Ukraine President Zelenskyy Makes a Broadcast Appearance at the Grammy Awards

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022 | Sundance

It was February 24, 2022, when Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh appeared at the White House podium to announce the official U.S. strategy for Ukraine.  Singh boiled down geopolitical power to a cultural issue of social likeability when he said, “In this century, strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic strength, by technological sophistication and your story – who you are, what your values are.”

Singh stated the quiet part out loud.  The White House views “strategic power” through the prism of social influence and likeability.  Within that approach pop icons are used as influencers and ambassadors, and Hollywood is the quintessential State Department tool.

So, it does not come as a surprise to see the U.S. government promoting the propaganda behind President Zelenskyy on the Grammy Awards broadcast. {Direct Rumble LinkWATCH:

Unfortunately, once you see the strings on the marionettes, you can never return to that moment in the performance when you did not see them.  Notice how Zelenskyy talks in short metaphors and soundbites for encapsulation and distribution.

That script was written for him to deliver by the same performance artists within the U.S. Department of State and intelligence community.  It is 100% constructed propaganda intended to support the ‘strategic power’ mission as outlined by Deputy National Security Advisor Daleep Singh.

These are the same people who created “#BringBackOurGirls” and “#KonySurrender” as strategic narratives intended to sway popular public opinion. This performance was made for a gullible television audience. There is nothing wrong with seeing through the scheme.

The harder they push this propaganda; the more people wake up to the manipulation.  It’s a vicious cycle.  The more desperate they become, the harder they push the propaganda.  It’s one of the structural flaws that always exists in these operations.  You are not crazy for noticing it.  Trust your instincts.

Sunday Talks, Hillary Creeps Out from the Catacombs to Demand More War and Bloodlust

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022  | Sundance

If there’s one political figure who should remain stewing over her toxic cauldron in the dark recesses of political caves, it’s Hillary.  The same creature who purposefully destroyed the nation of Libya by organizing a NATO invasion, has no credibility to discuss foreign invasion by Russia.

Regardless of the outcome in Ukraine, whenever the conflict finishes, there will not be modern human slave markets in the streets, widespread graphic violence using machetes, race-driven and tribal genocide and tens of thousands of people continually shoveled by the dump trucks into mass graves.  That’s the current status of ‘life’ in the north African country of Libya following the aftermath of Hillary’s war.

I would not normally even think about sharing any viewpoint from this evil and maniacal creature if it wasn’t for Clinton recently reopening the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative so she could scrape off some of the $14 billion in aid congress has allocated for Ukraine.  Watch as she starts to frame her attack position and position Saudi Arabia, India, parts of Europe and China as targets for more “diplomatic leverage,” vis-a-vis blackmail sanctions, if they do not adhere to her call for the destruction of Russia.

She’s transparently trying to promote her influence – Tony Blinken was her former protege’ – as a potential influence broker if countries want to avoid being on the wrong side of the Biden-Blinken operation in Ukraine.  Clinton is the Al Sharpton of shakedowns using geopolitical blackmail.


German Grocers Warn Consumers of Significant Second Wave Price Increases

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022 | Sundance

The inflationary impact to any specific country is directly proportionate to the scale of the government intervention in the COVID lockdown spend.  Almost all of the nations who deployed the WEF program are in the same inflationary position.

The U.S., U.K., New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the EU, within which Germany is the largest economy, all followed the WEF spending instructions.

(Germany) – According to the German Retail Association (HDE), consumers should prepare for another wave of price hikes for everyday goods and groceries.

Even before the outbreak of war in Ukraine, prices had risen by about five per cent “across the product range” as a result of increased energy prices, HDE President Josef Sanktjohanser told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung on Friday.

With Russia’s invasion hitting economies and the supply chain harder, yet another series of price increases is on the horizon. “The second wave of price increases is coming, and it will certainly be in double figures,” Sanktjohanser warned. (read more)

Every time the supermarket checkout rings, a yellow vested rebel is created.

