It might be the most far-fetched claims about Manzella made yet, and it’s coming from supposed conservatives
If you listen to Don Pogreba at The Montana Post, Senator Theresa Manzella (R-SD44) wants to start Civil War II, throw old people out of wheelchairs, and kill folks with the Wuhan Flu by walking around without a COVID facial diaper. Of course, Montanans are used to hyper-liberal catastrophizations that mischaracterize conservatives and its standard fare for the Big Sky State. In reality, Manzella is known by her constituents (who overwhelmingly support her) as a Constitution-loving, patriotic American who does her best trying to serve the public with integrity and wholesome convictions.
But now Manzella, who is the very epitome of stalwart conservatism (she has an A+ ranking on Legistats, teaches a Constitution-class even in the middle of election campaigns, and is regularly the target of leftists), is being flanked by an organization that claims to be on the right. Its sheer naked bizarreness has got the attention of some, who consider accusations that Manzella is a liberal to be as absurd as accusing President Trump of being politically correct.
The website for Convention of States Action has published an article, written by David Schneider, entitled, Soros and Hillary Clinton Influence in Helena (we would link it, but prefer not to send traffic to Fake News sites). The title itself is worth a chortle or a good guffaw, especially considering the article is about Montana’s Arch-Conservative.
So please, pray-tell, how is George Soros and Hillary Clinton influencing Senator Manzella?
Well, Schneider does not in fact say, within the article, how Manzella is influenced by the billionaire financier or Bill Clinton’s tag-along appendage. In fact, he doesn’t mention Soros or Clinton at all within the body of his short article (except in the last sentence, which again makes the assertion the senator is influenced by the two, without any attempt at explanation). The reader is left wondering what on Earth the headline has to do with the article’s substance.
Schneider’s complaint is as follows…
In the committee hearing on Convention of States, Sen. Manzella indicated she was a “student” of Robert Brown. According to Mr. Brown, he has no formal legal training, nor published any legal reviews on any subject matter, but he also describes himself as a “constitutional scholar” while clearly he has followers including Manzella.
Robert Brown, for those who do not know, is in fact a Constitutional expert and is a Regional Field Director for the John Birch Society (hardly a friend to Soros or Hillary Clinton) for Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming. And for extra context demonstrating the ideological depravity of Schneider’s article, the John Birch Society was founded in 1958 as a right-wing organization denouncing communism and big government. Began by John Welch, the organization has been routinely criticized by establishment Republicans (most famously, William F. Buckley at the National Review) of being too conservative). The John Birch Society’s main bugbears include Agenda 21 and the Federal Reserve, both of which are opposed by the organization. And while Brown does not have “formal legal training” we would remind Schneider that (1) neither did most of our Founding Fathers and (2) the American Bar Association is hardly a bastion of conservatism. One can only imagine Schneider deriding General Washington of being an ignoramus because he lacked a law degree.
Schneider’s accusation that Manzella is a Soros and Clinton schill on the grounds she is a student of a John Birch Society director absolutely face-plants on the facts; Soros and Clinton are both big fans of globalism, big government, and the Federal Reserve. Of the many questions that Schneider’s hitpiece provokes, chief among them is what exactly he is smoking.
Schneider makes the comment…
We need legislators in Helena that listen to James Madison, George Mason, and George Washington and follow the action plan they left for the states inside of the Constitution, Article V.
Indeed, all conservatives should be in agreement that we need our officials in Helena to listen to Madison, Mason, and Washington. Manzella would certainly agree. But perhaps Schneider has overlooked that Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two methods to reform our Republic. The first is a Constitution of States, which has not yet been actuated in the course of our history. The only such reform convention ever held, prior to the drafting of Article V, was the 1787 convention that completely scuttled the Articles of Confederation. The fear from many conservatives is that a similiar convention will – in our current national climate – scuttle the Constitution rather than save it, just as happend in 1787.
The Big Sky Public Policy Institute – the most conservative of any Montana think-tank – released a White Paper earlier today pointing out that the notion seems nice on paper, but would not work in reality under our current circumstances (see below).
The Big Sky Public Policy Institute wrote…
Until Republicans are able to fight back sufficiently against Big Tech censorship, and until we begin to act consistently according to our conservative principles, the odds of achieving a positive outcome through an Article V Convention are slim to none. Without the Freedom of Speech in our communications, whether or not conservatives can even be mobilized to commandeer such a convention is dubious.
Meanwhile, we should remember the problem is truly not our Constitution. It remains one of the finest documents for the governance of men ever created. The problem is not the document itself, but the judiciary that has so treasonously ignored it or stretched it beyond its original meaning.
The Institute also pointed out that the move to create such a Constitutional Convention is supported almost equally among Democrats as Republicans. With 55% of Democrats supporting a rewriting of the Constitution, should it surprise us that a conservative like Manzella is seeking caution?
In reality, Manzella does not categorically oppose such a measure. She is, however, cautious about handing the keys of our Republic over to a process run by the very people who placed Joe Biden (dubiously) into the White House. This seems understandable.
Meanwhile, a question persists as to why a “conservative” is lobbing volleys of muckraking gobbledegook at the most conservative (arguably) in Helena, alleging she’s a Soros and Clinton puppet. Who exactly is David Schneider?
David P. Schneider is “central region director of Convention of States” and has very few written resources online, and they seem to originate in a Minnesota publication. If he is the same David Schneider listed on Open Secrets, he was a $500 donor to a Democrat candidate from Billings in 2005. Whether or not he’s one-and-the-same with the Democrat donor, the ideological direction of the organization, Convention of States, is suspect.
According to The Dangerous Path report, COS “has deep ties” to the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Koch brothers.” And altough the Koch Brothers supported Republican causes for decades, they have since departed from the path. For example, this article speaks about how the Koch Brothers joined forces with George Soros to pushback against American military superiority.
It seems that if anyone is a Soros stooge, it’s David Schneider. After all, Charles Koch recently repented of his conservative partisanship and devoted his time to “building bridges” with Democrats. And while Hillary Clinton is being brought up, we should all be reminded that the Koch Brothers refused to back Donald Trump in his bid against Hillary Clinton in 2016 (or Joe Biden in 2020).
Of course, we don’t want to play Six Degrees to George Soros, but the point is that one could far more easily assert that Schneider is compromised than Senator Manzella. We do, however, suspect that Schneider may very well be controlled opposition for the left. The organization, and Schneider in particular, very much appear to be leftists attacking conservatives in the name of conservatism, doing as much damage as possible to conservatism in the process.
Don’t fall for it.