Commander Fired

PUBLISHED: 1:30 PM 17 May 2021
UPDATED: 5:33 PM 17 May 2021

Space Force Commander Fired After “Marxism” Warning, Now Book Topping Best Sellers

A commander of a U.S. Space Force has been fired after discussing his new book, exposing Marxism in te military.

What?! (Source: YouTube Screenshot)

Exposing the Marxist takeover of the American military will apparently get you fired.

Conservative Treehouse explained:

What makes this man a national treasure and hero is not just his military service, but his willingness to outline one of the true cancers -Marxism- that is undermining the military ability to function.  It is likely Lt Col. Matthew Lohmeier knew what he was saying would mean his targeting and elimination, yet he said it anyway.

(Military.Com) A commander of a U.S. Space Force unit tasked with detecting ballistic missile launches has been fired for comments made during a podcast promoting his new book, which claims Marxist ideologies are becoming prevalent in the United States military.

Lt Col. Matthew Lohmeier, commander of 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, was relieved from his post Friday by Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, the head of Space Operations Command, over a loss of confidence in his ability to lead, Military.com has exclusively learned.

[…] Earlier this month, Lohmeier, a former instructor and fighter pilot who transferred into the Space Force, self-published a book titled “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.”

“Irresistible Revolution is a timely and bold contribution from an active-duty Space Force lieutenant colonel who sees the impact of a neo-Marxist agenda at the ground level within our armed forces,” a description of the book reads. (continue reading)

It is interesting to compare and contrast the military reaction to Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier: “Lt. Gen. Whiting has initiated a Command Directed Investigation on whether these comments constituted prohibited partisan political activity,” against the lack of military reaction to Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (Trump impeachment instigator) who was clearly undertaking “partisan political activity.”

If you consider the 2020 election was a usurpation by elements of the United States government in coordination with political intelligence operatives and leftist organizers; then any action that might uncover the election fraud is now a risk to the entire framework of the U.S. government.

♦The Insurance Policy Theory –  The majority of the U.S. military rank and file are patriots; America-first nationalists with a patriotic outlook toward the United States as a constitutional republic.  The majority of the military also come from red states.  This is an identified risk to the Obama objective of fundamental change.  Additionally, thanks in large part to a purge during the Obama era, the majority of the flag officers are not in alignment with the rank and file.   This sets the stage for a problem….

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Friday ordered new steps to tackle the threat posed by extremism in the ranks of the military, including updated screening questionnaires for recruits, a review of the department’s definition of extremism and efforts to prevent veterans from being drawn into violent movements.

The move follows a 60-day stand-down across the armed services that Austin ordered to allow commanders and troops in every unit to discuss how to confront the problem of white supremacist or other extremist ideology within the military. The Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump thrust the issue into the spotlight, as some of the mob were former or current members of the military with links to ultra-rightwing groups.

In a memo Friday to top officials and commanders, Austin said the department was still reviewing the results of the stand-down but he had decided to move ahead with “several immediate steps.”

Under Austin’s instruction, the Pentagon’s top lawyer and other officials will review and update the department’s definition of “prohibited extremist activities” for all service members. Critics have said the Pentagon needs to take into account how extremism has evolved in the digital era, and how some adherents engage in more loosely formed networks.

The secretary also called for updated screening questionnaires for potential recruits to gather information about current or previous extremist behavior ”to ensure that only the best qualified recruits are selected for the services,” according to the memo. (read more)

It is well known and accepted that most of the rank and file military come from Red States, and/or the Southern U.S. region.   This has been a reality in the military for as long as I can remember.   Again, this is a problem if the government is going to need to weaponize the military against the citizens.  Hence, they need to quantify the issue in advance.

[HISTORIC NOTE:  This is not the first time the Pentagon has undertaken such an assessment.  In the aftermath of the Chinese regular army refusing to turn their fire on the protesting students at Tienanmen Square (remember, the Mongolian divisions were called in); the world noticed.  The U.S. Pentagon did a similar internal assessment.]

♦ My prior warning with the examples and citations of data to back-up my prediction are HERE and repeated below:

Considering the specific examples over the past few years, I would argue the Democrats are positioning for use of the military in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act -or- by an expressed act of congress.

Following the evidence to its logical conclusion is simple.  The political apparatus of the DC state has framed a fraudulent narrative that “insurrection” against the federal government is an ongoing possibility.

Toward that end the U.S. military national guard troops have been sent to Washington DC indefinitely (current deployment extended through May).

If we consider there is a reasonable argument now surfacing about states choosing to nullify federal laws; and when you consider the likelihood of additional election audits discovering wrongdoing; it is not a stretch to see the insurrection narrative as a proactive assertion to support the deployment of active military against any state, officeholder or entity, who would be non-compliant with the government narrative.

Would this violate the Posse Comitatus Act? Quite possibly, yes; it would depend on whether congress passed an expressed act authorizing military troops against specific action.

When we consider that most of the constitutional checks and balances have been deconstructed or usurped by hardline leftist action; including the weaponization of the intelligence community, and specifically the FBI as a federal law enforcement agency; we are left to recognize that any Posse Comitatus violation would likely be supported by a leftist and aligned media arguing that the military is needed in order to stop a rebellion of states.

If my suspicions/predictions are correct, this would explain exactly why there has been a recent uptick in the visual politicization of the military; including empirical examples of emboldened U.S. military leadership openly engaged in domestic political advocacy against Tucker Carlson.

The marching of the U.S. military through the Capitol building to the offices of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene would be another orchestrated optic sending the same political message.

