The Untapped Potential of Real Republicanism


Over the past few weeks I’ve been given multiple opportunities to help out our Republican candidates and conservative causes within the Commonwealth.  All of these opportunities were sponsored by the tireless activists we have in this state, who are willing to travel upwards of an hour to pitch in for our candidates.


What is unfortunate is that the sponsors of these opportunities are routinely locked out or disenfranchised by the MassGOP as a whole. Renew MA Coalition has been sponsoring a different candidate opportunity every week, and you aren’t a real Republican activist if you haven’t gotten an email from Desiree at some point in your life. Certainly,  every email ever sent criticizes this or that failure by the Dems, but there’s not that much in there about supporting the candidates we do have. There’s also not a portal for all of our candidates, if for nothing more than partisan legislative offices, on the MassGOP’s website.  I grant it that Republicans are not challenging a lot of offices this year – this isn’t like the State Committee where all the serious business gets done, after all – but we should still make it as easy as possible to access our candidates.


I imagine many voters don’t even know if there’s a Republican candidate for any state legislative office in their district. The state party should at least look like it is aware. It’s not as if the powers that be don’t know the districts either, as their endorsed State Committee candidates had State Senate districts defined down to the precinct level. In other words it’s not a lack of knowledge, it’s a lack of enthusiasm for our actual brand. For all the crowing about the Governor’s approval rating, the GOP doesn’t seem too confident in it’s own brand.


Let me share a key observation I’ve made, though: Conservatives aren’t afraid of the Republican brand.  The Massachusetts Republican Assembly is happy to encourage people to be Republicans and make voters aware of our candidates. The Massachusetts Federation of Republican Women had been promoting Republicans for eight decades before the GOP decided, under a female chair no less, to place their organization a position that required state chapters to violate their national charter. I somehow doubt “Women for Baker” is going to have the same enthusiasm in 2018 as it did in 2014 now that so many members of that organization have had the screws put to them by the Baker endorsed State Committee slate.


Rather, the GOP seems to take its cues from persons who hold themselves out as members of the Party – or leftists who claim to have its best interests – who have openly stated they’ll vote for Hillary over the Republican nominee. Who continually suggest that the key to a strong Republican brand is to mirror the Democrat brand – in tactics, and in policy, but never – and oddly, it seems – in organizational structure. The Democrats are a committed annual party and are structured to that effect. We are not, and it shows.


We ought to be taking our cues from the organizations that work tirelessly for our candidates and are not afraid of our Republican brand. We should cease taking cues from the quarterly carpool that travels from Beacon Hill to the State Committee meetings. We are more than “Not Democrats,” we are Affirmative Republicans.


Affirmative Republicans demand women’s organizations be reintroduced into the fabric of our party’s activism.

We stand for women’s safety, and oppose legislation that makes it a hate crime for them to act in their own defense in enclosed spaces.

We proudly proclaim that families are the building blocks of a free society, a society of limited government that acts with purpose only on the few roles it is suited to govern.

We support that natural right of every person to defend themselves from harm, including by exercising their 2nd Amendment Right enshrined in – not granted by – the Constitution.

We believe legal immigrants, the people who contribute greatly to our society and followed our laws, should not be treated worse by our government than people who jumped the line.

We believe education is best when it is run by local governments and not merely a way to send infinite sums of money to Pearson textbooks and other collaborators with The Gates Foundation.

And we back up these beliefs with action on the streets and in our neighborhoods.


Affirmative Republicans have a meaning, a drive, and a purpose. We’re not going away, and we’re not interested in a party that is afraid to call itself Republican. We are thus far an untapped resource by the party as a whole, but that can change in a mere political cycle or two. We aim to make that so.


Bathroom Bill Opposed by the WRTC

The Westford Republican Town Committee strongly opposes the passage of House Bill 4253, “An Act Relative to Gender Identity and Nondiscrimination.” This bill modifies a law passed in 2011 affording rights and protections on the basis of male and female to that of gender identity.  The new law recognizes one’s feelings, a legal concept the Attorney General is struggling to define. Gender can now be variable.

The “Bathroom Bill” affects all public spaces, from Westford Academy restrooms, the Westford Regency locker room, Marshall’s fitting rooms to the local Dunkin Donuts. Segregation by gender will no longer be legal. What’s more, law enforcement, school officials and small-business employees will be prohibited from addressing any individual who makes others uncomfortable in conventionally private spaces.

