SOCIALISM AND OUR NATIONAL CRISIS

The rise of socialism in the US has brought a more radical element to Congress. The poster child is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez.  Her calls for wealth redistribution and her uncompromising confrontations with both moderates and conservatives find their root in Marxist socialism. Unlike the older more utopian forms, which were often Christian based, the contemporary Marxist brand is “scientific”, rooted in materialism.  The sworn enemy of religion, it views belief in God as a nefarious social construct intended to oppress mankind.  It rejects moral values like honesty and respect for life.  Violence, theft and lies are all part of its repertoire.  Joseph Gobbles, the propagandist for National Socialist Germany said  “tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will begin to believe it.” The lie is at the heart of socialism.

Socialism’s biggest lie is its claim to be the true voice of the people.  All socialist institutions preface their titles with “the people’s this; the people’s that,” but what actually is the voice of the people?  In the American tradition, it is a mandate derived from free and continuous elections, where each citizen gets one vote. This voice is implemented through an implied agreement between the voters and a smaller, more organized group of people, called the government, who actually carry out the people’s will.  However, history demonstrates, that even in democracies, governments have their own will, which can be at odds with that of the people.  Consequently, elections must be continuous to ensure that timely adjustments to the people’s mandate can be made to more approximate its true intent.  A true expression of the people’s will demands that each vote be honestly cast by free independent voters, who submit their votes based upon an honest evaluation of the issues, and an honest intent to improve our society.  Consequently, elected office holders sometimes lose their jobs.

Socialism changes this system by multiplying the influence of the government over the people, to the point where it ultimately dictates their will.  This is done by controlling and influencing the economy, which is what socialism openly declares it will do.  The influence is gained through the extension of benefits, imposition of regulations, awarding of contracts, or by direct government employment.  Voters are essentially purchased or coerced.  As economic influence expands over an increasing number of voters, the “voice of the people” becomes corrupted through bribery or intimidation.  Unlike a free enterprise economy, workers have far less choice over where they can work, because the government either provides or authorizes employment.  What happens to citizens, who have a grievance with their government in a socialist society?   They keep their mouths shut or risk losing their livelihood or benefits.

Karl Marx openly called for the destruction of democratic institutions and sought a “dictatorship”.  He predicted that a vanguard of revolutionaries would rise to represent the will of the people, because “the people” would never recognize their own interest.   How are these leaders to be selected?  By restricting participation in government until only a small number of connected people have a voice, hence the creation of an aristocracy.  Look at the lack of turnover in the Massachusetts statehouse.  Socialism’s ultimate goal is to eliminate popular elections for fear of counterrevolution; which is the desire of the people to return to democracy.

Socialists love to exploit the romanticism associated with the American Revolution to support their calls for violent social change. However, their agenda has nothing to do with bringing forth liberty or equality before the law. Their aim is to destroy the legal and social edifices, that have allowed freedom to flourish in our land for 250 years, and to construct a more ruthless and brutal aristocracy, than the one we threw off.  Democratic revolution and socialist revolution are two different things. Thomas Jefferson wrote the manifesto for the former declaring “all men to be endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Karl Marx wrote the latter manifesto proclaiming that “ the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle.”   One offers hope of social stability and inclusion; the other offers violence and liquidation.  One seeks a win-win outcome, the other a zero sum game.

What we are witnessing in Washington today is a political insurrection by a Democratic party inspired in part by Marxist ideas.   The rapacious and baseless attacks on our President, are not motivated by a search for truth, they follow Lenin’s stratagem of “vanquishing your opponent”.  Whether you like  President Trump or not, he has unmasked the truly precarious position of freedom and liberty in America today.  The use of vicious and relentless personal attacks; as well as, the government’s intelligence apparatus to identify and harass opponents, is now a political strategy endorsed by today’s Democratic party.  This will not end with President Trump.  Anyone who dares challenge the Democratic party agenda can expect the same.

Marxism is a hate based ideology.  A political party that harnesses hate will never bring stability or security to any society because such a party is in constant need of enemies.  Hatred is its’ unifying principle.  When one group of opponents has been decimated, the party will find others.  Fear will paralyze and isolate those in opposition until ultimately everyone is consumed, and society plunges into complete and utter chaos, look at Venezuela.

A dark chasm divides our nation today created by ignorance and emptiness of soul.  Abraham Lincoln warned us that “ we shall live for all time as free men or die by suicide.”  Today, our nation stands like a man struggling with his sanity, holding a loaded gun, pointed at his heart.   The hand on that trigger belongs to socialist America.   Whether the trigger is pulled depends on whether the saner side of our national psyche can prevail.