Hungarian Prime Minister and Economic Nationalist Viktor Orban Easily Wins Reelection – NATO, Globalists, World Economic Forum and Western War Alliance Very Upset

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022 | Sundance

The working class of Hungary have spoken. The people are not going to stop supporting Prime Minister Viktor Orban, their grandfatherly, pragmatic economic nationalist and populist leader.  However, the U.S., NATO, Globalists, World Economic Forum and western alliance group, run by and from the CIA/State Dept operational headquarters, are not happy. Not happy at all.

Orban represents a visible middle finger to the interests of the one world order society, as he refuses to accept the era of western controlled “democratic norms.”  You know, the modern catch phrase popularized by those who weaponize democracy in order to attain totalitarian objectives via modern multinational fascism (see: COVID mandates, rules and lockdowns).

HUNGARY – (via Guardian) – Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has declared victory in national elections, claiming a mandate for a fourth term following a campaign dominated by rows over the war in neighbouring Ukraine.

In a 10-minute speech to officials and supporters of his Fidesz party at an election night event in Budapest, Orbán addressed a crowd cheering “Viktor!” and declared it was a “huge victory” for his party.

“We won a victory so big that you can see it from the moon, and you can certainly see it from Brussels,” he said.

While votes were still being tallied, it appeared clear that the question was not whether Fidesz would take the election, but by how much. With nearly 75% of votes counted, it appeared possible that Fidesz would win another constitutional majority in the 199-member parliament.

It has previously had a two-thirds supermajority that has enabled it to radically restructure the country’s politics and social policies during its 12-year reign, transforming Hungary into a self-styled “illiberal democracy” that has flouted western norms and frequently been at odds with the EU.

A similar victory would come despite mounting international criticism of Orbán for failing to wholeheartedly condemn Vladimir Putin over Russia’s war on Ukraine. (read more)

In the big picture, Viktor Orban’s easy victory makes NATO war with Russia harder for Joe Biden…

….So, they hate him.

Sunday Talks, Ukraine President Zelenskyy on Face The Nation With Margaret Brennan to Outline War Crimes in Ukraine

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022 | Sundance 

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appears on CBS with Margaret Brennan to discuss the current status of the conflict in Ukraine.  One of the interesting sentences is at 01:34 of the video: “The clips that we have shared with you, you have seen for yourself.” This statement is about the latest video snippet used by western media to frame the status of the conflict.  The video clip was the lead on CNN with Anthony Blinken {SEE HERE}.

The video noted reportedly shows civilian bodies in the streets that were killed during the conflict in the city of Bucha, northeast of Kyiv.  Two points about this specific area for context.  First, this was the area where the well discussed 20-mile convoy of Russian equipment was stationary for several weeks.  Second, remember the free weapons that Zelenskyy/Bidenskyy gave away to any civilian who wanted to fight? The main distribution was in this area.

As we might expect, Mrs. Brennan is well rehearsed for maximum dramatic flair – this is another of her moments in the sun, selected to conduct the interview by the DoS/Intel apparatus. Elocution, phrasing, tone all rehearsed for audience impact. Unfortunately, what CBS creates is George Clooney trying to be Richard Burton.  WATCH:


None of our Ukraine analysis is intended to create sympathy for the position of Russia.  Ukraine is a battleground, and its sovereignty was invaded by Russia. None of that is disputed.  Unfortunately, the ordinary Ukrainian people are cannon fodder within Ukraine as the proxy region for a larger conflict between U.S. government interests, NATO and Russia.

The U.S. has been exploiting Ukraine for well over a decade.  The money the U.S. has funneled into Ukraine in order to create, influence and preserve U.S. interests, has only increased the corruption within the political system in that country.  There are no good guys here, only lesser bad guys.

It is from that geopolitical perspective that all western media constructs should be evaluated for the weight of the intended propaganda.  The actual amount of control Zelenskyy holds over the Ukraine military response is unknown.  The scenario this represents creates a larger problem when trying to figure out what is actually taking place.

It is highly unlikely that Zelenskyy holds any control over the ultranationalist factions within eastern Ukraine, like the Azov battalion.  It has become increasingly clear; those eastern Ukraine military units are funded by the U.S./NATO and receive more support from western allies than from the central government in Kyiv.