The bill opens a number of negative possibilities that could endanger the frail and offend the rights of the general public. Safety is of paramount importance along with the constitutional rights to privacy and religious freedom. It is an affront to the concept of modesty as practiced by the world’s major religions. The Bathroom Bill intrudes on how private businesses are to conduct commerce, as they deem appropriate.

HB 4253 has not been a historically debated or  a wide spread civil rights issue as it affects less than three tenths of one percent of the population. This overreaching legislation is an overnight cultural shift in thinking and behavior. This rushed, poorly written, ill-thought-out type of legislation omits the most important stakeholders in such a drastic change, the voter. It is wrong for the Massachusetts Legislature to unilaterally tell us how we are to live.

The Westford Republican Town Committee urges all greater Lowell citizens to contact their representative (in Westford contact and oppose HB 4253.

Westford Republican Town Committee members


An Urgent Look at the Transgender “Bathroom Bill”

I decided to take a closer look at the proposed transgender “Bathroom bill” that my friends were talking about and it does not look good. This article shares what I found.

The Massachusetts legislature is considering Bill H4253 which is titled “An Act relative to gender identity and nondiscrimination.” Some refer to it as the “Bathroom bill.” This law would modify our current law passed in 2011 by inserting after the word “sex,” the following words “gender identity.” This proposed amendment reads, “any public accommodation including without limitation any entity that offers the provision of goods, services, or access to the public that lawfully segregates or separates access to such public accommodation or other entity based on a person’s sex shall grant all persons admission to and the full enjoyment of such public accommodation or other entity consistent with the person’s gender identity.” 

Sex refers to the anatomy of an individual’s reproductive system while gender refers to either social roles based on the sex of the person or personal identification of one’s own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).  Essentially, this bill will be amended to reflect those who believe themselves to be, or choose to be, a particular gender. In other words, the person has a mental choice of gender versus actual biology. This bill is being thrust upon citizens in the name of “tolerance” against the majority who accept their biological sex and gender.

This bill is very concerning in terms of its impact on safety, privacy, and enforcement issues.

Safety: Given that women and children tend to be more vulnerable to men because of their size and physiology, this bill would put women and children at risk. Consider the potential ramifications of persons with male anatomy and ill intentions entering venues like public bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, dressing rooms, women-only fitness facilities, and other intimate places.  Consider this situation in light of the statistics from the United States Department of Justice: about 20 million (18.0%) in the United States have been raped during their lifetime. Approximately 1.8 million adolescents in the United States have been the victims of sexual assault. With those statistics and the fact that pornography, sex and violence in the media add to the problem, we certainly don’t want to make these cases more prevalent.

Privacy: Up until now, men and women have been able to have their own private spaces based upon their sex. Seeing a man in a private, female-only space such as a locker room or “women-only” gym infringes on a women’s sense of privacy. The same is true for men who prefer a “men-only” space.

Enforcement: It would be difficult for law enforcement, school administrators or any other person charged with protecting the safety or privacy of persons using gender-designated bathrooms, to determine if a person claiming to be transgender is legitimate. There is no evidence-based proof of transgender claims so how is one to distinguish between a voyeur or predator and someone who is gender-confused wanting to use the women’s dressing room?

This Bill passed the House Ways and Means by a 19-4 margin on May 26, 2016. It now moves to the full House of Representatives. The current law is fine as is. Please contact your legislator and oppose HB 4253. Time is of the essence as the vote will be this Wednesday, June 1, 2016.

Kathy Lynch


Defeat of House Bill 4253

House Bill 4253, which be voted upon shortly, at first glance appears innocuous  and right – it seems to further human rights to a previously ignored minority (less than 3 tenths of one percent of the population) by redefining sexual rights for transgenders.  However, by doing so, the result of the Bill opens a set of negative possibilities that could endanger, or offend, the general public, especially children and women, and is already covered by existing legislation that defines a person’s “gender identity”.


By defining and including the wording “gender identity “, a person’s physical condition is replaced by what he or she “thinks” they MIGHT be at the particular time they are ready to use public facilities.  No longer is a male or female, whether born as, or transformed by surgery, restricted to a men’s or women’s room or shower facility, but if the person believes at that moment that he or she is of the opposite sex, they can use a facility that has been designated as a “women’s or men’s room” – Think of the consequences!– men with male genitalia sharing facilities with young girls and women who find such behavior as offensive by their religious and/or moral beliefs or family values; men or women “posing” as the opposite sex to get access to innocent children or adults for the purposes of committing rape or sodomy, and the embarrassment to the general public for witnessing someone of the opposite sex’s genitalia.  Further, the enforcement of the resulting House Bill is unenforceable by law enforcement officers and, in some cases, may be used by violators who Impersonate” themselves as a person of the opposite sex with the purpose of committing sexual crimes


We believe that true transsexuals (those who have physically transformed their sexual parts and mental status) already have the right to use facilities corresponding to their physical identity, however, the whole class of transgenders who are not so defined by their physical make-up, should not be granted the same rights –therefore, we encourage everyone to broadcast this message with the purpose of encouraging subscribers to call their representative and demand the defeat of House Bill 4253.