– Dennis Galvin

 

Incendiary rhetoric from the left inspiring dangerous real-world actions

July 17, 2019, MassGOP

BOSTON — Dangerous real-life consequences have emerged as a result of the Democrats’ continued use of incendiary rhetoric regarding illegal immigration and the country’s ongoing border crisis.

The latest example occurred right here in Massachusetts, when anonymous protesters hung a banner from a bridge in Newburyport accusing a local resident of being an ICE agent. The resident, Jason Devereaux, works for the Department of Homeland Security. The banner also targeted a hair salon owned by Devereaux’s wife. He (Jason Devereaux) is just a law-abiding citizen doing a very important job and it is reprehensible that he or anyone should be threatened and harassed for doing so,” said Republican West Newbury state Rep. Lenny Mirra.

“I was horrified that anybody in this area would do something like that,” said Newbury Republican Town Committee member Linda D. Allen. “I was appalled. It is just wrong.” The Newburyport episode occurred days after the attempted firebombing of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Washington.

Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons said the already dangerous situation will only escalate if Democrats continue to use inflammatory rhetoric and make false comparisons between border processing centers and Nazi-style concentration camps. Lyons referenced recent remarks delivered by Democratic Massachusetts U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley, who told protesters during her visit to a border processing center in Arizona that “change happens either because people see the light or feel the fire,” before adding that if “people don’t see the light, we’ll bring the fire.”

“Pressley’s rhetoric apparently inspired a left-wing activist to try and burn down a government facility Washington,” Lyons said. “Now we have an innocent family here in Massachusetts who is being targeted by the Radical Left’s mob. “If the Democrats keep this up, there’s no telling what may happen next.”

Say No to “Infanticide”

A bill currently before the state Legislature fails the feeblest standard for a decent and humane society.

The bill, S.1209 in the Senate and H.3320 in the House, rejects any pretense of offering the most basic humanitarian assistance to fully-developed, fully-born, babies.

Under the radical infanticide bill, absolutely nothing would be done to protect or even comfort a baby who survives a late-term abortion.

In addition, the extreme infanticide bill removes all practical limitations on aborting unborn babies. These abortions are frequently referred to as late-term or partial-birth abortions.

Another radical measure in the bill eliminates family communication. Teenage children are conferred with complete autonomy in the realm of abortion. Instead, a child ages 12 through 17, or any age, would be permitted to have an abortion, without ever discussing the options with a parent, loved one, or family member.

Everything is done in secrecy. Even the payment to the abortionist would be made with taxpayer funds without parental consultation or consent.

Can it really be that a decision by someone under 18 to have an abortion is less significant or traumatizing than smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, or visiting a tanning salon?

Have we really come to this?

Let’s not go down this extreme and dangerous path. Let’s follow a higher road and join together to protect, rather than reject, the least of those among us.

–  Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons

 

Asian Dis-Aggregation Position

POSITION

RE:  House Bill  (H3361)   “Asian Dis-Aggregation”

The Westford Republican Town Committee has been made aware of pending Massachusetts House Legislation (H3361) entitled the “Asian Dis-Aggregation”  bill.   If passed this bill would require all persons of Asian descent to identify their ethnic origins in more specific detail on all public forms and documents requiring the disclosure of ethnic information in Massachusetts.  Concerns have been particularly heightened because the purpose of this information remains unclear.  History shows that the gratuitous collection of this type of information can easily lead to its abuse and has all too often formed the basis for discrimination.  The Westford Republican Party supports national and state policies that make no distinction among people according to their race or national origin. For this reason, we do not support this bill in its current form.

(This position was adopted by unanimous vote of the WRTC, taken on November 11, 2017.)

 

Stop Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through Ballot Initiative

Each year, Massachusetts’s residents have the opportunity to get involved in legislative ballot initiatives. You may see petition gatherers in various public spaces such as grocery stores, post offices, and filling stations. The petitioners simply ask passersby whether they want to sign a petition that will place the measure on the state ballot.

A ballot initiative to help stop taxpayer funding of abortion is currently being circulated. Many taxpayers are adamantly opposed to abortion and even those in favor of abortion don’t want to pay for them via taxes. This initiative seeks to amend the Massachusetts Constitution to include the simple phrase, “Nothing in this constitution requires the public funding of abortion.” 65,000 signatures are needed to get the measure on the 2020 Massachusetts ballot, allowing the citizens to vote on whether they wish their tax dollars to fund abortion or not.

Massachusetts General Law defines abortion as “the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child.” To get a picture of the number of unborn babies being destroyed, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health reports that 18,570 abortions took place in Massachusetts during 2015. Based on available state-level data, an estimated 908,000 U.S. abortions took place in 2015. Since 1973, in the U.S., almost 60 million unborn babies have been destroyed.