Much like the U.S. supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan during their fight against Russia, so too is the U.S. supporting factions within Ukraine in their current insurgent fight against Russia.  Zelenskyy has no influence or control over this, and it shows in the weird dynamic whenever he makes an appearance.  We can debate how much of the Ukraine military is under Zelenskyy’s control.  My guess is very little, but the reality of the U.S. operating as the guiding hand is a ground reality clearly visible.

Ukraine is to the United States as North Korea is to China.  As we have well documented on a granular level, Chairman Kim is held hostage by Chairman Xi. Now we see a similar dynamic, Comrade Zelenskyy is held hostage by Comrade Biden.

If you look at Zelenskyy’s position more as a public relations figure, a front man for the U.S. operation in Ukraine, then much of the weirdness starts to make sense.  From all appearances, the U.S. State Dept/CIA provide Zelenskyy with the framework they need him to promote, and Zelenskyy has no option right now other than play along.   It can be argued this outlook makes Zelenskyy a puppet, but when you consider the scale of influence and in country activity the U.S. was controlling prior to the Russian invasion, his current status is simply a logical outcome.

As to the actual logistics of the conflict and the strategy of Russia, the actual location of troops and places of conflict all make sense if you think about the original statements by Vladimir Putin about his intentions for this “military operation.”  Putin is going to carve out eastern Ukraine exactly as he said he would.  How much of eastern Ukraine he intends to control is unknown.

From that perspective, knowing the western alliance was likely to supply supportive weapons into Ukraine from Poland, the strategic deployment of Russian forces northeast of Kyiv would then be considered a proactive positioning against a western-aided offensive.  Keep the supplies of the enemy in check while conducting operations in the east and south where the primary objective is taking place.

If Putin is now working to finalize the regional elements of his carve out, moving those troops out of Western Ukraine, northeast of Kyiv, now would appear to make sense.  In this carve out approach the key Ukraine city would likely become Dnipro.

Putin’s generals would want to surround the eastern Ukraine military combatants under the command, control and support of the U.S. and western military alliance.  Pushing northward from the south, and southward from the north, while using supply lines from the east (Russia) taking Dnipro would be very strategic (see map below); and it is over 1,200 miles from any direct NATO supply and logistical support.

If, as many intellectually honest observers have always believed, Putin never intended to take more than eastern Ukraine, all of the areas west of Kyiv would now have exhausted their usefulness.  Putin kept NATO Commanders Bidenskyy and Blinkinskyy from creating large supply lines into eastern Ukraine, and now Putin gets more detailed in his targeting operations and fortifications.

As NATO Commander Bidenskyy might move to create supply convoys from Poland directly toward the west, the Russian air forces will now deploy to target their movements.  It will be very risky for NATO to move mass weapons eastward, as they would be very vulnerable to air assaults.

Sunday Talks, U.S. Secretary General Blinken Outlines Civilian Horrors Northeast of Kyiv

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022 | Sundance

Comrade Secretary Blinken appears on State Dept outlet CNN to discuss the atrocities that have taken place in Bucha, a town northeast of Kyiv, where U.S and western allies armed Ukrainian citizens in an effort to thwart the Russian army’s southern advance.

Secretary General Blinken is shocked, horrified and mortified that footage would emerge from Ukraine state media reportedly showing civilians lying in the streets amid the aftermath of regional war.  John King’s ex-wife asks Secretary General Blinkenskyy what it means to see Russian forces withdraw from west of Kyiv and also questions about the U.S. sending tanks and heavy weapons into Ukraine as the fortifications and battlelines shift to central and eastern Ukraine.

If you wonder why she’s asking the State Dept and not the Defense Dept., you have not been following the evolution of U.S. conflict in the past two decades.   The State Dept and CIA now organize the U.S. conflicts (Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela et al) and tell the Pentagon where to go.  If the Pentagon secretary of war is reluctant to participate, the DoS use NATO Supreme Allied Commanders to conduct the missions (see Libya).

Sunday Talks, Behind the Curtain With Biden Chief of Staff, Ron Klain

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 3, 2022 | Sundance

Two old buddies hold a broadcast zoom call on ABC This Week.  When evaluating and forecasting all things political, it’s a good exercise to listen to the framework from the crew behind the curtain. Within the ‘interview’, you can get a sense for what’s coming.