Colonel Harry I. (USAF-Retired) and Dawn Gillogly

Westford, MA

MA Senate passes budget

A report from our friends at MassFiscal Alliance –


Friend —

The Senate approved a budget last night, and the whole shebang heads to conference committee to iron out differences with the House version. I thought you might appreciate an update on this sunny Friday.

First, on the earmark front: Splash pool funding is headed to Lowell but not Springfield, and a check for new lawn furniture for Magazine beach and the Stoneham organ restoration I mentioned in earlier emails is in the mail. Senator Joyce got his $1,000,000 for urban forestry despite the lingering cloud over the nature of his senate work.

An amendment to the budget for funding a matching grant for bullet-proof vests for police officers had members tripping over themselves. Offered by a bi-partisan quartet (Tarr, Fattman, O’Connor, and Lovely), the bill had a special resonance, as also last night was the wake for Officer Ronald Tarentino, shot in the line of duty. The bill first failed by a sliver (17-20), but as senators realized the optics of funding splash pads and lawn furniture while passing up a 2-1 match for funding to protect our law enforcement community, the measure was re-worded and passed with just a single member (Wolf, bless his philosophical consistency) calling, “Nay.”

Senator Jamie Eldridge passed a shopping bag ban (all shopping bags offend him, apparently, not just the plastic ones we usually hear about), but his bid to add $110,000 to the Climate Change Adaptation and Preparedness line item failed. We are also glad to see Senator Eldridge came to his senses and withdrew his irresponsible amendment to over regulate campaign finance law, another well intentioned solution in search of a problem.

Richard Ross offered up a requirement that make salary and bonuses for the retirement fund’s CEO contingent upon unanimous consent of the fund’s board and performance. Only two Democrats (Timilty and Moore) crossed the line to vote in favor of stronger oversight for one of the highest-paid state employees. Let’s pair its failure with that of a Ryan Fattman amendment aimed at righting the wrongs of sick-leave buybacks and mourn their demise together. Both of these ideas would vastly improve fiscal accountability.

New Senator Patrick O’Connor, offered a good government and taxpayer protection amendment. His effort would have required a series of mandatory public hearings if a tax hike is on the table. Only a few years ago, the legislature passed a new tax as a short lived computer software sales tax, before they had to repeal their failed idea once word got out. O’Connor was right to offer it and the senate was wrong to reject it.

Republican Leader Bruce Tarr scored a win on an amendment requiring the state auditor to perform an annual audit of state credit cards, and another allowing the attorney general to investigate fraud in worker’s comp cases. His move to eliminate the State Climatologist was rejected in a bundle.

Since the State Climatologist position has been vacant for several years anyway, I’d say based on this sunny weather, we are doing just fine without one. I’m pretty sure the position doesn’t actually affect the weather (or much of anything), though.

Early next week, we will update our scorecard to include many of these votes and important roll call votes. Once updated, you’ll get an update.


Paul D. Craney
Executive Director
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance


Support Common Sense for Transgender Bill

The Massachusetts legislature is considering a Transgender Public Accommodations Bill (H1577), that would modify a current law passed in 2011, which would include bathrooms and locker-rooms under its protection.  The new law  would  prohibit businesses and institutions (schools) from restricting individuals from utilizing bathrooms and locker-rooms, currently reserved on the basis of biological sex.  To be clear, there is no issue about whether a person, who has had sex re-assignment surgery, should be able to access their gender specific facility.  They should have it.
However under this new bill, a male person, with male anatomical features, could utilize a women’s bathroom or locker-room, if that person declared their gender identity as female
(H1577)  opens the door to a host of serious concerns.  The security concern presented by a male, feigning cross gender identification, to gain entrance to an intimate female facility, such as a bathroom, or a locker room, in order to commit a sexual assault, is perhaps the most critical.  Provisions have been suggested, that would allow the Attorney General to establish parameters for addressing feigned declarations.   These are very vague, and are at best a token gesture to allay growing hesitation about this legislation.  The Senate has failed to adopt them.
The next consideration is children.   In particular, young females, who would find themselves forced to share very intimate facilities with anatomical males.  Concerns about the psychological impact of such an arrangement, particularly with women in their pubescent years, was arrogantly dismissed by Attorney General Maura Healy, when she sarcastically stated  “ if they have a problem using the facilities,  they can wait”.  The matter was further compounded, when the Massachusetts Education Commissioner said  that he would not support separate facilities for transgender persons in Massachusetts schools.
The citizens of Massachusetts are faced with an unreasonable and oppressive piece of legislation, which would force them to concede a long standing practical accomodation.  All political issues involve competing interests. The interests of a small number of individuals, attempting to sort out their gender identity, confronts those of a larger number of persons, who have legitimate concerns about security and  privacy.  On this issue, the latter have the compelling case.  H1577 should be defeated.  The law governing discrimination against transgender persons should be left as it is. It is simply common sense.

  By Dennis Galvin  images-5

Transgender ‘bathroom bill’ a battle of conflicting rights

by State Representative Jim Lyons

Courtesy of Wikimedia

None of our rights is absolute. Even our most precious rights have limitations. The First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble are expansive but hardly unconditional. The proverbial rule against “yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” is a common example of why our individual rights must sometimes be circumscribed for the public good. Some restrictions are needed to secure the rights of all, against the abuses of the few.

We are, however, more frequently faced with “rights in conflict,” rather than clear-cut abuses. In balancing competing rights, legislatures sometimes get it wrong.  For example, in 2007, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a so-called “buffer zone” law to limit the free speech rights of pro-life activists in order to ease entrance to abortion facilities. In McCullen vs. Coakley, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Massachusetts law was overly restrictive and violated the free speech rights of peaceful protestors.

Today, the Massachusetts legislature once again has before it a bill involving competing rights. In a nutshell, the question before the legislature is this: Should Massachusetts eliminate protections for persons who expect restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms to remain lawfully sex-segregated?

Those longstanding rights come smack up against the Transgender Public Accommodations bill (House Bill 1577), “an act relative to gender identity and nondiscrimination.” Often referred to as “the bathroom bill,” HB 1577 removes biology and physiology from primary consideration when a person chooses to enter an intimate public place such as a rest room — whether in a school, library, restaurant, government office, department store, or sports arena.

In 2011, the Massachusetts legislature passed the Transgender Equal Rights Act. While expanding protections against discrimination for transgender persons, that bill specifically maintained traditional expectations about who is permitted in the most sensitive public settings — bathrooms and other lawfully segregated facilities.  If this new bill is allowed to become law, those expectations will be wiped away.

Now, we vividly see the rights in conflict. The goal of HB 1577 is to expand protections for transgender persons. But at what point do those broadened protections conflict with the rights and protections guaranteed to others?

If passed, this law would guarantee the ability of transgender persons to choose whichever public restroom they prefer: men’s or women’s. Access to a restroom of one’s personal choice would override the right to privacy and security that the general public has long enjoyed. Up until recently, there has never been a question about whether a public women’s room is exclusively reserved to women. This bill says that men who claim to identify as women will share access to such heretofore restricted public facilities. What matters is the personal claim of “gender identity,” not the person’s objective anatomy.

Even assuming that those who seek unfettered access to the bathroom of their choice will not abuse that right, real and potential challenges, conflicts, and tensions will remain. But what if someone does seek to abuse that right, posing an outright danger to the public?

All of these conflicts are magnified tenfold whenever children are involved. Should underage boys and girls be assured that their right to privacy is protected in public restrooms? Or should the claims of adults trump those children’s rights?

As a member of the House of Representatives, I believe that the protection of children is paramount. That’s reason enough for me to oppose House Bill 1577. Voting against the bill is the surest way to allay the apprehensions of parents who fear that their children will be subject to awkward or even traumatic situations. Always lurking in the background is the possibility of abuse of access, an abuse which we can all unite in forcefully and unequivocally condemning.

Not every parent shares these concerns. And not every family agrees as to the best resolution of the conflict. That’s the unending dilemma of rights in conflict. There’s always a need to balance one against another. As a legislator, I am constantly reminded of the ongoing need to get that balance as correct as possible. In this case, I believe the right to privacy and security for all persons, especially for children, outweighs the demand for universal access. I shall be voting to maintain current rights, policies, and protections when I vote “No” on “the bathroom bill.”

