and in the institution writ large because of highly politicized statements of overt public criticism of the former Commander in Chief, President Trump, and because he’s leaked private conversations to journalists and authors to sell books.
There is a consternation and a division and a disagreement about what’s best for the readiness and lethality of the US military.
It will require a new administration at this point, it’s very clear. And it will require a whole cast of new senior military leaders who are willing to act in courage and to put down recent ways and to return to a patriotic, America loving, apolitical military work environment.
Thank you so much for giving those insights and also answering one of my following questions. Already I also want to look at another aspect because in the Military Family Support Programming Survey, they found other issues as well that I also wanted to give a bigger picture.
I want to present them to you here as well. So they were saying that the financial strain, for instance, is an issue.
And then there’s the argument that the Afghanistan withdrawal comes into play as well. So how do you weigh all these?
Well, the Afghanistan withdrawal, first off, is a terrible black eye for the administration and our senior military leaders. It showed that it was likely due to highly misplaced priorities, that we made such a botched withdrawal.
Again, their testimony before Congress, which was public and which people who cared paid attention to, showed what looked like incompetence, what looked like infighting, what looked like disagreement with the sitting commander in chief.
No one willing to take responsibility for our actions, for our decisions, and for our lack of strategy. That’s why some people were fired for speaking up against our senior military leaders at the same time, because they demanded accountability, which clearly we didn’t have anymore in our senior military ranks.
As far as for financial reasons, let me say that always, traditionally or historically, men and women have been willing to serve in uniform, and parents have been willing to suggest to the next generation that they serve in uniform.
Despite the fact that pay is not great for military service members, some of our youngest enlisted members actually join because it will help pay for their associate’s degree or their bachelor degree. It helps them further their education.
So they serve for a minimum of maybe four years while they’re having their education paid for, and those incentives remain in place.
Well, thank you so much, Matthew Lohmeier, for giving us your aspect on this. I appreciate your time today.
Thanks for having me.
The three-star general nominated to head the U.S. Space Command declined to endorse the Biden administration’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the military at a Senate hearing on Wednesday.
Space Force Lt. Gen. Stephen N. Whiting, whom President Biden nominated this month to be the force’s second commander, also defended his firing of an officer who went public with criticisms of the Pentagon leadership’s campaign to impose diversity in the military, calling it Marxist ideological subversion. . . . .
. . . . Sen. Schmitt then raised the case of now-retired Space Force Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, whom Gen. Whiting relieved of duty in May 2021. Gen. Whiting said he acted because Col. Lohmeier criticized DEI training in the military as “rooted in Marxism” during an appearance on a conservative podcast while on active duty. He continued to air his criticisms after being ordered not to do so, officials said.
In addition to his public criticism of DEI training, Col. Lohmeier was removed from command for criticizing “specific political parties,” Gen. Whiting said.
Questioned by Mr. Schmitt, Gen. Whiting said that opposition to DEI policies does not constitute partisan political speech unless the comments advocate for a specific political party or candidate.
Col. Lohmeier’s case “involved a specific quote involving a specific political party,” Gen. Whiting said, adding that the offending podcast was an hour long.
A review of the podcast appearance shows Col. Lohmeier spoke for about 10 minutes on the “Steve Gruber Show” podcast. The colonel was promoting a book he authored, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.”
During the appearance, there were no references to any political party or his chain of command.
Col. Lohmeier, who left the service in September 2021, said in an email that he was fired by Gen. Whiting, then chief of operations at Space Command, for two reasons. One was for political partisanship while acting in an official capacity, and the second was for publicly criticizing his chain of command.
“Those were the reasons Whiting gave me over the phone when he called to fire me,” Col. Lohmeier said. “Both of those reasons are false — never did either of those things.”
Col. Lohmeier said the general’s testimony at the hearing “clearly demonstrated that Whiting himself was unwilling to affirm his support for the [Defense Department’s] DEI initiatives and trainings.”
“He was asked several different ways if he supported DoD’s DEI initiatives and, instead of affirming his support, said something that nobody could disagree with; specifically, he said that he cared about developing a lethal and ready force.”
The comments indicate that Gen. Whiting shares his view that “this woke DEI push” has hurt recruitment, retention and readiness efforts in the military, Col. Lohmeier said.
“It is unfortunate that Whiting felt sufficient institutional and cultural pressure in 2021 to make the decision to fire me for publicly sharing a nonpartisan view that he likely holds himself,” he said.
“It is more unfortunate still that our senior leaders lack the courage to speak their minds despite the damage our current policies are inflicting.”
Thank you, Madam Chair. General Whiting, in speaking in support of DEI initiatives, General Brown said that quote, “there’s still a lot to do because this is a cultural shift. This isn’t something you can get done in just a couple of years.” Do you believe that General Brown should be relieved of his command because of those statements?
Senator, no, I do not.
General Milley, in speaking in support of DEI initiatives, said, quote, “it’s diversity to improve the system, improve the military, improve our problem-solving capabilities, and improve our war fighting readiness in order to protect and defend the Constitution. That’s why it’s so important, so fundamental that we have this as one of our elements as we move forward to continue to develop the joint force.” Do you believe General Milley should be relieved of his command?
Senator, no, I do not.
Do you believe that’s partisan political speech?
Senator, no, I do not.
Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier said, our DEI industry and trainings we’re receiving in the military via the industry are rooted in critical race theory, which is rooted in Marxism. He was relieved of his command for those statements, correct,
Senator, that’s correct.