These are not examples of the military “woke” community advancing political correctness, instead these are examples of advanced politicization of the military (in an open context) in preparation for domestic political use.

The “insurrection narrative” is then considered a seed planted to blossom later in support of the overall agenda and defend against exposure for any election operations.

One of the data-points highlighting future intent was clearly visible and seemingly overlooked by almost all media.  It happened when Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman first became a political whistle-blower against the office of President Trump.

It was not the details of the Vindman accusation that stood out, though that was the aspect the media focused on.  What was more concerning was the lack of action by the Pentagon after Vindman compromised his position as an advisor to the commander in chief.

2019 – When we consider that Lt. Col. Vindman was carrying out what he believed to be his role; and when you overlay his military purpose; and when we accept Vindman was assisting CIA agent Eric Ciaramella in constructing his dossier to remove President Trump; and when we stand back and look at the aggregate interests involved, including Vindman’s divided loyalties toward a foreign power; and when we consider there was ZERO push-back from the ranks of military leadership, specifically the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and when you accept Vindman was simply allowed to return to his post inside the White House – where he remains today; well, the alarming aspect increases in direct proportion to the definition of the word: “coup”.

I would encourage all readers to think long and hard those factual data-points.

Despite his admitted usurpation of President Trump policy, Vindman was sent back to his post in the NSC with the full support of the United States Department of Defense.

The onus of action to remove Vindman from the NSC did not lay at the feet of the White House and National Security advisor Robert O’Brien; upon whose action the removal of Vindman could be positioned as political.  The necessary obligation to remove Lt. Col Vindman resides purposefully with the Dept. of Defense.

The Pentagon could easily withdraw Vindman from his position at the National Security Council; yet, it does not…. and it has not.   WHY?

There is a code within the military whereby you never put your leadership into a position of compromise; ie. “never compromise your leadership”.

In this example, President Trump cannot remove Vindman from the White House NSC advisory group due to political ramifications and appearances… The Joint Chiefs certainly recognize this issue; it is the very type of compromise they are trained to remove.  Yet they do nothing to remove the compromise.  They do nothing to assist.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was the majority (#1) source for the material CIA operative Eric Ciaramella used in a collaborative effort to remove President Trump from office.  Let me make this implication crystal clear:

The United States Military appears to be collaborating with the CIA to remove a U.S. President from office.

The Pentagon has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to countermand this implication. The Secretary of Defense has done nothing to remove the conflict that Vindman represents within the National Security Council.  The Joint Chiefs of Staff have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish the appearance of an agenda toward the removal of President Trump.

This is not a complex issue.

No-one in the foreign policy group is going to take any advice or opinion from Vindman.  No-one is going to allow him to engage in material of a sensitive or confidential nature.  Lt. Col. Vindman has compromised himself; and therefore eliminated any usefulness to his prior assignment.  Yet his command does nothing? (more)

That was the alarming lack of action from the Pentagon everyone seemed to overlook.  Why did senior military leadership not remove Vindman from his post at the White House once he clearly compromised his ability to carry out his duty?  Their lack of action was stunning when you consider their primary obligation.

Fast forward to 2021 and now a very political military officer, General Russel Honore’, is appointed by Nancy Pelosi to be in charge of the military deployment around Washington DC.

When you consider the political ramifications of the military supporting a false narrative, this is more than just another data-point.  Then the military openly attacked the position of Tucker Carlson based entirely on political ideology.

The increased frequency of the military being politicized is what leads me to believe this phase is all just a public relations pre-positioning.  I fully expect to see the standing U.S. military deployed against any state who stands up against unconstitutional federal demands…  That will be when the U.S. military is held as a compliance activation against any rebellious state.

Bottom line… The American electorate are being positioned to accept deployment of the U.S. military against U.S. citizens, under the guise of insurrection and/or a public threat.  That is why we are seeing so much willful politicization of the military.

Under this premise the activity by Liz Cheney, and other Intelligence Community connected actors, starts to take on a new perspective.

Election ballot audits would be a very real threat….  And the media is certainly acting like state election audits are a very real threat.

The Gateway Pundit added:

A commander of a US Space Force unit was fired and put under investigation for anti-Marxist comments he made during a podcast.

Lt. Col. Matthew Lohmeier, a former fighter pilot, was a commander of a unit that detected ballistic missile launches and was relieved of his duties on Friday by Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, Military.com reported.

Lohmeier earlier this month self-published a book titled, “Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military.”

Last week Lohmeier spoke about his book and criticized Critical Race Theory with L. Todd Wood, host of the podcast “Information Operation.”

This upset the woke, Marxist sympathizers in the US Military and Lohmeier was promptly removed from his post.

Via Military.com:

A commander of a U.S. Space Force unit tasked with detecting ballistic missile launches has been fired for comments made during a podcast promoting his new book, which claims Marxist ideologies are becoming prevalent in the United States military.

Lt Col. Matthew Lohmeier, commander of 11th Space Warning Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, was relieved from his post Friday by Lt. Gen. Stephen Whiting, the head of Space Operations Command, over a loss of confidence in his ability to lead, Military.com has exclusively learned.

“This decision was based on public comments made by Lt. Col. Lohmeier in a recent podcast,” a Space Force spokesperson said in an email. “Lt. Gen. Whiting has initiated a Command Directed Investigation on whether these comments constituted prohibited partisan political activity.”

Lohmeier’s temporary assignment in the wake of his removal was not immediately clear.

“I was apprised of the option to have my book reviewed at the Pentagon’s prepublication and security review prior to release, but was also informed that it was not required,” Lohmeier told Military.com in an email.