Jim Lyons (R-Andover) represents the 18th Essex District in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. 

– See more at:

Thank You for Electing Dennis Galvin

The Lowell Sun

UPDATED:   03/08/2016 09:21:26 AM EST


On March 1, the voters of Massachusetts rendered their verdict in a number of very important political races. The turnout was heavy, reflecting the widespread concern held by the people related to their prosperity, their security and their freedom.

I had the great privilege of participating as a candidate in that election. In this role I had the opportunity to meet hundreds of people across the 1st Middlesex Senatorial District and to listen to the issues that they thought were important. One thing was very clear, our citizens are not happy with the direction of our nation and our state. There is a growing distrust of government and politics in general. The results of the Massachusetts primary election offer strong evidence of this fact. There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of problems to try to correct.

The voters in the Republican primary gave me the great honor of representing them on the Massachusetts Republican State Committee. I am grateful to them for this opportunity and I wish to assure them that I have heard their concerns and will fully commit myself to address them. I would like to thank all those who worked hard on my behalf and all of those who voted for me.

I would also like to acknowledge the effort and commitment made by Jordan Gys, my opponent. It takes courage for anyone to enter into elective politics. Jordan deserves credit for his participation. He represents the future of the party.

It is time for all Republicans to come together and prepare for the tough presidential election that is coming in November. Despite the differences that arose during the primary, we must all unite as November approaches. The business at hand is to focus on articulating the Republican message for the fall. Unity means victory. Ensuring a Republican victory in November and breaking the one party monopoly on Beacon Hill are the two causes to which I have dedicated my campaign.

I will be counting on the great support I received in the primary election of 2016 to help sustain these efforts throughout the next four years.

Dennis Galvin


Republic State committeeman-elect

1st Middlesex District


Read more:

Carr: Scorecard a little light for Charlie Baker

Boston Herald

Howie Carr Thursday, March 03, 2016

Gov. Charlie Baker couldn’t wait to throw Donald Trump and 311,313 of his Super Tuesday voters under the bus yesterday morning, sniffing that he himself would never deign to cast a ballot for such a parvenu.

Charlie, was such a gratuitous snub of your own (nominal) party really necessary? Well, yes, it was — anything to take everybody’s minds off his six-, maybe even seven-figure effort to rid the state Republican Committee of actual Republicans.

What an amazing campaign it was — five district-wide mailings for each of his hack candidates, two of which mentioned their support for “lower taxes,” even though almost all of them were MIA from the most recent anti-tax ballot measure, Question 1, in 2014.

Two Republican candidates in special elections for state rep went down in flames yesterday. But who cares about them when you can take a few Trump and Ted Cruz supporters off the board, right, governor? Let’s go down the list of some of Charlie’s hacks, and see how they did in their State Committee fights.

Laura Rigas: $95,900 a year as “communications director,” Education Department, moved here from Virginia after the 2014 election with her husband. Hubby got his own $112,000-a-year state hack job from Charlie after the lovebirds gave $2,950 to Charlie and Karyn Polito. LOST.

Norman Orrall, husband of Rep. Keiko Orrall, $110,000 a year at the DCR. His wife bragged on her Facebook page when Stormin’ Norman won a prize at an agricultural exhibit for Best Pickle. WON.

David D’Arcangelo, Malden, ran for secretary of state in 2014, hired recently at the Mass. Office on Disability, $90,000 a year. LOST.

Scott Brinch, recent $84,480-a-year hack hire as “acting director” at the DCR. LOST.

Peter Lorenz, “communications director,” DCR, $81,600 a year. LOST.

Reed Hillman, state pension of $108,651 plus $69,950 at a state community college. WON.

Matt Sisk, “deputy commissioner of operations” at DCR (which you will be shocked to learn is run by a hack former GOP state rep making $156,363 
a year). WON.

Jon Golnik, “regional director Central” in Department of Business Development, $76,500 a year, two-time loser as congressional candidate. LOST.

Ryan Chamberland, former aide to the GOP rep in Peabody whose seat was just lost to the Democrats Tuesday, $65,000 on Gov. Baker’s staff. WON.

Angela Davis, newly hired at the Department of Public Safety, $95,500 a year. WON.

Test question: What do all of Charlie’s friends listed above who simultaneously decided to run for State Committee have in common?

Answer: They and their phony-baloney hack jobs would all be adversely affected by the “lower taxes” their employer claimed (at least twice) that they support.

Meet the new hackerama, same as the old hackerama. News

The latest news on and the WordPress community.