Klain notes, repeatedly, that whatever outcome is decided within Ukraine is the decision of Volodymyr Zelenskyy; which is transparently interpreted by historic reality to mean, the White House is deciding what happens in Ukraine and Zelenskyy is the front man Biden Inc. will use to structure any division of the nation. Stephanopolous responds with “that’s right,” affirming Klain is following the script.

On the economy, Klain doubles down noting the Biden crew spent $1 trillion less on COVID bailouts in fiscal year 2021 ($6 trillion), than the original lockdown fiscal year 2020 ($7 trillion), so they have reduced the deficit by $1 trillion (talking point).  Klain also notes the White House urgently crippled the Main Street economy, which blocked economic growth that would have been able to handle the prior spending.  The result of the policy shift froze the economic engine while the spending continued, ergo… Inflation.  Mission accomplished.


Pentagon Clarifies, No “Offensive” Biologic Weapons in Ukraine Bio-Labs Where U.S. Defense Dept Was Working

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 2, 2022 | sundance 

Every time the U.S. government attempts to clarify the biolabs in Ukraine, they end up making things less clear.

In the most recent example, Deborah Rosenbaum, the assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, told the House subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations on Friday that “I can say to you unequivocally there are no offensive biologic weapons in the Ukraine laboratories that the United States has been involved with.”

In a fact sheet produced March 11, 2022, the U.S. Defense Department admitted to working with biological weapons facilities in Ukraine [LINK]. “The United States … has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites.

As the current story is told the U.S. government was coordinating with the Ukraine government on biologic research facilities, many of which were left over from the former Soviet era.  In/around the time the Russian invasion was feared, they worked quickly to destroy the pathogens, because they were worried what might happen if the Russians took control of the facilities.

This begs the obvious first question, if the U.S. Defense Department was working with Ukraine since 2005, and they could destroy the deadly pathogens in a few days before the conflict, why didn’t the Pentagon destroy them in the preceding 16 years?

The second question targets the issues that are more opaque.  The DoD says the U.S. has not been involved in “offensive biological weapon” creation in Ukraine.  Technically, all of the weapons in the U.S. military are classified as “defensive” weapons, ergo the Department of Defense.  Every weapon is defensive until it is used; then, depending on the circumstances, the use of the weapon changes its classification to offensive.  Why would biological weapons be any different?

By the current standard of Defense Department definitions, all of the biological weapons they might be working with Ukraine to develop would technically be classified defensive weapons.  As a result, saying “there are no offensive biologic weapons” is a rather moot and irrelevant point.

Three points:

♦ Point One – Russia and the U.S. Pentagon both agree the U.S. government was working in Ukraine in biological weapons labs.

♦ Point Two – Both Russia and the U.S. admit these were/are deadly biological pathogens.

♦ Point Three – The biggest difference between the two positions is that Russia says these were offensive weapons, and the U.S/Ukraine saying these were defensive weapons.

The debate is not about whether the U.S. Defense Department was operating and funding biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine.  The U.S. government has now made that admission.  The debate is now about the purpose or intent of those weapons.

If Russia was investing in biological weapons labs in Mexico, and if the Russian military was working inside those labs along with Mexican government officials, I suspect the United States would conduct a special military operation in Mexico to remove that threat.

Neil Oliver Asks: What Is This New World Order and Why Are We Sitting in a Handbasket?

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 2, 2022 | sundance 

GBNews pundit Neil Oliver uses his weekly monologue [Transcript Here] to ask what is this new madness that forces us to suspend disbelief in order to accept it?

Curiouser and curiouser we find ourselves muttering as those who operate the global funhouse mirrors bend the reflected narrative to give the appearance of fat made skinny, boys made girls, and contorted views of their political truth.  WATCH:


[Transcript] – “I wonder how far all this will go. By “all this”, I mean the headlong push, always in the same direction, always away from the world I recognise. To me it seems as though a pendulum is swinging, has been swinging for years now, but always and only one way – further and further from the point where I stand. I wonder too, how far that pendulum can swing before it must stop and, inevitably swing back the other way, and with a vengeance. Every action, after all, has an equal and opposite reaction.

