Despathy: Balint, with PAC $$, rides destructive tsunami

Editor’s note: the author alludes to large donations made by PACs to the political campaign of Becca Balint. Further explanation: Federal Election Commission documents show that Nishad Singh, a U.S. citizen living in the Bahamas, donated $1.1 million to the LGBTQ Victory Fund Federal PAC. The former Facebook software engineer is listed as Director of Engineering for FTX, a cryptocurrency firm. His was the only donation above $10,000. The PAC gave the Balint campaign $991,000.

by Alison Despathy

Becca Balint is riding a tsunami and tsunamis cause massive damage and destruction. Every time I hear her speak, read her writing and check her actions – the only conclusion is doublespeak. 

In April, Balint stated “We need to tax the hell out of fossil fuel companies…” 

And then she turns around and votes for the Clean Heat Standard (H.715) which was fortunately defeated but was a carbon tax and would have ultimately taxed the people and small businesses of Vermont. 

In the same sentence she has said she supports vaccine mandates and informed consent. You pick it, Senate Pro Tempore Balint – you cannot have it both ways. These are antithetical.  You either respect and promise to uphold informed consent and an Individual’s fundamental human right to make private, personal healthcare decisions, a right enshrined in the Nuremberg code of 1947 which specifically states among many other essential points,  

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.  This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.”

OR you support vaccine mandates and will make a deal with the devil for the people in that one must engage in a social contract with Big Pharma in order to function in our free society and have access to employment, education and entertainment etc. 

Speaking of Big Pharma- on Balint’s website – there is recognition that Big Pharma is responsible for the opioid crisis and price gouging yet support still remains for forcing the people to experiment on themselves and undergo an experimental Big Pharma injection by an industry notorious for criminal activity. 

Regarding Balint’s vote on Prop 5 and personal reproductive liberty- what if I hold deep concerns regarding fertility and reproductive system risks for myself or my children with the Covid vaccines? These were rushed and there were no long term impacts and complications accessed especially since the clinical trials were short and unblinded.

Is my right to personal reproductive liberty supported in my rejection of the Covid injections? Also if Prop 5/Article 22  is actually about personal reproductive liberty why is the sentence “unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” included in here?  This clearly allows the state the ultimate authority in decisions relating to reproduction or at least creates a case.

I respect the idea of standing up for the underdog as expressed on Balint’s website.  This is a laudable goal and we must always strive to ensure that those who are struggling and need help receive support and empathy. There were many people in this state who chose not to get vaccinated for many different private, personal reasons. These were some of the underdogs over the last several years- support, conversation and respect for these decisions was nonexistent. Recognizing and aiding the underdog and those who were being wrongly blamed, shamed and discriminated against was the right action during the Covid crisis.   

It also doesn’t add up when Bernie Sanders endorses a candidate who received over $600,000 from Political Action Committees (PACs). 

The people deserve clarity. There is too much at risk. Are you for the people or not? No more doublespeak please.  

The author is a clinical nutritionist in St. Johnsbury and an Independent candidate for Caledonia-Washington House Representative.

Categories: Commentary

20 replies »

  1. I get it – Guy will only post those articles favorable to conservatives even when both sides do it.

    Can we at least agree that both parties are using IE PACs to avoid transparency?

    If you are so upset by this, then push Congress to legislate Citizen United into non-existence. CU has increased the amount of money with far less transparency.

    • This Balint fiasco was a wee bit over the top don’t you think? Another question, do you think those PACs that gave her a million dollars care about Vermont at all?

  2. Good point Jim. Thank you. We are all aware that this certainly happens on both sides. This was more the cherry on top involving Sanders’ endorsement. The other issues are deeply concerning and when I have tried to ask Balint for clarity – multiple times, I do not get an answer. We are really starting to need protection from certain politicians and that is dangerous and needs to change.

    • balint has been purchased by the progressive dem party just like welch who has NO opinion but that of the party. Term limits and welch, sanders and balint should be escorted back to where they came from!!

  3. She is really no more dangerous to our democracy as Rep. Welch. Vermonters who care about our freedoms should be glad to get rid of her to the DC cesspool. Her power there will be diluted. In Vermont. she proportionately wields a lot more power to diminish our freedoms and our rights. Although her philosophy is a bit further left than Welch, there is not really a dime’s worth of difference between her and Welch in how she will work in congress. Vermont will continue to be a laughing stock of a progressive petri dish. Once the pork-grabbing power of Sen. Leahy is gone, Vermont will sink deeper into economic ruin. A majority of Vermonters apparently want this.

  4. Right on. She is also paid for by unions. I spoke to her a few years ago about an issue. She waved me off and said the teachers’ union didn’t want it.