The ballot initiative has a fast-approaching deadline of November 22, 2017. If you would like to sign the petition or help gather signatures, please call 781-312-8755, email Bernadette@StopTaxpayerAbortion.org, or visit Facebook.com/StopTaxpayerAbortion.

– Kathy Lynch

Gun Debate Rekindles Old Divisions

To say that the United States is divided today is almost an understatement. Some might say that we are at civil impasse. While our national tension may seem very new and frightening, history shows that its roots extend back to the ratification of our Constitution.

By 1787, our nation had cast off the chains of foreign oppression. The taste of victory was very short lived because Americans immediately found themselves thrust into a crucial debate over how they would govern themselves.

This debate involved two opposing factions, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalist supported the establishment of a strong central government.  Often described as “monied” men, their ranks included;  large land owners, merchants, planters, and creditors. They promised security through a strong national constitution that gave the government the power to raise an army and impose taxes.

Having just experienced the oppression of Great Britain, the Anti-Federalist were suspicious of such a government. Largely comprised of small farmers and debtors, the Anti-Federalist recoiled at the notion of an army.  They feared that the Federalists would use it, along with the power of taxation and the authority of the federal court, to create an aristocracy, resulting in their bondage.

Ratification of our Constitution was never guaranteed. This uncertainty provoked a compromise.  The fruit of that compromise was the “Bill of Rights” .  Ten amendments established explicit rights to freedom of the press, of religion, to assemble, to be secure in person. It prohibited self-incrimination. In short, it banned all the tools of oppression with which our founding generation were very familiar.  It also granted the right to keep and bear arms. Common people could now defend themselves against threats in their daily lives, and if necessary against a government gone out of control.

Today’s supporters of the second amendment trace their legacy back to the Anti-Federalist, and share their concern over centralized government power. Unlike liberals and progressives, they are cautious, if not wary of government authority. To them the history of human society is largely the story of government abuse and oppression. To those who view these reservations as unfounded, they would pose this question?   What has changed about human nature, that would reasonably warrant someone to believe that free people should ever relinquish their right to defend themselves?

– Dennis J. Galvin

State Republicans Condemn Racism and Political Violence

Prompted by the violence and hatred that manifested itself in Charlottesville VA last month, during a clash between white supremacists and protesters, the Massachusetts Republican State Committee overwhelmingly approved a resolution condemning racism and political violence, at their quarterly meeting held at the Newton Marriot, Aug. 13.

State Committee member Brock Cordeiro from Plymouth presented the resolution, which specifically condemned the actions and beliefs of white supremacists, Nazis and the Ku Kux Klan. The resolution was amended by member Dennis Galvin of Westford who broadened the condemnation to include: “any group that uses violence to achieve political ends.”  Galvin also added a provision that committed the Republican Party to “the preservation of constitutional liberty.”

In offering his amendment, Galvin said that it was fully supportive of the “spirit and intent” of Cordeiro’s resolution but felt that it needed to be broadened.  Both the amendment and the full resolution passed the 80 member state committee with only one dissenting vote.

Other Business

In other business, the Committee approved rules for the 2018 Republican state convention, to be held in Worcester. A controversial proposal to increase the number of super-delegates was withdrawn prior to the meeting. The delegate selection process will continue to rely heavily on city ward and town caucuses.  However, a limited number of super-delegates will be allowed;  the number will remain consistent with past years.  Delegates will also be able to cast a ballot for a “no preference.” These so-called “blank ballots” will be counted as part of the total votes cast, which could have an effect on candidate eligibility. State law allows candidates to challenge one another in statewide party primaries provided they obtain a minimum 15 percent of their convention vote.

By: Submitted Content |

http://www.westfordcatnews.org/2017/09/state-republicans-condemn-racism-and-political-violence/

End Political Violence!

The tragedy that occurred in Charlottesville Virginia, is a watershed moment for the nation.   For the past few years we have experienced increasingly hateful rhetoric, and acts of violence in our politics.  What occurred in Charlottesville was a national disgrace, and it should serve as a warning to all those, who respect Democratic values and traditions that the time has come to say enough!

The first step in this process is to respect the rule of law.   While every person in this nation has a fundamental right to express their opinion, no matter how repugnant, no one has the right to resort to violence to make a political point.   Police officials must allow protests from all sorts of groups.  They do not have to stand by and watch them taken over by thugs.   As soon as any manifestation of violence occurs; such as, the refusal to obey permits,  the wearing of helmets, the carrying of shields, clubs or other armaments, the police should shut down the event and disperse the crowd.  This was not done in Charlottesville and it hasn’t been done in other locations as well.

