Hi Everybody,

Thanks to some breathtaking generosity, especially on the part of my mom,
dad, and sister, I have raised the funds to get some yard signs. Please
help us decide. Which ones resonate with you more?
[image: Screen Shot 2022-08-28 at 2.10.46 PM.png]

or


[image: Screen Shot 2022-08-28 at 2.11.46 PM.png]
The in-person volunteer meeting in person this coming weekend is still on
track. However, the zoom meeting is rescheduled for 6pm on Wednesday
[link removed]
Meeting ID: 837 0341 3737
Passcode: Mw3peA

Also, I wrote an op-ed, below, that you could either send to a local
paper, or adapt it into your own words for a letter to the editor.

If you can help with some funding, please contribute whatever feels right,
<[link removed]> I appreciate even small amounts -
even verbal encouragement for that matter!

Respect and gratitude,

Liam

OP-ED: Balint's Money Isn't the Story

Balint's money isn't the story - People who are paying attention to Vermont
politics are by now aware that a single, cryptocurrency tycoon was
responsible for funding the majority of Becca Balint's ads in the
primary—over $1 million worth.


To be fair to Becca Balint, she is telling the truth in saying she can't
stop these folks from spending money on her behalf. And I'd go even further
in extending the benefit of the doubt to Balint, to say that I believe her
when she says she would work to change the system to prevent this kind of
dark money's influence on elections.


But I'd still like to take a moment to reflect on some of the aspects of
this story that are easily overlooked.


1. Becca Balint explicitly claimed to never seek never to seek PAC/lobbyist
money, but she did meet with the crypto-funded PAC "Protecting Our Future"
and others. It's a bit difficult for me to reconcile why she would, you
know, just casually meet with a PAC, with no intention of courting them for
their money.


2. While that PAC endorsed her, its leaders, and those close to them,
funneled most of their money through the LGBTQ PAC that would provide much
better plausible deniability and PR cover.


3. The language of the "Protecting Our Future PAC" policy positions end up,
nearly verbatim, on Balint's website as her own policy position. Most
notably, to call for independent oversight over labs studying pandemic
causing pathogens.


4. While #2 & #3 is well covered by Vermont media, what I haven't heard yet
mentioned is that this position screams of a perspective that is deeply
concerned with how pandemics are leaked from sanctioned biolabs. It is a
reasonable concern to have, given that, according to USA Today's long-term
coverage, <[link removed]> this is a
commonly experienced risk of these labs.


More controversially, the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) release of
Anthony Fauci’s records reveal that his team sought to cover the tracks of
NIH funding the lab in Wuhan. Also, the records requests reveal his team’s
efforts to write obfuscatory scientific papers to take public scrutiny away
from their role in risky research.


Columbia University professor Dr. Jeffrey Sachs was put in charge of a
Lancet Medical Journal investigation to sort out the legitimacy of the
possibility of a lab leak. His team initially found the claims unsupported.
Sachs, however, has since come out, acknowledging that the team of Fauci's
high-level confidant
<[link removed]>
s
<[link removed]>
misled
him,
<[link removed]>
and
that he now believes that a lab leak is the most plausible explanation for
the origins of SARS-CoV2.


My point is that the policy in question is, well, good policy. It would
help prevent the REAL risk of lab-leaked pandemic pathogens. BUT—one little
but—Becca Balint has never been too vocally concerned about this risk
before, publicly anyway. She has, on the contrary, been an unquestioning
champion of whatever the CDC and health authorities have told the public to
do and believe. That's the part of the story the press has thus far missed.
Senator Balint now has a contradiction to contend with. It will be
interesting to see what sort of verbal gymnastics—eh hem—justifications she
will offer.


How can we can trust the health policy judgment of someone who will parrot
every pronouncement of the same authorities who clearly bent over backwards
to deceive Professor Sachs (and the American public) by obscuring their
role in the sloppy practices performing extremely dangerous gain of
function research on deadly viruses?


It is Senator Balint's lack of skepticism for these authorities—except when
there's a PAC funding on the line—that is the real story here. It's not
seeking their support (which she did); despite saying she wouldn't (which
she did); it's not *receiving* their support (which she did); it's not
even having them write her policy (which she did). The most egregious part
of this saga—to me—is that this policy is something that was inconvenient
to support before. It was politically expensive, so Balint hadn't the
courage to breathe a peep about it—until it paid.


But there is a little more to discuss. First of all, I'm left wondering,
why didn't these crypto millionaires support Molly Gray? She would have
been likely to support the commonsense policies they advocate, I think.
Even I support these policies. Begging the question … why is it worth so
much to these guys to influence a race where every candidate is in
agreement with the purported issue at hand? It seems wiser to invest in a
race where your money would actually matter. So what real agenda is the
pandemic policy a fig leaf for?


That, I don't know. But it brings us to another point, which is that asking
these questions is dangerous. Why? Balint's campaign manager, Natalie
Silver commented, “Molly Gray is very close to saying, you know, ‘We don't
want a gay agenda."


That's the sickening thing to me about identity politics. Whenever valid
critique of a person is levied, instead of debating the critique, identity
fundamentalists often reflexively resort to ad hominem accusations of
bigotry to deflect the real concern.

It reminds me how these tactics were used against people who would call
Hillary Clinton out on her Goldman Sachs speeches and years of
pro-corporate, warlike policies. Instead of addressing these concerns on
their substance, it was often easier to call her critics woman-hating
misogynists. And now, when we wonder why so much spending for Balint is
coming from non-Vermont oligarchs, or why all of the funding of this
crypto-baron is being funneled through a LGBTQ advocacy group, we risk
being smeared as homophobic trans-haters...


This PAC issue is not just about the spending. It's about what it is
revealing about the Balint team's worldview—which is that her skepticism of
those who wield power can be withheld, and that race, gender, and sexual
identity can be weaponized —when it's politically convenient.
--
Liam Madden

Candidate - Vermont's U.S. Representative
Winner - Vermont Republican Primary (Ran as Independent)

If you can help with some funding, please contribute whatever feels right,
<[link removed]> I appreciate even small amounts -
even verbal encouragement for that matter!

Respect and gratitude,

Liam
--
Liam Madden

Candidate - Vermont's U.S. Representative
RebirthDemocracy.com <[link removed]>


"You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To
change something, build a new model that makes the existing model
obsolete." - Buckminster Fuller

• Climate Fellow - Echoing Green
• Institute for Policy Studies - Human Rights Award Winner
• M.I.T. Climate Solver
• Chairman Iraq Veterans Against the War