Len Silverman to Challenge Cortney Rogers for seat formerly held by Debra Maggart

Len Silverman

Len Silverman of Hendersonville has announced he is running in the Republican primary for the 45th district State House of Representatives seat. He is challenging incumbent State Representative Courtney Rogers.

Rogers defeated Representative Debra Maggart, who was the Republican whip in the House, in the 2012 Republican primary in a bitter campaign focused on extending gun rights. The Tennessee Firearms Association did not deem Republican Debra Maggart sufficiently pro-gun and they spend an unprecedented $155,000 plus dollars in negative campaigning and disparaged her A+ rated, pro-Second Amendment voting record.  They said she was for gun control, for shredding the Constitution, and compared her to President Barack Obama. That campaign got national attention and was used as an example of the power of the gun lobby.

Until last month there was speculation that Maggart might seek a rematch and challenge Rogers in the 2014 primary. In mid-November however, she announced she would join a Nashville lobbying firm ending that speculation.


Silverman  owns a Huntington Learning Center tutoring franchise in Hendersonville. He is Chairman of the  Board of Directors for COMPASS, a foundation that helps raise funds for Sumner County Schools.  Until recently, COMPASS was headed-up by former State Representative Debra Maggart.

He is also Chairman of the Hendersonville Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber Foundation, Chairman of the Sumner County United Way, and a member of the Board of Trustees of Pope John Paul II High School.

CPAC 2014 takes place March 6-8, 2014

From American Conservative Union:

 Dear Fellow Conservative,

There are just five days left to take advantage of the biggest savings and the best deal for CPAC 2014.

If you act within the next five days, you will not just save 25% or more off the price to attend, you will also be entered to win a chance to meet and have your picture taken with a CPAC star! Go here to register now and be entered towin.

Want to know who our VIP speakers will be this year?

Stay tuned for our first round of invitations! But, don’t wait! Register now for CPAC 2014 and you will be entered to win!

CPAC 2014 takes place March 6-8, 2014, at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center, and brings together the top conservative thinkers and leaders – and activists like you. In a year as important as 2014, I know this is an event in which every conservative will want to participate. 

Al Cardenas
Chairman, The American Conservative Union

My Comment: For the first time, I attended CPAC last year. (To learn more of my experience, follow this link.) It was a thrill to hear the luminaries of the conservative movement and to hear panel discussions of public policy issues and authors and network and much more. I am still trying to work out the details and hope I can attend this year. My personal situation makes it difficult for me to get away, but I hope to be able to make it. If you are a conservative activist and have never attended CPAC, I urge you to attend.

The Tennessean says, "Airlines should be free to make decisions on cellphone use."

I could not agree more with the Tennessean's position on this issue. Every problem or potential problem does not require a government response. If government will stay out of the way, the market and people will settle a lot of issues themselves. I am very disappointed that Lamar Alexander is the sponsor of the bill to ban cell phone use on planes.

Our View: Airlines should be free to make decisions on cellphone use

Cellphone conversations are not, in and of themselves, the health hazard that second-hand smoke is, and airlines should make their own decisions on how obtrusive technology is used on board their flights, not Congress. The Department of Transportation should give the responsibility to each airline on how they restrict cellphone usage.

It is too infrequent that regulators ease their restrictions, and we should not be too quick to relinquish choices to a political and bureaucratic infrastructure that we may later regret.

Technologies change, and airlines might find solutions that work for all, but not if legal and regulatory hurdles prevent even thinking about innovation.

Lamar Alexander not Vulnerable in 2014 Primary

Ranking the Top 5 Senators Vulnerable in 2014 Primaries National Journal

Joe Carr is running against Lamar Alexander; and in Texas, Rep. Steve Stockman is opposing Sen. John Cornyn. At this point, it doesn't look as ...

What if a Typical Family Spent Money like the Federal Government?

Beware of pajama boy.

If you think you have survived the holidays without having an argument about Obamacare, well look out. The holidays are not over. There may still be days of quality family time.

Beware of pajama boy. President Obama is still trying to ruin your holiday. The official Obamanista orgnization is encouraging pajama boy to "wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about health insurance." 

Pajama boy looks like a certain kind of liberal, probably a student, a nerd, a know-it-all. Maybe he lives with his girl friend in the basement apartment of the girl friend's parents. He listens to NPR and watches MSNBC and Comedy Central. He may be a vegetarian. He thinks same-sex marriage should be the law of the land and he thinks we are not taxed enough. 

If he casually brings up Obamacare, it is to lure you into a discussion. Just say, "that's interesting" and leave the room to go get some more coffee. Beware that after the holidays he is going to report back to the Obamanistas what you had to say in response to his attempt to "educate" you about Obamacare. Don't let your guard down. Pajama boy may look harmless, but don't let that fool you. He has memorized all of the talking points and has an agenda. He is an Obamanista.

82,000 Tennesseans who will begin to lose their individual health insurance plans starting Jan. 1

Alexander: Obamacare “Delivering An Unwelcome Christmas Present To Tennesseans”

A Merry Christmas Cartoon Book, Volumn II

An Example of how President Obama violates the Constitution and Rules by Executive Fiat

Unions Get Big ObamaCare Christmas Present As Other Self-Insured Groups Get Scrooged 

by Larry Bell, Forbes, 12-22-2013 - As a presumed constitutional scholar, Barack Obama should know that while a president has authority to check the Legislative Branch by recommending legislation to be passed by Congress, or through presidential veto, he or she cannot legislate through executive fiat or pick which parts of the law to comply with or decline. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 of our Constitution requires that the president “…shall take care that the Laws be carefully executed.”    It doesn’t limit those laws or encapsulated provisions to the particular ones that he or she likes.