By you, right?
Senator, there were other comments regarding specific political parties that are in addition to what you just quoted.
This was from the podcast, which was cited by you. So I’m asking, is opposition to DEI partisan political speech?
Senator, no, it’s not, unless it advocates for a specific political party or candidate.
Okay, well, I would agree with that. So your testimony today is Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier was relieved for something other than these statements on the podcast, or was that part of your consideration?
Senator, it involved a specific quote involving a specific political party.
In his free time or on duty?
It was on a podcast where he associated himself or he identified himself as an active duty space force officer and commander.
Okay, so there were other comments that other than this one I read to you about DEI?
Senator I think that podcast was about an hour long.
Okay, well, we’ll follow up with some of our questions. I want to ask you, do you support DEI initiatives in the military?
Senator I support a ready, lethal force that draws from the best talent all across America.
Okay, that’s not my question. I support that, too, but that’s not what DEI is. DEI is rooted in cultural Marxism. So I’m asking you, do you support DEI initiatives in the military?
Senator I support a merit-based approach to finding the best people across this country.
That’s not DEI either. So do you support DEI initiatives in the military?
Senator based on how it is defined, I want to find the best people across anywhere in this country, geographically or any demographic who can support the defense of this nation.
Do you believe that our brave military men and women should be pitted against one another based solely on their race?
No, sir, I do not.
Do you believe or do you accept the proposition that General Brown, in his August of 2022 memo that we should have racial quotas with officer class?
Senator, I am not aware that General Brown has said that.
If General Brown said that we should have a reduction in number of white officers serving to 67% of officers down from I think it’s a total of 5400 officers. Do you support that?
Senator I support that promotion should be based on merit.
Okay, so you don’t support the idea that we would have racial quotas for the officer class?
That’s correct, Senator.
I do want to ask you also, what role do you think DEI . . . what’s your experience, firsthand for you? What have you seen in these trainings? What have been the trainings that have taken place? I’m not talking about reaching for the best and the brightest. I want to understand because we have a military recruitment problem, right? And so the issue, I think, is if people view–and this is coming from the Department of Defense and it’s been widely talked about in this committee–if people view that politics is being infused in our military, do you think that that would hurt recruitment?
Sir, I do. And I think the military must be rigorously apolitical and nonpartisan.
Do you think infusing abortion politics into our military hurts our recruiting?
Sir, we in the military should not be partisan or political.
Do you think infusing COVID politics into our military hurts our recruiting? Meaning do you think that people should have been fired for not getting the vaccine?
Sir, we are required to uphold a legal order.
Do you think we should actively recruit those 8500 people who were fired for not getting the vaccine?
Sir, I would like to see those individuals who can come back apply to come back, yes, sir.
Do you think we should recruit them to come back?
Yes, sir.
Okay, and then do you believe that . . . Are you familiar with the August memo of 2022 from General Brown?
I am not, sir.
Okay, in some follow up questions we’ll ask you your points of view on that.
Thank you, sir. Thank you.
From The Federalist:
Biden’s newest pick to lead U.S. Space Force Command previously removed a service member from duty for speaking out against DEI efforts and Marxism in the U.S. military.
Nominated by Biden to serve as the next head of U.S. Space Force Command earlier this month, Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting played a role in the firing of Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier.
While promoting his book, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military,” during a May 2021 podcast interview, Lohmeier spoke about the increasing presence of Marxist thought permeating the U.S. military, specifically pointing to the embrace of DEI and critical race theory.
“Our diversity, inclusion and equity [DEI] industry and the trainings we’re receiving in the military via that industry are rooted in critical race theory which is rooted in Marxism,” Lohmeier said.
DEI, which stands for “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” is a divisive and poisonous ideology dismissive of merit in order to discriminate based on characteristics such as skin color and sexual orientation.
Meanwhile, critical race theory seeks to fracture society along racial lines by promoting the false concept that all white people are oppressors and all non-white people are oppressed.
Not long after Lohmeier’s podcast interview, a Space Force representative informed Military.com (and later CNN) that Whiting had “relieved” the lieutenant colonel of command due to a supposed “loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.”
The representative further confirmed the decision was “based on” Lohmeier’s podcast remarks and that Whiting had initiated an investigation into Lohmeier to determine whether his comments “constituted prohibited partisan political activity.”
During the podcast interview, Lohmeier purportedly took issue with The New York Times’ thoroughly debunked 1619 Project, which attempts to rewrite history by asserting that America’s founding is based upon slavery and racism rather than the premise that “all men are created equal.”
According to Lohmeier, such “anti-American” concepts are being pushed throughout the armed forces.
“It teaches intensive teaching that I heard at my base – that at the time the country ratified the United States Constitution, it codified white supremacy as the law of the land,” Lohmeier said. “If you want to disagree with that, then you start (being) labeled all manner of things including racist.”
During the interview, Lohmeier reportedly went on to make clear that — as described by CBS News — “he doesn’t care about the political views of his fellow service members, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans, but he does not want to see institutions politicized.” Lohmeier confirmed such sentiments to Fox News following his ousting.
In addition to firing Lohmeier, Whiting has a history of advancing DEI ideology throughout the U.S. military. According to a February 26, 2021, Facebook post published by the U.S. Space Operations Command, Whiting participated in a fireside chat with service members where he discussed “diversity and inclusion” in recruiting. . . . (read more on The Federalist)