To me there seems no avoiding the conclusion that, as a key part of all this, official misinformation and propaganda all over the world has been shaped to make reasonable people feel like they’re simply going mad, that they have lost the ability to understand and interpret events and make decisions for themselves. Many people have felt the only option was to toe the line – even when it seemed pointless, or counterproductive, even insane. The name of the game was avoiding the anger of those shouting loudest.

Last week US President Joe Biden spoke in front of millions about how: “there’s going to be a new world order out there”

New World Order: three words that have been floating around on social media like something unpleasant that just won’t flush. Hardly were the words out of the president’s mouth before commentators – on his side of the line, at least – were gleefully reporting his statement … while somehow simultaneously offering the opinion that only the tin-hat-wearing, swivel eyed loons (which includes people like me, apparently) had been triggered by his language.

The Independent website, for instance, reported the story under a headline reading: “Joe Biden said New World Order and conspiracy theorists lost it”

This is no more than a clumsy attempt at a verbal sleight of hand, yet another reminder that the official line has it that only crazy people ever suspect that something, somewhere might be amiss.

In a speech delivered to the Australian National University in Canberra, Sir Jeremy Fleming, director of GCHQ, told his audience that the pandemic, followed by war in Ukraine, added up to: “a period of generational upheaval.”

Both Biden and Sir Jeremy – to take just two prominent spokesmen speaking at the same moment in history – seeking to normalise the thought that every few generations, the world must change whether we want it to or not, as though the world has always changed every two or three generations, which it hasn’t.

New World Order, generational upheaval, always the pendulum swinging one way and one way only. Forget how things used to be, that’s over now, get ready for change, for something new, whether you want it or not. What’s a person – a person bedevilled, anyway, by a cost-of-living crisis, the dogged pursuit of Net Zero, a reawakened fear of nuclear war and still coming to terms with the will-they-won’t-they uncertainty of Covid rules left smouldering like embers that might reignite at any moment – to make of such unsettling prophesying?

More verbal gymnastics followed when Mr Biden said recently that Mr Putin should no longer be in power in Russia. The president had told his audience in Poland that Putin: “…cannot remain in power”. But yet more verbal contortions somehow enabled the White House to say that regime change in Russia was not US government policy.

How can both statements be true at the same time?

How can this inside out, upside down line of thinking do anything but leave the average reasonable person feeling they simply do not have a clue about what’s going on anymore?

I say the average reasonable person – which is how I still understand myself, even after all this time of madness – but clearly those on the other side of the debate from me, that viciously polarised debate, now regard me and millions of other reasonable people as wild-eyed extremists, politically to the right of Atilla the Hun.

And yet I look on at the la-la land of Hollywood, at actor Will Smith slapping comedian Chris Rock at the Oscars and then getting a standing ovation for winning the statuette for Best Actor. What does a reasonable person, or even a wild-eyed extremist even begin to do with such a sequence of events compressed into such a short space of time? If I hit someone at a work event I might expect to be fired, rather than given a standing ovation and the award for employee of the year. But that’s showbiz, apparently.

The Oscars have been growing increasingly unbearable for years, of course. Watching millionaires in receipt of goodie bags worth more than what 99 percent of the world’s population earns in a year, while speechifying and shedding crocodile tears about the plight of the poor and the oppressed, had long required a muscular suspension of disbelief. But now surely the pretence of the Oscars as moral spokesman for the world is finally over, and forever, the bubble well and truly burst. I can’t look at it anymore, not after metaphorically watching A-listers on the toilet all these years.

Everywhere you look there’s more to confuse and disorientate. Talk of white privilege, men in women’s sports, big tech censorship. Last week Florida passed a bill to prevent the sexualisation of children up to the age of seven or so. A large majority of Floridians – both Republican and Democrat – agreed it was common sense that children so young should not receive instruction in the classroom about “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”. You might think third graders and younger would do best to get to grips with “The Cat Sat on the Mat” in preparation for later learning what a pronoun actually is – maybe in the context of an English lesson – before being invited to pick pronouns to describe their own understanding of their genders.

Over in the Magic Kingdom, in California, Disney joined those taking strenuous exception to the Florida bill and pushing a blatant lie that it was about stopping teachers saying the word ‘Gay’. All at once the bill was, according to Disney, and other showbiz types, about: “Don’t say gay.”