In addition to delaying and rewriting key ACA provisions and carving out a special subsidy for members of Congress, Obama’s latest constitutional violation will exempt unions from a fee the law imposes upon all large group health plans. That provision which appears in Section 1341 (b)(1)(A)  establishes a reinsurance program.... (link)

Americans for Limited Government Foundation paper warns against state Obamacare nullification

As much as I would like to see Obamacare repealed, I cannot support those who are urging state nullification. Nullification is not a solution. By now, it should be clearly established that the supremacy clause of the constitution trumps nullification.

I am concerned that President Obama is violating the rule of law by arbitrarily delaying implementation of key parts of the Affordable Care Act. A president may delay or change an administrative rule, but should not be allowed to ignore or change a law. If President Obama can arbitrarily say the employer mandate will be delayed for a year, what is to keep a future Republican president from saying the employer mandate or, for that matter, the entire Affordable Car Act is suspended and deferred indefinitely? It would be the same thing.

As much as I dislike what Obamacare is doing to health care and the market economy of this country, I equally dislike what President Obama is doing to the rule of law and the Constitution. Nevertheless, the response to the President for ignoring a law, is not for a State to also ignore a law. The President should be impeached for violating the law. The difficulty in doing that is that those who would like to see the President removed from office for failing to uphold the law, do not like the particular law he is failing to uphold. Another practical reason the President can not be impeached is that Democrats would never vote to impeach America's first Black president, regardless of what law he failed to uphold. Our strategy for defeating Obamacare is to elect a Republican Congress and repeal Obamacare.  Nullification is not a winning strategy for defeating Obamacare or dealing with a President who fails to uphold the law. Nullification itself violates the rule of law.

 Below is a press release from Americans for Limited Government regarding Obamacare nullification:

Dec. 23, 2013, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government Foundation released a paper today by Dr. Bradley Gitz, Arkansas' Bates College's William Jefferson Clinton Professor of Political Science, which found that Obamacare nullification actions pending in the South Carolina state legislature are unconstitutional and will do harm both to the people of the state of South Carolina and to those who oppose the President's signature health care legislation.

Dr. Gitz makes this last point writing, "… at present there is no better way to raise Obamacare from its deathbed than to do what the South Carolina Senate is contemplating doing (and the South Carolina House has already done). Rather than having let Obamacare die from its many self-inflicted wounds, they will have unintentionally aided and abetted its recovery and entrenchment in our national life. The struggle against Obamacare is both important and necessary, and South Carolina appears poised to only make it more difficult."

Americans for Limited Government Foundation president Nathan Mehrens affirmed Gitz's findings saying, "We wanted an independent scholar to review the nullification effort in South Carolina, and Dr. Gitz's findings should be a sobering wake up call to anyone seriously considering pursuing state nullification of the disastrous Obamacare law." 

The full report is available on the Americans for Limited Government website.

Charter schools mess with "the system."

In case you missed it, last week Mayor Dean criticized the School Board for wasting time and energy fighting charter schools and he also said the School Board should not expect a blank check for future funding increases. While I occasionally disagreed with the mayor on some issues, especially the tax increase of year before last, I am with the mayor on this. The mayor and the Chamber of Commerce have been advocates of education reform and the School Board has been resisting and picking costly fights with the State. I am almost of the opinion that we should abolish the elected school board and go back to a school board appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council.

In his remarks before the Chamber of Commerce last week, Mayor Dean pointed out that when a child ops out of a regular zoned school for any other school it is the same impact whether it is a charter or a magnet or other option. School Board member Will Pinkston took strong exception to the Mayor's statement in a letter saying when a child leaves for a charter school, money leaves "the System."

Technically, Pinkston is correct of course. When a child goes to a charter school, the funding for that child goes to the charter school.  However, the Mayor is right in saying the impact is the same whether it is a charter school or magnet school the child attends.  Pinkston has argued that when a child goes to a charter school, a seat that was occupied in a zoned schools is now vacant and overhead cost at that school does not decrease proportionately. Well, is that also not also true when a child leaves a zoned school for a magnet school?  It looks like the real concern of opponents of charter schools is control and "the system."

While an empty seat at a zoned school does not decrease overhead proportionately, more children are entering the system every year than are leaving through charters. The school system should be able to adjust to shifting attendance rates at different schools. And in any event, they should innovate and improve so that their product can compete with charter schools.

The school board has the institutionalized thinking of most bureaucracies. Publicly owned enterprises or government protected monopolies do not welcome competition. If I stop shopping at Krogers and shop at Publix, Krogers cannot make the claim that I should not be allowed to do that because their overhead does not proportionately decrease. You can bet that if retail grocery was a public function and Krogers was a government enterprise that would be the argument they would make.  The government still makes it illegal for Fed Ex or United Parcel to put a letter in a mail box, the mailbox paid for and installed by the homeowner.

Government agencies or government protected monopolies simply do not like for consumers to have choice.  They do not like competition. They do not welcome innovation.  Choice and innovation and competition messes with "the system." The market place is messy. All of that innovation and change and choice sending signals to producers of goods and services can create excess capacity and disrupt the way things have always been done. Government agencies or government protected monopolies are more concerned with protecting "the system" than improving the product.