The second step is for law abiding people to explicitly condemn violence by whatever group perpetrates it.  There is nothing that can justify political violence in a nation of law, where civil rights are guaranteed.    There are too many people taking sides in these incidents, attempting to justify the actions of one group over another.  Anyone who resorts to violence to advance a political agenda is a threat to all of us.  To make distinctions among thugs is the height of absurdity.

People who engage in political violence are fascists, regardless of their political views.  In 1938 when the Nazis joined with Communists in signing the non-aggression pact, Soviet Ambassador Sergei Molotov commented that “fascism is simply a matter of taste”.  If you are prepared to hit someone with a club, because you think your political beliefs are more justified than theirs, you are a fascist.  The true mark of political extremism is the willingness to commit violence.   It is time to end this once and for all!

Dennis J. Galvin

 

Sanctuary State Bill is ‘Political Stunt’

State Senate Bill #1305 would make our Commonwealth a Sanctuary State for undocumented immigrants.  It would prohibit police officers from engaging in immigration enforcement, from sharing immigration information with Federal officials and require that our officers block Federal officials from conducting interviews with immigrant detainees.

The bill attempts to address the concerns of undocumented immigrants living in Massachusetts, who are apprehensive about their vulnerability arising from possible federal immigration action.  While the horrendous state of our immigration system must be addressed, this bill compromises our homeland security.

The bill would impose a ban on state participation in any immigration enforcement run in concert with federal authorities.  It would eliminate the state’s ability to participate in the Joint Terrorism Task Force and Fusion center set up following Sept. 11. These invaluable partnerships with the Federal government, have led to the interdiction of numerous terrorist acts in Massachusetts.  The sharing of immigration information and the right to detain suspected terrorist and gang members on immigration violations is a pre-emptive capability that would be lost.

State law enforcement officers would face an ethical conflict if this bill were to pass stemming from their oath of office.   They swear to defend both the US and State Constitution.   Provisions which require our police to block interviews between federal immigration authorities and undocumented  individuals would obstruct the enforcement of federal law.  This interposition is unconstitutional.

The bill would grant fourth amendment protection to the undocumented, a measure that exceeds the Commonwealth’s constitutional authority.  In so doing, the rights of American citizens living in the state would be infringed.  This restriction, would weaken immigration enforcement efforts  in Massachusetts making the state vulnerable to charges that it is violating the equal protection clause (14th Amendment) of our Constitution. All U.S. citizens are entitled to the equal protection of federal law.

The ultimate and most dangerous effect of this bill would be the creation of a safe haven for the nefarious. The bill’s protections would attract an assortment of  individuals to this state, many bent on doing us harm either through terrorism or criminal activity. This bill was ill-conceived at the outset.  It is a dangerous political stunt and should be rejected by our legislature and any rational American citizen.

Dennis J. Galvin

WRTC Makes Case For Prudent Fiscal Responsibility

As an organization who believes in Fiscal Responsibility, Government Transparency and Honesty in applying the mandated and proven processes for Westford, and since it is bad for Westford, we must urge the Westford voters to defeat the 2 1/2 Override on 2 May 2017.

Approval of the Override would be bad for Westford – The School Committee created a misleading drive resulting in the Override ballot question to reward our school’s teachers with a significant raise that breaches the 2018 and beyond budget thresholds causing a significant increase in property owner’s taxes forever and ignores the process for securing raises by public employees.  The Town Meeting resulted in a heavily recruited, biased approval that was subsequently agreed by the Selectmen to place the Override question on the 2 May ballot.

The Override proponents established a pro-teacher website that includes School Committee members that implies the School Committee, who is elected to represent the Westford citizens is not working in behalf of its voters who elected them, but rather, the Teachers Union. In this Override they are subverting objective negotiations under the established collective bargaining process.  Despite the proponent’s alleged myth-bashing, the Override provides precedence for other Town employees to use similar tactics to increase their pay AND RAISE OUR TAXES!  It also lacks transparency by shielding the Westford citizens from insight into the internal working of the salary processes and bypasses the Town’s budget and collective bargaining processes.

If you ask “What is Good for Our Schools”, it’s NOT the Override – it’s the normal process that allows the Superintendent together with the School Committee’s input to establish a comprehensive budget without creating a tax increase that includes all school employees whose individual salaries are determined by collective bargaining within the confines of the school budget and established salary tables.  The product – our students’ future – is already successful because our school ratings are among the highest in the Commonwealth – Let’s keep our schools at the top without raising taxes or compromising our principles.

It is time for the voters of Westford to stand up against the continued subversion of our processes and lack of transparency by using tactics that raise our taxes and cause us all to be suspicious of the leaders and committees who we elect to represent us! VOTE NO on the  May 2nd ballot Override.