In fact there was no use of the word gay anywhere in the bill, and in polling, the majority of people of all stripes agreed with it. But that didn’t stop Disney and others insisting that word was being banned in Florida schools and kindergartens.

At the same time, Disney announced it had done away with any and all references to “Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” at any of its theme parks. Never again, presumably, will a little girl be welcomed as a “princess” as had previously been a commonplace. How much money Disney had made selling princess dresses to uncounted millions of little children hardly bears thinking about. No more, we might assume.

Many parents have known a child insist on dressing as a princess one week, and superman the next. Most of those parents have understood those steps not as permanent life choices, but as the multicoloured stages of being a child growing up.

To be frank, I have never understood the pressure about pronouns, either. I was brought up never to refer to anyone – anyone actually in the room with me – via a pronoun. To point to someone and call them ‘she’ – referring to that person in the third person singular while that person was actually standing in front of me, was to invite, from a grown up, the withering putdown, “Who’s ‘she’, the cat’s mother?”

The use of ‘she’, ‘her’, ‘he’, ‘him’ in regard to a person who was RIGHT THERE, was simply rude, regardless of any other consideration. Good manners dictated that each person in the room was to be addressed and referred to by their name. If you experienced the small agony of forgetting the name of someone you’d been introduced to … too bad … you just had to apologise for the lapse and ask them to say their name a second time. Third person pronouns were for the mention of someone who was elsewhere, absent from the scene. In my world there should be no need for those pronouns while actually with a person. And so what sort of self-obsessed narcissist tries to dictate how others talk about them when they’re not even there?

And always, woven through the confusing madness like dry rot, is the sinister obsession with children and also with the family.

In my homeland of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish government has already seen to it that children as young as four can pick a different gender while in school – without the need for their parents to know anything about it. Previously the Scottish government pursued a so-called Named Persons bill – that would have seen a state sponsored stranger slipped between every child and parent in the land. That named person would have been able to establish a relationship with the child, have conversations with the child about anything and everything under the sun – again without the need for parents to be informed.

The Daily Mail had a story last week about a London-based psychologist reporting a sharp rise in the number of people calling his clinic to report symptoms of what he has called ‘Doomsday anxiety’ – which he describes as “fear of the end of the world or life as we know it.”

I know that feeling and I’m not surprised in the least that more and more people are burdened by hopeless, doom-laden thoughts. After all, the incessant pushing of the pendulum has left more and more people no other choice but to fear the worst.

What interests me more and more though, as I said at the top, is how much further away from me, and millions like me, the pendulum must swing. How much further CAN it swing? How much further away must we watch the pendulum pushed away – away from everything so many of us know to be common sense, decent, honourable and true? How much more will we watch them do to marginalise and then break up the family? How much longer will we let our youngest children watch and listen to lectures about sex, to be encouraged to contemplate things sexual instead of enjoying a handful of years being welcomed as boys and girls and pretending to be princesses one day and superheroes the next?

However far the pendulum swings, it must and will eventually swing back the other way, faster and faster. How far will it swing then, and where will it stop? {LINK}

Harvard Harris Poll Finds More Than Two-Thirds of People Do Not Want K-3 Teachers Talking Sex With Kids

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on April 2, 2022 Sundance 

The official position of Democrat party, and the official position of the White House, is that elementary teachers should be talking to kindergarten students about gender, sexuality and transitional guidance without parental notification or involvement.

A few years ago, that official position – promoted from the podium at the White House – would likely have been considered radical.  In a climate where technology, popular culture and influence is recognized as a social currency by the political class on the coasts, what was radical is now their platform.

However, staking this position comes with inherent risks, as highlighted by a Harvard/Harris poll released today [DATA HERE], showing that two-thirds of the people responding to the question do not agree with the DNC and White House:

[pdf – page #99 Poll question and responses]

67% of all respondents believe sexuality discussions for grades K-3 should be left to parents. 33% support schools teaching sexuality to 5 to 9-year-olds.

While 51% of Democrats agree that teachers should be involved, only 17% of Republicans and 31% of Independents agree.

I wonder if the response statistics would change if only “parents” were polled?

The 2022 Mid-Term Election….