  5. If Vermont isn’t bad enough with welch and boornie the silly woke voter’s want this totally useless balint to represent us then we deserve $5 a gallon gas, high grocery prices , high heating prices, no farms of substance otber than pot and everything else that goes with the fringe alt left. And Vermonters will never see free healthcare or anything else of worth.

  6. What troubles me the most is that our elections are bought and paid for by out of state progressive money. That means that only those who support the progressive religion will be represented in congress, not all of the people of Vermont. How can non-ideological people expect to be represented when the candidate has been bought off. Money comes with strings. Now she can buy more support from the media that also loves money and can be bought by the candidate’s war chest from out of state. I’m no fan of Madden after what he pulled off, but how can he go up against this kind of LGBTQ alphabet organization money or Ericka? Balint’s mission has more to do with taking the country to the far left of reality and nothing to do with Vermont. If you as a voter can’t see that she will do nothing to help Vermont and a lot to help herself. The road to congress is the road to riches, just ask Bernie. The Bernie Bros got the shaft and Bernie got the mine. You will have nothing and be happy!

  7. Somebody has to tell me how this PAC influence is any more different than any of the other myriad of unethical voting schemes employed by any person or party. We all seem to be heading toward a cliff of our own making. And, accepting it as the people’s choice . Really?

    At a minimum-truly a minimum- this is not a good start to one who portends to be representing the good people of Vermont.

    It would appear that she is headed towards representing outside interests. Especially since they have already paid their way in.

    Unfortunately, all this will not get major , critical eye press coverage as most have drunk the Kool- Aid and are looking for seconds. We are not seeking more syncophants but some balance helping to make a reasonable decision with some thought which has not been spoon fed.

    • I beg to differ. We have never seen anything like what the out of state PAC did for Balint. She has been purchased as have our votes.

      • Agreed, her LBGTQ outside the state PAC was over the top in $$$ and constant barrage of packaged media . Unfortunately, more to come, i am sure, in the general election in case we did not get the message the first time.

  8. We need a Convention of States more than ever. Article V in the Federal Constitution is our only way to limit the feds power over us, we the people!!
    As to the Article 22/Prop 5 Personal Reproductive Liberty, the question to ask is whose Personal Reproductive Liberty are we talking about?? A male’s or female’s or both? It’s not delineated in the Article, and we’ll be opening a HUGE can of worms aka Pandora’s Box if it’s not voted down. Please vote this November! Every vote counts more than ever.

    • Repeal the 17th Amendment to restore the term limits of the Senators by having the state legislatures appoint them.

  9. Re: “The people deserve clarity.”

    No. The people have all the clarity they need, if they choose to take the time to do their homework – as Alison Despathy has done.

    Balint is a typical politician, seeking the perpetual personal benefit of ever higher office, so warned against by James Madison and the other Founders. The problem isn’t the tsunami of easy money being spent on Balint’s campaign, but the short-sightedness of our friends and neighbors who are being bribed by it, and who refuse to acknowledge the incongruous nature of Balint’s short-sighted logic.

    I like the ‘write-in’ alternative. For one thing, a significant write-in campaign will expose the accuracy of the election process (or its lack thereof). I’ve written-in candidates for specific offices for years and have never seen an acknowledgement of that vote by my local election officials. Go figure.

  10. Interesting to read some comments here that suggest it makes no difference. Watch, everyone….this woman will make big screaming noise in D.C. National news maker to rival AOC. Big hoop de la will be made in the media about her bio…her grandpa suffered, she has a wife, she was a school teacher, etc. etc. Hard to really grasp that the people of Vermont have been owned so totally by this woman, her minions and the shady political money shenanigans that we now (after the election) discover funded her. Just incredible.

  11. Regarding the question about the “compelling state interest” wording: this test has been a part of Supreme Court case law since 1963 and 1972 where religious freedom was upheld in the absence of compelling state interest. cf: Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder

    The Supreme Court incorporated this test in the Roe v. Wade decision.

    “Where certain ‘fundamental rights’ are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest,’ Roe, et al. v. Wade.

  12. Concerning the question “why is the sentence ‘unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means’ included”:

    The “compelling state interest” test has been a part of Supreme Court case law since 1963 and 1972 where religious freedom was upheld in the absence of compelling state interest. Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder

    The Supreme Court incorporated this test in the Roe v. Wade decision.

    “Where certain ‘fundamental rights’ are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a ‘compelling state interest,’ Roe, et al. v. Wade.

    The Reproductive Liberty amendment, Article 22, which is on the ballot on November 8 incorporates that legal test referenced in Roe, since overturned by the Court, into the Vermont Constitution. The compelling state interest language is the strongest legal protection that can be provided.

Leave a Reply